Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 45

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 40

←

Archive 43

→

Championship belt

Should this article be considered within the scope of this project? A lot of the information is already covered by the Championship (professional wrestling) article, so I'm not really sure what should be done about this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I say yes, it has half of the info on wrestling belts as it does with boxing belts.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Category question

Since Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types exists, shouldn't one be made for WWE or should the contents just be moved to the general match types category? A tiny category just to showcase the fact TNA has exclusive matches... seems a bit pointless to me. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with WWE ones are that since it is the top company in the wrestling world, their match types quickly get copied by other promotions. The only match WWE created that I don't see other promotions doing (mostly because it would be too expensive for most indy promotions) is the Hell in a Cell match. I am not sure we need one just for TNA matches either, that could go in a general match types category. TJ Spyke 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The Rock name change

see here.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Check out this new infobox I made.

Template:Infobox Wrestler 2008 (2008 cuz that's when it was made). It's not THAT much different from the current one. I just added a place for a the persons real name. Their birth name (may be different than their real name (such as Andrew Martin, who's name was changed from Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin to Andrew Test Martin. It goes like this:

{{Infobox Wrestler 2008
|realname    =Andrew Test Martin
|birth name  =Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin
|name        =Andrew Martin
|names       ='''Test'''<br>"The Punisher" Andrew Martin<br>Big Foot<br>Martin Kane<br>T.J. Thunder
|image       =Andrew Martin-Test at ECW Live.jpg
|image_size  =
|img_capt    =
|height      ={{height|m=1.98}}
|weight      ={{convert|145.5|kg|lb st|abbr=on|lk=on}}
|real_height =
|real_weight =
|birth_date  ={{birth date and age|1975|3|17}}
|birth_place =[[Whitby, Ontario]]
|death_date  =
|death_place =
|resides     =[[Tampa, Florida]]
|billed      =[[Venice, Los Angeles, California|Venice Beach, California]]
|trainer     =Leo Burke<br>[[Dory Funk, Jr.]]<br>[[Bret Hart]]
|debut       =1997
|retired     =2007
|website     =[http://www.myspace.com/7439092 Andrew Martin] at [[MySpace]]
}}

How's it? --Cra sh U nderride 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would PREFER it if you would leave comments on this on my talk page. Thanks, --Cra sh U nderride 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how this is more beneficial than the current infobox TBH. Having both their name and birthname is redundant (since only a handful of wrestlers have legally changed their name, so 99% of them would have the same name for both) and their birth name is posted in the first sentence. TJ Spyke 00:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(x-posted) I'm inclined to agree with TJ. Also, if we had decided on adding the birthname, we could have just added it to the other template instead of making a new one. Nikki311 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(x-posted) I Agree with Tj and Nikki Less Than Clippers 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand were all ya'll are comin' from, but I figured it'd be easier to have a second option that alittle different, kinda like WCW and the WWF. But I'm lettin' anyone who has a good idea on how to make it better edit it. Who know's, be kinda nice to have a "Sandbox Infobox Template" that we can experement with and see what we can do to make it better. Just a thought. --Cra sh U nderride 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TJ and Nikki, it is sort of redundant adding the name in the infobox. You should have proposed the idea before your hard work could have gone to waste, just a suggestion.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

TJ is correct on this one. It is redundant. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know what you're sayin', but remember what I said as well. My overall goal was to create one we could just experiment with and tweak to get it right for as long as needed without all the "Show Previews". One where you can save your work and not have to worry about it messin' up any aritcles. --Cra sh U nderride 06:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Beating a semi-conscious horse

This was apparently discussed before, but I think the project should reconsider. Are they better known as the Majors or Hawkins & Rider? --Endless Dan 13:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, How many months/years/whatever were they known as the Major Brothers, and by the same token, how long have they been known as Hawkins & Rider now? That would be the first point to make - i.e. which stint is longer as of right now? The second point to make would be, since their change to Hawkins & Rider, have they received a significant push, more storylines, and/or more TV time than they ever did as The Major Brothers? In my mind, the anwsers to these questions would determine whether or not to rename the article at this time. Someone else may be able to add more points to consider. --Naha|^(talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All these points were addressed in the link I provided. They were known as the Major Brothers for a little over 6 months. Now, mind you, during that time they were not on TV often (sometimes going MIA for over a month at a time) and had no success as a team (unless you consider getting their asses handed to them by Porter and Hardy as success).

To answer your second question, they are unquestionably receiving their greatest exposure right now. They have aligned themselves with the world champ, are involved (somewhat) in main event storylines and they're actually winning televised matches. A name change seems like a no-brainer. --Endless Dan 15:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

All you have mentioned so far points to an article name change. I still need to know how long they have been using the names Hawkins & Rider now though? I mean, I've been watching WWE but I don't remember exactly when they were repackaged as Edge's goonies and I don't have time to do the legwork to figure it out.

Also, before WWE TV, were they known as The Major Brothers for awhile in any developmental territories or on the Independent circuit outside of the 6 months you already mentioned? It may seem trivial, but I am always surprised to find out just how many people closely follow the Wrestling Schools and the Indy circuit. Some of the wrestlers have significant fan bases before they are ever seen on TV.

I'm sorry if this has already been addressed. Like I said, I'm pretty busy right now and don't have really any time to go hunting for info. I just try to monitor this page as time allows and give opinions and point out things that may or may not have already been thought of. Good work, and thanks! --Naha|^(talk) 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The name change occurred after they disrupted a main event title match at Armageddon (2007) and in turn, aligned themselves with Edge. Those actions could arguably be the highlight of their careers. I believe the official name change occured on the following Smackdown, Edge brought them out as his lackeys and they then changed names.--Endless Dan 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok so That is less than 3 months. We don't have that going for us yet. But I would also argue that this is the biggest push of their careers and they have recieved more attention and screentime and storyline angles in their not-quite-3-months of time as Hawkins & Rider, than they ever did as The Major Brothers. That alone, is EXTREMLY significant when it comes to naming their article. I would, however, like to see some input from a few other editors before a decision is reached. As of right now though, with the current information in front of me, I support the move. --Naha|^(talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we go by what they were best known as, and they were best known as the Major Brothers for about a year. And Hopkins and Ryder name has only been used by like less than 6 months.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 15:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Truco, I would like to think that most, if not all, of the regular editors around here know the Wikipedia Common Name policy for articles. That being said, length of time using a name isn't the only factor that needs to be considered when deciding what they are best known as. This has already been talked about above in my first reply to EndlessDan. Please read it and feel free to discuss further. --Naha|^(talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Truco, according to the Wiki article, they were known as the Major Brothers for about 6 and a half months, not a year. If the article is wrong, it needs to be rectified with citations given. If not, please don't exaggerate the amount of time when giving reasoning in a dispute. Everyone who chimes in on the matter needs to know all the correct information so they can form a valid opinion. --Naha|^(talk) 16:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Then, per WP:COMMONNAME, we should rename The Ultimate Warrior article.

I understand your point that the article should be named by what they are best known as. But I don't think WP:PW could objectively determine that. My feelings are they achieved their greatest success, biggest push and most exposure under their current monikers. To an outsider visiting their article, it appears out-dated. I'm not trying to rock the boat, as I seriously could care less what the Ryder and Hawkins article is named, but I feel that a name change is in the best interest of WP:PW.--Endless Dan 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that despite going by Major Brothers longer, they are more well known as Hawkins and Ryder Less Than Clippers 19:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

