Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 19

Contents

David Lagana (cont'd)

The above post jogged my memory: to restate a point frrom the Big Dick Johnson thread, I think we could do without this and similar pages that amount to a directory of WWE staff. Simply saying he's a booker and he's responsible for pushing The Great Khali is hardly notable on its own and amounts to cruft biography. Unless somebody objects (and until he becomes a major behind-the-scenes player), I'd like to move ahead with the nom for deletion. --Geoff K. 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What we could do is make an all encompassing WWE creative team article. It could detail the likes of DeJoseph, and Lagana's (verifiable) contributions to creative until they warrant their own articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I like that idea. I think the collective actions of the creative team are notable enough for their own article - Geoffg 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I also like that idea. Normy132 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's a good idea to give the creative team their own page. Not every aspect of the WWE needs their own page, and this would be a bad idea. Television writers are generally not notable, and the fact is, it's very hard to find verifiable info about what the WWE writers have done, it's mainly found in dirtsheets, which could be dead wrong. I think the Lagana page should be deleted (as I believe that the Brian Gewirtz page was deleted at some point), and the writing staff should just be kept on the main roster's page. Booshakla 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The only WWE writer who deserves an article is Christopher DeJoseph, who has appeared on TV many times (plus a PPV) and even mocked in TNA a few times. He is the most notable WWE writer. TJ Spyke 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Is DeJoseph the most notable writer that isn't a former wrestler, probably. Is he notable for this own article? No way. He was only on shows a handful of times, didn't wrestle or do anything intregal in the storylines. 5 years from now, is anyone going to know who he is? We need to not write articles on every aspect of wrestling/WWE, and keep a historical context to them. Let's clean up the articles on the wrestling figures that are certainly the most important and not make a billion articles on indy guys. Booshakla 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tammy Lynn Sytch

Did a lot of work cutting down the post-WCW part of this article as there was tons and tons and tons of unneeded cruft and play-by-play. 192.204.106.2 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, great start. Hopefully someone will trim the "health issues" section some too. Booshakla 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Concrete policy on arbitrary groupings of wrestlers

One issue that the project has to take a stance on is the definition of tagcruft - articles on arbitrary groups of wrestlers. The general idea which is captured by this spirit is that ad-hoc groupings are not particularly worthy, and the only "reasonable" article on groups of wrestlers is if they form a well-known stable, team, or even feud. Having said that, I think it might be time to get a group policy on this.

The pairing of two wrestlers at random should not, under any normal circumstance, constitute an article. On the other hand, certain groups of wrestlers do have meaning - that's why they form teams, stables, or feud with each other. Where do we draw this line?

  • Tag teams may be formed by an ad-hoc grouping of wrestlers. For example, Cena and HBK are two singles that happen to team together that happen to win the WTTC on their first try. That doesn't mean that it's worth an article, because they haven't done much teaming together (nor does it seem that they will do much teaming together in the future). So a definite no on this.
  • On the other hand, something like Gibson and Morton would qualify, because they have done a lot together as a team.
  • As an extreme, we've also decided that if they haven't had much experience as singles (eg. career tag team specialists), they really shouldn't have a singles article - such as the case with Robbie and Rory.

Yet, we have a lot of articles on arbitrary groupings that have little value. One can argue that the team of Austin and Hunter doesn't really belong, as they were ad-hoc and didn't do much together for too long, except that one would back the other up. Yet, we don't have an article on ECW Originals, as it's not formally a stable or a team, yet is a well-recognized arbitrary grouping (ie. a group of wrestlers who are in the new ECW, having been an alumnus of the old ECW).

What are your thoughts on this matter?

kelvSYC 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all three points made but I think that the Austin/HHH team was a bad example. They served the same purpose as Rated RKO and that was to take out their rivals (Taker and Kane). But it is a very thin line between what's notable and what's not but I think it's reasonably easy to tell as a wrestling fan (particularly smarks) if a tag team is an established one or not. Normy132 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PPV location terminology

May be pedantic, but shouldn't the venues read as:

(Event) took place on (date) at (venue); or (Event) was broadcast from (venue) on (date) rather than (Event) took place on (date) from (venue)

since events don't take place "from" somewhere ?

--Dave. 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "From" doesn't sound right since events don't take place "from" somewhere. -- bulletproof 3:16 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone have any objections before I start changing all the articles? --Dave. 09:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'from' convention derives from the fact that a PPV or televised event is said to be "coming to you (live) from" the location in question by the announce team. I don't know how widespread a convention this is. Has anyone checked the terminology for any other sports? - Geoffg 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It probably does, but there's a difference in grammar between "coming from" and "took place from". The last is wrong, surely? I don't have any objection to "was broadcast from", but given that there is also a live audience at the event, I would have thought that descricing the event as having taken place "at" a venue would be grammatically correct. For example, you would say "I saw Chicago play AT Minnesota", not "I saw Chicago play FROM Minnesota"... thoughts? --Dave. 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Grammatically speaking, you are very correct. I was just wondering if there was some conventional colloquialism being used. An event surely took place 'at' a certain place, although you might want to consider 'in' for arenas or cities. I might say "Wrestlemania was held in MSG," for example, or "I saw Chicago play IN Minnesota." - Geoffg 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:PW format instructions, HERE, the date is stated first followed by the venue and then the location. So the case here would only be changing "No Way Out took place on February 18, 2007 from the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California" to "No Way Out took place on February 18, 2007 at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California". -- bulletproof 3:16 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No objections here. Just change the "from"s in every event articles to "at"s. Cheers! -- bulletproof 3:16 13:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I've done the vast majority of WWF/E events... on to WCW next! --Dave. 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Just add the word "emanated" in front of "from", it sounds better than "at" (and is what we have done with many WrestleMania articles). TJ Spyke 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Since no one objected, I started changing it. "Emanated from" sounds a lot better than "at". TJ Spyke 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it sounds better. And nobody objected because you started reverting everything before you claimed it sounds better. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with "emanated from" is that it has the same connotation as "from"; in other words it might be true for the PPV broadcast but not for the event, which is held at the arena. --Dave. 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
When someone says, "It took place... (on).... (at)...(in)..." what more do you need to say? If you say "It took place... (on)... AND EMMANATED FROM ... (in)..." it sounds like you are repeating the same thing. It’s like saying "Something took place here... ...and here again". It just doesn't sound right. The other way is better because it’s simple and gets straight to the point. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I usually say (because it sounds better) "It took place on ... from the .... in ....", emanated means the same thing. TJ Spyke 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE alumni

I was thinking a few days ago about the state of the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article and was thinking about a re-write. Currently it is in a weak state with the current alphabetical order by most notable ring name and it looks horrible now that I think about it. Plus, there has been confusion all over the page about the alphabetical order of the article, which name it should be listed by, etc. and the article itself had no sources.

Over the last couple of days I have re-written the article and for a chronological order instead of the past format. But instead of revertingback to the past (a plain link and date) I kept the table format and added a reference section so we can cite our work. It appears that most didn't find the current format appealing anyways. The new one is located at User:Moe Epsilon/WWE alumni. I am going to move it to the main article namespace to see how it goes from thereon.

