Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 14

Contents

Tag Team

The Tag team page is insane and I think we need to break it into at least three articles. One for tag teams in general (including the history) one for matches and another for all the titles that are on the bottom. I'll move the matches myself, I just want to make sure I'm not stepping on toes with it. - Bdve

Question on notability

Hey, folks. I'm just doing some page patrolling, and came across an article on Sam Hayne that has my notability sense flashing. (Mostly because the author is using that name to edit under, which makes the problem of vanity a major one.) I'm torn on whether to do a deletion process on this article (note that it was originally tagged with a speedy deletion tag, userfied by another person, and then restarted by the subject, who then removed a proposed deletion tag I hit it with), but wanted to look at just what level of notability you folks consider for guys who haven't made the big shows yet. Is this guy of a level where he should be included? If I'm asking the question, as a casual wrestling fan, others will certainly be asking it as well. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if the person isn't with WWE, TNA or a well known other fed: Ring of Honor, Japan, etc. It's hard to determine. As for Sam Hayne, it looks to be vanity for one thing, which shouldn't be allowed, period. There is a NWA Wisconsin page (which Sam Hayne works for, according to the article), but that certainly isn't enough to make him notable in my opinion. NWA W isn't that notable for Wikipedia, but others will disagree with me on that one. I took a look at wrestling promotions: and there is 161 total in that category: Category:Professional_wrestling_promotions. Many promotions don't belong even on Wikipedia, and the category should be cleaned up in my opinion. It seems like any fan of a smaller or lesser promotion just adds their favorite, and it either lasts or finally gets an AFD a while later. There is a wrestling wiki (if I remember right), many of the lesser promotions should be there, and not on this main wiki. Wikipedia = encyclopedia of userful and meaningful content. It shouldn't be cluttered with many lesser promotions that hardly anyone has heard of. RobJ1981 05:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's about what I thought, too. Maybe I'll make a note of cruising through that category at some point soon and see if I can weed it out a bit. Thanks for the second look at the article, too - much appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said for Menace 2 Society (wrestler). James Duggan 05:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I know the real Sam Hayne personally and I highly doubt that he put the article online. While I agree that the article is hardly notable, it's probably my fault. It's been a wanted page since the creation of the All-Star Championship Wrestling article was created. I think when it went up, links were added for every mentioned wrestler to see if they already had pages. I planned on going back and removing the majority of the redlinks, but never got to it. Bret is a multi time champion of many titles and has worked in Japan. He has also had a dark matchor two for WWE under a different gimmick, but I don't know if that makes him notable. If the page goes to WP:AFD, I will remove the redlinks to him. - NickSentowski 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone gets there before me, I'll be taking it to AfD after work, as the PROD tag has been removed again, without comment. As the above comment suggests, if wrestlers haven't broken the "big leagues" as it were, the notability is suspect. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And done. Anyone wants to weigh in, there you go. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put prods on several lesser promotions, and will continue to be against non-notable promotions and wrestlers. People really need to realize Wikipedia can't list every wrestler and promotion ever. Dennis Stamp and many of the diva search contestants are prime examples of non-notable things that don't belong here. RobJ1981 04:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Wrestling Federation (UWF) and Bishop Steele should be deleted as well. They were created by User:Menace 2 Society(wrestler), who also created the Menace 2 Society(wrestler) article I mentioned earlier. James Duggan 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I've reached a snag in marking things. I put prods on several things, and an adminstrator removed them due to them being "verifible". I think it's just wrong: Wikipedia shouldn't just list things because they are real and are known. It should be if they are popular and well known: not just because they exist and aren't something made up. RobJ1981 10:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If a proposed deletion tag is removed and you feel the reason given is incorrect, go ahead and run it through AfD. It takes a bit longer and is a bit annoying, but if you can show that its notability is not strong enough to be encyclopedic (like lacking in Google hits, etc.), then it's probably for the best. Even if it's kept, what will result is usually a stronger article with good sources and better writing. (One note for you: I looked at your contributions to see which articles were de-prodded, and noted you don't use edit summaries all that often; if you're prodding something, it might be best to put a short comment in to indicate reasoning. It's also good to use edit summaries whenever possible, just 'cause.) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Rob i know your all for removing articles for wrestlers you feel have low notability... so why have you not but your article for Trent Acid in this line up... Not only does this article, which like your Timothy Well article, are in serious need of clean up but it concerns an independant wrestler that has appeared in promotions that either have no television deal or has one in the United Kingdom... maybe you should concentrate on making these articles good quality before deleting other ppls work.. --- sorry but i just think notabillity is a point of view and that we should concentrate on making articles better rather than deleting them.... yet i can understand that not every promotion and wrestler needs an article and when we can we should avoid making each individual an article Paulley 15:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, ROH? Trent's wrestled there. That's a pretty notable promotion. I'm not very familiar with the US indy scene as I am from Canada, but even I've heard of Trent Acid. And if he's notable enough to be listed by Gerweck.net, then he's notable enough for here (Steve Gerweck only lists the top indy talent. Heck, we have a lot more wrestlers on here). James Duggan 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Wikipedia wasn't about point of view, it was about things being notable and known. Improving articles is fine and well, BUT it doesn't make a huge difference if only a few people have heard of that wrestler. Wikipedia isn't your personal website for all your favorites (that for the most part, people have never heard of). RobJ1981 18:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem with notability, is that not everyone that would believe somthing to be notable is on WikiPedia. Notability is a point-of-view and is relative. My stupid AFD on Lawn dart is an extreme example. I didn't find lawn darts notable because the article I nominated was written poorly, but apparently they were a huge fad when I was about 3 years old... How was I supposed to know this? The same goes for any other article, including but not limited to Indy Wrestling. I think it'd be best if we'd make some concrete law for the Pro-Wrestling project that determine notability, such as promotions that trained employees in the big three(er... WWE etc.) and the champions of those promotions are automaticly notable. What's the worst that can happen, the servers have to store an extra 150 words of listcruf? I don't really think that WP:NN is as big of an issue as people make it out to be, that's just my 2cents. - NickSentowski 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure Trent Acid is more notable than many other wrestlers listed here. Anyway, that aside, I propose that we try and establish a set of rules that would deem a wrestler notable enough for Wikipedia. That way we can save this type of frustration. James Duggan 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Like i said notabillity is a point of view.. i have heard of Trent Acid and as far as i know the UK and Canada is the only place ROH has television deals... but the likes of Bubblegum have appeared in Frontier Wrestling Alliance, and 1 Pro Wrestling, very notable promotions in the United Kingdom... so how can you say that one is more notable than the other. As for Gerweck.net, it doesnt really cover much outside the United States. --- Paulley
ROH is not shown in Canada to the best of my knowledge. I thought it was only shown in the States. James Duggan 22:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The article states its on the fight network of Canada and TWC in England.... its only showing in America is through DVD releases and live shows --- Paulley

Grand Slam Champion

I hate to bring this up again so soon, but no one seemed to notice. I'm just asking for a consensus from WP:PW, and if I'm wrong, fine. Tromboneguy0186 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to go back to the February archives to see what you were talking about, but I'm still not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking specifically about what qualifies someone as a Grand Slam Champion? If that's the case, I think a debate is pointless as it's anyone WWE would consider a Grand Slam Champion. Regardless, I think the non-existence now of a Euro title might be moot, since I seem to remember then using the term before that belt came into existence, so I'd assume that one could also qualify as such now that the belts no longer in existence. And not to seem like we're going crazy with AfDs, but I have to wonder if this article should even exist on Wikipedia...the dinstinction itself now seems abritrary and like something that might be appropriate for a wrestling-specific Wiki, but maybe not a general Wiki? Idunno. Deputy Marshall 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, somehow missed the thread above. I still think, though, that the whole debate might be somewhat moot. Deputy Marshall 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the edit histories and the talk page were self-explanatory. Me and the anon were in an edit war over whether JBL counted based on his comments on "a recent episode of Smackdown" (which whether it's good enough for inclusion or not is an absolute BS citation). I contended that that wasn't good enough to include him, the anon kept putting him back in. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but in the past when other belts were used as subs for the Grand Slam they were accompanied by citations from WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the AFD, I think Triple Crown Champion is a much better candidate for it. Rife with OR, and it was never specifically defined by anyone anyway. This is apparent by reading the article - A world title, a second-tier title, and a tag team title? Some sources please! WWE, on the other hand, have referred to their Grand Slam champions both on the web and in shows many times. Tromboneguy0186 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Lex Luger

You may want to consider semi-protection for this article. The anon WrestleCrappers has struck again! They are also targeting the Dennis Stamp article as well. I've already tagged them with the 3RR Warning. Duo02 *Shout here!** 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I made some incorrect reverts to this article, trying to maintain the stats at what they have been for a long time. I didn't notice the name change.(Halbared 17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

User SamGibbs

User:Samgibbs, and his other IP have been causing me alot of hasstle lately due to me stopping him using wikipedia as a secondary homepage for his local wrestling promotion, RQW. I have been changing his edits on the page to fit with formatting and the look of a wrestling article and well as the tense as his version read like news post (which they are; see this change)... This has been goin on for almost six months with him gettin more and more angry.. yet i have tried to show him how to edit correctly and given pointers he seem now intent on leaving personal attacks on my user page which he useds as a talk page (because he doesnt seem to get that they are different things... you understand what im up against here) --- any help or advice would be appriciated --- Paulley

I guess you could start a request for comment about the user. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Lol, he just left a very apologetic note on my talk page (yes he actually used my talk page) asking for my help as a few of his sub-par articles have been put up for deletion --- Paulley 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Stamp article

You may want to keep watch on the Dennis Stamp article. Several anon. editors may keep readding the "The Dennis Stamp Film Collection" section again. This is obviously Fancruft work. Thanks. Duo02 *Shout here!** 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I performed some minor clean-up on the article; it's on my Watchlist so I can keep an eye out. Personally, part of me wonders if we should nominate the article for deletion. His scenes stood out as they were some of the stranger (and subsequently more amusing) aspects of the film, but I don't know if that alone should warrant an entire entry. And not to completely discount him, as I'm sure there are some people out there remember him from when he was active, but as far as I know he really didn't accomplish anything in his career that would warrant the existence of a Wikipedia entry (as harsh as that sounds). Thoughts? Deputy Marshall 10:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done it 4 times today alone, I quit. - Bdve 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys should call for a temporary lock against the anon contribs. for this article. Duo02 *Shout here!** 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've actually gone a step further and nominated the page for deletion. This isn't a "quick fix" to the edit war at all; rather, it's due to my personal view that regardless of the Fancruft aspect, I really don't think he's notable enough to justify an entry to begin with. Deputy Marshall 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
NOTE - Sorry for the brainfart. Deletion Discussion Page here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Stamp Deputy Marshall 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if he qualifies as an article under the internet meme guidelines, but didn't he have somewhat of a mid-card career in the florida territories in the 70s? But I did give a weak delete vote. Renosecond 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That's what I grappled with right before I nominated it. What I ultimately decided is that while he wasn't a guy who was just around for a few months and retired, his work was not that notable in that he never seemed to achieve even upper-midcard status. In other words, the conclusion I've reached in all I've read about him is that to say he "never made it to the main event" would be putting it very lightly. If he wasn't even all that notable on a regional level, he certainly isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Deputy Marshall 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

ECW on SciFi Match Archives

Is there a precedent for this that I need to know that keeps this article alive before I afd it as listcruft? --- Lid 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say no. Thanks for catching it. :) -Umdunno 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed it for deletion for now unless some other editor removes it. --Oakster (Talk) 20:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
It's listcruft. I wonder if any other show archives exist? I wouldn't be surprised at all, if others do exist. RobJ1981 22:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
There are results pages for TNA iMPACT!. Type in "TNA Results" in the search bar and you will see there is one for EVERY MONTH. A seperate article for March 2006, April 2006, etc. TJ Spyke 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a ton of unnecessary results articles. I mean, RAW Bowl? - Bdve
I think all the articles mentioned in this thread thus far might qualify for a speedy delete. Deputy Marshall 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the Impact results when I just visited the TNA iMPACT! page. All these results are listcruft/fancruft and don't need to be here, period. TNA Xplosion used to have a ton of results but I cleaned it. It's TNA's secondary show, but I don't think many of the matches are that notable. Then there is Professional wrestling tours of Australia. I don't know if this page should even exist. If it does remain, it needs cleaning as well. There is no point to list results for every show in Australia, when many of them aren't that notable in the first place. --RobJ1981 05:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one The 51 Worst Offenders In WWE History --- Lid 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've had to put that for AFD due to the removal of the prod tag. I've just added the prod tag to Raw Roulette and WWE Fight Night, with the latter pretty much a hoax which I don't believe I can list for speedy deletion. --Oakster (Talk) 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Phil Blitz and Ultimate Wrestling Federation (UWF)

  • I did a google search on both, and didn't come up with much decent information. An editor of Phil Blitz improved the article, but that certainly doesn't make the wrestler more notable. We really need to go through wrestlers and promotions more and AFD the non-notable ones more. RobJ1981 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I commented on both. In the case of Blitz, I support a delete with the note that he hasn't attained enough notoriety yet to warrant an article...though he could sometime in the future, but that's not the case right now. In the case of the UWF, I remember hearing and reading an awful lot about them when I was a kid in the mid to late nineties. Maybe we could put out an open call for expansion of the article before deleting? Deputy Marshall 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling shows needs a bit of cleaning

