Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 26

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 26

Contents

Raven

Is there any particular reason this article is divided up into promotions rather than going chronological?«»bd(talk stalk) 14:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any points where he was in 2 promotions at the same time so it should be possible to make it chronological. I say we do it. DrWarpMind 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I never even noticed that. I vote for chronological, as well. Nikki311 18:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed it. It's chronological now. Nikki311 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TheMaste120389

This user likes to add images of the Divas in various bondage positions, as he did with Trish Stratus and is now trying with Candice Michelle. Please keep an eye on this. I will try for as long as I can, but I can't do too much by myself. - Deep Shadow 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Question:Did s/he 3RR on Trish? And I have placed a 2RR warning for Candice, s/he puts the picture on one more time then file a 3RRV report, if they move to another diva page then keep adding 2RR warnings until we catch them with a 3RR. Darrenhusted 11:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I think they managed to stay within the three revert limit for Trish. - Deep Shadow 12:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also warned CharliTa over the Green Bay thing, they don't seem to be willing to talk about it. Darrenhusted 12:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to engage in edit wars now because sometimes it is just safer to bite the bullet and let them add what they believe should be in the article, even though I know full-well it shouldn't. But that's just me. - Deep Shadow 12:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Now people are putting who people are "friends with" in articles. «»bd(talk stalk) 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

New Archive

Archive 35, this is getting out of hand...--SteelersFan UK06 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

The championships and accomplishments section seems out of control to me. I know they're all successful guys but it seems like a lot of unnecessary trivia. Shouldn't it focus on accomplishments done while part of the group? I took out the Wrestlemania Undertaker jobbing a little while ago but somebody brought it back soon afterwards. We can clean a lot of that out, right? DrWarpMind 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit, that's a lot. Let's get moving on it. Mshake3 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its fine how it is supermike

Find the date they formed, find the date they broke up, confine all info to that period, for example none of the Royal Rumble wins happened while they were a group, none of the UT losses happened while they were a group, the Tag reigns did, and one of Tripper's title runs happened (RKO's win being the event that began the split), I have to sleep now but I hacked a chunk our of it, if someone else can find dates I'll cut it down later on today. Darrenhusted 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The articles should focus on only their time is a group. A long time ago, I deleted some of it, too, but it was re-added. Nikki311 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

then why not get rid of the whole thing because im not going to go reads about a group just base on the group I want to know EVERYTHING supermike

Then you can go to their respective pages and read more about the individuals... Nikki311 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to include everything about everyone in a group, imagine how unwieldy the Corporation or Planet Jarrett would get. Pages would get dominated by info on the individuals instead of the group. DrWarpMind 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It should be a page about what they did as a group. Like Ric and Dave winning the Tag titles. Addendum: I have chopped down the first two years (2002-2004 mid) and changed the style which was a fan-ish. I will work on the rest when I get a chance. Darrenhusted 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Before and after, feel free to re-write and trim further if needed. Darrenhusted 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Question, why is the Union in the Corporation article? Mr. C.C. 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE Ladder match DVD

I stumbled upon this earlier today and am not sure what to do? Should we delete it or clean it up? I have a hard time believing all these DVDs are notable but there is precedent. DrWarpMind 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge it into the ladder match article?«»bd(talk stalk) 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete... -- bulletproof 3:16 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is the deletion talk section for this article? I looked, but couldn't find it. Mr. C.C. 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose having one article for WWE DVDs. Than there won't be people bitching about whether or not a DVD should have it's own article or not. Mr. C.C. 05:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Nah see I don't think that would work. There's too many different DVDs released by the WWE, not to mention the Diva ones, history ones...If they were all on one page then it would just get cluttered. --SteelersFan UK06 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship

Per the people who current own the title, this title is the exact same as the Toronto Version. I propose a merge. No "you do it" comments, please. I'm not in the mood, but it has to be done. Consider this post a "heads-up". :) ---SilentRAGE! 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I say merge it because of the two sources that have the same lineage. Mr. C.C. 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I say don't because the important secondary sources disagree with each other - one says they are, the other says they're not, when it doubt leave them alone MPJ-DK 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
ECCW.com and Solie.org point the NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship to the Canadian Heavyweight Championship used in the Toronto days. I think it should be merged. Mr. C.C. 00:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
ECCW.com is a primary source - doesn't count as much as the secondary sources. wrestling-titles.com (which is the most quoted site for wrestling title reigns on wikipedia) says they're not. So when there is a discreprency in sources it should be left alone the way it is now MPJ-DK 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrestling-Titles.com is not an authority figure just because it's the most quoted wrestling titles history site on Wikipedia. You should also have more than one source and not always refer to Wrestling-Titles.com. Mr. C.C. 05:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the same argument could be applied to Solie.org, it's not an authority either, and wrestling-titles.com is the most quoted because it's been found to generally be the most accurate, reliable wrestling championship site around. So basically you've got a primary source who can claim anything to improve it's own image and two secondary sources that aren't authorities on the matter but are also not in agreement. In other words leave it as it is since there isn't a definite answer either way. And by the way where does it say "you should also have more than one source"? just because the argument is against you doesn't mean you can just arbitrarily come up with these policies that don't exist MPJ-DK 19:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, now we got two official sources that say it does, and two unofficial sources that say it doesn't. Hmmm.... who should we trust? Oh yeah! The official sources who OWN the title: http://www.nwawrestling.com/PHP-Nuke/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=15 ---SilentRAGE! 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it's nice to see you not being all snooty about it, that would have been wrong. See now THAT is a reliable source on the subject - the first one really presented on the matter. MPJ-DK 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Funny how the site doesn't even mention the existence of these Canadian titles: NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship (Calgary version), NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship (Halifax version), NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship (Vancouver version), I find that odd and very "unconfident" inspiring. MPJ-DK 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AWA?

And AWA Superstars of Wrestling claim the AWA World Heavyweight Championship as a direct line from the 1960s as well as Hogan being a 2 time champion. Does that actually mean it's true? It's a primary source, find a secondary credible source that backs it up before I'd consider this an "has to be done" issue MPJ-DK 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page of this said championship, I think it should be merged together because ECCW.com and Solie.org represent the same lineage. Two sources with the same lineage verses one source Wrestling-Titles.com with different lineage. AWA Supers of Wrestling and kayfabe era AWA are essentially the same governing body except it has a different name. Verne Gange's son Dale (correct me on the name) is the president now. Mr. C.C. 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
His name is Dave Gagner - he uses the name Gagne to try and get a legit claim on the lineage but he's no relation to the Gagne family at all. The AWA wasn't a "governing body" but an indivudual federation. You've got one secondary source who is at odds with another secondary source on this - can't say that's conclusive at all MPJ-DK 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Either way, that's irrelevant the relation to the Gagne's. ECCW.com and Solie.org have the same lineage. So I say merge it. But of course I will need more support. Mr. C.C. 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What is it that actually has to be proven to confirm the lineage? Do the titles have to be physically the same belt? Does someone need to have passed the belt from the old promotion to the new promotion and said, "here, take a shot."? I'm confused by this. --SteelersFan UK06 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you actually "continue" the lineage from a title that was abandoned in the mid-1980s? Basically it's only a continuation because they say it is, no shared history or anything. It's a claim - which needs to be verfied by independent sources to be a part of Wikipedia per. Verifiability - there is one source that claims that it is and one source that claims that it's not. MPJ-DK 07:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Yes, but how exactly is history shared? Does someone own the rights to the belt in the 80's (which would then have to be retained by Gagne [Gagner] later)? --SteelersFan UK06 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can "retain" something when there is no connection other than in name (you can't "keep" something that you never had). Dale Gagner licensed the name "American Wrestling Association" in like 1996 - the name. I mean I could go down tomorrow and license the name "United States Wrestling Association" and claim to have a lineage to the original USWA. MPJ-DK 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The AWA tape library was purchased by WWE years ago as part of a fire sale, and the real Gagne son (Greg Gagne (wrestler)) was a WWE road agent, which is why AWA wrestlers are started to entering the WWE HoF. I would guess that the belts were kept by the family and Greg is the one with the rights to the belts. See here. Darrenhusted 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So can the new promotion claim lineage? --SteelersFan UK06 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess, on the page there is a lot of mentions of "legal" action but no refs, only Greg Gagne (and his father, who is still alive, his promotion died in 1991, not him) could say, if Dale Gagne/r has the original belts, or at least the rights to use the original belts then why not? WWE has effectively done the same thing with ECW. Darrenhusted 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The WWE bought ECW outright, lock, stock and barbwire bat. MPJ-DK 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that Rhyno still has the TV title and ECW title on his wall, so they struck a new title belt, and they actually lost the rights during the invasion to the ECW name, which was why they called it the Alliance. So they needed to take legal action with ECW to get all the rights. With AWA they haven't had to do the same thing, and inducting Verne was seen as his OK for the AWA tape library purchase. Darrenhusted 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So someone had the actual physical belts and? Does that mean that Rhyno could start ECW again and claim that it was legitimate continuation?? Your argument doesn't make sense MPJ-DK 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel this is going off topic, ECW went under, WWE bought a licence to use the name for 90 days, this ran out during the invasion and then last year they finally brought the tape library and cleared the companies debts. AWA went under in 1991, WWE bought just the tape library and the Gagne's were happy with a HoF induction. Rhyno can't call himself ECW TV and World champion despite having the belts becuase WWE bought ECW, but with AWA they just bought the old TV shows. Darrenhusted 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You're missing the point - Dale Gagner has no relations to anyone in the original AWA, he licensed the name for promotional use, that's all they have in common in any real way - a name, he's not related to the Gagnes, he does not OWN anything the Gagnes owned or anything like that. If I licensed the USWA name tomorrow and claimed that it was a direct lineage to the title of the old USWA would that actually make it so? MPJ-DK 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I don't think we can resolve this, Gagner is claiming lineage, does PWI or anyone else acknowledge it? WWE has claimed ECW's lineage, but at least Heyman gave them approval, I think the Gagne family gave up on AWA in 1991, even Bischoff tried hocking the tape library in '91 to no avail. If Gagner wants to recognise Hogan retroactively as a two-time AWA champ then we need a source like PWI to disagree, othwise I say a note explaining the current state of play needs to be added. Darrenhusted 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WWE can claim ECW's lineage because they OWN the ECW name. Mshake3 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Dale Gange purchased the rights to the AWA, thus Gagne can claim lineage.[1] Mr. C.C. 03:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Since Dale purchased the rights, i think he can then claim lineage. The articles can be merged then. --SteelersFan UK06 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WWE History