So how should this matter procede? Do we take it to a vote? --Endless Dan 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think the best thing to do is make a proposal on the articles talk page, link to it here, and lets see if there is consensus. Less Than Clippers 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Naha calm down. I wasn't paying attention, as I replied from school. Now I see what you mean, and now let me say this. 1)Well if you want to go by their major exposure then rename it. 2)If you want to reach consensus on this matter, voting is not the answer, but instead discuss it, as we have done here. 3)Let other people voice their opinion and we will take it from there. =) And Thank You Naha for proving me wrong, I appreciate it. :D TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "uncalm" and if I somehow appeared that way ..sorry. I just call the facts as I see them. I prefer to get matters like this taken care of ASAP without a long drawn out debate ..thats all :) --Naha|^(talk) 14:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I support the rename. Nikki311 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support the rename. Sexy Sea Bass 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As do I Less Than Clippers 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, as per the arguments as per my "1)" point. =) (even though I opposed it earlier, I support it now)TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's better than being for it before you were against it :P Sexy Sea Bass 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Hybrid. :P--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 23:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I also support the move. It makes sense, and they have gotten a large push recently as Edge's allies. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This sucks. I supported a name-change before and was rejected, and now because their is a small dispute, the article gets renamed? Really, I find it extrmely hypocritical. Obviously, all of us can agree that we couldn't care less if the article gets renamed or not, but seriously, we shouldn't make such a fuss about such a minor thing. Feedback ^☎ 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus changes over time. No big deal Feed. Less Than Clippers 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Time is the key factor here. Before WP:COMMONNAME wasn't satisfied, but now that things have had time to settle in their careers it is. Hypocrisy isn't an accurate term to describe this change in consensus. Sexy Sea Bass 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "this sucks" ..especially because the consensus seems to be going the way you orginally argued for :) Be happy! Time does change things. For one (and this may be true for others as well), I wasn't involved in the last discussion because I didn't see it and/or didn't have time and/or wasn't around then because it was during the major part of my wiki break. Things happen when people have time to get involved. Everyone can't be involved in every discussion because there is so much to do around here, every one of us can't possibly notice every discussion or dispute. --Naha|^(talk) 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Why bother having a project if the biggest thing we do is hold endless debates about trivial stuff like this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, this is a trivial matter. But at times, people can't see or understand what is best for the Encyclopedia until all the facts of the matter are shown in a clear and concise way. Then, the light bulb goes off. Until then, depending on the person or people involved, it will just be a revert war [if only actions are performed without discussion as to why they need to be done], taking away even more time from people who could be spending it better elsewhere around here. If we don't take care of trivial matters though, they add up and build over time and then the 'pedia is a mess. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, people see things different ways and talking about them is the only way to move on. Everyone concerned with a matter always need a clear understanding of why option a is better than option b. With understanding comes learning, with learning comes change]. If we can knock stuff like this out of the way, then we can go work on frying the bigger fish, Sea Bass excluded ;) :P --Naha|^(talk) 14:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I do disagree though that while we do spend too much time debating trivial matters, its not the "biggest thing we do" around here. Just look at how much the project has organized over the last year. Look at all the GAs and FAs and stub improvals. And I say WOW to the amount of referencing and citation work that has been accomplished. It's definitely two steps forward and one step back, but the important thing is that we DO continue to move forward, and I believe that we've earned the respect of far more Wiki goers than ever before because of our diligence. --Naha|^(talk) 14:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA nom notification

I've just finished sourcing and fixing up Dawn Marie Psaltis with the intention of nominating the article at WP:GAC at some point. I've been working on it off and on for awhile now, so I'm so used to it that I probably missed some things that need to be fixed. I'd appreciate some comments or copyediting if anybody has some time. Thanks. Nikki311 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I just did a quick pre-GA review on the talk page for this article where I listed a few things that could be tweaked a bit. Nothing major. I want to look over it again after these changes can be made to see if I missed anything. Let me know! :) --Naha|^(talk) 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Select wrestling federations and promotions"

Just browsing through the professional wrestling article and came across this. Is it really needed? We already have a template at the bottom of the page listing the most popular and significant promotions going around in each country. Normy 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO...no. Like you said, the templates are at the bottom, and they are just making a long article longer. Plus, lists like that invite random IPs to list every federation they can think of. Nikki311 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com's new feature / question

For those of you who haven't learned of it yet, WWE.com has a new section title "Industry News" on the main page of their website. This sections features news about various things in wrestling, including (believe it or not) TNA's current schedule. The thing is, all the news stories don't come from WWE.com, but are credited to places such as Rajah.com, ProWrestling.com and WrestleZone.net (yes, a bunch of "dirt sheet" websites). Now, since some members of this project (and some outside it) have a problem with "dirt sheets" and with what is said on them being posted on Wikipedia, what are you going to do when someone posts a rumor and sources it to WWE.com? Nenog (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people feel that this "new section" was created by someone who hacked into wwe.com and added it. Lets not get ahead of ourselves yet, as I believe this just happened today. --Naha|^(talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

We do need the facts. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh I almost forgot: The fact that WWE.com has public ally denounced and sued websites/companies like these in the past, makes the whole situation look extremely fishy. I know WWE will do just about anything for publicity, but I think this is even beyond them. If I have to eat my foot later, don't forget to pass me the salt ..but thats what it looks like right now to me :)--Naha|^(talk) 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like to me like it's been hacked, it looks good their new update. Plus, someome would have to have very good computer expertise to hack it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not looking hacked is what professional hackers strive for. Not to mention that wwe.com has been hacked before. And there are thousands of individuals out there who could pull it off (skillwize), not to mention how potentially easy it would be for a disgruntled employee who already has access to the right stuff. I'm not asking anyone to jump to a conclusion either way really, I'm just saying ..before we get into a knock down drag out fight (which tends to happen around here when we have this type of discussion regarding website credibility) its a bit early to be worrying about how we would source things of this nature. Waiting a day or two to see if its real before people start throwing punches over the credibility of WrestlZone etc might save us all a lot of grief :) And if it is real, then we'll take it from there. I know we like to keep things moving around here but sometimes its best to try to avoid conflict and focus efforts elsewhere, especially given the bizarre nature of this development. --Naha|^(talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My feelings on this are - if anything is sourced to this new section, then it should be removed (or otherwise ignored) as the info would rely on previously consensused (is that a word?) unreliable sites. ArcAngel (talk) 20:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we give it time through the weekend, and I doubt that WWE would post spoilers even if credited to those sites. To me the articles that WWE places under the industry news must mean it's reliable, but there is always the possibility of the site being hacked so lets see what happens through the weekend. P.S-"Truco X" is coming to Wikipedia.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my main reason for suspicion lies in the fact that it seems like if WWE actually was trying to draw in a more diverse audience to their website using tactics like this (advertising the news of their competitor), wouldn't THEY use the most reliable source for the information they could get (TNA's official website), and not random news-site_01? Listing TNA news is one thing, listing their news and sourcing it with references other than TNA is what seems odd to me - especially when its info that is readily available from TNA. --Naha|^(talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I find that odd as well, I find the whole thing odd of TNA on WWE. WTF!? --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I say we wait a while as well. If it gets taken off quickly then we know it was a hacker, if not, we'll have to reconsider. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I didn't realise the Industry News section was on the main page of WWE.com I had only been linked to acouple of the stories in it. Unfortunately, wwe.com being a "Rated R" content website, is blocked at work (I work at various local schools, some of which are elementary age kids). Anyway, I had to remote desktop into my computer to even access wwe.com and even then I was just clicking the link that took me directly to one of the stories in question. Remote desktop can be veeeeeeeeeeery slow and applications and webpages load veeeeery slowly, especially multimedia sites like wwe.com. Bottom line, now that I am home and have seen the entire Industry News section and how it is laid out on the main page of wwe.com, it looks very legit to me. *eats foot* --Naha|^(talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like some salt Naha? LOL. Actually I do think it looks quite legit, but I do still think it's weird that TNA news is on the site... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it odd when I first saw ROH selling WWE and TNA DVDs on their site. Off-topic, but I can't believe WWE is wasting $20 million on Mayweather, especially since anyone with half a mind knows WWE is somehow gonna let Mayweather defeat The Big Show even though it's a ridiculous idea to think he could really win and I know I have no interest in the match (WM in general is uninteresting this year, I am only looking forward to the Edge/Undertaker match and the MITB match and they are not worth the $55 WWE is charging). TJ Spyke 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the salt ;) --Naha|^(talk) 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought it might make it go down easier..... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they'll post any backstage/gossip articles, which, along with spoilers, are the only things that people seem to have a problem with. Mshake3 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleZone not a reliable source

Although WWE.com are taking cuttings from other website, one of them WrestleZone, it is not a reliable source.

Steve Gerweck, the webmaster of Gerweck.net made this statement on his website:

"It should be noted that with WWE adding an industry news section on the company’s web site, and even listing TNA tour dates, a site credited, Wrestlezone, is a known cut and paste web site. Ryan Clark is a probably the most well known internet hack out there, cutting and pasting our news without credit on multi-time basis per day. Clark, who posts for a number of other web sites to drive more traffic to his own, is probably the worst offender of cut and paste wrestling “journalism” since the days of Sushi X. It should also be noted that Clark and Wrestlezone doesn’t only steal information from this site, but also steals news from other reputable wrestling news sources."

Adam Martin, webmaster of WrestleView.com made a similar statement here:

"WWE.com has decided to credit one website in particular that is notorious for lazy reporting, not crediting sources and "cutting and pasting." They are obviously huge fans of WrestleView.com and have been for years. Steve Gerweck wrote a great statement on his website about this earlier today that pretty much sums up how most people look at them."

