Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 52

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

Championship Good Articles

I think that Championship pages can be made into Good Articles, if simple roads, like New York State Route 9L can be classified as good articles, so can our championships, as their length are practically the same. However, we need a compromise on what to include in the championship article that can make them good articles. When I say championship articles, I mean the article about the championship itself, like the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Comments/Suggestions welcomed!--SRX--LatinoHeat 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

So long as there are no objection, I plan on keeping this newsletter on hold for a week. There are currently no current events there, but I guess there could be (McMahon's MDM, the upcoming draft, etc.). Anyway, this also provides a change for the newsletter to catch up with the COTW. Reminding all, anybody can help with the newsletter, so feel free to head over there and add more/new infomation (to current events), etc. Also, back to the COTW, it is becoming very inactive lately, there are I believe six nominations all with three or less votes. Please help with the COTW and newsletter, guys. -- iMatthew T.C. 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: I just pruned three nominations, leaving three nominations left, one with a pruning tag on it. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources (again)

So I asked Ealdgyth on their interpretation on a couple of third-party websites that we use to source some of our articles, mostly the ones used in List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, as I planned on nominating it for FLC, but due to the sourcing issue I don't think I can. Anyways, so what they said was that some of them could be considered reliable if a reliable third-party website vouched them (or credited them). For some it might not be that hard to do that, but for others it will, so as a project, can we help in trying to prove some of our sources reliability, refer here to the discussion and for the list of sources.--SRX--LatinoHeat 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Would Solie.org qualify, maybe? I've been using that for a lot of title history refs. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Does Solie.org credit any of the sources listed in the discussion that is linked?--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It does not, though I meant using Solie as a source rather than those linked. Solie does credit several wresting books and various authors. http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/#intro

Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks reliable, however, who operates it? Solie's family or is this just run by some person? If so, this may have be taken to Ealdgyth for reliability.SRX--LatinoHeat 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Raw

Resolved
 – as of 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to WWE Monday Night Raw? WWE refers to it as that. SAVIOR_SELF.777 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy oppose: Never to they refer to it as that, it's always Raw. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The logo sometimes has that in it. Also, I've heard them refer to it as that numerous times. Although they hven't refered to it as that lately, so I think I see what you're getting at. But, WWE hardly includes the Friday Night on SmackDown! now, but it's still named with Friday Night on it. Also, I've had Time Warner Cable, Dish Network, DirecTV, and TV Guide, and it always says "Monday Night" on it. That's why I proposed the move. Damn, I type to much on talk pages, don't I? SAVIOR_SELF.777 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, didn't know that was there. Eh, I think I should consider this resolved.
 Not done

SAVIOR_SELF.777 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)

 Not done

Move to ECW (WWE) or WWE ECW? Per WP:ACRONYM, if a particular topic is referred to as it's acronym more than its full name, like NASA, it can be titled as such. ECW hasn't been referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling since its inception as a WWE Brand. [1]

  • Support move to ECW (WWE) 1362talk 03:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Endless Dan 12:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
And your reason for opposition is?--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's not broken.... I don't see a problem with the article title, but if a change is made I strongly oppose the article title WWE ECW.--Endless Dan 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said above for FNS, it was brought up on the talk page, so I brought it here so the whole community could have a say. But really think about it, when was the last time you ever heard of Extreme Championship Wrestling mentioned on WWE? In WWE.com, what do they call it? ECW, what does the logo say? ECW.SRX--LatinoHeat 14:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
No, because it is always referred to as World Wrestling Entertainment, and plus it is the "promotion", and not a brand, which is different.--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It is more commonly referred to as WWE. You ever hear them say on television "Total Non-Stop Action Wrestling"? No, they say "TNA". -- iMatthew T.C. 15:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Friday Night SmackDown

 Not done

Move to WWE SmackDown? The logo doesn't use Friday Night Anymore, the only reference to it as "Friday Night SmackDown" is the CW and commentators. Currently, no where is it referred to it as FNS, [2].--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support 1362talk 03:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose... there was a vote over this name change 2 months ago. The decision was to keep it as is per TV Guide or CW's channel listings or something. --Endless Dan 12:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all, booya!. Second, the name is still refered to by the network and the announcers, as you said. That's a pretty big deal. Mshake3 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey I don't mind the opposition, this was brought up on the talk page, so I just thought a vote would have worked.SRX--LatinoHeat 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Endlessdan and Mshake3. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Darrenhusted (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support WWE, to my knowledge, doesn't refer to SmackDown! with the Friday Night part SAVIOR_SELF.777 23:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratch that. After seeing this, I oppose the move. SAVIOR_SELF.777 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Former WWE programming

Simple move to "List of former WWE programming"?

  • Support -- iMatthew T.C. 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as it is a list. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, since it's a list SAVIOR_SELF.777 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Common Sense. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support so easy a caveman could do it. WWEISREAL 16:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved but not to "List of former WWE programming", but to "List of former World Wrestling Entertainment programming". When you have articles that are talking about a general thing, like World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), you title the article without abbreviations. Things like WWE Raw includes the abbreviation WWE, because that is its common name, no one says World Wrestling Entertainment Raw. When you're talking about a broad subject like programming that once aired on WWE, the abbreviation should be spelt out to World Wrestling Entertainment. — Moe ε 07:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Percy Pringle

Unresolved

, no consensus was formed.

Move to William Moody (real name) or Paul Bearer (most famous name)? --Endless Dan 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a move to William Moody. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose a move to either name. The Percy Pringle moniker is well known and was used in well known promotions like Championship Wrestling from Florida, World Class Championship Wrestling (also when the promotion became the WCWA) and the United States Wrestling Association. Odin's Beard (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, but he gained world wide noteriety for his tenure in the WWF as Paul Bearer. So should the page be moved to his real name? --Endless Dan 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
He was known for 6 years as Percy Pringle and 15 as Paul Bearer, at the very least he should not be listed as Percy Pringle as it is the lesser known of his two stage names. Darrenhusted (talk)
Precisely.--Endless Dan 12:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So do you support a move to Paul Bearer or William Moody? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the fence to be honest with you. He did achieve noteriety as Percy Pringle and I don't think that should be swept under the rug. On his official website, he calls himself Percy Pringle... but that could be because he cannot legally use the name Paul Bearer (it's owned by the WWF). However, without a doubt, his most famous moniker is Paul Bearer. So I'm gonna sit back and read some more comments before making a decision. --Endless Dan 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that would be too much of a problem. The Earky Career section mentions when he went by the name Percy Pringle and that section comes before the section that mentions his role as Paul Bearer. Also you or someone else could also suggest putting a small mention in the introduction paragraph if deemed necessary. In short, I don't think opsoition is necessay for those reasons. --76.69.170.226 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support a move to William Moody. per Darrenhusted Govvy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Also on TV.com He is credited as William Moody. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving article. He refers to himself as Percy Pringle (see his website at http://www.percypringle.com. He has been using the name Percy Pringle from 1977-1990, 2002-2003, and 2005-present. He also published a book under the name Percy Pringle (I don't remember the exact title, but it was something along the lines of Inside Secrets on How You can Enter the Exciting World of Professional Wrestling). I see no need for a move. If it's not broken, don't fix it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GCF. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to Paul Bearer per Darrenhusted. McJeff (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - move to Paul Bearer SAVIOR_SELF.777 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support move to Paul Bearer per Darrenhusted. Crash Underride 03:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 Not done -- iMatthew T.C. 10:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Gruner

Who supports a move to Billy Kidman? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. No brainer. --Endless Dan 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Didn't even know his real name until this. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. D.M.N. (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since he is carrying the name Peter Gruner "Kidman" or Peter Kidman of late down in Florida Championship Wrestling as a trainer/wrestler. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose he has also wrestled a lot as just "Kidman". Darrenhusted (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Billy Kidman is what everyone knows him by. SAVIOR_SELF.777 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rock (entertainer)

Move to Dwayne Johnson. He's no longer just, "The Rock". In his last several films, he was billed as only Dwayne Johnson. I can't believe the article title is actually The Rock (entertainer). This has been discussed before here, but closed with no apparent conclusion. I make a better case on there, but please read all opinions. WP:COMMONNAME isn't an acceptable rebuttal as I can and did made a strong case that Dwayne Johnson would fit that bill.

