Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 17

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 17

Contents

Tag Team pages

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

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

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

Match order for upcoming wrestling events

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

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

Nigel McGuinness

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

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

The Damaja

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

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

This user never responds to anything. I finally reported him to the AIV board, but it was ruled a content dispute and I was told to go through the WP:DR process. Like I said, he never responds to anything, so that is impossible. What should we do? -- THL 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to star a WP:RFC and, I'm probably just thick but, I couldn't find out how to from the page(!) It's a pain; an administrator won't see it as vandalism, yet he's clearly disruptive. Half his edits are good, half not, and he won't bloody talk to people...BertieBasset 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
That is no exageration either. I checked his contributions using Interiot's tool, and he has no (user) talk page edits. NONE. I wish that someone would just block him. -- THL 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Former ECW World Champions winning the title in ECW brand

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

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

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

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

---Paulley

Category:Ring of Honor alumni

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

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

List of wrestlers in movies up for deletion

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

Question about Raven's Nest

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

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

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

Rated-RKO

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

I agree. I never got the impression that Rated RKO is a stable, and that Lita's matches were considered Rated RKO matches. Geoffg 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
They are not a stable.. Lita just acted like a valet to the team... though valets title wins while apart of the team still count on the accomplishments. -- Paulley
It should be pointed out that Kenny's recent attempts to join Rated-RKO screams to me that this is a stable. I say we wait a couple weeks for this story to play out before making a final decision. Mshake3 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
We might have to add protection on this article, lots of IPs seem to be adding nasty quirks. Govvy 23:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Pro wrestling articles that need photos

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

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

Category:WWE Champions

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

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

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

Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster

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

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

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

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

Hmm, apparently having an alumni category is against policy (see here). James Duggan 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case we should say "okay" to categories for current and past employees of a promotion, but we need to find a word other than "alumni" or "roster", because alumni implies "former" and roster implies "current". How about "Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling wrestlers"? I can't say I like the clunky sound of "Wrestling wrestlers" at the end there, but I can get used to it. Can anyone think of anything better? Geoffg 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
"wrestlers" is what I proposed on the CFD too. James Duggan 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How is having this any different than college alumni pages? Like Category:Harvard University alumni? TJ Spyke 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2 Scott Hudson articles

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

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

Change all instances of "RAW" to "Raw"?

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

Hmm, I wonder if WWE saw what happened here? I would support that change since it looks like WWE made that change official. And WWE also seems to have officially removed the exclamation point from SmackDown as well, so we should make that change too. --James Duggan 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the logo's are all capped, but when it is written in context it's pretty normal and yes, if you look at the current SmackDown the ! is gone from the end of it. But the SmackDown logo now is "Friday Night SmackDown" by the looks that is the full title. Govvy 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know it's Friday Night SmackDown, I just didn't feel like writing out the full name. I was just saying that we should remove the exclamation point from the article name and all references. --James Duggan 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you don't watch SmackDown since just this past week it had the exclamation point in the opening. TJ Spyke 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll say outright that I don't watch Smackdown, but they seem to be doing away with the exclamation point at wwe.com. The version of the logo that's on the site now does not have it, and all the recent text uses "SmackDown" without the exclamation point. Even if the logo remains unchanged, that's no reason to favor the logo typesetting over the typesetting that the company itself uses when talking about the show. Croctotheface 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Smart (professional wrestling) and Smark (professional wrestling)

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

I'd put it under Smark myself as that seems the more "official" term, but I agree they should be merged. --James Duggan 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that the two terms refer to different things, but the bottom half of the Smart article is actually describing Smarks. In other words, Smarts are people who are "in on the secret" but not necessarily fans (eg. roadies, agents, bookers, wives), while Smarks are both "smart" and fans, a seeming dichotomy in the old days. My question is not "should these articles be merged?" but rather "should these be dictionary entries instead of encyclopedia articles?" Geoffg 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I would say that smark actually has a reason to be encylopediac smart I think could be a part of kayfabe article (i think it is actually mentioned there. NegroSuave 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Champions Pages

