Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davnel03 (talk | contribs) at 18:42, 15 December 2007 (→‎WWE Roster). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

PW Discussion Board
Shortcuts
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!
To Do List

This talk page is automatically archived by Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 36. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

411mania.com

Does anyone know much about this site under WP:RS? It has apparently been used for the Brock Lesnar article, and a user is trying to use it for wrestler CIMA on the Australian Wrestling Federation article. I recall this site not being mentioned specifically as a "dirtsheet" during the RFC on WWE spoilers but I got the impression some users would regard it as failing WP:RS. But I just want to make sure. !! Justa Punk !! 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing but a lot of "Credit: PWInsider.com" reports. And I know how much you love that site. ;) Mshake3 (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, BEHOLD!. Mshake3 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, if you don't trust that as a reliable source, then remove it. Mshake3 (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody else please give an unbiased opinion without the personal backchat? !! Justa Punk !! 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "if you don't trust it, then remove it" do you not understand? I just explained what the sources were (a bunch of Credit: PWInsider.com reports). We've already had this discussion, so I'm not going to start it again. We know you think they're unreliable. So remove them already! Mshake3 (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAM would be worth noting at this point, MShake. And what about WP:WQT? Does anyone else think it's about time MShake's manner was referred to WP:WQA? !! Justa Punk !! 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. You're getting worked up over nothing. And I didn't even do anything. Unless PWInsider is striking some sort of mental nerve with you. Mshake3 (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK - user referred to WP:WQA. !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know, you can call me Gavyn. There's no one else here. Lol. ATHF jokes aside, the source isn't reliable by any means. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a reliable source. There is stuff on things other than wrestling if you haven't noticed! The website also provides columns and TV reports that can help in articles. Anyway. I've seen a load of reliable websites have credits from PWInsider, its what one article out of 10,000 that you've picked out there. Ah, there again.... Davnel03 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see many problems with 411 (or PWInsider) - nothing obvious flies in the fact of WP:V and WP:RS - they have news, they make editorial commments and show results/reviews. Other than someone's insistance that "it's a dirtsheet" or "I don't like it" I've not seen anything concrete to indicate that it's not within the guidelines for reliable sources. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - a mixture of opinions. Needs some thought. Any other unbiased views would be appreciated. !! Justa Punk !! 22:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I came across this through a WQA request. Here is my comment. The citation in question, [1], is a blog entry. Note that the entry was "posted" by a username and not a journalist, and that it was credited to a more authoritative news source. Cite _that_ source if it meets WP:V, WP:CITE, etc. (PWInsider.com). I trust that it can be met; if not, the source should not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seicer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seicer. That helped with the issue I had with the notes on the AWF talk page. !! Justa Punk !! 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble (1994) now a Good Article

This article was passed as a Good Article today. Thank you to everyone who contributed to the article and/or gave feedback. It helped quite a bit.

With that said, the reviewer did add the following: "Does require another couple of images to say, illustrate a "casket" match and the even poster would be good as other wrestling PPV articles have them. I shall pass the imaes criteria now, but may re-assess as a fail if this is not rectified."

I'm fairly sure that it would be hard to find a Free Use image of the casket match, but if anyone knows where to find a Free Use or Fair Use picture of the match, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE website has some pictures that you might be able to use if you can dream up a suitable rationale. None of them are of a casket match, though. Nikki311 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a picture at http://repository.wwe.com/galleries/special_casket/images/02.jpg , but I'm not sure how to upload it and insert it into the article. I've written Fair Use rationales before, so I can help with that. If someone could help with the rest, though, I'd really appreciate it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever uploaded an image to Wikipedia before? I am pretty experienced (i've uploaded dozens of wrestling posters and video game covers) and am used to it. Just save the image to your computer, then click "Upload file" and follow the instructions. If you need any help (or want me to do it), just say something. TJ Spyke 02:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Senshi in TNA

There have been rumors posted on some news sites for the last few days of Senshi being granted his release from TNA. Allegedly, this took place on Monday. However, he has appeared at television tapings since then. If there could be someone(s) capable of clarifying on both Senshi's page and the one for the TNA roster, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Hezekiah957 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some of the wording on his page (some had changed it from "currently works for TNA" to "best known for working in TNA", the latter which is used for wrestlers not working for them anymore). TJ Spyke 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just say "(this site) reported that"? Why do we have to find out the 100% correct answer before we can say anything? Mshake3 (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - "According to PWInsider Senshi took the offer of a contract release", it's factual and verifiable since you can CITE the site that made the claim and be done with it. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Hezekiah957 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't just cite any site's information. If not all articles could say: "[Any site] reported that John Cena killed himself after shoving a broom down Batista's throat". Any site can report false information. If we post information that we don't know if is false or true, then the articles can be full of lying information. Another example would be a MySpace page. How about if I hack Jeff Hardy'a MySpace page and write: "I have been released because I am too ugly." Is it true? NO. Can you prove it? NO. Should it be posted? The Answer should be no, but according to you, it's yes. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes cause that's TOTALLY what I said *expletive deleted* - something called "Reliable sources" would NEVER cross my mind, I just want you to quote "Dick 'N 'Harry's wrestling site, come on now don't be so obtuse about it. (Please note the sarcasm here) MPJ-DK (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon 2007

