Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 3

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 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →

Contents

Bias towards current events

I am wondering how specific the biographies are intended to be. For instance, many biographies contain information on recent storyline happenings in the wrestler's career, which over the long-run may end up being completely insignificant on the whole, compared with the rest of the wrestler's career. For instance, will anyone really care five years from now that William Regal issued an invitational for a team to challenge against his tag belt during an episode of Sunday Night Heat (one of the least-watched or cared about programs)? I severely doubt it. This problem becomes larger when people go into this sort of tedious detail for wrestlers who haven't even had significant public careers, let alone significant roles in current events. It has to be kept in mind that the wiki is not a news site, and it also has to be kept in mind that many wrestling websites already go into extremely fine detail on these sorts of things, and it would be a mammoth effort to even rival them on this basis. --Pathogen 05:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We have a problem with systemic bias regarding wrestling bios (and wrestling articles in general) in favor of relatively recent events in the major American promotions. I've tried to balance things out a bit nationality-wise by doing some work on Japanese puroresu-related articles, but I'm limited by my lack of familiarity with the subject and my atrocious Japanese language skills. The bias towards recent events, though, seems more challenging, and I don't know how we can effectively counter it short of deleting mentions of minor events. — Gwalla | Talk 20:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
You have you points in that arguement but the fact is it may be significant in the long run... even your example is flawed and biased, first of The Heart Throbs (Antonio Thomas and Romeo Roselli) made their WWE debut on the April 18 edition of RAW, as the first team to respond to an open challenge, made on Heat by then tag team champions, William Regal and Tajiri. Is it not biased of you to say that Sunday Night Heat is "one of the least-watched or cared about programs" just because something happened on Heat does not make it any less noteable, esspecially as multiple title changes, debutes, and other important events have taken place on heat. Paulley 13:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I just deleted the "recent events" sections from SmackDown! and WWE RAW, because they encourage this bias towards current angles and are not encyclopedic. I think updates on recent plot points belongs on WikiNews, if anywhere in the wikiverse. — Gwalla | Talk 04:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of websites with huge sections devoted to recent recaps, wwe.com included. I agree that only really important things, like major feuds and PPV matches, should be posted. --Chrysaor 18:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think the "recent events" just contained the last title change and if anything that should be noted on the titles article... if it wasnt then thats where it should be and not on the Smackdown and RAW articles.--- Paulley 20:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I use terms like "least watched or cared about" here because I am free to do so--this is not an article. And the fact remains that Heat and Velocity get about 1/4th the ratings of Raw and Smackdown. Only TNA gets worse ratings, and they have generally awful timeslots. But enough about my opinion. (Page history indicates Pathogen1014) made this comment; please sign your comments. --Chrysaor 21:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC))

Many articles are very short right now. As Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to limit articles to "really important things". Of course, I'm not suggesting that every minor fact should be reported in excruciating detail, but the "bias towards current events" is a problem that should be solved by researching and writing more about the past, not less about the present. McPhail 12:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia may have the advantage of not being on paper, but irrelevant information, or information that "may" be important, does not warrant inclusion in any encyclopedia IMO. For instance, George W. Bush probably signed at least one bill today. Does that make that bill important in the scheme of things? Yes, it may be important later, but the relevance of information is much easier to determine in hindsight, rather than writing it down simply because there's space to do so. --Pathogen 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciations

An anonymous user added "Include pronounciations (sic) for most names for non-English speaking readers" to the to-do list. I removed it, since we haven't discussed it here, but let's discuss it. Is this necessary? I would guess that most people who read the English Wiki speak English, so it isn't necessary, but I wonder if anyone thinks it might be useful on most names rather than just the ambiguous ones. --Chrysaor 21:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is the Wikipedia In English, after all. We should include notes on pronunciation only if it's particularly unclear to English speakers; the same standard as every other article. The request seems more applicable for the Simple English 'pedia. — Gwalla | Talk 23:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree, pronounciations should only be added if the name is difficult to pronounce, or can easily be mispronounced. FYI: Someone put a pronounciation template on top of Kayfabe. --LBMixPro(Holla back!) 07:56, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

My suggestion: when a term used in pro wrestling has another meaning used more often outside of pro wrestling, append "(professional wrestling)" (without the quotes). When a name or stage name of a professional wrestler has another meaning or can refer to another person, append "(professional wrestler)". This should make things a bit more clear. However, if the term or name only has meaning in professional wrestling (as in kayfabe), do not append anything.

I'd also like to point out that this goes for when you add a link in an article, not just when you start a new article. Just today somebody added a finishing move for "Halo" to the list of finishers, and linked to Halo, which is of course about the ring of light in Christian religious art.

  • Isn't this something we have been doing already? I see many articles which already have "(professional wrestling)" added. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 22:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • The only difference is specifying (professional wrestler) for bios. I believe I've run across a couple that had (professional wrestling). Plus, I wanted to start some discussion on formalizing it. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrestlers' bios should be under their real names when those are known, but their best known gimmicks should be redirects. If a gimmick has been portrayed by more than one wrestler, it should either be a disambig to the wrestlers or a more comprehensive article on the history of the gimmick (such as Tiger Mask). Don't refrain from writing a bio on a wrestler just because you don't know their real name, though—the article can always be moved when that information is known. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Since any wrestler's stage name can change frequently, I think we should do this ASAP. But what about article names which consist of a middle name (Dawn Marie Psaltis, for example)? Should we keep them the way they are, or drop the middle name? What about real names which are changed from their birth name? Should we use their birth name, or their legally changed name? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 22:26, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's a matter of whether they usually use their middle name or not. For example, Dawn Marie Psaltis usually goes by "Dawn Marie" as a sort of double first name, so it makes sense for the middle name to be there. As for names that have changed, I think the name they are best known as should be the one we use (like Antonio Inoki), but I'd personally make an exception for the Ultimate Warrior, because that's just goofy (and he was legally Jim Hellwig at the height of his popularity). — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point in moving established wrestlers like The Rock, Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, etc. Entertainers such as Cher and Madonna (entertainer) are listed under their professional / stage names, not their real names. Fair enough if it's an anonymous indy wrestler who changes their name every week, but Stratus, Hogan, etc. are marketed under their ring names outwith wrestling, and so should be listed by their professional names. McPhail 23:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Remember, redirects are cheap. — Gwalla | Talk 00:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
    • But we also have people who aren't into pro-wrestling, more than willing to move the articles back to their original article names. That's what just happened to Trish Stratus. I moved her article, then someone from her hometown who wasn't a wrestling fan reverted it back, claiming in my talk page that nobody uses her real name. I'm starting to doubt if changing any of the phenominally big stars's article names will be effective. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 01:21, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • The entire point of using the most common name is so Wikipedia will get more hits off of search engines. Situations like naming Roddy Piper's article "Roderick Toombs" is unnecessary and goes against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Unless the person achieved significant fame under different names such Ron Simmons or their name is very bland and would need to be disambiguated like Edge, I think we should use the most known gimmick name. There is also the problem that some sources for real names are not very reliable. Perro Aguayo's article was listed under "Pedro Damien Aguayo," which is incorrect. I moved it to "Perro Aguayo" since he wrestled under one name his entire career, thus no reason the use his real name. La Parka's article under "Adolpho Tapia" is another example of an incorrect real name.--Darren Jowalsen 02:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Trish Stratus wrestles under that name. She works as an advertising mascot using that name, and modelled using that name. If she ever appears in a film I'm pretty sure she'll use the name Trish Stratus. I'm also confident that the vast majority of searches for her will use her stage name. She is of note because of the feats she accomplished using the name Trish Stratus. McPhail 17:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going ahead and moving kayfabe to kayfabe if nobody objects. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Good call. It's not like it needs disambiguation. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto. Can we only use the (professional wrestling) suffix for those articles which have may have other meanings outside pro wrestling? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

