Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Archives

Archive 1 (archived May 2005) Archive 2 (archived June 2005) Archive 3 (archived August 2005) Archive 4 (archived October 2005) Archive 5 (archived December 2005) Archive 6 (archived January 2006) Archive 7 (archived March 2006) Archive 8 (archived April 2006) Archive 9 (archived May 2006) Archive 10 (archived June 2006) Archive 11 (archived July 2006) Archive 12 (archived August 2006) Archive 13 (archived September 2006) Archive 14 (archived October 2006) Archive 15 (archived November 2006) Archive 16 (archived December 2006) Archive 17 (archived January 2007) Archive 18 (archived February 2007) Archive 19 (archived March 2007) Archive 20 (archived March 2007)

Proposal re: nationality/flagicon/country name etc. in biography infoboxes

Proposal Howzabout generally adopting the format I've used for the Harry Smith (wrestler) and Darren Matthews pages?

• Opening line states nationality anyway.
• Nationality flagicon next to name. Two in the case of Harry who is dual-nationality.
• Regional flagicon next to birthplace reflecting state or province if applicable (e.g. Harry Smith from Alberta, William Regal from England, Steve Austin from Texas)
• omitting country name from infobox in cases of above being as opening sentence states it anyway and it would un-clutter the infobox. Suriel1981 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think on balance always including the country is more informative. This is also the standard used in the standard biographical infobox and in most sports infoboxes. States and provinces aren't always important in less federalised countries, and flags aren't instantly recognisable to everyone. Country of origin / residence is a fairly core fact, so I don't think it can be considered "clutter". McPhail 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About Harry Smith, can he really be considered British? He wasn't born in and doesn't live in the UK. He was born in Canada and lives in the United States (I think), just being the son of someone British doesn't make a person British. TJ Spyke 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He's spent some amount of time here, is eligible to live here as a British citizen and wears the Union Jack on his attire. When you're talking dual-nationality it tends to go on how the person prefers it. Harry Smith seems comfortable being British-Canadian Suriel1981 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter what he is considered by anyone. He holds 3 passports, so he gets three nations. Most ppl outside of the UK don't know Finley is British...saying that, can someone put the tricolour up there for him? Since that's the way we're going.Halbared 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll support the use of flagicons, but insist that the country name be included for several reasons:

Finlay is from Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), so of coarse he is British. The only people who don't know that are people who suck at geography (it's like thinking someone from Puerto Rico isn't American even though PR is part of the United States). WWE doesn't help matters though by announcing him as from Belfast, Ireland rather than Belfast, Northern Ireland. TJ Spyke 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WEll he is pushed by the comnpany as Eire/Irish yeh, and with all the green and stuff, so I could understand why people outside of the UK get confused. You bringing up Puerto Rico made me look at it. I thought it was a protectorate of the US, but is is classed as a commonwealth under the federal government. Savio Vega is the only wrestler I can think of (just thought of Calos Colon) from there. So the US flag oes next to his name and a Puerto Ricon one next to his billed status...had somoneone made a Puerto Ricon one yet?Halbared 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Flag icons exist mostly as visual embellishments. An audio reader or a text-only browser would not have this information (thus, these readers would lose out on key information such as " London" referring to a Canadian or British location, because that information is from the flag). Furthermore, they are used in contexts where it is strictly speaking not necessary (or irrelevant) - for example, " John Cena" in the most recent #1 on the PWI 500.
• Consistency - most other uses of flagicons at Wikipedia have both country names with their icons.

For dual nationality persons, one typically uses their primary nationality - for example, Chris Benoit IIRC holds US citizenship, but is regarded as Canadian, and thus only the Canadian flag is shown. I believe that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice hockey regarding whether secondary nationalities (eg. Wayne Gretzky holding US citizenship) should be included. Regional flags seems appropriate, but I'm going against on theoretical principles (even if arguably the majority of professional wrestlers are from federalized states) - the only time I've seen regional flags is from within a national context (eg. Canadian national men's ice hockey team lists the rosters of recent Canadian teams, with players represented by province). kelvSYC 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think I opened a big pile of whoopass! but anyway this was probably coming. With the flag icons to text. Another aspect is the up and coming Mobile internet like G3. If have used it and had a look that is more text based than graphics. Things like flagicon's wont come up. So it's best if we keep the country names in the fields as one of the reasons for keeping them. Govvy 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Benoit is a Canadian (born in Quebec, raised in Alberta) who legally resides in the United States. Finlay is technically British, but is billed as being from "Belfast, Ireland" because many Northern Irish consider the British occupation of their six counties to be illegal. Manager Of Champions 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the NI situation, I'm fairly sure that Finlay has only been billed from "Belfast, Ireland" since he's been working in the USA. I'm guessing that this is more to do with his fighting Irishman persona he's used in WCW and WWE. Suriel1981 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the agreement/consensus here? Are we adding them or not. I can see editors both removing them and adding them. If it comes to a vote I think we should simply put the nationality of the person next to the real name in the infobox. So for dual, you get 2 like Findley, for triple like Smith you get three.Halbared 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Konan big

This is a profile for "Konan big". A lot of bad grammar, I tried to fix some things, but I didn't feel it was worth it. Maybe delete the article? Kris Classic 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is pretty poor (although you made it better). I have prodded the article. TJ Spyke 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a headliner for a couple of Mexican indies with some midcard work in AAA (I think). English google hits are to do with his match results and my Spanish is too poor to translate other pages about him. I think he'd fail notability. The picture on his page looks like it's going to be deleted for no attempt to meet licensing criteria. Suriel1981 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Events (Matches etc.)

In a discussion over on Batista's talk page, it was deemed against the guidelines to mention that a wrestler has an upcoming match on a card that has not yet happened. But the example arose that if it hasn't happened yet, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia; meaning that the Wrestlemania 23 page, which has the matches that will occur, is violating the same guidelines. That doesn't seem to make sense that the event pages can have upcoming matches on them but the wrestler pages cannot. Here's my original question:

Wouldn't this mean that for the wrestling PPVs, they wouldn't be allowed to post the card until it's already happened?

---- GIGGAS2 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The guideline (which was established by us) is for articles on wrestlers, not the PPV articles. That is why the warning saying that doesn't appear on PPV articles (there is a different warning for that). TJ Spyke 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the difference between event and wrestler pages then? ---- GIGGAS2 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, how are we supposed to talk about the PPV without the matches? Another, articles on wrestlers and events are written differently. TJ Spyke 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on the spelling of Encyclopaedia

It's odd that User:Proudformykids would create a profile, be welcomed by User:TJ Spyke and then within 10 minutes make their first ever Wikipedia contribution a revert on Halbared's spelling of "encyclopaedia" and "rumour" on our main page.
Ahh well, I always assume good faith, so I'll have to guess the new user just picked an odd place to start a glorious career on editing. Make no mistake though, if I get the impression someone is creating sockpuppets for editwarring on the WP:PW page then I will harass every single admin I can find to get that person blocked for vandalism.
Peace out! Suriel1981 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome everyone (registered and IPs) who make edits to pages on my watchlist. It is spelled encyclopedia though, hell, even the WP logo uses this spelling (aedia is the old fashioned way of spelling, almost every source both in the US and UK either use just edia or both edia and aedia). TJ Spyke 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start banning people for WP:3RR if this idiocy keeps up. Both spellings are correct, and any English-literate person can read it, so who cares which way it's spelled? Please find something constructive to do with your time. I am not singling anyone out specifically. You're all on notice. Shape up. — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about some people who OBVIOUSLY have a lot of time on their hands work on improving various wrestling articles instead? I mean it's not like we're lacking articles that can be expanded, if I'm not mistaken there are like 800+ pages listed on the two pro-wrestling stub pages. So work on that, contribute to the project instead of something as silly as this?? Just a thought MPJ-DK 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Gwalla and MPJ-DK with this. First off, you're having an edit war over warnings for our articles. It doesn't matter how its spelt as long as inexperienced editors we're trying to focus on get the point. This is not a British English encylopaedia, an American English encylopedia, Australian, or whatever, it's simply English. And unless there's a split between the different variations (and trust me, I'm already laughing at the fact a Scots Wikipedia actually exists) there shouldn't be a real preference for this. -- Oakster  Talk  12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

26 years and I still haven't learnt the fine art of not overreacting... I apologise to those concerned for my part in this. Time for me to get back to what I do best: creating fancruft, smoking excessively and supporting my fellow WP:PW editors. Suriel1981 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Wrestlemania 25

We have a bit of a problem going on at the page. User:Jet2006 is adding nonsense to it again. Hope you can help out by keeping a close eye on the page. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW the problem is on Wrestlemania 25 not at WrestleMania 25. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it. While we know it'll happen, that doesn't mean there needs to be a page for it right now. Mshake3 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point of the redirect. The user is reverting it and adding his own nonsense.-- bulletproof ^3:16 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I ment to actually delete the article, so at least if he attempts to recreate it, it'll be with the correct spelling of WrestleMania 25. Mshake3 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern here is not whether the spelling of the page name is correct or not. My concern is the fact that this user is continuously adding nonsense to the page and no one has noticed this but me. That is why I'm bringing this to the project talk page. To inform you of this problem and to suggest that the page be added to your watchlists. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Throw a little policy at him and have it deleted and locked. Mshake3 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He just created the article a few days ago (with that nonsense). As soon as you said something, I put it on my watchlist. There won't be any info on it for a year, so there should be no edits to either page yet. TJ Spyke 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA Wisconsin article?

What happened to it? Obviously it was deleted. Just wanted to know what was on the article. Govvy 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:CesarB, he is the admin who deleted it according to the deletion log. TJ Spyke 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Results

Would someone put this through the proper deletion process? I know lots of "results" articles like this have been deleted before, and since I'm taking a long break from editing, I would hope that one of you could work on it. Thanks. 69.208.72.214 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PWI 500 lists

I'm not sure if this may be of any help, however I've recently been working on the PWI 500 lists and have completed PWI 500 (1991), PWI 500 (1992), PWI 500 (1993), PWI 500 (1994), PWI 500 (1995), PWI 500 (1996) and PWI 500 (1997). The lists have proved useful in creating/fixing needed redirects as well as providing a wanted list of sorts. MadMax 05:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support this, those are technically copyright violations and will most likely be deleted (just like similar lists like "Rolling Stone Top 100 songs" have been). TJ Spyke 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they'd probably be put up for deletion as fancruft, other listy pages have been removed for that reason. I have no problems with the lists. As a "to do list" it needs serious edits some blue links aren't actually right (ex. Judge Dredd) and some redlinks should be blue because the article has a different name etc. MPJ-DK 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure the list qualify as fancruft, given as the PWI 500 is compiled by a major publication (such as The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time or Sexiest Man Alive). Also, as far as I'm aware, there would only be a copyright issue if the article itself was either unreferenced or was literaly copied word-for-word from the article such as the summeries and other stats; however, neither is the case here. I would think, after some editing, the list might serve as a useful wanted articles list if it cannot be used as part of the PWI 500 article itself. MadMax 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no problems copyright wise and everything then I'll be happy to help make the links as correct as possible MPJ-DK 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a great help, thanks. I haven't watched wrestling regularly for a few years now and could use some assistance especially in the newer pages such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated/PWI 500 (2005) and Pro Wrestling Illustrated/PWI 500 (2006). MadMax 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a copyright issue since you are just copying their list. An article on the PWI 500 is allowed (it already exists though), these however are copyright violations. I am tempted to nominate them myself. Right from WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."

So while PWI can't copyright the idea of a top wrestlers lists, or the wrestlers names, they can copyright these lists themselves. AFAIK, every other similar list that has been nominated for deletion has always been deleted. TJ Spyke 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time for how it should be done. You can do like the Top 10, and talk about the list in general, but you can't post the entire list. TJ Spyke 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I've moved the lists to my User page and removed its links from Pro Wrestling Illustrated. MadMax 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Experience - many different shows under the same name

Right now, the information about WWE Experience is regarding several similar but separate shows (the one that used to be on Spike and the one currently on The Score in Canada are prime examples), and the article needs cleanup and possibly a split (I wouldn't go that far personally). As an example, the infobox claims that The Score is credited as the creator, while Todd Grisham is credited as the host (the last time Grisham hosted anything on the Score was when Raw was still on TSN in Canada). So if someone would know a bit more they can help clean it up. Here's how I can chip in, knowing the Canadian version of Experience and having seen the original Experience once or twice:

• The show is produced by The Score and not WWE, and is hosted by Score anchors (Ryan Paton, Derek Snider, and Sid Seixiero have all been seen hosting the show) inside the Score studio, WWE provides all of the content (and my POV statement is that Ryan Paton's announcing is too over-the-top compared to Score Today, Snider's is too unemotional compared to Branded or Sportsworld, and Sid Seixiero is somewhat muted compred to Score Tonight). It also differs from international versions of the Experience in that there are no ECW highlights unless it is of any significance to a Raw or SmackDown! storyline (eg. Battle of the Billionaires), and even then it is only in photos. And, unlike other Canadian WWE broadcasts, no Jack Korpela with that annoying Canadian update segment (the Score hosts do it themselves).
• There are out-of-kayfabe interviews (Outside the Ring) with WWE personalities on the Canadian Experience, conducted whenever said personality makes some promotional appearance in Canada - even if that said personality does not normally appear on Raw or SmackDown! (eg. there was an interview with Lashley not long after he won the ECW World Championship, which focused on his work in ECW)
• There is viewer feedback through The Score, although they have yet to answer viewer questions on-air. Viewer input has been used on occasion - the recent Score 64-like Wrestlemania highlight tournament was a regular feature.

