Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 62. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

I'm working on the article because I've been trying to find time to get it sourced and long enough to take to GAN. Now I've been going back and forth for a few weeks whether or not to take the title history and move it into a separate list. Seeing there has only been five champions, does anyone think I should move it there or just leave it? Thought to ask if anyone had a problem with a new list even though it is not long enough to be taken to FL.--WillC 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in a separate list, for one because of the length of the list, and two because as long as you explain in the lead why their were unrecognized TNA reigns, the history for it will be fine. In addition, FLC's must list at least 10 contents.--SRX 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support it, but the WWE Divas Championship had a separate history page when McCool was still champion (meaning just 1 champion in the titles history).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

That was because it needed to be created for the Featured topic of current WWE Champions to be entered into the topic as an audit article.--SRX 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX you misunderstand. The correct history of this title begins with Angle and ends with Sting. Those are NWA Champions you are thinking of. TNA themselves credits Angle as the first TNA World Champion and Ken Shamrock as the first World's Heavyweight Champion i.e. NWA Championship. I'm making a different history for that to comply with TNA's history which has been removed from their web site for some reason because of the this talk page's discussions agreement. I want to make a list of all five champions in a separate page so I don't have that in the way at GAN.--WillC 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm confused, can you please clarify what you want to do because your description above doesn't help.--SRX 15:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think (based on the talk pages) that he wants to make one article called "List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions" that would just count the actual TNA Champions (starting with Kurt Angle) and another called something like "List of World Champions in TNA" that would also include all NWA Champions in TNA history (starting with Ken Shamrock) since for awhile TNA would consider wrestlers like Shamrock and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions. TJ Spyke 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

TJ has it mostly right. On Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship it was decided to make a list that held all World Champion in TNA, for an example see User:Wrestlinglover/List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA. That is decided. I'm not asking about making that list. I'm asking to make a list of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, to get the list out of the title article. I've begun working on it, see User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I hope this clears everything up. I'm wondering if no one has a problem with me moving the TNA Title history from the main article to a list, though it is too small to go to FLC.--WillC 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whats the point of "List of World Champions in TNA"? And if it does have one, then why not have "List of World Champions in WWE" which spans 5 different titles? (WWE, World, WCW, ECW and Undisputed) 99.205.244.125 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (this is [[User:Alex Roggio]|Alex]], ex-member of the project)

