Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 30

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 30

Contents

Stone Cold Steve Austin rating

I'm curious about this one... Stone Cold Steve Austin's article was rated as B-class until Frederick day changed it to stub class. He was upset about the lack of sources, but I think it's still better than a stub. And, although he claims not to be biased, he only lowered the class for the WikiProject Wrestling rating. The WikiProject Texas rating is still a B. GaryColemanFan 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At one point, he deleted almost the entire article because it was unsourced, and that's why it was reassessed to a stub...it was one. The article should never have been a B article in the first place...it needs to be more thoroughly sourced before it can be considered a B article (which shouldn't be hard...sources definitely exist for him). Anyway, I just reassessed the article to a start. It clearly has been restored with some sources, so it is more than a stub, however, like I mentioned before, it isn't quite at B status yet. One more thing...different projects have different criteria for their rating systems, so the article may be a B article at this point for WikiProject Texas. Nikki311 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I agree that the article needs a ton of work before it's B-class, so Start seems quite reasonable. GaryColemanFan 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GFDL violation...what to do?

Hey everyone. I was just cleaning up the Ladder match article, and I discovered a major problem. A user merged the Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match into the article, without following the proper steps to merge. I left a note on his talk page telling him to propose a merger first, let people either support or oppose, etc etc. While I would have supported the merger, the problem here is that he violated the GFDL by not indicating in his edit summaries where he was merging content to and where the merged content was coming from. While I'm not to familiar with GFDL, I do know that he violated it (it says so on WP:Merge). Now what? Is there a way to remedy this? Nikki311 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

De-merge the pages. Just revert his edits on each page. I think that the ladder match is unique and notable enough to warrant its own article (hell, WWE even released a 2-disc DVD devoted just to this one match type). TJ Spyke 01:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just in the middle of asking if I could do that, but you beat me to it! I just wanted to make sure that wouldn't cause further problems. I'll do it. Nikki311 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions

Someone tried to add a table to the bottom of this article listing the champions by the length of their title reigns. I fixed the formatting because it looked bad, but I'm not sure if this is the right place for it. Does it belong in the article? GaryColemanFan 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there is already an article for that: List of WWF Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length. TJ Spyke 03:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

I was scurrying through a load of wrestling-related pages, and came to this page. Do we really need this page, surely it isn't a load of cruft. I also think that SNME results aren't as notable as PPV results. Should I AFD it? Davnel03 14:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't think it is particularly crufty. It does need to be cleaned up some if it stays though. --Naha|(talk) 15:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little on the fence with this one. If there was an AfD, I'd probably vote weak delete. It does seem unnecessary to list results...these aren't exactly pay-per-views. They do seem to be more important that the average RAW or SmackDown!, though. I guess I just don't see the necessity for having the match results. Nikki311 18:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not weekly so it's more important!--Monnitewars (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
In my view, it's just wrestling cruft. The show isn't that important. There is some notable things that took place at some of them (title changes, storylines, etc), but that's not enough to justify a whole list of results. WWE makes it seem like a special show, but it really isn't that important in the big picture of things. RobJ1981 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I dis agree it's doesn't happen every week so actually it IS one of their special shows.--Monnitewars (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Rob on this one. Gavyn Sykes 20:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest merging it with the main SNME article. TJ Spyke 20:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you delete the PPV articles while your at it cause that's what they are...I say leave SNME results alone.--Monnitewars (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

SNME is no more or less important than a PPV (or than a weekly show like RAW, SmackDown! or ECW for that matter). The same things happen at all three types of events (PPVS, SNME, weekly shows) - title changes, storyline progressions, specialty matches, normal matches, pyro, guest appearances etc. I just really don't see how its different. --Naha|(talk) 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this suddenly in discussion? The article has exsisted for years.--Monnitewars (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see only one person opposing the AfD nomination, so I'll just go ahead and AfD the damn thing. Cheers, The Hybrid 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The page should simply be redirected to the main SNME article. WWE does overhype SNME, but it's not really important (title changes and special matches; happens on RAW, SD!, ECW and iMPACT! too). Notable matches can already (and are already) listed on the main SNME page. MITB LS 07:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

F4W issue

Ok. Users Maestro25 and TJ Spyke seem to be having a disagreement via edit summaries on the WWE No Mercy article regarding whether F4W matches are spelled Fatal Four-Way or Fatal Four Way (with or without the dash). TJ seems to think this matter was previously settled/discussed (if so, its not something I've seen, but then again with so many articles its hard to keep an eye on every page where a discussion might be taking place), and argues in favor of the dash. Maestro doesn't think anything has been setteled and argues against the dash.

Gentlemen, I ask you both to please state your reasons for your opinions on the matter. I also ask other people to chime in in regards to whether or not this has been previously discussed (and if so what was the outcome?), and also, on your opinions of how it should be properly spelled. I personally have no strong feelings one way or the other on this one - just that whatever is decided be used uniformly across all PW articles. I just don't like to see arguments among our members. Discuss away! Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much don't care either...it doesn't seem that important. Anyway a quick search of WWE.com shows it both ways, but without the dash the majority of the time. The special page for the match also shows it without the dash. Nikki311 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? This same edit war with the same participants has happened before. –– Lid(Talk) 23:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I assumed he had accepted the dash since it's been a few months without him removing it. IIRC, the settlement was to just do what we do for spelling differences (if the article originally use British spelling, there is no need to change it the subject is neutral. Armor vs. Armour for example). Since the article orginally used th dash, we would keep it that way. TJ Spyke 00:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but why have an edit war over a dash?? That's childish for one. Does it matter whether there's a dash or not a dash??!! Davnel03 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is already under WP:LAME. It is not a British vs US spelling thing as the WWE is a US company and so it is just pedantry, if the article was created with the dash then leave it in, if it was created with-out the dash then leave it out. Darrenhusted 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Wait, why is this project a joke again?«»bd(talk stalk) 15:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
So, remind me again why arguing over things like this is more important than making sure our articles are in compliance with WP:BLP, WP:V and getting them promoted to good article status and removing vandalism? Bmg916Speak 15:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't see why having out and out edit wars over dashes and the inclusion of the word "the" is pointless and stupid? It's not trying to make articles better, it's trying to make articles look the way someone prefers. No consensus, real or imagined, ever comes of bringing it to the project talk page, and on the rare occasion it does it tends to get ignored anyway. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, I was just trying to help them settle this by being a neutral party and getting other's input. Additionally, we need to use the same spelling for match types in all articles. No need to be rude or condescending. Either be constructive in a conversation or don't say anything at all if it can't be nice, please. We need to be able to discuss things without people getting all bent out of shape. --Naha|(talk) 14:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This needs to end, it's getting ridiculous. We need to reach a consensus on with a dash or without and edit all articles accordingly and then close this subject for good. Gavyn Sykes 14:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Help requests and intention to nominate SummerSlam (1993) for GA status and List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions for FL status

