Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 24

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 24

Contents

Wikpedia's Rules

I have read through almost all of the real heavy sections of this talk page and have come to a conclusion, WTF is wrong with Wikipedia?

1. WWE Vengeance has been noted on every ocasion as the night of champions and that all the titles will be defended. Why can't we include all the champions and TBA? Its gonna happen. Some say, What if someone gets injured, well my answer based on WWE would be that injured wrestlers get stripped of their title. So at Vengeance, if Santino gets injured, fired, or dies then the title will be put up for a match to determine a new champion. It is not crystal ballig when something is annouced. It is however a double standard to put on Boxing articles that card is subject to change but when it comes to a WWE event we can't say that. WTF?

2. Separating articles like Vince and Mr. McMahon is wrong but mentioning his death as a major event is wrong too. WTF?

3. Annouced matches in articles is wrong but leaving out matches like Cena vs HHH at WM 22 is ok. That match was the main event of the biggest show in WWE and it is not notable that is not fair. WTF?

4. Wikipedia talks a heavy game about the rules and stuff people can't do but the tag line of wikipedia is that any one can edit an article. But that seems that guys like TJ Spke, bulletproof and Deep Shadow want to own wikipedia so that everything they say is right. WTF?

5. WWE, is it or is it not a reliable source for information? It adhears to kayfabe but it does not adhere to kayfabe. Case in point McMahons death and Sherri Martel's death. Some articles state that Jericho and Benoit have won the WWE Championship numerous times but WWE strkie them from the record so we can't add them. But when it comes to Ric Flair, on the NWA Championship list, they have him in there for four extra reigns but NWA does not recognize them and we put them in there anyway. WTF?

6. A wikipedia policy is that annouced matches can't be added to articles until they have happened and if they are notable. That means that we can't add the Royal Fucking Rumble to the Royal Fucking Rumble's page. That makes no fucking sense.

In the end Wikipedia has to many transparent rules that vets seem to take advantage of. They only adhere to the rules that they agree with and if they don't agree with something they try to get it changed to their liking. The people who are allowed to put blocks on pages are the main ones that make the rules and get others banned. They give people strikes and revert things to what they want them. We need better rules, and if we need to vote on some then we will have to.

Something has to be done about all these problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs)

I agree with alot of that. The Mr. McMahon nonsense is simply stupid, and I think a split would work. Seeing as how wrestling is fictional, and he does alot in real life... an article split should happen (but probably wont). Overall: I believe only a few articles would need splits: Vince McMahon being the most recent example. It wouldn't be that big of a task. To comment on what you posted last: changes certainly need to be made to this project overall, otherwise it's just going to get worse. These controlling editors need to knock it off already. Articles are for everyone to edit. It seems like they constantly monitor the articles, and if they hate how it looks (or hate even the slightest wording at times): they revert it. That's simply not needed. While some do discuss at times, there is a good percent of the time they just edit war until a block (and/or article protection) happens. That's not solving anything. RobJ1981 06:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but to agree with just about everything you said! - T-75|talk|contribs 10:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to Mr. McMahon and Vince McMahon having seperate pages, after all there is a Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character) (No, it's not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm simply pointing out that there is precedent), I've always seen this project as a joke because every discussion about improving articles or getting pages to GA/FA/FL status goes unnoticed but discussions about minor details (like the above Vengeance discussion) get tonnes of replies from multiple users. -- Scorpion0422 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, as one who seems to be on the other side of the WTF debate.

1. This is not WP:Boxing, boxing (to my knowledge) is not worked, and when they announce a card it is legit, when WWE announces "all titles are on the line" this does not mean it is so, the whole Punjabi Prison match nonsense shows that. Also the poster for Vengeance shows Bobby Lashley holding an ECW title, which he now does not have.

2. Vince's "death" has brought up a problem which has existed but not on this level, did he really have an affair with Trish? No, but Mr McMahon did. Does this require a separation of his article? Probably not, because his off screen activities can be summed up in a couple of sentences.

3. I have no idea what is going on with the WM22 article, but if there is a match missing then just add it, if you can find a source, and stop WTF-ing this talk page.

4. Read the about Wikipedia page, it explains that although anyone can edit there are rules, if you want try editing Jimbo's user page and count the seconds before your edit is reverted. And if you want look at the front page of this project, without sources the project as a whole gets reamed, look at Rico's page as an example.

5. I have a book which list champions of the WWE, Jericho and Benoit have been champion once each, the whole HHH/Y2J Earl Hebner wipe it from the records angle is why this is not a project about boxing.

6. And you are right, you can't add the Royal Rumble to the RR08 article because we are in fucking June, and WWE might go out of business in December. As for Vengeance the PPV is in 14 days, on RAW I expect the IC and Tag titles will be announcec and then ECW and SD is taped and they will announce the Tag and ECW titles, just be patient.

And if you feel this is such a big problem then get a username and join the project, it is a lot easier to change something from the inside than sit on the outside complaining. On top of that you have already asked a whole bunch of questions at [1], to which you did not respond. Darrenhusted 12:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just now decided to read this talk section and was very surprised to see my name mentioned. Why do you think I want to own Wikipedia? If it's because you're referring to the whole "Good faith vandal" debate, I feel you may have been manipulated by that user's phrasing. They removed a very large chunk of information from the article and tried to turn it into something it's not. I reverted it because that user didn't have consensus to make a change so drastic. It's one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia.

“ Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page). "Silence equals consent" is the ultimate measure of consensus — somebody makes an edit and nobody objects or changes it. Most of the time consensus is reached as a natural product of the editing process. ”

Those are the rules I follow, not create. I honestly believe no major changes should be undertaken unless the matter has been thoroughly discussed and has reached a decision that makes everybody happy.

To addess a few of your other points:

  • I'm more in favour of separating Vince McMahon from Mr. McMahon. Keep all the information in the same article however, just section the information.
  • To me, the Vengeance debate is a joke and I honestly have no opinion on the matter. Once the names are announced this whole thing will be ended, so it's not much of a major issue.
  • Announced matches are added when they are just that, announced. They are not added after they have happened. Nobody has made any mention of the next Royal Rumble. There is nothing on WWE.com, nobody has discussed it on WWE TV and I honestly doubt they have even started to plan it yet. - Deep Shadow 14:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
To comment about Royal Rumble a little: the match should be listed (when it's first announced in late December/January) on WWE television. But it can't be, because a few editors claim one wrestler for it must be announced first. Check the edit history of Royal Rumble (to early January), and you will see this. If the match is officially announced: let it be listed, as it's confirmed. This same thing is happening with Vengeance: all titles are announced being on the line, so it should be "champion vs TBA" until more information is known. This is exactly why this project is going down the drain: editors can't even add officially announced things! RobJ1981 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay the Rumble thing is (pardon my French) assinine, once the date is announced what's wrong with listing the Rumble as a match with 30 TBD participants - someone explain the logic of that one? MPJ-DK 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

How to handle this

Alright I need the input from editors more experienced than myself, I recently AFD'ed the article for Chris Knight (Professional Wrestler) as seen In his AFD but now less than a day after it was deleted the article has been recreated again without doing anything to address the issues brought up in the AFD. It's also been speedy deleted in late April/Early May as evident by his user talk page. I'd put it up for speedy deletion once againbut this guy'll recreate it once more since that seems to be his only contribution to wikipedia. Is there a way to stop this guy from Cruftying up Wikipedia with his own little pet vanity project? MPJ-DK 15:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like Barber! One Night In Hackney303 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Put it up for speedy deletion and as soon as it is, ask to put that page on full protection at WP:RFP as a protected deleted page. That should hopefully work. -- Oakster  Talk  15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys for getting the speedy tag put on, when it's removed I'll request the protection for it (and keep an eye on the user) MPJ-DK 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

It has now been discovered that La Parka Your Car is a sockpuppet of JB196. Does this mean we have to go over all the edits they made? Because they made thousands of edits and deleted a lot of content.

On a separate note, I highly suspect Candicesfan is a sockpuppet of Rawfannation due to this edit, this edit and this edit (I say "suspect" because I don't want to accuse) on Candice Michelle's talk page. Rawfannation101 is a banned editor according to this. - Deep Shadow 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it was discovered a while ago. Just I had to do plenty of digging to prove it was him. Yes I proved it, remember that for the future eh? One Night In Hackney303 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What a surprise JB has no life - that's the shocker of the century ain't it?? MPJ-DK 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Forced to AFD

The UCW-Zero Tag Team Champions and the other 3 UCW-Zero titles have been put up for joint deletion since the "owner" of the article removed the prods without addressing the issues. I'll neutrally invite everyone to look over the AFD and vote however you're compelled to vote, heck I implore everyone to spend 10 minutes and check out ALL the AFDs listed at the top and vote to ensure that the process is done right. Thanks MPJ-DK 15:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I need an idea for a source

I want to source up the gimmick match page, but I keep coming back to WWE.com. That could, conceivably, be construed as primary sourcing for some of the stuff and lead to someone tagging it down the line as being sourced from too few sources. I've tried using things like DDT Digest and Online World of Wrestling and finding examples of matches where they explain the rules during them, but it's not going well to this point. Any ideas?«»bd(talk stalk) 17:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been working on that, too. I say go ahead and use WWE.com as sources for now. Primary sources are better than no sources at all. I'm only about half-way through a couple of wrestling books I'm reading right now...and I have a feeling I'll come across a few more match sources. Nikki311 19:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Height

Be on the look out for User:Jordan brice (See his Contribs) This user continues to add "Real Height"s to Wrestlers' profiles without also adding a source. -- bulletproof 3:16 17:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's no (reputable) source, it goes and we stick with "billed height". Drop a note on their talk page about it.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually he and his sock were blocked a few minutes after posting this alert.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[2] Looks like he's back, certainly the same MO, alot of the same wrestlers, Edge, Hogan et cetera. Darrenhusted 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could some of the PW guys make adding to and sourcing the Thomas Couch article (Tommy Rogers of the Fantastics) a priority? I rescued the article after a speedy deletion due to a BLP-related blanking, but it may not survive another PROD or Speedy because of the BLP-Blanking (which I am NOT going to undo). Be much appreciated. SirFozzie 17:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I added some sources from Online World of Wrestling just now. Someone else needs to work on it a bit more. I have a hard time sourcing articles when I don't know much about the subject, and this is one of those cases. Nikki311 20:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I added some references from a really good book I've got on tag-teams that should help as well. MPJ-DK 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both! SirFozzie 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)'s Featured list candidacy

I hate to be begging for votes, but I was wondering if a couple people would mind checking out the page and if they think it is worthy of FL status, voting in the page's FLC. It has been a candidate for 10 days and only has one vote. As well, MarcK, Oakster and myself are very close to getting the Active WWE Championship histories to being of Featured Topic quality - we just have 3 more pages to get promoted (World tag Team, Womens and ECW). -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Billy Kidman and Rey Mysterio, Jr.

