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 46. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Jeff Hardy

is being nominated for GA next sunday by me. Look over it please, and comment on the talk page. I've taken care of everything on the to-do list, so that shouldn't be a problem. All opinions welcome. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yay! Hopefully it'll pass. Once I nominate it and wait the 2 months or so to get it reviewed... Anyway, more comments/opinions from people would be appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We got your back, Nici. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL. That's good to know!! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. NimiTize 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over it! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anytime Nici ;) NimiTize 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nominated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Hardy

Is it ready for GA yet? What needs to be fixed. If anything, please state it, as I will probably nominate it two weeks from Monday. iMatthew 2008 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Expand the "Hardy Boyz" section, and add more refs to the "Singles career" section, are the two main things at the moment. I'll take a proper look later. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "Hardy Boyz" section should remain as is, since there is a link to the main article for the Hardy Boyz. What specifically needs to be sourced in Singles competition? iMatthew 2008 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt winning Euopean title, Hardy Boyz winning titles, Matt turning on Jeff, Matt joining SD, Matt defeating the Undertaker on several occasions, Matt turning on Lita + storyline w. Kane, and Matt and Lita's relationship. So, pretty much the whole section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I was looking at Singles competition, which appears to be fully sourced. My mistake. iMatthew 2008 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make. Dont worry about it. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a "To-Do" list at the top of the talk page with a few suggestions. I will try to look this article over more thoroughly this week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania III for FAC

It was discussed here, but the discussion didn't really go anywhere. Can I please have feedback on the article. Thanks, Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Every time you've asked for feedback, you've reacted angrily when people thought improvements could be made. When you nominated it for GA, you got very angry at the reviewer. Why ask for feedback if you're unwilling to listen to it? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review? D.M.N. (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the article was so so. Even though there is sourcing and all it just feels as though it's missing something. The two matches that everyone talked about coming out of the event were Steamboat/Savage and obviously Hogan/Andre but I don't think the descriptions did the matches justice. --Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I started reading and came to "Kayfabe turn" very early on and I just stopped reading right then and there - the use of such an "insider" wrestling slang term is something that'd make me vote AGAINST it in GA, especially since there are plenty of other terms that explains it in clear, normal English instead of the slang term. I'm sure there is more but I stopped there for nowMPJ-DK (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2000)

Has been listed for peer review, please comment in hopes of becoming a GA.--TrUCo-X 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tru, I took a look at the Summerslam article. The article is a good read, although there were a lot of uses of thus in it, that was the only thing that felt kind of repetitve. Just a small thing. The article is also sourced well and explains the origins of what led up to the major matches during the show and the angles that formed after it.

--Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and that has been fixed.--TrUCo-X 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

Can somebody please review this article, and possibly create a "To-Do" list, in hopes of it becoming a future GA. iMatthew 2008 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I glanced over the article and started a to-do list on the article's talk page. I'll look it over in more detail soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Nici and I have completed the list. Please leave any other feedback. I will nominate the article next Friday or Saturday. iMatthew 2008 00:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Major Brothers or Hawkins and Ryder?

Which one is it? Cause, KingMorpheus redirected "Hawkins and Ryder" to Major Brothers. So, which one is it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well they are best know as the Major Brothers, but I don't think they will use that anymore since Vince found out they are not really brothers, so I think it's time to reach consensus on whether we should change the title of the page since they are really more known as Hawkins and Ryder more than the Major Brothers, no?--TrUCo-X 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but I just wanted to know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This again? Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder is the way to go. Mshake3 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. They've gotten their biggest push as Ryder + Hawkins, and I'd say that they are the names they're going to keep in WWE. course, you never know with Vince. The likelihood of them reverting to using the "Major Brothers" is slim to nothing, at best, IMO. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Nici. iMatthew 2008 01:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's time to rename the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we do the change? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I say yes. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, do we either make a redirect or move the article to "Hawkins and Ryder"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say redirect. iMatthew 2008 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Scorpion moved it, so.... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To-Do list of articles needing reviews and comments?

