Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 10

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 9 |
Archive 10

Contents

D-X versus Spirit Squad

I would like to know where the info on D-X versus the spirit squad came from on the 2006 vengence page, as well John Cena versus Edge. It may need a citation. Classicrockguy May 27 12:31 EST

The Cena v Edge match has a note underneath it saying the champion is undetermined due to ONS, however the DX v Spirit Squad match shouldn't be there until it is announced on Raw, which still hasn't occurred. I've been removing spoilers day-in day-out for the last week on that article. Normy132 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Request lock on Mysterio article ASAP!!

I'd like to request a lock on the Mysterio article cause of people constantly re-adding a seperate section to his article dealing with his squash match loss to the great Khali in detail and adding speculation he will face Kane next week. Please put up a lock my edits removing this are being reverted every 10 or so minutes! Night Bringer May 13th 19:22 GMT +10

Torrie Wilson Real Name

I was lead to belive the her real name was Victoria Anne Gruner, but there no info on this on any website,The best I found was Torrie Anne Gruner or Torrie Anne Wilson-Gruner. I just want to get a consenus on this from you guys. BionicWilliam 03:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I did an internet search for the name Victoria and one of the short forms is Torrie. I did a seperate search for Torrie, and all the sites said that Torrie is a derivative of Victoria. As for Torrie Wilson herself, I'm not sure, but I think it would be safe to assume that her full first name is Victoria. --JFred 04:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Accordin to the PS2 magazine, it's Torrie Gruner, but I haven't checked anywhere else. Kingfisherswift 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC) JB196 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)In the WWE Unscripted book, it says Torrie Gruner.JB196 01:14, 28 May 2006

in the UK edition of FHM magazine, they stated her name was Victoria Gruner (UTC)

Profile before career?

I think that the profile list in the suggested profile for wrestler articles should go after the career section to highlight the prose. Also, the birthday list item seems redundant since it should be in the lead. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is already right aligned; the prose will be highlighted provided the table of contents is not too long. The date of birth of the wrestler should remain in the infobox but be removed from the lead if having two mentions is undesirable. McPhail 08:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to the suggested format without the infobox on the WikiProject's page, namely:
== Profile ==
*Height: 
*Weight: 
*Birthday:
*Hometown: 
*Trained by: 
*Debut: 
*Previous identities:
*Finishing and signature move(s): 

(If a large number of items is in any of the sections,
place them into a subsection)

== Career ==
Summarize the career of the wrestler, but make sure you leave it to major 
events and key points. Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of 
what that wrestler did on whatever show they're on.

== Championships and accomplishments ==
*1-time [[WWE European Championship|WWE European Champion]]
or, if the title has no article,
*1-time WWE European Champion

--Jtalledo (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. No arguments here, although a steadily declining number of articles use that format. McPhail 15:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're discussing the template, am I the only one who thinks things like "Trivia" and "Personal life" sections look better nearer the top, or at least above any "Championship and accomplishments" sections? Those tend to be large tables, they should go at the bottom. Bdve 06:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Its debatable whether the trivia sections should event exist at all, so definitely no on that one. Personal life ..eh. I think the wrestling career is what these artiles are about, so no it should not be at the top, but I would support moving it above all the large tables. --Naha|(talk) 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia sections can actually be useful for some wrestlers. That said I didn't mean top top, just above the tables. The tables seem (to me) to signify the end of the article and more text under it seems out of place (to me).Bdve 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. --Naha|(talk) 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Trivia should ideally be integrated as prose in the rest of the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's way too many articles on Wikipedia where the "Trivia" section takes up the majority of the article when the facts in it could be or already have been mentioned as prose, or where the information on the the list just isn't useful at all. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

ECW

I'm trying to get Extreme Championship Wrestling moved to ECW. Any help would be appreciated. Kyros 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? ECW stands for Extreme Championship Wrestling, so the page should stay there. Besides, the WWE page is located at World Wrestling Entertainment, its full name, same idea with all other promotions, so I say no to the move. --JFred 01:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep - according to WP:NAME, abbreviations in article titles should be avoided whenever possible. Exceptions such as IBM are rare, but in that case no one uses the full, but people do refer to ECW's full name. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
True. Besides, ECW is a abbreviation page. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
i recently spend two hours correcting liks that went to ECW instead of Extreme Champ..(etc).. if anything we should concentrate on making sure asll the links are rightly placed--- Paulley

WWE alumni page vandalism

I'm tempted to remove the notes section from the WWE alumni page due to constant vandalism. Any thoughts? --JFred 19:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I find them informative, but people are always going to be idiots it seems. Maybe it could be protected? Bdve 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Wrestlers on "move lists"

Alright boys and girls, there's a problem going around. On just about every move list (holds, throws, attacks, aerial, double team) there have been revision and edit wars and small battles about who should be added as "notable users". It's getting a tad out of hand sometimes (Christian and the Frog Splash on the aerial page) and I think we honestly need to come up with some kind of qualifications and a set number of guys who can be listed under generic moves.