I am proposing this section be split into a new article while it's young and can be easily done so.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but we should wait for some other opinions. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say wait until after the event, i think it can wait. Its next sunday, split it on Monday or right after the event.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes harder to write as you wait...do it now.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Trucco, lets wait after it happens. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, we should wait until after the event. Cheers, LAX 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, 72.186.91.215 is User:Hornetman16-- bulletproof 3:16 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed from [2]. Cheers, LAX 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And he said we would never hear from him again... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CORRECTION...it was stated you wouldn't hear from my Dad again...and you haven't.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww... and I thought this spoke for itself. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing alot on The Pro Wrestling Wikia lately as Monnitewars. Cheers, LAX 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am aware of that. I've been keeping an eye on him for quite some time. He has also been active in other Wikis. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin there, so no worries. If he steps out of line I can handle him. Now, I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who wants to join the wikia should. There are almost no boundaries to what you all can add. It is a wrestling fan's dream wiki. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proof this is me?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start this again Hornetman... Grenelefe, Florida. You think IP's are untraceable?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus that's exactly how you respond every single time. -- Scorpion0422 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Are you gonna help me copy this template to here or not?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because you shouldn't be copying things from the main Wiki. -- Scorpion0422 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem... Congrats! Anyway, like I said on the template's talk page, you cant just copy and paste templates from one Wiki to another. I believe some links and tables are only available here. You should ask Hybrid for more info since he's an admin in that Wikia. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't this IP been blocked yet? The Hybrid T/C 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you at least help me build a new one? I don't know building code as well as ya'll.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you should ask Hybrid there since he is an admin in that Wikia.-- bulletproof 3:16 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do it; I tried. The Hybrid T/C 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HORNETMAN is like a superhero villain. He tries, and tries and tries... but we always win...Lex T/C Guest Book 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something we all know to well... the thing is it has become old, his behavior is just to obvious I suggest that any address is ignored and subsecuently blocked if its either obvious or confirmed that it is being used by this user, otherwise he will keep coming back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

I dont know about you all, but there have been many IP edits in the past week. As you all know I created the Kofi Kingston article and an IP blanked 90% of the article, do any of you all know how to regain the original information?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... reverting it. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but when I try that, it says that the edit cant be undone.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
N/M its done now--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably did it wrong or something. Anyway your statement saying there have been many IP edits in the past week, well Wikipedia gets millions of IP edits every single-day, Trucco! :) Davnel03 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha true, but to me in the PW articles there have just been an outrageous amount.TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to articles like Iraq war, United States and Global warming, PW article get minimal vandalism! Davnel03 21:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HaHa yeah, I guess im saying that since Ive been working on the Kofi Kingston article and you should see the amount of IPs doing edits that ruin the article (vandilism)TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed on current FL Candidate

I've been trying to address concerns brought up during the Featured List nomination of IWGP World Tag Team Championship. The poster said he or she wanted the first four columns sortable. I've figured out most of the process, but I'm running into trouble. Because of the way the dates are listed, it's not sorting them correctly. It also seems to be having trouble with empty columns (for example, clicking on the "Location" box gives an empty box at the top. Clicking on it again gives the title changes in Yokohama at the top, followed by 7 empty boxes). And apparently there's supposed to be something with a "sortbottom" command, but I couldn't get it to work with that included. Would someone who understands tables well be able to look at it? The Featured List candidacy is on its 11th day, so I'm trying to address the concerns brought up before the nomination is closed. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you have empty locations for some title changes. Find the locations of the title changes and vacations missing. If the vacations were not on live shows, but they were backstage (due to a release, suspension, etc.) then you can write: (N/A) [with parenthesis, so it goes to the bottom of the list]. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger problem is with the dates. Any ideas? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poster also mentioned that there is too much blank space. I would like to resize the image so that it doesn't push the table down so much, but I haven't been able to figure out how. Is there anyone out there who can help? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how to do dates: {{dts1|1985-12-12}}. For more examples on sorting, you can check out my work at Essential Marvel Comics - DrWarpMind (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resized the image in the infobox for you. I set it at 150 px, but feel free to change it if you see fit. Nikki311 02:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Im finally done No Way Out (2004)

May you all fellow Wikipedians go here for peer review. Thanks.TrUcO9311 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been served

Film at 11. Mshake3 (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this has what to do with this project? GetDumb (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shake and his sense of humor again. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...... I won? Mshake3 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! THIS IS SO AWESOME!! THIS IS LIKE THE BEST ACHIVEVEMENT EVER!! Let's party!!

(Oh and next time tell Justapunk to go to Request for User conduct instead of wikiquette alert.)

WP:PW mewsletter

The newsletter pages have been really quiet as of late (not a failure, but quiet). Do visit the newsletter's talk page now and then. It would help. :) The Chronic 07:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justin heise

This user has gone to town uploading images without proper copyright information, mostly images straight from WCW or WWE that violate image policies, and putting them into the according wrestler's wiki articles. I think there is a bunch of undo-ing to be done. I would do it myself, but not sure the proper way to go about it really. Just wanted to alert the right people. Yagobo79 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a warning on his talk page. All the images are tagged to be deleted within 5-7 days, so it'll take care of itself. I'll keep an eye on him and make sure he doesn't upload anymore. Thanks for the heads up. Nikki311 13:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He is back at it as I type this. Yagobo79 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left him another warning. If he continues, I'll block him for a short amount of time. I've tried to convey that his actions have consequences, but sometimes people don't get it until they actually experience the consequences. Nikki311 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Legit"

I'd just like to quickly propose that uses of the word "legit" be changed to "legitimate". It reads more like an actual article and not something written by an "insider". Tnova4 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It just doesn't look right to say "Shawn Michaels was legit attacked outside a nightclub." Non-wrestling fans would probably cringe when reading that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Legit is the correct term as used by the industry, it seems WP:Jargon excuses it's grammatical iffyness.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legit is just a shorthand term for legitimately anyway. It doesn't take that much effort to type the extra seven letters. It sounds better, looks better, and makes the writing more accessible to GA and FA reviewers to write it as "legitimately". Nikki311 17:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And isn't the point also to avoid as much jargon and slang as possible? Especially seeing as "Legitimate" conveys the same thing but is more correct?? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Wrestling Sites

I know this has been asked before but which of these can be uses for as in results.