Read the above discussions and the ones on the TNA talkpages. TNA has (or at least used to) consider wrestlers who won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship between June 2002 and May 2007 (when TNA controlled it) as former TNA World Heavyweight Champions, even though they also state that Kurt Angle was the first TNA World Champion. So while they acknowledged that the TNA World Title started in May 2007, they consider people like Ron Killings and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions even though they won the NWA World Title instead. WWE does not consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg to be former WWE Champions (they do use the generic term "world champion" though for all 3 titles). Also, the Undidputed Championship was just the term they called the WWE Championship between December 2001 (when Jericho merged the WWF Championship and World Championship) and August 2001 (when Brock Lesnar announced he would only defend the title on SmackDown, forcing Raw GM Eric Bischoff to create the World Heavyweight Championship and making the WWE Championship no longer undisputed). TJ Spyke 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe you're mistaken. You just dont understand the grammar TNA is utilizing. When they refer to someone like AJ Styles as a former TNA World Heavyweight Champion, it doesn't mean that AJ Styles held the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. The term they use is grammatically divided, and not a term reffering to said championship. It's the same case as in WWE [which you denied, but you're wrong], because eventhough Triple H never held the World Heavyweight Championship 12 times, he is still considered a 12 time World Heavyweight Champion. When WWE and TNA use the term World Heavyweight Champion, it means that they held a world title, and when TNA adds TNA in front of it, it means they held a world title in TNA. This does not necessarily have to mean the recent TNA Championship. You guys are obviously misunderstanding the English language. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, TNA has specifically called them "TNA World Heavyweight Champions". They haven't done in recently, but they have in the past. TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with TJ, they never say World Heavyweight Champion. They always say TNA World Heavyweight Champion. If they said World Champion, this discussion would not be taking place.--WillC 05:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Understand, that Champion in TNA in correct grammatical English is the same thing as TNA Champion. Just like President of United States is equal to United States president. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. I have heard Tenay specifically call A.J. Styles a "former TNA World Heavyweight Champion". Lately they have stopped doing that though and just refere to people like Jeff Jarrett and A.J. Styles (who won the NWA Championship and not TNA Championship) as just former "world champions"). TJ Spyke 05:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, you have effectively explained and added to my explanation of why it is completely unnecessary to create the List of World Champions in TNA article, without creating a List of World Champions in WWE article. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 07:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE doesn't consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg former "WWE Champion"s, they don't consider Hulk Hogan a former "World Heavyweight Champion", etc. TJ Spyke 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what Alex means here, is that they call A.J. Styles, Jarret etc former TNA World Heavyweight Champions as in calling them people who have won a World Heavyweight Championship in TNA. As the NWA title is a World Heavyweight Championship and just happened to be in TNA at the time A.J. and Jeff Jarret both won it, that made them TNA's World Heavyweight Champion recognised as a World Heavyweight Champion by TNA and NWA. The terms, while TNA had the championship, were available to be interchangeable, it's just that they weren't. PXK ^T /_C 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to be consist with WWE in this case. This extra article is only being made to settle the problems with the TNA Championship. Seeing TNA likes to mix the title histories and still say Angle is the first TNA Champion and Shamrock is the first World Champion. Either this article gets made or the TNA Championship article continues to have edit wars after edit wars.--WillC 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because there are no problems with the title. The only apparent problem is people misinterpreting what TNA is saying. I already explained and defined that former TNA World Champion means former world champion in TNA and not literally former TNA World Champion. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, because honestly, that wont change what TNA is trying to infer. The fact of the matter is, that opinions don't matter, only facts do. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the title. Users and ips agree that the NWA Championship history should be added and others disagree. This was an established consensus made on the talk page and has been discussed for over a year. Plus TNA last night just called LAX three time TNA World Tag Team Champions. They continue to say TNA in-front of mentioning their former champions. The fact is, TNA calls Angle the first TNA Champion, but continue to refer to people who won the NWA Title as TNA Champions. People are going to continue to add in the NWA Championship history. This was agreed upon on the title talk page to end the edit war that has been going on for more than a year.--WillC 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG Im sorry. I forgot TNA valued your opinions so much. The reality of life is, that us users can't really change what the info we write in here is, we can only type it down. So making an irrelevant list-cruft article which is basically just putting 2 articles together for the sake of satisfying bored people who have too much time on their hands and waste it battling over Wikipedia articles is utterly ridiculous. The reality is that YOU and everyone else you anonymously mention are misinterpreting. Read the above threads I posted on what Tenay means when he calls LAX 3-time tag team champions. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact is, this list is not cruft. This list is being made to settle a year and a half dispute over the official histroy and to comply with TNA's official title history on their website. Plus this discussion isn't about if this list is needed or not, it was already decided to be made. This is a discussion about if anyone has a problem with moving the correct title history from the TNA Championship into another article.--WillC 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision you say? The decision of what? Merging the histories of two titles that don't belong to you, us or Wikipedia? Look, TNA doesn't merge the title histories. You're just misunderstanding their words. And you can't go around and ask bored wrestling-obsessed users if you're opinion is right, because frankly, its not and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You must not be able to understand. I've not said shit about my opinion, I'm not saying shit about TNA speaking. I'm talking about a visual image seen on TNA Wrestling.com where it says TNA World Heavyweight Championship history. It begins with Shamrock and goes to Sting. The List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA is to comply with that revisionism history. I found a solution to the problem of people adding in the NWA History into the TNA page. We can't just keep reverting people who add that history. In the end there will be the official history list called List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, which will encompass people who actually won that belt, starting with Angle and ending with Sting. Also List of TNA World Heavyweight champions in TNA, which will begin with Shamrock and end with Sting. The same will be done for the World Tag Team Championship, since it suffers from the same problems. All I asked was if anyone had a problem of making a list of five champions: List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I want to take the TNA World Heavyweight Championship article to GAN and wanted to get the history out of the way. That is what this discussion is about. Why are you questioning a list that has been discussed for more than two months on Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship?--WillC 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just go down the path of dispute resolution so we can get this sorted once and for all? PXK ^T /_C 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, lets re-open this discussion at the bottom of the page so more people will see it. This discussion has been going on for more than a year on the TNA Championship talk page to figure out how to slove TNA's revisionism. I'm fine re-dicussioning an already sloved solution.--WillC 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not something you discuss. This is not something you ask people for the "consensus" so you can change. The only thing needed is that before the lead, we insert a small note mentioning that all reigns previous to these are "NWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns" so people can immediately note the difference. Because frankly, someone who actually considers this a "problem" is so bored out of their minds, that they can't find anything to do than find and/or create more problems. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your simple fix idea is already in the page and did not stop people from adding them. Plus this will still not stop people from adding them because of TNA's TNA Championship history. They don't even acknowledge the NWA Championship was ever in TNA. Plus a consensus was already established on the talk page so a dicussion must happen. You might want to read the discussion first.--WillC 11:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I just spent my time reading the whole discussion. I saw the umm... "consensus", because you know what, other people on the same page were criticizing YOU for making up imaginary consensus. There was absolutely no consensus, just your consistent need to impose your decisions as if you owned the article or TNA for that matter. You did not care for anyone's decision, unless they agreed with you. Oh, and the "consensus" was in a conversation between 3 to 4 users including an IP, so I think there's a problem with how much people it will appeal to. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A consensus can be established between two users and in that discussion there were two users and an ip. The two users agreed while the ip just bitched. Plus the idea for the new list came from here, I just mentioned it on the talk page. Seeing the only one with a problem with the new list is you and the ip from the talk page, while there are a few on this page that agree plus one or two on the title talk page, I would take that as a consensus. Plus I don't think I own anything. I'm looking for a fix to the problems on that page.--WillC 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have no "problem" if you want to create the list. My "problem" is that you go on ranting about your imaginary consensus to create it, when you didn't even ask anyone to reach a consensus. Instead, you gave an idea, and when anyone went against it, you mentioned it was already accepted by a consensus which never happened. Secondly, I understand you want to create the page so you can match TNA's history, but the fact of the matter is, you don't even understand it. Until you can even understand exactly what they're saying instead of insinuating and making things up as you go, you shouldn't write anything. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to impliment a consensus. I've only heard two ips have anything against it. Other users are fine with it and I wasn't the one who decided to make the list. Gavyn Sykes came up with the idea a few months ago on here. A few users agreed to the idea, I believe. I took that decision into consideration and talked about it on the talk page. Right at the moment only one person is against it while others are for it. I'm here dicussing it and not working on it. I'm trying to establish a consensus all the time. It isn't like I'm saying, it is final and walking away.--WillC 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Cage's blank reign from May 13, 2007 should be noted. Because techincally if he wasn't NWA Champion, then he had to have been TNA Champion. Even TNA at one time listed him as being stripped of the NWA Title, then being TNA Champion, losing it to Angle and then it was vacated. Revisionism!=Stupid TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