Another issue is the 15-minute Raw pre-show on The Score (which has been in place since RaceNight was off Monday night) which may need to be mentioned. Not having seen the pre-show (credited as WWE Countdown to Raw on the on-screen TV guide and part of the Raw proper on the network), I don't know if it's a special 15-minute edition of Experience, or something with a similar format (but I do know that it is Score-produced and is exclusive to the first Canadian airing, and that there is no pre-game for SmackDown!). In either case it may need to be mentioned on the Raw or Experience article.

On a side note, surprisingly, there is no simsub of SmackDown! in Canada, unlike other shows (Canadian regulations have it that in cases where both a Canadian and American channel have the same episode of the same show on at the same time, the Canadian feed is shown on both channels, which is the case for SmackDown! for two of the three CW affiliates available in Canada - the one on WPIX is on at the same time as the early airing on The Score and the one on KTLA is on at the same time as the late airing - the third is WGN), due to the Score Ticker taking away portions of the screen.

kelvSYC 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Barnstar/Award?

I worked for a bit and came up with a barnstar award for the project. I wasn't going to upload it unless I was informed that it was a good idea, though. It's not the best, but it's decent, I think. I don't want to be uploading something that negatively impacted the project. Thanks! ---- GIGGAS2 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the guidelines that I just found. I'll follow them. Thanks. ---- GIGGAS2 04:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had the proposed barnstar up at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals for a decent amount of time. I don't know how many of you have taken a look at it, but give it a look. It might not look the best but who knows. It could work. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bump this yet again, but it seems that there hasn't been a large amount of opinion about the barnstar. One other one is about to be rejected just because of lack of support, and it has more support votes than ours does. I'm just asking everyone who sees this to go over to the link above and give an opinion for the bettering of the project. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationales in Professional wrestling match types

As we know, PWMT needs to be cleaned up, and I have User:kelvSYC/Professional wrestling match types a draft of what it can be cleaned up to. I've previously tried to establish new criteria that seems to be acceptable to all. But now, i also propose that we include a rationale as to why a match is a specialty and is worthy of inclusion - ie. a match type is not notable just because of its rules. Why is a blindfold match notable? After all, isn't it just a standard match, but with blindfolds? Isn't a "taped fist match" just one where the competitors tape their fists? By this new criteria, the latter would not be included (many wrestlers already tape their fists) and the former could only be included if some context is given (such is "levelling the playing field if one competitor was previously blinded"). My cleanup (still in progress) would cut the sections down to just a few:

• The leading paragraph is now more detailed - why are specialty matches specialty, and why wrestlers "obey the rules" at all, that kind of stuff (after all, a specialty match can have both competitors blatantly disregard the rules, making the point of having a specialty match moot).
• A treatise on standard matches, and common ways of making a specialty match out of a standard match. This includes triple-threat, eliminations, etc.
• True specialty matches - this is the area where if we have too much information we split it off to their own article, in theory. A lot of the crap we can consolidate down to maybe 10 or 12 specialty matches inside the article (either because it's too non-notable or it's been split into their own articles).

I think that PWMT, with these changes (which I am unwilling to commit to the real article until I solicit feedback - and finish my draft), may be to the point where we can give it GA or even FAC status. Your thoughts?

kelvSYC 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

International World Class Championship Wrestling

I'm not sure if this has been brought up previously, however I noticed International World Class Championship Wrestling was deleted recently apparently due to an uncontested prod tag. The article itself seemed to be fairly lengthy and well written, however I'm curious if there are any notability guidelines established for independent promotions? If I remember correctly, IWCCW was a long established promotion in the New England area and much of its roster consisted of present day ECW alumni (many of whom immediatly signed with following the IWCCW's close). I am surprised that there was little discussion on it either for or against its deletion. MadMax 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indy promotions have to pass the basic guidelines at WP:N and WP:CORP. You can request a deletion review at WP:DRV, maybe recommend that it go to an AFD (so that people can discuss whether it should stay or go. TJ Spyke 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only mention it in passing as I didn't notice it on the to do list. I'm certainly far from an authority, however I was curious weither the project it was unaware of its nomination or that the general consensus was it was ultamatly non-notable. I probably would say, having lived in New England, that Chaotic Wrestling was a major independent Boston-based promotion (and, depending on who you talk to, was supposedly one of the factors which kept ECW out of New England until the late 1990s). However, in the face of notability guidelines regarding secondary sources, it admittedly falls short. MadMax 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I didn't know about it and no one mentioned the PROD here. TJ Spyke 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested then I have a copy of the article on IWCCW (as well as ICW and CCW that are also gone now) that I took right when I joined Wikipedia, I was planning on expanding these plus a few others but they're deleted now. If anyone is interested in trying to expand the articles and establish notoriety I'd be happy to give you the text - otherwise they'll remain my pet project. MPJ-DK 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that it was promoted by former NWA wrestler Angelo Savoldi and was the main stomping grounds for many of ECW's veterans as well as many of the top stars on the East Coast, it seems that it would at least be worth discussion at Afd. Arguably under those same guidelines, Stampede Wrestling or World Class Championship Wrestling could face deletion as well. I'd certainly be willing to help on any deleted articles to see if they have a chance can be recreated. MadMax 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Angelo Savoldi must be notable, he doesn't even have his own article LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoax (talk • contribs)

• Actually Angelo Savoldi was a prominent wrestler during the 1950s and 60s who, as well as being former 3-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion, is an inductee of the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame. MadMax 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

With IWCCW and a few other federations closing down before the net got big there aren't that many net related sources to find, esperially not sources that wouldn't be considered "fan sites" - official sites of some of the wrestlers involved maybe, perhaps archives of local papers might have some sources but beyond that it's hard to find sources. MPJ-DK 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

btw - if you're interested in helping improve the page and add sources to it I got a version up on my user pages that I'm going to work on user:MPJ-DK/IWCCW

If anyone is interested then MadMax and myself have put a lot of work into the IWCCW article and it's been brought back and expanded so that it'll hopefully stick around now. MPJ-DK 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of unreferenced stuff here.

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoax (talk • contribs)

I've been tempted to go for an AFD on that page for a few weeks but they (somehow) managed to keep the page from deletion in January so maybe it's too soon Suriel1981 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I like wrestling move pages, but I do agree maybe it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the page was a part of that one gigantic AfD. If this page were nominated on its own, then I'm sure that it would succeed. That big AfD was just an overall terrible idea, but this page is pretty unnecessary, and it is unsourced like you said. If you want to AfD it, then go ahead. -- The Hybrid 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll prepare a case and see that it's done within the next hour Suriel1981 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers (2nd nomination) Suriel1981 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More infobox nonsense

This has been brought up before, and now has to be brought up again for some reason.

Does anyone, other than TJ Spyke, have a problem with adding the birth date and age, height, and weight templates to biography infoboxes to keep things standard (it works metric or imperial) or to linking cities and states as separate entities in infoboxes to save people from having to go through a city article to get to a state, should they care?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Check template:Infobox Wrestler for how they are supposed to be formatted (in regards to height and weight). Even at WP:BIO they said to just have one link for city, state (not two). I am not convinced it would help anyone anyways to have two links rather than one. TJ Spyke 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The wrestler infobox was set up in April of 2006, before any of the templates were made. There's no reason it can't now be changed and improved.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

it's probably archived now but the BIO people certainly gave a response that a single city,state link was okay with them. I actually think that birth date/age thing could be quite useful for the simple reason that fanboys sure love to customise the ages of their favourite grapplers and anything that stops unhelpful edits is okay with me. Suriel1981 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When is the age ever really mentioned though? All the template does is make (age --) show up after the DOB. TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking of occasions when editors have inserted the age of their own volition and got it completely wrong, it could stop that. That would be my only reason for having it though. Encyclopaedias don't tend to have current ages of subjects so there isn't really a stylistic necessity for us to have it ourselves. Suriel1981 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias don't have such an ability, this one does. It hurts nothing, and makes something available all the more easier. I really don't get the resistance. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The only people I can see it happening are those who dropped out of school when they were 6, everyone else can figure out how old someone is just by looking at their birthdate. So it doesn't really help anything. Even electronic enclycopedias don't inlcude this info. If I said my birtday was September 2, 1986, you could very quicky figure out I am 20. Same thing with others. TJ Spyke 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally get it, you don't like it, aside from that what's your objection?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, while the subject is up for discussion, if it might be practical to official websites for {{Infobox Wrestler}} and {{pwcompanybox}} (especially as they are used on {{company}} such as the WWE). Also, I notice that a lot of trivial information such as nicknames, entrence music, finishing moves, etc. tend to take a significant amount of space on wrestlers articles. Perhaps incorporating these into {{Infobox Wrestler}} might be an option as well ? MadMax 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd be impractical to put those in infoboxes for most people because they do take up so much space. Putting another nine lines for former finisher and entrance music would make infoboxes huge.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I only mention it as it seems a topic which might potentially be brought up as uncyclopedic sooner or later. I hadn't taken into consideration that wrestlers would have as many as nine consistently used finishing moves, as opposed to Bret Hart's Sharpshooter or Ric Flair's Figure Four Leglock, although I certainly see your point (imagine how much room Hart's "five moves of doom" would take). MadMax 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem would be that some people like to have huge lists of signature moves, adding generic holds and even stuff a worker doesn't do but is in his moveset on one of the video games. The infoboxes would end up being gigantic and completely negate the actual purpose of the infobox. Suriel1981 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Suriel1981 here...adding much more would defeat the purpose. --JohnDoe0007 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

article movelists

Just from the point I made above I was wondering if it is worth doing a blitz or establishing a firm guideline as to what signature moves should be retained on an article? I personally grit my teeth when I see some of the crap that's been added to some articles (generally by anon users of course). One issue is that if one removes NN/non-signature moves then generally some bright spark disagrees and reverts it or just replaces it with more crap, hence me pondering the possibility of a formal guideline/consensus. Suriel1981 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

TFA

I have suggested that 2 articles under the WPPW banner should be on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here and here. Davnel03 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Eddie article lacks sources. It won't make the cut unless people cite it between now and then.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, an article has to be a Featured Article before it can be a Today's Featured Article. Eddie Guerrero isn't a featured article (feel free to nominate it for FA if you think it will pass WP:FAC. TJ Spyke 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only article we can nominate at the moment (and is currently nominated) is the Montreal screwjob article. -- Oakster  Talk  21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed you've nominated that again. I'll clean this all up. -- Oakster  Talk  21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for independent wrestler/promotions

As a lot of independent promotions, both defunct and active, seem to becoming deleted much more frequently. It might be worth thinking about establishing some guidelines in regards to what constitutes a "notable" independent wrestling promotion (as well as independent wrestlers). In my opinion, backyard feds and short lived local promotions certainly shouldn't considered notable. However, given the monopoly the WWE holds on North America, should independent organizations be excluded from major promotions such as the WWE, TNA, etc. ? Here are just a few suggestions and general questions to take in consideration:

• How long a promotion has been running ?

Certainly any organization older then 5+, I would think should be considered. Likewise, defunct promotions which last between a few months to one or two years would not be considered notable.

• How notable are its competitors ?

Recognized independent wrestlers such as Reckless Youth, Mike Quackenbush, Corporal Punishment, etc. who regularly compete in other notable organizations as opposed to wrestlers who are relatively new and whose careers are limited to a particularly minor and non-notable promotion such as many of the World Wrestling Coalition's roster. Also should former wrestlers from major promotions such as the WWF or WCW be taken into consideration as far as notability ? There are quite a few wrestlers which have won titles in independent promotions and mentioned in their respective articles. Should these promotions also be considered notable and, if not, should these titles be removed ?

• In regards to references, I'm assuming newspaper coverage of wresting promotions to be rare apart from press releases, established magazines such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated, books by wrestling historians such as Gary Will and websites such as the Great Hisa's Puroesu Dojo. Personaly I am reluctant to use Obsessed With Wrestling, WIA and others as I've often run into errors and other inconsistancies over the years.

Again I'm only making general observations as coverage of independent wrestling seems to be inconsistent on Wikipedia. There are numerous title histories, rosters and event articles to and from non-existent independent promotions and a growing number of red links to notable wrestlers. It would certainly help matters to have some sort of set and established guidelines regarding this issue. What's notable to certain wrestling fans may seem completely trivial to others. MadMax 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The time a company has been in business has no direct effect on notability at all. Ring of Honor just recently became more than five years old, but it has been notable far longer than a month. Then again there must have been companies thaat have been around for ten years but still haven't accomplished notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. XPW for example was around for about 4 years, yet was at one time the number 2 company in the USA (on audience attendance). What it probably comes down to is proof of notability through references. An article on a smaller promotion could be created and if it had enough independent references it would probably survive an AFD even if not many people had heard of it. Suriel1981 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's true enough, however those particular promotions had a bit more financial backing then the average independent promotion and without the benifit of the internet. How much coverage did ECW have, nevermind the USWA, SMW, WCCW or any of the old regional territories, prior to 1996 ? I'm refering to promotions which are recognized if only because they've been around so long. I'm certainly not suggesting a promotion be automatically considered notable simply because its been around a long time. I'm only suggesting if a promotion has been around for an unusally long amount of time if could warrent futrher investigation if not taken into consideration. MadMax 03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When Should Kayfabe Be Brought In To Articles?

