Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 45. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Hitting the Road: Photography Requests

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

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

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

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

Paul Burchill, Mike Chioda, Mike Adamle, a better pic if possible of Ron Simmons and The Undertaker, pics for Major Brothers, Vickie Guerrero, Kofi Kingston. sorry if its too much.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Nici said :D Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Requests

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

Cruiserweight Championship: Active?

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

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

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

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

The worst thing is that WWE hadn't even planned a funeral... Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The usual match name removal by editors on WrestleMania XXIV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we clear something up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posters vs. Logos on WrestleMania articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template for defunct titles?

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

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

Don Kent (wrestler)

MPJ-DK nominated this article in mid-January and it was reviewed on February 21. He responded to the "On hold" comments, but the reviewer hasn't been back since then. The article has now been on hold for 15 days. I left a message on the reviewer's talk page five days ago, but there has been no response. Is there anything that can be done to get the review finished (eg. find another reviewer to confirm that the concerns were addressed)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You can put a note under the nomination on the GAC page. Just say a shorter version of what was said here, and someone else will review it. I've had that happen to me before, too. Nikki311 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted a comment about it on the GAC page. Nikki311 15:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Hopefully it will speed things up. On a related note, SummerSlam (1994) is now the oldest unreviewed GA nominee. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

...and I'm starting to lose faith that it will ever be reviewed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

List of WCW Hardcore Champions future FL

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

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

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

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

WikiProject report feature in the Signpost

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

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

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

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

I Agree. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC Constant Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I question the notabiity of this article

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

Draft articles GA?

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

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

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing lists being GAs. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Two more Good Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just double checking

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

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

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

I can't believe they're having qualifying matches at house shows. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Newsletter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Kent biased?

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

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

Print sources aren't verifiable by the readers of the article, only by the editor. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 16:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broken External Links

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

Notice

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

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

MitB

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

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

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

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

I think this project needs an AD

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

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

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

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

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

Sock blocked

Please don't comment with personal opinions to this. I just wanted to let everyone know that User:CinnamonCrunchy has been proven by checkuser to be a sock of User:Hornetman16 and has been blocked indefinitely. Nikki311 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it looked like he wanted to change, but I guess he wont be forgiven for his past actions. Oh well, R.I.P--TrUCo-X 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For an unblock to be justifiable, he'll have to avoid returning for a number of months, somewhere in the arena of 8 to 12 being the bare minimum for someone of his history. Then an unblock of his original account might be justifiable, and he could return within process. Returning under a sockpuppet account amounts to spitting in the face of Wikipedia process, which is why it is so frowned upon by those reviewing an unblock. Forgiveness isn't the issue; emotions are entirely irrelevant to this. He needs to show that he can follow basic Wikipedia process for a large period of time in order to be trusted with an account again after receiving a community ban. SexySeaBass 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is this. You all refused to give him a chance. He took it upon himself to prove you wrong regardless and he succeeded in convincing you all without you even knowing. He was blocked because of his own mistake. Posting a link related to his previous sock. An innocent mistake but a fatal one nonetheless. And that one mistake is all it took. What this showed all of us here tonight is that no matter how much someone has improved, no matter how much one has learned from their past mistakes to try to better themselves, no matter how hard someone fights here to regain trust and most importantly respect from the ones who relentlessly attacked him as if there wasn't another human being behind the keyboard, a sock will always be a sock and that is the sad and unfortunate, unquestionable truth. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and Gents, I'm back. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

YAY! We missed you. :) Nikki311 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, he sunk himself before and now only a consensus on AN/I or Arbcom can help him, there is no point to continue this discussion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, he only succeeded in that because I taught him to evade the initial stages of sock hunting so he could evade on PWW. I wasn't allowed to unblock him by the other admins, so I taught him how to avoid them. He used the knowledge I gave him on here; he hasn't changed, he just knows how to fly under the radar now. Luckily I only gave him a fraction of what I know about sockpuppets, so he should still be easy to catch even without such simple mistakes. SexySeaBass 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