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

Finished:

To Do:

  • Coming Soon

Mshake3 01:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I cannot count the number of times I've been looking at title histories and been annoyed with their setup. I'll write the List of WWE Champions format into the WP:PW main page. Normy132 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Mshake3 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(wrestler) vs (pro wrestler)

I think the main consensus is to tag it with wrestler on the end of a name. If I am wrong let me know but I am going to move pages as needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NegroSuave (talk • contribs) 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Yea we say (wrestler) but sooner or later we may have to consider moving them to (professional wrestler) as like with tag team or aything else as we list them as (professional wrestling) not (pro wrestling) or (wrestling)... but thats something we can think about later... at the moment its just (wrestler) -- Paulley

Professional wrestling school

This article needs to be expanded or deleted. We don't need a list of professional wrestling schools. NegroSuave 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it should be about wrestling schools in general, not a list page. A list page probably should be created for the notable content on the slang page. RobJ1981 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe even a category would be more appropriate rather than creating a completely new article. Normy132 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I see you blanked out most of the links there Rob, I think we should take the initiaive and see if we can actually do an article on wrestling schools. I'll look for some sources. NegroSuave 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tribute to the Troops

Can this article be deleted - it's just a normal RAW except it's filmed in Iraq with the Troops. It doesn't develop any future storylines. Davnel03 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The survey that matters can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute to the Troops. --James Duggan 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

I have put a survey on this matter.

  • Support: Reason

OR

  • Oppose: Reason

Sign your name with 4 tildes (Davnel03 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC))


  • Oppose: This is an annual WWE phenomenon, that, while not advancing storylines, is notable enough to be remarked on in the non-wrestling sports media. It is also an undertaking that is said to be personally important to Vince McMahon, so I don't see it going away any time soon. The current article about the phenomenon of an annual visit to the armed forces should remain, and all temptation to divide it up into articles "by year" should be resisted. Geoffg 03:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This show is one of the rare occasions where WWE makes it into the newspapers for an event. As said above, it doesn't look like it will be called off any time soon either. Normy132 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories should include both current and former members per guideline

Per Jim's suggestion under the cfd discussion at [1], I am posting an FYI for your project's consideration regarding a categorization guideline that seems to contradict the way you are setting up "alumni" and "roster" categories.

Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (categories)-Occupation specifies that occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. One reason for this guideline is to reduce category maintainence, so that once an article qualifies for category inclusion its status does not have to be constantly monitored.

However, that contradicts categories that distinguish between current members of a wrestling roster versus former members. Examples of wrestler categories that divide current and former "alumni" members include Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni, Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni, Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni, and Category:Ring of Honor alumni. Per the guideline, such categories should instead list all members, both former and current.

As Jim suggested in the Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster cfd discussion, I'm posting this to allow you guys to discuss how this might affect your categorization scheme, and also decide on whether or not you prefer to use the word "roster" or "alumni" to include both current and former members. Once you guys hash it out, you can then create an umbrella cfd nomination for all the affected categories and either rename or merge/delete categories as necessary to make them all consistent.