I've been working on three articles lately, and I've done about all I can do from my end. If anyone can help out, I'd really appreciate it.

If anyone knows of a reason that SummerSlam 1993 or the List of WCW Champions shouldn't be nominated, or that the nomination should be postponed, please let me know (here, on my talk page, or on the peer review pages that I have created for each).

Thanks in advance for any assistance. GaryColemanFan 17:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Pelle Primeau

While working on stuff for the Ring of Honor page, I saw someone created an article on Pelle Primeau (well, in name only). All I can say is...wow. Feel free to give your two cents in on it's AFD page. Nenog 20:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Top championship reign lengths

Is it okay for me to limit these to 10? I feel like the pages are too long and unnecessary with the combined reign length list having more than 10 people. Baycore 02:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never cared for "combined length" lists at all, I wouldn't mind them being removed all together. TJ Spyke 02:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a reign length & Top combined list for the TNA Championship and every time I remove it, it keeps getting readded because "there's one for the WWE Championship". -- Scorpion0422 02:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it should only show all the names if the title is inactive/retired. So is it alright for me to shorten the lists? (I feel like I'm gonna get marked for vandalism if I do it anyway) Baycore 01:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PWI Online

I have a question does PWI (Pro Wrestling Illustrator) have a link that shows that they only recognize three World Championships?--TrUcO9311 03:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NEW DISCUSSION!!!

Imparative discussion here.--Monnitewars (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't that imperative, but nonetheless if you don't have an AfD to discuss or a dispute to resolve your input would be greatly appreciated. Cheers ;) The Hybrid 05:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We've got ourselves a spambot

Alright, so Misza13 has agreed to let us use User:MiszaBot, the bot that used to deliver Esperanza and Concordia's newsletters. I'm sorting out the last minute details currently, but it is guaranteed that we have ourselves a bot. Currently it will only be delivering {{Pwcotw notice}}, but the question now is, do we want to write an entire project newsletter? This would greatly improve communication and keep everyone informed of the current events. So, how about it? The Hybrid 06:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a newsletter. Not that its bad, but I just don't think it would work out properly, and just adds to our workload. Maybe a few months down the line, but not just yet. Davnel03 11:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Hybrid, thank you so much for getting this together. I think, for now, that the COTW notice will be enough. We might want to try the newsletter somewhere down the line but I don't think we need it quite yet. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 14:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. This is great, Hybrid. I agree with Davnel and Naha about the newsletter. Gavyn Sykes 14:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, that's cool. I'll let you know when everything is sorted out. Peace, The Hybrid 19:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler Argument

There has been a bit of discussion over on the WWE No Mercy talk page in regards to "spoilers", specifically when SmackDown has aired in another market. To me, it shouldn't be concidered as spoiler, cause the show has aired in its finished product, not results from the taping. If you are going to argue that it is spoiler, then it could be counter argued that anything from Raw or ECW should be posted until it is aired in other markets to make it fair. I know this is unreasonable, but it is otherwise showing double standards. I have seen the argument that WWE is US based, and that is the largest market, but the reality is WWE is a global company that shows content world wide, and the program SmackDown is broadcast in Australia, New Zealand and Europe, as well as other markets, before it is shown in the US. Therefor, either the 'no spoiler' policy in regards to broadcasts should either apply to all or apply to none, otherwise it shows double standards and favouratism. Lynx Raven Raide 07:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We include things after they are posted on WWE.com. For RAW and ECW, the information is updated instantly since the shows are live in America. We shouldn't wait until those shows have aired in other countries because the information is already available at the official website. It would be like ignoring the website even exists. In the case of SmackDown!, the only sources for references there are until the show officially airs in America are from unreliable dirtsites. We say "don't include spoilers until the show has aired in America" because we know once it airs there, WWE.com will be updated to provide us with reliable information. It all comes down to WP:V and WP:RS. - Deep Shadow 07:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
this seems kind of odd, because you are saying the show itself is unreliable, even though that is where the information comes from. i can understand spoilers from tapings, which is 'in production' but when the show airs, regardless the market, it is the 'finished product.' Lynx Raven Raide 08:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Deep Shadow. WWE.com only reveals results for SmackDown after it has aired in America, not after it has aired in other markets. The only time I know they have broken this was when Angle won the world title (2006) and when Khali won the world title (2007). I think we should create a subpage of this project for spoilers, possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Spoilers, with all archived discussions concerning spoilers moving them into a new subpage. Then, if someone does decide to insert spoilers in a article, we can give the user a link on their talkpage directing them to the spoilers page. Just an idea. Davnel03 11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been disputed endlessly. If the spoiler is inserted with a reliable source, then we have no jurisdiction to remove it. The catch to that, however, is that most dirt sheets fail WP:RS, so there are almost no reliable sources for spoilers. If it is not inserted with a source, then it is to be reverted without mercy, and the person who inserts it should be given the uw-unsourced series of warnings. Spoilers are something that we have to tolerate under certain circumstances since this is an encyclopedia, but their insertion should not be encouraged out of respect for the established editors who dislike them. The Hybrid 09:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