  • Oppose MATTtalk 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He is best known as The Rock. -- iMatthew T.C. 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Dwayne Johnson" Article in a local newspaper stated "Dwayne Johnson (formerly known as "The Rock")." -- iMatthew T.C. 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same as above. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support he is being advertised in Get Smart as DJ. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Rather than allowing this to come up time and time again, I vote that we just get rid of the article. If we must keep it, the debate over the article title should not take place here. It should take place on the article talk page, and WikiProject:Films should be informed about the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- He even said in a recent interview that his is no longer the Rock.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If Booker T's article can be named Booker Huffman, the Rock's can be named Dwayne Johnson.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Booker Huffman's article is so named to avoid the Booker T disambiguation page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Naming conventions go by the most commonly used term/name the thing/person is recognized by. His recent 'change' isn't as recognizable as his tenure as The Rock in wrestling or while he was The Rock in the movie industry. — Κaiba 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I still think that he is best known as "The Rock". His wrestling tenure garnered him a lot more fame than his movie career so far. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very, Very, Very, Strong Support as per above supporters and most of the opposers aren't giving any reason. His legal name is Dwayne Johnson, so the article should be named Dwayne Johnson. If not moved to Dwayne Johnson, then article should be moved to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, because that basically has both titles, so everyone can be happy. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not about making people happy or about legal names, its about naming the articles by which the object or person is most recognized by, which follows with Wikipedia's naming conventions on subjects like this. He is not as notable as Dwayne Johnson as he is the The Rock in wrestling and The Rock who starred in movies, unless you can refute that he is somehow. — Κaiba 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since i doubt anyone will prove beyond doubt which name is more known, i think it should be named to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Because outside of the Wrestling world he's known as Dwayne "The Rock" johnson. Not just Dwayne Johnson as much. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Kaiba.. His latest movies do not advertise him as The Rock; Here and here.--Endless Dan 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point, his name 'The Rock' is more notable and the most recognizable out of the two, we do not change article names on Wikipedia on the basis of a minor thing like what he was advertised most currently as. — Κaiba 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point. He was the Rock in the WWF. His movie career provides him much greater exposure then his wrestling career. --Endless Dan 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrestling gave him the acting career and I highly doubt you could have any credibility to back up the claim of him being 'more popular' or having 'more exposure' during either stint. And BTW, he wasn't called Dwayne Johnson all during his acting career either, he was credited as being The Rock for some of the films or his name with the The Rock somewhere in the name. — Κaiba 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, what documentation do you have that supports your claim that "The Rock" best satisfies WP:COMMONNAME? Have you supplied any supporting evidence that WP:COMMONNAME applies to your arguement? Google searches are rendered invalid because searching for the term "rock" will result in millions of pages for actual stones. Now, movies and Hollywood (and college football) is infinitely more popular then wrestling. This is indisputable. Wrestling may be popular within this circle, but doesn't even get a whiff of the pop culture relevance that movies and movies stars have. Also, re: your last point - he hasn't been called Dwayne Johnson all during his acting career. No one has made that claim. But, he has been using his real name for over 3 years and has dropped "the Rock" from his stage name in the last 2 years. Also, here is your documentation you requested. This a comment I made from the name change discussion on his talk page:

I disagree with your pov that none of his movies have been blockbusters. The Game Plan (film) made over $100 million dollars just in the theatres. This does not include DVD sales (which was the #1 DVD for 2 weeks upon release). But that's just one movie. In comparison, as far I know no WWE event (with or without the Rock) has ever banked $100 mill (including gate & tv revenue). If you review the WrestleMania X-Seven article, which had one of the Rock's biggest matches ever, the gate at the event was meerly $3.5 million... for "a record-breaking event".

This would support the notion that he is best known as Dwayne Johnson or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson over simply "The Rock" as this shows movies reach a far greater audience. I'm not trying to discredit all notability of the stand-alone name "The Rock", but Dwayne Johnson seems far more applicable at this time. Also, as noted below, I think the best article name would be Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson --Endless Dan 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have conclusively proven that movies reach a greater audience. For example, what would the response be if you asked 10 people on the street about Hulk Hogan's profession? I'm sure the vast majority would identify him as a wrestler. Likewise for countless others...Roddy Piper and Andre The Giant, for example. This is also the case for more recent wrestlers--Steve Austin or John Cena, for example. The Marine did $18 million at the box office, which is over 5 times what WrestleMania X-Seven did. Does that mean that John Cena is primarily an actor? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's retarded. No conclusive evidence that movies are bigger then wrestling?? C'mon. It's common sense. If Hulk Hogan is wrestling's biggest star, I'm sure we can make a laundry list of much more famous actors. There is a reason why Tom Cruise gets paid 30 million dollars a film and Hogan is doing a reality show on CMT.--Endless Dan 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure we could also come up with a list of actors who make more money than Hulk Hogan these days despite having less name recognition (and yes, the list would include many "A-list" stars). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So let's make sure we're on the same page - you are contending wrestling is of equal relevance to Hollywood in terms of popular culture? --Endless Dan 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I hadn't realized that I had signed a contract for a Dutchess of Queensbury Rules match. I am contending that some people are better known as wrestlers than as actors. You are using irrelevant statistics to prove something almost completely unrelated. I am stating that those statistics are irrelevant and prove something almost completely unrelated. He is well-known by both names, but neither side has been proven conclusively. I believe that, in order to move a page, there has to be a valid reason and consensus for the move. Since no valid reason has been proven and consensus does not seem to exist, I believe the page should remain where it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But before you twisted my words, the reason I was pointing out Dwayne Johnson's movie success was to show that Hollywood movies are of more importance and influence then wrestling. Ie, they reach a bigger audience. So more people are now exposed to the name he uses for his films - Dwayne Johnson. And there is a valid reason to move his page, ya chuckle head. It's so we can avoid a ambiguous article title such as "The Rock (wrestler)". Because being such a high ranking member of the omnipotent WP:PW, you probably already know there have been at least two other wrestlers who have used the name "The Rock", right? And given that Johnson has reached notoriety using both names, wouldn't Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson make the most sense? It's absolutely ridiculous that he gets no credit from you for being in a movies that have grossed over a 100 mill using only his legal name. --Endless Dan 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons I have mentioned above. It hasn't been proven that he is better known by a different name, so there is no reason to move it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I got a poll of 100 random people surveyed over what is the most widely known name. Can you reach into my ass and get it for me? Thanks! --Endless Dan 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


EndlessDan, I suggest you not have any more outbursts of incivility and/or personal attacks like that again, or I will report it to the appropriate noticeboard. Your comment above is highly inappropriate and does not contribute anything to this discussion. — Moe ε 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Not only because he hasn't been going by The Rock for a while, but also because it does away with parenthetical disambiguation in the title, which we should avoid as much as reasonably possible. — Gwalla | Talk 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support He is not using the name "The Rock" anymore. Not that he's not ashamed with his wrestling past, but wrestling does have a negative stigma in the media (see Chris Benoit), and wanting to use his real name in movies makes perfect sense. Of course, when he does appear on WWE television for special events like WrestleMania, he'll still be the Rock. He will always be The Rock as far as wrestling fans are concerned. He's using his real name more-or-less to appeal to non-wrestling fans who hate wrestling due to the negative stigma.Jgera5 (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support His current 'stage name' is Dwayne Johnson. The title of the current article is quite demeaning and patronizing of the man. Wikipedia archives facts, not popular opinion. If Hulk Hogan was known unofficially as The Yellow Moustache, Wikipedia would still call him Hulk Hogan. Dwayne Johnson's professional name is Dwayne Johnson, no matter how many wrestling fans persist in calling him The Rock. 86.152.175.230 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. At this point, Dwayne Johnson's article probably shouldn't even come under the jurisdiction of the Wrestling Project. The man is more than just a wrestler, these days. To say he's gained his most noteriety as a wrestler probably isn't even correct anymore, as he's now - among other things - a Disney movie star. As mentioned, Booker T's page is listed at another name to avoid a disambiguation. As a quick search would show, "The Rock" is a far more commonly used title. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is still not best known by that and it will take some time and more proof until he is. --Maestro25 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per ip address 86.152.175.230. Wweisreal (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I support the change, though if a solution cannot be reached, I support the suggested Compromise seen below. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Added notes to consider
**I've also noticed that his imdB profile notes him under his given name.
**"The Rock" is a character promoted by the World Wrestling Federation, and subsequently, World Wrestling Entertainment. Dwayne Johnson is a person whom we are noting. I suppose the question one must ask themselves is are we doing a biography for a character or a person.
**His movies have begun crediting him as Dwayne Johnson.
**As per the cover of this magazine and this article, in which he is cited as "Dwayne Johnson", not "The Rock".
**Per his own wishes in which he clearly states he wants to move away from being known as The Rock. And quote, "I'm aware of everything that comes with that nickname, and I just think there's a lot more you can do without it...But I wanted it to happen naturally, from 'The Rock' to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson to 'Dwayne Johnson'" (See Above Cited Article For The Source of this quote)[1].
That's it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - 'Dwayne Johnson' is the name he goes by these days, and even if he might be better known as 'The Rock', it would be inaccurate to keep his page under that title. 'The Rock' is the name of a wrestling character; 'Dwayne Johnson' is the name of the actor, who the article is actually about. Terraxos (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Compromise

