Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 4

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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents

New archive done (I hope)

I went ahead and archived the most recent discussions... it *was* getting to be a little too much. So, there we are! ekedolphin 03:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?

I know, I know, good luck getting a pro wrestling-related article to become a featured article. But I just read through the "Stone Cold" Steve Austin article and I think it's one of the finest pro wrestling articles we've got. Anyone think we should nominate it? ekedolphin 03:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think getting one of these articles into the "Featured Article" level is a worthy cause. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, Chris Benoit, or Hulk Hogan all seem like perfect candidates to me. I performed some recent touch-ups on the Austin article, which in my opinion still may have a few too many run-on sentences. The main thing that seems to be getting in the way of a featured article nomination is that the grammar really isn't up to snuff in a lot of cases; people need to know how to construct a sentence so that it reads well. Most of my work here in the wrestling project has been grammar-related (which in my opinion is just as important as the details of the article), and there seems to be an abundance of it left to do.
I am going to do a little work on Chris Benoit now, as the underdog is always in need of some love. . . --Pathogen 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrestler Names on Articles

Hello everybody! I have been finding that we cannot agree on what names to use on wrestler articles. Some users feel that we should use the best known name for them (Brutus Beefcake, Tony Atlas) and some feel that all but the mega-stars (The Rock, Ric Flair, Sting, Hulk Hogan, etc.) should be under their real names. I think we need to come up with a consensus and stick with it or our articles are not consistent. I think all of the users on here should say their piece on this and we should come up with a consensus from that. I vote that we go by the best known name. For example, I would never look up The Great Kabuki in a google search as Akihisa Mera. Therefore, I created the article as The Great Kabuki. If we don't, I see article names being changed constantly by users because there are no set guidelines...and somebody usually gets angry when that happens repeatedly (I personally don't care as long as we have consistency). Anyway, I think the best known name should be used for them. Other fields of entertainment have their articles under their best known name (which is usually their stage name), so why can't we do it for wrestling too? Thanks! Please add comments! --phatcat68 11:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can understand using real names for current wrestlers like Mark Copani or John Hennigan but for retired and deceased wrestlers like Ron Garvin, Fred Blassie and Bobo Brazil, using their real name serves no logical purpose whatsoever.--Darren Jowalsen 18:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
There's a rather extensive discussion of this in the archives. I don't think we ever reached a consensus on it. The copyright status of most wrestlers' stage names in the modern era does complicate things. --HBK 04:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

I'm surprised at the lack of information in the career section for the article for Chris Jericho. This is especially true in the WWF/E section, where there is a total bias towards listing events in his career over the past couple of months. Someone who has an extensive knowledge of his career should fix this. ErikNY 04:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Bias toward current events is a common occurrence in the articles of current wrestlers. This is also something we have discussed before. --Chrysaor 02:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Now it is almost getting ridiculous. Rey Mysterio's entire career in Mexico is summed up in two sentences while his feud with Guerrero gets 8 paragraphs. As soon as that program is over, I'm going try and trim it down since it is almost a week by week breakdown of a long program.--Darren Jowalsen 00:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I say that the sooner we start cracking down on this behavior, the better. Just delete it and write in to-the-point summaries. I get really pissed off when I see stuff on the Chris Benoit profile like "Benoit and Angle faced off for the WWE Title at Royal Rumble 2003 in what many called the match of the year;however, the remainder of 2003 was fairly uneventful."

Translation: I haven't done my homework on what Benoit was doing for the greater part of an entire year, so I'll just gloss it over with a sentence. As it stands, he was actually feuding with Guerrero, Rhyno, and A-Train for the U.S. Title, and to my knowledge had at least one excellent match with Guerrero in Colorado for it. Not to mention he challenged Brock Lesnar for the championship. Fairly uneventful, right. Luckily, I fixed it to actually respect the fact that Benoit was actually wrestling in 2003. --Pathogen 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sid Vicious

The article on Sid Vicious, listed under his real name of Sid Eudy, doesn't mention anything from the time he left the WWF until the time he broke his leg at WCW Sin 2001. No mention of his time in ECW, or the events of his second run in WCW, including as its world champion. Would someone with a more extensive knowledge of Sid than I have be willing to fill in the gaps? ekedolphin 23:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

King of Wrestling?

