Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 36

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 36

Contents

Template:WWE Superstars

A user has taken the liberty to add a few additional RAW personalities to the Superstar list. I dunno how everyone wants this template to look, but I don't think Grisham should be included (not a superstar) and Austin's name (if included) shouldn't be listed as just Stone Cold. I figured I'd bring this to everyone's attention instead of editing this myself without discussing it with the template creators. --Endless Dan 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, people seemed to think it was already too big. Now it's bigger. I can't say that I see it as a step in the right direction. Like I said before, though, I rarely visit articles about current wrestlers, so I'll go with the consensus on this one. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think "Stone Cold" should be changed to "Steve Austin". That's his more offical name. As for Todd Grisham: his name should be kept. He is a WWE superstar, like the other non-wrestling people also on this template (Michael Cole, Vickie Guerrero, Tony Chimel, Joey Styles, etc.). The Chronic 15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. All the people you named are not Superstars. Tomayto/Tomahto though. We'll agree to disagree. I will leave it up to the WP:PW to decide on what to edit or what to keep though. --Endless Dan 16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean by ring names. Speed CG Talk 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If your addressing me, no. I don't mean ring names qualify someone as a Superstar. Superstar was the term the WWF used to replace the term wrestler in the 1980s. So my definition of Superstar would be an in-ring performer. --Endless Dan 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
That was it. All I meant by their "ring name". Speed CG Talk 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering Todd Grisham has a RAW Superstar page, I'd say that probably qualifies him Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE also used to have a page for Torriw Wilson's dog Chloe, and for Nacho Libre. TJ Spyke 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Who rightfully never had Wikipedia articles to begin with. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is to only add WWE employees who have a superstar page as apart of their "brand" (excluding referees).TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Rory McAllister needs to be on the list. Lex T/C Guest Book 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with the term Superstar applying to Grisham or announcers as per my reasons above, but that's neither here nor there. To help reduce the size of the table, why not eliminate the 'Inactive' sections of the table. Is it that vital that someone see this on the table? If someone reads (for example) Lashley's article, it will note that he is out of action. --Endless Dan 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what everyone means by the table being "too big" or anything. It is a little crowded, but it's no bigger (matter of fact, it might even be smaller) than the templates used for the rosters of every sports team with a wikipedia article. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What sports team templates?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The roster templates for every NFL and MLB team. Just go to any of the articles (oh, I don't know, Atlanta Falcons, Chicago White Sox, Tampa Bay Rays) and you'll see what I mean. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean things like this, which are in the middle of one or two articles and not meant to be on the bottom of 98? Bad comparison. There's simply no reason for a half page size box to exist on every single wrestler's article just to link back to every other wrestlers article. If you want to make that kind of template for it's legit use, putting it on the WWE or specific brand articles, that would make much more sense.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Then let's do that. I was really just comparing the tables themselves on a one-to-one basis. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Compare the Shannon Sharpe or Jeff Saturday articles. They have compact, hide-able, templates linking 68 articles of specific important times. They don't have current roster lists, because there's little reason for it.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

New article: No Way Out (2005)

What the title says. This means that the '05, '06 and '07 editions of No Way Out all have their own article. If anyone wishes to complete the No Way Out set and create '00, '01, '02, '03 and '04, please do. :) Davnel03 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

UNfortunately though the creator has not edited the article for a whole week. Could someone possibly take over and carry on creating it? Thanks, Davnel03 19:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I might just be stating the obvious here, but I've thought this for awhile and nobody else has brought it up. After any of the pay-per-views are fully expanded (I'll use No Way Out as an example, so years 2000-2007) we should take the old article that used to have all the results (WWE No Way Out) and turn the dates/venues part into a Featured List. We might even be able to make some of the pay-per-views into Featured Topics. Just a thought that might help with motivation. Nikki311 19:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. Due to the fact I am currently working on 2006's Backlash. I say we go with this. Zenlax T C S 20:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I like it (running to WWE One Night Stand to test it) Davnel03 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone like it? Davnel03 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stub article improvement

I think this project has done a great job lately with the focus on Good Article and Featured Article/List development. We've made significant progress in this area. One thing that I've been thinking about, though, is that we still have 779 stub articles (that are not likely to be chosen at Collaboration of the Week). I was thinking that it would be nice to challenge ourselves to see if we can improve a certain number of articles from Stub Class to Start Class by the end of the year. I was thinking of something like 15 articles. I was looking through some of the stubs, and quite a few stood out as articles that would have adequate resources for improvement or might already fit the criteria for Start Class. A few that stood out are:

I thought that if we had a place to show our progress (eg. a subpage, or making a list here and crossing out the ones that get promoted), a few people might be interested in helping trim the number of stubs. What do people think? Is this a worthwhile endeavor? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this a good idea. I'll help, as soon as I can (around Dec. 14, as that is when my semester ends). I think a subpage is a good idea. We could have one that is similar to the PPV expansion page. Nikki311 21:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What Nikki said, I'm really busy with school till Mid December. But I think this is a great idea! --Naha|(talk) 16:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Pay-Per-View Events

Whoa, I am busy like I dont know what with No Way Out (2004), List of WWE Hardcore Champions, and now the article above.