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson seems like the best compromise and the most acceptable fit as it would encompass both names. He hasn't been billed as simply The Rock in his movies in quite some time, but he has used and has been refered to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson for media appearances and some of his movies (although, his latest movies he has dropped "The Rock" name). For everyone who voted above or who has not yet cast vote, would this satisfactory? This would also eliminate the (entertainer) tag and should end this seemingly never-ending arguement. --Endless Dan 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose This appears to be a compromise that would please nobody. I can see this title leading to a discussion about 3 weeks down the road about changing it again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per EndlessDan--ProtoWolf (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Endlessdan. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Endlessdan's laid out descriptors ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So what's it gonna be? This is why this fucking name change comes up so often. Everyone gets lost in crunch time. The majority of people feel a name change is in store, but to what - Dwayne Johnson or Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson? --Endless Dan 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
    • This isn't about a majority. We don't vote on Wikipedia. 11-8 doesn't seem like a consensus to move anything, especially when you consider that at least two of the editors supporting a move gave reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions. At any rate, if it is to be moved, we should keep in mind that we have been moving away from adding nicknames to article titles: Superstar Billy Graham was recently moved to Billy Graham (wrestler) and "Hot Stuff" Eddie Gilbert was just moved to Eddie Gilbert (wrestler). Moving the article to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (or is it Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson?...yet another debate that would have to be resolved) obviously wouldn't make either side happy. And it certainly wouldn't make the other projects (who should be involved in this discussion, which is why I mentioned early on that it should be on the article's talk page rather than here) happy. And if he's making a transition to his real name, why would we move the article to the transitional name? That's the only possible way of guaranteeing that a future move will be necessary (assuming we're going to follow the non-reason that "we should name it whatever he wants us to name it for him because he owns the article and so Wikipedia policy means nothing compared to the possibility of offending him by naming his article with the name that made him a millionaire"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Lmao! Well, since the last time the other WP:PW jakes voted, the discussion has progressed. So I wouldn't mind having some of those other said members contributing to the discussion and, hopefully, its conclusion. I just really hope their responses won't be as amusingly weak as your last one, Coleman. --Endless Dan 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
          • As I said, I feel it should be moved to "Dwayne Johnson" as per his own wishes. See my earlier post under the main discussion (pg up). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia isn't about pleasing the subjects of the articles. Policy dictates that the article should be under the most commonly used name, whether he likes it or not. Please review WP:COMMONNAME. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
              • I was under the impression that the argument for WP:COMMONNAME had already been essentially made a moot point in this discussion (which is why no one has used it)?ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Endlessdan began the discussion by telling people that they were not allowed to make reference to WP:COMMONNAME, despite the fact that it is a widely accepted naming convention. Of course, there is no more basis for such a statement than if a Featured Article reviewer was to tell an editor that they cannot use books sources in which the authors' last names start with the letters M through R. I certainly don't think we should let such a claim direct our discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Coleman, I've demonstrated Dwayne Johnson is a viable star grossing over 200 mill in the last 3 years more then he's ever made for or with the WWF. But I keep hearing "Rock" is his common name, but where's the proof? Wraslin is not bigger or more important than Hollywood. WWE is not bigger than Disney films. Not by a mile. We've provided requested links, I've given WP:FILM a heads up, I've even invited other members of this very project to voice there opinions and still nothing. --Endless Dan 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support For the following reasons: (1) It cannot be proven that he is known to more people as the Rock than as Dwayne Johnson. A google search will undoubtable bring up more results but that is because it will include all the mentions of his name when he was still called the Rock. All that will prove is he was known by more people as the Rock 5 years ago.
  • (2) In his last few movies he has been credited as Dwayne Johnson only. Before that he was credited as Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. The media refers to him as Dwayne Johnson. Heck, even in his last WWE appearance (at the WWE hof) he was introduced as Dwayne Johnson. If even the WWE is calling him Dwayne Johnson, how can wikipedia be calling him the Rock?
  • (3) He himself uses the name Dwayne Johnson. Yes I know wikipedia doesn't aim to please the subjects of articles but that fact does add to the entire argument.
  • (4) He has stated multiple times he is retired from wrestling. What that means is he will never concievably use the Rock name again.
  • (5) Other notable information sites such as the Internet Movie Data Base list him as Dwayne Johnson.
  • (6) While other wrestlers' articles may be named after their wrestling names, Dwayne Johnson is the first to establish an actual career outside of wrestling. Also, those wrestlers who have starred in any movies are usually credited by their wrestling names.
  • In conclusion, for all these reasons the name should be changed to Dwayne Johnson. The opposition's only argument is that The Rock is a more common name than Dwayne Johnson. While it may be more common to wrestling fans, it is not more common to blockbuster movie audiences, who total a far greater number. So this cannot be proven. What can be proven is that he is being credited as Dwayne Johnson in his movies and he is called Dwayne Johnson in public appearances. Change the name and end this argument. I have spoken - Drumac (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Decision

So are we going to come to a decision in regards to this situation or are we just gonna sit on this topic and is it just going to dissapear into the archives of wikipedia as usual? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Since neither side has conclusively proven a case for their preference, yeah, probably the archive thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Then I know good and well Wikipedia isn't a democracy but I have seen it solve a problem before. So therefore, let's make it simple. We'll worry about Dwayne Johnson (which I personally believe is more appropriate (see as credited in "Get Smart" and later films) vs Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson later. I call for a vote. No more arguing as it's getting no where. Just a bloody vote to get it overwith. Name change or no name change. No reasons, nothing. Just either say "support" or "don't support", to support a name change or leave the article's name as is, respectively. I believe we can all agree on this. A decision based a vote will bypass all the problems which is holding us up from coming to a consensus. That is the solution I offer. I believe it will render this problem solved. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason? I'm just trying to get a decision reached before this gets archived and goes no where, is forgotten, and we do this again somewhere down the line, repeat. I'll comment once a day to keep this from dissipating into the archives if I must. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
If there was consensus, the article would be moved. There is no consensus, so the article shouldn't be moved. Changing the rules to get your way isn't appropriate or acceptable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoever said I was changing the rules to get my way? Far as I can tell, I applied rationale to achieve a conclusion to this debate via an alternative methodology. You attack me for that? That's not right :| . I think it's obvious we will never come to a consensus on either side via the current methodology so why not change it to something which has been successfully applied on Wikipedia in the past and end this? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I'm going to put WP:IAR into play here, as I believe a straw poll is the best option right now. I'll leave the poll open for one week. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the debate has been open for quite a while and is pretty close to 50-50. That is clearly not a consensus for a change, so the change shouldn't be made. Deciding to ignore the rules because the default is to keep it with a title that you don't like isn't appropriate. Continuing to hold the discussion on this talk page instead of the article's talk page is also unacceptable. In summary, there is no consensus to move, so let it go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The first move (to Dwayne Johnson) was 11 for, 7 against. That's not 50-50. The second move (to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) was 4 for and 1 against, with one voter voting in both (that is Oppose on the first and Support on the second), no clear consensus. We have 22 editors with 11 for Dwayne Johnson, 4 for Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and 7 for no change. So I second iMatthew's straw poll to sort this out. Darrenhusted (talk)
Those numbers are only accurate if you count editors who gave reasons completely unrelated to Wikipedia guidelines. If you take out the "Dwayne would be offended, so we need to change it" votes, it's pretty much 50-50. Remember, this sort of discussion is about debating real reasons for moving or not moving. If people don't give relevant reasons, it's no different from a vote, so less weight is given to their opinions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I support a straw poll. I've already laid out why above. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been a full week. Can we call this a wrap? --Endless Dan 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We can definitely close the vote. Of course, it hasn't proven anything, since it violates Wikipedia policy guidelines. A discussion was held, in which there was no consensus to move the article. Regardless of what you call the vote, it's still a vote. Clearly, people who participated in the discussion chose not to dignify the vote with a response. All things considered, a vote that violates policy guidelines, boycotted because it violates policy guidelines, held on the wrong page despite numerous reminders that this isn't the appropriate location for a discussion, and placed at the top of that talk page instead of in a place that most people would actually see it, does not supercede the discussion that took place in which there was an even split and therefore no consensus to change anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
GCF you haven't voted for anything, you said Delete and then complained about the straw poll. As his name (in mile high letters on film posters around the world at this moment) is Dwayne Johnson I can't see how calling an article about a man born Dwayne Johnson being called Dwayne Johnson is against policy? Especially not when a key part of IAR is that it is best to ignore them when it stops the project from making improvements. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I haven't voted. Wikipedia policy guidelines specifically state that voting shouldn't be used in place of discussion. That's the policy guideline that I was talking about. IAR should be invoked when it prevents editors from making improvements, but that's very different from editors wanting to ignore the rules because they don't like the outcome of a discussion about something as banal as changing the name of an article. Furthermore, please remember that "current" name and "most common" name are often different. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was had, and the outcome was basically that there is a difference of opinion. Some stubbornly continue to state that Dwayne Johnson is most commonly known as "The Rock." The Rock was his wrestling character, and is nowadays just a nickname for the man. The man is now a blockbuster movie star. (His latest movie just opened at #1 - again.) He may have been "The Rock" first, but he isn't "The Rock" best anymore. How do we know? Because the wrestling audience is still only a fraction of the general entertainment audience, which movies tap into. "No consensus, therefore no change" is not sufficient reasoning for leaving the page where it is. If it was, a poll with the results we've gotten here should satisfy you. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Rock (entertainer)