I suggest we don't use WrestleZone.com as a source as it is ultimately "stealing" news without crediting other websites. I'm suggesting we get WrestleZone.com blacklisted as a result. Anyone agree? D.M.N. (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisting would be too severe. Do I think it is wrong to post others news stories without crediting it to them? Yes. But I don't think blacklisting them is right. BTW, who is Sushi X? The only Sushi X I know of was a very popular editor for Electronic Gaming Monthly many years ago, although I doubt its the same person. TJ Spyke 11:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

COTW

Shouldn't this week's COTW be one of the GA candidates? (I mean one of the ones which is already a good article). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should....shouldn't it? I thought we were going to update it every week, with the old COTW announcement, that went to everyone's talk page, saying the updated COTW. Then it will still change every week, and we could take it out of the newsletter, and have it be it's own message. iMatthew 20 08 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure. We switched to having the COTWs every two weeks, so if we want to keep everything the same, then we should have a FACOTW every fourth time...meaning we should have two regular COTWs before we have another FACOTW. I'm not sure, though, because what I just said confuses even me. Nikki311 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So then maybe, like you said, we should have two COTW's every time the newsletter changes. And the FA COTW every the end of every other month. iMatthew 20 08 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, everyone can just do what I tell them...muahahaha. Nikki311 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Must. Obey. Nikki. iMatthew 20 08 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

So FACOTW at end of every other month, right? Okay, cool. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And two COTW's every newsletter? iMatthew 20 08 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Or just one every newsletter? I thought that's what Nikki meant. I dunno - I'm really confused right now.... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be two. iMatthew 20 08 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well since no-one else seems to have an opinion, why not? So top two every two weeks? Sounds good to me. Anyway else any opinions/thoughts/etc? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Angle and Carlito

Speaking of the COTW, will these two FA COTW nominations ever be pruned. They have been up since last year's October and November. iMatthew 20 08 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

FACOTW candidates aren't pruned. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be at some point, otherwise they can be on there forever. Maybe the policy should be that they are pruned after three times that they were not vote in. iMatthew 20 08 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually. I remember when I first joined WP:PW and discovered COTW, and I thought it was a bit weird that FACOTW candidates weren't pruned. I especially think now we should prune them, because we do have a lot more good articles now, the number is increasing all the time, and we have 5/6 that are nominated for GA. I think pruning them is a good idea. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it would be fantastic if we could get other opinions. Everyone seems to be focusing on the above thread. iMatthew 20 08 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how often it should happen, but I agree that they should be pruned. TJ Spyke 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say every two or three months. iMatthew 20 08 00:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that every two weeks we have one new COTW, and every fourth time, we have a FACOTW. So, then the FACOTW happens once every other month. I think our priority should be making GAs anyway, as they are significantly easier to achieve, and we have SO MANY articles in extreme need of fixing up. As far as pruning GA noms from the FACOTW, I don't think it is a big deal to just keep them. We only have so many GAs, and if they stay there long enough, they are eventually going to win, right? Nikki311 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats the point, if Kurt Angle has been up there since October, and hasn't received votes in forever and a day, then maybe there are those who do not want them to eventually win, therefore not giving their vote. iMatthew 20 08 03:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was never a consensus about this. Right when COTW started up, one person wanted to subject those articles to the exact same rules and time limits as the others, I disagreed thinking it should be a longer time period, and everyone else was oblivious to the whole matter. I reverted when they posted a notice saying it would be pruned, no one questioned as I was one of the small handful of users trying to fire the COTW up again, and I guess it set a precedent. That was never my intention, as I just wanted to have it be a longer period of time, but I never followed up on it. Basically, this is the first consensus related to this, as what was going on before was a misinterpretation of my will. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we need more opinions to reach a decision. The following questions need to be answered:

How many articles should be chosen from the nomination list every newsletter? One or two?
How often should the FA COTW be done? Every month or every other month?
Should the FA COTW's be pruned at all? If yes, then when should they be pruned? iMatthew 20 08 15:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania X

I would like to nominate this article for a Good Article review in a week or so. If anyone has a chance, it would be great if they could look it over and give some feedback and/or help out with the article. I did some work tonight to try to take it out-of-universe, but it might need some more work in that regard. Thanks in advance, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great, absolutely great, the only thing i see that sticks out is the taglines not sourced, dont know if that is important but just wanted to mention it. Another question non related, but when writing PPV articles are we suppose to say that each feud is a storyline, as you did in the article?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting. There were some typos, misspellings, etc. that I fixed. Also, to answer Truco's question, once it is established that a feud between two wrestlers is a storyline, then no, you don't have to keep mentioning that everything was planned. I do, however, think it is best to establish that fact for every feud. Nikki311 05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But doesn't the link to feud (professional wrestling) say that it is part of a storyline? Or do we still have to establish it? and if so, how would you begin a feud lets say between The Undertaker and Kane?TrU Co ⁹31¹ 05:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The article looks great. The only thing that stands out is the last paragraph of the aftermath section. There are no references in the first six lines. Other than that I would say it is ready. iMatthew 20 08 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done I don't know how I missed that in the first place, but thank you for pointing it out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's much better now. iMatthew 20 08 16:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Other On-Screen Talent section needs to be converted into a table, and dropped into the "Event" section. See December to Dismember (2006) as an example. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done iMatthew 20 08 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as Trucco mentioned, the tagine needs to be sourced: "The event featured two taglines: "Ten Years in the Making" and "Back on Broadway."

I added a reference to "Ten Years in the Making." I removed "Back on Broadway," because in all of the sources I saw that listed the tag line. None of them listed "Back on Broadway." iMatthew 20 08 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2004)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Unforgiven 2004 has passed GA. Thank you to all who helped get the article to GA status. Cheers, to you all. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, everybody. Nice job! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep up the good work! iMatthew 20 08 00:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell Yeah. Pardon my French. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dark match (to those who usually expand PPV's)

Recently I have seen some people who expand PPV's refer to Sunday Night Heat matches as dark matches in the Event section. Sunday Night Heat matches were NOT dark matches. Look at the definition of dark match adn the first line is "Non-televised match". While the match may not have been aired on the PPV, it was aired live on Sunday Night Heat (before Heat became a web-based show, WWE would air Heat live from the arena where the PPV was being held). Since it aired live on television, it is not a dark match and shouldn't be referred to as such.

The reason i'm posting this here is because I know the people who expand the PPV's check this page and this helps make sure others see it too. TJ Spyke 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I used to forget about that, but I figured that out a while ago. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlash (2006) was the final time HeAT occured live from the arena. However, do note that not every PPV prior to then was a Heat match, most notably the WrestleManias. Mshake3 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Future FA/GA

I would like to nominate No Way Out (2007) for GA, but does the community feel it is worthy enough? Also does No Way Out (2004) have the chance to pass for a future FA?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out 2007 seems to me to be worty enough of GA. There are just a few things that should be changed first.
No Way Out 2004's aftermath needs to be expanded before we go any further, IMO. iMatthew 20 08 00:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate the comments, the thing is there really was no aftermath after NWO, some of the feuds did not continue and after NWO some of the superstars did nothing significant.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 00:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe it should state that No Way Out was the end of the fued for person A and person B. Person A went on and.... Person B went on and.... Do you get what I'm trying to say? iMatthew 20 08 00:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) I don't even get it, myself. lol. iMatthew 20 08 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think No Way Out 2007 definitely has potential. I don't have time to look it through in detail right now, but one thing that could stand in its way is the fact that WWE has moved or deleted many of the articles that were used as sources. See here for a list of its external links. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick run through of wikilinks, etc, of 2007 and it looks pretty good. You might want to check out Gary's thing though. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The matches involving Benoit are obvious, they deleted every page on Benoit after that tragedy. Some of the other ones are odd though. Luckily there is the Internet Archive, which I have used for some of Benoits title reigns. TJ Spyke 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, I need to look into that. Also I have added a little more to the NWO 04 AM, and thanks for all your help fellow members. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what happened with the wwe.com links is that they move them to their history section the next year, so No Way Out 2007 results would now be found under nowayout/history/2007. I've fixed them for you though, so that shouldn't be a problem for you any more! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nici, so is NWO 07 ready to be nominated for GA? Also I have added much more to the NWO 04 Aftermath, can it be nominated for FA?TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so too. Go for it! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ready. iMatthew 20 08 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So go for it, for both of them right?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, lets do it now. If there are any changes to be made, we have time, since we all know it takes forever to get a review. iMatthew 20 08 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they same way Unforgiven was done. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Even though you should have it ready before you nominate it. --Cheers, L A X 01:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well different reviewers have different ways they review the article and different view point of what might be needed or what is not. So you never know.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Have been nominated

~~No Way Out (2007) has been nominated for Good article status~~ and No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for here.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder: the project's policy is to announce GA nominations one week in advance. That gives people from the project time to look it over, perform copyedits, and make suggestions before it is nominated. Regardless of the long waiting period for some GA reviews, all articles should be at their best at the time of nomination. I don't honestly know if there is a similar policy about FA nominations, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to echo that statement. I just scanned the NWO 2007 article and found quite a few grammar and MoS problems. If it were reviewed right now, it wouldn't pass. Articles should be up to quality before they are nominated. Nikki311 06:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look over that, doesnt AWB suppose to find those errors (I did clean up with that).|-|TrU Co -X|-| 15:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have now pulled NWO 07 from GA, I did not really read over it well, and see that it requires massive clean up. Thanks however to all who helped out.TrU Co -X 15:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok NWO has been cleaned up, please go over it and review it and comment here about any errors/ changes that we could make. I will then again nominate it for GA next week.TrU Co -X 18:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(x-posted from your talk page) I cleaned up the article, but your edits undid all the cleaning up I did. [1] Nikki311 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Savage

I am copying a comment I put on Savage's profile here. It was a reply to another user's comment about the supposed incident between him and Stephanie that resulted in Vince and Savage no longer being on speaking terms.