  • As I was looking through new pages, I noticed yet another ECW show was created. I went to the category: and many shows are listed. Many don't seem that notable. Is there any ECW experts here? From the looks of it, the same user is creating any ECW show that had a special name to it. A special name for a show doesn't mean it's notable. Some examples of just some of the shows that appear to be non-notable: ECW Natural Born Killaz, ECW Enter The Sandman and ECW Ultra Clash. I've put prods on several, feel free to AFD if you want. RobJ1981 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Also take a look at List of ECW pay-per-view events, the same user has been listing every ECW show with a special name as a non-PPV supercard. I think that's just wrong. Just because a show has a special name doesn't always mean it's considered a "supercard". While I'm no ECW expert, I think a bit of fancruft is going on here. RobJ1981 04:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I put PROD tags on some(and someone else put it on others), hopefully they won't remove the tags. If they do then just nominate them for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I checked them: all prods (from the looks of it) seem to be gone, all thanks to some user that isn't registered. If there is a way to do a mass AFD, that would be helpful here. RobJ1981 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little busy at the moment, but this page explains how to nominate multiple articles: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion. TJ Spyke 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Here's another: Warriors of Wrestling. It's an episode guide of every AWF television show from 95-96. Fancruft/listcruft yet again. I will look at that page, but I don't have alot of free time either right now. RobJ1981 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh man, that needs to be deleted just so we can all forget about it. - Bdve
Could someone do the mass AFD for me? I don't have alot of free time, and the sooner they go up, the sooner they are gone. RobJ1981 18:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I restored the tags for the articles in question, as they were removed for no reason whatsoever. Renosecond 03:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't have done that, Wikipedia's rules state that PROD tags should not be put back if they are removed(for any reason). The thing to do now is to nominate the articles for deletion. Since I am about to go to sleep, maybe someone else can do it. These seem to be the articles that need to be deleted:

ECW Born To Be Wired, ECW Double Tables, ECW Beer, Blood, Babes, and Barbed Wire, ECW When Worlds Collide, ECW The Night The Line Was Crossed, ECW Ultra Clash, ECW Enter The Sandman TJ Spyke 09:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I absoultely should have done that, as the tags were removed without a reason given, pretty much, if you give a reason that is valid in an edit summary or the talk page, then it can be removed, not just without specifing something, so I did nothing wrong. Renosecond 15:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia's policy: *Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. TJ Spyke 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's just it, "any reason", there was no reason given to why the tags were removed, so they were not removed properly. They did not put anything in an edit summary, they did not put anything on a talk page, or here, I was right. Renosecond 23:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability guidlines

As a result of a discussion on notability above, I propose we, as a WikiProject, set some guidelines as to what makes a wrestler or promotion notable enough to be included here on Wikipedia. --James Duggan 22:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Obviously most (not all) people from WWF/E, TNA, WCW, ECW and AWA should be included. I said most, because jobbers that appeared for a few matches (and didn't do anything else in their career) aren't notable. RobJ1981 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this too. I think the criteria for notability should be objective, if possible, to avoid the "lawn dart" situation. For promotions, there should be some sort of criterion for automatic notability, perhaps a television deal, or the ability to draw crowds of 5,000 people. (note: this doesn't mean smaller promotions would automatically be not notable). This would help us determine notability for promotions in places other than the USA, whose notability it might be hard for us to judge subjectively. Another criterion could be any promotion that contests an "authentic" World Championship (Singles or Tag). Then, for wrestlers, we could grant automatic notability to any wrestler (or other personality) that was a regular member of a notable promotion's roster. Another criterion, suggested above, would be any wrestler that has possessed an "authentic" World Championship. That way, even if I've never heard of Manami Toyota or Mil Mascaras, I would consider them notable, and not commit a "lawn dart" faux pas.Geoffg 05:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
However, this is the English Wikipedia... note the first suggested criteria concerns pro wrestling in America.... and as the likes of Shirley "Big Daddy" Crabtree never wrestled for those promotions does that mean he should be deleted... in the England, Ireland and other English language contries that simply would not apply. --- Paulley 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ooh while were here i was just thinking if we find promotions that dont need to be deleted but are in bad shape (you know the whole list of roster, list of shows, list of titles.. etc) do you think we could get them rewritten to the standard of Irish Whip Wrestling, a previously deleted article due to its list fathion which i was allowed by admistrators to readd in its rewritten state.. also do we need individual wrestler articles for tag teams.. The Highlanders (professional wrestling) for example; do we really need Rory and Robbie articles which repeat the same information. --- Paulley
I've noticed that too about certain tag teams, especially the Shane Twins. James Duggan 19:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I never once said only American wrestlers should be on the site, so don't assume. I was just stating one guideline. Another guideline I think needs to be put in place: lists of television show results = listcruft and not needed. Wikipedia isn't the place for listing each and every television result of TNA, WWE, WCW, indy, etc. RobJ1981 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I completally agree with the removing of list cruft stuff note the promotions idea... yea the Shane Twins is one example... i wouldnt think of making individual articles for Bulk and Big Dave (UK Pitbulls) cus it seem pointless... i think i might put a merge tag on the Todd and Mike, and on Rory and Robbie --- Paulley
I have merged Mike and Todd into Shane Twins... it was mainly a repeat of the same information just copied and pasted into three articles so i dont think there can be much objection.. what do you guys think --- Paulley
Good call. Seeing as how they've been a tag team, are currently a tag team, and to the best of my knowledge (and any times I've seen them at least) always been a tag team. No reason for them to have single entries. And ditto for Rory and Robbie. It's one thing to make seperate entries for tag teams that broke up and split into their own singles careers, but that hasn't happened and if it does most likely won't result in either being notable enough on their own to warrant it. Deputy Marshall 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

IP address 24.154.232.76

It looks like I'm gonna have problems with this user on the TNA roster page. He wants to delete all nicknames from that page and threatens to keep deleting when we revert back. I left him a message, but I just want to warn everyone. --James Duggan 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

He might just be trying to make it like the WWE Roster Page BionicWilliam 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but if he is he's going about it the wrong way. Besides, the WWE page includes certain nicknames too, and the TNA page doesn't include all nicknames, just ones that are part of the ring name. --James Duggan 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think nicknames should only be included on certain wrestlers, like "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan. I don't think A.J. Styles should be listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles, for example. TJ Spyke 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But his bio on TNA's website has him listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles. When he's announced by the ring announcer, he's billed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles. I'd say, in those types of cases, the nickname stays, since it is obviously an integral part of the ring name. James Duggan 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A little article help on Johnny Lee Clary

Quick summary: This article is up for Afd, in part because there are multiple articles about this individual including one about his wrestling career as Johnny Angel (wrestler). I just attempted to merge the wrestling article into the real name article per a growing consensus in the Afd (he's also a former member of the KKK and has, to me, a rather interesting bio.) In the course of doing this merge I found myself confused because I don't know a thing about pro wrestling. Mostly I'm having trouble distinguishing exactly what "belt" he holds and what wrestling organization awarded it. The orginal article is a bit hard to follow for a novice like myself. I'd love it if someone would give the original article a read, then check my section on Johnny Lee Clary to see if I transferred the info correctly. Thanks! Dina 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for contacting us! Secondly, I re-wrote some of the section and included a link at the bottom of the entry for his profile on ObsessedWithWrestling.com. Hope that helps! Deputy Marshall 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I love your rewrite. Thanks so much for the help! Dina 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

User Cuke monster

I think he may be a sockpuppter, he may not be, but from some recent edits a few random IP's have been making I think it's possible. He is an admitted vandal (talk page) and used to liken himself to will on wheels. Here is one poss sockpuppet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89 (Halbared 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Championship wins

A user (also a member of this project) keeps replacing the detailed information of the championship wins with just the amount of times each title was won on Triple H. --Aaru Bui 22:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Detailed information on fictional title wins is not encyclopedic, and in the case of a prolific wrestler like Triple H, only succeeds in bloating the article. If a reader wants that kind of information, they can either visit a site like obsessedwithwrestling.com, or start their own wrestling wiki. - Chadbryant 23:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Chadbryant, and I like the way that the Triple H page looks now, and it should be kept simple like this, there are other places to get the info. Renosecond 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
personally i prefer it the other way... there was some talk in making the other info avaliable in (show) boxes... i think its the tag titles that cause most problems with the simple list... as Trips is only had one tag partner per tag title it come out ok but if you are talking a wrestler thats had a different partner for ever title run then the simple list looks silly... plus the information was added to stop users from placing succession boxes with articles... anyway i think it should be voted on --- Paulley 13:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
There are also several other avantages with the format, it allows to place belts in chronological order, differenchiate between titles that have changed name (WWF to WWE), and like i have already noted then we wouldnt have succession boxes --- Paulley
I think it's too confusing with so many lines. Well I'm glad this was brought up. --Aaru Bui 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
If the person hasn't won too many titles, then it's OK to list them when and where they won and lost the titles and who they won/lost them from. If they have won too many though(like Jerry Lawler and his 26 USWA Titles) then just listing how many times they won should be sufficient. TJ Spyke 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would rather see the detailed information hidden, or put on another page, like Ric Flair's championships, than removed from WP. I would say that if someone has won a ton of championships, they might be more deserving of having their details listed than someone who has not won very much.Geoffg 04:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How about Chadbryant's idea of it being not encyclopedic? --Aaru Bui 07:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would rather see the information hidden rather than removed completally... cus it was removed you wouldnt be saving any space as not before long someone will re-add championship sucession boxes and we fought long and hard to remove those --- Paulley
The only way I know to hide stuff is using Template:Hidden or Template:Hidden begin with Template:Hidden end. --Aaru Bui 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So are we going to throw this to a vote and try to compromise on it or something? It actually seems to be coming up more often recently. I like the idea of listing, but hiding, them but personally never saw the point of putting details like place. There's gotta be a happy medium. - Bdve 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to address something, it's not exactly the purpose of this particular discussion, but it does involve it to some degree. It involves listing the WWE Undisputed Championship and it's listing as a seperate title from the WWE Championship. If it's the WWE's position that the Undisputed Championship is part of the WWE Championship's 43 year lineage, then doesn't that mean that's how it should be in the articles? Wouldn't doing otherwise be putting in personal opinion instead of WWE canon? Since it's a championship that's the literal property of the WWE, doesn't the WWE sort of get the last word about it and it's lineage? Odin's Beard 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting input on a fairly substantial WP:RM

See Talk:ROH World Heavyweight Championship Tromboneguy0186 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick question - I've seen it said before that the title's official designation is "ROH World Heavyweight Title," so I was going to oppose. However, I do not see the promotion refer to it as anything except the "ROH World Title," particularly on its website (ROHwrestling.com). Could someone please cite? Deputy Marshall 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
ROHwrestling.com's title history page says "world heavyweight title." And I would be of the opinion that this is the correct name for the belt. As I said in the RM, I wouldn't support this move but I think the decision needs to be made conclusively, even if the result is one of "just leave it where it is" rather than explicitly favoring "ROH World Heavyweight Championship" Tromboneguy0186 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Don't know how I didn't see that or find it. Deputy Marshall 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, check again! The website has revamped. The new title history page DOES NOT use the word "heavyweight." Tromboneguy0186 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vic Grimes

What is going on with this article?(Halbared 21:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC))

User:JB196 (aka Jonathan Barber) wants his name added to the article because he wrote it on wiki... he doesnt understand that you contribute to wiki freely and that we dont credit arselfs within the article text and that are edits are just traked with the pages edit history... and for that reason he want to revert the page back to its stub state prior to his edits. --- Paulley 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC) --- so you guys wannna start tagging the 1000s upon 1000s of contributions we write a month!!!!!!
That's messed, considering JB most likely got that info from somewhere else, meaning those sources should be given credit, not him. --James Duggan 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Same goes for Texas Wrestling Academy which a few weeks back lead to this amusing confrontation:
  • "Below is a full list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy, compiled by Jonathan Barber:" - original text by JB186
  • "Below is an incomplete list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy:" - new text after I added other graduates and was told by an ex-student it was missing a class of students. I used the edit summary "this isn't complete, a quick googling shows it lacking wrestlers and an ex-student has informed me it's missing an entire class"
  • "Below is an incomplete list of the graduates of the Texas Wrestling Academy, compiled by Jonathan Barber:" - JB186 changed it to this with the edit summary "Nobody said it was a list of all the graduates. Hello??? Of course its incomplete."
Apparently "full" doesn't mean "all" and i'm an idiot. Yeah that makes sense. --- Lid 01:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I need some help with him right now. He's still active in the Vic Grimes article. He claims he will not stop reverting unless he is credited in the article as "The Author". We need an admin here now. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Give him wanrings, if he doesn't stop then get an admin. Tell him to read what it says when you edit a page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Especially since he probably just lifted thast info from somewhere else and didn't write it himself. TJ Spyke 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I brought it up at the admin noticeboard [1]. --- Lid 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Been there, Done that.... ain't working. -- bulletproof 3:16
The user needs a block if he keeps it up. The constant reverting is vandalism and simply not needed at all. RobJ1981 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The user believes that it is just me that opposes his vandalism. He fails to realize that this issue concerns him and all of Wikipedia. See below. I will personally give 1 million dollars to whomever can get through to him. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
i have been trying since he edited on wikipedia and i cant get it through to him i hope you have better luck --- Paulley 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a new one, JB has spammed [citation needed] tags through Vic Grimes, even the information he posted. This goes hand in hand with his previous effort of spamming templates on articles he wants deleted. –– Lid(Talk) 06:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
To expand here's my post on admin notices:

JB has changed his modus operandi and is now spamming [citation needed] tags through articles he himself has written. Examples can be found at [2] [3] (both articles done by JB in which he provided most of the material). JB tends to add numerous templates to articles when he doesn't get what he wants (see: 411mania, Extreme Warfare and Wrestling Spirit). Can an admin please intervene? This stuff has gone on for too long and he has shown no signs of stopping. –– Lid(Talk) 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

He is using a new user account also User:Jonathan Burgess. --- Paulley
I'm actually not sure if that's the same user as the MO seems different and my discussions with him at Talk:Chris Hero were quite straight forward. –– Lid(Talk) 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
True i saw that and his edits on CZW tag teams and wrestlers have been, for the most part, good efforts, and are JB hasnt been too much into the work of CZW... maybe its just me, i think everytime i see the initials JB i get worried... lol! actually i just checked are JB's second name is Barber false alarm... sorry new JB didnt mean to offend you -- Paulley
I have no connection to this Jonathan Burgess dude. Please WP:AGF assume good faith in the future. I have never nor will I ever need to use a sockpuppet to get something done.JB196 15:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I already established that... anyway if you remeber i tried assuming good faith with you but then you resulted in your recent edits and subsequent blocking -Paulley

IMPORTANT JB196 has been indefblocked for violating WP:POINT, edit warring, trolling and insulting admins [4]. –– Lid(Talk) 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, Nah, Nah-Nah, Nah, Nah, Nah-Nah, Hey-ey-ey goodbye! ---- (sorry i couldnt resist) Paulley 08:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Not just yet, guess who has started using AOL sock puppets? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Indef blocked user JB196 using AOL sock puppets –– Lid(Talk) 02:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added this entire saga to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Miscellaneous lameness because this has to have been the most ridiculous escalation I have seen in my entire life. If I've left anything out feel free to edit it. –– Lid(Talk) 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

3bulletproof16's failure to Assume Good Faith, Vic Grimes, etc.