Greetings. (I'm not a member of the project, but I've been a fan since I got hooked on Portland Wrestling as a kid in the late '70s) I'm looking for a bit of advice. User:Kevin Hotfury has been wanting to create a page on the tag team of Billy Kidman and Rey Mysterio, Jr. When he created the first version, I prod-tagged it because these two are better known as singles, as per the precedents I've seen before. After some discussion he blanked it and it was G7-speedied, but he wants to try again and recreate the article. If I was right the first time, can I get some help in dissuading him from wasting his time on an article that will only get deleted? If I was wrong, then where do y'all draw the line on such "temporary" tag teams? --Finngall talk 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Notify an admin so they can speedy delete it if he recreates it. Darrenhusted 01:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it might be note worthy. They teamed a lot in WCW, including a tag title reign or two, and not necessarly as part of the filthy animals. ALthough I'll need to look and see how much of the teaming was together outside of the stable. Mshake3 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
They teamed from 1998 to the final Nitro, winning both the WCW World Tag Team Championship and WCW Cruiserweight Tag Team Championship (though it was on the last Nitro). They also teamed for a short while in WWE. Nenog 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems notable enough for me. Although The Filthy Animals does need a lot of work. Mshake3 01:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This fits in with the issue discussed here [3], the Rey and Billy stuff can be covered within the Filthy Animals article, much like the Radicalz and Horsemen articles covered Benoit tagging with Malenko and Guerrero. There is no need for the re-creation of an already deleted article. Darrenhusted 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Then encourage him to work on the Filthy Animals article. Mshake3 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've forwarded those sentiments and linked to this topic. In the meantime, he has also created Edge and Rey Mysterio, which seems even more dubious. I've probably hounded him enough on my own--can someone else come along and give him some guidance? Thanks again. --Finngall talk 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hidden tags

I realize that some tags are necessary for certain articles. However, this one I found funny:

AND STOP CHANGING THE DRAFT TABLE PLEASE!!!

Seriously folks, that screams elitism. This should only be used for enforcing normal guidlines, and not for enforcing your own personal beliefs as rules. Mshake3 01:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That tag was added during the draft itself when IP's who don't know how to edit a table kept screwing everything up. TJ Spyke 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Some of the tags are just stupid. Stop controlling the articles with your own personally made tags already. The tags help to a point I suppose, but overall it makes editors seem very controlling. Vandalism happens everywhere, hidden tags all over the place aren't that helpful in the long run. Warn and report the vandals, overly using tags isn't needed. RobJ1981 00:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
How can you possibly claim to know how effective editor notes are? I know I personally have been about to edit something, seen an editor warning, and stopped or started a discussion on the talk page. Just because some (usually anon IPs) ignore them doesn't man they should be abandoned altogether. «»bd(talk stalk) 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well... I didn't mean all should go. But ones such as the one Mshake mentioned: shouldn't be made in the first place. In the case of TJ Spyke (and probably a few others): they add warning tags in many cases where it's not necessary. Vengeance is a good example: the note is this: Do not add matches or announcements that have not been announced on US TV or wwe.com or they will be reverted as VANDALISM. This includes unannounced title matches. He added the unannounced title matches part, due to people disagreeing with him on that matter, not because of real vandalism... but because of vandalism according to him. Things you don't agree with, doesn't equal vandalism all the time. Those types of addition to tags don't need to be made. As I stated before: warn and then report vandals, using your own personally written hidden tag isn't the way to go here. No one personally owns the articles: so stop acting like you do with certain tags. RobJ1981 00:32, 19 June 200
Some people need to read this. Mshake3 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Why did you have to go and mention the Vengeance thing again...that really pisses me off! The consensus to me says that all the freaking titles should be listed as defended...who says that anyone else has more say on this damn project than someone else? - T-75|talk|contribs 02:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
FTR, JR said that there'll be nine matches on Sunday for all nine titles. Although I'm sure that's not enough of a reason to list the final titles for some of you. Mshake3 03:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The ECW World Championship could be listed as "TBD vs. TBD" (which we usually do when one of the wrestlers will be decided in a qualifying match, although in this case both spots will be like that). The final title match will probably be announced on SmackDown. TJ Spyke 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Let me say that the ECW World Championship should be listed as "TBD vs. TBD" - T-75|talk|contribs 04:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The hidden tag on Mark yes that is how his name is spelt Calaway is particularly helpful. Darrenhusted 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid wrestling news sites

For the past couple of months a troll has been making socks and adding nonsense about all things relating to WWE and a brand of dolls called Bratz. This user has been adding outlandish statements that all revolve around World Wrestling Entertainment having some sort of partnership or involvement with the brand of dolls. See his sock cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/216.83.121.194 (2nd). Oakster and I have been hunting down these socks in articles relating to Bratz. Recently however, one of his socks added something about WWE producing a movie based on the brand of dolls called Bratz the Movie. Well apparently some wrestling news sites saw this little bit of info...('cause they all know how reliable Wikipedia is)... and apparently thought this was true, so check out their update on WWE Films' news projects...[4]-- bulletproof 3:16 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Here are more sites with the story...[5], [6], [7]-- bulletproof 3:16 05:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't unique to wrestling articles at all, see wikiality. –– Lid(Talk) 05:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Mizanin move

Could somebody help move Talk:Mike 'The Miz' Mizanin to Talk:Mike Mizanin. A user moved the main article twice a while ago and only that was reverted back, not the talk page. I am not familiar with the moving procedure. - Deep Shadow 07:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get this sorted out. -- Oakster  Talk  09:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic push

As some of you know, I and a few other PWians have been working on bringing all current WWE title history lists to featured list status, with the ultimate goal of making the whole group a featured topic. The one problem I see with this is that the subject presently has no lead article, which the criteria say, in no uncertain terms, an FTC needs to pass (current FTs with no lead article will be demoted on January 1 if the problem isn't rectified by then). So, does anyone have any idea what a good lead article for this subject would be? --MarcK 09:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the problem is the fact its the List of championship lineage, not the championships themselves. The list of lineage are all subsets of their championship articles which in turn are all subsets of World Wrestling Entertainment. To make this a featured topic would, probably, require making the championship articles individually featured articles followed by World Wrestling Entertainment a featured, or at least GA, article. –– Lid(Talk) 11:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think WWE would need to get featured. The articles on Square Soft/Square Enix didn't need to be featured in order to get the articles of Final Fantasy games to be a featured topic. Maybe a new article, something like World Wrestling Entertainment championships? TJ Spyke 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe List of World Wrestling Federation Championships. It would qualify as a list and thus it wouldn't be as hard to get promoted. The main problem would be sourcing because the official website doesn't list most of the older titles. I'm actually surprised that there isn't already such a list. But, would it be a good main article for an "Active WWE championships" FT? -- Scorpion0422 00:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scorpion's idea. It'd be the easiest approach and it's as logical a main topic as any. I think a regular article on the topic would end up being mostly a list anyway. Could we get away with just making List of Active World Wrestling Entertainment Championships? DrWarpMind 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've started work on a possible design for the list and here's what I've come up with (User:Oakster/Championships). Since we're undecided on including defunct championships, I've only place four in as a sample. Ignore the N/As by the way, hopefully the end result will use templates instead, making those hidden. -- Oakster  Talk  11:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I have suggested notes on the talk page. Darrenhusted 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Martha Hart

This article is up for deletion. I have reviewed what is on the page and what could be added, I have added references and some links so far. But I know this article can be saved and can be a very good article. Certainly requires a lot more work. The first few people who voted for deletion of the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martha_Hart I don't think has done enough research, scanning google of the results for her. There is so much room for improvement it should be an easy task. I hope some of you can help out, as I feel that Martha has more than enough notability to be on wikipedia. 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by govvy (talk • contribs)

Should Angle's first TNA Title reign be counted?

It was explained on TV that Angle just kind of "left with the title" after Sacrifice and came out with the title on Impact, causing Cornette to vacated the title. This could've happened with Sting as well, he could've just "left with the title". Plenty of wrestlers left with a championship but never declared an actual champion. IMO, this means this reign shouldn't be counted and it should be "Vacated" after Christian's reign. The World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) was vacated after a similar finish with Benoit-Edge-Triple H. BBoy

As of right now, Cage and Angle are considered the first two champions (even by TNA themselves). So unless that changes, then yes we should count Angle's first reign as well. TJ Spyke 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh! Oh! Source? Source? Mshake3 22:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Off for about 36-48 hours

Getting a wisdom tooth pulled, so if you catch any JB socks in the act, could you either let User:One Night In Hackney know, or raise the issue on AN/I? Thanks, I'll try to check in, but usually they give you the good stuff when they pull teeth, so I may or may not CARE, even about JB ;) SirFozzie 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Central States Wrestling

I figured I should inform the members of this project of my latest personal project in case they have input, comments, ideas or may actually want to contribute to it themselves. I've had the Fozz'meister undelete the Heart of America Sports Attractions, also known as "Central States Wrestling" up until some time in the 1980s. The article was prodded and deleted a while ago but I think it deserves an article and I'm going to do my damndest to provide sources and establish notability.

There is a second "Central States Wrestling" promotion that's piggybacking on the page, a promotion that has nothing but the name in common with the original organization. I'm going to remove that content because I personally don't think it's notable and even if it IS notable it doesn't belong on an article under the name "Heart of America Sports Attractions".