William Regal

Does anyone know the official names for the last two themes regal has used; The royalty theme and his current heel theme. I have had problems finding sources that give any definate answers. Thanks Eddie6705 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They are probably generic themes produce by WWE with unknown names that Jim Johnston doesn't release. Try searching it in the track listings for WWE's studio albums.--Truco 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The last WWE music release to include Regal's theme was WWE Anthology in 2002, which had his "Real Man's Man" music (remember that crappy gimmick? He was dressed up like a construction worker). TJ Spyke 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, then it must be an independent theme produced by Johnston and it hasn't been released yet on an album, for now, all I can say is probably write "generic theme."--Truco 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much, i'll list it as generic theme. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i tried that but User:Maxwell7985 has once agan just deleted it for not having any reference. Does anybody have any suggestions. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Marc fusion

User:Toxscreen has created this article (which is basically the Honky Tonk Man's bio applied to an imaginary wrestler) and added him to random articles. I have reverted the additions to other articles but could somebody with the authority mark this for deletion? Cheers --Apsouthern (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has authority to tag an article for deletion. I Prodded it as a WP:HOAX and under WP:CSD#G1.--Truco 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Since it's blatant misinformation, I added a speedy deletion template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

...and the article is gone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I wasn't sure how it worked but at least I know now for future reference. --Apsouthern (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Toxscreen also continued to vandalize articles, so he has been blocked indefinitely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

For anyone that's interested: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Calendar. D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2004

I notice the '04 Rumble is rather devoid of citations, specifically having none from the official website. I presume this is because the E deleted pages following Benoit's death. Well in a turn up for the books, history has been restored and lots of lovely sources are now available. Tony2Times (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pay-per-view GA

Survivor Series (1992) passed its review today. This means that every WWF pay-per-view from SummerSlam 1992 (August 1992) to In Your House 1 (May 1995) is now a Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome news, we could possibly get Good topics out of that by creating a main series page for that year, like WWF's 1993 PPV's, in that article we can elaborate the production for the event.--Truco 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is great.) 09 is starting off very good. A new FA and a few new GAs.--WillC 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown_(2008)#Results

Just wondering... am I the only one that thinks that Results layout looks messy and needs to go back to what it was before... same format but original colours? D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks a little bit messy.Simon_K^S_K 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I tried doing it, but was reverted and told that was recommended in a FAC. I couldn't find the suggestion and we have had other PPV articles promoted using normal tables. TJ Spyke 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should but iMatthew told me in its second FAC before it was restarted to remove the sortable link and that is the result when I did. I'm all for changing back.--WillC 21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what was said that led to it being removed.--WillC 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

iMatthew: The sortable function is broken, and I'm pretty sure it's because the "(c) is the champion" thing. Take that out of the table and put it right under the table. Don't make the text small.

SRX: I disagree with this as well because in other FA's, the table is just made non-sortable, because there is no point of its sortability. In this way, the (c) statement can stay in the table.

iMatthew: Removing the sortable function works as well.

Wrestlinglover: Removed.

When you removed it, here, you removed the " after "sortable", see in the diff. This caused the table malfunction. I've fixed it now. D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, you need to stop putting the blame on me whenever someone brings it up. You messed up, not me. iMatthew // talk // 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, lets not get out of hand here. The tables are now fixed, lets get on with our editing ;)--Truco 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put the blame on you, maybe you should have fixed the small probelm and check the fixes I made that you wanted in the first place. You asked for it, you should have made sure it was fine. Just be glad I even took your comments into consideration in the first place.--WillC 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on now Will, assume good faith here.--Truco 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to assume good faith here for someone who wants to act as if they didn't ask for something to get removed and say I'm blaming them for it. I did remove the link but he told me too. I didn't like the way the table looked anyway. I was just following the FAC reviewers request. Why should I assume good faith when he is going to think I'm trying to push the blame.--WillC 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a Wikibreak. You seem to stressed right now. This is a volunteer project. I have no obligations to fix "your" article. If you believed it should be different (as I never suggested the tables get screwed up), you should have been bold and changed it yourself. iMatthew // talk // 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ladies......;) §imon_K^S_K 22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And then you would of had a fit just like when I added more than four matches to the background. Also lol to Simon. Plus it isn't my article.--WillC 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional wrestling match types

This needs to be watchlisted by many because IPs continuously add unsourced information on matches and speculative information.--Truco 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever went through and removed match types needs to either put them back or go through all the PPV articles and fix the links. I've seen multiple links to the page but saw that the match type was removed. TJ Spyke 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Really? Like what?--Truco 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Like the Chamber of Horrors match used at Halloween Havoc 1991. If someone is gonna remove a match type, they should be prepared to fix and articles that link to it. There are others, but that was the first one I could find. TJ Spyke 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see Chamber of Horrors match still in the article. But like I said, the IPs are vandalizing and adding nonsense to the article, so I wouldn't be surprised if content is missing, which is why it needs to be watchlisted.--Truco 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of those match types could get their own pages is a start. Lethal Lockdown is a start. Perhaps Last Man Standing match could have its own page, added with the Texas Death match. To make the article a little smaller and better to keep up with. I'm just throwing that out there.--WillC 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. If we are going to split up the page, I'd make a Professional wrestling match types (cage variations) (for cage matches, hell in a cell, elimination chamber, etc) and Professional wrestling match types (ladder variations) (for ladder matches, TLC, king of the mountain, etc etc). Very few match types deserve a separate article. It only takes so much space to describe a match, then the rest is listcruft like a list of every time the match has ever been performed. Nikki♥311 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you said, though I believe a cage article should just be made considering how many variations there are. Most matches like a Last Man Standing or other common matches wouldn't be long enough but matches with different variations or don't fall under a specific type could have their own articles, like Steel Cage match and Ultimate X.--WillC 01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

