Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:24, 2 May 2008

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Shortcut WT:PW 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 49. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

PPV Templates

I created a new PPV template that merges all of the individual PPV templates. You can see it here. There are two templates. The top shows the years aligned, and the bottom just does not. Which one should we use, or should we just keep the individual ones we have now? iMatthew 20 08 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the individual ones. You have BTW missed out December to Dismember (2006), along with all of the In Your House PPV's, and also the England pay-per-views (Rebellion, Insurrextion) etc. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to just be the current PPVS. I think it would be neater and more organized to add this to the current PPV's instead of having all of these individual ones. iMatthew 20 08 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm with DMN, no offense Matt, but the individual ones makes it look neater. Your version is long and kinda looks messy.~~--~S R S~ 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me better phrase what I meant, now with this new templates, what are we going to do with the "Former" PPVS?--~S R S~ 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the top one. It makes it easier to find the event in question. Mshake3 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking, Mshake. Truco, we can keep the former PPV's in the template they are currently in, right under the current PPV template. We can make the former PPV template show/hide as well. iMatthew 20 08 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that over time, the template might get too long (horizontally) and might look scrunched up in most browsers. Nikki311 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I was also thinking.~S R S~ 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a year or two before that would happen, and if it did, we could clean up the template then. iMatthew 20 08 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then use the YY format. And if it becomes too long years from now, then we'll worry about it years from now. Mshake3 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This format should be fine, and exactly if it becomes to long then, we can change it then, but for now I feel this is the better way to go. iMatthew 20 08 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what situations would this template be helpful? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is more neat and organized than the current ones. As Mshake said above, it makes it easier to find the event in question. If you are reading Cyber Sunday 2007, and it meantions New Years Revolution 2007, it's a quicker way to find NYR 2007. You get what I'm saying? iMatthew 20 08 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say I was reading the 2004 Royal Rumble article and I wanted to read the 2004 Bad Blood article? If you're only listing events that occur in 2008, your listing of years before that would be incomplete. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, maybe I can create a similar template for the former PPV's. I'll try something out. iMatthew 20 08 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you are intending to do is an extension of the "Pay-per-view chronology" in the infobox? Something like a template for every year or a template with links to the 10 events before and after? If you're intending to provide a link to every ppv ever in a template, that's unnecessary. (you'll end up with this) --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to point out that the template reminds me of this page, which is very well done IMO. Mshake3 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Roster

As this discussion does not seem to be going anywhere, and it would be better if the community of Pro Wrestling would reach a consensus on this. On the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page, the page is called "WWE Roster", the wrestlers and other on air talent as stated by WWE's roster pages. But the Corporate Management and Other Personnel, IMO, should not belong on the page. If they are too belong, then we should rename the article to World Wrestling Entertainment employees. Comments?--~S R S~ 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem among the article is the unassigned talent, the developmental roster, the notes written beside a wrestler. These are unsourced, and if they are they are sourced with "dirt sheet" websites, what can we do about this?--~S R S~ 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My third problem with the article is that it has always blurred the line between kayfabe and real life. Like mentioning that Shawn Michaels also is allowed to appear on Smackdown because of his feud with Batista. Really, in real life, wwe can have anyone appear anywhere, whenever. Everytime i bring this up, I get shot down. Less Than Clippers 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its is how they operate, so in the lead we could mention the brand extension and exceptions.~S R S~ 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly titled, to boot. Titles of lists should start with "List of". — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~List of~~ Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees iMatthew 20 08 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it were all to remain then, I guess ~~List of~~ Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees is the way to go, but lets hear for other opinions.~S R S~ 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it poorly titled? Didn't we recently move all of the "list of ____ moves in professional wrestling" articles and the like to not include "list of?" I fail to see why we'd want to move the roster article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The move articles are about particular moves (such as the suplex). They contain lists, but they are not stand-alone lists. This is, and the guideline for stand-alone lists is that their titles always start with "List of" (unless they are a more specific type of list, like a glossary or timeline, in which case it'd be "Glossary of..." or "Timeline of..."). — Gwalla | Talk 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I meant that, the thing is, "roster" literally means on air talent, but we have corporate management, unassigned talent, road agents, creative team members, producers. That is not part of the roster, so if we dont remove it, we should just rename it.~S R S~ 01:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but would "list of" really need to be added? Why not just "Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its gonna be titled "Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees", thats why I strike throught "list of" above.~S R S~ 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I moved it, I also moved TNA Roster to Current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees per the same reason as the move for the WWE Roster (which is now Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees), I have also added to the leads of both articles an explanation of how the employees are organized.~S R S~ 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE pay-per-view events