There is a good bit of overlap between World Wrestling Entertainment and History of World Wrestling Entertainment. I think the WWE article's history section should be pruned down to a few paragraphs and the rest deferred to the history article, like in the case of WCW. Also, I don't think the company infobox should be on the history page. Anyone agree? DrWarpMind 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I normally would agree, but since WWE is so big and has so many fans on Wikipedia, I'd say the infobox is useful in this case, because it redirects readers to info on the company, old and current.--Screwball23 talk 21:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a current fed, and the biggest in the world, WCW is trimmed down because it existed from 1991-2001, WWE has history going back to 1960. Darrenhusted 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that; I don't think it should get down to the extreme of the WCW page (maybe not the best example I could have used). I just think there is more there than needs to be since there is a whole other article devoted to the topic. Several of the paragraphs in the early history are pretty much identical on each page. DrWarpMind 23:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
WCW was around before 1991. They were under the NWA banner before that and thus was known NWA: WCW at that time as well. Then they branched off and became one of the top promotions in the world during the mid-90's. Mr. C.C. 05:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
NWA:WCW? What the fudge? and the pre-WCW time is covered in Jim Crockett Promotions which it was called before Turner bought it and turned it into WCW. MPJ-DK 06:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It was a TV program for NWA and JCP for three years then in 1991 it became a full promotion, my point was that WWE's history is a lot longer then WCW's. And Dr Mind Warp has already said bad example. Darrenhusted 11:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Corporation/Ministry/Corporate Ministry/Union

Why does The Corporation contain the Corporate Ministry and Union? Shouldn't the Corporate Ministry at least have its own page? There might not be much to say about The Union, but the Corporate Ministry was pretty important at the time. Right now, there's more Corporate Ministry history in the Ministry of Darkness page than in the Corporation one that has the infobox, membership and title info. I propose spinning Corporate Ministry off to its own page that encompasses the info currently contained in these other pages. DrWarpMind 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They're all in one article because neither the Corporate Ministry nor the Union did anything that would make warrant an entire article. I could be wrong, but I believe the Union did have one at one point only to be merged into the the Corporation article as it is now. However, both the Union and Corporate Ministry subsections could use some filling out.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't care so much about the Union here since they didn't really do a whole lot (as I remember it anyway). I'm more focused on the Corporate Ministry. I've never seen stables combined on a page before. Also, didn't the Corporate Ministry form on the first episode of SmackDown? Is that notable? DrWarpMind 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes they did (4-29-99), but then they were only around until July.OwW profile.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that short duration certainly hurts my argument. At any rate, some cleanup is needed here. DrWarpMind 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Union led to Test dating Steph, which led to the wedding angle, which led to HHH and Steph turning on Vince, which led to HHH marrying Steph in real life. Although the whole article needs to be trimmed like Evolution was. Darrenhusted 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I purpose an article for the less important stables like the Union, the Oddities, etc.. Mr. C.C. 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've got a new proposal. I say we spin Corporate Ministry and Union off to their own shared page since their history is so intertwined (Union created to oppose CM, etc). 3 stables on one page makes it kind of cluttered and the Corporation is notable enough to stand on its own (though it's a bit short on content right now). I've been refreshing myself on the history here via YouTube and I think it can be made into something relatively decent, rather than just like 2 lines and some lists on another page. I'm willing to do the change and build up the content but I'm about to go on a wikibreak so it'll be a little while until I get to it.

Sound ok? If not, I'll still get around to building up the content in the existing locations. DrWarpMind 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Given where the whole thing led (mainly to reveal Vince as the higher power, which was spoiled by Bischoff) you may want to rename the page "Higher Power Storyline", or something of that nature. It basically ran from the Survivor Series 98 to the McMahon in each corner at WM2000. Darrenhusted 13:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that the higher power stuff only really applied to the Corporate Ministry era. By WM2000, the fac-gime was in full force and the CM stuff wasn't really a factor anymore since the Undertaker was injured.
The corporation's history breaks down into 3 key eras:
  • 1) Corporation (Survivor Series 98 - 4/29/99)
  • 2) Corporate Ministry (4/29/99 - Undertaker Injury/Ministry more or less disbands (late 99))
  • 3) McMahon-Helmsley Faction (End of CM - HHH Injury/Invasion begins (mid 2001))
- DrWarpMind 14:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to think of an all encompassing title for the whole story, they all revolved around control of the WWE. Darrenhusted 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All Ohio Valley Wrestling sources directing to official website are down

Someone has commented in the CM Punk FAC, stating that all of the Ohio Valley Wrestling sources are down. I've checked at least 5 or 6, and yep, they are down. I'm guessing OVW sources are used on most articles, so they are all going to have to be replaced. Davnel03 07:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, the sources that have results on are going to have to go to Online World of Wrestling now, it seems like OVW have cleared their archive. Davnel03 08:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading somewhere that when a internet source goes dead, you can keep the citation there because that is where you originally got the information. However, adding new sources (that still work) would be a good idea to help verify the info. Nikki311 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would recomend browsing the internet archive's entry on OVW before replacing them, just for the sake of reliability. -凶 02:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

XiBalba

There is an ongoing dispute going on at Talk:Professional wrestling aerial techniques over whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba. Please contribute to the discussion if interested - Timber99 - Timber99 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to post this issue here, as per another user's advice. The actual issue is not "whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba", but an ongoing edit war between users Timber99 and WrestlefnLI. For a more concrete idea of what's going on, please feel free to view the talk page here —Fall Of Darkness 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the contribs there could be 3RR on both sides, blocks to let them cool off my be the first step. Darrenhusted 10:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


Edge and Christian

Much like Evolution, there is a lot of singles career info and crufty lists included here. Is the lingo section really necessary? It looks to me like we can gut a lot of this. DrWarpMind 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither the quotes or the lingo is necessary. If someone really wants it to stay, they can create a WikiQuote for them. Nikki311 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just went through and deleted the quotes and lingo. I can't guarantee someone won't add it back. Nikki311 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think that the last paragraph of post-split, the singles career section and records can pretty much all go as well. DrWarpMind 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Nikki311 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Banderas

I know that many think that he is Mitchells monster but he hasnt appeared on TV yet. I kept removing the information exclusively calling him the monster but it kept being reverted and i got called a sock puppet. Now I know on WWE pages its like this so can someone help me fix it?McBane420 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit war in the making

Ok guys, I'm here trying to avoid an edit war because it's evidently going to take more than just my word to avoid creating one. User:Ohgltxg has started to go around to various articles, take certain championships and list them under different names that've been used along the way. For instances, he's started listing all former holders of the Mid-Atlantic version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, NWA World Television Championship, and NWA United States Heavyweight Championship as WCW reigns even if the reigns that wrestlers had with them occurred prior to these championships being renamed as WCW titles. Some of the wrestlers that held these championships didn't wrestle for the promotion after it was sold to Ted Turner and became WCW. Using this same logic, all WWE titles should literally be referred to as WWE championships in the C&A section of the articles, such as listing Bruno Sammartino as a two time WWE Champion even though his reigns occurred decades before the company was renamed.Odin's Beard 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are in the right. Things should be left the way they were, as per the Sammartino example. --SteelersFan UK06 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a specific date where some titles were renamed "WCW", the naming of said titles should follow that and not retroactivly rename all titles, that's just common sense IMO MPJ-DK 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, and that's what I've mentioned on Ohgltxg's discussion page. It makes no sense to list someone as a WCW World Tag Team Champion, for instance, when a wrestler's reign with the title occurred prior to the renaming of the championship. You can't list someone as holding a championship that, at the time of their reign, didn't technically exist.Odin's Beard 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The dates of the change for titles is clear, just because WWE refers to Bret Hart as a five time "WWE" champion, doesn't mean we have to. Darrenhusted 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
WWE does because they have to for legal reasons. Wikipedia is not bound by such restrictions.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Great American Bash

Does anyone think this article should be split into three seperate articles.

