Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 31

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 31

Contents

Jerry Lawler article

I went through and did a copyedit on this article today. I was hoping somebody could help out with a couple of questions, though.

One sentence reads: In August 2007, King Booker who claimed to be the only one entitled to be known as "King".

I don't know anything about the situation, but could someone who follows wrestling please stick a verb in the sentence?

  • Yes they are, but they aren't the verbs that go with the subject. The sentence reads: King Booker, who claimed to be the only one entitled to be known as the "King", verb + direct object. It doesn't matter anyway, because I removed the "who" from the sentence so that "claimed" became the verb and "the only one..." became the DO. Nikki311 00:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The other one is at the top of the "Non-wrestling endeavors" section. I replaced "Lawler has recorded some material" with "Lawler has created some musical recordings." I'm still not thrilled about the sentence, but I think it's more clear. The next sentence duplicates the word "recording," though. Can someone tell me if "Cadillac Man/Memphis" and "Bad News" are songs, records, singles, etc. so that I can fix it up? Thanks.

Incidentally, everyone did great work with the article last week. It's come a very long way. GaryColemanFan 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the King Booker sentence, but the rest of it I'm not too sure about. Nikki311 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer & F4W

i personally (and most other editors of the WWE and TNA articles) believe these sites/newsletters (they do both) to be extreamly reliable when it comes to reporting whats happening in the world of wrestling, but recently certain people seem to be saying they are not credible sources. any mistakes they make are extreamly rare and they also have high placed sources in both companies so i believe when they report a story that we can take it as being as reliable as a story on CNN or something similar, but what is the general consensus on here?Skitzo 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

While Wrestling Observer may be one of the more reliable rumor sites (i've never heard of F4W), I find it laughable to think they are even close to being as trustworthy as a real news site like CNN, especially since they do post rumors as "facts" (so sometimes you can't tell what is a news story and what is just a rumor). TJ Spyke 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Most here know my stance on PWInsider.com. Mshake3 23:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd have a difficult time considering any of those dirtsheets reliable, especially when compared to things like CNN. And I don't believe most editors consider them reliable either. Sorry. DrWarpMind 01:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And we're suppost to trust CNN regarding professional wrestling? Mshake3 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant in terms of trusting them. It's safe to rely on any news story from CNN, you can't say the same thing about most dirtsheets. TJ Spyke 01:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Keyword: Most. There are a few you can trust, and it's time we start using them. Mshake3 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FInd me one that doesn't post rumors as facts (and then when those rumors turn out to be BS, *cough*Jericho at No Mercy*cough*), let me know. Meltzer was just one of the many saying that Jericho would appear at No Mercy, and we now know that turned out to be nothing but BS. TJ Spyke 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
PWInsider. But we've already been there. That's why, if one were to include that information in the article, they would say "This site is reporting that...." I don't see the problem here. Mshake3 02:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer (run by Dave Meltzer) and F4W (run by Bryan Alvarez)are extrweamly reliable and if something is just a rumour they either don't post it at all or state that it is just a rumour, both opperate Newsletters and pay site so they hae a LEGAL respocibility to be as acurate as possible, when it comes to the Wrestling and MMA industires they ARE as reliable as any news agency you care to think of, especially when reporting injuries or the release of Wrestlers. btw i was not talking about adding spoilers or future appearences i was specifically talking about siteing stories regarding releases an injuries. Skitzo 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I honestly think we're confusing "reliable" with "infallible". As far as my reading of WP:SPS, since both WON & F4W are currently self published I believe, is that since both Meltzer & Alvarez are the active editors and have been recognized in the past as experts in the field, their word is valid. Both post rumors as rumors, which means nothing because articles shouldn't have information about "so and so is rumored to be..." in them in the section dealing with current events, which is of course different than notable (citeable) rumors that may have actually effected something (the origins and meaning of Shawn Michaels "Sunny days" comment can be cited over and over)«»bd(talk stalk) 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I hate using them as a such for today's issues (Ric Flair possibly leaving etc.), but like to use them for past issues which we know are true (Montreal Screwjob, Invasion angle etc..). Davnel03 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

HBK

See here.--Monnitewars (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

nWo article

Ok I was trying to fix the nWo article, looking for references, when i came across this website [1], and then I looked at the nWo article here on Wikipedia, and it was the same. So I am going to reconstruct hte article by removing most of the copyright stuff and putting it in more of our own wording. So does anyone have a box that says "currently under construction" or something like that.--TrUcO9311 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep: {{underconstruction}}. TJ Spyke 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nospam COTW List

My name's on there, yet I still received the message. Koberulz 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous Freebirds

I've been adding a few references to this article, but I'm confused about one thing. In the "Championships and accomplishments" section, a few singles titles are mentioned (eg. NWA United States Heavyweight Championship - Hayes). Does these belong in the team's article, or should they just be in the articles for the individual wrestlers? I was also wondering if someone could help with the general layout of the article--it has a lot of sections, but I'm not sure they're all necessary as their own sections, or in some cases, if they're necessary at all ("Members" discusses everybody except Roberts, Gordy and Hayes, "Other appearances", "Offshoots"). GaryColemanFan 15:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the individual championships were won while the stable was together and active, then they should stay. Nikki311 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: New Photo

I've placed a new photo on World Tag Team Championship (WWE).--Monnitewars (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to add a Fair Use rationale to it or it will get deleted. Nenog 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a template for that?--Monnitewars (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit, Monnitewars. There is a free use image available (The Hurricane image with the title). I really cannot see the problem with using that. Davnel03 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the edit summary, I said the belt is cut off the purpose of a photo on that page is to show the whole belt which the photo with the hurricane does not.--Monnitewars (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The photo has been on the WTTT page for several months - no one else has moaned and groaned about it. There's no problem with the photo. Your causing a problem by trying to cause an avoidable argument. Davnel03 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here. Davnel03 21:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The NYR article

So someone contacted WWE via e-mail, and asked them whether WWE New Years Revolution would take place this coming January, so how would we add to the article that the PPV was cancelled, becuase it wouldnt make sense if we put on there thata Wiki user contacted WWE and told them it was cancelled. ANswers?--TrUcO9311 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as I was the user that contacted them, I do not mind if you insert the image into the article as "evidence" for the time being. Davnel03 21:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Said this on the NYR article - until WWE officially announce that it has been cancelled there is no reason to believe this to be true. If that annoys you, Davnel, then I apologise, but there are too many fakes going around for any true ones to be believed. If you did email them did you tell them that? If you didn't I suggest you do. GetDumb 00:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Melina Perez

Okay, myself and Deep Shadow have been working on Melina's article getting it ready for a Good Article nomination. Leave comments or suggestions on the article's talk page, or feel free to make changes yourself. I'll nominate it in one week if everyone agrees that it is ready. Thanks. Nikki311 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from 24.44.131.115

This user is back and once again vandalising wrestling articles. I'm pretty busy right now, so if someone could check out his/her contributions, that would be great. I'll see if I have a chance to look through some of them later. GaryColemanFan 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: this IP address has been blocked for one month. GaryColemanFan 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Might be a plan to watch this IP in a month. Looks like a serial vandal to me. GetDumb 01:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WWE Friday Night SmackDown!/Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)

Just a general note, people should pay attention to these two articles. I hate to post spoilers here, but Vickie Guerrero announced at the SmackDown tapings (they taped them earlier today since all three brands are touring Europe this week) that SmackDown wrestlers will be allowed to compete on ECW and ECW wrestlers will be allowed to compete on SmackDown (the real reason of coarse is because ECW only has 13 wrestlers, thus they pretty much have the same matches every week). Already there have been some IP's adding it despite the announcement not airing on TV or wwe.com. TJ Spyke 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but its on WWE.Com already so its official. But as you said we need to watch out for those IP's--TrUcO9311 00:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what WWE.com says is "While nothing is signed as of yet..." Nenog 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I just read the article, the article says there have just been discussions. Either way, it's not the same as merging the two brands. I have requested that both articles be semi-protected for 4 days (so IP's can't edit them). TJ Spyke 00:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good.--Monnitewars (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also watch out for Australian edits as we see Smackdown before the US does. GetDumb 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Promotion template