So, what should our policy on wrestler article titles be? The most popular stage name, or their real name if they've had multiple popular stage names? How does that sound? Let's come up with a standard so we can be consistent. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd say to use the wrestler's real name unless their stage name is so signifigant, their real name isn't used AT ALL outside their company and becomes an asterisk compared to their stage name. (Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Roddy Piper, Trish Stratus, for example). Adam Copeland is popularly known as "Edge" in the ring, but he goes by "Adam Copeland" outside it and kayfabe as well. Since the term Edge is already disabiged up the ying yang, it's likely not worth creating an article called "Edge (professional wrestler)". We also have the wrestlers who got noteriety by their actual names; although Jackie Gayda goes by "Miss. Jackie", the majority of wrestling fans and possibly marks know her by her real name. There's a chance a new wrestler who's stubbed at WP gets so over, that their real name doesn't matter anymore? Will we eventually change the article's name, leaving all its references as redirects? WP aims at having as little redirects as possible. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've said my piece about this earlier but I'd just like to say that we should think about what people are going to put in the search and what they are going to type in articles. For example, it is unnecessary to put Shane Douglas' article under "Troy Martin" because no one is going to type that into the search and having to type [Troy Martin| Shane Douglas] when he is always refered as "Shane Douglas" is wasted effort. So, I like Gwalla's proposal, gimmick names are what people are going to type up, so unless the name would need to be disambiguated, the person has had success under different names or other people have used the name (La Parka, Tiger Mask, Psicosis, etc.), use the gimmick name. Seems consistent with people like Butch Cassidy, Bono and Woody Allen, who have articles under the names they were famous as.--Darren Jowalsen 20:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe I had the same discussion with Paulley a while back on his discussion page before this WikiProject got set up. While I agree with you, I also agreed with Paulley's contention that stage names only be used for legendary wrestlers. We haven't really stuck to that convention - The Undertaker still redirects to Mark Calaway after all. I definitely think that we should go back the names that wrestlers are more likely to be searched as though. :P --Jtalledo (talk) 01:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that the Undertaker will be changing his name anytime soon. --Jtalledo (talk) 6 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)
You can't know that for sure... anything could happen in the WWE, even firing the likes of all the Dudley's, Oh! and if you told me two weeks ago Chavo was gonna change his name to Kerwin White i would have laughed in your face. also like "Test" (Andrew Martin) 'Taker is often called by his real first name backstage... esspecially during the time of Sarah getting staked by DDP --- Paulley 7 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
Sarah got staked? Was she a vampire in the angle? Just kidding of course but we should be considering what normal people are going to look up. Like I said before, the most common name is appropriate. No one is going "Salvador Guerrero III is doing a WASP gimmick," they're going "Chavo Guerrero (Jr.) is doing a WASP gimmick. And since we are doing what people call each other backstage, shouldn't Wladek Kowalski be Walter Kowalski?--Darren Jowalsen July 7, 2005 19:09 (UTC)
thank you for pointing out my spelling misstakes, in an ever so polite manner :P (hehe i will proof read these things one day), and the backstage names were in reference to a comment made earlier --- Paulley 7 July 2005 21:58 (UTC) anyway in my oppinion unless you have a damn good reason not to, all wrestlers should be placed under real names.
I'm not much better in the proof reading department (looking now, I see I forgot to close my quotation marks). Actors, musicians and rappers have their articles under their stage names because that's what people know. I don't think wrestlers are any different.--Darren Jowalsen July 7, 2005 23:39 (UTC)
The problem is, unlike actors and musicians, wrestlers don't always own their stage names. Often, a wrestler's stage name will change drastically when he moves between companies ("Road Dogg Jesse James" -> "B. G. James", "Billy Gunn" -> "The Outlaw", "La Parka" -> "L. A. Park"). More rarely, the copyright owner might choose to put another wrestler under the gimmick (as AAA did with La Parka, or WWE has done with Smash of Demolition, Max Moon, Razor Ramon, Diesel, etc.) A wrestler can even change names during a tenure with one company (Witness "Headbanger Mosh" -> "Beaver Cleavage" -> "Chaz"). Unless we can be certain that a given wrestler will be referred to by a gimmick name throughout his career, using gimmick names for the articles makes little to no sense. Using the wrestler's real name creates a stable place for the article, and we can always toss in as many redirects as we wish.--HBK July 8, 2005 01:18 (UTC)
I have always supported using real names if more than one person has used the gimmick. For people like Billy Gunn who have used the same name for ten years, that name is burned into people's minds, even when they change gimmicks or names. But my main gripe is with people like Dean Malenko being under Dean Simon. Is there really a chance that he is going to come back as "Mr. Wrestling III" on Smackdown with a mask on? (Wait a minute, if Charlie Haas was still around they probably could have done with him...) People know him as Dean Malenko and he'll be referred to in an article as Dean Malenko, so it only makes sense for the article to be under "Dean Malenko." Sometimes you just have to play it by ear though.--Darren Jowalsen July 8, 2005 02:08 (UTC)

Capitalization of move names: proposal

Right now a lot of moves in Professional wrestling throws, Professional wrestling holds, etc. have inconsistent capialization. This is partly my fault: when I started the throws article I capitalized all moves, unaware of the general policy of capitalizing only proper names in headings, and when I started the holds article I didn't. So it was an inconsistent mess from the start. We should work towards getting these in line with the Manual of Style.

But this isn't just about headings in those articles. It's capitalization of moves in general. Part of the problem is that people who write about wrestling (for fansites and the like) have a tendency to Capitalize Practically Everything, in ways That make No Sense, and it's bled over into our articles. I propose a general style rule for wrestling articles: moves under generic names (450 splash, hurricanrana, suplex, etc.) are uncapitalized, while the names of explicitly named signature moves and finishers are considered proper nouns and capitalized. So the crossface is uncapitalized, but the Crippler Crossface, Chris Benoit's finisher, is. There's a grey area for moves that were once named signature moves but are now generic (like the sharpshooter): the rule should be that when one is referred to in the context of its original namer or preceding its adoption as a generic term, it should be capitalized, but outside that context it should not.

Proper names for signature moves should be used only in the context of the wrestler who uses them under those names, and avoided outside of that context, unless there is no other generic way of referring to those moves (which should be rare—you can almost always construct a generic name like "tilt-a-whirl sit-out powerslam" or something unless it's totally unprecedented). — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Signature moves

Does anyone else think that some of the the signature move lists are getting too big? I mean, some of them are approaching 10 moves, some of which the wrestler don't even perform in every match. If the move is a wrestler's unique variation of a common move, then that would obviously merit entry to the list, but a wrestler can only have so many "signature" moves and some moves like a generic spinebuster don't seem to be unique to a particular wrestler. Then there's the "Signature illegal weapon" information – it's not like every wrestler has a signature weapon. These weapons may be mentioned in the description of the wrestler, but I think that putting them in a list seems odd.

Happy editing. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. A common move should not be in a "signature move" list unless the wrestler has given it a special name of his own, the wrestler invented the move, or the move is specifically identified with the wrestler (e.g. Ric Flair and the chop). On the flip side, we should probably try to keep individual finishers out of the main generic move lists. For example, the "Haas of Pain" is only used by Charlie Haas, and should be described in his article, not the main list of holds. — Gwalla | Talk 02:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, that people should have more discretion when adding signature moves (moves that by definition should be highly specific to that wrestler), but i dont like the idea of moving someting like the "Haas of Pain" off the holds list, that just seems silly, what happens in say five year if the the move becomes popular among other wrestlers... its kinda like saying the asai moonsault should only have been described on the Ultimo Dragon page. Remeber all moves have to be invented by somebody at one point or another. As for signature illegal weapons again more discretion, if a weapon is very wrestler specific then add it to the list aswell as mentioning it in the profile. I have said before the profile system is mainly a quick reference to what is written in the main text, because i know i wouldnt wanna have to read a whole artical just to find out specific information --- Paulley 10:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Currently it's a section in a general article that is only meaningful in the context of a single wrestler, and therefore belongs in that wrestler's article. We shouldn't be guessing whether or not a move will catch on. If it does, we can move it back into the list under whatever name it becomes known by, but until then it's just Charlie Haas' finisher. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lol, many moves on these lists are like that, i would prefer the move to have a more technical name though. Anyway, how do you know that this move hasnt been used by another wrestler somewhere round the world, and im sure the article isnt called "popular wrestling holds" now is it --- Paulley 15:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) sorry i dont want to argue, move it onto Haas' page if you wish to
I realize there are several moves like that on there. I'm not happy with that fact; I think they should all be moved to their respective wrestlers' pages unless they have become known outside the context of their namers. I don't know that nobody else has used it before, but we shouldn't be basing things on assumptions. Our articles need to be based on verifiable data. — Gwalla | Talk 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
fair enough we both have points, and they are both valid. but, i respect your oppinion. so try it and see what people think or if they even notice --- Paulley
Personally I've been trying to trim signature move lists for a while now. Basic moves like punches, clotheslines, etc. don't warrant inclusion. If a move has a name given to it by the wrestler then it should definitely be included, and if that move is strongly associated with the wrestler (such as Batista's spinebuster) then it should also be included. However, just because a wrestler performs a move semi-regularly doesn't mean it should be added. McPhail 15:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also while we are on the subject, i just wondered if anyone could confirm that when The Undertaker wrestled as "Mean Mark" he didnt use the any of his current finishers... im sure his finishers were the "Hart Punch" and a Rope Walking Elbow Drop but i just wanted to know if any of you could confirm this before i added it.--- Paulley 16:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Professional wrestling events

