Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 77. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

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

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

Proposed moves

Rey Mysterio, Jr. → Rey Mysterio and Rey Misterio, Sr. → Rey Misterio

They both have different names (although the difference is just the "i/y") so I believe they can be named accordingly. A hat-note to each other's article is suffice I believe. They are already placed so there is no need for the "Sr." and "Jr." Raa G gio (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support as above. I thought about Rey Mysterio but wasn't sure if I should put it up so thanks.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: To many different spellings of Jr.'s name. He at one point wrestled as Rey Misterio I do believe and won the WCW Cruiserweight Championship.--WillC 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn;t put it up.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "Rey Mysterio" his WP:COMMONNAME. And even if it weren't, a hatnote would suffice for distinguishing the pages. Raa G gio (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name is his common name. But he has several spells and gained fame under each one. If anything, I feel it should be at his actual name.--WillC 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be "Rey Mysterio". What guideline are you referencing when you think it should be at the birthname? Raa G gio (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying spellings. They are all pronounced the same way. But each spelling has its own notability.--WillC 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you object to Morrison being renamed because of his two and a bit years as Johnny Nitro but be for this when Rey spent 12 years using the Jr moniker, including five years during the wrestling boom of the late '90s on Nitro? Tony2Times (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know he wrestled under the Jr. moniker, but how can you disagree that "Rey Mysterio" is his WP:COMMONNAME? He used the Jr. moniker in WCW and ECW, but has wrestled for the past 9 years as "Rey Mysterio" where he won the Royal Rumble and World Heavyweight Championship. Surely, it is his common name. And per WP:COMMONNAME, if a common name can be established in a consensus, then the article should be named by it. Raa G gio (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with it because he wrestled in ECW and half his time in WCW as Rey Misterio, Jr and the other half in WCW as Rey Mysterio, Jr before going to WWE and wrestling as Rey Mysterio. I don't know whether you're mistaken or you just didn't articulate it well/I'm not reading it properly, but it comes across as if you think he wrestled in ECW and WCW as Rey Mysterio by the way. Tony2Times (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reworded my last statement) Tony, I know he wrestled a lot under Rey Mysterio, Jr. and Rey Misterio, Jr., but for the past 9 years, he has been "Rey Mysterio". In those 9 years, he has gotten his career's highest accomplishments (Royal Rumble, World Heavyweight Championship, Intercontinental Championship). It is quite obvious that the most notable name is "Rey Mysterio" and it is obviously hisMost Common Name. Raa G gio (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He debuted on SmackDown late July 2002 so he's been Rey Mysterio for only seven and a half years, but even then I don't know if recentism should effect an encyclopedia. During the wrestling boom when it was at its pinnacle in the '80s and he was one of the major stars of WCW's popular cruiserweight division he was Jr, not to mention his lasting legacy in ECW and the five years in AAA and some appearances in Japan with WAR.Tony2Times (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you honestly believe that his stints in ECW and AAA plus his tenure in WCW's Cruiserweight division are more notable then his 7 and a half years in the globally broadcasted biggest wrestling company of the world where he won their top prize, main evented their biggest event, won one of their highest honors and won several of their prestigious titles? I feel like its pretty concrete that the most notable part of his career is in WWE plus the fact that most people know him as "Rey Mysterio" Raa G gio (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that (according to Cagematch.de) his 115 appearances on Mexican national TV with AAA, 245 internationally televised appearances in WCW during the biggest boom period and most watched era of wrestling amounting along with 9 ECW matches make him just as notable as Jr as his 356 internationally televised appearances during the industry's subsequent downturn without the Jr suffix. Tony2Times (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it comes down to a Common Name/Notability battle between the "Undercard of WCW during the 90's" or "WWE Main Events of the New Millenium"? Raa G gio (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I believe that his common name is Rey Mysterio, Jr. The "Jr." and "Sr." in the article titles are much more helpful in distinguishing than just relying on hatnotes. It's working well now, so there is no benefit to a move. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I maintain that Raaggio is right. Everything he says make sense and obviously show Rey Mysterio is his most common name.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to Rey Mysterio but keep the other at Rey Misterio, Sr. -- known more prominently as Rey Mysterio (especially achieving more success under that name); his uncle is known more as Rey Misterio, Sr. than just regular Rey Misterio.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated above, I think that 13 years as "Jr." in major promotions outweighs 8 without. With Rey Mysterio as a redirect, nothing's broken and nothing needs fixing. This seems as good a place as any, though, to ask about the image in the "Unmasking" section. The image description states that it is some guy who might be Rey Mysterio, Jr. Can anyone verify that it's actually him? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw him unmask on television; that's definitely him. Apparently the guy who wrote the image description was trying to be funny- he even misspelled "maybe"; I'll change it. Back on topic though, I think 8 years that include 5 as a top guy in WWE outweigh the rest of his career. The most notable tenure of his career is the one he is in right now and his most popular (common) name is "Rey Mysterio". Raa G gio (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did a Shoot Interview with RF video in like 2001 without his mask so its definitely him. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hennigan → John Morrison (wrestler)