What I need help with is more references. I added the Citation needed next to the ones I didn't find sources for. You guys can help by adding more sources to the References section. I will find more as the week progresses, but your help is wanted. semper fi — Moe 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Monster Factory

I created an article on the Monster Factory, any help with it would be appreciated! Kris Classic 02:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I added another sentence, but I noticed there is no article about Larry Sharpe. Should one of them be made part of the other's article? - Geoffg 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just created an article on Larry Sharpe as well, so the Monster Factory may want to be merged with him. Kris Classic 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Akram-Inoki wrestling match

I think we should delete the Akram-Inoki wrestling match, does anybody else agree? Kris Classic 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted (with the relevant information put in Inoki and Akram articles, if it isn't listed already) RobJ1981 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Use Of Thumbtacks In Professional Wrestling

If you get a chance, check out the AFD for this page. The author of the page made this overly long argument about keeping it, which is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read here. Feel free to give your take on this. But personally, the topic is way too crufty and specific to deserve a page, and comes off as OR and NPOV. Booshakla 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If you get a chance, check out the AFD for this page. It is bordering on comical about how badly the author wants to keep it, with long diatribes to match. I'm sure most of you would like to page deleted/slightly merged, so voice up. Booshakla 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But personally, the topic is way too crufty and specific to deserve a page That same argument was basically used in an AfD for most of the wrestling move articles on Wikipedia. Both "Cruftiness" and specificity are not reasons for deletion from Wikipedia. Poorly formatted as it might be, John Dalton's comment cleanly dissects your AfD proposal and refutes your claims. In fact, WP:NOT#PAPER suggests that such an article is well within the scope of Wikipedia, namely splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Personally, I would've expected the use of Tables, Ladders, or especially Chairs to have gained there own article by now rather than Thumbtacks, given the wide verity of ways those three items have been used before. Also, is there some sort of disagreement between yourself and John Dalton, as it seems like there is some underlying tensions in your second response to the AfD? --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He needs to get a life. The main thing is that the topic isn't notable, the references have nothing to do with the topic on hand, a vast majority of editors want the page deleted, there is no reason for it to be kept. WP is not a junkyard. His extremely long explanations were hurting the AFD process more than helping. I hope that this page will be deleted soon, it has no place here, and most of my fellow editors agree. Booshakla 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The subject is notible, especialy as it's a singnature weapon employed by Abyss in TNA, not to mention the number of matches they've appeared in. If they were used as a one time thing and never used again you'd have a point, but Thumbtacks are regularly seen in hardcore wrestling now. John Dalton made a very good point in regard to scources which I'll quote "A source does not have to be specifically about a topic. For example, many species of plants or animals only get a passing mention in publications, but would rate a mention in Wikipedia." An afD isn't a popularity contest, but a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors based on Wikipedia policy. I agree that wiki is not a junkyard, but I have difficulty trusting the opinion of someone who has been repeatedly blocked from articles and repeatedly warned for Vandalism in regards to policy. If anything, you may be the one who needs to "get a life". --Vladamire Steelwolf 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the barrage of insults. There is no way that the article will be kept. And yes, AFD isn't a popularity contest, but the arguments are far stronger for a delete/merge than keep, and 12 vs. 2 isn't helping the keep case either. I don't appreciate being told that I need to "get a life", I have a great life and this occupies very little of my time. And for the record, I've only been blocked once, which is quite common among established users. Booshakla 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I allowed your own uncivil comments above and in the AfD to color my response. I suggest that if you're bothered by the use of terms like "Get a life" you don't bring them into the conversation to begin with. --Vladamire Steelwolf 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE Legends

I've had the page on watch for some time and I've been defending it against people who add some names and remove others. But, this page is unsourced, and there are some that I have a hard time believing would sign a contract (ie. Owen Hart, because from what I've heard, Martha Hart wants nothing to do with the WWE). So, I think that unless somebody can find a source saying specifically who has signed a Legends contract, we should nominate this page for deletion. -- Scorpion 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would probably delete it, there really aren't too many reliable sources to find if they have signed legends contracts, and to what extent. A lot of those wrestlers signed contracts to do Jakks figures and the like. I would suggest maybe putting a paragraph about the program on a corresponding WWE page. Booshakla 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe also create a section on the Jakks page... -- Scorpion 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
AFD is the best way to go with the article. RobJ1981 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright then. I'll wait a day, then nominate it. Nobody knows of any sources? -- Scorpion 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The WWE Legends page has been nominated for deletion. Its afd can be found here. -- Scorpion 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Jonnie Stewart

The guy ran for Congress, got national media attention, he was mistaken for Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, got international media attention, I saw him many, many times on ESPN as a top heel for Verne Gagne's AWA. What are we arguing about? The article celarly states that he had no career in the mid-nineties and has never claimed anything then he does own a part of the AWA and he has wrestled in the main event for them since '96. I think that the AWA now has over 20 affliates around the country. This isn't a notable wrestler? User:Figurefour1900

Before I nominate it for deletion, can anybody provide a reason he should have an article? He doesn't seem too notable to me. TJ Spyke 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Check this link 1, this is certainly a vanity article. Booshakla 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as vanity articles go, that's certainly one of the best. AFD it.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, he has some notability, quoted from the article: In 2000, Jonnie Stewart received national headlines when he ran unsuccessfully for the United States Congress, in the affluent Illinois' 10th Congressional District, losing to current Illinois Congressman, Mark Steven Kirk. Feature stories about Stewart's campaign ran in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. Stewart also appeared on CNN, the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes and NBC's Today Show to discuss his candidacy for U.S. Congress. I think alot of cleanup would do the article good. Not a big deal though if it does get deleted through AFD. RobJ1981 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He's also one of the people who relicensed the AWA name in the state of Minnesota and helped to create the AWA territories and is a former holder of the AWA World Heavyweight Championship. He's very notible. That said, the piece might be vanity, in which case it might need a rewrite/sourced. --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • He held the AWA Heavyweight Championship. From when the title was revived (in 1996) until about 2003 it was'n worth squat and was just another indy title. I hadn't even heard of him until I was cleaning out the category for world champions and saw him. I will give a day or two for sources to be added and then will consider nominating it. TJ Spyke 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is very clearly a vanity project, but I don't think it would be deleted. I've recently learned that people who do several small things are considered notable. He apparantly ran for congress, he was a champion on the indy circuit and he appeared on several TV shows, so many will likely say that puts him above the notability line. However, the fact that it's a vanity article may count against it. If it is nominated, I'd vote delete. -- Scorpion 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article should be trimmed, no matter what. Running for congress isn't notable in itself, usually, and the article is not in NPOV, and the quotes part should be removed. Based on the standards of wrestling notability here, it might stay, but it's borderline. Booshakla 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Is anything going on with this page? The guy keeps adding stuff and continually removes the notability concern tags. Are we going to nom it for afd, or are we going to leave it alone? And, I love some of the sources that have been used, such as "Official bio at the AWA headquarters."-- Scorpion 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I've done a search for information relating to our man Mr Stewart allegedly defecating on Rikidozan's grave in revenge for a game of ludo and can sadly find nothing. But seriously, the article constantly refers to Stewart's "huge success", "great success", him being a "top star" and provides no real evidence of it to anyone who has never heart of the man.Suriel1981 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edge

I have set up a requested move over on Edge's talk page to move the page. Express your opinion on the talk page if you want to. —mikedk9109SIGN 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move since his real name is very well known to the public. TJ Spyke 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Added it to the "to do" box to hopefully get some attention.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It already failed once, what makes you think it will pass a second time around? --James Duggan 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Amy Zidian

Does this page deserve to exist? I know she was on TV, but she was a less than notable valet. Any thoughts? Peace -- The Hybrid 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should go, she was only on TV for 3-4 weeks, didn't do anything intregal. I believe that being an on-screen part of WWE Programming does not automatically entitle you to an article. I would vote delete on an AFD. Booshakla 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted as well. She didn't do much, and seems to have done nothing notable prior to/after WWE. RobJ1981 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would say I agree, but it's already been deleted. Bmg916 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not yet deleted. It's in articles for deletion: which determines if it will be deleted or not. RobJ1981 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd also try to delete Camille Anderson. Booshakla 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Camille Anderson is now up for deletion. This page needs to go, she had a bit part in a movie, and is far less notable than the other Diva Search rejects. There is no need whatsoever for this article to exsist when 10 other rejects got deleted as well. Booshakla 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Triple Cage

What to do about this? I assume merge it into Cage matches? 209.184.165.20 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a merger template to it. Discussion is available at the talk page. Normy132 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs references / Sources