Do we have a professional wrestling promotion article standardized format that I am just failing to find around here? If not do we think we should look in to constructing one? All I have found is the template for the basic info in the box that goes in the upper right hand corner. Thanks for the help. WFPro 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Just do the same thing you are supposed to for any article, or look at the WWE article for an example. TJ Spyke 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Alright. Not a problem. I have no problem coming up with a proper format myself for the particular article I am working on I just thought if there was no set format already I would check with our popular opinion as the aim of this WikiProject is to standardize all wrestling related articles.
WFPro 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Spoilers and Articles to watch:

Kurt Angle, Sting, and the TNA World Title. I added them to articles to watch due to TNA's tapings tonight, and the fact that some people are probably goign to try and change it sooner or later.--ProtoWolf 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: King Haka

King Haka (via WP:PROD on 2007-10-18) Kept

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an AfD, not a Prod. !! Justa Punk !! 07:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

As many of you know I have been working on this article extensively, and last week, finally managed to get it to GA status. If the article did not get the most amount of votes to be FACOTW, would it be worth me nominating it for FA status? Personally, I think I should nominate it, but wanted to get the opinions of other people. Davnel03 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should nominate it. I believe it (along with Bobby Eaton) have very good chances of becoming featured articles regardless of whether or not they are chosen for the FotM. I say go for it. Gavyn Sykes 15:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. If it doesn't look like it's got a realistic chance of being FACOTW on Saturday, I'll nominate it for FA status (that's if no one here has any strong opposition). Davnel03 18:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talia Madison

Sorry to start 2 conversations in such a short space of time. Should Madison have an article now that she debuted at the PPV (unfortunately the page is protected from being created)? Davnel03 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion she would be relevant enough as she has also worked shows for the WWE, even though they were in negligible roles. WFPro 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say wait until she has a good angle going in TNA, something worthy of writing about. Nikki311 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Her article had been protected from creation, but I have gotten it unprotected. If somebody wants to recreate it, make sure it is sourced and indicates why she is notable (part of the reason past versions of her article were deleted). TJ Spyke 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked into this a little, and I have to say I don't understand. There are articles for Awesome Kong, Angel Williams, ODB, and, obviously, Shelly Martinez. With the exception of Martinez, they all (including Madison) have very similar notability away from TNA. What sets Talia apart as being unworthy of an article? I admit I've been gone a while, but is working in a WWE developmental fed paid that much mind now? I can't really remember that being the case. Tromboneguy0186 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Her article was not only deleted, but salted?? Wow, that's showing extreme prejudice. I'm missing the crux of the issue, it seems. Tromboneguy0186 11:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

GA candidate notification

Once Al Costello passe GA I plan on nominating Don Kent (wrestler) for GA, it's on par with both the Fabulous Kangaroos (already GA) and Al Costello (hopefully soon GA) and as such shouldn't have a huge problem achieving it. Eventually I want to get Roy Heffernan to GA and maybe the Kangaroos one to FA to make a featured topic (Fabulous Kangaroos), but that's way in the future. For now it's all about improving Don Kent (wrestler), so I'd appriciate any and all input from copyeditors etc. to ensure smooth sailing once I put it up for GA. Thanks MPJ-DK 11:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Notification of move

Not that I think it'd be a problem but since it is your guys focus area I'd like to inform you that I've made the following move.

AAA Second Mascot Tag Team Championship → AAA Mascot Tag Team Championship

Not that it's a huge inconvinence or anything but still.MPJ-DK 11:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Added Madison Article

Hi, I added the articles for Jamie Szantyr aka Talia Madison of TNA. Go have a look. Thanks. ThisDude62 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the editor who deleted tha lst Madison article if he can unsalt it (so someone can create her article at Talia Madison, her best known name) since she also wrestled at iMPACT tonight. TJ Spyke 05:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it'd be cool to just redirect Talia Madison to the Jamie Szantyr article instead of just migrating everything there. But thanks for that. ThisDude62 05:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Right now nothing can be done to the Talia Madison article. If it does get unprotected, all you have to do is use the move tab and everything from the Jamie Szabtyr article will be moved there. TJ Spyke 05:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

What is WP:PW's policy on spoilers? I never have seen a spoiler tag on PW articles, and I havent seen anywhere a warning to not include spoilers. Just curious for future editing. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, PPV articles do have a spoiler tag (check out an upcoming PPV to see it). We also try to put a standard hidden warning (meaning you have to click Edit to see it) at the bottom of most bio articles. One thing is to not to add what happens at WWE/TNA tapings until they air on US TV or are mentioned on the companies official website (i.e. when wwe.com mentioned Edge winning the World Heavyweight Championship at the SmackDown taping). On bio articles, no future matches are supposed to be mentioned (i.e. don't mention Orton defending the WWE Title at Cyber Sunday until after Cyber Sunday). TJ Spyke 07:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Needed to know that for future editing. I was checking out the WWE talk page, and the discussion you and Hybrid had with some dude obsessed with Hornswoggle. It gave me curiosity about where spoilers stand on WP:PW. Thanks. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

TJ wasn't around for the major dispute several project members and I had that involved several users from the outside community, so he shouldn't know about this. WP:PW is no longer allowed to removed spoilers that are backed up with a reliable source. The catch to that is, no reliable sources for the spoilers exist (there are a couple, but I won't mention them). Therefore, it is safe to assume that you can remove them on sight. If I'm in a bad mood, or if they put it back, I'll give the inserting user an {{uw-unsourced1}} warning for inserting it. If they provided a source and you removed it, first off make sure the source fails WP:RS, and then tell them that it fails, thus the spoilers cannot be inserted with that source. If it passes, and most dirt sheets do not (there are a couple, but you can count them on one hand), then put {{spoiler}} before it, and {{endspoiler}} after it. If you yourself want to insert spoilers, then slap yourself with a dead fish. Spoilers are evil, and drive good users away from this project. They should be avoided at all costs, and war must be fought against them. When they cannot be avoided, they should be weakened and given no power to actually spoil anything, and the inserting user should be driven away permanently. I hope this has answered all of your questions. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 13:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. It is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid spoilers for taped shows on here. For one, the associated articles will suddendly get a ton of edits. Their talk pages will basically just give it away as well. Both these things will show up in a user's wishlist. Attempting to defend against it is pointless. Mshake3 14:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
On a personal note, I read the SmackDown spoilers, so I don't mind seeing them here (not that they are acceptable to post). However, I make it a point to ignore the iMPACT tapings so I can watch them spoiler free, which is why I got pissed off when someone posted a major spoiler that won't air until next weeks episode. TJ Spyke 20:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if a talk page is allowed with spoilers, then what is really the point. An established wikipedia user [or any person which is curious for more information] would look in an article's talk page. So, I find that if spoilers would be prohibited without source outside the talk page, it should be inside too. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No matter what rule you place out there, people will still be spoiled, because once it's seen, it's over. Someone could add a "New WWE Champion" section to a wrestlers talk page, and then someone will attempt to get rid of it. However, the section title "New WWE Champion" will probably still be left in the edit description. Or it'll say "no spoilers", which'll then be read as "wow, something big happened." You just can't stop it, no matter how much you try. Mshake3 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
So we don't try? Forgive me for having balls. Forgive me for trying to keep people from being driven away from the project. Forgive me for realizing what's best, and having the balls to try and make it so. Forgive me for enforcing the verifiability policy. Forgive me for trying to send a message to the outside community that while we willingly obey the policies, we are not their bitch to be slapped around. Obviously this project is their bitch, whether or not they are forcing us to obey the policies, or just their personal opinions about how things should be run. Once again, forgive me for standing up for this project by enforcing the policies. I'm truly sorry. The Hybrid T/C 14:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. We all make mistakes. I've known that I've fought several unwinnable battles in my lifetime. Mshake3 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, that sarcasm was almost as funny as my own. I will revert any unsourced material, period. I actually have policy on my side, in addition to balls, unlike anyone else, apparently. The Hybrid T/C 05:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
What do u mean unlike anyone else? I was the one who asked about it, and I believe that spoilers should be banned from talk pages also (like I said above). This is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling fansite. However, like Mshake3 said, people can post whatever they want on userpages. It's a user's responsibility to know which pages to trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Calm calm. Lex, we've had the spoiler discussion many times. Just a month or two ago there was a knock down drag out fight about them. You are not the first to bring it up, and you won't be the last. I don't think Hybrid meant he was the "only one PERIOD", however he IS one of the very few. I, myself, was intregal in the last spoiler debate and was the one who brought in the entire point about how they drive people away from working on the articles. I've just been mostly absent from Wikipedia for the last 3 weeks or so due to outside commitments. But really, don't take things so seriously.--Naha|(talk) 12:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the previous fight is why I get so riled up about this, as I ended up basically fighting a small army of retards on my own, loosing simply by attrition when a family emergency pulled me away from the computer for a couple of days. I apologize if I offended you, personally Lex, with my comments. As far as anyone else who can't stomach fighting them because they think they can't win, they can just suck it up and take it like, oh IDK, someone with balls, tiny as their's may be. Or they can bitch about it, and prove me right. I really don't care. FTW, The Hybrid T/C 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

2 very important notices (FAC nomination and GAR reminder)

After a lot of very hard work getting December to Dismember (2006) to GA status and having it passed, it looks like it will not be this weeks FACOTW (personally I don't mind whether it is or isn't), so I have nominated it for FA status. Please comment on the article; the discussion is here.