Here is a copy of the conversation on the Vic Grimes talk page between myself and bullet:

Trying to work this out

Bullet, what is your position, exactly? Please link to specific Wikipedia policies. My position is that I am "self-reverting" (allowed under WP:3RR) and that by reverting my self-edit, a case can be made that you are vandalizing this article. I also take great offense to your negative comments about my intent in editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:ASG for more info on the "Assume good faith" policy which you are clearly in violation of.JB196 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FROM OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICIES: WP:VANDALISM AND WP:OWN
Please DO NOT deliberately attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.
You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:
:If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]
If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.
Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sir, its your word against mine. You have no more right to "Revert" than I do. The WP:3RR policy cleary backs up my self-revert contention, while you must prove why exactly I am "deliberately attempting to violate the integrity of Wikipedia," which in and of itself is violating Wikipedia policy because that is far from true. I am going to bring this issue to the Arbitration Committee because you have not shown any willingness to work out this issue beyond quoting a vague page and continually violating the WP:3RR rule.JB196 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you agree to a mediation hearing, bullet?JB196 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not know what you intend to prove with this since users form the WP:PW including myself have pointed you towards the policies time and time again your numerous violations here on wikipedia. I suggest that you take this issue with the WP:PW talk page and discuss your actions with them. Hopefully then you will see that this is NOT my word against yours here, this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
My edit is protected under WP:3RR. Your revert is not protected, and as such you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether you are an admin, a novice, or somewhere in between here on Wikipedia, you are violating Wikipedia policy as outlined under WP:AGF. My edits do not fall under WP:3RR because the FACT is (and you cannot deny this) is that I have not more than three times in a day reverted this article to a version that has already existed. Please STOP violating Wikipedia's guidelines and accept the version of the article that has been UNIVERSALLY accepted. Nobody had contested Paulley's 13:40 5/9/06 version until I changed it (And I didn't contest it, I just added to it). You are violating both popular opinion on this article and you are violating Wikipedia policy. As such, you are the one vandalizing the article, sir. I don't care about my past edits. My past edits on Wikipedia (which have all been in good faith whether you want to believe that or not) have no role in this discussion...actually, I take that back...their role here is that they back up the fact that your accusation that I am intentionally disrupting the integrity of Wikipedia is proposterous and in violation of WP:AGF. It is not my responsibility to bring it to the WP:Pro Wrestling audience; it is your's. And furthermore, I feel that the Mediation Committee would be better off discussing this matter.

"this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced" - This is also my contention, so it IS my word against yours.

Again, for the umpteenth time, my edit is protected under WP:3RR and you have not offered any response otherwise.JB196 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss this with other more experienced editors here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. I apparently can't get through to you. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It would not be a violation of WP:AGF to say that - with all due respect, you are like talking to a brick wall. You echo back everything someone else says without any substantiation. That's not the way Wikipedia works. At the very least, you are in violation of WP:3RR and WP:AGF. At the worst, you are intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia with the intent of ruining its integrity.JB196 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion has been brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion on one page. Discuss on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JB, why do you want to take credit for your edits? If anyone deserves credit, it's the sources that you got the info from. Read the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN. You contribute to Wikipedia, you're basically releasing your work to public domain. I have created and expanded several articles myself, yet I know it's pointless to take credit for it as anyone could have found that info elsewhere. James Duggan 03:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to obtain credit. That's beyond the issue now...we're past that man. bullet has gone ona campaign (literally) to try to ruin my reputation here on Wikipedia and that's something that I will not let happen.JB196 04:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
All I can see is that the bullet version is way more complete and better than your version. Can you give a good reason why your version of Vic Grimes is better than bullet's? If not, drop it. Fram 09:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

We just can't get through to user JB196. He continues to revert the article, reducing its quality claiming that he is not credited as "The Author" in the article itself. The issue is being brought up here [5] help would be greatly appreciated. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact JB your not reverting away your own work on the article your reverting away my edits and everyone else who contributed after you wrote the biography... infact i went through and rewrote most parts of your bio (see edit history) meaning if i was selfish and didnt uderstand wiki i could consider it my work and tell you, you have no right to remove it... do you not uderstand that after something is contributed on wiki it can no longer be claimed as a users work... the biography section stay and if you dont like it dont edit again --- Paulley

Neighborhoodie

User:Weatherman5000 started this article, but all he did was copy and paste the Shad Gaspard article there. TJ Spyke 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the info and redirected it to JTG, which is still a red link. --James Duggan 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Somebody should create the article, all I know about him is that he wrestled in OVW. TJ Spyke 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Started, though it needs a major expanding (I don't even have info for a profile). I've asked for help from the OVW community on LiveJournal. --James Duggan 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Layla El

I'm having issues on the Layla El. I can not believe I have to bring this up anywhere but the talk page. TripleH1976 and I disagree on whether or not her SmackDown!debut should be added to the page. We argued (and reverted) to the point that we both got hit with 3RR warnings. I don't think it's worth dragging a Wiki Admin into it, but a few folk from here can weigh in on the talk page. - Bdve

Up for deletion: Warriors of Wrestling

Warriors of Wrestling was the AWF tv show that was in 95+96. The page here at Wikipedia is just a list of results: which is simply listcruft. I had a prod on it, but it was deleted by an editor because it's a TV show. But to put it simply...Wikipedia isn't a place to list wrestling results. Also results at the bottom of TNA Impact, should get a mass AFD. There is several pages of results for certain months for Impact. RobJ1981 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

7 ECW events up for deletion

Located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECW Born To Be Wired. I voted to keep them all, I think all ECW events are notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So long as the articles are fleshed out enough to be encyclopedic. Reference the WWE and WCW pay-per-view articles to get a feel for the level of detail needed in a single-event article. Perhaps they should be pared down to the ones with significant events (Shane Douglas throwing down the NWA World Heavyweight Title, Raven's crucifixtion angle, etc.). For example, if Born to be Wired was the first time a world title was contested in a barbed-wire match (and I don't know if a world title was even contested at the show at all), then you have a context for significance. --EazieCheeze 14:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Those 7 ECW events aren't notable, they are house shows with special names (none of the 7 are TV or PPV events). Just because an ECW event has a special name, doesn't make it notable enough. Look at all the WWE tours that have special names: not many (or any at all) are very notable. Special names aren't notable, period. RobJ1981 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I assumed they were PPV's. VegaDark 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
So, can we delete Ring of Honor and Chikara show pages too since they were not televised or broadcast on PPV?--Darren Jowalsen 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Can you post links to some so we can see? I would imagine most could be deleted, people tend to create a lot of fluff articles(like the list of every ROH title defense). ROH is a indy fed, so most of their events would not be notable. TJ Spyke 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a whole categoryDarren Jowalsen and here's a Chikara one- Torneo Cibernetico. 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've put PROD tags up on some of the ROH shows, and the Torneo one should maybe be merged into Professional wrestling match types since it seems to just describe a type of match. TJ Spyke 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not all of them? How can some be notable and some not if "ROH is just an indy fed" ? Is there nothing about that company that we CAN keep? Tromboneguy0186 03:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC) I went ahead and put prods on the other show articles and I'm tempted to be a real dick and put one on [[Ring of Honor] Tromboneguy0186 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

ROH is just an indy fed, but it's a big one. I didn't PROD ones that seemed to be importent(like the first ROH event and the one where the first ROH champion was crowned). TJ Spyke 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How can you have it both ways? Either ROH is important or it's not.

ROH is a well known indy fed, but that certainly doesn't mean every show is important. I think AFD should be put on pages instead of prods for the most part. Regular editors of pages usually just remove prods pretty quick, then it ends up going to AFD anyway. Also I think several of the shows listed here: Category:Professional wrestling shows should be gone. A Night of Appreciation for Sabu and Professional wrestling tours of Australia are two examples. The Sabu show was used to raise funds for him, I don't see that being notable (as there has been many shows to help out wrestlers that need money for surgery or to pay bills or whatever: the shows simply aren't anything notable enough). As for Australia tours: it's a fancruft and listcruft of many Australia wrestling events: WCW, WWF/E, etc. Non-notable house shows. RobJ1981 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so what's the litmus test? If a show is x, you'll allow it to stay, but if it's y, it must gooo?

I think people have gotten derailed here, the original topic in question was non-notable ECW house shows with names. Now it's onto ROH shows with names. I agree most of the ROH shows should be deleted, however I am going against deleting one single one: Survival of the Fittest. SOTF falls under the same banner as the Ted Petty Invitational, the Battle of Los Angeles and the ECWA Super 8 Tournament in that they are all highly important independent wrestling tournaments. These are yearly events in indy wrestlers and they have a wide range of combatants and the winners move places in the indy world, and even to the majors. I'm going to bring up the same argument I brought up when we had the debate about wrestler article names - it's largely a case by case basis. Going all or nothing never helps anybody. –– Lid –(Talk) 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A warning note for pre-tape show wrestlers

There seems to be a problem with wrestlers on shows like iMPACT! and SmackDown of people putting results before they air, especially when there's a title change involved. I was thinking we can start putting a warning like we do for week by week targets kinda like this: <!--This wrestler is on a show that tapes before it airs. Although the results are made available in a myriad of locations, please do not add them here until the show airs either in the article or in "invisible text".-->

That language may need to be cleaned up a little bit, but it would help having to erase something 100 times between Wednesday morning and Friday night. - Bdve 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • We already put those warnings on PPV shows and on the WWE page(saying not to post title changes before they air) and they don't seem to do much. Some people even go ahead and remove the warnings. TJ Spyke 04:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You might want to bring this up on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning before deciding anything. There's a huge ongoing discussion on if spoiler warnings should even be on Wikipedia, and it is my understanding that right now only fictional events should have a warning, not real life things such as sporting events (even if taped prior to airing) VegaDark 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

TNA Impact results

In my opinion, these really aren't needed. Take a look at Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television programs. There are Impact results for several months. These aren't really needed. If someone could mass AFD them, that would be helpful. Using prods probably wont work, people usually remove them. RobJ1981 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated all the monthly results, the link is at the top of the page. TJ Spyke 05:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

SOTF

I know you created the article and put it up for prod to make a point, but don't think everyone is against you. I know my reply seems like I thought you didn't know what the SOTF is but it's to show some of us do care about the indies. –– Lid(Talk) 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I got a little carried away, but I don't see what the point is of deleting some of the ROH articles. If the company is to be dismissed as "just an indy" why does it matter when their first title match was, their first event out of Philly, etc... Tromboneguy0186 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It just being an indy fed doesn't have anything to do with it. It's like how ECWA is just an indy fed but the Super 8 tournament they host is the biggest(and most well known) indy event. TJ Spyke 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you not prod ROH: Honor Invades Boston, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins, or ROH: Crowning a Champion ? Tromboneguy0186 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Because those individual events are not importent. I thought you understood that, the importence of the organization is not directly related to an event. A notable wrestling fed can have non-notable events. TJ Spyke 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood - why did you NOT prod those ones? Tromboneguy0186 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Era of Honor Begins was the first ROH event, I suppose that's notable. Crowning a Champion marked the first ROH champion. I suppose Honor Invades Boston could go though. TJ Spyke 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, why does it matter when those things happened if individual events aren't important enough for articles? Oh, and if I understood, do you think I'd still be asking all these questions? ;) Tromboneguy0186 07:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it can be shown that some events are notable. I think even a casual fan or non-wrestling fan would agree that Wrestlemania I was a notable event. It just remains for us to draw the line. For my part, I think any event that is well-known enough (or notorious enough) for a casual fan to want to know about is notable (after all, that's what an encyclopaedia is for, right?). Also, any well-known annual events and tournaments deserve their own article, though it may be debatable whether each yearly instance deserves its own article.Geoffg 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Then would some events (marking similar milestones) from other indies be notable? My gut reaction would be "No, of course not, why would you ask such a dumb question?" but then why is that not the case of ROH if it is "just an indy" ? If, for example, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins is suitable for an article, how about FIP: Emergence or CZW: Opening Night ? Tromboneguy0186 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think ROH is "just an indy". It is an indy, but it is the premiere indy in North America, and it features some of the most talented (and notable) wrestlers in North America. I think of ROH as the third most well-known promotion in North America, after WWE and TNA. I feel the notability of any of its events is related to that significance. I believe this is true for all promotions. Does WWE Backlash have an article because it is super important, or because WWE is very notable? I think that because WWE is very notable, an event like Backlash will be of interest to more people. Likewise, an indy promotion that is only marginally notable is very unlikely to have any notable events.Geoffg 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
AAA and CMLL regularly draw around 10,000 for regular tapings and 18,000 for big shows with TV on national broadcast television with various internataional and cable deals. I think they trump Ring of Honor.Darren Jowalsen 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "in the USA and Canada". I hadn't even considered Mexico. You are completely correct that AAA and CMLL are highly notable, non-indy promotions. They trump ROH for notability not only because of their high drawing power, but also history and television deals. Nevertheless, I feel ROH is highly notable.Geoffg 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Section added to Ring of Honor