Bencey 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 2 should be fine, NWA and WCW were the same organisation just a change of name, it'd be like splitting WWE PPVs in "WWF" and "WWE", it'd have little meaning - but I agree the NWA/WCW and the WWE PPVs should be split MPJ-DK 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the 2-way split, 18 PPVs on a page is a lot. In Your House is also huge but at least we defer a bunch of them to other pages. DrWarpMind 12:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the semi-protection be on the WWE side of the split? DrWarpMind 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the split, but now that leaves a lot of links in articles that need to be redirected. E.g. links for The Great American Bash 2007 redirect to the NWA/WCW page. - Deep Shadow 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So be bold and deal with it, I would have thought. Also, in my opinion should the articles not be called "The Great American Bash" for the NWA/WCW version, and then "The Great American Bash (WWE)" for the WWE version? This would show that the even is a spin-off from the original. Or something like that. Opinions! --SteelersFan UK06 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the new page should be called The Great American Bash (WWE), because it technically has never been called WWE The Great American Bash. It is like naming issues with the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) or the World Tag Team Championship (WWE). Nikki311 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I just hate the way WWE The Great American Bash looks like as a title. Mshake3 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what, do it as per an existing similar situation: ECW and ECW (WWE). Would this not just make sense? --SteelersFan UK06 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not only would it make sense, that was the format suggested at the beginning. Who's the wize guy that screwed this up anyway? Mshake3 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried to be bold and move the page, but after trying using the [move] tab it wouldn't let me due to the redirect already in place in the new title's article. I then tried to read WP:MOVE and WP:RM on how to move the page, but it all got a bit complicated. How would this be done? From the n00b, SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All other WWE ppv articles have the WWE initials before their name. So for the purpose of being consistent, the WWE ppv was named WWE The Great American Bash -- bulletproof 3:16 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

F consistancy. It sounds stupid. Also, can't we have votes that last longer than a frickin day? Mshake3 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I see now why the page was named in this way. I still feel the article should be moved, purely for the Bash's origins. What should be done? --SteelersFan UK06 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for the redirect to be deleted, which can be done, then move the page to it. Mshake3 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not allowed to do that just yet. Bulletproof reverted my attemps. Nothing against him, just a bit confused as to what to do now. --SteelersFan UK06 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you guys propose the WWE GAB page be moved to then?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I propose WWE The Great American Bash → The Great American Bash (WWE), making "The Great American Bash" and "The Great American Bash (WWE)" in line with ECW and ECW (WWE). --SteelersFan UK06 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But if thats the case then we use the WWE initials before the name of the event to disambiguate as we do with all the other minor WWE PPVs.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling this will not be debated. Fine, I will drop the arguement in favour of current trends in PPV naming. I suppose it doesn't really matter all that much, anyway. --SteelersFan UK06 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if it's not consistant. The current naming sucks, and it should be changed. Mshake3 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Its the event's official name. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The pages for the small ten PPV all start WWE..., there is no reason to chnage this, mainly because all PPV pages need to be consistant and changing to the other nine will actually lead to hundreds of redirects, just sorting out GAB is going to take time. Darrenhusted 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Quality > Consistancy. Besides, the official name would be "WWE Presents The Great American Bash", or "WWE Great American Bash". Please show me where WWE says it otherwise. Mshake3 23:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. [2]-- bulletproof 3:16 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
He's got you there Mshake. Darrenhusted 23:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I hear "The Great American Bash" and "WWE Great American Bash". Either sound fine to me (BUT NOT "WWE The Great American Bash"). Mshake3 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Another one for you-- bulletproof 3:16 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea why you're arguing this, the consensus (remember that?) is for all minor PPV articles to start WWE (insert title here), this has only arisen because of a split, and in fact if the split titles had been put correctly at the top (and by correctly I mean following the MoS of all WWE PPV) then this issue wouldn't have come up. Why have one article with the initials the other way around? The article titles are consistent as they are, as it stands there are still hundreds of articles which will need to have wikilinks fixed, so why not get on with that rather than trying to fight consensus? Darrenhusted 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no consensus because this PPV wasn't included in any past discussions, as it wasn't renamed with all the others. Remember, in YOUR WORDS, consensus can change. Mshake3 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll also add that in this discussion, three users agree that the title should be changed, while you two keep saying "it's policy." Policy is established by user opinion, right? Mshake3 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I never said policy, and you need to read about consensus by silence, if the titles of the minor articles have said WWE... since they were created, and no one has changed them then you can only assume a consensus of silence. Darrenhusted 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No now its just you that wants it changed. The rest said it wasn't important.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Mshake, I really can't see why this is so important to you. I started this arguement way way way way way back (See above) and I've already changed my statement to say that the page should be kept the way it is. Yeah initially I thought that the page should be changed, even went as far as to start changing other things to make way for a move. But after we talked about it here, as should be done in a case like this, a user quite clearly and simply stated that the reason for this is consistency amongst the minor ppv's, keeping links going to the correct places and above all else, i feel, simplicity. Can you not see that it would look sort of stupid now if we had ONE article that went out of the normal style of all the ppv's? All the pages start with WWE...etc, and fair enough to them. I say, now, that that makes the most sense. You said "Quality > Consistency", but where is the issue with quality on the current page? I see no problem. Do you STILL feel that the page should be moved, just to satisfy the difference between WWE's version and the NWA/WCW version? Because i don't. --SteelersFan UK06 05:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WWE The Great American Bash is a god awful article title from a grammer persepective. Drop the "The", or move WWE to the end, and I'll shut up. Until then, this is proof that WP:PW's motto is Consistancy>Quality. Mshake3 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping that is a deliberate "grammer" otherwise you've just undermined your argument. And how is this a consistency before quality issue, it's just you trying to fight consensus over naming of minor WWE PPV articles. Darrenhusted 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So you think the article title sounds fine, even though NO ONE says those four words in that exact order (I'm still waiting for proof). Mshake3 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do you jump back to that? You know that all the other articles are named with WWE..., so why fight this one? And surely WWE The Great American Bash is five words? Darrenhusted 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Mshake, one thing. STOP ARGUING. this is silly - somewhere you know that. The pay per view is named that way for WP:PW MoS reasons. It doesn't matter what way it is "said". This is one of the reasons we are archiving like 8 pages a month...SteelersFan UK06 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Allright, I'll stop for now. But I'll propose the change later on, as I think the initials should only be used for disamb purposes, and they should be at the end of the title, not the beginning. Mshake3

WrestleMania and WrestleMania (1985)

I proposing the move of both these pages:

WrestleMania to WrestleMania (PPV Series)

and

WrestleMania (1985) to WrestleMania

What Ya'll think?--Hornetman16 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Just like with the other big four event, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble are the article about the PPV series. Since the first WrestleMania didn't have a number, it is referred to by year just like SummerSlam (1988), Survivor Series (1987), or Royal Rumble (1988). -- bulletproof 3:16 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Other three of the Big four are always refered to with year. where in history do you remeber hearing the first WrestleMania refered to as WrestleMania 1985? It wasn't.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Where in history do you remember hearing last year's SummerSlam referred to with year? That’s right, never. They always refer to the other events by name without year. That’s why the years are in parenthesis, to disambiguate. The same thing goes for the WrestleMania (1985) page. The event was referred to as WrestleMania without a number like "1", however for disambiguation we use the year of the event in parenthesis.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WWESHOP.com is where.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about when the event was held. When the opening graphics for an event come up they never refer to it by year. Just like when the announcers promote the event.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ever seen that graphics bar above the ring...it show the year.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again thats also used by them to disambiguate, however they have never actually referred to those events by year. Take this years The Great American Bash intro. [3]. Not once referred to by year.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Or last year's Unforgiven. [4] I didn't hear "And now, RAW presents... WWE Unforgived 2006"-- bulletproof 3:16 20:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
WrestleMania is always refered to by number not year. An the other three have the Year number somewhere on set. WrestleMania doesn't.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere on the set doesnt make it the official name of the event. All promotional posters, logos, commercials, etc. for those events have never made use of the year. WrestleMania is different though because after the first one (which was only referred to as WrestleMania without a number 1 in its title) the rest have been referred to by number (with the exception of WrestleMania 2000 which is the only one that was actually referred to by year, which is why the year 2000 isn't in parenthesis). -- bulletproof 3:16 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok take my brother's Undertaker DVD. When it shows one of those four it shows JUST THE NAME withe date and location under that.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly but even there the official name of the event is not referred to with a year in the title. Just a date and location below the event's name, meaning that the year is not part of the name. Its never part of the name. Thats why we use parenthesis to disambiguate. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My god another nitpicky argument - SummerSlam is not referred to by year - which is why the article name is SummerSlam (19XX) or whatever, not SummerSlam 19XX. As for the first WrestleMania it should be under "WrestleMania I" in my view, yes it wasn't called that during the time, but then again was "World War I" known as "World War I" at the time? No it became known as that when a second one happened, same with WrestleMania - before then there weren't any events of this nature so it wasn't a guarantee that there'd be a 2nd one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)

True but unlike World War I, the first WrestleMania has never been called "WrestleMania I". Since it was only referred to by name we use the year in parenthesis just as we do for SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble events that have also never been referred to by event number. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A wise man once said - "Never say never": SIlvervision page the DVD shows the original cover to the WrestleMania tape that was sold years ago (I should know, I have it on my shelf) and it quite clearly says "WrestleMania I" on the cover, official European WWE video distributor and all. So "Never say never" (I'd look for a wwe.com link but I'm lazy and knew this one had what I was looking for) MPJ-DK 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh...No. That cover is of the re-release by Silvervision, not the original. Unless the WWF was WWE in 1985, you got nothing. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, see the article. Chronologically, yes it is "WrestleMania I", just like this year's SummerSlam is really "SummerSlam 20", but officially, as was used in the actual event, the name of the event is WrestleMania. But like McPhail said, the franchise holds the prime article name. Therefore we use the year in parenthesis to disambiguate, just as we do with SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The WrestleMania franchise as a whole is far more important than the inaugural event, and thus deserves the prime article name. WrestleMania (1985) is a good compromise in that it does not support nor oppose the retroactive naming of the event "WrestleMania 1" / "WrestleMania I". McPhail 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • how could you say that. without the inaugral event the franchise wouldn't exsist.-Hornetman16 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • As a whole, yes, the franchise is more important than the inaugural event just as the article of the entire franchise is more important than the article of the first event.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as I've been canvassed, these type of moves will do nothing but waste time and cause confusion, none of the other big four are numbered, and some would even dispute Royal Rumble's numbering because is the first one really a PPV? Keep as is, if I'm looking to WMI and I go to WM page then a quick scroll will find it. We are not here to make the search process idiot proof (Simpsons Movie joke). Darrenhusted 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Who types in WrestleMania (1985) to get to the first WrestleMania besides the people that have done it before?--Hornetman16 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
No one types WrestleMania (1985), but once they have typed "WrestleMania" then at least they are on the right page for the information they are looking for. Hornetman16 you canvassed me, I don't know why, and I have told you what I think. The PPVs are all fine as they are, the big 4, the small 10, the defunct 16, all fine. Darrenhusted 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the KISS method. If it isn't broken, then why should we fix it? There is no problem with the organization, so let's just leave it. Simplicity is bliss. The Hybrid 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll tell you why. IT'S YOUR JOB.--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • So have you sent me my paycheck or are you going to mail it out later?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • First of all, it was a rhetorical question, meant to drive home my point. Secondly, this is not my job; it is my hobby, and I don't appreciate your rudeness. Please, have a drink or something. Wikipedia isn't worth getting upset over. If you have found yourself on your last nerve, then take a wikibreak or something. Trust me, those work miracles. Cheers, The Hybrid 06:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sigh* what-the-heck-ever, I'm tired of these nitpicky, stupid arguments about stuff that doesn't in any way improve the articles one little bit. Sorry that I thought WP:PW had actually improved for a minute there. MPJ-DK 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PW

