Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →

Contents

Tag Teams and Stables

Much like tag teams and stables list on the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster, I created one for the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster. It is located under all the rosters and the inactive list. It lists the major tag teams and stables, and if major, managers to wrestlers. Example: The SmackDown! teams and stables has:

Of course the SmackDown! teams and stables have more than just these three teams but, how does this format look? SWD316 04:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Definitely should replace "w/" with "with". The subsection header should follow normal capitalization.
↪Lakes 06:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
What about the List of professional wrestling stables it has the same(ish) list as what is on the Current Roster page, and didnt we get rid of duplicate rosters so that we wouldnt have the problem of repeated lists... should we remove the current teams list of that page and maybe link it to the current roster pages team and stable list --- Paulley 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Juvi Driver

Can you guys help me clear up something... since Juventud has appeared on WWE tv four different moves (which he has been using to pick up wins) have been credited as the Juvi Driver, first it was a Pumphandle sitout facebuster, then it was a Michinoku Driver II, while in England it was a sitout front powerslam and on the heat before Survivour Series it was a Half nelson driver.... and i actually thought the Juvi Driver was a Double underhook piledriver. Does anyone know which is right???? --- Paulley 16:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I always thought it was the Modified version of the Michinoku Driver II. SWD316 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Before WWE I've only seen the regular Michinoku Driver II (Sitout scoop slam piledriver) variation called the Juvi Driver, and 911 is the wrist clutch variation. I've never seen him do a double underhook piledriver, but I haven't seen that much of his WCW stuff. I guess we're faced with a similar situtiation as John Cena's F-U..
↪Lakes 01:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
well, i only remember the double underhook piledriver from his time in TNA... its just recently WWE annoucers just call every move he finishes with the Juvi Driver --- Paulley 15:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I never saw him do a double underhook piledriver in TNA, although I cannot say I saw all his matches there. But in the ones I saw he used the MD-II and the 911.
↪Lakes 15:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I've seen him use it a few times in ECW and WCW but I'd have to say the Juvi Driver is a modified Michinoku Driver - [[User:Normy132|Normy132 07:32, 22, January 2006 (UTC)

Luchas de Apuestas Records

I was just wondering, when I go and create succession boxes for the Mexican, well mostly Mexican, professional wrestlers, can I tone down the size of the Luchas de Apuestas Records a little to the:

  • Wagers lost/won
  • Winners
  • Losers
  • Notes

The other sections we could probably cut off are the Where it took place and the date that it happened sections. When it happened and where it took place doesn't seem all that important. Any comments? SWD316 01:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to do. What do you mean by "Succession boxes?" How will they be used?--Darren Jowalsen 02:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I was crreating succession boxes when I came across this problem. I dont want to turn the Luchas de Apuestas sections into succession boxes. Here, I will give you an example:
  • Vampiro - Here is an example of a wrestler that has a messy looking Luchas de Apuestas Records section
  • Rey Mysterio - A better looking Luchas de Apuestas Records section to give an example of. I edited it a little. It would no longer show the Place of the event or the date it happened, I dont thinks it's important information to have. SWD316 22:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with the date and place. A lot of the matches in question aren't specifically mentioned in the article for brevity sake and the record supplies the information. Cutting out the place and especially the date will make it just a list and not particularly informative.--Darren Jowalsen 22:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
So, should we just leave it alone? SWD316 01:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for streamlining whenever possible but I don't think there is much you can do with it without leaving out big chunks of information. However, I do like the kind of table in the Mysterio article, perhaps we can upgrade all the older records to the new "wikitable" type while keeping all the information.--Darren Jowalsen 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown! results

I found this today, i think we need to stop it before it gets out of hand... --- Paulley 16:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

We should leave a message on the talk page of the the creator of the article, Jan otto then put the article up for afd. It's one thing to have a list of episodes for a television show, at least you can summarize the events in a half-hour or hour-long television show in one or two sentences. With professional wrestling shows, there's a whole bunch of matches and a lot of storylines to cover. --Jtalledo (talk)
I think I might have had something to do with that. When I created the results for the Velcoity, Jakked, and Shotgun Saturday Night results a long time ago. Do you think we need these? SWD316 18:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think a results section is necessary for any of the shows past or present - the information is readily available on countless wrestling web sites. I'm more concerned about the ones for present shows though. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I redirected the Velocity and others,including WWE SmackDown! results, to thier respective TV show. I am also going to add "See Also" sections to the articles, (ex: SmackDown!, RAW, HEAT) and link results to shows there from other websites. Is that all right? SWD316 18:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Essexmutant 18:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I added some of the links results already what do think so far? Im going to try and find results for all the shows if I can. I added results links to the following shows: WWE RAW, WWE Friday Night SmackDown!, WWE HEAT, WWE Velocity, WWF Shotgun Saturday Night, WWE Jakked/Metal, WWE Saturday Night's Main Event. Thoughts? SWD316 18:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks great. Good call. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. SWD316 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing we should do the same with TNA iMPACT! results, October 2005TNA iMPACT! results, November 2005 and TNA iMPACT! results, December 2005?--Darren Jowalsen 21:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The impact recaps are fairly comprehensive, and several television programmes have individual articles for each episode, e.g. The Simpsons. McPhail 17:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Brand extension article

Seeing that there are a lot of references to the brand extension but not a lot on the brand extension itself, I've created WWE Brand Extension for this purpose. It's not really that fleshed out, so I'd like the Wikipedia pro wrestling community to help improve this. kelvSYC 07:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea but I don't think it's necessary to have this and WWE Draft as two seperate articles. Personally I wouldn't mind the two merged and expanded so that it's based around with the Brand Extension with the draft as a section in the article. --Oakster 12:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
To me, the two seem separate enough to keep as individual articles. The WWE Draft page only covers the initial 2003 draft, and doesn't (and shouldn't, as it isn't relevent to the article) go into much more depth on the Brand Extension as a whole. Meanwhile, the Brand Extension page could go into a much more detailed history of the extension, fan reaction, means by which WWE attempted to make the two brands seem distinct from one another, et cetera. Jeff Silvers 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

WWE Federation Championship

Someone created a page about the WWE Federation Championship to witch I think is pretty dumb since we aready have a WWE Championship Page. So I propose we delete this page.

