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 Curse of Fenric (talk | contribs) at 14:31, 12 July 2015 (→‎King of the Ring: do not tag me on this page please - no longer interested). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:PW Talk • Article alerts • Assessment • Members list • New articles • Notability • Recognized content • Sanctions • Sources • Style guide • Templates • Top priority articles
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!

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 94. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Could we please stop citing Cagematch.net?

So I am cleaning up the bot list and currently it has over 400 wrestling articles where one or more references is tagged as unreliable. My estimate is that at least 50% of those are from Cagematch.net. I also see it used more where it is not tagged as unreliable (yet) and I see experienced editors repeatedly add cagematch as a source. It is a user contributed site, much like Wikipedia except without the sourcing requirement - just like we cannot use Wikipedia as a source we should not use Cagematch as a source either - if we look a little harder a lot of this stuff can be sourced through other means. Can we at least try to stop the bleeding?  MPJ -US  00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way about Online World of Wrestling and WrestlingData. Nikki♥311 02:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree  MPJ -US  02:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone up for a blitz on Money Inc. to replace the unreliable references? I started it tonight. I wonder if it could become a Featured Article if the references were improved. Many of them are just to stuff that can be easily sourced, like title changes and pay per view results. (I'll admit that I was the one who originally did the sourcing 7 1/2 years ago.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in, i recently bought a lot of old PWIs dirt cheap and i got some good books too.  MPJ -US  10:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately 1980-1990s WWF is right in my wheelhouse, I got loads of sources for those articles so I went through and put in replacements for everything I thought looked like a questionable source.  MPJ -US  10:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on the sources. I'll add the pictures I took of DiBiase and Schyster from 1994-95. I've also taken the liberty of removing "add Online World of Wrestling sources" from the project's outdated "to-do list" ([1]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WrestlingData/Genickbruch isn't user-generated. Joe Schmo can register an account, but all that does is let him comment on and rate things, or write a biography section (which almost no profiles have). The "Edit/Draft version" stuff beneath profile info is for that part only.
But yes, OWW is crap. I've been saying that for years. Don't know Cagematch well enough to judge. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:58, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, to edit Cagematch, you have to make a request. I asked for some events and I gave to them sources for the results. Also, i gave the results directly to them (for example, I watched Ring Warriors episode 1 and send him the results). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm is it possible to somehow document their editing process? I mean if we can determine that either of those passes WP:RS even better. I use it for research to organize time lines etc. but then track down independent sources afterwards - it would be great if we can actually skip that part and have the two cites actually be reliable sources.  MPJ -US  22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that article this pops up at me "reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" if we can show the publication process with the need for sources for submissions to be accepted.  MPJ -US  22:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About Cagematch, I send them an email http://www.cagematch.net/?id=900 I saw an event in YouTube and asked for its own entry, so I gave them a result match from a forum and the create this http://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=100263 I don't know if they looked for more information, but we can ask them. Also, I ask to upload the American Pro Wrestling Alliance titles, but they refused because they didn't find the results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good sign.
WrestlingData's info matches that (as far as I've seen) in their other websites list, so that's another good sign. We already officially trust most of them. Not sure about their "friends", though. They look a bit sketchy. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of WrestlingData sources, thanks for changing all those "Cawthorn"s, MPJ! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, June 20, 2015 (UTC)
I think I got them all and hey I made most of that mess, only fair I clean it up too. MPJ -US  00:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Los Angeles Times still refuses to admit they misread whatever the hell WebProNews is about Matt Osborne leaving WWF in 1996, despite me giving them plenty of links. They just added an extra ", WebProNews said," instead. That's a bad sign. Still a pretty reliable source, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the view that Cage Match is only reliable on match results and related data to an event. I'm certainly against it on BLP claims (and edited the reliable source list accordingly awhile back after some twits tried to use Cage Match to prove that Buddy Murphy trained only at a Melbourne wrestling academy - and I know for a fact he wasn't trained there but I can't say that in the article because it's OR). I've emailed them myself at times over results and they do check them so it's not a user orientated system in that regard at least. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can include his emails as source. For example, Vladimir Kozlov sent a message to Wikipedia informing he was born in 1979 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did he send a message to Wikipedia and how did you know it was the real one?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

