Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 61. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Another request for sources

Resolved

 – 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has Ric Flair's biography, I would really appreciate a little bit of information. He talks about how the original plan for WrestleMania VIII was for him to face Hogan. Can someone please let me know why he says that was changed (with page numbers)? Thanks.

Secondly, on page 161 of Shawn Michaels' autobiography, does he say anything about his match with Santana, or does he just mention that it happened?

In addition, if anyone knows of a reliable source for Marty Jannetty being fired in 1992 for failing a drug test, I would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For the Shawn Michaels autobiography, it just says that Santana put him over, and that it wasn't a massive win. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay in replying - P300 of the paperback edition of To Be The Man (Ric Flair)

After the Royal Rumble, the plan had been for me to wrestle Hogan in the setting the match deserved: Wrestlemania VIII, on April 5, 1992, at the Hoosier Dome in Indianapolis. The original storyline would involve me losing to Hogan and giving him the title back. But Vince's relationship with Hogan had deteriorated by then, and Hogan was aspiring to become a full-time actor, so the Wrestlemania VIII lineup was switched around. Hogan would wrestle Sid then take a long sabbatical. I was booked against Randy "Macho Man" Savage.

Hope this helps, I'm adding my books to the library page, anything I have that you need references for, just ask... --Apsouthern (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know no one really checks the library anymore... Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 18:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

X Wrestling Federation → Xcitement Wrestling Federation

I don't know if there's really any need for a consensus, but X Wrestling Federation is not the official name. ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$${\mathfrak {.}}$${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 07:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that even notable? It lasted from "late 2001 to early 2002". It needs some third party reliable sources to prove notability. Nikki♥311 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is what even notable? It even states the name of the company in the article. It should be moved as X Wrestling Federation is not the appropriate name. ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$${\mathfrak {.}}$${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

She means the company itself.--SRX 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I honestly believe it should be merged with Jimmy Hart since it didn't even last a year. Al that I know is the name is "Xcitement" not "X." But, IMO, this should probably be merged with Jimmy Hart. ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$${\mathfrak {.}}$${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reign length articles

Is there anyway that we can improve and source these articles to meet FL standards. Maybe a new layout to make it easier to source without having the exact number of days sourced. Maybe adding to the tables date won, date lost, and give a math problem to make it not fall under original research to show how many days. I'm just brain storming here. I see so many reign articles that it starts to seem useless if they aren't going to ever be improved. Something like this maybe.

Wrestler	Date Won	Date Lost	Days Held
Samoa Joe	April 13, 2008 (Day 104 in 2008)	October 12, 2008 (Day 286 in 2008)	182 (286 - 104)

It seems stupid but I'm just trying to think of something that might work.--WillC 10:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather see them merged, I doubt they could reach FL status because it's basically content forking. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Listing the days of the year (Day 104 in 2008) doesn't seem to add anything IMO. TJ Spyke 16:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It is there to make not seem so original research. Then you can source the date won and date lost only. Just an idea.--WillC 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

What OR? There is a program available that would automatically update the number of days the title was held. The only time the reign would manually have to be enterted is when a reign was less than 1 day. TJ Spyke 23:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

These should be merged with the respective championship reigns history list, this needs no sourcing since its really common sense IMO.SRX 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is common sense. I needed a source for Lockdown to say Joe was the longest reigning champion at 182 days. That is not common sense. I'm just looking for a way to improve articles that tend to be forgotten.--WillC 23:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Subtract the day he won it from the day he lost it. :)--SRX 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you not looked at the table? That is what I placed in to make it easier. You take Arpil 13 from October 12. It isn't a simple math problem off the top of the head. I'm just trying to make it easier.--WillC 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That format is horrible though and really makes the table ugly. Here is a template that automatically determines the number of days passed {{age in days|month1=9|day1=17|year1=2006}} which displays "5786". When a title reign ends you make it like this {{age in days|month1=9|day1=17|year1=2008|month2=12|day2=06|year2=2008}} which displays "80". The first one counts how many days between a certain date and the current date, the second lets you determine the amount of days between two specific days. Here is how that table would look (with no OR, unlike the previous table):

Wrestler	Date Won	Date Lost	Days Held
Samoa Joe	April 13, 2008	October 12, 2008	182

TJ Spyke 23:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then why was that template not used in the first place? With that the article could sourced better and be of a higher quality.--WillC 00:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I remember seeing that template before but had forgotten about it until this discussion. TJ Spyke 00:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If I had known about it I would have never said anything. With it, it should be easier to improve them. No reason to have articles that are not sourced and sit for everyone to forget about them.--WillC 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That table looks awesome, I Support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numyht (talk • contribs) 10:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length

ayematthew ✡ 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The result is to merge, I will do that in about 1 hour (which is when I get home from school) if that is alright with everyone. TJ Spyke 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it now, does this look good to everyone? If so, others can start on other title pages since it will take too long for one person. TJ Spyke 20:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

How to merge the articles?

Me and another editor have a concern we were hoping the rest of you could help us with. What to do with the list of combined title reigns. How should we integrate those into the articles? TJ Spyke 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be merges unless it can be sourced. How do we merge unsourced information? ayematthew ✡ 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A really long time ago I found an article that sourced maybe the top five reign lengths of the WWE Championship, but it was later removed (probably by an IP). I don't know if it is technically unsourced, though, because all somebody would have to do it add the "days held" to get the combined reigns. However, I noticed that in List of WWE Intercontinental Champions, the sort function isn't working correctly for the "days held"....any ideas on how to make it work correctly??? Nikki♥311 00:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the "Vacated" rows that are screwing it up. It's trying to sort the column but the vacant rows are messing it up. I am only used to sorting tables where there isn't an issue like this (like List of Virtual Console games (North America). Maybe someone with more experience sorting tables can help. As for combined reighs, we just have to manually add their reigns together. The dates are sourced already and the template automatically determined the number of days. TJ Spyke 00:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well we need to find a way that we can eliminate any means of having to update manually.WillC 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Legacy (WWE Faction)

