Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling: edit · history · watch · refresh

Changes:

Change all mentions of "the WWE" to "WWE."
Change all mentions of WWE before May 8, 2002 to "WWF" or "the WWF", including championships and pay-per-views.
Change all mentions of WWE before March 1979 to "the WWWF", including championships and shows.
Change "Total Nonstop Action" to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", especially in championships and accomplishments. Titles won in TNA should not be listed under NWA, since the categorization refers to the company they were won in, not the governing bodies.
Change "Category:Professional wrestlers" to "Category:American(/British/Mexican etc.) professional wrestlers" where appropriate.

Adding:

Add Template:Infobox Wrestler to wrestler bio pages that don't have it
Add Template:Infobox Wrestling team to tag team and stable articles that don't have it
If not much information is available use Paulley's bio profile model in wrestler bios
Add the {{Pro-wrestling}} template to the talk pages of wrestling articles, and any article edited as part of this project
If the page needs expanding because it is a stub, please add {{prowrestling-stub}} or {{prowrestling-bio-stub}} to the article where appropriate.

Articles to cleanup: The Road Warriors (and copied info on individual members), Youth Suicide, World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)

Articles to create: Buddy Wayne, BattlARTS, Monster Factory, Larry Sharpe, Gabe Sapolsky, Rito Romero, Cauliflower Alley Club

Articles up for deletion: Christian and Tyson Tomko, Eva Destruction (Wrestling), List of wrestlers in movies, Rated-RKO, New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling, South Philly Screwjob, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WCW programming

Articles to expand: Please see Category:Professional wrestling stubs and Category:Professional wrestling people stubs for full list.

Articles to merge:

Articles to recreate:

Proposed moves:

Cleanup: Format professional wrestling articles according to the style guide.

Locating and rewriting articles: There are many articles like this floating about Wikipedia that read "Pro wrestler. now dead. won title once"; can people please clean them up, link them to the right category and stub them?

Correcting links:

Wikify: The Eliminators
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Pro Wrestling Wiki

For those who don't know, there is a pro wrestling Wiki available, http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. It's pretty bad right now though, only 153 articles total. I figure that some articles, like RAW Homecoming in the future can be transwikied there rather than automatically deleted. TJ Spyke 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also http://wrestling.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/, http://www.smashmania.com/index.php?title=Main_Page and http://wrestlepedia.crapplications.org/index.php/Main_Page. --James Duggan 06:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Ryans Deletion?

Not only is this a seemingly fake Wiki page (and one full of lies anyway), but the constant annon users are editing the 1PW article and talk page to 'big up' The Ryans and make my comments into pro-ryan ones. darkie

A quick Google search for "Ryan Davis", "Ryan Davids" and "The Ryans" show no hits for wrestlers with those names. Looks like this could be fake. TJ Spyke 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


It is also full of blatent lies. They havent ever worked for 1PW (and havent ever been approached by them) or BCW, also Alex Shane hasnt ever won a trios belt. darkie

Should move it to speedy for a quick deletion. NegroSuave 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TNA List of events

Category:Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling_pay-per-views

Im calling this category into question. It is very well done but we do not need a run down of the results of every pay per view event for a promotion. We haven't done it for WWE, or for any other national promotion. TNA Should be no different. Any objections?NegroSuave 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views does exist, and it's helpful. RobJ1981 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a bit much if everything was consolidated on maybe a couple of pages as the WWE events are I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll admit it was all nicely done but it gets to be a lot. NegroSuave 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move WWE Raw to WWE RAW

  • WWE Raw → WWE RAW —(Discuss)— The reasoning in this it's the official name, and there wasn't any consensus. If you count the nominator, the vote was only 2-1, not an all inclusive vote. — BionicWilliam 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given my vote to support the move, hopefully it gets enough votes to support it. TJ Spyke 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Me too. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Juniors Division

Hmmm another page for deletion me thinks -- Paulley

I suggest merging it with Midget professional wrestler. TJ Spyke 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lex Luger

Another pointless content dispute has popped up and I'm needing some 3rd/4th/10th parties to weigh in.

This one's on the Lex Luger page, specifically the inclusion of a "viral video" in the personal life section. --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should a CFD be put on this?

Category:Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling alumni. I'm no expert on wrestling in Canada. If it's a major promotion, the category should be populated. If it's only a minor promotion, it should be deleted. RobJ1981 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --James Duggan 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Also there is this: Category:Current Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling roster. RobJ1981 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that needs deleting too. --James Duggan 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
And this: Category:Stampede Wrestling roster. I remember putting it in CFD a while ago, and it just got renamed. The roster should be listified, and the cat should be removed. Everything else at Category:Professional wrestling rosters is for single articles per promotion, not articles on the wrestlers itself (which is how Stampede Wrestling roster's cat is). RobJ1981 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the Stampede Wrestling roster category has just gotten worse. I'm not sure if it was one user or several: but the category is now full of many former Stampede wrestlers. I've removed the cat from some pages with a note saying that the roster categories aren't for that. Long ways to go, seeing as there is 74 articles in the cat still. A roster page and alumni page should be made for Stampede, then the wrestlers can be categorized right. RobJ1981 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TNA Hardcore War

Why is this around? It's just a TNA house show with a special name. TNA stars bashed WWE at the event, that's certainly not enough to justify it existing. I put a prod on it and plan to AFD if the prod gets deleted.

Should it be here? No, but it is quite appropriate to a wrestling wiki. --James Duggan 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki it here: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page , a dedicate wrestling Wiki. TJ Spyke 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
AFD is now on it. RobJ1981 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

If you look at a lot of the images on wrestling pages there has been a major crackdown on fair use images and a lot of them have been tagged for deletion, including TNA who even thugh they have given permission to wikipedia have not released the images under a free license. In my eyes we have to get in contact with some of the companies involved and see if they'll release the images under a free license: TNA for TNApics, Mary-Kate Grosso for ROH and WWE for WWE. The images need to be released under a free licence as simple permission on wikipedia still falls under fair use rather than free use. –– Lid(Talk) 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think someone contacted WWE with questions regarding image usage some time ago. I don't know if they responded though. WWE seems really strict about using their images, if you take a look at their copyright policy at WWE.com. I don't think images are critical to an article though - text descriptions do just fine in most instances. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
One user, has tagged almost every single fair use image used in WWE and TNA articles for deletion. And they are all getting deleted without question. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kane category

Why is there a Category:Kane? --202.131.32.4 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask McPhail, he created it. He has done several things without talking to other people, like moving "Jim Harris (wrestler)" to "Kamala (wrestler)" and didn't both to fix the 40 or so redirects. TJ Spyke 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, Kane category doesn't need to exist. While there is several wrestlers that have been Kane, and important things in Kane's history... we can say the same thing for Undertaker, Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Kurt Angle and so on. I put the category up for CFD. RobJ1981 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could I get some help at WWE Cyber Sunday?

The main event is CLEARLY called Champion of Champions, but it keeps getting reverted to a triple threat match. Yes it's a triple threat match: BUT it is officially called Champion of Champions. Money in the Bank is just a ladder match, but it's referred under it's official name, as well as ladder match. So if anything the full name of the match should be Champion of Champions triple threat match. But some editors seem just want to put a note under the match saying "this match is referred to as Champion of Champions". Cyber Sunday is only a few days away, but that doesn't make a difference. In my opinion, editors are just being possessive over the article and their own personal opinion on the matter. WWE clearly calls it something, it's official and should be on the article, period. RobJ1981 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should this just be deleted?