here --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that it could be considered a reliable source for match results, championships wins. Personal bio info is a little more suspect, for instance Rush was trained by Pittbull I and II, not the ECW tag team like that site states but his uncles who do not have entries on WrestleData. But how to enforce that it'd be reliable for results and events?  MPJ -US  13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They recognize the NZ Switch between Flair and Race and count Booker T as the first WHC, not HHH like the WWE does.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that before, they're counting the WCW world title as the same as the WHC because they use the same belt design, not the same belt since it was not WWF/WWE branded. At least they're consistent by not listing it for the WCW title either, listing that Booker T's reign ended on the last Nitro. That's... well one way of doing it I guess.  MPJ -US  04:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them their process for adding results and they have an editorial process, basically they have one or more editors for each region and results usually has to be submitted with a source and the source is checked and they do independent checking to verify at least some of the results before posting them. I think that is very encouraging and actually goes far towards them being reliable for match results.  MPJ -US  02:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely more reliable than the absolutely nonexistent sources we use in many "In wrestling" sections, that much is clear. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:54, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Is it a bot that's putting the "Unreliable" tag on the website or actual editors? If it' editors I think if we have consensus we can update the Project PW section on what is reliable sources and point them to that? Once we get that done we can start detagging cagematch.net references? I think we have consensus that Cagematch.net is fine for uncontentious information in regards to match results etc. right? Any objects to it? MPJ -US  23:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it doesn't really work to say that a website is fine for some information but not fine for other information. If their fact checking isn't good enough for contentious material, then their fact checking isn't good enough period. As stated above, a user can submit match results with a source so they can verify it, so wouldn't it be better for us to just use the original source (assuming it is reliable). Nikki♥311 00:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I think I did not state that correctly - what I meant to say is that the stuff we can source from Cagematch is really not contentious material since it's mainly match results, stats etc. I was not trying to limit what we'd use. And if we had the original sources that would be awesome, but they don't publish them as far as I know. MPJ -US  00:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So since there were no objections I have added the following to the "sources" section of the project pages.

  • Cagematch - Database of wresting match results, stats etc. Contains a large quantity of uncontentious material such as match results. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database.

Carry on  MPJ -US  21:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm just going to say that CageMatch has been useful to me when looking at a wrestler's matches in bulk. (Winning streaks, one win in 20 matches etc) I'm totally fine with restricting it to only match results. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people have problems about the basic biographical stats of wrestlers. For example, date of birth, place of birth, real name, who trained the guy, debut date? Such info is not readily available (due to kayfabe)? Match results are information meant for the public, but these basic biographical stats of wrestlers are not. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna ask this again

Brought this up a few weeks ago: Some wrestlers like Antonio Inoki have a "1 ^ Inoki's WWF Heavyweight Championship reign is not officially recognized by WWE." under their championships and accomplishment, some others have similar not recognized reigns but they aren't mentioned. Should we remove every "not recognized" note or add a "not recognized" note to all the guys that had similar unrecognized reigns?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add a note. For example, Carlos Colón. According to NWA, he never won the NWA Title. However, WWE says he won the title. The title change happened, but NWA decided to forget it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us some examples of not being included? Colon is one thing, the NWA is the ultimate authority on it - if they say he did not win it officially then it's listed as unofficial. If you're talking Bob Holly and the IC title then he was never acknowledge as the champion, he won the match in controversial fashion and the title was held up on the spot, Holly never went to the back with the championship and was not a champion. Or how about Warrior, he "won" the IC championship at a TV taping before Summer Slam 1988 and then "lost" it back to the Honky Tonk Man to allow the WWE to tape matches & promos with Warrior without spoiling Summer Slam, does that make Warrior & Honky 2 time IC champions?  MPJ -US  13:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As we said before, we show the title changes. A dusty finish, a decision reversed or similar isn't a title change (for example, Kingston won a tournament for the IC title, but the entire decision was reversed). Not recognized reigns are like the Inoki or Colón reigns, they was title changes but the promotion doesn't recognize them. Dusty finishes, we should include a note in the Notes section and don't mention them in the C&A section. Not regognized, include them in the title history and C&A (with a note). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But when Jim Duggan finds a belt in the trash, that makes him the official WCW TV Champion. Somehow. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
The magic of wrestling. Angelina Love won the KO title when she opened a box, like a Cheerios prize. Jokes aside, WCW considered Duggan a Champion, so he was the champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duggan became "official" when he defended it in a WCW ring. That is why we say winning matches or result of a storyline... no matter how dumb the storyline.  MPJ -US  17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That's why Foley handing the old Hardcore belt to Edge in 2006 didn't work. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:01, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

