Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobJ1981 (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 15 October 2010 (→‎Dashing Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre article: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Shortcut
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 79. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Women's Title situation

Okay, I've noticed alot of edits saying the WWE Women's Championship has been retired. However no source has been presented for this other then that the unified title history directs to the Divas Championship. The Women's Title is not listed in the retired section of WWE's site. The WCW, ECW, ECW Tag, ECW TV, European, Light Heavyweight, Cruiserweight, and the World Tag are the only ones listed. Using the Divas Championship History link as a source is incorrect since it isn't covering the information stated and like with the Tag Titles (the world tag was listed but ended up being retired) the divas title could end up being retired instead. I feel the situation should be handled like the tag title situation until one of them is moved to the retired section. However there is no end for a Unifed WWE Divas Championship page imo.--WillC 23:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, who said every title under the line means its retired? That's OR. And as for the title, yeah, I don't think its retired. Layla is champ. Feedback ☎ 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What line? The line on WWE.com in the title history section that says "Retired Titles"?--WillC 03:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's official, the Women's Championship has indeed been retired and Layla is considered the last-ever Women's Champion. Hope this helps. -- Θakster  10:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem since it is listed under Unified Divas Championship on WWE.com. That article also never comes out and says "Women's Title is retired".--WillC 17:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the whole WWE.com feature has a gallery in which you're are asked to "pay your respects to" the Women's title and has an interview showing McCool's regret in holding the Divas title over the Women's title implies that they have indeed dropped the Women's title. The simple fact that Layla is declared the "last-ever" Women's Champion in the gallery solidifies the whole situation to me. And as for the title history section, only the Diva's title section features the new "Unified Divas Championship" header while the Women's title section simply has "Women's Championship" as its header. -- Θakster  20:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to establish some form of consensus on this matter. That implies the title is retired, however the title is technically still alive in the Unified Divas Title which is the female equivalent to the tag titles. Add on that on the history section of wwe.com it still isn't listed under retired, and the history link is under the Unified Divas Title. In my view the title is still alive, with Layla being the last champion. However, McCool is the Divas Champion. Together they are the Unified Divas Champions, since in storyline they are co-champions of both titles. If we do anything, the facts should be stated. That the title is not listed under retired, but according to the gallery Layla is the last champion.--WillC 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one going to discuss this?--WillC 20:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, does anyone have anything to say?--WillC 20:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Women's title is retired... let it gooooooooooo--UnquestionableTruth-- 21:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
easiest way to deal with it, can you find a reputable source that says the womens title has been retired? If yes, then it goes in the article as retired. We don't need to wait for WWE to set it in stone. Verifiability, not truth. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean Unquestionable TRUTH?
"May 14, 2010 - Sept. 19, 2010" What's more reliable than Layla's title reign page? Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 19:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
um, I don't know what the heck that page is talking about, but ANYWAY! We need to start relying on third party references over wwe.com references. Unless of course we want to admit that the ECW championship was not a World title... What were you trying to sat Bulletproof? Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was punning on his name. It tickled me anyways. Layla's title reign page having a final date and there being no new reign means the title is inactive, if not retired. Elsewhere she's called the last champion. Are we seriously still discussing this? Isn't there an article name change that needs our attention? Tony2Times (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say be WP:BOLD and do it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What article name change? The Women's title and Diva's title pages can stay where they are... Why do they need to be moved? Feedback ☎ 12:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't understand the joke. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 12:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it. Its an outdated joke, the "Holy shit so many moves" era of WT:PW ended a few months ago. Feedback ☎ 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree finally. The title is inactive. It hasn't moved to the retired section yet, but it is inactive at this time.--WillC 17:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania (1985)

