Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

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 37. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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)

I agree, but we should wait for some other opinions. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

It becomes harder to write as you wait...do it now.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trucco, lets wait after it happens. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In my mind, we should wait until after the event. Cheers, LAX 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, 72.186.91.215 is User:Hornetman16-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed from [1]. Cheers, LAX 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And he said we would never hear from him again... -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• • 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)

Aww... and I thought this spoke for itself. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He's been editing alot on The Pro Wrestling Wikia lately as Monnitewars. Cheers, LAX 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Proof this is me?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't start this again Hornetman... Grenelefe, Florida. You think IP's are untraceable?-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Plus that's exactly how you respond every single time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Are you gonna help me copy this template to here or not?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because you shouldn't be copying things from the main Wiki. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Why hasn't this IP been blocked yet? The Hybrid T/C 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Again, you should ask Hybrid there since he is an admin in that Wikia.-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't do it; I tried. The Hybrid T/C 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is this gonna be done?--72.186.88.137 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"If I wasn't there, it never happened" Mshake3 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There is always going to be exceptions to the rule. Nikki311 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

That sounds just about perfect to me. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Redirect, with the precedent being WWE Homecoming and Tribute to the Troops. Nikki311 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from me too. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. Just checkin. Davnel03 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Care to link to said consensus? Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

No one's against it, until now. So it's time to establish a new consceus. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Vengeance '06

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Change it if you will. The Chronic 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

I think you should just call them wrestlers.TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made that change. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

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

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

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:

• Adrian Street
• Bill Apter
• Dewey Robertson - I've done some work on this one.
• December to Dismember (1995) - probably just needs a few references
  • I'd propose, making it into a featured list. (Match listings) Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Doug Gilbert
• Ian Rotten
• Ivan Putski
• Jim Crockett, Jr. - perhaps already at Start Class level? This one is def. already at start-class. Nikki311 21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Koji Kanemoto
• Million Dollar Corporation
• Money Inc.
• Moondogs
• Oliver Humperdink
• Rocco Rock
• Sika Anoa'i - I've done a bunch of work on this one.
• Ted Arcidi
• The Pitbulls

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)

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)

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)

Well one of them has found an underconstruction tag. :P Davnel03 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I started the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am in favor of left as well. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

That's a small debate? Really? «»bd(^talk _stalk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What would you call it, then? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Yup, but I can't verify who these sources are, obviously they won't release them. Kris (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

Dirtsheets are any wrestling news site that is not from the company itself. I find all of them unreliable for backstage info if they don't provide proof. For example, when London n Kendrick won the championships, they provided a photo (RELIABLE); when Mickie James won the Women's Championship at a house show, there was no photo (UNRELIABLE). So they will continue to be unreliable unless they have:

a. PHOTO

b. VIDEO

c. QUOTATION from a source inside WWE (with identity)

d. Official Press release / Public contract

Obviously, they have none. They claim they have a source inside the WWE, but because they don't have proof their source exists, then: UNRELIABLE. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What a joke of an argument. You want these reporters, who are more or less insiders based on who they know in the companies, to reveal their sources? You NEVER reveal your sources. EVER. Based on this logic, we'd have to consider ALL articles (regardless of the topic) to be unreliable if it contained a quote from someone who wanted to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. Pathetic. Mshake3 (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You now understand my point. I see that we are on the same page. Like you said, we'd consider all articles to be unreliable if they contain anonymous sources which don't have proof if they're real. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you never work for a newspaper, because you'd run out of sources in a month. Mshake3 (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

for my money www.wreslingobserver.com and www.f4wonline.com are very accurate, both often wait to verify news they here from sources they have that ARE inside the companies before posting and are often the most reliable when it comes to developmental contract status changes.Skitzo (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Like put references on it? SUre.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd get started soon on the article. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a bad idea.it is adding nothing but is junk.Davnel03 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Striking comment by indef-blocked user. Davnel03 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the discussion and my points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster#Citations

Well that doesnt prove anything, there is a tag that reads "underconstruction" meaning that the article is NOT done yet, so it makes no sense to revert things now. If you want to challenge this place your comment under mines.