Looking at several articles under the Professional Wrestling banner, every word seems mainly under kayfabe, and nothing much real-life. It seems like these days if it's not announced on WWE.com, it's a lie. I can understand, if some idiot attempts to put, say for instance SmackDown spoilers on a wrestlers page, however what I can't understand is why we can't mention some stuff that happens behind the scenes. A few examples of what I'm talking about:

Taken from WrestleMania XX article

• Goldberg defeated Brock Lesnar (w/Steve Austin as special guest referee) (13:42)
  • Goldberg pinned Lesnar after a Spear and Jackhammer.
  • After the match, both men received Stone Cold Stunners from Austin.

Right, so in this little bit, we know Goldberg defeated Lesnar, and they both got Stunnered. Refering back to by earlier point, there should be a line saying that the crowd reaction was not good as they were both leaving WWE (even WWE.com acknolowedges it! [1] South-West section 3rd one down). Why isn't there a line.

The other two examples now: Rob Van Dam

• Right, so we know his contract is expiring, and he is unhappy with WWE (over going to TTTT late last year) and might join TNA. I don't know what you call it, but this is not a spoiler. His contract is expiring isn't spoiling anybody - fact of life, he might join TNA - it might happen again not a spoiler. How is it a spoiler - it's no lie.

Look, all I'm saying is that we should sometimes (not all the time) if necessary go out of kayfabe, if something has happened that should be mentioned.

My third example: Sabu One little part reads: At December to Dismember Sabu was originally to appear in the main event, an extreme elimination chamber match against The Big Show, Test, Rob Van Dam, CM Punk and Bobby Lashley, but was "taken out" and replaced by Hardcore Holly.

Right, now in kayfabe he was taken out, but back to real life he was taken out by WWE as he was in some kind of disagreement with them.

A little note for Paul Wight's page - there should be a note that he was physically unable to compete and he was struggling to compete in matches prior to December to Dismember.

I'm not saying we should step out of Kayfabe in every article, but we should if it is necessary, and I believe it is in these few examples. Leave a comment if you disagree with me. Davnel03 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd quite like getting rid of kayfabe altogether in articles. I'm sure there's a WP policy advising not to use kayfabe/equivalent at all, I could be wrong though. I do disagree with the RVD example though. If he was unhappy at WWE that would need to be cited. As for the future, any suggestion that he might join TNA violates WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Suriel1981 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Kayfabe all together? Huh?? That's like articles on say "Star Wars" movies stripping away all references to the actual story and just focusing on the nuts and bolts of the production. An article on the history of a wrestler has to include the "kayfabe" aspects of the storylines etc as well as any relevant "Non-kayfabe" information that is needed, with proper sources about information such as the claims that RVD is unhappy etc. MPJ-DK 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars is a film, it's easy to know what is real and what is within the context of the storyline. Not many wrestling biogs satisfactorily differenciate between real-life and kayfabe. Suriel1981 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of kayfabe is probably the right choice. I believe kayfabe falls under the writing about fiction guideline, which states that fictional events should be discussed in an "out-of-universe" perspective. That doesn't mean we can't discuss storylines, or how things were supposed to be perceived by the crowd, it just means that we can't pretend that stuff is "true". I think there are a lot of wrestling articles and bios that could use a clarifying clean-up. - Geoffg 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I weren't thinking of getting rid of kayfabe, it's just that if I put in information that's considered "real" (in RVD's example), it will more than likely get removed - we need a bit of clarification on when and when not to use it. Davnel03 16:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only policy on kayfabe that we need is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). We just need to actually follow it because in general wrestling articles are very bad in that respect. — Gwalla | Talk 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of the more "mainstream wrestler" bios are horrific and make me despair of ever seeing another wrestling FA. I'll draw people's attention to the GA candidate Katsuhiko Nakajima as an example of a meticulous article, fully sourced, no cruft, no kayfabe whatsoever. Suriel1981 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we start putting non-kayfabe stuff into articles, or would we need some sort of consensus incase some users have a problem with us doing that? Oh, I've just found an example of a piece that needs to be edited into somebody's article [2]... Davnel03 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A consensus would be good. I was planning to de-cruft/de-kayfabe Carly Colón but speedily realised that I'd need to butcher the article to do so and run the risk of an edit war Suriel1981 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To the original poster, the problem with your examples are that they are all rumors. Goldberg/Lesnar leaving WWE are mentioned in their articles, but it has nothing to do with WM XX. Van Dam being unhappy and Sabu being in troubled are also based on rumors and not fact. I suppose if they come from a reliable site (i.e. Wrestling Observer) and you make it clear it's just a rumor, that might be acceptable (and keep out OR like RVD might be going to TNA). TJ Spyke 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to any attempt at removing kayfabe: the key reason being that kayfabe almost single-handedly define the sports entertainment business, or the career of a sports entertainer. You can't really compare a theatrical work with professional wrestling: the former has the character divorced from the person portraying it - not so in professional wrestling. While one can get sources about the off-camera shenanigans of your favorite movie entertainers (with many reputable sources therein), professional wrestling is still very closed-world (Does anyone know who's next in line to work in the WWE title program? Not only do we not know, we don't know who that person will be working with!). The non-kayfabe information is not very reputable or very verifiable: for example, we knew that Goldberg would leave WWE after WMXX, but he only alleges backstage politics as the primary reason. Does the backstage politics he referred to exist (ie. does Triple H really hold the booking power everyone except him says he does?)? We will never know for sure until the Entertainment has some kind of behind-the-scenes expose, which may never happen.

The key part is all about WP:V in this regard - kayfabe is easy to verify, the backstage politics is not. WP:WAF doesn't really apply as much as we want it to apply - to talk about the out-of-universe, you need to delve into sources that are nowhere as reliable or verifiable (as in: Wrestling Observer Newsletter may be the best known apter-like mag, and is generally a good source for the indies, but is what they report about WWE independently verifiable? By WWE sources? Where WWE can muzzle their talent about what to talk about?). I also have to note that the media has freely mixed kayfabe with the real-world in interviews with professional wrestlers (I recall a WWE Experience interview with Mickie James during her psycho-personality era about how fun it is to portray a psycho - or a heel in general, while in the same interview mention Carlito and his mother being Canadian). Point is, if you were to remove all traces of kayfabe from the typical professional wrestler's article, you might as well remove the article outright. kelvSYC 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains that kayfabe isn't real-life which is what's required in wrestler bios unless one was to, for example, write an article on Paul Michael Levesque and a seperate one on the storyline exploits of Hunter Hearst Helmsley. As was pointed out earlier, many wrestler bios are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). As several (non-WP:PW) editors pointed out in the Hulk Hogan FA debate, that seriously damages the credibility of our work and our chances of getting articles to mainstream WP acceptance. Suriel1981 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But kayfabe is not fiction, and professional wrestling is not fiction. Professional wrestlers are not actors: they are not completely divorced from their characters or gimmicks as easily as actors. The career of a professional wrestler is defined by by the characters they portray. We cannot simply relate work-shoot to fiction-nonfiction, and there have been instances to where this blur is divided (after all, the Montreal screwjob, something clearly nonfictional happened, yet people are still divided over whether it was a work or a shoot). People do not refer to Paul Levesque by this name, as he has adopted Triple H as his own. This is different from an actor taking the name of a character, this is virtually the same as legally changing your name as far as the industry is concerned. A professional wrestler's career is largely defined by the exploits of their characters. I contend that WP:WAF doesn't really apply as much as we want to, and that WP:IAR can be judiciously applied here. kelvSYC 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Kayfabe is clearly fiction. It just happens to be fiction that frequently draws on real events. Likewise, a wrestler's character is not the same as the wrestler portraying that character, although the character frequently contains elements of the real wrestler (understandable, since much of what they do and say is improvised). The distinction is obscured by the fact that many wrestlers use their own names for their in-ring personas. But really, that's not all that different from the distinction between Stephen Colbert the fictional right-wing pundit and Stephen Colbert the comedian who plays a right-wing pundit on TV.

Also, any time you have to use WP:IAR to defend a general policy rather than an individual exception to a policy, something is wrong. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm using WP:IAR on an exception: pro wrestling is fiction-like in the sense that kayfabe has qualities associated with fiction, but not fiction itself. Thus kayfabe should be an exception to fiction. That's not general policy from this standpoint, and WP:WAF should not apply. kelvSYC 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is, when deviating from kayfabe, there is a lot of hersey and he said/she said that goes when trying to describe real life situations. Personally speaking, I try to keep a professional wrestling related article as neutral as possible (ex. "Bret Hart defeated Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania" rather then "Michaels agreed to job to Hart"). I do think it's warrented however when it is the basis of a major event such as a law suit or witnessed at an event such as the Montreal screwjob. MadMax 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your examples of non-kayfabe information are actually verifiable, as long as proper attribution is provided. For example, we can't say for certain that Goldberg left the WWE due to backstage politics, but we can say that he has said that he left due to backstage politics. Likewise, we shouldn't say that something is necessarily true just because the Wrestling Observer printed it, but we can say that the Wrestling Observer printed it. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is of course, as you've pointed out, is its a lot easier to verify the "Montreal screwjob" as opposed to a popular rumor (ex. a similar "screwjob" involving McMahon and Wendi Richter [3]. I'm not saying it should be excluded, only that editors should be far more careful on referencing popular rumor, "shoot" interviews, etc. MadMax 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless it can be verified by a realiable source (not just a site like Wrestling Observer or PWTorch), then any non-kayfabe info has to be sourced (like every other articl on WP). I give people a chance to find a source first with a {fact} tag, and only remove the statement if no one provides a source after a few weeks. TJ Spyke 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize the discussion has kind of shifted, so I'll address the original question first. I never got the impression that we couldn't add information that happens behind the scenes. The only problem this creates, as TJ Spyke and kelvSYC point out, is that most of that type of information is based in rumor and speculation...or at the very least, unverifiable. If it can be verified, such as information regarding Owen Hart's death or Brock Lesnar leaving WWE, then it should be included. But there is SO much speculation in the world of pro wrestling that if we were to start mentioning all rumors (and even stating them as such) it would just invite poor edits and additions as everyone who heard something would automatically add it and just say it's a rumor...obviously not the purpose here.

(I feel) it is relevant when the rumor had some sort of significant impact, such as when it was rumored Torrie Wilson was released after the return from Australia...It was reported in so many places that WWE had to release a statement claiming its falsehood and Torrie made her own comments stating how she thought she had been fired and no one bothered to tell her. I actually made this edit (with references) in her article, but it was reverted, seemingly maliciously...but that's another issue.

As for the rest of the discussion, I have no idea what anyone means by the removing of kayfabe completely. That is just beyond me. How is that possible? I read through the article Suriel1981 described as "a meticulous article, fully sourced, no cruft, no kayfabe whatsoever" (Katsuhiko Nakajima). Not only was it incredibly boring, but it was filled with kayfabe if you ask me. Where do you draw the line? Almost the entirety of his article is just listing how he teamed with this person and defeated those people, participated in this match, won that championship...Are matches and championships not considered kayfabe? Or did I just miss something and every one of the matches he competed in and promotions he wrestled for were actually real wrestling competetions in which he actually went into the match not knowing who was going to win and physically overpowered the other guy in the ring? If not, then I don't see how (with the removal of kayfabe) the guy would even have an article.

While I wouldn't go as far as kelvSYC in saying "professional wrestlers are not actors," I understand what he's saying. Pro wrestling is a form of entertainment unto itself, not exactly comparable to any other, in that it is an ongoing play, and (Shakespeare was wrong): the players don't really have their exits...even today, when it is widely accepted by the public and acknowledged by the industry itself that it is strictly entertainment and not an actual series of contests, it is still carried out as so.

The wrestlers are almost always in-character and many of their actions outside of the ring are part of the show. Therefore it is much more difficult to describe anything about them or their lives without describing something that was part of a work of fiction. In addition to this, as previously stated, the world of pro wrestling is still a closed door exclusive club, and it is very difficult to verify real-world reasons for storyline changes and wrestler actions. So if one wrestler were to leave one promotion and go to another, can we not say that "Wrestler A lost the championship and went to work for promotion B" simply because we can't verify that "person portraying wrestler A agreed to job and turn over a meaningless fake 'championship' because promotion B offered him a more lucrative contract and he wished to go fake wrestle for them instead?"