I know the event was originally called "WrestleMania", but we have to look past that. I firmly believe that per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be placed at WrestleMania I. Not only is it consistent with the other articles (thats part of the common name criteria), its also the name by which everyone calls it today, and thats what is important here. Most don't ever refer to the event as just WrestleMania, they always say "WrestleMania I". The even WWE.com refers to the show as WrestleMania I. So what do you guys think? Feedback ☎ 03:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I think calling it WrestleMania I might be a bad idea, since most people call it "The Very First WrestleMania".--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article already says "(chronologically known as WrestleMania I)." Maybe we should follow the Super Bowl I article format. The name of the article is "Super Bowl I" but the lead makes note of the game's original name and then reads "later known as Super Bowl I." Its up to you guys.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure why not, the navigation box at the bottom reads I already. Tony2Times (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't matter. Who cares what it's called? If people can find it easily, it's just fine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, you care A LOT to always be commenting in move discussions. You don't care, just ignore it. Keep doing whatever else you want to do. Feedback ☎ 00:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see a problem with this.--Steam Iron 23:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo we agree to move it then?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for it to be moved, if only for consistency's sake. Whose Your Guy (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead with the move after seeing the clear consensus here. Opposition to the move is still welcomed. Feedback ☎ 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE BIG TIME Discussing this on here as opposed to discussing this on the articles talk page probably kept people from knowing that this was going on.--Nascarking 02:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official name for the event was WrestleMania not WrestleMania I. We go by WrestleMania (1985) because WrestleMania is used to list the history of WrestleMania.--Nascarking 16:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note the Super Bowl I article. While the official name of the game at the time was "AFL-NFL World Championship Game" per WP:COMMONNAME and because it later became known as Super Bowl I, the article's name is Super Bowl I. --UnquestionableTruth-- 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
they didn't coin the term Superbowl until the 3 Super Bowl. And Super Bowl's I and II are not referred to as that by the NFL. They were referred to as the AFL-NFL Championship Game.--Nascarking 17:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh no they are indeed referred to as Super Bowl by the NFL. [1] As is WrestleMania I by WWE [2]--UnquestionableTruth-- 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it didn't become the Super Bowl until Super Bowl III and why are we talking about the Super Bowl on the project talk page wasn't this about what to make WrestleMania (1985)?--Nascarking 17:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am applying that example to this situation as both are similar cases. Try not to be so narrow minded. The Super Bowl situation shows how WP:COMMONNAME is being applied and it is something that should be done with WrestleMania. It doesn't make any difference whether the AFL-NFL World Championship Game became known as the Super Bowl at Super Bowl II or Super Bowl III. The fact that the games are now commonly known as the Super Bowl is all that matters. Same thing with the first WestleMania being commonly known as WrestleMania I. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we believe the page is at its proper place.--UnquestionableTruth-- 18:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your right besides I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion like what happened with WrestleMania XXV.--Nascarking 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on change in policy

This whole pointless debate on whether to delete Survivor Series (2010) or Keep It has gone to a stalemate. No matter how this turns out I'm starting to think we may have to change our policy on when we start PPV Articles. The next one that's up to be started is Tables Ladders & Chairs: TLC (2010) which is currently in redirect but judging from the Survivor Series (2010) battle this may carry over to further PPV articles. I suggest we start bringing up articles 5 to 6 weeks before the event so we can avoid this Survivor Series Debate again.--Nascarking 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I agree Nas. But, how about starting them right after the last PPV ends?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The event should be started as soon as there are reliable third party sources that say its scheduled to happen. Cue a lot of users telling me Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball and that the schedule can change and all the yada yada. I have my reply to that. We would be creating these articles for PPVs that are indeed scheduled to happen so its not C-Balling (and that's what the article say: scheduled). And yes, the schedule is changeable, but Wikipedia is changeable also. Survivor Series changes its name to WWE Extreme Pillow Fight, well, we can move the article when that happens. Wikipedia is editable 24/7 so whenever a reliable source comes up with a change in schedule, the articles can reflect that. Keep in mind that the schedule can even change a day before. John Cena could pass away the day before Bragging Rights and WWE cancels the event. That's a very extreme situation, but its just an example of how anything can happen at any time and how Wikipedia's live-editing system is prepared for that. By having all the articles created for scheduled for all the scheduled PPV events, these debates won't arise. Feedback ☎ 20:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey what PPV are you referring to because if it's a TNA PPV then I don't know when they happens, I don't follow TNA. I only follow WWE. So are you referring to TLC (2010)?