Menace (wrestler), its not well written and the wrestler in question doesn't seem to be notable in any sense of the word. I'm mentioning this here as I'm terrible with code and I don't think I can list it for deletion myself. Stephen Day 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised if that wasn't just some kid's e-fed character. — Gwalla | Talk 08:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposed deletion on the article's page. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestlers of questionable notability

Here's a list of wrestlers that I don't think belong here, but can be transwiki'd to a pro wrestling wiki:

I would like this WikiProject's help is determining the future of these articles. --James Duggan 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of those. Too much cruft when it comes to wrestlers on Wikipedia, it's time to finally clean it up. RobJ1981 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki them all the the Pro Wrestling Wiki. I suppose the (wrestler) part could be removed in the process. TJ Spyke 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but if someone could, that would be great. Is there a specific pro wrestling wiki that this WikiProject recommends? I've heard of several different ones. --James Duggan 06:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The only one I know of is http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, but it's pretty small (only 159 articles). As for how to transwiki, i'm not sure since i've never tried it. TJ Spyke 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There are also three other wrestling wiki's I have come across: http://wrestling.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/, http://www.smashmania.com/index.php?title=Main_Page and http://wrestlepedia.crapplications.org/index.php/Main_Page. --James Duggan 07:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That first one doesn't appear to use the GNU license, so it's not an option. The second one appears alright. The third one seems to be almost totally empty. TJ Spyke 07:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the inclusions of Arik Cannon and Youth Suicide. Cannon as he is quite notable on the indies and is the current CHIKARA Young Lions champion along with two IWA:MS Heavyweight reigns. Suicide as he has appeared on 20/20 and other "current" affairs programs on backyard wrestling. –– Lid(Talk) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the transwiki, it would be great if someone could do a database dump on all the professional wrestling related articles and import them to the professional wrestling wiki. Assistance could be asked for from the folks who set up Memory Alpha and/or Wookiepedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of notability comes up again and again. Perhaps it would be useful for this project to have some clear, concrete "rules" for determining notability. We could start with "obvious" rules that we presumably all agree on (like any former world champions, anyone who has worked for a major company like WWE, CMLL, New Japan, etc.), and then proceed to discuss the rules for more questionable wrestlers. Once we agree on some, they can be added to the project page as a guide for members and other editors.Geoffg 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't consider everyone who has worked for WWE, CMLL or NJPW to be notable.
↪Lakes (Talk) 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Where do you draw the line? What about anyone who held a belt? Anyone who's been in a pay-per-view match? Appeared on TV? Am I going about this wrong? Geoffg 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It is a difficult question indeed. We've pondered it for a while now with no clear answer. Anyone who has held a belt could be considered notable, but then again that brings up the question whether every WWF Hardcore Champion is notable. I question Joey Abs for example, his championship win isn't even mentioned in his article.
Then again some people have never even won championships in a notable promotion, and I would still call them notable, Delirious for example. He is a notable upper card wrestler in a notable promotion, Ring of Honor. Of course whether someone is a jobber, midcarder, or main eventer is debateable.
↪Lakes (Talk) 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE roster

What does everyone else think about placing the WWE roster in a tale format? An example of this would be:

Male wrestlers
Shelton Benjamin Lance Cade
Carlito (Carlos Colón, Jr.) John Cena
Rob Conway "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan - also has a Legends contract
Edge (Adam Copeland) Eugene (Nick Dinsmore)
Ric Flair (Richard Fliehr) Charlie Haas
Jeff Hardy Johnny (Johnny Jeter)
JTG (Jayson Paul) Kenny (Ken Doane)
Chris Masters (Chris Mordetsky) Robbie McAllister (Derek Graham-Couch)
Rory McAllister (Russell Murray) Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom)
Mikey (Michael Brendli) Mitch (Nick Mitchell)
Trevor Murdoch (Trevor Rhodes) Nicky (Nick Nemeth)
Johnny Nitro (John Hennigan) Randy Orton
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper (Roderick Toombs) - also has a Legends contract Shad (Shad Gaspard)
(Gene) Snitsky (Eugene Snisky) Super Crazy (Francisco Pantoja Islas)
Triple H (Paul Levesque) Umaga (Eddie Fatu)
Val Venis (Sean Morley) Viscera (Nelson Frazier, Jr.)

Any comments? semper fi — Moe 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. With a table you completely destroy the semantics of a list. If the only reason you need a table is to eliminate whitespace, then you can make each list element inline-block. (There is one minor implementation issue with inline-block on Mozilla as far as I know, but it works fine on any modern non-Mozilla browser). kelvSYC 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The reasons a table format may be better are:
Yes, it eliminates whitespace (although that wasn't my original intention)
The length of the article when viewing will be a lot shorter as compared to
The extra long TOC I was going to customize will be dramatically shorter.
The reduction of ==headings== will allow use to add as many sub-categories as we like, and it doesn't cause a large TOC or extended the length too bad
A major advantage I see coming out of table formats constantly is minor vandalism can be spotted quite easier. (ie. someone removes a name randomly from the roster. A blank spot can surely increase the chances of reverting faster
I'm going to test it to see how confortable people are with it. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
How it is, is just fine. Why fix something that isn't broken? RobJ1981 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything, broken or not, can always be improved. semper fi — Moe 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You might want to put RAW and Smackdown down but apart from that it looks better, rkoed

[edit] SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble titles

The parentheses in the seperate articles aren't necessary. For redirecting purposes at least, would it be okay to remove them? Maestro25 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the name of every pay-per-view is SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. The year in parenthases is helping with disambiguation. semper fi — Moe 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Stampede Wrestling roster

For whatever reason, it turned into a dumping ground for anyone that worked for Stampede. No other roster categories (that I've seen at least) are for that. An article for Stampede roster needs to be made and should be the only thing in the cat (per how the other roster cats are setup). I mentioned this above briefly, but it was ignored. I have no idea what the current Stampede roster is, so I'm not going to create the page myself. If it was that easy, the category wouldn't be a big mess. RobJ1981 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving article names

I've noticed three or four discussions about moving article names recently e.g; Glen Jacobs to Kane (wrestler). I think the reason given that it's "disrespectful" is absolute rubbish, however, I've always thought that the articles should be what the subject is best known as, i.e. who knows Kane more as Glen Jacobs?! There's plenty of articles with real names that I think should be moved to ring names; a couple I could quickly find that all use the unknown real names; William Regal, Hardcore Holly, Crash Holly, and Edge (wrestler). SteveLamacq43 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already requested to move Glen Jacobs to Kane (wrestler) at requested moves and here. Anyone who wants to support the move, go to Glen Jacobs talk page.
Both Adam Copeland and Glen Jacobs have recently failed move requests. Bob Holly has been referred to more as "Bob" than "Hardcore" not only in his career, but recently.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What were the reasons given for the Adam Copeland move failing? I really can't think why it would. SteveLamacq43 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I really can't remember and it's no longer on the talk page. Nominate it again.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No one supported or opposed the vote for like a week, so I guess someone came along and deleted it. I might put in a request again. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the guidelines regarding stage names in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) apply to wrestlers. So normally a wrestler that is commonly known by his stage name should have his article use that stage name as well (eg. The Undertaker is the name of his article, with a redirect from Mark William Calaway).
Now that being said, there are some exceptions. In Kane's case, there are multiple wrestlers who have used that stage name. So for disambiguity purposes you probably need to name the individual wrestler articles by their actual name. In a similar vein, for Edge, aka Adam Copeland, you have a disam issue because Edge can also refer to a number of other articles that have nothing to do with wrestling. So your choices would be to call the article something like "Edge (wrestler)" or "Adam Copeland", and using his actual name sounds a little better (not to mention he hasn't always called himself "Edge"). Dugwiki 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources in wrestling articles

I've recently had to put the unsourced tag on several WWE championship pages. I know for a fact the titles do exist, but pages still need references and sources to back it up. So, remember to list it: a known title history site, a page on WWE.com or another reliable site. RobJ1981 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good reliable page: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/wwf/home.html TJ Spyke 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables

As I looked through some articles: The Smokin' Gunns and Disciples of Apocalypse are two good examples. The articles are very short, no pictures, unsourced and poorly written. The Gunns were in WWF for several years (as well as indy promotions) prior to that, and there is two paragraphs on them. I think this could be a task for the project. Teams and stables have been a big part of WWE (and wrestling in general) over the years, their articles need to be much better than they currently are. RobJ1981 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of wrestling articles just plain suck. Tag them as stubs, hope someone who knows about it gets to them.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I can try to look up some info on these articles, but I don't know if I'll have time. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Piper's Pit be an article or remain a redirect to Roddy Piper?