I put the table format for the events, but I feel its Table Cruft, how do people feel about reverting it back to a list format?--~S R S~ 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of PPV's, Vengeance '05 has passed GA. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the tables have multiple rows and columns, so a table is appropriate. Nikki311 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Help

Can someone please explain why I Get 2-3 copies of the same newsletter each week? Something is wrong with the bot or something. Also, check my message (on an IP) on Mr Kennedy's talk page Sexy Sea Bassist 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get two/three copies each week. It seems that the bot messed up while posting to your talkpage for this particular week. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, It does that every week. Look at last week's and it has three. I Also have cleared up a few. Sexy Sea Bassist 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause your name is on the Members list twice; once as User:Jordan Payne, and the other as User:Straight Edge PXK. Since one redirects to the other, you get 2 newsletters. Remove the redirect from the members list, and problem solved. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, I was on 3 times, one as PayneXKiller, one as Jordan Payne, and one as Straight Edge PXK. Thanks for the clear up though. Sexy Sea Bassist 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. You're welcome in any case! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM Punk

Just so peeps know, CM Punk faces Edge on SD (I'm watching UK Airing) so those bits on his article about losing MITB to Edge may be true (Please god no, not again.) I personally don't like it because a) Punk would get bumped down to midcard again (If you count ECW as having a top card) and b) Edge doesnt need another title shot or MITB reign. But hey, our job is to provide the info so my shoot talking isnt relevant. Sexy Sea Bassist 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops forgot to say, my intention was to say lookout for spoiler posters Sexy Sea Bassist 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just post the spoiler here, and this discussion is non relevant to the project. Plus your previous edit summary was unnecessary, remain civil.--~S R S~ 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not relevant to the project. He's informing us of articles to watch that may be edited to include unsourced additions. Anyway, I heard conflicting reports of the SD! tapings. Edge DOES face Punk, but one report said it was for the MITB. The others didn't. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well its not too big a deal, SD! airs in 3 hours. It can hold off.~S R S~ 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Edge PXK, if Edge had won MITB, the MITB page would of gone edit spree Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. There was no need for your post above IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check the history, it was edited a few times, I recall reverting edits on all three pages (MitB's, Edge's and Punk's) quite a few times since Tuesday. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least DMN agrees, but as we saw last night, it was not for the MiTB brifcase, so "edit spree" is over.~S R S~ 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COTW