Figures this would be made, notable?. --Numyht (talk) 10:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If Priceless, The Main Event Mafia, nor Beer Money, Inc are notable, then this team is sure as hell isn't at this moment in time. Just my opinion, should be made a redirect to Orton.--WillC 10:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I went for a redirect to WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

A group that just formed last night? No, not noatble. When the Priceless article gets cretaed (IMO they are notable), make a subsection there. TJ Spyke 15:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I reckon depending on how things go with The Legacy, Priceless should be in the article as the first paragraph in the article proper. Tony2Times (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Priceless is a group that has been together for several months and even held the tag titles, "The Legacy" (is this even their official name?) just formed last week. I honestly can't see why Priceless would be mentioned an a article on The Legacy instead of the other way around. TJ Spyke 03:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A redirect to the WWE article was a bad choice. Considering Orton announced themselves as "The Legacy" it should redirect to him, and plus he is the "self-proclaimed" leader. The WWE article was just a random bad choice IMO.--SRX 21:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Slammeys?

Someone's put slammeys in championship and accoplishments for Todd Grisham! I think its notable enough and can be sourced what do you guys think! Adster95 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They've been put in the article of most of the winners from last night. And it's in Owen Hart's article, though he never technically won one, he stole them both. I checked though, and none of the winners from 1986 have it in their articles. We need consistency, whatever is decided. Also, how to format it? Just

• Slammy Award winner (1 time) - like in Owen Hart or
• Slammy Award winner (2008 Couple of the year w/ Vickie Guerrero) (1 time) - like in Edge?

I'd go for the first one myself, I think it looks neater. I also think that if it gets added, it should be in the accomplishments section. Y'know it should go Championships alphabetically, (e.g. IC, World) then the accomplishments alphabetically (e.g. King of The Ring, Money in the Bank) under each promotions header. Thoughts? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea sounds good though I have to say I prefer the other one as it gives more information! Although it doesn't look as neat! Adster95 (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I find the Slammy awards really un-notable. They are just random awards given for trivial/non-notable topics, WWE webcasts, finishing moves, and etc. If the Slammys were notable and received a lot of wide media attention that yes, but within in WWE, they aren't notable.--SRX 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Y'know it should go Championships alphabetically, (e.g. IC, World) then the accomplishments alphabetically (e.g. King of The Ring, Money in the Bank) under each promotions header

It does go like that.

I think it should be:

Slammy Award for Wrestler of the Year (2008) RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I pointed that out was because it didn't go like that in some of them. Like Adam Copeland for example. I am well aware of that particlaur section, thank you. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else gonna comment? There should be a consensus because I don't wanna add them all in just to get reverted. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your version, it looks good. TJ Spyke 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Apologies for lateness, busy week only just watched Raw) I don't think Slammys should be noted in that section as they are inconsistently awarded, both in the awards ceremony and the categories, and many of them are not for real categories. Triple H for best hair? Is that really noteworthy? As a side note on the order of championships, I think only the title of the championship itself should be taken into consideration ie if they won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in WCCW as well as WCWA World Heavyweight Championship there, the two would be listed together as they are both (minus the promotion's initials which are irrelevent to a certain extent as it's already in the title) World Heavyweight Championship. Or say Matt Hardy would have WCW Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship listed under T. Tony2Times (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, 1) that would be extremely disorganized, and 2) it would restart the whole "what makes a title a world title" debate. WWE Tag Team Championship would be listed under "T", but what about World Tag Team Championship? Since it has no promotion in the name would it be listed under "T" because it is a tag team championship, or "W" because it is a world championship? Would WWE Championship be listed under "W" or "C"? The WWE Intercontinental Championship and WWE United States Championship are basically the same thing (the #2 title for their respective brand), so would they be listed together or under "I" and "U" respectivally? Nenog (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I find it somewhat pointless that the alphabetical order begins with the promotion's name (ie anyone who won a WCW title during the InVasion has WCW first) seeing as all titles are listed under the promotion in which they won the belt and it isn't really part of the title. WWE United States Championship therefore would be listed under U and WWE Intercontinental Championship would be listed under I, I'm not talking about putting them like for like, I'm just talking about ignoring the any promotional initials when putting it in alphabetical order much in the same way that 'The' and 'A' are ignored when alphabetising things that begin with those two. Tony2Times (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Notable teams in TNA

Considering all we have been talking about lately is if certain teams are notable well I've been wondering if these few teams are notable yet: The Main Event Mafia, The TNA Frontline, and Beer Money, Inc. The Main Event Mafia and The Frontline are involved in vets vs youngblood storyline. The same that happened in WCW with the New Brood and the Millionaires Club. They hold the the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and the Legends Championship. Made up of Sting, Booker T, Scott Steiner, Kurt Angle, Kevin Nash, and possibly Al Snow now. The build to their team storyline began back in July. The storyline and the team encompasses all of TNA. It is really TNA's Invasion angle. I feel it is notable but was going to wait till pass the new year to make the article so that they officially pass the notability rules. The TNA Frontline are the face team that was established recently but were made up of AJ Styles and Joe since before Bound for Glory. They just had no name. An official team was made in late October. They just recently got the name Frontline. Considering that if Main Event Mafia get a page, they need one as well. Beer Money, Inc have been teaming together since May. They have been the TNA World Tag Team Champions since August. I feel a good article can be made from their unofficial formation fighting Sting and Booker T or Impact to recently in their semi-feud with Team 3D. Including their gimmick of Roode being a millionaire type figure and Storm being just drunk. A reasonably long article and reliable sourced one can be made in my mind. I guess need to establish a consensus before I create the articles.WillC 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say the Mafia is notable just based on the gathering of those involved. Frontline is still fairly new so I dont think their notable yet save for a mention in the Mafia article. Beer Money, notable= yes. Cheers, JakeDHS07 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes to Main Event Mafia - every member is a former World Champion. Pretty dang notable.
• Yes to Beer Money - they've been around long enough and have had some good feuds.
• No to the Frontline. I don't really think it will ever be notable.