My suggestion would be:
  • Innovators of the moves always.
  • People who are notable and use the move as a finishing or signature move, and if there are none, then some notable people who use it as a regular move (like monkey flip, from which Claudio and Massaro should be removed from). Claudio is notable enough to be in Wikipedia and to have is signature moves noted in the move lists, but not notable enough to serve as an example for a somewhat generic move.
  • Really common moves don't need examples at all, like snapmare.
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree there is a problem with this, i infact would rather there be no notable users what so ever... unless thay are mention within the text.
As in they are noted as:
  • being an innovator of the move.
  • popularizing it within English speaking countries.
  • have given a move a name that later would become commonly used in reference with the move (i.e. Triple H's Pedigree)
  • Also if that section of the move list is describing their unique variation of a move
if this can remotely discurages ppl who instantly add the anymove move a WWE superstar/diva did in a match on this weeks RAW/SD to the article then i will be happy.... plus if i have to write "this page is about the moves not the people who use them" many more times im gonna cry ---- Paulley 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is one of the clean up edits i have been performing on the move lists; this was done on the facebuster page i will hopefully get round to the others when i can --- Paulley 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC) i expect lot of bad editsa nd people trying to revert/readd after this --- Paulley 12:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm against this. Personally, I use those pages to get around and read about wrestlers I've never seen/heard of. Not all of the are listed on List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers... I'm for doing what Lakes suggested. 88.155.38.254 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Lakes suggest would remove wrestler you'd never seen/heard of also. --- Paulley 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that. Taking an example from a possible sea of them, the Vertical Suplex Piledriver. A wrestler, a Japanese one I believe (I don't know his name, because, hey, it's not listed anymore) uses it as his finisher, which would fall under People who are notable and use the move as a finishing or signature move. I would never have gotten to his page had it not been for that and several other moves that were listed on the move pages. 88.155.4.94 11:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC) --- Just as a follow up, don't consider that wrestler not notable because I don't know who he is, I don't follow much wrestling outside of the USA. 88.155.4.94 11:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The move pages are not there to help you navigate to wrestler articles... if you want that go to List of professional wrestlers --- Paulley
Even though at times this has been abused I myself enjoy having the notable users listed. It's a very useful guide and can be an introduction into new wrestlers such as Jack Evans. So I think we should maintain the notable users rather than begin a systematic removal of them because even though sometimes people add superflous additions a lot of the time they are not. Lid 15:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Jack Evens often uses slight variations on existing moves so id expect he'd stay on the page as reference to the new/unique variation. also the page is about the moves not the wrestlers who use them so as long as the wrestlers mention something that betters that description or history of the move then it will remain. --- Paulley

Elizabeth Carolan

This woman, better known as Beth Phoenix, has been repeadely vandalized since her debut on the latest Raw. There have been edits which give false info as to her plans in the WWE. Just a heads up. ErikNY 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The War On Week-By-Week Current WWE Events "Editors"

This has of course been brought up before, but I think it's safe to say that virtually every active wrestler on the WWE roster (and many a wrestler from other promotions), has people filling in week-by-week storyline events for them, which have no encyclopedic significance, and even worse, look bad, since more often than not, what any given wrestler has done in the last three months is meticulously detailed to a point far beyond the majority of their careers and lives. It looks unprofessional and disorganized, it leads to articles that are too long, and it's often being done by people who have no command of the English language. . . It may even be safe to say that many of the people doing this have no business editing anything.

In my humble opinion, it should be the #1 priority of all Wrestling Project members to turn back the tide on this, as it's gotten far too ridiculous and is dragging down the quality of all wrestling articles on Wikipedia in general. I've noticed a new warning box at the top of some (but not many) wrestling pages indicating that the page is subject to week-by-week, un-encyclopedic break-downs of events, but I just feel that even with this new advent, it's still ridiculous.

In combination with all the edit wars having to do with naming conventions, listomania, and a seemingly high vandalism rate in comparison to the rest of Wikipedia, it's starting to feel like some sort of drastic action needs to take place. Surely if other major, frequently-visited articles on the site can be maintained by the user base, then we at this Project can band together (perhaps even recruit new members) to do the same.

I realize that there are a few members here that are struggling quite often with these issues and working hard to reverse this sort of crap in articles, but it really feels like it's only a few (I myself will admit to not being the most active wrestling project member in history). I assume most of us frequent certain wrestling message boards. Is it possible to draw help from these kinds of sources?