The Roddy Piper article has a huge Piper's Pit section. Alot of it is notable, but it takes up too much of the article. In my opinion, Piper's Pit should be a regular article. It's a very notable interview segment. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 05:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It takes up alot of the article, and its notable. Its one of the best-known segments, and it should have its own article. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Piper's Pit is now an article. I used the information from the Roddy Piper article as a start. Much more should be added, since the segment has been featured for many years in WWF/E and (briefly) in other promotions as well. If anyone has a decent picture or two of Piper's pit, it should be added to the article. I'm not sure what to put for categories though. I added just World Wrestling Entertainment for a category, since there is no category for interview segments (and I doubt there ever needs to be, there isn't that many ongoing notable segments in wrestling history). RobJ1981 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it's back to a redirect to Roddy Piper for no good reason, except for one editor calling it "listcruft" and not even bothering to help the article out. The interview segment is notable enough, and should remain as a seperate article. RobJ1981 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious, was that L0b0t? THat seems like the kind of thing he'd do. I agree that Piper's Pit deserves its own page. It was one of the first wrestling "talk shows" and served as inspiration for many short lived later segments - Highlight of the Night, Carlitos Cabanna, The Cutting Edge - they don't deserve a page, Piper's Pit does. -- Scorpion0422 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, he wasn't the one that did it. 3bulletproof16 (talk • contribs) did the revert, with just an edit summary of "rv. listcruft". I simply disagree when people just instantly make a big change like he did (without discussing it first). In my opinion, that's a sign of controlling articles on Wikipedia. Piper's Pit is clearly notable enough, and there is no reason it shouldn't be an article. RobJ1981 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
It is notable enough. It set the standard's for wrestling talk shows, and it was one of the most well-known talk shows. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else care to comment on this matter? Otherwise it becomes an article again. If it gets reverted back... there is no just cause for it, since I've clearly posted here (and on the talk page of Roddy Piper). I will give a little more time, since not many have replied yet.RobJ1981 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then.. it looks like I will change it back to a normal article. It's been 2 weeks, and it's on this talk page as well as Piper's. The majority rules in this case. A discussion has been made. If it gets reverted: there is no just cause for it and it's smply disruptive and vandalism if the revert happens. RobJ1981 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PWI Years

Why is the PWI Years article gone? Now every wrestler on it has bad links on their page and, without that link, the mention of their rank makes no sense. Can we get it undeleted, or at elast get the information that used to be there put on the PWI page and redirect links there?«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's pure fancruft. It's not notable. --James Duggan 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
How are awards cruft? It's the closest pro wrestling will ever get to an official awards show, and they carry some kind of weight with fans. «»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestling Years

Had an idea for linking years and dates listed in wrestling articles to that date for wrestling history. For instance, linking to November 9 would of course go to a page that would include the infamous Montreal Screwjob among anything else that may have happened on the 9th of November before or since. I've seen websites out there do this as a feature of their page, listing the events for the day that you visit and almost everyday there is something that can be listed, even if it's just a PPV listing. Not sure if this idea will go over well, just figured I'd throw it out there. Eric42 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its a good idea, but it would take forever to do. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's an idea everyone likes, we would just have to hammer out the details (like link syntax, like should it be (November 9 (wrestling)|November 9) (I used ()'s so everyone can see the syntax) or should it go more like by the year, listing everything important item for that year on that single page. As I thought about it, it'd be better to list by the year, giving each "day" listed it's own heading so pages can link straight to it. I'll see if I can whip something up based off of the day of the Montreal Screwjob and see if anyone likes it or not. Eric42 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a good idea. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Great! Just for the heck of it, I created 1997 (wrestling) to start. Let's hammer out details for what should be listed, how things should be listed, etc. Eric42 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not follow the example used by video games? "1997 in wrestling", for example. What would be the criteria to be included? Do we include every single event? Small wrestling organizations like Ring of Honor give unique names to most of their events, how would we determine which should be listed? TJ Spyke 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
1997 (wrestling) is up for speedy deletion. Just to let you know. Its been tagged as a test page. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, TJ Spyke did that. I'm fine with it, I didn't mean for it to be anything but a test page. Eric42 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize that video games did that, but that's cool. It works for me. I think "Major Events" should be listed on the page. I listed PPVs, which I think should be there too, but mainly the focus should be major events that's happened. Supercards you could say. That major match between Ric Flair and I forget that holds/held the attendance record should be listed even if it wasn't a title match/change. Title changes should be noted for all of the major organizations. You don't have to link every PPV or supercard listed, but I think they should be noted. Eric42 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This idea of "wrestling years" although good, could be cited as "fancruft" and by certain people. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Purely fancruft in my opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to every little thing people want. Real sports have date articles, a fake sport doesn't need them. I'm a huge fan of wrestling, but I simply think this is a bad idea. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I was thinking about this. In the lead in the article of a wrestler, I am proposing that their best known nickname should be bolded next to their ring name. Heres an example:

better known by his ring name "The Game" Triple H.

Various superstars such as Edge, Randy Orton, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, and Hulk Hogan have their nickname announced before their ring name as they are coming to the ring. So, I'd like to see hear everyone elses thoughts on this. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames and ring names are different. Adam Copeland's ring name is "Edge", "Rated R Superstar" is just his nickname. So Paul Levesque's ring name is just "Triple H". TJ Spyke 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Harris (wrestler)

May God Bless You Always!

I was looking up professional wrestlers to mark the ones from Missouri witha Missouri Project Tag. I also use to watch the old WCW. In my research I came across Ron Harris and his brother Don Harris. In Don Harris'Article it says that he and his brother were known as the Harris Brothers with a link. Ron Harris' says that the team was The Bruise Brothers. Which is it?

Yours in Christ, (Steve 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

They've been known as several names: The Harris Brothers, The Bruise Brothers, Creative Control, The Blu Brothers, Skull and 8-Ball of the Disciples of Apocalypse. Most commonly is Harris Brothers (their real names). TJ Spyke 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Here we go again

Just like we had to with RAW and iMPACT, somebody has gone and created a collection of ECW TV results. Here is the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes. 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ric Flair's championships/awards page

Now that we've got a shorter representation of the championships and awards, is the page still necessary? The contents have already been copied to the main Ric Flair page anyway. Should it be deleted? --202.180.171.182 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of that alleged "WCW Grand Slam" thing, and possibly merge. Maybe condense the PWI awards into one lines for those he has won multiple times. Cornerbock 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The page should be deleted. It's simply fancruft, if one list page is allowed... others will pop up. Those types of list belong on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The list was initially started because it became way too big for Flair's article (and is still pretty big). Winning many titles for over 30 years will do that. TJ Spyke 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Championship Dates

There's an ongoing discussion on the X Division Championship page on what dates should be listed by title regins. Some say it should be when the match actually took place, while others claim it should be when the match aired. Further more, if the companies were to change their offical history (by say, completely ignoring a specific title reign), then wiki should reflect that as well in the interest of Kayfabe.

My stance is this. Title changes should be listed as occuring on the day the match happened:

  • WWE and TNA have been inconsistant in their title histories by listing title changes by both the taping dates and airdates. Therefore we shouldn't 100% follow them.
  • You can't follow the Kayfabe of a Smackdown taping when WWE themselves has announced on their website a title change right after it happened at the tapings.

Does anyone else have an opinion? 131.230.135.105 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should do both. What I mean is, it could say something like "Wrestler X won the title on the November 2nd edtion of Show Y (taped on October 30th)." How about that? TJ Spyke 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. However, for a list of champions, the day the match took place should be highlighted. For AJ's title win, I think it should say he won it on the 24th, and in an astrick mention the day it aired.

I think it should be the other way around. List it as being won on the day it has aired, and then put an asterisk saying when it was taped. The official TNA & WWE title histories list the date they won the title on TV, and while in some cases they have listed the date they won the title at the tapings, who's to say that it isn't just an oversight? vDub 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what about this? [[1]] WWE admits that the show is taped on Tuesdays, and they also tell us to watch it happen on Friday. 131.230.185.23 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Slam Champions

Since when did WWE consider the United Staes championship a requirement for the Grand Slam Championship status. The article says "JBL compared himself to Tiger Woods and said he completed the Grand Slam of professional wrestling". To me, JBL saying that he did doesn't mean its official. I think we should remove JBL until another source can safely say that the United States Championship is interchangable with the IC championship, because JBl saying this doesn't mean squat. (FWIW, obsessedwitwrestling.com only recognizes 5 people (excluding RVD) which means they recognize 6 people while Wikipedia claims 7 people). semper fi — Moe 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think WWE made the US title a replacement for the European title, since it was discontinued, so there would be more grand slam champions in the future. I think the IC title is something you have to win, since it was around for the original grand slam definition, which said that the wrestler would have to win the WWE, European, IC, and Tag Team championships. The US title replaced the European, so JBL is actually a grand slam champion. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And wheres your source for where the European Championship was replaced with the United States Championship?? The European Championship was a third-teir championship, the US Championship is a second. I don't agree with that at all, unless you got some proof of this. semper fi — Moe 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And did you notice that I said "I think". I didn't say I had a source. Who said the European title was third-tier? -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Per our No original research policy I have removed JBL from the list as there are no sources for this claim of the US Championship being part of the requirements. The European Championship, because there already was a Heavyweight Championship and a second-tier (IC championship), it makes it a third tier, as decribed from the beginning of the status when Shawn Micheals first won the title. semper fi — Moe 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The term Grand Slam Champion, IMO, should refer to someone winning all four available championships at a given time. Therefore, while I'll all for keeping the article as is, a note should be made that several of these wrestlers didn't win a true Grand Slam Championship. 131.230.135.105 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WWE has stated that the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Team Championship are both exceptable substitutes for the Grand Slam/Triple Crown status' to occur. The article already distinguishes which ones have won the titles under the original meaning and under the new meaning. The only debate now is the United States Championship part of that new exception now, as no source has indicated so. semper fi — Moe 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the only source is out of the horse's mouth, so to say. JBL's self-proclaimation isn't even kayfabe-verifiable. If WWE recognizes it as part of kayfabe (ie. if someone other than Cole, JBL, or possibly anyone feuding with those two mentions this) or if WWE claims this out of kayfabe we can add JBL onto the list. kelvSYC 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Listing champions for PPV events?