I was wondering if it would be possible to create a list where people could list articles that they would like proofread, copyedited, looked over, etc. before nominating them for GA or FA status. I know that people list them on the project talk page, but I have a hard time keeping track. I've temporarily lost interest in writing and expanding articles, but I'm willing to do pre-GA reviews, etc. for editors who are looking for feedback. A few people asked me for help, but I took a few days off and then went on a short vacation and I can't remember who needed what. If there was a place that we used regularly, it would help keep all of this straight. The newsletter comes out every two weeks with a list of articles needing peer review (although the last list was outdated), but I would like something that we can see every day. Ideally, it could have sections for articles needing peer review, articles about to be nominated for GA, articles about to be nominated for FA, articles needing general suggestions on what is needed to get to GA level, etc. Alternatively, editors could just list articles and make a note of what is needed. Is there any chance we could do this in a well-traveled location (perhaps on the project's main page)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Couldn't a new page be made for it? Like what was done for the Broken external links? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also like that idea. I think a subheader on the main WP:PW page might be good...somewhere near the list of current nominations. I also think it would be good to put the date you listed it, so people will know how long it's been there and when the notification week is up. Nikki311 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a little something. Feel free to mess around with it... Nikki311 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added a "Feedback requests" section for articles (such as Brock Lesnar) where editors have requested input on what is needed to get the article to GA level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Question: Can we add an article under the "feedback requests" or do we leave a notice here at the talk page? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave a notice first, then add it. iMatthew 2008`

DC Hannon

Dc hannon - notable? worth cleaning up? --Fredrick day 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, looks like it just got speedy deleted (about 1 minute after you posted that). TJ Spyke 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"SmackDown" starting WrestleMania XXIV

Why was is chosen for "SmackDown" to replace "SmackDown!" for PPV articles after and including WrestleMania XXIV? Did any significant event/change occur before WM and after the previous PPV? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are you talking about. :*  Matt  ^talk 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

IF you are taking about the lack of the ! at the end the reason is simple. Since the last PPV Smackdown was part of the show no longer uses it. --76.66.189.163 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion, yet alone consensus. For now, revert any edit that removes the "!". TJ Spyke 22:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I thought this was a bigger change. Turns out it was just the WrestleMania article that dropped the exclamation mark. (Backlash: [1]) Sorry about that. Still, I would like to know why we changed for that article. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Korpela

hey im adam and im doing a sandbox with Steelerfan-94 and i'd like to make sure it would stay this is it here User:Adster95/Sandbox Adster95 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)‎

Three Year Anniversary

As many of you may or may not know, today, March 21, 2008 is the project's three year anniversary. The project has come a long way since the beginning. The project has welcomed new users, who have quickly became great editors. We have gained a few administrators. We have many Featured Articles, Featured Lists, and Good Articles, with the nomination list constantly growing. The professional wrestling project has been a great success, and the future is still looking great. My congratulations and thanks go out to all of the members of this project that are a part of it's three year anniversary. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers to everyone. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WOOOOOOOO!

Excellent work everybody. Let's keep it up. I brought the champagne! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Guerrero Family

I leave it up to the masses--

Should Chavo Guerrero be part of the Edge/Ryder/Hawkins/Vickie stable?

I say yes because they all helped Chavo win the ECW Title, and WWE.com constantly refers to them as the Guerrero Family (see WWE.com's Wrestlemania's preview of the ECW Battle royal/Title match).

Ever since Chavo has been every bit the henchman for Edge like Hawkins and Ryder are.

Also remember the "one big happy family" deal when Chavo first started going after CM Punk?

Tell me what you think.

Vjmlhds 17:00 March 21, 2008 (UTC)

This again? Guerrero is a part of the stable, case closed.--TrUCo-X 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Case re-opened. =] I don't see how he is a part of the stable. They sometimes appear together, but not enough to be considered a stable. iMatthew 2008 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

These past weeks I have seen Vickie book matches with Hawkins/Ryder/Edge and adding Chavo to the matches, like Vj said, Edge helped him win the ECW title, and WWE clearly states that Chavo, Edge, Hawkins and Ryder, and Vickie are "[Guerrero] familia"TrUCo-X 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If this continues with Chavo and Edge in the coming weeks, then I might change my mind. For now, it seems that this was just a one or two time thing (IMO) iMatthew 2008 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I was wondering, when (if ever) should the stable get its own page? They've been around almost four months and have been appearing together on a weekly basis. It may not be very long, but we do have pages for relatively short lived stables that were around for about half a year like The Power Trip, Rated-RKO, The Un-Americans, Team McMahon, The New Breed, ECW Originals, The Mexicools and even Vince's Devils. The main problem is that they don't really have an official name, I think the "Guerrero Family" has been mostly used by WWE.com and I don't believe I've heard them use it on Smackdown (although I'll admit I don't watch it every week). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, most of those groups were around a lot longer and were actual stables (not just a few people allied occasionally). The only one less notable than the Guerrero family would be Vince's Devils. TJ Spyke 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of them were around 6 months or less, and Edge, Hawkins and Ryder have been allied quite a bit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to add a page, I would say add it in the Los Guerreros article.TrUCo-X 00:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Money Inc.