Just to emphasize, what I really think will help the wrestling section of Wikipedia more than anything else right now is for the dedicated wrestling project members to take a hard line against week-by-week schlock of no significance. The trouble of course is identifying what's significant and what's not, and I'm still thinking about that. --Pathogen 11:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of the many editors who revert so much of these week-by-week edits is that is left people continue to add more and more not even working there new information into the previous edits they just seem to add a new parsagraph per show... one main problem with week-by-week reverting is that at the time we revert something like "Eugene appeared on Matt Striker classroom... etc" it's not notable but then during the next week or so the feud developes then it becomes notable so you go back over the info you reverted to write a valid career section.
One suggestion is to allow them to do this for a current ongoing event then backtracking after the fued or storyline has ended to cleanup (usually you can fit a fued/storyline into one or two paragraphs). However, this leaves very messy edits on pages for at least two or three weeks (if not longer).
I myself work on maintaining many bios, though i work more on midcard wrestlers than main eventers aswell as trimming off most of the unneeded info on WWE divas. However, many times these maintainance edits are reverted, or simply see others re-add week-by-week information --- Paulley 11:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I really wish Wikipedia had a system that was less tolerant of people who have no common sense. . . It seems like it's at best very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to get rid of one bad editor, especially if he is argumentative. . . Let alone lots of them. Generally I feel that infobox I was talking about should go up on at least every WWE wrestler page so people know what the skinny is. People need to understand the rules, not break them and then get corrected over and over again. It would free up a lot of time to actually expand the wrestling section, instead of just making sure it doesn't suck. --Pathogen 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a lot more tolerant on these kind of edits and editors. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is a good school of thought to subscribe to. Remember, most of these editors really are trying to help - they just don't know the right way to do it. We should come up with a convention for articles about wrestlers and wrestling promotions to refer to (I'll help think about it), as well as criteria for inclusion. Better organization and tagging of articles would help in monitoring wrestling articles of interest. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
well i had a go at the Melina Perez page turning it from this assortment of week-by-week MNM appearances to this... and by how much space i managed to saved no wonder it took me a hour or so to change it all--- Paulley 12:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Impeccable H

Impeccable H is (as far as i can tell) a fake OVW/WWE wrestler bio... apparently he was trained by The Undertaker and was a Heart Throp at one point.. needs deletion quickly --- Paulley 11:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for The Giant Khan. --JFred 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


WWE Undisputed Championship-WWE Championship

I request merging the Undisputed Title Page with WWE Championship Page since the WWE Undisputed is just a small part of the WWWF/WWWf/WWE Championship history BionicWilliam 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I would keep it separate. Kyros 05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually was going to consider asking the same thing and I personally wouldn't mind a merge for the same reason above. --Oakster (Talk) 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing A Good Article

I want to rewrite the Sid Vicious section. I went and did an overhaul once and looking at it now, I think an overhaul is needed again. Since Sid jumped from fed to fed in the 90's should I break down his section chronological or cover it in bulk Kyros 04:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

...

What is ...this --Naha|(talk) 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it is from a figure fed? Either way, I think it's quite deletable.--Darren Jowalsen 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IP users adding non-existant wrestlers to lists

A series of IP users - notably 70.248.33.133, 220.255.173.97, 203.124.2.20 but there may be others are adding non-existant wrestlers to movelist pages i.e. Daniel, Shark, Big Dog Chan, Opo, Seth etc. I had to revert a series of edits to the list of hold pages but looking around they're doing this everywhere. I am not sure what is going on but it is quite bizarre considering they seem to be jointly in the bizarreness of the locations of additions and names i.e Backhand Chop. 220.239.56.72 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as I added this 220.255.173.97 went wild on List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers with such additions as: ; Bang To Bangkok: Seth (Repeat Shoulder Thrust), ; RKO : Randy Orton, Flipper "The Radio Rocker" (Jumping 3/4 Facelock Bulldog) ; Sharpshooter : Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Chris Benoit, Shawn Michaels, The Rock, Petey Williams, Lance Storm, Daniel Tan, Flipper "The Radio Rocker"(Leg-Lace Grapevine). I'm starting to think it's possible this is either an asian backyard federation of an asian e-federation. Either way it isn't notable.
Probably that or a bunch of guys just starting out in the business, but I agree. --JFred 20:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well now we at least have a vague idea what's going on: someone added this horribly written page on the recurring character that keeps getting added "Seth" Seth Amaurazan. Considering the claim he paralysed someone this has to be an e-fed, but I can't find any mention of the feds mentioned on the internet anywhere so it could be some horribly indie Asian fed. --- Lid 11:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
And added themselves to list of professional wrestling stables and tag teams, in the wrong location and with messed up formatting --- Lid 11:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