This vote is for no article name change.


Dwayne Johnson
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson

New proposed C-Class

As we have over 200 articles at B-Class, and over 2,000 at Start-Class, just letting you know that there is a "vote" here on whether C-Class should be introduced inbetween B-Class and Start-Class. This may help a project like ours with over thousands of articles. Please comment at the above link. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think adding a new class will help that much. If anything, it will make things more confusing. -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
To get the 200 B articles down, I propose a "List-Class" for the project, that way well established lists that can't make FL, can have their own class, and can be classified as needing a bit work for FL. Comments?--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class to be introduced

As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. However, please do not use it yet, as the WP 1.0 Bot does not recognise it yet. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC of IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship. Regards, -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship

I placed a topic on the Triple Crown Championship talk page and I'm going to place one here as well, because I think I'll get more fed back here than there. Why do we have the Triple Crown Championship page if we are just going to add WWE and TNA crown history? When we know of OVW, ECW, and possibly WCW Triple Crown Championships. I think we should add those on there as well.--WillC 03:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Because those promotion don't recognize the TCC, only TNA and WWE has.--SRX--LatinoHeat 03:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I've heard, WWE has recognized the ECW Crown.--WillC 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly have you "heard" that? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere on a talk page. The guy was saying that WWE recognizes Mikey Whipwreck as a ECW Triple Crown Champion. Also at one point I remember seeing on RVD's page that he is a ECW Triple Crown champion. But it got taken off.--WillC 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(relevant note) That was me! Feedback ☎ 01:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested pay-per-view change

From the Featured Article candidacy for SummerSlam (1988): "I don't quite understand why a section is named "Report". The three sections in this article could be individual top-level sections."

This has come up before in other reviews, but our response has always been, "That's the way we do it." I agree with this reviewer, and I don't see the need to have everything included under "Report" (which has never sounded very encyclopedic...isn't every article essentially a report of some kind?). Does anyone else have an opinion about changing this to remove the "Report" line from our pay-per-view articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a change would be good. But, what would "Report" be changed to? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I kind of agree. It is a little unnecessary.--WillC 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to bring this up myself. I also agree with the reviewer. I think we should just remove report altogether and make event, background, and aftermath top level headers, just as suggested. Nikki311 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Do we make the change? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of making them top-level headings. But I would give this at least half a week for other opinions before we implement. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this change, it's nice and simple. Unlike changing the result section of every pay-per-view into a table. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. --WillC 01:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody not agree? Can anybody see any good reasons not to make the change? Nikki311 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, what does the community think about moving the results below the event in a subsection. Ex:

==Background==
==Event==
===Results===
==Aftermath==

-- iMatthew T.C. 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about moving the results up. I like the idea of scrolling down to see the results really fast if you want and having them in the middle of the writing might interrupt the flow of the article. Nikki311 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki311. It is better to leave the Results right where they are.--WillC 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So I guess this means we're removing the Report section and just giving the rest their own little header.--WillC 22:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say so...nobody has opposed. Nikki311 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay just wanted to make sure before I start removing the report section from TNA stuff.--WillC 23:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Prepare yourselves..

If 2008 WWE Draft is not already on your watch list, please add it. Tonight it the draft, and heavy IP and new user vandalism is expected all through out it. Also, those drafted might get a touch of vandalism on their articles as well. And especially List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees should be watched. Not really! I had the page protected for 2 whole months! After the last month was up, it was vandalized right away, so we have another two free months (expires: August 23, 2008). -- iMatthew T.C. 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Why did I create that article, Why? =D) Sarcasm. But yeah, IP vandalism has already started, if it continues throughout the day, I will RPP for it.--SRX--LatinoHeat 15:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
One thing. I've got rid of the "Report" header per the discussion up towards the middle of the page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It has already started, the vandalism. It's pretty funny, actually. -- iMatthew T.C. 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about our consensus about GA Nominations

I find the waiting list starting to be ignored.

1)How long are the articles to be in the waiting list?
2)Is there a limit to our GA nominations?

I bring this up because some of our articles have been on our waiting list for about a month now, and we only have 5 GA nominations.--SRX--LatinoHeat 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1) one week 2) not right now; if you are willing to take care of whatever a GA reviewer brings up, I personally wouldn't mind if you nominated the articles that have been on the waiting list for more than a week. I've looked over them and did some minor copyediting when they were first put on the list. Plus, we really don't have very many noms total right now. Nikki311 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I nominated them. Is there a limit for how many articles on person can nominate?--SRX--LatinoHeat 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be. There are discussions all the time on the GAN talk page about people nominating too many and not reviewing any in turn, but we never made an official decision here. Nikki311 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
We always come close to a consensus but then stop short of calling it policy. Last time this was brought up, almost everybody agreed that two per editor at any given time should be the limit. As for just nominating everything that's been on the waiting list, I think that defeats the purpose. Some articles stay on the waiting list for more than a week because the editor already has two articles nominated. Having someone else nominate them doesn't help, as that just becomes nominating by proxy (eg. an editor placing five on the waiting list, nominating two after a week, and having someone else nominate the rest). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, well if someone else wants to take over the nominations, or should I remove them from the list?SRX--LatinoHeat 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen why anyone needs to "take over" a nomination. If the article is placed on hold, someone from the project should see and help with the concerns. I'm not asking for them to be removed, but I think this points to the need to actually reach a consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Well people should be more aware of their articles once they are on the waiting list for over 2 weeks. Also LAX removed 2 of them, since they weren't ready.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

JB196's back.

As you can probably guess, JB196 is back, and has already had a couple socks blocked for his usual behavior on XPW-related articles like William Welch. If you run across any of his socks, could you just leave a message on my talk page or here, so we can try to keep him contained? Thanks in advance. SirFozzie (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In wrestling list orders

Per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Angle&diff=219745033&oldid=219669255, which cites the WP guidelines on lists (which In wrestling sections qualify for) should be in alphabetical order, meaning managers, moves, nicknames and the like should all be in alphabetical order. I have seen very few articles comply by this, including our featured articles. I had originally reverted the edit due to it not being mentioned at here, but McPhail reverted it, citing Wikipedia:Lists#Organization as the reason. This would be mean most In wrestling sections need to be rewritten, as WP:PW's Style Guide cannot override Wikipedia policy, correct? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Correct. Official Wikipedia policy over-rides any guidelines of ours. D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought so. I'm just amazed no one caught this one earlier. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See here for a relevant discussion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW/FMP

Can this be MfD'd? Can't this policy just be written in the WP:PW/MOS? I don't think we need an article most consisting of a discussion to ratify the policy. Comments?--SRX--LatinoHeat 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be MfD'ed. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look out from above!

(Sum-up From Vince's talk) See what I did there? anyway, lame joke aside. We should add something to Vinny Mac's article about the "accident". And also mention the fact that while kayfabe, it tried to look legit by having 2 feuding faces and a heel come to his rescue and also calling HHH "Paul". etc. PXK T /C 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, there is a discussion at his talk page, I suggest you check it out. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I did, I brought it here for moar people to see PXK T /C 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this reliable?