Anyone who'd like to help with some sources on the classic Central States promotion or information to add feel free to drop by and add it. Thanks in advance MPJ-DK 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you source

How do you source a TV announcement? If all you've got to go with is an announcement on TV? can you "cite Monday Night Raw Eps. XX on June 18 or whatever? Just curious because the citation templates don't seem to be very "TV Friendly" MPJ-DK 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can try the episode template.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You know that may just work, considering I've got a huuuuuuuuuuuuge collection of wrestling dating way, way back with airdates noted down (yes, yes, yes I'm an obsessive geek I know) this may just be the ticket ;) MPJ-DK 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
A geek? On Wikipedia? Editing wrestling articles? Well now I've seen everything.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce

If someone could make a small list of articles that Burntsauce has blanked due to BLP violations, I can try to go through it and source them. And by blanking by BLP, I mean like What he recently did to the Nick Dinsmore article. Either you can list them here or send them via my talk page. Thanks! — Moe ε 16:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a small list started on the WP:PW page under Articles that need references.That's quite a task. Good luck. Nikki311 16:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. — Moe ε 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he most recently blanked Stacy Keibler if it helps. Quite annoying if you ask me.--ProtoWolf 19:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I went through his conrtibs and listed anything I recognised as a wrestler bio, but that was 24 hours ago and he blanked 100 a day so I may take another look. And he hasn't marked up the stubbed articles with PW Bio Stub templates when stubbing has taken place, so how are we meant to know? Darrenhusted 01:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I just sourced Stacy Keibler, so if he were to blank it again it would be vandalism, and he can be reported.

I will try to work on Jerry Lawler tomorrow or the next day, unless anybody else would like to do so.Kris 01:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy?

This was just posted on the talk page at Professional wrestling aerial techniques: Anything not sourced within one week will be removed, in line with non-negotiable Wikipedia policies. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 18:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC). What policy is he talking about? I've been sourcing, but it is a slow process...and I don't want to lose the majority of the article. Nikki311 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:V says that unsourced material can be removed. However, I don't agree with Hackney that there should be a deadline. That is very antagonistic and counter-productive. TJ Spyke 23:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I knew about WP:V. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some little-known policy about deadlines on original research, because that is definately how he makes it sound. Nikki311 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The article has beaten 2 AfDs, the last one of which Hack kept saying "add sources", so now that you are (and the page looks better than it did at the last AfD) I don't think he can impose a deadline, worst he can do is PROD, we remove, and we're off on another AfD. The good point being that is has improved since the last AfD so I don't think it could lose. Darrenhusted 01:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie plots are not sourced. Maybe we could do the same things with these moves, and use the shows and PPVs they are on as sources? Also, I don't think he has the authority to blank any pages, let alone set guidlines. He is threatening to vandalize the page, breaking Wikipedia IAR. Someone report him to an admin for vandalism.Kris 02:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm going to add episodes to the reference section. If someone really doesn't like it, I don't care if you delete it, but if you do make sure you have enough sources to support the article. I think the episodes will cover each of the moves listed. - T-75|talk|contribs 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Source it or lose it. Read the big notice at the top of the article page - "Material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed". It's been tagged as unsourced for six months, and unsourced for much longer. In between the first and second AfD one source was added for one move, and there's been little improvement since the second AfD. I was generous in giving you ample advance notice of my intention to remove the unsourced information, I suggest you take advantage of the time available. One Night In Hackney303 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you find a better hobby than screwing with the pro-wrestling project. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He's not "Screwing with the pro-wrestling project", Theo. He's reflecting policy as it stands (and you acknowledged, although you claimed WP:IAR trumped it, which it didn't. I was hoping the two of you would come to an agreement, but you seem overly concerned with sniping at Hack rather than doing productive work. Again.. if you want, I'll seek out a WP:3O on this, but they're going to tell you the exact same thing that I have, and probably won't be so nice about it. SirFozzie 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
SirFozzie, I had hoped that Hack's presence on a talk page, for a change, was an indication he would work with the project. Nicki has been working on trying to source the article, and I'd tried to appeal to Hack's decency, even explaining how much of a pain it is to go back and source blanked work, but he refused. People may disagree with me, even a WP:3O, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised (nor do I care) as the expectations (double standards) placed upon the pro-wrestling project are much higher than those placed on other projects...even still, I believe that this circumstance is a perfect example of when WP:IAR should be applied. As for Hack screwing with the pro-wrestling project, I think he is, and his own comments in the past seem to indicate so as well. He focuses quite squarly on the wrestling project (ignoring many other screwed up projects and articles) under the pretense of trying to "help the project." Yet he will never source an article and never does anything productive for the articles. There are people (myself included) who are trying to make an honest effort to clean up this project (and I think they have done a damn good job), but it seems that still isn't enough. Having to get detured from a project to work on junk like this is makes it harder. Now Hack is even saying that he is challenging every sentence of the article...that is just plain ridiculous (I'm beginning to understand why people tire of wikipedia and leave). I'm working on putting up some sources, and I'm already sure Hack won't like them, but so be it....maybe I too will end up one of tha casualties of this project...then again, that might make some all too happy. - T-75|talk|contribs 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
And no, I don't want a WP:3O because it requires both sides assume good faith, and at this point I don't know that I can. - T-75|talk|contribs 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem with assuming everyone's against you, Theo... is that one usually causes the situation that they believe they were in. Look.. since I was granted the mop, I've worked with every request that members of PW has come with.. undeleting articles for you guys, moderating disputes, etcetera. We're TRYING to work with you, here. But you think that everyone has a negative viewpoint of PW.. in a lot of cases, it is deserved. So get down off your martyr complex and decide on whether you want to contribute to the project, or if you just want to bitch about being persecuted. SirFozzie 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
LOLOLOLOLOL....sorry if I said something to make you think everyone's against me, I certainly don't think that. I'm sorry, that's just funny to me.....who am I for the world to be against? Now, do I think there are a lot of people who are against the pro-wrestling project...I sure do, and I have WP:V reasons to believe that. I work on other projects that don't have anywhere near the problems with other editors, double standards and plain stupidity that this project deals with. I totally agree, in large part this project has created it's own problem by not being proactive enough...but as I have looked around wikipedia, and I've found this project to generally be doing a lot better than probably the majority of the projects out there. I don't have a problem with you Fozzie, nor do I think you are against me. I think you've been pretty fair the the PW crowd as an admin (though I will say I had to laugh when you told Govvy to try and work with Burntsauce who, to my knowledge, has blatantly refused to work with anyone in the PW project every time someone has attempted), and if I needed an admins help I'd probably turn to you. Fozzie, let's get one thing straight though, I don't have a martry complex, and I do contribute to this project, and will continue to...when and where I want and feel.......but when I see BS and people being eggheads...I don't have a problem calling a spade a spade. I'm not some teenager or young adult with a hot temper who doesn't know any better, I'm someone who's been around and experienced a lot in my life and have a very cool temper...but quite frankly...when I start walking through horse shit (or see others walking through it), I'm not going to plug my nose and pretend it is not there. - T-75|talk|contribs 20:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The question is not one of WP:V, surely it's the application of a time limit which is the problem, ONIH was giving the project a week to source on article before he stubs it, and I don't think it's a small coincidence that he nominated the article for AfD the second time. Personally I think ONIH should recuse himself from this article because in some editors eyes the AfD loss could be seen as his reason for wanting to stub the article. If he feels that the article doesn't come up to scratch then he should AfD it again, but to put an artificial deadline on the project is not really fair and could be seen as sour grapes from the last AfD. Darrenhusted 21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the AfD. You voted keep. Have you sourced it? No. Blame yourself for doing nothing. If you can't be bothered bringing it into line with non-negotiable policies, I will. You got a week's notice, that's more than Burntsauce ever gave you and all you've done is cry and moan about it. If you don't want notice in future please just say so, I'll stub without any notice at all. One Night In Hackney303 21:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I voted keep, but what I have done this week is round up thirty articles for an AfD you said you were too busy to do [8] [9]. Darrenhusted 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a non-negotiable, though overlooked, policy as well. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Rather than carry on trolling me, I suggest you start sourcing. Don't forget there's a whole category full of similar articles waiting... One Night In Hackney303 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Trolling you...are you saying I followed you to the talk page of the pro-wrestling project that I am a part of....you sure do get funnier and funnier...maybe you need some sleep....I'll just account your strange comment to sleep deprivation. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
When in a hole, stop digging. Especially if it's a hole that other people are standing in as well. One Night In Hackney303 22:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am still not plugging my nose and pretending it's not there. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Late spring cleaning

Was planning on doing some work on Full Impact Pro when I can across Chasyn Rance’s terrifically done article. Since then I have been going through Category:American professional wrestlers and have come up with a (rather long) list that I want others to look at before I do anything with the articles.