I'd like to start an article on the "King of Wrestling" "title" whose lineage ran: Harley Race-->Haku-->"Hacksaw" Jim Duggan-->Randy Savage. I believe it started when Harley Race won the King of the Ring tournament. However, it took on a separate lineage of its own, separate from the actual KOTR tourney. I want to start it mainly because I noticed that Randy Poffo's article mentioned that he became known as the "Macho King" after he won the KOTR tournament. He did win the tourney in 1987, but he only took the "Macho King" nickname after feuding with Duggan over the title. Anyway, can someone suggest a good name for the article? Was it actually known as the "King of Wrestling" crown, or what?

SHODAN 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe it was simply known as the "King's Crown"; it didn't really have an official name, as it was not an official championship. Anyway, fantastic idea! --HBK 13:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Deceased professional wrestlers

I created a new sub-category under the category of Professional wrestlers called the Deceased professional wrestlers. I found, hopefully, all the deceased wrestlers and put them under that sub-category to thin the big list out a little. It currently has 104 wrestlers, so that should help. PS: Also, I spotted still a bunch of wrestlers that could be put under sub-categories like American professional wrestlers. SWD316 04:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Big Guido

I just saw a website that said there is a wrestler named Big Guido contracted to WWE. Who I thought Big Guido was , Val Puccio, is in fact wrong. There are 2 wrestlers that go by Big Guido, the other is Michael Fury. Michael Fury is actually the one who is contracted to WWE, not Val Puccio. Sorry for the mix-up. SWD316 17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ring of Honor

I just looked at the Ring of Honor page and there really isn't much information there, considering that it's arguably the #3 promotion in the U.S. Would someone with knowledge of ROH care to add to the article? ekedolphin 05:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a little clean up and added the "code of honor" and about #1 Contendership, but i dont know a great deal about ROH, all i know is from watching ROH shows (The Wrestling Channel is only up to January 2005) --- Paulley 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I did notice wikipedia is mentioned in the ROH forums so if someone would like to join it and ask the fans to help that might be a good idea --- Paulley
Not bad for someone who doesn't know much about ROH. I think the article was significantly improved by your contributions, so good job! ekedolphin 00:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
That's ok, it's what im here for --- Paulley 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gimmick professional wrestlers

I agree with SWD316 that this category is needed, but the name doesn't quite work right for me. I'm thinking it needs to be changed to Professional wrestling gimmicks. --HBK 14:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

In the same vein, Tonga professional wrestlers should probably be Tongan professional wrestlers. McPhail 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed it liked you wanted it. I put Tonga professional wrestlers because some of them, for example, New Zealand professional wrestlers, was named by the country. I didn't known they were called "Tongan", if we want them all by what there called example, american, canadian; then what are people from New Zealand called. That needs to be fixed. SWD316 (talk to me)
I don't think there is an adjective form of "New Zealand". McPhail 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
"New Zealander". -HX 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Three-quarter facelock bulldog

Three-quarter facelock bulldog is a really ankward name. I suggest we replace it as a general name we use for the move. To me there are two choices. Ace crusher or Cutter. Ace crusher seems to be the name for the move used by many people, most notably commentators. Cutter seems to be a commonly known name, especially considering that many wrestlers use the Cutter name in their variants, for example Bubba Ray Dudley (Buh-buh Cutter) and Gran Hamada (Hama-chan Cutter). I feel that Cutter has become as generally known as bulldog, DDT, etc. More people will most likely know Cutter than Ace crusher.

The item in the Throws page would be renamed Cutter or Ace crusher, and the first line would start with "Also known as Three-quarter facelock bulldog", etc.

With this we could shorten crucifix rotated into three-quarter facelock bulldog to crucifix rotated into cutter or crucifix rotated into ace crusher, making it a much better read. (Chris Lindsey for this example)

↪Lakes 20:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Well personally i would go with Cutter its suits the move more but the "name" Three-quarter facelock bulldog isnt a name what-so-ever it is a description, the move is in essence a running headlock takedown (bulldog) using a Three-quarter facelock... thus we get Three-quarter facelock bulldog. So the opening line should read "The Cutter is a Three-quarter facelock bulldog" (with bulldog linking to bulldog description) --- Paulley 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I would go with Ace Crusher or Diamond Cutter because every wrestling fan knows what those are, allowing for easy comprehension. I doubt most wrestlers would even know what you were talking about if you referred to a "three-quarter facelock bulldog." The point of any encyclopedia is to inform, not to dazzle the reader with "scientific" terminology. I feel you defeat that purpose by referring to the move, and editing articles to make them less helpful and informative.Liamharvester 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Since it seems we've reached a consensus, and no one else has commented in the past days, we'll go with "Cutter". I'll make the changes.
↪Lakes 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Changes done. If you notice something I missed please fix it.
↪Lakes 06:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Cno Evil (As well as other Users who post copyvio images)