BionicWilliam 07:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

yea good idea\ for now though i have made it a redirect -- Paulley 13:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Tribute to the Troops

Just to let you guys know, I've just started working on an article about the Tribute to the Troops shows. I believe as the troop visits have been going for its third year now, it's pretty notable to be included as an article. So far right now, it just has the basic results but I'm going to expand it in the next few days to include details of the actual tour that on and off screen such as stuff like Mick Foley's recent meeting with the young boy in Afghanistan. --Oakster 23:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. We should probably mention it in and wikilink it from World Wrestling Entertainment. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little bit late here, but just wanted to add my support to the idea. Essexmutant 12:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that the article "Tribute to the Troops" should be named "WWE Tribute to the Troops"? Edraf 09:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Bob Roop was the top of the most requested article list, so I started it, but it needs work to bring it into consistency with the other articles on wrestlers. As this is not my area of expertise, I am posting this plea for some assistance - thank you much! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Surprisingly, it looks a lot better than some other biographies on professional wrestlers. Ha ha. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment (what do you mean, surprisingly?) do you have any suggestions? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
His amateur championships and accomplishments wouldn't be bad. You can look at Kurt Angle's for an example. Also the text mentions that he used a shoulderbreaker as his finishing move; that could be added to a Finishing and signature moves -section. The style is shown in the pending tasks box on the top of this page.
↪Lakes 11:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving this to Talk:Bob Roop talk page for article - replying to Lake there. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:221.135.229.166

i have been reverting bad edits by this user, he seems intent to change wrestler stats and remove signature moves and add general ones --- Paulley 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Professional wrestling match types cleanup

A lot of people have put cruft such as one-off tournaments and other specifics when the article deals with generalities. I propose we add a notability criterion to what is in and what is not - see Talk:Professional wrestling match types#Notability criteria for inclusion for details and feedback. kelvSYC 05:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

RKO list

I have a question for everyone, on the Randy Orton article, do you think that the list of people that Randy Orton gave the RKO of encyclopedic value? If not, I think should be removed. SWD316 talk to me 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nuke it. It's like creating a list of people who were Stunnered, Tombstoned, Olympic Slammed, Sweet Chin Music'd, etc... --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 12:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no need for this, and could grow to obscene levels considering the promotion's staff turnover. Essexmutant 12:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
i think it should stay after all at the moment part of his gimick is being known as the Legend Killer, why be known as the legend killer if no-one takes note of the people his "killed", i think its a good piece of information, theres not many sites out there that have the up to date list, and many people do want to know who is on the list (Lil crazy thing 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
No, it's going to be removed. It's lke adding a list to Shawn Michaels gimmick that included that he had given "Sweet Chin Music". It's not of Encyclopedic value. Imagine how long that list is going to be by the year 2010 or so on. He's just a beginning superstar and his career has yet to begin. All of that means (hypothetically) the list could go one forever. SWD316 talk to me 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
But how many people Michaels has super-kicked is not an integral part of his gimmick. Randy Orton RKOing popular and/or retired wrestlers was part of his main schtick--at one point, there was a "Legend Killer Tour" T-Shirt detailing all his victims. And after his feud with the Undertaker, the gimmick has died down quite a bit. --Pathogen 01:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Reorganising the professional wrestling media category

I was just wondering if it's any use recategorising images from Category:Professional wrestling media into subcategories such as Category:Professional wrestler media, Category:Professional wrestling logo and poster media, Category:Professional wrestling belt media, Category:Professional wrestling game media? It might help sorting out problems concerning images better such as those that are orphaned. --Oakster 23:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Wikicity

WOW! This is probably the most shocking thing I have ever seen! A Pro Wrestling WikiCity. Although, everything on this page is less than impressive. The Wikipedia Wikiproject we got here is more populated than over there. I clicked the Recent Changes button and there was not ONE EDIT in over the past 30 DAYS. Which is an understatement because I belive no one has visited the Wikicity since AUGUST. I looked through the history of a lot of articles to find that there was only red-linked users, meaning they never created a user page, and a few anons that visted the site. The Current WWE roster hasn't been updated since August. That place is the biggest mess I have ever seen. Do we want to do anything about this? I think it would be a shame if we loose a whole Wikicity. SWD316 talk to me 01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you really want to get involved with a wiki on PBWiki? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I sure do, whats wrong with it? SWD316 talk to me 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I have just join up to it. I dont mind getting involved if it helps, i have plenty of time on my hands at the moment.(Lil crazy thing 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
Good, I encourage everyone involved with this Wikiproject to get involved. SWD316 talk to me 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I personally don't see any reason to participate there. A separate wiki for the Star Trek fictional universe seems logical, but I don't see a reason to split resources (work) between pw articles in wikipedia and a pw wikicity.
Lakes 23:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont quite understand the whole wikicity thing... is it an un edited mirror version of wikipedia or something actually associated to wikipedia... cus i remeber and un edited version the came up a long time ago, which i found on a random search. cus you would think they could find an easy way to copy anything associated to pro wrestling. It just kinda seems pointless to have two things and have to each one individually. Other than that all i have to say is that i myself was one of the first people to start creating professional wrestling articles and the articles we have created here have come out of years of edits.. i just dont think i would want to start from the ground up again. --- Paulley 16:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
It's a Wikicity. In other words, yes, it's associted with Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. I just don't think that a Wikicity should die out because of lack of articles, interest or anything else appealing that Wikipedia has more of. But what you did say was true, it's basically starting from scratch. But I can always work with that. SWD316 talk to me 02:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed categories