Basically non notable wrestler (delete)

Feel they aren’t notable, but will let others decide (also, some of them I just wanted to point out)

  • Tim Arson – was the Zombie on the debut episode of ECW on Sci-Fi, got ass kicked by Sandman on said episode, and has done little else
  • Reggie Bennett – was blanked by Burntsauce for not citing sources; nobility before blanking: "was a member of The Flock in ECW".
  • Kurt Beyer – son of Dick Beyer (a.k.a. “The Destroyer” and “Doctor X”)
  • Jon Bolen – competed in a “talent recruitment” event held by TNA, was under WWE developmental contract for less than one year
  • Steve Bradley – was under a WWE developmental contract for three years but was never called up to the main roster
  • Ray Gunkel – only thing notable was he died following a match with Ox Baker
  • Happy Humphrey – was the heaviest wrestler of all time (over 800 lb), though article states he “left no legacy and very little else is known about him”
  • Dean Higuchi – one time WWF Tag Team Champion, owned a gym, used the Full Nelson
  • Harold Hoag – easily forgettable WCW wrestler
  • Ron Hutchinson – trained several notable wrestlers (Edge, Christian, Trish Stratus) though he himself has never achieved much as a wrestler
  • Tommy Jammer – wrestled for AWA during their final years, didn’t accomplish much there
  • James Jefferson and David Jefferson – both were jobbers and not notable on their own. Either delete or merge into the article about the tag team The MOD Squad (professional wrestling)
  • Tommy Lee Jones (wrestler) – was a tag team wrestler, did nothing of note on his own. Either delete or merge with Rock 'n' Roll RPMs
  • Tony Jones (wrestler) – appeared in Beyond the Matt
  • William Jones (wrestler) – was under a WWE developmental contract for one year, now wrestles for Eastern All-Star Wrestling where he is the No. 1 contender for their heavyweight championship (p.s. according to the article, the match has been signed for July 14!)
  • Taylor Matheny – was on the first season of WWE Tough Enough in 2001, retired from wrestling in 2003, dated Brian Kendrick
  • Maxx Muscle – former “bodyguard” for DDP
  • Cody Michaels – trained by Dominic DeNucci alongside Mick Foley and Shane Dougless, was the “driving force” in Hardcore Homecoming, was producer/booker/creative team member of WSX
  • Jake Milliman – jobber for AWA
  • Caryn Mower – had a short stint (two appearances) in WWF
  • Glen Osbourne – youngest ECW Television Champion in history, other than that nothing
  • Jeff Patterson – played Mini-Dust
  • David Peterson (wrestler) – wrestled for AWA during their final years, wrestled on indy circuit before dying in motorcycle crash
  • Alex Porteau – wrestled as “The Pug” in WWF for less than one year
  • Buck Quartermain – Florida wrestler who had brief stints in ECW and WCW, and “has recently been contacted by WWE to possibly appear on the new ECW brand television show”
  • Ricky Rice – wrestled for AWA during their final years
  • Brian Rogowski – son of Ole Anderson, began wrestling for WCW in 1994, retired from wrestling in 1995
  • Tony Rumble – not that notable as a wrestler, owner of a promotion
  • Gary Sabaugh – wrestled as “The Italian Stallion” in Crockett/WCW
  • Tony Salantri – singed to a WWE developmental contract for almost two years but was never called up
  • Short Sleeve Sampson – played Mini-Taker, Mini-Angle and Pocket Rocket, the “one night only tag team partner for the Heart Throbs”
  • Chris Samson – wrestled as “The Ghost Pirate” in WCW in 1996, killed himself in 1997
  • Bruno Sassi & Big Tilly – neither of them are that notable on their own, delete or merge with Phi Delta Slam (who had a short run in TNA)
  • Larry Sharpe – went to high school in New Jersey, trained Kevin Von Erich
  • Tamie Sheffield – former wrestler, current actor (appeared in Wildflower and was a contestant on Fear Factor)
  • David Sheldon – wrestled as “Angel of Death” in Jim Crockett Promotion, was considered by WCW to play The Black Scorpion
  • Philip Stamper – non notable wrestler and film extra
  • Mora Uman – non notable wrestler who performed with a non notable promotion, is currently an (adult?) actress
  • Dale Veasey – leave nobility up to others to decide
  • Venus (wrestler) – wrestled for OVW, does not appear to have been under WWE contract
  • Ron Waterman – wrestled for OVW, is now a member of the christian bodybuilding team, Team Impact. Delete or merge with Team Impact (on a side note, he is a successful real estate agent)
  • George Wells (wrestler) – former football player (CFL), wrestled Jake “The Snake” Roberts at WM2 that went an epic 3 minutes 15 seconds...that’s about it.
  • Greg Wojciechowski – former armature wrestler, did not compete in the Olympics, wrestled for the WWA
  • Youth Suicide – might be notable, but the article looks like shit

That’s all for now. Nenog 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlers notable IMO: Jeff Warner, Alan Funk (Funk for sure, Kwee Wee and Rave were 2 very well know and regular characters on WCW in 2000 and 2001). William Jones, may not have done anything in WWE but well well known in ECW as Chilly Willy. Maxx Muscle was notable in the mid-90s (and notability never goes away according to WP). The others I either have no opinion of or don't know enought about them. Lrrr IV 05:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ric Converse is definitely notable, he's a former AWA champion. --MarcK 06:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Definite ”Keepers” in my book (from the top): Allan Funk: worked for WCW in a non-jobber role / Karl Moffat: Original Jason the Terrible, 2 sources listed and I can probably personally expand it more with both content and sources / Metal Maniac: One of the indie regulars from the 1990s, this guy was everwhere – I could probably dig up a few sources on the guy / Steve Rizzono – had a long AFD discussion and with the sources was deemed to uphold the Wikipedia guidelines for notability (may not like the guy or think he's worth keeping but the criterias have been fulfilled) / Larry Sharpe – don’t just go by the article, Larry Sharpe’s monster factory has trained a LOT of wrestlers, there are plenty of sources out there to prove notability if need be. I agree with the merges of the MOD Squad, the Rock’N’Roll RPMs and Phi Delta Slam

The rest I have no real opinion on, some I’d be fine with staying if sourced, others I’d not be unhappy to see go – but some do list references and could be within the guidelines of WP:N and WP:V even if some people deem them non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)
Youth Suicide is definitely a keeper considering his appearances as the quintessential yardtard with appearances on a fair few "backyard wrestling are destroying society". Ultramantis Black is iffy considering his role as CHIKARA commentator while Chuck Taylor is not entirely notable yet, however he probably will be in about a year. –– Lid(Talk) 11:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The Cody Michaels article looks terrible, but I think he's notable enough simply for having been one of the main men behind the failed WSX, which may or may not be coming back in some form. He's had a decent little (backstage) career.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say keep for Malia Hosaka and Reggie Bennett. Hosaka was one of the more notable American woman wrestlers of the 1990s. She had a stint as NWA Woman's champion, appeared on WCW during the mid 1990s, including losing in the finals of the Women's Cruiserweight tournament, although that's a very obscure title and maybe not good evidence of notability. Malia has remained active in many indy promotions to this day, including working regularly in SHIMMER. I agree that the current article on her is weak and I wouldn't blame someone for thinking she was non-notable based on it. Reggie Bennett's argument for notability would come from her work in Japan with All Japan Women and ARSION. She was one of only two American women (Madusa was the other) to wrestle at Big Egg Universe, the largest joshi show in history (drawing over 40000 to the Tokyo Dome). Bennett wrestled Chigusa Nagayo at that event. Like the Hosaka article, the current Bennett article is a crappy stub. I'll try to get these articles beefed up enough so that they'll have a chance. Pure Josh 16:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that stuff about Reggie Bennett appearing in ECW in a prior version of the article is true, but if is and could be verified, that would certainly make the notability argument even stronger. Pure Josh 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's my thoughts: When you are looking at wrestlers like Larry Sharpe and Ray Gunkel whose peak of success and popularity were around or prior to 1986 (possibly before many of the editors on Wikipedia were even born), you need to give the articles a little more leeway. Wikipedia says about notability that once notability has been established (in the past) that doesn't mean the person is no longer notable later in time because it has now become difficult to prove notability. I've tried sourcing a couple of articles for VERY WELL NOTABLE wrestlers from the 50s, 60s and 70s, and it is very hard...but that doesn't make them less notable or worthy of deletion. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Prod them all, unless notability noted by someone in the discussion. Most, if not all, seem un-important to me. Nikki311 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have another to add, don't know how I missed it earlier: Caprice Coleman – worked for NWA Wildside, wrestled five easily forgettable matches in ROH (winning only one at Do or Die II), and wrestled a few squash matches in WWE. Another one I am extremely tempted to add is Shane Hagadorn as he hasn't really done anything notable yet. He was trained by CM Punk and is a former student of the ROH wrestling school (not notable), held the ROH Top of the Class Trophy (a non notable title), and is the "manservant" of Adam Pearce (not notable). Nenog 03:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and prod them (with the exception of what people have already mentioned are worth saving). I also think you should include Coleman and Hagadorn...there articles aren't much right now anyway. We can always go back and recreate them if them become notable enough to warrant an article. Nikki311 04:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Starting tomorrow, I will begin Prod-ing the articles. So far, the only ones that have been objected to (and thus I will not Prod) are: Alan Funk, Cody Michaels, Jeff Warner, Karl Moffat, Larry Sharpe, Malia Hosaka, Maxx Muscle, Metal Maniac, Ray Gunkel, Reggie Bennett, Ric Converse, Steve Rizzono, Ultramantis Black, William Jones (wrestler), and Youth Suicide. If anyone has any more objections, please list them under here. Nenog 04:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with championship pages!

The thing I want to point out, is that some titles get one article despite how many promotions it's travelled through, and some titles get a different article, per promotion it was in at the time.

Examples:
The WWE United States Championship has been though, NWA, WCW, & now WWE. It only has one page.
While the NWA World Tag Team Championship (Mid Atlantic version) and the WCW World Tag Team Championship are the exact same title, but were in different promotions at different times.

So which way are we doing this? ---SilentRAGE! 10:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The simple reason is that current, active WWE titles get more attention than old, defunct WCW titles, and thus they're not really consistent with each other; the policy (I believe) is the one displayed in the US title article. If you can fix any problems you've discovered then please do. --MarcK 12:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The NWA and WCW Tag belts are not the same though and don't share a common history, whereas the various US Belts are considered the same. The situation is similar to the one in TNA, where the NWA stripped the reigning champions of the titles and WCW continued to recognize them as WCW Tag Team Champions (although at the time the NWA and WCW Tag Titles were merged). TJ Spyke 22:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the WCW article says the exact opposite. :/ Mshake3 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TJ, that's a poor example. Let's just say for a second for the sake of argument, that the WCW and NWA Tag titles are different. That specific NWA Tag title did NOT continue after WCW and NWA parted ways. Where as in your example, the NWA world title did continue after parting ways with TNA. But I'm just nit-picking here. :P Anyways, I'm almost 100% sure that the NWA (Mid Atlantic) Tag titles did become, and are the WCW Tag titles. Just as what happened with the US Title, just as what happened with the WCW TV title. ---SilentRAGE! 14:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The articles support your reasoning. Go ahead and merge them. Mshake3 14:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I did it. It's kinda sloppy, but done. Now somebody just has to do the WCW Television Championship, I think. ---SilentRAGE! 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