Also, as you may or may not know One Night Stand (2006) was inappropriately failed a week ago. I took it to WP:GAR, but haven't got many comments on the situation from WP:PW. If other people do not comment the article will not (and probably will never) be promoted. The discussion in question is here.

I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Davnel03 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Scott "Sick Boy" Vick...

If anyone can help make it better let me know because I was able to clean it up some. --Crash Underride 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You could add some references, at the moment the article is unsourced. Davnel03 19:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up per the manual of style. Adding references from reliable sources would be your best bet. Nikki311 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania III

As many of you know, WrestleMania III is the current COTW. I've been working on it, and a lot of information was added recently by a couple of other users. Some of the grammar and English of the new additions could be cleaned up a bit. I cleaned up as much as I could, but I've just been staring at it for too long. Could some of the copy editors out there clean it up for me and make the English sound more sophisticated. Thanks. Nikki311 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote it ALL. Yeah, all of it. Well, I find that the English is fine, the only problem with the page is that it's in-universe. But, I just can't find it in my heart to write something like "Hogan was booked to slam and end Andre's undefeated streak...]] or something like that, because it just doesnt sound right. When someone writes "was booked to..", immediately, it is implying that there is a ",but this happened.." or "yet he didnt make it to the event..." or something that will counter the original phrase. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The article has a lot of good information and sources. I'm definitely impressed. TJ Spyke, Aaru Bui and I did some copyediting tonight, and I think it's looking pretty good now. I left a couple of things that I wasn't clear on (eg. "The Dream Team argued into the match, so Greg Valentine and Dino Bravo left together..."), but it's looking much, much better overall. I'd say the article deserves a promotion. It must be at least B-class by now. Good work to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan 06:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I nominated this article for COTW, so I wanted it to be successful. The night before yesterday, the Background section was very short, so I wrote a huge section. Then, Nikki told me I didnt have enough sources (which sadly was true), so I surfed the internet looking for reliable sources. I filled the Background section with reliable sources, and then I found it was "near-perfection"; so the next day I edited the EVENT section. I did the same with the EVENT section, but I looked for the sources first (much more responsible) and "Voila!", We have ourselves excellent Background and Event sections. Now, obviously, like you said, they still can use some correcting. I think the only thing wrong with it, is that it's in-universe (even though i like it better that way), needs more pictures (don't know where to find them ,without Yamla getting on my case saying they're copyright), and whatever English-grammar correcting I had wrong. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look...

...here.--Monnitewars (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Bryant Gumbel, why are you doing this? Mshake3 04:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's just an idea proposal, don't get your panties in a wad.--Monnitewars (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Mshake. I don't see the point. WWE articles get enough attention as it is, and any member of the project would most likely be a member of WP:PW, too. If it should exist at all, it should be a task force with this project. Nikki311 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
THen state that there not here.--Monnitewars (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

Just wanted to give a quick update...I nominated this article a while back and it was promoted to Featured List status today.

Now, I believe DrWarpMind will be nominating the List of WWE European Champions next, so be sure to give some input on that one. I was thinking that it would be nice to have another nominee ready for when the European Championship list is finished. Any suggestions? GaryColemanFan 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done - shows the amount of hard work you put into the list to get it to that level! On a side note, can people please put comments here as I have nominated December to Dismember (2006) for FA status, but no one has supported or opposed it. :[ Davnel03 09:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE European Champions has been nominated here. Please take some time to comment on it. Thanks. DrWarpMind 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on our main project page!

I don't know exactly what the war is about, but think that it should be brought here for a proper resolution. The edit history says it all. Monnitewars has been adding this which has been removed by several members (quite rightly), but wanted to come to a proper solution that satisfies everybody. If fact, the original revision did satisify everybody.... bar one. Having a edit war on the main page, really doesn't look good for the project as a whole. Davnel03 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I already solved this. Nikki311 14:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of the present tense on championship pages

It's not particularly prevalent, but there's one occurrence I've seen numerous times. It's usually in the notes box next to a particular champion when something happens to the title, such as when it changes names. For example, my old favorite FIP World Heavyweight Championship used to have this text in the notes next to Roderick Strong's name:

"Becomes the FIP World Heavyweight Championship when Strong defeats PAC in Liverpool, England at ROH's Fifth Year Festival: Liverpool."

"Becomes" and "defeats," despite everything else on the page being in the past tense. ROH World Championship used to have something similar regarding the name change and the unification with the pure title, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions contains a noodle-scratching mix of both the present and past tense that I'm going to fix as soon as I'm done writing this, same for List of WWE Champions, though the shift from "Undisputed" is entirely in the present tense. Again, this is with everything else on all of these pages being in the past tense. I've fixed a few occurrences on other pages as well (I think CZW World Heavyweight Championship had something similar as well).


Is there any reason for these particular notes to be in the present tense? If there is, it's escaping me. Nosleep1234 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be in the past tense, as it happened in the past. Nikki311 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason for this, like many other mistakes throughout all articles on Wikipedia ..is that anyone can, and does edit the articles ;) --Naha|(talk) 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's very nearly systematic. It's appeared on almost all championship articles (or list of holders on the WWE championships). Nosleep1234 18:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This does seem incorrect. I'll keep an eye out for it. Tromboneguy0186 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A-Class Articles

Are there any A-Class articles in WP:PW, because there is no mention of them on the Main Page. An A-Article is rated higher than a Good Article, so I dont understand why the GAs are mentioned and As arent Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There are currently no A-class professional wrestling articles. I've sometimes wondered why we don't try to push some of the Good Articles up to A-class. One other thing I've been wondering is how the statistics are updated on the "Professional wrestling article stats" table. The numbers seem to be off (most notably the Featured Articles and Good Articles). GaryColemanFan 18:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the A-class article thing works, but my guess would be a peer review type thing. The statistics on the table are updated by a bot. It is supposed to update every three days, but sometimes it can go more than a week before updating...that's why the numbers are sometimes off. Nikki311 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, evidence of WP:PW not even notifying the existence of A-Class, is the FACOTW. (Improving GAs into FAs) I think they must become A-Class, before jumping them right into FA. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That hasn't been the case with the FA's that have been approved so far so I'd say you're mistaken. MPJ-DK 06:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not saying that it has happened, or it will happen. I just don't feel right about people ignoring the existance of the A-Class rating. If we will just ignore it, why have it? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles don't have to climb a scale and hit every rung on the ladder. If they improve enough, sometimes they can skip a step or two between evaluations. I don't think anyone is intentionally ignoring any of the steps, its just not that black and white. We shouldn't try to force a particular rating level upon articles, but rather try to see where they fit naturally. If its A class, so be it. If its FA, even better! --Naha|(talk) 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So, if some GAs arent ready for FAs, the improvements can be specified as A-Class? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

WWF Halftime Heat

Does this really warrant its own article? Should we AFD it? DrWarpMind 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. One match rarely, if ever, deserves its own article. Nikki311 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely AfD it. Completely non-notable info. It should be mentioned in Rock's and Foley's articles, that's about it. Gavyn Sykes 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Done - DrWarpMind 19:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It was just a live edition of Sunday Night Heat, so I agree that it should be deleted (since we also deleted RAW specials like WWE Homecoming). TJ Spyke 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December to Dismember (2006)