Hi, I'm like brand new at this Wiki project so my question may be totally stupid. I've seen a lot of articles that are tagged with "Needs sources" or "Needs references". But what exactly needs some kind of source? That "Wrestler X" joined "Federation Y" in 2004? Do we need a source for title reigns? Is there some kind of guideline for wrestling articlles and references/sources? MPJ-DK 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are you in reference to? If I knew some, I can look at it and figure out what needs the source. But in general: all articles on Wikipedia need sources. If you see a wrestling article (or any Wikipedia article) with no external links and/or references section, it needs sources to be verified. RobJ1981 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I should have thrown in a few examples - some quick ones, not a full list: The Orient Express, Los Capos, La Furia del Norte, Blue World Order, Brothers of Destruction - hope that helps? MPJ-DK 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
All of those (with the except of Brothers), have no links in them at all. Articles need links of some sort to provide references and sources. Official sites, fan sites (which is the case alot of the time, since there isn't always official sites) and so on, should be used. RobJ1981 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright external links should be added, I can definitly try and do that. Should a specific references be used if a statement or quote is made to sustantiate the claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Warrior (wrestler)

I think that someone needs to take a look at the article, since I tagged it with the NPOV tag, due to the way the current article is written. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: I removed the NPOV tag and replaced the tags with the "OR" and the "weasel words" tag a few weeks ago. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jade Chung

Nominated this page for deletion.PepsiPlunge 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Wrestling Alliance

Nominated this page for deletion.PepsiPlunge 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable Apperances

I have a suggestion for something to add to profiles of people/teams/stables who may not have a long and glorious career but still deserves more than just three lines of "Consisted of A, B, & C in the XYZFed in 1990 and 1991". We could add a "Notable Apperance" section (after Finishing Moves/Signature Moves and Championships) which would list the PPV / "Big Show" apperances of the person/team/stable in chronological order.

Big Shows = Clash of Champions, Saturday Night's Main Event shows of that nature and not regular television shows.

This should only be for those that really don't have that many apperances otherwise it becomes a HUGE list of Shawn Michaels' PPV apperances, which is nothing short of listcruft. But in cases where there are limited things to write maybe an apperance list could round out the information nicely?

I've even created an example of what I'm talking about in The Orient Express Article, it's always better to illustrate it with an example IMO. So what do you guys think? "Notable Apperances" for people/teams/stables with a limited pro-wrestling lifetime?? Yes? No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the idea will work. In their career information/history: the main things are usually already listed. If it's on some wrestling articles, and not all... that's not consistent. All wrestling articles should have the same type of things: infobox, history, titles, etc. Just because the team (or wrestler) were around for a short time, doesn't mean a notable appearances section should be made. I think a section like that should be on a wrestling wiki or fan site, but not Wikipedia itself.. it falls under listcruft in my opinion. RobJ1981 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Karl Gotch

Does anybody else think we should change Karl Istaz to Karl Gotch? Kris Classic 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, per WP:COMMONNAME. Go ahead and move the article, or start a thread on his talk page. - Geoffg 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Title Vacanties on List of Champion pages

What do you think should be the best way to list when a championship is held up? In the notes section, or in one big row? I think it should be in the notes section, with the long rows kept for more important things. Mshake3 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I always liked the idea of having a seperate line for title vacancies. Possibly having them in a different coloured line to normal so that they are distinguishable and then we can fill in the notes section as to why it was vacated. Normy132 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would just list them in a row like a regular champ. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
But if it is a "List of Champions", why should title vacancies be listed as on par with actual champions? Mshake3 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

TV ratings pages

Is there really much of a need for any of these? They seem to fail a lot of points of WP:NOT, and there really aren't any other shows with ratings pages. I put up 2007 Wrestling Television Ratings up for AFD, as it's redundant and not needed. I encourage all of you to vote delete on the AFD. Booshakla 06:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Koko B. Ware

I'm not really sure if this is how to tell others, but I just visited Koko's page and it looks like it could use a tune-up!--Smart Mark Greene 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added it to the "to do" box.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree it, in fact I an hoping to sit down and expand on the article today. MPJ-DK 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am about to remove it again rom the "To Do" box because I've given it a major update & format editing. Sure the pre-WWF days could be expanded by someone who has a detailed knowledge of it but I'd say it's been brought up to date MPJ-DK 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The New Breed

There's an article, The New Breed (professional wrestling), that I think something needs to be done about. I don't have any issues with the JCP tag team having an article, or even the ECW stable having an article, though I doubt the UK teams notability, but I think we need to split the articles since they're all so unrelated.

Any thoughts before I just do it?«»bd(talk stalk) 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest making the JCP team be The New Breed (JCP) and the ECW stable be The New Breed (ECW). Make the current page a disambig page to them, and delete mention of the UK team since they look like just a non-notable indy team. TJ Spyke 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I second the idea to split them into JCP and ECW, they share nothing but a name so they definitly shouldn't be on the same page MPJ-DK 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Split em, tag team - stable, the ECW one could use some work, it reads fairly week by week in some parts. I made the (professional wrestling) one a disambig page, I'll fix redirects later.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The UK team is not unnotable... like it states they were the first FWA Tag Team Champions and well known on the UK indy scene. plus they have cosiderable amount of results on goolge and have pages within wiki linking to them. -- Paulley
Make them an article then. New Breed (UK tag team). There wasn't enough in the article for me to do it. «»bd(talk stalk) 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the ECW Originals article, then added Merge templates to both that and the ECW New Breed articles because they're essentially the same article. I figure we can do it like the New Diesel and New Razor Ramon section on The Outsiders (WCW) page, since they're so connected. Opinions?«»bd(talk stalk) 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"Beautiful" Bobby Eaton

I just did a major overhaul on the Bobby Eaton article, I felt that the previous version was too short and cursory considering Eaton's long and illustrious career in wrestling. If there are any copyeditors out there who'd want to give it a once over and maybe also look at it's rating that'd be great. I am currently getting information together on Stan Lane and the Midnight Express history that doesn't include Bobby Eaton so that I can update those articles as well. Thanks MPJ-DK 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Matches sections

I've noticed "Matches" subsections springing up on some non-wrestlers articles Jim Ross and Paul Heyman have them, for two. Do we need these? They seem kind of pointless to me.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need them. It's just cruft. If people really want to know what matches people have been in, they can check out actual wrestling sites. RobJ1981 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For something as rare as this is (wrestling matches for notable announcers and managers), yes I find it worth mentioning. Mshake3 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep for non wrestlers like announcers.--Anthony 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not worth keeping for announcers. It's just cruft cluttering their articles. RobJ1981 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Full Impact Pro

I would say FIP is more then notable enough to have its own article, why doesn't it? Kris Classic 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there used to be one, maybe it was deleted?? MPJ-DK 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Several independent promotions just went down to deletion, it may have been one of them. I think a lot of those articles didn't have reliable, third-party sources so it was difficult to establish notability per WP:CORP. - Geoffg 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
01:14, 15 February 2007 Mailer diablo (Talk | contribs) deleted "Full Impact Pro" (Proposed deletion expiring after 5 days [08/02/2007] P1) - apparently someone tagged it for prop deletion and no one noticed. You could go to WP:DRV and have the page restored. –– Lid(Talk) 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not exactly sure how to restore it, so is there anybody else who could do this?Kris Classic 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the page Lid provided, it says what to do. You can also ask an admin to restore it (I suggest Nishikid64, who seems to be very wrestling friendly since he is the one who usually grants the semi-protection request for wrestling PPV articles. TJ Spyke 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Mailer diablo about restoring the Continental Wrestling Association page and he was nice enough to bring it back provided that I provide enough links and references to show that it's notable. I'm sure if you leave a message on his talk page he'll do the same for FIP, then it's up to someone to ensure that it meets the notoriety requirement.MPJ-DK 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Indy Rosters