For the names, I think Ladder match and Cage match might work better, but I think both are worthwhile. This could also be a couple of DYKs for the project. One match that I wouldn't mind seeing expanded to a separate article is Casket match, since it seems ridiculous to have it mentioned only briefly under Professional wrestling match types#Container-based variations. I'm not sure if there's enough for a long article, but I think it could make for a decent and fully sourceable article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, there is already a Ladder match article. I have a hard time believing that the lists it gives are comprehensive, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first comment. There is no length probelms at GA. As long as it is sourced and gives enough information that it is not an article that is one paragraph long it is fine. I have the Ultimate matches DVD by TNA and they have a few videos on their Youtube account that can be used to source a few of their gimmick matches. Such as Ultimate X and Six Sides of Steel, which could have its own section in the steel cage article, Monsters Ball, Ladder match, and Full Metal Mayhem. King of the Mountain can be sourced very well and expanded to a good length. The only articles that would be of no use to have their own articles is the small ones, such as Doomsday Chamber of Blood which can be mentioned in Steel cage and barb-wired match.--WillC 05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CM Punk and Kofi Kingston

Non-notable. Speedy delete. §imon_K^S_K 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not a speedy deletion criteria. You can PROD it or take it to AFD though. TJ Spyke 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean delete. whatever. I'l' take it to AFD. §imon_K^S_K 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CM Punk and Kofi Kingston--Truco 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Teams and Stables

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Redirect--Truco 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
A discussion is undergo on the talk page if Santino and Beth should be added to the list, again. Two ips are having a fit over it not being added and are stating because WWE says they are they should be added. I want to get the project's attention to this because I can't revert their adding of the team anymore. Though I agree they should be added, it must be discussed first, or again.--WillC 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, when did this list even come about? What is this adding that isn't in the Roster page already?--Truco 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. That exact information is on the roster list, so it should be a redirect. Plus, it was already decided on the WWE roster talk page awhile back that Marella and Phoenix shouldn't be added. They rarely ever team together, and two people doesn't equal a stable. Nikki♥311 02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thing that me and a few others agreed not to make one for the TNA Roster.--WillC 02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just took a look at the roster list, and the tag team and stables were removed. When was that decided? Nikki♥311 02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well from the date the list was created I'm guessing about three days ago.--WillC 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely this page should just be deleted and reintroduced back into the main roster. What purpose does it serve? There is no extra information given here and it means one more place for people who watch for vandalism to watch. Can't we nominate it for speedy deletion? Tony2Times (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the page be deleted. The WWE roster page already has sections for tag teams. TJ Spyke 02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So who is going to nominate it for deletion?--WillC 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the main WWE roster article, and it looks like the info was split off. Seems like it should be merged back. TJ Spyke 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion about this on either talk page, I say readd this content into the main roster page and redirect this list to the roster list, simply.--Truco 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So, do we all have an agreement to make it a redirect and merge the content back with the roster?--WillC 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

God yes. I just have no idea how to nominate for deletion hence me asking you sages to do it. Do we even need a redirect? Who would search for that. Just delete it and forget it ever existed. *runs for mind bleach* Tony2Times (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not allowed with merges. It's required to be kept as a redirect to save the edit history of the page. TJ Spyke 05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing no one has a problem with it and it seems everyone is fine with a merger, I'll go ahead and merge it.--WillC 06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell got clearence to unmerge it in the first place? I dont remember there being a vote. Cheers, JakeDHS07 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean create the article. We don't know. Someone just created it and everyone followed.--WillC 06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was create by User:Adster95 on January 2: [1]. TJ Spyke 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested by User:IMatthew though, Adster started doing it once the decision was made. Kalajan€₣ 11:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well its been redirected to the main roster page.Truco 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards

I don't think it should be deleted, I think it needs to be improved. Plus what is the point of it I ask? There is one source for the entire article. Any ideas on how to improve it?--WillC 14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said it should be deleted? Nenog (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one, just I would expect someone to think that it is list cruft.--WillC 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this because there isn't a formal ceremony for them, although they are published in writing, it seems like its one of those type of awards that doesn't need a page. IMO it may be listing listcruft, but it is by an established editor, though I'm skeptical.--Truco 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this kinda is listcruff. It just hands out awards created by the magazine writers that aren't even acknowledged by anybody (That I know of). So, I think it is listcruff. SAVIOR_SELF.777 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been discussions regarding the WON awards in the past and these same points have been made. You always hear about the Undertaker, for example, being 16-0 at WrestleMania and a multi time world champion and all but commentators have never mentioned his "5 star" WON match with Shawn Michaels in the first Hell in a Cell or his "Best Gimmick" WON awards from 1990-1994. It's pretty much the same thing with the PWI 500 rankings and PWI awards. It's not just WWE either, it's the entire professional wrestling industry as far as I know. Now, maybe 20 or 25 years ago, there would be a very rare mention of these types of awards on television. I can vaguely recall Ric Flair being presented with PWI's Wrestler of the Decade award back in 1989 being televised, but that seems to be the exception to the rule. It just seems so odd that pro wrestling, WWE especially, hasn't at least attempted to exploit these so called "important" industry acheivements for its own benefit somehow. I've always thought of it as listcruft and have never heard a really persuasive reason to even include them to begin with.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been discussions in the past. The consensus was to list only a wrestler's top PWI 500 rating (and position in the top 500 of the PWI years as well as ranking in PWI's top 100 tag teams of the PWI years). As for the awards themselves, the project chose to keep them (although the Wrestling Observer awards had a stronger push for keeping in articles than the PWI awards). Removing them will not help anything, and any push to remove them is simply cruftcruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised too that they don't mention PWI, especially since it is a kayfabe magazine. They (PWI) have taken plenty of pictures though of WWE and WCW wrestlers accepting their PWI awards. PWI is more notable than WON awards though, I have never seen any evidence that wrestlers give a crap about those. TJ Spyke 23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with TJ, seems like PWI is more notable than WON. IMO, a prose should be in Meltzer's article about his awards and the above should be redirected there, because they seem not to meet WP:N.--Truco 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, for all you people who say that Dave Meltzer, the Wrestling Observer and the Wrestling Observer's awards don't mean anything and the Pro Wrestling Illustrated does, maybe you should read the last two magazines put out by PWI. In the latest issue of PWI in an article about Bryan Danielson, PWI mentioned that the Wrestling Observer named him the most outstanding wrestler in 2006 and 2007. And in some special magazine they just released on Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Samoa Joe and two others, the section about Joe has a part with them quoting Meltzer on his views on Samoa Joe. So for the record, PWI follows and reports what Meltzer and the Observer says, the Observer (or pretty much anyone or anything connected with wrestling) doesn't follow what PWI says. Thank you and good night. Nenog (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with it. User:Crippler4 expanded the explanations for the awards, and every link/promotion/etc. is right. There isn't really much else to do. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did not open up this section to see if the page is notable or not. I opened it up to see if it is possible to improve it to either FL or maybe, with work, GA standards. I don't think it needs to be deleted or redirected.--WillC 01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Work cannot be promoted if it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. These awards are not recognized by other reliable third party sources, that I know of, thus not meeting WP's notability guideline.--Truco 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

And what constitutes the awards being "recognized by other reliable third party sources"? If a wrestling promotion reports on the awards (because its been done)? If a kayfabe wrestling magazine mentions who won what awards (because its been done)? Nenog (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, ROH is just one company, in addition to being a independent promotion that is yet to achieve prominent media attention. If it were the NWA, WWE, or TNA then probably. Third party sources like the media (NBC, CNN, etc.) or the companies (TNA, WWE, ROH, etc.) or possibly other newsletters like PW Torch. One promotion doesn't constitute notability for the awards.--Truco 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

...and yet again, the goalposts have moved. Not because of Wikipedia policy, but because some editors make their decisions and then stick to them, regardless of the facts presented to the contrary. What is there to be gained by deleting the information (or even continuing this discussion)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Event Mafia & Frontline

Why Is It That La Familia Got An Article And Not These? MEM Dominates TNA And Frontline Is Another Big Part Of It. It's Been A Good Few Months Now, But Let's Be Real. Just Create The Article. Is There ANYTHING To Lose Whatsoever? No. There Is No. I'm Just Sayin'. KP317 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the better question is why did you capitalized the first letter of every word. Nenog (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of capitalization skills aside, I agree. The MEM is notable enough to have an article. Not quite sure about the TNA Frontline, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. TJ Spyke 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing people are blind because for the past week The Mafia have had an article: The Main Event Mafia. The Frontline don't need one at this moment, well when they win more than one title would be better.--WillC 07:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't checked because it had just been a redirect for awhile. TJ Spyke 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I knew was I've wachlisted all their possible names as well as for the Frontline I believe. Someone placed the version I wrote in there so I just left it. If it was in-u and unsourced I probably would have made it a redirect again and came here and talked about it.--WillC 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's there shouldn't it be updated? Surely their stream of success at recent PPVs should be noted, particularly Final Resolution where they fought as a 4 man team. Tony2Times (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well mainly only important things should be noted. Championships being lost and injuries. Them teaming and retaining the title is not really that important.--WillC 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter design change

So I thought the newsletter could use a new design and new ways to show the content, so I made a new design here in my sandbox. Before implementing it in the mainspace, I would like to get the project's though about it: comments and suggestions are welcome. Also, this is a general design used by many other WP's.--Truco 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Tony2Times (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed SAVIOR_SELF.777 01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay to make it official then?--Truco 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. §imon_K^S_K 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 awards

I recently got TNA's Best of 2007 DVD. It lists year end awards and I'm not sure if they are notable to place in the bio articles or not. I thought to get a few opinions here. The awards are listed as follows: Finisher of the Year, Knockout Woman of the Year, Tag Team of the Year, X Division Superstar of the Year, Top Feud of 2007, Most Memorable Moment of the Year, and TNA MVP of the Year. Plus there is the "Who to watch in 2008" which I don't think is even worth talking about.--WillC 13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so but then again I didn't think we should put Slammys in and these seem somewhat analogous to them so maybe. Tony2Times (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the MVP, Tag Team, Knockout, and X Division wrestler of the year awards seem notable to me.--WillC 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy

I've been working on an article about the WWE Stable The Legacy, and I think it's ready for mainspace, shall I put it in? User:Kalajan/(The Legacy). Kalajan€₣ 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The team is not notable as of yet. Three to five weeks does not meet the notability factor. Plus they've done nothing. They haven't won a championship yet. Plus Priceless and The Legacy don't go together. They are two teams that merged.--WillC 15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact The Legacy doesn't technically exist yet. They've never been introduced as such and Randy has been saying the past two weeks that they are still undergoing phases and tests to see if they're part of it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