I absolutely hate to bug people about this, but can people involved in this project please comment on the article. If people don't begin to comment on it at the above link, it will be failed. Sorry to bug you about this, but if I get not many comments, I can't improve it. The discussion is getting a bit out of hand between me and Lex94 and would appreciate some other comments. Davnel03 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

How was the discussion getting out of hand? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, because me and you are discussing about something at the above link, yet I cannot see any compromise coming, therefore I would like other opinions from people in this project. Davnel03 08:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I am all for the article. But, like I said, you must rid the in-universe statements, and you need reliable sources; then it will be easy to get an FA. You can't just say that the discussion is getting "out-of-hand", because I disagree that it's ready for its FA. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Images for WrestleMania III

Desperately need images for the article mentioned above. Any help will be appreciated. Can someone please tell me if there are pictures on wikipedia that can fit in the article, or in which site I can find images of WM3? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern about the picture that was added. Part of the Fair Use rationale is that it's already being used on several webpages and its use on Wikipedia doesn't make it more visible. Can someone identify two webpages (aside from those that copy Wikipedia articles) that use it? I think this statement is used too frequently, with little regard whether or not it's true. If someone can identify two sites (the WWE page counts as one), I'll drop the issue. GaryColemanFan 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this picture has been there for nearly a year now (since November 16, 06) and no one has found some problem with it. But, I see your point. Well, here's another site where the image is being used: http://www.answers.com/topic/wrestlemania-iii Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That page is just a copy of the wiki page. DrWarpMind 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Answers is what we call a mirror site. Every article on Wikipedia is automatically copied to some sites like Answers.com (which is allowed under the terms of the GFDL license), although it sometimes takes a couple of hours to update. TJ Spyke 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't know that. Sorry, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

At this link [2], there is another picture of Steamboat vs. Savage that can replace the one in the article. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright for that picture? And how does having a picture of Steamboat's and Steele's chins help the article? GaryColemanFan 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing. And it helps the article, because in the GA Criteria page, it mentions images are needed. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WWE vs ECW head to head

Wasnt this a special episode of RAW, so it can be added ?--TrUcO9311 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a special program, like Saturday Night's Main Event. It aired after RAW. Here's an easy way to know; on RAW Lilian García was knocked off the ring apron by Charlie Haas, injuring her wrist so she had to leave for the night. At HtH, she was announcing again with her wrist taped up. - Deep Shadow 01:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it aired on Wednesday, June 7, 2006.TJ Spyke 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I know, that's what I meant. I didn't mean it aired directly after RAW went off the air. - Deep Shadow 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that's what it sounded like you said. TJ Spyke 03:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer the question: no. It was a one time special, like Super Tuesday and the Smackdown! Special. Mshake3 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you just wondering.TrUcO9311 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

IP 202.180.171.148

I probably shouldn't do this, but is this IP anyone's here? The IP has made one or two edits to the COTW page, including declaring who has won etc. I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, but should IP's really be doing that? Also, is this anyone's IP address here, but just have forgotten to log in? Davnel03 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not my IP address, but I'm confused about next week's collaboration. Hulk Hogan is not one of the candidates, if I understand correctly. Should the "Current Collaboration of the Week" be changed back to WrestleMania III until the voting for next week (the Featured Article Collaboration of the Week) is finished? GaryColemanFan 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what I think. Until the next collaboration is decided, WrestleMania III is still the current one and should be listed as such. It's not my IP eitherTJ Spyke 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not my IP address either. Gavyn Sykes 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is the bot informing people that Hulk Hogan is this week's collaboration? He's not a candidate for this week, and it currently looks like Bobby Eaton will be chosen for the collaboration. GaryColemanFan 22:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hogan nomination was deleted by the IP after "proclaiming" that article the winner. Original nomination: [3] --Aaru Bui DII 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't my IP, either. I say that we just roll with it. Let Hogan be the nominee this week, and have the FACOTW next week. The bot notifying everyone is my fault, as I forgot about the FACOTW :(. Sorry everyone (Hybrid bows head in shame) The Hybrid T/C 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hybrid. The bot's already informing people about Hogan. Trying to undo that would just be confusing to people and not really worth it. Just push it back a week. DrWarpMind 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why isn't Hogan technically the COTW? And what does the FACOTW have to do with it? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This week was supposed o be the Featured Article Collaboration, so Hulk Hogan, which is not a GA, wouldn't have been the COTW until next week. An IP jumped the gun and declared Hogan the COTW, and I messed things up further by having the bot deliver the notices. There's no turning back now. The Hybrid T/C 23:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Ick, what a mess. Well, we'll have to roll with it. We have a tie for the FACOTW anyway, so this may work out better. Gavyn Sykes 23:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we have the COTW and the FACOTW at the same time? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that they do occur at the same time. --Aaru Bui DII 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought that to. Oh well. I'm planning to do some kind of "schedule" in my sandbox to solve the problem. :) Davnel03 08:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Table Proposal

Date Type
October 21 - October 27 Collaboration of the Week
October 28 - November 3 Featured Article Collaboration of the Week
November 4 - November 10 Collaboration of the Week
November 11 - November 18 Collaboration of the Week
November 18 - November 25 Collaboration of the Week
November 25 - December 1 Featured Article Collaboration of the Week
December 2 - December 8 Collaboration of the Week
December 9 - December 15 Collaboration of the Week
December 16 - December 22 Collaboration of the Week
December 23 - December 29 Featured Article Collaboration of the Week
  • How do people feel about the above table? It may not be the best thing ever, but we can mainly just use it to keep up to date. Davnel03 08:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I say just pick a day of the month and we'll do it the week the day falls on. --Aaru Bui DII 08:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the page to make the FACOTW sound less of a separate thing and made it more clear in places. How about we just choose the week in which the 1st day of every month falls on? Simple, easy to explain, and falls on next week. --Aaru Bui DII 09:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
      • That's fine, and I like the table. When I proposed the idea of the FACOTW, I intended for it to be the COTW that week, but obviously I didn't make that clear, and it isn't a popular idea. Y'all do whatever y'all want, as I'm too disgusted with myself to defend my point of view in a convincing way. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 00:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I like the table, *hugs* Hybrid. --Naha|(talk) 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Thanks Naha :) *hugs* The Hybrid T/C 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've added the table. Feel free to move or revert. On a side note, the COTW has been quiet today. I hope it's not a sign of things to come. Davnel03 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't get discourged yet Davne, the amount of edits for any article, including COTWs flucuate on a daily basis. One day of no edits is nothing to worry about! :) --Naha|(talk) 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So what's the pattern to the table? --Aaru Bui DII 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Consenssus needed...

There is a dispute to which photo should be on WrestleMania. Photo A or Photo B. Which one? GIve you Opinion here.--Monnitewars (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Disputes (Stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place....)

I'm in the middle of multiple disputes involving the reliability of sources concerning PPV articles (note: does not concern the reliability of superstar articles), and whether we as a whole should use dirtsheets as sources.

  • The dispute regarding sources, is between me and another user over December to Dismember (2006) during the FAC process. The user in question, Lex94 is stating that WrestleView.com is not a reliable source. Now, I'm not going to be the first to admit that everything that goes onto that website is going to be true, because, from time-to-time there will probably be 1 or 2 stories that are false, but on the whole I would say it is "quite reliable". I've used WWE.com as a source in many places in the article, but as we know WWE.com for the most part stays inside kayfabe, and rarely goes outside kayfabe (unless a "major event" occures at SmackDown! tapings etc.). Because of the fact, Lex (and some might agree with him some might not) is stating that he believes that WrestleView is completely unreliable, and as the Sabu paragraph in the December to Dismember article contains mostly WrestleView sources (+ a book source), the user is stating that it must be removed as OR. As Nikki stated on the FAC page that, although WrestleView isn't exactly reliable, the Sabu information isn't going to be found on WWE.com. Of course if Paul Heyman releases a book detailing D2D (which I bet won't happen) the WrestleView source should stay. Opinions? Should the WrestleView source stay in the article?
  • So if we decide no, and that the WrestleView source MUST go, we are at the other Extreme. This means that, the whole of the Aftermath section will have to be removed, so will the Sabu section, meaning that the FAC will be an obvious failure. Also, it could mean that, without proper seperate RS, it leaves it in a similar position as One Night Stand (2006), which has no WrestleView.com sources, but failed GA. I took it to GAR, but it looks like failure will be endorsed. Now, here's where we will come full circle. The only way we could get ONS 2006 to GA is IF we use more non-WWE.com source. So what could we use? Well, yes, we will have to possibly go to using WrestleView sourcing, so that it can pass GA despite it not being 100% reliable!!