This gets thrown around a lot. Can't we create a list of these "ruilings" with linked evidence so that when someone says "per WP:PW", we know he's just not talking out of his backside? Mshake3 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, there are the archives feel free to trawl. Darrenhusted 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping it would be the other way around. If someone wants to cite established ruilings, then they should find the ruiling themselves. Mshake3 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Most times it refers to a talk issue that is already being discussed, such as if someone were to do something to WrestleMania then I would revert is and say "per discussion at WP:PW". Darrenhusted 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with shake, if "per discussion at WP:PW" isn't followed by a link to the actual discussion any non-WP:PW members may not know what the heck that even means (it could be archived by then). Not only that but at times the "Per discussion" thing is a misinterpretation or someone tries to push a minority view in that discussion (a certain TJ springs to mind). I agree with shake, if you're citing WP:PW as a reason then in the tradition of Wikipedia you should cite it with a source or it's not really any good. MPJ-DK 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
We just need to find where the ruilings were made. Heck, it would be interesting to see how the votes went at the time considering some recent events on here. And once they're found, we can post them on the project home page, for everyone to see. Mshake3 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think looking for stuff is a concern, unless there is a specific example Shake can give. Maybe in future any per WP:PW should be challenged and then the editor will be forced to back the quote up. Darrenhusted 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well per WP:PW now you do have to link it - see how that works? ;) MPJ-DK 11:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling video games

Take a look at this: Category:WWE video games and this Category:Professional wrestling games. I see many small subcats, and just overcategorization in my view. Games such as Day of Reckoning (2 total games, a sequel could happen, but doubtful at this point) and Legends of Wrestling (3 games, sequel very unlikely) should just be in the main WWE games category, not as a subcat which is what they are currently. I noticed this as well: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Wrestling_video_games. All ended in no consensus. So apparently the CFD wasn't listed anywhere: as one person voted keep in all of them. I think a new CFD that people know about, needs to happen for some of the categories at least. Thoughts, opinions, comments? RobJ1981 07:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The Legends of Wrestling category should definitely be deleted, but not moved into the WWE category, as they are not WWE games. --MarcK 09:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, my mistake. Upon further looking, here is where I suggest everything goes. All the subcats for professional wrestling games should be merge into the main category: Fire Pro could be an exception. All the subcats for WWE games should be merged into WWE games itself, with possible exceptions for: Smackdown series (as it's still active and long running), Raw series (same reason). As for WCW games, ECW games: either stick them in WWE games (as WWE owns the rights to both companies), or put them in the main wrestling games category. Does all that sound right? Frankly, all these little categories for small series (many inactive, and probably never coming back) is clutter and just overcategorizing in my view. RobJ1981 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Merge all the smaller cats, just two are needed WWE and non-WWE. Possibly Smackdown as that is the only ongoing series (it moves to all format this year). Darrenhusted 11:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I've manged to merge some of the categories so far (by correcting the categories in the articles themselves). But a mass CFD is still needed, so people don't just revert my merging. I'm not sure how to do that though. If someone could do that, it would be appreciated. Later today, I will make a list of categories that need to go. RobJ1981 10:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Juggalo Championshit/p Wrestling

Looks like we've seen a WWF/E name change for the Insane Clown Posse's Juggalo Championshit Wrestling, which is now going by the more traditional Championship. Unfortunately this is leading to (good faith) "update" edits, changing the name in places where it was Championshit at the time. (like Monty Brown's championship reign) I just wanted to alert the project to it, should you see it referenced in an article before last as Championship it's probably incorrect.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Injury superstars

Edge, Big Mark, Rey Rey and Big Nose need to be watched as they are currently the victims of frequent crystal balling as to when they will return. I know Tripper is on the SS07 poster but setneces saying "he will return in 29 days" are the stuff of new sites and not suitable for an encyclopedia. I have all four on my watchlist but if anyone sees anything predictive or unencyclopedic could they revert it, until an wrestler has returned‎ any details about his return are still up in the air (the 'Slam/HHH thing could be a swerve, like The Book did the other week). Once they come back a simple "X returned from injury on the X of X at X" will do. Darrenhusted 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image listed for Deletion

Dicussion located here.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalism

An IP has been vandalizing the Matt Hardy article lately by changing his number of title reigns. I've warned him/her and so has someone else, yet he/she keeps doing it. Is there anything that can be done? Can IP addresses be blocked if they don't have an account? Here is a list of his/her contributions, all of which are vandalism....HERE. Nikki311 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, report them at AIV. Darrenhusted 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Nikki311 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fresh off their recent block, they vandalized the Matt Hardy page again. I've given them an "only warning" so the next time they disrupt this or any article, please report them. - Deep Shadow 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WWE Bad Blood

There has been repeated vandalism on the Bad Blood PPV page by more than one IP. The vandalism always entails Matt Hardy defeating Edge. Honestly, I wouldn't be bringing this up if I wasn't so green on Editing, but I don't know what to do about it. Ideas, please?

Also, instructions on how to revert to a saved version of the page for future reference would be nice ^^; --ProtoWolf 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Found the instructions on reverting myself.--ProtoWolf 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image under fair use review - could be deleted

Discussion here. Davnel03 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Missy Hyatt

This may have slipped under the radar, but her page was prodded and deleted recently. I think she deserves a page for sure, one of the most notable female wrestling personalities, and very influential, and was part of major wrestling organizations for years. Considering such female wrestling personalities such as Ryan Shamrock and such have pages, I think this page should be recreated. Biggspowd 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably wasn't sourced which is why it was prodded, so it needs to be sourced when it's recreated to make sure it's safe from deletion MPJ-DK 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A great moment for WP:PW - CM Punk now Feature Article!!!

Finally!! We have a wrestler finally at FA status. I couldn't help but thank endless people for this: Nikki311, TheHybrid, MPJ-DK, Gowy, 3bulletproof16, Darrenhusted, Deep Shadow, Hornetman16 (and Lid!!) hell, I could go on all day! Congratulations, CM Punk is a featured article!!! :) Davnel03 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of the 3500 edits of the article I have made 850 of them and I still don't get noticed, I am so very far under the radar. –– Lid(Talk) 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That is extremely awesome, congratulations are in order especially to Lid the underappriciated Wikipedian ;) Two featured articles and more to come, excellent MPJ-DK 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Nitro Girls & other "Unnotable people"

I've noticed that some of the Nitro Girls' pages and other performers' pages have been deleted completely with no explanation or a discussion about redirecting the information to antoehr page or whatnot.These pages should have a discussion on them before they are completely deleted.(MgTurtle 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

Well, a couple of the Nitro Girls who had little career outside of their time in the group were merged into the main article. Nothing was deleted completely...just relocated. Nikki311 03:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Test and Kayfabe

Honestly this is getting ridiculous - Andrew Martin, prime target of updates since he signed with TNA and made his debut at the TV tapings. It's being removed with the comment "maintaining kayfabe" - What is that? it's not a wrestling website but an encylopedia, if a source can be provided for his apperance it should stay, we can't be on spoiler alert and do 8 million reverts just because it hasn't been on TV yet. This is seriously getting out of hand, is it realy this project's general view that kayfabe must be maintained? DOesn't that strike at the very base of Wikipedia's "No in universe" policy? I say get a source on his apperance, put it in and leave it be! MPJ-DK 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We do not maintain kayfabe here. If it's verifiable (and notable, obviously), it goes in.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is quoting Kayfabe? If anything it would be WP:CRYSTAL, assuming his appearance does get shown on TV. Darrenhusted 22:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's crystalballing to speculate whether or not a significant appearence for the company's bi-weekly tv taping will actually air. Mshake3 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a page where it says about Test's debut SPOILERS for this weeks and next weeks TNA contained. I say we should use spoiler tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnel03 (talk • contribs)

It's not crystalballing to say that he appared at the tapings and did whatever, because he did do it, it has happened, it is a fact, whether it ends up on TV is a slightly different matter really - or are we saying "if it isn't on TV it hasn't happened"?? As for the "maintaining kayfabe" 1) it was a revert comment made on the article and 2) if we keep up this "if it isn't shown on TV then it shouldn't be mentioned" policy then we are in fact maintaining Kayfabe here. And nowhere was it speculated when it would air, just that he showed up at the TV tapings, nothing crystalball-like thereMPJ-DK 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree MPJ, I was saying that quoting "kayfabe" as reason to not mention a TV taping is incorrect, and that the only real reason could be WP:CRYSTAL, and even then it probably doesn't apply. Darrenhusted 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We can't know it'll be shown until it is, and if it isn't, it's not really notable. Even then, what is considered a reliable source? If the websites with backstage news and such aren't considered reliable, then there's really no reliable source to say he did anything at all. Koberulz 06:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal life section

If the dates of people's marriages or the births of their children are know and have sources, should they be put in this section? I think they should be but it should have some source.Any opinions?(MgTurtle 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).