I agree with removing ubsubstantiated (sp?) rumors, but I do think there should be somthing about a disagreement between him and McMahon. I'm not very good at writing something like this, but maybe something like "they don't get along due to some sort of past conflict, which is the subject of rumor"?

Here's something. It's an answer to a question posed to Wade Keller, editor of Pro Wrestling Torch, a widely regarded "insider" newsletter: Q: What is the problem Vince McMahon has with Randy Savage? Does Savage have an issue with McMahon?

A: It's one of the most widely speculated questions in the industry, and most people on the inside who speak about this believe it has something to do with interaction Savage had with Stephanie McMahon years ago. Savage left WWE where he was co-hosting Raw for WCW to become an active wrestler again and enjoyed a resurgence of his in-ring career at that point, but many wrestlers left under similar circumstances that McMahon has welcomed back in the interest of generating fan interest. I do know that McMahon bristles at the mere mention of Savage's name, and it's considered taboo within WWE to even acknowledge Savage in front of McMahon. McMahon has made is clear over the years bringing Savage back is out of the question and no up for debate.

Source: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Ask_the_Editor_18/article_23941.shtml --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

this is a no brainer really - speculation do not belong on WIkipedia, contentious material (and this rumor is highly contentious) needs a reliable source. Unless a reliable source is found that confirms whatever rumors are floating around they should not even be hinted at. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I'm trying to say is the fact that McMahon doesn't like Savage, and turned down ideas for a DVD and action figure, is worth mentioning, but I don't really know how to word it since nobody knows the reason behind it. Smart Mark Greene (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning, but you need a reliable source before it can be added. Without a reliable source, it will just get removed by another editor since speculation doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - Kogoro_9_23 06:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2005) and SummerSlam (2007)

ThinkBlue, LAX, and I would like to nominate these for GA within this week. If you can, please look over both articles. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. iMatthew 20 08 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No Remorse Corps

I believe this team should get an article, because they have been around for the better part of a year. I mean come on this isn't enough to cover this team.--KingMorpheus (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then make a trial article in your sandbox with third party sources, let someone look over it to make sure it meets the notability and verifiability guidelines, and it can be moved to mainspace. Nikki311 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New COTW

For the next two weeks, the collaboration of the week is Ric Flair, which should be a pretty easy one to source. Nikki311 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sexy Sea Shark 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

That with this. --Endless Dan 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Lists

This project hasn't had a featured list in a while. We've got a few lists that look ready to nominate, though. List of ECW Tag Team Champions, List of ECW Television Champions, and List of TNA X Division Champions are all complete and fully referenced. Are they ready to be nominated (probably one at a time)? I'd like to see more featured lists, but I'd prefer if someone else nominated the next couple. I'm willing to help with any changes proposed by nominators, but I'd like to know that someone else is also willing to help if need be. Any opinions on whether or not these are ready? Anyone willing to nominate one? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW Tag and TV Champs both need the lead sourced, and TNA X Division could probably be nominated, but shouldnt we change the leads in these articles to match the WWE titles? Also are any of the WWE Draft articles worthy enough to be a FL?--TrU Co -X 21:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE Television Logos

I just noticed something, WWE is using 2 logos for SmackDown! and ECW, I was watching Raw and during the WrestleMania Rewind Promo, they used [2] [3] to promote the brands, but then they showed a commercial from ECW, (one produced by Sci-Fi) and they use the old ECW logo to represent the TV show, and during commercials for SmackDown!, they use the FNS logo, should we distinguish these in the article? Also can the RAW logo be updated, to a logo in 3D like the other WWE shows like this?--TrU Co -X 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite episode

If someone is giving you grief regarding illegal video of a TV or PPV broadcast, just remember that the episodes themselves are reliable sources, and you can use either Template:Cite episode or Template:Cite video as a citation. Mshake3 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

...but, of course, keep in mind that promoting video piracy in order to cite a fact goes against Wikipedia policy. Therefore, linking to an illegaly hosted video is unacceptable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Don't link to the video, just cite the broadcast. Mshake3 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007) / No Way Out (2007)

Since no one has replied to the above comment or edited SummerSlam (2007), I have gone on and nominated it for GA status. --Cheers, L A X 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also since Nikki is the only one that replied (plus she was the one who did major clean up on it), is No Way Out (2007) ready for GAN?--TrU Co -X 01:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. Is Unforgiven (2005) ready to be a GA candidate? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Both NWO 07 and Unforgiven 05 are ready. iMatthew 20 08 01:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am renominating NWO 07 then.--TrU Co -X 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, I'm nominating Unforgiven '05. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's only been two days since you posted the notices. What happened to the other five days? I guess I'll go ahead and nominate Dawn Marie Psaltis then, since I posted the notice last Thursday, although now it'll be behind three other wrestling articles in the GAC list. Anyone else have any articles they want to nominate without waiting a week? Go ahead...it seems nobody else is following the one week rule. Nikki311 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree, but people barely reply when we post notices about PPVs, also people can still make suggestions/edits since PW articles take longer to be reviewed.TrU Co -X 02:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, why not nominate them now. And, I read the Dawn Marie article and it looks good. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been a week and many members of the project aren't able to respond immediately. I know that I was planning on looking over the three articles (as I try to do every time someone gives a week's notice). I can't always help on Sunday, though, because I have to get all of my stuff ready for work for the week. The purpose of letting the project know is so that it can be as good as possible before it is nominated, so nominating it before people have a chance to help defeats the whole purpose. I intend to nominate WrestleMania X this weekend once the week has passed, but I'm still waiting even though nobody has replied in the last couple of days. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I can always pull it from GAN if you want. TrU Co -X 02:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just confused. We went through this only two days ago, and I thought we were all clear. I explained that "the project's policy is to announce GA nominations one week in advance. That gives people from the project time to look it over, perform copyedits, and make suggestions before it is nominated. Regardless of the long waiting period for some GA reviews, all articles should be at their best at the time of nomination." I don't get this... GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You know what you are right, I AM NOW ANNOUNCING THAT I WILL NOMINATE NWO 2007 Next Monday, PLEASE COMMENT, MAKE SUGGESTIONS, AND COPY-EDIT, THANK YOU!. TrU Co -X 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree and have pulled SummerSlam. Over the next week, please review, copy-edit, or comment. Thank you. --Cheers, L A X 11:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Championship

It has moved to be grouped with the other vacant titles on WWE.com (WCW, Television titles, etc). Does this now mean it is officially abandoned/retired? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it list as retired, abandoned, or just vacant? Less Than Clippers 23:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

None of them. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/cruiser/ Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually its now defunct, they removed it from the [WWE Supertars/Show Page]. Also like Gavyn said they moved it to the defunct title histories.--TrU Co -X 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess its official now. WWE has it in their list of defunct titles. Shame too since they still have a bunch of good cruiserweights (much better than either tag team division). TJ Spyke 01:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was about to edit the article as a defunct title but the thing is when I go to the title histories page, the cruiserweight championship still appears in their slide show, and still reads vacant, so what do we do?TrU Co -X 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Their Cruiserweight division is shot as well as both Tag Team divisions. They are probably going to bring back a different championship that is similar to the Cruiserweight Championship. It is indeed defunct since in the Title Histories page it is grouped with the titles that are no longer in use. This means that SmackDown! has one less title than RAW now. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 02:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum.TrU Co -X 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lena Yada again..