Lords of Pain Wrestle View Wrestling Attitude The History of WWE Steve's Wrestling Online on Slaught TWNPnews Gerweck Wrestling Information Archive

and if some of these arent may you give me links to which I may use (other than Online World of Wrestling, and hoffco-inc)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find Wrestling Information Archive very reliable. It's a great source of information, and I use it quite a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lords of Pain, WV and Gerweck are definite no. All the rest are OK. The Angelfire link was dead, so I've replaced it with another one. Davnel03 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: While browsing the History of WWE webite, I found this very handy page for detailed results. Davnel03 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another good one is SLAM! Wrestling. They have pay-per-view reports (esp. for more recent ones), wrestler bios, articles, etc. Nikki311 17:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the link to the list of PPV reviews is here. This is a really good resource for the pay-per-view expansions. Nikki311 17:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of creating a page probably under the heading Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVguidelines where there would be guidelines for people wanting to create PPV's, along with acceptable, and not acceptable sources. Opinions on that? Davnel03 18:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree-Thats a great idea, that way our articles can be more reliable.TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most definately. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but I think it should be "Article Guidelines", for all bios, events, matches, championship histories, etc. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the guideline page. I'll finish it tommorow (unless anyone wouldn't mind carrying on with it tonight!) :) Davnel03 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wrestleview should be a definite "no". They are a reliable source, and have been running for over 10 years. Kris (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have any exclusive editors that break news? Mshake3 (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and they do have sources within the WWE. Kris (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every rumor site says they have sources at this or that company, that doesn't mean its true. TJ Spyke 02:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Care to show some examples of their exclusive news? Mshake3 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any off hand, but visit the site every now and then, you'll find them. Kris (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker proposed merger

As you probably know, Undertaker is the COTW. I'm proposing moving the nicknames, themes, and signature taunt lists from his main article to the Personas of The Undertaker article because the main article is so long. The discussion is HERE. Please comment and vote there. Thanks. Nikki311 17:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'M BAAAAACK!

hello everyone! I'm back after a LOOOOONG wikibreak! How is everyone? What have I missed?The Pink Panther (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I dont know you but Im Kevin (or Truco) but youve missed alot like the expansion of PPV articles and improvements to here here here here and our FA AND ALOT MORE!!and all of our PPV's which you can see in the PPV Expansion article in WP:PW. Iight im out.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of you...ever. But, welcome back! Let's see well:
  1. Shelton Benjamin, Bobby Eaton, December to Dismember (2006) are FAs
  2. Many GAs; go check them out on the project page
  3. Obviously, the project has a new color: very very very very very very bright yelloworange!
  4. We have a newsletter. See so in the Outreach section you can find in the NavBar
  5. We have had many many many many discussions about important topics like Spoilers, Consensus, Policies, Sources, etc. (Check the archives, and the very long discussions would be the main ones)
  6. PPV Expansion is new. It's a way to keep track on the PPV articles being divided. Yet I think it should just be "Article Expansion" and list all articles...
  7. COTW is effective and going great!
  8. We have created the FA Collaboration of the Month, which is a way to improve GAs into FAs periodically.

Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Featured List: IWGP World Tag Team Championship

This article passed its Featured List nomination today. Thank you to everyone who worked on the page, and thank you to everyone who helped out with an editor's last-minute concerns. Once again, your help is appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Do we want to start making the other lists sortable as well? - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MY RANT

I've been on Wikipedia for a while; believe me, I know my edits carry weight by now. What concerns me is that now that many of the wrestling articles are struggling for featured articleship, many editors are coming to the realization that they have been working to dead ends: Let me help in striving not FA, but pefection:

I copy-n-pasted the criteria for FAship here:

1- fills a gap; search for existing or related articles on the topic first. How many wrestling articles are like that? Most pages are just collaborations based on very little reading or research. This is especially so for history of wrestling articles. Read Bishoff's book. Read Foley's book. Read some of the WWF histories out there. They are loaded with real facts for a wikipedian to put out there.

The main gap I see is with critical opinion. Think about it. Most of the forums, blogs, and personal sites talking about wrestlers are going to disappear in mere months. Why not preserve important criticisms? Wikipedians are too afraid to put their own opinions and cite reviews. Wrestling fans are very savvy researchers; they know what is going on with their fav wrestlers, and they have plenty to write. Why shouldn't it be that many of the criticisms or feelings towards a wrestler be expressed? Let's say John Cena's in-ring skills were under question. Shouldn't that be added? What about a push? Or an absence? Chris Masters' article is perfect with facts, for instance. It does not have anything newsworthy in that respect. It just has to be consensus-based online.


2- starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. This is hands down, the biggest problem wrestling editors have. Look at the # of times you'll see a minor feud or simple main event being put into excessive detail. Think about the pains someone takes to say something like "Randy Orton def. John Cena in a no-DQ match on the Jan 24th Edition of RAW after he RKO'ed Cena through a table." Who cares? Wrestling people are really, really obsessive on facts. Don't be. Half the time, the results on RAW and Smackdown won't really matter much, anyway. A feud is far more important, especially if it is based on a storyline of some sort.

3- is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject This is why no article, not even the Montreal Screwjob, could be considered for the FA of the day. Think about how in-universe the language is whenever you write. Just writing about PPVs, for example, is a few steps away from what the average reader wants to know.

Just think about how in-universe a pay-per-view is: A pay-per-view is a wrestling event consisting of several matches, usually promoted and built-upon from weeks and months of creative planning. Feuds have been established months in advance, and pay-per-views are often used to systematically present key transformations in many storylines. Pay-per-views achieve highs in viewership and revenue, making them among the finest of a wrestling federation's shows. That is all stuff every wrestling fan knows. Most non-wrestling fans don't know all this background, let alone the series of pay-per-views, or the ridiculous types of specialty matches.


4- is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. In-links suck. Balls. Believe me, I can tell you that wrestling articles are the hardest to read because of the intense links and citations. Focus on the article, not how to make an article link most effectively or what to link. Let the big-time losers provide wikilinks for you. Chances are, you will have put enough effort and time into the article itself, you won't see any reason for reading, let alone linking, other articles.

5- branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject. and branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic and link them to the article. Tell this to the fool who bothered to link the $ sign in the Chris Masters article.

6- acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject. is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Check Vince McMahon. It will NEVER, EVER reach FA. Not a chance in Hell. Why? Because for all his actions, for every single one of the books written about him, for all the documentaries, interviews, achievements, and failures, little controversy or opinion is presented. Think of all the people he fired over the years. All the bad storylines. Who he has hired. Who has sued him. his business practices. Not one bit of controversy is ever expressed, yet every single forum online spews his name nonstop.

7- is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language. Check some of the older pay-per-views, especially In Your House 1 and you'll see how unclear the storylines are. It's difficult to see any wrestling article without this problem.

8- is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. LAST, but CERTAINLY NOT LEAST. This sums up the reason the wrestling project is doomed. When someone adds boring, ridiculous links, and unbelievably obsessive details, they make us look bad. The project is shameful. For someone who bothers to read biographies to edit articles, when they see Hulk Hogan's article, they run into complete garbage. Think about how much is on Kurt Angle's page or how many are categorized by "RAW" "SMACKDOWN" RAW-2nd RUN, SMACKDOWN. Think about this. Think about how many people are going to read and understand what you read.

You can have influence, and make FAs if you try. Aim for some perfection, and you'll see. I brought all this up because this is what our project should be arguing about, not all the dumb little facts. This rant might give some people the BIG PICTURE they were looking for.

--Screwball23 talk 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but get the holy by god fuck off your goddamned high horse. "My edits carry a lot of weight" Yeah, I'm sure they're "pefection." If you're so "pefect" why don't you do some work yourself instead of POINTLESSLY BITCHING IN ALL CAPS and big scary bold text at people who are doing good work. You're accomplishing nothing but riling people up. If we're so "shameful" then why even bother with us? If you care that much, get your own ass in gear. God damn it, I am so angry right now.` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromboneguy0186 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to read that, and the parts I can make out do bring up some great points. But you did a terrible copy and paste. Where'd you copy this from anyway? Mshake3 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know where to start. But then I wouldn't know when to finish. So I'll just point out this...--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If I wasn't there, it never happened" Mshake3 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this was because of my comments on your talkpage, Screwball. All I wanted was a copy-edit, I didn't really ask for a rant to come with it. All I'm trying to do is try and get In Your House 1 to FA status, and it seems like you've just gone off on one. Davnel03 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually some good points in there, shame they get lost in the attitude/tone of the whole piece which means that most people will probably just pass it on by. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, your right. What suprises me is that the user doesn't actually attempt to help us improving articles, and instead has to rant despite not being very active.... (somehow, I doubt Screwball will actually look at this topic ever again) Davnel03 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I fixed the bold tags for better readability MPJ-DK (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies? On a living person? ARE YOU MAD? Mshake3 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I did not understand the above comment. Is it an inside joke? Lex T/C Guest Book 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. I believe it was established, citing WP:BLP, that no name be dragged through the mud, or something like that. Then again, the user who was enforcing that, quite posting here with a loud "FUCK THIS PLACE", so who cares anymore. Let's get controversal! Mshake3 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we should ignore this rant because this user does not understand any of the policies. We are not supposed to express opinions, unless they're from important and distinguished people (not wrestling fans on the internet!). If we were to add fans, what would the article say...: "JohnCENASux1 on the ProWrestling.com forum says John Cena's wrestling skills are terrible, and Ortonrulesass, JerichoNumber1, TNAisdabomb, and SecretPedophile agree with him!" (SERIOUSLY, COME ON...) Lex T/C Guest Book 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) Considering Screwball was one of the main contributors to Randy Orton article I have a hard time taking his rant about quality seriously - the Orton article represents more or less everything that's wrong with wrestling articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To do list?