While I agree "Bret Hart defeated Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania," as MadMax stated, is the proper way to address the incident in an article, I would still consider it a mention of kayfabe. And there is nothing wrong with that. While it is stated as fact, and it is obvious one man didn't actually overpower the other, in the case of articles related to pro wrestling there is no better way to state such things. How else does one describe such events of a fictional world without having to say "Mark Hamill, the actor portraying the character of Luke Skywalker then pretended to fly a starship (which was actually a combination of camera techniques and production props in addition to post-production work including special effects and editing that made it look as though he was flying through space) to the fabled Dagobah system, where he made his way through a set that was designed to look like a swamp and met up with an animatronic device that filled in for a character (of a fictional species) named Yoda." Such language is just asinine and completely unecessary to fulfill WP:WAF requirements.

I have read many wrestling related articles that mention events relevant to the character and clarify them as part of the act: from Torrie Wilson: "Al then (kayfabe) died from a heart attack after having rigorous sex numerous times..." or from Hulk Hogan: "After Hogan won at WrestleMania XIX McMahon was frustrated with him (kayfabe) and 'wanted Hulkamania to die. '" While they may be worded a bit more strongly, there is nothing encyclopædically wrong with those statements, even by WP:WAF standards. Those types of storyline events are relevant in describing significant happenings in the subject's career, and therefore their lives; and as we already established in the case of pro wrestlers, their career is very much a part of their real life despite the fact that their career consists of portraying fictional events.

Removing kayfabe from articles would be the act of removing nearly every pro wrestling related article, or at least the majority of its content. --JohnDoe0007 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll address Katsuhiko Nakajima first. It is made clear he is a professional wrestler. Details of the shoot fight he had are followed by His true pro wrestling debut came... to make clear where the sport ends and the work begins. The casual reader is thus able to understand that subsequent career/match results are within the pro-wrestling world.

Where I really have a problem is the lack of distinction between fiction and reality. Whichever way you look at it, pro-wrestling is not a legitimate sport and the storylines are acting. I think we are all able to distinguish between fact and kayfabe in articles but Wikipedia isn't a wrestling fansite, our articles need to be comprehensible to someone with no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling.

What I have a problem with (when I refer to kayfabe) is not match results but presenting storylines as real with no distinction between fact and fiction - no way for the average person to know which bits are real! That is unencyclopaedic and breaches WP guidelines. It certainly is not something I would expect when I pick up Encyclopaedia Britannica.

JohnDoe0007 might find the Nakajima article boring but how many other WP:PW articles have appeared on the Wikipedia front page...?? Suriel1981 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have it, but I think we need some guidlines for sources:

For instance, a point for, say for instance, Joey Mercury's article: After missing a few weeks, Mercury returned wearing a protective face mask and his injury was worked into the angle, with both he and Nitro attempting to injure the Hardys in various ways for revenge. After returning later in the month Mercury continued to wrestle, both as a singles competitor on SmackDown! and with Nitro on RAW until he was released on March 26.

A note after should be made about why he was released, many websites have stated the Wellness policy as a reason: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Something that possibly contributed to his release was [8], which mentions several superstars of possibly taking steroids.

I'm going to try and do an outline for a policy we could use in regard to sources in articles:

• 1 Source
  • If it doesn't go in-depth it should be deleted unless another source is provided
  • If it goes into siginficant detail, it could be OK, but a second source might still be needed

• 2 Sources
  • Good - the absolute minimum
  • If the 2 sources don't tell the same story for instance:
    • If source A says Mercury was released because of the policy, but source B says he was released because of family trouble, get a third source to try and back up one source. Delete the souce that lies, unless new information comes to light.

• 3 Sources
  • Any point should have three sources unless any new info comes to light.

I've just thought this up from the top of my head - any opinions? Davnel03 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Mercury thing there have been no verifiable and credible sources as to why he was released. Per wp:bio it could be considered libelous to claim he has a drug problem and that's why he was released. What you posted are considered rumor sites as for their credibility and as recently as last week were posting that he was fired because he "attacked Stephanie McMahon" because he was left off the WM card.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the sourcing, yeah, I think everyone is in agreement you need sourcing for real-world events...and as we already established those are hard to come by, so yeah we should decide on some type of protocol for that. However I think the bigger issue here is the suggestion of kayfabe being removed from the articles completely.

I understand that articles need to be written for non-"wrestling fans," but to remove the majority of content from the majority of pro-wrestling related articles because we don't think the average person can distiguish what is part of a fictional storyline is insulting. I think many of the articles do just fine in describing the storylines as storylines and not real life events... Such as the articles I quoted mentioning kayfabe as the reasoning behind actions. The Rena Mero article doesn't even do this (it mentions "storylines" and the like instead) and it has good article status.

If all it takes is "His true pro wrestling debut came... to make clear where the sport ends and the work begins" as you say, I think most of the articles more than do this. If you ask me, I would have to say that just that simple sentence is not enough for the type of person you're talking about to understand that that is to be translated as "now began his fake-wrestling career." Is it not much more clear to make a simple statement and label it as kayfabe with an internal link, so that someone who is interested could actually do the research himself and figure out what I would argue anyone over the age of nine knows?

The problem is, like it or not the matches and their outcomes are part of the storylines. And as I illustrated with the Star Wars example, it is insulting to any reader to have to remind them every two sentences that what they are reading about is a contrived event. What Suriel1981 states:

What I have a problem with (when I refer to kayfabe) is not match results but presenting storylines as real with no distinction between fact and fiction - no way for the average person to know which bits are real!

does not make sense to me. Part of the inherent definition of "storyline" is that none of it is real. And the parts that are real and that are worked into the storylines are usually mentioned as such in the articles, such as the situation with Matt Hardy, Amy Dumas and Edge. Anytime I've read about a relationship it has either been pre or proceeded by the words "on-screen" or "real-life" or something of the sort. This is adequate for the purpose of distiguishing fact and fiction for anyone. And on top of that, there is also usually an internal link to shoot and work and the like, at least once in the article. This is more than enough.

Actually, going back to your quote of "His true pro wrestling debut came..." being enough to satisfy that requirement, that would mean that a person with "no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling" as you say, who can't distinguish anything described in the articles as fact or fiction without being so told, would have to know and understand that by "pro wrestling" you really mean "wrestling with contrived storylines, characters, events and match outcomes." I think most people would agree that is quite a stretch.

Even if that is a stretch, (and especially, if it's not) just mentioning the person is a professional wrestler in their opening description (with an internal link to the topic of pro wrestling and its encyclopædic definition) should suffice to let this "person with no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling" know that what they are reading about is likely part of a storyline unless otherwise stated. Reading the article for Professional wrestling one should no doubt be able to read any other pro wrestling related article and be able to understand that it is not at all suggesting that Hulk Hogan legitimately overpowered the Iron Sheik or that Al Wilson really died while having sex with Dawn Marie.

Again, yes, some articles need clean up and stronger wording, but for the most part, there is really no problem with they way they present storyline events. And I again content that removing kayfabe would mean taking most pro wrestling biographical articles down to: "_____is a professional wrestler who worked for _____ promotion between the years of ____ and ___. That is all that is relevant because the rest is fiction."

--JohnDoe0007 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the inherent definition of "storyline" is that none of it is real. You think? Okay, clearly I didn't make it obvious enough that I dislike articles mispresenting storylines as actual facts. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) has been brought up a few times already, guess I may as well do it again. Suriel1981 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why is anyone claiming that WP:WAP means that you can't write about fiction? People need to actually read the guideline before dismissing it. — Gwalla | Talk 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAP? I'm not sure anyone's saying you can't write about fiction, it's mostly about how much is used and whether there's a clear divide between fact and fiction in the article. Suriel1981 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Suriel1981, the reason I made that statement is because you said "presenting storylines...no way for the average person to know which bits are real!"...I understand now you were talking about which bits of the article are real. The way it is worded it leads a reader to believe you're saying there's no way for the average person to know which bits of the storylines are real, which is why I said it doesn't make sense.

But are you kidding me? How is this still an issue? Did I not make the point that there is a clear divide for the most part in most articles? If not, please elaborate. Or at least articulate any problems you have with the way the articles do it, such as the examples I provided. Or provide examples of how the articles do lead people to believe kayfabe events are real. Just quoting my one line and mocking it doesn't really do much for the discussion.

This is still a different discussion, besides. Am I to assume from the lack of any related comment or response that we are in agreement that removal of all kayfabe from all articles is a bad idea? This was essentially the main topic of both of my responses. --JohnDoe0007 06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, having started the discussion in the first place, I think kayfabe should stay in articles, but we should add some stuff that's real, e.g. the three things I mentioned at the beginning (WMXX, RVD etc.). Davnel03 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ we got sidetracked a bit. I agree, noting that the RVD example would need watertight references. Suriel1981 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to set up a discussion/consensus (seeing there might be a divided opinion)

Davnel03 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - In favour of bringing non-kayfabe issues into articles

• Aye Suriel1981 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes with high requirements for sources and verifiability. MPJ-DK 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I don't see how you can have an encyclopædic article about anything professional wrestling-related without incorporating both (kayfabe and non-kayfabe). But yes, non-kayfabe would need source citation. --JohnDoe0007 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - We need to be able to talk about how Mark Calaway, for example, is from Texas, and not just the "fact" that the Undertaker is from Death Valley (provided both of those things are attributable, of course). - Geoffg 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Although, while this survey covers the original question, it doesn't seem to incorporate the opinions of those who say the opposite, that kayfabe shouldn't be in articles at all...are we assuming everyone agrees kayfabe should be there in the first place? --JohnDoe0007 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the results of the cards should be revealed... that's kayfabe, isn't that? ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although a win in a major show can have both kayfabe and non-kayfabe significance. - Geoffg 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't initally thinking of removing kayfabe, I just thought, maybe, we should insert some, not all non-kayfabe things. Davnel03 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - Several opinions and do not know which one to support

• Neutral but in favor of not putting in backstage "news" because most of the "news" is actually rumors. It's a crap-shoot whether or not they come true. Some non-kayfabe stuff should probably be included, but not those that cannot be verified. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree that real reliable non-kayfabe stuff should be added. I do not think that we should add everything that Wrestling Observer and other dirt sheets/rumor sites say though because no one can confirm whether they are true or not. TJ Spyke 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I've voted for support I also agree whole-heartedly with Skyke's comment above. Gary Albright's article was admin-wiped yesterday for lack of sources, with reference given to this email by Jimbo Wales [9]. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per TJ Spyke-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Mu - I don't think this is even an issue (is anybody seriously suggesting that we never mention kayfabe? That'd reduce most wrestling articles to stubs at best, and obliterate articles like suplex). The real issue is how we refer to kayfabe vs. non-kayfabe events, and their relative priority. — Gwalla | Talk 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU...That's what I've been trying to say...but the point is no one has responded...this whole survey is asking whether non-kayfabe should be in articles...which (while it was the original question) I'd have to say is almost as absurd as the opposite. --JohnDoe0007 09:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comments

• This poll is so loaded - of course the kayfabe and the non-kayfabe have to mix and mix well. That's the point of a good article. But in an industry where the non-kayfabe is non-verifiable (for the most part), the truth is writing an article that has a balance of both will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. And no, Pro Wrestling Torch and Wrestling Observer Newsletter is not considered to be verifiable sources when it comes to WWE. Or perhaps even TNA or ROH. kelvSYC 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY. Someone has actually acknowledged my point. --JohnDoe0007 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you consider a proper source. Do you really think WWE would acknoledge things like this? Obviously not. They wouldn't reveal thing like this on their official website, but how in the living hell would we ever have a wrestler FA-Class status without some kind of non-kayfabe stuff. Some things on the websites mentioned, yes, can be seen as bullshit, but if you can get 4 or 5 sources, it must be, in one sense true. Something, [10] like this could be considered wrong (unless any of you people heard HBK say it...). By the way, books are always a good source, for non-kayfabe stuff. Eric Bischoff's book does go out of kayfabe (I have it; I should know), and I know Mick Foley reveals behind the scenes stuff in his book. That's good enough to be true, surely? If that can't get inserted into an article, what the living hell can? Davnel03 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And who published Bischoff's and Foley's books? That's right, World Wrestling Entertainment. So, yes, WWE would certainly acknowledge things like this - but only long after said event has happened (even though it is from a subjective point of view). And saying that an article on a wrestler can never be FA-class without non-kayfabe is absurd - there are no current FA-class wrestling articles that has the non-kayfabe, that doesn't mean anything. Last time I checked, the non-kayfabe is not a necessary condition for an article to be an FA-class article. In fact, I'd argue that the non-kayfabe weakens the article's quality standing as WP:V is a much harder concern. kelvSYC 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously deleted articles

here is a short list of previously deleted articles which have been deleted in the last few months. I should note, with the exception of one, all of these articles were deleted due to an expired/uncontested prod tag.

• Bill Tabb (Black Assassin), October 2006
• Gladiator Championship Wrestling, December 2006
• X-Girls, December 2006
• Vicious & Delicious, December 2006
• Slaughterhouse (professional wrestling), December 2006
• Old Age Outlaws, December 2006/March 2007

The articles WCW Jesse "The Body" Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament and WCW King of Cable Tournament were listed as non-notable wrestling events with two votes for delete (see afd discussion). MadMax 07:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, The Old Age Outlaws deserve and article, and maybe Vicious & Delicious. The others I am not so sure (although I don't see why a arm wrestling tournament deserves a article (although I actually do remember watching it when I was younger). TJ Spyke 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd have to say that most of them really aren't that notable IMO MPJ-DK 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WCW King of Cable Tournament was an early (and long running) televised supercard (predating Clash of Champions) for World Championship Wrestling and also marked one of the earliest victories of Sting over Big Van Vader. It seems to be just as notable as the original King of the Ring or WWF Kuwaiti Cup Tournaments. Also, I would think an event connected with the present governor of Minnesota has some notability (as well as a short lived push for Maxx Payne).