Would anyone else be in favour of creating categories such as "ECW alumni"? It could be added to all the wrestlers in List of ECW wrestlers. McPhail 18:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Im in favor of it. Im not busy at the moment, so I'll do it. SWD316 talk to me 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Finished, should we do this to all the defunct promotions, like World Championship Wrestling among many? SWD316 talk to me 02:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I think too many wrestlers have worked for WCW to make it a useful category. Smoky Mountain Wrestling, however, might be worthwhile. McPhail 13:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Substituting ring name for stage name in wrestler entries

Is anyone else opposed to this? I have added to the ring name article, giving more of an explanation and history for the practice. - Chadbryant 11:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the changing. I also expanded the article further and put in some examples.
Lakes 13:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
In most cases it's a good move. However, when a wrestler has pursued an entertainment career under that name (e.g. John Cena or Randy Savage) either stage name should be used or both terms should be preserved. McPhail 14:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited the wrestler infobox to include "Ring Name(s)" instead of "Stage name(s)". - Chadbryant 15:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Moving to William Moody (wrestler) to Percy Pringle

Given that William Moody uses the name "Percy Pringle" professionally, I would surmise that this article would be better listed under that name, to eliminate the need for the disambiguation page at William Moody. I moved the content there once before, but it was reverted with "vandal" incorrectly given as the reason. Thoughts? - Chadbryant 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the move because you cut-and-pasted the articles, which is classified as vandalism. If you want an article moved, request a move. McPhail 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Move requested - my c&p was an attempt at a workaround, not intentional vandalism. - Chadbryant 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Smackdown tag titles

Just a heads up to make sure that no one updates the Smackdown tag team title champions until after it airs in the US. Also, if someone does change it, revert it back to Batista and Rey until after the show airs. I'm sure you all know that anyways, just a heads up. SFrank85 20:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Quick question regarding the tag title defended on Smackdown - why is the Raw tag title portrayed here as the title with the traditional WWF tag title lineage? The way it was presented on WWE TV at the time was that Stephanie McMahon had taken that title lineage to Smackdown as a response to Eric Bischoff un-unifying the Undisputed title when Brock Lesnar signed a Smackdown-exclusive contract. Much like the World Heavyweight Championship has always been presented on WWE TV to be the descendant of the WCW World title, it always seemed (at the beginning, at least) that Raw's World Tag Team Championship was presented as the descendant of the WCW World tag title. - Chadbryant 21:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This is true of the world belts; however, Raw gained the tag team belts during the whole "Billy and Chuck" storyline, I think. This led to a tournament to crown new Smackdown tag champs. Interestingly, this means Raw now has all three of the WWF/E's traditional belts (4 if you count the women's belt), and Smackdown has 2 new belts and 2 WCW belts (or 3 WCW belts and 1 new belt, depending on how you see the World belt). --HBK|Talk 04:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The current WWE Tag Team Championship on SmackDown is the new version that was created by Stephanie McMahon. The World Tag Team Championships on RAW is the old WWE Tag Titles. The title lineage continued dispite the creation of the new WWE tag team titles on SmackDown. The RAW tag titles just had the name changed, which I don't know why they would just call the new SmackDown titles the World Tag Team Titles, I suppose you would have to ask WWE that.SFrank85 22:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand that explanation, but it still doesn't coincide with what WWE had/has presented on their television programming. I imagine the subject will become moot when the inevitable title unification occurs, but it's still something that could (and probably has) caused confusion for readers. - Chadbryant 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, however it is the WWE's way of thinking, and sometimes it's haed to know what they are thinking if you know what I'm saying ;) SFrank85 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The general consensus is that the WWE Tag Team Championship is the newer belt, and that the World Tag Team Championship is the older belt, due to any number of factors including name shortening (from "WWE World Tag Team Championship" to just "World Tag Team Championship", akin to how "WWF World Heavyweight Championship" eventually was referred to as the "WWE Championship"), emphasis on building the credibility of the World Heavyweight Championship as a top title.

If you recall correctly, in the first draft, the tag champions (Billy and Chuck) were drafted to Smackdown! (the tag champs were show-exclusive), and were moved to Raw (with Lance Storm and Christian) in an "open competition period". The period ended with Lesnar being SD-exclusive while the tag belts were on Raw, giving the Raw belts the lineage. The subsequent naming of the new tag titles as "WWE Tag Team Championship" may be to be consistent with the heavyweight belt, to give it instant credibility, or any number of other factors (I don't remember - perhaps the name was even given de facto and there remains no official name for it...) kelvSYC 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship

Given the fact that there have been several titles throughout wrestling history to have used this name, and that WWE's version certainly isn't the first, I would propose that a move be considered of the current article located at World Heavyweight Championship to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). The latter article name/location would thus be reserved for an article detailing the history and evolution of the World Heavyweight Championship concept. Thoughts and constructive input would be greatly appreciated. - Chadbryant 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