A discussion here: Talk:Survivor_Series_(2006)#Listing_the_Champions.3F needs to be clarified. The basics of it: some people don't want champions listed for tag matches and/or elimination matches that don't involve the title, while others wanted it listed. My stand on the matter is they should be listed. In a tag match or elimination match or whatever match it might be, it's obvious the title isn't on the line (unless stated in a special stipulation). There is no reason to ignore their championship status, just because the title isn't on the line. Non-title matches still list them as champions, tag matches are in theory non-title matches as well. RobJ1981 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Include For any PPV event, I think it's important to know who the champions are, whether or not the championship(s) are defended. 131.230.135.105 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a title is not on the line, then I don't see the point in mentioning it. It doesn't do anything for the article, and somebody who really wants to know who a champion was at the event can check the title's hisory. Also, I don't see wrestling magazines or even WWE listing titles not on the line is result pages. Non-title matches do not list the champions because the title has nothing to do with the match. TJ Spyke 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the champions should be noted. WWE barely does anything with their undercard titles now - so it's useful to show what the champions are doing on each card. Otherwise readers might think the title holder or the title itself is "missing in action". --Jtalledo (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I don't see what titls matter in non-title matches. A title isn't notable in an non-title match, it would be like mentioning who the referee is or the Royal Rumble/KOTR winner in every PPV. They don't help the articles and are not informative. Edgecution 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Titles are regular things, not just a one time award like KOTR and Royal Rumble. If I remember right: alot of PPV articles list the referees. RobJ1981 21:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've edited looked at and edited many of the PPV articles, and only special referees are listed, not regular refs (just like only title on the line should be mentioned, titles not on the line shouldn't be mentioned). TJ Spyke 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Many of the SummerSlam articles have a section called "other on-air talent" and lists referees: not just special ones. In my opinion, the section should remain... but be condensed. I don't think it's notable to list every backstage agent that appeared in a pull-apart or whatever the case might be. Titles on the other hand: are notable, even if you don't want to admit it. Not listing them, is just ignoring an official part of the wrestler. This is similar to the disagreement over an official name for the main event of Cyber Sunday. I think it's safe to say, the majority does agree titles should be listed. I suppose the discussion can continue for a little longer on the matter, but a change is certainly needed in my opinion. Things can't always remain the same. RobJ1981 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it safe to put the titles in the articles now? From the looks of this, more people agree to titles than not. RobJ1981 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No they should not go in. There is no VALID reason to list a title if its not on the line and you have good reason why it should. If the title is not on the line then it has nothing to do with the match, has no affect on the match, and just clutters up the page. They are not importent to the match, and a person can always look at the titles page if they are really interested in who the champ was at the time. TJ Spyke 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't own the articles, so just stop. If enough people agree titles should be listed: it will be. Ignoring them as champions shouldn't be happening. As of now: 3 are for titles should be listed, and 2 are against it. Further discussion should obviously be made, since 5 people decided on something isn't enough. RobJ1981 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said I owned the articles. I just stated the truth, that no valid reason has been stated as to why they should be inlcuded. I have presented valid reasons why they shouldn't. TJ Spyke 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Here is a formal survey (hopefully I did it right). If you support listing champions for PPV (and supercard) articles, post support with comments and your signature. If you oppose, post oppose with comments and your signature. --RobJ1981 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Support - There is no reason to ignore what champion they are, just because the title isn't on the line. RobJ1981 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Championships that are not on the line do not need to be listed. It is just plain unnecessary if the bout is a non-title match. Other articles do not list a contender as a the champion in non-title matches either, especially in past Survivor Series articles. Information such as... who is champion in a match where it doesn't matter... is better suited for a wrestling news site, which is something that Wikipedia is not. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for the reasons stated by bulletproof. Titles not on the line have nothing to do with a match and have no affect on on, they also don't help the article. TJ Spyke 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Titles not on the line really doesn't have anything to do with the current storyline so the wrestler fighting the champion doesn't care about it and the same with the promotion. There are certain exceptions but those are very rare. airr233 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't see any reason NOT to put them. I think its important to note who is the champion, otherwise, down the road, people may look at the page and wonder what happened to _____ champion. This way, they'll know they had a match and what match it was. -- Scorpion0422 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose They will just know that the title wasn't on the line. That's why I and other people i've talked to think when we don't see a title listed. If a title isn't on the line then it doesn't matter for that event. Edgecution 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I agree with RobJ1981 since I believe noting the champions even in non-title situations is due to the involvement of the champions having definite value, not to mention the WWE and TNA both market and promote the champions regardless of titles being on the line. I understand bulletproof's statement about how Wikipedia is not a wrestling site but we should still strive to keep a detailed record of the event specifics nonetheless, and given how important champions in past Survivor Series (Lesnar/Benoit, Big Show/Cena, etc) can affect feuds and promotions, it seems relevant. Simply noting title matches as such and leaving that header off of non-title ones seems like a very simple solution. CyclopsScott 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: It's useful information to note what champions are involved in which matches. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per reasons above me. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Not even WWE lists champions in non-title matches [2]. The reason? Simply because it isn't important. If you look at the results for the 2001 Survivors Series team match, neither the The Rock or Stone Cold are listed as being WCW champion or WWE champion. As RobJ1981 says, If WWE lists or calls something one way, then it should be listed the same way on Wikipedia. It is not useful information to note what champions are involved in which matches if the article and the information is dated by the time the event is over. Big Show may not be champion by next year's Survivor Series, so what good is it to list him as the champion in a match that doesn't involve his championship as a stipulation. It is not important to his career, it is not important to the match, and it is not important to the article. -- bulletproof 3:16 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Where exactly did I say "if WWE lists something it should be the same way on Wikipedia". I don't think I ever said that. So don't say things like that just to make a point. I'm sick of this article controlling, and things should change when needed. One person's opinion shouldn't dominate the articles, period. RobJ1981 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
In your own words... WWE clearly calls it something, it's official and should be on the article, period [3] -- bulletproof 3:16 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to step in a second, he said you should CALL things what the WWE calls them, not how the WWE does things. You are very clearly misquoting him. All it is is a couple extra words, whats the big deal? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because WWE doesn't list it, doesn't make it non-notable. When the ring announcer, announces all the wrestlers for matches at Survivor Series..what champion they are will be mentioned. WWE isn't ignoring the fact they are champions, so the articles about the PPV matches shouldn't either. I still don't see what the big deal is. The match is obviously not for the title, there is no reason to leave out what champion they are. No one is going to get confused over if the title is on the line or not. Things should be able to change once in a while, without having to do a survey about it (since regular discussion gets no where when it comes to some controlling editors). RobJ1981 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
He meant do things the way WWE does them. The very fact that his championship is not on the line means it is not important to his career, it is not important to the match, and it is not important to the article. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't twist my words around. All I meant by it was: things should be listed that are clearly on WWE.com or mentioned on shows. The whole arguement (where I posted that comment) was about people leaving out "Champion of Champions" match from the main event. Are you saying all non-title matches aren't important? That's pretty wrong, many non-title matches (or matches with no title on the line: Survivor Series) have great importance. What's next.. not mentioning the title if it doesn't change hands in a match? A titleholder should be listed no matter what, there is no reason to act like the champion isn't important (if the title isn't on the line). You are acting like the Survivor Series elimination matches aren't important at all, which is just your opinion. Hopefully this survey is just the start of changes around here, because changes are certainly needed. RobJ1981 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
What you just said made absolutely no sense what so ever. You just said that all you meant by it was: things should be listed that are clearly on WWE.com or mentioned on shows. That is clearly contradicting what you were trying to prove. And your arguement on What's next? also made absolutely no sense. Of course noting that a title changes hands is notable. That's why its called a title match. This arguement is about not listing champions in non-title matches. Meaning that champions should only be listed in title matches. And again your arguement has failed to prove why it is important to list champions in non title matches. RobJ1981, all of the surveys you have added seem to be on whatever TJ Spyke is agianst. This leads me to believe that you really don't care about the article. This leads me to believe that this is just you on a personal vendetta against TJ Spyke. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You have no right to just accuse someone of a vendetta. I don't have a problem with TJ Spyke, but I certainly have a problem with the way he edits sometimes. He adds warnings that he makes up, and reverts everything that doesn't suit his needs. I know he is a good editor who constantly reverts vandalism, but he likes to control articles from good-faith editors also. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, however, TJ Spyke follows Wikipedia:Verifiability when removing unconfirmed posters and other nonsense. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on what? -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This is no vendetta. This is my opinion against his. His reverting of certain things (like the whole back and forth garbage of Champion of Champions) shouldn't be happening. His opinion is fine and well, but other's have the right to edit...without being reverted each and every time he doesn't like it. Articles are free to edit by anyone, but how can that even work if it just gets reverted because he doesn't like it? I'm a big fan of wrestling, and you know this. I've edited pages long before these disagreements with TJ Spyke. Check out my edit history and my edit count lists: much of it is about WWE and wrestling articles. I've reverted alot of vandalism and cleaned articles as well. The vendetta comment wasn't necessary at all. RobJ1981 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
He reverts things without a discussion or forming a consensus. That's what led to this [4] -- bulletproof 3:16 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I know that policy, and it would be fine if TJ wouldn't just change every article to how he sees fit. He doesn't own the article, nor does anyone else. But reverting any change he hates, simply needs to stop sometimes. How can an article change if he just controls it? If only his edits are put into it, what's the point of even editing the article? While this isn't always the case, recently it does seem like that. Champion of Champions match comes to mind, as a good example of this. Official match name of the main event, but he hated it and kept reverting. Finally he admitted that was the name and didn't revert, but it took a while. RobJ1981 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Back on topic. Who the champion(s) are in non-title matches have no affect on the match (unless it's a stipulation like getting a shot at that title for winning). Not only does WWE not list champions in non-title matches in their results, but nether do respectable sites like prowrestlinghistory.com. If somebody wants to know who the champion was at that time, there are articles chronicling the history of those belts. It's not ignoring anything, but it's info that is not needed. What's next, listing all the titles that are NOT on the line? Somebody might be wondering where those titles are too (this is for the argument listed by Rob at the top). TJ Spyke 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Listing titlein matches where they are not on the line would hurt articles more than they would help. They would give the impression that the title was on the line, which would not be helpful at all. Not to mention all the clutter it would cause. Edgecution 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - If the titles aren't on the line there's no point in listing them. It's pretty simple. If someone wants to find out who was champion at that point in time they'd go to the effort of going to the "list of <insert title here> champions" article and look it up there. Normy132 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to set some precedents