Where the heck did that go? Now where do people go to see what PW articles are up for deletion? Prodded? In need of sources etc? when did this disappear and why? MPJ-DK (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open the "find" dialog box in your browser, and type "to do". It should take you to the top of the page. It's currently hidden, but you can expand it. Mshake3 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, excellent - thank you. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJPW Triple Crown Championship

I think this article should be nominated as a Featured List. My biggest concern is that some people don't like Featured Lists without pictures. Would it be okay to add the picture from http://www.bodyslamming.com/ajpw/pics/ajpwtriplecrown.jpg ? I don't know the origin of the picture, but it's available at a few places on the internet. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look good. I checked all the holders of the belt, but none of them had any free-use pics to "borrow". I'm hesitant to start uploading fair-use pics for this list, because "technically" a free-use pic could be an option, we just don't happen to have one. Lack of a picture shouldn't keep it from passing, though. Nikki311 18:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Ring (1994) GA nomination

I posted notice about nominating this article over a month ago. I waited to nominate it so that there wouldn't be too many wrestling pay-per-views nominated at once. After Royal Rumble (1994) passed its GA review, I inquired as to whether or not anyone else wanted to nominate a PPV. Nobody responded, so I nominated this article today. Thank you to all of the editors who helped build the article and who contributed to the peer review. As with Royal Rumble (1994), I have requested a reviewer from outside of this project to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legends Killed?

Mshake has brought up a good point in this. Is it really notable of these Legends actually being "killed"? Zenlax T C S 20:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its really not important or notable, however it should be noted somewhere that thats his gimmick and "if its really necessesary" to include a list of legends it should be only WWE Hall of Famers not people like Triple H. --TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it all that notable really. And what constitutes a legend being "killed"? Dusty Rhodes, Sgt. Slaughter and Mick Foley have all continued to appear after being "killed". Jerry Lawler has been a target of Orton but is there every week as the color commentator for RAW. I know Orton calls himself "The Legend Killer", but I don't see how listing a bunch of wrestlers he has attacked is noteworthy. TJ Spyke 23:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless one of the legends is literally "killed" this is just useless to the encyclopedic value of the article, for example its inclusion would be like listing the ammount of people imitated by Eugene or spited by Carlito. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Legend killer" does not refer that the wrestler is literally being killed. It refers to the "Legend of the wrestler" being killed. Obviously, because you cannot kill something abstract like a legend, the term would be a metaphor. And answering TJ's comment, I find the list notable because WWE finds it notable. They had a list of legends killed, until they had to get rid of it because of Chris Benoit's involvement in the section. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even setting aside the notability of it, how do you determine who is considered a legend and when their legend was "killed"? You can't just have users here determine either one since that would be original research. TJ Spyke 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the notability of the list if it wasn't anything more than just another spot. Wrestlers lose, wouldn't be much of a show if they didn't, they get jumped from behind, "beaten" down, left lying in the ring before being "helped" back by backstage personel, etc. All of those scenarios apply, at various times, to the legends Orton has "killed". I'd find the list notable if the legends he'd RKO'd never returned to the business. If they retired and it was played that Orton did end their career, that'd be a different story.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backlash 2006

I need some help with the article. If anyone wants to help, I'll be grateful. Zenlax T C S 20:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW newsletter

Something new for the newsletter: the newsletter will be begin to do user interviews for each newsletter. Apply here if you want to be interviewed for a future issue. Apply today! :) The Chronic 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the newsletter: you now have methods on how to receive the newsletter. See here for detail! The Chronic 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move list cruft/clutter (again)