Do you have anyone in mind? Darrenhusted 23:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is the point of the section. Nikki311 23:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well 'Taker for example has both his daughters birthdays (minus the actual day) & the same thing with Nidia's daughter. But I just what I'm trying to say are the people who have books (e.g. Mick Foley and others who actually tell the children's birthdays).I think that it should be in this section but I wanted people's opinions.And other people like Test or Trish Stratus need to have sources for their personal life sections. That's all I'm saying.(MgTurtle 03:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).
If there is a source. Personally I would tend to omit the month and day, though. McPhail 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of Indentity theft? This is still an encyclopedia and all encyclopedias have the birthdays of children if they are known..(MgTurtle 22:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).
You should read up on WP:BLP before adding anything else relating to a person's private life. As for the kids and such, I think "They are married and have three kids" will normally do, unless you are talking about Harry Smith and Davey Boy Smith, or the like. I would say rule of thumb is does the article really need it? Darrenhusted 23:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Deceased Wrestlers

I think that we should put the survivors of the wrestlers on their pages.For example,Ray Traylor is survived by his wife and two daughters.We don't have to put parents and stuff like that just wives and children.Any opinions.(MgTurtle 18:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).

I don't see why. I personally wouldn't take the time to do that, largely because I am not a rabid fan of celebrities. If it is known, by all means; it may be interesting to know what children and family a wrestler has left behind...but then again, it is usually highly trivial and unimportant anyway.--Screwball23 talk 04:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Spilt at Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)

Hornetman16 has suggested that the ECW on Sci Fi bit of the article should be split from the rest of the article. Leave your thoughts here. Davnel03 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I put a prod

On Kane the undertaker, seems as though it slipped the cracks. If it gets removed and I don't AFD right away, someone please take the honor for me ;) Nosleep1234 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's actually a CSD nonsense. You don't need to wait five days. (edit) And now it is gone. Darrenhusted 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, well good enough. Nosleep1234 10:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake move names

Are the fake gimmick names that WWE has never used for certain moves really needed? That's just false information. "World's Greatest Finisher?" And where did you hear that? I could name like a thousand other examples. Maxwell85 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Unless there is a source for the move names, we try and remove them. They just get continually added back from fanboys and girls who want to name their favorite wrestler's move. Nikki311 03:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Maxwell85 feel free to remove any names of moves that seem fake. Darrenhusted 10:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, fake names are one of my biggest pet peeves with some of the bio articles. People seem to think they're witty and the world needs to know that, there have been some truly horrible ones posted on the Johnny Nitro article. I went ahead and wiped every name from the Monty Brown article until people provided sources.«»bd(talk stalk) 13:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fake move names are a scourge on Wikipedia. When in doubt, delete and request a source. McPhail 22:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Posters vs. DVD covers

Do we show the Promotional posters (other than the big four ppvs) or DVD covers.-- Kip Smithers 14:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My stance has always been the posters, as they're generally more creative. The DVD cover seems to just show who wrestled, and I find it very dull and not worth listing. Mshake3 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
When possible why can't we do both? Albums have an "alternate cover" field in their infobox.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does this arguement always come up, again and again? It seems that bd has just solved all our problems. Add posters as main image, DVD covers as alt covers. Maybe we have our first step towards cutting down the constant archiving of repeated debates... --SteelersFan UK06 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania

Do we show posters for the WrestleMania articles?-- Kip Smithers 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked through the wrestlemania articles? Darrenhusted 18:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
We use logos for WM, and the big three. Darrenhusted 15:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • NO, actually, we olny use the logo for WM...using the logo on the other big three violates WP:FU.--Hornetman16 (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
See above arguement titled "Posters vs. DVD covers". Man, sometimes, you just gotta wonder. --SteelersFan UK06 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Convertible Blondes

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Convertible Blondes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Are Slammy Awards "accomplishments"

I already forget which article I saw it in, but someone had their Slammy Awards listed in their Championships and accomplishments section. Do we do that? The only ones I can really think of that really mattered were Owen Hart's, and that was as part of his actual bio, not separate in the titles section.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you know III

Did you know... that for the third time one of my "Did you knows" ended up on the Main Page?? Yup it's true from the Norvell Austin article I recreated the other day the following little point to ponder

...that professional wrestler Norvell Austin was part of the first mixed race bad guy Tag team in the Southern United States?

Not bad, 3 times nomminated, three times on the main page MPJ-DK 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

XiBalba / Brimstone / Iconoclasm dispute

There is a really complicated dispute going on that is becoming hard to keep track of. Its been touched on on a lot of talk pages of both users and the wrestling moves page. Something really needs to be done as it is getting out of hand. I was involved in the dispute and thought it was over and now in the last 24 hours it has rebegun. - Timber99 - Timber99 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has been sent to the Request for Mediation page. -Fall Of Darkness 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Free-use/Fair-use images

I was thinking about cleaning up Nancy Benoit's article a bit more and nominating it for Good Article status. Before I nominate it, I wanted to ask everyone here about Free-use/Fair-use images. I know living people are supposed to have free-use images. What about for dead people? I checked WP:FU and didn't see anything about it (although I could have just missed it). If the picture is irreplaceable by a fair-use picture, is of low-quality, adds to the article, and doesn't hinder anybody from selling anything (because her image is easily accessible all over the internet)...isn't it okay to use? I just want to make sure before I begin uploading anything. Thanks. Nikki311 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Style questions and comments

Hello WP: Professional Wrestling gang! I've been away from the project and Wikipedia as a whole for quite some time and have just recently returned and started to contribute again. I have some questions and comments for you guys and I hope you will be patient with me and consider what I have said and comment/answer my questions accordingly (citing policy if relevant). Thanks!

  • There seemed to be some kind of (unwritten to my knowledge) general consensus at one point to italicize the names of televised wrestling shows and pay-per-views. I know we do this with RAW and SmackDown! and believe this to be correct. But what about things like SummerSlam 2002 or WrestleMania 23? Is it still correct to italicize things like this? Please include reasoning in your answer as to why or why not they should be italicized.
  • I don't know if there is a general rule to follow on abbreviations, but it makes sense to me that for every article, the first mention of something like "World Wrestling Entertainment" should always have the common abbreviation (if there is one) afterwards (e.g. World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), and THEN and ONLY then (now that it has been established what "WWE" means), can the abbreviation "WWE" be used by itself. This happens A LOT; an abbreviation crops up out of nowhere when it has not been introduced previously in the article. And yes, you, me and Joe Blow know what WWE, WWF, WCW, TNA etc. stand for but many people in the world do not. Thoughts on this (please provide reasoning)?

Comments (personal feelings - feel free to cite official Wiki policy to me etc. if it exists):

  • Over linking - I feel that there is a general over linking problem specifically in (but not limited to) professional wrestling related articles. It is my understanding that, in general (but not a hard in fast rule), something only needs to be wiki-linked the first time it appears in an article (with some exceptions):
    • Example article: Triple H (NOTE: This is just an EXAMPLE, I am NOT saying the instances I have listed below necessarily appear in the article I am talking about - but we try to format all the wrestler articles the same way, promotion articles the same way etc.)
      • Link in question World Wrestling Entertainment
        • It obviously makes sense to link this in the first paragraph of the article because it is the first time it appears in the article.
        • "Championships and accomplishments" section - again, I can see here how the link to WWE makes sense again. This is a section of wrestler articles that is possibly often viewed independently of the entire article (someone looks only at this section because they are only interested in stats).
        • In captions on pictures (I could go either way on this - its not really what I'm concerned with).
        • Randomly linked again here and there in the body of the article - Not Needed - the link has already been introduced.
        • In sections like "Outside of Wrestling" - Not Needed.
      • Link in question: Shawn Michaels
        • The first time his name appears in Triple H's article it should be linked.
        • If he was a Manager of Triple H then I suppose it may be linked again in the Manager section (I don't think this is necessary if its already in the body of the article but I wont fight it or remove these links).
        • I don't feel, however, that Shawn Michaels (or whatever wrestler) needs to be linked every time his name appears in the "Championships and accomplishments" section of Triple H's (or whoever's) article. If it has to be linked again here at all (given that it already appears in the body of the article), the first mention of the name in that section should be linked and subsequent mentions of the name in that section should not be linked. This would go for any other similar sections of articles.
      • Link in question: WWE Home Video
        • On Triple H's page this link appears 3 times in the "Media" section of the article back to back. Is this necessary? Can only the first mention be linked? (Again if this is how to do it according to some official Wiki policy, please feel free to point this out to me). I just bring it up because I think its redundant.
      • Link(s) in question: Dates in general

(The following text has been copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (autoformatting and linking) section:

Autoformatting and linking

  • Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the WikiMedia software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users. It works only for users who are registered, and for all others will be displayed as entered.

Do not autoformat dates that are:

    • in article and section headings,
    • on disambiguation pages,
    • within quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).

The autoformatting mechanism will not accept date ranges (December 13–17, 1951) or slashes (the night of 30/31 May), which must be input without using the function. Thus:

    • either [[January 15]] (US editors) or [[15 January]] (others) will be rendered as either January 15 or 15 January, according to a registered user's set preferences; and
    • [[January 15]], [[2001]] (US editors), [[15 January]] [[2001]] (others), [[2001-01-15]] (ISO), or [[2001 January 15]] will be rendered as January 15, 2001, 15 January 2001, 2001-01-15, or 2001 January 15, according to a registered user's set preferences.
  • Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.

Please note the line I have bolded above. I believe the over linking and misuse of date linking is probably an issue for many of our wrestling articles. Ask yourself, does linking every date that something happened (Wrestling event, title change etc.) in every article REALLY and ACTUALLY "deepen reader's understanding of a topic"? I'm not so sure it does. Please comment on this issue with your own thoughts and interpretations of the date linking policy.

And its not just over linking - its the fact that linking seems to be done haphazardly. Sometimes dates are linked, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes its the full date, sometimes its just the day/month. Sometimes a year is linked and sometimes not. And its not always just a "only link it the first time it appears in an article" issue ....its just all over the place, I don't know how to explain it better. There needs to be some kind of policy to follow.