So, I'm between a rock and a hard place (hence the title). Do I:

  • KEEP WrestleView sourcing - so it has a realistic chance of becoming a featured article
  • REMOVE WrestleView sourcing or find other sourcing. Removing WrestleView sourcing, means that the article quality will be downgraded and that the article may have its Good article status removed.

On a side note, how should I do the "Event" section of the article. MPJ-DK and Lex are having a discussion about this, again on the FAC page. Lex is stating that during the Event section, you must state that these finishes and matches are pre-planned and pre-determined. He also believes that we should state that a particular set-up was set up before hand, violating OR. Although we probably know that they (Hardys/MNM in Lex's examples) talked about the match pre-hand, we have no sources to back it up. I personally think this is wrong in itself.

Opinions on the above matters? Sorry it's SUCH a long post, but I needed to get that out! Either comment here, or at the FAC. Again, apologises for the long post - but I'm stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place. :( Davnel03 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NICE. The article, because of LACK OF OPINION has been FAILED. Davnel03 09:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Ignore above striked out comment. I'm trying to get the decision reversed and let the FAC continue. I'd like opinions on the above matter, if I don't get opinions on the above, it will be hard to get the article to FA. Davnel03 12:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
As long as the article as a WHOLE stays "out of universe", every single sentence does NOT have to have a "kayfabe type word" thrown in, that is rediculous. As far as sources go, the jury is still out for me. --Naha|(talk) 13:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Is it me, or is this discussion getting ignored? Davnel03 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't understand why this discussion is getting ignored. This matter does not only include December to Dismember (2006), but all PPV articles. Lex94 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs)
Actually, it appears that you didn't sign (there is no link in your signature), you appeared to manually write that info in. TJ Spyke 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats odd. Well, I did sign with the Signature buttonbut for some reason, it had no link. Weird... Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think dirt sheets are completely valueless in an encyclopedic sense. They post rumors, inuendoes, and things that aren't independently verifiable (while it may not be required to have 2 sources give the same info, it sure doesn't hurt). This does leave things like Torch, the Observer, and PWI (that's PW Insider) in kind of a gray area, since they aren't seen on the same level as wrestleview and rajah and wrestlezone and all the others, but I don't believe they're considered as meeting the WP:RS standard, either. Tromboneguy0186 12:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ECW ONS 2007

Ok on the page One Night Stand (2007) There is a incredibly long backstory on the page. Normally its not on the p0age its in their individual articles. I keep getting reverted though when i change it. Will someone help me?LifeStroke420 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, because you are removing sourced information. Davnel03 15:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That page is being expanded, so it can have a chance at Good Article status. Please stop removing the information. Nikki311 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Monnitewars blocked indefintely as a sock of Hornetman16

The headline speaks for itself. Keep an eye out for any "new" users that have similar edit patters to them. Davnel03 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It all makes so much sense now!!! Nikki311 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
XD, holy crap. She's right, it does make sense now. Gavyn Sykes —Preceding comment was added at 20:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Though I saw this before, I shall post now what I thought when I first found out. ZOMG!!! It all fits together now! The Hybrid T/C 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised the sock lived that long, well now keep an eye open for any new account that shows simmilar disregard for the 3RR and OWN. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
He also likes to add nonfree images and makes a big stink when they are removed. That's another big trait. He's also obsessed with colourful fancy signature thingies. -- Scorpion0422 22:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont recall a Hornetman 16... Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You haven't been active enough around here the last few months to have necessairly seen him :P Sockpuppets are bad juju. --Naha|(talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Quick description of Hornetman16, he's an asshole :P. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This comment made me laugh for like 10 minutes. Thanks, because my roommate now thinks I'm psycho. Nikki311 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 ;) The Hybrid T/C 02:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So you mean to tell me that absolutely NO ONE in this project saw even the slightest similarity between the two users for the months that Monnitewars was active?!?! Good god, I'm surprised it took as long as it did for anyone to realize it was actually him. I come back to check my talk page after about 2 months of inactivity and see a *new* user who I've never even met before try to recruit me to support them in a littlie dispute they were losing in. [4] Hmmm... Familiar [5]. Then I take a little look at his logs and find dozens of reversions to images Hornetman16 had reverted to as well. [6] [7] To top it all off, a little peek at his own page and contributions and the only thing I see is the same aggressive, hot-headed remarks found on Hornetman16's page (before it was deleted) and contributions. As soon as I confronted him about it [8] he quickly denied any relation to Hornetman16 [9] and even went as far as to delete my comments to Deskana informing him of the obvious sock. [10] This resulted in an indefinite block from Deskana and Monnite denying any relation to Hornet yet again. An amusing conversation soon followed. [11] Still, I am amazed I was the only one who immediately realized who this was... kind of frightening really…-- bulletproof 3:16 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I had a suspicion but my evidence was only circumstantial. Just things like his signature and user page header, his constant edit warring, the changing of the WWE ring image, and one minor thing I noticed was both users were from Florida. It wasn't enough to act upon. Next time I notice similarities I will report them here without holding back. - Deep Shadow 02:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah good idea. I'll try to be on more often to keep an eye out on things too. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you followed the movies of his dog back to his myspace page, it was pretty obvious too. Unfortunately, I didn't find that until other people started to call him out. -DrWarpMind 02:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, if you're a good contributor, I don't give two shits if you're a sock. Just saying. Mshake3 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, he was far from a good contributor... Just saying. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh I agree (see my Bryant Gumble comment). I'm just saying that I don't look to see if someone's edits are similar to a previously banned user. Seems like a waste of time. Mshake3 02:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It may seem like it at times but when they're this obvious you cant help but wonder... Anyway, I'm just glad that's over with.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I never payed much attention to Hornetman for my own sanity. He just got on my last nerve. That's why I made the comment about it making sense when I found that MW was his sock. I guess I should pay more attention to my woman's intuition. Nikki311 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I never paid any attention either. I knew enough about him to know bulletproof was right, but not enough to even suspect it myself. The Hybrid T/C 02:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag title or tag titles?

When referring to a tag team championship, do you say "the team regained the title" or "the team regained the titles." While it may be "considered one title" it does, in fact, involve two people and two belts, and to me, the plural seems correct here. I seem to always see it referred to in the plural also:

Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/cademurdochhardys06052007

  • And as Raw wound to a close, Cade and Murdoch were busy posing in a photo studio with their newly-won World Tag Team Championships – a reward that was a long time coming.
  • As virtual No. 1 contenders to The Hardys World Tag Team Championship, they didn’t complain when The World’s Greatest Tag Team stepped around them to challenge the Carolina brothers for the titles at One Night Stand.
  • But then again, when the mentally skewed Mr. McMahon told The Hardys to face Cade and Murdoch with the titles on the line that night, the blue-collar duo didn’t offer any condolences to the brothers.
  • They knew that The Hardys were hurting. And they knew if any night was to be their night to win the titles, it was then – even if they needed to temporarily suspend their straight-and-narrow ways to win the gold.

Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/mnmtagchamps

  • Not only do we make the WWE Tag Titles look good, but the WWE Tag Titles look so good around Johnny & Joey’s gorgeous waists.
  • We’ve taken those WWE Tag Team Titles, and done more for them in one week than Eddie and Rey did during their entire time as champions. Those titles have become famous, kind of like us, and everybody in Hollywood wants to see them.
  • Our friends weren’t really that surprised that we won. It’s just like brother Nitro and Melina said, we told everyone we were going to win the titles, and then we did just that.

Source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive/10052007/articles/keeponhatin

  • Deuce & Domino are the former WWE Tag Team Champions. They lost their titles to Matt & MVP on SmackDown last August, then failed in a bid to recapture them at Unforgiven.
  • As in “nothing to be gained except another opportunity for the WWE Tag Team Titles.
  • Fate in the form of a Basketball Challenge is what motivated General Manager Theodore Long to team Matt & MVP together in a Tag Match for the titles.