I need some help establishing some things throughout wrestling pages.

  • On WWE articles I'm trying to link the word "brand" to the WWE Brand Extension page, since who in the world knows what that even means if they're not a wrestling fan.
  • Keeping tag team information off of specific wrestler articles. I just see no reason to have multiple articles with the exact same information, usually even worded the same way (Shad Gaspard, JTG and Cryme Tyme for example).

Any comments or other ideas?«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the tag team information point, I generally agree. If a tag team is notable, it should have its own page, and all the important details about that team's history and achievements should go there. Nevertheless, if membership in a particular tag team is a significant part of an individual's legacy, the achievements attendent thereto should be mentioned on the individual's page as well as the team page, just not in the same detail. Otherwise, if the person was most notably a singles wrestler, it should suffice to mention that they were in a tag team with person X, and that's it. Of course some people (eg. Edge & Christian, the Hardyz, Chigusa Nagayo & Lioness Asuka) have had both notable tag team and singles phases in their careers.09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Don Harris and Ron Harris (wrestler), they are basically mirrors of each other. TJ Spyke 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Which, I think, is just really unnecessary. There's no reason not to shorten both articles and put a {{see|Harris Brothers}}.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 04:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In the case of the Harris Brothers, or other individuals who gained no substantial notability outside a tag team (eg. Cryme Tyme, so far), it may be questionable whether each of them needs much of an individual article at all. Of course, the other extreme is exemplified by the Jumping Bomb Angels. In their current situation, Itsuki Yamazaki and Noriyo Tateno both redirect to the team page, even though both individuals have won singles titles. I would argue that the two women could each sustain a short individual article. Obviously, we must draw the line for each team on a case by case basis.Geoffg 07:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yea we had this discussion before its just a case of making tag team articles to replace team wrestlers (note this can only be done if the wrestlers rearly wrestle out side of their team... it works well for brothers/family and such also) i.e. Shane Twins, UK Pitbulls, The Highlanders (professional wrestling) --- Paulley 11:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) --- The Harris brothers need the same treatment but remeber there are some things that dont appear in the team page but may do on thiers be careful that you infact merge the articles and not just delete them...
The Harris Brothers could possibly be two pages: one for each brother. Didn't one of them work solo (or in another team) in TNA for a bit? I remember one did, and the other was just part of the staff. Granted, it's not much... but it's still something different. RobJ1981 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crowd chants

Anyone think this should go? --Aaru Bui DII 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Too pro-wrestling-centered right now. If it was about crowd chanting in general, I'd be for keeping it. This is too biased to keep at this time. kelvSYC 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a good page, but it needs to be expanded to include all chants, for all sports. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The ECW Chants page got deleted, this one should too.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Then put it up for deletion. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, done and done.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

Another idea I had for improving bio articles was to add "See Also" sections at the end to (re)link important topics related to the subject. For example, on the Edge article linking Rated RKO, Matt Hardy, Lita, etcetera.

When I tried on Edge it was repeatedly deleted with the only explanation being "already linked" information, but with every third word being linked in some places I just can't really buy that as a reason to get rid of the section. The idea of a "see also" is to bring more attention to related articles, no? It's kind of hard to spotlight some things with the length of some articles.

If no one else thinks they'd be helpful, fine, but I'd like input from more than one person.«»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about one person, and the links you want to put in see also section are already linked in the article most likely more than once, then whats the point? The article is about the subject of the article, not what relates to it. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The point is to use the interlinking to point people to more information about related topics. «»bdI'm cool!I'm cocky! I'm bad! 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And the links are already in the article, so whats the use in making the article longer by just linking it again, so lazy people don't have to scroll back up thru the article to get the link. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roster issues

Why do people feel the need to "control" articles? On both WWE and TNA roster pages, my edits get reverted due to the fact people can't understand reason. If the superstars are in alphabetical by last name: teams/stables should be as well. America's Most Wanted: under W, not A. Alphabetizing in 2 different forms for one article makes the article look bad. What does everyone else think? A discussion needs to happen about this. RobJ1981 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I say it should be is the way it's historically been. For everyone else, please see here for what we are talking about. --James Duggan 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Things don't have to stay the same, period. Changes can and should happen to make things better. All sections should be formatted the same way. RobJ1981 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, "the same way" to you is not the same way to everyone else, as to me, the last name rule applies only to proper name, like John Cena, not names like Super Crazy and Cryme Tyme. And we've already had a big discussion here a while back as to the alphabetical order of ring names like Super Crazy and Samoa Joe, where we decided they don't apply to the last name rule. So I'd say that stable names fall into that same ruling. --James Duggan 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project

compile the win-loss record for every wrestler on wikipedia. WillC 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointless cruft, all things considered.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lex Luger

You should take a close look at the Lex Luger article. It looks like the same anon person (Cornerbock, among others.) keeps on beating the dead horse A LOT and restoring the "viral video" part ("I DON'T KNOOOWW!"). It was funny back then, but, just like everything else, it goes flat and stale. AFAIK, it's only popular among the posters at the WrestleCrap message board and YouTubers. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out more times than I can count and I'm really sick of it. It's being popular on YouTube and mentioned on ESPN just really don't make it notable, but they seem to refuse to let it go.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Can someone get a temporary lock on the article? Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I put it up for a Request for Comment.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lita's retirement and a few comments

Lita' retirement should be listed on the Survivor Series page: she said herself on Raw, it would be her last match. Even if it's just kayfabe, it doesn't hurt the article to list it (until at least Survivor Series airs). Some editors of course disagree with this, and revert it back. This article controlling really needs to stop. I can't remember what a certain Wikipedia article exactly said: but it's something along the lines of "accept other's edits to the article". This certainly isn't happening, when people just instantly revert it back with absolutely NO discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. If there is discussion, it usually doesn't get far, because the editors still wont accept change at all. If I need to, I will get an admin into this... because I'm simply fed up. I've tried talking, and it does nothing. No compromises or anything works with these editors. Personal opinion isn't the always way to go, when it comes to edits. RobJ1981 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Putting PPV's and shows in italics

This has been bugging me for quite a while, and I need other editors opinions on this.