--Nascarking 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Feedback, I think personally if we can prove they're scheduled to take place through the arena website, wwe.com and ppv providers then that'd be enough grounds to keep them until a third party website comes along, like PWTorch or WrestleView. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 15:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afro that's what we've been doing but they won't accept it. American Airlines Arena and Ticketmaster.com are selling tickets for the event how is that not more than enough for now?!--Nascarking 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the Survivor Series (2010) Situation

The debate has gotten into a stalemate and neither side is making any progress but at this point I'm about out of ammo and if I don't get anything done soon we can't save the article. At this point I'm trying to work on a compromise that we have the article redirected to the Main Survivor Series article until the the 1st RAW after Bragging Rights (2010), Because usually someone is announced the #1 Contender for the WWE Championship that very 1st Raw. If someone can give me something that can give us what we need to prevent the article from being deleted please tell me NOW because I don't want to have the article deleted. I'd settle for a redirect as long as it's to an article we know and for only 2 or 3 weeks. But if we can keep the article from being deleted without the redirect option tell me NOW because time is running out.--Nascarking 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't delete it? Keep it as a stub with the generic lead section and scheduling info and when the creative build-up begins, you can start writing the background section. Feedback ☎ 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the deletion debate and see what the whole argument is about. I think is has something to do with the fact that we have no Independent Sources. Even though we have sources that keep it running for right now, and our independents don't start running till about 3 weeks till Survivor Series.--Nascarking 22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making this into a much bigger deal than it is. If it gets deleted or redirected, it can be remade at a later date when more sources are available. The world isn't over. Nikki♥311 05:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the world isn't over. Those guys at the deletion debate should learn that. Its so stupid they want to delete an article that is going to begin expansion in only a few weeks. But I guess its not the desire to have it deleted thats driving them... The fact that they caused something to happen on Wikipedia gets their adrenaline running, because they don't experience that level of control in their lives. So, to them, congratulations, you got an article deleted. Good job. Masturbate to the idea of control. Its going to come back up in a few weeks and it WILL become an FA and when that happens, I hope that Nascar informs them on their talk page so they can see how fucking productive deleting the article went. Feedback ☎ 05:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just it, why should the article have to be deleted if it's gonna start expanding in less than 3 weeks. I can settle for a redirect on the article but will not let the page be deleted.--Nascarking 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page that needs deleting

"Dashing" Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre - Does this really warrant having its own article? Maxwell7985 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are the Tag Team Champions.--Nascarking 01:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Present they are a put together team if they prove to be a more notable tag team in future then a proper article can be made, but at present they fall in line with the likes of Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, yadda ya, I've redirected the page to what I believe is the correct place in short. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 04:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tony2Times (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine Tony.--Nascarking 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you should delete it. You know, cuz the very existence of that article is going to destroy the foundation of Wikipedia as we know it. No, the internet shall suffer solely because of this article. We must delete it. God forbid someone expands it and makes it a Good Article, imagine the repercussions? the consequences? Jimbo will shut down WT:PW and Wikipedia as we know it. Feedback ☎ 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the page must be destroyed, we must travel to mordor and throw it in the pits from once it came. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dashing Cody Rhodes & Drew McIntyre article