We have a tie for tomorrow's COTW between National Wrestling Alliance and Hulk Hogan. The second spot goes to the FACOTW. When voting, keep in mind that you should vote based on which article would benefit the most from being COTW (which can be easily contributed to, requires the most development), and not based on which article you want to see improved. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is now a three-way tie along with Chris Benoit double murder and suicide. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one breaks the tie, I think a good thing to do is make the oldest of the three articles the COTW. That means it has survived on the nom list the longest. Then we don't have to waste time going through a tie-breaker where no one will probably vote anyway. Nikki311 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which means the double murder and suicide should have been chosen, not NWA. I'm curious as to why NWA was chosen. iMatthew 20 08 09:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I just saw the 10th vote. iMatthew 20 08 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that they both have nine votes, would anybody be for/against using Chris Benoit's double murder and suicide and Hulk Hogan as next week's COTWs. Otherwise they are going to get pruned, and I feel like they were not chosen this week because we only had one last minute vote. iMatthew 20 08 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~WrestleMania XXIV~~
This article can be a GA/FA with some work. To start off, what are some of your opinions about the report? The background... do you think there are some non-notable feud, should the qualifying matches even be listed? The event... do you think it is too long? Does having more information than probably needed hurt the article? The aftermath... does need to be expanded, probably after Backlash, but for now what are your thoughts? iMatthew 20 08 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its great. But the BG is too long, I say cut out the SD/RAW feud, and/or mayby the ECW Championship feud.--~S R S~ 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed both. iMatthew 20 08 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, now I think the event goes into too much detail, for example the Finlay/JBL match way into detail, cutting down some of the details in the matches would help, IMO. But a question, when do you plan on nominating this article for GA/FA?~S R S~ 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on the event soon. I'm not sure if I will be the one nominating it. If I do, it will be after I give it a pre-GA review, and I give a one week notice. iMatthew 20 08 14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge Personas of The Undertaker ---> The Undertaker??~~
Does anybody think that Personas of The Undertaker can be merged into The Undertaker? I saw the previous discussion on the talk page, but nothing happened from it. iMatthew 20 08 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I Say yes and no, some of the info about his gimmicks is already in his career section, but some of it is not, and the Personas article has a lot of information, but the article itself reads like a fan-type thing.--~S R S~ 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need to read through both articles carefully to check for the degree of overlap but I'm leaning towards a merge here. Basically, I don't like the concept of having a separate page for gimmick/persona stuff. It could set a bad precedent for other pages. Where would we draw the line? Also, to get the full story of the Undertaker's career in order, you may have to flip back and forth between two pages, which is a bit awkward. - DrWarpMind (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I suggested merge here, but the merge was rejected. D.M.N. (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that above. iMatthew 20 08 15:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The merge has been rejected before, and I reject it now. I'm usually a mergist, but in the case, the Undertaker's article is way past the desired length as it is. Nikki311 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move the content to the wrestling wiki, and link to it in the external links? From what I can see: Undertaker's article is the only one that lists all the changes he has gone through. But people could argue that Hogan needs a persona article, he's changed a lot since he first started in wrestling. Other wrestlers could qualify for the same type of article as well. However, why exactly does the content need to be all merged into the Undertaker article in the first place? I think this is a good example of excessive detail on Wikipedia. I think the personas article, should be a redirect (with only merging of very useful information) so Undertaker's article doesn't get too much larger. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rob. The article has few sources, so merge only the really important stuff, and send the rest to the PW wikia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I agree. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sounds good to me! iMatthew 20 08 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Done, it's now here: [1], anyone know if there is any other active wrestling wikis, so it can be added to those as well? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ONS 2005 - Styles a late entry?~~
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article1060395.ece in here it says he was late to be added. cn it be included somewhere? Sexy Sea Bassist 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~SS 88 peer review~~
I've put up my first attempt at writing a PPV article, SummerSlam (1988) up for peer review. If I've ever helped you with an article or done a peer review for you, please return the favor by commenting here. Thanks. Nikki311 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~2007 GA nominations~~
~~Unless anyone objects, I am going to nominate Backlash (2007), Judgment Day (2007), and One Night Stand (2007) for GA status next week. –L A X 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
At the same time? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that's a problem. –L A X 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want the list over at WP:GAN to get bigger than it already is. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~A-Class articles~~
~~What do you guys say about having an A-Class article here at PW? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