These are just a few things that I think we might need to work on with this project regarding style and formatting. These are my ideas and opinions and I'm not trying to step on any toes. I just want to know how things should be done properly and whether or not we need to come to a general consensus on some of these and other issues (if there isn't one already). Some of the things I have talked about here continuely get changed or formatted differently depending on the article (by both experienced and non experienced users) - So I think the Project needs to represent a united front on as many issues as possible regarding style and formatting so that everyone is correcting things the same way (whatever way that may be).

I also feel that some of this information (mainly the parts specific to wrestling articles) belongs in this project's style guide section for reference for all users.

Another reason I bring these things up is that I seem to come across comments here and there on various pages throughout Wikipedia that people seem to think this project and its contents are a joke or waste of time. People don't use those words specifically, but after reading enough comments over the months/years in different places, that is what I have inferred. It probably has to do with how many people view professional wrestling in the first place ("fake", "rigged", "blue collar", "stupid" whatever) which is unfortunate. I just happen to really enjoy it for its entertainment value! ..ok I'm getting off topic ..but anyway the more things we can do to streamline and clean up this project, the less certain people might stop looking down on it (or whatever you want to call it) and start helping with it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it currently, but like many aspects of Wikipeida (and life in general) there is room for improvement and I would like to help with these type of administrative issues because I really enjoying organizing things.

Ok I think I've used up enough space here - please let the comments flow! :)

--Naha|(talk) 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the writing formats and rules you have put forth. However, I disagree strongly with you on the issue of cleaning up the wrestling wikiproject. Notably, just about everything is wrong with the wikiproject; it is not researched through good sources, only from simpletons using the WWE.com page to find week-by-week events. Not once have I seen fan reaction to, or analysis of a wrestler's career history. I only see, with as you stated, dates, details, and names of arcane pay-per-views, wrestling events etc, when different events took place. Even as a wrestling fan, a term I use loosely, I must say, just about all of the articles are rather boring and written in an unencyclopedic tone.

I think the wikiproject has changed for the worst. The Montreal Screwjob, for example, was written with such interest, passion, and intense cooperation, it reached the status of "Today's FA" on the main page. Instead, now, CM Punk, and an array of no-name wrestlers are being promoted to Good-Article class because of nice referencing, but a lack of knowledge. Let me show you an example from CM Punk, an article even wrestling fanatics couldn't stand to read:

Punk's home promotion for his early career is usually considered to be Independent Wrestling Association: Mid-South (IWA:Mid-South).[3] What does that mean? That meanst that nobody knows, but it is considered to be that promotion? That means he was on the indy circuit, moving, travelling, wrestling in various promotions, but some nerd decided to look for the oldest history of him wrestling, and found documented evidence that he was first there.

During Punk's time in IWA:Mid-South he had high profile feuds with Colt Cabana and Chris Hero while also rising to the top of the roster winning the IWA Mid-South Light-Heavyweight Championship twice and the IWA Mid-South Heavyweight Championship on five separate occasions. He became a popular draw at the promotion, rising through the ranks for his noted extreme stunts and high-risk manuevers. Feuding with such high-profiles as Colt Cabana and Chris Hero, he soon bested them in clean wrestling ability to become champion, achieving the Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight titles in multiple title reigns (I don't think the exact # will matter, especially in the article. The bottom has Championships and Achievements).

Notably his feud with Hero included a 55-minute TLC match,[3] a 93-minute two out of three falls match[6] and several 60-minute draws.[8] Punk's matches with Cabana led him to being hired by Ring of Honor promotion.[6] Only a dipshit couldn't put two and two together here. What it should read is that During his high-intensity feud with Hero, Punk received great popularity for exciting, high-endurance matches, including a dangerous TLC match. His performances, notably under a hardcore, high-endurance setting gained him the interest of the Ring of Honor promotion, which offered him a contract.

During his time in IWA:Mid-South he would also meet, wrestle against and become a friend of Eddie Guerrero.[3][6] who really cares? talk about how that may have affected his wrestling training or backstage politics, or something. Or else it's dull trivia.

From February 2003 until May 2004 Punk refused to wrestle for IWA:Mid-South. Punk claims that this was in protest to Ian Rotten's treatment of Chris Hero;[3] however Hero himself has stated he believes there were other reasons and Rotten's treatment of him was just an excuse by Punk to stop working for the company.[9] This sounds somewhat interesting, but it really has no meat to it. For whatever reason, Punk refused to wrestle for Mid South for roughly a year (2003-4); likely reasons include a lower pay, rough travelling schedule, backstage issues, or even laziness, considering that he had joined the more professional, more renowned ROH promotion. Punk claimed that it was in protest of unfair treatment of fellow wrestler Chris Hero by the company, but many, including Hero himself, dismiss this as an alibi to distance himself from the promotion after being accepted by the ROH company.

Eventually Punk returned to IWA:Mid-South and continued to perform as a wrestler and commentator for them until 2005 when he was signed to World Wrestling Entertainment. His last appearance in IWA:Mid-South was on 2 July 2005 in which he competed in a sixty-minute time limit draw against Delirious. Completely unimportant. All trivia. Ok, he came back, but that is not important. A trivia could say "Did you Know?" that he was under contract to the Mid South promotion before being accepted to WWE, wrestling his last match on 2 July 2005 with Delirious, a 60 min time limit draw? I mean, who gives a shit? I can't believe someone would bother to write the day, the outcome, his opponent, and a whole bunch of details about CM Punk's uneventful return to the company.

I did this to show how out of reality the wrestling fans who edit the wikiproject are. The research is mind-boggling, because it is from the wrestling sites alone, and is not interpretated with any thought. If it were, it might read as a story, like what I was able to put together.--Screwball23 talk 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok, I admit it I agree with you completely. I just find it so easy to accidently hurt people's feelings or get on people's bad sides etc around here (Wikipedia in general) that I was trying to very carefully choose my words. Normally I have zero tact and get in lots of trouble for it (a large part of my several month absence from WP) ...but I'm trying (very hard) to do better in an effort to actually have people work with me instead of against me. I'm glad to know there is at least one other out there who feels the same way! (That the project needs help, that is). Please please ..other people voice your opinions because this Project does need help. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly glad that all wrestling fans are lumped into one great big category if slack-jawed bumpkins who're lucky enough to even use this here "Kumputer" and get on that "Interweb". Insulting the people on this project isn't exactly the best way to go around getting them to actually listen to you - and hey let's just ignore WP:Civil while we're at it too - it's not for those that write wrestling articles. isn't it funny that you don't mind complaining about the CM Punk article, how about improving it instead? or is complaining just easier? (not directed at the original author who has a ton of good points about writing style etc but then gets his message corrupted by negativity) MPJ-DK 05:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? :P --Naha|(talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah btw when I have a bit of time I'll give you my take on the original suggestion, it has a lot of good stuff in it. MPJ-DK 05:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright a helpful responce to a very well thought out post by Naha. (In bullet list below)
  • I didn’t know about the italics for shows, my view is that it shouldn’t actually be used – italics are generally for stressing a point and that type of thing, not to illustrate a show name. My view? Get rid of it.
  • It’s a common rule of writing, don’t use an abbreviation before you explain it – unfortunately that’s a rule a lot of wrestling articles violate (repeatedly)
  • Linking My take on the linking? Acceptable linkage in my view extends to the following and nothing more.
  • First time the name or term is used in the general text – the only exception I’ve used is if I refer to old names of the WWE like Capitol Sports or WWWF I sometimes link the name there too.
  • First time it’s used in the “In Wrestling” section (optional)
  • First time it’s used in the “Championships and Accomplishments”
  • Date linking
  • the MoS quoted generally means that when full dates & year are listed they should be linked but not when it’s just a date with no year, a year with no specific date, a month or a day of the week (Monday) – then they should only be linked if helps the reader’s understanding. So January 21, 1999 - yes. January 21 – no. 1999 – no. January – no. Monday – no. The linking of full date isn’t just to link the date but to use the automatic format of dates according to your preference (so that it can be shown in the local format).
Further comments – I’m totally with you, the Styleguide needs to be maintained and actually referenced to when changes are made, case in point – the “In wrestling” section, is that the right place for nicknames? The right place for quotes? The more lists we put in that section the more crufty it seems. The fact that the styleguide doesn’t refer to the info boxes is criminal and something I’ve pointed out ages ago. And yes the project does get the “wrestling is just fake and as such fairgame” – just look at the articles that have been allowed to be gutted completely, never happened to say Tom Hanks there’d be an uproar and a banning or 4. MPJ-DK 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Excellent points and suggestions MPJ. This is just what I was looking for. I hope other people keep them coming, in a week or so after many have voiced their opinions I plan to start trying to re-write/organize the Style Guide portion of this project to keep it in-line with Wikipedia policy and guidelines (if applicable) and then take a look at re-organizing the entire project so that we may get it on the track it needs to be on. --Naha|(talk) 12:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
As for Screwball’s comments – please note the appropriate sections on “No Original Research” and the removal of “Peacock” and “weasel” words since your suggestions are littered with examples of all three. Interpretations quickly lead to “Original Research” which is a big, bad buzzword at Wikipedia, we’re not writing wrestling columns here it’s an encyclopedia that should generally contain verifiable facts not rumors, speculations or interpretations. MPJ-DK 10:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MPJ-DK's take on the style points, except about the italics. It is common usage on Wikipedia to use italics for the name of a work of art, such as a television show, or movie, but not for the name of a sports event (see Manual of Style (Titles)). (We had an inconclusive discussion about this last November). The problem with the names of wrestling shows is that they are part theatrical presentation, and part sports event. My take is that the names of TV shows should always be italicized, and the names of Pay Per Views should only be italicized when referring to a specific show, eg. Wrestlemania 23, but not when talking about the annual phenomenon of Wrestlemania. - Geoffg 02:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments; I was actually just wondering about the WrestleMania 23 vs. WrestleMania issue earlier today as far as itallics go! --Naha|(talk) 02:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My beefs: Mentioning the year and company initials too many times. When you're talking about a wrestler's career in a promotion, you don't have to keep mentioning said promotion's name for every championship, PPV, or TV show. And for dates, when it's established that you're discussion events of 2007, you don't have to mention 2007 everytime a date is listed! Mshake3 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