He's better known under that name. --68.45.16.61 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- He is also really known under Johnny Nitro. Raa G gio (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Same as Raaggio.--WillC 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: given that John Hennigan is his more well known name. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how is "John Hennigan" his most well-known name? No one even remembers Tough Enough. Raa G gio (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten what common name says? If a subject does not have a common name the article is to remain or be moved to the subject's real name.--WillC 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably have, and should have said Hennigan is the name *I* know him as. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Raaggio. Work under his real name, Morrison, and Nitro would constitute a problem. Thus, imo, common name can not be established. As a result, article is to stay at real name.--WillC 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, my bad. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will, there is no part of WP:COMMONNAME that says if a common name can't be established, use the real name. Look it up, there is no guideline that says that. The guideline says the common name has to be established by a consensus. Raa G gio (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hennigan is definitely not his common name. His 2 most common names are John Morrison and Johnny Nitro but which one?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He used "John Hennigan" on Tough Enough though. I'm not saying its his common name, but if anyone brings it up, it would make sense. In other words, he has been on mainstream television and in WWE under John Hennigan, John Morrison, and Johnny Nitro. Raa G gio (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do we keep John Hennigan or what?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only move where I am definitely stumped. I don't know what to say... Raa G gio (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, I think we should keep John Hennigan since no common name can be established.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Hennigan is not his common name. So according to WP:COMMONNAME the users must establish consensus to what name is the best. So let's look at him as Johnny Nitro. He wrestled in MNM where he won the WWE Tag Team Championship 3 times and also having held the Intercontinental title twice. And now as Morrison he has teamed with the Miz where he won the WWE Tag Team Championship once and the World Tag Team Championship once also 2 Slammy Awards with him. Also as Morrison he has won the ECW Championship once and Intercontinental title once. These are just brief parts of his career.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, lets just move it to John Morrison (wrestler). Raa G gio (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ ~~-- per the Johnny Nitro argument. He has won the ECW title as Morrison, but he first won it as Nitro.~~--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you read the discussion, you must know why we can't keep it at "John Hennigan". Don't just oppose, propose a solution. John Hennigan is obviously not the common name, what do you have in mind for the article title? Raa G gio (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't determine a clear common name, we must ignore the rule.--WillC 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And why in Jimbo's name would we do that? Raa G gio (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I support the move. Yes, he has wrestled under his real name before, but that was just mainly for his early career; especially with Tough Enough. His other names (Blaze/Spade) weren't as notable. His only other real notable name was under Johhny Nitro, which is what jump started his career. He wrestled for 3 years under Nitro, but I feel he has accomplished more as John Morrison; including setting up a tag team and popular web show under that name. As Nitro he won the WWE Tag Team Championship and IC Title, but as Morrison he did that multiple times (won a Slammy too) and held the ECW title and was even in contention for the World Championship. IMO, he has gained more notoriety as Morrison.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm sorry I forgot to make sure you all knew I Support this move but of course with the (wrestler) qualifier.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Support - He's held 4 Championships under the name, even if he won the ECW title under the Nitro name the majority of his reign he was Morrison, been featured in numerous games under the name also. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 08:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't believe Morrison is his common name; he's won more championships as Nitro (2 IC, 1 ECW, 3 WWE Tag as Nitro as opposed to 1 IC, 1 World Tag, 1 WWE Tag, and 2 Slammys as Morrison) and been featured on WWE tv as Nitro for just as long as he has as Morrison. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Note about his ECW title win. The video of the match was edited to remove all mention of Johnny Nitro as per a full replay of the match on ECW of SyFy (and all mention of Benoit went with it). His time as Johnny Nitro was entirely covered as a part of MNM. As a singles wrestler he is in effect known 100 percent as John Morrison so the move should be made. !! Justa Punk !! 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per Truco's last comment. --Naha|^(talk) 03:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Darren Matthews → William Regal~~
~~He's better known as William Regal than Darren Matthews --68.45.16.61 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Support Has used the name for 11 years in WWE. Other names used in un-notable promotions and for a few year in WCW used different names.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yeah he did use other names like "Steven Regal", but Steven is obviously not his "Most Common Name". His Common Nameis obviously "William Regal". Raa G gio (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose He used Stephen Regal and Stephen William Regal in WCW, while touring the world for ten years and on ITV's World of Sport which at points was more watched the FA Cup final on UK TV. Tony2Times (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? None of those are his "most common name". Just because he has a lot of common names, doesn't mean his "most common name" becomes less common.Raa G gio (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So appearing on British TV in all four countries despite it being on a 'regional' channel, wrestling for New Japan on five tours with&against the likes of Sting, Luger, Kensuki Sasaki, Great Muta and the even greater Buff Bagwell (ahem), two stints over 7 years with WCW on American TV&PPV, including winning four TV Titles and being paired with a young Triple H, challenging Dan Severn for the NWA World Title at their 50th Anniversary show, challenging X-Pac a number of times for the WWF European Title and appearing on Raw, Heat and the 1998 Survivor Series PPV and reappearing for a month in 2000 on WWF all as Steven Regal (or Lord Steven Regal, although I think we can all take that as a nickname) over a 20 year period count for nothing? Tony2Times (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When the average person points at Regal and says "That is ___". Fill in the blank and that is his most common name. All that time as Steven Regal and Lord Steven Regal and others do count for something; "Steven Regal" is a solid 2nd-to-most common name. We can still all agree that "Darren Matthews" is in no way in the top three common names and in no way does it have an "article title priority" just because it is his real name. PerWP:COMMONNAME, real names don't matter and article titles are solely based on the most popular name the person has gone by, which in this case is "William Regal". Raa G gio (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to forget, that if a common name can not clearly be establish then the article can't be moved, thus we have to ignore common name and leave it where it is.--WillC 18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the policy advocates keeping it at a "non-common name", I think everyone (well almost Will) can agree that it's definitely not at anything resembling a common name right now and should be moved one way or the other. Just a matter of establishing which is more known - Google tests and accomplishements under each name can help point the direction MPJ -DK 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Will, MPJ-DK is right; the policy doesn't say we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME, it says a common name has to be decided by consensus. No one here will obviously agree that "Darren Matthews" is his common name, so we have to decide between his popular names "Lord Steven Regal", "Steven Regal" and "William Regal". I think the obvious most popular name of them all is "William Regal". But if you believe "Steven Regal" is morecommon, you're welcome to explain why. (regardless though, I think it would be ridiculous to name the article "Steven Regal") Raa G gio (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tony2Times. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Curtis/Raaggio^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Although he has worked in WCW as Steven Regal, the company is now now longer in existence. He has gained more success and prominent exposure in the WWF/E (KoR, IC, Tag Titles, European) as William.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - he's had more media attention as William Regal. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are recentism and local bias valid reasons to move a page? More media attention (in North America, but certainly not in Europe), yes...but only because there is more media out there these days. He has many more years of media attention as Steven Regal, though. Worldwide, though, I still suggest that Steven Regal is more common. So do we go with the most common name while competing in Europe (population 731 million, to which we can add Japan--population 128 million) or one of his two common names in North America (population 529 million)? I think the choice should be fairly obvious. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is besides the point. WWE does not solely operate in North America, but around the whole world. People in Europe also know him better as William Regal than Steven Regal. Yes, its because of his WWE tenure, but this WWE tenure has gained him international exposure not just American as you implied above. All these years as William are the most popular years of his career. Raa G gio (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Population is moot GFC I bet less than half of Europe and Japan watch wrestling as well North America.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Response - I don't understand what you mean by "as well North America". WWE shows are televised to much of the world, but World of Sport (on which Steven Regal appeared multiple times) was huge in Europe. Steven Regal also toured Japan, where wrestling is more of a cultural phenomenon than perhaps anywhere else on the planet. I don't know how you can claim that his WWE tenure "gained him international exposure" when he clearly had tons of international exposure in the past, as Steven Regal. You claim that he is better known in Europe as William Regal, but you give nothing to back that up. I point to the fact that he wrestled for 10 years in Europe as Steven Regal before he even came to North America. Even then, he was known as Steven Regal during the most important (and, even more importantly, the most watched) period in recent wrestling history. How was he known during the nWo saga and "Attitude Era", when wrestling actually became a huge part of North American culture? As Steven Regal. Then he went off to WWE during a massive decline in wrestling's popularity, where he remained a secondary character and changed his name to William. In summary, he has 17 years as Steven versus 10 as William. In those 17 years, he toured 2 continents (as Steven) that he has barely, if at all, touched during the subsequent 10 years. During those 17 years, he also competed alongside the biggest wrestling storyline and biggest boom period of the past two decades (also as Steven). His highest PWI 500 ranking came in 1994, while he was wrestling as Steven Regal. That's a pretty solid case, especially when considering that the evidence against this consists primarly of "You're wrong because I say so". GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're out of line, no one has said "because I said so" as everyone who supports the move has provided an explanation on why. The fact is that most people know him as William and anyone who did know him as Steven, no recognizes William as his common name. That's because regardless of his past accolades as Steven, his WWE run is his most recognized. Yes, he wrested for various other promotions in the past, but his most recent one is in WWE and its his most popular one (popular = common). Raa G gio (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because you say so? I've actually given evidence. You have given "most people" think this...this is "his most recognized"..."its his most popular one". If this were an article, that post would be plastered with "citation needed" tags. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about comparing William's 491,000 Google hits with Steven's 134,000 per WP:GOOGLETEST? Do you want a WWE-source that considers him to be "better known as William"? [1] Or how about a third-party source [2]? Maybe you'd want to see more facts yourself. Raa G gio (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) A Google Test would just show what name he used most recently, as thee internet wasn't nearly as big for the first 15 or so years of his career (during which he wrestled as Steven). Like I said above, recentism isn't a valid argument. (2) A WWE source would obviously use his WWE name, so I'm not sure what that proves. (3) I'm not going to be convinced of anything by Wrestling101.com. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Google search engine is not biased to recent events. If so, Andre, who has been dead since 1993, would not have 407,000 hits. Or Yokozuna wouldn't have 403,000 hits and Randy Savage would have less than "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Randy+Savage%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 352,000]. A lot of people who competed before Steve Regal laced up his boots have more hits so you're "recentism" argument is null. Raa G gio (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that you're serious, although I'm not quite sure. Andre the Giant and Randy Savage, former WWF Champions who also had a lot of exposure outside of wrestling, obviously have a lot of hits. However, neither of them changed their name after the explosion of the internet in the late 1990s, so your comeback doesn't come close to addressing the point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless, your criticism of each argument is unfounded. Google Billy Jack Haynes. I doubt he's had more exposure than Regal. See what comes up. Raa G gio (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to explain why I choose to support, he's been known as William Regal since 2000, won 13 Championships under the name and KOTR, and has also been featured in countless games under the name, he's had far more exposure under the name than any other alias he's used. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GFC all you are saying is he is more know under Steven "because I say so" and you say that we're doing this. The internet is not biased towards recent times I mean in only a few hours the Google hit of William have gone from 491,000 to 504,000 so can you please tell me that William is not more notable in receiving 13,000 hits in a matter of hours. Also Andre has been dead for 17 years which is before "the boom of the internet" yet as Raaggio says he has over 400,000 hits.--Curtis23's Us al ions 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News - The United States government has announced that Mount Rushmore is to receive a major overhaul. The faces of the four presidents that have graced the mountain for decades are to be removed permanently. In their place will be the likeness of current president Barack Obama. When asked for the reason, a spokesman replied, "It's simple. We used a google test to determine the most important president in the nation's history. Since the internet obviously isn't biased toward recent years, the proof is indisputable". "Barack Obama" returns 53.4 million hits on Google. The quartet formerly found on the mountain ("George Washington", "Thomas Jefferson", "Abraham Lincoln", and "Theodore Roosevelt") returned only 38.3 million combined hits. "We figured, just to be safe, that we'd throw a few more presidential names into the mix. We added 'John Adams' (5 million), 'James Madison' (4.1 million), 'Calvin Coolidge' (.7 million), 'Warren G. Harding' (.4 million), 'Rutherford B. Hayes' (.4 million), 'James A. Garfield' (.4 million), 'Zachary Taylor' (.6 million), 'Martin Van Buren' (.6 million), 'William Henry Harrison' (.5 million), 'Millard Fillmore' (.5 million), 'William Howard Taft' (.6 million), and 'William McKinley (.8 million). Even with the 4 original Rushmore presidents combined with these other 12, Obama still has more google hits and is therefore more notable and important than all 16 of them combined." GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally! Although I'm sad to see Lincoln go, I always thought Jefferson was a fucking prick anyway. Hey, but I think this is better suited for Talk:Mount Rushmore than here. Also, there's a reliable source that implies that Obama will be placed alongside them instead of being added in their place. You should recheck your sources. Raa G gio (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I always liked Jefferson...the slavery and mistress things weren't all that great, but he was quite the writer. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that a little humor on both sides may have defused the situation a bit. I maintain that I'm correct on this one, but I'm willing to let it go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking News Gary Coleman has been removed from Wikipedia when the remover GaryColemanFan was asked why he did this he said "because I said so".--Curtis23's Us al ions 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left without a comeback, since you have not yet contributed anything to this thread that makes even a slight bit of sense or shows that you have bothered trying to understand what I have said. Please consider this the last time that I will respond to you on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like your breaking news contributed anything to the discussion either, though I don't condone Curtis' behaviour either. You have brought up the point that he's been known under the Steven Regal name well before his WWE days however you neglect to see the fact that WP:UCN does state "It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations" yes I will observe he used Steven Regal in WCW and WWF from 1992-2000 an 8 year period, however his success can be argued was minimal, and his tenure under the William Regal name has been that of 10 years and as I have noted he's won 13 Championships 14 if KOTR is included as well as appearing in a major video game franchise under the name which as noted by WWE's Corporate website in 2007 "WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 Sets Record Sales in UK & US" which Regal was under the very same guise in the record sales game, I do not know the sales of his book but he is also attributed by the name on many major international organisations such as Amazon and Google, this is more than enough proof that this is his Common name. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 08:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tony and Gary. Still extremely well known as Steve(n) Regal here and wrestled under a variation of that since 1985. I don't believe that he has a definitive common name. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki we all know is is also known under Steven but that does not mean that is his most common name that is what makes all the difference in this move request. His success under Steven was he won the WCW Television Championship 4 times. Under William he has won the World Tag Team Championship 4 times, the Hardcore Championship 3 times, the European Championship 4 times, the Intercontinental Championship 2 times, and he was King of the Ring in 2008. As Afro said that's 4 under Steven and 13+KOTR so it is obvious he has been more successful under William.--Curtis23's Us al ions 16:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely better known as William Regal than Steven Regal because WWE has had generally more exposure during the period he was on the roster than he ever got with WCW. That means that Regal got more coverage as William rather than Steven. The amount of time he was called Steven is actually not relevant in the realm of notability. How notable was he as Steven? I venture to say he has been more notable as William. The Google Test bears that out - and further it is ridiculous to compare it to US presidents because the fields are totally different and the coverage is on a totally different plain. !! Justa Punk !! 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Bash (2009) → The Bash or WWE The Bash~~
Seeing as WWE The Bash was moved a couple of months ago to WWE The Great American Bash, is there any possibility we can move The Bash (2009) to either The Bash or WWE The Bash, seeing as it's a one-off name? Vengeance: Night of Champions is one example of a one-off name I can give that doesn't have any parenthesis. -- Θaks ter 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the move to WWE The Bash. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support WWE The Bash, doesn't need a year since it was a one off name. MPJ -DK 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Create page for the Uso Brothers?~~
Last night on WWE Raw, Jimmy and Jules Uso of FCW debuted with Tamina (Sarona Snuka). How about starting a page for the duo since they are Florida Tag Team Champions or is it too early?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
too early. Raa G gio (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The moment they have a televised match they're notable enough though - having worked in the top promotion. So a little patience is all it takes. MPJ -DK 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not true. There have been a lot of people to have televised matches. "Aaron Bolo" had a WWE Intercontinental Championship match and Money in the Bank qualifier against Drew McIntyre in April. I don't see him having an article. Raa G gio (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for athletes says he's notable enough for one, you got sources as well and there is nothing standing in the way rule wise. So yes it is true according to the wikipedia guidelines. MPJ -DK 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply here. These guys don't "compete" at all, they just perform. Most may like to call this a sport, but its not. Too bad WP:NSPORT doesn't even have a section for pro wrestling though, it could have helped. Raa G gio (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your take on it that it does not apply. Tecnically they fall between sport and actor, working on Raw is both "top of the pro league" as well as the top program of it's genre so take your pick. Some have tried to get a notability standard defined for pro wrestling but discussions are generally derailed with other "important" discussions. MPJ -DK 20:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not just my take. WP:ATHLETE states an athlete must have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Because these professional wrestlers haven't "competed", they obviously do not fall under this guideline. Regardless if you think pro wrestling is a "sport" or not, the wrestling matches themselves are not "competitions". The winner is scripted and there is no goal to achieve during the bout. And because WP:ATHLETE is defined for athletes who "compete" in their sport, the pro wrestlers don't qualify. WP:ATHLETE also says that further interpretation of WP:ATHLETE varies by sport, with editors discussing which fully professional leagues should qualify for inherent notability, or what should constitute the highest amateur level. which basically means that we should come up with our own consensus and not rely on the guideline. Raa G gio (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, WP:ATHLETE definitely applies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why? Because you say so? The text clearly shows that it obviously doesn't apply. Raa G gio (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Professional wrestling is scripted (actors/bio guidelines) and is combat at the same time (athlete guidelines). --Truco ₅₀₃ 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Combat? Irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE doesn't mention the word. The word it uses is "compete". Wrestlers do not compete for anything other than the writers' support. Raa G gio (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But acting involves competition; combating for 60 minutes+ is not what is done in a movie or is necessarily needing training and practice and roids. Athletes do that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand its different than movie-acting, but it is still not competition, its entertainment. Raa G gio (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's entertainment, and no one is debating that. However, what makes it entertaining? The wrestlers actually putting their bodies on the line to entertain others; competing in the ring for minutes up to hours; performing high risk maneuvers. Yes the moves are scripted and some are made to look like the hurt but they actually don't, but the competition is still there, which they do on a weekly to daily basis.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And on a note on the "does not hurt" I'm sure Edge's scripted back injury did not hurt the least bit ;) MPJ -DK 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its entertaining, the moves hurt, the wrestlers put their bodies on the line, they perform high risk maneuvers, etc. I agree with all of that, but its just not "competition". They just follow a script. Raa G gio (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