I never knew why we don't use A-Class, can somebody please explain that to me. iMatthew 20 08 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cause I've been cruising through other articles and I noticed this and I was wondering if PW had articles with that class. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wanted an A-Class here, but A-Class articles are literally like GA/FA level, and require alot of work, but alot of our articles have already reached that level, if we do get this level, should our PPV's be moved up from B->A?~S R S~ 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An A-class article is just an article that is nearly at FA level, but still needs a little work. I'd say Triple H is on that level, maybe John Cena as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SummerSlam (2007)? –L A X 22:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is A class more than GA class?~S R S~ 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. –L A X 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest getting John Cena's article to an A-Class, of the way is written. Should we do that? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well there must be a reason that we never used this before. Lets give other users time to read this and give their input. Also, since GA/FA require more than just changing it, maybe to determine if an article is A, we should have a poll on this talk page? iMatthew 20 08 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say do that. Hoor-A *tumbleweed* Sexy Sea Bassist 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that A articles are better than GA, but not quite at FA yet. I agree that Triple H might be there. There would have to be a consensus though on what it takes to be an A article, and we'd have to implement some sort of way to review and re-assessment them properly. We can't have everyone just reassessing their articles, or the system wouldn't be consistent. Nikki311 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should set up a WP:PW sub-page for A-Class article nominations. iMatthew 20 08 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would it say? Any idea on a system to determine A class articles? Nikki311 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can have it like COTW, where we nominate an article, and it stays up for one week to be reviewed by project members and others. iMatthew 20 08 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a little complicated. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know that "others" won't be helping, and that the only people who will review the articles is us. Nikki311 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A class assessment should be as informal as for the classes below GA. A seems more of a transition phase between GA and FA. Whether A class or not, the article will always be best identified as a GA pass due to the nature of a GA promotion. Articles that you believe to be worthy of FA but not yet there should be A class. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~List-Class articles?~~
Now that we are at it, how about a List class rating for our lists? I've seen other projects with it, and some of our lists, like Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees and Professional wrestling match types, can be rated better.--~S R S~ 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at first my method of thinking was B-class lists are sourced and with a little work could be sent to FL, start-class are articles without sources, and stub-class list articles were improperly formatted or incomplete. That's how all of them are presently rated, at least. However, most of the lists are complete now, so I wouldn't mind making all of them list-class. Although, I kind of like having the fully sourced ones as separate (B-class), so that we know what needs more work/sources and what doesn't. Nikki311 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So mayby like the Elimination Chamber could be list class? (since its at B).--~S R S~ 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around. It stays at B, and other lists without sources are List-class. Although, is Elimination Chamber really a list? I thought we've had a discussion that listing matches in those sorts of articles was list-cruft and should be removed. Without the list, it's just an article. Nikki311 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, so like Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees would be a list? Well i cant remember past discussions, but the EC match is unique, and the Hell in a Cell is written like that.~S R S~ 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Future-Class Articles~~
~~And since we are still at it. Why dont we use a future class in our articles?~S R S~ 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Well, right now the {{pro-wrestling}} template isn't set up to recognize current class. I don't see the point of it anyway. It can be a stub if little is known, and start if more is known, and work up from there. Only one or two articles is ever going to be that at one time. Nikki311 01:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, because I thought of it unfair to current/future articles since they have little info, and its not because of lack of content but info released.--~S R S~ 01:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that's factored into the assessment. Coverage on the topic relative to the information available. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~La Familia (professional wrestling)~~
Should this article be AfD'd? If this article should exist, shouldn't John Cena and Shawn Michaels, Carlito and Santino Marella, Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang, and Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes exist as well? –L A X 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be AfD'd. Also, I believe that Holly and Rhodes deserve an article by now. Anyone else think so? I mean they are bigger than Jesse and Festus, and Jesse and Festus have an article. iMatthew 20 08 18:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should stay. The stable has been around since December '07 and has evolved and expanded since then. I don't believe any of the above examples are anywhere near as notable as this stable, besides Holly and Rhodes. Bad examples, IMO. The only problem is that the stable has no real official name. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do Paul London and Brian Kendrick. But Holly and Rhodes deserve an article, right? iMatthew 20 08 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but they're a tag team, so calling them by their names is fine. I don't think "Edge, Curt Hawkins, Zack Ryder, Chavo Guerrero, Bam Neely and Vickie Guerrero" would work for an article name, so comparing that to Londrick is sort of nil. But I do think Rhodes/Holly need an article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edge, Vicky, Ryder and Hawkins are a stable. I think that Chavo and Bam Neelee are more like allies. Oh, and the stable should be called "The Rated-R Entourage" or "The Rated R Alliance". Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edge's stable is called the Edgeheads, not the Rated-R Enourage or Alliance. Get it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyChaos23 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on Holly/Rhodes' article in a sandbox, I'll run it by the project before I put it up. iMatthew 20 08 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're at it, does anyone else think Vince's Devils should be deleted? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{In response to Scorpion)-I do, that was a non notable stable.~S R S~ 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vince's Devils has sources, including book sources. Nikki311 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~AfD Update~~
~~Deleted~~