I'm suprised Bill Tabb was deleted however as he was one of the top heels in the Florida Championship Wrestling under Oliver Humperdink during its later years. I believe he also wrestled for the National Wrestling Alliance, Jim Crockett Promotions and the American Wrestling Association during the 1980s as well. MadMax 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can actually remember the Jesse Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament, geez that's scary. Despite being mildy amusing it was total WrestleCrap and really NN. The Slaughterhouse is the other one I remember (assuming it's the Kevin Sullivan 89/90 version) which did feature Sullivan, Foley and Bigelow (I think) but they didn't achieve much in WCW and not really worth an individual article Suriel1981 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

King of Cable did NOT pre-date the clashes, the first clash was in 88 before there even was a WCW. It was a one time tournament to build Sting into a contender for Vader's title that's it. the King of the Ring tournament only became notable when it was repeated annually. MPJ-DK 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, a careless mistake on my part (I'd confused the dates with Clash of Champions XXIII while looking up a record of Vader and Sting's first non-Wargames meetings). However, the tournament wasn't a one night event but which ran from November-December of 1992 concluding at the 1992 Starcade. Additionally, as you've pointed out, was used as a build up for Sting's eventual title run. Also, if I remember correctly, it was their fourth major meeting with Vader having two out three victories (if you include the WarGames) over Sting. I had also meant the King of the Ring tournament of the mid 1980s (ex. Harley Race, Haku, Jim Duggan, etc.) which itself had a lasting effect on the promotion. MadMax 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of the articles mentioned, only King of Cable could possibly be re-made. RobJ1981 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

King of Cable was a 'flash-in-the-pan' event because WCW weren't capable of building long-term programs. I'd completely forgotten the name of the tournament and don't think I've heard it mentioned in years. I'd vote to delete that in an AFD and I can't see that any of the others are worthy of entire articles either. Suriel1981 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think this is a mirror of the original KoC tourny article. Checkiddout! [11] Suriel1981 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think that short lived tag teams such as the Old Age Outlaws would be better served being merged to single wreslers careers written in the point of view of that particular wrestler. If there were one article I would suggest to recreate, it would be Bill Tabb. MadMax 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nikita Allanov

Nikita Allanov has recently been proposed for deletion. Althugh the article is barely a stub, I think the article can be saved with some effort. MadMax 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've since establed his nobility, specifically his PWI 500 rankings as well as his matches with Dan Severn, however the article has been nominated for deletion. MadMax 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Those don't make him notable enough, sorry. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

J.R.

I can seem to find any reference for J.R.(professional wrestler) online or otherwise. Someone might want to see if this should be nominated for deletion. MadMax 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww man, this article is by the same dude that created Konan Big and keeps uploading copyrighted pictures to Wikimedia Commons... Suriel1981 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have prodded the article (so it should be deleted in 5 days if no one removes the PROD). TJ Spyke 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already had to warn the creator for removing the AFD template from Konan Big twice, I reckon this article's gonna go the distance too... Suriel1981 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather from the article, his ringname is Jesus Herrera who belongs to a stable including El Hijo del Perro Aguayo and Hector Garza called Los Perros del Mal however neither article mentions his involvement. Apart from being mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia, I can't find any references to support any claim in the article. MadMax 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Media of Wrestling

Is anything going on with WP:MoW? I know RobJ1981 was thinking about putting it up for deletion a while back. It's pretty dead and pretty much all of articles in its scope can/have be/en adopted by ourselves. Suriel1981 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it needs to be up for deletion, as a matter of fact. It serves little to no purpose. As I've stated before: there is no other "Media of ..." projects (that I know of at least). Wrestling has video games, music and so on (but so does just about every other sports and entertainment company). RobJ1981 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What media there is tends to be WWE-released to pass notability so it isn't really as if WP:MoW is gathering together a wide variety of articles from different producers. As it is at the moment one might as well create a category for WWE media and have it overseen by ourselves (not that I'm suggesting that) as it would be far more effective. I'd support a deletion certainly. Suriel1981 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why that even existed. It's so niche that it apparently can't even sustain itself. — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we just redirect the page, have what templates and categories that need to be deleted deleted, and just officially take over that project. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Streaks and Factions

OK, so Cena has beaten both members of DX in the main event of WM. Is this notable? Cena is 4-0 at WM (not really that impressive), is this notable? Edge was 5-0 and that was mentioned a lot. Undertaker has defeated all four memebers of Evolution at WM (although they were not in Evolution when he did this), is this notable? Interesting maybe, but not notable. So that people don't keep adding these facts back in can we agree they are not notable and leave them out. I guess what I'm saying is as a project can we make is clear where we stand on trivial matter such as these. Darrenhusted 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cena being undefeated at Mania is notable, the rest are trivia at best MPJ-DK 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a trivia bit on WrestleMania 23 stating "This was the second year in a row that Cena main evented WrestleMania, and both times he won with the STFU. It is also the second year in a row that the World Heavyweight Championship has changed hands, but not the WWE Championship." which to me looks like rather uninteresting fancruft. Suriel1981 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See this stuff keeps turning up, on Undertaker's page, Cena's page and WM23 page. And I don't think any of it is notable. If you add Cena's not notable 4-0 then it would be neccessary for a listing of any wrestler with a small WM un-defeated streak. Darrenhusted 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're faced with an unfortunate situation of having many anonymous (and quite a few registered) editors going batshit crazy with WrestleMania frenzy and a burning desire to add anything they can think of (even if it's total bollocks). I don't know if it's best to leave them fight for scraps of recognition amongst themselves and then just delete all the crap, or to just keep reverting. Suriel1981 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Cena, he may have beaten Shawn Michaels last night but today his Daddy Dearest's article is up for deletion! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena Sr. Suriel1981 15:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil Apollo

I've been working on an article for Phil Apollo, however I've found two sources with contradict each other. His article at Imdb.com states his real name as Ray Liachelli Apollo born in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey while ObsessedWithWrestling.com claims his real name is Phil Panos "originally" for Massachusetts. Are there two people who have wrestled under Phil Apollo or is this simply an error (as OWW doesn't mention his wrestling as Doink the Clown) ? MadMax 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is tough, since both have been known to make mistakes (like how IMDb has several things wrong in Undertaker's entry). TJ Spyke 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is wrong. Their article is about Ray Apolo, one of the Doinks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil Apollo and Ray Apollo (Ray Liachelli Apollo) are not the same - Ray played Doink and is the guy on IMDB, Phil is a former ICW champion. MPJ-DK 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. MadMax 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Diva Breasts

Okay, so I've got a few people at Talk:Shelly Martinez that are adamant that details on breast enhancements (and even actual cup sizes now) are of importance and should be added to WWE diva articles. I myself disagree but I've run out counter-arguments. Is there any kind of policy/convention on this? Thankfully a potential discussion on whether nude photos could be used to source the statement "it can be confirmed she shaves her pussy" never left the starting blocks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They should only be mentioned if notable (like Stephanie McMahon and how it Jericho turned her breast implants into a storyline, even showing before and after pictures). TJ Spyke 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I got stumped when it was said that WWE divas are models and other wikipedia model sites often have those details which is I guess half-reasonable. Ahh I'll just tell them they're not officially models or something. Goddamn teen hormones. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, whether they are models or not doesn't matter. They have to show why their breast size is notable enough to warrant a mention. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the topic seems faily trivial. Should wrestlers physical enhancements or weight gain be included in articles for example Randy Savage and Scott Steiner suspicously increased muscle mass during the 1980s and 90s ? As TJ Spyke suggests, it would be much more practical for information to be included as part of a storyline or subject to some kind of relevent news source such as The Blue Meanie's weight loss. MadMax 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is trivial and unnecessary. I'll take a look at the talk page, but right off the bat I would offer the arguement that (like previously stated) it's not really relevant unless it was part of a storyline...and storylines are what the divas are involved in. Just because they take pictures for WWE material and do the occasional fitness or car magazine cover doesn't classify them as models by profession. Why do you think the WWE popularized the term "diva?" Because calling em "wrestlers" would be 1) too manly, 2) too generic (when was the last time you heard em call anyone a "wrestler"...it's "superstar" now), and 3) it's not exactly accurate for all of them, as they really don't do much wrestling...and to top it off, there's no term that really encapsulates what they are and the duties they perform...so, their job title is made-up. Otherwise, they would be called models. I guess the arguement here is that they aren't models.

Then I would say that unless a strong case can be made for the relevance of the info, their chest measurements aren't to be considered significant information. And even if they were, what would a viable source be? --JohnDoe0007 09:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A breast enlargement is a serious operation. If there is proof, it should certainly be noted. A life-changing procedure involving complex surgery is considerably more notable than 90% of the junk that ends up in wrestling biographies. McPhail 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Factually stating, with referenced sources, that someone had a surgical operation to increase the size of her breasts is one thing. Speculating as to the actual measurements of her anatomy just so 10 year old punks can fantasize using tape measures from Dad's tool box is another. --JohnDoe0007 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And we have to go by WP:LIVING "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Ellis

This might be a minor detail, however when compiling PWI 500 rankings for Robbie Ellis I noticed his website claimed he had been nominated during the years 1991, 1992, 1997 and 2005. However, according to the PWI 1999 Wrestling Almanac he isn't listed in 1997 and online sources state he was listed in 2004 instead of 2005. MadMax 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think PWI is more reliable for their own rankings than him. TJ Spyke 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the discrepency be cited in the website though ? MadMax 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's less controversial to just use the PWI Almanac. There's a bit of potential for conflict if it's mentioned in the article that exaggerates his own importance (also, many many people lie about themselves on their personal websites) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, nice one for getting some newspaper references in there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it has occured to me the article could be the subject of a revert war if anyone were to note his website and assume there had been a mistake (especially as the PWI Almanac is not available online). MadMax 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but this happens all the time when fanboys read some rumour on a forum and decide it overrides sourced material. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hardy's

I just noticed their belts are messed up, well it looks like it. First of all there are two different tag team belts in WWE, World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team. Why are these mixed together on both their pages? Also, the WCW one in the WWE? I don't see any information in either profile for that belt... Maybe some of you can clear this up? Govvy 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hardys have never won the WWE Tag Team Championship. Furthermore, the records for the WWETTC and WTTC have been mixed together in certain contexts (similar to the world titles). The Hardys have also won the WCW tag titles during the Invasion era, justifying their inclusion in the WWE section (the Hardys themselves have never competed in WCW). kelvSYC 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

okay, I get the title naming now, seems to be fixed by some of you. :) But the other bit, there is no information in the bio's about winning the WCW title or the invasion. Shouldn't that be in the bio's somewhere? Govvy 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber

I've added a free use image of the structure I took at NYR 06, if anyone cares . Peace, Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, especially since the EC article has 2 pics of it (since people interested in the match type would likely click on the link). TJ Spyke 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are a lot of free use images, use a {{commons}} link. McPhail 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on age template

It's probably best to address this now rather than later. Should the birthdate in infoboxes be formatted as (A) "January 2, 2000" or as (B) {{birth date and age|2000|1|2}}, which produces (2000-01-02) January 2, 2000? McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for A (no template)

• Strong Oppose There is little benefit to using the age template, and just clutters up the infobox more (especially when it causes another line to show up (when they are born on something like December 24 or some other long date). It's also simpler and easier to just enter their birthdate normally. TJ Spyke 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with TJ, it clutters up what little space is already there, and anybody with a first grade education could figure out how old the person is with in seconds. Kris Classic 01:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for B (template)

• B. From my perspective, the latter format is preferable. It displays the current age automatically, which saves time and benefits readers who use an alternative to the Gregorian calendar such as the Islamic calendar. McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Don't forget the Hebrew calendar as well. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• B as well. McPhail brings up some great points. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• B I like that the age is part of it. MPJ-DK 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• B It is just plain superior for the reasons stated. -- The Hybrid 01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• B Per the above. However, I also agree with the below user that something as insignificant as this should never have required this, as I posted on one argumentative user's talk page. SteveLamacq43 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for C (neutral)

• C couldn't care less either way. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• C Agreed. It seems to me that most of the work in this project goes towards settling pointless arguments about minor things like the match order and who gets listed first and now whether a template should be used or not. We should be more focused on improving articles. -- Scorpion 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• DING*DING*DING* you hit it on the nose Scorpion MPJ-DK 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your'e damn right. Seems like some people don't care on the quality of articles, a discussion is hanging on the balance, but, oh no, no-ones leaving the opinions. I wonder if anyone will. By the way, non-kayfabe is much more important than a template. OMG what has this project come down to? 1 FA class article out of 2,000... Now you get MY point. Davnel03 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• C Just like Eminem I could not give a f**k. And I'm going to kill you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• C I really don't give a s**t. Hhmmmm... I wonder what could be more important to you people... this or this. Oh well. Seems like a template is more important than bringing non-kayfabe stuff into articles. Maybe, it's just me. Davnel03 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Collaboration

I was thinking that since this project seems to have a pretty good number of members who are active on the talk page, we should consider having a weekly GA collaboration. WP:PW covers a lot of articles, but only has 4 GAs, so it would be nice to get a few more. I have been looking through several PPV articles and it would probably be easy to get some of them to GA status, especially the Wrestlemanias because there are several good WWE sources, so perhaps we could consider doing a PPV (Wrestlemana I?) first if we decide to do it. -- Scorpion 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of champions (by ring name?)