About the Legacy-Priceless thing, User:Nikki311 told me to, and they were introduced as that when they debuted, and on [2] on the results they say it all the time, also, although you're not going to care, in Spain they say El Legado, (The Legacy. Kalajan€₣ 16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

By all the time, do you in fact mean just twice and always with quotation marks around them as if to suggest a soubriquet rather than an official name such as Cryme Tyme. They've never entered the ring to Legacy music, Lilian has never called them Legacy as they come to the ring. They are currently trying out to contend for their spot in the group and thus far Sim and Manu have already failed. If you fail a try out you're not in a team, not a former member. As for Ted being a former member well he hasn't even been on screen since the potential group has been alluded to. Sim wasn't there the week when Randy called them The Legacy. Once the article is made this should all be noted in the prose, but until the group is official I don't see how there can be an article on them. Tony2Times (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

To add to that, on Monday Orton didn't even say "the Legacy". When he was speaking to Manu he said "My Group". Who knows. Maybe WWE hasn't sold themselves on the name just yet.  Hazardous Matt  18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they clearly had intentions to make a group but either it was always planned, or by the looks of it at the last minute, they've decided to change the dynamics of the stable. Judging by WWE.com having a Legacy Moment page they'll still call it that but Matt's right, Orton avoided using the name which is just one of many examples of things that are up in the air with them. Besides which we've only just made a Main Event Mafia page and they've been around since late October. I think The Legacy will have to do more than just exist before they have a page. Tony2Times (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PPV setup

I've noticed the new table style for PPV results and can't find a discussion about it. Am I the only one who doesn't like it? And if there is a discussion, can someone please tell me where it is? Thank you.Freebird Jackson (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion took place back in June/July. Look around that area for archived discussions.--WillC 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I will do that. Thx.Freebird Jackson (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Will said, a discussion took place to add that to the Pay-Per-View Guidelines, which the project must abide to. Use the new search box function of the archive to find it with the keywords "pay-per-view" "out of universe" etc.--Truco 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are links to two of the many discussions over it: 1 and 2--WillC 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate this stupid rule about using real names in PPV articles (other articles, even FA, don't require it). If we are gonna though, it has to be applied to celebs too. I fixed the WrestleMania I article by adding Liberace's real name (Ali legally changed his name, so no need there). TJ Spyke 22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually FA's do require it because pro-wrestling articles are like scripted media, ie. film and television, so real names are needed to distinguish the characters. I don't see why people complain about it, its only during the first occurrence.--Truco 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just picked a random feature article: The Last Temptation of Krust. It does not feature this ludicrous rule that we self imposed on ourselves (also, most movie and TV show articles will just use their stage name. For example, a movie article that has Snoop Dogg in it will use "Snoop Dogg" and not "Cordozar Broadus, Jr."). It's not required to be a FA. Being out of universe does not require having to include the wrestlers real name in the article (except for their own article of coarse). I think we should re-visit this issue soon. TJ Spyke 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because he has used the Snoop Dogg moniker more than 70% of his life. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we only write the real names of wrestlers who are not well known by their stage name or who have used many stage names. This rule was actually brought up at an FAC.--Truco 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why do we write Hulk Hogan's real name? Most of the world know him by Hulk Hogan and he has used that for almost 30 years (although he briefly used Hollywood Hogan). Same with Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin and several other wrestlers who are far more well known by names other than their real name. This seems like another case of something being mentioned for once case and certain editors taking that literally and applying it to all wrestlers. TJ Spyke 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

TJ it depends on the editor, I don't write Hulk's real name or Michaels'. Sometimes its because of the editors choice or they do not know whether how notable they are, it just depends on each editor.--Truco 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get in an edit war by going through and making the fixes, so I would like to try and settle this. The Undertaker has used that ring name for over 18 years, would we need to state his real name considering his article is even just calle The Undertaker? What about Kevin Sullivan, who has used that name for over 30 years. The Fabulous Moolah used that ring name for like 50 years. I don't really want this to be an issue brought up editor to editor and article to article. TJ Spyke 01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends on the editor. But for The Undertaker, he used many previous names, which is why some people write his real name out, but considering how he has used it for over 10 years, its okay just to say The Undertaker. People like R-Truth will need real names however, just examples of how this OOU for names works.--Truco 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I think people are fond of either consistency or erring on the side of caution. Tony2Times (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rufus R. "Freight Train" Jones

This article was originally at Rufus R. Jones. It was then moved to Carey Lloyd, and it was moved again in November to the current page. It seems unnecessary to have the nickname in quotation marks, especially since there are no other people with this name with Wikipedia articles. If it's been moved this much, can anyone move it again, or does it need an administrator? Or, although I wouldn't agree, should it stay where it is? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs an admin because the target page is already created, so the admin has to delete the target page in order for the page to be moved. If it continues, it may need move protection. I don't agree with the current name also.--Truco 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. Should I move it to his ringname? From the external links at the bottom, he seems to be better known by it. Nikki♥311 23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the best. The obituaries from his local paper refer to him as Rufus R. Jones [3], so it seems like that's how most people knew him. Thanks for the help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done Nikki♥311 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did some expansion work today and submitted it for a Did You Know. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never

Okay, I meant to do this the day it was promoted but I must have forgot. So better late than never, I want to say thank you to everyone who put up with my whining or bothering annoying attitude I have when it came to Lockdown (2008). For all the ones who helped I couldn't do it without you. This surely was a group effort in getting the first 2008 PPV, first 2008 TNA PPV, and first TNA PPV period to FA. Thank you all.--WillC 01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like really :D But it was all for the best. --Truco 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It was all worth it. ₰imon_K^S_K 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see WP:PW not turn into WP:PWWE. Tony2Times (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Kongtourage

This is the new name for Awesome Kong's knockout stable, better keep a look out --Numyht (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition to PPVs

During Slammiversary's GA review, the reviewer asked for aftermath to be in the lead, though I told him we quit doing that and he took back his request as a result. I was thinking about it, why don't we add another paragraph to the lead just stating a few things that happened after the event? Something along these lines.