1) Should I move this article to List of professional wrestling pay-per-view events? 2) Should I make a big sort-table and put all the PPV's there? 3) Should I list other Indy-Promotions PPV's?

Thanx. --TrUcO9311 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think it should include PPV's from other companies, and maybe moved. TJ Spyke 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you sort the months in order in the sortable tables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs)
This works: {{sort|01|January}}. There may be an easier way since you'd figure month sorting would be a fairly common task but this will get the job done. - DrWarpMind 21:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If we keep Wrestling Pay-Per-View Events, what should we do about List of WWE pay-per-view events, List of WCW pay-per-view events, and List of ECW pay-per-view events? It's redundant to have all four when we could just have one. Nikki311 17:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They could be like subcategories. The TNA and ECW ones are pretty bad, but the WWE one is pretty well done. TJ Spyke 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok The article is taking shape go check it out. Comments here.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Is "Unactive" a word? I think "Inactive" would sound better. TJ Spyke 00:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, when I typed it there were no was no red underlining indicating a false word, but I will change it.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It might be a real word, it just sounds odd to me and I think Inactive sounds better. TJ Spyke 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Project Notification: WWE One Night Stand for FL

Just to let you guys know that I am planning to nominate WWE One Night Stand for FL status tomorrow night. Before I do, can you have a quick look at it and fix any typos or ref errors, dead links etc. Thanks, Davnel03 09:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Is One Night Stand even eligiblefor FL? Lex T/C Guest Book 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the article is too short for FL. Lex T/C Guest Book 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
One Night Stand is eligible for FL now that all the PPV's under the One Night Stand name have been split. And there isn't a criteria at FL that says it must be so long. "It's too short" really isn't a valid oppose in my opinion. Davnel03 21:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple H article

I got a chance to do some copyediting on this article. There are a couple of things that I don't think are very clear in the article, though, that I'm not sure how to fix:

  • "Hunter won when Chyna interfered after blinding Slaughter with a powder shot to the face." - how would a casual reader know what a "powder shot" is?
  • "Triple H worked a program with Mick Foley in early 2000..." - is there a better way to say this that a non-wrestling fan would understand?

And on a similar note, although not related to this article, is there a description of what a six-man match is in any article? I often find that I'd like to include a wikilink to clarify what the term means, but I don't know where I would link it to. Thanks.GaryColemanFan 18:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hunter won after Chyna threw powder into Slaughter's eyes, (kayfabe) blinding him and allowing her to freely interfere in the match.
You could link program to the feud article, or explain earlier in the article that a program is the same thing as a feud. (HHH feuded with Y, their program involved...) That should keep you from having to use the same word over and over again.
For the six man thing, there's Multi-competitor match variations on the match types page if it's a singles match. The tag team match types could probably use a specific subsection on six-man tag matches though.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is linked from...

I keep seeing this editor note in wrestling article subsections. Is this a real Wikipedia thing?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, it was added by a bot, with the reminder that changing the headings will mess up redirects. Not sure if it's still active however. Mshake3 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No Mercy (2007)

New article. All thanks goes to Mshake3, who has been working hard on creating the article in his sandbox. Davnel03 21:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes or No?

Would it be a good idea if I included details in the McMahons verses HBK and God match for Backlash, where Vince informed the referee to "check" God for foreign objects and his actions before the match? I need some suggestions. Zenlax T C S 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably. However, you need to make it pretty clear that "God" was not in the ring, it was invisible. Davnel03 09:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
...or that "God" was nothing but a spotlight. The Chronic 15:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1

Could people from this project possibly support or oppose the above FAC, as at the moment, it only has 2 supports and 1 oppose. I've addressed all the issues raised so far, but it will be failed as it doesn't have a consensus at the moment. Can people please support/oppose the FAC otherwise it will be failed because of the lack of votes. Thanks! Davnel03 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned on the nomination page that I think the biggest thing holding it back is a lack of information on the Hart-Hakushi-Lawler storyline. If we could add a mention that the Hart-Hakushi feud began because Lawler accused Hart of being racist against Japanese people, and that Lawler then criticized Hart for ducking Lawler because he signed a match with Hakushi instead of Lawler, I could definitely support the nomination. I've been busy over the past week, but I've spent a little time looking for sources. I'll keep it up when I have a minute (and, if anyone here knows of a reliable source that describes this storyline, it would be greatly appreciated). GaryColemanFan 22:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Found something!! Davnel03 10:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

Hey you all, I improved the List.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

U-G-L-Y. Mshake3 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
How is it "UGLY"?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's all the same goddamn company. Why the hell do we need a promoted banner column? Mshake3 01:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Because some pay-per-views were under the WWF name, and that was changed. and its that DAMN important.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. Please remove it. Mshake3 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
There...happy :PTrUcO9311 (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I prefered old format (without all the tables). Not every subject needs a table. Just find sources for the PVVs, and it may become FL material. The Chronic 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well It is a list.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/WWE One Night Stand

Just letting you guys know that I have nominated WWE One Night Stand for FL status. Davnel03 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for SummerSlam (2007)

Just thought I'd let everyone know that I've listed SummerSlam (2007) for Peer Review. Please comment here, thanks. --  LAX  17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..No Way Out (2005)

Well seems like the user has stop improving the article. Should we put it up for grabs?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Davnel03 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edit to Vengeance: Night of Champions

An IP edited the article and removed all references to Benoit, so that "WWE would not get bad publicity. I thought it might be worthwhile to bring it up, as I recall a time when a IP Checker tracked edits to WWE Headquarters in Stanford. Just a heads-up, as if that is the case, they'll likely be back. The edit can be found here. [[1]]. Gavyn Sykes 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope not same IP. I think WWE's IP was somewhere in the "154." range. Davnel03 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a place to list wrestling CFDs?