This user has put about 40-55 new pro-wrestling related images on Wikipedia that I belive are in copyright violation according to Wikipedia standards. Am I right about his images? If so, will you all help by putting his images under Images for deletion for me, there is a lot of them. SWD316 (talk to me)

i think if we can get him to correctly cite the image sources and and put correct tags on them maybe we can save a couple of images but you are right some do need deleating and the edits where he replaces good pictures with fuzzy ones is just silly... also if someone does talk to him can we get him not to just replace images but move the older image somewhere down the article. Paulley 08:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing is happening with User:Gian89. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for Notability?

Is there a criteria for notability amongst wrestlers? I put up some suggestions here. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? -HX 23:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

We discussed a similar topic on this page before when I made a post labeled "Too Much?" (see the archives). There's no criteria, but there should be. A look at Wikipedia:Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies would be a good idea, particularly the criterion "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport" . Wikipedia:Importance seems to help. There's way too many wrestlers listed as it is and it seems that articles seem to be added just because wrestlers are in or have been in WWE, ECW, WCW or one of the other major wrestling promotions which isn't at all in line with the above criterion for inclusion. If you look at how many Professional Wrestling stubs there are, there's just way too many and a lot of these articles aren't even necessary - some of these articles don't have enough information behind them to expand them further. I wouldn't say I'm deletionist, but I don't think a wrestler or group of wrestlers should have their own article just because they appeared in WWE. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree, to an extent, but I would suggest that having appeared in WWE or a similarly large fed is a good starting point. Perhaps having appeared in a PPV for a major federation? -HX 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Possibly, but I think that title reigns and popularity are more important in coming up with criteria. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely, any wrestler who ever held a major title in a major fed is automatically notable, that includes most of the most "popular" wrestlers in one fell swoop, at least during the 80's, 90's, and the current decade. Offhand, I can't think of any super-popular wrestlers that never held a major title. (Magnum T.A., maybe?) -HX 00:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I can think of two without even trying: Magnum T.A., as you mentioned, and Jake "The Snake" Roberts. Titles are not necessarily a criteria for notability. --HBK 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Magnum TA held the NWA US title. Plus Jake Roberts held the NWA Television Title (later WCW TV title) - see http://www.wrestling-titles.com/nwa/world/nwa-tv.html. Essexmutant
I don't see the point in having a lot of wrestlers from independent promotions and minor indy promotions being added though. Most of them don't seem notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. :/--Jtalledo (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC
Care to give examples on who you think are not notable enough? For me the line would go between indy promotions and minor indy promotions. Then again, how do you define minor?
↪Lakes 18:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Some articles like Mike Brenley. Apart from WWE, WCW, ECW, ROH wrestlers, I don't see how you can put any other grapplers in any other American promotion. If you look to see all the articles listed as pro wrestling stubs, there's a whole lot of them that are suspect in their inclusion. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I think if you have a decent amount of information, you should create an article, even non-major wrestlers from indy promotions and other various places should get their own article. SWD316 talk to me 12:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that. There's criteria for what should be included in Wikipedia and what shouldn't. Wikipedia shouldn't be home to a directory for every single professional wrestler that comes down the pipeline, regardless of notability. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This might be a silly suggestion, but why not use the Pro Wrestling Illustrated top 500... supposedly holding the names of the the top 500 best wrestlers from around the world... if we made sure everyone on that list is in wikipedia each year you could limit your new enteries. But then again its really should be done by anyone that has made a name for themselfs in wrestling (by either good publicity, or not so good ones). Basically wrestlers that make an impact are the ones that should be on wikipedia.
True, thats a good idea, but everyone in the PWI 500 list probably has an article, and if they dont someone will create an article for them soon probably. Then again, what about all the past wrestlers of the PWI 500? Dont they get articles too? SWD316 talk to me 01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yea that's the idea, each year we take the list and make sure each wrestler has an article... including all the past PWIs.... i really think we need to put up this new list first and check each wrestler has a page --- Paulley 09:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Great idea. What we do then about biographies that are added for people that aren't on the PWI 500? --Jtalledo (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Off the top of my head i'd say we would take each new article as it comes... We could put new articles up for deletion and see what the responce is... if the responce is a constructive keep and if it is written well with useful informative information showing that the person entered is notable, then we might aswell keep the article. --- Paulley 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Let's do that... Also, would it reply retroactively to biographies already added? --Jtalledo (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Just to add that the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame could be considered criteria too. There's certainly a lot of entries that could be created from there. Essexmutant 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Carly McCall