Events (pay per views, etc) comprise about half of all the entries on the category:professional wrestling page (here), and are likely to consume more space as time passes. I think a subcategory along the lines of "Professional wrestling events" would help to organise the page. Any thoughts? McPhail 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but maybe we should name the category "Professional wrestling shows" as it would suit annul and one time events the same, plus we can place RAW, Smackdown, HEAT on it too --- Paulley 16:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps Professional wrestling events for specific events, Professional wrestling television shows for RAW/SD/etc, and Professional wrestling pay-per-views as a subcategory of both? Or would that be excessive? — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
a little excessive maybe as there isnt that many TV shows, maybe if you did a Professional wrestling events with the sub of Professional wrestling television shows ---62.253.64.14 21:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There don't appear to be any objections, so I'll take Paulley's original suggestion and create "Professional wrestling shows", with an option to sub-cat. McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tables used in wrestling

Today, i found this article Spanish announcers' table... i cleaned it up a little, but there is something i just dont like about it... anyway i was wondering if someone had enough info to write an article on the tables used in professional wrestling (Table (professional wrestling)) and have a sub section on that article about annoucer's tables in general and then merge Spanish announcers' table in with that. Your thoughts? --- Paulley 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think that article looks okay. It could do with some cleanup, but overall it seems fine, if not exactly FAC material. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the article up a small bit. I am fine with the way it is, also. --Pathogen 19:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ok, well i still think it would be good idea to make apage about the tables used in ro wrestling... i mean does anyone actually know the company that makes them or does the WWE and other onrganisation make them themselfs... well i have seen sites that sell rings and stuff sell them... but someone must make them somewhere --- Paulley 13:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I always thought they were just plain old plywood folding tables. — Gwalla | Talk 20:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think the WWE just uses some specific model of table made by some company. I doubt that they're specifically designed for wrestling. Some ECW wrestler, probably Foley, mentioned in an interview that they used any tables that were available at the location, which varied in hardness, etc.
--Lakes 06:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An article on tables in professional wrestling? Sounds a bit like overkill to me. *shrugs* --Jtalledo (talk) 01:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some interesting articles

These links may prove helpful, particularly as references for old-time wrestling:

I find the Wrestling Rollercoaster's biography page to be an invaluable information resource. --Pathogen 19:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obsessed With Wrestling is a great resource as well. --HBK 03:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Here are some of the links I use a lot-

McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GMW

  • I can't see any reason to retain this article, so I've listed it on votes for deletion, along with the linked stubs. I thought I should probably announce this in case anything thinks they should be retained. McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A google search for "GMW Wrestling" spawns many references to a promotion called Green Mountain Wrestling. After googling "Green Mountain Wrestling" (In quotations), it has ties with NWA. I'm not sure it's the same GMW mentioned at the article, but I don't think we should delete it if the NWA GMW is worth an article here --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 13:13, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • The "GMW" wrestlers seem to be English, whereas Green Mountain Wrestling seems to be based in Vermount. It definitely needs work either way, though. McPhail 13:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can it. No one here even knows what it actually is, and the article has no subtance whatsoever. --Pathogen 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no such promotion in the UK, and no wrestlers working under those names, it is and always will be a fake thing written by a vary bored wikipedian - Paulley 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

pwstatbox

{{{name}}}
[[Image:{{{image}}}|200px]]
Statistics
Stage names {{{names}}}
Height {{{height}}}
Weight {{{weight}}}
Birthdate {{{birthdate}}}
Hometown {{{hometown}}}
Trained by {{{trainer}}}
Professional Debut {{{debut}}}


The current pwstatbox template has some bad points, which I suggest we correct. The biggest problem is the fact that values are centered. I changed the alignment to "left".I moved the name inside the box. I also changed the statistics title background color and changed "Vital Statistics" to "Statistics". I also added some padding between the content and the border.

Some typography experts suggest that the item names should be right-aligned (Eg. Height, Weight here). However I don't see other stats boxes using this in Wikipedia, so I decided not to change it. I also tried giving the {{{name}}} the same background color as Statistics, but this doesn't really work for the imageless version.

{{{name}}}
Statistics
Stage names {{{names}}}
Height {{{height}}}
Weight {{{weight}}}
Birthdate {{{birthdate}}}
Hometown {{{hometown}}}
Trained by {{{trainer}}}
Professional Debut {{{debut}}}

--Lakes 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No objections so I'm applying the changes.
--Lakes 06:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think debut should be left-aligned. It makes the stat box look cramped. In actual fact, now that the changes have been made, I think the original was more aesthetically pleasing. ::McPhail 09:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made some changes. Better? (See the actual templates, I didn't update the ones in this thread)
--Lakes 10:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That looks a lot better, thanks. McPhail 14:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a way to make parameters optional using {{if defined call1}} amd {{if defined call2}}, but it's sort of odd. I tried applying it to a temporary copy of the pwstatbox in my userpage, but couldn't get it to work. If somebody could figure it out, though, it'd be nice to make the image optional so we don't have to have two different templates. — Gwalla | Talk 04:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got it to work. See {{pwstatbox}} and {{pwstatbox/billed}}. But now we need to go and add billed= to every page that uses the template. I'll go and start. We should probably make a list of every possible thing that could be in the box and them add them at the same time.
--Lakes 08:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added billed= to every page that uses the pwstatbox. Currently the only page that has a value for it is Lane Huffman.
--Lakes 08:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I made image optional and changed all articles that used pwstatbox/nopic. Pwstatbox/nopic can now be deleted. One problem seems to have arised, the thumb|200px doesn't take effect anymore. I'll try to fix it.
I suggest we add "Died" and "Retired" to the box.
--Lakes 13:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed the image size problem. There were leftover image parameters from when pages were converted to use the statbox. The empty parameter (Eg. |thumb) following the image= seemed to break the syntax. I removed the leftover junk from all pages that use the template (they were never actually used with the template anyway).
--Lakes 14:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{pwstatbox2}} includes the entry "obituary date". McPhail 15:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should merge it then. So far we have "died", "retired", "entrance music". We can have a lot of entries, and if the a box gets too long some of it's content can always be split in to the Profile section.
--Lakes 16:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I added "died" and "retired". Pwstatbox2 is now obsolete.
--Lakes 07:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It might be my browser settings, but the Randy Orton article seems to have PWstatbox problems. Right now there's a block of gibberish at the top of the page related to the stat box. McPhail 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) Okay, I added the died and retired parameters and it seems to be okay. McPhail 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't it be "date of death" or "Obituary date" instead of "died" if we are going with "birthdate" for the sake of parallelism?--Darren Jowalsen 22:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I was actually thinking that "Birthdate" should be changed to "Born". Not necessarily the parameter name but the label. "Obituary date" is completely wrong since it doesn't mean the day the person died, but the day it was publicly notified of. The reason I'd go with "Born" and "Died" is because they are shorter and easier language. Like "Retired" is better than "Date of retirement" or "Retirement date". Of course having the parameter name different from the label could be confusing, but the content format both would be in is the same. The reason I wouldn't change the parameter is that I've gone through all the pages that use the template twice already, and don't want to do it again. If no one objects I'll just change the Birthdate label to Born.
--Lakes 00:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As long as it has the same structure, I don't mind it either way.--Darren Jowalsen 01:21, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
What about changing "professional debut" to "debut"? This would remove the unsightly gap, and "professional debut" could be confusing, as it implies that the wrestler previously had an amatuer career. McPhail 2 July 2005 23:52 (UTC)