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PJ Black (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lizard (wrestler) (2nd nomination)
~~New, just created AfD today~~

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Playa (wrestler) (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler) (2nd nomination)
~~-- iMatthew 20 08 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Listcruft?~~
Inspired by seeing the List of Ring of Honor events page, User:Ericystephi has created List of ECW events‎, List of JAPW events, List of CZW events, and List of PWG events. Are these all useful articles? I'm finding some of this user's contributions questionable (eg. adding a list of opponents to the "Undefeated streak" section of Bill Goldberg). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Goldberg list was definitely list cruft, and I removed it. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the other lists, but I do think there should be a line drawn. He can't make a list of events for every promotion under the sun. Nikki311 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say no to the other events, as those events weren't that important. I am also starting to feel that list of ROH events is kinda cruft too.--~S R S~ 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if the lists had a small description of the events or main events with some reliable sources they would be okay, but I guess I don't really see the point of having just a bunch of names and dates. They don't even link to articles (for the most part) and probably never will. Nikki311 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly my point.--~S R S~ 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the event lists mentioned by Gary should probably be put in AFD. Pro wrestling is a fictional sport, however look at real sports: I'm pretty sure none have touring schedules articles here. Why exactly should this be an exception? If people can find sources and figure out which events are notable (besides the pay per views for Ring of Honor and ECW), then perhaps the lists could remain. But they need to be drastically condensed. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Gogoplata~~
Well since this is now a pro wrestling move, I added a pro wrestling template in the talk page. But then I noticed the article and "Use in Pro Wrestling", is it notable to have every instance that The Undertaker used the move? (I know IMO its not, but what do other users think)--~S R S~ 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why. He may continue to use the move from now on, slapping it on at least once every match. So, that would basically mean listing evrey instance he uses it from now on. It'd take up a lot of unnecessary space, particularly since he'll probably wrestle...what...another 100 matches or so at least this year?Odin's Beard (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Are these matches real?~~
In the professional wrestling match types article, there is a Taipai Deathmatch, 200 Lighttubes Deathmatch, and a No Rope Barbwire Deathmatch, is there any Verifiability to these matches?--~S R S~ 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taipei Death Match (which is misspelled in the article as Taipai Deathmatch) is definitely real. See here for verification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Ok.--~S R S~ 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, you're saying someone made up those match types out of nowhere? Mshake3 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that there is no source to them, so its not verifiable.--~S R S~ 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, the write-up for the Taipai Death Match is terrible. Aside from the obvious misspellings, "this match has not had many imitations" is a strange claim to make in an encyclopedia. And what to do with "A Taipai Deathmatch is based upon 2 ideas. A fight in the Country of Taipai as well as the Classic Van Damme movie Kickboxer."? The country of Taipei? And where is the reference for the match being an imitation of the Van Damme movie? And isn't Van Damme's first name "Rob", not "Classic" (or am I thinking of a different Van Damme)?
There is such a thing as a No Rope Barbwire match, but I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as a No Rope Barbwire DEATHmatch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lord, who added that bit about Van Damme? — Gwalla | Talk 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, I took the liberty of cleaning them up a bit and adding the source GCF provided to the Taipei match. Nikki311 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Major Problems for PPV articles~~
Well we previously had Online Onslaught terminated, but revived at OOWrestling. Now we have PWWEW.net a major source for many PPV's, is now Dead. I guess we shall wait for another domain to pop up, or we may have serious problems.--~S R S~ 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since no one is paying attention to this, the many articles that have been expanded that use this source are in trouble because the domain is dead, which I mean that the site's domain has expired and the original content is gone. (Just clarifying if the above comment was confused).~S R S~ 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did notice that the website is dead. But, let's just wait and see if the site comes back. Just like we did with Online Onslaught. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~The website is finally back up! We're safe. *Sigh of relief* iMatthew 20 08 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~WOOO!. Thank gosh. Thanks for the update Matt.~S R S~ 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Questions about dates~~
Tell me I'm not crazy. I know I've read somewhere that stand alone years shouldn't be wikilinked. For example saying, Triple H won the belt in 2008 would be wrong, but if the month and day were there, such as Triple H won the belt on April 27 2008, it would be correct. I'm trying to find the guideline, does anybody know where it is? Nikki311 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I remember that too, Im pretty sure it might be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates.--~S R S~ 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything of the sort in the MoS. I saw everything else covered, but not standalone years. Someone edited an artcile I created where I had wiki'd standalone years, and they reverted them quoting the MoS, so I dunno. ArcAngel (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't at the MoS. It probably was there at one point, though, because I couldn't have made that up out of thin air. Or maybe I did...? Nikki311 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Wikipedia:Overlinking#Dates. If it contributes to overlinking in articles (and wrestling articles have lots of links to moves, matches, wrestlers already), then don't do it. Nikki311 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of bracketing a date is so a logged in user's display preferences are used. Typical european display is "04 May 2008", distinct from the typical U.S. preference of "May 04, 2008". So if you have a full date, they can display with that user's preferences. Linking a year alone is pointless in this regime. Full details at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:CONTEXT, it is okay but not necessary to link stand-alone years. Basically, it's the same as any other link: if it contributes to the article, link it, but if it just clutters things up or doesn't provide useful information in the context of the article, don't. — Gwalla | Talk 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Other On-Screen Talent~~
I've recently seen multiple problem's with this section/table.
1. The fact that some article list it as a table and some as it's own section. It should all be a table, right?
2. Next, the capitalization. It is capitalized many different ways in different articles. I've seen:
On-Screen