This isn't notice of an intention to nominate this article for GA status, but I was wondering if GA is a possibility for this article. After seeing some of the articles nominated for GA, size doesn't seem to be much of a requirement. This article is thoroughly referenced and covers the full history of the team. I would still like to tighten up the prose, expand the lead, and add an external links section. Subsections within the "Career" section would probably help as well. Does anyone think it would have a chance at GA? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this one. Any thoughts on Brian Kendrick becoming a GA? iMatthew 2008 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I expanded Money Inc. a bit today. The Kendrick article looks good and it has GA potential. I'll look it over later to see what needs to be done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It might have a chance. I've been reviewing articles lately as well, and I have to agree that there are some short ones that get nominated and pass. As for Kendrick, it needs some general cleanup first. Nikki311 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's no real harm in trying. I've made some additions to the article today, and I'll work on it a bit more tomorrow. If anyone could give suggestions on what could be added or what it needs before it's at GA level, I would appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked over it again, and all grammar/spelling/things of that nature seem to already be in order. Nikki311 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I would source some of the lead for Money, Inc.TrUCo-X 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand (and the Manual of Style seems to back this up), the lead should either be fully sourced or fully unsourced. There is no firm rule, as many people see sourcing the lead to be redundant because all of the information is sourced in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've heard both too, which is really ridiculous - no set standard? but then again if you source it the first time it's mentioned in the main text then you have the sources and if it becomes a point of contention you can just lift the sources up higher in the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Kendrick

Can somebody please review this article? All feedback is welcomed, maybe on a to-do list. Also, Nici and I have completed the to-do list for Brock Lesnar. I gave my notice yesterday (a few threads up). I will be nominating it next Friday or Saturday. iMatthew 2008 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a crack at the first review of the article, I gave feedback on the talk page instead of a "to do" list. Hope it's helpful. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my one week notice on Brian Kendrick. iMatthew 2008 11:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Professional wrestling

Is this going anywhere? iMatthew 2008 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Randy Orton

I would like some feedback about the article. I got some stuff that was left on the talk page, but I don't know if that's enough for the article to become a future GA. Anything is welcomed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 WWE Draft FLC?

Is it worthy of being nominated for FL?--TrUCo-X 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Hardy

Today is supposed to be the day I nominate it for GA. Before I do though, can somebody give it a pre-GA review on it's talk page? It would be greatly appreciated! iMatthew 2008 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are still several items left on the "To-Do" list on the article's talk page. The biggest problem is that there are still sections of text that are unreferenced. I added a few more things this morning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't nominate it until the to-do list is taken care of. Nikki311 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on it. ;) iMatthew 2008 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nici and I have completed the to-do list. It is now nominated. iMatthew 2008 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You've done a great job. If you don't mind, there are a few other things that I noticed: (1) A few of the external links don't work (see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Matt_Hardy), (2) I still don't see anything about Hardy's first five years with the WWF, (3) Reference #43 doesn't back up the statement in the article, (4) The final sentence of the "2005-2006" subsection could use more detail--who won the match?, (5) The NEWA and NFWA titles don't seem to be correct in the "Championships and accomplishments" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've fixed most of your suggestions Gary, but I don't understand your second point. His first 5 years would have started in 1998 when he signed his contract surely? I added some info about 2 jobber matches he had in 95/96 but that's the only info I can find. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

He wrestled for the WWF long before 1998. For example, looking through http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/94.htm shows that he wrestled Nikolai Volkoff, Owen Hart, Razor Ramon, Crush, The Undertaker and IRS in 1994. Likewise, he wrestled in quite a few matches for the WWF in 1995, 1996 and 1997. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the sources I had didn't meation that, they only mentioned 2/3 matches. i'll add some more in. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

COTW

I apologize for the multiple threads I've posted. For the COTW, is it possible that we can go back to choosing a COTW every week instead of every other week. We can ask Misza13 to deliver this message every week:

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for March 16 - March 22 is The Big Show. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 23 Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

iMatthew 2008 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should depend on the article. I mean, the current COTW has had many edits to it and I don't think we should stop the momentum. There have been COTWs that have had little development and extending the length of time would have made little difference. This method should maximize the impact of the system. I believe the change to 2 weeks was because of a decrease in contribution and interest? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The change to two weeks was made because of the decision to send out the newsletter every two weeks. We just went along and did the COTW every 2 weeks as well. iMatthew 2008 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to 13's suggestion You don't to stop the momentum on the current article. But then, how would you decide when to change the COTW? When the momentum stops? How would you define that? I personally like Matt's idea of going back to a weekly COTW. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I like every two weeks because it gives more time for anyone who wants to help, so that they can. I know that I've been really busy lately, so I like knowing I have extra days if I need them. The only problem with it is that nominations are getting pruned to fast, because we haven't extended the time limits to match the change in how often we have a COTW. Nikki311 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How about two votes every week? iMatthew 2008 00:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe that Matt has made posts about that in the past, and got no replies. see here for instance. I think you make an excellent point Nikki, but if we keep it at 2 weeks, then we need to increase the amount of time before pruning. Also, I think the notice should be sent out anyway, because the newsletter is sent out the week before the COTW changes, so there is a week delay. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What about working on two articles every two weeks? That way people could still contribute when they have time. If someone is able to get at one right away, however, there would still be the second article to edit rather than waiting until the two-week period is over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I like Gary's idea. That way, we have time to work on both and see if we can achieve something with them. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How about we try it next week by doing both a FACOTW and a regular COTW? If it works out, then we can try it again. Nikki311 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm in favour of that. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I'll get to work on that tomorrow. iMatthew 2008 02:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So to summarize/confirm everything:

• This week, there will be a FACOTW, and a COTW, at the same time.
• This week's FACOTW and COTW will close next Sunday.
• This week's FACOTW is Kurt Angle, and COTW is still Big Show

• Somebody needs to make the changes, since I don't know what to do. But I will include this in the newsletter, then send my notice to Misza. iMatthew 2008 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes made. Edit away. Nikki311 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And what will happen for the next two-week period? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling Film

Hello, I have a request for all members looking to keep pro wrestling topics in good health on Wiki. I have tried to create a page for the Bloodstained Memoirs documentary (starring Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Mick Foley, Roddy Piper, Jimmy Snuka, Christian Cage, Ultimo Dragon, Great Muta, Molly Holly, Christy Hemme and more) Unbelieveably, user Brian Kendig has removed my page and put it as User talk:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs, as he does not think the film is notible!?! Starring all those major names, he does not think it is notible!?!

In the page, I even listed several reasons for a lay peraon why it is notible (featured in nationwide magazines etc), but Jesus, I think it goes without saying (starring all those names) why it is.

I told him that he should research the subject, and see for himself why this is notible, but I don't think he cares. What can we do to put the page back up onto Wiki space?

Thanks. Commoncase (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit it here, and reliably source it. If you can't find any sources, then it probably is non-notable. D.M.N. (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, if you cannot find any reliable sources, it would not be considered notable. iMatthew 2008 13:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you know the business. My analagy was, if Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise made a film that was not released yet, are you telling me it would not be put on Wiki? The fact that all these wrestlers are together in a big budget project makes it notible in itself. Let alone the fact it has been featured in high street magazines, PowerSlam and FSM, as stated in the artcile??? Commoncase (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be put on Wikipedia if reliable sources were found to back up the information. If there were no reliable sources found, then no, it would probably not be put on Wikipedia. iMatthew 2008 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

But I have listed in the article, that the documentary has been covered in Powerslam magazine and FSM magazine multiple times. These are nationwide, high street magazines?? Commoncase (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, but if you have them with you you can cite them with the {{Citation}} template, but if not you have to find sources from the web.TrUCo-X 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every wrestling news site has mentioned it? But I dare say wrestling news sites would not be deemed "notible" enough. This is so laughable unfortunatly. Look at the names in the project!?! Commoncase (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus and guidelines aren't laughable. The only thing laughable is your spelling. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if his spelling isn't correct, there is no need to personally attack him over it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't go on accusing me of personal attacks, when he was openly mocking wikipedia guidelines. And I for one take Wikipedia guidelines very seriously. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a bit too seriously? Honestly there is NO need to take a swipe at the guy or his spelling just because you disagree with him. You should take WP:CIVIL seriously, just a friendly suggestion MPJ-DK (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Only 33,200 hits from Google, the first handful don't look reliable. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