 Hazardous Matt  22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. I don't think Frontline need an article yet, but the Mafia do. Beer Money can wait a little while longer but it would be nice to know it is notable.WillC 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm behind making one for MEM considering how many notable guys are in there and that between them all there have been a number of individual feuds whereas, as seems the general consensus, Frontline hasn't had anything of note happen yet. I'm not sure about Beer Money, I only catch TNA on Xplosion every now and again (more recently with MEM/FL programme) and so don't know if they've had enough feuds yet. Tony2Times (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I have a MEM page already made and finished in a subpage. It is sourced and tells everything notable. Though it ends after Steiner joining. The Frontline are involved in the main storyline so I feel it is notable but wasn't sure. Beer Money have had a big feud with LAX and now one with Matt Morgan and Abyss.WillC 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The TNA Frontline is notable. This is like the WCW vs. nWo storyline, only this is TNA vs. MEM. It's definitely notable. Canamerican (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The Frontline is not notable enough for its own article. The Frontline is a reaction to the MEM. Any information regarding the front line might be better off in individual articles. The MEM information can definitely be expanded to warrant an article.  Hazardous Matt  12:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And this isn't like WCW vs nWo because nWo wanted to destroy WCW and take it over whereas MEM don't really have a game plan except maybe to make sure they wield power and they're respected. Also even if it is a copycat storyline that doesn't make them instantly notable. Do you even know who is in Frontline? I've only been watching Xplosion but from that alone I can't really tell. Obviously Joe and AJ are in it. But are Consequences Creed and Jay Lethal? They stood alongside them in one beat down but didn't tag up with them this PPV. I'm assuming the Dudley Boys are but maybe they only offered to help for the tag team match. I'm pretty sure that they will be notable soon enough but they haven't really done much yet, an article would contain lots of week by week results just to make it seem long enough. Tony2Times (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been mentioned, but this feud is more like the "New Blood vs. Millionaire's Club" angle WCW had in 2000 where the main event veterans took on the new and younger stars. While pretty much everyone outside of the MEM seems to be united against them (at least the faces), the actual members of the Frontline seem to be Samoa Joe, A.J. Styles, and Team 3D. Maybe the Frontline will become notable, but for now I would support them having a section in a MEM article. TJ Spyke 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SPOILERS: The Frontline won the TNA World Tag Team Titles. They WILL be notable without a doubt now. They're engaged in a company-wide war as well with MEM. Canamerican (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WWE Divas Championship

I have nominated the page so it can be added to the championships FT. However, I have a feeling that the article for the championship may be rejected and I may be forced to create a seperate list of champions, even though there has been only one champ. If it does come to this, does anyone oppose the creation of a list for a one-item table (although it could grow soon)? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I support it, there is no doubt it will grow, unless the WWE disbands the title.--SRX 00:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

One can hope lol. Cheers, JakeDHS07 02:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Divas Champions‎. Didn't really want to do it because now every belt with only a few winners will be given their own list (I was responsible for the merging of the TNA world & tag team championship lists), but I don't want to lose the FT either. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping a FT is a special case, IMO, so hopefully it won't lead to a bunch of new lists. Nikki♥311 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The only list that will pop up anytime soon will be on the TNA side since there was an agreement on the TNA World title talk page to create an article that encompasses all world champions in TNA to deal with their revisionism history that contridcts itself all the time. So the only lists that will show up are the following lists: List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA, List of World Tag Team Champions in TNA, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, and List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions (possibly not sure yet). Those will be created and be sent to FLC besides the last two, which are not long enough yet. List of TNA X Division Champions will be taken to FLC as well. If I can find enough sources I'll fix NWA Tag Team Champions and World Heavyweight Champions list as well if at all possible.WillC 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankie Kazarian

Can people please watch this page. No one has presented a reliable source that he is Suicide. Everyone says he is but no source is ever presented. Plus the PWinsider source is not reliable. It says Wretsling Observer but the source must come from the Wrestling Observer. I've done all I can.WillC 05:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Better watch Low Ki as well. Nenog (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just give it up already. PWInsider and the Observer are reliable for this sort of thing. As for Low Ki, those same sites said he was providing the voiceover. Mshake3 (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Verify that PWInsider is reliable. Wrestling Observer I know is but no one has ever yet to verify that PWInsider is reliable. I believe Gerweck is reliable but I don't use it because I can't verify that it is. If the original wrestling observer site can be found that says he is Suicide then it can be placed in.WillC 05:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

These seems like yet another one of WillC's controversial moves to attract attention. Kazarian is Suicide, we all know this. PWInsider is reliable. End of story. Canamerican (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm following rules. PWInsider has yet to be proven reliable. Only PW Illustrated is reliable. Plus you saying End of Story doesn't mean it is over.WillC 07:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah Will, you and your attention seeking ways. Next you'll be telling me the bloke down the pub who told me Hulk Hogan is going to TNA isn't reliable. He so is - why would he lie to me? He also knows Kaz is Suicide and Jason Reso is going back to WWE because he has the power of astral projecion and watched their contract signing. Then again I still don't know in any way that PWInsider have proved themselves to be reliable on rumour mongering like this. Tony2Times (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, how can any of these sites be proven then? Mshake3 (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove that they do fact-checking or that other mainstream news sites consider them creditable. Nikki♥311 16:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream media doesn't care about 99% of the news bits these sites report on, so you can't use that. As for fact-checking, that goes into inquiring about their sources, and they're not going to reveal them, outside of them saying "we talked to three performers and got the same story." Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Notice the word accuracy. As far as PWInsider goes, they got that down 99% of the time. Hence the reason I ask you to find an instance of the writers being wrong. Mshake3 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mshake3, we need proof for this, not just your opinion. See what we did for WrestleView and what GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) said at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007)/archive2. D.M.N. (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not trying to create any featured articles, so I can't go that route. For now, all I have is the staff bio page. To be honest, that should be enough. Mshake3 (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Would an okay compromise for this regular occurence to say "it is rumoured that..." with PWInsider and their ilk being cited? Tony2Times (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that would violate WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Hazardous Matt  19:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a though, how about we leave it be until a "Reliable source" pops up. And I agree with Mshake, PWIsider is reliable. In the words of Milk Shake, give it up. We all know it's him. SteelersFan-94 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Tournaments