so you're saying that instead of using it's full name we have to pipe link (using the "|") it as "The Intercontinental title"?? I think most of them mention the promotion name for the title because that's the name of the article - or that's how it's referred to in general. And I don't think anyone said you HAD to write 2007 every time, just that if you do - make sure it's fully linked. MPJ-DK 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The full name should be mentioned one time, when it's first mentioned. And from there, you don't mention have to say the promotion's name again. For example, "In his WWE Intercontiental Championship match, Orton won by hitting Edge with the WWE Intercontiental Championship belt." See the problem with that? AND OF COURSE NO ONE HAD TO WRITE 2007 EVERY TIME! But that's what people do on here. And it's lame. Mshake3 12:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, alright calm down ;) - I agree that when referring to a title for the second (or third etc.) there is no need to call it the "WWE Intercontinental title", that's just poor English and well I didn't really imagine that a lot of articles were that bad (you may be able to tell that I tend to stay away from the articles on the top names today). and well if you want to do the date link to help with local format you kinda do have to write 2007, which was my point - nothing more, nothing less it was actually that simple in it's beauty. Peace, love and hairgrease :) MPJ-DK 14:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The italics issue is nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's basic English "law" to italicise names of TV shows, books, films, etc. Koberulz 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Move the Above

I suggest that the above discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide (Where all their is is a redirect to here). Its getting a bit out of hand here and it would be more appropriate there, i think. Just a suggestion...--SteelersFan UK06 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Davnel03 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Move

Move requested here!--Hornetman16 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

TonyWWE

Although TonyWWE is not a vandal, they are adding copyrighted images to articles under a free use license. Example is in the Brian Kendrick article. Here is one instance where they are trying to add this image to the article. However, the source has "all rights reserved". They are also adding images to other articles such as Mickie James, Super Crazy and Candice Michelle. - Deep Shadow 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Missy Hyatt

She doesn't have a page, did this fall through the wiki-cracks? Can someone create a page? --Endlessdan 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It was blanked then deleted. Why don't you start it?«»bd(talk stalk) 12:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
My resources are limited at my job. For some reason, the only sites that work are dictionary.com & wikipedia. If someone were to get the page going, I'd gladly contribute in any way possible. --Endlessdan 14:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just very quickly recreated it; I've got stuff to do, so it needs a definite improvement otherwise it will get deleted again - it's only 1 line long! Davnel03 15:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Its already been deleted. I'll take a crack at writing a new article. Eggy49er 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I figured if people (and I use the term loosley) like Sable get a Wiki, Missy should get one. I can't believe she's been around for almost 30 years.--Endlessdan 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I created a new page for Hyatt. Hopefully it sticks around. Eggy49er 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn, that's pretty good for something you just whipped up. I'll see if I can contribute anything. Thanks! --Endlessdan 17:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Infobox

Shouldn't Pacman Jones have a second infobox in the Pro Wrestling section listing his wrestling stats. I mean Arnold (the governor of California) as three on his page...Politician infobox, Movie star infobox, and a Body Builder infobox. Doesn't it make sense?--Hornetman16 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My only comment?... then add one MPJ-DK 04:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what stats to add.--Hornetman16 (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought the info box page explained it very nicely what information goes where and everything MPJ-DK 06:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking about info like:
  • Billed Weight/Height
  • Billed From
  • Ring Name

I don't know what to put there.--Hornetman16 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Just leave those blank unless TNA gives him a fake birthplace, name (which would be stupid) and/or vital statistics. --MarcK 11:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I've added the wrestler infobox, but is there anyway the widths of the two templates can be the same, so that it looks better (our one looks way smaller compared to the NBA one) Davnel03 13:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he should have one until he actually steps into the ring and wrestles. The reports are conflicting, last I heard at least, as to if he will. If it turns out that all he ends up doing over the next year is standing near Jeff Jarrett he wouldn't really need one.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, he's not a wrestler till he wrestles. --Naha|(talk) 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It got reported on NFL - Total Access that the NFL / his team (not sure) have banned him from competing in TNA. Said he can't compete in anything that there is a chance of physical injury, or something like that? Anyone else hear this? --SteelersFan UK06 19:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Need for a WikiProject Wrestling Library?

I've been thinking that we could do with something like this for a while, especially when dealing with not so well known articles. I think it would be good, so you if you needed to know a specific detail about someone (e.g. something about Eric Bischoff's childhood), you could ask the holder of the book and they would be able to tell you some things, as well as a page reference. I think it a suitable structure would be something like this or this. A section for WWE books, Autobiographies and possibly magazine editions. What do you guys think of possibly having a Professional wrestling library section? (I'll try and do a design in my sandbox.)Davnel03 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea - basically what you are saying is that everyone involved with the project can list whatever books/magazines/DVDs or other media they actually own, so that other people may pose questions to them directly concerning that media? I'd be glad to help. I have a few books, a magazine subscription and a few DVDs/VHS tapes as well and would be more than glad to provide the details on each! --Naha|(talk) 15:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
DVD's I wasn't thinking of because I don't think you can provide them as a source for something on Wikipedia. Davnel03 16:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure? Because that would be a real shame. There are lots of, for instance, WWE/F VHS and DVDs with interview (out of character) segments not to mention documentation of matches themselves. --Naha|(talk) 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah OK. I haven't got any time to add that now but if someone wants to add that to the bottom now; please do. I've created the page (hence the reason why the link is blue!!!); so feel free to put your own books (and DVDs) on there. ps. For me, that would be every WWE event since 2002 for DVDs!! Davnel03 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I really like this idea. I just added my name to a couple of the existing books on the list and added three that weren't on there yet. Nikki311 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Added DVDs. Davnel03 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I still have a crap ton of magazines to list, in addition to some more books and of course DVDs and VHS'. I'll probably get them all listed by the end of the month. --Naha|(talk) 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

First Female rated in PWI

Okay, It says on Chyna's page that she was the first and only female to be ranked in the PWI top 500 men ranking but wasn't Jacqueline ranked in I believe 1993, and wasn't she the first woman to be ranked in the PWI or do I have the wrong infromation?(MgTurtle 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Looking over the entire history of the PWI 500, Madd Maxxine was rated before Chyna as well. She was ranked in the 1995 500 at 315, the 1996 500 at 367, and the 1997 500 at 355.Stephen Day 04:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Lockdown Split

I believe we should split TNA Lockdown into separate articles likes Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. I believe this because Lockdown 2007 was the second ever TNA Pay-per-view to be featured outside of Orlando, Flordia and Lockdown features only one base match type, Six Side of Steel (with other variations).-- Kip Smithers 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope I don't think we should do that - Lockdown is considered just a normal PPV, Slammiversary has been there since the beginning and BFG is the main one. We do it like that also, only the big 4 (and KOTR) have separate articles in the WWE banner. Davnel03 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all, an all Steel Cage PPV is considered normal? Second, according to Wikipedia, Lockdown and Slammiversary both debuted in 2005. Third, KOTR doesn't have separate articles (70 f'n kbs). And fourth, looking at the content of the articles, SummerSlam doesn't deserve separate articles. Mshake3 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, do the main WCW or ECW PPV's all have their own individual pages? Davnel03 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No. But Starcade, and Lockdown, should. Of course, I'm sure some on here will have heart attacks over the though of twenty new articles to watch. It's called a watchlist for a reason folks. Mshake3 14:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I will take that as a cue to chime in, and simply say "SummerSlam doesn't deserve separate (sic) articles"? Mshake the PPV with the second highest buyrate for the last 20 years doesn't deserve separate articles? Have we not already talked this issue in to the ground? KOTR is a defunct PPV, there is no need to split it. As for Lockdown, split/don't split, I don't really mind, but you should read up on "consensus by silence", or to put it in plain terms, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Darrenhusted 14:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Those last two cancel each other out. If we break the consensus by talking about it, then you'll say it ain't broke so it shouldn't be fixed. In fact, "it ain't broke don't fix it" is a terrible excuse. Articles could always be improved, even if they look fine as is. Lockdown is a major TNA PPV, and it should have separate articles. Mshake3 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Even if they look fine as is". Sorry, but half of the PPVs don't look fine, one major problem: they are not sourced. I recently sourced WWE Vengeance and was thinking of the next step to try and get it up to GA standard, except I just haven't got round to trying to improve it. Anyway, how can I improve it to GA standard? Davnel03 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If you can add enough information to the lower PPV articles to make it GA worthy, then each PPV will have enough information to warrant their own articles. So until the articles are split up, they'll never be "good articles". As far as what to include, I think a little storyline background would work. Previously announced matches that didn't happen and why (see Hardy/Umaga for SS this year). Extended buyrate and ticket information. DVD notes. But again, the articles need to be split. Mshake3 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I really would rather every PPV article split, so we can get articles up to FA status. What would we rather: 60 or so Start Class articles, or a load of FAs that we could get out of this. I really want to do some work on the Vengeance article, but it all revolves (again) around a split. And a small minority are against it. Davnel03 21:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard two main reasons against it. 1) It would be hard to maintain against vandalism and 2) The additional information (additional performers, notes, etc) is cruft. If this information is cruft, why is it allowed to be in current articles? Mshake3 21:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If somone has the desire to put in the time to split a PPV series and correct all the links then why not? I say "go for it", be bold and all that. MPJ-DK 21:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and split Lockdown into separate articles.-- Kip Smithers 06:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget that there are over 100 articles that link to the Lockdown article, now that they're split up the links will have to be fixed so they don't point to "Lockdown#2006" but to "Lockdown (2006)" MPJ-DK 09:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
One of us needs to learn how to create a bot for this project. Who's the guy who created the OWW bot? Mshake3 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sign me up as interested in "bot creating", I'm in IT (Quality Assurance) so I'm not IT illiterate and if a bot could help with fixing links after say splitting up the Starrcade article then I'd be happy to help out - but how to go about it?MPJ-DK 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another issue. For the WWE Big 4 articles, the promotions initials aren't part of the individual article titles (SummerSlam (2007) for example). However, for some reason, they're suppost to be apart of the TNA articles? Why is that? Mshake3 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles relating to some TNA pay-per-views are prefixed for disambiguation purposes, e.g. Genesis has numerous meanings, and TNA Genesis is a logical title for the professional wrestling article. If some of the articles are prefixed, it makes sense to prefix all of them to maintain a consistent style throughout. McPhail 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel that adding content for disambiguation reasons should only be done when necessary. So while it may be necessary for Genesis, it's not for a, say, Slammiversary. Mshake3 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Nethertheless, if we are going to split the articles up, we are all going to have to chip in and help, becuase theres NWA, WCW, WWE, ECW and TNA PPVs, thats over 200, maybe 300 pages of work. Davnel03 11:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So Does that mean we are splitting up all of the TNA pay-per-views? -- Kip Smithers 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. Davnel03 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What about WWE pay-per-views? -- Kip Smithers 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
All of them. Davnel03 20:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After you split an article, could you please add {{pro-wrestling}} to the talk page. I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. Nikki311 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah OK, I'm going to start splitting them up tomorrow (12, 13 hours), I would appreciate some help as my internet is very slow, therefore I don't want anyone reverting my edits. Thanks! Davnel03 20:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good, but I'm just going down in the record books for saying that I'd rather not have them split at all. Perhaps we should vote before you start splitting up anything. Nikki311 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I just wanted Lockdown done. Maybe we can experiment with one or two others, and try to improve them in order to set a standard. Mshake3 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nikki311's right, I think we need to vote. Davnel03 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support - PPV articles should be split into individual articles