While it will probably warrant an article at some point, it doesn't look like this is the right time for the article to be created. As previously mentioned, you are welcome to create the article in your sandbox and add to it as reliable sources become available. Once it meets the notability requirements, you could bring it into the main space. Unfortunately, appealing to our emotions can't trump Wikipedia guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sabu and Rob Van Dam

Even though I was not a fan of the old ECW, I will begin to look for sources, and make the article worthy enough for GA-status. (This is my first tag team article). Thanks, Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Acolytes Protection Agency

Just like Alex will work on a tag team, so will I. I will work on the APA in hopes of it becoming a GA as well.--TrUCo-X 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ready for GA

Ok before I nominate it for GA, I would like WP:PW members to review the article and point out anything and comment it on it here or on my talk page. Thanks.--TrUCo-X 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fix the inconsistent use of A.P.A., A.P.A and APA. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Rated-RKO

Just like Alex and Truco, NiciVampireHeart and I will work on Rated RKO (another tag team), again in hopes of another GA. iMatthew 2008 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, its tag team frenzy today.lol--TrUCo-X 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess I might as well mention that I've been working on Faces of Fear, as the article was only two sentences long a couple of days ago. I don't know much about the team, as a lot of what they did happened after I stopped watching wrestling, but I'm hoping that GA is a possibility for the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple H

I'm planning on nominating Triple H (Date not decided) for FA, if anyone has a suggestions for improvement, please say so (Refs, more sources, grammer, etc.) NimiTize 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it needs quite a bit of work. I want to expand the lead a bit, copy edit a little bit more, and format the couple of citations that need it. Let me finish that before you nominate...and I'd actually wish you'd hold off a few weeks as Kurt Angle is the current FACOTW and you already said you wanted to nominate Shawn Michaels. Nikki311 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

April 4 will be the date. Fallen Angel 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Our PPV Expansion Page

I made some changes and fixes in my sandbox to it. The setup right now makes some rows bigger than others (depending on the amount of users working on a project). In my sandbox, instead of separating user's names with <br>, I separated them with ";". It makes every row the same size, and makes the page smaller. Can I switch it over? iMatthew 2008 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. I say go ahead.--TrUCo-X 14:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. iMatthew 2008 14:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jos LeDuc

Just a quick note that this article passed its GA review this morning. Thanks to everyone who helped out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job GCF! iMatthew 2008 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea to eliminate the GA nomination backlog

As we've discussed here lately, there is a large backlog on the GA Nominations page, and some articlesare waiting up to about 50 days before they are reviewed. I discussed an idea with a member of WP:WGA, and he suggested I give it a try. I have posted help requests on the talk page of each of the major sports Wikiprojects and asked them to review two specific articles over the next week. If every project reviews two articles, the backlog will be eliminated. I randomly chose the articles, and my request is that people from this project try to find time to review 1966 Liberty Bowl and English Channel (horse). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. As I've mentioned, I started reviewing articles lately, and I've learned a lot from it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started the review for the 1966 Liberty Bowl. iMatthew 2008 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review the English Horse.TrUCo-X 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

English Horse, lol. I guess you mean the English Channel (which is a horse race). iMatthew 2008 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt for the humor, CORRECTION:I have reviewed the English Channel (horse) =)TrUCo-X 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol. iMatthew 2008 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You guys (and girls) are amazing. In just a few hours, the list has been trimmed substantially, and many of those reviews have been from members of this project. Thanks for your help. And if you can, it is always a good idea to ask the nominator of an article you review to review one as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going great. Currently, 15/31 articles are being reviewed/on hold. Like GCF said, if you review an article, the nominator of the article to review one themselves. Also, No Way Out (2007) is being reviewed, if you can help with the review, please do. There are notes left on the talk page. iMatthew 2008 15:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a new FL

List of WCW Hardcore Champions has passes its FL. Thanks to all who helped. --TrUCo-X 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats great! iMatthew 2008 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.86.110.155