I've been looking at List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tournaments. Considering their notable enough to be listed, wouldn't they be notable enough to have an article for each? I ask because TNA is having a tournament at the moment for the vacant X Division Title. What does everyone think about just giving it its own page. I'll write the report for it as it goes along. Just want to sort it out instead of just being bold here. I would rather get people's opinions first.WillC 05:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

An individual article for a non-annual random tournament to crown the holder of a vacant title? No. Nenog (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what would the point be to even have the results of the tournament? It is like the King of the Ring tournament. What is the point? It is no longer held anymore. It was held on a special episode of Raw. It really makes no sense. I feel one should be made or the entire article is useless.WillC 06:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The KOTR tournaments are all together. Nenog is talking about separate articles for each tournament. 06:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them. It is mainly an article for the event. I'm wondering if the TNA X Division Championship tournament is notable enough for an individual article. One that a report can be written about. Other wise what is the point. Having a list of tournaments for no reason other than to say TNA had this tournament. That doesn't say much about its significance. I'm not asking for a page for all the tournaments, I'm just wondering if it is okay to make one for this tournament that will last all the way up to Genesis to crown a new champion.WillC 06:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

KoTR was once held annually so there is a page so of course when there is a new one, the tournament brackets are added to it. This differs from the current X Division tourney in two ways: 1) it is/was annual and 2) it's the exclusive way of winning the title KoTR. They're only having the X Division tourney because the championship is vacant, there have been four IC tourneys like this in the past that had an article deleted for lack of notability some months ago (can't remember how long) and the current IC tourney doesn't have a page either because it's just a filler storyline. Something like the Turkey Bowl that is exclusive to itself, I can see that being notable enough to have its own page. Tony2Times (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about the KOTR, people seem to be missing what I'm asking. Why do we even have the results if a page can't be made for them. It really is dumb. A article can't be made on the 2008 KOTR or 06 which means the KOTR article is going to remain a start class. I'm trying to figure out what is the point of having results to a tournament for no other reason than TNA held it. What is the point of it if they aren't notable enough to have a page. I believe at one point the ppv results were just like this.WillC 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't tell ya why there is an article for some of those tournaments; especially the X Division one which is pretty analogous of an IC tournament, the page for which was deleted as non-notable a few months ago. The Paparazzi Series isn't really noteworthy but could find a home on the stable's page. Deuces Wild could be moved to the background of the Sacrifice page. Turkey Bowl could maybe be given it's own page as it seems to be a recurring championship although does anything come of it? X Cup all have their own pages. Fight For Your Right the same. I can't imagine the Candido Memorial or the Hard 10 tourneys warranting pages. Tony2Times (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Two main TNA stables

The "Main event Mafia", and the TNA Frontline are obviously going to be around for a long time. It's pretty much TNA. I though the MEM needed one for a while, and I still do. But now that the frontline have 3D and other members, I think there going to be the same. Don't you agree that they both need one as this storyline will be going on for sure into '09? SteelersFan-94 20:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they both do. Two stables in a storyline that encompasses the entire roster.WillC 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All right. I'll get started on it. Anybody wants to help me, please contact me on my talkpage. SteelersFan-94 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well wait until a consensus is formed before starting on anything. It might be a month or so before one should be created for the Frontline. I already have the MEM article finished.WillC 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn it. that's the one i started. I guess I'll go ahead and start the frontline, if worst comes to worst I'll just delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelerfan-94 (talk • contribs)

Was there any need to start this discussion again? Incidentally Will, I was looking at your sandbox earlier and your subpage is titled The Main Event Mafia; you watch TNA more than me so you'll know but from the bits I've seen and certainly their Tron I thought it was just Main Event Mafia? Tony2Times (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No They are called "The" Main Event Mafia. Also there is a rule for it as well: WP:THE. The Frontline article will have to be "The TNA Frontline" as a result.WillC 00:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Will is right. SteelersFan-94 03:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Not really at all. Mshake3 (talk)

Those have yet to be moved. I would have moved the Hardy Boyz but just didn't do it.WillC 06:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Then do it! Mshake3 (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Styles Guide

Resolved

 – 21:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I decided to take a look at the style guide today and just to keep updated. What makes each of these sites reliable: Find Articles, Slam Sports, Wrestling Observer, WrestleView, Archive.org, PW Torch, and PW Insider. They are all under "Websites proven reliable". What makes these all verified reliable sources?WillC 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This does. Find Articles is anonymously reliable, as is SLAM Sports (from Canadian Online Explorer). PW Insider, however, is not reliable.--SRX 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX is correct. Can I mark this resolved, Will? ayematthew ✡ 21:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem, I just wanted to make sure everything is up to date on that page as far as the sources.WillC 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 21:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolving and archiving

The only way I can think of to cut some of the shit that goes on here, is to mark sections resolved and archive them once resolved. Once he/she who started the discussion receives an answer, it be marked resolved. ayematthew ✡ 21:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see that being more functional than non-functional, so I'll agree.  Hazardous Matt  21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you're already doing it so yea...--SRX 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Silly me. ayematthew ✡ 21:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