I could go on, but I've already taken up enough space here with my examples. I bring this up for two reasons: (1) I had this edit reverted and I'm not sure it was correct, and (2) we DO need to be consistent throughout all of our articles. Please comment, thanks. --Naha|(talk) 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(1): I think you were correct
: (2): We definitely need to be consistent. Davnel03 13:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been writing it as title (singular), but I'm not opposed to writing it plural. Just thought I'd throw that out there. However, I do think that when referring to it as Tag Team Championship, we should stay in the singular because writing it plural makes it sound like it is more than one (obviously). Ex. The Hardys won the Tag Team Championship as opposed to The Hardys won the Tag Team Championships. Nikki311 13:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree Titles & belts in plural but championship since there is only one, just represented by two title belts.MPJ-DK 14:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One "title," one "championship," two "belts." What's so hard about that?

ti·tle /ˈtaɪtl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tahyt-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, adjective, verb, -tled, -tling.
–noun
1. the distinguishing name of a book, poem, picture, piece of music, or the like.
2. a descriptive heading or caption, as of a chapter, section, or other part of a book.
3. title page.
4. a descriptive or distinctive appellation, esp. one belonging to a person by right of rank, :office, attainment, etc.: the title of Lord Mayor.

:5. Sports. the championship: He won the title three years in a row.

6. an established or recognized right to something.
7. a ground or basis for a claim.
8. anything that provides a ground or basis for a claim.

The World Tag Team Championship (WWE), for example, is one title. I can't fathom how "they won the titles" could be considered accurate when a team or pair of wrestlers wins this championship. Particularly since it seems like no one wants to say "they won the championships" - I don't see what the difference is and can't understand how it isn't all very, very, very wrong. Nosleep1234 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you possibly be a bit less condescending? I obviously had a valid reason for bringing up the question, as "titles" is how I see it written ALL the time. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Does that automatically make it correct? Nosleep1234 01:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Thats why I brought it up for discussion - because I wasn't sure. On the one hand, a well respected editor is saying something should be one way, but a credible website is saying it should be another way. I didn't know which was right so I asked you guys for answers. I never once said "because its on WWE.com, that means it has to be this way." I gave many examples so people could see where my confusion was coming from. --Naha|(talk) 01:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'm getting a little sick of how since someone else does it, that has to be the correct way. WWE.com is just written by a bunch of guys like us. There's no assurance that they are meant to all the write the same way, and they're not authoritative. This is not an issue for one promotion. With all your sources that say (and look very stupid in doing so) "WWE Tag Team Titles," does that mean because WWE says so that for the ROH World Tag Team Championship or the PWG World Tag Team Championship or the bobs-your-uncle world tag team championship that that has to be titles too? Nosleep1234 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No its not written "by a bunch of guys like us." They have a few professional writers on staff (which some of us may be, but not generally). Also, I used a WWE source because the revert in question was about a WWE article. I was trying to show WHY I was bringing up the question, seeing as how I almost always see it written in the plural. Again another post from another person with a condescending tone. Whats the deal? People should be able to ask questions without being made to feel or look stupid. --Naha|(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Why must you assume bad faith? This happens to be something I feel strongly about. I guess I shouldn't demonstrate that in my words? Please. Nosleep1234 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is an issue of good/bad faith. You were very blunt with your choice of words and I don't take it lighty either. Seeing as how I was the one who started the conversation, it appears accurate that some of your comments were directed at me, seeing as you "can't fathom how things could be see another way" and I was the one who presented the other way. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry but regardless of who you comments were directed at, they were extremly condescending. --Naha|(talk) 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'll be sure to never disagree with you again, since you obviously can't take it. Nosleep1234 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You can disagree with me all day long about whatever you want, but there is no reason to be rude or to downtalk me (or anyone else) while you do it. There are a handful of people around here who do it on a continual basis and it has driven at least 3 editors that I know of away. I'm tired of it because there is no reason for it. Our project can't afford to lose valuable editors because people can't talk about something without being rude. --Naha|(talk) 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

While we're at it, if they're plural, let's just move the article to WWE Tag Team Championships, then, and say "Currently, they are exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" where right now it says Currently, it is exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" How can plural be correct for one notion but not all? Nosleep1234 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. --Naha|(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, I did. Nosleep1234 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep adding on like this, but I keep having more thoughts. Just think about what, in question, is tangible. Is it the "title," which is the distinction of being (in kayfabe, but still) the best tag team in your company, or is it the "belts," which are the physical representation of that distinction. If you want to talk about "the titles," that should only refer to multiple of these distinctions, such as "the titles currently held by MVP," or during the Invasion when Kane & The Undertaker "held the WCW & WWF tag team titles." Nosleep1234 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that it should stay singular. Reason being that their is a mixed definition on the word championship. Championship can be the title or the belt. The title is singular and the belts are plural. Now, the articles in wikipedia are obviously based on the title definition (because of the inclusion of past belt designs sections) which means it should stay singular. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion, use singular when saying championship and plural when saying belt. As for saying title, either is fine to me but I lean more to singular. TJ Spyke 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to revert your edit Nahallac Silverwinds, but I will explain why I changed it. Title is a synonym of championship, so it should stay singular unless you are talking about two separate titles. A belt is not a championship but a representation of it, so it's okay to use the plural form when saying belt. E.g. They won the Tag Team Title and showed their belts off to the crowd. - Deep Shadow 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, someone besides Nikki can respond without talking down to me, amazing. All negativity aside, thank you for explaining your reasoning. For some reason I have always thought of "title" as a synonym for "belt", not "championship" hence my confusion ..I don't know why, obviously I'm wrong. --Naha|(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion: it's one title, it's one championship, it's two belts. I used to write "titles" until someone corrected me and explained the difference. After that, it's made a lot of sense. The belts aren't titles; "title" should be used interchangeably with "championship." As for what WWE says, they also have references on their page to "Lex Lugar" and "Baston Booger," so their spelling and grammar should be taken with a few grains of salt. GaryColemanFan 21:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus that it is one title, one championship, and two belts. Anyone still disagree or can this discussion be closed? Nikki311 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess not. I'm sorry I brought it up for disccusion here, apparently I should have just asked Deep Shadow on his talk page and it would have been a non issue. --Naha|(talk) 00:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you think I was being disrespectful, but on the other hand, you never really addressed the questions I asked. Nosleep1234 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't really see any questions that didn't appear rhetorical. --Naha|(talk) 01:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I think I just made a further realization regarding my confusion about "title" being another word for "championship" and not "belt." I hear "title belts" a lot, and I'm guessing I thought "titles" was short for "title belts." Oh well. --Naha|(talk) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, "title belts" mean the Belts of the title Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Beth Phoenix article.

I cleaned it up some, removed some pov wording, and per the guidelines the moves used to finish a few matches (only had 2). I also removed the links to "her" MySpace account until it's proven to be hers. Matt Hardy and Gregory Helms have lists of WWE superstars who have MySpace accounts, only Matt left off Edge probably for obvious reasons. Last time I checked Beths name wasn't on either list. So take a look and help out. --Crash Underride 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely looking better. Try and find some third party sources, something other than WWE.com and her official website. That'll really improve it. Nikki311 20:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it can't be some dirtsheets, and whatever the info they shouldn't be rumors either. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Judgment Day 2008

What does everybody else think about this? Ticketmaster has a listing for Judgment Day 2008 (which hasn't officially been announced by WWE yet), along with a location: http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/06003F50E212E70D?artistid=807358&majorcatid=10004&minorcatid=27 TJ Spyke 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And commercials have aired locally too.Mshake3 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was just local commericals, I would dismiss it. Ticketmaster is a different story though. I am surprised they have it listed though when WWE hasn't announced any PPV's past WrestleMania XXIV yet. TJ Spyke 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would you dismiss the commercials, but welcome the ticket site, when the commercials are about the ticket site? Just because you can't physically see it, doesn't mean it's not true. Mshake3 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent WWE.com an email asking where and when the show will be, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, their response is. Tromboneguy0186 12:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They'll tell you exactly what has been announced. What's so interesting about that? Mshake3 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