Should PPV's be italicized? They are shows, and shows are italicized. One person says they shouldn't be italicized because they are events. Raw and SmackDown! are events, and they are italicized. Raw and SmackDown!, and PPV's are both shows and events, so they should they both be italicized? I think in my mind, they are the same thing. So they both should be in italics or not. Not one is in italics and the other is not. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If one is in italics, the other should be as well. It should be consistent, not just one type of show. It should be done for all shows (TV and PPV), or none at all. RobJ1981 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Then go ahead and edit every article that mentions the Super Bowl, the World Cup, the World Series, etc. and edit them to put them in italics. For example, according to you it should say Super Bowl XXXVII rather than Super Bowl XXXVII. TJ Spyke 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), Italics should be used for:

    • Books
    • Comic strips and webcomics
    • Computer and video games
    • Court cases
    • Films
    • Long or epic poems
    • Musical albums
    • Named passenger trains
    • Orchestral works
    • Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)
    • Plays
    • Ships
    • Ship class
    • Television series
    • Works of visual art (except sculpture)

PPV event articles are not italicized because they are not television shows or films. The articles are about the event and not the video release. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this is a matter of perception (or definition). If we classify PPV events as sports events (like Super Bowl XXXVII, etc.) then they should not be italicized, but if we classify them as scripted dramatic (albeit athletic and semi-improvised) theatrical performances (like a play) then their titles should be italicized. I say italics for WWE, no italics for UFC.Geoffg 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not theatre though. It's in the same category as the UFC when it comes to this. TJ Spyke 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think WWE is just as much theatre as commedia dell'arte is. In both art forms you have a troupe of actors who travel from town to town dressing up and playing the same archetypal characters each night. They are handed a more or less detailed "scenario" and go out and improvise a scene/match. The finishes are pre-determined, it's not a competitive sport. It's just really athletic theatre. MMA, on the other hand, like boxing, is not predetermined and not full of good vs. evil gimmickry. It is a competitive sport. That's just how I see it.Geoffg 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a wrestling pay-per-view isn't comparable to an MMA or boxing event. Jeff Silvers 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the "Raw" article's title

I believe the name of the "WWE Raw" article should be renamed to "WWE Monday Night Raw", for it is the correct title of the show, given by both the WWE, as well as countless other on-screen guides, TiVos, channel listings, thescore.ca, USA Network and so on. The wrestlers on the show are still the "Raw Brand", however, the name of the show they wrestle on is called "WWE Monday Night Raw." It is similar to how "WWE SmackDown!" changed its name when it moved from Thursdays to Fridays by becoming "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" (as it's correctly titled in its article.) Recognize, that while the ring apron on "Friday Night SmackDown!" still simply says "SMACKDOWN!", it's proper title still has the "Friday Night" affixed to it. Same goes for "Monday Night Raw", the ring aprons still simply say "RAW", but, the proper title of the show (and so should the article) reads "WWE Monday Night Raw." Opinions? Kyle C Haight 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I live, on tv guides, channel listings, and the tv guide channel, it says WWE RAW. I have noticed more and more on WWE.com that they are using Raw instead of RAW. So, I don't know. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, Friday Night SmackDown! has always went without the "Friday Night" part on The Score as far as I can remember. kelvSYC 06:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professional wrestling promotion is in need of major cleanup

I'm not completely sure what to do with the article. As it is now, is certainly horrible by far. A small description, followed by lists of promotions. Many of the promotions listed are red links or no links at all. Plus spam as well. If there is no list of promotions page (I've done some searching for some kind of promotion list article and haven't seen one yet), there probably should be.. in my opinion. The professional wrestling promotion article should explain about promotions (in general) more, and list some important major promotions and some indy feds: not all of them. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Extreme Championship Wrestling Roster

This article needs to be renamed to alumni, or recreated with the word alumni. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sevenzeroone (talk • contribs).

I agree, it's just a brand of WWE now. It's not notable to have the category be called roster in anyway. We don't have Raw or Smackdown roster cats for that reason. There is a WWE roster page for the 3 brands and that serves the purpose of displaying the whole roster just fine. It should be alumni still (for ONLY the promotion in my opinion, the brand is a part of WWE..not a promotion itself). Why did it get changed? RobJ1981 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the article is called roster, but I just saw someone changing the links for all the ECW alumni, and realized that the link for a ECW alumni category was broken Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I put it in CFD. Roster categories aren't how we list wrestlers. There is no WWE roster cat, because there is an article for it (the same goes for TNA and other promotions as well). RobJ1981 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You might want to nominate Category:Stampede Wrestling roster as well. TJ Spyke 06:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Good places to find free use wrestling images?

Many of the tag teams and stables articles have no pictures. Pictures help the articles, so where's a good place to find free use images to be uploaded on Wikipedia? If anyone knows, post here... or I can give a list of wrestling articles that are in need of pictures. My computer is slow at times, so uploading might take a while for me. RobJ1981 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you name a few articles that need them? -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of some: The Smokin' Gunns, Lo Down, The Machines (wrestling), Steiner Brothers, The Twin Towers (professional wrestling), Wild Samoans, The Quebecers. RobJ1981 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other on-screen talent sections on PPV articles

Are these really needed? Example: Royal Rumble (2006). Dean Malenko is listed as an offical, but he hardly even appeared on camera. Divas are listed, because they played a role in the Royal Rumble number drawings. General managers are listed because they appeared at the event (even though... in the long run, didn't make a difference in the event much). These sections should be listing only the important other talent: commentators and possibly interviewers. Referees aren't needed, since there is usually just a handful of matches, and each referee does maybe one or two matches. If you compare a PPV to a movie, alot of these other on-screen talents are similar to cameo roles. Look at many movie articles, and you will see cameos aren't listed unless very important. So in my opinion, just list commentators and interviewers... or just remove these sections altogether. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right, they are as notable as titles in non-title matches (i.e. neither are needed). TJ Spyke 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they are needed at all. Haha TJ, you just had to slip that other argument about the titles being listed in there didn't you. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
People seem to be against the sections, but for the most recent PPV: Survivor Series 2006... the section exists. We need to come to some sort of guideline for it at least (if people insist on having it in articles). I really think it's clutter and should go though. RobJ1981 04:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survivor Series PPV Suggestion

Hey guys, editing Survivor Series 2006 as it happens and I'm finding tht it looks really weird with lines udnerneath a table that have a gap between the table and the sentence. I Think it would be better using a colon and star rather than two stars to edit the line's location in this instance (not for all instances, just after tables) as it would look a lot neater, I guess. Cheers guys!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gothekain (talk • contribs).

[edit] WWE By Year

When I read the wrestling articles in Wikipedia I realised the need to series of WWE By Year articles to understand how events unfold . Typical article would contain a breif of PPVs results and and other important events in between . Other suggestion is to link each PPV to next & previous PPV . Dy yol 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply no, that's fancruft. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. The year articles on Wikipedia now are for real sports and events (from what I've seen at least), not something scripted like wrestling. As much I was would like that here, it simply doesn't belong. Encyclopedia: not fan's guide to every year in wrestling. RobJ1981 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I will not say what should be on Wikipedia and what should not but I don't see the differnce between the year articles and the articles there for each PPV for example . Beside wrestling events really connected to each other and need year articles to link things. Dy yol 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestlemania 23

There are already 2 heavily rumoured matches for WM23 that have sources, so I'm curious as to whether they could be posted on the WM23 page. Almost every wrestling news site are reporting that Batista Vs. Taker (which is being reported by Dave Meltzer) and McMahon Vs. Mankind are likely to happen. So should we add them, but say they are only reported matches or ust wait until things become official? -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC) No rumors. Only official announcements. 131.230.135.105 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Like the above person said: no rumors. This isn't a rumor site, only confirmed information should be listed. RobJ1981 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestler info box