=)--SRX 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Style guide

I'd like to make a suggestion for the style guide (since I can't find anything stating it one way or another). For PPVs, I think we should link the wrestler name and not the real name. Right now most use it like "Shawn Michaels ([[Shawn Michaels|Michael Hickenbottom]])". What I think should be the standard (and looks much better IMO) is "[[Shawn Michaels]] (Michael Hickenbottom)". TJ Spyke 16:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should state the real name at all, but if we are I agree it should be that way. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need the real names either, but that agreement was made when I was gone from Wikipedia and it doesn't look like there is enough support to stop it. TJ Spyke 17:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article that you're linking to is about the person as a whole, not just their on screen character. Tony2Times (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, if we had to link Shawn Michaels, we would have to pipelink it to his pro wrestling career. But the real names represent that they are indeed actors and performers, and have lives aside from pro wrestling.--SRX 20:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Most people read Shawn Michaels' article for info on his pro wrestling career. And it's named Shawn Michaels, not Michael Hickenbottom. So the stage name should be linked. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it is called Shawn Michaels is because of WP:COMMONNAME. Though the article must be readable and understandable to wrestling fans and non ones as well. The article is about the person and his career, not the character. It is like movie articles, the actor's name is linked, not the character. The character's name is only linked if an article is made about that character and still the actor's name is still linked. Wrestlers are nothing more than glorified stuntmen. We should follow such examples before us. When someone clicks on Shawn Michaels and they know nothing of him they will think he is a character.WillC 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean they will think he is a character? They know he's a character from our articles explaining how everything is fake 20 times. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is more people that read film articles and their that type of format is used more often. Their articles are more popular and to a non wrestling fan who doesn't understand wrestling, and he doesn't have to get the link from a ppv; can get it from someone's bio article since the format also is used in them; he might not know he is not a character.WillC 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michael's page might be called that, but Curry Man's page is called Christopher Daniels and Ron 'K-Kwik' 'The R-Truth' Killings' page is called Ron Killings and Booker T's page is called Booker Huffman. Tony2Times (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see your point. And Daniels is better known as Daniels, Killings is known by a lot of names so it's left at that, and Booker T is a disambiguation page. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"And it's named Shawn Michaels, not Michael Hickenbottom. So the stage name should be linked." But when we link to a page about R-Truth the page name is Ron Killings, so do we then link the legal name? Consistency is needed and consistent with the rest of Wikipedia with an encyclopedia is to link paranthesis, not the character. Tony2Times (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Main project page

For the nominations, instead of having to add the image name, the article name, and the link to the nomination page, use of one the following for the respective nomination.

• FAC: {{WP FAC}} Example: {{WP FAC|WrestleMania XXIV}} produces WrestleMania XXIV (FAC)
• FLC: {{WP FLC}} Example: {{WP FLC|List of ECW Television Champions}} produces List of ECW Television Champions (FLC)
• GAC: {{WP GAC}} Example: {{WP GAC|Hard Justice (2008)}} produces

Hard Justice (2008)

In addition, why in the article examples, we have the date the FA's were promoted and not the others? It seems odd, I know FAs are of higher priority but its inconsistent, can we remove the date or add all dates for all examples.--SRX 23:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I need to get this finished (haven't touched it in forever), but I do have User:IMatthew/FC that is for this project. If anyone is willing to help me finish it, it can become a subpage here. ayematthew ✡ 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll help you out, I'll do the Good Articles section for you.WillC 23:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it rendundant to state the name of the article twice, why not just leave it as..

• SummerSlam (2003)
  • Promoted: December 13, 2008

SRX 01:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It just sounds better as a "history-type" page. It doesn't really matter, but if you insist. ayematthew ✡ 01:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

Warning: contains spoilers. So is this a reliable source or not? It's likely based on an early fan report, so who knows if it's reliable or not? (remember: spoiler reports have been faked in the past, I remember one that said Mark Henry beat Mysterio for the Heavyweight title) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, lets see if WWE acknowledges it tonight or tomorrow.WillC 02:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well PWInsider is not reliable because no one has taken the time to verify it. If someone could find a way to verify it then that would be great.WillC 02:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's real (as Wrestlinglover said, fan reports are not reliable since they can't be verified), WWE will report it on their site either tonight or tomorrow. TJ Spyke 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If this is true, WWE usually has the title exchange hands later that night or in another house show.--SRX 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

<--WWE has acknowledged it. here and in their title history ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a problem about what brand the titles belong too. Some users keep moving them to be listed under ECW. They ignore the fact that this is not the first time a wrestler has held another brands title while staying on their own brand. The titles are still part of the Raw brand, they are just listed on the ECW superstars page since both Morrison and Miz and part of ECW. I can understand where they are coming from, but I don't think we should consider it a ECW belt. TJ Spyke 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. John and miz have held the Smackdown tag team titles too while they were on ECW.SimonKSK 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Compromise over brand exclusive titles

I think Wikipedia should not even list brands considering that WWE only implies that the superstars are on the respective brands, yet all titles are available to all superstars..(i.e. Kozlov (SD) for the ECW Championship, Morrison and Miz (ECW) for the WWE Raw World Tag Team Championship, Matt Hardy (SD) and Jeff Hardy (Raw) for the WWE Raw World Tag Team Championship). I believe because WWE has not directly stated that the title has changed brands, we should not speculate or make a biased judgment until WWE clears up this Wiki-based problem. A user is constantly stating that we list the championships as how they are listed on the WWE.com superstar pages, yet I find no policy on WP:PW on this.--SRX 20:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering WWE basically ignores the brand split (they frequently have Raw superstars on SD and vice versa). I think it's a good idea to not list titles by brand. TJ Spyke 20:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, WWE doesn't even comply with the brand extension regulations anymore. They use it as a way to get more viewership and hype for the drafts, and the only thing exclusive are the commentators.--SRX 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Genius101^Guestbook 20:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats the point of even listing all three brands for PPVs, and other things if the three brands make up "WWE"--SRX 20:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I made this point months and months ago and no-one replied and I didn't care enough to chase it up but I think any PPV held after WrestleMania 23 shouldn't have the brands listed in the info box. I'm not sure about them being on the intro but I guess then it might leave the leading sentences for the background section ("the primary SmackDown feud" &c) a bit confusing. Tony2Times (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So what are we going to do?

List the belts under whatever brand we feel like listing them, because obviously whatever WWE.com says is meaningless around here.