IT was created, I proded it, now its an AfD, please voice your opinion.--TrU Co -X 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article reviews

I was thinking that it would be nice if we, as a project, could help out with the backlog of Good Article Nominations. We complain that it takes a long time to get articles reviewed, but not many of us actually review articles to cut down on the list. I, for one, have had three articles pass GA reviews, and I currently have three articles nominated with the intention of nominating another this weekend. That's seven articles that I've added to the list, but I've never reviewed an article myself. I was hoping that we might be able to get a few people to agree to review one article each in the next week or so. It would be a nice way for our project to give back, it would help us become more familiar with GA criteria, and it would cut down on the list and help move our articles up and get them reviewed sooner. Personally, I would recommend reviewing "Sports and recreation" articles, as that is where it would help us the most (although we should avoid reviewing professional wrestling articles). Is anyone else on board? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely do that. I've thought of this before, just never said anything. It's a very good idea. iMatthew 20 08 12:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've also considered it, but never had the time. My Spring Break starts this weekend, so I'll have tons of free time then. I'll look into it. Nikki311 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. I think with everybody contributing to the wrestling articles, we can have a bump of articles for the Good article requirements. I'd like to ask anybody here at the project, if they'd be willing to give Vengeance (2005) a peer review, as I'd like for nominate to nominate it, sometime in the future. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:TNA Roster

Can this be created? iMatthew 20 08 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Its been created. Ni mi Ti ze 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Can it be used? iMatthew 20 08 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we clear something up

As I understand it, a wrestlers finishing moves are listed 1st in the moves list in alphabetical order and in bold, am I correct? and if so why are my edits on Shawn Michaels page being reverted when all I'm doing is moving it up the page and bolding it.Skitzo (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know for sure is a finisher? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he's been using it as such since débuting it. Skitzo (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How positive are you? Cause, this seems like your POV. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How so? Michaels has used it to finish several matches, and consistently uses it other matches when it fails. How is that not a finisher? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know what your saying. But, how sure are you that its a "finisher"? I mean, we all know why Wikipedia has a bad name -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not understanding where you're coming from, Blue. How am sure? By watching Raw. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still struggle to call it his finisher. It's a signature move of his in that he uses it in a few matches and sometimes wins matches with it but Sweet Chin Music is really his one and only established finisher. Normy 05:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So do I. Signature move yes, finisher no. Sexy Sea Shark 16:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Template for defunct titles?

Can we make a template for defunct championships?--TrU Co -X 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well since there were no responses, I went ahead and created two examples in my sandbox, go here. The first one is uncategorized, while the second one is.--TrU Co -X 02:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of WCW Hardcore Champions future FL

Due to the "policy", I am giving a heads up that I will nominate the above article for FL, as me and Blue have sourced and worked hard on it; please copy-edit, revise, comment about the article and tell me whether it is ready to be nominated for FL. --TrU Co -X 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through and made a few small changes and fixed the Fair Use rationale (there must be a separate rationale listed for each use of the image). I think it's looking good. An explanation of the rules for defending the belt (hardcore rules, backstage, etc.) might help, but it's already covered in the article on the belt itself, so it might be redundant. Good job. Incidentally, I'm not sure that the one week policy applies to FL nominations, but you might want to wait for confirmation of that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gary, I dont really think so either. Most of these article pass without problems, so should I just go I think I will go ahead and nominate it--TrU Co -X 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well its nominated.--TrU Co -X 02:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Championship: Active?

I saw a discussion in Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment where they were discussing the current position of the Cruiserweight Championsip. Consensus, I believe, is that the title is not defunct because WWE has not called it as such. However, I don't think that we need WWE's approval to call the title inactive. It is part of the Active titles in the WWE article, which I believe is done erroneously. I understand that the title is not retired, but it isn't in use either. :S Feedback ^☎ 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I brought this discussion up before and people said because WWE still lists it as vacant it is active. But I agree with you Feed, but if the title goes unused throughout the summer, up to september (when the last champion held the title) then it most definaetly will be inactive, but for now i think "Inactive:Status unknown" is ok.--TrU Co -X 00:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If no one is holding it, no one is defending it, no one is going for it, and no one is mentioning it, I think that qualifies as inactive. Not enough to call it dead (see Women's Championship in 2001), but inactive. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, they removed it from the slide show of active titles, its officially defunct. R.I.P WCW/WWE Cruiserweight Championship.--TrU Co -X 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The worst thing is that WWE hadn't even planned a funeral... Feedback ^☎ 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject report feature in the Signpost

Just to let you know that this project will be featuring in next week's report. Rudget (?) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

This isn't the first time I've brought this up. I never get responses about, this so they would be greatly appreciated this time. Last time, I proposed that the page should be in list format instead of table. Now that the List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni has been put in table format, I think that the WWE Alumni page should remain the same. The WWE Alumni page still looks very messy though, so I propose that we make it a little more like the TNA one. The reference column can be deleted, and the references can come after any notes in the "Notes" column. The real name column can be deleted, and instead come after the stage name in parenthesizes. iMatthew 20 08 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I like how the TNA one looks, so I'm in favour of changing the WWE one as well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree. Feedback ^☎ 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I question the notabiity of this article

I would be the last to want to delete an article about Puerto Ricans, but I think The Puerto Rican Nightmares aren't notable enough. Thoughts? Feedback ^☎ 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC Constant Problems

Again, because there weren't enough responses, No Way Out (2004), which was nominated for FA, failed because there weren't enough comments for it. This is a problem, NYR 07 didnt pass because of the same reason, 2 people opposed NWO, 1 (for no reason thats really clear, and the other, we fixed what he opposed, but he didnt reply back). Us not being involved is becoming a drat...--TrU Co -X 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if nobody is going to bother reviewing the articles, and we are not allowed to, then who is going to? IMO, it's ridiculous that even our two administrators (Nikki and LAX) can't review these articles. iMatthew 20 08 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

True. We need a consensus on this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just review them. When they give us problems about it, we have two perfect examples of why we are reviewing our own articles. iMatthew 20 08 21:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a rule about that. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, thats just what I would do if the rule didn't exist. But then again, if the rule didn't exist, we wouldn't be having this problem. iMatthew 20 08 21:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But as long as the rule exists, something needs to be done. iMatthew 20 08 21:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In this instance, WP:IGNORE may have to come into play. I believe this is a valid time for it, correct me if I'm wrong. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think only certain people should be allowed to review FLA's or FLC's from the WP:PW...--TrU Co -X 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the problem with FAC and FLC that people would just go "yeah it's good, support" instead of giving an actual review with well thought out reasons and all? the lack of these comments and the overwhelming "Ya it rox" comments is what brought it on to begin with. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Truco. Only certain people should be allowed to review them from our project. IMO, GaryColemanFan, Nikki311, LAX, ThinkBlue, and Truco9311 should be allowed to review articles, if nobody else. iMatthew 20 08 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well Matt, I agree with the people but there are many more people who are responsible and would give good reviews or bad ones with a reason. I think we should just set up a policy, and if people from the project put comments like MPJ said, they should then be removed, unless they add a reasonable reason for their support or opposition.TrU Co -X 21:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Or, go with what Gavyn said. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but Truco, that is why I said "if nobody else". I can list at least 15 other active members of WP:PW who are responsible enough to review an article properly. iMatthew 20 08 21:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Its either set up a policy about WP:PW FAC/FLC participation or set up FAC/FLC WP:PW member participation approval.--TrU Co -X 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should set up a policy for WP:PW. But possibly with only a list of users who are allowed to review articles. Otherwise we might get newbies who don't know what their doing, try to review an article. iMatthew 20 08 22:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed suggestions/intervention from the WP:VP here.TrU Co -X 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed after 6 days because the oppose votes gave unconstructive feedback. I left messages on both voters' talk pages asking for specific things that could be fixed, but I didn't receive responses. Lack of an "Objections" section is a bizarre reason to oppose, especially if you don't give any indication of what that means. Needing copyediting is also fairly vague, as the article has been copyedited. I asked for a couple of examples of prose issues so that I would know what to fix, but no response came. This is just plain idiotic, especially as it was obvious that effort was being made to address the concerns. And before we get too concerned about breaking a "rule", let's keep in mind that no such rule exists and that the idea originated with Scorpion0422 simply deciding that WP:PW was the only project that shouldn't be allowed to vote on its own nominations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, he came up with this "rule", and he especially enforced it during the 2007 WWE Draft FLC nomination. Mayby Village pump can help.TrU Co -X 22:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really like taking unnecessary shots at me, don't you? You really should so some research before commenting about things that you have absolutely no idea about talking about, because I have warned many users and several projects about such things. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but you make consensus on your own with out much discussion; these "polices" you create hurt projects, our FA's or FL's barely have a chance of passing because people outside the project dont take notice to our articles, compared to the NFL or The Simpsons.--TrU Co -X 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, not true. Most FLC watchers will warn users about vote stacking because it hurts the process. And don't give me that crap about people liking other subjects better and automatically passing on wrestling. I've had FLCs about sports, TV shows, music, politics and the majority of them went well past the 10 day limit. You just have to be patient. Like I've said before, what's the point of the process if you can get an automatic pass by having project members support it? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, look at No Way Out (2004), thats all I have to say.--TrU Co -X 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you people actually look at that page? It was quick failed because it had two oppose votes, not because of a lack of comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, he came up with this "rule", and he especially enforced it during the 2007 WWE Draft FLC nomination. Mayby Village pump can help.TrU Co -X 22:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to here and ask everyone if they support vote stacking and see what they say. And by the way, in that FLC you asked several users to support that FLC and you seem to forget that you were also chastised by a user other than me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I know what I did back then was wrong, I was unaware of the process, ok NWO failed for no reason, 1 opposition made no sense, the other we fixed but they did not reply back, and then BAM the ten days were up.--TrU Co -X 16:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