ESPNJr.com? --SRX--LatinoHeat 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rip-off to the real ESPN for me. D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
i think you are right, once I saw this, I felt skeptical about it.--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No expert on sourcing policies, but that is a definite no. PXK T /C 16:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Any website that allows you to openly change the content, including Wikipedia, in not a reliable source of information. — Moe ε 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a results page. Why do we need another one? Mshake3 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
IT's not only results, but provides news, just like the actual ESPN newsite. But it's officially not reliable.SRX--LatinoHeat 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who's IP....

....is this? Seems to be trying to manipulate the discussion to do with The Rock article at the top of the page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, nothing to really look into. I believe it was an honest mistake after the user read this. I of course was being sarcastic. --Endless Dan 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that was me. I was too lazy to login and I honestly thought that you had changed your mind. So I moved it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Ok, I just thought of this. I was changing the links of the draftees from the 2008 WWE Draft and I noticed different ways that their WWE profile is written. So question..

1)What is the consensus on how they should be written?
2)If there is none, which of these is better?
  1. WWE Profile
  2. Eddie Fatu (Umaga) WWE profile
  3. WWE.com profile
  4. Official WWE profile
  5. Umaga WWE profile
    • "Profile" should not be capitalised. McPhail (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*Support #4 - D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further comment

I've struck my comment supporting the 4th one. I personally think we should have (Wrestler name) at (Website name). If we have Official WWE Profile, will we have official TNA Profile, official OWW Profile etc to be consistent. I think now, the best way to do is the way that it is currently done on Kofi Kingston's article where it is fully consistent. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Plus above, #1 and #4, have the most supports. Or we could also have real name (stage name) at (website name)
lets do this again.
  1. WWE Profile
  2. Official WWE Profile
  3. (New) Umaga at WWE.com
  4. (New) Eddie Fatu (Umaga) at WWE.com

Consensus needed - move list orders

See here and here for the relevant discussions and a full explanation. It boils down to can we list finishers and moves by "order of importance" without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no consensus is reached, I plan to continue alphabetizing move lists per the suggestion/guideline at WP:Lists#Organization. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
A consensus shouldn't be needed. Plain and simple, we should go with what Wikipedia's guidelines say. D.M.N. (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Or in other words, there is already consensus, within the greater Wikipedia project, for this sort of change. — Gwalla | Talk 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
True, but the debate on Triple H's talk page still leaves it open enough depending on how we organize. Is IT even possible to do so without violating the above policies? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The Attitude Era

I've worked hard on the article for The Attitude Era. I expanded by about 5 times what it was when I started. I added alot about the beginning of the era, also about the even when it happned. I also added how some shows changed, and some shows that were added during the Attitude Era. I placed show logos to show how they changed, etc. I also, expanded the controversies section and got just a tad more in depth about the Montreal Screwjob and the death of Owen Hart. Not like I took the whole articles and place them there or anything. lol. I also added an external link to WWE.com's Fan Nation section that's for Attitude Era fans. I would like someone to go and give it their unbiased assessment. Thanks, Crash Underride 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great. A lot of good content, but for an article of this size, it should contain more references to reliable sources. Only 3-4 ref's for this article is too little. So it should remain at Start class.--SRX--LatinoHeat 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Nominated it for COTW. --UnquestionableTruth-- 11:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I only used the references that were already there. At least, as far as I can remember. lol Crash Underride 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to know why 3bulletproof16 removed everything that I add. He removed EVERYTHING about the shows, and how they differed from what there was before, and COMPLETELY removed ANY mention of the Austin 3:16 speech and the 1996 King of the Ring, when the Era actually began. They've gutted the article. Now, they have made SOME good edits. But the article has ONE section "The Initiation" which right as of this writing, covers the bookin' of Vince Russo, to the DX invasion of Nitro, which last I checked WASN'T at the beginning of the Era. 3bulletproof16 has screwed up this article. Crash Underride 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, remain civil. Second, the article was in horrific shape and its "programming" content had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. The logos were also removed because WP:FU specifies that those images are copyrighted and their use in multiple articles compromises their fair use status. The edits I've made are only part of a longer expansion process that intends to give the articles its much-needed qualities that our wikiproject's featured articles already have. Once again, remain civil, as this process doesn't happen over night and will probably last a few weeks as other experienced WP:PW editors take a crack at improving the article. If the rant you posted on my talk page is in direct response to me removing the content that you added to the article please note that per WP:OWN you do not own the article and it can be edited on freely. Cheers --UnquestionableTruth-- 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Change to table format

So on the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, I wanted to make a change to the format as seen here. What does everyone think about that? Virakhvar321 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i'll say here like i said there it's hard to read 1362talk 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed more than twice already, and consensus was to leave the current format. The table format would make the page hard to edit, and would become an easy vandal target. I see both sides of the coin here, but I have to say that the answer is no. We've made it clear before that it is not to be changed. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Per Matt, me and him were the original proposers of this idea, twice was it shot down, and I agree it is a vandal target and harder to edit.--SRX--LatinoHeat 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
If tables make it more of a vandal target, why was consensus to change PPV Results section to such a format? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it is more vulnerable for IPs to screw up the table. What was the consensus about the PPV results, I see the discussion closed but no set agreement.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Gavyn, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the results as a table is a bad idea, but consensus is against us. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I say challenge the consensus. If you look at the table, it is harder to edit, easier to screw up, harder to read, it throws the whole page out of whack, It looks terrible, and it is hard to fix and make. I think Tables are a bad idea on some occasions. Like with the PPV Results and with the roster.--WillC 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I hate the table format. But consensus is consensus. But maybe a re-count is in order IF said tables really do attract vandals. No offense to the FAC reviewers, I have great respect for them, but it would seem they all want to put everything in a table that's a viable to do so. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out, List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni is in a table format, and so, every few days some well-meaning ip screws it up unintentionally, and it has to be fixed. I personally think tables should be avoided, and I agree about the results. The table format just is horrible. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that as well, but the employee list changes day-to-day, while the alumni list is only badly affected badly when a release it announced. But I believe a change to list format from table format for the alumni article would provide positive results. The results as a table thing, is just plain horrible. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to change it from the table format for the alumni article. I can see the sense behind, my thoughts were just that IPs and unexperienced editors tend to screw up tables because they don't understand them. I think that putting them in PPV results will just mean a load of extra work for everyone, fixing them. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel we should just have a revote now that we know what it will officially look like in the article. Also what will we do when there is a elimination match? Like the Elimination Chamber, a elimination Fatal 4 Way or Triple Threat, Xscape Match, etc? If all of the results are in a table then how will we write that out? Also PPVs are edited more than Alumni. Like iMatthew said, the Roster is edited day to day and so are PPVs. Tables should only be used for small things when it makes since. PPVs and Roster pages aren't good ideas. I actually like the look for the Roster page with a table but when I try to fix a edit made by a IP it takes me forever to find his edit in the middle of the Alumni page. So the same will be with the Roster page. I feel we should scape the whole Table idea for Roster and PPVs. Just leave it for small and unused stuff. Like Alumni and Elimination Matches.--WillC 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it for the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees but I don't like it for PPV results, I think it looks horrible and very untidy! Adster95 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, and I do agree about it looking bad, but it would have been useful if you had voted above in the poll that was open for about 2/3 weeks. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the tables in the PPV results section, and I think everyone else should give it a bit more time to grow on them. Several prominent GA and FA reviewers suggested a table format, so I think we should really give it a chance. You can always re-format the tables to make it look more aesthetically pleasing or to make them easier to read (although I think they are fine how they are). As for things like elimination matches, etc....that can be figured out. Maybe the winner and losers can be listed in the results table, and the elimination order table can be put into the prose (kind of like the other on screen talent). That's just one idea...we have a lot of options....we just need people to come up with solutions by experimenting a bit. Nikki311 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Night of Champions - IC Title