I just put Category:TNA Champion Belts in CFD, but I didn't see anywhere to list it for the project. Does a section exist? RobJ1981 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Right here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do. Just add it to the part for categories nominated for deletion. TJ Spyke 21:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Defenses column

I've added columns to the ROH World Championship, ROH World Tag Team Championship, and ROH Pure Championship showing how many times each champion(s) successfully defended the title. I thought it was appropriate since it's often brought up in ROH's storylines and is something that can easily be tracked and verified. But I thought I'd let you all know, in case you all are opposed to it or something :p Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that works for ROH, since all title matches can be traced. Mshake3 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I would note that if the community agrees to this, then we logically must add this to most puroresu title lists (such as IWGP World Heavyweight Championship). Personally I think it clutters things up a bit as it is now, though I wouldn't object to a cleaner-looking version. Maybe put it next to the "times" column? --MarcK 22:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see what benefits it has TBH. TJ Spyke 01:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's any less useful than the location a title change occurred. Dates of title changes are obviously useful, to compare reign lengths, but I think that's also where defenses comes in, in companies like ROH and Puros. It allows you to compare Samoa Joe's 20-month title reign where he made 26 successful defenses with Bryan Danielson's 15-month title reign where he made 38. I think it's useful, and like I said above for ROH (and puro - that might be even easier to track and verify) it's easy to back up. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2007)

Me and LAX are teaming up to work on Survivor Series 'o7.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep doing all these articles at the same time (NWO04, NWO 07, List/Hardcore, List/PPV Events, SurvivorSeries...
If you keep on adding articles to your list, you'd just be splitting their priority, and instead of having 1 GREAT ARTICLE, you're gonna have a alot of average or even bad articles. Lex T/C Guest Book 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations (sadly I can't find an image nor video to illustrate my point). Mshake3 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You know im tired of your personal attacks--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Mshake3, you seriously need to read civil, because most of your comments just later have been personally attacking other users. I really believe that you need to think just what effect your comments like that have, I consider it trolling. All Trucco is (for ease of project communication) informing other members that he and LAX are working on Survivor Series 2007. It also gives other members notification sort of to go and check the article to fix links, avoid redirects and stuff. Mshake, your comment was entirely unneeded. Your childish behaviour does not impress anyone. Davnel03 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You're right. Mshake3 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
How is linking something to a Spongebob article a personal attack? Gavyn Sykes 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think he knows what character I was refering to from that episode. Again at the time I wish I had an image or video to illustrate my point.
(ec) Eh, I think there are simply too many annoucnements in here. We don't have to notify us over every little thing, especially the expansion of a PPV article that was already being expanded. Can't we start using the subsections here? Mshake3 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
If I'm to be honest, the childish behaviour between you and Trucco needs to stop now. It's silly, stupid and pathetic. The way your comment came across to me Mshake3 was arrogrant, however, Trucco, you should not of retailliated in that way. Davnel03 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Damn, he started going off,and i aaint gonna take dat, but iight I see what u mean my comment was unnecessary but hell, Mshake I dont know what you got against me I have never talked 2 u until your comment came up, (and about my edits to WPT:PW#List of WWE pay-per-view events.TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
U no what Im done! I dont care about Milk Shake Im going on with my business. And for w/e reason ill just apologize to the wikipedia community.TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you drunk or something? Whatever. I'm sorry for making a "personal attack" by quoting a SpongeBob character. And remember, WWE Armageddon is on Sunday, December 16. ;) Mshake3 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how it was a personal attack in any way, but I do agree that Mshake needs to tone it down a bit, as he tends to be a bit...hostile to other project members. Gavyn Sykes 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed I am. I'll attempt to be a better user Mshake3 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't criticize him on how he is. That's his style, leave him too it. He's always been why that, I don't understand why mentioning it now. Heck, I don't understand the problem with quoting a character (I have no idea who the character is, but if it's from the sponge show, then i really dont think it'd be offensive). Lex T/C Guest Book 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's referring to a scene from that episode where SpongeBob says his Bubble Buddy (a giant bubble in the shape of a person) is using the bathroom and the person behind him says "Congratulations" in a monotonous tone since why should he care that his friend is using the bathroom? Yes, I do watch SpongeBob sometimes. TJ Spyke 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I used that saying all the time with my buds who are familiar with that scene. It doesn't work as well on the internet however. Mshake3 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually got to agree with you milk shake, or master shake (my bad), over the internet its hard to get the humor of a joke unlike in real life, and i could have taken your joke out of context, so my bad iight. We cool?TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
We'll see. Mshake3 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Force One Pro Wrestling