He is going through prodding countless wrestling articles with out warning us. A lot of them are non notable, but I removed the prods just on the basis of his not informing us. Kris (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, he doesn't have to notify us. Looking at the IP's edits, all of their prods (which is not "countless", they've prodded 2 articles in the last week, and the last wrestling related edit was 2 days ago) were for articles that SHOULD be deleted: Dark Angel (wrestler) and Crybaby (wrestler). Both articles are in terrible shape and they seem to be non-notable. I disagree with removing the prods, but they can't be put back and now both articles have to go through the full AFD process. TJ Spyke 02:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrollable References

I've seen articles (cant remember which ones) where the refs section is scrollable, does any one know the code for it, or what to use?--TrUCo-X 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that none of them should have it....... Mshake3 (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's being phased out on Wikipedia. No articles should have it. D.M.N. (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do double columns instead if you want to save room. They're pretty easy to find amongst the FAs. Normy 13:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple that used to have it, but they were removed with the comment that it makes printing difficult (or something) and that they were being phased out. Nikki311 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Nevermind then. Thanks for all who commented.TrUCo-X 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The APA

I will nominate it for GA in by the end of the week, please as i stated above, leave comments for fixes and comments about it.--TrUCo-X 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look it over fully yet, but many of the references need access dates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done--TrUCo-X 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighting Spirit Awards

A user [2] has popped up who has a special interest in adding FSM awards to pages. I have reverted a few of them but I am going offline and don't have the time to figure out what needs to be done. If someone could look in to it it would be much appreciated. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps contacting the user would be a good first step. These awards don't seem any more notable than WrestleCrap's annual Gooker award. I suppose an argument could be made that they are the equivalent of PWI or Wrestling Observer awards, but I just don't see any need to add stuff like the "Kriss Kross Award", "Sholy Hit Award" and "LL Cool J Award" to Wikipedia articles. The user's name (Fighting Spirit) also brings up the possibility of conflict of interest. And the image used on the Fighting Spirit magazine and FSM Awards page has been used since September with no Fair Use Rationale (which isn't related to the discussion at hand, but is simply a casual observation). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the image, so it'll be deleted within 7 days if no rationale is provided. I don't particularly see these as notable either, and a Google Search proves it. It should be taken to AfD, as I'm sure the COI-user will de-prod. I'm about to log off also, so can someone else do the honors... Nikki311 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an inappropriate username (WP:UAA) Nikki, you may want to speedy delete FSM Awards, as it was created by the blocked indef user. - D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The users only edits were about this relatively new magazine (it just started in 2006), so maybe they work for the magazine or something. The article on the magazine reads like an ad too. I wouldn't consider them anywhere near as important as PWI's awards (which have been around for 30 years) or even Wrestling Observer (which has been around for a long time too). TJ Spyke 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Just letting everyone know I have solved my internet problems. BTW, why was I pushed back in the interview queue? I did the questions back in january... Straight Edge PXK 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You weren't, we started doing newsletters every other week, there were some delays, and it just push you and I back. Welcome back! iMatthew 2008 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of stables

List of professional wrestling stables has been deleted; I couldn't find a AfD discussion page.TravelingCat (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an article, it was just a redirect to List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams, which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams. When an article is deleted, redirects to it are usually speedy deleted under R1 (see WP:CSD). TJ Spyke 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay.TravelingCat (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2007)

Just passed it's GA review. Congrats everyone, and keep reviewing articles. iMatthew 2008 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Leaving

...for WrestleMania XXIV! Just thought I'd drop by before I leave for Orlando tomorrow afternoon. I found a few things online that could be used in the article as well as for your enjoyment. Anyone anxious to see what the Citrus Bowl will look like for 'Mania? Well from what the following links show it looks nothing like what WWE magazine depicted. Check it out. Video Article Article 2 Article 3 These could be great additions to the article's production section. For anyone who cared to read my interview I'll also be going the HoF, Axxess, and other festivities around the city. Expect to see some great pictures when I return. I'll try to be back here editing in full force when I return. Cheers! -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a great time! iMatthew 2008 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that arena rendering was a bit off when it appeared that Bobby Lashley was being visualized. Seriously though, have a great time. Mshake3 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Can't wait to see some of the pictures you take (they should look great in the WMXXIV article and the set-up for the MITB article). TJ Spyke 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. I hope it's great. And if you have a chance to get a picture of Jack Brisco, that would be wonderful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Take as many pictures as you can, everywhere you go (HoF, Axxess, THQ Superstar Challenge if you go there, and WrestleMania itself. Don't let pictures be your only focus though. Have fun, since this is a one in a life time experience. iMatthew 2008 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a random IP address coming from Florida seem familiar to anyone here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. iMatthew 2008 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... Not again. Just ignore him. Anyway, thanks guys. It's actually the second 'Mania I'll be attending live. (1st being 21) I'm really looking forward to all the events! Wish you were there! -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was there too, lol. Btw. I meant being there for WrestleMania outdoors is a one in a lifetime experience. iMatthew 2008 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah definitely. It sure will be interesting to see what the finished sets will look like. From what the video shows it looks to be really huge. I can't wait to see the outdoor pyro displays!-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mega Bucks