to Davnel03's comments about WWE.com revealing those results, they were revealed before the program aired in any market, not just before it aired in the US. Now as I have stated, I am not talking about taping results taken from dirt sheets, I am talking about results from the final product which has been aired. Putting so much reliance on WWE.com as a source sets a possibly dangerous precidence, because down the track someone could edit the Cena page to say his injury was caused legitimatly by Orton and not Kennedy, and have WWE.com to back them up, even though in the episode it can be seen that Kennedy has done it. Yes, allow WWE.com to back it up, but I see no problem with adding information after the episode has aired, regardless the market, because once that finished, complete information is out, it is out. As for 'not be encouraged out of respect for the established editors who dislike them,' that could actually turn some people away from editing pages, which is unhealthy. Lynx Raven Raide 19:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Taking it directly from the shows is original research, since you would have to use eyewitness accounts, and eyewitnesses fail WP:RS. The only sources for results that aren't OR are dirt sheets, which also fail WP:RS. The Hybrid 19:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
if you want to go by that, then everything could be deemed 'eyewitness' then. WWE has to get their results from somewhere ;) really we are arguing over a mere technicality. The show has been comitted to tape and aired. If it was spoilers from dirtsheets or from the tapings I can understand, but from the aired product I dont. WWE dont always do recaps for their shows, or at least not full recaps, so you could go through and say some of the content could be removed on that basis. Lynx Raven Raide 00:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't make myself clear, sorry. The WWE is considered a reliable source because they have scripted, and executed the event. Their reports are not eyewitness reports. The only way to get a report before the WWE releases theirs has to be from eyewitnesses or dirt sheets, which do not pass WP:RS specifically because they are eyewitness reports, which fails WP:OR. Citing the actual event doesn't work, because we don't actually know what happened at the event ourselves unless we attended it, which would fail WP:OR. I'm having some trouble explaining this; do you understand what I'm saying? The Hybrid 00:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No I don't. If I'm reading it right, you're saying that any transcript of a show on any site if OR. Mshake3 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I did come across that way, didn't I? What I was trying to say is that you can't cite the actual show before WWE.com provides their report because no reliable sources exist for what took place in that show, so we don't officially know what happened. The Hybrid 03:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible controversial page move: WWF Light Heavyweight Championship > WWE Light Heavyweight Championship

Is this move right, see here. Seeing as the belt was used before 2002, surely it shouldn't be WWF? On that note Monnitewars (who moved the page) has made a few controversial moves in the past few days since starting editing on Wiki (September 29), including getting into an edit war on WWE Wreckless Intent. Anyway, shouldn't the Light Heavyweight title page be moved back? Davnel03 11:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it should definitely be moved back. It has never been used in WWE, only in the WWF. GaryColemanFan 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Move it to WWF Light Heavyweight Championship. The guy obviously has no idea what he's doing.--Screwball23 talk 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you start reverting this one look at WWE.com that is why I moved it.--Monnitewars (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

By law they're not allowed to use those initials anymore, even for archival purposes. Wikipedia is not bound by the same restriction.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
That page isn't completely trustworthy due to the fact that WWE also ignores the title's true history. It existed before 1997. [1] Stephen Day 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of Monnitewars edits have been quite disruptive, showing sings of ownership towards some articles (and the championships template) and having absolutely no fear of edit warring, if they persist he may be reported. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Caribbean H.Q: Monnitewars has been quite disruptive and I'm growing tired of it. Anyway: about the move, Bdve is correct. Wikipedia isn't under a restriction, so WWF can indeed be listed here. RobJ1981 18:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Monnitewars is inexperienced, so I can understand why he is making so many mistakes. However, he refuses to discuss them in a calm way, and he appears to be one of those users who, after discovering WP:IAR, decided not to learn any of the other policies, and he appears to be angered by the fact that they exist and will be thrown in his face even after he cites WP:IAR. As for this, move it back for all of the reasons stated. The Hybrid 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The following is copied from my talkpage:

You couldn't leave it alone could you?--Monnitewars (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly a possible sign of WP:OWN. Should he be reported to ANI? EDIT: You're correct on the championship template thing Hybrid, see here. Davnel03 19:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I know about him reverting me, but since CHQ handled it I figured that I would leave it be. As someone who got off to a rocky start myself, I would like to let him have another week to shape up before we report him. After that, we can take him to a noticeboard. Peace, The Hybrid 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • On a similar note, Monnitewars has become involved in yet another edit war, this time at SummerSlam (2007). GaryColemanFan 22:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Monnitewars blocked for 31 hours - violation of 3RR. Davnel03 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Notification: Al Costello - Good Article candidate

Since The Fabulous Kangaroos just passed GA (and became the first tag team article to reach that status) I am now ready to put Al Costello on the list, with Roy Heffernan and Don Kent (wrestler) being potential candidates as well so that all Kangaroo related articles would be GAs in time. So just a heads up, I'll be nominating Al Costello in a day or two (since it's been looked at before). MPJ-DK 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations! Your work on these articles is very impressive, and iit contributes a lot to the project. I glanced over the Costello article, and it's looking good. I'll try my best to have a close look at it in the next day or two (in the meantime, I've got a bunch of marking to do, the next week's lessons to plan, and a couple of major assignments for a course I'm taking). I've gone through it before, but I'll take another look to see if I missed anything. GaryColemanFan 06:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton Image Dispute

User:LifeStroke420 and I are having a minor dispute. I would appreciate any additional opinions to the situation. The conversation is here. Gavyn Sykes 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Frequent Kayfabe targets on Wikipedia