Entrance themes

Given that a lot of wrestlers now use songs played by actual bands rather than in-house stuff, should there be a list of wrestling entrance themes, like List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers but with song names and band names? McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Could be a good idea, also we could place the entrance music as part of the profile section and/or statbox ---Paulley 15:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's not. It should be mentioned in the career section. Too many wrestler bios look like data dumps already. The prose is the most important part; everything else is just extra. — Gwalla | Talk 20:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • how about in a "facts/trivia" section, i see in some articles the entrance themes are already placed there --- Paulley 11:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Personally, I think the facts/trivia section is already overused. It contributes to the rampant List Of Facts Syndrome our bios suffer from. I wouldn't mind if we got rid of them entirely. — Gwalla | Talk 00:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No objections, so I'll create it at List of professional wrestling entrance themes. McPhail
  • Is anyone going to try to look up a wrestler by their entrance music? It seems unlikely. — Gwalla | Talk 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
    • I think you should rename it "List of music used in professional wrestling", or something and add all theme music from Pay-Per-Views and such aswell -- Paulley 29 June 2005 10:46 (UTC) (People may know of a song they like being used for professional wrestling and may what to look and see who uses it or for what event it was used for/for finding out who does whos music in general)

Championship navboxes

I have to say, I don't like the titleholders navboxes very much. Each one basically duplicates the contents of a ...Championship or List of ... champions article, and for any wrestler who has held more than one title (which is practically any wrestler who deserves an article) they quickly pile up at the bottom of the article in an ugly mess. Navboxes should be small and unobtrusive; the current situation is just clutter. They're particularly pointless given that we also have the "championships and titles" section in bios and in many cases use small tables that show the preceding and succeeding titleholders and link to the titles' articles. I think we could safely do away with the navboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree that multiple navboxes clog up an article. I was looking at the Chris Benoit article the other day wondering if it's anywhere near being a featured article candidate, and thought that all the stuff at the end was really distracting. --Chrysaor 04:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. They are an excellent way of concisely expressing the lineage of a belt, without the need for locations, dates, etc. which are already included in the championship articles. They are by no means as obstrusive as the championships section, which in the case of the Chris Benoit article is totally superfluous, as just adding the name of the belt and a link to the article on that belt will take the user to a page where the dates and locations of title changes are available. McPhail 13:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But a person looking for information on, say, Chris Benoit doesn't need to know who all of the WWE Intercontinental Champions are. If they want to know, they can click on the link to the title history. Most is not directly relevant to a given wrestler; the only other titleholders relevant as such to another wrestler who has held the same title are the ones who immediately preceded and succeeded him. — Gwalla | Talk 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
They might not always be relevant, but the navboxes are valuable when the list of champions is relatively short, or in championship articles. McPhail 22:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never liked those navboxes that much myself. The same goes for those tables that give details about the wrestler's championship reigns for each title won. If someone wants to know the championship lineage of a belt, they should go to the information page for that belt linked from the wrestler's biography. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we should keep them for the major titles like the WWE World title, maybe the WCW and NWA World heavyweight titles and take other navboxes out of biography articles.--Darren Jowalsen 01:30, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think the navboxes should remain for the same reason McPhail mentioned. But I think that should be the only reference to the lineage to the belt. The templates make the "reigns tables" obsolete. But in the same essence of the pwstatbox, I think we should use the navboxes only in an article which has enough detail about that champion, although it may not work well if someone is following the line, checking out information about each champion along the way. Also, should we also add tag-team navboxes for stable articles? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 2, 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Lists

Looks like there's a mini edit-war going on involving myself and McPhail on the Jason Reso article. I should explain my recent edits. The thing is, the page seems to violate the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Embedded list, which states, in part:

"As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."

"Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better.".

My primary issue with this in this article and other wrestler is that a lot of this information can be included in the article as prose and some information such as managers and birthdate is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that prose is generally superior to lists, but integrating data into large blocks of text makes it hard to quickly locate a particular piece of information. If someone visits the Jason Reso article to find out who he was managed by, I'm sure they'd prefer to have the information displayed clearly rather than have to read through several paragraphs to find out what they want to know. The wording of the policy is that lists instead of article text is a bad thing, and I agree with that - I think the profile should be used to give a quick summary of the data, while the prose itself should elaborate on this data. For example, anyone merely wishing to know who Reso has been managed by could look at the list (which in most cases is not really a list, it's generally a single line consisting of three or four entries) and see that he has been managed by X, Y and Z, while anyone wishing further information could read through the text and learn the context and circumstances in which Reso was managed by X. McPhail 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Some of the list-of-facts can probably be shofted out of the main article body into a statbox. The information should also be covered in prose form in the article, however: the profile/statbox is there to provide a quick summary of basic facts in the article. I agree with Jtalledo that our wrestler bios are a little too preoccupied with lists. Our main focus should be on the articles; lists-of-facts are tangential to that. — Gwalla | Talk 19:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think lists have their place in the pro wrestling articles but I think we should look into focusing on the prose – it's a lot more "encyclopedic" as some Wikipedia editors like to say. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Spoilers" policy

Should we rethink the "no spoilers" policy? Wikipedia is primarily an information repository, and I don't see why we have an obligation to suppress information for two days after it becomes available. McPhail 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

Definitely not. There is no reason why Wikipedia should spoil people's fun in watching entertainment.
--Lakes 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)
I agree. Usually, when people post spoilers, they aren't even marked with a spoiler warning, or they give it away in the edit description. Having to avoid most pro wrestling articles like the plague for two days every week when something important happens on SmackDown!, and not being able to look at my watchlist, is really annoying. There are plenty of other places to read spoilers on the Net. --Chrysaor June 28, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
I agree with Lakes and Chrysaor. This is Wikipedia, not 411mania; our job is not to be a source for breaking news. — Gwalla | Talk 28 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
I cant believe anyone even brought that up as a question... of course we have no right to spoil wrestling shows. im more annoyed that i dont get to see Smackdown! til the friday... im really annoyed i couldnt get through the week without finding out that *spoiler* (i know we all knew it was gonna happen but still) Im just really glad i stay up til two in the morning to watch RAW ---- Paulley 29 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)
Damn it Paulley, I managed to get this far without finding that out! I figured reading this page was safe but...argh! I figured that was going to happen, too, but still, that wasn't cool. I removed the spoiler. Please don't do it again. --Chrysaor June 29, 2005 21:33 (UTC)
lol, if i wasnt allowed to make it, no one else is... ;-) lol, i am sorry, but i was really pissed off as i had just seen the edits on his page, and i kinda was just still in a mood when i wrote it) --- Paulley 1 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers

Isnt the list we have already good enough? i dont think we need these:

Paulley 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

Where did those come from? I agree, they're unnecessary (and the one in the talk namespace doesn't belong there anyway). — Gwalla | Talk 4 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
Yea i tend to browse through much of wikipedia picking up on these sorta things, mainly its just a case of add a category and stub but sometimes i come across silly things like this --- Paulley 4 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
I was the one that created both List of every professional wrestler and Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names. See I created List of professional wrestlers/More names one night to build a dynamic list of everyone, including names of wrestlers I've never seen, and put them in categories List of professional wrestlers doesn't have. Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names was originally called List of every professional wrestler. When someone reverted it into Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names I had to create a new one to continue this; hence * List of every professional wrestler. I intend on doing this, meaning the new names and categories, to List of every professional wrestler that is currently there. Do you guys think I should do this new page or add the new names and categories to List of professional wrestlers? --SWD316 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I have since scraped the List of every professional wrestler and did the edits I mentioned to List of professional wrestlers, meaning I added the Independant Circuit idea section under there. -- SWD316 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
If it has not been done yet can you please put the List of every professional wrestler up for deletion/redirect it to list of professional wrestlers ---- Paulley 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello Everyone