I recently created a sub user page for Force One Pro Wrestling (User:Kris Classic/Force One Pro Wrestling). I was wondering, if anybody thinks this is notable enough for me to create its own article on wiki, and any suggestions for improvements? Thanks, Kris 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is sort of since it does have its own official website. And your article looks really good. I say go ahead. But idk other users have to agree as well.TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about notability. I'm hesitant to give an okay about moving it into mainspace until there are some reliable third party sources. That would help prove notability. Nikki311 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that as well forgot to mention how your only source is the official website and one other site, but try finding more third party sites (like Nikki said) and then we'll see how it goes. So not yet, give it some time.TrUcO9311 ever(talk) 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It was featured on the first page of The Atlantic City Press, would a link to that be sufficient for notability? Kris 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that a newspaper/magazine/ or what?TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a Newspaper. Kris 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well of course that is a primary source of info. But it will still take more sources. At least 5-7 different third party sites and sources.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well there really aren't any other sources to take from, unless you count results from wrestling websites. Kris 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obseessed With Wrestling is one of the only reliable wrestling results site that we accept here. You can use that. Also cite another article that you find (not in the internet but in a paper)TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added several sources. Is it sufficient? Kris 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, look when adding more sources we mean adding them from different websites, like for 3 of those refs they are from the same place. Look at Florida Championship Wrestling the WWE owned one. They only have 5 refs but from different places. Its not like I dont want you to publish it but in order from keeping it from being nominated for AfD, try searching on search engines or ask on Yahoo! answers sources for it.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two of the six sources from other websites. About how many more would be needed? Kris 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

See thats great and its good to use the same site like say for results or a title change, at least 5 but in your case as its a small company and its new and all about 3-5, i strongly reccomend at least 4.TrUcO9311 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am unable to find any more outside sources. If anybody can find any that I can use, please let me know! Kris 01:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have 3 outside sources, and 7 sources in total, I am going to create the article now. Thank you Nikki and Truco for all of your help! Kris 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Amy Dumas (Lita) is now a Good article

~ The Chronic 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know?TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
From the talk page. --  LAX  00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey, look... I posted the comment at exactly 00:00. Yay me! :P The Chronic 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

World Beer Drinking Championship

Should this even have an article? For those who don't know, it's an unofficial title in TNA (the same way the Million Dollar Championship was in WWF) that started at the TNA Genesis 2007 PPV, and they even created a belt for it that Young wears. If it does deserve an article, it needs to be cleaned up and sourced. TJ Spyke 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't even been defended in a wrestling match yet. Mshake3 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Young did defend it against Storm during the TNA Turkey Bowl (the Thanksgiving night edition of iMPACT), but you are right about it not being defended in a wrestling match. I doubt it would be defended in a match though since it's a beer drinking title. TJ Spyke 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't see the belt being defended in a wrestling match either. I'm hesitant to say it should be deleted straight-out, but don't think it has enough breadth to it to be considered an article. Maybe if it gets a bit more to it later. Is there anywhere else it can go in the meantime? --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with all of you, it shouldnt have its own article. It should only be noted in Storms and in YOungs articles. Or in Storm's add a section entitled "World Beer Drinking Championship" or in that nature.TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

From what was said here, I'm going to prod it. Nikki311 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Username change

Davnel03 has changed his username to D.M.N.. The Chronic 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I have indeed. You guys can still refer to me as Davnel03 (my sig will not change). I simply changed my username for reasons outside Wiki. Davnel03 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: If anyone sees my username going to Davnel03, could you direct the link to D.M.N.? Do not though create a redirect from Davnel03 to D.M.N. as I would prefer this not to happen. Thanks. Davnel03 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you request your old name be deleted? You might want to see if a bot can fix it because even using AWB could take a long time to replace all instances of "User:Davnel03" with "User:D.M.N.". TJ Spyke 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I probably will see if a bot can fix it. Why did I change my username? This page will give you an idea. All IPs in the 84 - 86. range know me. Deleting all redirects will stop them from being able to see/have access to my account. Davnel03 21:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My page hasnt ever been vandalized...Can anyone say "COOL"! Lex T/C Guest Book 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Dav, you can always ask for you page to be semi-protected (it won't stop established users, but it will stop new users and IPs). TJ Spyke 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag-Team GA

Is there an article on a tag team which has GA status or B status. Because I want to work on the APA and I want a point of reference. TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GA tag article and GAC tag article. Hope the links help. Davnel03 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Weeelll...I'm not sure if "my" article is the best for a point of reference since I sectioned it by promotion and not chronologically (APA would definitely be better chronologically, since as a team they're only known for working in one promotion). However, since Simmons and Layfield both had notable singles careers, to a certain extent even while they were a team, I would recommend giving finishing and signature moves for the team and for each man like I have in Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Fabulous Kangaroos is a GA. -- Scorpion0422 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yup the Kangaroos is the first and so far only tag team GA (and hopefully also the first FA down the line) MPJ-DK (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Brands on PPV articles

does it really make sense to list all the brands on ppv articles (beyond wrestlemania). I mean the whole company is featured. Shouldnt it be better like the 2001 PPV articles.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. Technically there are still different brands, even if they do join together for a PPV. When they first did the brand split they did the same thing they do now (all the brands participate on each PPV), but we still list RAW and SmackDown on each one. TJ Spyke 23:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual PPV Pages