~~bullshit disclaimer~~
undetermined number of professional wrestling matches that will involve different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feud blah blah blah
Not required.
Video game articles do not have a disclaimer telling people that it is not real life, pro wrestling does not need one either.
Do people really consider wikipedia readers to be that ignorant and out of touch that they dont realise it is scripted?
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please be civil, thank you. Second of all the disclaimer is one of the way we avoid wrestling articles become Wikipedia:IN-UNIVERSE as wikipedia guidelines state should be done with TV, movies, books, comics, wrestling etc. So you say it's not required, but wikipedia guidelines say that they sorta are. MPJ -DK 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not being civil - I don't see my manners being relevant to the discussion, but if you were offended then I offer my apology. I have not seen as blatant or patronising a disclaimer on any movie, book or video game article - does it add anything to wikipedia to have the disclaimer? If there are guidelines regarding such things, they are being interpreted in a different manner on other articles. I propose removing the disclaimer from all articles and having the scripted nature of wrestling made abundantly clear on the main pro wrestling article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't appear on other articles doesn't mean it isn't appropriate on the articles its present on. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
correct, but the fact that it does not appear on other articles means that editors are able to interpret rules in a reasonable manners and that there isnt a wikipedia wide consensus on patronising disclaimers on every single fiction related article. It could be removed. Are there any reasons why it shouldnt be removed?カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll note on Star Wars it does have a disclaimer in the setting which is similar towards what we put on the Professional Wrestling articles. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manners are always important, especially if rudeness takes away from the point you tried to make. Articles need to be clear on what's real and what's not - articles on shows describing the background of the event, the feuds and storylines need to make sure it's clear to everyone that it's not seen in the same light as a boxing event or an MMA event, two legitimate sports it closely resembles. make a blanket statement that "no such disclaimers exist" is wrong, like the example given with Star Wars. We've just tried to be consistent about it with the format of wrestling events or wrestling championships, the fact that others have not when they probably should have is not really something this project can be blamed for. the argument "other articles don't do that" is not a valid argument for why something should or should not be for these specific articles. MPJ -DK 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that guidelines are just that: guidelines. Not laws, properties, postulates or rules. They are there for us to have a general idea of how to write articles, but in no way are they there to referee article content. Raa G gio (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the Star Wars article (are we talking about Star Wars the series or the movie ie. IV?) although the wording makes it clear that it is a work of fiction, there is no generic and clumsy worded disclaimer - wrestling articles should not try to imply that it is non-scripted, but there are much better ways to do that with a few subtle words ie. Wrestlemania 1 was a scripted event rather than the current disclaimer. I have no desire to trick anyone into thinking it is real, but at the moment the disclaimer is laughable, for want of a better word it looks stupid. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So basically what you're trying to say is "I think the disclaimer should be changed"? How about you stop moaning or complaining and actually suggest an alternative then to see if you can get a consensus? After all moaning doesn't change things, although it's definitly easier than doing something about it. MPJ -DK 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After telling me that manners are important, I find the above comment quite strange. Was it really needed to say I was moaning? Would it not have been a little more polite (as manners are so important to you) to merely ask "what changes do you propose?" If you read my above comment, you will see what I have suggested. Remove the disclaimer, word each article so that it is not implied that wrestling is real, when given the chance use terms such as scripted, planned, unplanned etc - so that the readers can differentiate between a planned, fake injury/firing/incident and an unplanned, real injury/firing/incident. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets all actually discuss. Quit your bickering and lets look at the situation. The disclaimer helps explain several different aspects of the event. It is an old format that hasn't been expanded much recently. Like with titles, it went from a large paragraph or two, to a simple sentence. The same can be done of PPVs. Just with time, no one has been expanding them recently though I have a few ideas on reformatting. Though, I don't have the time anymore to do it. The evolution of PPVs from 2007 has been interesting. The disclaimer could probably be redone and made smaller and probably more helpful. In fact, we doing most of the way PPVs are written can help too.--WillC 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current phrasing that is being objected to? I have used the following phrasing in the past: "The buildup to the pay-per-view consisted of feuds scripted by the WWF's writers, and the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the WWF." That gets it all done in one sentence. It doesn't go into detail about wrestlers portraying heroes and villains, or tension-building events, or any of that stuff. That extra stuff is unnecessary. The phrasing that I have used could be shortened, though. Without cutting any information, it could be trimmed to "The feuds leading to the pay-per-view and the match results were scripted by the company's writers." GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, discussion is better than bickering. The main point I am trying to make is that a standard disclaimer is not required, the current disclaimer is overstating the obvious, simply stating "x is a scripted event" and linking to the main wrestling article is enough - same goes for the individual wrestlers "x is is professional wrestler taking part in scripted events" is about as clear as it needs to be, it leaves no doubt in the mind of the readers, there is no implication that it is real and the scripted events can be linked to somewhere with a whole wealth of information.
This particular line makes me laugh due to their over the top babying of the readers - "Wrestlers were portrayed as either a villain or a hero as they followed a series of events that built tension, and culminated into a wrestling match or series of matches" - firstly it is wrong - some wrestlers are neither villains or heroes - the jobbers who are there merely to be beaten, the tweeners who are by their nature somewhere in the middle. There are not always series of events to build tension - people can cash in their money in the bank clause without any tension whatsoever, some matches are designed for comedic effect or possibly in the case of some female matches for titilation - I don't watch a panties and bra match due to any tense atmosphere, I watch it to see some titties.
The current disclaimer is neither required, accurate or short enough - two or three words at most would be better.
カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the event is scripted outright without anything else is wrong. Why? Because several actually moments are real. Injuries, wrestler's breaking character, etc. A disclaimer is needed, because most sporting events are concieved as real.--WillC 07:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't agree. There is a script - therefore it is scripted. A drop in temperature is not part of the script, does that make the event any less scripted? In a movie actors may improv, but it is still a scripted movie.
Besides what do you propose? Shall we add to the current (very long) disclaimer that although the result is scripted, there are various events within the event that may be real and list all of them. "this profession wresting event consisted of pre-determined matches, dialogues and events apart from matches, dialogues and events that were not pre-determined" I hope that is not what you desire カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose actually trying to expand the format, rather than thinking one word can make up for an entire backdrop of storylines and real life situations. This isn't the first time this has been discussed, and probably won't be the last. All of 2008 several different discussions were discussed that led to consensus after consensus being established.--WillC 09:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation, The disclaimer is not needed on many articles, I would not put it on a wrestler's article however, and possibly PPV articles. The reason it is needed on an article like Star Wars, is because a good bit of the article will be written "in universe" I don't think this is the case in most wrestling articles. PPV articles are generally expanded lists, and I don't think any wrestler bios have the disclaimer. An article on moves, or titles can have the disclaimer, as it seems appropriate to mention that the title is not won as a result of a completely athletic event. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, perhaps on titles/moves/the main professional wrestling article a disclaimer is required, but on PPVs and wrestlers' articles, a simple link will suffice. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start removing/trimming the disclaimer on PPV articles. Hope no one minds. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should come to a consensus before you start removing them. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing seemed to be happening here, so I thought it would be good to trim the disclaimer rather than remove it, on a few articles and see if people gave a shit. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well what you're doing is going against a previously reached consensus, which can result in blockage if its continually done. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this discussion, there seems to be no clear consensus - some editors are saying to keep it, some are saying to trim the disclaimer, some are saying only use it on certain articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of the long-winded disclaimer, but I strongly oppose taking action before coming to a consensus here. That's not how discussion works. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If no new consensus is established, then the previous consensus stays in effect. As far as I see, the only reason to remove it is i don't like it like there always has been. I feel the format can be redone, but one word is not going to cover the entire situation.--WillC 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, the part that Sennen Goroshi was removing was "Wrestlers portrayed either a villain or a hero as they followed a series of events that built tension, and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches." I feel that the statement is unnecessary, long-winded, and demonstrably false. I don't think it adds to the reader's understanding of the article, and I think the length does come across as condescending. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, wrestlers are not always heels and faces. Not all pay-per-view matches are the result of anything at all--some seem almost random, so the tension isn't always there. In addition, if a feud is building up to a pay-per-view, it doesn't result in a series of matches at all. It results in one match at the event (there are a few exceptions, but not enough to add irrelevant information to dozens of articles). Can we agree to start by removing that sentence? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It applies to most matches on the card and Main Events, I see no reason for a change. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for trimming the disclaimer without obtaining clear consensus - I could claim that I was merely being bold, but of course discussion is better. I obviously do not agree that the disclaimer should be there is it and I do think it needs to be shorter. We have some editors happy with the current version, and some who think it is too long - what happens next? I am not going to edit war over this, but neither am I going to stand by and let it stay as it is, if there is no clear majority. Do we need a third opinion? Can some form of compromise work? Any suggestions? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Let me eat my dinner and then I will try to come up with a constructive proposal. food > wikipedia カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Provide ideas that just might work and look reasonable and maybe we could come to a consensus on it. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I propose removing "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." from the current disclaimer on all PPV articles. I also propose adding cited facts to the Professional wrestling article, in order to give much more background to the scripted nature of wrestling - despite my dislike of the current disclaimer, I do find the fact that wresting is scripted to be both interesting and notable and think that this could be expanded on greatly and linked to within a new, trimmed disclaimer. I also think that the Championship (professional wrestling) article could have a little more detail regarding how and why internal decisions are made to push a certain wrestler into winning a title. One other point, if the current disclaimer is trimmed, it would be nice to have a little variety - but that is something that can be dealt with afterwards. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of these points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points, but I have some problems with them. Like how are we going to source this new information? Also, who will do this work? I barely have enough time to just write this message, no way will I be able to help redo all the PPVs, the pro wrestling article, as well as the championship article. We are shorthanded as it is.--WillC 04:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's over 200 people in this project plus a lot of IP editors. I think we can manage. Raa G gio (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points, I do feel until the points are reached though we shouldn't look to trim or remove the current disclaimer. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely should. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so there's no reason to say that two articles have to be improved before dozens of others can be improved. Worst case scenario, we should trim the disclaimer immediately. Even if the other changes never get done, the quality of Wikipedia will have greatly improved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a work in progress but what I am saying is we should start small then grow. Not make a long list to do. Stick with one thing at the moment then grow. Yes, there is a high number belonging to the project, but how many actually edit and work on problems? I've only counted about 20. So I say sticking with removing the heels and faces stuff for the moment from the PPV disclaimers, then afterwards deciding our next move.--WillC 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so becausee 0.1% of all wrestlers are "tweeners" it should be removed that people play face or heel characters? why not remove it all together then? or replace it with "hey you know wrestling is fake right?" and be done with it since that's where this seems to be heading. MPJ -DK 03:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should remove that people play face or heel characters because it is covered in other articles and we don't have to baby the readers and explain every single detail that is already very obvious to everyone apart from 0.1% of the readers. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should remove it because it often doesn't matter to the article. If it is important for the reader to know that someone is a heel, that should be stated at a relevant point in the article (and there is no need to substitute "villain" for heel, or "hero" for face, or "rivalry" for feud, since no other WikiProject over-applies rules like this, and the Manual of Style is clear that "It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers"). For example, it might be useful to state: "Shelton Benjamin, a heel character, kidnapped Batista's daughter", "Jeff Jarrett became a face after turning on manager Johnny Polo", or "All of the heel wrestlers joined Dean Douglas in the ring to celebrate his victory". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is any of that notable? Benjamin kidnapping anyone in storyline is not notable to Benjamin as a wrestler and not really significant to the PPV. PPV's shouldn't be about storylines, they should be more about production since it is an event rather than a pay for television show. If that was significant to elevation in career status, it is understandable but shouldn't be written as if it has credibility since it never happened. Heel and face are still jargon and should be explained to an extent. We all need to quit using the excuse "other projects don't" or "other projects do". It is like the old saying "If Johnny jumped off a bridge would you jump as well?". Lets make up our own methods. Making assumtions that everyone know's is incorrect. I've seen several people assume all of wrestling is fake or that wrestling is real. We should still be seperating fact from fiction, storyline from reality.--WillC 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pay Per Views are all about the storylines leading to the match, you don't have an article on Batman Begins that just focuses on the shooting of the movie or the tecnical aspects. MPJ -DK 07:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with GaryColemanFan the ability to link to heel or face should be utilised and is far more effective than a patronising disclaimer, your statement that some people have assumed wrestling is real results in the following responses 1. I doubt it. 2. They must be living under a rock. 3. Are they all 5yr old kids? 4. There are enough links to heel,face,professional wrestling to keep them happy.