Unless I'm mistaken, aren't all these lists by date (and not ring name), or am I just reading that part of the articles wrong? Mshake3 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? Do you mean articles like List of WWE Champions or List of ECW World Champions? Those are listed in chronological order, which is just common sense. Or is there some other list you are thinking of? TJ Spyke 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE Tag Team Champions: "This is a list, by ring name, of people that have been WWE Tag Team Champion." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Has someone changed the WWE Tag Champ article? It reads chronologically to me ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixes the wording at the top, since that was the only problem (it said they were listed by name, when they are actually listed chronologically). TJ Spyke 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Danielson

Admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) has removed nearly all of this article citing lack of source concerns. These removals include his entire moveset, his career and his past championships. I'll need help to get this back up to scratch. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he did. BLP only call for removal of info that could controversial or libel. I added his profile at OWW, which should at least cover his moveset and titles, as well as most of the match results. TJ Spyke 03:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it all back. I think, hope it helps. I shall monitor it. Govvy 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) is going by the theory that if it hasn't got a reference it should be there (he did the same to Gary Albright). He's a good admin but this kinda sucks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Backlund has been wiped out too. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can revert it all back if you go through the history list, this user keeps messing with the Bob Backlund, Burntsauce. I just had some dealing with him/her on personal talk. But him/her is behaving like a sockpuppet and is rather irritable. Govvy 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not doing what is right either. BLP says only controversial material should be removed. Blanking an entire article just because it needs more sources is not acceptable or in the rules if I am interpreting them correctly. TJ Spyke 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's NOT in neither WP:BLP nor WP:A that all material without a source should be removed, only "contentious" material, so controversial claims and the likes. He's ignoring the actual rules and is vandalising the pages then wikilawyering that it's in the interest of WP:A and WP:BLP. MPJ-DK 06:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I been trying to get my point across but I feel wall and it made me feel annoyed. Really annoys me in a way that he can get away with removing loads of information like that. Govvy 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly_sourced contentious material has a quote from Jimbo Wales which flat-out states unsourced info needs to be "removed aggressively". He does make it clear this is "particularly true of negative information about living persons" but "is true of all information". That subsection can be interpreted by some people as to give them carte blanche to get rid of entire articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds more like wikipedian fundamentalism to me 71.190.13.186 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

Hi, I've just nominated this article for potential GA-status. If you feel it could be improved in any way, can you edit it or leave you comments here. I feel we need another GA article. Having only 4 out of 2000 + articles is very slim. I will edit the article as appropriate. Davnel03 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It won't pass in it current state as it is nearly entirely unsourced. A GA guideline is that footnotes are required to pass, not simply good prose. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The prose is surprisingly good. If it is possible to properly source everything (no small task) then I'd say it had an excellent shot. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's great to see how far that article has come. It used to be a mess. It just needs a few references and I think it could make GA. — Gwalla | Talk 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike Kahlua

• I'm trying to compile information for an article for "Hurricane" Mike Kahlua however does anyone know if he is the same wrestler as King Kahlua who wrestled for the American Wrestling Association in the mid 1980s or the "Prince" Kahlua who wrestled in the independent circuit during the early 1990s ? MadMax 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that "King" and "Price" Kahlua are the same guy, the guy that worked for IWCCW and trained Tom Brandi, I've never heard him nicknamed "Hurricane" but with a last name like that odds are good it's the same guy MPJ-DK 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming wrestling biography conventions.

I have noticed a lot of Request move of real names to ring names to title wrestler biographies. I really am not understanding why people are doing this it really annoys me. I can understand two wrestlers only atm. Hulk Hogan and André the Giant. But why are others doing this? The redirects should be of the ring names to the real named profile in my view. Can we at least have an order here? I feel and I would like all profiles to be titled by the real name. For instance, CM Punk is called Phil Brooks, Phil Brooks should be the name of the biographical article. Not CM Punk which is the wrestler name! What do the rest of you think? Can we stick to a rule that if the real name is known we can name the article by it. Govvy 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a rule, it's called WP:NC. One of the first lines: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". Most wrestlers are known by their ring name, some of the exceptions are wrestlers who are well known by more than 1 name (like Brandon Silvestry, who is well known as both Low Ki and Senshi). TJ Spyke 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is too much variation between subjects to have a hard and fast rule. In some cases the real name of the wrestler is little known, or even unknown (and in the case of Nigel McGuinness we are prohibited from adding the name of the subject due to external objections, so having the article there is a non-starter). In other cases, the wrestler has a lot of ring names, changes ring name frequently or is legally prohibited from appearing under their best known ring name due to trademark issues. It's impossible to abide by one rule all the time. McPhail 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to use the ring name when talking about wrestling, and the real name when discussing his real life. Mshake3 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think being a "smart" fan can colour our judgement about this issue. People like us make a point of learning wrestlers' real names, but the "majority of English speakers" are not smart fans, and only know wrestlers by their public name, which is generally their ring name. - Geoffg 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Harris Brothers

Should we merge Ron Harris (wrestler) and Don Harris? They have wrestler just about their entire career as a team, and their articles are basically mirrors of each other. It wouldn't be unheard of, The Highlanders only have 1 article for the same reason. TJ Spyke 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe either have had a significant singles career. I would assume merging the two articles to the Harris Brothers would be the most logical solution. MadMax 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support completely ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've proposed a merge on the related pages. Davnel03 09:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking articles

user:Burntsauce has repeatedly blanked the Gary Albright article and also had a go at Shelton Benjamin and a few other articles, removing most of their text with the excuse "no original research". This CANNOT be how Wikipedia intends for matters like this to be solved, it can't be the intention of "No Original Research" to give people a free hand in blanking out material left and right if it doesn't provide 700 sources. Is there anything we can do about this guy? MPJ-DK 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:AN. I don't think blanking entire articles (except for the infobox) is allowed, and am tempted to give the test2 warning. TJ Spyke 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

, Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in his history he blanked I found yesterday. His policy is misguided, he didn't even bring up anything on our project page. Didn't request for immediate citation and certainly wasn't very helpful. In fact he has created more damage for us to clean up which is very unfair. I would of liked him to be punished but it doesn't look like that will happen. Not only that he had a go at me for his own vandalism on my talk page. That upset me!! 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the discussion and joined in, this guy is misuging WP:BLP to blank out pages, that's not what it states. MPJ-DK 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Gary Albright can be faulted for not having sources now :-) MPJ-DK 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Bentley and Al Blake have been blanked.Nenog 04:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone in an reverted all that had not already been reverted. WP:BLP and WP:A does not support blanking uncontroversial material just because of lacking sources, I've called him on it and now he's namedropping the founder of Wikipedia instead - I know we're supposed to assume good faith but every time we point out that the policy he quotes doesn't support his actions he changes his reference - now to e-mails and what not instead of official policy. Frustrating MPJ-DK 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New featured list

Just to let you guys who haven't noticed, WP:PW has its second piece of featured content with List of WWE Champions. Great stuff guys. -- Oakster  Talk  11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SHOUT OUT!!! (copyright: The Public Enemy) to Scorpion0422 for his work ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. It really wasn't that hard, and with luck, we'll be able to get the other belt historys to FL status. The one for the WHW title is close. -- Scorpion 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-Kayfabe (Again)

So, it seems like everybody's had their shout on whether non-kayfabe stuff should be inserted into articles (by the way I've started a new section, as no one will probably look at the argument again!!). The result is 4 (For Non-Kayfabe) : 0 (Against Non-Kayfabe) : 6 (Neutral). Right, so no one disagrees, therefore, can we start inserting non-kayfabe things into articles. Also, I was thinking of starting up a type of guideline page on this, maybe under this heading. Should we start inserting some things into articles. I really think we should. Davnel03 12:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There has never been a caveat against adding "non-kayfabe" material to articles. The only requirement is that controversial additions be adequately referenced and that rumours be withheld, per Wikipedia policy on biographies. McPhail 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

I have nominated John Cena as a good article after adding at least 60 more citations to it. It took me forever and a day, but honestly, I believe it should be the new standard for us as far as citing our articles, and also so the BLP police will leave us alone. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can use OwW as a cite (last I checked it was still blacklisted) then there's no reason that anything that's happened since the 90s can be cited from there. If they stand I'll personally start updating articles. Awesome work, man.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. OWW stands, as I used it heavily in John Cena's page, and it's back being used in others, and it let me save, so it's off the blacklist, but gerweck.net is on it and we should that off. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also used OWW several times on Shelton Benjamin's page. It's great since they have detailed results of RAW and SmackDown (although their results for early years like 1993 are bare-bones). There is a similar site called DDT Digest for WCW, for 1998-2001 they have reports for EVERY WCW show (even the little 1 hour weekend shows like WCW Pro). TJ Spyke 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bmg, you've done a hell of a good job and are a credit to this Project. The standard for our bios has been set. There's only one obstacle I see to FA status - article stability (well, people adding shit to it after every episode of RAW). But given how good the article is now, there's every reason to aggressively target anything and everything that compromises its integrity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just put the OWW link for 100 REFERENCES on Shawn Michaels article if you want to take a look. Could I consider it for possible GA-candidate? Davnel03 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this page exist?

Hi there. I placed a "Speedy" delete template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWF_European_Rampage but it was contested. I am not sure if the topic deserves an article and it's pretty badly written, although I'm leaning towards maybe that it should be there for a little while longer because it was just created today. But anyway wanted to make users aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.138.41.54 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It looks like a NN show, so I agree with it's deletion. TJ Spyke 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tuesday in Texas

I think the outcome is obvious, but somebody has nominate Tuesday in Texas for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuesday in Texas. TJ Spyke 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA blacklisted

For some retarted reason, the official website of TNA Wrestling (tnawrestling.com) has been blacklisted. Am I the only one that realizes how f*cked up it is to have the website of the second largest wrestling organization in North America blacklisted? That means we can't use their site for any article. TJ Spyke 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And they wonder why wrestling articles don't have any on-line sources.Nenog 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere we can publicly appeal this? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here: [[12]]. TJ Spyke 03:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I always wondered where the Lords of Destiny (admins) discussed stuff like that. Looks like the right result. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's been whitelisted on the English Wikipedia (meaning we can use it here, but it's still blocked on the other WP's like the French Wikipedia/Spanish Wikipedia/etc.) TJ Spyke 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the ObsessedWithWrestling website is blacklisted too. Davnel03 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I posted my comment there, I feel as if the whole WP:Wrestling project is being attack at times!! Govvy 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blame User:JB196 and his various sockpuppets spamming them to hell and back on unrelated articles.. We're trying real hard to get rid of him, though. SirFozzie 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'm sorta caught in between sides, I know that the sites that I have blacklisted are good sources, when they are not spammed. Right now because of crosswiki spam by barber I have been forced to blacklist some sites, including tnawrestling. Right now though all sites that have been blacklisted as a result of barber's Joe job have been removed, as we caught him socking. (this includes gerweck.net obsessedwithwrestling.com tnawrestling.com and accelerator3359.com. I'm not too happy about how I've been forced to walk on a tightrope here... but please do realize that I do have wikipedia's and the wikimedia foundations interests in mind when I do things like this. The sites often get blacklisted when a mass group of socks add the sites to a crapload of other language wikipedias. (en, fr, it, it goes on and on), and the only way to effectively stop the attacks are to add these sites to the spam blacklist. I cannot guarantee that I won't be forced to blacklist more wrestling sites, but if any of them do cause this project problems, let me know kindly on my talk page.