Vjmlhds 20:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point, we shouldn't list the World Tag Team Championship ECW exclusive because WWE.com has not directly stated The World Tag Team Championship as a result is now exclusive to ECW., all they did was move the name of the title to ECW because Morrison and Miz are on that brand.--SRX 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the best way to compromise:

We list the titles as ECW/Raw.

I never said the belts were ECW exclusive.

Rather that they currently are ECW property, shared with Raw due to the talent exchange.

ECW though gets first billing due to being listed on WWE.com, and because they are held by ECW wrestlers.

That's all I ask.

The titles are shared property, with ECW getting first billing -- ECW/Raw.

I think that's fair.

Vjmlhds 21:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? How do you know ECW gets first billing? Just because they have the title listed there?--SRX 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I know where the misunderstanding was, and it was kinda my fault.

I should have said from the start that the titles should be listed as shared ECW/Raw titles (ECW gets first billing due to them holding the belts).

Never did I say anything about exclusivity.

The belts are shared property due to the talent exchange.

I apologize for the furor, I should have made myself clearer.

Vjmlhds 21:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that would be better, for now it is best to list them as defended both on ECW and Raw due to a talent exchange, which reads as equal ownership.--SRX 21:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as ECW getting first billing goes, that's more a "possession is 9/10ths of the law" thing than anything else.

The main thing is that the titles are listed as shared property.

There is no "exclusivity" due to being shared on 2 brands.

Vjmlhds 21:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first post in this section. Because of the talent exchange between ECW and both Raw and Smackdown, I don't think any title can be considered brand exclusive. We should take into account - for example - when the draft happens. That has caused titles to jump from one brand to the other (Kane to Raw for example before Mark Henry brought the ECW title back to ECW). I think it would be far better to refer to the titles by their actual name, and NOT make any claims as to which brand it "belongs" to. It's safe, and it also makes things easier for editors when changes occur because of the draft and because of any switches that occur because of a Royal Rumble result (as with Chris Benoit in 2004). !! Justa Punk !! 08:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno WWE.com never moved the WWE Tag Team Championships to the ECW brand part of their website when Miz and Morrison where champions! They must be doing something big here like making it exclusive to the ECW brand only! To be honest the only way (I think) to determine if its exclusive to a brand is if Todd and Striker call the next World Tag Team pay per view match! Adster95 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No that wouldn't be a judgment at all because it would depend on who their opponents are. I would say the bigger judgment would be who makes the decision on the next title match - Stephanie McMahon or Teddy Long. Note that Teddy Long "prevented Matt Hardy from defending the ECW title" because Vladimir Kozlov has never wrestled in an ECW ring. !! Justa Punk !! 01:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To-do-list?

Who favors a to-do-list for the project like the one at WT:VG?--SRX 21:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea, but I've always thought it got in the way. Though exactly what will we list of it. The Video game project's to do list is really long. Lets just name the extremely important stuff and not list every little detail.WillC 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We have one. It is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/to do. It just hasn't been updated in forever. Nikki♥311 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I meant one that we can place as a template at the top of the page, since many users tend to come here and it seems like a good place to have it.--SRX 02:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It use to be here, but someone (I honestly don't remember who) suggested that it was too big and in the way, so it was moved to a subpage. Nikki♥311 02:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well not everything should be listed there, only minor things and current stuff like PR's, FAC's, FLC's etc. and minor editing to do things like RAW-->Raw.--SRX 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that...I was just filling you in on the history. ;) Nikki♥311 02:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

=) Yeah. Should we incorporate it again?--SRX 02:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Isnt this what hide templates are for? 77.102.18.47 (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)(PXK)

Future-Class

Hi there! I'm a developer of {{WPBannerMeta}}, the meta-template that your project banner is based on. Following changes there we're intending to rescind default support for "Future-Class", which your project uses in the form of Category:Future-Class Professional wrestling articles. There is an alternative system in place which makes it easy for the project to continue using this special class if you wish to do so, but I'm curious as to whether you think it is actually helpful to your project to have articles tagged in this way. Should I go ahead and implement the workaround to maintain the "Future-Class" through this transition, or would you prefer it to be removed? Happy‑melon 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't speak for everyone, but I believe many will agree that the project likes the Future Class and would like to keep it. So go right ahead and do whatever you have to do.WillC 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is very useful for us in terms of tagging video games, books, CDs, and especially pay-per-views. Nikki♥311 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Differentiating between brands and television programs

One way of differentiating between them is that brands don't have italics but television programs do. But what I see in articles is that people don't properly list the television program name.

Name of brand

• Raw
• ECW
• SmackDown

Name of television program

• Raw
• ECW on Sci-Fi
• Friday Night SmackDown

These are the proper names of the programs per WWE Shows at WWE.com--SRX 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A PPV a year into the future has been created

As the title says, one has, it is called Armageddon (2009). I don't know why someone created it or even if it is announced. Thought to say something. Should we redirect it or delete it?WillC 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been redirected. We could delete it, but someone will just re-create it and we know the even will happen. TJ Spyke 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I just went ahead and redirected it, though it should be deleted. We think it will happen which falls under original research, I believe. It is possible it could but then again I thought Genesis 08 and Turning Point 08 were going to happen in November and December instead TNA moved Genesis to 2009 and Turning Point to November. Then decided to have another Final Resolution. Plans can change.WillC 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