I know that WWE hasn't confirmed that Jericho will defend the title, but Jericho did an interview, where when asked if he had a title defense said "I believe so, that’s the gimmick of the PPV, that every title is defended. I’m not sure who I’ll be facing at this point. But I’ll be there." (see here) Is that a good enough source for it to be put onto the page? Because, just to play Devil's advocate, he doesn't explicitly say that he does have a match. Him "being there" does not equal a match. Thoughts? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should place it in there because we know every title is to be defended. He said on Raw he wish he could defend his title at NOC but he has no opponent. He'll probably defend the title against a unnamed opponent. But WWE has stated all titles are to be defended. So to me that is enough since we know everyone of them is to be defended.--WillC 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
BAW GAWD, I am sick of having this issue brought up. Yes he will defend the title, thats the point of the PPV, but we cant add it because WWE hasn't confirmed it, and we aren't a crystal ball, unless a reliable source states that Y2J has a match we can add it, but for now we still have to keep waiting.--SRX--LatinoHeat 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I take it SRX that the source I provided^^ won't cut it? I didn't think it would to be honest, but oh well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't directly state that he will be in a match. (Forgot to state that earlier)SRX--LatinoHeat 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, never mind. I just thought I'd bring it up here anyway, just to see. I didn't it would be accepted really. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Logically, when the WWE stated that every title would be defended, they were confirming that he would be in a match, right? The gimmick of the PPV should be enough, shouldn't it? Cheers, The Hybrid 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Actually we can most definately add something like this:

WWE Intercontinental Championship: TBD vs. TBD

Because we have plenty of sources confirming that every title will be defended. We do not have any sources that Chris Jericho will be in the match, even though it's completely obvious, we don't have a source. But the above can and should be added, because we have references to back that up. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.--WillC 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Added.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew, not including Chris Jericho in one of the TBA is rather silly, he is the current IC champion, the whole night is about the champion defending their titles, and it is a match that is confirmed to be for the IC title. The logic of 'no reliable sources' that state Jericho is in the match is not true, the match is between the IC champion and a TBA opponent, although it doesn't explictly say Jericho, that is what it means. — Moe ε 10:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Moe. By that logic, we shouldn't list any matches ever until they occur, as there's a chance that a wrestler could be fired, suspended, dead, AWOL, injured or stripped of the title before then. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some very sly vandals

Recently there have been a strand of articles on professional wrestlers bios that say "On June 22, 2008, WWE commentator, Tyrone Wilson stated in an interview that he is going to talk to Vince McMahon about rehiring [insert wrestlers name here]". There is no evidence of this being true, sourced or having any weight to it. Anyone who sees these kinds of entries, which are primarily a target from IP's from the 4.129.xxx.xxx and 4.152.xxx.xxx ranges, revert them. Articles they target are former WWE alumni articles such as Scott Hall, Sid Eudy‎, Big Van Vader, Jimmy Snuka King Kong Bundy, etc. — Moe ε 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Question about match results

Someone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988) suggested that the match results would be better formatted as a table. I made up an example at User:Nikki311/sandbox (in the middle). Any thoughts? I think I like it. Nikki311 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's to confusing, no offense. I think our current format works just fine. King iMatthew 2008 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What makes it confusing? Nikki311 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just having to follow it, makes it more complicated than it is now. I agree with D.M.N. and Feedback. King iMatthew 2008 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. No offense or anything, but, I seriously prefer it much better in the current format. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. If it is shot down, then it is shot down. Nikki311 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the current format also. It is more direct, much more simple, and occupies less space. Feedback ☎ 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the current format, but if the format change happened, I'm sure we'd all get used to the tables eventually. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would we change it? wouldn't we have to do the same to Every Pay-Per-View? No-way, to difficult.Altenhofen (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem for me would be the notes. I think they should not be in a table because it's prose and because of its length. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cimmo (talk) 6:48 28 June (UTC)

Some more options

I made two more options in my sandbox. Option 2 removes the bullets and uses numbering instead. Option 3 removes all the match notes and just has the bare bone results. (If someone wants to know the finishing move in the match they can go up to the text). Anyone like either of these? Nikki311 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Option 2. Perhaps the comments about the match might be easier to read with bullet points, though (number the matches and use bullet points for the comments). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This is what it would look like with the bullet points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that. Any other opinions? Nikki311 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikki, I edited User:Nikki311/sandbox and made a third option. While I like the idea of the results being easier to read than the plain text, the bulky formatting of option one leaved more to be desired. I made the third option on the page with the box formatting borrowed from the MMA articles, which are slimmer, with sortable columns and nicer headers. — Moe ε 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your version better, but nobody else seemed to like the idea of a table. Nikki311 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Something we can do, which I did to resolve the issue of the many formats of the 'championship and other accomplishments' sections a couple years ago, is conduct a straw poll for about a week with all the formats voted on. Yes I know, we don't do votes, we do discussions on Wikipedia and all that, but we can ignore that.. — — Moe ε 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Putting it to a vote sounds good to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We can definitely ignore in this situation. A vote sounds good. iMatthew T.C. 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll (2 weeks or so)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, seems like you agreed that a straw poll can be used here, so here it is, please see User:Nikki311/sandbox for the various options:

I will also decline to place a support for any option so I can close it fairly. — Moe ε 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Extending it to another week so more people can comment. — Moe ε 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It has been near three weeks can we close this up? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For Option 1

  • ~~~~

For Option 2

  • Darrenhusted (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The Hybrid 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • --ProtoWolf (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • --Endless Dan 12:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't going to vote, but another user suggested a table format on SummerSlam 1988's FAC, so I really think this is the best way to go. Nikki311 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ----Apsouthern (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This is going to take a long time to place in all articles, but it is more organized this way.--SRX--LatinoHeat 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with SRX.--WWEISREAL 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For Option 3

  • I have added Option 5 to the sandbox (a slight variation of this one with bullet points). Option 5 is my preference, but I think Option 3 is the best of those originally presented. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

For Option 4

  • Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • iMatthew T.C. 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But, instead of bullet points, it might be better with numbers. I was going to be bold and create Option 5, but didn't. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ugh, the numbers look ugly. Then again it may just be lack of being used to them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results of poll:

With the current format being flawed, to say the very least, and with options 1 and 3 being the least popular, the decision came down to Option 2 and 4, as of two weeks ago. I would have said there was no consensus, but I silently let the poll run for another week, and the results turned out rather favorable to the frontrunner of the two choices, which makes this easier. In conclusion, it seems that the MMA-style box formatting with the sortable tables is favored over the plain text bullet numbering, which seems a little too similar to the original formatting which is flawed at FAC/GAC's, with multiple requests of changing to a box formatting wanted. It will take some time to implement these, but these should make our articles qualities better. Regards, — Moe ε 07:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus. However, how will a match such a the Elimination Chamber be formatted? It already uses a table... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
With a small gap maybe? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking something like the WrestleMania IV article, where the results are there, but the tournament bracket after the results, but in this case it would be the royal rumble/elimination chamber match results. Another possible scenario is we can break the results box in half, which is possible, place the royal rumble/elimination chamber table in the middle, and then after that, restart a new box of results for matches after that event. — Moe ε 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And who is going to change this format on all PPV's. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like all the other kinds of formattings agreed upon that were changed over the years, it may be weeks or even months before the formatting is finally set for all the pay-per-view articles. I'm working on WrestleMania right now, and I'm guessing over time people will eventually convert it over like the other kinds of formats. — Moe ε 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cheers.- Cimmo (talk) 6:47 28 June (UTC)

Two things, iMatthew stated "who is going to change this format on all PPV's", which means who is going to do the work of changing it, that wasn't a comment on what the table looked like, as you are implying. Second, if you wanted the formatting to be different, you probably should have placed your comments during the three weeks we had an open poll for choosing the format. Besides that point, I don't see how it "looks to [sic] confusing", the table has headers for the winner of the match, the loser, the match type, the time and the additional notes about the match, if you could clarify what is confusing you, that will help. — Moe ε 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow the formatting of PPV match results just gets worse and worse. First, we remove the bolding from match results, which made things EASIER TO READ, then we convert match results into a table. Whats next? Mal1988 (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The bolding was due to a Manual of Style violation. The tables can be removed - if a new consensus is formed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandals - a note

When you revert an IP, it probably means that IP has done something wrong in most cases vandalised an article. However, after you've reverted the edit, you should place a warning of the user's talkpage, either {{subst:uw-vandal1}}, {{subst:uw-vandal2}}, {{subst:uw-vandal3}} or {{subst:uw-vandal4}} depending on the severity of the vandalism. Or, if it isn't entirely vandalism, but a gross BLP violation, you give the IP another type of warning, preferably, one of these. I'm saying this here, because I notice a lot of people in particular from this project revert someone else (in most cases IP's) but do not leave messages on their talkpage. I try to in most cases. So, just a general reminder, after reverting an IP, leave a warning on their talkpage, for instance under this formatting:


==June 2008==
{{subst:uw-vandal3|John Cena}} ~~~~

I think we need to do this a bit more often. However, do not take edits like this vandalism, as that particular edit is a mistake on the IP's behalf, and should never be counted as vandalism. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources (again and again)

Well per the FAR of D2D, reviewers state that there isn't that much of a sourcing issue. I think thats great, because D2D uses many sources, that I am using to replace in the Backlash (2003) article.