I mentioned this at least once (if not more) in the past, so I'm bringing this up again. Hopefully it makes a difference this time. Move lists for some wrestlers are just getting excessively out of hand. One example: Rob_Van_Dam#In_wrestling. I think the project should come up with a general guideline of a certain number of moves that should be listed. If not, move lists are just going to get even worse than they are now. It should be notable moves, not seemingly every move they do in a handful of matches. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a horrible example of when too much is just too much - I'd also ax the nicknames & music lists from the section. A guideline would be nice. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the nicknames, moves, and music too. Maybe we should get rid of the nicknames and music altogether, and cut down the moves lists to only include moves that the wrestler has named (which proves it is signature) or has a third party source proving that they consistently use it. Whatever we decide, it is going to be hard to enforce. IPs and the annoying regulars who do nothing but mess with he "in wrestling" sections are going to be pissed. Nikki311 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we probably could enforce it. Sourced nicknames can be included in the prose and entrance music is pointless. All those lists are nothing but listcruft, and we have WP:V and WP:CITE on our side. Only moves that you can prove were named by the wrestler should be listed. Nikki311 15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal:
  • Remove theme music to Music in professional wrestling and link to it from the article.
  • Cap the lists of nicknames (5, perhaps?) and moves (8-10 maximum, perhaps?). I actually find the moves section helpful (eg. if I'm writing a PPV article and want to mention that I.R.S. won after performing the Write Off, it's nice to be able to pull up the Mike Rotunda article to see that I should link that to Professional wrestling attacks#Lariat). But some of it is beyond absurd. Do we really need to know that Nelson Frazier, Jr. used a Corner body splash as Mabel, used a Corner body splash as Viscera, and currently uses a Corner body splash as Big Daddy V?
  • The nicknames strike me as cruft, especially when it drags on and on and lists variations on other nicknames {eg. The Undertaker as "The Phenom" and "The Phenom of the WWE"). I have a hard time believing that any wrestler has more than 5 nicknames that have been used on a regular basis. In addition, many of the nicknames seem to be actual ring names (eg. Hulk Hogan as "Hollywood"). And a ton of the nicknames seem so obscure that I don't think they're worth including (I haven't watched wrestling in a while, but how often is Hulk Hogan called "The Babe Ruth of Pro Wrestling"? And if it is used frequently, how about writing it into the text? Quite a few of The Undertaker's nicknames seem absurd as well [eg. The Best Pure Striker in the History of the game]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that move lists should be shortened and nicknames moves to prose if they are important enough. I'd personally like to see the theme music section stay, but the consensus seems to be against it and I have no real wiki-enforcable reason to want it to stay. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The information is certainly notable, but in the cases of some articles mentioning them in article bodies would detract from the rest of the article. Especially for people who legitimately have a lot like The Undertaker. At which point do you mention the Phenom nickname, when the Booger Red one, when Deadman? They're all things he's been called but not nicknames. Theme songs also wouldn't work in the body as well as they do in a separate section. They can be arranged in paragraph format instead of lists (John Morrison) but saying every time Al Snow changes gimmicks "at this time he used the song X by band Y" would get ridiculous. This stuff works like "lesser" titles, every specific win and loss of the OVW title isn't mentioned, just that it was held twice. And I won't even get into the arbitrary cap of move or name list. Who decides which five or ten are the most important?«»bd(talk stalk) 21:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of it is notable. Some nicknames are notable, yes. For example, Stone Cold Steve Austin as the Texas Rattlesnake, which is already mentioned in the prose. If it can't be worked in or there isn't a source, it should go. Also, I don't agree with the cap, either. Like I mentioned, we should only list moves with names, as they are likely to have sources proving they are indeed signature (think Jeff Hardy's Swanton, Whisper in the Wind, Poetry in Motion or Rob Van Dam's Rolling Thunder and Five Star Frog Splash). If people want the music list to stay, I guess I'm cool with that. You can't win every war. Nikki311 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the sequence of un-named signature moves John Cena, Randy Savage, Bret Hart, Goldberg, Shawn Michaels, & Hulk Hogan do every match don't go in?«»bd(talk stalk) 21:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the lists of the wrestlers you mentioned...I have to ask, is there a specific move you are referring to? Most of those unnamed moves are moves that a good number of wrestlers do on a pretty consistent basis: big boot, clothesline, moonsaults, etc. If a third party source can be found that proves it is a signature move, then it can be added in. Nikki311 22:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a joke, yes? You're not actually saying Savages Double Axe to the outside or jumping knee drop, Bret Harts Moves of Doom (which he did so often they had an entry in the RSPW faq), Hogans big boot and back rake, etcetera etcetera etcetera aren't signature moves because commentators don't call them by cutesy pun-ridden names. Just because others also do them doesn't mean they aren't connected specifically to these guys in the minds of the wrestling watching public. You can't find an Ultimate Warrior match where he doesn't hit a clothesline. It's part of his in ring persona. That Jimmy Wang Yang does it sometimes doesn't change that.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I said that if a third party source can be found, it can be included. If they truly use a move in every match, then it shouldn't be that big of a deal to find a source. I also believe that below I said that there are exceptions to rules. Nikki311 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nova named most of his moves. Listing mostly moves with special names is useful to a point (as long as the wrestler used them regularly): but with Nova's case, that should be ignored. I'm no expert on Nova, but I highly doubt all those moves are notable. As for music and nicknames: those need a bit of cleaning as well. A cap on the nicknames should be done, to prevent massive listings of just clutter and very brief names. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is always going to be exceptions to the rule. Nikki311 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a special attachment to the theme music, as it is a section that has helped me frequently, and I think it has become somewhat of a standard. It is as relevant as any gimmick IMO. As far as moveset goes, I agree they should be limited, but if a wrestler performs a move every match, it becomes common knowledge, and shouldn't need to be sourced. However, if moves do get the boot, don't discredit the adding of combinations. This is especially true in cases of 5 moves of Doom, but also in common sequence moves. For instance, Matt Hardy's "Corner clothesline followed by a bulldog", or Undertaker's "Snake eyes into big boot". But that's just me... And I think nicknames should be kept back under control. I hate "The Phenom" being something different from "The Phenom of the WWE". Also keep it to things he is called, not things used to describe him. I won't lie when I say I like that Undertaker is called "The Best Pure Striker in the History of the Game", but when have you ever seen WWE (or anyone for that matter) say "The Best Pure Striker in the History of the Game just won himself the World title at Wrestlemania!" Exactly... maybe we can draw a line against that. --EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 03:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...from the above. Would a consensus be to limit move sets to moves used in every match (or nearly every match), moves that have names, and/or moves that can be sourced? Music stays. Nicknames are limited to actual verifiable nicknames, not descriptions. Note: there will be exceptions that should go under a case-by-case basis. Comments? Thoughts? Nikki311 03:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds just about perfect to me. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are we going to find sources for non-named moves outside of the matches themselves? Are we going to have to cite 10 issues of WON with match break downs for every move we want to add? But wait, isn't WON a "dirt sheet" and thus non-reliable? This is getting stupid. You know what a guys signature move are if you watch them wrestle over time, conveniently pointing to WP:V and WP:Cite to blank whole sections instead of actually fixing the problems isn't helping. This is what article talk pages are for. You don't think the Snake Eyes/Big Boot combo is a real signature of the Undertakers, say so on that talk page, let it's actual editors defend it. «»bd(talk stalk) 04:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles and books will sometimes list signature moves of wrestlers or talk about "Hogan defeated Andre the Giant with his signature bodyslam". WWE magazine consistently describes signature moves of wrestlers. You clearly aren't reading what I'm saying. I also said that moves used in nearly every match were fine to include. Nikki311 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think an ideal template for the length of a move list is Robert Roode's article. We don't want any list to be much longer than that, except for wrestlers that have been wrestling for many years. Chris Sabin's article is an example of what it shouldn't look like. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totaly agree with Gavyn, that is perfect. As for nicknames, that is just getting out of control. Chris Jericho's is the longest thing I've ever said in my life. He uses a name a couple of times while cutting a promo, and its on there. I mean, "The Man of 1004 holds" Please, that was just a bit he used when cutting promo's for his feud with Malenko.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else have an opinion? I want there to be more consensus before we start implementing anything. Nikki311 20:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orton non-GA review