An article about the "world heavyweight championship concept" would not be a proper noun, so would not need to be capitalised. It could therefore be created at World heavyweight championship. McPhail 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. However, the location of the article regarding WWE's World Heavyweight Championship is still a problem from the standpoint of historical accuracy. If World Heavyweight Championship is not used for an article regarding the history of world heavyweight championships, it should be used for a disambiguation page to address the fact that there have been multiple championships that have carried that name. - Chadbryant 00:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The article will also have to mention amateur wrestling, boxing, mma and various other combat sports with weight division championships.
↪Lakes (Talk) 23:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The only other World Heavyweight Championship that was actually called that was the original versions, held by George Hackenschmidt in 1905 and Frank Gotch before it became knowen as the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in 1948.SFrank85 01:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true. There were several versions of the World Heavyweight Championship in different regions both before and after 1948, and the NWA World Heavyweight Championship did not exist before its creation in 1948. - Chadbryant 06:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
You are correct, however there was no NWA World Heavyweight Championship because the NWA was not created until 1948. It has been disputed if the NWA World Heavyweight Championship's title linage is that of the same title line as George Hackenschmidt. There were different versions of the World Heavyweight Championship, but they too has their respected promotion name in front of it, therefore the only World Heavyweight Championship to be known as that without a promotion owned title was the George Hackenschmidt title lineage, because there was no indivudual promotion World Heaveyweight Titles until 1948 when the NWA took control of the World Heaveyweight Title.
Promotional names as we know them were not commonplace until the late 1950's. While there were a few "sactioning bodies" in place before then (i.e. the American Wrestling Associationi in Boston, and the National Wrestling Association), the majority of promoters operated without any sort of promotional name, and a number of versions of the "World Heavyweight Championship" existed before 1948.
The NWA didn't "take control" of anything - they were merely an alliance of promoters who decided to recognize a common WHC, and selected an existing WHC (Orville Brown) as their first champion. Lou Thesz was sent on tour to "win" as many other versions of the WHC as he could, to "unify" all of the lineages. Even after that, several promoters in several areas (Omaha, Los Angeles, New York, etc.) once again recognized their own versions of the WHC.
The overall point of this is that WWE is not the first promotion to promote a WHC, and that the article concerning the current WWE WHC should be moved to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), with World Heavyweight Championship becoming an disambiguation page. - Chadbryant 07:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be moved to WWE World Heavyweight Championship rather than World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). This would allow for more direct linking. McPhail 17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that title is that it's inaccurate - the name of the title is "World Heavyweight Championship", not "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". Naming the article World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) would be accurate, as well as provide a modifier to distinguish it from other championships carrying the WHC name. - Chadbryant 22:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I definitely think the title of the new article should be "World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)", but whomever moves the current page to that title should be sure they create the proposed generic article - otherwise we're just muddying up a perfectly good article. --Chrysaor 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone has a valid objection to it, I plan to move the current article at World Heavyweight Championship to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and recreate the latter as a disambiguation page. - Chadbryant 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Move succeeded, and most of the pages linking to the article's original location (now a disambiguation page) have been corrected. - Chadbryant 18:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions and I believe a lot of the stuff included in that article about belt lineage is probabily more suitable for the new World Heavyweight Championship article. Is there any chance someone could try to sort this out? --Oakster 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Category for wrestling venues

There should be one. WillC 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving Page Falkenberg to Dallas Page

The article on DDP notes that he uses the name Dallas Page on his SAG and AFTRA cards. Given the fact that most (if not all) SAG/AFTRA members are listed on Wikipedia under their card name, it seems logical to list his article under Dallas Page instead of Page Falkenberg. Thoughts? - Chadbryant 19:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Why Dallas Page, why not Diamond Dallas Page? SWD316 talk to me 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
"Diamond" is a nickname - his SAG & AFTRA memberships (which indicate his crossover into mainstream entertainment) list him as "Dallas Page". - Chadbryant 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
A case could be made for either move. On one hand, Dallas Page is his "official" screen name. On the other hand, "Diamond Dallas Page" returns 120,000 Google results, while "Dallas Page" -Diamond returns 30,000 (and a number of those results refer to the city). Diamond Dallas Page would allow greater direct linking, but is somewhat unwieldy. McPhail 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Moving to "Diamond Dallas Page" would be like moving the article on Shawn Michaels to "The Heatbreak Kid Shawn Michaels" - it would be including a nickname with what more or serves as a given name. - Chadbryant 20:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That isn't an entirely accurate comparison. Falkenberg was invariably billed as "Diamond Dallas Page" throughout his career. McPhail 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
But the "Diamond" part was almost always treated as a nickname, and his SAG/AFTRA registration pretty much confirms that his working given name is "Dallas Page". I guess a better example would be listing an article at Nature Boy Ric Flair, rather than Ric Flair. - Chadbryant 20:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever heard an announcer or anyone just refer to him as Dallas Page, they always say, "DDP" or "Diamond Dallas Page". SWD316 talk to me 21:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I recall it happening multiple times, and given the fact that he made his pro debut as "Handsome" Dallas Page, I think it's a pretty safe bet that he's always intended "Dallas Page" to be his working given name. His SAG/AFTRA registration more or less confirms it. - Chadbryant 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