I see a change in the wrestler info boxes has resulted in the inclusion of an image caption field... however, as these boxes havent used this before and empty caption has appeared on all info boxes... just a heads up as "|img_capt=" has to be added under the image section on articles as soon as possible --- Paulley

I've fixed it now so it's an optional field. --Oakster (Talk) 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanxs --- Paulley 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inverted STF

Should this be deleted? --Aaru Bui DII 23:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I redirected the repeated info to its source --- Paulley

[edit] World Tag Team Championship

currently there is some indecision on whether this page should be list as above or as World Tag Team Championship (WWE) as various promotions use the World Title name... i think the page should be moved to the (WWE) and we should use the World Tag Team Championship page to write an article in the style of World Heavyweight Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). Any thoughts? --- Paulley

I would add the (WWE) at the end to specify promotion, just like the World Heavyweight title, just like you propose. --James Duggan 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is different. "World Heavyweight Championship" is a general term used for almost any heavyweight title (even small indy feds like CZW call their title that), I haven't seen that with World Tag Team Championship. For now I would suggest just leaving it the way it is. I might change my mind though if you made a test page and came with a good general tag team title article (and provided sources of coarse). TJ Spyke 02:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
TJ, what about NWA World Tag Team Championship? --James Duggan 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
They are usually called the NWA Tag Team Champions, not just tag team champions. Like I said though, if he creates a good test page then my opinion might change. TJ Spyke 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The offical name of the Raw Tag Title belts is the "World Tag Team Championship", and thus the article should be called that. However, since that phrase can be used to describe tag titles in general, (WWE) should be added at the end, just like multiple people with the same name. Ditto with the World Heavyweight Championship on Smackdown. Mshake3 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Right well leave it with me and i will make something -- Paulley 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
So you just went ahead and move the page despite their being objections? That is article controlling. I have noticed you moving other articles (like Jim Harris to Kamala) and then not bothering to fix it. I will fix it for now and if you can come up with a good test page you can move it back. TJ Spyke 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else requests a move in a few hours, I will do so myself. Since you knew that someone opposed a move, moving it yourself is a controversial move Paulley. TJ Spyke 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
You what...first off i have never moved the Kamala article... infact according to its edit history i have only ever edited that article 4 times..... Also moving the article back to (WWE) which it was only recently changed from was more to fit the World Heavyweight Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) standard than to cause any controversey. The term "World Tag Team Championship" encompasses more than just the WWE version of the title which is something everyone here agrees on and other than youself everyone thinks the idea that seperating the term and title is a good one... if you dissagree put it to a vote here on the Wikiproject before the articles get messed with repeatedly --- Paulley
  • Sorry, I mixed you up with McPhail. The term "World Heavyweight Championship" is used for several titles. However, usually the term for tag titles is "Tag Team Championship" and not "World Tag Team Championship" is used. I said I might reconsider if you did a TEST page and it looked good. You chose not to do that and decided to make a controverisial move, so I do want a vote taken, either here or at WP:Requested Moves (maybe both). TJ Spyke 23:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Numurous titles used the World term as both a clasification and a general naming convention... but please do put it to vote as i truly dont see people objecting --- Paulley

[edit] Question about Jim Crockett Promotions alumni

Why exactly are titles listed on an alumni page? I figured I would ask here, before removing it. I've seen other alumni pages, and they aren't about listing titles. RobJ1981 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well since no one replied, I cleaned the article. I removed redlinks, fixed the tables, and removed the titles listed. RobJ1981 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internet wrestling community

The article Internet wrestling community is up for a second afd nomination if anyone wants to comment there. MrMurph101 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Team pages

Hey i know some teams deserve pages but do we really need pages for one-off pairings that, though they may have held a set of tag titles breifly, are not considered a real tag team. Esspecially if the info of their short term pairings are easily found within their own articles --- Paulley 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean do we really need Christian and Tyson Tomko, Snitsky and Tomko, Batista and Rey Mysterio, Edge and Rey Mysterio, and Ric Flair and Roddy Piper... Various short-term teams; esspecially Batista and Rey Mysterio who wrestled about four matches together and were only made champs to hype an interpromotional match before losing the titles back to the previous champs. On that note, i dont think we made a team page for Chris Benoit and Edge, or even the likes of Kurt Angle and Benoit, who have teamed up several times over the years and were the first WWE Tag Team Champions so why do we need these other ones? --Paulley
I agree wholeheartedly, all those tag team pages you mentioned should be deleted. None of those articles have any significance even within a wrestling wiki. --James Duggan 20:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I second that. All that information should just be found on the pages for the individual wrestlers.Geoffg 21:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What's interesting is that those articles are considered pointless. Now. At the time, a case could be made that they were of importance, just like how Rated-RKO is considered important right now. If that team goes their separate ways in a month or two, then a year down the line it's going to look like a waste of time. I agree that those articles should be deleted, and based on that, perhaps Rated-RKO as well, which goes against my original vote. Mshake3 21:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Alot of tag teams should be deleted. I nominated Fire and Ice (wrestling) days ago, because they were around for a few months, and aren't that notable. Remember: just because the team has a name...doesn't make it more notable. Use a wrestling wiki, if you must make articles on short lived teams. Same goes for the teams mentioned above. RobJ1981 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well i would agree about Rated-RKO, if they were just known as Edge and Randy Orton... but the fact that they have a team name sets them above these other one... i do think some sorta standard criteria needs to be formed --- Paulley
Fire and Ice have a name too, but they were around for a few months and did nothing notable (just like other teams with names). Rated RKO should probably remain, seeing that they are two major stars in a notable feud with DX. AFD's for each article should be added. Redirects would just be confusing. RobJ1981 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added prods to several of them, so I'm hoping that can do the job here. RobJ1981 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys we need your decisions on the afd pages for these non notable short-term fancruft teams --- Paulley

[edit] Match order for upcoming wrestling events

This applies for upcoming wrestling PPVs and other upcoming events as well. Does the match order really matter that much? It's come to my attention, that TJ Spyke thinks it must be the same as WWE.com's preview, otherwise it's wrong. What's the point of a certain order? I can understand the main event at the top, but the rest doesn't matter. When the event happens, the order listed on a website isn't set in stone and will likely be different as it actually takes place. In my opinion, only the main event should be listed at the top. The rest of the matches should be wherever, period. This same thing applies to which wrestler is listed first and second (except in the case of championship matches of course). I've seen no policy on "let's just copy WWE or TNA's match order for upcoming events" for this project, so I'm starting to think it's just a policy enforced by TJ and a few others. RobJ1981 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, TJ is a controller. You know that Rob. No Offense TJ. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but either way... this really needs to stop. The order doesn't matter (for matches, and for which wrestler is listed first: except for champions), period. There is no reason to copy WWE.com or TNA's official site to be "accurate" or whatever. If people want to put it different, then they can (and it shouldn't be reverted). Any further controlling of the articles in that matter, will be reported. I'm getting tired of this article controlling, it really needs to stop. RobJ1981 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
As a further note: WWE Armageddon is now locked due to revert wars over the match order. This is simply getting old. The match order shouldn't be determined by TJ and a few of his friends. Articles are for everyone, not just a select few. The match order shouldn't remain the way it was originally posted (what's the point of that? Articles change, and shouldn't stay the same due to a few opinions on it). It shouldn't be a copy of the official preview from WWE or TNA (or whoever), that's just stupid as well. This needs to be discussed more, with others commenting on the matter. RobJ1981 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This is easily one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. Rob, since order doesn't matter, be the mature one and let it go. TJ, it doesn't matter if its listed second or third - the PPV hasn't even aired yet. -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nigel McGuinness

Hey guys, there is obviously been a large section of time when i didnt really check the goings on of Wikipedia's wrestling section outside of the articles i maintain but was there a previous issue regarding us not being able to post the real name of the above wrestler... to the exstend that all edits/revisions showing his real name were infact removed from wiki's database??? what's that all about???---Paulley 23:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about removing all revisions that include the real name. RobJ1981 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The Talk:Nigel McGuinness and appearantly something called an OTRS request --- Paulley 12:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
19:05, 22 September 2006 FCYTravis (Talk | contribs) (rm realname per OTRS ticket #2006092210008209)
His real name is available to the public (since the USPTO is a PUBLIC website and it's records are avaialble to everyone). But but because the his webmaster asked Wikipedia to remove his real name, it was removed and all edits that mentioned it were erased. His name is publically available, therefore his name should be in the article. I wasn't even allowed to mention on my userpage how people can find his name. TJ Spyke 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
hmmm we will have to see about that. --- Paulley
Might this fall under the WP biography policy of being careful what you say about living people? Would it be respectful of us to not publish his name now, and wait until he's dead?Geoffg 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it had something to do with Wikipedia being the "first" to post the information, even though an interview he conducted under his real name was linked to. «»bd(talk stalk) 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention he knowingly made it available to the public by trademarking his ring name. TJ Spyke 23:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand that, legally and technically, his name might be published publically, but shouldn't we respect his obviously strong wish for privacy, since he is still a living person? I think that is in the spirit of the Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy section about the privacy of non-public figures. Geoffg 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Damaja