Approve, Disapprove, Comment about the project with the WWE Roster!

• Approve---TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Disapprove Doppy88 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve Hardyboyz27 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Unsure due to Doppy's below comment. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve, sourcing is never a bad thing. If the sources for the developmental talent are iffy, that doesn't stop the rest of it being sourced. Nikki311 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no such thing as VOTING if we should abide by policy or not! Abiding by policy is obligatory! Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Policy says citations are needed ONLY if the information is challenged or likely to be challenged. "" All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" The information that is getting citations right now will never be challenged, it is common knowledge. Putting citations for developmental talent would abide by the policy. Doppy88 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- Ok but if that is so, why do we have FL's for List of WWE Champions List of WWE Tag Team Champions, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions? Which have every thing sources and cited, same goes for this article, "how would someone, a non wrestling fan, know that Randy Orton was on the RAW brand, or is apart of the WWE roster, that can be "challenged".TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Those lists need sources because they are referencing PAST events. Everything on the WWE roster is about the PRESENT. These are facts that can be verified every week by the viewer watching the product. If a non fan views the page there is no likelihood of a challenge because obviously they have no reason to challenge what they are told if they know nothing about it. If you want to put a single citation at the RAW/Smackdown/ECW brand heading going to the respective roster page on WWE then go ahead. And also citations for the injured superstars would ahere to policy as that is also challengeable as to why and if they are indeed injured or simply off air. Doppy88 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DONT YOU GET ABOUT "NOT DONE", we were working on that man. We are not done with the article, watch when we finish this article you will change your mind about the whole thing.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not rushing you, I'm simply telling you the things that would make for compromisable citations. One at the heading of each of the three rosters, one for each injured superstar and one noting the signing of each developmental talent. And for development talent only if you accept wrestling news sites as sources because as Dahumorist said, those are the ONLY pleaces that list the signings. Doppy88 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then please tell me what this is [2] and this [3]TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the other discussion page where I addressed why those cannot be used. Obviously you do not know much about what sources are good and which aren't in terms of the WWE roster, so why should you be making these decisions? Doppy88 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Really you are unexperienced, those sites I showed you are official websites of the developmental territories of WWE. Those are their websites with their listings of superstars, how can it not be used if it is the most official source to cite for developmental territory talent, the company website itself. (that sounds dumb, cant cite the talent from the company website :p)TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because like I already said... not all of the superstars listed there are CONTRACTED by the WWE. The WWE does not own those developmental territories therefore the territories let wrestlers on their show who are not contracted by the WWE. Johnny Punch, Justin LaRoche, Serena, Mike Madison, Big Rob just to name a few off the top of my head are not contracted to the WWE yet they appear on those roster pages. Therefore we cannot use those as sources as there is no way to differentiate between who is contracted with the WWE and who is simply wrestling for OVW and FCW. Doppy88 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, so then we click on the links of those who are contraced under WWE, and cite those. The ones on Wikipedia were off some dirt sheet website, so then we just look for the link of their profile and then WHAM! its done.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by non project-member. Doppy88, to claim on Wikipedia that a fact is "common knowledge" is a troublesome proposition. Common knowledge to whom? To wrestling fans? Wikipedia is geared toward the general reader, not the specialist. A casual wrestling fan will know that Triple H and The Rock were part of the WWE. Other readers might not. And once we consider more obscure entries on the list, the need for outside verification becomes increasingly important. Also you are twisting the words Verifiability policy; read it carefully. It does not say to include references only when "challenged or likely to be challenged." Where does it say "only?" In fact, it says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Readers should be convinced that every entry on the list actually belongs there. We should maintain very high standards.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I can't believe that "it shouldn't be sourced because it is ugly" has actually been an argument in this debate. Every article on Wikipedia should be sourced. Like I said above, if no sources can be found for the developmental talent, that doesn't stop the rest of the article from being sourced. Perhaps, Doppy doesn't understand that there are editors that go around blanking information that isn't sourced, so sourcing information is in everyone's best interests. Moreover, it's Wikipedia policy for articles to be attributed to sources, as has already been pointed out. Lastly, I should note that edit warring on the article isn't a good idea either. With that said, I won't hesitate to block anyone who breaks the WP:3RR rule. Nikki311 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• DisapproveBleek25 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove and Comment i don't think it's needed, at least not on the main roster page, do it for the individual articles by all means (it should already have been done tbh) the main roster page has been done that way for as long as i've been editing on here and worked fine only links needed are for the main roster page to WWE.com's sections for the 3 individual brands and developmental is extremely hard to get WWE source for as they almost NEVER comment on developmental signings and firing, the best place for them is normally wreslingobserver.com or f4wonline.com also have you realised the added workload when they move people to new shows having to check and find the new link (which they don't always update that quickly). So as i said a cite in the header of each section would be more then enough, afterall we don't cite every player profile on a sporting team so why should WWE roster page be any different.Skitzo (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, You may not think that it is needed, but it is. It is Wikipedia policy to cite sources. That is the end of the discussion. Sources are going in to the article. I can't even believe this is a debate! Nikki311 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia's policy about sources is not that black and white. As it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources

"Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

We already have general references in the WWE roster pages for all three brands, the developmental rosters and also the onlineworldofwrestling roster page which lists active, inactive and developmental talent. And once again, inline citations are NOT needed because the statements in this list are NOT challenged or likely to be challenged as the policy states is REQUIRED for inline citations. I believe this is the end of the discussion, I will be reverting the article back to how it was before these unneccessary changes were made and IF there is a majority approving this change, then they can be added back. Wikipedia policy does not require the inline sources being added so please do not use that as an excuse for reverting my edit. Doppy88 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be challenged. Examples:

a. If Marty Jannetty, Steve Blackman, Rob Van Dam, Scotty 2 Hotty and other superstars not under legend contract competed on Raw, why aren't they on the list?

b. Are you sure John Cena is injured? I haven't seen him on TV. How about if they released him? I don't see any reference saying he's still with the company...

c. Maybe all the wrestlers are competing not under contract...

Even though, the above is unlikely to be said.. IT IS POSSIBLE! And if anyone disputes any of the above, we can't back it up, because the page WOULD NOT have the sources. With that said, the page should continue having the sources.

PS. Also, the links "provided" at the bottom of the page explain NOTHING about the "Other Roles" and "Talent Relations" sections. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Wrestling. At all. That being said, I came upon this due to seeing the edit wars. Unilaterally declaring a willingness to edit war to ensure your personal version sees the light of day is quite against policy. Please don't edit war and please don't threaten to edit war. That is all. :) IrishGuy ^talk 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nikki there is already a source for the info at the bottom of the page, there isn't any need to cite each and every wrestler on the roster. Skitzo (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply, so based on your and Doppy's theories I should go into every Featured Article and delete all the sourcing because it is ugly and the information is not likely to be challenged by experts on the subjects. I'll just provide a few links at the bottom for other articles for people to go read to verify the information. I'll go get started on that right now. Please note the incredible sarcasm. Nikki311 13:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because as the policy states, general references can be used if the sources support a significant amount of the material. Which they obviously do in this case, are you just blind to see that? One single link to the Raw roster of WWE.com supports around 35 superstars. Times that by 5 because there is Raw, Smackdown, ECW, OVW and FCW and that IS a SIGNIFICANT amount. The issue is far from inline citations being ugly, but being UNNECCESARY and making the page look like a joke because it needs citations for the most obvious of facts. You mention Wikipedia policy so much, but YOU are not standing by it.