I'm all for each PPV being given its own page, however does that necessarily mean we have to remove the card from the non-year specific pages. IE on the WWF Vengeance page it lists the PPVs from 2001 to 2008, yet the 2007 card isn't on the page because it has been moved. I'd like to propose the idea of keeping just the results on the page as well as having the detailed article seperate, much like International cricket in 2007 shows the dates and results of the matches, then the "see also" pages give individual scorecards, descriptions squads etc.Tony2Times 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I had done this before, but my edits were reverted. Lex T/C Guest Book 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The standard is that the separate page for the specific PPV is created if: 1 - It is a major PPV (Big 4, like WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, etc.). 2 - if the page is actually going to develop into a full article, like the FA December to Dismember (2006). The Chronic 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Forgot the standard, a change is being suggested. Personally, if we were to do that, I'd just want the match results. No information about how they won and all that. Mshake3 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think results should be listed for a PPV if it has its own article. If it's a page where not every edition has its own page, have a link only. If every edition has it's own page (like the big 4 all do), just have a table with links and have the page be info on the PPV series in general and maybe some trivia (like how Super Bowl has various trivia). TJ Spyke 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mshake3 on this one. If it has an article, use only match results with no extraneous information. Include a "Main Article:'" link at the top of the section. This way there is still continuity in articles that include expanded articles. Keeping continuity is a wonderful thing. However,as TJ Spyke said, if ALL the articles in the series have separate articles I agree that there should just be links to the separate ones. Other opinions? --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm assuming this current trend of a full page for each PPV with its build up is intended to be done to all, or as many as possible, PPVs. If this does happen then it seems really pointless to me to have a page, like ECW December To Dismember that merely lists the years the PPV took place and where; I'd rather do without the pages altogether aside from ones like WrestleMania or Royal Rumble that have a long and gimmicked history. I think it'd be far better to have, as was suggested, the card results without details (perhaps with the poster and template box to add a little colour) listed with links to the main article.Tony2Times (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I also like the idea of keeping the bare minimum results until all the years are created for a certain pay-per-view. I think the goal should be to create all the years, and then turn the main page into a description with a list of the events (see WWE One Night Stand for what I mean). While, One Night Stand is apparently too short to be a Featured List, I think some of the pay-per-views have enough years to them that they might be able to reach FL status. Nikki311 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant to keep the bare minimum results regardless of the PPV having its own year page on the basis that the specific page will have build up, show and aftermath details as well as card with bullet point details afterwards. I'm suggesting having a link to those pages but also keep a single page that lists the card and the info box for all the years of a PPV.Tony2Times (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

I've been working on the Royal Rumble article in my sandbox. I've got the list of venues, dates, winners, entry numbers, etc. etc. all sourced, but I'm having trouble sourcing the rules, match description, and effects of the brand extension. I've got the bare bones of it done, but there are a lot of rules and exceptions to rules that aren't sourced or deleted entirely. Help! :) If anybody can help me source this information or add to it (only if you cite a reliable source or it'll get deleted) it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Nikki311 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review question

I nominated Royal Rumble (1994) for a Good Article review a while back. A user began the review, but it's been 13 days and nothing more has been said. Is it acceptable to post a polite message on her talk page to ask how the review is going? I appreciate someone being willing to do the review, and I don't want to seem pushy. I'm just concerned that, after two weeks, she might have forgotten about it. Any opinions? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that and meant to ask you whether you've contacted her. It is definitely alright to leave a message on her talk page. If she doesn't answer within a few days, leave a comment on the Good Article Candidate page (under where she posted that the article was on hold) asking for someone else to review the article and the reason. Nikki311 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy-Edit Request

In Your House 1 has had its FA candidate failed, with many reviewers listing a ton of problems. I would therefore like to request if several members of this project are willing to copy-edit the article for me, as there seems to be several major problems with it. Cheers, Davnel03 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look over it again when I have a little time. Since a lot of the issues brought up are related to "in-universe" issues and wrestling jargon, I also think that listing it at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests would be very helpful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PPVs to nominate for GA status?

Now that Royal Rumble (1994) has been promoted to GA status, I was wondering if anyone is waiting to nominate another pay-per-view article. I posted notice a while back that I was planning to nominate Royal Rumble (1994) and King of the Ring (1994) for GA reviews. If someone else is waiting to nominate an article that they've been working on, though, I'm willing to wait. I have very little time for Wikipedia right now, so I'm in no hurry. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Kofi Kingston NEW ARTICLE!

NEW ARTICLE, however It is not complete and is under construction and I encourage you all to come help and improve this biography stub. In case you dont know he is the upcoming debuting ECW superstar from Jamaica. TrUcO9311 (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