I've been reverting a couple of this user's edits, and it seems I'm not the only one, as he's been editing wrestling articles for a while, most of which are against WP:PW guidelines e.g. changing title layout, making up move names, capitalising wrestling moves etc. It's obvious from his talk page that he's been warned many times, but I hesitate to report him to an admin because to "an outsider" his edits aren't clear vandalism. Any ideas? BertieBasset 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea he has been around for a long time... usually does alot of bad edits on move lists and then dissapears for a while before comming back and doin it all again... --- Paulley 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former ECW World Champions winning the title in ECW brand

I get the feeling this will never become an issue (seeing as how WWE seems pretty intent upon de-pushing the ECW Originals), but what do we do if a former ECW World Champion (who won the title in the original promotion) wins it again in the ECW brand? The "championships and accomplishments" section of each wrestler's article divides the titles by the promotion under which they were won, so The Big Show, RVD, and Bobby Lashley all have the ECW World Championship listed under World Wrestling Entertainment, while Sabu and The Sandman have it listed under Extreme Championship Wrestling. It would seem weird to have the same title listed for two different promotions. Jeff Silvers 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  • If they won the ECW Championship while in the ECW promotion when it was active, add it under the ECW promotion heading.
  • If they won it while in WWE on the ECW brand, then it goes under the World Wrestling Entertainment section along with the other championships that they won in WWE.
It may seem weird to list the title twice, but this is the most accurate way of listing it. Other titles that have been renamed are listed twice under different promotions, and they are fine as of now, this should also apply. semper fi — Moe 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I suppose you're right. Jeff Silvers 09:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We list tiles under what promotion the title is promoted in.. thats why WCW titles won while part of WWE are listed under WWE. So it would be listed as:

  • Extreme Championship Wrestling
  • ECW World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
  • World Wrestling Entertainment
  • ECW World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)

---Paulley

[edit] Category:Ring of Honor alumni

I noticed this was pretty bear, I have added a brief header and a few stars. But there are probably loads of stars to be added. So I thought I highlight this area for you all to know about. Govvy 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to ask, should I be adding the wrestlers by real names or the in-ring names? Govvy 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
They are added by whatever the article is called. Real or in-ring doesn't make a difference, since the category is only added to the relevant article (not redirects obviously). RobJ1981 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of wrestlers in movies up for deletion

List of wrestlers in movies has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wrestlers in movies. Input is welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Raven's Nest

Why are the links for it so poor? Raven's official site and what appears to be a Geocities fan site for Raven's nest. It certainly needs better links then that. I'm thinking Obsessed with Wrestling (as per alot of wrestling articles) and TNA's profile of the newest version: Serotonin (if it exists, I'm not sure if it does or not). RobJ1981 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Add them?«»bd(talk stalk) 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the link to OWW's page for The Gathering, and I added OWW's page on The Flock (WCW). They don't have one for The Nest (ECW) or Serotonin, yet. --James Duggan 08:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rated-RKO

Rated-RKO is a tag-team. So why does everyone keep putting Lita's win at Cyber Sunday down and adding her belt as an Rated-RKO win? Can we have a discussion on this to clear up the problem. Govvy 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I never got the impression that Rated RKO is a stable, and that Lita's matches were considered Rated RKO matches. Geoffg 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They are not a stable.. Lita just acted like a valet to the team... though valets title wins while apart of the team still count on the accomplishments. -- Paulley
It should be pointed out that Kenny's recent attempts to join Rated-RKO screams to me that this is a stable. I say we wait a couple weeks for this story to play out before making a final decision. Mshake3 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro wrestling articles that need photos

I created this page as a resource: User:RobJ1981/NeededPWphotos. The page is just a start, I know there is many more needing photos. RobJ1981 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since creating the photos needed page, it's grown a bit (and still not even close to being done). I knew articles were missing photos, but I didn't think it was this bad. RobJ1981 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:WWE Champions

Do we need this Category when we already have the List of WWE Champions article? Is there a policy in this project on lists vs. categories? Is the redundancy harmless? Geoffg 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I created it because various other sports have categorys for people who have won things. Like in baseball, there are categorys for all stars, gold glove winners, and mvps. I don't see why we can't have one for the WWE Championship also. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 20:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Seems too broad and not needed to me. Is I.C champions coming soon and tag team champions? The championships and accomplishments sections of articles mention what titles they've held, as do list pages and title history pages. This seems like a case of overcategorizing in my opinion, or a case of "a category because others have it, so it's justified" type of thing. RobJ1981 22:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I think its good because its the most prestigious prize in WWE, and should be noted in a category who has held it. I don't think IC and tag team title arent needed, because they aren't really major. This one is. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up)
I don't think it's too broad, I just think it's not necessary to have both. My take is that a list is most appropriate for a linear sequence, like a series of champions, who follow one after the other; while a category is more appropriate for a loose group of individuals, like alumni of a particular promotion, or membership in a hall of fame. Geoffg 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The I.C title is major, considering many people that won the I.C title went on to win the WWF/E title and/or World title (Austin, Rock, Ultimate Warrior, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and plenty more). I'm very tempted to put the category in CFD, but I will wait until a few more people comment on it here. A list page is the best way in this case. RobJ1981 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
There are categories for each majo boxing title, so why not the WWE Championship? It is the biggest wrestling title (the NWA Title used to be bigger) in the world and the most coveted title. I would add categories for the WCW and NWA Championships as well (maybe some of the other real world titles). TJ Spyke 23:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Boxing and other sports are real, WWE and other pro wrestling isn't. Titles for a fictional sport don't need categories. The list pages, and the wrestler articles already list the needed information, there is no need to be redundant. RobJ1981 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what TJ Spyke said, why don't we make it a category for wrestlers who have won a World Heavyweight Championship? Just a thought that some people may want to evaluate on. Normy132 07:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster

I came across this category and the first thing I thought was shouldn't this be called Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni instead? A move should be proposed, but I don't know how to do it. --James Duggan 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a category for alumni of the original ECW, and not a category for the roster of the current ECW. Geoffg 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured out how to propose the move, check the category page to a link to the discussion. --James Duggan 09:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster should be made into alumni as well. Currently it's just a dumping ground for any past or present Stampede wrestler. RobJ1981 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal done. --James Duggan 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Scott Hudson articles

Scott Hudson (announcer) and Scott Hudson (wrestling). It's for the same person. A good example of why searching should be done before making an article. Both are in poor shape. RobJ1981 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, I merged the info from both into Scott Hudson (announcer) and made Scott Hudson (wrestling) into a redirect page. Though it still needs improving. --James Duggan 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change all instances of "RAW" to "Raw"?

I declined to suggest this a few months ago during the whole page move business because I just expected a lot of opposition. However, it seems that WWE is beginning to abandon their capitalization of RAW. I don't see any recent use of it on WWE.com, for instance. If this hasn't already been undertaken, I propose a concerted effort to make the transition to "Raw" throughout any relevant articles. Croctotheface 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if WWE saw what happened here? I would support that change since it looks like WWE made that change official. And WWE also seems to have officially removed the exclamation point from SmackDown as well, so we should make that change too. --James Duggan 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the logo's are all capped, but when it is written in context it's pretty normal and yes, if you look at the current SmackDown the ! is gone from the end of it. But the SmackDown logo now is "Friday Night SmackDown" by the looks that is the full title. Govvy 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smart (professional wrestling) and Smark (professional wrestling)

I saved the later by having it moved to my namespace and adding sources. I don't think we need two seperate articles for these items. They could be done on one page probably under the term Smart. There should also be a link from the mark page to pull it up. What do you guys think? NegroSuave 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it under Smark myself as that seems the more "official" term, but I agree they should be merged. --James Duggan 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Champions Pages

I think we need to get some consistincy with these pages. Personally I think the List of WWE Champions page looks the best and that should be the format. If anyone has any suggestions, put them here. Otherwise, I'm going to start changing a few of them. Mshake3 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_0035.html"