End this now. End this now. End this now. Nothing positive can possibly come of saying another word. Anyone who continues this discussion does so at the expense of the project as a whole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It is ridiculous to think that one user can affectively bring down an entire project over this. If you think that way then you should really reconsider your place in this project because you obviously think that you can be hurt by something so overrated, that being this whole Aaron ordeal. It is because we refuse to speak that problems like these never cease to exist. It is because we think so negatively about one another that negativity surrounds this project. For Gods sakes people, this isn't a soap opera. This isn't a 3rd grade dispute over who eat someone's turkey sandwich. This online community is as much of community as the real deal. Like your neighborhood, you're always going to have friends as neighbors and neighbors you just cant seem to get along with. And just like a real community, you're always going to have problems around, whether its that neighbor's dog that keeps shiting on your front lawn, or a neighbor that keeps sweeping leaves off his side and on to yours. You don't deal with these problems by ignoring them because if you do, nothing will ever get fixed. And if anyone is the type of person that ignores problems rather than face them, then they have no place here or in any community because that is how a community functions. We face problems and issues at hand. We co-exist. We do all of this for the sole purpose of making this place just a little better for everyone else. If anyone can't deal with that, then I suggest they go buy themselves a little shack in the woods to live in, isolated from everyone else. This problem will not go away until it is addressed formally. If that means this must be taken to ANI again then so be it. I don’t care if he is allowed back or not. I'm way past that. The fact of the matter is that this won't go away just by closing your eyes and wishing for the tooth fairy to make the evil problem go away. Now while I was still an active editor I also contacted Aaron. When I said that I realized having him in the project with hurt us all, I lied. I took the time to talk to him outside of the Wiki in a setting where everything that needs to be said can be said. For about 3 months we talked. I helped him. I knew from the way he was so negatively viewed here that he would not be granted the chance he begged for. So I told him a basic truth of life. You can't wait for someone to lend you rope to save yourself. You have to reach out and take it. I taught him the basics on how to be a good editor. Not to be disrespectful, learn from others, and avoid being ignorant about others' opinions and listen instead ...something everyone here seems should practice more often.... Before all that though, I showed him his wrong doings. I made him confront his mistakes. We went through the list one by one. He doesn't mean to hurt anything, nor has he ever done so. He never vandalized an article, and never attacked anyone in any way. He was blocked because of disruption. Because all he did was continue to add cruft to his user page despite admins having told him to stop and because he attempted to get an image deleted. An image he thought violated policy. He didn't know he was wrong. The only thing he ever did wrong was create a sock (monnitewars) to rebel against what he believed was an unjust block. He didn't even know the block was temporary! Can you believe that? He thought being blocked meant there was no chance of you being unblocked. He didn't know. He just panicked and did something stupid. No he didn't tell me this. I saw it first hand back in June when it all happened. I knew what was going on. He realized many things and so did I. He's foolish at times but still tries to do his best. He's no vandal. He's no troll either. I've seen vandals and trolls before and I've dealt with them for 3 years. He's not one of them. He's a good kid with good intentions. No Hybrid and I weren't stupid for talking to him. He got his chance and that's all he ever asked, and if you ask me he didn't that bad of a job. Like Aaron, we must learn from our mistakes. Everyone is human, and if our thoughts on others were based on bad first impressions all the time, the world would be a worse place. -- bulletproof ^3:16 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While I've agreed off-wiki to think my view over again, as of right now, my view is the same as it has been. He should not be unblocked. However, I must also point out that since he's received help from both bulletproof and myself without us knowing that the other was helping him while it was going on, he's probably going to successfully evade this ban anyway. If he can pull it off, then so be it, that means he isn't doing harm anymore. If he models himself after bulletproof, then he'll be a fine editor. However, right this very moment, I have to say I don't think he's earned the second chance, and that is something to be earned, earned through patience. SexySeaBass 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That’s not what I meant by it. He got his second chance already. Did he earn it through patience? No. But he did grab it and rolled with it nonetheless and with it he accomplished what he intended. He proved himself to be no threat to this project. We taught him to work and respect here and I'm glad Hybrid and I learned something from this experience as well. -- bulletproof ^3:16 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have convinced me to throw my name behind his unbanning. However, he must wait at least 6 months without any sockpuppets at the very least. That is non-negotiable. In the mean time I will be actively looking for and reporting his sockpuppets. I will not stand for him returning outside of due process, and I will not be responsible for him succeeding. I didn't teach him even a third of what I know, and I doubt you did either. I can catch his socks, I will catch his socks, and I hope you realize it is your responsibility to work along side of me to put an end to his attempts at sockpuppetry. SexySeaBass 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How could you possibly think that? It is my duty to continue as I have always done. I will seek and report any and all socks I find. No one can do that better than I. I didn't teach him a one hundredth of what I know. All I did was do what many were afraid to do. Confront and Rebuild. I taught him the basics on how to be a good contributor. Maybe some day he'll have the opportunity to show this skill to full capacity if he ever gets unbanned.-- bulletproof ^3:16 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back bulletproof! iMatthew 2008 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back BulletProof 3:16, and please can we all avoid this drama with Hornetman, he shall be gone for a long time and he will be forgotten, lets just look into the future.TrUCo-X 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion was about making future plans as it relates to this user. We are trying to move forward. We just needed a place to discuss this publicly. With only bulletproof and myself participating this was quick and painless. There is no cause for concern, SexySeaBass 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say on this matter is: he got more than enough chances, and blew them all. People shouldn't be teaching him how to get away with sockpuppetry, period. This discussion needs to be closed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged, that was a mistake on my part. However, there is cause to believe he has the potential to be a good user. I saw potential in him under the Monnitewars account, at one point even offering to adopt him. If bulletproof has helped him understand how Wikipedia works, then I'm willing to give him another shot. Like I said, if he models himself after bulletproof, then he'll be a fine editor. I have also said I'll be actively hunting his sockpuppets down, and bulletproof has said that also. That means there's nothing to worry about in the mean time. He hasn't been taught enough to stand up to either one of us, much less both of us. I understand why you're upset, Rob, but there's nothing to be done about it at this point. When the ANI discussion starts, feel free to oppose his unblock then. SexySeaBass 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe we should just take this to AN/I and leave things clear, maybe if he sees the community's possition he might finally understand why he is not allowed back. Personally I'm becoming tired of playing Whac-A-Mole with all of his socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to wait, but if you want to go to ANI now then I'm not going to resist. It won't prevent us from starting another discussion later, so why not? SexySeaBass 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like him to be aware of the discussion, that way he can understand why he keeps being blocked, can you contact him before opening a thread? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll pop him an email now. SexySeaBass 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He's already aware of the discussion and I believe he fully intends to cooperate. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm awaiting confirmation from Hybrid's e-mail, Bullet have you contacted him about this? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Via MSN yes. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he directly state that he is willing to comply by the community's decision and put end to all arguments no matter what that decision is? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I did and his response was "yes"-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have confirmation on my end as well. SexySeaBass 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, the thread is located here, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(De indent) Guys, are you kidding me? He's bragging about his ban on other wikipedia's (including the simple english one), and has been caught sockpuppeting by check user just last week. I think any discussion of an unban has to start with six months of NO SOCKPUPPETS whatso ever, and then we can discuss it then. SirFozzie (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The AN thread was created to finish all these silly threads and all arguments that he "hasn't received a second chance", after this nobody can say he didn't received a opportunity and we avoid these long threads about him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of current champions in WWE