McMahonists

User:McMahonist has created a Category:McMahonists (followers of McMahonism) even going as far as adding himself as being a follower.... we need to nip this in the bud now... along with the whole McMahonism page --- Paulley

Why do you seek to censor and restrict one Wikipedians' freedom-of-religion? McMahonist 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, McMahonism was created for a storyline, so it should be treated as such. There are several storylines that have their own seperate page, and considering how detailed the McMahonism page is, it might be a little too much info to merge into the Vince McMahon page. However, creating the Category for McMahonists is a bit much. --JFred 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
And don't forget, there are also articles dedicated to the Force (Star Wars) and Wayism (Andromeda). --JFred 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WWF vs WWE

Just want to clear this up before I go and re-edit the S.D. Jones page and add a bunch of my stuff that people pulled out, but aren't we supposed to change everything as WWE but mention the changeover? Bdve 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that since the name change, WWE is refering to everything that happened under the WWF name as WWE, so maybe we should do the same. --JFred 02:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem referring to WWE as the WWF in a historical context. It would be like changing all Houston Oilers references in bios about older football players to the Tennnesse Titans. We are under no legal obligation to refrain from using the WWF name.--Darren Jowalsen 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
True, but then again, WWE was legally forced to change their name by the World Wildlife Fund, so there's that too, though the WWE does refer to their full name from before the change, just not the initials. But I also agree that we don't have the same legal obligations that WWE does. --JFred 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should strongly avoid this kind of revisionism. McPhail 18:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Anaconda facebuster

I was looking at the Facebuster list to see if a listing of the Arm triangle facebuster existed, which it didn't so I created it. However I did notice there was a listing for the Anaconda facebuster. I was looking at this and the mechanics of it and taking into account what an Anaconda vice requires to be performed i'm not sure such a move exists. I'm near positive the Anaconda facbuster was created out of confusion of CM Punk's move the Anaconda Vice which despite the name is in fact an arm triangle choke. Punk uses his Anaconda Vice as a facebuster (hence why I created Arm triangle facebuster) but i'm near positive that they are in fact the same move with that the Anaconda Vice has been mislabelled as the move that is used in an Anaconda Facebuster and it is instead CM Punk's 'Anaconda' Facebuster which is as previously mentioned an Arm Triangle Choke Facebuster.

Does the Anaconda vice version actually exist or should the Arm triangle choke facebuster addition be merged with Anaconda facebuster version to state that it is in fact an arm triangle choke facebuster and the name applied to it is rather the name of Punk's choke? Anaconda facebuster is a better name than Arm triangle facebuster.

For reference Anaconda vice - Arm triangle choke - Lid 13:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, i recently had to revert and edit on the hold page as someone had put that Punk was popularizing the Anaconda Vice in the United States when infact he isn't even using the real Anaconda Vice... i think if you keep the ATC facebuster and remove the other one and replace where it says "simillar to" with "also known as" then that should sort it --- Paulley
Should it be noted where the name confusion comes from in the edit i.e. "It is also known as the Anaconda facebuster due to CM Punk, who performs the move, arm triangle choke being referred to as an Anaconda Vice" because I forsee in the future people reverting this due to confusion about CM Punk. --- Lid 14:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that may help prevent any more confusion. you should add that into the section the next chance you get. --- Paulley 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Additional to this but on the CM Punk page i'm unsure whether to list the move as Arm triangle facebuster or Anaconda Facebuster (Arm triangle facebuster) because right now the move has no name but it known unofficially as the Anaconda Facebuster so is it a Tiger Driver situation where even though the move resembles something else its name applies differently? --- Lid 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
i have altered the CM Punk page, in a fashion that should be ok --- Paulley 15:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Punk has used both variations. He originally used the "real" Anaconda Vice, but then switched to the arm triangle side headlock during his feud with Aries who in keyfabe suffered from neck problems during the end of his ROH World title reign. It has been the arm triangle side headlock variation since, dunno why he calls the "new" move by the same name. And no, it's not a choke since he's twisting the opponent's head forward, and not choking them out with his arms.
↪Lakes (Talk) 16:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a choke, at least this video shows it as a choking hold and furthermore James Gibson's Guillotine choke wouldn't fall under the strictest identification as a choke either but it isn't listed as a guillotine headlock and is identifed as a guillotine choke. --- Lid 16:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I guess it's either depending on the time it's used. In ROH he used the arm triangle to force people to tap out, not choke out. I hadn't seen that since I haven't seen any OVW.
↪Lakes (Talk) 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It is still technically a choking move even if they tap out to it, Tazz's Tazzmission is a good example of this. We have one further choice: list it on his page as Arm triangle head lock or arm triangle choke - considering the move he is using now is in fact a choke - or futher complicate it to read: Anaconda Vice (Anaconda vice, or arm triangle side headlock or arm triangle choke sometimes preceeded by an arm triangle facebuster) --- Lid 17:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan's Pastamania info