There's been a bit of a move lately to delete the roster section of independent wrestling organisations pages. See NWA Shockwave, SHIMMER, EWF, SWA and IPW for example. The edits have been noted with things like "promotion articles should not contain rosters". Is this established policy for pro wrestling promotion articles? Is it a good general policy? Given that we have a whole category of pages of pro wrestling rosters the problem can't be that the rosters are in general non-notable. For feds with short articles the main page for the fed seems to be the most logical place for roster information. But I though I should throw this open to discussion rather than running around reverting in case the general feeling is that this is in fact a good policy. - Conniption 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if the roster is just a list of names, it's better to make it a category, whereas if you want to subdivide it, or add more information (eg. year they first worked for that promotion, etc.) then it could be its own list page, with a link from the promotion's article. It think part of the issue is that it seems inaccurate to talk about a "roster" for promotions that never have anyone under contract for more than one show at a time. - Geoffg 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the roster should have to be verifiable (for example, taken from the fed's webpage rather than compiled from original research) and relatively stable for it to be included in Wikipedia. I don't know if that's true for all the feds I mentioned above, though I do know that it's true for some of them. But given a fed with a stable and verifiable roster, and an article short enough that listing the roster out wouldn't make it too long, should that roster be included as a list within the promotion's article? - Conniption 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Worse than that, loads and loads of active links are all becoming red links, because to me it seems like everyone is getting rid of indy promotions. All that will end up left will be WWE and TNA! Govvy 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think rosters should be listed. Also, a roster category shouldn't exist. Look at WWE for example: there is a roster list page, and not a roster category that is home to all the articles. (If that was the case, the category would be huge and just cluttered). Overcategorization isn't the key here, listifying is. People aren't getting rid of many indy promotions: just the non-notable and really small ones. This is an encyclopedia of decent notable content: not a wrestling guide, try to keep that in mind. There is wrestling fansites and wiki's, which can be used for comprehensive promotions articles. The other issue is: should the promotion have the roster listed on the main promotion article or in a seperate list article? In alot of cases: the promotion article isn't big, and a roster listing isn't going to wreck the article. The roster just needs to be accurate and formatted correctly, so it's not just a cluttered list of current/former roster members. RobJ1981 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if the promotion isn't an A-Grade notability article such as WWE, WCW, TNA, ROH or New Japan then it should have it's roster listed on the promotion page. Normy132 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Little Boogeyman

Can somebody find out who portrays him? People keep saying it's Short Sleeve Sampson, despite the fact that Sampson is white and Little Boogeyman is black. TJ Spyke 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Triple Crown Championship

There are thousands of disputes about multiple things going on there right now. I've resigned from that article. It could really use some project love. 声援 -- The Hybrid 07:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this and the Grand Slam pages should just be deleted. It's not really a well-known term, it's not used widespread, just a few times in passing, and it causes a lot of edit wars. I think the terms have been used, but that doesn't always mean it deserves a page. Lots of OR too. Booshakla 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to AfD the pages go ahead and be bold. 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I might, I'm just going to wait some. I think the reason why there are always so many disputes on these pages is that the term is not concrete or defined. I think that WWE may have used it in passing on some of their web materials/articles, and maybe JR might have brought it up on RAW a few times, but the term has not been used widely and I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources if any. Booshakla 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This is probably going to cause a major dispute, but I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is here Davnel03 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Coolio home-slice. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If the TCC goes then the Grand Slam has to as well. Darrenhusted 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, I'll handle that nomination now. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. 声援 -- 'The Hybrid 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The dabate for that one is here. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We;re not deciding the result for a few days; but looking at it now, it might result in no consensus meaning both articles stay. Davnel03 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that is what it looks like. I have to ask everyone to remember that the issue isn't the disputes that have taken place, whether or not these two things exist, or how notable they are. These things lack sources, and the needed sources do not exist. They have not been verified, and never will be verified. The issue is verifiability, and notability does not equal verifiability. 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a no consensus is better than a keep if you want to rid of it someday. And it could go delete, cause we do have strong arguments. I wish people would understand that this is an encyclopedic, not an area to put every supposed detail about wrestling. I am avoiding looking at the AFDs for now because they anger me somewhat. Booshakla 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I KEPT BOTH OF THEM; HOWEVER SOMEBODY HAS REINSTATED THEM AND THEREFORE THE VOTING CONTINUES. I DON'T KNOW WHY... Davnel03 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

An "articles to watch" section

I was thinking, whenever something major happens, especially to an individual, the related articles tend to become magnets to editors. Both vandalism and good faith edits pile up say, when someone dies, a title change happens, or someone jumps companies. I don't know if anyone remembers the week or so after Bam Bam Bigelow died, but his article went insane with edits.

So I was thinking we can add an "articles to watch" section to the "To do" box to help project members keep their eye on some of these articles since we aren't allowed to request they be protected before anything happens.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Curt Hennig's article has been vandalized since it was announced he would be inducted into the Hall of Fame. TJ Spyke 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mike Awesome's article has been blocked too. Davnel03 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the section, put Awesome and Hennig in it.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having a watch section is just being paranoid. Articles get heavily edited and/or vandalized anytime a big thing happens to them. It's safe to say: almost all popular WWE wrestlers should be listed. The list doesn't need to exist. Experienced editors of wrestling (and wrestling articles here) know when things happen, so they can keep an eye out for vandalism and so on. RobJ1981 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See I think there's a difference between the heavy editing to active articles and articles that suddenly see an influx of edits after sitting fairly stagnant for a time.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just cleaned up Rene Dupree (of all people!) who had accumulated edits alleging homosexuality. Vandalism sure isn't restricted to wrestlers in the public eye. However I agree with the watchlist as a general "heads up" to us. Mike Awesome had some fairly disgusting vandalism. Suriel1981 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of DVD article debate

Inviting anyone to come to Third_Anniversary_Celebration_Part_2 and give your opinions regarding proposed deletion of 3 DVD articles within our scope. Suriel1981 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There use to be a load more of Ring of Honour DVDs on wiki, but they all got delete. I have watched a few of them on TWC in England, I'd have to say the matches are cool to watch but the quality sucks big time!! Anyway they are notable enough to me to keep and I feel there is enough information there to justify them. But I am only one vote compared to the army of WWE fans. :) Govvy 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact is the ROH shows were deleted because they weren't notable enough. I'd love to disagree with some of them such as GBH and the anniversary shows but the project has made up its mind. And article is about the DVD by itself so it's even less notable. Normy132 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event

I've removed EVERYTHING about the third episode. Yes, it's been rumoured by the IWC as happening on March 10th, but I've removed it as:

  • WWE.com hasn't mentioned it.
  • No talent on RAW, SD! OR ECW have mentioned it.
  • No PROMOS have aired.
  • Until the first promo airs, this is unofficial.
  • The WWE.com Live Event's List fails to list it.

Until it's mentioned, sorry, but it's unofficial! Davnel03 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, to add to that, it is not accesible off the TV Shows area of WWE.com. Davnel03 12:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, if or when they actually mention it can be added until then it's just speculative. MPJ-DK 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Good job I did it, the episode has been cancelled by NBC. Davnel03 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chavo Guerrero, Jr.