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

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

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

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

Jeff Hardy

Yeah. Just keep an eye out. Mshake3 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well WWE announced it so its official, but expect vandalism by IPs and newbies.--TrUCo-X 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I know this is not a forum, but I just have to say it: what a moron. He was in the midst of the biggest push of his career and was IC champion...he completely screwed himself over. Nikki311 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Its alright. I felt the same way when Randy Orton was found guilty of the same cause. And sorry if I disobeyed Wikipedia guideline standards. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather

Need to keep an eye on wm 24 article. due to his "injury" from last night on raw S-PAC54 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What some people do to avoid fighting Miguel Cotto... I will keep the page on my watchlist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Same here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams?

What does everyone think of List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams? I think it is pretty useless, as it doesn't define how long two people need to team together to be considered a "tag team" and more-or-less just reiterates what is already located in the various sub-cats of Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. Anyone hopelessly attached to it or should I take it to AfD? This seems like another case of having a list for the sake of having a list. Nikki311 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited that in the past, but I don't see a need to keep it. I've copied and updated it to the wrestling wiki now, as I doubt it will survive an AFD. With some work and splitting into multiple pages, it would be a nice addition to the wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

On more than 1 occasion I have gone through and taken out teams that existed for 1 or 2 weeks. Some people keep adding anybody that teams at all (even if it's a random pairing, like Mr. Kennedy and MVP). I say get rid of it. TJ Spyke 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