But Bob Holly is mentioned in List of IC Champs, just like Inoki is mentioned in List of WWE Champs. So either both of them get a note in C&A or neither does. Same with Lou Thesz: 3 recognized NWA reigns, 2 unrecognized. But in C&A it just says 3, without mentioning the 2 controversial unrecognized ones.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bob Holly from the IC Champs list, he shouldn't have been there because he was never recognized as an IC champ, although the title was vacated and there is a note of his involvement there (similar to the notes hold-ups like Backlund/Valentine and Jericho/Triple H phantom reign have on List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions). If we continue to list him separately then we'll have to list Jericho as a WWF Champion from 1999, Hogan's AWA and NWA almost-reigns, and every other dusty finish or title hold up. Cagematch's WHC history is a pretty good example of why they aren't considered reliable though. Thesz's controversial reigns should get a footnote like we do with Ric Flair, where his number of reigns was/is disputed throughout various territories.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision removing Holly, he was only recognized for having an unrecognized reign because the commentators called him a former champ because they didn't knew that the decision was reversed in that controversial match. But eventually someone's gonna add that reign again I guess :( Edit: Already happenedWrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#2 and #18 on most edited articles on Wiki

The next Raw commericial: Did you know? List of WWE personnel has had more edits than United States, Wikipedia, Jesus and the Catholic Church. source Also, The Undertaker has had more edits than Roger Federer. Lucky I never really touch either page. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how much of that is actually vandalism? After all, there's a reason WWE World Heavyweight Championship is under long term semi-protection, as are many other pages within the scope of the project. They seem to attract immaturity quite a bit. oknazevad (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oknazevad: many edits doesn't mean vandalism. My theory is that there are many good-faith edits trying to update or improve the page, whether by adding content or rearranging stuff. Whether this good-faith edits are actually productive or an improvement is another question, they might be creating messes for other people to clean up. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. I'm just observing that many heavily edited articles attract a higher-than-average percentage of vandalism edits. Kind of one of those pitfalls that come with being high profile articles. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every time someone is rumored to have signed or rumored to move from FCW/NXT to the main roster or moved between brands i am sure 2-3 people edit to move, move back and move again. It is not a static ttopic at all. But still #2?? Dude  MPJ -US  11:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like how The Undertaker alone beat out Deaths in 2009, 2010 and 2014. Baffling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

WWE no longer recognizing ECW title as a World Championship

http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwe-most-title-wins-decorated-champions/page-4