  • Keep I agree with Feedback on that we shouldn't delete the article or have had it redirected because we have always expanded articles and made 67 of them Good Articles and 8 Featured Articles. It just needs time to be expanded. So my vote is keep.--Nascarking 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There a non notable team if they continue to be a tag team and do more things they'll have notability till then its a no go.--Steam Iron 03:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Why start a new section when this can be easily discussed in the above. (2) as I've already mentioned this falls under a long lists of put together Tag teams, examples, Shawn Michaels and John Cena, Chris Jericho and Chris Benoit, Chris Benoit and Edge (who held gold multiple times). Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The world governments will unite to shut down the internet to make sure no one gets to view such an article. Its obviously non-notable, its not as if millions of people know who this tag team is and what they've done. The very existence of such an article will cause the 2012 Apocalypse. Delete it now! "Drew McIntyre and Cody Rhodes" passing GAN? I can't even begin to imagine the backlash. Imagine if it passes FAC and gets featured on the main page? Oh, Jimbo help us. Feedback ☎ 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb sarcasm isn't the answer here, Feedback. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how a team that defeated 5 other tag teams in a tag team turmoil match at Night of Champions (2010) and has managed to defeat any challenge thrown in their path isn't notable. Granted they aren't DX or Evolution or even The Dudley's, but they could go somewhere and we should keep that article open for that reason.--Nascarking 22:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm because of WP:CRYSTAL. Odds are they will go the way of most random WWE pairings by breaking up after they lose the titles and never team again. Nikki♥311 03:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Odds are"? Probability is the mathematical art form of speculation Nikki. You're contradicting yourself. Feedback ☎ 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop her being right. Tony2Times (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes it does. That's what contradicting means. If she's right, she's also wrong because of the paradox. The article should be created, expanded and nurtured. It can be a GA if given the proper care. Feedback ☎ 20:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they will Nikki maybe they won't, the odds are the same with Laycool and yet we have an article for them (don't quote me as saying they shouldn't have one). As is with the Nexus and as we all know every stable will destroy itself at some point in time. The point is if this becomes more than just another Mark Henry & Evan Bourne random pairing and could go long term like DX (although personally, they will never be anything like DX), then we need to have an article for that scenario.--Nascarking 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's still right that almost all randomly assorted tag teams in WWE exist for only one title reign. Miz&Morrison was the last one to stick, before that I can't remember. Clearly Laycool don't have an article which renders that point moot but even if you wanted to discuss it, LayCool have existed much longer, are the central focus of the Divas division on both shows rather than being thrown in matches of little consequence and unified two titles so they've done way more than McIntyre and Rhodes who've been in 6 matches together and less than half of note (winning titles, defending them from the former champs.) There's nothing to nurture because they've done one sentence worth of interest. Tony2Times (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If winning the Tag Titles is not enough to warrant them an article then by that logic The Hardyz haven't done anything other than revolutionize The Tables, Ladders & Chairs Match and win a bunch of Tag Titles.--Nascarking 23:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Feedback: Whether I was contradicting myself or not is not the issue here. The team should only be included if they are notable as a team (meaning the team passes WP:GNG). As it is, they are two notable individuals who happen to team together and have won a title. Why make a new article for something that can be summed up in a small paragraph in the individual existing articles? Find an existing article to nurture and bring to GA. @ Nascarking: Are you kidding? The Hardys teamed together for years, are related, and have third party reliable sources that focus more on their time together than their singles' careers. Nikki♥311 03:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the issue at all. Nikki, you and I both started here around the same time in 06/07 (I used to go by Lex94 by that time). I think we're the oldest members of the project currently active. Davnel, The Hybrid, The Chronic, Naha and all the others aren't around anymore, but you and I have seen the project grow and change throughout the last 4 years. The policy constantly changes when it comes to WP:PW and I believe this should be one of those grandious situations. There is no reason to go about deleting many articles because they're premature and other lame excuses. The main issue here is that people think they're all high and important because they get a say on Wikipedia. They just love the fact that they get to be in charge for once in their damn lives and when they see a discussion go their way, they ecstasize in joy. I presume you are obviously different from meatheads like those and that the "oo, look at me!" feeling doesn't affect your opinions on trivial situations such as these.