To Alex: Like I have said many times before, if you need to provide individual citations for details such as injuries and positions for the other roles section go ahead. But inline citations for EVERY SINGLE superstar as has been done so far is not needed because as policy states, general references are to be used when it supports a significant amount of the information. Wikipedia does not want an article filled with 200 sources if they can be condensed down much easier.Doppy88 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a lack of consistency. This is a list. Or everything is sourced, or nothing is. And, I swear... if you say "nothing is", I will... I WILL.... ... Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about too many refs but listen to me, an FL class article needs possibly everything cited. Mainly because it is a "LIST", so to ensure that the list is accurate everything on that list needs to be cited so it may be proven true. Like say in the WWE roster page, I have sourced all the RAW superstars and all the extra details to the side. That will make the article a FL class article. Do you understand?TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Like i said on the WWE Roster talk page, I'm just worried about disputes over developmental talent, which this will inevitably cause. The fact that it uglifies the page is really secondary in my mind. Overall though, definately UNNECESSARY. So if I must choose a side officially Disapprove Dahumorist (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove Spike7000 (talk)
• Approve Changing my vote to Approve (from Unsure), I trust Nikki's judgment. It's now tied. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve We strive to source everything that possibly can be sourced well. --Naha|^(talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove - One link at the beginning of each section should cover it. Mshake3 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Disapprove- Citations are not necessary.Radiohead12 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Just a thought here. The discussion seems to be whether or not to use a few references from the roster page at the top of each section, or to cite each and every name. Well when you cite each and every bio, what are you really citing? For example, Triple H's bio tells me nothing about him being a Raw superstar, except for the URL and the Raw logo. You would have to make it clear that those parts of the page are the proof that he's on the Raw roster. Now, if we were to link to the Raw roster, we now see a list of superstars. The purpose of this page is to show the superstars of the roster, and the brand's champions. Seems to me that the later would be a more accurate reference. Mshake3 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree. We could send out a notice in the newsletter, but it would have to be for next week's, as this week's is done. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 08:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just I find very few people working here:

1. 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs)
2. Alex Roggio (talk · contribs)
3. Bdve (talk · contribs)
4. The Chronic (talk · contribs)
5. D.M.N. (talk · contribs)
6. Drwarpmind (talk · contribs)
7. FamicomJL (talk · contribs)
8. GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
9. Gavyn Sykes (talk · contribs)
10. Hezekiah957 (talk · contribs)
11. The Hybrid (talk · contribs)
12. Justa Punk (talk · contribs)
13. Kris Classic (talk · contribs)
14. LAX (talk · contribs)
15. MPJ-DK (talk · contribs)
16. Mshake3 (talk · contribs)
17. Nahallac Silverwinds (talk · contribs)
18. Nikki311 (talk · contribs)
19. Odin's Beard (talk · contribs)
20. {PayneXKiller (talk · contribs)
21. Spike7000 (talk · contribs)
22. ThinkBlue (talk · contribs)
23. TJ Spyke (talk · contribs)
24. Truco9311 (talk · contribs)
25. Zenlax (talk · contribs)

I frankly think that the above 23 would be the only people to answer the recall... Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

there's absolutely no arguing that. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
but then again, what about Skitzo? Hardyboyz27 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Who's Skitzo? I checked up the name and it's some guy who did 21 edits in 2005 to Pink Floyd, James O'Brien, Steve McQueen and Trailer Park Boys Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why aren't I on that list? :P Sorry, just been busy lately, with the Christmas season coming up and all. And I've been focusing on one article lately. That's probably the reason why other members have dissappeared, the Christmas season has slowed some of us down. Regards, FamicomJL (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Famicom. You belong on that list. That'd make it 24! Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

just wondering. why aren't I on that list either? i would say that I contribute just as much as some other people on that list. just wondering =] Hardyboyz27 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, why did you revert my comment? Hezekiah957 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

because this topic was something worth reading, and i just think that anyone who views the page should be able to read everything discussed. if there was a problem with me reverting it, go right ahead and change it back. thanks =] Hardyboyz27 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Original post pasted below. Was removed by User:Hardyboyz27:

'I'm not even in the project, but I made it on the list. Awesome (not sarcastic, I've been thinking I should join). Hezekiah957 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)'