411mania.com

Does anyone know much about this site under WP:RS? It has apparently been used for the Brock Lesnar article, and a user is trying to use it for wrestler CIMA on the Australian Wrestling Federation article. I recall this site not being mentioned specifically as a "dirtsheet" during the RFC on WWE spoilers but I got the impression some users would regard it as failing WP:RS. But I just want to make sure. !! Justa Punk !! 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but a lot of "Credit: PWInsider.com" reports. And I know how much you love that site. ;) Mshake3 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, BEHOLD!. Mshake3 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Now, if you don't trust that as a reliable source, then remove it. Mshake3 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody else please give an unbiased opinion without the personal backchat? !! Justa Punk !! 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What part of "if you don't trust it, then remove it" do you not understand? I just explained what the sources were (a bunch of Credit: PWInsider.com reports). We've already had this discussion, so I'm not going to start it again. We know you think they're unreliable. So remove them already! Mshake3 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:NAM would be worth noting at this point, MShake. And what about WP:WQT? Does anyone else think it's about time MShake's manner was referred to WP:WQA? !! Justa Punk !! 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. You're getting worked up over nothing. And I didn't even do anything. Unless PWInsider is striking some sort of mental nerve with you. Mshake3 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - user referred to WP:WQA. !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, you can call me Gavyn. There's no one else here. Lol. ATHF jokes aside, the source isn't reliable by any means. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a reliable source. There is stuff on things other than wrestling if you haven't noticed! The website also provides columns and TV reports that can help in articles. Anyway. I've seen a load of reliable websites have credits from PWInsider, its what one article out of 10,000 that you've picked out there. Ah, there again.... Davnel03 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't see many problems with 411 (or PWInsider) - nothing obvious flies in the fact of WP:V and WP:RS - they have news, they make editorial commments and show results/reviews. Other than someone's insistance that "it's a dirtsheet" or "I don't like it" I've not seen anything concrete to indicate that it's not within the guidelines for reliable sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm - a mixture of opinions. Needs some thought. Any other unbiased views would be appreciated. !! Justa Punk !! 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I came across this through a WQA request. Here is my comment. The citation in question, [2], is a blog entry. Note that the entry was "posted" by a username and not a journalist, and that it was credited to a more authoritative news source. Cite _that_ source if it meets WP:V, WP:CITE, etc. (PWInsider.com). I trust that it can be met; if not, the source should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Seicer. That helped with the issue I had with the notes on the AWF talk page. !! Justa Punk !! 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (1994) now a Good Article

This article was passed as a Good Article today. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the article and/or gave feedback. It helped quite a bit.

With that said, the reviewer did add the following: "Does require another couple of images to say, illustrate a "casket" match and the even poster would be good as other wrestling PPV articles have them. I shall pass the imaes criteria now, but may re-assess as a fail if this is not rectified."

I'm fairly sure that it would be hard to find a Free Use image of the casket match, but if anyone knows where to find a Free Use or Fair Use picture of the match, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The WWE website has some pictures that you might be able to use if you can dream up a suitable rationale. None of them are of a casket match, though. Nikki311 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a picture at http://repository.wwe.com/galleries/special_casket/images/02.jpg , but I'm not sure how to upload it and insert it into the article. I've written Fair Use rationales before, so I can help with that. If someone could help with the rest, though, I'd really appreciate it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you ever uploaded an image to Wikipedia before? I am pretty experienced (i've uploaded dozens of wrestling posters and video game covers) and am used to it. Just save the image to your computer, then click "Upload file" and follow the instructions. If you need any help (or want me to do it), just say something. TJ Spyke 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Senshi in TNA

There have been rumors posted on some news sites for the last few days of Senshi being granted his release from TNA. Allegedly, this took place on Monday. However, he has appeared at television tapings since then. If there could be someone(s) capable of clarifying on both Senshi's page and the one for the TNA roster, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Hezekiah957 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed some of the wording on his page (some had changed it from "currently works for TNA" to "best known for working in TNA", the latter which is used for wrestlers not working for them anymore). TJ Spyke 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we just say "(this site) reported that"? Why do we have to find out the 100% correct answer before we can say anything? Mshake3 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - "According to PWInsider Senshi took the offer of a contract release", it's factual and verifiable since you can CITE the site that made the claim and be done with it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Hezekiah957 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We shouldn't just cite any site's information. If not all articles could say: "[Any site] reported that John Cena killed himself after shoving a broom down Batista's throat". Any site can report false information. If we post information that we don't know if is false or true, then the articles can be full of lying information. Another example would be a MySpace page. How about if I hack Jeff Hardy'a MySpace page and write: "I have been released because I am too ugly." Is it true? NO. Can you prove it? NO. Should it be posted? The Answer should be no, but according to you, it's yes. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes cause that's TOTALLY what I said *expletive deleted* - something called "Reliable sources" would NEVER cross my mind, I just want you to quote "Dick 'N 'Harry's wrestling site, come on now don't be so obtuse about it. (Please note the sarcasm here) MPJ-DK (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

IP edits

I dont know about you all, but there have been many IP edits in the past week. As you all know I created the Kofi Kingston article and an IP blanked 90% of the article, do any of you all know how to regain the original information?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... reverting it. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes but when I try that, it says that the edit cant be undone.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
N/M its done now--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You probably did it wrong or something. Anyway your statement saying there have been many IP edits in the past week, well Wikipedia gets millions of IP edits every single-day, Trucco! :) Davnel03 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Ha true, but to me in the PW articles there have just been an outrageous amount.TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Compared to articles like Iraq war, United States and Global warming, PW article get minimal vandalism! Davnel03 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
HaHa yeah, I guess im saying that since Ive been working on the Kofi Kingston article and you should see the amount of IPs doing edits that ruin the article (vandilism)TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on current FL Candidate