I've deleted the following info from the Hulk Hogan's Pastamania entry, and for some odd reason, it popped back up again:

Another instance of audacious advertising for the restaurant was the event "Hulk Hogan's Pastamania I," a play on the famous World Wrestling Federation WrestleMania events. However, this one comprised teams of professional wrestlers and world-class chefs in competition with each other, both in the wrestling ring and cooking events. In Hogan's match, he teamed with Mario Batali against Harold "The Crusher" Johnson and Emeril Lagasse. Hogan pinned Johnson while Batali's Gorgonzola cream sauce triumphed over Lagasse's dish.[1]

To me, I think that it's a bunch of hooey. I even posted it on its talk page.

In short, IT'S COMING FROM A BLOG.

I think you should take a look at it and judge for yourself. Duo02 *Shout here!** 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Shane McMahon

According to our article on Shane McMahon, he passed away a couple of months ago, I can find no mention of this anywhere else, can any of you confirm or disconfirm this please. As I'm sure you all can understand it would be very unfortunate to have such a statement if it were incorrect. Thanks. --Eivindt@c 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering he was on RAW tonight... --- Lid 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew there was something fishy about that edit. Again thanks. --Eivindt@c 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

lol if he passed that would be real big news Kyros 04:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

UFC

Just wondering: why was the UFC article placed under the Pro-wrestling project? hateless 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

F-5

Should the F-5 have its own section? It's essentially a fireman's carry into a Complete Shot and wouldn't that make it a subsection of the complete shot? Or do we treat it like the Olympic slam which is a belly to back suplex into a samoan drop and thus because it's a two move string it's considered a different move? --- Lid 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

i wouldnt say the F-5 is a complete shot.. best to keep it seperate... same with Olympic slam not really a somoan drop as the opponent is held in the argintine backbreaker position instead of the firemen's carry position before they are dropped --- Paulley

turn page

I really think the Turn (professional wrestling) page is getting a little out of hand. I say we only keep the first two sections (important turns and disatrous turns) and ditch the rest. --Darren Jowalsen 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Roderick Strong and Jack Evans

Should the double team moves of Roderick Strong and Jack Evans be added to the Professional wrestling double-team maneuvers? I would usually just add them but the sheer number of moves these guys create on the fly is astounding but they do have a few that are trademarks: i.e. the Ode to the Bulldogs (Roderick with an inverted firemans carry on one opponent with a downed one behind him, Jack jumps off the top rope onto the inverted opponents chest in a double foot stomp then procedes to perform an aerial move such as a moonsault off him onto the downed opponent while Strong delivers a backbreaker drop), the suplex-450 (Roderick suplexes Jack, let's go in mid air and Jack performs a 450 onto a downed opponent) and the leg up phoenix splash (Roderick gives Jack a leg up in the middle of the ring in with a downed opponent behind them with Jack facing away, Jack then performs a phoenix splash onto the downed opponent).

most of those are easier described like that than they would be if they were placed in the double team move sections... espeecially as most are a combination of a variaty of moves (esspecially the first one which is 4 moves on two opponents) and its not like we add the aided (leg up) moonsault or pheonix splash in this case... the suplex 450 could be put in though. --- Paulley 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

War on week-by-week

I have personally gone through a few articles and rewritten their career sections completally; to remove week-by-week and make the section into career summaries.. aswell as make general clean up edits (so far i have worked through Kristal Marshall, Melina Perez, Jillian Hall, Rey Mysterio's recent WWE career, and most recently Shelton Benjamin) However, this will never be cured as we can clean up what they have been doing in the past 4 years but as soon as another RAW airs, or a news repot comes out, then the next lot will be added with no regard to anything previouslt written --- Paulley

Probably the easiest thing for us to do is go in once a month to organize them. The week by week editors will not stop their weekly postings, so the best thing to do will be to do a once a month clean up, or when there is a storyline change for that person. Otherwise we're just putting too much stress on ourselves. --JFred 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yea i known... but i still think their are a few article that need to be gone through and re-written, namely Shane McMahon (which i have just done), Edge, Mick Foley, Vince McMahon, Triple H, Kane etc.... hmm i think "few" was the wrong word --- Paulley 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Reid Flair

Reid Flair might be the poorest wrestling bio on Wikipedia I've read to date. I would have said it needed a drastic rewrite, but the more I thought about it the more it occurred to me - is he even notable enough for a page? His amateur career has lacked distinction except for his showboating and he has done nothing at a professional level worth mentioning either. That being said whoever wrote (or altered) the page clearly has a palpable hate for the young boy, whereas I'm indifferent about it - I don't find him noteworthy but I wouldn't write such silly garbage like "all his mates at school hate him but keep silent." What should be done with this junk? BronzeWarrior 08:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say nominate it for deletion. --JFred 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit: whoops they fixed that up --- Lid 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Iron Sheik Page