Am I right in stating that there are several pages in this category, that really aren't targets as such on Wikipedia. I can understand why pages like Punk, Carlito, Edge, Batista, Lashley etc. are on there. I can't understand, however, why pages like Funaki, CW Anderson, Al Snow, FBI and WrestleMania 22 are on there. Can anyone explain because I'm struggling to understand what the complete purpose of that category (and template) is. Thanks, Davnel03 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pointles cat, remove the cat tag from each of the pages then the cat will be empty, then a CFD will delete it. Darrenhusted 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week (2)

I will be leaving a message like this on this page about this time every Sunday notifying people about this. Can anyone double-check the links on the COTW page in case I've made a slight error. Is this about the right time to do it anyway, or doesn't it really matter. The progress on Pedro Morales' article in the last week diff is here. Truly superb work to the editors involved in the article! Davnel03 13:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I just contacted Misza13, so the deliveries of th template should begin within 24 hours. If anyone wishes to opt out of the weekly delivery, then they should add their name to this list. Cheers, The Hybrid 20:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1993) - GA Candidate

This is a notice to inform WP:PW members that I have nominated this article as a Good Article candidate. I have requested feedback on several occasions and have done my best to put the suggestions in place. Thank you to everyone who has helped, and let's hope for the best. GaryColemanFan 21:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! Nikki311 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

TNA WOMEN'S TITLE

SOMEONE SHOULD CHANGE THE WOMENS TITLE NAME, AS IN THE BOUND FOR GLORY PROMO VIDEOS THEY REFER TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP AS "THE TNA KNOCKOUT CHAMPIONSHIP", SHOULD IT BE CHANGED? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs)

1)Turn off your caps lock. 2)They call it the TNA Women's World Championship on their site, so that is what we call it. 3)Sign your comments. TJ Spyke 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
no, if you look at their TNA today video they refer it to as the TNA Knockout Chamoionship in the Bound For GLory Line-Up.--TrUcO9311 23:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Their actual website. TNA World Women's Championship: http://www.tnawrestling.com/BFG/ calls it the TNA Women's World Championship. TJ Spyke 23:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently, they have to fully decide whether the title's gonna be called the "TNA World Women's Championship", the "TNA Knockouts Championship" or (generically) the "TNA Women's Championship". We'll have to wait until a consistent name comes to light. The Chronic 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

All over the website it's "TNA Women's World Championship". Calling it "Knockout's Championship" seems like an unofficial nickname. The same place that says "Knockout's Championship" just says "X Title" for the X Division Championship. Unless the physical belt says different next week, Women's World looks like the real deal.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We'll just have to see. The Chronic 03:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SmackDown vs Raw & move names

It's that time again, a new WWE game is coming out which means people will soon be changing the names and status of moves to match the game. Some of the problems are obvious (there's no such move as a "Woman's Special Slap") but some less so Umaga has never, to my knowledge, used the Wrecking Ball as a finish, but it's a finish in the game). Just a heads up, if you have any of the people in the roster on your watch list you should be wary of people using the game as a cite.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User making unnecessary edits

216.19.115.116 is making edits to just about every wrestling championship reigns by length page they can. The edits are always done to the current title reigns, and they are stupid and pointless as the code changes automatically every day anyways. He may even be causing errors in some of the length tables. TonyFreakinAlmeida 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1993) update

Just a quick message to inform project members that this article has passed its Good Article review.

My next order of business is to see what I can do about getting the List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions article to Featured Article status. I think a picture would help its chances, but nobody seems to have one. Would someone be able to help me copy the picture of the belt from the WCW World Heavyweight Championship article and figure out how to deal with the rationale so that it at least has something? I'm really new to the picture thing, so I'd really appreciate some help. GaryColemanFan 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for rationale, that picture claims PD.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Added.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Good one, hopefully December to Dismember (2006) will do exactly the same thing! Davnel03 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you'd rather a picture of a person wearing the belt, there's two in the Diamond Dallas Page article.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag Team Wikilinking

I came across a creative way to link tag team articles. This only applies to tag teams entitled "A and B."

Rather than linking Paul London and Brian Kendrick.

We could instead link it as Paul London and Brian Kendrick. That way, we can link to each individual member, as well as the team itself. I saw it linked like that in an article a while back, so I wanted to bring it up. I've tested it on the last picture in World Tag Team Championship (WWE).

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Gavyn Sykes 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea I say. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, I can't take credit for it, but I thought that myself. That just creates a problem for tag teams with names such as Rated-RKO. Gavyn Sykes 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It might be too confusing for people. Personally, I like the full team name as one link. If they want a link to an individual, then that's just one extra click. Mshake3 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a fair point as well. I recall when I first saw a team linked like that, I was slightly confused myself. Thanks for jogging my memory. Gavyn Sykes 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is my opinion. If the team doesn't have a name (like London and Kendrick), we just link to their team article). If they have a team name (like Rated-RKO), we link to their team article and in parenthesis we listed the members and there articles (if they have ones, The Highlanders only have a team article). That is the way we've done things and I think it works. TJ Spyke 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style frowns upon two links being next to each other so that they appear as one link. - Deep Shadow 03:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I think we can close the book on this. I'll go back and edit my tag team link in the WTTC article if no one else has. Gavyn Sykes —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All TNAWrestling.com links are broken

I almost don't even want to be the one to mention this, but TNA launched a new website over the weekend and in the process has broken every single link to their old page. Some of the stuff I can't even find on the new site, like "2005 iMPACT! Quick Results".«»bd(talk stalk) 01:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess we'll have to use this. Mshake3 02:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Those come up broken too.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Request - Montreal Screwjob

Just to let the WP:PW community know, a request has been put up to put the Montreal Screwjob article on the Main Page on November 9. The discussion can be found HERE. The Chronic 05:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions FL Nomination

Having requested and received feedback from WP:PW members, I have nominated this list for Featured List status. I would imagine that project members are allowed to voice their support or objections on the nomination page, provided they remain objective and have not significantly contributed to the article. (Please correct me if I'm wrong...I can't find much information on this process.)