Also as a side note, when I did the whitelisting of tnawrestling.com we took a huge, and I mean huge number of barber socks, who went and added that site all in an attempt to get me to remove the site from the whitelist... I did not remove it. (see the meta page for more details). Those in the meta page were not the only socks WP:WPSPAM had to deal with. I am letting you guys know about this sock attack to let you guys know that I'm not only blacklisting links in response to this issue, I'm trying to use all tools at my disposal. You guys might want to drop en:User:Shadowbot and the members of WP:WPSPAM a thank you note for the tremendous job that they did in undoing the bad links, and allowing the good links to get through. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my side note, we have now received over 70 socks. Some are still acive as of 30 minutes ago. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JB196. All this for whitelisting tnawrestling :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Combat Zone Wrestling

This article, for lack of a better term, sucks. It either needs to be AfD or get a complete overhaul. Thoughts? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD should never be used for an article that simply sucks, however it does indeed need an overhaul. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules

As discussed a little bit above, someone keeps deleting information on the career of Bryan Danielson. I have added it back. Just because there aren't any sources doesn't mean it never happened. See: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Kris Classic 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

... and you have been blocked as a result. Please make an effort to cite reliable sources next time rather than violate WP:LIVING and similar core policies. RFerreira 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How was he violating WP:LIVING? An admin blanked basically the entire article, something which they should get warned against. I bet I would get blocked if I went to, for example, Snoop Dogg's article and removed every little detail that wasn't sourced. Blanking all these wrestling articles are hurting Wikipedia and its integrity, not helping. TJ Spyke 06:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing hurting the integrity of the project are the thousands upon thousands of unverified biographies about living people, and the abusive editors who are intentionally restoring such information after it has been identified and removed. Then again, this has already been explained to you about a dozen times in a dozen different discussion pages, so I'm not sure why I even bother responding here. RFerreira 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the lack of verification, and the widespread attitude of apathy towards this problem caused Jimbo Wales himself to blank Ron Jeremy's article. If information isn't sourced, then it is subject to removal. If we had enough people, and the articles didn't have any other problems such as the overwhelming mass stupidity regarding fair use images, then I would suggest having people sign up for a project drive. This drive would have users be assigned articles for them to delere all unsourced info from, and put it on a user subpage. They would then source everything that they could, and what they couldn’t source would go to the abyss. Peace, -- The Hybrid 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that while one of these pages have been crippled, another editor will come by and nominate if for deletion (or even put a Speedy Delete tag on it). I have added a ton of references for Danielson, this could be harder for other wrestlers though who aren't as well known as him. What is the point of having the {{verify}} tag if people are just gonna remove the info instead of using it?. TJ Spyke 07:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The verify tag is often used as an excuse to leave the article unsourced. If it has the tag on it, then theoretically the reader knows that they are reading information that we pulled out of our asses, so no one feels the need to source the article. AfDs are nothing to worry about. If someone copies the unsourced page, and comes along during the AfD, then I'm sure that the consensus would be to keep it and let it be improved. If not, then we can always do a deletion review, or just recreate the article by copying the subpage. Peace, -- The Hybrid 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles that hold any potential tend to improve while they are being discussed on AfD, not that I endorse such trial by fire methods. Bryan Danielson is somewhat of a borderline case though, and any wrestlers who aren't as well known as him might not warrant an article on Wikipedia just yet. RFerreira 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW has expanded beyond what it can handle. As it expands those in it are unable to handle the hundreds of articles it encompasses. Hundreds of these articles violate the fair use policies, most of them list only one source, aren't written from the NPOV, and are filled with grammar errors. This project could use a major trim, so a mass trial by fire may be needed. If we can send many of the articles to hell, then the ones that are left would probably improve drastically. Peace, -- The Hybrid 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could tighten the rules on bio articles and who is considered notable. There are a lot of indy wrestlers who are not notable and could probably go. TJ Spyke 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why IAR doesn't apply. Again, it states that if anything is stopping it from maintaining an article, to ignore all rules, which should be done to add Bryan Danielson's bio information, as he is more then notable. Kris Classic 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This switched to a general discussion. I haven't looked at this particular article, and IAR may very well apply to this case, but the general application of this rule by WP:PW is far too liberal, and is damaging the project's credibility in addition to the articles it is charged with maintaining. -- The Hybrid 07:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOW

Why does it need to be separate from this project? Why can't this project govern both sets of articles? It seems to be on the brink of inactivity, only getting a comment every five days or so at the max, and those comments generally not getting a response. It doesn't even have a talk archive yet. It seems like it could easily be absorbed into this project. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been mentioned: #Wikiproject Media of Wrestling. TJ Spyke 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE One Night Stand 2007

Hi, this poster was released yesterday by WWE to the media. I've uploaded it to Wikipedia - however I'm wary about putting it in the article, again because somebody is bound to take it straight out. I've tried to source it, but people may not consider them good sources. Shall I insert it into the article, or wait until it officialy released or what? Infact, surely it already has been released?! Davnel03 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue could be that the websites in question do not state from whence they obtained the poster. Wrestlemag (one of the sources) has jumped the gun on things a few times. It certainly looks legitimate though. Anyone else? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty of wikipedia. If someone says it's not official, even though it clearly is, then you can't include it. Mshake3 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already been uploaded before (Image:Onenightstand3.jpg) and sourced from WWE.com, so it is official. It was pretty much the reason why I moved the article from ECW to WWE last night. -- Oakster  Talk  17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Is their any major guidlines for wrestler article names, for instance, some articles use their real life names, but some articles have their wrestler name e.g.

• Carly Colón = Real Name
• Shawn Michaels = Wrestler Name

Isn't their any Wikipedia guidlines on this, and if so, doesn't it violate anything? I mean, I believe we should have their real name as the article name for one simple reason, and that is is that wrestlers can, from time to time, change gimmicks and therefore names, but you can't change your name in real life (or it's highly unlikely). Davnel03 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's going by a subject's best known name really. Michael Hickenbottom's notability has come about under the name Shawn Michaels. Mick Foley on the other hand has used several professional names and is best known by his real name. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's at WP:NAME "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to go with real name for me. There is a biographical standard that the naming of the biography is the real name of the person. No other profession on the planet has nicknames that titles them. I don't know why wrestling has to be different! Govvy 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What about authors, like George Eliot, or musicians, like Eminem? I think pen-names and stage names are the same as ring-names in this situation. We must collectively judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular wrestler is better known to the casual reader by their birth name or ring-name. I would argue that it's usually their ring name. Millions of people know the names Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, and the Rock, but only a small percentage of those millions know the birth names of those people. - Geoffg 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Govvy, the standard is to use what they are most well known as, see WP:COMMONNAME. Terry Bollea is far better known as Hulk Hogan, for example. TJ Spyke 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of people who's articles are under their stage names, not real names. Nenog 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 25

Now this page is being vandalized too. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. I suggest adding this to your watchlists also.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW Barnstar

Could I politely draw attention to Wikipedia:Barnstar and_award proposals/New Proposals#WikiProject Professional Wrestling_Barnstar for comments/votes. Thanks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE Power 25

It's for the rankings WWE.com does for the wrestlers. I really don't think this needs an article. Also there is Wwe power 25 which seems to be an exact copy of the article. RobJ1981 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect them. That's what happened with Power 25. TJ Spyke 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested SD for Wwe power 25, that one REALLY doesn't need to exist. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Blacklists

I refer you to what I stated above. TNA blacklisted :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOW now absorbed into WP:PW

I've decided after talk about getting rid of WP:MOW from this talk page (and it's been asked since last November), to merge the two WikiProjects together. All members from WP:MOW has been added to our list and all project banners have been changed. If you want to access the old subpages for that project, you can find links to them on this project's main page. The only part of MOW that remains is the infobox which now refers to the project in the past tense.

While I'm at it, I've noticed that Wikiproject TNA exists with barely any activity. Do you want to get rid of this one too? -- Oakster  Talk  15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

6 members, no discussion going on and the scope of the project is entirely encompassed by our own. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been tagged as inactive, but I guess one of the members didn't take too kindly to that. That project is unimportant. It is everything that we do. Peace, -- The Hybrid 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Wikiproject TNA. -- The Hybrid 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment roster

I'm thinking of putting this page up for deletion for many reasons:

• It is constantly being vandalised by non-registered users
• It most of the time does not comply with the lists of WWE.com (Other on-air talents bit)
• The injuries sections are constantly changing
• Some OVW and DSW people aren't contracted with WWE
• Some people in the miscellous (or however you say it!!) shouldn't be in their (or don't work with them)
• The page is constantly protected

I don't really think this page is needed, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a list of superstars on a roster. I wouldn't mind if we had an alumni like page, with each individual wrestler in a table-like format and when they worked with WWE. The current page is subdue to more vandals. Opinions please:- Davnel03 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Being constantly vandalised is not grounds for deletion
• I'm not sure what you mean here
• Articles constantly change all the time
• I'm not sure how this is related
• Then remove them or explain why they should be removed
• Not grounds for deletion

In addition to all of that it would be one of the few pages without a roster as well as noting that the page is a lynch pin of WWE articles as well as nearly all wrestling companies possessing a roster to keep track of who is who. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that's why it should stay. (This also does not have a snowball chances in hell of being successfully deleted. It is one of the top ten most editted pages on all of wikipedia and the votes will simplyoverwhelm). –– Lid^(Talk) 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not especially bothered either way but I agree, it would have very little chance of passing an AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the wwe roster article is like a primary article for the wrestling and WWE section. I personally don't feel there is grounds for deletion, know I can understand your points. Really, I would much prefer if they added another level to the article protection, something like, members of the wiki wrestling project are the only members that can edit it! Just my thoughts Govvy 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would sort of corrupt the point of wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It would be a form of elitism that made even less sense as anyone can join WP:PW. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but at least it would make it that little more annoying for anyone interesting in spamming!! Govvy 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling families categories

Just to let you know that the categories for wrestling families is up for deletion. The nomination does mention though for large families, an article might be useful instead (for example, we already have Hart wrestling family and Anoa'i family, while one for the Guerreros could be done). -- Oakster  Talk  22:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A Guerrero one might work if there was enough information to make it more of a clone of existing prose. I don't know if a stub would be worthwhile. An Anderson one could be interesting, being as most of them aren't related and only two are actually named Anderson. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I just finished up Shelton Benjamin and wanted to say thanks to everyone who is helping step-up in one way or another to help make the drastic improvements WP:PW needs. I realize there are only so many of us compared to hundreds of articles, but thank you to everyone, we're off to an amazing start. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 13:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Add Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Mickie James, Randy Orton and Triple H (partially for HHH and Orton) to that list. WCW has also been sourced heavily too. By the way, Bmg916^Speak_Sign, have you nominated Benjamin's article for GA status? Davnel03 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, feel free though if you want. I've actually kind of been turned off by the GA process as almost no one seems to review the articles and they take forever to pass or fail. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of you guys might be over doing it. As for results, I prefer it if you used tv.com over OWW. But seriously, you shouldn't need to add that many citation results pages. I feel as long as we just do the PPVs that should be fine. Govvy 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Every result in the article needs a citation, as every result needs to be verifiable to be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies for living persons and OwW is more reliable than tv.com as anyone can edit tv.com Bmg916^Speak_Sign 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. TV.com is a good website, but a lot of their stuff is sent in by users and the staff their can't check every possible thing (especially when it comes to things like wrestling). TJ Spyke 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to oversource than undersource.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It sends out a message that pro-wrestling articles aren't a fancruft-ridden, low-class joke but are notable and in the media and public eye. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

o well, but from my experience, tv.com is more accurate than oww. Govvy 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well OWW is blocked again (or remained blocked, I'm not sure), and I'm not attempting to do much sourcing until this is sorted out. Mshake3 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you must be mistaken. I just edited a page with a OWW link, and I didn't get the blocked message I did when it was blacklisted before. TJ Spyke 21:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's working now, so either you're right or they've been going back and forth with it. Mshake3 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

Might anyone be able to find some refs from Eric Bischoff's book or Alvarez/Reynolds' "The Death of WCW"? I've stuck over 60 references in the article but there are a couple of sections that could use more. I'm concerned that using any more from "Sex, Lies and Headlocks" or "WrestleCrap" would make the prose look like it was ripped-off (which it aint). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I killed WCW. And that's the bottom line, 'cause I said so. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have both of those books. If you put on the talk page specifically what you're looking for sources for I can go through them and get some page numbers.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get page numbers to reference any of the following?

• date/location of first Monday Nitro

• fans viewing Bischoff's signing of former WWF talent as an attempt to copy its success

• NWO formation at Bash of the Beach

• Hall/Nash's debut

ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is pretty much exactly what WCW Monday Nitro did when it debuted on Turner Network Television the night of September 4, 1995 - a week in which Raw was not-so-coincidentally preempted. (Death of WCW, p 63 - the location isn't named in this book)

All the information on the forming of the nWo at the Bash from the Death of WCW is between pages 69 and 73. It goes pretty in depth on the match; the missing third man and Schiavone DEMANDING to know the third man, the start of the match, the Luger bump, Hogan's coming out, the turn, the promo after, Schiaone screaming after that.