Do you mean to say that my comment wasn't worth reading? That's the message I take from the first part of your reply. Your second part confuses me more, as it seems to imply that you didn't think that anything should be removed from the page: "anyone... should be able to read everything discussed." I didn't simply do a revert, as it would have messed with other people's recent changes. Hezekiah957 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because some of us don't post a dozen things a day here, it doesn't mean we aren't doing things for the project. And by the way, 26 active members on the talk page is EXTREMELY good for WikiProjects. Most I'm part of only have a few active members. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm Skitzo, though my official username is User:Skitzouk. I edit WWE and TNA pages all the time but i don't always check on here to my shame, though i'm making an effort to change that Skitzo (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly would answer the recall, then again, I am a newer member to the project.LessThanClippers (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no point to this. The criteria for membership only states that you add your name to a list. This idea would remove people who don't get the newsletter, are on vacation, are on wikibreaks, aren't currently active, don't feel like responding, forget to respond, etc. There's no harm in having a large number of people listed as members. I think you're completely wrong about your list of people who would respond. There are many more active members than you have listed, but only a handful that post here on a regular basis. If I were one of the ones who was excluded, I'd be offended that you seemed to want to drop me from the project because I don't post on this talk page often enough. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. There are a lot of other things to do in the world besides posting on this page and editing the articles. Aside from other hobbies and interests, I'm sure a lot of editors have other responsibilities that have to come before this, which means that participation in posting on this page isn't really a top priority. It's that way for me sometimes and sometimes, I just don't feel like responding. I'm sure it's the same for a lot of others. The fact that some post and contribute to this page more than others is irrelevant. Contributing is supposed to be something that's fun, a useful and constructive way to pass the time. The minute it starts feeling like a job or something that you have to do otherwise risk getting kicked outta the club or whatever, it loses it's appeal fast.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Other projects have active and inactive lists so I don't see a problem. I would be on the list but I haven't had regular internet access for three months, that situation should change in the new year. I agree with the idea for an active members list. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

TNA Roster

Repeatedly (first with Senshi, now with Christopher Daniels), User:NickSparrow and myself have been butting heads over inclusion. His current belief is that Christopher Daniels is still employed by TNA, and is reverting any edits that remove him from the roster list. I, on the other hand, believe that he should not be included without a reliable source stating that his release was kayfabe. As stated in one of my edit summaries, his release has been confirmed on the TNA website. Article link. Thanks in advance, Hezekiah957 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Senshi has left the promotion, Christopher Daniels however is still very much employed (and wrestling at houseshows), his firing is just storyline (a bad 1 IMO, but thats by the by)Skitzo (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any way to verify that? I've given links to news stories that aren't sure if Daniels is only kayfabe fired, the TNA roster on its official site (doesn't include him), etc. If a reliable source (and, isn't the TNA website reliable?) can be given (instead of users just saying it) that Daniels' firing was only a storyline, then I will consider changing my stance on his inclusion. As for Senshi, I made a section higher on the page about that. If we could keep the two discussions separate, I'd much appreciate it. Hezekiah957 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that since this is a kayfabe issue TNA's website can't be seen as reliable. When WWE "blew up" Vince McMahon, WWE.com reported he was dead, so would it have been right to say that he was in fact dead because WWE.com said so? Nenog (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You want to take on screen happenings as fact with the burden of proof being on the side that they're not true? That's lunacy. So I guess we need a reliable, third-party citation that says Vickie Guerrero isn't actually confined to a wheelchair right now, huh? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact he is wrestling at TNA promoted house shows would be enough indication, also BOTH WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com are run as part of storyline and most articles are written as such. Skitzo (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Immitator

Can I just quickly point out that the person who signed as User:Davnel03 a few threads above in the WWE roster thread is not me. I have no idea who it is, but Davnel03 has been indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Its good to know that this impostor has been blocked. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I assumed it wasn't you. Their comments were ridiculous. Nikki311 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I said you shouldn't have requested your old username be deleted. Instead of it being a redirect to your current username, it was made available as a username again. I just hope that you managed to get all comments made by you on talkpages changed to your current name so that they won't be linked to that vandals account. TJ Spyke 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Or another alternative: when you changed your username, you should've gone and created a new account under your old username (as it's now open), and made at least one edit with that account. That's what I did, and I have advised several people who had changed their usernames to do that as well. Obviously nothing you can do about that now, but I'm just saying. The Chronic 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling the "imposter" is Cowboycaleb1 who some of you guys might know. As a result, I have presented my concerns to WP:ANI located here. Davnel03 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Davnel03 and User talk:Davnel03 have been deleted and salted. Davnel03 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

Someone needs to keep track of the pruning dates and stuff. I think there are some overdue pruned nominations, but I can't tell. The Chronic 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Title