PPV as References

Looking at an article like Hell in a Cell, I noticed that the whole thing was just match summaries with no references, and having seen episodes discussed as a reference for TV shows I have decided to try PPVs as references for this article. Under Season I have gone with years as seasons (so The Wrestling Classic and WrestleMania in 1985 are season 1 of the WWF/WWE PPVs). If this is acceptable then we may have a way to reference Bios and Match types (Elimination Chamber springs to mind, but there are others), other than WWE.com. Darrenhusted 12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it wasn't your point, but that whole article needs to either be re-written or just plain scrapped and redirected to Steel cage match where a section on the Cell and it's differences is added. Match recaps and these "history tables" are not encyclopedic. I just recently got the Inferno match article killed for being no more than a crufty table and a bunch of garbage about Kane being set on fire when he was a kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by bdve (talk • contribs)
You're right it wasn't my point. But do you like the references at least, I'll trim the article down after. Darrenhusted 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the article does need to be trimmed, but it shouldn't be merged with the Steel Cage match article. TJ Spyke 21:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the comment TJ, but did you like the sourcing. And I would say HIAC is too big to be merged with the Steel Cage article. Darrenhusted 22:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WWF Light Heavyweight Championship (early reigns)

As many know, the WWF/WWE Light Heavyweight Title has been around for a lot longer than the WWE's claim of 1997. The early title reigns were recognized by the Universal Wrestling Association and the title was defended in both Japan and Mexico before becoming part of the J-Crown in 1996. The titles article, as well as the list of champions for this title all recognize the earlier reigns, and acknowledge the WWE's lack of recognition...even still, a couple of editors (one anonymous one) are wanting to go through and remove the title reign from certain wrestlers bios because the WWE doesn't recognize it. I would agree that it should be listed under a UWA title reign and now a WWF/WWE title reign, but I don't believe the history should be blanked because the WWE doesn't recognize it. We aren't talking about a disputed title change...we are talking about the entire history of the title over a 16+ year time period. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Odin's Beard is again going through and removing the title reigns of all the title holders of this championship pre-Nov 1997. I am again fixing them, but man is this getting old. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's completely contradictory to include a championship in the championships and accomplishments section that isn't recognized by the promotion or governing body which owns the championship. The WWE ultimately decide the history of their championship. It can be mentioned in the articles that while the wrestlers did win the title but that the reigns aren't official but they shouldn't be listed under the championships and accomplishments section.Odin's Beard 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have the source right here, but I remember that the WWE actually forgot they had a Light Heavyweight Title and had to track down the belt when they wanted to bring it back in 1997. I think they should be mentioned in the title sections, but just include a note that WWE doesn't count it. TJ Spyke 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I gotta say Odin the consensus is one of silence on this matter, if no other editors are taking the reigns out then you have to assume that they are fine being left in the articles. If you want we can put this to a vote because I don't want you and Theo edit warring over twenty different articles. Darrenhusted 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The WWF did recognize the title, but they allowed the UWA to control it (probably because it gave them more world wide recognition), and the UWA also recognized it. I don't know if anyone else is old enough to remember, but I remember back in the 1980s when the WWF Light Heavyweight Champion would occasionally compete on WWF television for the title. The WWF/WWE just decided to retcon and say it was a new title, but that isn't true. Regardless, there are WP:RS that substantiate the titles previous existence and the title's lineage. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a vote would put the issue to bed once and for all. I've been over articles before that've had title wins/reigns aren't included so, for me personally, I've gotten mixed ideas about what's what. For instance, the WWE doesn't recognize Antonio Inoki as winning the WWF Championship and, at least the last time I saw the Inoki article, it wasn't mentioned in the section. Another example involves the Chis Benoit article. He won the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship back in 1996 I believe and, the last time I saw the Benoit article, it wasn't in the championships and accomplishments section either. If it's decided to include title wins in the section that aren't officially recognized by the promotion or governing body that owns the titles, I'll go along with it.Odin's Beard 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be willing to bet that the reason you didn't some title reigns included is because either (a) no one ever added it to the individuals bio or (b) it was one of the disputed transfers of one of the "world" titles (NWA/WWF/AWA) from the 1970s or earlier. I don't think you will find anywhere that 16+ years of a titles history is completely erased. Inoki's "title reign" is one of those disputes title reigns. Benoit held the title in 1991 as "Pegasus Kid," and if it is not in his profile it should be. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I had considered that they simply weren't added. However, the Chris Benoit article gets a lot of traffic, I'm not sure about the Inoki article, and I figured that if it was a legit reign, it would've been added after all the time. For instance, I'd go to the Benoit article once and it wouldn't be there and I'd go back maybe two or three weeks later and it still wasn't there. All I know is, that the title history of the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship on WWE.com doesn't recognize any champion that held the championship before 1997. That's what I went by and since it's a WWE owned championship, it's what I feel is the official position.Odin's Beard 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying. There is a book out that is often cited for title histories, and it includes the early reigns. I believe you can find mirrored information at [[10]] (they also advertise the book). If you notice on [this page], they had a working relationship with the UWA from 1979-1985 (during the time the title started). Also, you can see from the same page that they had at least one other title that they allowed another organization to use up until the 1985.
Wrestling-titles.com lists all wrestlers that've ever won a particular championship whether they're recognized by the promotion or controlling body that owns the title or not. I've still yet to come across anything that proves to me that a WWF/WWE or UWA or NWA title isn't completely under the control of the promotion or governing body that owns it. In order for the UWA to use the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, the title had to be lent to them or sold to them. Lending the UWA the title to use, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that the WWE started using the championship again in the states in 1997, the UWA returned it to them because they had no say in the matter. The title was loaned to them, the WWE wanted it back so they had to give it back. That implies that the WWE has control over the championship. Having physical possession of a championship belt is nothing without the recognition of the promotion that owns it. I could purchase a World Heavyweight Championship replica title from WWE.com but having physical possession of the belt wouldn't make me an official world champion. Everyone, of course, has a personal opinion on the championship histories. I personally think it's ridiculous for the WWE to not acknowledge the first decade and a half of the title's lineage and history. However, the official viewpoint is what counts, not personal opinion and I fail to see how the WWE doesn't have total control over a championship belt that's their property.Odin's Beard 22:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually of the opinion that it doesn't matter what the WWE says as long as it can be documented through reliable sources. There are some things the WWE can determine (such as whether or not a title gets its history from another title). Encyclopedias present verifiable facts not a revisionist history. The only other thing I would add is that possession is nine tenths of the law, and if the WWE really objected to what the UWA was doing with their title they could have, and would have, put a stop to it (as they eventually did when they wanted to use it). - T-75|talk|contribs 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the stories I read are that WWE forgot that UWA even had the belt until they wanted to bring the title back. Kind of hard to stop somebody from using the belt when you don't remember they have it. TJ Spyke 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And if they forgot that they had it, then at one point they knew (or else they couldn't have forgotten)and allowed them to use it as they wished (or they would have taken it away before they forgot about it). Honestly, I don't understand how you forget about one of your own world titles, especially when it was one of the most sought after in Mexico and Japan. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much stock in the story that the WWE forgot about loaning out a championshp, particularly one that had become very prestigious in foreign promotions. Also, we probably won't ever know the full details about the arrangement between the WWE and the UWA that allowed the UWA to use the championship. Was there some sort of financial arrangement? Was the title leased to the UWA for a certain period of time? Could the WWE yank the title away from them at anytime? Possessing being nine-tenths of the law doesn't really work out in practical terms. I can loan my car out to a friend, but that doesn't mean that the car stops being mine. I'm also free to do whatever I please with the car after getting it back from my friend. It's the same situation with the championship. It was property loaned out from one to another with no indication of a legal change of ownership. It seems to me that the WWE did in fact disagree with with how the title was defended. They blanked out the first decade and a half of it's lineage. Title lineages can be manipulated to show the history in which the promotion that owns the championship wants. Whether it makes any sense, is reasonable, or even smart isn't all that relevant.Odin's Beard 22:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Order of matches for PPV

Why is it REQUIRED that on PPV articles, the matches are listed in order of announcement? It should be in order of deemed importance in anyone's opinion. Mshake3 16:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I've never seen a policy requiring the matches to be listed in order of announcement. I think they should be listed in order of importance. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was decided quite a while ago that they'd be ordered by announcement, due to the fact that sorting by importance is highly POV. --MarcK 17:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Order of importance seems really subjective. Having the matches in the order that they occurred cuts down on random people coming in and changing the order to suit their own personal opinions. Nikki311 17:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well since we're also required to use WWE.com for approval to list matches, why don't we just list the matches in their order. Mshake3 17:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They are listed in the order they happen after the PPV has happened, this is a non-issue. Darrenhusted 17:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are listed in an order right now on WWE.com, and it isn't the order they are in on our page. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I recall this being an issue before as well. Copying WWE.com isn't the solution. In the order they are announced works better. RobJ1981 18:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is copying WWE.com not a solution? That seems th emost logical solution to me, after all, they are running the ppv. Any other card would be listed in the order the promoter puts it. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any logic to me to the way WWE.com lists them to be honest but in all honesty, I could go either way on this one, I'm neutral. Bmg916Speak 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To me it looks like a situation where we have, logically, just listed matches as they were announced, and then after the PPV airs sorted them in to the order the matches have taken place. And again Mshake3 wants to do it differently, personally until the PPV airs I don't care how they are listed, but once the PPV has aired then they naturally get sorted in to order, so for the sake of three weeks of each month, I don't care. List them how they are announced, list them alphabetically, list them by title, list them randomly, it doesn't matter so long as post-PPV they are in card order. Darrenhusted 21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The current situation was created as a compromise after an edit war over how matches should be listed caused the WWE Armageddon article to be fully protected. It was agreed to just list PPV matches as they are announced (rather than the order WWE/TNA lists them or which matches are more "important" to certain editors) as that is neutral. TJ Spyke 21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean before the event, as after the event it makes no sense to list them in any order other then the order they happened in. Darrenhusted 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct. Once the PPV starts, the matches go in the order they happened. TJ Spyke 22:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. Then I have no idea why Mshake3 has brought this up. Darrenhusted 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He's probably bringing it up because it doesn't make sense, nor is it logical. Most of the times a match list would be done in the same way it is being advertised (which is usually consistent)...but it seems we are doing something illogical because of an apparent concensus vote from something so far in the past only one person remembers it. Concensus can, and does, change, so I think it's a valid point for him to bring up. I say they should be listed in they same order they are advertised. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can understand a concern when an edit war breaks out over an article. But at the same time, there should be some common sense. The ECW World Title match shouldn't be at the bottom of the article just because it was one of the last matches announced. Mshake3 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The PPV is in five four days time, what difference does it make until then? Knowing VKM's contempt for the brand it will be the first match on with a time of 7min. Darrenhusted 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They why object change so much? Mshake3 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why change it? The current system is neutral and has been working for the 6+ months we've used it. TJ Spyke 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with TJ. Why change a system that works? Why spend so much time arguing about trivial things that in the long run don't even matter? How about helping me source some articles instead? Nikki311 02:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In between my nagging of pointless rules, I set up a damn good looking draft results table, started adding sources to when matches took place (and once and for all ending the "air date vs. actual date" debate in title changes), and added my personal candid photos into several articles (Abyss, Elijah Burke, The Naturals, Cherry, The Boogeyman, and Ms. Brooks). Admittely, I could be doing more to the articles. But I'd still like to see this project move away from a 100% enforcment of rules. Mshake3 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As mentioned above, I really don't see the issue here. Who gives a damn how they're listed, as long as the information gets across it doesn't matter. --MarcK 10:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Edge and Rey Mysterio