Slammiversary (2008)
Promotion	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
Date	June 8, 2008
City	Southaven, Mississippi
Venue	DeSoto Civic Center
Attendance	2,000
Tagline(s)	"Shake…Rattle…and Roll!" "In a town where legends are made, one strives to reach immortality"
Pay-per-view chronology
← Previous Sacrifice (2008) Next → Victory Road (2008)
Slammiversary chronology
← Previous Slammiversary (2007) Next → Slammiversary (2009)

Slammiversary (2008) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA), which took place on June 8, 2008 from the DeSoto Civic Center in Southaven, Mississippi. It was the fourth event under the Slammiversary chronology and marked the sixth anniversary of the promotion. Seven professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card. In the tradition of Slammiversary events, a staple match in TNA—titled the King of the Mountain match (KOTM)—was featured as the main event for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. Following the conclusion of the event, and while an independent construction crew hired by TNA was dissembling the event's set, a worker (Kevin "Angus" Sinex) fell to his death. The scaffold, which he was working on, broke and collapsed; causing him to fall nearly 20 feet (6.1 m) to the concrete floor below. Another man was also injured in this accident.

The main event featured the TNA World Heavyweight Champion Samoa Joe defeating Booker T, Robert Roode, Christian Cage, and Rhino to retain the championship in the KOTM with Kevin Nash as Special Guest Ringside Enforcer. Another featured match on the card pitted A.J. Styles against Kurt Angle in a standard wrestling match; Styles won the encounter. The event's undercard featured different varieties of matches. TNA World Tag Team Champions The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) (LAX) defeated Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) in a Tag Team match. Petey Williams retained the TNA X Division Championship against Kaz in a standard wrestling match.

Many new rivalries were built off of the events at Slammiversary. Samoa Joe and Booker T began a storyline feud and went on to fight for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship at TNA's next PPV event, Victory Road. A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle continued their rivalry at Victory Road, with Styles teaming with Christian Cage and Rhino to fight Angle and Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) in a Six Man Tag Team Full Metal Mayhem match. The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) started a rivalry over the World Tag Team Championship with newly formed Beer Money (Robert Roode and James Storm), with LAX challenging Beer Money to a "Fan's Revenge" Lumberjack Strap match.

Slammiversary marked the fifth time the KOTM format was used in TNA and the first time a World Championship was retained in the match. When the event was released on DVD, it reached a peak position of number four on Billboard's DVD Sales Chart. The professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer website rated the entire event a 7 out of 10 stars, one star lower than the rating for the 2007 event.

Just a thought. It could give something extra to the articles.--WillC 21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No because this is exactly what led to the OOU Policy. This information clutters the lead because by basically listing the matches of the event it can be inferred that some type of background led to these matches and that some type of aftermath resulted in it. See the SummerSlam (2003) FAC.--Truco 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's bad enough we put in the results in the lead section, it just seems like repeating what is further down the article in a boring way. Putting in aftermath will make it too long and cluttered. Tony2Times (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Justin LaRouche -> Bam Neely

See Talk:Justin_LaRouche#Requested_page_move. --Numyht (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 Not done Adster95 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick Is this really necessary? Nenog (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes because this is a potential Good topic candidate and at GTC, they ask for a navigation template among the subpages.--Truco 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView.com

I find that it's reliable, don't know about everyone else but look: [4] see, they stated something a few days ago about this week's SmackDown!, which other reliable pages did. Kalajan€₣ 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. My friend, WreslteView.com is only reliable for Television results and pay-per-view results in pay-per-view articles, not for information about wrestler releases or signings. Those are called spoilers, which are reported by fans in attendance at the event tapings, however, we cannot verify whether all the information they send to WrestleView.com is accurate, and as a result, it is not considered reliable.--Truco 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It copied a reliable websites's work. If you type in on Google, "Smackdown 1/9/09 results" you will get more than 10 pages with the results stating the exact same things. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus SD was taped last week or the week before it. Of course they are probably going to be right. That source also states the following which falls under speculation and never once said he was signed: "Christian Cage is believed to be the person they will reveal behind everything unless plans change." The keyword here is "believed". Get that through your head. WrestleView once was good enough for this type of thing but it is called FAC. Armageddon 06, Lockdown 08, and No Way Out 04 all had to removed WrestleView because it is not reliable enough for this information.--WillC 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually its only marginally reliable, which means that it can only be used sparingly.--Truco 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Lockdown still had problems with results. They even questioned a review of the event.--WillC 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From the Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline:

There are reports of an angle inserted into Friday's Smackdown show where Jeff Hardy and fiance Beth are injured in a hit-and-run auto accident in Cameron, NC, most likely with Christian as the perpetrator. Jeff will be okay but Beth will apparently be seriously injured in storyline. That surprises me a little because she's always wanted to be out of the spotlight.