It needs a consensus to be promoted, and at least four people have to give their support. GaryColemanFan 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand (2006) - GA speedy failed - sources problem

I nominated ONS 2006 for GA status literally an hour ago, and the reviewer has speedy failed it and left this on the talkpage: The good article nomination of this article has been speedily failed because of a complete lack of reliable sources (see WP:QFC 2.1). This is because all sources in this article link to the website or press releases of WWE, the producers of this event. Because these sources are not independent of the producers of the subject of the article, they are not reliable (see WP:RS). Sandstein 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Technically, surely the sources are reliable as they are coming from the official company? Also, I have used SLAM! Sports on the article a little. Is there anything I could do to change the sources (of course I could use dirtsheets but I don't wish to go down that road, as they aren't reliable in themselves. I think the reviewer has been a tad harsh. Davnel03 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That does seem a bit harsh. I'm not sure what we can do in the way of sources, but why not check the Wikiproject Library. There may be some issues of PWI listed there. Gavyn Sykes 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That is completely ridiculous. --Naha|(talk) 03:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Nash

Can someone please fix Nash's height and weight? Someone had vandalized it to something absurd and I reverted it to a more reasonable height/weight. I cannot confirm if the numbers are accurate or not as I don't have access to google or an outside search engines. --Endless Dan 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it to what I believe to be the last correct revision. Gavyn Sykes 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com: Article vs. Redirect

Will you give you opinions here.--Monnitewars (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WrestlingRevealed.com

Does anyone have any experience with this site? It's popping up in articles, both as a cite and an external link, but I'm leery. The bios, though decently written, provide no sources, and the main page "news/opinion" section provides no writer information. As a whole it seems untrustworthy to me.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about sources or authors either. I'm definitely leaning towards untrustworthy. DrWarpMind 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a garbage site. Shouldn't be used as a source at all. GetDumb 00:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand (2006) - taken to GAR

Based on this and my own personal view, I have taken ONS '06 to a GAR. Please comment on the discussion, and whether the article should be listed as GA here. Davnel03 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE European Champions

I took a quick look at List of WWE European Champions today and it seems to me that it is almost ready for a run at FL. Every title change is sourced. Does anything else have to be done before it's ready? The current picture is being speedy deleted so a new one would be nice. DrWarpMind 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the lead a little. A picture would be nice, but I can't seem to recall ever seeing a free-use one. Nikki311 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll nominate it once List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions is done. DrWarpMind 22:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I've contacted FCW and asked for a more correct logo and permission for more photo's I'll keep everyone updated.--Monnitewars (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also bring this up at the admin's noticeboard, so they are aware that certain copyrighted images can be used. They should be able to give you some more specific instructions as well. The Hybrid T/C 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
It's done!--Monnitewars (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Wrestling

This should simply be the article should about the indy team/stable. I don't want to hear any crap about small-timers, the fact that we even have an article about the indy team says all that needs to be said. I see now that it's a DAB page, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that a team that's existed for two years and still does is a much, much, much likelier search term than one of a billion things about TNA that's here one day and gone the next. Nosleep1234 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ask the average wrestling fan, I bet 95% of them would identify the TNA faction. ROH is a small indy promotion while TNA is a major influential promotion (although even TNA is small compared to WWE). The indy group may have been together longer, but they are not big enough to warrant the KOW article being for them. I think it's fine the way it is now. Also, the fact that an indy group has an article doesn't mean anything. TJ Spyke 06:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, then I guess we better delete it. What did the TNA group ever do? Whole lot of nothing. They're about as memorable (as a group) as The Elite Guard. Nosleep1234 06:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying they aren't notable. I'm just saying that they aren't notable enough to have the KOW article redirect to them rather than be a disambiguation page. As for The Elite Guard, I had never heard of them before now. I didn't watch the early days of TNA (paying $9.95 per show? Haha, that's the same reason I don't watch ROH. I'm not gonna pay just for the right to watch them when I get 5 hours of WWE and 2 hours of TNA for free every week and can identify more than a couple of the wrestlers). I can't judge The Elite Guard's notability without doing some research on them. TJ Spyke 06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the project has against indy pages. They aren't just an ROH group, they're in CHIKARA and PWG as well. TonyFreakinAlmeida 14:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
And formerly CZW. Also, I doubt 95% would think of TNA's KOW. 1) Just because one person doesn’t watch indy wrestling doesn't mean only an extremely tiny portion of fans do (or at least follow it via the internet); and 2) not a whole lot of people watched TNA while it was on FSN, and TNA (to my knowledge) hasn't mentioned Jarrett, Nash & Hall in a good long while so how would they have heard of it. Nenog 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course. TJ's post hints a little at the bias the project has toward mainstream wrestling... TonyFreakinAlmeida 14:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at both articles, the DAB should remain. --Naha|(talk) 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains, thought that the "Kings of Professional Wrestling" almost never use that particular name (I can't recall ever hearing it, now that I think of it). It's simply not a suitable article title. Nosleep1234 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Hahaha, I suck. Good work, fellas. Nosleep1234 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW notes and a notice

Right here is the leadboard at the moment heading into next weeks collaboration, starting this Sunday!