::::::Can you CITE at least one occassion when it happened? I could say that I recall hearing coal mines were bad "multiple times" but that wouldn't make me a bad person for not trying to have the mines in West Virginia shut down. - Owen Stevenson 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well either one will be fine, Diamond Dallas Page would make a better title though, and I'm sure some newbies will disagree with that title. Oh well, whatever suits you best. Personally, I've always like the title Page Falkenburg just fine, but I think not many people like the page redirecting there. SWD316 talk to me 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:::::I think that 'Diamond Dallas Page' should be the usable entry. After all, the Google search cited proves that an Internet usage of the search is more or less what DDP is found within; otherwise, it could become too confusing, and, as you mentioned, piss off the newbies. - Owen Stevenson 01:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Told ya we would piss off a newbie, which is actually a vandal. SWD316 talk to me 03:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not a newbie - it's the same guy (with yet another new account) who has been vandalizing many of the articles I've contributed to, and your talk page. He's also been throwing my images & website URL into various articles where they don't belong, simply to cause trouble. He's still smarting from having his RFA completely rejected and deleted. - Chadbryant 03:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you have proof of these accusations, or are you merely typing words with no meaning? Given your behavior on Wikipedia, your comments are quite suspect. You also appear to have little or no influence or say on Wikipedia in viewing IP addresses; therefore, your claims are baseless and inaccurate by default. Super Grover 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I know, thats why I said vandal and newbie. SWD316 talk to me 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that although Page is typically known as "Diamond" Dallas Page, it seems pretty clear that "Diamond" is a nickname portion, along the lines of "The Nature Boy" Ric Flair or "The Phoenomenal" A. J. Styles. The move should be made as no one in the industry refers to him as Falkenberg. It shouldn't be controversial as numerous other wrestling talent have articles under their most popular screen names: Stone Cold Steve Austin, etc. kelvSYC 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Article moved - links on other articles should be fixed as needed. - Chadbryant 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I've changed several links (about 20) to get people started. However there are another 126 pages that need to be done. If anyone else wants to help, please check List of articles that link to Page Falkenberg. Essexmutant 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

New Username

Hey, I was recently known as Terry 3k, but I lost my other account so I am now Terry 4k.

Kitch says Hello!

Hello! SWD316 invited me to join.

I was the mastermind behind Template:TNA-photo, and helped to make the format behind the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view event pages uniform. I also began creating the monthly results pages for TNA iMPACT!

What I would like to contribute is the thought of creating a universal, uniform format for describing individual pay-per-view events. Of course it does not have to be how I do it right now, I'd be glad to accept input from others.

Anyway, I hope to be of assistance to the project. Thanks! --Kitch (talk • contribs), 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: As a sidenote, I did the RAW is Owen article, and later modified it to the same format that I use for my TNA articles. --Kitch (talk • contribs), 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining, I've been wondering when you'll join. About a format for pay-per-view events, I have to agree that something needs to be done about it. I really do like your format for pay-per-view events and it would be really useful for WrestleMania related articles which all look disorganised. --Oakster 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
It's always nice to know the nuances of a PPV; the stuff that goes on between the matches, some of the run-ins, the finishes... though the one thing I never do is recorded match previews. I usually do the matches (participants and managers/valets), how they finish, any important interference and live spots between matches, including backstage interviews/events and in-ring events. --Kitch (talk • contribs), 01:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania 22

There is an ongoing dispute over whether to include a "rumors" section in this article. I don't think it should be included in line with the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. It would be helpful if other editors could give their opinions. McPhail 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on this. It's just sheer speculation. --Oakster 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Inserting a "Rumors" section will do nothing but invite a rash of edits with "news" cut & pasted from the half-zillion wrestling markboards that make the National Enquirer look legitimate and informative. It's a horrible idea. - Chadbryant 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::I disagree -- a "rumors" section would let people decide for themselves on whether or not they are/were legitimate. I don't see it becoming the [[National Enquirer] as I do rec.sport.pro-wrestling. - 166.102.104.20 22:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Rumors regarding upcoming events are not encyclopedic, Alex Cain. - Chadbryant 23:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::::Baseless accusations of names are not wanted on Wikipedia, Chad Bryant. - One Of Us 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should let the storylines work themselves out. Wikipedia should not report remours, because in the wrestling business, rumours change by the second. SFrank85 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not to sure on wikipedia's policy on "sheets" and linking to those types of websites is. I'm sure they have not been linked yet on wikipedia, so there must be a reason for them not being linked. I also think that wrestling promotions send their internet people looking around for these "sheets" websites, and wikipedia could become an easy target for these wrestling promotions to "take legal action" like they have done with other websites, and websites linking to these sites. SFrank85 00:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to include a mark blog as an external link. Mark blogs/newsboards are little more than an unsubstantiated source of speculation and rumours, and (as pointed out before) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Chadbryant 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Rumours should not be listed, as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Essexmutant 10:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tag Team infobox?

We have an Infobox for a singles wrestler which works well enough, but what about those Tag Teams which deserve their own entry?

I don't know quite how to make them, but it would need a way to list all the members stats (height, weight, etc) and keep them seperate. Putting multiple boxes on one page could clutter something like the Demolition page (which has three). Any ideas?Bdve 23:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not to sure how to go about fixing this. SWD316 talk to me 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Members

Congrats to this project for getting 50 members! SWD316 talk to me 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Match times

As I'm working on a few pay-per-view articles, I was just wondering about the actual lengths of the matches. I'm not the only person to include times but I don't think we all have the same source for the time (for those wondering, I'm using WIA). So I'm proposing we have an "official" source for match lengths that we can work with just to keep articles in sync with each other. --Oakster 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been putting infoboxes and Wikiquote links on a lot of pages, including Super Crazy and Nidia. I tried to put one on Psicosis, but it didn't look right without a picture. Does anyone have one? -Web kai2000 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Oakster 15:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The new title change

Has anyone considered it odd how the US title and the WHC were both determined in the same show, yet the WHC officially changed hands on January 10, 2006, the night of the taping, and the US title officially changed hands January 13, 2006, the night of the show (as evidence by WWE's website claiming Angle to be WHC and the US title vacant in the span between Tuesday and Friday)? What would be the policy on the date that titles change belts? This could set a new precedent with regards to how we keep track of the date of title changes here... kelvSYC 07:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know on the actual list of champions articles, the dates taken are that of the date of the taping but never put into the articles until the actual showing in the United States a few days later. I guess since WWE have revealed the result of the WHC match on their website but not the US title, we'll still have to revert any results of the US title match. --Oakster 09:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Title changes are recorded as happening on the day of the taping, but (for "kayfabe" purposes) not revealed until the show is broadcast in the US. Of course, given the fact that most of the people using Wikipedia to look up wrestling articles have also accessed sites with details on tapings that haven't yet aired, it seems a bit pointless. It should also be pointed out that Smackdown airs a night earlier in Canada. - Chadbryant 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I find it strange but we can't officailly list the U.S. title since it hasn't been officially announced by the WWE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trick man01 (talk • contribs).