Until we have anything official from Christian or WWE regarding his signing, we can not put it in any article per WP:BLP. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats what we have been trying to explain to various editors, but they just can't seem to comprehend Wikipedia's policies.--Truco 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it got so pathetic, that List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees got full protected. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If I see William I'm going to kill him. TNA's Roster got protected for the same reason a few months ago or weeks. Now the WWE Roster.--WillC 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't about Cage this time, it was WrestleView, if you don't want to read a spoiler don't read Wiki, that should be how this works.

Why is WrestleView unreliable, was it done anything so to not be? Kalajan€₣ 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how it works on Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia not a news site. Its not reliable because it does not have accurate fact checking.--Truco 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who determined that it's not reliable? The last time I checked, Ealdgyth said it was okay after I presented evidence of credibility. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Check all of the recent FACs: No Way Out 04, Lockdown, and Armageddon. He states in one of those that it is not reliable.--WillC 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Restart: Professional wrestling match types

In my mind this page is entirely too long. Maybe we can make sub-articles. Along the lines of Object match, to have matches that you must do a certain thing to win like a ladder match. Cage matches. Just read the other section to get a better idea.--WillC 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing so would also allow us to mention minor match types that have been deleted from that page due to it being too long already. TJ Spyke 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See, we can create Cage match or Steel Cage match, in which we can mention the variations. Six Sides of Steel and so on and so fort. Right there is a simple article to get to GA. Ladder match can be changed from a list to a real article. We can then either put King of the mountain, Money in the Bank, and so on and so fort into the article or keep them seperate and just mention a small portion about each in that article. Feast or Fired I'm not even sure what it would fall under. TNA is to bring it back in late 09 and make it one of their most important matches. Where are we going to mention it?--WillC 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned something similar the last time this was brought up. We can create a Professional wrestling match types (cage variations) (or something along those lines) for the steel cage, elimination chamber, six sides of steel, punjabi prison, etc. We can also create a Professional wrestling match types (ladder variations) for ladder, TLC, king of the mountain, etc. Remove the dumb lists, and I think it would all work very nicely. Nikki♥311 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes then only matches that are not that popular or do not fall under certain match types like Last Man Standing and Texas Death match can go in the main list while main matches in promotions such as Ultimate X can have their own articles and we will weed down the list and get rid of the match types we don't need: two out of three falls match.--WillC 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any match is worthy of its own article....and it would never be very long because it doesn't take more than a couple of sentences to describe. Nikki♥311 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, How about Hell in a Cell? It has it's special history. ₰imon_K^S_K 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell could just have more info in the article, like three or four paragraphs. The special stuff could be mentioned (like Foley vs. Undertaker, etc), but what else really is needed? The match descriptions are in the PPV articles (or will be once they are all done). Nikki♥311 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well considering how many variations and info there is about Ultimate X I believe I could make a decent article. Been wanting to do that.--WillC 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it has variations, then maybe. I guess I don't know enough about that match to make a judgment call. Nikki♥311 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell can go in the Cage Match page. Ultimate X would probably go in the ladder match page as that's the closest thing I can think of it being (ie something is in the air and competitors need to climb up to retrieve it. I don't really think any match deserves its own page but that they should go under match types. But I guess we'll see once it comes to fruition as I could be wrong. Also trying to make it less US-centric would be a good idea if anyone knows of any Prureso and lucha libre stipulations that aren't featured. Tony2Times (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it and King of the Mountain I believe should have their own articles since they are the main matches in TNA. Like WWE has all their special matches, TNA has Ultimate X, King of the Mountain, Elevation X, Six Sides of Steel, Monsters Ball, The Asylum, Full Metal Mayhem, Gauntlet for the Gold, Xscape match, Lethal Lockdown, and Feast or Fired. Those are their main matches. Now before we go moving matches to new pages I guess we should figure out what matches deserve their own articles from WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, and ROH. From TNA I believe Ultimate X, King of the Mountain, Elevation X, Lethal Lockdown, The Asylum (maybe), Xscape match (maybe), and Feast or Fired. Ultimate X since it has been their main match and focal point since 2003. King of the Mountain since it is the main focal point of their Slammiversary event, is like their Royal Rumble or King of the Ring in a way, and is held only once a year; though was held twice in 08. Elevation X since it is a scaffold match. Seems soon to be the focal point of Destination X. Lethal Lockdown could be expanded along with War Games since they are very close to the same match. The Asylum is mainly the Thundercage. Xscape match could either be expanded with cage variations or with TNA Lockdown. Feast or Fired is a screwed up battle royal but with title shots.--WillC 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename: WrestleMania XXV --> The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania

According to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), they aren't calling this year's event WrestleMania XXV, only for chronological purposes, but they are promoting its name as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The Reliant Stadium is promoting it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. WWE's event details for this years WrestleMania is calling it the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, in addition, at the bottom of that page, they have the name copyrighted and not trademarked, like it would be for a secondary name. WWE's Corporate website is also calling the even the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The name "WrestleMania XXV" is only used sparingly by WWE, mostly where spacing is an issue. I believe, the proper name for this year's WrestleMania is The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, I know it will mess up the flow of how the chronology is set up on Wikipedia, but we must go by its official name.--Truco 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, not because of the links above, but because of [5]. D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thats just additional support added to my claim, in addition to the logo.--Truco 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose That is for promotional purposes, they did the same with wrestlemania 20.--WillC 18:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, I've only seen WrestleMania XXV used once, it doesn't even have XXV on the logo. Luther Hull (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

John Cena passed.

John Cena is now an GA. ₰imon_K^S_K 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)