"His 16-year career includes tenures as Intercontinental, European and ECW Champion and culminates with the right to call himself a World Champion in 2011" 2011 was when he won the WCW, 2009 the ECW title.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe if you zoom in on the belt Christian has over his shoulder in the article it simply states "ECW Championship", I don't think the WWE thought their version of the ECW championship was on par with the WWE and World Heavyweight titles. Prior to the WWE buying ECW is not the WWE's call to make and I believe that's where the "World" part came from. Of course I could be wrong (often am) but I am not sure how this changes much?  MPJ -US  22:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This 2011 article acknowledged that some consider it a world championship throughout its entire history. It undeniably counted as a world championship when it was in the ECW promotion until 2001 and also for some time after WWE brought it back in 2006. They shortened the name of the championship by removing "World" at some point, and then Chavo entered the Rumble and it hurt the belt's image. They certainly stopped pretending that it was equal to the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships, but I've never seen a source that stated they totally rescinded its world title status. Your link above could be interpreted to mean that Christian just won the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) in 2011, I don't think it's enough to change anything on the ECW World Heavyweight Championship article. The 2011 article I linked is, at least to my knowledge, the closest statement they've made on the issue, and while it's clear they're not enthusiastic about labeling it a world championship they never claim that it is not... to the contrary, they note that people continue to recognize it as one.LM2000 (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So WWE doesn't really know if its a World Title or not. Maybe we should include that in the article? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cawthon

I have started a discussion at WP:RSN ([2]) about Graham Cawthon as a reliable reference for professional wrestling match results. Because his website and books are self-published, they may be challenged as reliable sources. If you have anything more you want to contribute to the discussion, please feel free. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NWA World Middleweight Championship - pre-FL Nomination work

I am working on getting the NWA World Middleweight Championship article ready for Featured List review - I had a number of Featured List nominations go through but when I originally put this one up I got discouraged and laid off the FL work at that point. Well I want to get back on that horse and I want to bring this one (and other Mexican championship) article to FL adding to the 12 FL articles I have gotten through so far. I am hoping that one or two of you could take a look at the prose section of the article for me? I have gone through it and done what I could but I ain't the greatest at grammar ;-) Any feedback is appreciated and will help the odds of us adding another FL to the list.  MPJ -US  00:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MPJ-DK: - I did a copyedit. But the last sentence - who had the shortest reign again? Also, the sourcing, every sentence should be sourced. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Starship.paint: - Emilio Charles Jr at 11 days, not sure who originally put Oro as the shortest champ. And i hope i did not mess anything up by trying to change 12 to 11 on my phone, I Usually only comment or revert on the phone. I struggle with the "Every sentence should be sourced" if it is something that is sourced in the table already. I agree the rest should and will be sourced. And thank you for the copy edit it all helps make it a better article.  MPJ -US  13:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it is actuay Satanico with less than a day. Reading is fundamental.... maybe i will master it onr day. MPJ -US  13:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah that's what I meant. Satan guy. Anyway, things that need sourcing: 1) created by Salvador Lutteroth, awarded to Kallio ... you can use [G] if it applies. 2) The National Wrestling Association title was retired in 1940. 3) CMLL retained ownership of three NWA-branded championships. 4) Último Dragón bought the NWA World Middleweight Championship and its booking rights from CMLL. 5) In March 2010, Blue Demon Jr., (dead link) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • gotcha, all but the last one i already have somehing for and i should be able to find sports site coverage of the last on. Lucha shows up in legit sports and news sites in Spanish a lot so that should be doable. And all the work here will also benefit the NWA welterwight title, m next target.  MPJ -US  14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I modified how the "General" ref was shown, I think that looks better - I just wonder if that's an acceptable format? MPJ -US  20:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am contemplating nominating it tonight, there has been a lot of really good work done, thank you to everyone who chipped in. Next up I am going to work on improving the NWA World Welterweight Championship while the "Feature List" process takes place. MPJ -US  00:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Championship

The list has 4 "Reign is not recognized by WWE" notes. But these reigns are actually recognized. I wrote WWE an email, which I'm gonna copy right here. Just read it and follow the links and you'll agree that WWE just botched their title history:

"I found 2 errors in your United States title history (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates).

Firstly, Paul Jones' 2nd reign ended November 28, 1976, which is recognized by the WWE (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/304454113). But looking at the complete title history, it is shown that Blackjack Mulligan won the title on December 15! According to every wrestling site, Paul Jones is a 3-time US champ and there was no vacancy or anything to explain the gap between November 28 and December 15, so I think you forgot the 2 title changes between Paul and Blackjack.