Oppose - PPV articles should stay how they are

  • The reason for this is simple. Separate articles create a greater reason for anon users to vandalize pages. We already have enough event articles to keep an eye on as is, and even now we're having a hard time watching them from vandals. Splitting up the ones we have now into articles of their own will create an even greater mess for us, and an even greater opportunity for vandals to vandalize. Imagine every month another PPV comes along, that’s another article we have to add to our watchlists, and that’s another article that gets trolled on by IPs every two minutes. We saw what happened with SummerSlam (2007). Keeping the articles together would only mean keeping a few dozen event pages on our watchlists. That is something that we can handle. Trust me, its a lot easier every month to just add another section in articles like WWE Backlash for that year’s edition than have to add another page to my list every month (sometimes every week). As time will progress, the pages we'll have to watch will accumulate and it will be impossible to keep track of them. I know Mshake3 says its being lazy not being able to keep an eye on pages, but the truth of the matter is, its not being lazy, it just can't be done like this. Its too complicated and quite frankly the articles are easier to get to the way they are now. The articles are much more organized and direct this way. Another thing we have to keep in mind is notability. The average Wikipedian considers these as non-notable events. Keeping articles such as Backlash, Judgment Day, No Mercy, Unforgiven and such, together increases their pages' notability and quality. As individual articles they wouldn't have much of either.-- bulletproof 3:16 11:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Keeping the minor PPVs together does NOT increase notibility. In their current state, it's just a list of matches. We've lucky they havn't been deleted yet. In addition, keeping them together prevents us from expanding them into good articles. If you're going to have an issue trying to find individual articles, then dear god, how do you live knowning SummerSlam and the Survivor Series are separate articles? It must be driving you mad! Mshake3 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I completely agree with Mshake3. Keeping them together doesn't increase notability. Adding detail increases notability. With their current size, splitting them up is the best option. For instance, just as an example, for Unforgiven, the article tells the user a list of results, what it doesn't say is how a particular storyline together, however splitting them up, we could expand for instance with Cena/Edge last year, we could talk about how the feud started (Edge winning the title), how it developed (Edge attacking Cenas dad, Cena FU Edge thru' table), and how the feud ended at Unforgiven in the TLC. In the articles current state, there is simply no room for that. Davnel03 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Here's what I think. Since the reason for splitting is to add more content, lets try adding this content to the existing split articles, and see how that looks. Mshake3 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
          • What makes you think splitting the articles will let you add more content? What do you want to add? Pictures? Little notes about the matches? Some Play-by-play? Problem is even you don't know what the build up was for the second In Your House so don't use that as your reasoning. Keeping the articles together does increase the notability of the primary article, such as WWE Backlash. Like McPhail said, the main article will always be more notable than one such as Backlash (2002). WrestleMania, SummerSlam, etc, do not need to be kept together as the individual yearly events already assert notability on their own. If you spilt the minor PPVs, they'll only end up being stubs and redirected back to the main page. per WP:NOTE -- bulletproof 3:16 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
          • They won't be stubs if we're allowed to expand them and make their quality to that of the "big four", which at this point is nothing more than a few notes and some pictures. The current setup doesn't really allow the addition of those things to the joint articles. And if you're saying those things shouldn't be in the joint articles, then what business do they have in the split ones? Seems to me like they were added, probably by you, in order to justify their need to be separate. We need to decide. Extra notes and images have a place in all PPV articles, or they don't at all. Mshake3 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
            • Like I said, the big four already assert notability on their own. Adding pictures and notes on the ones that you want to split will do nothing to help those improve in quality. Images? Meh, they'll be deleted as replaceable fair use images. Notes? Meh, they'll be removed per Wikipedia:Embedded list. What good will it do to spilt them up if all you want to add are some Images and notes? Adding that won't help them assert notability at all. I wouldn't mind if the articles were to be spilt, the problem is, the negatives of splitting them overwhelm the positives. It’s only logical to do whatever possible to avoid those negatives. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Did you read my comment about Unforgiven 2006 earlier, bulletproof16? If not, here it is:

For instance, just as an example, for Unforgiven, the article tells the user a list of results, what it doesn't say is how a particular storyline together, however splitting them up, we could expand for instance with Cena/Edge last year, we could talk about how the feud started (Edge winning the title), how it developed (Edge attacking Cenas dad, Cena FU Edge thru' table), and how the feud ended at Unforgiven in the TLC. Davnel03 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And do you have sources to back that up because otherwise it would be considered Original Research. Even then you wouldn't know how a particular storyline for an event that isn't recent came together. One example of something that happend last year isn't the same as something that happened 5 years ago.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how an article with a dozen stub sections is any more notable than twelve stub articles. Mshake3 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An article with "stub" sections is not a stub article. An article that is split from a section of these articles is a stub. An article much like a list comprised of non-notable subjects makes the article more notable than say an article based on one section of that list. The individual article would be nothing more than cruft based on the notability of the event.-- bulletproof 3:16 22:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
3bulletproof16, there are loads of reliable sources, OWW, WrestleView, Gerweck which all store past results just to name a few, oh, and along with WWE.com for the past two/three years. Davnel03 07:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nikki311 18:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the minor PPVs (and defunct PPVs such as KOTR) it makes no sense to split, we go from about 20 articles to over 200 in one move, too much to watch, and just begging for vandals to attack. We can easily source all the minor PPVs one at a time, and we don't need crap like "this match started this feud" added to individual pages, the results speak for themselves. The split would mean adding OR to articles already lacking sources. Darrenhusted 16:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further Comments

  • NOTE: Just because I'm setting this vote up now, it does not mean we split them up immediately if more people support the change; it would probably take us a few weeks/months to fully do it. Davnel03 12:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling video game categories

In an attempt to stop the blatant overcategorization, I've moved contents from most of the wrestling categories to correct categories. Currently: I see only a need for Raw, Smackdown, WWE, Fire Pro and professional wrestling games categories. Small categories such as this one (which I put up for deletion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_12#Category:Legends_of_Wrestling, don't need to exist anymore. Other examples of categories that simply are too small and broad to exist: ECW games (2 regular games, plus the newest Smackdown vs Raw keeps getting the category added to it because of ECW's appearance in the game), WrestleMania games: only a few here (and it's very unlikely the series will be revived). I wanted to give a heads up here, just in case people revert the category changing I've been working on. On the subject of wrestling games: I also feel the WWE games template doesn't need to be on any WCW or ECW game article, as they were made before WWE owned the companies. Seeing as how the WWE games template is already bulky, there isn't any good reason to add WCW or ECW games to it. WWE owns the companies: but those games aren't known as WWE games in any shape or form. RobJ1981 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Crippler4 has added flags to all the title reign length lists. I'd just like to know if this was ever discussed, because I really don't think these are needed. --MarcK 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it's not needed for that list, in fact I'd say it's both crufty and annoying MPJ-DK 10:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with MPJ-DK. Get rid of 'em. Davnel03 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, trash 'em. --Naha|(talk) 12:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree, they look really ugly and distracting BBoy 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams

As we know Brian Adams has sadly died today, but, while on his page I noticed his finishing and signature movies were put under some sort of a table. I can't edit it now, because of all of the other edits going on, but when it starts to cool down, somebody will have to fix it. Kris 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Davnel03 18:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

A little suggestion here, I was thinking of putting the results on for this Saturday's event, but inserting spoiler templates around it. What do you guys think of that? Davnel03 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say no - wait till Saturday night. Hasn't our policy as of late been to not include spoilers for Tuesday tapings of SmackDown!? This really isn't any different. --Naha|(talk) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Silverwinds. Gavyn Sykes 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is slightly different than Tuesday spoilers, SMackdown doesn't have a results page - I refer you to RoH's second PPV to see that spoiler results do occur on Wikipedia. MPJ-DK 18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is what MPJ-DK is referring to. Davnel03 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I see this now, but do not believe spoilers should appear on any pro wrestling article. --Naha|(talk) 20:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)