Wikipedia should be of professional quality, professional media does not normally treat the readers like idiots - it is embarrassing to see this disclaimer in its full, ignorant current state. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the google searches for "is the Undertaker dead" after Smackdown and then tell me "everyone knows it's totally fake". There should be some sort of disclaimer on PPVs and Championships to make it 100% clear it's "out of universe", - otherwise it'll have to be written as "X was booked to defeat Y" over and over again, which I find even dumber. One-two lines at the top should solve the problem. Format-wise, I am fine with a rewording of the disclaimer, shortening it. MPJ -DK 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I don't know why I was arguing with you. All I am proposing to be trimmed from the disclaimer is the "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." line, not the whole disclaimer. Would you agree with that? Or do you have another alternative wording that you would like to suggest? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough of a problem with that to complain about that. ;) MPJ -DK 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, does anyone have a problem with me removing the "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches" line from the disclaimer? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~articles~~
~~Why don't you created individual articles for the FCW Championships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.55.148 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
At first because there weren't enough entries/information to warrant articles for the titles. However, I now believe that there is enough information to warrant articles for all those championships, reason being. What's gonna happen when there are over 20 champions for each title? Still no article? It's just gonna clutter up the main FCW page.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have one source, maybe two at most for each title. That was the main reason, and in most cases we didn't even know who was champion for several weeks.--WillC 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they can be sourced split them like it was done with the FCW Florida Tag Team Championship. MPJ -DK 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work MPJ, I agree. If work of that level can be done, then split the rest. That article has potential for FL.--WillC 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank ya, since Hunico won it it showed up on my "Lucha radar" and as I looked at it I realized that it had sources for more or less everything, I just found the last few sources, cleaned it up and split it out. I think the Florida singles title is close to being sourced enough for a spilt as well, but since it's not Lucha I did not look too close at it ;) MPJ -DK 13:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~TNA World Tag Team title situation~~
There is no official source on tnawrestling.com stating that The Band is using the freebird rule for their tag titles, but it has been stated several times on TV that Eric Young can defend the titles along with them. It's not just Hall and Nash. The pages should be changed to reflect recognizing Young as a tag team champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.8.38 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Easy enough to source - the second he actually defends the title in a match it can be put in, until then it's not actually relevant. MPJ -DK 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Table on List of WWE Pay-per-view events~~
~~What is up with this horrible, ugly table? List of WWE pay-per-view events#Timeline of all PPV events Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
My God its ugly. Delete it. I don't want to look at that thing again. Raa G gio (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I couldn't wait. I put the page back the way it used to be. That table was hideous. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Revamping television show articles~~
I've been considering for the past few months working on revamping the way wrestling television show articles and trying to adapt WP:TV's style guide into our articles. The problem I currently have with them is that near the end of most of the articles, it delves into endless listcruft, some of them aren't really necessary. I've got a few ideas, but I'd like let you guys know before trying them out.
A format section at the beginning would be quite useful, distinguishing what the show actually features. Ring of Honor Wrestling and TNA Impact! seems to be the closest in mind with regards a basic format section.