Same thing happened in 1980 with Greg Valentine, where you didn't recognize a 4-month title reign, beginning on July 26, which is the date where Flair lost his title according to you (http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/unitedstates/3044541222).

For Flair, this would make him the only guy to win it 6 times, so this would make a huge difference.

Kind regards, Alexander"WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am confused, you say that they ARE recognized by the WWE yet you wrote to point out they had accidentally left them out? Is that not what the article says right now? Unless they respond to your letter the article is currently correct then right?  MPJ -US  15:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the WWE US Title history doesn't show 4 title reigns, so I include them. However, I readed in an article "titles won by father and sons", Flair is six times US champion. So.... here we are. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a difference if they don't recognize it or forgot to include them. And they FORGOT it, because otherwise they would not have the 4 month 6 month gap between the end of Flair's reign and the start of Piper's reign. There was no 6 month vacancy that's for sure.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing WWE's official title history

wwe.com has some major errors in its title histories: • they forgot to add all of the Hardcore Battle Royal changes at WrestleMania 2000 except the final one • they somehow lost 4 US title reigns (explained it in a discussion a few days ago) • recognize Kevin Nash as a 5-time WCW Champ but don't list his short reign in 2000 (Sid - Nash - Sid) minor error: • sometimes they recognize the date the title changed, sometimes the date the change was aired

We should collect some Twitter names of wwe.com staff and we should all tweet them about this. It would make some things a lot easier, and we would have definitive sources for some of these reigns. And how unprofessional does it look to have such a big company that doesn't care about their own titles?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's worry about Wikipedia, not wwe.com. That's not our job. (And the first one is not incorrect at all. In championship scrambles, only the last winner's reign actually counts; the guys who get pins during the scramble are not counted as former champions. This is borne out by other similar scrambles over the years.) oknazevad (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the people getting a pinfall were announced as new champions during the scramble. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly they've changed the standards of recognition, to keep that event in line with later scrambles like the one for the ECW title at the Bash in 2009. It's their title, so they are allowed to do that. Pro wrestling is a form of serialized fiction after all, it is subject to retcons. There's no use acting like some bit of history has been lost, here. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scramble champs were only "champs" for the specific purpose of determining the champ at the time limit. Same word, different concept. They don't count as real champs, because the match isn't over. No bell, no winner. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

They recognize these reigns in their official encyclopedia. They also recognize Viscera as a former Hardcore Champ, even though he only won the title once (during the battle royal). It was not a Scramble match and I'm sure they didn't think about future Scramble matches when not adding these reigns to their official title history. They also consider Hardcore Holly a 22-time Champ in their articles, but he only gets 22 reigns if you count his title reign during the battle royal. They just botched their title history, nothing new. I tweeted some guys, two responded, but didn't seem to care what I had to say and ignored or blocked me. This is so frustrating, you want to help them with obvious mistakes and they get annoyed. There has to be a way to get their attention. I mean in the end, what are titles worth if your title win gets lost because of stupid staff!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Van Dam's European Championship reign isn't listed in that title history but is listed elsewhere. Seems to be the case with some of these Hardcore reigns, Viscera doesn't get listed in the official title history but is listed as one in his bio. We'll just have to make a note of that as we do with RVD.LM2000 (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Damn didn't know about RVD's lost reign. This is getting disgusting! btw is it only me or is this link dead: http://web.archive.org/web/20110609235351/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/rvd/bio/358594 it was used as a source next to RVD's reign.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RVD's only Euro title reign was when he unified it with the IC title. It's mentioned on RVD's alumnus page, and in the description of Jeff Hardy's final reign as champion (the last full reign for the title's existence), but as often happens, they don't always emotion the winner of the unification match. On the other hand, the Hardcore title page does have RVD listed as the last champ.
Of course, again, it's not our job to correct their errors, presuming they actually are errors and not intentional changes. Maybe you got blocked on Twitter because you wouldn't let things go when it's not your business or job to take care of them. Stop obsessing over it. It's not healthy for you and not productive for us. oknazevad (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting RVD's reign but counting it in his bio is an actual error for sure. And I think it is productive, because there won't be any disputes in the future over some title reigns which you count but wwe.com doesn't.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck trying to reason with WWE.com. I tried to get them to change Dominic Denucci's name from "Dominc" once. Ended after three e-mails apiece with some guy who didn't seem to understand the problem in simple English. After that, I only got automated invites to fill out a customer satisfaction survey, and it's still "Dominc."
If you can actually get them to change something as subtstantial as a title history, you're a better man than I. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Seriously are they retarded or what? What did that guy not understand? Dominic was his name and not Dominc, so just change it!? But you go an email conversation? How? I once filled out a form but never got a reply. Or did you have a specific mail address of an employee?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "retarded" like that makes you look really bad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I'd describe him, too. He was either slightly smarter than a bot, or a slightly smart bot. I just used the Contact Us form, to start. Forget his name, but it was a man's name. Shouldn't have been a conversation, should've just been a simple fix. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, July 3, 2015 (UTC)
As for RVD, he won the belt, but didn't hold it. It ceased to exist apart from the IC immediately. So no reign, not even one second. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