Instead of concentrating on a real bio or his wrestling accomplishments, the Iron Sheik's page concentrates mainly on what a kook he has become and about how he's on shock radio now and then. Really doesn't do the sheik justice on an encyclopedic level, or probably a respect level, for that matter. --Pathogen 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've seen better, I've seen worse. It does mention his important career accomplishments, and I'd say the section for "what a kook he's become" is about equal in length to that, although they could each probably be twice as long if fully fleshed out - so I'd say one balances the other. Either way it can't be helped that "Iron Sheik Goes Nuts" on YouTube has made him an internet celebrity figure, so it's something serious wrestling fans will just have to live with. BronzeWarrior 07:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

WWE Hardcore Championship

I half-expected the edits to come after this. As far as I know the belt hasn't been reactivated for full time nor has WWE recognised Foley and Edge on their list of champions or title history so far. How shall we deal with this? Removing them off the champion lists (and the Hardcore Title history) with a little note on the championship's article? --Oakster (Talk) 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever happens, Foley was awarded the belt when it was retired. Foley and Edge also had themselves declared joint champions, with no one coming out to officially dispute the claim. If you want to get ridiculously scientific about it, however, they never had the belt officially re-activated, either. It's open to interpretation. I would say leave as is until WWE makes it clear what they are doing with the belt. --Pathogen 07:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Jerry Lawler declared them the current and reigning Hardcore Co-Champions while doing play by play with J.R. - whether that's official or not can still be up to interpretation but it definitely implied the belt was now active. Given Foley actually proposed having a match for it at one point, that seemed to be the icing on the cake. BronzeWarrior 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't Powerbomb Kidman

Somebody more talented then me has to add the info on Billy Kidman's page that it is impossible to powerbomb him. I just don't know how to do in a professional manner. This bit of info is very pertinent to Billy Kidman as it is definitely a key trademark of his. For this user, I have found no real place to add this in. I want somebody to add a trivia section at the very least and add that whenever somebody tried to Powerbomb Kidman, he would turn it into the X-Factor.

You have a point because when Kidman was powerbombed (which may have only been once by Hulk Hogan) it was a moment to be remembered and although it does list the K-Factor as a powerbomb counter it doesn't list just how much of a counter it was. --- Lid 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections

This is really an issue with a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just professional wrestling articles, but I see it on a lot of those articles, particular ones about pay-per-view events. The "trivia" sections pose a variety of problems in articles:

  • They get huge. Wikipedia:Embedded lists says lists make Wikipedia worse, not better and looking at how big some of these lists are it's easy to see why. See the "Facts and Figures" sections in the WrestleMania article. People tend to shy away from adding prose because it's a lot to add sentences that flow and fit in the context of the article, but they have no trouble adding small list entries, contributing to gigantic lists in the process.
  • They contain all kinds of useless information and information that is either already in the main part of the article or can be integrated as prose in the rest of the article. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source for information, any information should be relevant to the rest of the article and as such, written into it. "X wrestler has gone 2-0 at Y pay-per-view event" or other random bits aren't really relevant.

The point is, if you see some trivia sections, particularly on the pay-per-view event articles, please try to integrate the trivia with the rest of the article. And if it has no place in the rest of the article, then it probably should be deleted. I've tried to do this, but these sections just keep coming back. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

I feel we should set up an article improvement drive weekly ala this, on the football wikiproject. It could be anything nominated, wrestlers, shows, PPV's anything. Kingfisherswift 12:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

see also War on week-by-week --- Paulley

the use of Mug Shots in wrestler articles

How do the rest of you feel about the use of a puplic domain image (the mug shot) in wrestlers stat boxes compared to using fair use images... i see some articles change to this and i myself changed Sean O'Haire's article to use his mug shot but it was quickly reverted. --- Paulley

I reverted that because I don't see it as indictative of the wrestlers themselves, and more indicitive of criminals. Using a mugshot as the profile image is a heavy implication that the profile is of a wrestler who is more associated with being a criminal than a wrestler. We don't use the mugshots of other sports people, including OJ Simpson and Mike Tyson, as their profile images. --- Lid 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
lol well i think the reason it was changed it some other articles is due to the fact we should use puplic domain images and do are best not to use fair use images... also another wikipedia informed me that biography style articles should infact only consist of one picture only; which gives a clear image of the subject. --- Paulley... sorry Lid if you took offence i didnt mean it badly i just wanted to know where the project states on the subject.
I took no offence. --- Lid 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite an advocate of public domain pictures and pictures from Commons, but that mugshot looks pretty awful on the article's infobox. --Oakster (Talk) 23:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to go against mug shots since they tend to be poor photographs and the subjects tend to not be represented well. I would only use it if it was all we had.--Darren Jowalsen 03:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
True. Still, I do agree that free images should be used in place of fair use images whenever possible and that the number of fair use images used in articles should be limited to only pictures that are crucial to displaying what is described in text. In other words, we should avoid using too many images and don't use them just because you can and just to make the article look pretty. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The return of ECW

I've just started up the article for ECW's brand new show on the Sci Fi Channel at ECW on Sci Fi. It probably won't be the official name of the show but it's a suitable name for now.