To avoid any issues of biased reviewing etc I've stopped GA reviewing wrestling articles - but I figured I could still review them in a "Non GA" manner and provide input to articles currently up for GA, a "Pre-GA" review if you will, stuff to fix before someone really reviews it according to the GA criterias.

In that regard I've started with Randy Orton and commented on the part I could stand to review, I litterally had to stop reading about 1/4 of the way through for my own sanity. I left notes and comments on the talk page with the many things I found wrong in what little I read. Please, please, please read them and understand that I mean no one ill will or hostility but the state of the article just put me in such a bad mood. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went ahead and failed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Featured list candidate

I have nominated AJPW Triple Crown Championship for Featured List status. I've seen it referred to as the most important championship in professional wrestling, and the article is well-sourced. If anyone has a chance to look it over, please feel free to do so. If you Support or Oppose the nomination, please give an explanation for your vote on the nomination page. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RAW XV

Just seen this come up as an article. Two options here:

  1. Redirect to WWE Raw
    OR
  2. Expand (like what we are doing with the PPV's). I'm almost certain we'd be able to find reliable sources.....

Davnel03 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, with the precedent being WWE Homecoming and Tribute to the Troops. Nikki311 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect from me too. Zenlax T C S 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected. Just checkin. Davnel03 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have been expanded. Tribute to the Troops and Homecoming also were notable specials. Raw XV was just as notable as some of the PPVs. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raw XV redirects now, but someone else has created 15th Anniversary of RAW, and its even linked through the special episode list in the mainr aw article.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Idk but I kinda feel that we could expand RAW XV like a PPV because it had a lot of hype like a PPV. I also believe that Tribute to the troops could be made into an article, plus that its annual and is very important. Just my opinion.=)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, past consensus shows that these pages aren't notable for there own Wiki page. Anyway, consensus can change over time, and am always willing to discuss the matter again if anyone wishes. :) Davnel03 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than having a lot of past WWE stars, it was not that different from a regular RAW. Have both redirect back to the RAW article. TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPVs with their own articles

Can somebody tell me why why a PPV like No Mercy 2007 has to have the results on the No Mercy page replaced with a link to its own article? Why can't the results go below the link to the main page so that people who want the results can get them in the results section rather than being mislead and just finding a link to another article? 24.159.39.11 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We at WP:PW are gradually expanding PPV events and moving them onto seperate pages. Per past consensus, we have opted not to list the matches under the related year, but instead just direct the user to the expanded page. Cheers, Davnel03 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Care to link to said consensus? Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We actually haven't had an official consensus, editors have just generally done that way, and no users seem to be against it. It was sort of brought up here. Davnel03 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one's against it, until now. So it's time to establish a new consceus. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't list the results per common sense. The merged PPV articles were too long, and looked ugly. The Hybrid T/C 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just the match results, and none of this stupid "Batista won the cage match by excaping the cage" crap, it would look just fine. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And then it wouldn't be comprehensive, which defeats the purpose of listing the results in the first place. The Hybrid T/C 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a comprehensive look at the PPVs, then you click the "Further Information" link that would be placed above. Mshake3 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but at the same time I think that we should just create templates for each PPV, providing links to all of them, and delete the individual sections for each one entirely. The Hybrid T/C 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hybrid and Davnel. The Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, WrestleMania, and Survivor Series have been separated for a long time, and the results aren't listed on their main pages. I thought the point of separating the PPVs in the first place was to break up the articles. Nikki311 17:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that any article that breaks the 30KB should be considered for break up. A lot of the more recent PPV's that have been going basically since the In Your House concept was wound up have got to that point now. And as a result it would be inconsistent to treat the younger ones (ie Cyber Sunday and New Year's Revolution even if it is defunct) the same way. No sense in not being practical. !! Justa Punk !! 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update on my Projects

My final exams are over, so I have much more Wiki time now. I started to correct the move links in the TNA Roster's articles, and should finish it tommorrow, if all goes well. After that, I'll begin to work on bringing WrestleMania 23 to GA. I may tackle the ROH roster and other independent wrestlers later. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took one look at Senshi's article and took a step back. I've not seen him wrestle much, I'd appreciate it if someone could clean up the move section, since there are about twenty-five or more moves there. It looks really bad, to be blunt. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance '06

The article is UP. Feel free to make any changes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble

I've finished the main Royal Rumble page and have inserted into mainspace. I hope to nominate it as a Featured List Candidate fairly soon. If you can improve the article or want to add to it (with sources!), that's cool. If there's anything wrong with it, let me know on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nikki311 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roster Template