Personally, my opinion here is that the categories should follow the guideline and include both former and current members. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether to use the word "roster" versus "alumni". Dugwiki 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well since it's a guideline, the roster categories should exist then. The only issue I have with it is: ECW. The old ECW was a promotion, the current ECW is just a brand of WWE. So I'm sure many editors will stick people such as Test, Hardcore Holly in ECW... when they should be in WWE only. We don't need Raw, Smackdown and ECW cats, for each of those brands (just in case someone mentions it). But alumni categories should exist for defunct (dead) promotions still: WCW and so on. Since there is no WCW currently (and no plans to bring it back...yet at least), a roster cat seems misleading, in my opinion. RobJ1981 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, ECW is a tricky situation. The current version of ECW is actually simply a branded show under the WWE wrestling promotion. The prior version of ECW was its own independent promotion. So as a technical matter the current ECW wrestlers are actually technically WWE wrestlers, since that's the actual company they're working for. One way to handle this might be to emphasize in the category description for ECW that it is for the independent promotion ECW that is now defunct, and that wrestlers who appear on the WWE show titled "ECW" are categorized instead as WWE wrestlers. Dugwiki 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Another alternative to the words "alumni" and "roster" is "wrestlers". In The Rock's article, I noticed he's part of the category "Miami Hurricanes football players", so having the categories as "(insert promotion here) wrestlers" could work. --James Duggan 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the ECW category should only be for wrestlers from the original ECW promotion (not WWE) and that this should be made clear in the category description. If nothing else it will give us something to point to when correcting editors that don't realize it. I also agree that "wrestlers" is better than "roster" or "alumni", since it is neutral regarding current vs. former members. Also, since we're on the topic, should we have a separate category for wrestlers from the original AWA and wrestlers from Dale Gagne's new AWA? Or are multi-promotion "alliances" like the AWA and NWA too big to get their own category? Geoffg 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
To the person that started this, what about college alumni categories? Like Category:Harvard University alumni? I think having similar categories for wrestling promotions is just the same. As for ECW, I agree that only alumni of the ECW wrestling organization should be included since the current ECW is just a brand (like RAW and SmackDown). TJ Spyke 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The policy seems pretty clear to me. Maybe the college alumni categories should be changed too. I think part of the idea with sports teams, etc. is that individual athletes might move from roster to roster with some frequency, even returning to a previous roster sometimes, which would cause constant maintenance issues with their categorizations. College alumni, on the other hand, simply become alumni and stay that way. Geoffg 05:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
We already have articles with the rosters on for instance there is an article thats "WWE Roster" which contains Raw, Smackdown and ECW. An alumni should be the former stars as the rosters will hold the current ones. You don't need to repeat those stars on the roster in categories. That's just replicating what we already have. So can we stick too, article rosters, and alumni categories. Govvy 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

RAW is Owen

..has been nominated for deletion a second time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen (2nd nomination). The circumstances of its nomination were not entirely normal, but it's out there now. I closed the previous debate, as far as I can see there is no new reason to delete nor has the article changed in 2 months. Deizio talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, somebody already started a article for tonight's episode of RAW (Three Hour WWE Raw). I've prodded it, and will keep an eye on it in case the PROD is removed. TJ Spyke 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt Bentley - Maverick Matt

Recently, articles continue to use the name Matt Bentley, even though he's been officially called Maverick Matt since March (yeah, I thought it was a temporary thing too). Look out for articles that reference from March 2006 through today that still say Matt Bentley. Mshake3 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

He is still called Matt Bentley as well. They may refer to him mainley as Maverick Matt, but they call him Matt Bentley as wel. TJ Spyke 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me a recent article from TNA that says Matt Bentley? Mshake3 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't found one. In the recent PPV recap, they keep calling him Maverick Matt. Whenever he's come to the ring, he's called Maverick Matt. The fact they still say Matt Bentley means nothing, as in WWE they still sometimes refer to HHH as Hunter, and King Booker as Booker T. --James Duggan 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did find a few articles from the site. But the one thing to consider is that since March, he's been announced by Penzer as Maverick Matt, his on-screen graphic has said Maverick Matt, and his bio on TNAWrestling.com says Maverick Matt. I'm all for articles refering to him as Bentley (ala Triple H as Hunter) as the sentences will flow better, but the first mention should be his ring name at the time, which for most of this year was Maverick Matt. Mshake3 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Peurto Rician wrestlers