There seems to be an edit war going on. Before he won the cruiserweight title at No Way Out he had 3 WWE championships. Now lots of people are trying to double that to 6. He now has 4 WWE Cruiserweight championships wins. But to help on this edit war that has arisen, I just requested page protection. Just thought I let everyone know about this. Govvy 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your'e right. The others are wrong. Davnel03 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're correct. he's won 4 WWE titles and 3 WCW titles, hence why people are saying he's won 6 before No Way Out. Normy132 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed on the exclusive post-No Way Out footage on wwe.com that Chavo says he is now a six-time Cruiserweight champion. Perhaps that widely available piece of evidence is contributing to the confusion. - Geoffg 07:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Because they are counting the WCW cruiserweight titles. Govvy 12:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This is how many I make it:

2 WCW c/w titles (June 8 2000, December 5 2000) 4 WWE c/w titles (Feb 15 2004, May 6 2004, Feb 20 2005, Feb 18 2007) making 6 in total. Suriel1981 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Gutierrez

Gutierezz aka. Rey Mysterio is scheduled to make a special appearance tonight on SmackDown at the tapings. Please try and watch this article tonight and tomorrow as vandals are more than likely to put in spoilers. I've put it on my watchlist. Davnel03 19:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The Valiant Brothers

Just thought I'd say that the page for The Valiant Brothers REALLY needs cleanup. -- Scorpion 19:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I added it to my watch list, I'll help it out. RobJ1981 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE Magazine awards

Someone had started adding awards from WWE magazine to Championships and accomplishments sections. Should we consider these real awards?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, never talked about on TV, hardly never on WWE.com; fancruft. Davnel03 20:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the same thing as the PWI or Observer awards. Plus it's from the official WWE publication. --Maestro25 23:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, please don't add these. The PWI/Observer awards are different since they don't own a promotion. This is pure fancruft and illegitimate. Booshakla 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How is an award from the official WWE magazine, considered fancruft? I think the awards should remain. Wrestling Observer, PWI, etc are awards from reliable newsletters and magazines, so WWE awards from the official source aren't "fancruft". It's not like fans run the official WWE magazine or anything like that. Since when are PWI and Observer mentioned on TV? With your arguement: they are fancruft too, because they aren't mentioned on TV. Last I knew: PWI awards are decided by the fans: that's fancruft by logic as well. I think this is a matter of: keep them all, or remove them all. RobJ1981 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know very much about the WWE Magazine awards, don't pay any attention to them. Are they voted on by the fans or are they decided by the WWE themselves? If they're fan voted, then I can understand the reservation on using them because the WWE could manipulate the votes they recieve to have whichever result they desire. However, if they're already decided upon by the company itself, then I see not reason not to include them at least under the the WWE section of an individual wrestler's C&A section along with the WWE Hall Of Fame. The WWE decides who wins their championships and who gets invited to be inducted into their hall of fame. If that's the case with these awards, then I see now reason they should be excluded. Odin's Beard 02:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a listing of the WWE awards if possible, but I'm thinking they likely should not be included. I don't think we list (trying to avoid WP:BEANS here) Slammys, which would probably be equivalent to this. Booshakla 02:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
They're not like the Slammy's, they're along the lines of "Tag Team of the Year" / "Wrestler of the Year".«»bd(talk stalk) 02:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE DVD's

I've put most of them up for deletion. The concensus is here. Davnel03 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

National Wrestling Alliance

The NWA article is on our "clean up" list, specifically because it contains a lot of lists which we want to avoid. I've gone through it and reformatted a lot of the content there to make it less "listy", in fact the only list left is in the titles section and I dunno how to do anything about that unless we create a category for NWA titles, but then we run into the problem of all the red-linked titles that is currently on the page. These should still be listed even if there is no detailed page for them IMO - which is a problem if we decide to make a category. Any ideas?? MPJ-DK 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I splitted that section into its own article. --Aaru Bui DII 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I like, it works better that way, I'm taking it off the "To Do" list MPJ-DK 05:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Owen, Monty & Joe

the list of "Articles to cleanup" has had Owen Hart, Monty Brown and Samoa Joe on there for a long time, when I read them I don't see that much that needs to be done - granted Owen's no WWE time could be expanded but other than maybe some section break down I don't know what should be done to the Monty & Joe articles. Before I tackle either of these articles I'd like some input on just how they need to be cleaned up/improved? MPJ-DK 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I added two of the three. It looks like the Owen Hart article has been cleaned up since I added it. The Brown one seems to have a lot of non notable matches throughout the TNA section and it certainly needs the references overhauled.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright that's cool, I may add a bit about Owen's non-WWF career and then take it off the list and then I'll see what to do about the Monty Brown one, condense it so that it's not just a run down of matches he's had but only the important highlights MPJ-DK 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a MAJOR addition to OWen's profile because I felt it focused more on his death and what followed instead of also honoring his long career before the tragedy. So Owen is off the list and Monty's TNA career looked okay to me right now, it covered the highlights and while a bit date heavy I figured that for now it's not that big a deal so they're both off the "Articles to clean up" list MPJ-DK 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete Discussions

I've nominated WWE Action Figures by Jakks Pacific for deletion; the discussion is here. Davnel03 21:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've also just noticed Early Deaths in Professional Wrestling up for deletion - the discussion is here. Davnel03 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Question/comment about signature and finishing moves sections in articles

Why must the signature/finishing moves be so big for some wrestlers? It should be notable finishers and signature moves: not a big list (I've seen plenty of them, John Cena is just one example). One time finishers shouldn't make the list, it just clutters it and is simply un-needed cruft. If lists can't be changed: it should simply be finishing moves, since signature moves clutter it. Pro wrestling bios on Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into finishing/signature moves guides. The same thing needs to apply to taunts as well (none I've seen are massively huge I don't think, but it shouldn't become a mass list either). RobJ1981 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article you cite is an excellent example RobJ. Personally I would oppose the removal of signature moves but be very much in favour of limiting to ones that are unique or are occasionally used as finishers.
I will give a couple more examples of wrestlers with non-notable "signature moves" on their article:
  • Randy Orton - standing dropkick. Chinlock (I know the IWC joke about this, but this is a basic resthold).
  • Batista - Strong clothesline (as opposed to a weak-ass clothesline??)
  • William Regal - European uppercut (how many wrestlers use this???)
  • Matt Hardy - bulldog (no comment needed!)
The other side of the coin is, for instance, Jushin Liger who has innovated many of his signature moves. This, to my POV, makes them notable and worthy of inclusion. Suriel1981 01:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you think, maybe a poll to determine if signature moves should be removed? I know if we just go around cleaning articles, people will revert it most likely. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to a wrestler's move set in matches, but as of now: alot of articles look that way because of massive cruft adding that hasn't been stopped. RobJ1981 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it depends on the move. Steve Austin, for example, used the Lou Thesz Press a lot in his career. TJ Spyke 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever decisions are reached here will take precidence in wrestling articles. This is the governing body. I removed the strong clothesline from Batista's article, as clotheslines are simply too generic. The only person who is supposed to have a version of it other than a flying clothesline it is Mick Foley, since he named the Cactus Clothesline. Anyway, there is a fair history of removing generic signature moves (like the clothesline) from wrestling articles, so I would say that everyone should just use their best judgment, and don't overkill it. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If a person used the move alot: that's fine and all. But if they used it on the indy circuit a little, it probably should be removed. As well: huge lists of moves should be condensed, in my opinion. Also, just because someone worked for various promotions: doesn't necessarily mean we need move lists for each promotion. RobJ1981 01:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We need to come up with some kind of regulation that a move is only to the list if it's the kind of thing a wrestler does/did in a majority of their matches that is truly signature of the wrestler. While this might put back things like Randy Orton's chinlock, it'll keep the lists honest and not have people adding things like John Cena's Rocker Dropper every time it's removed on the basis that "he's done it more than once". I've also seen people splitting the finishing and signature maneuvers sections, which I think is pointless.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Trish Stratus is one example that should be cleaned. RobJ1981 01:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Something along those lines would probably be best, but I wouldn't even know where to begin drafting that regulation. This seems like an individual decision would have to be made in each case. Discretion and discussion seems like the only way to effectively deal with this. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's my personal feeling that "signature taunts" are irrelevant to articles. But I'm not going to touch them unless it's something ridiculous. Hmmmmm. As Hybrid points out, any regulation would be problematic. Wording would be extremely difficult and would in any case rely on some amount of user discretion. I guess we'll have to look at things on an individual basis. Certainly if I was to remove any "signature moves" then I would add a subsection to the article's talk page to fully explain. Suriel1981 11:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of specific character/wrestler based taunts I think they add something. Things like Randy Orton's pose, John Cena "You can't see me" hand thing, and Little Guido's Fangul are fairly integral to their characters, but other things are kinda pointless. «»bd(talk stalk) 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PPV articles