Images

There has been some problems lately concerning images on the pro wrestling articles. I think we should make a seperate sub-page for pro wrestling related images so we know when somethings been changed. Some common problems with the images are:

  1. Uploading over old images and replacing it with a copyright violated image.
  2. And Replacing older, but still good, images with more current images.

I think a gallery sub-page would be a great way to monitor these actions and take care of them on-site. SWD316 talk to me 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this -- howdy!

Hey, today I uploaded a few images and put them into wrestler profiles -- specifically, Cassidy Riley, Johnny Devine, and Jerrelle Clark. These are all from the TNApics website, and I used that template for the copyright info. Can a veteran take a look at these and see if they're up to code? If so, I'll carry on and add some more. If not, I'll go back and fix whatever needs it. (While I was at it, I transferred Clark's profile into an infobox! Wow!) --Karl Freske 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

They seem more than fine to me. Thanks for joining. --Oakster 13:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Cool. I went ahead and added images to Mike Tenay, Don West (sportscaster), Sean Waltman, Chris Harris (wrestler), James Storm, David Young, Apolo, Shannon Moore, James Mitchell (wrestler), and Delirious (wrestler). (I got a little overexcited!) --Karl Freske 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've got one little comment that I forgot to notice myself. Is there any chance you can put this in [[Category:Professional wrestling media]] for descriptions in future uploads? --Oakster 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! --Karl Freske 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Category structure

As the project on professional wrestling, the project's members should dictate the category structure within Category:Professional wrestling. Besides a few minor subcategory rule (articles only in the most specific categories whenever possible) violations, things are reasonable the way things are, however I like to make a few recommendations:

  • organizing championships by type (heavyweight championships, tag team championships, women's championships, etc.)
  • organizing championships by the basis of current/defunct
  • separating wrestlers by real origins and origins of characters (eg. Val Venis would be a Canadian wrestler billed from the United States)
  • organizing NWA territories together, as well as a category for former NWA territories
  • grouping promotions by "major", "developmental", "independent circuit", etc.
  • grouping televised and pay-per-view shows together, with a current/defunct/one-time distinction

As this is a lot of work, I'd like the community to debate about whether to move forward with these proposals rather than unilateral action and facing the response of the community. kelvSYC 03:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrestler article naming contrary to conventions

Most professional wrestlers are arguably better known by their ring names than their real names. Then why are wrestler articles put under their real names, contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)? It states there The most used name to refer to a person is generally the one that Wikipedia will choose as page name, even if this sounds awkward for those seeing the name the first time. Fans of WWE would generally not refer to The Undertaker by "Calaway", real name or not, and thus it should be moved to its redirect at The Undertaker, for instance.

Personally, redirects are often okay for the most part (say, as a temporary solution), but then editors at this project simply pipe off links that go to the redirect article so that it goes to the original article instead (eg. Triple H, which is a redirect article to his real name. See how fast someone pipes this last link off to whatever his real name is), making a redirect largely redundant.

Of course, not every wrestler article is this way - after all, WP:NC (P) does cite BG James as an example, however, the community here are largely ignoring these conventions for whatever reason, and this needs to be addressed. kelvSYC 04:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For the most part, when a wrestler has used a name for a sustained period of time (how long is open to debate; personally I think 10 years is reasonable), the article should be at that name. The problem with Triple H and The Undertaker is that these name are trademarked property of World Wrestling Entertainment. If Triple H or The Undertaker were to leave WWE, it would seem strange to have the articles at a name which the subject of the article was precluded by law from using. McPhail 18:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the professional wrestler, not the character(s) portrayed therein. The wrestler is notable

Triple H leaving WWE? That's absurd! Back on topic, we should have some good criteria for whether ring names are preferred. I propose the following, given in order of precedence:

  • If a wrestler wrestles under their real name, then the point is moot. If a wrestler wrestles under a slight variation or contraction of their real name (eg. Batista), then I'm more concerned with people accusing a promotion (or a wrestler) of mispelling the name of one of their own wrestlers if a redirect is used, so the "mispelled" ring name may be preferred. We may have to defer to a ring name if a wrestler has wrestled under their real name but is more notable as a ring name.
  • A wrestler with a longtime gimmick or one gimmick that is notable above all others should have their article at the ring name. However, we have an issue when a wrestler is known under their real name in another field. So we should defer to the field where the wrestler is better known.
  • Otherwise, if they are still in the business (ie. in a major promotion), then use the current ring name. Real names only for retired pro wrestlers or wrestlers on the independent circuit.

So we should have

Either will work for Dave Batista or Gene Snitsky.

Of course, there are still a bunch of outstanding issues (eg. WWE uses ring names in kayfabe works, while it uses real names for non-kayfabe news). I think that in general, we should follow kayfabe like we do in other ventures (titles, storylines) rather than go up against it. kelvSYC 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this, especially since (I have heard that) in a lot of cases, even the wrestlers refer to each other by their ring names (I bet very few people call William Regal "Darren"). It also makes it easier when there's a wrestler whose real name is unknown (e.g., Delirious). --Karl Freske 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Although, now that I think about it a little more, it might be worth making an exception for guys that wrestled under a bunch of names -- for instance, it seems cruel to file Ottman under Shockmaster for the rest of eternity when he was probably better known as Typhoon. Barry Darsow is another example. --Karl Freske 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I utterly diagree with moving any of thise pages to those proposed names.