This article was moved from Mega Bucks to The Mega Bucks without discussion by User:King Gemini. Do we care, or is the new location just fine? To be honest, I'm a little bothered because I worked so much on the article, but my feelings of WP:OWNership shouldn't really come into play. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For god's sakes, fix the Carlito Article!!!

I just edited it to prove a point, WE DO NOT NEED THAT MUCH KAYFABE REFERENCING!!! so Jesus (Son of God) Christ, only refer to other wrestlers by names we actually know. Who would neet to know Thrish Stratus is Really (Patricia Strataigas) I thank you, Straight Edge PXK 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. Your edits were ridiculous. Do not edit an article just to prove a point...it is disruptive. Thanks. Nikki311 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

while you're at it, go and take all the "out of universe" crap out of it. how can it be a good article with that shite in it. I advise the editors who did this to Drop The Goddamn stick Straight Edge PXK 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is the only way it can be a Good Article, which it actually is, if you'd checked. It has to be made clear that wrestling isn't real. Live with it. Nikki311 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would need to know that Agent J is played by Will Smith in Men in Black? you obviously haven't encountered pleople tagging wrestling articles with {{in-universe}}, the only thing we are listing are real names at the first mention, wich is both relevant and a consideration for those that aren't familiar with kayfabe, not only rabid fanboys read these. Now if you want all references to the actor behind fictional characters deleted, begin by pestering WP:FILM, but be sure if you continue to edit to prove a point you will end up blocked for disrution. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So click on the link to the sandman's page and you will know that he is Jim Fullington. Hands up who would actually n eed to know what he was called to find out he drank and smoked on his way to the ring, swung a cane around and actually low blowed himself on the barrier when I was at a house show? Straight Edge PXK 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You edit make little sense but regardless, how is removing all the "out of universe" material from the article going to help it? how is removing Carlos' much published problems with the WWE going to help it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt mean that, I meant the "Paul "Triple H" Levesque" stuff. Why? He is never known as that. This is especially true for The Great Khali (CDalip Singh Rana)Straight Edge PXK 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the easy awnser is "wrestling is fake", we must leave that clear, the real names allow us to write in quite a "in-universe" perspective after the players are introduced, just like the film articles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm making my position clear: I don't really care about the names either way. However, adding kayfabe to every line, adding personal commentary, and editing to prove a point is what I'm upset about. Nikki311 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Making edits like that is entirely disruptive and is making a point. If you have a problem with certain articles, discuss it here first. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the pages are what the person is best known as...Sandman is what he is best known as..The same goes with the Carlito article.TrUCo-X 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't hate me, but how stupid can you be? Not you Truco, but Straight Edge. SexySeaShark 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Straight Edge PXK made a similar post about this several months ago. D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we make a template to say: "The following section describes a wrestler or manager's in ring career. It should be treated as a work of fiction, not reaal life." or something like that. Just word it better than I Did Straight Edge PXK 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we don't need that. I can't see it on other fictional articles e.g. Homer Simpson. D.M.N. (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's redundant, the link to professional wrestling is enough to understand that it is kayfabe.--TrUCo-X 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaybabe? :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad, typo, fixed it. I meant Kayfabe.--TrUCo-X 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Show Mayweather

Should the Big Show, Mayweather match be listed as kayfabe? Or is it allready? SexySteelerFan 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't IMO. I think it's implied since it's listed as a regular wrestling match. If it was real (which Mayweather never would agree to since he would get his butt whooped), then we would note it was real. TJ Spyke 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as mentioned above there is no way Mayweather could defeat Show in a legitimate fight and getting massacred is not good for selling the 'money' image, its obvious the match will be scripted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Is "Raw" capitalized?

ummmm........ is it.......?

142.162.187.79 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)