I realise that there is some inconsistency with whether PPV articles have the promotion in the article name. Any reason for this? Perhaps we can move all pages to names without the promotion should it not already be taken? --Aaru Bui DII 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • TNA: All with (4 out of 13 may be moved to a non-prefixed name)
  • ECW: All with (9 out of 13 articles may be moved)
  • WWE: Big Four + some former ones: No; Others: Yes (although most have ambig. names; 5 may be moved)
  • WCW: All without except for Sin, World War 3 and Mayhem (ambig. names)
COnsidering that by your list most fo the WWE & WCW ones can't be moved anyway because they're disambig pages for the "non federation" name they'd have to stay the way they are anyway as for TNA & ECW - if they're already consistently WITH then I say leave it MPJ-DK 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Anything for those that can be moved? --Aaru Bui DII 14:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Other than the WrestleMania articles, none of the pay-per-view articles can be directly linked to, so there is little to be gained by ommitting prefixes. Adding the initials of the promotion as a prefix helps to disambiguate the article, and continuity in naming articles is preferable. McPhail 17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by directly linked to? --Aaru Bui DII 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
In the context of an article, WrestleMania X-Seven can be directly linked to because the article title matches the text that we want to appear in the article we are linking it from. If, however, we wanted to link to SummerSlam (2005), we would probably write this in the form [[SummerSlam (2005)|SummerSlam 2005]] (SummerSlam 2005), because it looks much neater. Direct linking saves a lot of time, but in the case of pay-per-view articles, most of them cannot be directly linked to. We are already unable to directly link to SummerSlam (2005), so there is little to be lost through moving the article to WWE SummerSlam (2005) for the sake of continuity. McPhail 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think initials should only be used when they are needed for disambig reasons (like WWE Armageddon). TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps we should request a move for the following? WWE New Year's Revolution, WWE Cyber Sunday, WWF InVasion, WWE Insurrextion, WWE Saturday Night's Main Event, TNA Final Resolution, TNA Destination X, TNA Slammiversary, TNA Hard Justice, ECW Guilty as Charged, ECW Living Dangerously, ECW Wrestlepalooza, ECW Hardcore Heaven, ECW Anarchy Rulz, ECW November to Remember, ECW Massacre on 34th Street, ECW December to Dismember, ECW Ultimate Jeopardy. --Aaru Bui DII 02:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Why? It's their official name. They are written that way with their promotion's initials in press releases and other news articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So is the NFL Super Bowl, but we don't have it there. TJ Spyke 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats WP:NFL's problem, not ours. I can just as well use the same argument against you and say Super Bowl articles don't say "and emanated from...", despite you continuously using it in all PPV event articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have stopped doing that. It's also for other events like PGA golf tournaments, NASCAR races, etc. TJ Spyke 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's really two options we have so far? Call for a vote? --Aaru Bui DII 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  1. The promotion name should not be added to the article name unless it is to disambiguate from other articles with the same name.
  2. The promotion name should always be added as in press releases and news articles.
  • I would go with the first one, since that also seems to be the practice among others sports events (i.e. you don't see every PGA tournament having "PGA" at the beginning). TJ Spyke 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • WWE Saturday Night's Main Event for some reason has been changed to Saturday Night's Main Event Davnel03 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The content of the pages was just switched. They've been reverted now. --Aaru Bui DII 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest we do for Bound for Glory? To be consistent with three of the WWE Big Four, we should have the year in brackets but Bound for Glory itself is taken. So should it be Bound for Glory (2005) or TNA Bound for Glory (2005)? --Aaru Bui DII 09:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

      • TNA tends to make sure "TNA" is part of the PPV name (wheras WWE will say "New Year's Revolution" rather than "WWE New Year's Revolution). Also, Bound for Glory is about a movie. TJ Spyke 03:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Is that why at the beginning of every single WWE PPV ...Oh, such as this past month's No Way Out... during the opening graphics, the announcer always says... "And now... [Brand/s] ...present WWE [PPV name]"? [1] -- bulletproof 3:16 03:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Well from that I can see why the Big Four would be left the way they are. How did they do it for Saturday Night's Main Event? --Aaru Bui DII 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

TNA iMPACT!

A few days ago, a editor went ahead and move all the pages with TNA iMPACT! in their name to TNA Impact!. Their had been a move request (which he supported) and it failed, but he moved them anyways and then edited the redirect pages (so non-admins can't move them back). Is anybody familiar enough with a RFC and willing to file one here? Maybe someone can request the pages to be moved back: TNA iMPACT!, TNA iMPACT! Zone, and TNA Global iMPACT!. TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with it but I followed the instructions and created an RFC: Talk:TNA Impact! --Aaru Bui DII 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, whoever moved them was right. Wikipedia says not to use odd capitalization techniques regardless of what the company does. That is why RAW got moved to Raw. Cheers, 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Some aren't convinced so I guess we have to go through a debate. --Aaru Bui DII 02:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A comment concerning articles that are huge lists of results

Clash of the Champions and WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results both probably could use a better formatting. Clash is the weaker of the articles, as most of it is just the result (and not who pinned who in tag matches and so on). I don't think each event should get in article, but perhaps list 10 of them on a page, and another 10, and so on. There has been 33 SNME so far at least (it's possible more could happen), and 35 Clashes (none will happen again probably). 3 articles for each would do them more justice in my opinion. Mass results on one page seems like a huge cluttered list to me at least. The same thing applies to Starrcade: there is 18 of them listed on a page. Then there is In Your House, which has 28 event results on one page. The Great American Bash: 17 event results on one page. I would imagine there is some huge results pages I missed. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 06:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you named most of the pages with loads of results - WWE has SNME & IYH and WCW have quite a few more than that with several of their PPVs being joint listed. The problem is what should be done? I mean arbitrarily split the 35 clashes into 3 pages? why? makes linking harder and there is no logical way to divide them. Same with SNME, splitting them in "classic" and "new" is one thing but that's a minior thing. I think what needs to be done is to improve the content on the pages as they are - bring them up to the same detail level as most PPV pages. It's easy to do IMO as the results & recaps are plentiful on the net. In fact I'm willing to make it my special project to increase the useful information on each of these lists. After all isn't that their biggest problem? Formatting and content more so than splitting the list - unless the general concensus is that all PPVs should have individual pages? MPJ-DK 07:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a general agreement that all PPVs should have articles (not that I know of at least). But one long list still looks like clutter. Adding to the results and so on is a good start, but not the entire fix. RobJ1981 08:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
the problem is, what is the fix then? splitting the clashes in NWA and WCW clashes? that doesn't make much sense as it just 3 letters that were replaced. Also by having them in one list people may get a better sense of chronology - since they're not in the PPV chronolgy linkage. I'll start to add details, if it's decided to split them up or whatever the details are still helpful, so that can be done while we figure out how to handle the huge lists of results. MPJ-DK 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in having results of pay-per-view matches anyway? --Aaru Bui DII 11:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The point? Seriously?? Well first of all they're used extensively in various wrestler articles as references for when important events took place, beyond that they are significant events in each company's history that help tell the story of each federation and the titles of that federation. As long as they stay factual and not a review of the event they have encyclopedic value IMO MPJ-DK 15:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me an example of how it helps tell the story of each federation and the titles of that federation? --Aaru Bui DII 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well how about the fact that it tends to give a little bit of information about just how the title changes take place and what not - not something that's found on the championship listings pages. It's an account of who the federation is pushing towards the main events, showing how say a guy like Shawn Michaels was built up from breaking up the Rockers to winning the World title a few years later. the PPVs are the main shows of WWE, WCW & TNA thus the history of the PPVs and what happens on the PPVs help shape the history of each federation MPJ-DK 23:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've got a suggestion for the GAB and StarrCade articles and that's to do the same thing as what we did with WrestleMania, SummerSlam, the Rumble and Survivor Series. And that is to split them up into their own article by year. The two PPVs were by far WCW's biggest shows and they are probably notable enough to have their own article. But for Clash and SNME I have no idea. Normy132 05:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not split the GAB article into only two? Have one be WWE The Great American Bash (with all the info on WWE's version of the PPV) and the other be just The Great American Bash (with info on the original JCP/WCW PPV)? -- bulletproof 3:16 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet that is not the best way to achieve this. You might as well have very brief yearly summaries of storylines and happenings in the promotions. You have what's written in the articles of wrestlers for in-depth details. That should cover how title changes take place and we have the match types articles for the wrestling side. --Aaru Bui DII 09:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the WWE page does not have annual summaries of storylines etc something would have to be created which would also then read as a Raw/Smackdown recap in addition to the PPVs. I don't understand what your argument here is? delete them all? that doesn't make a lick of sense at all MPJ-DK 09:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The reasons you have given for those results being there appear to be so loosely connected to what actually is in the results. They appear to be more along the lines of results of sporting events and nothing near the telling of the story of each federation. Then how does the content of PPV pages differ from the deleted pages of weekly show results? --Aaru Bui DII 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One outstanding issue that keeps PPV pages being a list of results (which is borderline keep based on what the event implies in terms of individual careers) is the lack of reportage showing the storylines that culminate in the event, or the storylines that are caused by the event - for example, why the 2005 Survivor Series had the Team Raw vs Team SmackDown match, Bischoff-Long, or Cena-Angle, and the consequences of Bischoff not meeting any of his three "goals" in the event, or how RVD chose ECW One Night Stand to cash in his MITB in '06. This will make the articles on PPVs much better and perhaps worth splitting into articles on individual years. kelvSYC 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love it if the show listings had more information on various matches such as what led to it and what effects it had afterwards, it's a big undertaking but if this project as a group decide to do it it'd be great I'd definitly do my share MPJ-DK 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that, but week by week events is something I wouldn't want, just a brief explanation on how the match came together. Davnel03 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, just a general "How did this match come about" thing, if the buildup went more than 1 PPV then just go back to what happened between PPVs since the last PPV should explain the previous build up. MPJ-DK 08:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Kent Jones