I've been trying to address concerns brought up during the Featured List nomination of IWGP World Tag Team Championship. The poster said he or she wanted the first four columns sortable. I've figured out most of the process, but I'm running into trouble. Because of the way the dates are listed, it's not sorting them correctly. It also seems to be having trouble with empty columns (for example, clicking on the "Location" box gives an empty box at the top. Clicking on it again gives the title changes in Yokohama at the top, followed by 7 empty boxes). And apparently there's supposed to be something with a "sortbottom" command, but I couldn't get it to work with that included. Would someone who understands tables well be able to look at it? The Featured List candidacy is on its 11th day, so I'm trying to address the concerns brought up before the nomination is closed. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because you have empty locations for some title changes. Find the locations of the title changes and vacations missing. If the vacations were not on live shows, but they were backstage (due to a release, suspension, etc.) then you can write: (N/A) [with parenthesis, so it goes to the bottom of the list]. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The bigger problem is with the dates. Any ideas? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The poster also mentioned that there is too much blank space. I would like to resize the image so that it doesn't push the table down so much, but I haven't been able to figure out how. Is there anyone out there who can help? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's how to do dates: {{dts1|1985-12-12}}. For more examples on sorting, you can check out my work at Essential Marvel Comics - DrWarpMind (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I resized the image in the infobox for you. I set it at 150 px, but feel free to change it if you see fit. Nikki311 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Im finally done No Way Out (2004)

May you all fellow Wikipedians go here for peer review. Thanks.TrUcO9311 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW mewsletter

The newsletter pages have been really quiet as of late (not a failure, but quiet). Do visit the newsletter's talk page now and then. It would help. :) The Chronic 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Legit"

I'd just like to quickly propose that uses of the word "legit" be changed to "legitimate". It reads more like an actual article and not something written by an "insider". Tnova4 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It just doesn't look right to say "Shawn Michaels was legit attacked outside a nightclub." Non-wrestling fans would probably cringe when reading that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. Legit is the correct term as used by the industry, it seems WP:Jargon excuses it's grammatical iffyness.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Legit is just a shorthand term for legitimately anyway. It doesn't take that much effort to type the extra seven letters. It sounds better, looks better, and makes the writing more accessible to GA and FA reviewers to write it as "legitimately". Nikki311 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And isn't the point also to avoid as much jargon and slang as possible? Especially seeing as "Legitimate" conveys the same thing but is more correct?? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker proposed merger

As you probably know, Undertaker is the COTW. I'm proposing moving the nicknames, themes, and signature taunt lists from his main article to the Personas of The Undertaker article because the main article is so long. The discussion is HERE. Please comment and vote there. Thanks. Nikki311 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New Featured List: IWGP World Tag Team Championship

This article passed its Featured List nomination today. Thank you to everyone who worked on the page, and thank you to everyone who helped out with an editor's last-minute concerns. Once again, your help is appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Do we want to start making the other lists sortable as well? - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To do list?

Where the heck did that go? Now where do people go to see what PW articles are up for deletion? Prodded? In need of sources etc? when did this disappear and why? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Open the "find" dialog box in your browser, and type "to do". It should take you to the top of the page. It's currently hidden, but you can expand it. Mshake3 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, excellent - thank you. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

AJPW Triple Crown Championship

I think this article should be nominated as a Featured List. My biggest concern is that some people don't like Featured Lists without pictures. Would it be okay to add the picture from http://www.bodyslamming.com/ajpw/pics/ajpwtriplecrown.jpg ? I don't know the origin of the picture, but it's available at a few places on the internet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources look good. I checked all the holders of the belt, but none of them had any free-use pics to "borrow". I'm hesitant to start uploading fair-use pics for this list, because "technically" a free-use pic could be an option, we just don't happen to have one. Lack of a picture shouldn't keep it from passing, though. Nikki311 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring (1994) GA nomination

I posted notice about nominating this article over a month ago. I waited to nominate it so that there wouldn't be too many wrestling pay-per-views nominated at once. After Royal Rumble (1994) passed its GA review, I inquired as to whether or not anyone else wanted to nominate a PPV. Nobody responded, so I nominated this article today. Thank you to all of the editors who helped build the article and who contributed to the peer review. As with Royal Rumble (1994), I have requested a reviewer from outside of this project to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Backlash 2006

I need some help with the article. If anyone wants to help, I'll be grateful. Zenlax T C S 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been served

Film at 11. Mshake3 (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And this has what to do with this project? GetDumb (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Shake and his sense of humor again. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Um...... I won? Mshake3 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay! THIS IS SO AWESOME!! THIS IS LIKE THE BEST ACHIVEVEMENT EVER!! Let's party!!

(Oh and next time tell Justapunk to go to Request for User conduct instead of wikiquette alert.)

User:Justin heise

This user has gone to town uploading images without proper copyright information, mostly images straight from WCW or WWE that violate image policies, and putting them into the according wrestler's wiki articles. I think there is a bunch of undo-ing to be done. I would do it myself, but not sure the proper way to go about it really. Just wanted to alert the right people. Yagobo79 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I left him a warning on his talk page. All the images are tagged to be deleted within 5-7 days, so it'll take care of itself. I'll keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't upload anymore. Thanks for the heads up. Nikki311 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
He is back at it as I type this. Yagobo79 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I left him another warning. If he continues, I'll block him for a short amount of time. I've tried to convey that his actions have consequences, but sometimes people don't get it until they actually experience the consequences. Nikki311 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dirt Wrestling Sites

I know this has been asked before but which of these can be uses for as in results.