There is a WWE.com source that states that the title may only be challenged by wrestling weighing 215 lbs or less. WWE.com botched their own page, as both Chavo and Helms were billed at exactly 220 lbs during their reigns. Unforunately, there is no source for it being 220, despite it being the correct weight. So I'm not sure where to go from here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please show me this source. I've always known the CW Championship to be contested with wrestlers 220 and under. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789824/results/ Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it as a source, as it could have been an error from writer Mike McAvennie. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was announced as 215 by the ring announcer at the show too.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ranjin Singh

He has appeared on screen as The Great Khali's manager for quite a while now, I think he deserves an article. Anybody else agree? Kris (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Feel free to create a draft article on a test page. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Will be hard to find much info or references, but go ahead if you feel you want to. FamicomJL (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster = New look?

I have created a tabled look for the WWE Roster page in my sandbox. Please visit my sandbox and tell me what you like and what you don't like. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping "wrestlers" for "superstars." Technically, it's what WWE calls them, and no way in hell are Kelly Kelly or Layla El "wrestlers." Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Also, I'm not sure if the footnoted information should have both legit jobs like producers and on-screen roles as managers. One or the other (maybe even neither), I'd say. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this guy, swap the names. Also make make female wrestlers like female superstars or divas or something like that, are you moving the creative team to another article?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't Kelly Kelly or Layla El wrestlers? They consistantly wrestle matches. What other requirements do they need? Nobody ever said you need to be a good wrestler to be a wrestler. Kris (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called an opinion, but being in matches doesn't make you a wrestler anyway. Are Jay Leno and David Arquette wrestlers? Or how about Eric Bischoff or Teddy Long? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be listed by brand, personally. It makes it much easier to read and find what you're looking for that way. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about contracted talent, the show in which they appear isn't really relevant. It's not like if each show has different contracts, etc. I believe that the wrestlers should be grouped together, and the brand which they appear in can be specified next to the name, as I did. However, it's the wiki-community's right to decide... so decide away :D Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep that format but group the indiviual rosters together ... Skitzo (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like WWE is phasing away the brand split anyways. SmackDown and ECW are basically 1 roster now, and Hornswoggle appears as often (maybe even more) on RAW as he does on SmackDown. TJ Spyke 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are but while they still officially have it we should continue to separate the performers as such. Skitzo (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the stupid roster template box thing at the bottom? Isn't that a little redundant. Nenog (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

New article - Judgment Day (2006)

Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've stared the expansion of Judgment Day (2006). Cheers, LAX 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Category_talk:World_Champion_professional_wrestlers. —Random832 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edge and Christian

Can somebody watch the Edge and Christian article for me. There is an editor adding WP:Weasel statements and fair-use images (with no rationale and copyright info) to the article. I've already hit my limit at three reverts. Thanks. Nikki311 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Rated-RKO

The article has been receiving edits, that both Edge and Orton are World Champions, as to the fact they are no longer a stable. Can someone please monitor the article. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable. In 2006, Edge offered Randy to join him to get their world championships back (Edge was referencing his WWE Championship and Orton's World Championship). Well, after joining Rated RKO, and some months after the disban, they did just that (in reverse however). So, Edge kept his promise and that can be added to the article. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not notable since it didn't happen as part of the group and they didn't help each other win world titles at all. - DrWarpMind (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to note that Edge brought Randy back to main event status. Before Rated RKO, he was feuding with Carlito and losing Intercontinental Championship matches. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

not really he was losing those matches as punishment for being a fuckwhit on an overseas tour, the man is lucky to still have a job let alone be WWE champion. Skitzo (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What Orton did backstage is just rumors, not fact. Besides, Orton had been relegated to midcard status long before those rumors started, he was down pretty much right after he lost the WHC to Triple H. WarpMind is right, only titles won while part of the tag team/group are included (at least in the titles won section). TJ Spyke 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. But I think the prose should mention something about what I mentioned up there. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional wrestling portal