New consensus

Well most of us agree that we should review our own articles as long as we address reasons on why we support or oppose, so per this. WP:PW members are entitled to review FAC or FLC's as long as they list a reason for their comments. Thus WP:PW members please intervene in your FAC or FLC's so they will at least be noticed and hopefully passed.--TrU Co -X 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this include reviewing GA nominations? iMatthew 20 08 04:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should. I know that I would really rather have someone outside the project review articles that I nominate. We want to avoid any accusations of conflict of interest since we're trying to make a good name for our project. We should, however, review articles from other "Sports and recreation" areas to help out and cut down on the backlog. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that anyone on Wikipedia should be entitled to comment and/or vote on any FAC or FLC. I agree that reasons should be given, but I'd like them to be more substantial than "Fits the criteria" or something like that. If you feel that an article isn't quite there, please give an Oppose vote with constructive feedback (and be open to changing your vote when your concerns have been addressed). Finally, it would be best if we didn't overload these nominations with votes from WP:PW members. A couple of votes should be good, but I'd rather not see one pass with no votes from outside the project. In summary, use good judgment, be honest and give meaningful comments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gary, GA's are different, FA's and FL's are also different, people have their own opinions as some may want ppl outside the project to review them, but FA's and FL's from this project are highly ignored, as when they are nominated they get less than 4 responses. How about 2 votes from the project and thats it? --TrU Co -X 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never once said project members shouldn't comment in FL/ACs and I have no problems with one or two supports from project members but I do have issues with asking people to support or when eight members all support without commenting. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both of those points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft articles GA?

Can WWE Brand Extension, 2005 WWE Draft, or the 2007 WWE Draft be nominated for GA?--TrU Co -X 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lists cannot be GAs, as they aren't "articles". The only choice you have is FL. Nikki311 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing lists being GAs. Feedback ^☎ 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:WIAGA. - Deep Shadow 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok well I nominated 2007 WWE Draft for FL last time, but it failed because "it didn't receive alot of media attention" and supposedly "Wrestling Information Archive" is unreliable. So any suggestions, so next time (if I nominate it) it can pass?--TrU Co -X 15:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Two more Good Articles

The articles about Dawn Marie Psaltis and Don Kent (wrestler) both passed GA reviews today, bringing the project's total to 34. Great job to everyone involved! Hopefully, the number will be increasing soon, as we currently have 9 more articles nominated.

And again, since there is such a backlog on the GA nomination page, I'd like to encourage people to review an article from the "Sports and recreation" list (but not a professional wrestling article). I completed my first review today (Art Houtteman), and I learned a lot from doing it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic tomorrow. iMatthew 20 08 04:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I completed this today. iMatthew 20 08 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks, and thank you to LAX for reviewing 1947 Sun Bowl. I decided to do another as well, so I've placed Richard Lloyd Racing on hold currently. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ;) --Cheers, L A X 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just double checking

I witnessed MVP defeating Jamie Noble to qualify for Money in the Bank at tonight's house show. However, I'm not a reliable source. Right? Mshake3 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Did you get any good pictures? iMatthew 20 08 12:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's on WON (here), how about that?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe they're having qualifying matches at house shows. Feedback ^☎ 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that is a reliable source. iMatthew 20 08 13:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Until it is acknowledged at WWE.com or WWE programming, MVP has not officially qualified for the Money in the Bank ladder match. The writer even states that WWE may ignore it. Feedback ^☎ 14:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

The newsletter is supposed to go out today. Please try to improve anything, so that I can inform Misza13 that it's ready to go. If there are any more current events, please feel free to add them. iMatthew 20 08 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Should it mention that this project will be next week Signpost's featured Wikiproject? iMatthew 20 08 14:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't we have a new COTW today? That should be updated and put on the newsletter. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Nikki's comment way above said that Ric Flair is the COTW for two weeks (3/3-3/17). iMatthew 20 08 14:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, 'cause it says on the COTW page that "Next week's "collaboration of the week" will be decided on Sunday March 9th." That's why I'm confused. Never mind, then. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I too think we should mention that this project will be featured in the Signpost. --Cheers, L A X 14:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Maria in playboy notable to be in the newsletter? Is the note about Ron Killings still notable? iMatthew 20 08 14:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Don Kent biased?

I have been searching the external links in the GA articles, and I discovered that Don Kent (wrestler) only has 5 external links (and one of which is suspicious). An article with very little external links, is an article which is biased towards these links, and receive all information from a small fountain. Feedback ^☎ 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had looked through the article itself, you would see that the majority of information is taken from print sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Print sources aren't verifiable by the readers of the article, only by the editor. Feedback ^☎ 16:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

the editor and anyone else that has the book you mean ;) I find it interesting that you just dismiss a written, published because YOU can't easily verify it. Can you please state anywhere that says that "a Printed source is bad" in the Wikipedia guidelines? I'll bet you that you'll have a hard time finding anything that says anything remotely like that. Yes it's not a mile long list of references, there aren't many result listings for Don Kent, he's not been active in the "Internet era" and thus does not have many good online sources - but he has been covered in some excellent print sources, some of which I'm lucky enough to have and thus use to improve the article on Don Kent. If the fountain they get the information from is reliable and is used in a neutral matter I don't see the problem, do you? PS. which is the suspicious one? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This tool says that this link is suspicious. Anyway, my problem is not that there are printed sources, but that there is only 2 of them. All articles should not be biased towards very little referencing, which questions the article's neutral point of view. I think you should at least find some references that can back up those published sources. Feedback ^☎ 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View is in the text, the tone, the writing - not the number of sources found. The article was found to be factual enough and neutral enough to be a Good Article, which means that the people involved in this article (which I'm one of) have done their job right. And once again I ask you, please point out where it says "Published sources need web references to back them up" because I don't know of such a policy, it comes off as your personal preference or something right now. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And the link comes up as 404 (missing) not suspicious, that's a different matter. One is a technical problem, the other is a comment about the quality of the source. The 404 I can fix with little problem I'm sure, it's not a slight against the article's quality that the net changes from time to time and kills links, just a point to be fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm using the term "suspicious", because that's the term the tool uses (in the legend above). And yes, you are correct. I am not citing any policy, and I never said I was anyway. All I'm trying to say is that the articles have to be unbiased, and even if there is no policy against having an article resting surely upon only two published sources, that doesn't mean it should stay that way. Feedback ^☎ 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"All" you're saying is that this article isn't unbiased right now and that accusation is based on the fact that it has a small number of sources and that they're not all net sources. I'd love it if people found more sources, lord knows I've been looking for good reliable sources on Don Kent but haven't found much of anything beyond what's there now, I'd be more than pleased if someone helped improve the sources, but I'm not pleased about the current article being slagged for being "biased" just because there aren't a ton of sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how print sources, more or less, are considered unreliable. Same with actual events or DVDs. Seems that people are using the "If I can't see it, then it doesn't exist" excuse. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, print sources and DVDs are the most reliable. Nikki311 04:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how I see it too, this biase against non-online sources are riduculous. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Broken External Links

I have updated the table of broken external links. There are a total of 20 GAs, 5 FAs, and 1 GAC with broken external links. Please check them out and help fix them. Thanks, Feedback ^☎ 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I've requested Semi or Full Protection for Reliant Stadium due to the fact WrestleMania XXV keeps getting added to it when it hasn't been confirmed by a reliable source. Yet.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected for a week.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MitB

Looks like World War III has broke out. Please help keep an eye on Money in the Bank ladder match and WrestleMania XXIV; Users keep adding MVP to the match, but with no reliable source. Thanks in advance. --Cheers, L A X 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps I should have shot video of Justin Roberts' pre-match announcment. Mshake3 (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We can trust you with your judgment, Mshake. But, I don't know about the rest. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com has confirmed it. Moving on. Mshake3 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Posters vs. Logos on WrestleMania articles

I think there is time for a change on this consensus. The WrestleMania equivalent in TNA, Bound for Glory, has it's posters and not logos. Both the poster and obviously the logo contain the logo. and finally WrestleMania articles stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of the WWE PPV articles. Time for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should change them, if not just for consistency's sake. They also tell more about the PPV than a logo could. And is the logo not ON the poster? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Support posters whenever possible (obviously there wern;'t posters for early ppv's. Less Than Clippers 20:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this one, I'm not really bothered either way. However, couldn't both the logo and the poster be in the article? That would certainly solve this dispute. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FU. --Cheers, L A X 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the WrestleMania XXIV poster is already out, Cinnamon. They just agree that the logo is more significant and use the logo. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then I suppose people are just going to have to debate it out. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The logo's are used more often by the WWE. On and off television, the logo is used to promote the event. iMatthew 20 08 20:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That would make a difference to the rest of the PPVs how? The posters contain the logos. --Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've asked this before and I'm all for the change. I very much agree with Gavyn's saying. Not only will it help consistancy with the other PPV articles, posters like this or this would help describe the show better. (That being said though, I can't really say the same about this years) -- Oakster Talk 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A poster is a poster. All the other PPVs poster never really describe them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sure describes it more than a logo does. --Cheers, L A X 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Any other opinions on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs)