Since my followup in the previous thread apparently got lost in the shuffle: The same user (Kevin Hotfury) has now created Edge and Rey Mysterio, which seems even more dubious than the previously-reported Billy Kidman and Rey Mysterio, Jr. article.

Seems to me like this is another classic case of an enthusiastic new editor who needs some guidance on The Way Things Work Around HereTM. I've probably badgered this guy enough on my own--can someone else here please take a moment to send a few more clues his way? Thanks again. --Finngall talk 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He also created this article Nick Kiniski. Should that be prod'ed as well? Nikki311 21:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article is not properly sourced (unfortunately), but the individual is notable if the article is correct (and what I remember of Nick Kiniski the article seems to be correct)....but again...it's not sourced. I'd be willing to take on this article myself, but it will have to go in my list. I could put it in a userpage and work on it later (if it needs to be deleted), but I'd rather leave it there and I'll get to it when I can. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Beck

Someone's created an article on the "federal agent" involved in the Vince McMahon storyline. I haven't a clue how to handle this as there's no sources to determine fact from fiction (at this point I'm presuming he's a hired actor like Thea Vidale as there's nothing reported about any developmental talent used). Shall I just prod this or what? -- Oakster  Talk  20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote prod. If the prod is deleted...then AfD it. It won't survive either way. Nikki311 20:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Nuked from Orbit.. it's the only way to be sure. The BLP violations of that article was staggering (especially when you consider that even in storyline, most of that article was nonsense). SirFozzie 20:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Oakster  Talk  20:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nominee

I've been going through some of the wrestling articles lately and came upon the History of World Championship Wrestling earlier today. Is it ready to be put forth as a good article candidate? It's very well sourced. Nikki311 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there no thoughts on this? I want there to be some sort of consensus before I nominate it. That way if someone thinks they can improve it first, they'll have a chance. Nikki311 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks nice, and is well sourced and informative. Go ahead and nominate it. Even if it doesn't pass (which I think it could), we will get advice on how to improve it even more. Good job. TJ Spyke 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I went ahead and nominated it. Unfortunately, I can't take too much credit on this one. I cleaned it up a very small bit, but I'm not the one who sourced it. Nikki311 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Real Heights revisited

A new IP has made another batch of changes to wrestlers' height data. Some have already been reverted; I'm going after the rest. --Finngall talk 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably that banned user who was doing the same thing. Maybe it should be reported as a possible sockpuppet. TJ Spyke 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Report it as a possible sock puppet of Jordan Brice [11]. Darrenhusted 12:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shark Boy

There is an unregistered user on the Shark Boy page trying to keep all unreferenced moves off the page. I commend his efforts in referencing moves, but he is deleting anything without an internet reference, including the description for a move that he could only find a reference for the name. Now, is he in the right here? Or is him doing a move several times on a television program enough of a reference? I'm confused as to how this should be resolved on that particular page. Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him that I will report him to admins if he doesn't stop.-- Hornetman16 05:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Championship Boxes

Would it be an idea to have a championship box for the current active WWE titles wherein a holder can be listed in a box, with the preceding and following holders listed, I give you an example from the Billboard 100 [12]. And then if people have multiple reigns they can be combined in to one big box such as here [13], scroll down to the bottom of the page. Any thoughts? Darrenhusted 12:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We had them until about a year ago when found them to be quite cluttered and it still would be if we revived the idea. Take Edge for example. With current active titles (and not including Money in the Bank) you would have 21 succession boxes. -- Oakster  Talk  13:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Edge did come to mind as one with a number of boxes, and Ric Flair and Kane. Just a thought. Darrenhusted 13:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
The main discussion points are that it wouldn't be bad for wrestlers with few titles, but would be too long for wrestlers with lots of titles. I think that half of King Booker's page was just title succesion pages since he held like 20 titles in WCW. Even just using the current WWE Titles would take up a huge amount of space (like Oakster said, it would be huge for someone like Edge who has held 12 tag team titles in WWE or The Rock who held 7 WWE Titles). TJ Spyke 20:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

WCW Cruiserweight and Light-Heavyweight titles the same?

No. For some ungodly reason, the WCW Cruiserweight and the WCW Light-Heavyweight titles are considered one in the same. I know that WWE considers it as such, but why do WE have to? WCW never considered them to be the same title, and neither does Wrestling-Titles.com. I'm also pretty sure that Wikipedia used to have separate articles per title. ---SilentRAGE! 14:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • WWE owns all rights to the title(s), so they are the foremost authority on its lineage, period. Yes it's revisionist history, but it's official revisionist history. --MarcK 16:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
K. Then we should at least mark down that it's revisionist history. ---SilentRAGE! 18:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it doesn't matter what WWE thinks (even though they own the company now) what they think isn't creditable in my mind when it comes to WCW cause it was their competitor that theu bought. I think it matters more what WCW thought they actually created the titles! Agreed?-- Hornetman16 05:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Favor?

Can someone do me a favor and AfD Chad Patton for me? I prod'ed it (it would have been deleted today) but the prod was removed without improvement. The article is about a non-notable ref anyway. I'm just not sure how to AfD, and I don't want to do it wrong. Maybe we should look into protecting the page from recreation. According to its log, the article has already been deleted four times. Chad Patton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thanks. Nikki311 19:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, and if it gets recreated again, I'll salt it. SirFozzie 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. You sure are handy to have around. :) Nikki311 19:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you ready?

Some anon IP address [14], most likely JB (he has done this before) has called Burntsauce's attention to Iron Sheik and Warrior pages, so don't be surprised if the usual stubbing and protecting act happens to them. Darrenhusted 21:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If I was "banned," I probably wouldn't have been able to remove mass (unsourced) content from more than one wrestling articles earlier today, now would I?222.237.5.171 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Funny how some people have this reading disability, when they see the word "contentious" it turns into "anything without source" in their head, maybe they need a dictionary to explain to them exactly what that word means you know? MPJ-DK 07:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I sourced Sheiky, I will try to get Warrior and Lawler tomorrow. Kris 22:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A sweeping broom

Having searched the terms ”Wrestling wrestler” to get a list of wrestling related articles on Wikipedia I’ve found the following I think doesn’t quite fulfill WP:N

AFD’ed
Phoenix Championship Wrestling & title pages

Prod’d
Krysta Lynn Scott, Mike Tatum, Mario Galvan Jaramillo, Tony Salantri, Shag Thomas, Chet Jablonski, Tommy Jammer, Mike Hughes, Barry Houston, Vanessa Kraven, Eddie Osbourne, Rick Fuller, Ken Jugan, Cousin Elmer, Marc Blondin, Andy Baker,Justin White, Taylor Matheny, Flyin Ryan Mitchell, Steve Madison, Mad Man Manson, The Flatliner

If you think there is something notable about them feel free to provide sources to prove it, improve the articles or whatever. MPJ-DK 08:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Taglines once again

Why exactly should they stay or go? I'm in reference to any tagline: the PPV event ones, and the match ones. In my opinion (as I've stated before): either all stay, or all go. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me. But it should be consistent. To always list the event tagline, and not allow the match taglines: is a bit hypocritical. Both serve the same purpose: to promote. A small number of editors always remove the match taglines with no good reason. The only reason they usually give is "non-notable" or they simply don't even give a reason. Just because you hate it, doesn't mean you should be removing it with no discussion or no consensus whatsoever. Hopefully this ends this debate already. RobJ1981 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Remove the event tagline of a show. When the usualls revert it back on, then add the match taglines. When they take it off, remove the event tagline, and keep the loop going. Mshake3 04:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that Rob start edit wars? I don't get along with Rob (he and I both know this), but I don't think he should follow your bad advice. Anyways, match taglines are almost never notable (partially because they are for just 1 match, while event taglines are for an antire event). TJ Spyke 05:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow this is... incredibly repetitive and totally pointless ain't it? MPJ-DK 06:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • TJSpyke, if the match tag line is not notable because it is just for 1 match, then neither is the match notable because, after all, it is just one match. - T-75|talk|contribs 02:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
We need more opinions on this. One match or one event: it's not a big deal. Both are still used to advertise and are equally important (not very important overall though, when you look at the big picture of things). Claiming they aren't notable, is your personal view. Where has it been proven, "legend vs icon" (as an example) wasn't important and people hated it overall? Where has it been proven event taglines are a better thing? Back it up with actual sources, instead of personal opinion. But either way: one little line isn't harming the article. In general: matches don't have taglines much (when you look at the big picture). 1 (sometimes 2) matches for events have them (and all events in general: don't always have match taglines). It's not a massive addition, so space is no problem here. Frankly: all taglines should go, as it's all a matter of opinion. I don't think there is any sources saying "Yes, this PPV tagline helped the buyrates" or "This PPV tagline is loved by fans" or anything even close to it. Look at movie articles: they could be flooded with taglines, but aren't. Originally I was leaning towards listing all taglines: but frankly at this point, I don't care if any exist. Just useless clutter that doesn't hold much importance and is causing lame edit wars. Let's think of the big picture here: why exactly should any tagline be listed? Are people going to even care if they see a tagline or not? I doubt it. RobJ1981 09:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, so WMXV was "The Ragin' Climax", that is evident from the poster, and thus the poster is the source, but for match taglines where is the source would be my question? If the information can be sourced then it should be kept, if it can't be sourced, and an editor keeps adding it without a source then it is vandalism. I don't think a vote is needed, just follow policy. Darrenhusted 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The actual content of the show, for one. In all the talk about sources, we tend to forget that the biggest source is what we're seeing on screen during the event. Video box art can also count (although bullet would strongly disagree with that). Hell, half the posters in these articles are just DVD covers. Mshake3 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going on record as saying that I think the tag lines should be included in the articles. - T-75|talk|contribs 02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Which tag lines Theo? PPV or Match, or both ot none of the above. Darrenhusted 02:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning Stage Two

The bundle was causing problems at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shane_Hagadorn, so now feast your eyes on these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Northcutt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krysta Lynn Scott, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Osbourne, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Rumble, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short Sleeve Sampson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Milliman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hutchinson, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Madison,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Bradley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chet Jablonski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Fuller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Galvan Jaramillo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kraven, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamie Sheffield, and look in to your heart and vote/comment where needed. Darrenhusted 01:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New JB sock?