With that logic, no PPV page should be created until, say, tickets are put on sale. Mshake3 (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Is there really a need for an article on a pay-per-view that will take place on "TBA" at the "TBA" in "TBA"? Nenog (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Or until say, the people putting on the event or the venue that's hosting it publices doing said event at said venue at provided date. Tony2Times (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, except that a WWE Publication has announced dates and cities for most PPV events next year, including, I believe, the Survivor Series, which is, GASP, nearly a year away! Mshake3 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And who's is going to be main eventing it? What's the main feud going into the Survivor Series 2009? How many "traditional Survivor Series matches" are going to be on the show? Is there any real relevance to create the article now and not say, six, eight or ten months from now? Nenog (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for events should only be made when they are at the most six months away and we know the date and arena of the event.--WillC 03:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a random, abritrary number of six months? Mshake3 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that we wouldn't give a PPV its own article until it was the next to next one (i.e. the No Way Out 2009 article would just now be created instead of way back in July). Considering that there is nothing to go in something like the Backlash 2009 article except for basic info like date and location, they don't need seperate articles yet. TJ Spyke 14:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." They're notable, because the articles are going to be created eventually. And they're almost certain to take place when a date and location is officially announced. Sounds good enough to me. Mshake3 (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam Championship

Everyone needs to watch this page. Everyone is adding people who require every title besides the European title, I believe it has been going on for a while like this.WillC 13:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with that? Mshake3 (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What I think he is talking about is people adding sruff like "Wrestler A needs the IC and WWE Championship". Basically adding every wrestler who held the European title and is still alive. TJ Spyke 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages to watch

• Travis Tomko - speculated to have signed a contract with WWE again.
• Jason Reso - rumored to have ended TNA contract and signed with WWE again.
• Gail Kim - same as Reso
• Jeff Hardy - per his WWE Championship win
• Hardy Boyz - adding in that Jeff and Matt both hold world championships but they aren't a current team, it is not needed
• John Layfield - all the stuff about his supposed "altercation" with Joey Styles being added, but no reliable sources being added.
• Talk:List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees - main page is protected, would be nice if some more people could participate in discussions so it will not be much longer.

Alot of ips are editing these pages and adding unreliably sourced content.WillC 02:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It would help at times to list why we need to watch them, I filled some out, IDK about the rest.--SRX 02:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Really it is the same old stuff, I would think people are smart enough to know when they see it.--WillC 02:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeff's page has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I will check the others from time to time. TJ Spyke 02:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I added JBL to the list. No reliable sources are being added re: his supposed fight with Styles, and since that info could be contrued as controversial one is really needed per WP:BLP. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"The" Wrestling Observer reported it. Mshake3 (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sun newspaper have an article about the altercation. I don't know where that stands in terms of reliable sources, they're certainly not a dirt sheet in that they don't report any rumour but like many newspapers their sources are "a person within WWE" &c. Tony2Times (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Tomko article? I'm on my third revert I believe, I've lost count. Their using wrestlezone as a source which is unreliable according to our style guide.--

WillC 21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you use The Sun as a reliable source it is a bullshit newspaper TheRatedRKOLegendKiller (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Tomko situation is fine. PWTorch reported that he reportedly signed a contract with WWE which is good enough for me.--WillC 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Per TRRLK, how is the Sun considered a reilable source? It's only a lad mag here in the UK and isn't as reliable as say the Daily Mail, The Independent etc. Also, watch out for TNA World Tag Team Championship. If you don't know why, read some Impact spoilers --Numyht (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but The Sun's wrestling column isn't published in the main paper, it's not quite like the rest of the newspaper and on the few occasions it talks about rumours it says when something is a rumour (ie Christian 'may' be going back to WWE) whereas it dealt with the JBL/Styles altercation as if it was fact. If Heyman wrote the article (he works for The Sun) would you be more inclined to view it as reliable? Also if the Daily Mail is reliable then anyone outside of Britain is a paedophilic, swan-killing rapist and I don't think we should be involved in an international community on Wiki if that's the case. Tony2Times (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Konnan

This GA is up for reassessment. There are some issues with some unsourced information in the article that needs to be fixed. I'll probably work on it some, but help is always appreciated. Nikki♥311 21:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the TNA section as much as I can.--WillC 21:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources Update

I would like to propose that we take a vote on adding pwinsider.com as a reliable source. They have proven to be one of the leading internet sites along with wrestlingobserver.com (which now directs to f4wonline.com). Also, I posted a source confirming Kazarian was indeed Suicide through wrestleview.com. I was told by a wiki user I will keep nameless that I was still posting wrong source information for the correct identity. Here is the site "http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1228770993.shtml". I think f4wonline.com, wwe.com, tnawrestling.com, pwtorch, and pwinsider.com should be our top sources, along with slam sports and wrestleview as backup sources until sources from the big 5 become available. Those 7, along with the other "okay" sources is a good set.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Prove how PWInsider is reliable. It is not made on votes. It is decided on fact checking, amoung other things. How do they check their facts?--WillC 05:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But can we all agree that f4wonline.com needs to be added on as a reliable source due automatically being redirected there, when you go to wrestlingobserver.com?--NickSparrow (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PWInsider is historically accurate. They always double-source their information, and are used as sources of information for over the air radio stations like Boston's 1510 Mouthpiece Wrestling. It is also run by guys who ran the original ECW website.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 05:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is under reliable sources. It always has been. I just call it the wrestling observer. Everyone really calls it that though we mean Figure Four.--WillC 05:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaz

Question to end this once and for all. Is this line enough from a report by the Wrestling Observer to source that Kaz is Suicide in TNA. Source: [1] Line: "And yes, that is Frankie Kazarian under the mask as Suicide".--WillC 05:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Online World of Wrestling (which is generally reliable) also reports that Kaz is the one portraying Suicide: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/f/frankie-kazarian.html . TJ Spyke 05:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't Online World of Wrestling considered unreliable, though only reliable for small things?--WillC 05:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I say yes, just so everyone can move on with their lives, and one step closer to getting the tna roster page unprotected. Also, we are staying by the rules with the source being reliable.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having that site under the "reliable sources" list if it's articles are going to be questioned? Mshake3 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning its reliability. I'm asking if one sentence is enough. Crap I've believed that Kaz is Suicide since I first saw the promos, but I'm trying to follow guidelines and make sure this is enough.--WillC 06:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And Now Kaz gets himself injured again....More Headaches for us.--Numyht (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Some wrestlers are just so inconsiderate. Tony2Times (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I bet Kaz is losing sleep over his Wikipedia Article :) --Numyht (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible, many famous people do edit Wikipedia. Companies also have their workers do it (I had to revert an edit from an IP that was registered to Electronic Arts, the IP changed all mentions of "EA Sports" to "EA SPORTS" in the EA Sports article). TJ Spyke 19:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw an article at the BBC where that came out. Apparently even the Vatican were getting up to it. Tony2Times (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception section