On-screen

on-screen

on-Screen

talent

Talent
Which one is it?
3. Next, the name. Is it Other On-Screen Talent or Other On-Air Talent, because I've seen both in different articles.
4. Next, does it begin in the middle of the background section or the top of the event section?
5. Should the table be show/hide? The benefit to that is that if the table is too large, it's automatically hiding. The bad part of it is that when you open it, the event section becomes very awkward. I think it would be better in the Results section or Aftermath, where it wouldn't do much damage because we don't put pictures in there.
--- iMatthew 20 08 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, it should be all table.

2)It should be Other on-screen talent.

3)It is Other On-Screen Talent, because it is more self explanatory.

4)It should be at the top of the event section, seems to fit better there than the BG.

5)I think it will benefit from the show/hide feature, which is why I am starting to use it, mainly on Backlash (2003). But than again the Aftermath would be a reasonable place to put it, but to me the event section is it's home.

~S R S~ 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong.

1) Yes.

2) It should be Other on-screen talent - only the first letter of the first word should be capitalized.

3) The name should be Other on-screen talent

4) Top of the "Event" section; it is related to the Event it self, not the build-up and anticipation to the event. D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5) It shouldn't have show/hide IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, they should all be in a table.

2) It should be Other on-screen talent. Only the the first letter should be capitalized.

3) Other on-screen talent

4) It should be anywhere in the event, preferably the top.