I think the following are considered reliable:
  • WrestleView.com - per the SummerSlam RFC, and I showed it to User:Ealdgyth, and they said it was found reliable, so that could be used.
  • PWTorch.com - if WV was found reliable, which was found in 1997, and has established writers, than so can PWTorch, which is used in D2D, as it was established in 1987 and has established writers.
  • Archive.org - Users should attempt to use the wayback machine to find source from WWE.com in the past
  • Online World of Wrestling - Ealdgyth told me in the past when I asked about sources, this source could be considered reliable if another third reliable party website acknowledged it. I finally found it, which is WrestleView.
  • CompleteWWE.com - This was never found reliable, though it is used in D2D. So Im sketchy on this one.
  • Wrestling Observer - This has always been reliable.
  • PWI - magazine, reliable.
  • SLAM Sports -always reliable, well established website.

Other than those, the other ones we use aren't reliable, but can be used for GA's. But not in hopes of FA's. Comments?SRX--LatinoHeat 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So WON isn't reliable? O_O Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is.SRX--LatinoHeat 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavyn Sykes is not to post on talk pages less than one hour after waking up without at least two cups of coffee in his system. Damn, that was stupid. Anyway, the above list looks wonderful and provides a very nice variety of sources. My only concern is that OWOW is the only site there for title win refs. I prefer using sites that list full title histories, though I'm not sure if they can be found reliable or not. Solie and Wrestling Titles.com are the two I primarily use for indy feds. Also, is Wrestling Information Archive acceptable for PWI refs? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
From my knowledge, WIA was used as a main source, but then something happened, and it lost some of it's "reliability", the owner of the website bragged about how Wiki used it to source its article, so then the site became questionable. I think Solie is reliable, but who owns and operates that website? Also, wrestling-titles is like the only "reliable" source we use to source title lists, but Im not sure what Ealdgyth will say about it. --SRX--LatinoHeat 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
n/m, wrestling-titles was found unreliable, until we can find a third party website that credits them or affiliates with them.--SRX--LatinoHeat 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Solie looks more professional thatn WT, as there aren't any ads. I generally use Solie before anything else, shoudl Solie not have listing for a title, I try WT, then WIA then if all else fails google for something else. I've never seen WT be incorrect, but the ads make it look very unreliable, IMO. There's info on Solie's owners and operators on the first page of the site. They actually source books and magazines to compile their title listings. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, wasn't Slam! sports considered reliable as well? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
SLAM! Sports was reliable the last time I looked unless I've turned into a total muppet. SLAM! Sports is almost 110% reliable! =D D.M.N. (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course. ;)SRX--LatinoHeat 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions discrepancy

This article lists Jericho as having had NINE reigns. All other related articles list it as eight. WWE seems to count Jericho's reign as co-champion with Chyna and his reign after defeating her to become sole champion as a single reign per the official title history. So is this revisionism? did they count it as two reigns at the time? What should be changed? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That was only changed about half an hour ago. [4] It used to be correct. It wouldn't let me revert it due to "conflicting intermediate edits", so I'll let you do it manually, reading through the table! Enjoy! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, serves me right for not checking the edit history. Fixed. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Problem fixed then! I usually check the edit history if I spot a problem like that. More often than not, it's someone's changed/vandalised/whatever it, and it's easy enough to fix. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a WWE magazine from last year

Does anyone here own "The Complete History of Champions", a special edition magazine put out by WWE last June? If so, could you please let me know the page number for the discussion of The Headbangers in the "5 Champs Who Didn't Deserve It" article? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes I have it! Not here at the moment, but when I get home I will look for the page number and post it tomorrow morning. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have it, it's on page 65! -- iMatthew T.C. 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested change for managers

I really don't think that a tag team partner qualifies as a manager. Manager listings should only be for managers/enforcers/bodyguards.

On a side note, this theme music stuff is a total mess due to what passes. Tons of incorrect or even just made up information more often than not. Also, people don't seem to know what "production music" is. Production music is "generic" music licensed from companies like Firstcom. In-house WWE produced music is not "production." This should just be scrapped. 69.23.151.9 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any tag team partners in the "managers" section. If you see any, feel free to remove them. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion is Needed

I've put Survivor Series (2007) up for peer review here. Please follow the link and review the article. Thanks! -- iMatthew T.C. 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed here as well. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Our opinion was already given—rather than list it for FAR, the project members decided that we should work to improve the article. I have no idea what possessed you to list it for FAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with GCF. If you intended to nominate, a notice would have been nice so a fix-up could have come along more speedily. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, too much work is needed, and after seeing the failed nominations of both SummerSlam articles, it has too much to be done. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then point out the problems to the project and give people a chance to fix them. Featured Article Review should never be the first step. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GCF, you should have let the peer review stayed open for a while and let the project do the best it could to improve it. At FAR, once comments are addressed, the FAR community may decide whether to keep the article as an FA or not. I have a fear that it may not ;( due to the new criteria.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point in a way, SRX. It does not meet the new criteria. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Then point out the problems to the project and give people a chance to fix them. Featured Article Review should never be the first step. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should point out that there are several FLs I may nominate for removal, depending on how the current FLRC goes. AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW Hardcore Champions and NWA World Women's Championship. -- Scorpion0422 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Great. Even better news for our project =)--SRX--LatinoHeat 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here, but given that I was the main contributer for December to Dismember (2006), I think I should. Issues were raised here about the article, none of which I believed were even valid, hence why I commented back. Unlike some of the other articles which have sources deemed to be unreliable, December to Dismember to an effect doesn't really have that problem. Yes, in a normal article, The Wrestling Blog and TWNPNews.com would be considered 110% reliable, however it's used to back up a statement that says that the PPV was utter rubbish. I also feel that December to Dismember deals with real-life issues much better than some of the other PPV articles around here, whether I'm just being biased as I've developed the article, who knows. The Aftermath section goes pretty in-depth about real-life issues as a lot happened after the PPV surrounding ECW. The Background and Event sections are OK, yes they need improvement, but every featured article on Wikipedia needs improvements, new things may become know, the subject may die or whatever, but every article needs improvement. I'm not going to say that the article is perfect, because hell it isn't, in fact Wikipedia will never have a perfect, but we can work to make it better. FAR is wrong. Sending it to FAR is stupid. We are a project. We work together. We don't send are articles to the kitty litter, we improve articles. We didn't have a deadline with the article, however now unfortunately with the FAR it means that there is a deadline to work to, which puts others under pressure. Also, why have 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spyke been informed of this their talkpages as they are main contributors. Unless I'm missing something quite big and huge, who was it in the first place that suggested this, only to get the backlash of some of this project? I'm also wondering how TJ and 3bulletproof16 are classed as main contributors, who was it that expanded that article?. I strongly am against any FAR to do with this article, as I am with any other article/list or whatever to do with this project. We need to help each other, not stab each other in the foot. I say withdraw the FAR. End of story. D.M.N. (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn, I see my errors. I apologize for my wrong-doings. Anyway, lets move on from this, and improve the article. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you give some specifics on what needs to be done? GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw notification ignored - FAR continuing

iMatthew, your withdraw notification appears to of been ignored, and the FAR appears to be continuing. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How can I have it withdrawn, if it's being ignored? -- iMatthew T.C. 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) if you wish. D.M.N. (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Jeter

Does anyone here get the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? If should could you please tell me if there was anything about Johnny Jeter being released in it recently? Wrestlezone is claiming that it does, but I have heard it said that it doesn't and I'd like it cleared up. Much appreciated, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get the Newsletter myself, but there is a supposed transcript of the article here [5] --Apsouthern (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
IM not sure, but try the PW Torch newsletter.--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PR Lockdown (2008)

I have placed Lockdown (2008) up for a peer review and I thought to tell everyone so I can get some feed back. Here is the link to the review page--WillC 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

List of events for promotions

Well currently there is an AfD for List of ECW events, so if this is being deleted, should List of Ring of Honor events, also be deleted per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:C, and as stated in the AfD of ECW, it may fail WP:SPAM. I know ROH is different, and they dont have big PPV's like TNA and WWE, but if we are deleting the list of ECW events, I think we should delete list of ROH events, we can't just make a list listing every event, some of those events happen on consecutive days. AfD?--SRX--LatinoHeat 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It did have an AfD but didn't get much attention. You can always got for 2. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I sent it to XfD again, here it is.--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cody Rhodes