Why is some random Canadian site being used as a source for the reception of PPV articles? They don't even use star ratings. 66.168.87.155 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a reliable source, therefore we use it. And yes they do use star ratings, they rate each PPV out of 10. D.M.N. (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fully in favour of SLAM! Sports being used but sometimes I've seen it written that it rates it 7 stars or whatever, it's not stars it's just a rating system out of ten. When being rated in stars it's usually (Michellin is the only exception I can think of) out of 5. Also I think we need to start using a few others as well as one rating isn't really enough. Does WON review every PPV? I know The Sun does though not individual matches like SLAM! and surely PW Illustrated does if it gives out ratings at the end of the year? Tony2Times (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oold Tyme Rasslin' Revue is a good site that reviews every match. As the name implies though, it's more old school. They have reviews of every WWE PPV from WrestleMania I up to Vengeance 2003 and revue a new PPV once or twice a month ([2]. TJ Spyke 20:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

411maina.com also has reviews of the pay-per-views and they recently started reviewing older ones, too. I think they review match by match as well. Nikki♥311 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

411Mania was found unreliable by reviewers at FAC.--SRX 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely for star ratings they will not care?--WillC 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It really depends, if 411Mania is found as a trustworth reviewer, then yes, but if its like WrestleZone, then probably not.--SRX 21:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How can a reviewer be found unreliable? They are just giving an opinion. At a well established site that has been around for years, I don't think it matters whether they do fact checking for a review. Articles would need it, but a review does not. They are just judging what they are seeing. Nikki♥311 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant, since 411Mania is an established site unlike other dirtsheet sites, then yeah.--SRX 22:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

5 star matches

I assumed this issues was settled when no one objected to the suggestion of removing Meltzers ratings in the title sections, but RandysavageFTW insists on keeping them in. No matter how respected Meltzer is (and that's debatable), is it really notable what matches he gives 5 stars too? Even if it mattered (which I don't think it does), it is not a title or accomplishment and shouldn't be mentioned in that section. Can we get this settled once and for all so he stops trying to get a edit war going. TJ Spyke 21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I really find it as a miscellaneous honor that has no widerange recognition, i find the honor WP:TRIVIAL and WP:NN.--SRX 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Match "ratings" are simply opinions. Meltzer's ratings are not anything prestigious. I've never even heard of this guy. His "ratings" are his opinions. Therefore, it is definitely not that notable. ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$${\mathfrak {.}}$${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. 5 star match ratings have been thought to be very prestigious in professional wrestling for a while now. The companies sure do think they are something aswell. When they hold a match that gets a 5 star rating they usually go out of their way to promote it as such. It is worth at least mentioning in accomplishments since they are rare in the United States, though very common in Japan because they think of it more as sport and care more about their matches.--WillC 02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You might not have, but ask any professional wrestler, promoter or booker who Dave Meltzer is, and they will tell you. Oh, and the people at CNN, because they interviewed him in the aftermath of the Benoit murder/suicide. Nenog (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's no different then mentioning what movies got two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. Meltzer's 5 star rating are all listed on the WON article, I don't see the need to include it in other articles (one Japanese wrestler had 17, more than all of his other titles combined). TJ Spyke 03:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. On one hand, if we are listing Slammys (which are practically meaningless), we might as well list these, too. On the other hand, I kind of agree with TJ Spyke. Firstly, can anybody show an instance of when a wrestler or company acknowledged the ratings? Secondly, does Meltzer assign the WON awards, too, or are those voted on by the readers? Nikki♥311 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind on the second question...I've got an answer to that. Nikki♥311 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe TNA said something about it after Unbreakable. I'll have to look it up, but I believe they said something about it.--WillC 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Lisa Marie Varon --> Victoria(WWE)

This move has been proposed at Talk:Lisa Marie Varon#Requested move. Nikki♥311 03:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Daniels

You all might want to watch this article. More than likely, IP's may add the rumors that he'll be returning his "Fallen Angel" gimmick. ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$${\mathfrak {.}}$${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to just get it protected. They've been doing it for a week. I don't think anyone will watch it anyway.--WillC 04:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:PhenomenalKev

This user is working on articles in his talk and main user pages. To be clear he is not working, he is playing with them making them his own little cards. I'm not sure what the correct warning would be for this situation.--WillC 07:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the correct thing to do is simply tell him to create subpages on the main user page, instead of being rude and erasing it all. Mshake3 (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not it isn't. WP:WEBHOST is useful here. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cody Rhodes

I don't know how many people watchlist the Cody Rhodes article, but can mopre editors please get involved with a discussion currently occuring on the talk page, here? Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as note, the discussion is about an edit that three users have included into the page while NiciVampire has been the only one reverting it back to her version of the edit. As opposed to having 'Priceless & Legacy Era' (which are the names of the stables the athletes are involved in), she would rather it look like this 'Alliance with DiBiase and Manu; angle with Orton (2008-present)' which I have told this editor numerous times that it is too long and looks sloppy as the heading of a section. Her basis for the reversion is that she hasn't heard the wrestler's introduced as 'Priceless' before during their entrances despite the fact that several commentators have referred to them as 'Priceless' and 'the legacy'.

Note that our discussion to keep the edit as 'Priceless' is beneath another user's efforts to keep the edit as 'Priceless' of course against NiciVampire's objections. I'm not sure why the user has been so stubborn in her editing style. I'm guessing she's a big wrestling fan but it's become an obstacle in dealing with her on some of the wrestling articles also as noted on the Mike Mizanin talkpage. Cheers dude (talk) 10:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)