5) I think the show/hide in the aftermath or result sections will benefit from clutter, but, to me, it doesn't make sense having it placed anywhere but the event. –L A X 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~This ought to be fun~~
According to early reports, one of the champions has been stripped of one of the titles (don't check the links or edit this section if you don't want to be spoiled), so we'd all best keep an eye on both pages and hope that either 1) the report is wrong or 2) WWE.com says something. I'm assuming that the same policy of not reporting changes before they air is still in effect? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a source, even a non-WWE one (assuming it's reputable)? If there is a source, then we update now. Otherwise, we don't. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm assuming that the same policy of not reporting changes before they air is still in effect?" - No, this policy has not been in effect for some time now and was never a correct policy to begin with. If the spoiler true, and can be sourced (even to a spoiler website), then it is to be added. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I normally stay out of these conversations because I have no interest in wrestling after 1996, but I'm curious as to when that change was made. I don't remember ever seeing a consensus to allow "spoiler websites" (which I can only assume means "dirtsheets") to be used as sources for events that have not yet aired. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the same RfC where it was agreed that spoilers are meant to be posted in wikipedia articles there was a rather lengthy discussion about if spoilers are allowed, and 99% of the time the spoilers are accurate, then the sources for them can not be considered unreliable based off other news they may have. The resulting meaning is that while backstage wheeling and dealing can be unreliable, and on the whole is not usually added to articles (i.e. x said to x this and that caused whatever) their spoiler reports which take place in front of audiences in the range of 40-100 thousand people are accurate. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on it that RfC was caused due to exactly this circumstance: a title change at an event yet to air (the World Tag Team Titles at the time). Omitting the change was found to be against most wikipedia rules and guidelines governing content related to spoilers and recent events. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was unsure if it was unchanged or not, because it seems like these things change every few months. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~www.wrestlingrevealed.com or www.gerweck.net will both verify that Vicky Guerrero has stripped the Undertaker of the World Championship. Can someone now update the page?~~
~~Get ready for another revert war~~
According to PWInsider, article here, Santino Marella has been arrested. My understanding is that PWInsider is not a reliable source, so do we put it into his article? If it is put into the article, but without a source it violates WP:BLP. Ah, and put it on your watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well PWinsider is really unreliable, they post so many false reports. Unless other "dirtsheet" websites report it, then it could be true, especially if WWE ends up reporting it in its industry news section. On my "List".~S R S~ 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'd like to see one example of that site being unreliable. Mshake3 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for those examples of PWInsider being unreliable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 12:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reliable? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Good find! Nikki311 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it in then. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Our Lists~~
~~Cross discussion here~~
Well as you have noticed many of our lists do not include the name "List of...", but User:Gwalla has moved Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees to List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees, citing that stand alone lists should be titled as such, per this should we revert back to how it was or rename all our lists {again}?--~S R S~ 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If our consensus is to not include "List of...", then that's how it should be across the board. ArcAngel (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, but now there is an edit war over this causing List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees to be protected from movement. This is also being discussed at here.--~S R S~ 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't use "List of" then explain these....

List of AJPW Triple Crown Championship reigns by length
List of AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of AJPW World Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of AWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of CZW events
List of CZW title reigns by length
List of Dragon Gate title reigns by length
List of ECW Champions
List of ECW Championship reigns by length
List of ECW Tag Team Champions
List of ECW Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of ECW Television Champions
List of ECW Television Championship reigns by length
List of ECW World Championship reigns by combined length
List of ECW events
List of ECW pay-per-view events
List of East Coast Wrestling Association alumni
List of Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni
List of FIP title reigns by length
List of IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of IWGP Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of IWGP Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of International Championship Wrestling alumni
List of International World Class Championship Wrestling alumni
List of JAPW events
List of JAPW title reigns by length
List of Jim Crockett Promotions alumni
List of NOAH title reigns by length
List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions
List of NWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of NWA World Tag Team Champions
List of NWA World Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of NWA territories
List of National Wrestling Alliance championships
List of OVW Heavyweight Champions
List of PWG events
List of PWG title reigns by length
List of ROH title reigns by length
List of Ring of Honor events
List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions
List of TNA X Division Champions
List of TNA X Division Championship reigns by length
List of TNA pay-per-view events
List of TNA tournaments
List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni
List of UWA Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of WCW Hardcore Champions
List of WCW Hardcore Championship reigns by length
List of WCW International World Heavyweight Champions
List of WCW International World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions
List of WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of WCW World Tag Team Champions
List of WCW World Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of WCW World Television Champions
List of WCW pay-per-view events
List of WWA pay-per-view events
List of WWE Champions
List of WWE Championship reigns by length
List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions
List of WWE Cruiserweight Championship reigns by length
List of WWE European Champions
List of WWE European Championship reigns by length
List of WWE Hardcore Champions
List of WWE Home Videos
List of WWE Intercontinental Champions
List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length
List of WWE Tag Team Champions
List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length
List of WWE United States Champions
List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length
List of WWE Women's Champions
List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length
List of WWE pay-per-view events
List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions
List of WWF Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
List of WXW Cruiserweight Champions
List of WXW Hardcore Champions
List of WXW Heavyweight Champions
List of WXW Tag Team Champions
List of WXW Television Champions
List of WXW Women's Champions
List of World Championship Wrestling alumni
List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE)
List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length
List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)
List of World Tag Team Championship (WWE) reigns by length
List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni
List of World Xtreme Wrestling alumni
List of ZERO1-MAX title reigns by length
List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees
List of current champions in WWE
List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers
List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame
List of professional wrestlers
List of professional wrestling promotions
List of professional wrestling slang
List of wrestling based comic books