I can't help but wonder if this guy is a sock of that Jason Barber guy, because he came out of nowhere and started citing all sorts of policy, which most new users know nothing about. -- Scorpion0422 22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Warrior was blanked and a new guy [15] reverted the usual BS stuff, and maybe 24.186.232.54 as well. Darrenhusted 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

King Leonidas

Ummm, has anyone else noticed this? I see it is mentioned here too. - Deep Shadow 13:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. Nikki311 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I jokingly mentioned it on the WWE roster talk page. It's more or less the same thing that happened with Nacho Libre, product promotion. -- Oakster  Talk  16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

RIP Chris Benoit

Just to let you know (as well as reminder for a watch on the article) that Chris Benoit and his family have passed away. I don't know what to say about this right now. :( -- Oakster  Talk  22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just hope this is not another sick angle like they are doing with Vince McMahon. I wonder what happened, because the reports are saying that his wife (Nancy Daus, a.k.a. Woman) and his son Daniel were also killed. TJ Spyke 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just got this via the LEWD email. Sad stuff..hope that people don't vandalise his article. --Mikecraig 23:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow TJ, that's just sad, to have ANY thought that this could be storyline. Mshake3 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering the fact that they treated Vince's death as real (reporting it on wwe.com, doing a 10 bell salute, etc.), I think a lot of people probably had doubts when this was first reported. Don't be mad at me, be mad at WWE for causing people to doubt any death reports done by WWE. TJ Spyke 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I updated thePortal:Current events/Sidebar, I believe this one is very real just notice how WWE.COM removed all related to Vince's "death", and the fact that they are now making tonight a tribute to Benoit instead of Vince seems to confirm it, WWE ussually doesn't push an McMahon angle for another angle just like that. If its an angle I will quit watching WWE, there is nothing sicker than reporting something like this if it isn't real. -凶 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
OMG! I don't blame TJ for what he said. My first thought was also "is this for real?" I bet Vince and WWE feel like jerks now that both Benoit and Sensational Sherri have died since this whole stupid McMahon's "death" angle started. I wonder if his death has anything to do with the family emergency he flew home for instead of competing at Vengeance? Nikki311 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is. -凶 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, 2 legends have died since this horrible Vince angle started. Hopefully they just forget the whole angle. People are usually upset when they just drop angles for no reason, but I don't think people would mind now. I am very saddened by Benoit's death (and Woman's death), I loved watching his matches. TJ Spyke 23:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've read that after Sherri's death was reported, the idea had been tossed around to quickly do away with the angle. I always enjoyed watching Chris Benoit perform. He never quite "fit in" with how professional wrestling is typically portrayed in the United States nowadays, which is one reason I enjoyed him so much. It seems that to make it big in professional wrestling nowadays, especially in the WWE, a wrestler has to look like some sort of male model or some super jacked up freak that has a few hundred milligrams of steroids along with his morning coffee. Having actual love for it or actually having any wrestling skill comes a distant second to the package. He never had his success handed to him on a silver platter. He was a worker that had his career held back due to backstage politics, but he still managed to achieve great success. He also did it by doing it his way and never sold out his professional integrity.Odin's Beard 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I hope this is not true, but investigators are now treating it as a "possible double murder, suicide". [16] TJ Spyke 03:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It's confirmed now. One of the greatest ever performers, a man universally respected and liked, with a reputation as a dedicated and committed husband and father turned into a murderer. Best wishes to everyone in the project at this time. I personally feel quite literally gutted and I'm sure everyone else has similar sentiments. Personal commitments have kept me from contributing in recent weeks but I think I'm going to take some time-out from wrestling altogether for a little while. The only thing I want to say at the moment is "WHY???" and the only person that knows the answer is dead. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 23:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for help (Re:Benoit)

Guys, Benoit's death (and yes, it's confirmed) is a major freakin story. the PW folks should be vigilant on his article. It's already semi-protected, but if the edit war continues, it's gonna be full protected. Can you guys lead the way with insisting on RELIABLY SOURCED information (you guys should know that the Torch/1wrestling etcetera are NOT RS).. and making sure the information is correct? I'll work it as long as I can, but I'm already starting to wipe out (today was my first day at a new position at work).. so I won't be able to shepherd the article for very long. SirFozzie 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I found one Atlanta TV station web site with a direct link to the Wiki article. Better protect it ASAP. --Finngall talk 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Link me? If we're getting major hits with an incorrect summary, I'll full protect it now. SirFozzie 23:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I added wwe.com as a source (down by the quote), maybe that should be moved up and used as the main source though. TJ Spyke 23:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if it would work, wwe's a primary source.. but it's worth a shot SirFozzie 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, it could always be replaced by a mainstream newstory (provided it doesn't use Wikipedia as its source). TJ Spyke 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there are any reliably secondary sources yet. I mean, it just happened, so it isn't going to be reported anywhere but WWE.com and the wrestling "news" cites. I think WWE.com is the best source we have right now. Nikki311 23:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We should also keep an eye on Nancy Daus, as there has been some vandalism there too. I am off to watch Raw, so if a couple of people could watch it, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion0422 23:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We have an Atlanta TV and newspaper source on the article, which is good. SirFozzie 00:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Fuck I just saw Vince McMahon break kayfabe in national television, the event scheduled for today was cancelled also. -凶 00:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

TSN.ca is now reporting on Benoit's death. [17] -- Scorpion0422 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the section on the Nancy page sound as good as I can, unfortunately I can only find the information about Chris missing the house show on wrestling related pages.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, disengaging for the night, I gotta get up for work in seven hours SirFozzie 05:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new topic in here about the Benoit tragedies, I will post it here: what articles should and should it not be included in? Specifically, I am talk about CM Punk (and his scheduled match against Benoit this past Sunday). After Nitro replaced Benoit, it was reported in the article (as it should have been). It was later added that this change was for an "unexplained reason", then it was changed to Benoit missed the show "due to a family emergency" (which the WWE said), then changed to "a family emergency (killing his family)". The "(killing his family)" part was then removed, followed next by the removal of the family emergency excess. Not long after, the murder/suicide information was again put back in. Now then, the information of about the Benoit murder/suicide was also put in Nitro's article, and then later removed. Now then, my question is exactly how important do other people feel it is to report the murder/suicide in these two articles? I'll be honest, I was fine with just "Benoit was later replaced by Nitro", but thats just me. I don't want to remove the stuff if I'm the only one who doesn't think it is absolutely 100% necessary while everyone else feels it is. Nenog 08:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I know people are upset and stuff, but the information doesn't need to be thrown into every article that it just might have a slight relevance to (ie, CM Punk, Johnny Nitro). As Nenog said, you only really need to put in that Benoit was replaced by Nitro, possibly a bit more about missing it due to personal reasons, or something. Just not all the edits pointed out above ^^^. --SteelersFan UK06 14:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
On the same token, people may want to watch for editors inserting "the late" into any mentions of Benoit in articles where he's mentioned and remove them.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
IMdb [18] and the BBC [19] have covered the story. Darrenhusted 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources to use

I was reading an [article on Foxnews associated with the Benoit incident] about deaths of pro wrestlers and it listed some sources. I thought they might be useful for various articles, here is a list:

[source: USA Today: Wrestling deaths and steroids; 3/12/04; http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-03-12-wrestling-list_x.htm;]

[source: Official Site of the Von Erich Family // http://www.vonerich.com/Bios.html]

[source: Despite the deaths of five of her six sons, the matriarch of the Von Erich wrestling family finds hope in living and faith in God // 18 April 1993 // The Dallas Morning News]

[source: LOCKER ROOM MYSTERY THERE'S STILL UNCERTAINTY OVER THE STABBING DEATH OF BRUISER BRODY // 15 December 2000 // Orlando Sentinel]

[source: THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN ALONG ROAD TO FAME, FORTUNE // 28 January 2000 // Orlando Sentinel]

[source: brian pillman memorial; Linebacker/wrestler is remembered // 30 May 2000 // The Cincinnati Post]

[source: WRESTLERS LURED TO RISKY DRUGS Ring fan doc prescribed illegally, says complaint // 3 March 2000 // New York Daily News]

[source: Wrestler on Steroid Therapy/The Droz fractured Neck During Match //

Houston Chronicle // 10/8/99]

[source: Girlfriend Gurgling, Wrestler Told 911 // Atlanta Journal Constitution // 5/8/03]

[source: Lugar Charged with Felony Drug Possession // The Post Standard // 5/12/03]

[source: Guerrero was heart Disease Victim // Star Tribune // 12/9/05]

[source: WWF Wrestler Owen Hart dies in Fall // Orlando Sentinel // 5/24/96]

kayfabe template?