Hi, Im SWD316 and I would like to be a part of your professional wrestling WikiProject, is there something special I have to do to join you guys? I have made numerous edits on professional wrestling articles and I think it would give me something better to do with my time if I could to join. SWD316 9 July 2005 1:19 (UTC)

Nope, just add your user name to the Participants list on the main project page. --Chrysaor July 9, 2005 07:34 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

I keep reading List of professional wrestlers and RAW an seeing Hulk Hogan's name added to the roster. I posted a message in between the space you would put his name, to not add his name, but someone keeps on adding Hogan's name regardless. If its someone on this project please stop adding his name. SWD316 9 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

Who was it? — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dont know who it was. SWD316 10 July 2005 2:43 (UTC)

The page history should say. — Gwalla | Talk 04:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I added Hogan. He appeared on RAW for two straight weeks and appears to be beginning a programme with Shawn Michaels. There's more logic to including Hogan than to including The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin. Your only explanation for removing him was that he "hasn't signed any contract" which is pure speculation. I imagine he's on a per-appearance basis. McPhail 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Dont add Hogan's name, he's only appearing until SummerSlam to promote his new reality show, Hogan knows best. He is NOT going to be a full time wrestler. --SWD316 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Then keep him on there until SummerSlam. McPhail 20:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the list is for the actual roster, not for wrestlers who appear sporadically. --SWD316 20:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the list is of "Current RAW wrestlers". Hogan is a current RAW wrestler. Whether or not he has signed a contract is irrelevant. The Rock has no contract and hasn't been on RAW for half a year and he is still listed. Austin appears "sporadically" and he is listed. Hogan stays until you can provide a convincing reason for his removal. McPhail 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Youre right Austin, Rock and Mick Foley are on there but they shouldn't be. Thats why all four Austin, Rock, Foley and Hogan should be removed. Hogan, Foley and Rock aren't contracted but only make appearances and Austin is contracted but only under WWE films, not a wrestling contract. -- SWD316 22:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Just as long as it's consistent. Also, when you remove people from one section of the list of professional wrestlers, please make sure to reinsert them in Unaffiliated/Retired. McPhail 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll make sure and do that and I agree to consistancy. -- SWD316 22:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Lakes, dont add Hulk Hogan's name to the roster, unless I see proof that he signed a contract or will keep taking him off. -- SWD316 23:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I didn't care for this stupid argument you keep having until yesterday when I was listening to the 2005-07-10 Wrestling Observer Live. The host Dave Meltzer was 100% sure that Hogan was under contract. So stop removing him.
—Lakes 04:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Dave Meltzer? Im waiting on Hulk Hogan or WWE to confirm it not some DJ. Well just a tip off to you, he didn't sign a contract yet. If he does I'll add his name, but he hasn't. He's only promoting his new show, and right now doing a stint with Shawn Micheals for a match at SummerSlam. He DID NOT sign a contract to appear regularly though. Please dont add his name until its confirmed by WWE or Hogan himself until then his name's coming off unless by some chance you find a decent website that confirms his status, ex: www.wwe.com or www.prowrestling.com -- SWD316 18:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Some DJ? Meltzer is one of the few reliable and responsible people in wrestling news (well, except when it comes to lucha news, but that is neither here, nor there). That aside, if he has a storyline on Raw, he should be on the roster. If we went by everything WWE said and only what WWE said, it wouldn't be a very well rounded viewpoint.--Darren Jowalsen 18:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Someone's word isn't proper confirmation of a contract signing and anyway's he's retired from FULL-TIME wrestling, he's currently focasing on his daughter, Brooke's career, not wrestling.-- SWD316 19:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Clearly we need to come to some kind of a consensus here, as the problem as spilled into edit wars over whether Matt Hardy has "signed a contract." Personally, I think whether or not we know that someone has "signed a contract" is irrelevant, especially since these are private contracts and we may never have public knowledge of them. I think that if a wrestler is on a show for more than a one-shot, then he should be on the roster until he is injured or released. That would mean that Hulk Hogan and Matt Hardy would be on, since Hogan will be working semi-frequently up to and including SummerSlam and Hardy has clearly agreed to a deal with WWE, whereas persons such as Mick Foley and The Rock would not. However, I would agree to whatever consensus the group comes up with, as opposed to a never-ending argument. I suggest we have some kind of vote. --Chrysaor 20:34, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Since I dont care about the placement of his name anymore, I deleted the Hogan Vote section to make room. Since then I created a "spordaic" section for Hogan and others under List of professional wrestlers, RAW and SmackDown! -- SWD316 01:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz names

PWInsider.com has reported that the Dudley Boyz will have full use of their stage names when they leave WWE. [1] Should we change Mark Lamonica and Devon Hughes to Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley now. I believe if this development is true, we ought to. If this isn't an outright case about when to use the stage name as the article name for a wrestler, then there aren't any outright cases about this issue. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is always the questions of Buh-Buh versus Bubba and D'Von versus D-Von, though. McPhail 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
True. No big deal. The current name convention seems to be working out fine and I certainly don't want to change any of those redirects manually. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note on the RAW and SmackDown! rosters

There are some OVW stars that were recently moved from OVW to the main rosters of RAW and SmackDown! namely, The Boogey Man (Marty Wright) went to RAW, and Frankie Kazarian, and Vito (Vito LaGrasso) went to SmackDown! as they will appear regulary for WWE now. -- SWD316 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Independent Circuit

I created new sections under List of professional wrestlers where it includes the independant circuit and the wrestlers that are included in an attempt at expanding on just the unaffilated/retired section. -- SWD316 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work but I think the next stage should be to get major foreign promotions like CMLL, AAA, New Japan, NOAH etc. their own section. Since TNA gets its own section, I don't see why promotions that are much more successful are just lumped into a category with rink-a-dink indy promotions. I can do CMLL and AAA (however, I'll probably truncate some of it for the sake of sparing so many red links) but I don't know anything about Puro so I can't do them.--Darren Jowalsen 01:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree with the idea of the major promotions getting stemmed off into their own categories except since we dont know all the names off all the wrestlers it might look silly if we had (ex: AAA and there be two wrestlers under it), meaning we need to get the names of more wrestlers from those promotions.-- SWD316 06:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
You do have one slight problem; most indy stars work out of more than one country i.e. Doug Williams (wrestler) mainstay wrestler in ROH (USA), NOAH (Japan), FWA + Irish whip Wrestling (UK). if a wrestler isnt signed to any one promotion then they will be hard to categorize unless your planning to place indy stars from the country they come from. --- Paulley 11:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
There are anomalies but most foreign wrestlers in Japan and Mexico have major promotion loyalties and those that don't can go into an indy category for that country. Now this is probably me just thinking too much but the current make-up of the list makes TNA & WWE look like the only promotions that matter.--Darren Jowalsen 14:05, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the solution is putting the wrestlers who have loyalties like New Japan Pro, NOAH etc. have there own section like WWE and TNA. This next one's tough, help me out. Should we put wrestlers name who wrestle in different countries be listed under the one country they appear most often or put the wrestlers name under all countries that he appears? -- SWD316 18:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrestlers loyal to one promotion should get a category as such... as for the rest, you either make one big indy section or, you place them under country of origin. Unless anyone can think of something better as i dont see the need to repeat names --- Paulley 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Red Links

I am trying to end all professional wrestling related red links. If you see a red link I don't have listed on my user page thats pro wrestling related type it on my discussion page here and I will create an article for it. -- SWD316 06:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity... I'm all for ending red links, but you shouldnt just go gun 'ho with low quality stubs. I will say at least you cat and stub them aswell as actually write a few factual bits of info, which is better than some ppl i have seen on here, but you should take pride in the articles you create... for example i recreated your Wagner Brown stub, and this is without any sort of career section --- Paulley 11:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Also add stubs like that to "articles to recreate" on the to do list at the top of the page --- Paulley 11:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A stub doesn't really help anyone. Your time would be better spent writing one good article, i.e. an article with some well-researched prose, than in creating dozens of uninformative articles. McPhail 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I plan on doing a research for them all, i.e. I was GOING to recreate Wagner Brown, I was just busy and left for a while, when I came back It was recreated. I plan on making quality articles, It just takes me more time. More time than usual because I wont be here for the next few days. Thanks for the recreation Paulley. -- SWD316 18:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Thats ok, it's what i do --- Paulley 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jackie Gayda article barraged with vandalism

Watch out for people vandalizing the Jackie Gayda article. Over the past two days, I had to revert the article from a few IP blocks and User:Y2Arthur. These guys are mostly restoring or editing the section called "Rumors", which reads "It is rumored that Jackie Gayda gave her fiance, Charlie Haas, handjobs before his matches to relive tension. Also she used the seman and lotion before any match." --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 07:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Darren Matthews Edits

User Lakes has made several unnecessary changes to the 'Profile' portion of the Darren Matthews page. My attempts to revert have been ignored and themselves reverted. I was directed to present this argument on this projects page.