It's nice to see that every WWE superstar's page has a nifty convenient WWE Roster Template at the bottom of the page; why can't there be a TNA Roster Template?? Maybe it can be split up into Knockouts, X-Division, Staff, and Regular Roster of course. Just a suggestion. Derrty2033 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished creating it. See here. Feel free to make any changes to it and add it to the mainspace. The Chronic 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason it should be [[Talia Madison|Velvet Sky]]. It should either be [[Velvet Sky]] or [[Jamie Szantyr|Velvet Sky]]. Talia Madison is a ringname, and according to apparent consensus, and overwhelmingly non-notable one. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change it if you will. The Chronic 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To which? I think both are reasonable, though Velvet Sky is the only one that's not salted. Something tells me it probably will be soon, though. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, that was quick. How about not wikilinking her at all, since she'll obviously never have an article. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. :) The Chronic 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...I might be talking out of my ass here, but didn't WWE raise a big legal stink about TNA calling their wrestlers "superstars" and basically keep them from doing it? As I look at tnawrestling.com, their roster is just called that, "roster." Perhaps the table should say something other than "superstars." Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just call them wrestlers.TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made that change. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XNW -- EndlessDan 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted. Davnel03 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Article improvement revisited

I proposed this idea a few weeks ago, and some people seemed to think it was a good idea but mentioned that they didn't have time until at least mid-December. I am reposting my proposal so that we can revisit it now that things are calming down for some people...

I think this project has done a great job lately with the focus on Good Article and Featured Article/List development. We've made significant progress in this area. One thing that I've been thinking about, though, is that we still have 777 stub articles (that are not likely to be chosen at Collaboration of the Week) out of 3230 total articles. I was thinking that it would be nice to challenge ourselves to see if we can improve a certain number of articles from Stub Class to Start Class within a month or so. I was thinking of something like 15 articles. I was looking through some of the stubs, and quite a few stood out as articles that would have adequate resources for improvement or might already fit the criteria for Start Class. A few that stood out are:

I thought that if we had a place to show our progress (eg. a subpage), a few people might be interested in helping trim the number of stubs. What do people think? Is this a worthwhile endeavor? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with my finals now, so I'd love to help out. Do you want to make the subpage or should I? I think we should model it on the PPV expansion subpage. Nikki311 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could pretty much copy Nikki's reply and it would be fully accurate for me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well one of them has found an underconstruction tag. :P Davnel03 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could create the subpage, I would really appreciate it. I've started it a few times since getting home today, but it just comes off sounding too formal and academic. I think I need to take a few hours off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlers with multiple Tag Team Championship partners

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hennigan&curid=7419707&diff=177939920&oldid=177821499

There's a small debate going on here. Is this against the style of guide of WP:PW or of Wikipedia itself? Because I'm of the opinion that the left edit looks better and explains things more clearly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think the one of the left looks better. But I really don't mind either way. Davnel03 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the left version, since it tells you who he is currently champion with. - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my point. But apparently style guidelines dictate that the right version be used. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of left as well. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the partners are listed by the time they were partnered with Hennigan, so logically, if Hennigan is the current champion, then the last one (Miz) would be the current one; so the (1, current) isn't needed. But either way, I'm fine; really don't care. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a small debate? Really? «»bd(talk stalk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you call it, then? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleView.com

I have had many people tell me that WrestleView is unreliabe in articles, but this site has been running for about 10 years. To me they seem reliable as they have results, archives of WWE/TNA and have profiles of professional wrestlers. Despite them having spoilers, at least they dont have rumors like other sites per say PW Headlines. So is it reliable or not?TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable or Not Reliable

There is no such thing as making a consensus about the reliability of a site. See WP:SOURCE, WP:CITE and WP:CONSENSUS. For the record, I find ALL dirtsheets are unreliable unless they can find actual proof (audio, video, picture, official press releases, etc.) about what they post. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't know what constitutes a "dirtsheet". I haven't watched wrestling since the internet really took off. If I'm reading a site for information, how do I know if I'm looking at a "dirtsheet"? Is there a consensus on the definition? GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dirt Sheet" wrestling sites are sites that have rumors, spoilers, and alot of speculation like PW Headlines. Also they have no proof of what they say, they say they have "sources" but nothing to prove that it is all true.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is reliable. They have been running for over 10 years, and always wait until news is verified before posting it. Kris (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. In case you guys don't know the probably No Way Out main event was leaked several weeks ago, and WrestleView only posted it a few days ago. My vote is reliable. Kris, I remember you saying that WrestleView have srong connections with WWE sources. You mean, like what they said here, start of the 3rd paragraph? Davnel03 09:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure about how that can be true but I just find it reliable for PPV articles and for TV results.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA Re-Review

I'm proposing an FA review for one of our project's FAs periodically. We can make it one article every 2 months or so. The thing is that I have found many errors in Montreal Screwjob and I bet I can find so in the others. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagee. I wouldn't propose an FA review, possibly just a little general cleanup. These articles get tons of IP edits that the tinest of things that they put in without a fact tag get missed. I really don't think we need a FA review unless there are major problems with the article (citation needed tags; dispute tags; lead too short) etc... Davnel03 09:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Roster

Can we work on this article and make it a Featured List? Lex T/C Guest Book 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like put references on it? SUre.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd get started soon on the article. Lex T/C Guest Book 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is a bad idea.it is adding nothing but is junk.Davnel03 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members Recall

We should have a WP:PW recall, to find out who in the members list is actually still part of WP:PW. Lex T/C Guest Book 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=178116332"