Happens, not a native speaker, I live in Germany. But that's not the point, even I can understand that if his name is Dominic, then it's not Dominc ... WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but I've been trying to get in touch with WWE for months and they do nothing. And now I read about them not understanding the difference between Dominc and Dominic and I got even more pissed. @Hulk: He won it and then it was unified. Like Orton vs Cena TLC 2013, Orton's WHC reign is recognized, or like RVD's Hardcore title reign later in 2002. It was the same guy, same situation, only this time it was IC and Hardcore and not IC and European. + they recognize it in his wwe.com bio and in the WWE encylopedia and in their articles. They want to recognize the reign, but forgot to add it in their title history. That's why I think we should remove the note that the reign is not listed in WWE's title history, it is not missing on purpose. Same with the 4 missing US title reigns. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, good sir. Regardless of how the indisputably confused or intentionally misleading WWE.com is, the stipulation in any unification match (even in "real" sports) is simple and in place before the match starts. One title will merge into another, and the winner of the match gets the bigger title. When the ref calls for the final bell, the absorbed title doesn't exist.
Trying to presume what WWE.com truly wants to rewrite and what's their honest, retarded mistake will drive you crazier than worrying about history's constant decay. Don't bother, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

So you think they made a mistake counting Orton's 12th world title reign or counting Triple H's 5th IC title reign or counting Jericho's 2nd WCW title reign when he became the Undisputed Champ? They all won the title and at that exact moment it was deactivated / unified. Or are you saying we should edit Orton's bio into "11-time World Champ"? Here you have WWE recognizing RVD as the final champ: http://www.wwe.com/inside/top-25-superstars-of-the-new-millennium/page-10 WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was a mistake or deliberate, but it's wrong. Unification matches end in unification, not two reigns. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

They count every unification as an additional title win. EVERY. I don't think we should take one title reign away from ever wrestler. Maybe it is not a title reign in your eyes because it lasts less than a second, but those guys won the match and therefore always get the honor of being the last Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Won the title, didn't hold it.
In any case, we already hold WWE.com way higher than any Wikiproject should hold a primary source. It's in every article related to WWE, almost. It's even weirder when we consider WWE's bread and butter is deception. Secondaries at least try to find the truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
What truth? It's scripted fiction. The dirt sheets seem to forget that sometimes, playing up the TMZ "gotcha" style, trying to "reveal the truth they don't want you to see!" as though kayfabe really mattered anymore and that every promoter is committing fraud. Now, technically, that was once true. (The days of true kayfabe were actually fraud, when you think about it, as it was actually a form of match fixing, though it developed into a distinct form of theatre) But those days are long gone, and frankly the dirt sheets are more than a little bit ridiculous in acting like they still do. WWE.com is a reliable source for plot summaries, which is what all this history is in reality. As serialized fiction, it is subject to retcons, just like comic books and TV series. We should keep that in mind and know that things are changed intentionally sometimes, and that ultimately WWE really only cares about how the history can inform current story lines.oknazevad (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line between the lies and truth is still there. Just blurrier and permeable. I'd sort of rather not know I don't know than know I only half-know. It's like holding a light switch in the middle. Bzzzz! Also a blurry line between the actors and their roles that we never see in Batman. (Don't read that, it's half-pointless.) InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
People still say "wont to do"? Good stuff! But yeah, better than WebProNews, etc. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