This page is a pretty clear cut case of pure fiction. Please vote to delete this as soon as possible. McPhail 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

i have placed a "Articles to delete" section in the To Do list if anymore of these fake articles come up please add them there so we can go through and delete them... also add pointless non needed articles like Moppy --- Paulley 13:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Authority figures

I've just started an article on authority figures along with a short list of recent authority figure in WWE and TNA (mostly cut and paste). I don't really have much knowledge on authority figures of other promotions (e.g. WCW commissioners) along with the origins of the position and I was wondering if someone could help me by covering that area for me? -- Oakster 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if we need this article. I don't even think I've ever heard the term used in a professional wrestling sense either. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The article should be a redirect page for search results such as WWF Commissioner and so forth. I added the "Presidents" of the WWF, but the WCW authority figures would take considerable research, given how often it changed in 1999-2000. Off the top of my head, there was Eric Bischoff, then Ric Flair and Roddy Piper, then Lance Storm, Mike Sanders and The Cat all had turns at some point. Dusty Rhodes too, I think. McPhail 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
In that case, it sounds like a good idea. We can wikilink it from some articles like WWE RAW as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism

Has anyone noticed the recent rise in vandalism on professional wrestling pages lately? --- Paulley 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like bunch internet buddies decided to do this. It seems to be over for the most part now. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

PWI 500 lists

About the suggested idea above, I have the list to all the PWI 500 lists since it began in 1991 all the way to the PWI 500 of 2005. I just wanted to know, should I create a list here and we can start linking the names and creating articles? Or should we post something else? What is the plan to create these articles? SWD316 talk to me 23:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to the project, but a fairly regular Wikipedian. I would suggest just listing the top 100 for each year, with an (admittedly subjective) list of other notable names listed below. e.g.: Toshiaki Kawada being #262 in 1994 is notable, but Eric Angle being #253 in 2001 is not. That way the important names will have increased visibility. --Essexmutant (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2005 (GMT)
I agree with Essexmutant. As to where to post it, if there's a current external resource we can refer to that should suffice. However, if there are no other resources, just post it somewhere else since it's a good idea to avoid copyright violations on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
They are all listed here: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/pwi/pwi500.htm. Essexmutant.
Why dont we list them here so we know which one's have articles and which one's don't? I also disagree with what Essexmutant said. I think we should have articles for every wrestler in the PWI 500 list. This refers back to the previous discussion SWD316 talk to me 20:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
If you think about it, if half the list doesn't have bios on Wikipedia, that's about 200 bios to add. And most of them don't necessarily merit inclusion. The lead section of each article should give a reason why someone who knows nothing about the topic should care about the article. A lot of this articles say nothing more about the wrestler than the fact that they're a professional wrestler. While I agree that the PWI 500 is a decent reference for inclusion, it shouldn't be the main criteria for inclusion. Accomplishments in the field and uniqueness should also be considered. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of people in the PWI 500 are just jobbers, which is a large amount of extra maintenance work for people. Whatever the Project decides though. Essexmutant.

Pro wrestler bios

I've noticed that with a lot of these biographies on wrestlers, they're either too darn short (which makes you wonder if the article should be included in Wikipedia) or too darn long. The Chris Jericho article is an example of this. The biographies shouldn't be a week-by-week breakdown of what happens to a wrestler. Heck, the authorized wrestler biographies aren't like that. For some of the wrestlers with a deeper life history, there should be a lot more on the wrestler's upbringing and the career section ought to summarize the wrestler's career - outlining major accomplishments chronologically like any other biography here. Some of the more minor feuds can be mentioned, but the focus should definitely be on monumental matches and major title wins. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We really need to crack down on this. At one point, there was a paragraph in the Rey Mysterio article that basically said "On the such and such edition of Smackdown, Eddie Guerrero cut a promo on Mysterio." Can you think of anyone who is looking for that information? I don't know what the rationale is in including something like that. Not even articles on fictional characters from TV shows list their involvement on every single episode. --Darren Jowalsen 02:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree, i have been dealing with the same problem on Batista's article, trying my best to cut down the week by week content... if something important happens in their career i would keep it (i.e new gimmick, new feud, title oppertunities and the such) but some things that are added are just not needed. ----Paulley 11:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Former participants