To me its list cruft, no really real purpose for it's use. I say AfD it or better expand it.--TrUCo-X 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with putting it through AfD as I don't find the article useful at all. ArcAngel (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominated. Nikki311 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2004) and List of WCW Hardcore Champions

Is it ok if I nominate NWO again for FA status, it failed for no reason (mostly for no responses and the two oppositions did not make sense, and one we fixed what was required) And this time we need votes from the project, but I only insist on 2 votes, also List of WCW Hardcore Champions might not be raised to FL because of few responses, I fixed what the one person said, but no one else has replied, I also insist on 2 votes from the project, it doesn't matter if its opposition but we need some type of responses. Comments/Suggestions?--TrUCo-X 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"I insist on 2 votes" - honestly that's the kind of statement that's very quickly taken as you canvassing for votes. it's a fine line you walk when wrestling editors vote on wrestling articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

But did I say Please two people support these, I am just asking for people to respond to the article (that's what I meant) two responses from the project, either a comment, opposition, or support. But see this is why the project's FL/FA fail, because editors think that when WP:PW members vote, it is biased. (Sigh), Forget about it people, lets just wait for people outside the project to respond. But I want to know the opinion on NWO.--TrUCo-X 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no hurt if you re-nominate No Way Out. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Touchy aren't we? All I said was be careful how you word it, the whole "Insisting" thing comes off as you canvassing for votes. Honestly to avoid any and all "canvasing" charges all that should be done here is announce that "Article X" is not nominated for FA/FL and then let people vote or not if they feel like it. That's how you avoid any controversy. And they think that when WP:PW memebers just vote "Yeah it's good, support" it's biased or due to canvassing, you may not think it but I'm trying to HELP the project here. no one benefits if the rule is once again "No WP:PW memebers can vote on FA/FLs" MPJ-DK (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I understand, that's why I'm gonna wait for more responses from outside the project. But Im going to renominate NWO once again and lets see how it goes from there.TrUCo-X 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

NWO Renominated

No Way Out (2004) has been renominated for FA.TrUCo-X 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Alvarez

Please add this to your watch lists as his middle name keeps getting changed from Alki to many different things.Skitzo (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The FIP World Heavyweight Championship

is officially an ROH title. Should it be listed under that promotion (now/future winners/never)?

And no, I'm not back. Consider this part of my "edit or two here and there" :p Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I meant on the pages of the wrestlers who hold it. I see it's already on Ring of Honor. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious problem for many PPV articles

Online Onslaught has gone dead, so none of the references to the site are working. I know that a lot of people (myself included) rely heavily on it as a source, so that makes for a lot of dead links. I'm trying to find out if Internet Archive will work, but it's not working for me right now. Web Cite doesn't have anything from Online Onslaught saved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I say give it some time, last time one of the sites I used to source a PPV went dead but came back up like a week after. One question though, was this site actively updated?--TrUCo-X 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't watch wrestling from after 1996, so I've never looked for anything more recent than that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh because if it wasn't (like The Other Arena) I don't think they will bother to renew the domain, since it wasn't an active site.--TrUCo-X 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It was last updated a week ago, don't panic yet.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the rest of the site, but the Oold Tyme Rasslin Revue (where they would review an older WWE PPV, they were up to King of the Ring 2002) part of the site was updated at least once a month. It says the domain is pending renewal, so I say we should at least give it a few days. TJ Spyke 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

PPV Expansion:TV Reports

Ok sometimes it is hard to find TV reports for some of the PPV articles and not all of the sources we use have reports 100% of the time, so here is my question other than these 3 (that I know of), are there any other websites which have TV results (especially before 2002) and are considered reliable?

• OWoW
• The Other Arena
• PWWEW

--TrUCo-X 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Slam! Sports is good. DDT Digest is great for WCW PPV and every WCW TV show (mainly from 1997-2001). TJ Spyke 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm that's good, how about 411Mania?--TrUCo-X 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't check that site, but i've heard from other people that's it's good and reliable. TJ Spyke 16:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TJ, more responses would be appreciated.TrUCo-X 16:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Now retired

For anyone who has noticed my dissappearance, I am now retired from Wikipedia due to personal reasons. Anyone who needs to contact me can send me an e-mail at my page. Thanks FamicomJL (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)