Now you need to explain why you consider these changes unneccessary. These are normal changes that have been applied to many other pro wrestler pages. You're the only one who has complained.
Lakes 17:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A look at the history of the article will indicate that changes made by User Lakes are totally unnecessary to the page and also go against typical methods of creation for 'Signature Moves' sections. The capitalization of this moves falls in line with grammatical standards. With respect to the height and weight measurements, the previous measurements are accurate and should stand. There is no need to convert to centimeters. I will, however, concede to dropping the .03 on weight, even though I feel that, too, to be unwarranted. -Soltak 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Soltak, why did you remove the Japanese interwiki from David Bautista? McPhail 18:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The deletion of the interwiki link was a misunderstanding. I was in the process of restoring the link, but you beat me to it :) ... Respectfully, the topic at hand is Darren Matthews, however. -Soltak 18:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Never ever remove someone's posting from a talk page!
Now I direct you to read the other topics on this page and archives. Especially the "Pending tasks" box which has the task "Cleanup: add metric conversions for all wrestler heights and weights, including new entries (ongoing, optional)". Also read Capitalization of move names: proposal.
With regards to the decimal in weight. Decimals are not used in person weights in profiles.
Lakes 18:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"Decimals are not used in person weights in profiles" - Is this from the Manual of Style? McPhail 18:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
No it's from personal experience. I've never seen them used. Can't find anything related to person weights in the Manual of Style. The biggest reason I would say is that people's weight alternates all the time, and too much precision is not accurate. If you tie the weight to a specific date when measured for example, you could use decimals.
Lakes 18:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've reviewed the cited materials and am quite happy to withdraw my complaint with my apologies. -Soltak 16:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Championships lists have too much white space

For the various lists of championship titles that a wrestler has won, the listing for most of the pages seem to have a little too much white space on them which makes it quite distracting and are inconsistent with the remaining sections. Look at Rick Martel for instance, that is an example, as most of the pages have this. Would it be agreed upon that a project is needed to tighten up the text in these areas? Mcfly85 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think that these page breaks are necessary to distinguish between promotions. Without the page breaks, the championships look very cluttered. McPhail 14:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
To distinguish between promotions, use subheadings. I've seen (and fixed) articles where there were up to five lines of blank space between lists, which is just silly. — Gwalla | Talk 21:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
After trying I have to agree with subheadings. However I feel that level three headings are too big, and level four ones fit better. (So you essentially just skip a level) See Kenta Kobashi that I edited for an example.
Lakes 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I like that idea (with the Kobashi example). It looked quite nice. If the promotions are boldfaced, it should be fine for most to read. Mcfly85 02:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well if thats the final decsition then you best place a heading for the change in the "to do box" and begin to change the articles and if you find any that have not even been changed to the page breake style maybe you can try to edit them in this new style --- Paulley 10:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Common formatting for wrestler profiles

I think that we should come up with a common formatting for wrestler profiles that would go to the project page, both for articles that use the statbox and those who don't need it.

== Career ==
Yaddayaddayadda

== Profile ==
*Height: X ft Y in (XYZ cm) 
*Weight: XYZ lb (XYZ kg)
*Born: 
*Died: 
*Hometown: 
*Billed from:
*Stage names: 
*Factions: 
*Debut:
*Retired:

=== Quotes ===
* Yadda yadda

=== Finishers and signature moves ===
*Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case)
*Signature

== Championships and accomplishments ==
====Organisation 1====
*X-Time Yadda yadda champion

== External links ==

Is my suggestion for the statboxless version. The imperial/metric height/weight take preference from the persons nationality. Basically metric units would be first for Japanese, German, etc wrestlers. Comments? (This is of course based on Paulley's format.) Lakes 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The only problem is many things are very wrestler specific, such as he may have lots of moves and you end up with that section looking like this:
=== Finishing move(s) ===
*Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case)
==== Signature move(s) ====
*Signature
====with Bob====
*Double Team ("Simple" name in lower case)
also what would be in the profile part depends heavly on what is wrote in the first paragraph. On wrestlers that have past away, dates are placed at the top of the page so all that is needed in the profile section is "cause of death". Quotes depend on how many the person has as that can go in the profile section along with previous managers aswell if there isnt many. I wouldnt put factions in the profile but retired is a useful one to place on there.
I just believe it's going to be hard to produce any real good standard that people can take away and use... i tried myself when i first developed the profile idea but even i found i could only use it as a guide to build on, and around, with the information i had.--- Paulley 10:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Scratch that then. My main point was that we should use slashes and round brackets as little as possible. On a side note; You're saying that data that is provided in the text should not be in the profile section? I definitely wouldn't agree with this.
↪Lakes 19:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I like accessing info from the profile section rather looking through the career section dont get me wrong..... but even i draw the line when someone (User:SWD316) writes "Real name:" as one of the things in a profile section when the article is clearly under the real name --- Paulley 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Definitely agree with you there.
↪Lakes 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Do NOT use my user name as an example, I really do take offense to that. If there's something you think I should change when doing a profile or anything, tell me about it on my user page, dont talk about me behind my back, I really dont like that. -- SWD316 00:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

SWD316

Now im all for creating new articles and converting all red links into something... but like i have said before "Quality, not Quantity". why are you trying to spread out little amounts of info when you could be writing a cereer section; note the Wagner Brown page, of which i added the small bit of info the replace your below average stub. if it was just one article i would say fair enough and just recreate it with out saying anything but i have been goin through many of these stubs of yours correcting and recreating.... also why is everyone Mike Modest to you?????????????? if your gonna copy and paste at least change the links and categorys --- Paulley 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) --- dont take any of this personally, as i am only looking out for the quality of are articles.... i dont want to be having to follow you around like i did User:Kks862003 'til he began to see reason

What do mean "note the Wagner Brown page", sure you added a good bit of info, but it doesn't have a career section either, it's a stub too. Im just getting the articles some info to get started then if I missed anything someone else would get it, sure some articles are slim on info but thats because its hard to find. What do you mean by Mike Modest to me? I dont copy and paste, sure I look at but no, copying and pasting. I dont copy and paste and leave it there. An another thing, What do you mean changing the links and categories? -- SWD316 17:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
He means for example this. You obviously copy and paste.
I would also like to add that you should add links to move descriptions in the moves lists. Also don't add empty items to the profile section. Also use "Championships and accomplishments" instead of "Championships/Accomplishments". Same for "Finishing and signature moves". Slashes should be used as little as prose is Wikipedia's goal. Also please don't capitalise every word in a subheading.
↪Lakes 17:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
First off Lakes, I wasn't talking to you. Also that doesn't prove I copy and pasted. All my info was for Predator, why did you type in "for f*ck sake does this look like Mike Modest" for anyway?? That had nothing to do with him. -- SWD316 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Please read that changelog again. There are others, see what that has common with these changes: 1 2 3. The last one should be pretty clear. On a side note it does prove since you don't know what you've added.
↪Lakes 18:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
All mentions of the link leading to a Mike Modest profile, except on the Mike Modest page are gone, all links that said WWE were changed to World wrestling Entertainment, Championships/Accomplishments were all changed to Championships and accomplishments. thanks for letting me know. -- SWD316 19:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
This is why every page i create (or recreate) i add to my watch list... in fact they are the only things i add, not including revert and disambig pages. I myself moniter every change on these pages, if you were doing this you would have heard my suggestions and seen my edits.... i would like to add i have already addressed your stubs to you (see: Red Links) --- Paulley 14:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Like i have said before, I have nothing against you I just want to make sure the best quality articles are being made. --- Thanks Lakes for providing examples, as i havent be around much to check the discussion.