There is "Significant coverage" in many 3rd party sites and almost all of them are "Independent from the subject", "Reliability" and "Sources" is at the discretion of each reference but I'm sure that there are reliable ones like SLAM and others and WP:GNG states that consensus among editors is the main channel to establish "Presumption". Those are all the GNG so I don't see how the subject of this article doesn't meet them. Let's just keep the article and let it expand. Why the hell not? Feedback ☎ 15:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting people by calling them meatheads is uncivil. Let's have a discussion without you bashing others. It's not the end of the world if everyone doesn't edit Wikipedia just like you. That rant wasn't needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was very ambiguous and in fact, I had no one in mind when stating such a comment. That has changed now as it is quite obvious that you take it to personal offense because you fit the description to a T. And what really isn't needed is someone like you swaying discussion from the main topic to some side-complaint without contributing to the discussion at hand in any way whatsoever. Noticing that your first and only post in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, the article, the discussion, the guideline or anything relevant whatsoever, its safe to say you don't give two shits about the consensus that is being searched for here so why don't you go do something you do care about like getting blocked for harassment. Feedback ☎ 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look isn't it as long as they hold the titles they are as notable as anyone?--Nascarking 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is there notable as individuals but not as a team and others have said this.--Steam Iron 21:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grow up already Feedback. Are you that obsessed with me that you have to dig up old crap? Go find other people to harass. You are acting very immature. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woh... Seeing as how the only comments you've made in this discussion, ahem... "Dumb sarcasm isn't the answer here..." "Let's have a discussion without you bashing others... That rant wasn't needed..." "Go find other people to harass. You are acting very immature." have actually contributed absolutely nothing... yeah "LETS" have a discussion... well maybe you should actually participate in the discussion. And it seems the only harassing going on is you butting in ever so often to police some individual or random comment. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback was out of line. There is no excuse for that, period. He's taking this site way too seriously. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're taking this site way too seriously. If you feel your only duty in this project is to police around a talk page, then I'm telling you right now, that sheer annoyance and instigation brought upon by your actions is completely unnecessary.--UnquestionableTruth-- 06:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a reply typed out that focused on policy. It was lost in an edit conflict because of this stupid drama. Grow up, people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People can we get back to the subject of what this is about. You can attack Feedback another time but right now we've got an issue to settle and we're getting a bit off subject.--Nascarking 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback is out of line, period. As for the tag team: not notable at this time. Last time I checked, every brief team that held tag gold didn't have articles here. Drew and Cody are no different than all those teams. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All professional boxers have BoxRec.com links in their articles. Why shouldn't professional wrestlers have something similar? Internet Wrestling Database ([[3]]) is BoxRec's wrestling equivalent, having a searchable database for each wrestler that features their matches, titles, and other information. I think adding a relevant Internet Wrestling Database link to all wrestler's respective External Links sections should be a priority for this project. BoxRec already has a template, can we make something similar for Internet Wrestling Database links? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions 1.) Is it a reliable site? 2.) If so what makes it reliable how do they check there facts. If I know more about the site I might go with it.--Steam Iron 03:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't include this as a reliable source going by the FAQ, the FAQ lists a number of sites which are deemed unreliable or their reliability is yet to be proven. Q. What sources did you use to obtain the results?. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swagger Soaring Eagle

What's with the mascot for Jack Swagger? Should the mascot be added to the SmackDown roster and more importantly, WHO IS THE SWAGGER SOARING EAGLE?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives two shits really? Would you search an encyclopedia for that type of information? Feedback ☎ 17:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes --86.159.53.75 (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FCW Title

The FCW Tag team title has his own article. Why the FCW Heavyweight title doesn't have it?--83.36.37.38 (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavyweight title should have enough reigns to be made into an article now, 10 pretty much is a minimum. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 22:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=390809569"