I don't know where this came from, but do we need it? It's nothing but superscripting a link to the kayfabe article. I personally think it looks bad superscripted and just pulled it out of the Johnny Nitro article a few times, more because it was placed in the wrong place (after things, instead of before them).«»bd(talk stalk) 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I hate it, too. For nothing more than aesthetic reasons. Plus, it is just as easy to write out (kayfabe). Nikki311 16:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to simply phrase things clearly in the first place without relying on parenthesized notes. — Gwalla | Talk 21:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It used to be a redirect to the Future PW template (the template used on future wrestling events) until an IP changed it in March. I don't see the need for it. TJ Spyke 21:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Should we prod it? Nikki311 22:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't PROD templates, you TfD them. And yes we should TfD it.Darrenhusted 22:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
done and done.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wwelogo.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wwelogo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hornetman16 05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD Covers

Why are we now including who's on a DVD cover in PPV articles? Mshake3 20:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For example?«»bd(talk stalk) 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
WWE Backlash. Unless a promotional poster doesn't exist, this doesn't seen necessary, as all it does is show what the matches are. Mshake3 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I started doing it because we have been doing that for TNA articles for quite some time. TJ Spyke 23:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK...... then the question is why are we doing it for TNA articles? The promotional poster is what's important, as the box art is either the same thing or just the participants of the main events. Mshake3 23:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Either way it seems completely unnecessary.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that too. Mshake3 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Hoag

What is to be done about this article? A user came along and just removed the prod tag, and its the only one from that recent prod batch that didn't get dealt with (basically all of them were deleted, except one which was considered notable). I've taken a look at the article and i deem it should go down with the rest..... --SteelersFan UK06 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If a PROD was removed, you aren't supposed to put it back. It has to go to an AFD now. TJ Spyke 02:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty much the most active I've ever been in this project, you're going to have to go ahead and tell me how to do that...ach we all learn sometime... --SteelersFan UK06 03:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This page should do it: WP:AFD. Let me know if you need more helpful. I'm not sure he should go though, I remember that Ice Train was a regular mid-carder in WCW for around 6 years, although it could be expanded. TJ Spyke 03:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Right. Well since i am strongly against those deletionist types due to an incident that basically started my involvement in Wikipedia, I'm going to take a step down from this one. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on the wrestler would like to deal with it? --SteelersFan UK06 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It's worth asking - what sparked the recent trend of deletionism in the wikipedia pro wrestlting project? Wouldn't some sort of transwiki movement serve the general wrestling fan public better?DanZero 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If you know of a good wrestling wiki (that also used the GFDL license or something similar), then suggest it. The last time somebody suggested it, we couldn't really find any good ones. TJ Spyke 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
RSPW's at http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page seems like it could be a good place to expand.DanZero 04:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Haha! Exactly what I said....I take a step back, and a whole bunch of other editors are there in a second to deal with the slightest problem - Good work guys! =) Just wondering, does this mean that the article in question should/shouldn't be AfD'd then? Cheers --SteelersFan UK06 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Hoag is up for deletion, and joins Tony Stetson, Tony Jones, Mike Hughes, Alex Porteau, Chasyn Rance, Ultramantis Black and Chuck Taylor some of whom were de-PROD-ed during the last five days, and Ron Forest who seems like a hoax. Darrenhusted 11:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a pro wrestling wiki, but if that's the best one that can be nominated I don't see many people from here flocking to it. «»bd(talk stalk) 12:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Not meaning to sound snippy here, but thanks to the recent trend towards page deletion on here, I suggest that the pro-wres wikia will be getting better in a hurry, and I'm sure any/all substantive help would be appreciated.--DanZero 15:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Articles are being deleted because in the main they should never have been created in the first place. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Darrenhusted 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Chamionship Userbox suggestion

Why not create a Infobox for the championships containing information like:

  1. Name
  2. Image
  3. Image Caption
  4. Past Names
  5. When it was Created
  6. Longest/Shortest Reigns
  7. Oldest/Youngest Champion
  8. Past Look Image(s)
  9. Current Holder and when it began and where
  10. and any other sumerizable information that's relevant

What ya think?-- Hornetman16 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Could you created a test page to show what it would look like? I do think a infobox would be good, but am not sure what it should look like. TJ Spyke 06:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This was mentioned a month or two ago. I thought it was a good idea at that time, and think it is still...but a couple people squashed the idea. Hopefully it goes through this time. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
here it is:

(to get the code go to: User:Hornetman16/Sandbox/Infobox championship)

  • I'd add a title retired line for the infobox for those titles that have been retired...but I like it. - T-75|talk|contribs 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Does that mean it can Start bening Added?-- Hornetman16 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the WWE Championship one:
I made some slight changes that I think would make it look a little nicer, what do you think? TJ Spyke 23:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As of right now I'd say concensus it to go ahead since no one has objected to it; but even still I'd give it another day or two to see if there are any more comments. - T-75|talk|contribs 00:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I like both the idea, and the design of the box. Peace, The Hybrid 01:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets get some made up and placed in the relevant pages. Darrenhusted 01:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I like them, too. The only thing I would change is "when won", "when created", and "when aired" to "date won", "date created", and "date aired". Nikki311 02:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

They're kinda...huge once they get on a page.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll do a cleanup on the template, just to match it with the other WP:PW infoboxes we use. The only concern I have though is that would past looks classify as decorative use of images, in which it goes against WP:FU? -- Oakster  Talk  15:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You could always tag one for review, let someone more knowledgeable check it out. If they ok it we need to get the Smokin' Skull belt on the WWE Championship page.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've done reformating it now. And like Bdve said with the previous design, it's still big now. I do have a suggestion though. Instead of having the oldest/youngest/tallest/etc. stats on the infobox, why don't we leave that in the old statistic boxes before and instead have fields based on these tables designed by MarcK? I think they would with a bit of a tweak be more useful infoboxes instead. -- Oakster  Talk  15:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Two things:
  1. I think the statistics are fine whre they are if you read behind you'll see two people liked the old design with the statistics in the infobox. That's the type information to have in the infobox!
  2. Why you change it? I designed the box and I was proud of it!I was looking forward to having the box I created show on wikipedia everyday for as long as wikipedia exsisted!-- Hornetman16 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. While an infobox can help and I'm totally for it, there has to be a limit in how much you can put on there. The problem I have with it right now is that there's too many fields and that essentially for guys with large resolution screens, the infobox would now take up almost the whole article on the right hand side especially with the stats section cut off (for a good example right now is the ECW World Championship in 1280x1024). Personally I wouldn't mind having just promotion, brand, creation, retirement, champions (current, first or last), past names, and possibly links to title history and reign longevity.
  2. Consistency for the project templates to match Infobox Wrestler, Infobox Wrestling event and Infobox Wrestling team. It's not that big of a deal anyway with only the title bar changed.-- Oakster  Talk  21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


I think the original format is more consistent with the existing project templates and I don't believe that it is too big either (they are not really any bigger than other info boxes. That being said, I like the tables that MarcK did, and think it would look good incorporating some of the info in those tables into the info box. I think we can probably come up with a good compromise here. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I liked my design. I believe the purpose of a infoboxit to sumerize information and that's what it does. It's fine with the info fields it has.-- Hornetman16 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

LETS TAKE A VOTE: vote a or b for the one you like NOTE:the fields would be the same on both

a)template:Infobox championship
b)User:Hornetman16/Sandbox/Infobox championship

I think a looks better, but you should try and make as many of them be on one line as possible. Also, it wouldn't hirt to add a "First champion" option. -- Scorpion0422 00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, A looks better, more in line with other infoboxes, sorry Hornet. --SteelersFan UK06 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I think B looks better. The more important info, and more in line Lex94 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles that need references

A section was started on the main project page to list articles that need references so people can try to focus on them when they have the time. Obviously, there are a lot of them, and the list dares to get out of hand and soon. Is there somewhere else we can list them? Possibly create a template like the bio-stub template to make it easier?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We could just create a sub-page like was done for assessment and list them on there. - T-75|talk|contribs 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
sub page created.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

Ladies and gentlemen of the Pro Wrestling project, if I may draw your attention to the Main Page specifically the ”Did you know” box you will see the following.

”...that the professional wrestling promotion International Championship Wrestling was owned and operated by Angelo Poffo, father of wrestling legend Randy Savage, and starred Randy Savage and his brother Lanny Poffo?”

Referring to the International Championship Wrestling Article I created recently *victory lap* How often do wrestling articles get exposure on the front page? :)MPJ-DK 23:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Awesome to the max. Mshake3 23:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The WWE Video Library was on there once.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also Katsuhiko Nakajima, which was made by a really hoopy frood whose name I can't seem to place.. --MarcK 06:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh you sly dog you. (He means himself.) --SteelersFan UK06 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A small walled garden?

I have nominated IWS for deletion, along with Manny Elefthriou, The Arsenal and El Generico, all of whom seem to form a small garden. The IWS article in particular lists well known wrestlers but their appearance or association with IWS is not mentioned (eg...run by the Former Backstreet Boyz Johnny Kashmere and Michael Verde aka Trent Acid... and yet Trent Acid's page does not mention IWS). And every wrestler is listed as WRESTLER aka REAL NAME or vice versa. I don't know what to make of it and it's only defenders are its creator, DanZero (who wants to save all AfDs) and Callelinea (who has been posting keep to be pointy). Can someone give these the once over? Darrenhusted 14:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

El Generico is not part of the walled garden, article has existed since 2005, current Pro Wrestling Guerilla champion, and current member of the Ring of Honor roster. –– Lid(Talk) 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well then his page needs a drastic re-write and the first external link doesn't exist and the second is in German, we've deleted more notable, and better written, wrestler bios this week. He may not be part of the garden (although IWS mentioned him a lot) but that article does not assert notabiltity, no real name, no DOB, and only a German bio to back it up. All indy wrestlers do not deserve a page. Darrenhusted 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So, a bio in German does not count? And why not? Kris 02:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure and would have to check, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't count. This is English wikipedia and most English speakers do not read German, especially not well enough to verify the facts cited. If there was a translation, it would definitely be okay. Nikki311 04:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
From WP:CITE: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Nenog 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It still suffers from WP:RS, the so-called homepage (elgenerico.com) didn't even have a site. Darrenhusted 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)