Title Names

Hello! I am going to put my username on the Participants list and help out with the wrestling articles. I have been doing alot of edits on them recently and have noticed alot of names for titles are incorrect. One of the biggest examples is the "Mid-Southern" area titles. They were called Mid-Southern titles until 1987, when they became "AWA" titles (AWA Southern Heavyweight Title, etc.). I named the title history as the AWA Southern Title because it was the best known name for it, but the fact is that somebody who held the title in 1977 held it as the Mid-Southern Title instead of the AWA Southern Title and in my humble opinion, needs to be listed as the Mid-Southern Title on their page. Another huge mess (in my opinion) is saying that for example, Tully Blanchard was a WWE World Tag Team Champion, when he was a WWF World Tag Team Champion. There have been tons of these and I have been changing them all.

What do you guys think about this? I am just trying to keep the titles under the names that they were known by when the wrestler held them.

Please let me know what you think about this! I know it is kinda late, I have changed so many of them, but your opinions are very much valued since you guys do alot of work on here! Thanks in advance!

Also, what is UTC?!? I always put US ET for United States Eastern Time Zone because I have no idea what UTC is! --- Phatcat68 22:14, 20 July 2005 (US ET)

UTC = Coordinated Universal Time. You're on Wikipedia, use it. :) --HBK 02:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The use of WWE retrospectively is a worrying tendency. It's practically revisionism. McPhail 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I try to use "WWF" when referring to events during the time frame in which it was the World Wrestling Federation (although I try to always use the full name first with the acronym in parens so that readers can see what it means without having to look it up separately). The settlement to the World Wildlife Fund's lawsuit is binding on the WWE, not us. — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Same here, if i have to write WWF, i write the full name usually ending it with "(now WWE)", and if its is for the link of a championship i write "[WWE Championship|WWF Championship]"... treat it the same way as you would when talking about the WWWF (World Wide Wrestling Federation) --- Paulley 09:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Listoholism

I think we need to really rethink how we're organizing articles. We're depending way too heavily on lists.

Take the moves articles. They're essentially just lists at the moment. It would be more encyclopedic to discuss the various moves and their distinctions in flowing prose, rather than short descriptions chopped into chunks. For example, rather than having a subsection for each leg lock (and these sections are usually on the order of one or two paragraphs long—not good), have a single section on them that describes the various kinds of leg locks and how to identify them (such as how to tell a toe hold from an ankle lock). This would also avoid the formatting problems regarding images overlapping multiple sections. We wouldn't be able to link directly to specific moves anymore, but we probably shouldn't be doing that anyway.

Similarly, we should be working towards championship articles that actually discuss their histories, rather than simply dumping a list of champs in chronological order. Basically, telling the story of the title: not just who won it when, but the major feuds and angles surrounding those title changes; even particularly famous or important defenses when applicable. That's not to say that we shouldn't have the lists of champions at all, but just that they should be subordinate to the prose rather than dominating it. Right now in many cases the title article is more or less a stubby introduction to the list of champions (whether it's in the same article or a separate one), which is where the actual information is (in some cases it's bulked up slightly by a trivia section: yet another list-of-facts). — Gwalla | Talk 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I really disagree with you. We definitely need to link to specific moves. Yes prose is a priority, but it should not come at the expense of finding information (easily).
On the title issue. I agree that the trivia items should be merged to the main bulk text in all wrestling articles, but I don't agree on having data on feuds or angles in the championship articles. That data should be in the wrestlers' pages.
↪Lakes 09:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
While there are too many lists, some things should be listed for easy reference. Ambiguity is not an acceptable trade-off for the sake of appearances. McPhail 12:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
By having feuds and such, I just meant that the text should cover anything directly relevant to the title. After all, prose like "This guy won it, then this guy won it, and he held it for a while, but then this other guy won it" is hardly compelling, or even all that different from a list. Championships are the focus and driving force of storylines and should be treated as such. It's no big deal if the Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat, and NWA World Heavyweight Championship articles all mention the "Holy Trinity" of matches (Chi-Town Rumble '89, Clash of the Champions IV, WrestleWar) because the context is distinctly different in each case.
As for linking directly to specific moves, I believe that there's actually a Wikipedia guideline that you shouldn't link to specific sections in other articles, but I may be wrong. I haven't been able to find the page that says so. — Gwalla | Talk 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
What we need to do is one day is make a page for each and every move... and turn the Move pages into 'List ofs that direct to the right places... I wish that this could be done so that every move would have about its history and who paragraphs on notable users and incidents involving the move. This would sort out the linking to sub headings and allow for people to write "in flowing prose"... plus i think Gwalla told me before all the move pages are in plural and they shouldnt be unless the entitled List of... so it would sort out that too --- Paulley 10:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The Shooting Star Press article looks good, but I think a new subcategory of professional wrestling is needed to encompass all moves / manoeuvres. McPhail 12:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
As long as you meant to type "maneuvers" then it sure sounds good to me :) --- Paulley 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Professional wrestling performers category

Hello! I just wanted to let you all know that I added two sub-categories to the Professional wrestling performers category to try to decrease the amount of entries in it. I added Professional wrestling referees and Professional wrestling announcers. Those two sub-categories took it down from 210 entries to 175.

I was wondering if you all thought we should make another sub-category for Professional wrestling managers and valets to distinguish them from the others or if the articles themselves would do that for us.

Thanks! --Phatcat68 | Talk 12:48, 26 July 2005 (US ET)

Good job on the sub-categories. I think it should be spilt into other sub-categories for the manager's and valets too. I say go ahead and do it if you want to, pretty good idea to me. -- SWD316 06:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Professional wrestling performers is a very vague and unhelpful term, so any simple subdivisions would be useful. McPhail 14:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Once I got the second yes from McPhail (I was waiting on two yes' to proceed), I created three more subcategories that really organized and cleanup up the Professional wrestling performers category. I added Professional wrestling managers and valets, Professional wrestling executives and Professional wrestling dancers (there seemed to be alot of them). Hopefully, it makes it easier to distinguish between what type of Professional wrestling performers they are now. Thanks for your input McPhail and SWD316! Phatcat68 12:19, 28 July 2005 (US ET)

No other alternative

I saw no other alternative with the List of professional wrestlers and because of it's enormous number of wrestlers, I decided to divide it up into the promotion they were under. It's size I belive when I was going to add another set of wrestlers was at 43 kilobytes. Wikipedia says start dividing it up at 32 so Im sure you understand why I did this. -- SWD316 01:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. That list was so long with it all on one list. You definately made it easier to read by breaking it down. Good job! -- Phatcat68 10:42, 29 July 2005 (US ET)
These articles should be moved. List articles must be marked as such. — Gwalla | Talk 00:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean moving them to where it would say instead of All Japan Pro Wrestling roster to List of All Japan Pro Wrestling wrestlers?? If you do I will be happy to move them. Is that what you mean? -- SWD316 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
One question what has been done with all the wrestlers that are not associated with one promotion? Paulley 11:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The wrestlers not associated with one promotion are under independent circuit, unaffiliated or retired wrestlers. phatcat68 12:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanxs --- Paulley 10:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WWE versus WWF

Hey, just joined the project, though I've been working on professional wrestling pages sporadically since I got here. A question-- when is it appropriate to use "WWF" in an article, and when's it appropriate to use "WWE"? For example, I saw in Kurt Angle's biography that Team WWE defeated Team Alliance at Survivor Series '01, which needless to say isn't right. Should we be making references to WWE only after the name change, or use WWE throughout?