User:GhettoV1 has been the cause of recent upsurge in poorly added PR wreslters. He doesnt seem to grasp the concept of spacing, most notable because his articles all originally began life as, for example, Blitz(wrestler), Los Bad Guys(Bandido & Crazy Rudy), Livewire(wrestler)... i have personally gone through 20 or so to bring them to a sort of stub standard (for example Abbad, Adrian Cortez, Daniel Garcia Soto) while tagging or prodding some of the more 30 plus others horrible pages and leaving messages on his talk page in hopes that he would try to follow the formatting of some of his changed articles. However it is evedent that he is simply ignoring this by removing the tags and continuing to add more badly written articles... still without using spaces or commas correctly.... i think something needs to be done. --- Paulley 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if some pages he creates are nonsense, put a nonsense warning. I'm not sure if there is anything else in place for people that regularly make poor articles. Many people don't know about the proper formatting, so I think you've done just about all you can do by posting on his talk page. I suppose you could bring it up at WP:AN/I, since the editor is ignoring your help and continues to create poor articles. RobJ1981 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Flash Funk vs 2 Cold Scorpio vs Charlie Skaggs (wrestler)

I'm trying to figure out what we should name this page. My thinking is that it should be under Charlie Skaggs with redirects from his gimmicks since both of them are very well known. Input? NegroSuave 15:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is question it should probably be Charlie Skaggs with redirects. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2 Cold Scorpio is the name he is most famous as and what almost only uses. No reason to move it. TJ Spyke 00:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that is he's about to be Flash Funk again on a national stage.«»bd(talk stalk) 16:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
And Flash Funk redirects to his article. It's the same reason we don't move every other wrestler when they change names. TJ Spyke 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll concede that, but hasn't the (unofficial) rule been if someone is very known under more than one name we go with the real name? (like Glen Jacobs)«»bd(talk stalk) 02:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
He's not very well known as Flash Funk though. The gimmick bombed when it first started, and he hasn't yet reappeared on TV under it. TJ Spyke 03:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I would go with the real name... we are having the smae problem with Senshi/Low Ki and we opted to go with Brandon Silvestry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).
Somebody moved it to Charlie Skaggs (Flash Funk), which is a horrible title "Charlie Skaggs" just redirects to it, so maybe sombody should request a move to Charlie Skaggs. TJ Spyke 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Requested«»bd(talk stalk)

Wrestling Newsletters, Magazines, Periodicals, review sites etc

We need to establish some guidelines as to what should be included and what should not be included. I know that these things are a dime a dozen but some of them are actually quite notable it is becoming very hard to establish the notability. This is made even more difficult by the semi kayfabe that pervades wrestling so it's really hard to see what's a work and what is legit. It is easy to say "Well I know this because so and so said so" unfortunately we can't be primary sources or do original research. I want to know what you all think about what we can do here. I defended the Scott Keith article because he is one of the few writers to write specifically about professional wrestling. But as far as quick and easy link research, that is very hard to establish through net sites. NegroSuave 15:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Puroesu

This article needs a lot of clean up and help. It should be one of our flagship articles along with the Professional Wrestling article. It needs a lot of sourcing. NegroSuave 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More Lex Luger fun

On the talk page for Lex Luger there's an ongoing discussion about the inclussion of a segment about a viral video he was in. We need more input from some uninterested third parties.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to add to this, the viral video was most likely added by a wrestlecrap posters.

see here (http://realwrestlecrap.proboards89.com/index.cgi?board=wrestling&action=print&thread=1159730314) do a find for "And some jerk keeps removing info about Lex's famous viral video on his page as well, we need him to stop it, so revert that back if you get a chance". One of the editors who kept putting the viral info back was the same editor who replaced Sid Eudy's page with "He crapped his pants... crapped them". While that is hilarious there is not reason to keep it. Just like there is no reason to keep the viral video that only a segment of the IWC is obsessed with. 49erInOregon 19:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

TNA Pay-Per-Views

I have a proposal for the TNA pay-per-views, so they look more like the WWE Pay-Per-View articles. WWE Pay-Per-View articles, for instance have all the WWE No Way Out's together and all the WWE Vengeance's together, so is there any way you could put all the TNA PPV's into one?

E.G.:

  • TNA Final Resolutions all in one article
  • TNA Genesis in a seperate article.

If this occurs with all Pay-Per-View's, it would look more like the traditional way, like what it is like for WWE, ECW + WCW PPV's

I have set up a poll underneath.