But nothing Bischoff did during the first six months of the battle meant nearly as much as what happened on the May 27, 1996 edition of Nitro. That's when Scott Hall, formerly known as Razor Ramon in the WWF, took the stage and proclaimed war on WCW. (p 64)

«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can always use DDT Digest for the location of Nitro (Bloomington, Minnesota at the Mall of America). TJ Spyke 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks a lot for helping me on that one. I appreciate you taking the time to check the book for that info. I'll stick in a few more refs, edit the info and WCW should stand an excellent shot at GA-status (or hopefully better) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• WCW on hold to give admins time to wake up and see my complaints about random blacklisting of links. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see posts by user:Eagle_101 on this talkpage. The 'random blacklisting' may very well be after another Joe Job by user:JB196 and his many sockpuppets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, were doing a great job with several articles on the GA-candidate list. I think with quite a few of the articles, it just needs references to pass through the GA-barrier (then onto FA-status if possible)!!! Davnel03 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing all three brands for WWE events

With the announcement that all post-WrestleMania 24 events will be joint-branded, is it necessary to list RAW, SmackDown!, and ECW in the infoboxes for subsequent pay-per-views? This is a pretty minor point, for sure, but it seems like it would make more sense to just exclude the brand section from future pay-per-views. Jeff Silvers 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are seperate brands, yes. Technically WWE is doing the same thing, and it's a quick and easy way for all users to know the brands involved since most of the PPV's have existed since before the brand split and then went to one brand. TJ Spyke 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like there has been an adjustment period going on with PPVs and when ECW came to being. I believe this wont always be like this. Because as ECW grows the way it should, the show should have it's own PPVs and enough roster to not need to cross brand. However there will still probably be those cross branding. But the PPVs that belong to SmackDown and belong to Raw will still belong to them. You will know this by the major roster used. If you look at Backlash you will see it is still Raw as it is dominantly the Raw roster. Govvy 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are only three matches confirmed for Backlash: two are RAW and one is cross-brand for the ECW World Title. It's a little early to start saying that Backlash will be a "predominately RAW" event. Jeff Silvers 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE have officially announced that all PPV's are now all inter-promotional, like WrestleMania, Govvy, how can you say that? Davnel03 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And we haven't had Smackdown this week, what if they announce three SD matches on Friday. The announcement was the end of the brand split on PPV, and so all PPV from now on need all three infoboxes. You are misinformed Govvy. Darrenhusted 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let the dice roll and see what happens! Govvy 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ehhm as long as it doesn't lead to edit-warring ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One point I have to make here is that nowhere in the articles so far explains the rationale for why such-and-such event is hosted by such-and-such brand. You'd need to cross-ref a lot of articles to get to the fact that Backlash is the first "minor" cross-brand PPV in a few years (and you'd need a lot of crossrefs to get the rationales behind why a match is scheduled on a card, which I believe is the only way a PPV article can be anywhere near GA-quality). Still, without knowledge of the matches on the Backlash card, we still don't know for a single show whether the undercard (assuming the main events will involve all brands) will feature matches that are predominantly of one brand (eg. Backlash has a mainly-Raw undercard, One Night Stand with a mainly-ECW undercard, No Mercy with a mainly-SD undercard), which would imply that the "old practice" would still be in use (and the cross-brand is just for more star power). Better to leave it the way it is for now until we know of more concrete facts. (Speaking of the cross-brand, does that mean that the Hardys, or maybe just Matt Hardy, is, in kayfabe, entitled to appear on both Raw and SmackDown!?) kelvSYC 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

Just to let you know, that an edit-war has literally gotten out of hand, and an admin has fully protected the page. I hate to say who it is involved, but RobJ1981 and TJ Spyke are the two involved. Davnel03 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, Rob doesn't want the WWE legends segment mentioned while everyone else is either neutral or thinks it should be mentioned. Rob doesn't want to admit that the consenus is against him though. TJ Spyke 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overcoming the odds

This is a term that is used alot by the IWC, esspecially this year. I think an article could be made of this because this happens in WWE almost every week with wrestlers like John Cena and Bobby Lashley. Im pretty sure you will know what this means so i dont need to go into alot of detail now, but if your not sure about this being an article i wouldnt mind creating it so other people can decided if it should be deleted or just re-worded. Don.-.J 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Any article on this would be deleted under WP:NEO, however it could go under Professional wrestling slang. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neologim. It's just a (fairly common) phrase. Nothing particularly special, or wrestling-specific, about it. It'd go on Wiktionary, if anywhere. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass blanking

A user has taken to removing all kinds of things from wrestling articles under the flag of WP:A. Technically he's correct in removing some of the stuff, but most of what he's removing is easily sourecable should someone actually try. I was going to personally put some of the stuff back, but after checking out how many he did the task suddenly became way too much. Just wanted to let people know before some information gets lost in the ether because when someone does hit an article to cite it up they skip over something not knowing it's missing.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of the edits, and posted on his talk page. Darrenhusted 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you can use Vandal Proof to do mass reverts of an editor. TJ Spyke 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just tried. Something has happened which is preventing me from rolling back all of his edits :^( -- The Hybrid 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please do not perform mass reverts when there is an agreement among editors that unsourced content from wrestler's articles must be removed. I have no problem bringing such action to the attention of administrators if it is done. Kevin Green342243 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just said that it was impossible, and you are the one in the wrong here. We are working on sourcing the material, and you are getting in the way of what this project is trying to do. -- The Hybrid 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information about living people violates WP:BLP. Content must be cited by sources which meet WP:A and what I reverted did not meet WP:A. You say that mass deletion is not helpful, but unsourced content which could be libeling a living person is just as unhelpful. Please read WP:BLP closely before making any reverts. Also there is a discussion going on on one of the user talk pages about the challenges of maintaining WP:BLP in wrestler articles and in that discussion a concensus was reached that wrestling articles must abide by the same policies as other articles. Happy editing! Kevin Green342243 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People are getting to it if you would leave it alone. Recently many editors have been going through and sourcing these articles, such as John Cena's. Just give the project time. That kind of problem is what this project exists to fix. -- The Hybrid 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He has agreed to stop, but these articles do need to be sourced soon. The claims that he makes are legitimate. -- The Hybrid 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree sourcing needs to happen. But the issue is: it's a ton of wrestler articles. For the most part (in my opinion at least), the most popular wrestlers get attention but little known wrestlers/less popular wrestlers don't get enough attention when it comes to editing. RobJ1981 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in, the BLP policy mainly says to immediately revert any unsourced negative material due to libel concerns. If what you see are negative or wording that amounts to personal attack you are completely free to remove it. However, if it is not then it would be better to put a "citation needed" tag and someone can come up with the proper source. You can also use the respective articles discussion pages to explain why something should be taken out if you feel strongly about it. MrMurph101 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This falls under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so mass removing things is against the rules, and will result in notification of an admin. Kris Classic 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, if you add anything back, please make sure you have it cited. :) Removal is the correct thing to do if the information is potentially controversial on a biography of a living person. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stuff being removed is not controversial though. While I agree that something like "this person was suspended for drug use" can be removed if not sourced, BLP doesn't say every possible thing that isn't sourced should be removed. TJ Spyke 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you guys are a wikipedia 1.0 project right? If I were you I would work on sourcing what you have, and make it standard practice in your project to do citations. As I read above it looks like this project's scope is larger then the number of members that you guys have. If I were you I would work on doing some recruiting, and getting this project on the road to writing some good well sourced articles. You don't have to source anything that is "common knowledge", but everything else you ought to cite. Without citations how do I know whats in those articles is true? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass blanking shouldn't be done like that, what you should say to anyone that has done it, is they must first inform us here on the project talk page before erasing of data from any wrestling article. That would and should be the correct etiquette, so we have a chance to deal with the problem. That is what has been failing, just the simple etiquette from these people to ask us to cite the articles that need it! Govvy 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If Kevin wants to help then he should join the project, or at the very least discuss what is being removed. EG, that Jim Neidhart has a daughter called Nattie, how is that controversial, particularly as she's a wrestler herself. If Kevin was unaware of things that are common sense to most wrestling fans (and project members) then discussion or tagging would have been a better first step, rather than going on a one day editing rampage. Darrenhusted 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Wrestling articles are being singled-out. There's countless articles (many involving very famous people) that aren't properly ref'd. I think these deletions are in bad-faith, using extreme interpretations of policy to back them up. Geez, we've had some guy voting in several wrestling AFD's whose only comment has been "there are too many wrestling articles". I don't find prejudice against somebody else's interests to be acceptable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've finished referencing a few articles, notably Mickie James, Shawn Michaels and Randy Orton. I've also noticed Shelton Benjamin has been references quite a bit. If you see an wrestler article unreferenced, put a few references in. Davnel03 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as JB196 sockpuppet, revert all edits as required, ideally making sure no unsourced negative information is re-added. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy days in the Big Brother house! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass blanking by sockpuppet

As ONIH said above, User:Kevin Green342243 (individual that was blanking everything) was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:JB196 aka Jonathan Barber. It might be worth keeping an eye on someone who registers a new account and immediately goes on a delete spree using a degree of policy quoting unlikely for a brand new user. I'm not suggesting biting newcomers or assuming bad faith, just keeping an eye open and bearing history (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196) in mind. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

Shawn Michaels Wrestling facts section is messed up, somebody should fix it. Kris Classic 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixes it, somebody opened a <ref> tag and didn't close it. TJ Spyke 03:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl)

I don't know if anyone in this WikiProject has edited this article, but it seemed like it was proper to place this notice here since the article is at least tangentially related to this WP....

An editor has nominated Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated and noted it in our to-do list under articles for deletion (at the top of the page). Thanks for bringing it up though. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, sorry. I was at work and didn't look through your portal well enough to see that in the to-do list, nor did I realize that someone in the project had nominated it. Much ado about nothing, I guess. Had I known that you were part of the project when you PROD'ed it, I would probbaly never have requested that you move it from PROD to AFD. Thanks for your conduct through this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • She seems somewhat notable, not sure if her article should be deleted. TJ Spyke 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She seems to have done pretty much diddly apart from dance, refuse to wrestle and train cheerleaders. A merger to Nitro Girls has been suggested on the AFD however. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging Pin & Pinfall (professional wrestling)

It's in the "to do" box, but is this something we really want to do? «»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense with dates

When putting together the history portion of the article, if the events are in order, you don't have to mention the year (and link it) every time a date is mentioned. For example:

On January 1st, 2007, John Cena lost to Kevin Federline due to interference from Umaga. On January 7th, 2007, Cena defeated Umaga to retain the WWE Championship. On January 8th, 2007 (etc)

I believe this is a result of "weekly play by play" that we're trying to avoid, but it's just one thing we need to avoid and watch out for. Mshake3 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Barry Buchanan

Someone keeps removing the profile for Barry Buchanan. Can anybody post sources so people will stop doing this? Kris Classic 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's admin-locked until May by the looks of things ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if anyone can add information to the Talk page, with sources, it will be added in.--ProtoWolf 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Match lengths

Just a thought: Where are we getting the length of matches for the PPVs? It seems like something that needs to be sourced as you can't get it from simply watching without conducting some original research. Mshake3 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

~95% of the times I get from [13], there are only some they don't have (like WM I). TJ Spyke 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then we need to start adding them to the article. Mshake3 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tayo Reed

Is this article worth keeping? She was a Nitro Girl for a bit, and is currently a country singer (according to the article at least). Is she actually a notable singer worth mentioning here? Some of the other Nitro Girl articles probably should be gone through. Being a dancer for WCW doesn't assert a lot of notability, if that's all they did. Obviously there is exceptions: like Kimberly Page and so on. RobJ1981 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of unsourced materal

I've noticed over the past several days of several new editors removing "unsourced" text from wrestling-related biographies under similar reasoning by User:Burntsauce and User:Kevin Green342243. These editors in particular User:Mack Genius (see [14]), User:Tiger White (see [15]), User:Beeseech (see [16]), User:OwnershipTrachea (see [17]), User:FozzyEnemy (see [18]), User:XWC Rasslin (see [19]), User:HojoElite (see [20]), User:Wikido23 (see [21]), User:Last Go Home Pop (see [22]), User:PiratesFanExtreme (see [23]), User:Hawk Lover (see [24]), User:Stellar Accounting (see [25]) and User:Mattiasfool (see [26]), have all made similar edits between April 11-12 shortly after creating their accounts. Should any of these editors be notified of using the {{references}} or {{fact}} templates as an alternative to removing whole content from articles ? From what I've seen, the majority of the unsourced information could easily be verified with a basic search. MadMax 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so, especially since BLP only really says to remove stuff that could be considered libel (like Scott Steiner being arrested after assaulting someone backstage at a WCW event). TJ Spyke 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FozzieEnemy sticks out a lot, as it matches the named JB196 uses to harrass User:SirFozzie. I think we have a sock farm. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, its him. So he's back for more, eh?-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that guy already has over 70 banned sockpuppet accounts. What kind of a loser does something like that? TJ Spyke 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense as all of these User's edits take place after the time of User:Kevin Green's last edit (14:54, 11 April 2007). I would assume these changes should be reverted ? Given the number of sockpuppets, I wonder how many changes were missed ? MadMax 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a RfCU pending, hopefully sooner or later we can shut the farm down. If you see any more of those with similar outputs, let me know. I'll also check in here when I can. You could revert the changes under WP:RBI (please make sure not to trip the 3RR electric fence, send a ping my way or over at WP:ANI if you get close to it) SirFozzie 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple more I was keeping my eye on. User:TheMackSter, User:Automobile Buyer. Both created within 2 hours of the Kevin Green block being placed. Is it classed as WP:ATTACK if I call a serial vandal with numerous sockpuppets "a first-class dickhead"? If it is, then I won't. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn! they just keep on coming!-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed was as Kevin Green, he claimed he was the biggest Mikey Whipwreck fan ever. I'm going to monitor changes there for a while. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Got them. If you see some more and just want to add them on your own, here's the checkuser request SirFozzie 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Penis corrected.jpg

I am a dickhead.

This is TNA

Does anybody else think This is TNA should be deleted? Kris Classic 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Joey Nelson as well. Kris Classic 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)