Is a former participants section really necessary? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont know, I thought if someone left the project that contributed well, and if they ever decided they come back, thier name would already be there. SWD316 talk to me 03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. It's no big deal. Thanks for the reply. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

WWF Roster

I just saw under the World Wrestling Entertainment roster under See Also a new article called Previous World Wrestling Federation roster. Should we keep it? SWD316 talk to me 03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't see why not. It's a useful resource for finding out when people were released, and should be quite easy to maintain. Essexmutant 12:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but it needs some links and some peoples names are listed twice. SWD316 talk to me 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's already a category for these wrestlers, but if you want to keep it, try converting it to a list, something like List of World Wrestling Entertainment wrestlers. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • All right, I'll start to correct the problem tomorrow. SWD316 talk to me 03:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I just had an idea, what about combining the Previous WWE roster list and the Previous WWF list and combine to make one list? SWD316 talk to me 20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Test Martin

User:DarknessProductionsInc has moved Andrew Martin to Andrew Test Martin as Martin has legally changed his name to Andrew Test Martin (or so he says).... But even if he has changed his name it would be considered a middle name and wouldnt be used under the article title... i tried to put it back the way it was but it has not worked. --- Paulley 11:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, i seem to be unable to rvt the moves to these two name spaces i managed to roll back one move (from Andrew Test Martin to Andrew "Test" Martin) but i cant get it back to Andrew Martin... does anyone have any suggestions before i have to resort to "Cut and Paste" ---- Paulley 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You should probably request a move. Cutting and pasting is frowned upon because it eliminates the edit history of the article. McPhail 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Dont worry, i had already done that.... i just got annoyed that it wouldnt let me move it back... anyway one of the admins have sorted it now --- Paulley 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WWE Homecoming

Someone just made an article about the first RAW back on the USA Network after spending five years on TNN/Spike TV. Even though the WWE is making a big deal about this particular RAW, I was wondering if it was really necessary to have a seperate article about this show. ErikNY 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not really necessary. I'll redirect it to the article on WWE RAW. The article on RAW ought to be updated with an overview of the "Homecoming" show after it airs though. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I know it's not needed... but if i were you, i would have left it for a bit... in the next comming weeks, with WWE hyping it so much, you can expect this article to appear and more likely reappear. If anything we should have let the article to continue for a couple of weeks until the Homecoming had blown over then merged it into the shows history.
Then again, it is three hours long (the same legnth as a PPV) and there could be a reason WWE is hyping it up so much (Ross' Report says to expect some suprises)... from what i saw the article was not too badly written... maybe you should rconsider the redirect and give it a couple of weeks --- Paulley 12:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Having the thing redirect to WWE RAW should be enough to tell people who want to edit the article that they can put information on the show in the article on RAW. After the show airs and it turns out to be major enough for its own article, then we can give it its own article. At this point, it's too early to tell. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Arggh... you reverted the article already? It would have nice if you said you would first. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
LOl, yea i thought you'd enjoy the surprise (plus i left notices on the edit and the tlk page for anyone to quiery it here) --- Paulley 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I take back everything you have my full support in getting rid of that page... aswell as (if i had my way) any reference of maybe the worst wrestling show i have ever seen --- Paulley 13:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC) ---- GOD! THAT RAW SUCKED

Merged lists

I went ahead and merged the Previous World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Previous World Wrestling Federation roster's together onto WWE's previous roster. Under the first section there may be double names. (ex. Mideon and Phinies Godwinn were a double name since they were both played by Dennis Knight.) Can someone check to see if any I missed any double names? SWD316 talk to me 00:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC

Can we just make these alphabetized lists with an alphabetic TOC instead? At least it will be split between pages this way. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I am currently dividing it up into what years they were released, would that make it any better? SWD316 talk to me 05:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Professional_wrestling_Archive_4_0447.html"