Poll

  • Support

OR

  • Oppose

Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Many thanks

  • Support: Unless a particular "Turning Point", for example, is somehow more notable than the other "Turning Points", they can all be captured in one article. If the article gets too long (or if one section gets too long) we can break up the article. Geoffg 09:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't think every ppv is notable enough to warrant its own page and will be better off moving all the related ppv events to one page. -Electricbolt 17:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: They should be together in one article. James Duggan 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support ALL the TNA PPV articles should be in one except for Bound for Glory, because that is the WrestleMania of TNA. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 19:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support All should be merged except for Bound For Glory (TNA's flagship show) and maybe Slammiversary (TNA's anniversary show) Normy132 23:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Except for BFG and Slammiversary. TJ Spyke 00:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Except BFG -- Scorpion 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
A little question here. What makes Bound for Glory more notable to have its own page? The article's about the same size, the show's the same length and the way I see it, TNA ain't really making quite that big of a deal out of it as WWE is with WrestleMania. --Aaru Bui DII 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
They made a big deal out of BFG this year, and more than once they said this was their biggest show of the year (their version of the Super Bowl/World Series).
  • Support: Except for the TNA PPVs that are identified as "major" - BFG, Slam, the one where every match is in a steel cage, and one other one I can't recall... kelvSYC 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the majority of the vote is support, can we put this into action by merging the articles? Whether we should concentrate on one PPV at a time, it's your choice. If you want to do a organised merge, you have my support. Many thanks for your opinion. Davnel03 21:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should wait another day or two since this has only been open for 2 days. TJ Spyke 23:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I went through and did all except for BFG and Slammiversary. Should Slammiversary be combined as well? It's TNA's other major PPV since it celebrated the anniversary of the promotion. TJ Spyke 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If you just consider the article itself, not much difference between all of them both in content and in length. Not like the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series with those elimination tables and the amount of years those big ones date back to. --Aaru Bui DII 06:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I suppose if it does become bigger it can just be split back up in the future. I'm about to log off, so i'll take care of it tomorrow. I hope other people will be willing to help fix all the links (since all the articles that link to Final Resolution 2004 or 2005 redirect to Final Resolution for example). It's pretty easy, but there are a lot of them. TJ Spyke 08:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I'll do it. I'll just run AWB. Piece of cake. --Aaru Bui DII 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not just Final Resolution, that was an example. Basically all the TNA ppv's except for Bound for Glory needs to be fixed. TJ Spyke 00:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I did them all. What did I miss? --Aaru Bui DII 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
        • You did a great job, I just noticed a few like Jeff Hardy (you can go to a PPV and click on "What links here" to see). TJ Spyke 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, apparently it was fully protected so I had to request unprotection. --Aaru Bui DII 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Pay-Per-View's

This what I'm about to say is more than likely not to happen, but I am (yet again) proposing something. I am proposing that a month before that PPV it gets blocked. The day after the event has occured, we unblock it.

E.g.

  • WrestleMania 23 occurs on April 1st. We automatically block it on March 1st. It becomes unblocked on April 2nd.
  • Backlash 2007 occurs on April 28th. We block it on March 28th. It gets unblocked on April 29th.

This way, vandals will have no way to put in any unannounced matches, as they will not be able to access them. I don't know whether this can happen, but I think it can. I have set up a survey underneath.

Poll

  • Support

OR

  • Oppose

Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Many thanks.

  • Oppose As much as I dislike the vandalism, WP:SEMI says semi-protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred. -- oakster TALK 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunate Oppose I wish we could. As Oakster pointed out though, semi-protection can't be used as a preventive measure to stop vandalism. TJ Spyke 00:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppse Use the one that can still allow edits from registered users. Mshake3 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing titles in matches