An example is, for one, Mark Copani moving to Muhammed Hassan. The Hassan character, more than likely, will never be used again. I don't see any of these proposals passing except, maybe, Mark Calaway moving to The Undertaker. The others are fine the way they are named. SWD316 talk to me 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

No they are not, as they are contrary to WP:NC (P), which states that the most commonly used name has precedence. "Triple H" certainly has more use over "Paul Levesque". Even if in his personal life he still refers to himself as Paul, most people know him professionally as Hunter. Likewise, fans know the name Samoa Joe better than his real name, Joe Seanoa, and thus by WP conventions the page should be at Samoa Joe. The flip side is that Mick Foley should stay at Mick Foley, as he is known better "as himself" over any of his characters. The point is that we shouldn't file wrestlers under their real names just because we can - we need to think about what name is most commonly used to refer to the wrestler, and file it under that. kelvSYC 16:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You're making a lot of judgements about the "most commonly used" name of each individual. Mick Foley is undoubtedly better known as Mankind, since WWE television ratings and pay-per-view buyrates were generally higher in 1998-2000 than they are now, and he achieved the bulk of his mainstream success - his appearances on television and his ravioli advertisement - as Mankind. Some of your proposed changes are reasonable, but others require discussion, and possibly a vote. McPhail 19:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Although Foley's claim to fame is arguably as Mankind, he was known later on to be a person who portrayed a character called "Mankind" as well as others, and a bestselling author. As well, Foley has wrestled under his own name, and thus for that it should stay put. This is exactly why I proposed an order of precedence. kelvSYC 02:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrestler entries should primarily be about the performer, not a character or gimmick. That said, if a wrestler draws mainstream attention/credit under a ring name (Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, Roddy Piper, etc.) or becomes a SAG/AFTRA member undert a ring name (i.e. the above-mentioned Dallas Page), then the article should be under that name. Otherwise, a real name should be used for the performer as available. - Chadbryant 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be about the performer, but how is the performer identified? Only smarks and industry insiders would know that Rey Mysterio's first name is Oscar. The casual fan of wrestling will only know him as "Rey". Would the casual fan of wrestling know that the first name of Kip James is "Monty"? Even among those in the wrestling circle, he is still referred to as "Kip" or "Billy", not "Monty". That's the spirit of WP:NC (P). kelvSYC 02:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Pro wrestlers are essentially actors who portray characters (quite often on television), and many of the more notable talents are eligible for AFTRA membership. Sometimes those characters happen to share the same name (or a reasonable approximation) as the performers portraying them - many other times, the character name doesn't even come close to the performer's real name. For the same reason we have John Ritter's bio listed under his name rather than "Jack Tripper" (a character he portrayed on television for a number of years), most pro wrestling performers should be listed under their real names, with suitable redirects provided as needed for the casual fan who may search by ring name (i.e. "The Undertaker" or "Rey Mysterio"). - Chadbryant 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a hard subject to over come but for some people it is better to use real names, while on other occasions it's not. Younger stars who frequently change gimmicks for example are better left with real names, when a stage name is used by more than one person is another.. while if a long time wrestler has stuck to one gimmick and one name then the article name should reflect that. Even then there are gonna be exceptions...
  • Sting (wrestler) seems exceptable rather than his real name
  • Chavo Guerrero, Jr. is fine.. there is no need to put him under Chavo Guerrero just cus they dont use the jr in WWE, plus what would you do about his father (same goes for Mysterio).. while he changed to Kerwin White (which for all we know could have gone on to be a long running successful gimmick) by your guidline we would have had to changed the article name.. and believe me ppl tried.
  • David Bautista is fine just cause WWE doesnt spell his name right now and dont use his first name during ring entrance doesnt mean we should name the article Batista
  • Paul Levesque is better for use than Hunter Hearst Helmsley anyone with the internet (and i take it thats who looks at articles here) knows his name and as seen on WWE.com his real name is used often.

... i could go on and on

This is not something we are gonna be able to sort out for every article right here right now, to find the best solution for each article we are gonna have to look at each article one-by-one --- Paulley 14:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
A lot of the time leaving articles at the real name of the wrestler is an acceptable compromise. Mark Calaway could be at either The Undertaker or Undertaker (wrestler), as WWE has not been consistent in their use of the definite article over the years. Fred Ottman and Monty Sopp both used several names by which they were equally well known. McPhail 17:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fancruft" in wrestler bios

An anonymous user (User:12.73.195.46) made a lot of changes to the Harley Race article, labeling it and most other wrestler bio articles "extensive fancruft" and that an extensive review of wrestler articles should be conducted. His changes consisted of rewording statements like "Harley Race won the NWA Championship" to "Harley Race was scripted to take on the role of NWA champion" and whatnot. I reverted his changes for now, since I believe its previous content is not only better but more consistent with other wrestler articles. I think the issue could be better solved by placing a disclaimer on wrestler bio pages, such as the one already on the Stephanie McMahon-Levesque page, stating that wrestling career events referred to are within kayfabe. However, since the user alleges that all wrestler articles are part of the problem, I felt I should bring it up here. --Chrysaor 04:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That should not be necessary, due to a number of other factors:

  • Not all professional wrestling is scripted. After all, if it wasn't for injury, Batista would still be holding the strap.
  • Kayfabe events are used as a way to demonstrate their impacts on their promotion, as well as detailing their life during the time of the promotion. Without it, we'd have a lot of stubs.
  • Championships in particular are not a specialized role, it is considered an honor to wear a belt, because it means that people put a lot of trust in you (cases like David Arquette aside). After all, the NWA championship at the time was decided by committee.