~~--- iMatthew 20 08 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not those, the ones that have Pro Wrestling in front of them, like Professional wrestling holds, throws, aerial techniques. Championship lists are exceptions, some roster lists are also exceptions, but any others that start with pro wrestling need to be moved IMO, but then again we could always change consensus.~S R S~ 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the championship ones, but we still have these, which should be changed, right?

List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees
List of current champions in WWE
List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers
List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame
List of professional wrestlers
List of professional wrestling promotions
List of professional wrestling slang
List of wrestling based comic books

~~--- iMatthew 20 08 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
To previous consensus, yes, but if consensus changes in this discussion then no, but for now they should be moved.~S R S~ 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our consensus matters not. What is Wikipedia policy on this issue? What does the MoS say about lists of this nature? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says that lists that are mostly just links should begin with List of.... Nikki311 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
Adding to my statement: The moves lists are more than just links, they actually describe the moves, so they should not contain List of, but some of the championship lists should be changed to include List of in the title. Nikki311 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dont know about too many championship lists that doesn't have that. But I am going to have to agree then with the move, since the WWE roster is a stand alone list.~S R S~ 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~PR for Backlash (2003)~~
~~Peer Review for Backlash (2003), here.--~S R S~ 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Money Inc.~~
Just a quick note to let project members know that the article on Money Inc. was promoted to Good Article status today, bringing our total to 47. Thanks to everyone for their help with this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Editor of the Week~~
Today is the last day to vote for our Editor of the Week. Tonight and tomorrow morning, I will be working an creating a subpage for the winner, which will include the winner's award, and questions for them to answer. iMatthew 20 08 10:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bloodstained Memoirs~~
User:Commoncase/Bloodstained_Memoirs
I am trying to put this article up on the main Wiki as an article, however I am being told it is not notible enough, and lacks references. From a wrestling background, I sincerely believe this project is very notible. And it also does have references - from written publications and respected wrestling news sites (PW Torch, NoDQ etc).
I posted my case on the deletion review board with mixed results.
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Commoncase.2FBloodstained_Memoirs
Does anybody have any advise?
Thank You! Commoncase (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 ::::Looking back on it that RfC was caused due to exactly this circumstance: a title change at an event yet to air (the World Tag Team Titles at the time). Omitting the change was found to be against most wikipedia rules and guidelines governing content related to spoilers and recent events. &ndash;&ndash; '''[[User:Lid|Lid]]'''<sup><small>([[User talk:Lid|Talk]])</small></sup> 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Okay, I was unsure if it was unchanged or not, because it seems like these things change every few months. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+www.wrestlingrevealed.com or www.gerweck.net will both verify that Vicky Guerrero has stripped the Undertaker of the World Championship. Can someone now update the page?
 === Get ready for another revert war ===