Cody Rhodes stated on Raw that he does not know if he lost his tag team championship. I, also am curious to know if Rhodes is still in his first reign, but with a different tag team partner like Dominic DeNucci; or is this a new reign? Please add a reliable source with the answer. Feedback ☎ 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but who's Dominic DeNuci? It goes to a dead-link? D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Dominic DeNucci - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Listed as two separate reigns Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm tempted to class it as 2 different reigns per WWE.com - D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't something similar happen awhile ago with Kurt Angle and the TNA Tag belts? At first, TNA listed it as two separate reigns, but eventually changed their website to reflect it as one. Nikki311 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
So does this mean that Pat Barrett (DeNucci's 2nd tag team partner) was never a tag team champion, because this page doesn't list him in an official reign...? Feedback ☎ 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It's say yes, actually. When Killings and Jones held the TNA tag titles, Creed defended with them. He was never recognized as a former champ. And that did happen with Angle's reign too. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes (Nikki), and I think that Cody's reign is one, because he never lost it he just gained a new partner. Remember, we don't always have to go via WWE's way.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to believe it is considered two reigns, because there was actually a match, rhodes was actually a partner in both teams, wwe lists the match as DiBiase & Rhodes def. Holly and Rhodes, so he won, and lost the match, second reign, the team of holly and rhodes dropped the title to the team of DiBiase and Rhodes. This isnt like where a tag team feuds, splits up, and then afterwards they fight over who gets to keep the belt, ala Sting and The Giant when Giant joined the nWo. LessThanClippers 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Running Powerbomb

Has been proposed to be merged into Professional wrestling attacks. Should it be merged into powerbomb or deleted altogether? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I proposed it for speedy deletion and it was. We can move the text to powerbomb, but is that variation even notable? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

TNAPPV Template and WWEPPV Template

I have a question, could someone please change the TNAPPV Template to be like WWEPPV Template? So the TNA PPV templates will become useful.--WillC 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It makes no sense to do that, because TNA hasn't had that much history of PPV's, and because they have a smaller history of PPV's, the WWE PPV template format doesn't fit the TNAPPV template.--SRX--LatinoHeat 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are 23 out of 49 TNA PPVs that are single articles. That is near half. Seems like it would work in my mind.--WillC 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
But I mainly just want the TNAPPV template to work with the TNA PPV Templates(Template:Lockdown, Template:Sacrifice, etc). If you know what I mean?--WillC 21:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW DYKs

Is anyone here experienced with submitting Did You Know proposals? I think it would be good if the project could have a few featured on the main page, as there have been a lot of articles created and expanded by this project. For example, Bull Pain was created two days ago, so it's eligible. It would be nice to see something from that article mentioned, but I've never submitted one before, so I'm a little unsure of how to go about it. I know it needs to be something with a citation (perhaps the Taipei Death and Barbed Wire Baseball Bat matches)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Never done it before, but definitely interested in learning how to. -- iMatthew T.C. 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Look here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New WP:PW subpage?

A subpage should be created for article name changes. I say we move them off of the talk page, and into a project subpage. Possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article Name Changes. There are so many articles for discussion, so yeah.. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And done. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1443 of the articles assigned to this project, or 39.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the template. I think this will help us keep better track of our articles. Nikki311 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD needed?

Is this page really necessary? -- iMatthew T.C. 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. D.M.N. (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be speedy deleted, it was created before and deleted, no reason to be created again.--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention that at the AfD. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's only grounds for speedy deletion if an identical (or almost identical) version was deleted as a result of an AfD. If it was speedily deleted or deleted because of a prod before, it does not qualify for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what process was used last time, but I thought this should be mentioned. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Korpela‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Loyd for other deletion debates concerning our project. D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

NWA Intercontinental Tag Team Championship

Problem here. The promotions official site makes no mention of the reign of Samoa Joe and his partner. ALl other sources I can find on this title state that Joe DID in fact a reign. So what do we go with? The official source and remove his reign? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

List it as unrecognised. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough then. I'll source it with the official site for that and with others to indicate he did hold it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

New userbox

If you use this {{User WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Userbox2}} you'll get this:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Professional Wrestling.

Hope ya'll like it. I just thought that it would be a change. This is the one I will be usin' from now on. Crash Underride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks a little bit to dark.--SRX--LatinoHeat 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I had thought of that, I'm workin' on it. The reason I first chose black and red was, well lets face it, TNA, WWE, and ROH all use red and black. So it just seemed like a clear choice. Crash Underride 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If only someone could make a user box that had all the logos from the top companies in it. WCW, ECW, TNA, ROH, NWA, and WWE. Instead of the WCW belt and the old WWF belt.--WillC 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Using copyrighted logos for a userbox would violate Wikipedia policy (and copyright laws). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about some kind of logo we could use. Just something better than the old WWE belts.--WillC 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can find a free use, non copyrighted image, present it here, but for now we cant use copyrighted logos.SRX--LatinoHeat 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I know that, I was just placing up the idea on changing the picture. I'm not a idiot. I know about copyright.--WillC 23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What's more useful:
a) A new userbox.
OR
b) Developing articles.
Why we need another userbox is beyond me. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Support B. I agree with D.M.N. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we could call ourselves the World Wiki Federation. Wooooooo! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well excuse the crap out ME!! I was bored and just didn't feel like doin' any research to work on articles when I made that. So I'm so sorry that I didn't feel like workin' on a friggin' article! I'm not a robot, I'd been workin' on articles for a good chunk of time and I needed to be creative for once. Is that so wrong? Crash Underride 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Crash, we always work on articles, being creative and taking a break to make something useful for the project is not wrong or bad. Crash was just trying to be creative.--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are you pissed? I don't see the problem. ?: --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I was pissed because he was whinin' about ME spendin' MY time makin' a different box. It's not like they pay us to edit these articles. So yeah, that's why I was pissed. Crash Underride 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
We have a box. We don't need a new, 2nd box. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, we could have 1000 boxes. Let's stimulate people to be creative, not criticize them. Feedback ☎ 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's easy (for me at least) to get burned out regular editing. He wanted a break and he decided to do something half-way useful. Nothing wrong with that. Don't be a dick. Then again, I probably sounded like a dick due posting that... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actuall, It's not the 2nd. I made the 2nd. {{User:Straight Edge PXK/ECW_PWbox}} PXK T /C 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Its the one I use :-] Feedback ☎ 04:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

New pictures

I've found it a little difficult and repetitive to add pictures to several articles, so I decided to dig through a few old boxes today. The result is that I found some old pictures that I took at WWF events. I have uploaded them and collected them on a page at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures. They can all be used freely in articles, and I hope this is helpful to editors in illustrating articles about the mid-1990s. I don't make any claim to be the world's best photographer, but I think the editing has helped. Please note that I have no idea how to resize pictures, so this is how they came out after I put them through my scanner and cropped them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I don't think that the Billy Gunn one would do for his main picture though. Looks more like Jimmy Rave! PXK T /C 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's certainly not his best look. I also uploaded another three pictures this morning, so that's pretty much all of my pictures that would be useful. I have a good picture of Owen Hart from 1994 packed up somewhere, but I haven't been able to find it. And thanks to Moe Epsilon for transferring the pictures to Wikimedia Commons. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Nikki311 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a few to their respective articles. Nikki311 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Golden Dreams Match

I was working on the golden dreams match in my sandbox and just want to know what everyone thinks of it! I could try expanding it more and try to make an article out of it or merge it into the Pole Match or WWE Divas championship article! Here it is Golden dreams match! Adster95 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I really see no need for that article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No but should it not be included in Professional wrestling match types or in the WWE Divas Championship article! Adster95 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In Professional wrestling match types, I feel no. In the Divas Championship. Only to tell how McCool and Natalya won. It is a small match so it isn't really notable since we'll probably only see these 2 times. Just like Cuffed in the Cage.--WillC 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No offense either, but there is no use for that article, sorry, but there is no use because it basically was a ___ on a pole match and only two occurred. The process is already explained in the Divas championship article in one sentence, and that is all that's needed. So it isn't needed there or in professional wrestling match types either because it is just a __ on a pole match, which is in that list already.--SRX--LatinoHeat 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok Adster95 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20204672,00.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_52&oldid=1204048425"