This has been discussed before but some people won't listen. I'm trying to list the titles in the Armageddon main event as it's a huge part of the match but I keep getting interference. Even the listing on WWE.com concurs. I'll agree to a consensus if we reach one. Can we settle this once and for all? --Maestro25 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well according to that last discussion, the poll was in favour of oppose, so I guess they don't belong in there. Normy132 07:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It was pretty much even.
Unless the title is on the line, why does it matter? Davnel03 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
They don't matter if they aren't on the line. If you check the results pages on WWE for past PPV's, they don't list titles in non-title matches. TJ Spyke 23:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to remember recent non-title matches. A quick check shows that the Cruiserweight title being listed at this year's Great American Bash even though it wasn't on the line and again at No Mercy, JBL's U.S. title at Judgment Day, and of course in the main event at Armageddon. And the upcoming DX match at New Year's Revolution. Maestro25 02:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar and User:Verdict

Vandal.. who has been blocked before... is once again vandalising this article and others. his edits get reverted and many messageses have been left on his talk page.. which he now blanks he has to be stopped... the last 500 edits on Brok Lesnar are his plus the reverts... --- Paulley

He is also adding .gif images to moves lists which he constandly readds when they are removed --- Paulley
I've used my three reverts now, although reverting his vandalism shouldn't probably count towards 3RR. I've nominated him for a permanent ban.
↪Lakes (Talk) 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

TNA weekly pay-per-views

Anyone care to help expand the TNA weekly pay-per-view pages and have them in the corrent format? Are there any other sites besides this one that has their results? --Aaru Bui DII 13:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

yea i saw that the results are looking a little sparse at the moment defiinetly something we need to look into completing --- Paulley 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are two good results pages cagematch.net, and OWW-- Paulley
You know, now that I think it through, these weekly pay-per-views aren't much different from iMPACT! and the current weekly shows. Should these be deleted? --Aaru Bui DII 17:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking that too, they were basically weekly TV shows. TJ Spyke 00:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I also think the reuslts article should be deleted but there should be an article about the weekly PPVs, like the RAW and iMPACT! articles. Normy132 00:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD debate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10 --Aaru Bui DII 04:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment

Just to let you guys know since its creation was half-finished, I've set up the page for article assessment here showing how to assess articles involved in this project.

In terms of quality assessment, a few have already been previously assessed before. I've just assessed the non-article pages.

While I don't expect this to be done overnight, it might be helpful in terms of focus if we have an idea which articles are more important in the project than others. For those wondering, we have four categories in the importance scale (Top, High, Mid and Low). Take consideration that Top importance is really the basis of all information and so would include only a few articles such as professional wrestling and history of professional wrestling as opposed to High importance articles which would include such articles as Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair. As a helping hand, from last year's talk with WP:1.0, we gave these as examples of high importance articles:

-- oakster TALK 21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necro Butcher

I have initiated the above AfD. Pro or con, I figured this would be the best place to notify people that might have an interest and an opinion in this debate. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Then-champ/wife/whatever

I'm almost positive we covered this, but can't find it in the huge archives.

Do we really need to have "then-champion", "then-wife", "then-partner" in articles? Isn't it a little obvious?

This seems to go along with removing "the late" before mentions of now dead wrestlers to me, which we've stopped doing.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that many details of pro-wrestling history, such as who was champion and who was married to whom, would not be obvious to the casual reader. Since an encyclopaedia is for explaining stuff to the general reader, shouldn't we mention that someone is a "then-champion" or "then-wife" when it's relevant? I would agree, however, that such things should be avoided when they're not relevant. Geoffg 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
See, I tend to disagree. If the article is about a specific time or specific event it's obviously the "then-whatever". «»bd(talk stalk) 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The Heavenly Bodies

I have written this article, any comments are appreciated. Thank you. Kyros 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Short lived tag teams

On the AFD for V-Squared, there is a suggestion about starting an article like "List of minor WWE tag teams". Maybe that is something we could do, make a page about minor/short lived tag teams (like V-Squared, and Fire & Ice). It could have a short description for each team (like who was in the team and when they were together), it would be for teams that don't deserve an article. TJ Spyke 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. An article like that should be on a wrestling wiki, not here. Tag team cruft shouldn't get an article. Short lived teams (when notable: such as a short lived tag team championship team), should only be on the wrestlers articles. RobJ1981 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

now World Wrestling Entertainment

Is this really necessary in articles? I just don't see the point in it. When you click on World Wrestling Federation, obviously it'll take you to the WWE article. If the person is searching for World Wrestling Entertainment, the article should show up in a search because of the link. We're encouraged to refer to WWFE articles from before May 2002 as WWF. While it's only four words, I just don't think they're necessary. 67.175.74.87 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ring of Honor shows