This may not be wrestling-related, but I think you should keep a look at the Kent Jones article. This "Kent Jones" is the self-proclaimed "YouTube Shooter" who keeps on rambling on how great TNA is and how bad the WWE is. In short, he was looked down by several wrestling fans (including yours truly), due to the fact that he's making us wrestling fans look like idiots. Recently, his original account has been suspended. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 20:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't see one reference made about YouTube. On a previous version, there was a reference saying the article was not about the person on YouTube. Ignore it. Davnel03 20:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Just take a look at the history section prior to my edits, mainly the ones by the anon contribs. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Was he the guy that Kevin Steen challenged to a fight at a show once?Suriel1981 05:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Titling and context naming conventions.

I just like to point out that some people have been not following context conventions. For example WWE.com will use RAW in a title, but in context it will use Raw. Same goes for WWE Heat. I have seen a few people using doing Sunday Night HEAT in context when he should be Heat, same with Raw! Thanks for listening. Govvy 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They only recently changed it from HEAT to Heat. So you should only list it as Heat if it is about the last few months. TJ Spyke 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

They have used Heat when in context since wwe.com started know! Govvy 09:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

NWA Georgia Tag Team Championship

I've noticed that the article for this particular championship has been deleted earlier today and I was just wondering why. Odin's Beard 00:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log for the page [2], says "no real content". If you disagree, contact the admin who deleted it. TJ Spyke 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

I've come across this article List of real names of professional wrestlers. Not only does it appear to me like pointless listcruft (being as the real names are on every single wrestler article) but as the article itself says, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. It certainly doesn't help the article's cause that different gimmick names are listed seperately so the article is un-crossreferencable (is that a word? it is now!)Suriel1981 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to nominate it for deletion then? Govvy 14:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now nominated Suriel1981 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I've been trying to bring wrestler bio infoboxes in line with other biographies on Wikipedia by adding the flagicon template, the Birth date and age, and using separate links for towns and states/provinces/whatevers, but every time I get reverted, so I'm bringing it here to get actual opinions. Does anyone have any actual problems with any of this stuff being done, and if so what is the issue? All three of these things are being applied to more and more articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, one thing know, for the flag icon's, that should be next to the main name above the picture in the infobox. Govvy 16:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the flag icon, but the birth date and year (which produces makes their age appear) is useless and just clutters up the infobox with something that isn't needed. There is also no requirement for it to be included (including on other bios). TJ Spyke 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. I agree with the proposed changes. Just wait for a few more opinions and you can add it to the style guide on the main page. Normy132 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I like the flag, that's cool and I've got no problems linking towns, states etc MPJ-DK 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There isn't really any point in making 2 seperate links for city/state though. It would be like, for example, writing Nintendo GameCube with one link for Nintendo and the other for GameCube. If you are writing about Dallas, Texas, you you just link that rather than linking to both Dallas and to Texas. It's overlinking. TJ Spyke 08:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the last point. However I feel we should try to be in-line with WPBIO as much as possible. I've asked their opinion on their homepage as to what their current general consensus on the matter is because their biogs are inconsistant and their guidelines don't appear to specify. Suriel1981 09:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what they think so far: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Infobox_questionSuriel1981 10:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is what it would look like: René_Goguen... Suriel1981 12:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the objection to the birth date and year template? It's a useful tool that generates fairly key information. The flag icon looks sloppy and is contingent upon the reader recognising the flag in question; a nationality field would make far more sense. McPhail 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
All the birthdate template does is produce their age, which is something anyone with at least a third grade education can figure out themselves. TJ Spyke 21:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I forgot about this discussion, which I started. So it seems there's two main objections, possible overlinking and not knowing what the flag is. The flag thing is easy, hovering over it gives the name. As for overlinking and possibly cluttering the infoboxes with the age template, those are both clearly matters of personal taste. In some instances it would abolutley be correct to link both Nintendo and GameCube separately, and in the case of infoboxes it seems to me that having a direct link to the state instead of having to go through the city first wouldn't hurt anything, and may help. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a few nationality flag icon's into the info box as how they do it on the biography project, which is at the top next to the name. I was just thinking that it would be a good idea to show a demo info box on the main project page also. Or copy from one of the best wrestler bio article to the page. Govvy 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This user loves putting little flags on wrestler infoboxes!

Suriel1981 13:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

heh, you can stick it on my profile if you wish, btw I am British. :P Govvy 14:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm British too... Guess I'm just pandering to the lowest common denominator... Suriel1981 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (no offence intended my American colleagues!)
No offense...you're just the lowest common denominator. Anyway, I haven't seen the flags next to the name anywhere else.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added flags to 3 that I keep a close eye on and placed the flagicon next to the place-of-birth, this seems to be the norm for WP:WPBIO (e.g. Pelé or Michael Jordan. Suriel1981 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add (| nationality = USA) in the wrestling infobox menu like on Michael Jordan's page. Govvy 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. We'd just need to think of a way round dual-nationality ppl, like El Vampiro and Rey Mysterio Jr. Suriel1981 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for "nationality" when we have "born in". For people with dual citizenship that can be mentioned in the article like it is in the Bret and Owen Hart articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the Owen Hart one is a good basis. Suriel1981 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Champions

What do people think of this article? --Aaru Bui DII 11:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! More lists! Suriel1981 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only a list but one that EACH FEDERATION already has on their own page, I can see a deletion request coming and I wouldn't oppose it either. MPJ-DK 12:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
A name like "Professional Wrestling Champions" doesn't seem to be appropriate if it applies only to American promotions. Damn, I'm coming up with reasons to vote for a deletion without even thinking about it. Suriel1981 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of good enough reasons to nominate it for deletion and yet I think it should go. --Aaru Bui DII 14:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to whoever created it - I've just nominated it for deletion and I'm quite sure it'll be a unaminous decision. Davnel03 20:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Other WikiProjects

I'm a member of WP Motorsport, which has several sub-projects, Formula One, A1 Grand Prix just a few.