I added a section detailing the Code of Honor. Please give it a look and tweak as necessary. Tromboneguy0186 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestler heights

I'm currently seeing edit conflicts on some wrestler bio pages regarding the height of wrestlers. There are generally multiple sources citing different heights, would it be possible to come to some sort of consensus as to which sources are more reliable and should be used? Apologies if this has been raised before, I didn't want to wade through all the archives Sasaki 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of wrestlers who do not have specific and sourced records (ie American Football stats)I would put forward celebheights.com a sa good spurce.(Halbared 12:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm not convinced celebheights.com should be used as a source at all. The website clearly states [6] the heights can be based on estimates, so it's impossible to tell if any given height is accurate or not. Sasaki 12:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point. I like them trhem because they try and strive for accuracy rathr than accepting possible (and in wrestling usual) inflated heights, but I can understand why others don't like it.(Halbared 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC))
One solution I've thought of could be to use the kayfaybed stats but change the title of height and weight to 'billed height' and 'billed weight' to ensure it's obvious they are kayfabe. In the case of the where they're from, many of the wreslters aren't actually from where they're billed, but the stat is clearly 'billed from'. HamishMacBeth 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that solution is that billed from is in addition to the actual location. –– Lid(Talk) 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay and Mark Briscoe

I just noticed, based on the info boxes, that we're asserting that they're twins. Yet in ROH in 2002 there was angle that Mark was "too young" to wrestle in the state of Pennsylvania, which I have heard many times was legitimately true. OWW also gives the same birth date for both brothers. So which is it? Tromboneguy0186 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Both articles also clearly contradict this, as they state "At the time of the match Jay was 17 and Mark was 16" Sasaki 13:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself Tromboneguy0186 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If the birthdates are accurate, 1984, then the angle was all kayfabe. In 2002 they would've both been 18 and thus legal to wrestle. –– Lid(Talk) 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard them referred to as twins before, only brothers. I'm inclined to think the birth dates aren't correct Sasaki 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
OWW is simply incorrect in this, has been for a few years now.
↪Lakes (Talk) 16:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Delirious (wrestler)

Sorry if I'm spamming this page up. There's an anon that seems obsessed with keeping kayfabe or something with respects to Delirious (he has repeatedly deleted info pertaining to the man in real life, as well as the picture associated with the article). I've already left two warnings on his talk page, but I doubt that will do any good. I'm not really sure how to go about getting someone blocked, but I think it will end up being necessary. Tromboneguy0186 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering Delirious wrestles under a mask, your project should consider treating him like any other luchador. Unlike certain US wrestlers (Puma/Pinoy Boy, for example) Delirious is only notable as Delirious. His real name is unimportant, and revealing it is not necessary.--70.181.59.230 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a biography about a person on an encyclopaedia, of course it's important. We do the same for luchadors. Just because he follows kayfabe in real life doesn't mean we should. James Duggan 01:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you don't reveal the real names of luchadors, from what I've seen. Darren Jowalsen does a good job at separating important information from the unimportant. A biography about a masked wrestler on wikipedia should not reveal his real name unless said wrestler has revealed it on their own. Delirious isn't notable for his life outside of wrestling, and I cannot conceive of a possible reason for revealing it other than for some sort of anti-kayfabery smugness. Furthermore, how is his real name verifiable? As far as I can tell, a user posted the information after reading it on Obsessed With Wrestling, which is hardly a guarantee that it is factual.--70.181.59.230 02:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it was my understanding that if that info wasn't revealed here it was because it just wasn't known by any of the editors. James Duggan 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at his Obsessed With Wrestling profile. I remember for his real name it used to say "withheld at request of wrestler", now it reveals his real name. That tells me that he no longer minds. James Duggan 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia, all information that is known, notable, and verifiable is usually put into articles. Other people haven't wanted their real names revealed (Criss Angel, MC Frontalot), but because they could be verified they were included. Wikipedia has actually had lawsuits about such things (see the page on the hacker named Tron). Kayfabe doesn't count on wikipedia. I don't know anything about this case specifically, but if you object to the name being there on grounds that you don't think it's legit (not that you don't want it there) you can tag it with {{fact}} and if no one can verify it after a while it can be trashed. This project actually had almost this same discussion about Samoa Joe recently. - Bdve 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your input and will follow up with the "fact" suggestion, but I don't think that Samoa Joe is analogous to Delirious, seeing as Delirious wrestles with his identity obscured while Joe does not.--70.181.59.230 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing with Joe was weird, he only publicly acknowledges part of his name. Bdve 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a note but gerweck.net lists his name as Hunter W. Johnston. –– Lid(Talk) 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither Samoa Joe or Delirious wrestle under their real names, so the comparison is totally valid. "Identity" and "face" are not the same thing Sasaki 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but any wrestling fan of Samoa Joe would recognize Joe Seanoa if they saw him on the street. I can't say the same for Delirious/"Hunter W. Johnston". I won't go so far to say that it's a privacy issue; wikipedia obviously isn't concerned with that. However, I still doubt the legitimacy of gerweck.net and obsessed with wrestling, especially since those sites are both prone to mistakes.70.181.59.230 03:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing is "Joe Seanoa" isn't his real name, not fully anyway. That's what we discovered and how the topic came up. –– Lid(Talk) 03:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE - Fuck I don't know why I didn't think of this before. Talking about Joe reminded me how we found his name, so I just did a check for the trademark on the Delirious name and what do you know.
Word Mark DELIRIOUS
Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: On-line retail store services featuring professional wrestling related merchandise. FIRST USE: 20011208. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20011208
Owner (APPLICANT) Johnston, William Hunter INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES Cape Girardeau MISSOURI 63703
Proof of his name supplied, it's William Hunter Johnston. –– Lid(Talk) 03:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Lid wins. Now just cite it in the article and the case is closed. - Bdve 03:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but at least I win the personal victory reiterating that Obsessed with wrestling & gerweck.net aren't exactly great sources. It'll be interesting to see if Delirious ever gets back in contact with me regarding his opinion on his identity being revealed in a manner other than wingdings and gibberish (I did the good ole fashioned myspace messaging). Good thinking, though.70.181.59.230 03:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so I did a search on the USPTO for other wrestlers who trademarked their ring names. Aside from Samoa Joe and Delirious, all I found were Joey Styles, Low Ki and Nigel McGuinness. James Duggan 04:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough I can't find a trademark on Jamie Noble (so I could finally solve the real name debate), even one from WWE. That's odd. –– Lid(Talk) 04:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I tried an owner search on him using both names. Nothing. James Duggan 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to fix the citation on this article. Click it; it doesn't take you to anything. Tromboneguy0186 05:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That's impossible to fix, the trademakrs office automatically times out checking of trademarks on the website so any link will stop working a few hours later. –– Lid(Talk) 05:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Then what's the point of having it there? It gives no information. Tromboneguy0186 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask me, I didn't add it. –– Lid(Talk) 05:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking whoever sees the question :P Tromboneguy0186 05:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That was me, I didn't realize those links quickly die. I'm trying to find a better way to cite it, but I'm not sure how. James Duggan 09:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a screen capture of the relevant info? Tromboneguy0186 09:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Style

I was reading some articles on rappers and found it interesting to see explanations of their rapping style/technique. So I was thinking it would be cool to have a section on wrestlers' articles detailing their wrestling style/technique. However, I don't mean every wrestler, just distinct wrestlers (e.g. Kurt Angle's shoot style; Shawn Michaels' underdog style, Bret Hart's technical style, Sabu's high risk-hardcore style, etc). You could even say how wrestling styles were changed (e.g. Steve Austin's technical-to-brawling; Jushin Liger's technical/high flying-to-technical). I realize it is fictional, but other than personalities, wrestling style is the only other way to distinguish professional wrestlers. Well, just wanted to get your thoughts. Perry 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling styles -Bdve 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
You just named styles of wrestling. I'm talking about mentioning a wrestler's style in their article, which most, if not all, don't have. Perry 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be largely POV as far as I can see. Kurt Angle may appear "shoot style" compared to most WWE wrestlers, but he's hardly shoot style when compared to Nobuhiko Takada, Akira Maeda, Kiyoshi Tamura etc. Liger's style is very toned down these days, quite often he's just a down and dirty heel. It would be difficult to accurate reflect this I think. Sasaki 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad, I thought that's what you were looking for. Still, it would be pretty easy and not really POV for most guys. Just because Kurt Angles Shoot Style isn't the same as say Maedas or Steve Austins brawling style is different that Bruiser Brodys doesn't mean they're not obviously doing different variations on the same style. The real problem, and where the POV would come in, is when people start to change their styles and when to note that. Like Eddie Guerreros out and out heel tactics at the end of his life versus the more aerial style in the middle of his career and some of his more grounded stuff when he started. Shawn Michaels went through some similar changes and Ric Flair has wrestled just about any style from out and out brawling to heel tactics to scientific. The question lies in how do you list multiple styles? Does it become a list? Is it put into the body of the bio? I'm actually fairly intrigued by the idea now. - Bdve 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the biggest problem would be Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho and CM Punk as none of them really fit any mold (at least Punk pre-ECW). They're pretty much allrounders with impact moves, aerial moves, submissions, shoot moves so what style would they fit under? Although Punk does say in Joe/Punk shoot "I'm King's Road" but he was probably joking. –– Lid(Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
We could cop out and call them "Hybrid". Or invent something. Like "Nifty". - Bdve 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, you could probably say So-and-so uses a variety of wrestling styles in his matches, including.... If they apply one style as a face and another as a heel, like Eddie Guerrero and Ric Flair, it could easily be worded to reflect that. James Duggan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, CageMatch.net (their new English site) lists their styles in each profile. James Duggan 02:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The pro-wrestling tag.

Should the {{pro-wrestling}} tag go on move pages (i.e Sharpshooter (professional wrestling), Backbreaker, Professional wrestling attacks, etc)? Some of them have it but some (most?) don't. Just wanted to ask. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings

Yes-Bdve
we have a shrpshooter article... i didnt know that before looking here --- Paulley
i have since done some clean up on it --- Paulley

Should Matt Striker get a Controversy section added to his bio?

I mean he used his sick days as personal days to wrestle and made fun of Irwin after his death, he seems pretty controversial to me. So if anyone want to expand his article with that, would it be needed?MonkeyKid 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I almost did it earlier, but the Irwin comments didn't get any press outside of the wrestling community (as far as I've seen anyway) and the sick days stuff is in his bio. No reason a mention of the Irwin thing can't just be made in the bio as well. - Bdve 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bdve. I say leave it all in the bio. Unless the media picks up on the Steve Irwin comments(which I doubt), nobody will remember this in a couple of weeks. By the way, I think it would be a good idea if someone could dig up one or two of the news stories about the sick days, and add them as footnotes to the Striker article. I would do it myself, but I'm going to bed. -- SHODAN 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Lou Albano

I'm doing a major rewrite on this section. If your interested, let me know on my talk page. Kyros 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Category:Wrestlecrap

While Wrestlecrap itself is notable, a category about it, isn't needed. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not this wiki. RobJ1981 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

William Welch aka The Messiah and the relationship of Austin Aries and Lacey (wrestler)

Here's a topic I've been meaning to have but kept forgetting about. A while back on the Messiah's page there was an edit war between JB196 and an IP user who I think was the real life Messiah. The edits were pretty much dedicated to removing the documented history of Messiah's relationship with the XPW porn stars and the assault by two home invaders that left Messiah with no right thumb. I was wondering about as this has long died down should we re-add the information?

The second part of this relates to an incident between myself and an IP user who I think is either Lacey or Aries. This IP was dedicated to removing the relationship of Aries and Lacey as well as the incident that had Aries suspended from TNA, along with personal info on Lacey. It is documented that Aries and Lacey are dating but does that fall under the scope of the articles? Currently it's not listed. –– Lid(Talk) 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to Aries and Lacey, OWW used to mention they were dating but now that info has been removed from their profiles there. I also noticed that Lacey's MySpace profile has her listed as single. If they did date, they have since broken up. James Duggan 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem there is that they never officially stated they were dating, it was just known they were. –– Lid(Talk) 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if it was assumed, the relationship status on MySpace doesn't reveal who one is dating, so even if they never made it official, she probably would have had her relationship status as "In a relationship". Since she now lists her relationship status as "Single", and OWW took away the reference that they were dating, I bet they broke up, making it pointless to include on their pages. James Duggan 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the William Welsh stuff, maybe if we put it in a seperate section it might stick. Sounds like the anon user didn't think it was relevant to his career. Maybe if it was put in a Personal Info section it might stick easier. It being a bio of a person, that stuff should be there. It's not just about his career. James Duggan 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every wrestling biography ever and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

It was brought to my attention that this is a wikipedia edict at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death:

Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) … He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England … He died in Downe, Kent, England".