I prefer logos, although i'm not 100% against posters. However, it takes more than a few hours to get a consensus (you tried to change it back after less than an hour by claiming there was a new consensus). TJ Spyke 01:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus may not be final but you are out numbered right now.CiNnAmon CrUchy 01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections besides TJ's?CiNnAmon CrUchy 17:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for posters too. For "events", that seems to be a norm. Mshake3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, for WrestleMania though I think we should stick with the logo. It sort of makes it more special and significant. As if it is such a big event that it doesn't need a poster, even though it has one. Although I can understand the other side of the debate as well. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 00:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I kinda think we should include posters for 'Mania's, as I agree with Oakster.--TrU Co -X 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's mentioned, I can see using logos for WrestleMania. As the showcase, yearly event, it has a unique logo. And while the same could be said for other PPVs, with those, you can't tell them apart year to year. Mshake3 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, look at the Backlash article. The logo has been the same for every event since 2000, the only change was when it switch from silver to red in color. TJ Spyke 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I believe using the logos violates WP:FU doesn't it? I could be wrong, I just want to make sure.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 03:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Using just the logo in no-what-way violates WP:FU; however, using both the poster and logo in the same article, would. --Cheers, L A X 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is there a limit of one Fair-Use image per article? Mshake3 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless I sill think posters are the way to got no matter how "unique" the logo is. I don't see the difference since the poster usually contains the logo.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 05:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean most people agree to posters over logos?--CiNnAmon CrUchy 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. I think we should keep the logo's per Mshake3 and TJ Spyke. The logo's are unique every year. iMatthew 20 08 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That should have nothing to do with it.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 22:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why it should have nothing to do with it? IMO it is a valid point. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's valid,...BUT Like I said at the beginning at the of the thread. Bound For Glory, TNA's WrestleMania counter part shows Posters.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The other pay-per-views have the same logo every year, but a new poster. WrestleMania has a new logo and poster every year, but the poster never tells you anything about the event. This years logo shows a sun coming out of the word, "WrestleMania." That represents WrestleMania being under the sun. (The tagline). The poster does not tell you anything about the event. iMatthew 20 08 22:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

HELLO, the poster has Kelly Kelly sitting under the sun.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 22:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

PLUS the poster contains the logo.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with the show. She is not even involved in WrestleMania this year. iMatthew 20 08 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither did Kane with Judgment Day 2007 but you used it.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 23:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats not WrestleMania. The topic of this discussion. iMatthew 20 08 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine we'll go that route...Kelly Kelly wasn't supposed to have anything to do with WrestleMania last year but she ended up in a backstage dance segment.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

She also wasn't on the poster. iMatthew 20 08 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless she was there. Your out voted right now 6 to 3 towards posters.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It's a consensus. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Reworded that's consensus is leaning towards Posters 6-3--CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should keep the logos. If you go to the WWE website, for every PPV page it has an option to get the poster as a desktop wallpaper, but for WrestleMania it just has the logo, not the poster for the wallpaper. WWE obviously uses the logo not the poster for WrestleMania. I think we should keep using the logo instead of the poster. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 04:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's because they didn't have the poster out yet.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this final? 6-4 in favor of Posters?--CiNnAmon CrUchy 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No replies so it's final Posters will be used. And as many of you may or may not know I'm about top be blocked as a "Sockpuppet" (which I'm not but what are you gonna do) which with out my vote would still put it in favor of posters. So even if I'm blocked, posters are to used.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 00:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is not over because you say it is. Give others a time to read this over and give their responses. Remember, this is not a vote, it's a discussion. iMatthew 20 08 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Same ol' Hornetman, Matt is right, you have to give it time, at least a week.--TrU Co -X 01:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE has commented their opinion in almost 24 hours.--CiNnAmon CrUchy 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because people aren't active all day on Wikipedia. Wait till next friday, that way you can get more responses as weekdays are busier.--TrU Co -X 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. iMatthew 20 08 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this project needs an AD

I think it's time we get an AD for Wikipedia. Thoughts?--TrU Co -X 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One, what is that? And two, for what reason? Mshake3 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1)Look at my userpage, and look at the wiki advertisements in my banner, one of those. 2) So we can promote the project.--TrU Co -X 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, advertisment. Eh, whatever. I guess it'll help. Mshake3 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I could fix one up for you if you want. What do you have in mind? -- Oakster Talk 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of current champions in WWE

Is this article really necessary? Every WWE championship article lists whichever wrestler is the champion. Odin's Beard (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It connects all the other WWE championship articles, allowing them to be part of a Featured Topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions. Nikki311 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Although I do think that List of current champions in TNA is somewhat unnecessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That page has been a redirect for about a month. Nikki311 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitting the Road: Photography Requests

I'll be crossing off names as I fufill the requests. Mshake3 (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Next week I'll be heading to a SmackDown house show, two Axxess events, Monday Night Raw, and Smackdown/ECW. As always, I'll have my camera handy. While I'll be shooting everything like I normally do, does anyone know of any articles that could benefit from photos taken at these shows? Mshake3 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hornswoggle! iMatthew 20 08 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I had this one. Yeah, I guess it's a bit blurry. Mshake3 (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Burchill, Mike Chioda, Mike Adamle, a better pic if possible of Ron Simmons and The Undertaker, pics for ~~Major Brothers~~, Vickie Guerrero, Kofi Kingston. sorry if its too much.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro (needs a recent pic), Katie Lea (has none), D.H. Smith (needs a WWE pic), ~~Big Show~~ (now that he has lost weight), Vickie Guerrero (has none), Eve Torres (had none, but she probably won't be there), and Lena Yeda (for when she gets an article). Nikki311 03:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also mayby a random pic of the announcers table, this may be needed probably to explain in PPV articles.|-|TrU Co -X|-| 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's this, but it doesn't really show the table. I do have some shots from behind the table if that helps. Mshake3 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if it shows the announces table, then yeah.|-|TrU Co -X|-| 03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Aaru Bui tagged CM Punk back in October requesting a "clear, front view" image for the infobox. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How's this?. Mshake3 (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that is definitely a "clear, front view" of his face. Nikki311 06:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that image is too... vicious for an infobox image. Going off articles in general the infobox image should be neutral with the figure isolated from other circumstances. This image is an "action" shot and comes across as quite distracting. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This one is tricky, but if you could get pictures of any of the current champions with their championship clearly visible, it would be appreciated. We already have good images of Jeff Hardy as IC champion and Orton as WWE champion. If you could get a picture of both sets of tag champions together, it would be great. Also, an image of John Morrison as all of the images on his page are from his Johnny Nitro days. Others: ~~Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder, Jesse and Festus~~ and an in-ring photo of Jimmy Wang Yang would be nice. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I would say just to take photos of everyone, and then figure out which articles need them later. I would put in a special request for the referees though, because none of their articles have photos. Thanks, man, and hey, have a good time! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What Nici said :D Feedback ^☎ 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

John Morrison's article could use an updated, bright, picture. Stevie Richards has changed, Shelton Benjamin and his blonde hair, an actual shot of Kelly Kelly's face would be great. If he shows, Balls Mahoney could use a more dignified picture, Chuck Palumbo not getting beaten on, Shannon Moore facing the camera. And, if possible, a good bright shot of an empty ring from closer than the one in the wrestling ring article would be awesome, as would any (visual) gimmick match setups not already in that article (poles, guys on a ladder/something above a ladder). Even someone going through a table or being pinned on the floor area instead of in the ring could be put into that article. You know, depending on what happens at the shows. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 16:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mshake, can you take an HBK pic? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just an update. Raw, of course, is WrestleMania Rewind Night, which means no HeAT, and nothing but big stars. On SmackDown/ECW, there'll be a cage match, and (as announced) an Extreme Rules Tag Team Championship match. Mshake3 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm make is easier for you Mshake, I'll put the requests in list format below and added a few. iMatthew 20 08 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests

~~Hornswoggle~~
Shawn Michaels
~~Big Show~~
~~Jesse and Festus~~
~~Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder~~
John Morrison's
Stevie Richards
Shelton Benjamin
~~Kelly Kelly's~~
~~Balls Mahoney~~
~~Chuck Palumbo~~
Shannon Moore
An Empty Wrestling Ring
Any type of gimmick match
~~Paul Burchill~~
Mike Chioda
~~Mike Adamle~~
~~Ron Simmons~~
The Undertaker
Vickie Guerrero
Kofi Kingston
A view of the Announce Table
~~Ashley Massaro~~
~~Katie Lea~~
~~D.H. Smith~~
~~Eve Torres~~ <-- This pic is really good! Nikki311 04:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
~~Lena Yada~~
Jimmy Wang Yang
~~Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch (with the titles preferred)~~
John Morrison and The Miz together (with the titles preferred)
Beth Phoenix (with the title preferred)
~~Montel Vontavious Porter (with the title preferred)~~
Edge (with the title preferred)
Edge with Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder and Vickie Guerrero (if ever possible)
CM Punk
And whatever else you can get. Thanks Mshake! iMatthew 20 08 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The usual match name removal by editors on WrestleMania XXIV