Lords of Pain Wrestle View Wrestling Attitude The History of WWE Steve's Wrestling Online on Slaught TWNPnews Gerweck Wrestling Information Archive

and if some of these arent may you give me links to which I may use (other than Online World of Wrestling, and hoffco-inc)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I find Wrestling Information Archive very reliable. It's a great source of information, and I use it quite a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Lords of Pain, WV and Gerweck are definite no. All the rest are OK. The Angelfire link was dead, so I've replaced it with another one. Davnel03 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: While browsing the History of WWE webite, I found this very handy page for detailed results. Davnel03 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Another good one is SLAM! Wrestling. They have pay-per-view reports (esp. for more recent ones), wrestler bios, articles, etc. Nikki311 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the link to the list of PPV reviews is here. This is a really good resource for the pay-per-view expansions. Nikki311 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of creating a page probably under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVguidelines where there would be guidelines for people wanting to create PPV's, along with acceptable, and not acceptable sources. Opinions on that? Davnel03 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree-Thats a great idea, that way our articles can be more reliable.TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Most definately. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, but I think it should be "Article Guidelines", for all bios, events, matches, championship histories, etc. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I've created the guideline page. I'll finish it tommorow (unless anyone wouldn't mind carrying on with it tonight!) :) Davnel03 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wrestleview should be a definite "no". They are a reliable source, and have been running for over 10 years. Kris (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Do they have any exclusive editors that break news? Mshake3 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and they do have sources within the WWE. Kris (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Every rumor site says they have sources at this or that company, that doesn't mean its true. TJ Spyke 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Awesome. Care to show some examples of their exclusive news? Mshake3 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any off hand, but visit the site every now and then, you'll find them. Kris (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'M BAAAAACK!

hello everyone! I'm back after a LOOOOONG wikibreak! How is everyone? What have I missed?The Pink Panther (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I dont know you but Im Kevin (or Truco) but youve missed alot like the expansion of PPV articles and improvements to here here here here and our FA AND ALOT MORE!!and all of our PPV's which you can see in the PPV Expansion article in WP:PW. Iight im out.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of you...ever. But, welcome back! Let's see well:
  1. Shelton Benjamin, Bobby Eaton, December to Dismember (2006) are FAs
  2. Many GAs; go check them out on the project page
  3. Obviously, the project has a new color: very very very very very very bright yelloworange!
  4. We have a newsletter. See so in the Outreach section you can find in the NavBar
  5. We have had many many many many discussions about important topics like Spoilers, Consensus, Policies, Sources, etc. (Check the archives, and the very long discussions would be the main ones)
  6. PPV Expansion is new. It's a way to keep track on the PPV articles being divided. Yet I think it should just be "Article Expansion" and list all articles...
  7. COTW is effective and going great!
  8. We have created the FA Collaboration of the Month, which is a way to improve GAs into FAs periodically.

Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Legends Killed?

Mshake has brought up a good point in this. Is it really notable of these Legends actually being "killed"? Zenlax T C S 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its really not important or notable, however it should be noted somewhere that thats his gimmick and "if its really necessesary" to include a list of legends it should be only WWE Hall of Famers not people like Triple H. --TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't find it all that notable really. And what constitutes a legend being "killed"? Dusty Rhodes, Sgt. Slaughter and Mick Foley have all continued to appear after being "killed". Jerry Lawler has been a target of Orton but is there every week as the color commentator for RAW. I know Orton calls himself "The Legend Killer", but I don't see how listing a bunch of wrestlers he has attacked is noteworthy. TJ Spyke 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well unless one of the legends is literally "killed" this is just useless to the encyclopedic value of the article, for example its inclusion would be like listing the ammount of people imitated by Eugene or spited by Carlito. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The term "Legend killer" does not refer that the wrestler is literally being killed. It refers to the "Legend of the wrestler" being killed. Obviously, because you cannot kill something abstract like a legend, the term would be a metaphor. And answering TJ's comment, I find the list notable because WWE finds it notable. They had a list of legends killed, until they had to get rid of it because of Chris Benoit's involvement in the section. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Even setting aside the notability of it, how do you determine who is considered a legend and when their legend was "killed"? You can't just have users here determine either one since that would be original research. TJ Spyke 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I could see the notability of the list if it wasn't anything more than just another spot. Wrestlers lose, wouldn't be much of a show if they didn't, they get jumped from behind, "beaten" down, left lying in the ring before being "helped" back by backstage personel, etc. All of those scenarios apply, at various times, to the legends Orton has "killed". I'd find the list notable if the legends he'd RKO'd never returned to the business. If they retired and it was played that Orton did end their career, that'd be a different story.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New Featured list candidate

I have nominated AJPW Triple Crown Championship for Featured List status. I've seen it referred to as the most important championship in professional wrestling, and the article is well-sourced. If anyone has a chance to look it over, please feel free to do so. If you Support or Oppose the nomination, please give an explanation for your vote on the nomination page. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)