Nixing the special episodes section. I feel that some of the more notable episodes can simply be merged into the show history section while some of them are not worthy to be noted (for instance the SmackDown article has some "Best of 200X" episodes that are essentially clip shows).

With regards to on-air personalities, authority figures can simply be reduced to short prose and the list redirected to Professional wrestling authority figures as one can say it's content forking, champions could stay as it is. I'm not exactly sure should be done with the commentators/ring announcers sections though.

Quite possibily the most controversial change in my opinion (coming from a Brit), the international broadcasters section. WP:TV says that international broadcasters should be listed to make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, but judging from their featured articles and project discussion pages they don't seem to be that keen on tables of broadcasters either. I'm not entirely sure what the ideal solution is but I do feel that the section needs to be rewritten in prose and possibly mention only the more notable countries (e.g. UK would be important for WWE Raw as it airs the show live, Australia would be important for WWE SmackDown as they show it first in the world)

According to WP:TV's guidelines, a reception section is necessary. The closest thing we have right now is the ratings table and dictionary definition for SmackDown and the similar ratings summary for Impact. These need to be written and sourced carefully as the only concern is that I don't want these to turn into "random IWC diatribe".
~~Any second opinions and ideas would be welcome, thanks. -- Θaks ter 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I support your idea, Oakster. It's a great idea.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Hoping for a consensus: Notability guideline for Professional Wrestling~~

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apparently an earlier conversation on the Uso Brothers never actually led to someone actually trying to get a consensus going on a general notability guideline for professional wrestling. Well never let it be said I'm just a talker and not a do'er so how about we try and hammer out a notability guideline like WP:ATHLETE to complement the general Notability criteria to make it easier to discuss instead of going "they're athletes, no they're actors, no they're more like lizard people".
First of all, let me quote Wikipedia:Notability (people) so that there is no doubts here, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability" - So a guideline to help pro wrestling editors to easily determine "are they or aren't they?".
The way I see it there are two criterias we should define

Criteria 1

A wrestler is considered notable if he has worked for "Company X"...'
We need to figure out how to word it so that jobbers aren't included under this criteria if people can agree with this criteria.