Nearly every wrestling bio uses the wrong formatting and I myself have been guilty of doing it many times. I think this should be added to the to do list as this seems like a rule that I think all of us were unaware existed. –– Lid(Talk) 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was actually aware of it and made a few changes to some of the articles. I should probably change the rest of them too. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


I might have missed when this was brought up...but what aboot the commas separating ring names in the infoboxes? Is it policy to have them or not, because I see no consistency.Halbared 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They are superfluous and not needed - that is what the linebreaks are for. - Chadbryant 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling results pages

Here is yet another fancruft/listcruft of results: WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results. Will people ever learn? Wikipedia simply isn't the place for pages of wrestling results. SNME is notable, but all the results listed here isn't needed. SNME is a supercard of sorts, but I don't think the result page belongs here. I added prod, but AFD will probably be added, since I can bet the prod will get removed. RobJ1981 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • SNME is not a average show, if you want to help delete useless fancruft, then go to the TNA iMPACT! results pages and vote to delete them. TJ Spyke 21:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


The formatting for Matt Hardy's Downfall move.

How should this be done? It's two different moves with the same name, but one is a finisher and the other isn't. To further complicate things, the leg drop version's also called the Hardy Boyz Leg Drop. Setting aside the anon who keeps moving it around all the time and making personal attacks against me, there seem to be two versions (not bothering with wiki links, too tired, sorry):

Downfall (sometimes Downfall 1 or Downfall Leg Drop for no damn reason)/Hardy Boyz Leg Drop (Second-rope diving leg drop)
Downfall (sometimes Downfall 2 or Downfall Elbow Drop for no damn reason) (Second-rope flying elbow smash)

or:

Downfall (sometimes with /Hardy Boyz Leg Drop) (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)

I'm personally in favor of the former but both versions seem to be getting swapped around all the time and I feel a consensus needs to be reached. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings

Right now it's listed as "Downfall (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)". I don't see what's wrong with that. Bdve 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The leg drop is not a finisher. The only time, to my knowledge, that it was used to end a match was at Unforgiven 2005 when it was done off the top of a steel cage. Tromboneguy0186 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

World's oldest wrestler

I know we had this discussion but it's been brought to my attention this article; Abe Coleman. Is there anyone older? –– Lid(Talk) 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this really relevant article. Should it not be deleted?Kyros 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He seems notable enough to me. After all, he invented the dropkick, and was a prominent Jewish athlete in early twentieth-century America, on top of being the oldest living pro-wrestler. I think it adds up to notable.Geoffg 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

More promotions that aren't notable

Plymouth Championship Wrestling: a small Iowa promotion. Pro Wrestling Phoenix: another small Iowa promotion. Each have title pages as well. I put prods just on the promotion pages. I've heard of PWP, but I still don't think it's a notable enough indy fed to be here. RobJ1981 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You better get ready to AFD them, an anon IP will probably delete them before 5 days has passed. TJ Spyke 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

William Jones (wrestler)

I have started the article on William Jones(better known as Chilly Willy), but the only information I could include is what I found at OWW. Anybody who knows more about him is welcome to expand it. TJ Spyke 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Check your links!

In the past couple of weeks, I've noticed a few links that do not go to their intended location, i.e. "Undertaker" going to the mortician page, "Public Enemy" going to the rap group, and "PG-13" going to the movie rating. Please make sure you check the disambiguation page to make sure there's not more than one article with that name! --Smart Mark Greene 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this in a lot of PPV articles, I fix them when I see them. The problem is that some people(usually anon IP's) will just type in something like [[The Undertaker]] and not check to see if it goes to the correct page. It also bugs me when people move pages and don't bother to fix redirects. TJ Spyke 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"SmackDown!" or "SmackDown" ?

It seems to be quite a minor thing but it affects quite a lot of articles. I've just noticed that the WWE Friday Night SmackDown! article has been moved to one without the exclamation mark and I'm wondering if we're going to keep it this way and fix all the other articles affected by this change. It seems that WWE have almost dropped it now (apart from the apron which I believe still shows it) supporting this move. If we do intend to change it, I would suggest that anything preceding 2006 is not affected (e.g. I don't believe we need to move any of the SmackDown! games before SmackDown vs. Raw 2007). --Oakster (Talk) 12:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Watching the last episode the exclimation point is still on all kinds of on screen graphics too, but I think they are phasing it out. Is it possible to get a bot to fix the linking?Bdve
For now it should stay with the exclamation point. Even wwe.com is conflicted with some SD logos having an exclamation point and some not. TJ Spyke 20:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
WWE is in the process of phasing out the Exlamation Point to coincide with the move to CW. From Not JBL Sept 15, 2006.

Rick Scaia

I'm in a dispute with User:BakerBaker on this article. I reverted his heavily-POV edits to the original (which may also be slightly POV) and he re-reverted. As opposed to me getting into a silly pushing contest, would anyone like to moderate a solution? -Umdunno 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading your own changes I thought that your change was more POV heavy than his. The content of both are polar opposites but both are POV pushing so neither of them are really valid. –– Lid(Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Eh, well I'll just leave it be then. For the record, I didn't create the original, I just reverted to the original text. -Umdunno 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Samoan Family

Hey guys, I have ordered The Anoai Family article a bit, but what remains unclear is the relationship between Peter Maivia and the family.

Peter's articles states that the Wild Samoans are his sons-in-law, which in turn makes their sons his grandsons, as stated in his article.

The Fatu brothers are also called his grandsons. They are the sons of Vera Anoia. I cannot tell by this name whether Vera is male or female, though the sons' Fatu surname suggest that a Fatu is the father. This Fatu then would have to be Peter's son, if that makes sense according to the Samoan name system.

Maybe someon can chime in on this. TC, Str1977 (smile back) 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Neff Maiava, the father of Afa and Sika Anoa'i, is not related to Peter Maivia, but the pair were close friends and considered one another to be "blood brothers". Meltzer Afa's website is quite a useful source. Incidentally, the family name is Anoa'i, not Anoai. McPhail 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hallo, I have done some reading on these two links and will institute some changes, especially removing the false information from the Peter Maivia page.
Finally, I suggest moving the Anoai family article to something like Samoan wrestling family or so, as not all bear the name Anoai and some are not even blood relatives, e.g. Peter Maivia. They are nevertheless one family and all are Samoan. Str1977 (smile back) 16:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This thread is quite informative, though not without contradiction: http://wrestlingclassics.com/cgi-bin/.ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001936;p=
In contrast to above, Neff Maiava is not the father of Afa and Sika and, according to that link, without connection to them. Also, the family article here on WP gives a different name as father. Str1977 (smile back) 17:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had heard that Afa and Sika used to refer to Peter as "Uncle" and he was unofficially adopted as that. It is my understanding that there is no blood relation there at all. James Duggan 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is also my impression. The friendship developed into a quasi-family-tie. Peter is called "uncle" on Afa's website (linked above). I have tried to reflect this unoffical adoption in Peter's article (where before it called practically all the members of the "Headshrinker" generation "grandsons").
What about the renaming suggestion? Str1977 (smile back) 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I would keep it where it is, just correct the spelling of Anoa'i. The Anoa'i's are basically the center of the family and everyone else is extended. James Duggan 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the problem: the family began with Uncle Peter. And I think Samoan is a term more sought after then Anoa'i, especially if the apostrophe is included. Str1977 (smile back) 23:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought it started with Afa and Sika. --James Duggan 23:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
In a strict sense Peter does not belong to the Anoai family, as he's a Maivia and not in any way related (and neither are The Rock and Jimmy Snuka) - he's even from a different state. But they are all included into the article and IMHO it would be artificial to remove them.
From what I gathered, Afa & Sika were introduced into wrestling through the friendship of their father with Peter, after the two had met in America.
In WP articles I have repeatedly met references (unlinked) to a Samoan wrestling family, which is why I am asking whether we should rename the Anoai article. Str1977 (smile back) 07:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Captain Lou Albano

I rewrote the entire the article. I'm still working on correcting grammar and spelling error. Feedback is appreciated. Here is the "Before" and here is the After Kyros 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a list of all the wrestlers he has managed is really needed. It seems like just a long list of clutter. Notable people he managed or something like that, would be much better than just a long list of every wrestler. RobJ1981 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I changed it to Tag Teams Managed, since Albano is know for tag team wrestling. Any other feedback, good or bad Kyros 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It certainly looks a lot better than it did! --Smart Mark Greene 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Jay Lethal

I've changed his debut date from December 7, 2002 to just 2002. The article itself states he won the JAPW TV title on September 13, 2002 (confirmed by Solie's Title Histories [7]), so it's pretty clear he didn't debut in December. Does anyone know his actual debut date? Sasaki 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the correct debut date, December 7, 2001 [8]. Even Jay Lethal's official site has his debut as 2002, despite it being incorrect. Sasaki 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Galleries on WWE programs

I posted this on the talk page of the article but I didn't get a response, so I'll post it here. Are the galleries of the TV shows and pay-per-views really that nessacery? I had this discussion with Moe Epsilon a few months back about the same thing happening on the professional wrestling in Australia article and we came to the conclusion that they were not needed at all. Normy132 03:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Articles like CNBC have them. TJ Spyke 06:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
They add life to a page of words (which can get boring). professional wrestling in Australia should get them back. From Not JBL

Tag Team Profile Box

Is there a profile box for tag teams and if there isn't should there be one. Kyros 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently there isn't. –– Lid(Talk) 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How about a box like this
{{{band_name}}}
picture.jpg
person 1 person 2 person 3
Members Joe
Joe 2
Joe 10201
Past members Conquistador
Ding Dong
Big Josh
The Yetti
His Boy Elroy

Kyros 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see where you're going with that one, but I think current & past members might make it confusing for teams no longer tagging. And I don't really think we'd need a "years active" either. Heights and combined weights would be good fields for it. - Bdve 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's take years out and create a second template box for defunct teams like the nWo that just lists members. Heights and combined weights would get messy. Kyros 03:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the nWo is a stable, if we're going to do a stable box that should be a whole other animal. Announcing tag teams with a combined weight is pretty customary in wrestling, it can't get that hairy to do it here too. We'd just have to establish how to list the different guys (like in The Highlanders box now). - Bdve
True ... True ... so how about this .... we use the box I have for stables ... The box on The Highlanders page for tag teams, add past members sections for active teams. Kyros 04:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The one on The Highlanders page is just the regular wrestler box. For tag teams we can omit a bunch of stuff like "billed from" and "trained by". - Bdve
I tried to get a template up, but when I try to use it it doesn't come out right. If anyone can figure out what's happening with it I'd appreciate it. Bdve 05:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
{{{article_name}}}
A picture of The Highlanders.
Statistics
Members Robbie McAllister
Rory McAllister
Name(s) The Highlanders
Heights 6 ft (183 cm) - Robbie
6 ft 2 in (188 cm) - Rory
Combined weight 470 lb (34 stone) (213 kg)
Debuted 2000
Promotions Pure Wrestling Association
Neo Spirit Pro Wrestling
Ohio Valley Wrestling
World Wrestling Entertainment
I've done a cleanup on Bdve's template and changed its format to the ones used for bios and events. The infobox should look like this on the right. I've also made it so the only required fields are "current_name" (their current team name as opposed to the field "names", which lists all of their names) and "members". Personally I do think the promotions field would make this infobox a little cluttered but I'll leave it for you guys to decide. --Oakster (Talk) 10:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


I thank you, but the "former names" section is required on the template now too and I don't think we need it for teams that have only had one name. Bdve 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, got that fixed but does anyone know if it's possible to add image captions to the template? If ever there was a need for it this is it. -- bd (talk to me) 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be another problem with it. Skipping "Former names" and trying to add heights makes "former names" show in the box (blank) but not the heights. Anyone? -- bd (talk to me) 03:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Championship Lineage

I was wondering something concerning the WWE Undisputed Championship. If it's the WWE's position that the title is simply part of the WWE Championship lineage itself, then isn't that what's supposed to be included in the articles? Since the championship is the property of the WWE, then doesn't the WWE have the final say so concerning the 43 year history of their championship? Would it be noncanonical to state otherwise, such as listing them as seperate titles? Odin's Beard 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is just the WWE Championship, I support the merge suggestion that is on both pages since it is not different from the WWE Title. TJ Spyke 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
One reason why I asked is because there is a user that keeps insisting, McPhair I believe is the editor, continues to maintain that they're seperate championships and continues to list them so under the championships and accomplishments sections in the Triple H article despite me constantly saying that it's the WWE's position that it's the same championship. I just wanted to be sure that I'm not in the wrong here. Odin's Beard 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Check the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship article. The article differs from WWE.com, as WWE.com does not list champions before 1997. WWE is a corporation which acts in its own interests, not in the interests of factual accuracy. It is the role of Wikipedia to record documented fact, not to blindly mirror WWE.com and its revisionist history. McPhail 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Our "Good" articles

Konnan is listed as a good article, does this mean we should be listing all Finishing/signature maneuvers and managers in tables to give some sort of uniformality to wrestling bios or should we add an "in wrestling"/"wrestling fact" section to his article? - -Bdve

I don't think so, the table part was part of the peer review of the article but it has problems associated with it such as location and some wrestlers with many sig moves could cause the tables to ruin the articles appearance. –– Lid(Talk) 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Gutierrez (Rey Mysterio)'s height