The diva match is clearly called Playboy BunnyMania, so it should be listed. But of course the usual people (TJ Spyke being the main person against it) are removing it. Leave it be already, it does no harm. I'm a bit fed up with this unnecessary removing of match names, just because it's not an official match name WWE has used in the past. This problem happened with battle of the billionaires and others. When WWE.com and the television shows mention it more than enough times (plus it's on the back of the DVD case: which is the case with many of them), it's notable for inclusion. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not this again, you guys already got added to Wikipedia:Lame edit wars once over this... I tend to agree with Rob on this issue but is it really worth edit warring over? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both. Looks like it's time to establish a new consensus. Mshake3 (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When it was just a regular tag team match I was against it. With it now being a lumberjack match, I don't mind. If a match is just a normal match though, then adding something like that would be like adding "Grudge match" to it (which is done frequently). There is no such thing as a "Playboy BunnyMania match". Before RAW, it was just a regular tag team match, and not it's a lumberjack match. The whole point is to list what type of match it is, not a tagline used for the match. TJ Spyke 14:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And just what is the problem with using taglines and terms such as "grudge match?" Mshake3 (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is lame edit warring, there are no such things as playboy bunnymania matches, nor a battle of the billionaires, that is just the titles WWE tends to title matches that are of great hype. Its a lumberjill match and thats it, unless you want to put somewhere the title in like italics or parenthesis.TrU Co -X 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Could a compromise be to add the tagline below the bolded part that lists the match where the results go:

Lumberjack match: Maria and Candice Michelle vs. Beth Phoenix and Melina

The tagline for this match was BunnyMania.
So and so pinned so and so after insert move here.

Or something to that effect? Nikki311 15:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki - DrWarpMind (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki but isn't a Lumberjack match called Lumberjill when it is for the Divas? Or does Wikipedia ignore that one as well? ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, because in the WrestleMania 23 article, it is referred to as a Lumberjill match; but in the Cyber Sunday (2006) article, it is referred to as a Diva Lumberjack match. --Cheers, L A X 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE seems to like to switch between those two terms to describe such a match. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, personally, I think we should refer it as Lumberjill because it is a different match than the Lumberjack (because of the gender of the participants). ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 21:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no different than a San Francisco Death match/Texas Death match, etc. It's also like how they call a schoolboy a schoolgirl when used by female wrestlers. TJ Spyke 22:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree 1000% with Nikki.--TrU Co -X 22:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it's better to use the sentence "this match was promoted as BunnyMania" under the match result. If that's how they promote it, then that's how it should be listed. Mshake3 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mshake. The match is promoted as that. I see no reason that it belongs below the result. Just because some people don't like the match name (and taglines in some cases), doesn't mean they should be removing them anytime someone adds them. When the event takes place, the full match name gets pushed aside to just a little note below the match itself. As I said before: they promote the match names on television as well as on the back of the DVD case (plus I would imagine video cover in some cases, before DVD was around). Here's examples: Wrestlemania_23#Results (Battle of the billionaires), SummerSlam_(2005)#Results (Legend vs Icon), plus the latest WrestleMania divas match are just some of these names/taglines pushed away from the result. If something such as money in the bank can be used (which is just a special name WWE gave for a ladder match for a title shot), then other names should be used. Don't be hypocrites. It should be one standard way, not two. A couple of extra words in the match result doesn't do harm to the article. It makes it neater, because there is one less note below it. Money in the bank has happened more than once, but that still doesn't justify these one time matches have notes below the result. Seeing as how WWE promotes it a certain way: and it still promotes it when it's released on DVD, it's notable and important to list it that way. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a match type and a match tagline. I have no problem adding BunnyMania in front of the Lumberjack part. Money in the Bank is also special. Hogan vs. Michaels was just a regular match. Of coarse, this is less of an issue now that we are expanding the PPV's. Things like match taglines can be mentioned in the Event section and kept out of the Results section. TJ Spyke 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If match types and taglines are left out because of the event section, then things like Money in the Bank better be removed as well. Money in the bank is NO different than a ladder match for a title shot, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I said taglines will be left out of the Results section, of coarse match types stay in. TJ Spyke 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

TJ sort of wants to have it both ways. He doesn't want BunnyMania, but then he doesn't have a problem with Money in the Bank. That is just a tagline and doesn't change the ladder match whatsoever. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 20:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong on both accounts. I don't want it both ways. "BunnyMania" is just a tagline, Money in the Bank is a match type. MITB may be a modified ladder match, but that still makes it a different match. There is no such thing as a "BunnyMania match" or a "Icon vs. Icon match". There is a difference between a match type and a match tagline, a very easy and obvious difference. TJ Spyke 15:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I say we should simply write it as WWE bills it. If they billed it as a "Crap on a Pole" match, I think we should too. Rob, I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I really have a hard time doing so. You seem to have a personal vendetta against TJ Spyke at times. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is it a "modified ladder match". What is so different about it that it deserves it's own name and article? Mshake3 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

TJ, Money in the Bank is just a tagline. It is just a ladder match with 6 or 8 competitors. The match type in itself is not modified. The prize, and the amount of competitors is different. Doesn't make the match type different. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 04:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Money in the Bank is just a tagline". Tsk-Tsk, so wrong. It's a modified ladder match, true, but that doesn't make it just a tagline. Sometimes I feel like i'm arguing with a brick wall. TJ Spyke 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavyn: I have the right to my opinion. There is NO reason I should have to agree with everything TJ says, so get over it. If this was with any other editor, I would still have a problem with it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Very amusing TJ. If they had a Steel Cage match with multiple competitors, that doesn't make the match type modified. The objectives of the match are the same. There is nothing in the ladder match type that puts a limit on the competitors. Which means having any amount of competitors, does not modify the ladder match, or the steel cage match for that matter. Money in the Bank, is just a tag line for the annual ladder match at WrestleMania. I feel like I am talking to two planks. :) ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

TJ, are you now prepared to delete "Belfast Brawl"? It is just a No Disqualification Match. So why are you not deleting it? You just want to have it both ways. Please read my other comments above about MITB. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

FFS. Do I really have to explain this? I don't want to be rude, but even a simpleton can understand this. Why would I delete "Belfast Brawl"? No DQ matches are usually not just called that (i.e. "Chicago Street Fight", "Belfast Brawl"), but they aren't just taglines. I will say this one last time, anybody who doesn't get it this time may not be smart enough to tie their own shoes (sorry for sounding so rude, but I have my my point loud and clear over and over but certain editors can't seem to understand): Match taglines like "Icon vs. Icon" should not be listed in the Results section (at least not in the "Wrestler A defeated Wrestler B" part), match types (including specific names of the match type) do. TJ Spyke 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Knock it off TJ. Being rude isn't helpful at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

TJ, you are avoiding the question(s). I have had a couple of posts and you haven't responded. I personally don't have a problem with listing these tag lines, but you do. You are not consistant with your edits. Icon Vs. Icon a normal singles match renamed. Belfast brawl is a No DQ match renamed. BunnyMania is a tag team match renamed. MITB is a ladder match renamed. Why are you only opposed to naming some, and not the others? Also, how does adding a few participants, modify a ladder match? Makes no sense to me. I get the feeling that TJ, you are again not going to answer my question and be rude and curse to make me look inferior to you. If you feel that you need to do to do that to make yourself feel better, be my guest. Just please answer my questions when you do. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly: Belfast Brawl is just a no DQ match. Legend against Icon: singles match, so link it like that. As for Battle for the Billionaries: it's hair against hair. In the case of the ladder match: money in the bank is just a special name WWE gives a ladder match with a few more people, with a title shot. If TNA comes out with a special name ladder match, I can bet TJ will allow that but if it's just a "tagline" he wont. This controlling of articles has been old for a while now TJ. Every wrestling article on your watch list doesn't have to be word-for-word how you want it to be. Tagline = match name in most cases in my view. Money in the Bank could be considered a tagline, due to it just being a ladder match. People don't simply refer to it as that, they refer to it more as a ladder match... because that's what it is. The extra words are there to help promote the match, and make it more special due to it being a ladder match (with several extra people) at WrestleMania each year. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we're saying that Money in the Bank isn't a unique match, should the article be merged into the ladder match article? Mshake3 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a merge should happen. I don't see why the article exists in the first place. WWE slaps a special name (or tagline, or whatever you want to call it), and suddenly it's notable for a seperate article? I don't think so. A few paragraphs on the ladder match article should describe it just fine. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)