If we can agree on the criteria we need to work on a list of which companies - Don't suggest companies just yet, we need to get consensus on the actual criteria before actually making the list

Criteria 2

A wrestles is considered notable if he has held a championship in "Company Y"
This one would be where working for the company in general isn't enough, but winning a title would be.

Again - Don't suggest companies just yet, we need to get consensus on the actual criteria before actually making the list. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity sake, are you suggesting a wrestler has to meet both of these criteria, or just/at least one of them or? --Naha|^(talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 Discussion

So this is not a vote but a drive to get a consensus, a consensus born out of discussion. So discuss "Criteria 1" in this section, including suggestions on how to word it to keep the Barry Hardy's and Dusty Wolfe's from being included. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this to work, the company or promotion themselves must be notable. Then in order to make sure jobbers aren't included, there must be a win-loss scenario. Yes, I know it's scripted, but jobbers always get pinned or submit - or at least job in the vast majority of cases. It would in effect be a case of sourcing a push from a primary source. If a promotion is putting someone over and the match results are supporting it, it would push inclusion. I'm just thinking on the fly here. Some aspects of WP:ATHLETE could be used here, if not most of them. !! Justa Punk !! 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they have to be out there ...aren't there any notable wrestlers who are famous for being jobbers, or were on TV a lot/well known, maybe great on the mic or other televised segments and just not given winning scripts in the ring? I'm sorry I can't offer up an example right now, but they have to be out there. Its just a random thought I had. --Naha|^(talk) 03:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 Discussion

Again, consensus not vote. Please comment on the criteria that winning a title in certain companies could make you notable. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Championships shouldn't make anyone notable. Its all scripted after-all. Continuous and consistent exposure in a promotion is all that is necessary; not title reigns. Jimmy Snuka never won a title in WWE, and hell, he's in the WWE Hall of Fame. This criteria is unnecessary. Raa G gio (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Raaggio on this one. !! Justa Punk !! 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been so long since I've been around here and I'm trying to get back into the wiki way of thinking. Trust me, there totally is one. If you've been away long enough you realize how much you've forgotten. Anyway, my brain is working enough to say that on this particular point I agree with Raaggio and Punk! There have been lots of "famous" wrestlers who haven't won very many titles, or any at all. :) --Naha|^(talk) 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Criteria suggestions

While I personally don't think there is a need for any additional rules other than the general Notability rule I think we should get all suggestions on the table and see if any other rules make sense. I guess there could be a criteria for shows or championships, just not sure how to define it. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about - a wrestler is notable, if their name has appeared in certain industry specific media sources. Infact all of the above, merely working for one of the more prominent companies deserves notability (maybe appearing x amount of times) - but in the less well known companies, they should have won/challenged for a championship or appeared many more times. There must be some notable wrestlers out there, who have never won a championship. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was #1 working for some companies like WWE or WCW or TNA etc. was enough and #2 winning titles in some of the smaller, but not small (if that makes sense) which kinda coveres most of what you suggest. As for notable wrestlers who have not won titles, I'm sure they're out there and in that case they just have to follow the normal Notability guideline. Do you have a specific "industry specific media source" in mind? causee I can't think of one that's reliable enough for the mere mention to be enough. MPJ -DK 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I don't know a source - but that's because I am not that familiar with the topic, I just watch it on TV - however if we are using sources for citations, then one of those sources might be good enough. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Care should be taken not to exclude foreign wrestlers, I'm sure there are some major names in Mexico and Japan, who have never featured on English language events. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When we look at lists for Criteria 1 and 2 it's my intention to have a seperate discussion for North America, Japan, Mexico and Europe so that none of them are forgotten. I'm all about the Lucha Libre so trust me it won't be completly US-centric. MPJ -DK 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going about this backwards. Rather than trying to come up with a list of promotions that are sufficiently notable, why don't we simply state that wrestlers are not notable if they have competed only for local promotions of limited appeal? For example, someone who competes for Pennsylvania Championship Wrestling for several years should be considered notable, since PCW is an independent promotion but has a decent following. Someone who has competed only for Albany Insanity Wrestling, however, wouldn't make the cut (I made up that name, but you get the point). I don't think it would be at all beneficial to have a rigid policy that doesn't allow for some flexibility. With a list of promotions that are notable, however, we stand to lose (and prevent) a long list of articles that should be included in the "sum of all human knowledge". To be honest, I think a career of in the independents that spans 15 years should also be grounds for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's not "ridig", it's an addition to the normal Notability criteria. 15 years of wrestling and he should have enough reliable 3rd party coverage to cover WP:N or honestly he's not that notable. I'm going on the example of WP:ATHLETE that states what level you have to compete at to be considered notable. I'm not saying "If you have not worked in the WWE get off Wikipedia", I think you skipped something to come to that conclusion. MPJ -DK 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't say that, but I'm concerned that this is going to turn into something similar to last time. People gave the names of over 40 promotions that they felt were notable and discussion trailed off because there was just too much to discuss. What I'm saying is that, even though a list of 40 promotions would be next to impossible to discuss and agree on, that would still leave quite a few notable promotions. To be honest, I don't see how we could come up with a list anywhere close to being sufficiently comprehensive if we didn't include at least 200 promotions from around the world. I think it would be better to approach it from the other side, as in not giving a list at all but simply specifying that competing as a professional wrestler is an assertation of notability unless it is just for local independent promotions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since every single person who has commented seems to think these guidelines exclude every single other wrestlers that does not fullfil the criteria I must obviously not have made it clear, or they are not familiar with the fact that you can have additional notability guidelines without invalidating the basic notability guideline. So I'm stopping it now, WP:N is our guide. Let's go forth and edit articles instead. MPJ -DK 03:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]