Here's one for the books, both metaphorically and in the we need to sort this out sense. I've added the story so far to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Numbers and statistics but what has happened is that Rey Mysterio's height is currently listed at 5'4½" with no source at all. Why? Because there are so many conflicting reports on his height that they've made a compromise height between 5'2" and 5'5". Seriously. The day a wrestlers height becomes "let's take all the sources and find the middle" rather than "let's take all the sources and find the accurate ones or list each height as billed" is a sad day indeed. We need to sort this out because this is the most bizarre compromise ever and a detriment to wikipedia. –– Lid(Talk) 11:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well this just comes back to the overall continual discussion over stats. Stats are just as important as anything else in a wrestlers biog. I think there are three levels myself. We have wrestlers who have been measured by independent authorities, usually American football stats, but these are primary and cannot be argued with, e.g Andre, Goldberg, Brock Lesnar, Angle etc. Then you have the wrestlers quote on himself, which you have to take as valid. Hulk Hogan, Kane etc. And then there's the majority for whom no independent stats exist, and no quote has been found. So what do we agree on? A list of sites to off, the mean (which I do not think is a lame idea), the most google hits off a height, or just correlation between certain sites we choose? e.g., Obsessed, slam wrestling, IMBD, celebheights, etc.??Halbared 13:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Gonna have to disagree with your second statement "Then you have the wrestlers quote on himself, which you have to take as valid", especially due to the examples. Hulk Hogan has for years overstated his height, and more to the matter with each passing interview his body slamming of Andre seems to have somehow had Andre gained another 100 pounds. Kane's height has changed over the years due to a number of reasons. Originally he was 7', then 7'1", then 6'11", at some points 6'10". He was obviously taller than Undertaker for a time so they ahd to book him as taller due to that Taker was billed as 6'10" when he wasn't.
Sure you can disagree, I don't like it myself actually...however, it is how some pages have been handled, and how the consensus on the discussion pages have gone, therefore I have accepted it, even though, I don't fully agree.Halbared 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As for your comment on the mean not being a lame idea the problem isn't that this is a mathematic equality, it's a statistic of height. When we start saying people are X height because we can't agree on the other ones being correct then we are as just as false by making up numbers and it should be avoided at all costs. –– Lid(Talk) 14:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with it because height is an exact quality unlike other things, so an average from heights might as well secure a legit height as any for any 'unofficial' or 'official' website. I think though it's not a perfect solution, and I won't push it too much....What I would like is a vote on sources that we go off for the third type of wrestler and let us stick tho them to prevent needless edits in the future.Halbared 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
When we've reached a consensus on this (unlikely, I know...) this article [9] needs editing. Don't see the point in changing it while the discussion is ongoing. Sasaki 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How aboot this. We have three sites we use and agree on, then we go off those three for wrestlers who have no legit measurements taken?Halbared 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)_

Even though they are kayfabed, the heights/weights listed in WWE profiles should be used on Wikipedia, unless verifiable sources to the contrary exist. (For example, Andre The Giant was a verified 6'10", despite his billing of anywhere between 7'2" and 7'5". Police reports and such would be another verifiable source that would be paramount to a WWE profile.) The same standard should apply for TNA wrestlers as well. - Chadbryant 18:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

MySpace profiles in wrestler biographies

I'm of the viewpoint that MySpace profiles are not encyclopedic, and probably shouldn't be included in wrestler biographies. The amount of phony MySpace profiles related to pro wrestlers is also a problem that is best solved by not including any MySpace profiles in bios. - Chadbryant 18:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of removing unofficial fansites as well, thoughts? Sasaki 18:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
All should be removed in my opinion. Alot of the my space profiles are fakes, and it's not always easy to find out which are actually used by the wrestler or not. RobJ1981 18:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Fansites qualify largely as fancruft - or, as I would term it for wrestling-related articles, "markcruft". Most of it is unencyclopedic and is irrelevant to an encyclopedic biography. In fact, I believe WP:PW should devise a "markcruft" policy defining what irrelevant information shouldn't be included in articles. - Chadbryant 18:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
My Space is listed on many articles, but with most others: I believe it's official pages of the actor or artist or whoever. It not being encyclopedic isn't the issue, the issue is it not always an official My Space page of the wrestler. Look at links for other pages, there is fan sites and the such listed, and there is no problem at all (usually). RobJ1981 18:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue in a nutshell: MySpace profiles aren't encyclopedic, and they are much too susceptible to impersonations. Fansites would qualify as "markcruft" and would be discouraged from inclusion in articles. - Chadbryant 19:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If it is confirmed a wrestler has a myspace profile then it should be used reason being it is an official site of that person, also if its a problem i know which wrestlers have myspaces and the official links which arent fake. I dont see what the problem is with fansites either, each person is entitled to at least one fansite no more then two, there is no rule saying they shouldn't be allowed Lil crazy thing 19:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with fansites is quite often they look like this [10]. Also the guidelines on fansites are here [11]. I think they should be avoided, as recommended Sasaki 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
From this policy:
Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
Nothing in any wrestling article on Wikipedia mandates the inclusion of MySpace profiles. Thus, they should be removed. - Chadbryant 19:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

fine about the myspace profiles then but still i stand by the fansites, and sasaki very few fansites look like that, that are actually included if you look nearly all are very professional sites, if i come across sites like the one you posted i remove it, but the one you posted isnt even included in an article. Also before you go around removing fansites wait till more people give there views, otherwise it is unfair to go ahead a do somethign with just two people backing it Lil crazy thing 19:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying there are any links like the one I used, at present. However some people see a link to a fansite in an article and decide to add their own, I'm sure most editors here will have removed similar links at some point. If you have no links to fansites (which Wikipedia recommends) it helps remove temptation, and also saves editors having to check the suitability of any external links. Sasaki 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
If an edit is made with Wikipedia policy properly cited, it does not matter how many people agree with it. Consensus opinion is irrelevant in such cases. - Chadbryant 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
To be fair the external links recommendation is a guideline not a policy Sasaki 20:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It falls under WP:MOS. A guideline is less stringent than a policy, since a guideline can be amended under special circumstances, but it holds as mich weight as a policy. - Chadbryant 20:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest you quote guidelines in full in future, rather than leaving out pertinent information? The guideline regarding Myspace ends with "(e.g., an article about a specific author can link to that author's blog)", therefore it is fully in accordance with WP guidelines to link to a Myspace providing it's authenticity can be established. Sasaki 14:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Markcruft

As an extension of the MySpace/fansite debate, I am proposing that a standard be developed and agreed to by WP:PW in regards to "markcruft" (a wrestling version of fancruft) - the irrelevant & unencyclopedic content that seems to creep into wrestling articles on a daily basis. I would propose that the following be considered as markcruft and strongly discouraged (and deleted from current articles):

  • Comprehensive title histories for individual wrestlers (it bloats articles and is much better suited to a wrestling-specific wiki or site instead of a general encyclopedia - sites like www.obsessedwithwrestling.com already exist for this content)
  • Fansites as external links (too many issues with quality & relevance to the subject matter)
  • MySpace profiles as external links (it is existing Wikipedia policy not to include links to social networking profiles unless they are mandated by the article itself)
  • Show results for non-PPV events, or weekly/semi-regular television shows (this would also be considered listcruft, and would include SNME, non-PPV ECW events, and similar events)
  • Hypothetical acheivements related to titles ("Double Triple Crown Champion", etc.)

Additions/suggestions are encouraged. A standard for wrestling articles would go a long way towards making the wrestling content here much more encyclopedic. - Chadbryant 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with every point made here, especially the too detailed title histories and hypothetical acheivements, which I think it somewhat original research on my part, but I support this all the way. I mean, it's all predetermined, the honor is not as big as it seems. Renosecond 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree with the fansite bit, fansites are allowed to be included there is no rule saying they cant, as long as there kept to a min and only the most notable fansites are there not any old fansite. Go to a page of any famous person and there is a fansite. What harm is there to have a link leading to a page where someone can gather more information on the person. who cares if the link isn't encyclopedic, it's only a link to a completely different site. i also suggest you wait and see what people answers are to this before you go around making these changes, also if your going to make these changes do them to every page not just one single page, e.g randy orton Lil crazy thing

I think it's often too difficult to determine which fansite is "most notable". Unless someone can define an objective way to determine that,I think it will lead to listcruft. -- Davetron5000 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Links to fansites are best left to wrestling-specific sites such s www.obsessedwithwrestling.com - they are not relevant to an encyclopedia, which is what we are editing here. - Chadbryant 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't completely agree with not listing things that aren't PPV's. Things like Clash of the Champions are supercards and are notable to a point, same goes for SNME I suppose. Then there is the important shows for indy feds. They don't have PPV's, so you are basically saying no results for major shows for indy feds (big mistake)? Also, from the sounds of it... you want wrestler articles not to have anything but PPV results? That would make the articles pretty boring. Eventful things happen on Raw, Smackdown, Impact and other non-PPV results, leaving them off is a huge mistake. Names for multi-title holders isn't a big deal. As for title histories: they don't bloat articles much and it's incomplete if all aren't listed (so what if a site like Obsessed with Wrestling is better suited, Wikipedia articles should be complete, not just highlights of the best titles). I don't see a problem with leaving things alone. This whole markcruft thing is just a bit ridiculous. You are basically just trying to remove anything YOU feel isn't right for pro wrestling articles. In the replies, some have agreed with you, but that's certainly not enough to make this happen to all articles. Fansites can go for the most part, but the rest should just be left alone, period. RobJ1981 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll change my stance somewhat, but I do think that most of those proposals are resonable and should be implemented. The "somewhat" major shows have been taken care of (like various ECW ones) and I certainly think that AWA shows can be merged to a degree. The format for title histories really should be trimmed to just say something like "8-time WWF European Champion" or the like, it's a fake sport, and the titles do not need to take that much space, it's not as big of an accomplishment as it seems. The fansites can certainly be trimmed and most myspace profiles can go. And I really don't care for the "triple crown" pages and mentions, I can't remember any acknowledment of this sort of thing on any WWF/E show, and I don't think it is widely used wrestling slang to merit these mentions, it just sounds like someone just made up the rules and guidelines for the "triple crown" and forces it on everyone. If anything, all that stuff needs to go unless more info can be verified. Renosecond 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think title reigns are important, but not the achievements. Though I don't think they need to be detailed, just list the title and how many times they held it. I also do not care for fansites being included, mainly because some wrestlers have so many fansites. We should try and stick with official links. --James Duggan 19:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's no need to mention Triple Crown and Grand Slam achievements(except for maybe the first people to do it, like AJ Styles and Shawn Michaels). Title reigns should and WILL stay. Also, why does every single TNA pay-per-view have it's own page? Imagine how many more pages would be created if every single WWE/WCW/ECW PPV had their own page. TJ Spyke 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need a cute name?

Proposed move - G-1 Climax

The correct name of the tournament is G1 Climax, not G-1 Climax. Any objections to it being moved to the correct name? Sasaki 07:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be controversial, so be BOLD. TJ Spyke 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Randy Orton page

this really needs to be said cos i'm personally getting sick of this. At the moment certain users are saying pictures cant be added to the page because of free images rule, fansites cant be on his page because of yet another rule which doesnt actually say they cant be added at all. Yet they say this for just that page they do not go and change them on all the other wrestlers pages. I'm sick and tired of the randy orton page being singled out at the moment, now if you wanna use these stupid rules go ahead and use them on ALL pages not just randy ortons one. Until these so called rules are used on all pages then i wont accept them on just his page. Lil crazy thing 12:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you did generously tell us which page needed a fansite link removing, and as I've said I'll be happy to remove links from any other articles you tell me about. However you refused to give any details, so I can only remove links as I come across them. The consensus is that they should be removed, and this is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Sasaki 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i did not tell you of any link that needs removing so dont be sarcastic to me, you havent ever editted the randy orton page before, till i editted kurt angles page which you didn't like, you are doing this to spite me and its unfair, i dont not need to tell you of any pages because every signle wrestlers page has one same with movie stars popstar etc etc but you wont do nothing at all. Lil crazy thing 12:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a limit on how many fair-use images can be used in an individual article. Images "borrowed" from WWE.com are uploaded here under the fair-use license. Orton's page has been a constant target of markcruft (see above) and his fans wanting to turn his page here into a photo gallery. This is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. - Chadbryant 18:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

thats rubbish and you know it, there has never been more then 5 pictures in that article altogether. But yet john cenas page has loads and you say nothing, a few of the divas have the same amount if not more pictures and you say nothing i can continue so i take it anything posted on other pages other than the randy orton page its acceptable because you do nothing. Randy Ortons fan do not want to turn it into a photo gallery that is a lie and you know it.Lil crazy thing 19:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

John Cena currently uses two fair-use images, one of which is the cover of his album. - Chadbryant 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

at least they have been cut down, but your not doing a good job of remvoing images i've visit 6 pages so far today all of which had more pictures then the randy page, have you done anything no. You continuously single out the randy orton page and use false statements on why you do it and i'm sick of it. Lil crazy thing 06:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:American Wrestling Association shows

Just looking through this cat, there seems to be a few minor shows that aren't even PPVs, I was wondering if we should try to afd some like the various ECW shows as of late. Renosecond 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They should probably be AFD'ed. - Chadbryant 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Done and done, check the to-do list for a link. And if you vote, please look at the ecw precedent that I posted and don't vote merge, I suggest. Renosecond 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RoughKut Wrestling

I stumbled on a Wikipedia page for an e-fed called RoughKut Wrestling while searching for info on the indy wrestler Cham Pain (I guess he doesn't warrant his own page yet). I'm thinking it's not encyclopediac worthy, but I'm a Wikin00b and I couldn't really understand the whole deletion process. So I figured I'd make more experienced users aware of it and hopefully somebody else could do it. Unright 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD with great predjudice, e-feds are never notable. –– Lid(Talk) 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I've nominted it for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Event template