Would it be now time for talks to consider a professional wrestling portal? I'm just wondering what WP:PW thinks, since the last mention of it. The Chronic 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. Wait until the New Year at least. I think a professional wrestling portal is the last thing on people's minds. Davnel03 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I on the other hand think we should. Read my comment about the issue here. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this discussion may go on until the new year. With the newsletter and the development of the articles and stuff, I truly believe a portal can and will be successful. I would support it 100%.The Chronic 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to sound like a total moron, but what the hell is a portal? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be a moron with you. So, what is a portal? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:PORTAL. Cheers, LAX 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriously think there should be a professional wrestling portal. We have a considerable amount of pro wrestling content. The Wikiproject seems pretty active. The newsletter appears to be successful. I really don't see any reason not to start the portal (besides the argument that the portal would "sit for weeks or months without any attention"). The Chronic 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do think that there is a real risk it will end up sitting for months without any edits, but if y'all are committing to it, and you're open to being held to that commitment, then I won't oppose it. I will say right now, however, I personally won't be taking part in it actively. The Hybrid T/C 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely be committed to keeping the portal up-to-date, even if it means the harder work for me (along with the newsletter, vandal fighting, regular editing, etc.). And I'm sure other users will agree. The Chronic 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid stole the words out of my mouth. I can't oppose something that people are willing to work on, but I can't support something that I know I won't be able to help much with. Nikki311 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I have no problem with there being a portal, but I might not be able to edit it much. Just remember that portals are supposed to be meant for the general reader (wheras wikiprojects are meant for those knowledgable or interested in a subject), so wrestling jargon should be avoided and written like you are showing it to someone who knows nothing about wrestling. TJ Spyke 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I will keep that in mind. The Chronic 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Portal should be helpful too. TJ Spyke 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Seen that. So should construction of the portal begin now? The Chronic 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Professional wrestling portal is currently under construction.

Approval poll

• Support - The Chronic 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Hezekiah957 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Cheers, LAX 12:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Speed CG ^Talk 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - The Hybrid T/C 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - Nikki311 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral TJ Spyke 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per Hybrid, Nikki. --Naha|^(talk) 17:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support - --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

References to WWE Roster

Ok this is ridiculous, PLEASE stop removing the citations to the article, me and Alex are not done constructing the page. He is working on the tables and look to the page while I am finding citations to prove that each superstar is signed to WWE. We are attempting to make the article an FL class article, I dont know why people are against this? Having a FL article is good to the Project.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the same user has deleted the references seven times, perhaps a message on his talk page would be appropriate? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been voted on it came back 5-4 to not add the referances.You are just trying to push your way on everybody else.Bleek25 (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest way to cite the article be to change "External links" to "References" since that were all your references are coming from. Plus their profiles don't list their real names, which, when the reference is next to it, also looks like its being cited. Also, the tags teams are being cited with their profile for second time when several of them (i.e. "Jim Duggan and Super Crazy") their profiles make no mention of them being in a tag team with anyone. Nenog (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not to reference articles should not even be up for discussion. If a good reference can be found, it should always be used to source the article. Referencing gives credibility to the encyclopedia. This isn't something to vote on. Valid references and citations continually being removed from an article should be treated as vandalism, no? Oh and Bleek, there was no time limit set for the "vote" and it currently sits at 6:6, tied. I don't see anyone pushing "their way." It is an encyclopedia's obligation to provide as much insight as possible as to where they got their information. --Naha|^(talk) 18:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If only the references were being used correctly. Mshake3 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If they are good sources, make them right but leave them in if possible. Taking them out completely isn't a solution if they are good sources. All articles should be sourced to the best of our ability. --Naha|^(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna repost something I wrote in one of the many, many sections about this article, with an addition: Just a thought here. The discussion seems to be whether or not to use a few references from the roster page at the top of each section, or to cite each and every bio. Well when you cite each and every bio, what are you really citing? For example, Triple H's bio tells me nothing about him being a Raw superstar, except for the URL and the Raw logo. You would have to make it clear that those parts of the page are the proof that he's on the Raw roster. Now, if we were to link to the Raw roster, we now see a list of superstars. The purpose of this page is to show the superstars of the roster, and the brand's champions. Seems to me that the later would be a more accurate reference. Of course, then comes to question of whether or not to use that one reference for every name (me, I'm against that). Mshake3 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Trucco you lost the vote, so leave them off, do an example in your sandbox, if you wish to do so and show us then otherwise LEAVE it as it is seeing as the consensus ruled not to have them. Skitzo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, how did he lose the vote? It was 6-5 in favor of including citations. TJ Spyke 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the WP:PW members have spoken even though TJ says i didnt lose the vote, if i add references, members will probably delete it. So I will just work on it in my sandbox. Thank you fellow members for not wanting a FL class list. TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And thank you for wanting an article to have crappy references. Mshake3 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