Title histories are a different matter, of course. I figure Hulk Hogan should be listed as a six-time WWE Champion since he held one of those titles during the name transition, but someone like Bob Backlund, for example, would only have held the WWF Championship. ekedolphin 02:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hi ekodolphin. First, welcome to the Professional wrestling wikiproject. Next, The use of WWE an WWF are simple. The Kurt Angle example is a perfect example, it is WRONG. It shold be Team WWF since in 2001 the companies name was WWF. The wrestlers example was good too. Bob Backlund won the championship during the WWF days, but the title was changed to WWE. The title is WWF Championship and Backlund was the WWF Champion is the way it should be wrote. Hogan is also different, He won the title 5 times in the WWF days and once in the WWE days, so it should be the WWF Championship and Hogan 5-Time WWF Champion and in the WWE days, the WWE Championship with Hogan as the WWE Champion. Same Championship different name. Nice examples, and again welcome to the project. -- SWD316 06:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your warm welcome, and I'll start to work on fixing this inaccuracy wherever I can find it. ekedolphin 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
To clarify, the name change took place on May 5, 2002. Everything after that is WWE, everything before that is WWF (or WWWF if it's pre '79). McPhail 14:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Christian and Tyson Tomko

I noticed a few days ago that there's an article entitled Christian & Tyson Tomko which talks a little bit about that team. I think it ought to be deleted. This pairing's already mentioned in both Christian and Tomko's biographies, and it's not as if they actually accomplished much as a team. Thoughts? ekedolphin 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to the wrestling project! I agree with you on this. It seems that there are alot of WWE teams that did not accomplish much or anything that have had articles created on them. However, upon seeing these articles that I felt did not add much, I have created a few articles such as The Diamond Dolls that do not add much to the professional wrestling articles either, so I may not be the best one to add my opinion. Anyway, welcome to the project! This is a good topic for everybody to discuss! P.S. I still cannot figure out how to use UTC. The article on it talks over my head to be honest. I am not a science major or a math major! Phatcat68 08:10, July 30, 2005 (US ET)
Phatcat, all you have to do to sign your name is type 4 of these ~~~~. It will sign your name with the time and everything. As for Tomko and Christian I think it should merge with both as a section in their career section, does not need thier own page, they never did anything. -- SWD316 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


Thanks SWD316! phatcat68 12:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Deep South Wrestling

Just so everyone understands, there are two promotions called Deep South Wrestling. I created both Deep South Wrestling and Deep South Wrestling, LLC. Deep South Wrestling, LLC is the secondary developmental territory for the WWE. Deep South Wrestling is a promotion that features wrestlers from the 80's, 90's and present. Put it simply, one's the developmental territory for WWE and one's a indy circuit promotion. -- SWD316 22:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was more than one Deep South Wrestling. Interesting. At any rate, I added a disambig link on the Deep South Wrestling article. I'm thinking we should edit Deep South Wrestling, LLC for tone, though. --HBK 02:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
How would you edit it for tone? -- SWD316 04:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I just don't think the ultra-vehement assertion that Deep South Wrestling, LLC is NOT Deep South Wrestling sets a very neutral tone. --HBK 04:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Looks much better now! Good job, guys. ekedolphin 02:56, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Championship Headers

I want to know what the general consensus is on the headers for championships held. I got a message saying that I should not capitalize all words, but I know a majority of the pages have all words capitalized anyway. I think the words should be (except for and/or) all starting with caps. I have seen so many variations on these headers, I'd like to know what's up. Mcfly85 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

We had the same discussion with move names, and ended up with normal sentence capitalization. I don't see why subheader titles should be any different. I added this to the todo list a day or so ago. The reason most are capitalized is because they were made to follow Paulley's example formatting, which advocates the capitalization and the use of slashes. I'm sure Paulley will read this, so do you Paulley have anything against changing your formatting example?
↪Lakes 06:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Nope, i have no objection, my example formatting was made over a year ago... and i will say alot has changed since then so please move the formatting on with the times... I had an inckling the capitalization and the slashes were kinda my fault (sorry) --- Paulley 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dick the Bruiser

Will somebody please clean-up the Dick the Bruiser article, It actually hurt my eyes trying to read it. But seriously, I'm really busy so if someone else could do it, that would be great. -- SWD316 19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited it somewhat but I don't know enough about him to delete lines and add anything. I added his championships and a profile and categorized him too. It is still kinda hard on the eyes though due to the actual article about him. I did remove the first sentence and replace it. It is a little better. -- phatcat68 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User: JustAskMe J

Is it just me or should JustAskMe J be blocked or banned from Wikipedia for what he did to the Lauren Jones article. He did add more info but took off a photo, and a profile for just plain info. If you go threw the history, you can see it was much better than what he did. -- SWD316 04:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Or you could just fix the article. Banning should come into play only if they're persistant. And stop inflating your edit count artificially! It's getting very annoying. Think before you edit. I've just had three edit conflicts trying to reply to you.
↪Lakes 04:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry trying to fix his user name, not trying to inflate anything. Didn't think anyone was on the talk page right then. -- SWD316 04:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I reverted it back to the old version. -- SWD316 05:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Scott Hall

I must say, Scott Hall is one of the most well known wrestling personalities from the last 15 years, and this article doesn't do any justice. It has too many headings, gives very little info, and really needs a clean up. If you have nothing to do, I would work on this. Mcfly85 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I had nothing better to do, so I cleaned it up a little, looks a little better. -- SWD316 16:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It is much better, I think there still should be some more details added to the career section, IMO. Mcfly85 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RAW and SmackDown! rosters

I think the RAW and SmackDown! pages rosters are so unnecessary since we have the WWE roster list. I put a link to big roster and took off the little unnecessary rosters. It's to much trouble trying to match up both roster lists so they are the same. What do you guys think? -- SWD316 23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Good job! It's not like they don't all work for the same company anyway. One roster for them is good!
-- phatcat68 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
You're right; there's no need to duplicate the information. Still, I can't help but be a little sad, since I kinda whipped the Smackdown page's roster section into shape as one of my first edits on Wikipedia. Ah, well. At any rate, I edited the links on the pages to link to the appropriate subsections of the page. --HBK 05:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan?

Seems like I've had this conversation before. This time it's a little different though. Seems on WWE.com they have put the profile for Hulk Hogan on there. I added Hogan to the roster list only because of that, I dont know if he signed a contract though. Although I speculate that WWE will take it off after SummerSlam. I still wouldn't trust Dave Meltzer if my life depended on it. I don't think he has strong enough inside information as others might think he does. Despit this, I added his name, then we will see after SummerSlam if he will stay on the main roster or the "sporadic" list. This also brings up the question of should, Austin, The Rock and Mick Foley be added back to our roster too?

PS. Will someone for gosh sakes archive this page already!! -- SWD316 01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most Memorable Matches"

I'm a little concerned with wrestler bios that contain these sections. Aren't a wrestler's best matches mainly a matter of opinion? For instance, while the section in this area for Triple H makes the disclaimer "generally regarded as," I know for a fact that Triple H's HIAC match with Shawn Michaels (included on the list) is far from considered one of his best matches by a lot of people, or even his best Hell In A Cell, of which he has fought many. The general accusation against the Michaels HIAC is that the pacing is extremely slow, and by the time that HIAC rolled around, they had already fought each-other about a hundred times already--making it less than one of his "best" or "most memorable" matches.

As far as I can see, there are no set qualifications for a match to appear on the list. It seems completely arbitrary, determined only by the writer. For that matter, unless I'm again mistaken, there are no set guidelines as to how many matches should be included on this list for each wrestler. One might as well be writing an opinion column, rather than a piece of factual information. --Pathogen 15:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

They are based on opinion yes, but most of those matches are considered by the WWE (as heard on RAW and other programmings) as one of the greatest matches. The example with the HIAC match is good. Most people actually think that was one of Triple H's and Shawn Michaels's best matches to date. I think it should just be left alone for now. -- SWD316 23:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The WWE thinks every match is great. You don't hear JR yell "My god, what a shit match." My point is that there is no real objectivity here at all. It may be one of his best matches with Shawn Michaels, but that doesn't make it one of his best matches ever. What exactly qualifies as "most people?" --Pathogen 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Most people is refering to the people who attended the match, and people who watched the match on pay-per-view. Anyways, I think they should be taken off, but I ain't going to be the one that checks every pro wrestlers bio and removing them. That would probably take a while to remove. We should put this task under the To Do list at the top of the page. I hardly think the "memorable matches" sections should be in Wikipedia, they are not at all factual information. Bottomline, they should be removed. SWD316 02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This is yet another example of listomania. Any matches that matter belong in the career section; there's no need to list them separately. — Gwalla | Talk 03:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_3_0516.html"