More consensus needed

What's the protocol on the PWI annual 500 lists? My understanding was that we listed the rank in the Top 500 of the PWI years and if they were in the top ten, but other than that, placements in the individual years weren't listed. Am I wrong? I want to know because a lot of individual rankings were added to Hulk Hogan, and as long as the article already is, I just don't see the necessity of listing his ranking for every year. Nikki311 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that we just list their highest ranking they ever got, regardless of whether that was in the top 10 or not (since most wrestlers would not get in the top 10). So if someones highest ranking was 56th, that is the only one we would list. I may be wrong, but that is what I recall being agreed upon the last time this was discussed. TJ Spyke 23:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't even understand why we care about PWI 500 rankings on Wikipedia. --Naha|(talk) 00:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I really don't either, but then again I'm not a fan of PWI in the first place. Tromboneguy0186 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Granted the article is pretty long, but I don't see the point of adding a few rankings rather than all of them. I don't really see why we care about the PWI rankings either but, there's an obvious consensus in keeping them along with the WON awards. Since the consensus has the PWI rankings being accomplishments worth listing, I don't see why only certain ones should be included rather than just listing them all. Odin's Beard 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to get rid of the rankings in the 500 lists altogether? They are pretty useless. Nikki311 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't really hurt my feelings all that much to see them go. If its a choice between picking and choosing only certain rankings be included and eliminating them altogether, I'd go with the latter.Odin's Beard 22:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The PWI rankings have historically been important, with even wrestlers wanting to know where they rank. For the majority of wrestlers, it would be one or two lines (their top ranking on the annual list, and their spot in the 25th anniversary "Top 500 wrestlers of the PWI Years" from 2003). The only three wrestlers with more than just those two would be Bret Hart/Steve Austin/John Cena since those three each got the #1 spot more than once (Hart in 1993/1994, Austin in 1998/1999 and Cena in 2006/2007). TJ Spyke 22:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If there are credible sources showing how the wrestlers themselves care about the PWI rankings, that is one thing. I mean seriously, for my own personal satisfaction, I'd even take a Youtube video of Matt Hardy or AJ Styles or whoever basically saying that was the case in so many words. Aside from that, I still fail to see their importance for the inclusion of PWI awards in Wikipedia articles. As far as their being a consensus to keep them, granted only a handful of people have spoken upon the subject in this thread ..but as this conversation stands now, more people could care less if they were included than not. In addition, I don't even know what the "WON" awards are. --Naha|(talk) 00:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
WON = Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards. Those seem unimportant, too. Nikki311 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I guess I've just never seen it abbreviated before. --Naha|(talk) 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. What's so important about them? I don't really see what influence that they have on the industry overall. None of the listings or personal stances of PWI, such as their view regarding the criteria for being a title being a "world" title, have no official bearing on wrestling whatsoever. The personal egos of wrestlers that just enjoy seeing where they rank each year shouldn't be a deciding factor on whether they're worth putting into the articles. I can't remember the last time, or if ever, that PWI and its yearly rankings and awards have been mentioned on any wrestling program or as part of any push regarding a highly ranked wrestler. Jim Ross or Jerry Lawler don't refer to John Cena as back to back winner of the PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year award or being number one in the PWI 500 the past two years. Same goes with the WON awards. Odin's Beard 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
All very good points. --Naha|(talk) 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not anymore, but they used to. I was just watching "The Ultimate Ric Flair" DVD, and one of the moments on it was Ric Flair being presented with the "Wrestler of the Decade" award from PWI, including Bill Apter being there to present the trophy to him (on disc 3 for those with the DVD). TJ Spyke 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If we want to query whether or not the PWI 500 should be on Wikipedia, should we query PWI itself? It's rankings have been going on for a lot longer than any other magazine and certainly any other website. When Bill Apter was a part of it, it was as close to independent opinion of the industry as anyone got before the Internet came along. They showed contempt for sports entertainment and always put the NWA ahead of the WWF - putting over Flair and dumping on Hogan, but at the same time giving credit where it was due as well. I think the PWI 500 deserves a place. Whether or not the wrestlers respect it now, TJ sure as hell demonstrated it's high regard with that ref to the Flair DVD. GetDumb 01:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe saying that someone is the wrestler of the decade is notable for that person's article, but is saying that they were ranked #500 out of 500 wrestlers for year x, x, and x worthy of mentioning? I'm going with no. Plus, there's a box in the PWI article that lists the top wrestlers of each year. Adding the rankings does nothing but take up space in articles that are already over the desired length limit. I'm not saying we delete every mention of PWI, just the yearly rankings from the individual articles. Nikki311 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good to me - a good compromise. --Naha|(talk) 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should put in every ranking, just the top ranking (so if somebody was ranked 34th, 117th, and 8th, we would just list the 8th ranking). TJ Spyke 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As others said in this section: unless there is proof wrestlers do care about it (other than a Flair segment on a DVD), they probably should go. The same goes for Wrestling Observer awards and so on. RobJ1981 04:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I just feel that if they're considered so important and such an honor for wrestlers, all the listings a wrestler has had should be included or none should be included at all. Going through picking and choosing only a certain select few rankings, at least to me, does nothing but confirm that they're just trivial bits of information rather than important and influential honors. After all, we don't go through the articles picking and choosing which world titles or U.S. titles, or tag titles, etc. to include and which we don't.Odin's Beard 13:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Gah! Everyone needs to stop making confcliting good points - its making me wishy washy :P When it comes down to it though, my first instinct remains and is that they aren't important enough to include at all. --Naha|(talk) 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards? Nikki311 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I see those as less synthetic than the PWI 500, since there is actually language attached to them. Notability, not sure. Tromboneguy0186 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty much of the same opinion on the WON awards as I am for PWI awards and listings. They might be something a wrestler might enjoy winning for ego reasons, but that shouldn't be reason enough to include them. I don't see the WON awards as having anymore sway or influence over a wrestler's career or wrestling itself as the PWI listings. They're never mentioned as part of push or a storyline involving an "honored" wrestler, I can't ever recall hearing them referenced as being important or on any wrestling program. Granted, the whole thing with Ric Flair and the PWI Wrestler of the Decade award is an exception to the rule regarding their importance to the industry and I suppose something similar could happen regarding a WON award sometime, but it takes more than one monkey to put on a circus.Odin's Beard 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --Naha|(talk) 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the awards themselves? TJ doesn't believe that we've been referring to the PWI awards at all, just the listings. To me, it's splitting hairs to get rid of the listings and keep the various awards. Odin's Beard 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No one mentioned the PWI Awards at all. There is a difference between the awards and the PWI 500, the PWI 500 is just a ranking system. The PWI Awards mean more, PWI even has pictures of wrestlers accepting plaques for winning the awards. For example, look at the bottom of [12] and you will see Hulk Hogan kissing his plaque for winning the PWI Most Hated Wrestler of the Year award in 1996. TJ Spyke 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did refer to the PWI Awards when I made my point about John Cena not being referred to as back to back winner of the PWI Most Popular Wrestler of the Year award or being ranked number one in the PWI 500 for the past two years. Of course PWI is going to have photographs of wrestlers holding THEIR awards in THEIR publication. If they were considered to be a big deal to the industry rather than personal ego boosts for wrestlers, then why haven't they been exploited to some degree by the promotions? The WWE, for instance, is well known for doing whatever it has to do in order to generate ratings or to do what they can to put certain wrestlers over. Whether or not some fans might think so, John Cena has pretty much been the WWE's golden boy for the past two years. In the eyes of PWI, he's been not only the most popular wrestler in the business but also the best wrestler in the business for the past two years. Yet, never once have these awards and rankings been used by the WWE to put John Cena over. If they're so important and influential, then why not?Odin's Beard 13:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Survivor Series (2007)

Now that I have nearly finished December to Dismember (2006) and am shortly planning to renominate it for FA status (as well as finishing the WWE One Night Stand series), I am planning to move on into a new PPV. Instead of moving PPV's into seperate articles again, I am planning to work on, yes, Survivor Series (2007). I'm planning to add things week by week as the shows go by. Obviously one thing we might have to watch out for is SmackDown! spoilers, but I expect the page to be semi-protected pretty soon. Is there any major objections to me focusing on this article from next week? Davnel03 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. There is more potential for the newest PPVs, because there if info all around the internet. I am also going to have an extreme focus on Wrestlemania III, because I want to make it A-Class, I already nominated it for COTW, it won, and I wrote all the sections in it. It just needs a little more... Lex94.