I haven't put that list on there for fun, but to announce that I have (for the moment) put a limit of how many nominations can be on the page at one particular time. At the moment on the page, there are 7 nominations; I have decided to set a limit it to 10. I've done this otherwise we could end up having 15 nominations on the page, which would be extreme overkill. Any objection? Oh, also, do vote for the one you want to become COTW for next week! :) Davnel03 15:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should limit it. But I personally think any more than five nominations for one week is a bit much. Gavyn Sykes 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Ten sounds good to me. So long as we use some discretion in our voting (ie. not voting for all of the nominees) and enforce the pruning policy, then things should be fine. BTW, how long should an article have to wait to be renominated after being pruned? The Hybrid T/C 02:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say about two months. However, if I do see an article near to become a victim of "pruning", I will post a new section on this page just telling people that it could be pruned if it doesn't get any more votes. Davnel03 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing that I'd like to see down the road is a Stub Article of the Week. I don't honestly believe that a large number of people will ever decide that Ivan Putski should be the focus for COTW, so I have no problem with removing it if the list is getting long. But if this week's work on Jerry Lawler is any example, the Collaboration seems to be working. Perhaps if it keeps going, we could work on one article (trying to get it to GA or FA status) and one stub (trying to get it to Start or B-level) each week. If anyone's interested, the two stubs that I'm currently focusing on are Bill Alfonso and Sika Anoa'i, and help is always appreciated. GaryColemanFan 21:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Gary. Yet, I think that articles that are stubs should be priority in the first place. Almost all PPV articles are stubs, so they should be improved. But, articles like EDGE and ONS don't need much improvement, so they don't need to be COTW. I think that with minor improvements, they can become GA or FA. But, articles like Jerry Lawler and Ivan Putski are stubs which need MAJOR help, so they deserve to be COTW. Lex94 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that many stubs have little information because the subject isn't as well-known to a large audience. Having one of the more obscure articles as the only collaboration of the week could just cause people to not contribute that week. If we have one well-known subject and one less well-known subject, everyone can feel that they have something to contribute. Look at the last two weeks: 2-3 people helped with Pedro Morales, but Jerry Lawler had almost 100 edits. I think this does a lot to show that people will contibute the most when there's a subject they feel knowledgeable about, but that there is also a strong need for stubs to be improved at the same time. GaryColemanFan 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Lex, its not just the amount of information or the length of the text that makes an article good. It also must be written with excellent prose, have good reliable sources with inline citations, be structured correctly, be wikilinked properly and several other things. There are lots of articles which have plenty of information, but are formatted poorly or not well-referenced or even well written. In addition to adding information to articles, please understand that there are many other ways to improve articles for CoTW and at any time in general. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anderson family

I started an article on the Anderson family, but somebody put it up for speedy deletion for not being notable/significant. I'm kinda new to creating articles, so I'm not sure what to do other than perhaps list every tag championship the Andersons won together. Any ideas?TravelingCat 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well one, because you dont have redirection links to the members. Two, you have no sources, and three this article really isnt needed as the Anderson family isnt a big wrestling family like the Hart family.--TrUcO9311 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's also not a real wrestling family (although that has nothing to do with it). TJ Spyke 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It's quite easy, if it satisfies the Notability and the Verifiability criteria then it can't (well shouldn't) be deleted at all neither speedy, prod or AFD'ed, it's a surefire way to success ;). MPJ-DK 05:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If they won championships it's notable, just as WWE superstars going trough OVW or FCW are.--Monnitewars (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Australian Wrestling Federation

A user just contacted me about this article he has written. I'm not 100% positive about where this stands in regards to WP:N, so if y'all could take a look at it, then that would be great. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 02:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the lead:

The Australian Wrestling Federation is one of the three major Australian Professional Wrestling promotions currently operating in Sydney.

Satisfies notability as it is one of the three major promotions in Australia. Needs refs though. Davnel03 14:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the creator is having some trouble finding sources, so I told them I would get some help. Umm, Davnel, could I ask you for a favor...? The Hybrid T/C 15:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Depends what it may be! :) Davnel03 16:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Link to AWF's official website (might be on some help). Davnel03 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Davnel - you stated above that it is one of the three major promotions in Australia. I'm sorry, but where is the evidence of this? From what I can tell there are no major promotions in Australia - and taking the quote from the AWF website that I assume you did is falling for the promotion's advertising propoganda. But you did add that it needs references, and that it does. And reliable third party ones at that. I wish you all luck with that because I looked and I couldn't find anything other than fansites. !! Justa Punk !! 03:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • A note - the article has been nominated for deletion. !! Justa Punk !! 02:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

WSX Championship

Do we really need this page? I think it should be merged into the main Wrestling Society X article. Davnel03 18:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. FamicomJL 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with your agree Nenog 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree and sidenote: I think we should merge all rosters and championships of short term promotions into the promotion's main article. That would make a bunch of stubs into one start. Nikki311 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Bmg916Speak 18:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Merged WSX Championship into Wrestling Society X. If anyone else whishes to perform a roster merge, please do. Davnel03 19:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved the roster to Wrestling Society X. Nenog 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reminder re: List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

This article is currently nominated for Featured List status. The discussion (or lack thereof) can be found here. If anyone has a few minutes, I would really appreciate it if they could take a couple of minutes to look over the list and then add their thoughts to the discussion.

In addition, the Good Article Reassessment discussion for One Night Stand (2006) is located here. Davnel03 has put a lot of good work into the article, and it would be great if some project members could support the reassessment bid (assuming, of course, they agree that speedy failing an article for citing WWE.com is unreasonable). GaryColemanFan 21:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

With things like this (for some reason), I fail to get anyone comment on things like it e.g. Peer Reviews, FAC's get a lack of comment in general from this project. This isn't a problem as such, but recent peer reviews have given back no real feedback in terms of quality, and which areas need to be improved. In one case, I had to leave comments on about 8 - 10 user talkpages, but still never got feedback. This is partially the reason why I went straight to GAN over One Night Stand (2006) because of the lack of Peer review comments overall. I hope I don't sound like I'm ranting, but this is beginning to become a concern, and as GCF has also said "If you don't get comments on articles then just how do you improve them?" Again, sorry if it sounds like a rant, but this isn't anyones problem as such, its a project problem. I wouldn't call it a major problem, but it is becoming a concern to me to see articles not getting the attention they need while at PR or FAL. Davnel03 08:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I know for me, I try and comment when I can and/or have time. In regards to things like Featured Article noms and Featured List noms, I don't feel I should be commenting because of conflict of interest and because this project has (on more than one occasion) been accused of vote stacking. I can't speak for everyone, but that's my reasoning. Nikki311 16:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved

Just to let ya'll know I moved Tuesday in Texas to This Tuesday in Texas to fit with the logo and and it's labeled as on my WWE DVD's.--Monnitewars (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW notice: 2 Articles in threat of being "pruned"

Two articles currently on the list are on nthe verge of being pruned if they don't get one more vote before tomorrow (14 October). If they don't get one more vote, I will be removing them from the list in about 24 hours. The articles in question are:

According to the "prunning" criteria, a article must have 6 votes in 14 days and 3 votes in 7 days, hence, both articles need one more vote to avoid being pruned. Please list your vote here. Thank you for your co-operation! Davnel03 08:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Only vote for it is you believe it should be a COTW, of course ;). Cheers y'all! The Hybrid T/C 08:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW

Apparently, tomorrow there is going to be a triple tie for the COTW.

Well, those are the candidates, and if someone doesn't vote for one of the top 3, in the next 12 hours, then there is going to be a triple tie. Lex94 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

    • On a side note, I don't understand why people aren't voting for the Hardcore Chair Swingin' Freaks. They were a great tag team in ECW, and just because they aren't that important as the NWO or DX, doesn't mean they deserve a to be a stub. All these articles deserve to be COTW including them. Lex94 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Please see my comments on this page about stub articles (located here). I'd love to hear what people think of this idea. GaryColemanFan 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting suspenseful. I just voted for One Night Stand so it wouldn't be pruned, so now we have a four way tie with each article having 6 votes each. Nikki311 16:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?! You voted for ONS so it doesn't get pruned?... That's not the idea of COTW. You vote for the article YOU want to get improved. You don't vote just because you pitty it. Now, look what you've done. A 4-way tie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all...please calm down. I voted for it so it wouldn't get pruned because I think it should be improved and has a chance at a GA. I didn't just vote for it because I pity it. Second of all...it's not like there wasn't a tie to begin with. It's not like my one vote threw the whole process into chaos. I'm more mature than that. I understand the rules and the purpose behind the COTW. My votes mean something, I'm not just voting because I can. Nikki311 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Lex, please chill out. That is not the way to talk to other members of Wikipedia, especially not other members of a project you belong to - people you need to be able to work with day in and day out toward common goals. I normally wouldn't even respond to this type of comment, but Nikki is an extremly active, positive, and very hard-working member of this project who has made countless improvements to professional wrestling articles. She is an intregal contributor who I've always witnessed work on things both calmly and rationally, and as such, I believe, deserves a tad bit more of respect than you have displayed here. I urge you to not post on talk pages at times when you are angry, mad, stressed etc, because it is really easy to do so without thinking and regret something you said later. Peace, --Naha|(talk) 05:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is a tie, what should we do? Pick the one that reached 6 (or whatever number it hits) first? DrWarpMind 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • My suggestion: Pick two of the four and have two collaborations this week. The other two can be next week's collaborations. We take a week off of nominating and voting until the second set of collaborations is under way. Overall, I like the idea of two collaborations (although, as I've said, I'd prefer that one of them is a stub article). My concern is that, with the number of votes needed to stay on the list from week to week, one or more of these articles will be pruned despite being a top vote-getter this week. GaryColemanFan 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I like that. Maybe the two this week should be the ones that have been up there the longest. Nikki311 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Wrestlemania III has 8 votes now. So, it will hopefully be the new COTW. On a side note, it would make both my nominees COTW for 2 straight weeks (Jerry Lawler, Wrestlemania III) :D Lex94 18:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

QUOTE from COTW page:

In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours.

So, if there's a tie, the above will occur. I really don't think two articles on COTW is a good thing. Maybe in a few months, yes, but not now. We've only got this up and going two weeks! And BTW, looking at one or two comments above, can I just remind some that this is not a race. This is to determine the weeks collaboration of the week. Davnel03 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

i was just kidding, i really dnt care if both my nominations made COTW consecutively. Its just a coincidence. Lex94 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Help request for List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

Someone looked over this article and suggested that the Hogan-Jarrett-Booker T thing would work better as a note than included in the table. I agree, but I haven't found clear instructions on how to make a note. If anyone understands, it would be great if someone could help out. I've been fighting with it for a long time now. Thanks. GaryColemanFan 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Championship names from multiple eras

I've noticed the multiple names used a championship if a wrestler won it under different names. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the hybrid names look lame. My proposal is to use the name of the title from the wrestler's most recent reign. Thoughts? Mshake3 18:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide an example so we know exactly what you are talking about? Nikki311 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah nikki,i didnt understand either.Lex94 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he may mean someone like Hulk Hogan where his WWE title reigns are listed as "WWF/E Championship." Gavyn Sykes 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that it's better to differentiate between the two titles, rather than have a hybrid or just one name, although they share the same history, the wrestler won it when it was referred as something else.--ProtoWolf 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to some degree and I've seen it done this particular way in other articles. For example, even though Tully Blanchard is sometimes referred to as a three time NWA World Television Champion, it's not exactly accurate. When he won it the first time, the championship was simply called the NWA Television Championship. He won the strap two more times after the addition of "World" to the title name. Anyhow, in his article, the two titles are listed seperately thusly:

Even though they're historically the same championship, I think it looks better seperately rather than all musched together like this:

Another possible option could be to list the championships in much the same way as different promotions are to reflect the names they used while a wrestler worked there. If nobody likes the idea of listing differently named championships connected by lineages seperately, this could potentially work:

While I can understand something like Hogan's WWE Title reigns, that Blanchard one is ridiculous IMO and not something we should do. That is like saying we should have The Big Show listed as ECW World Heavyweight Champion/ECW World Champion (since the title changed names during his reign. TJ Spyke 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not wild about the second option, I prefer the first one that I mentioned, but I thought I'd put it out there. Other than the first option, there's not really anything else to do but leave them as they are. I've looked over some of the articles of older and retired wrestlers and many of them are set up with the first option.Odin's Beard 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there other examples? This looks like an extraordinary case. In this case it could easily be solved by stating it as the NWA (World) Television Championship, with the click through providing the information on why the parenthetical is necessary. Same thing goes for any championship that went through a name change that was nothing more than the adding or subtracting of a word (ECW (World) Championship, WCW United States (Heavyweight) Championship) while the person held it. That seems easy enough to understand, doesn't it.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Guys I read this differently. I don't think Mshake was talking about title names. I think the reference was to wrestlers names. For example - X-Pac/Syxx or Shane Helms/Gregory Helms. Also applies to Johnny Nitro/John Morrison which I think is what brought the subject on but I'm guessing. GetDumb 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
GetDumb, I disagree. Mshake said My proposal is to use the name of the title from the wrestler's most recent reign. - DrWarpMind 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

D-X Members/Incaranation Table Appoval

I made this table for the 3 incarnations of DX.

Incarnation # Incarnation Type Year's Active Members
1 Stable September 20, 1997-July 25, 1999 Fully Loaded 1999 Triple H
Shawn Michaels
Road Dogg
X-Pac
Chyna
Rick Rude
Billy Gun
2 Stable October 25, 1999-December 12, 2000 Triple H
Shawn Michaels
Billy Gunn
X-Pac
Tori
Stephanie McMahon
Mike Tyson
4 Tag-Team June 12, 2006-April 1, 2007 Triple H
Shawn Michaels

I created this table for the members in DX, to make the dates more clearer.

Member Joined Departed
Shawn Michaels 1September 20, 1997
1January 4, 1999
3June 12, 2006		 March 29, 1998
See Below1
April 1, 2007(WrestleMania 23)2
Triple H 1September 20, 1997
2October 25, 1999
3June 12, 2006		 March 28, 1999
December 12, 2000
January 7, 2007(New Year's Revolution 2007)2
Chyna 1September 20, 1997 January 25, 1999
Rick Rude 1September 20, 1997 November 17, 1997
Billy Gunn 1,2March 30, 1998
2September 23, 1999		 May 2, 1999
February 28, 2000
Road Dogg 1,2March 30, 1998 August 24, 2000
X-Pac 1,2March 30, 1998 August 24, 2000
Tori 2January 27, 2000 June 25, 2000
Stephanie McMahon 2December 1999 March 2000
Mike Tyson 1 March 29, 1998 (WrestleMania XIV) See Below1

1Member under First Incarnation
2Member under Second Incarnation
3Member under Third Incarnation
1One night only
2Last appearance under third incarnation


Do you approve of the tables to be put in the article?TrUcO9311 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Approve or Oppose

  • I enjoy tables for some reason. Anyway, someone seems to have beaten you to it, as a table was just added to the article. Perhaps you can just tweak the one that is already there. I kind of like the setup in the article currently, with the members being in a table and the incarnations in a list. Two table right next to each other might be table over-kill (and this is coming from a confessed table lover :) ). Nikki311 16:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the incarnations should be grouped a bit differently:
    • 1 original - HBK, HHH, Rude, Chyna, Tyson
    • 2 DX army - HHH, Chyna, X-Pac, Road Dogg, Billy Gunn, Tori, Steph
    • 3 tag team - HHH, HBK
-DrWarpMind 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW update

This weeks Collaboration of the week is WrestleMania III. Please work to expand it as much as you can.

Now, the COTW has reached a landmark occasion. This is the first week where we will be voting for this project's first Featured article collaboration. Let the grand experiment begin! Please nominate and/or vote for which of our Good articles deserves to be featured more than any of the others. At the end of the week, the good article with the most votes will be elected the project collaboration, with the goal of making it a Featured Article. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 05:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey I was going to do that! Oh well, saved me a job. :) Davnel03 07:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a specific week of the month where this occurs? --Aaru Bui DII 03:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Fingerpoke of Doom up for deletion

Discussion here. Davnel03 11:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's going to survive AFD. I suggest that we take it to COTW when there is space for a nomination. Davnel03 15:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY!

Yes! (look at top of page) Thanks to everyone who helped with the article!!!! Right, question time. Should I just leave the article at GA, or actually attempt FA (obviously by getting a copy-edit and stuff first)? :) Davnel03 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You could nominate it as the Featured Article Collaboration of the week. Nikki311 16:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did! :) Davnel03 16:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! You worked incredibly hard on the article, and perhaps even harder on the GA process. I'm very happy to hear that an article full of reliable sources wasn't held back because it was full of reliable sources. GaryColemanFan 16:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Also allow me to congratulate you. You put an insane amount of work into taking this event from a match result listing to a good article. I'm very glad to see this pass to a GA, as it definately should have. I hope the controversy with your similiar ONS article is resolved as well. Gavyn Sykes 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on turning what was a nothing article into a shining example of what a pay-per-view article can be.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! Regardless of whether or not if makes FACOTW, it would be worth considering sending it up for FAC anyway. Once again, job well done! The Hybrid T/C 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably will. I'm not going to go to PR, because I did that before the GA, and the article hasn't changed much since. Davnel03 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Mexican Championships name moves

I’ve made 4 page moves since the original name is a rather misunderstood translation of the Mexican name for it – just like it wasn’t the “WWE Europe Championship” but European Championship it’s the “Mexican National” championship not “Mexico National”. So the moves were as follows.

I’ve also improved/expanded 3 of the 4 articles. Just FYI since it’s within the scope of this project. MPJ-DK 08:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: No New Year's Revolution in 2008

I sent an e-mail to World Wrestling Entertainment several hours ago asking whether there would be a NYR in 2008. Here is the response:

Image:NoNYR2008.jpg

I'm going to post this on the NYR talkpage too. Davnel03 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)