As a heads up: many of the shows have no sources. I'm no Ring of Honor expert, so I'm posting this here. If some of the shows aren't very notable, then a prod or AFD should be on them. RobJ1981 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments

I have noticed a lot of wrestlers awards are kind of scattered around a bit. I think to be more organized we need to start having WWF/WWE at the top. WCW, NWA-TNA, ect. the major's and the minor's more organized. We should note this more clearly on the project page also. Govvy 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay alphabetical. «»bd(talk stalk) 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I still like the alphabetical too. While we're on the subject, however, I would like to discuss the best way to order the various NWA belts that people have won. I like the World/National/Regional scheme that has been going around (eg. Harley Race), but we should be clear on what those levels mean. I mean, is the NWA Florida World Tag Team Championship a Regional Championship, since it was only contested in Championship Wrestling from Florida, or is it a World belt, since it is called a "World Championship" (I would argue it is a regional belt)? An alternative would be to subdivide a wrestler's championships by territory (as I've done for Gene Kiniski), with a special category for interpromotional titles, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Any thoughts? Geoffg 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the title spec all alphabetical, it seems the most logical. For the others, like the NWA and all its sub-..."promotions", the Harley Race Method you showed should be used.--SteelersFan UK06 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
What about for the current active promotion? Say if they are either contracted to WWE or TNA. Should the active promotion not be the top of the list? Because I think it looks better with those at the top. Alphabetical is okay, but it doesn't show the hierarchical order of wrestling. I think it's important to display the hierarchical order somehow. Govvy 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There could be no consensus on the order if it was based on opinions. They should stay alphabetical.
↪Lakes (Talk) 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the Race method of doing the NWA before, I think we should adopt it project wide and put it on the main page. It's very clean.«»bd(talk stalk) 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. So, what are the criteria for being a "World", "National", or "Regional" title? In my view, the "World" and "National" titles are titles, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship that are held by champions that visit different promotions, while "Regional" titles are titles that are only contested in one promotion. So, for example, the NWA Florida World Tag Team Championship would be a "Regional" championship, even though its name sounds international. Does this sit well with people? I would also propose that it would be easier to keep any titles won in WWWF or New Japan or All Japan (eg. NWA International Heavyweight Championship) while they were NWA affiliates listed under those separate promotions, even though technically they would have been "Regional" NWA titles. - Geoffg 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but in the National Wrestling Alliance article, it actually lists all the titles and divides them up by World, National and Regional. Although you'll have to be careful looking at the World section and read the paragraphs, as the World section lists titles that had "world" in their name, but were actually regional titles and those paragraphs are basically disclaimer stating that. --James Duggan 04:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance assessment of biographies

I've been being bold and assessing various articles for quality and importance, and I wanted to run my importance criteria for biographic articles by everyone, to make sure we're on the same page. In my opinion, most biographical articles are Low importance (no matter how much we love the individual in question); Mid importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for individuals who've made a special contribution to professional wrestling, either as a superstar of special reknown or as a promoter/booker of special influence (eg. Paul Heyman, Bruno Sammartino, Vincent J. McMahon, etc.); High importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for only those very few individuals who had a formative influence on professional wrestling, without which it would not be what it is today (eg. Vince McMahon, Lou Thesz, Antonio Inoki, Ric Flair, etc.); in my opinion, no biographies can be Top importance, since this is the Pro Wrestling project, and not the Person X project. Does that scheme fit with everybody else's expectations? - Geoffg 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Professional Wrestling, not who people think is important or the people we love.--SteelersFan UK06 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with that. If there's a positive consensus over this, I wouldn't mind this being put up on our assessment page. -- oakster TALK 16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_17_7f85.html"