I have a question about the Infobox Wrestling event template. Does the "Next Event" mean the next one to take place or next to air? This only really applies to "Kollision in Korea"(a 1995 joint PPV between WCW and NJPW). It took place in April 1995 but aired on PPV in August 1995. So would it be listed after Uncensored 1995(which was in March) or after Bash at the Beach 1995(which was in July)? TJ Spyke 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To air, presumably. That appears to be the precedent where television episodes, etc, are concerned. McPhail 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestler

What happened to Template:Infobox Wrestler?Bdve 16:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be nothing wrong with it at the moment though I have experienced a few template problems in the past few days (such as Template:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD which is now back up) so I'm guessing there was some software problem that's fixed now. --Oakster (Talk) 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it's back. Nevermind, and thanks Oakster.Bdve
The template has the legit height/weight for wrestlers, not 'billed' stats. Has this been voted on? Since I notice that the infoboxes have changed to billed height, yet the template remains the same?Halbared 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Six reigns for Moolah

In the Trish/Lita match at Unforgiven, did either commentator make a comment about Moolah having six title reigns, and Trish breaking the tie if she won her seventh? If so, when did WWE suddenly put two more reigns on Moolah (assuming WWE history) or decide to acknowledge (at least a part of) the NWA Women's title history as its own? kelvSYC 04:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Ol' JR did say it. -- bd (talk to me) 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Moolah actually won the title 8 times if you count the NWA reigns. Don't trust WWE for title counts, Flair is actually a 22 time world champ(not 16). TJ Spyke 04:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This is actually covered in this week's Wrestling Observer. Dave mentions six definite title reigns, a possible seventh, and he also mentions that it's likely that there are times when Moolah traveled to various territories, dropped the title, then won it back before it got widely reported. For the record, he said that this happened with Betty Boucher in 1966, and Yukiko Tomoe in Japan in 1968 (both of which involved the NWA title) --SHODAN 02:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's the closest to a WWE admission of the Women's championship inheriting the NWA Women's Championship history (and we know WWE would never fully admit it), which would imply that their claim of Moolah having held the title for so long was false. (Of course, this could be covered to Moolah claiming that she was the "only significant champion" during this period, which would put an end to it as it would be clearly in the realm of kayfabe). It also brings up the question of whether a title change was "significant" - we can claim that the discrepant 6 world championship reigns for Flair were not significant enough for WWE consideration, much like how Benoit won the WCW title and quit the next day, leading to winning the WHC "the first time" at WM (but you could claim that Benoit cheated to win the WCW title and that the title change was overturned when he quit, but that's nitpicking here...). kelvSYC 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ross has this to say:

Trish got the emotional send off she deserved and was even fortunate enough to win the Women’s Title for a record 7th time. As I mentioned during the broadcast, wrestling history is a dicey subject and has been “re-written” many times. From the best I can ascertain, the Women’s Title was officially reorganized in 1956 with the Fabulous Moolah as the champion. Moolah essentially owned this title for YEARS and I mean YEARS winning it 6 different times, again according to the records I was able to obtain.

-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 20:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(In Kayfabe)

Am I the only one who finds this notation in wrestling articles unnecessary. Kyros 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It annoys me up the wall! I was reading the article on Vito Lograsso and it just ruined it for me! Normy132 06:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
If we don't put it, people complain. -- bd (talk to me) 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And if we do, I'll complain more. It's stated that it's a storyline, constant reminders of (kayfabe) are annoying.--Darren Jowalsen 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
In Kayfabe needs to stay out, I think it should go on the the To Do List. Kyros 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Wresting is fiction, as such we follow the writing about fiction rules. Long ago we considered a few different options (such as quotes) and decided that noting (kayfabe) was the best and easiest option. Wrestling articles are not supposed to read "in universe", even if that does "ruin it for you". -- bd (talk to me) 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess you mean wrestling storylines and titles are fiction. IMHO, if a section is clearly detectable as presenting the storyline, we need not put Kayfabe notes. If some legit things pop up in between, we might mark these. If a section however is evenly mixed, some notes are in order. Str1977 (smile back) 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, where was it decided that we should interrupt articles with parenthetical comments that disrupt the flow of the sentences? And I never said "ruin it for me." Darren Jowalsen 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I simply have no interest in looking through all of the archives to find it, but it was a while ago. -- bd (talk to me) 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
In the latest discussion, we really didn't agree to anything except better writing to distinguish between fact and fiction. We brought up the kayfabe disclaimer template, but that has since been deleted. --Darren Jowalsen 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright then, maybe it wasn't ecided and it was simply picked up on. Propose something else. -- bd (talk to me) 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite the section in question so it is clear it is part of a storyline. Darren Jowalsen 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

McMahonism

How long should it take for one to renominate an article for AfD before its first nomination? I was thinking of nominating McMahonism again (I didn't particularly like it being there in the first place and it's now becoming less notable than before) but I was unsure about the timing for renominations. --Oakster (Talk) 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh god kill it... please kill that thing asap. I had forgot that thing was still around.. we did get rid of that stat box thing of "followers of McMahonism" and the article of that same name too right? -- Paulley
I believe that's gone now. I've just renominated the article for deletion now. --Oakster (Talk) 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Should a tag team bio be made for Burke and Terkay? And KC James and Idol Stevens?

Not sure if Burke and Terkay teamed up before but James and Stevens are in the tag title hunt.MonkeyKid 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Burke is just a manager/sidekick most of the time. I'd hold off on the James/Stevens page because I think it's only a matter of time before they give them an actual name. Though I guess it could always be moved. -- bd (talk to me) 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. If they aren't given a name by WWE though, then the page should be "KC James and Idol Stevens", I hate how some people have articles with just the last names. Like Cade and Murdoch, when they are always introduced as "Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch". TJ Spyke 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Move 'em, but don't forget to fix links if you do. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
"Cade and Murdoch" was how they were origionally announced in the RAW graphic and in their entrance video --- Paulley 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Stats

I know it's been discussed before, but still no solution has been found. As I thought it was quite a good idea, and as that's the chosen height on most of the articles already, I recently tried to edit the infobox to change height and weight to billed height and weight, but it didn't work. Anybody better than me at it could probably work it out no problem. BertieBasset 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dx reunion tour

Keep an eye on this one. If even I am advocating deletion, you know it's crap. Tromboneguy0186 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Anon removed the prod, I've AFD'd it. Tromboneguy0186 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling news world

I was wondering if this article is about a notable subject. The article is well developed but it's about a wrestling forum. I slapped an importance tag on it but did not go all the way and propose an afd. Most of the content seems trivial. What say you guys? MrMurph101 19:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's basically just an advertisement for the forum, I say put a PROD on it first. If that gets removed(which it probably will), then nominate it for deletetion. TJ Spyke 20:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I did that. MrMurph101 21:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be deleted. -Fonzarelli

The Highlanders (professional wrestling)

I changed Robbie and Rory's pages to redirects to the Highlanders page. Both wrestlers have been in tag wrestling, since they debuted. It's pretty pointless to have solo entries for them, when they have done no major singles wrestling at all. I feel this should also be done to other teams that have no singles experience. RobJ1981 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

yea that was already established we had done the same for the the Shane Twins... just one question you did merge any information not found in the tag article --- Paulley
oh the answer to that was no.... if you intend to that that again please make sure you understand the information you are deleting. you have to tranfer over any iformation from these articles into the tag one; real names, single signature moves etc... you also have to remove double redirects to make sure everthing goes to the correct highlanders article and remove and links from the tag article that goes to the singles one. Please think before you make such major edits --- Paulley 09:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

look whos back

do these edits seem familier to any one --- Paulley 09:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May want to look at the histories of DVDVR and 411mania. –– Lid(Talk) 09:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness

Looks like a similar issue to Delirious. There was an edit stating "privacy issue, please respect it." Tromboneguy0186 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is a way to find out Nigel doesn't want it listed here, then that's fine. But just some random user saying it, isn't enough to leave it their way. This could simply just be a matter of the user not wanting it here, not Nigel himself. RobJ1981 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Just like with Delirious, I did a trademark search on the USTPO website and found Nigel's real name that way. If it's there, then it's fair game to use on here. --James Duggan 19:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, it doesn't matter if he, or his webmaster, want it posted or not. I revert, she reverts, I revert, she reverts. Is this not vandalism?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
If you want you could take it to WP:RFC, but as always it's irrelevent if the person doesn't want their name to be published, especially in this case where its freely available, because this is an open encyclopedia that needs to be factual. –– Lid(Talk) 01:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It wouldn't matter even if McGuinness himself said he wanted his name removed. If a person's name is publically available, then it's fair game to be included here. If a user removes it then just put it back. TJ Spyke 03:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

She has also violated WP:NPA, at least on my talk page (and I wouldn't doubt on others). Tromboneguy0186 11:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For some reason it was removed again, this time by an admin clamining some issue on WP:LIVING. I fal to see why it shouldn't be included since his real name is publically available and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform people. TJ Spyke 20:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The admin who removed it(then locked the page) wants other verifiable sites that state McGuinness's real name is <redacted> and said someone representing McGuinness contact Wikiemedia Foundation. TJ Spyke 21:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we would even need a secondary source on it considering what the first one is. Furthermore up to this point she hasen't denied it's his real name, just asked for it not to be there. While I appreciate his commitment to kayfabe, it's not the 70s anymore.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently this admin: User:FCYTravis is spiteful. He just deleted my userpage because I mentione McGuinness's real name on it. If he doesn't give me a damn good reason for doing that then I will report him(something which others have done before based on his talk page). TJ Spyke 21:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Any assurances he won't delete this page? This is fast getting out of hand, and very much needs to be resolved. It's going to be really sad if this falls through. Tromboneguy0186 22:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Any chance [12] could be of some use? It's the only way I could think of around the dead links problem with that site.

I'm not sure he would listen. He said the matter is being resolved becaus somebody saying they represent Haworth/McGuinness contacted Wikipedia concerning the bio. TJ Spyke 23:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire McGuinness article has now been deleted. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE?! Tromboneguy0186 23:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I'm even more confused. I could swear for a second it was gone and there was a redlink on this page. Tromboneguy0186 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It was gone. I saw it...or didn't see it...but now it's back and locked all the way down.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Check the edit history. All prior page versions that had Steven Haworth in them have been destroyed.

That's it, I quit. Tromboneguy0186 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll be unprotecting the page in several minutes. Per the WP:BLP concerns, please do not reinsert the name. Sorry guys. alphaChimp(talk) 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLP say we can't include his real name(<redacted>)? It's verifiable and from a reliable source(the US Patent and Trademark website) which means it's also public info. Also, Why did you delete it from my page? I don't see what's wrong with telling people to MSN me if they want his real name or to just check the PTO website. TJ Spyke 00:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel there should be more dialogue on this issue--let's centralize our discussion on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nigel_McGuinness. alphaChimp(talk) 01:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What happened to that article's discussion page? James Duggan 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for kicks and giggles (since I know it'll be worth NOTHING else) here is an interview with an English professional wrestler training, in the American midwest, under Les Thatcher in the HWA

Soo...for clarification, does this mean that the only difference between the Nigel article and the Delirious one is threatened legal action?--70.181.59.230 16:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Delirious's name has been in publication (in his college's newspaper).
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A wrestling category now up in CFD

I put Category:Current Stampede Wrestling roster in CFD earlier today. No other roster categories are listed with current in them, so Stampede won't be the exception. From what I know, there is no roster page for Stampede Wrestling... so if the category is renamed, there needs to be one made. A roster category listing just the wrestlers seems a bit pointless (which is what the category is for now). --RobJ1981 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What a mess

Professional wrestling promotion should just be a page for information about promotions in general, but it's a huge list of promotions in the world. I noticed on the talk page, a discussion from a few months ago. They were talking about redlinks and wanted to fill them. So it's safe to say: many promotions on the overall list there, aren't completely needed on Wikipedia itself. So we now have a big task of going through the promotions, and checking them. Remember: Wikipedia isn't the place for every promotion ever. As much as some people want it to be, it simply should never be for that. Category:Professional wrestling promotions is also a place to take a look. Subcats are a good start: NWF and OCWF are prime examples of lesser promotions in my opinion. NWF's cat is empty, while OCWF just lists some of it's wrestlers in the cat. RobJ1981 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about this article. There should only be a category for all the promotions that actaully exist on WIkipedia. Maybe we should trim that massive list down to just the notable ones i.e. WWE, WCW, ECW etc. Normy132 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The page is called Professional wrestling promotion, not "List of professional wrestling promotions". If people want a list of all promotions so badly, then make it I suppose. The page now shouldn't be a list page at all. RobJ1981 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Personas of The Undertaker

Is this really needed here? I just noticed it and I think it's alot of fancruft. It's factual: but if it's done for Undertaker... what's to stop people from doing it for other wrestlers? People like Hulk Hogan have had many personas over the years. I haven't put AFD on it just yet, but I plan to soon if people don't justify it enough. Articles like this one, belong on a wrestling Wikipedia, not here. RobJ1981 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a well written article, but i'm not sure if the article should be here. If we had a wrestling wiki then we could transwiki it there. I don't know what to do. TJ Spyke 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually say link it as a "See also" on the Calaway page. –– Lid(Talk) 03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need that much in-depth about personas though? The casual wrestling fan probably could careless about a page about how the Undertaker has changed over the years. This probably should be moved to a wrestling wiki. I remember there was a wrestling wiki, but I'm not sure if it's around anymore. RobJ1981 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be merged with his article. Gimmick changes should really be mentioned in his article. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Trish and the Sharpshooter

At the current moment I have a slight arguement with another user over if the Sharpshooter should be added to Trish Stratus' list of moves, specifically as a finisher. He contends that because Trish used it, even if it was only once, and used it to win a Championship it should be added as a finisher. I contend that Trish only used it once (right?) for a fairytale ending to her career and therefore is not a finisher commonly associated with her so it should not be added. Which of us is correct? Night Bringer 02:15, 23 September 2006 (GMT +10).