Obviously, the user does not see that, by detailing the history of kayfabe events, we are implying that some of it is scripted to happen. Furthermore, by making these changes, he introduces factual inaccuracy, which is fair ground for a revert. kelvSYC 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

He's an anonymous vandal. You're giving him way too much credence. However, if you really feel the need to place a disclaimer on the pages, I've made a mockup of a template at Template:Kayfabe disclaimer. I still feel it's unnecessary, though. --HBK|Talk 04:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually think the template is a good idea. Virtually every professional wrestling article tends to blend fact and fiction. McPhail 17:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The template is genius, but would we be dropping it into the talk pages or on top of the main article? Seems like it would get annoying in the latter.
It doesn't seem like he's following the pattern of a vandal. He's got a valid point about how wrestler articles are written, I just took exception to his method of changing it, and then accusing me of narcissism when I defended the old article. As far as the disclaimer template, I think it's a great idea, and I think having it preceed the article content in a highly visible manner is the whole point. --Chrysaor 08:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Verifying" Events (re: Team Britain)

This article has a notice on it which says, "This article contains information that has not been verified and thus might not be reliable. If you are familiar with the subject matter, please check the article for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing sources." Now, I have a tape of that particular show sitting in front of me right this very second, so I can verify this information easily enough. My question is, how does one cite a source like this? I've poked around some other articles and don't see anything that applies. --Karl Freske 13:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

According to MLA rules, you can cite a television program as such: "Name of Episode (if any)." Name of Series. Airing network. Airing station call letters, City. Airdate. --Chrysaor 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
How necessary is this? I'm not seeing such citations for any other events (if you take a look at Kurt Angle's article, for instance, it lists many events that occurred on TV shows, but it doesn't cite each show in the manner suggested above). If I say that it's a TNA show that took place on such-and-such *exact date*, and include a link to a recap on, say, 411 or obsessedwithwrestling, is that sufficient? --Karl Freske 09:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say it is. I was just answering your question. --Chrysaor 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Trinity Bowles

Does anyone know much/anything about Trinity Bowles... in the article she is stated as the person who taught Chris Masters his Masterlock -- Paulley 13:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a vanity article. I'd suggest listing it for deletion. The page was created by User:TrinityBowles.
↪Lakes (Talk) 13:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
ok i will remove the bit on Chris Masters article that was added too --- Paulley
Whoever it has must have been a genius to teach him a freaking Full NelsonBdve 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I request expansion of the Pre 80's articals

The reason is that pre-80's article's are to 80's to the Present bias in that the WWE artical passes over a 20-30 year gap pretty fast. I have almost no pre-1993 wrestling knowledge since that is at what time I became a wrestling fan. Therefore if anyone else can help with the expansion so be it. BionicWilliam 06:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster

I made a huge change to the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster as I grouped up the entire RAW, SmackDown!, etc. brands together rather than scattering it around the entire page in sections. I also divided the inactive list to their respective brands and same with the Stables and Tag Teams. One other big change was the heading at the top of each brand. Rather than Monday Night RAW at the top, now it's RAW brand. I made that change because Monday NIght RAW is the name of the TV show rather than the brand. Can I get an opinion on how it looks?SWD316 talk to me 17:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the new look alot. It's less scattered and easier to find whatever it may be that you're looking for. Good job. tv316 20:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Minor factual inaccuracy: Angle is technically a Raw wrestler who is forced to appear on SD as he is WHC. We may need a separate section on wrestlers and other performers who appear on both shows or appears without regards to brand. Having said that, we have the Women's championship dispute of whether the Women's champion can appear on SD (but chooses to appear only on Raw) or whether the Women's champion is de jure bound to Raw. kelvSYC 21:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll tell you what I told Tv316. I would like for you to read this link. It states that Angle's last match on RAW will be on RAW tonight against Shawn Michaels. I know this is a external, pro wrestling site but it usually posts, about 99% of the time, valid information and I would like for the information about Angle and Daivari to stay until that peice of information above is proven wrong. Besides, tonight on RAW Angle should clear up the situation. I'm almost 100% sure he's going to SmackDown!
The point is moot now, but we still have to follow kayfabe in these matters, so there should have been a period of time when he was "officially" on both brands. kelvSYC 16:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There was no official time when he was on both brands. He won the WHC while bieng a RAW superstar and on last night's edition of RAW he said he's going to SmackDown! The seperate section would have been useless anyways because it would have been deleted by now. The time span in which a superstar is on both brands is very short making it a useless category. SWD316 talk to me 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the Women's Championship going to/appearing on SmackDown!, weather or not Trish appears on SmackDown!, which she hasn't as of yet, is irrelevant because she would only be defending her championship on SmackDown! not actually being a part of the SmackDown! brand. SWD316 talk to me 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Wikicity Part 2

I suggest we the users copy or move all of the Professional Wrestling Articles over to the Wikicity and keep them both updated. I think that is the essence and legacy of the WikiProject Professional wrestling is to attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to professional wrestling on both Wikipedia & Wikicity. Or at least it should be. :) BionicWilliam 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's possibly to much work to copy and paste Every pro wrestling article over to the WikiCity. It would be to hard to update both as it is. BUT.. never fear. I have an idea. LOL, I always have an idea. I guess you'll have to wait an see what it is because I'm still thinking of a perfect solution to the WikiCity problem.

On another note, please everyone, don't copy and paste articles from Wikipedia to the WikiCity. The WikiCity is not going to be an encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia, in a sense, but not like our articles on Wikipedia that lists weekly events and histories of that wrestler. SWD316 talk to me 22:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_6_dd4a.html"