You mean FA-class? Davnel03 11:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No. I mean A-Class (the rating after GA). People ignore it. Well, after A-Class, I can make it an FA. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't really have a "proper system" for A-Class articles. It seems pointless having A-Class in my view. I have hardly ever seen an article at "A-Class" status, and I'm involved in several WikiProjects (Motorsports, Football, Wrestling, Games) Davnel03 20:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was going to work on WM3, but you beat me to the punch. Perhaps I'll start work on King of the Ring 1998, but that will be a messy one because it doesn't have its own page, and if I made a page for it, I'd have to do one for every KOTR... Does anyone object to splitting off KOTR 1998, or is that a can of worms were not ready to open yet? -- Scorpion0422 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I must say, terrific work on all of these. Sure beats the hell out of a simple list of match results. Tromboneguy0186 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think working on an article for an upcoming pay per view - especially a long standing one like Survivor Series - is not only a great idea, but I think that it should be done for the others as well (ie Royal Rumble 2008, Wrestlemania 24 and Summerslam 2008 at least). When the time is right of course - not now! !! Justa Punk !! 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I am concerned that it would become a dumping ground for every little thing that happens on TV (i.e. every match or promo or other event happening). Perhaps it would be best to do it after the PPV actually ended? TJ Spyke 22:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If it gets semi protected and Davnel looks after it, why not? I agree with Justa - it's a good idea. Just as long as - as you say, TJ - it's not used for a dumping ground. Keep the spoilers out, reference the material and how it relates to the pay per view and it becomes easier to source after the show itself. Especially when something is said on TV prior and something major happens on the show as a result. GetDumb 01:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I definitely won't use it as a dumping ground. I'll do the background section based on the three main storylines (WWE Title, ECW Title, World Title; possibly one other). Spoilers, I will remove on sight. Semi-protection will probably be needed Monday. Davnel03 09:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talia Madison

This page has been deleted about three times, yet surely ranks as some degree of importance now that she is actively wrestling in TNA's Women's league? http://www.tnawrestlingnews.com/headlines/195175104.shtml Can anyone do something to stop the deletions of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisgil (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree (see my comments above under the other "Talia Madison" header). All four of the other women who were new to TNA with the Bound for Glory gauntlet have articles. Aside from Shelly Martinez, they're all quite similarly notable/not notable. I don't understand why Madison's article is not only deleted, but protected against recreation. I just don't see the difference between her and especially Angel Williams and ODB. Tromboneguy0186 20:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
While I can't comment on Williams, ODB has won the OVW Women's Championship twice. Also, please not that other articles existing is not a valid argument for keeping an article from being deleted. Nikki311 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


le sigh. Yes, I know. But when their subjects have very similar notability (Madison's won a bunch of titles, too), there's a basis for comparison that can be made. I could see setting Awesome Kong apart, as she's won the definitely-notable NWA World Women's Championship and the AWA Japan Women's Championship, but OVW is simply an indy, one that's only set apart from easily less notable groups like, say, HWA, BCW, or 3PW by a working agreement with WWE (WWE doesn't own OVW and never has). In fact, ODB was never under a WWE contract. She worked with OVW directly. What makes OVW, and by proxy ODB and Williams, so special in this case? I'm not arguing for deletion of their articles (an inclusionist like me? heaven forfend), I just want to know why the basis for comparison can't be made. Tromboneguy0186 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring 1998

Does anyone have any objections to giving the 1998 KOTR it's own page? The big problem is that if we give it it's own page, we'd have to do one for all of the KOTRs and that could be a can of worms we don't want to open. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't all have to have their own page. Just put a {{main|King of the Ring 1998}} tag under its heading in the article with all the results. Nikki311 16:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Nikki. With WWE One Night Stand series, I was originally planning to just do the 2005 event, but then went on to do the 2006 and 2007 events. Someone might have a particular interest in another KOTR, so it might be getting split up pretty quickly (which is a good thing). Davnel03 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
General Note:If you do go ahead and do it, name it King of the Ring (1998), don't name it King of the Ring 1998. The latter can serve as a redirect. Davnel03 16:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea of one or a few PPV's in a series having their own articles. Since somebody has already did 1998, I think the rest should be done. I was actually hoping that the Starrcade PPV's would have been next since the article is huge and could use them being split up (the problem is that fewer people have an interest in WCW). I guess I could take shot, but it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as Davnel. If anybody ever wants to do WCW PPV's, I know of a few good sources (including one that has full Nitro/Thunder/PPV reports from 1997-2001 that were written at that time). TJ Spyke 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could look at it from the point of view of notable events that took place on the show. KOTR 98 is a great example of that because that was the show Mick Foley took his famous bump from the top of Hell in a Cell. GetDumb 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Talia Madison article in works

Hi, I have been privately working on an article for Talia Madison and will put it into the main namespace once the people of Wikipedia decide she is worthy, and just wanted to get an opinion on it, maybe a little help. The article is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox, check it out and let me know what you think. ThisDude62 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December to Dismember (2006)

After the problems that I had with the WrestleView sources that caused the article to be failed, I have renominated December to Dismember (2006) for FA status. I have put so much work into this, so can you please comment, support or oppose the article! A special thanks to Nikki311 for helping me to find sources to replace the WrestleView sources. Davnel03 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania III image

I added this new image. If there is a problem with the image, please clarify. Image:Hogan and Andre.jpg Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's lacking copyright information. --Aaru Bui DII 23:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Y Done
I don't have a problem with that image, but I still have a problem with the inaccurate statement in the fair use rationale for the other picture that it is used on various websites. GaryColemanFan 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Do avoo.com and geocities.com count? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 11:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus

I have passed the Trish Stratus article's GA nomination. It was an excellent read and met all the GA criteria, from well-written, to images, to sources. Great job to the people who edited the article. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has a chance, it would be good to have the references fixed so that they follow the Manual of Style guidelines. When multiple sources are given for a statement, they should be in numerical order (eg. [4][26][67]). Currently, several of them are incorrect (eg. [67][4][26]). This was one of the minor issues that held up the GA Review for SummerSlam (1993). GaryColemanFan 01:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good catch. I always forget about that. I fixed it. Nikki311 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW

Four articles are on the verge of getting pruned:

If you are interested in any of these in becoming COTW, please vote and avoid them getting pruned. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've pruned them. I did it before I read this post, but it gives a bit of space for others. I've added two to the list, and you might be happy to know that they are not PPV's! Davnel03 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Participate in Szantyr Deletion Review

Hi! I have submitted a proposal to have the articles Jamie Szantyr/Talia Madison unsalted. Participate in the discussion at [[13]] and vote to have the article unsalted.

The article that will be put up if it is unsalted is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox. It is well-written, sourced, the whole nine yards. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell wrote a bad article and caused Talia Madison to be salted again? I just got an admin to unsalt it last week so someone could write a good article for her. TJ Spyke 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What is salting? GaryColemanFan 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Deleting I assume, Gary. Never heard it called salting before though! GetDumb 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Salting is when an article is protected from being recreated. It usually happens when an article keeps getting recreated after deletion, but the reasons for deletion have not been fixed. Nikki311 02:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to a lot of this, but it looks suspicious when someone with a similar username (ShyGuy69 vs. ThisDude62) to the person proposing the review suddenly creates an account only to comment on that one issue (see Special:Contributions/ShyGuy69). GaryColemanFan 04:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry. I'll report to ANI. Davnel03 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Does it really matter if he's a sockpuppet? Maybe he remade an account to start fresh on wikipedia. No one has had problems with him, and if he is a sockpuppet, then let him be. He's still contributing to the encyclopedia, as he has made a great article on his sandbox. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 10:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does. QUOTE from Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry:
If a person is found to be using multiple accounts in violation of this policy, the sock puppet accounts should be blocked indefinitely. The main account may also be blocked at the discretion of any administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked temporarily but not indefinitely.
As is rightly states, it's a violation of policy. Davnel03 10:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
ShyGuy69 blocked indefinitely. Davnel03 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What was ShyGuy's violation to the policy? I read the Forbidden uses of sockpuppets, and he didn't do anything to violate the policy. The only thing you guys found were similar contributions, which means nothing, because wikipedia does not frown upon spliting your contributions (see Legitimate uses of sockpuppets Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures Lex94 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Using a sockpuppet account to in places like AFDs (to get two votes) or to support yourself (like this case if it is a confirmed sockpuppet) is not allowed. One account requested the deletion overturned and the other accound was the first to support it. TJ Spyke 22:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)