You, if we start listing one off finishers everytime they happen the pages would be flooded. –– Lid(Talk) 16:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be listed as it was done because 1) She was retiring, and 2) It was in Canada, obviously a reference to the Montreal Screwjob. Shawn Michaels doesn't have the Sharpshooter listed even under regular moves, despite having used it after the Screwjob. Shane McMahon doesn't have it listed, and he defeated HBK with it, and that, too, was a reference to the Screwjob. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings

WWE Summer Bash Tour

Prodding, please keep an eye on it Tromboneguy0186 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

An anon IP with a history of vandalism removed the PROD, so i've nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Several things to keep an eye on

Orange Country Wrestling Federation, The Avalanche (wrestler), Zodiac (Wrestler), Eddie Suzuki, Night Stalker (wrestler). All of these appear to be non-notable: I googled the promotion and found no decent results, so I'm assuming the wrestlers aren't notable either. I prodded them, hopefully it lasts and they just go. RobJ1981 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And another: Melissa Merida. Appears to be vanity as well. I did a search for Melissa and her wrestling name as well, and came up with very little. RobJ1981 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Two more: List of PWG World Tag Team Championship defenses and List of PWG World Championship defenses. RobJ1981 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes?

Moe Epsilon has been removing them from pages. Unless I missed it, I don't remember the project agreeing to this at all. A big decision like that, shouldn't just be decided by one person. RobJ1981 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed here before, unless I'm mistaken. — Moe Epsilon 20:16 September 22 '06
I checked the project page, and didn't see anything. I haven't gone through talk archives, so it could be there. RobJ1981 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's in the talk archives, we don't discuss things on the project page, but on the talk page. — Moe Epsilon 20:23 September 22 '06
[13] FWIW, I think this proof enough we don't use the format anymore. — Moe Epsilon 20:26 September 22 '06

Archived discussion here: [14] I believe we agreed they they took up too much space and conveyed too little information. I support their removal. --James Duggan 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There might also be an archive in late June/July that may have relevant discussion. — Moe Epsilon 20:52 September 22 '06
Ah, yes, [15] James Duggan 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the descision to ommit sucession boxes was decided on when we replaced them with the "won from" "Lost to" version that allowed us to give the same information plus more in a shorter fashion... --- Paulley 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
You may think that format is long also but its way shorter than listing titles and adding sucession boxes --- Paulley 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Both the "sucession boxes" and all the "won from - lost to" information takes up too much space. If that information is wanted it's available on the title pages, for titles that have them.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. If the title doesn't have an article, then it probably isn't worth noting anyway, otherwise it can be mentioned in the article's career section. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll (stemming from above conversation)

Instead of complaining, and since there is no consensus from everyone, lets just do a straw poll for each discussion. If you're for or against boxes, please list yourself below. Likewise for the format of the articles. Please only place a support once for both topics :) Wikipedia is not a democracy, but with this straw poll, this might better understand where we stand on this situation to build a strong consensus one way or the other. Let this straw poll hold out until 00:00 September 26, 2006, then we can can evaluate the results from there.

The result of this debate was we don't keep succession boxes. With only one user for keeping the succession boxes, it's apparent that they are not wanted. — Moe Epsilon 19:52 September 26 '06

Succession Boxes

  • For Succession Boxes:
  1. ----Darren Jowalsen 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. --
  3. --
  4. --
  5. --
  • Against Succession Boxes:
  1. — Moe Epsilon 22:54 September 22 '06
  2. -- Giant onehead 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- TJ Spyke 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. -- McPhail 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. –– Lid(Talk) 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Geoffg 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. --Normy132 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Oakster (Talk) 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  12. --James Duggan 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  13. -- Edgecution 00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  14. -- Kyros 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Aaru Bui 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The result of this debate was No Consensus as there are equal amounts of users who feel that both formats are suitable. — Moe Epsilon 19:52 September 26 '06

Championship and accomplishments Formatting

Format 1

  1. -- Giant onehead 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. ---- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- McPhail 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- Normy132 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. -- --Darren Jowalsen 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. ----Oakster (Talk) 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. --James Duggan 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- Kyros 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Format 2

Defeated Leviathan on February 20, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA.
Lost to Nova on May 15, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA.
  1. — Moe Epsilon 22:54 September 22 '06
  2. -- TJ Spyke 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- RobJ1981 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. –– Lid(Talk) 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Geoffg 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- Edgecution 00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. -- Jonathan Burgess 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. -- Night Bringer 16:49, 26 September 2006 (GMT +10)
  10. --Aaru Bui 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Paulley 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) -- late vote

Mass Transit Incident (ECW)

Does it make more sense for this article to be title Eric Kulas and have all links redirect to this page. It makes more sense? Kyros 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

A suggestion: more use of animated gifs for mid-maneuver images. Often single images make it unclear as to what is going on. While animated gifs are larger, the point of images in not just to entertain, but to inform, so making the action that they are portraying clearer would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.180 (talk • contribs) .

We still have to consider people with slow Internet connections. A lot of people who can use Wikipedia, particularly those in emerging nations probably have slow connections. A well done text description supplemented by a preferably free image suffices in most cases. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jtalledo, animated GIF's would be hell for those on dial-up and other slow internet connections. If a move is described well enough (which I will admit that there are many that aren't) then a person should be able to see the move in their mind. TJ Spyke 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE Championship Template Article

Since the Women's Championsip is now defunct, it really shouldn't be listed under "RAW championships". Also, I think it would be nice if we added "Former championships" to the template, and added the Woman's championship to that section. I just wanted to know all of your opinions on this, and get some consensus on the matter. ---SilentRAGE! 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Add new topics to the bottom. The Women's title is not defunct, it's vacant, there's a difference. They're still mentioning it and setting up something to crown a champ between Lita and Mickie James.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
My bad, there's actually a tournament being set up for it. Still, not defunct and should stay where it is.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but what about my suggestion about adding a defunct title section to the template? ---SilentRAGE! 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2 wrestling pages that probably should be locked

World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster need locks on them. Anons have been sticking Kurt Angle in heavyweight division, yet Angle hasn't wrestled for TNA once. One recent promo isn't active. This seems to be an ongoing trend that should be stopped. WWE roster had a lock at one point, but was removed. WWE roster has constant reverts as well. Anytime someone new has a promo, they are put in an active section. Same goes for anytime a rumor pops up, anons usually stick it on the roster page. All these edits need to be stopped. Posting things on the talk page isn't helping alot. Locking seems like the best solution. RobJ1981 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Normy132 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sirelda

Sirelda (Jaime Dauncey) is still on the TNA roster page under he inactive section. I'm pretty sure TNA said they were finished with her just after her match with Gail Kim. Can someone follow this up please. Normy132 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

She's still on TNAWrestling.com's roster page. We should leave her on our roster until they take her off their roster. --James Duggan 02:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments formatting pt. 2

It's apparent from the above straw polls, that the succession boxes are not wanted. But there appears to be no consensus about the Championships and accomplishments formatting. I think it might be better to list some positives and negatives about these two formats. Anybody wanna start? — Moe Epsilon 19:58 September 26 '06

The additional information is interesting, but I fail to see how it qualifies as being encyclopedic. A wrestler winning a championship, the month day and year, the city and state where the wrestler wins the title, who they win the title from, the month day and year they lose the title, the city and state where it's lost, and who they lose it to. It's interesting, but there's no real use for it as I can see. It takes up far too much space, unnecessarily. Listing the championships and accomplishments of some wrestlers in that format, in all honesty, requires it's own article onto itself. It looks so clustered and disorganized. As far as I'm concerned, the only relevant information is to list all the titles a wrestler has won and the number of reigns. As far as a negative to that format, I really don't see one. To me, it looks much neater, more organized, and doesn't take up unnecessary space. Odin's Beard 23:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Odin's Beard (wtf? lol). Format one is space-consuming, disorganised and for the most part it is trivia. Format two is the complete opposite. It's small, quick and straight to the point and there are already articles with complete histories (some better organised than others) of all the major championships in all the major promotions. Normy132 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Like I said up there a ways, if people really need the whys and wherefors of title changes they can hit the specific title pages. For titles without those pages we generally don't have that information anyway and it's debatable if they're even worth listing. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I also voted to simplify the titles. The thing is, is that there are predetermined titles, so documenting all of the factors just doesn't seem necessary. And like bdve says, if you really want to know the cities and dates, you can go on the page for the title and find out for yourself. Simpler is always better, and it will save time for editors as well. Giant onehead 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
True, but its just the case of making sure seccession boxes are not added in its place... funny how everything comes back on itself after time... considering i was the first one to display Championships and accomplishments under the general "1-time" list fashion on wikipedia, though it was called "Titles Held" back then. --- Paulley
Lol, I also missed the voting. personally i would prefer to see Format 2 where possible --- Paulley 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As for the positives of Format 2. In this format the chronological display of titles won is easily established and visiable... which goes double for tag title reigns, where it allows people to clearly see who the wrestler has won titles with and in what order, which cant be said for the first format.
Another advantage for the second format come when titles are renamed. For example format one would say a wrestler is a 2-time WWE Intercontinental Champion, while format two allows a user to clearly show that the same wrestler infact held the WWF Intercontinental Championship (1) in the fist reign, and the WWE Intercontinental Championship (2) in the second. It also spots people even considering to readd sucession boxes (note: this is what it was made for in the first place) as the information is clearly (that word again) visable--- Paulley
The information in the first positive can be found in the article on the specific championship. Alternatively, this stuff can be noted in the wrestler's career section as prose if it's relevant enough. As for the second one, rarely if ever are titles renamed and in the case of the WWE ones, the new names retroactively apply to all past title reigns, as is evident on WWE's website. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Lol, NWA Cyberspace has changed names god knows how many times... also as for WWE, they often refer to titles before the name change in interviews and in the Today in Wrestling Hisory segment like "Sgt Slaughter won the WWF Championship...". For encyclopedic reasons alone we should be refering to titles be the right name. -- Paulley
as for the other remarks; i said clearly shows... pros are good but the attention span off most people wont wanna read 900 line collection of week-by-week (as are what im sorry to say most these articles are) to seek out and put together the same information... lol then again i guess its easier with week by week that it would be with pros... in a random comparison, movie stars have filmography list along with the written pros information which shows the name of the movie, when it was made, what character they played and often other titbits of info. --- Paulley 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The format works well when a wrestler has only won a few titles, but it looks absurd when dozens upon dozens of meaningless title reigns are listed. McPhail 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I think things should be uniform, and not give Joe Smhoe some lengthy title write-up and Ric Flair gets simplified. It's best to just keep it simple. The info is still out on other, easily accessable pages if you need it. Giant onehead 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
If the lengthier format is what the consensus prefers or the shorter one, then it should be applied to all the articles. Otherwise, to me, it would appear that some type of favoritism or personal point of view is being imposed on the articles. If all the details of all of Ric Flair's title victories are to be listed, for instance, then it should be done on all of them. I've seen a couple of articles that've listed some of the title reigns by including where the wrestler won it, who it was won from, etc. while other title regins are just listed with the number of times won. Some of the titles don't have articles of their own, many of which don't because they no longer exist or haven't existed for decades, and the information is extremely difficult to locate. If all the information on various titles can't be located, and a good deal of it probably can't be, then it just looks unorganized. I've seen others where the number of title reigns are listed and months and years are included as to when a wrestler would lose a title, but nothing else is given. Not where they won it, who it was won from, the exact day it was won, etc. It just looks half-assed that way, even though it's not intended to be. The smaller format is simpler, neater, doesn't take up as much space, and there won't be some titles with details on who won it, where, how long they had etc., and some that don't because nobody knows the info. Odin's Beard 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The second choice is more organized and cleaner. The belts will have a link to their respective lineage page. The first choice will get messy. Imagine listing everyone of Brian Christopher beat when they won a combined 25 USWA Southern Titles ..... So were going to have list everyone he beat for the belts and the locations .... come on ... let's get serious (in kayfabe) :-) Kyros 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But thats what happens when people add sucession boxes... they only add boxes for titles, for the most part, in WWE and leave the others. If information is hard to locate then isnt that the point of these articles to research and bring together information thats is almost impossible to find in one place anywhere else.. i understand for some wrestlers it just isnt viable but for some pages esspecially team articles where a entire section is used for a line to say "1-time...." followed by a subsection with a box in it to show the titles sucession, isnt the three line format 2 better to use. its provides more information in less space under one section. You could just remove the sucession boxes but then you are using a whole section for one line and that looks messy---Paulley
Kyros has a good point. I edited the championships and accomplishments section for Scott Levy, AKA Raven, a few days ago and it looked completely ridiculous. Some reigns of various championships were written in the first format and some in the second. Raven won the WWF Hardcore Championship 27 times with each reign listed individually. It's ridiculous. By writing it in the first format, his Hardcore Championship reigns practically needed it's own article. Granted, most wrestlers don't have as many championships to their credit, but I fail to see the true encyclopedic value of the first format. Odin's Beard 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian WWE Experience

Although I started the article on WWE Xperience (some time ago, even) for the new Canadian WWE recap show, it should be merged with The WWE Experience as this is the correct title and has a similar format. However, it is presented in a substantially different manner (having Score anchor Ryan Paton host it rather than, say, Steve Romero or Todd Grisham), and would require massive structural changes to the article in question. Your thoughts? kelvSYC 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_14_e39b.html"