I was just wondering what shall we do concerning the ECW articles, such as Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni. There needs to be a way to differentiate the old promotion and the new WWE brand and I was wondering what your opinion on how you think this should be sorted out. --Oakster (Talk) 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

References to Eddie Guerrero

More and more, articles are starting to refer to him as "the late Eddie Guerrero," which, while technically accurate, seems superfluous. I've seen that at least a dozen times, yet I haven't once seen "the late Curt Hennig," "the late Davey Boy Smith," "the late Ray Traylor," or even "the late Owen Hart." The most glaring example is on WWE European Championship, which uses "the late Eddie Guerrero" but merely "The British Bulldog." I'm hesitant to go on an editing spree because this is technically accurate and will probably just get changed back. What's the best course of action? Tromboneguy0186 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this and it seems wrong to me. I changed a few but stopped when I noticed just how many there were. In my opinion "the late" should be removed from all references to Eddie, especially when it's talking about things he did in his life )the black tiger was the late eddie guerrero) because it makes the tense weird, like he was Black Tiger when he was dead or something.Bdve 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If we can't stop the people from adding "the late" we should settle for the next best thing: stopping people from changing the late Eddie Guerrero to the late great Eddie Guerrero. --- Lid 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Everybody is going to be "late" sooner or later. The fact that Eddie Guerrero is dead does not need to be added to every single article that mentions him.--Darren Jowalsen 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, I'll start editing that out when I see it. I've already changed it on WWE European Championship Tromboneguy0186 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another WWF vs. WWE question

Putting it here so it will be noticed.

Change all mentions of WWE before May 8, 2002 to "WWF" or "the WWF", including championships and pay-per-views.

What then of championships when a wrestler won it both as a "WWF" and "WWE" belt (Kane, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Edge {intercontinental & tag} and Kurt Angle {WWE championship} all come to mind). Just go by the current name? Tromboneguy0186 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tended to go with WWF/E myself. --Oakster (Talk) 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if you are using the newest chapionship layout (below), then you can list each title depending on what it was called at the time they won it.
Defeated The Dudley Boyz on December 14, 2003 in Orlando, Florida, USA
Lost to Booker T & Rob Van Dam on February 16, 2004 in Bakersfield, California, USA
  • World Tag Team Championship (2) - with Ric Flair
Defeated Booker T & Rob Van Dam on March 22, 2004 in Detroit Michigan, USA
Lost to Chris Benoit & Edge on April 19, 2004 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

For example if the above won the first title before the name change you can simply put WWF World Tag... --- Paulley

When is comes to belts, I'd say the safe thing to do is leave them as "WWE" belts since that's the name they exist as today and it prevents confusion by adding continuity. "WWF" should be used when referring to the organization alone, just to hammer down the fact that the event occurred before the name change. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Championship infobox

I've just finished working on an infobox for championship articles at User:Oakster/Belts, I was just wondering what you guys think of it. It includes quite a few examples of particular situations such as defunct belts, tag team belts, etc. --Oakster (Talk) 12:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if such is a good idea, beyond the image/name/established part in the top., mostly because the boxes tend to get too long, and include lots of long sentences which don't wrap well with a thin infobox. So I'd make a much smaller box that only had name, image, established, owning company, and maybe current holder.
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I myself like the idea of using infoboxes for championships. My only complaint is that the "formerly known as" stuff tends to not wrap very well (as Lakes pointed out). I'm not sure I'd suggest removing that portion, but maybe we could find some way to differentiate the various names listed there. Jeff Silvers 17:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ECW Return