It made me wonder whether we could have sub-projects for this, I mean for instance:

  • WikiProject WWE
  • WikiProject TNA
  • WikiProject Professional Wrestling Japan
  • WikiProject Professional Wrestling UK

It might sound stupid, but I just wondered whether we could actually have these, just an idea. Davnel03 18:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the reason for subprojects, atleast not yet. There isn't really that much traffic in this talk page to warrant splitting it up.
↪Lakes (Talk) 18:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but I just think it would be better like this so TNA can help with their bulk of the articles and WWE fans can do the same with WWE articles. Not everyone likes all types of wrestling, do they? Davnel03 16:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You people aware of there already being one for TNA (Wikipedia:Wikiproject TNA)? --Aaru Bui DII 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the people on here know about more than one, so I don't see the purpose in dividing it up. In fact, I think that this project should absorb Wikiproject TNA. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like that Wikiporject is dead anyways (only 5 members, and the last post was in December). TJ Spyke 22:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. Shall I just redirect it? 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I put the inactive tag on it. RobJ1981 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Have I angered The Hybrid? —Semper Fi, Darkest Hour 23:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
What? 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't really see that there's much point dividing up. I think it's up to the individual member if they want to focus on a particular area. I have a healthy hatred for WWE but have no problems with doing constructive stuff on their WP pages.Suriel1981 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess most of you think it's not really a good idea?? Davnel03 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Society X

About ten superstars are nominated for deletion. Look in the info box at the top of the page. Davnel03 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling stubs

Category:Professional wrestling biography stubs has 483 articles in it now. Category:Professional wrestling stubs has 198 articles in it now. While it's not that bad (compared to some stub categories), it's still a high amount. I've been working on some articles and making them better, but more work is needed. This also should be the time to go through stubs, and prod/AFD many of the crufty/non-notable articles. RobJ1981 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been expending quite a few stubs myself and I intent to remove as many as I can, maybe we need to really highlight some of these stubs where you sit and go "there must be like a hundred people who could expand this" since they're pretty well known subjects MPJ-DK 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a few examples of articles needing attention:

All 3 of these need photos and alot more on their careers in (and outside of wrestling). RobJ1981 23:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean, call attention to a few stubs on the "to do" list (as well as the links to the stubs naturally) and then slowly but surely get them improved. MPJ-DK 00:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nitro Girl Naughty-A

Does anybody else feel this should be deleted? Kris Classic 01:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've put a prod on the article (which means that if no one removes it, it willbe deleted in 5 days). You should watch the article though, and if someone removes it you can nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. TJ Spyke 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Full Impact Pro

I was told by a moderator that FIP would be restored if there was a good third party source. I searched, but I can't find one. Does anybody else know of one? Kris Classic 01:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[3] is one. TJ Spyke 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked, and didn't find any. Is the promotion really that notable? I've read the results and information about the promotion itself: they are apparently the "sister" promotion of Ring of Honor and so on. But how accurate is that? Look at many TNA and Ring of Honor wrestlers: they work lots of indy promotions. Having indy promotions on here, due to them being linked to a well known company doesn't seem that reliable. If I'm missing important information (which is possible), point me to some proof they are notable enough for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
ROH does usually feature FIP title matches at their events. TJ Spyke 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other 3rd Party FIP articles? I already gave him that one, and the admin still needs one more. Kris Classic 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding them. Ring of Honor lists ROH DVD's in their online store (although they also list TNA and WWE DVDs as well). TJ Spyke 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I say if it has to be deleted, argue like crazy to merge it with the ROH article. I'm certain it's a sister promotion of WWE on a lower scale, sort of like the ECW brand of WWE. Normy132 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
No way. FIP may be a "sister" company due to Gabe Sapolsky and Dave Prazak's involvement but it should not be merged with RoH. It is a different promotion in a different state. Suriel1981 11:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

here is a FIP DVD review by PW Insider, and here PW Torch does an arena report of a FIP event. Both are considered fairly large and notible Professional Wrestling news websites. Vladamire Steelwolf 09:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks in wrestling PPV and event articles

This stems from an incident with TJ Spyke at the Halloween Havoc article. He insists on redlinking non-notable teams (very likely to never have an article here worth keeping) such as Dynamic Dudes. They were a short lived team that didn't do much. Working for WCW isn't a notable accomplishment by itself (Ding Dongs and other short lived teams are examples of that). Is there any policy on this at all? Some other redlinks in that article (very likely to never become notable for Wikipedia): Reno Riggins (jobber that didn't do anything notable in his career or outside of wrestling) and The Creatures (short lived team). I think redlinks aren't needed, if the article will never exist. As well: it encourages people to make cruft articles. People do see redlinks and make them into articles (which do end up in AFD at times). I'm not saying this happens everytime: but it still happens. Not linking everything isn't a big deal. According to TJ's edit summary: Maybe they should have an article (see WP:RED)). Wikipedia isn't a guide to cruft and it's not a guide to every wrestler and team ever. Why have redlinks if it's very clear the article doesn't need to exist, and most likely never will? The article won't be harmed by not linking a few things. Just making an article for the sake of filling the redlink isn't how Wikipedia works either. Wikipedia is about notable content: not cruft to make one less redlink in the article. RobJ1981 05:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, not EVERYTHING needs to be linked to an article - we can't indiscriminately link to every Reno Riggns, George Wells and "Masked doufus A" that exists. Regarding the Creatures should not have a specific article (Any more than the Ding Dongs should), the Dynamic Dudes is at best a section in Johnny Ace & Shane Douglas' profiles nothing more. "Maybe the should have" isn't a good enough reason IMO, think about it - could you create a page on whatever you link to and add more information than just stub information? No? then don't redlink it, if you want a page created then add it to the project's "to do" list. MPJ-DK 08:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You make a couple of good points Rob. Some things you may want to consider when linking/de-linking an article that doesn't exist are:

  1. Has the article previously existed (i.e. check for an AFD on it).
  2. Is the subject/place/thing notable to the point to where you could potentially create an article for it (i.e. Google hits).
  3. The structure of the article (i.e. check to see if red-links are used despite the subject/place/thing not having an article)

In the case of professional wrestling, see the WWE roster for a good example. While some wrestlers that are in OVW/DSW have the potential to become notable, we red-link them just in case articles have been created to make sure that non-notable, sloppy, or poorly written articles are not linked to the WWE roster. While clearly red-links are a potential welcoming invite to users to create non-notable stubs, you must also take into account the good things it could do (Hey, I started out on Wikipedia just creating stubs on people like Lashley and now look at it :P). There are exceptions to what should be linked though, see WWE roster again for this example. People like the Chairmen, producers and writers for WWE will never have any major articles that will be frequently updated, nor will the ever do anything literally notable while in WWE. That is when you un-link them. Those articles about the unknown jobbers/jobber tag teams could be linked for the purpose of filling in redirects. I remember when I created a page when I was starting out on Wikipedia and I didn't know who the jobber were when I was typing it out, so I linked them and they redirected to their more notable gimmick or real name. On the other hand, red-links could be used to detect articles that have been recently created that are non-notable or a copyright violation and need to be deleted. Really, it depends on a lot of things and if an article should/could be created.. — Moe 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Backyarder alert

A link added to DDT (professional wrestling) tipped me off to a little circle of articles relating to a backyard wrestler. I turned into redirects to more general move articles. I've put most up for deletion:

  • Atomic DDT - the first one I noticed
  • Sam Wolfson - the backyarder in question (possibly User:Skaterpunk216, who created these articles)
  • Chiro-Cracker

I'd appreciate it if folks could take a look at these articles and weigh in on the deletion discussions.

I turned two less creatively named moves (Modified crucifix powerbomb and Shoulder carry spinning DDT) into redirects to the appropriate general move articles. Also, User:Skaterpunk216 has several edits to other wrestling-related articles—some of these may bear scrutiny. — Gwalla | Talk 06:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vanity to me so I put the remaining ones up for speedy deletion. Obvious pages like this should be tagged with Template:db.
↪Lakes (Talk) 09:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Related to this the article JT Hogg and derivitive articles should be deleted. –– Lid(Talk) 10:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_19_b8b0.html"