U kno what milk shake go to.... (w/e):PTrUcO9311 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Truco keep working on it in your sandbox, along with who ever was doing the tabl format, then show us. Skitzo (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestler Infobox text

Quick question - is the proper format for the text above a picture in the infobox the real name of the wrestler or the name of the article? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually answered on the Infobox page (Template:Infobox Wrestler): "The person's most common name (probably the pagename itself)." So Shawn Michael's infobox would say Shawn Michaels, not Michael Hickenbottom. TJ Spyke 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:The Attitude Era

I know he/she is just trying to help, but User:Number87 is adding this category to every person and event that had anything to do with WWE (even Drew Carey) from 1996-2002. The article on the Attitude era itself is up for deletion and there is no definitive beginning or end to the era (the end is usually accepted as WrestleMania X-Seven, but the beginning is not as clear). Any opinions? TJ Spyke 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The category doesn't seem too useful and it's a bit speculative, I think it should go to CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, CFD for sure. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominate: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 18#Category:The Attitude Era. TJ Spyke 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the era itself, i'd say it started at the beginning of Austin's 1st big push, around the time of the double switch between him and Hart. Skitzo (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Here. Davnel03 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Thanks for all your help. You were a true asset to the project and really kicked off the PPV expansion project. :) See you. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you did a great job with the WWE PPV articles too. I hope you change your mind in the future, but thanks for all the work you put in which IMO made you one of the projects top editors. TJ Spyke 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:( I'm sorry to hear that, as well. I know you've had to deal with a lot from a certain blocked editor. I hope you do change your mind when everything blows over and come back. Best of luck. Nikki311 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Aww, that sucks. :( You were a great editor here. I really hope you return. Maybe a short wikibreak is all you need? Either way, best of luck in your future, and try to stay in contact with us! :) FamicomJL (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What? Why? I didn't get a chance to thank you for the holiday card. You will be missed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has come to terms on the release of Davnel03 or DMN as of December 18. We wish him the best in all future endeavors.

It's a shame, man. You were a good editor around here. Hope it's just a short wikibreak, and you'll be back to give us more support. Oh... and thanks for the holiday card! Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Davne, I hope your break turns out to be short. This project will sorely miss you. You do great work and a lot of it. Happy Holidays /hugs --Naha|^(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn man you helped me so much with the PPV articles I made. You will be missed!TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A fin says he'll be back within a month. --EndlessDan 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

D.M.N. here editing from IP address - the above comment made from D.M.N. and the retirement notices were NOT from me. In other words, a troll has hacked into my account. More details can be found HERE. I have no intention of retiring from Wikipedia, but cannot remove the notices, as my userpage is semi-protected. If you have any advice, please E-MAIL me. 87.127.39.114 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania importance level suggestion

Outside of I and III (I may be missing another one), most Wrestlemania articles are listed as 'low-importance'. While I don't think they all deserve 'high-importance', but as a comparison, Super Bowl articles are listed as 'high-importance'. Given that Wrestlemania is the most important event of the year and is considered 'the Super Bowl of Wrestling', I think it would be fair to upgrade all Wrestlemania to 'mid-importance'. I mean, it's not fair to put Wrestlemania on the same level as these. --EndlessDan 16:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.

Low This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Does it really matter? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you really need to comment if it didn't? --EndlessDan 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Wrestlemania is at its very least mid-importance, and some, in my opinion are of high importance. It definately is the culmination of many storylines, the final match for many retiring wrestlers, the biggest pay-per-view buy of the year.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some deserve 'high-importance' too. WrestleMania X8 comes to mind. --EndlessDan 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)