Out of sheer curosity .... should a second article be created for the new ECW. This is sheer curosity ... Thanks Kyros 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support this. It's the same convention followed with Deep South Wrestling and Deep South Wrestling, LLC. If the existing article is used to detail the new ECW, then the decade of ECW history will be ignored in favour of long updates regarding the new promotion. McPhail 13:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I support this too, for the same reasons McPhail said.JB196 01:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Add one more vote, wrestling pages tend to be way to heavy on "current" events and leave the past out . I've been disgusted by the WCW information on some current WWE stars pages. We'd need to decide what to name it though. Perhaps WWE presents ECW or Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Something to diferenciate it and mention the WWE involvement in it's return.Bdve 04:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I think a reasonable naming convention would be just to add the years to the end of the article name. We could do something like they did with American Basketball League. We could keep the new ECW at Extreme Championship Wrestling and put the old history in an article that has a name with the years that the first incarnation of the promotion existed. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
If the new incarnation was a seperate company, I'd agree with Jtalledo, but since it is a third brand of WWE, I would prefer we go with something like Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE), or at least something that makes mention of WWE. But I agree we should seperate the two incarnations since they are technically different. --JFred 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
JFred that's what I was thinking. Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE Brand) would be a good name. We could go by The Years as well. We would need to merge ECW on Sci-Fi to this second article Kyros
Actually, just to clarify my last comment, I don't think adding the years would be a good idea since the new ECW is not a stand alone company, so a WWE mention in the name would be best. And yes, the restart of ECW would have to be moved from the original page to the new page. --JFred 06:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Keeping the years is a good idea for the disambiguation page .... I'm going for Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE Brand) Kyros 07:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point, the years could be used for the disambiguous page, but I don't feel the years need to be in the page names (reasoning stated above). I would go with Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE), I would leave out the word brand as the RAW and SmackDown! pages don't use it in their page names. --JFred 07:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah no brand .... I think there should be an ECW: WWE or vice versa that redirects to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). makes it easy to type Kyros 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if new redirects will be needed, I have a feeling most people will still type ECW. --JFred 08:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Other brands are called WWE RAW and WWE SmackDown!. Maybe it should be WWE Extreme Championship Wrestling, and thus WWEECW =).
↪Lakes (Talk) 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I would say no to that since that is not what they are billing it as. Unlike RAW and SD!, ECW is being promoted without the WWE reference. --JFred 20:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I created the page and put the years on the ECW (disambiguation) page ... this is the link Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). If you decided to create a redirect do it to this page. Kyros 19:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ECW on Sci Fi needs to be merged in to the new Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) page. Both pages basically say the same thing. --JFred 20:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So what's going to happen with the Title histories ... a simple notation in the table. Kyros 20:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Since we're merging the two articles, I would suggest just like the RAW and SmackDown! brands, the new ECW article should feature the television infobox rather than the promotion infobox as it's a brand not necessarily a promotion. --Oakster (Talk) 21:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. I've also added the merge template on ECW on Sci Fi. --JFred 21:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Question should Tod Gordon be included as a creator or since Paul Heyman rebranded ECW ... should Gordon not be a creator Kyros
Since the inbox is for ECW as a show (like RAW and SD!), I'd say no. He created the original company, not the new WWE brand. There is a difference, that's why you recommended we create Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). --JFred 22:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
HEY HEY! Don't throw my own stuff back at me lol :-) Kyros 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
lol, sorry :P --JFred 22:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I did an overall cleanup on Content section of [[Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE}]]. Tell me what you think Kyros 09:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NWA-TNA vs TNA

Like the WWF vs WWE issue, I think it's important that someone find the date of the first non NWA branded TNA show because if you watch older shows, they always refer to the promotion as NWA-TNA. I think its important in order to hammer in that TNA either was or wasn't a member of the NWA at certain times throughout history.--Mushemush 18:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The distinction is slightly less important in that the legal name of the company did not change following the withdrawal of TNA from the NWA. McPhail 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. The distinction is already made clear on the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling page and the only change was dropping the "NWA" name and affiliation from the company. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Notability for wrestlers

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Crawford where the majority of participants feel that this wrestler is not notable and that the Victoria Crawford article should therefore be deleted. Your comments would be welcome. TruthbringerToronto 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Related to this is this page I'm nominating for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Amaurazan - It's related to the previous post IP users adding non-existant wrestlers to lists in that it's an article on the wrestlers who are either e-fedders or not notable at all (a double wrist clutch scoop powerslam is physically impossible) --- Lid 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrestler page names

We need a standard. Some wrestler pages are under their real names while others are under their gimmick name. I can understand The Rock, Sting and Triple H being under their gimmick name, but we definately need some rules as to which one to use. --JFred 23:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the archives for discussions on this matter.
↪Lakes (Talk) 08:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Female vs. Women's Division

See here for more.

We should either call it Female and list ALL women under it, regardless of role, or call it Women's Division and list only those women active in the Women's Division. --JFred 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Lashley

in attemps to clean up Lashley's page i have changed to format of his new title reign and the lay out of his "In wrestling" section to remove subsection and provide more more info without succession boxes. However, users seem to be intent to revert this and add a succession box which is really starting to annoy me. --- Paulley 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll keep a look out for that. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_10_66ce.html"