So the point of this was to get some people to help me contact them on Twitter. Anybody?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolph Ziggler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Ziggler

So Jericho won the Mask vs MITB match in 2012 and the city was the loser of the match? Someone fix this I'm not got at editing. Oh and it actually took place on Raw, not a live event.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Rogers

His Wikipedia bio talks about 4 Texas Heavyweight reigns, but C&A section lists him as a 6-time Champ. One of the two is definitely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Rogers_(wrestler) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good at editing and I spoke to an old 50s fan about it and he said that the Texas Heavyweight list is definitely wrong. One reign never took place but one is missing... WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • if you're not good at editing then you're in the wrong place dude. And guess what? The Texas heavyweight title list (whoah! old version) is the best we've got based on the sources we have. So you'd need some good sources to go fix it. MPJ -US  21:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already improved many things here so I'm definitely at the wrong place. I can edit but putting the sources next to it at the bottom, that's too much. But you realize that either the part about the 6 reigns or the part about the 4 reigns has to be wrong? He can't be both. wrestling-titles.com was listed as the source for the title, but when I compare the Wikipedia one and the one from wrestling-titles, Wikipedia is missing many reigns and dates: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/tx/tx-h.html So I found the same source that Wikipedia did, but am I supposed to copy it just like it is listed on wrestling.titles.com? Rogers is said to have 4 reigns in 1945 on Wiki, 3 on wrestling-titles. On the other hand Wikipedia is missing reigns like Paul Jones'. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough on the sources, I get that. If you want a few quick pointers on sources let me know and I will be happy to share what I have picked up over the years. I am sure that Wikipedia matched wrestling-titles at one point, but that article is also updated when they do additional research so that may be what happened here.  MPJ -US  00:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see what you have to share! btw, what happens if someone does some hidden changes in old article, like changing the match results of WrestleMania IV? Will someone on Wikipedia get a message that something has been edited and will he be able to see exactly what changes have been made? I'm new here, still learning ;) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the top of each article is a star icon. If you click that it puts it on your watch list. When changes are made to an article you can see it on your list. I am sure someone is watching those, but you can add them to your own list so that you can watch them too. I have more or less all lucha libre articles on my list plus i add articles i create or expand. It wi show you what articles have changed in the last 7 days unless your own edit was the most recent one. It help vandalism down a lot. MPJ -US  13:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a custom skin or something? I think I remember a "Watch" once, but I've had a hollow star for a while. Watching a page colours the star a shade of blue stars just aren't supposed to glow. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, July 3, 2015 (UTC)
That shade? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
The big stars all go black and don't go back, eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio vandalism

Appanrently someone has nostalgia for Rey Mysterio to be back in the WWE, he/she keeps reverting back to a version from early in the year before he left the WWE. multiple IPs but I am sure it's the same guy. After all these years on Wikipedia and I still don't know how to get this protected to only allow registered users to edit it?? Anyone care to request it for me?  MPJ -US  23:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I requested protection and it looks like it just went through :) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is where you want to go.LM2000 (talk) 00:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it was getting annoying.  MPJ -US  02:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can archived pages be dead? As long as the archive itself is still around (and the Wayback Machine is certainly alive), why is the archived page not accessible? Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_European_Champions and the 6th reference leads me nowhere. How is that possible? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aliens?
  • An Illumnati conspiracy?
  • Those dang mice ate it?
  • Typo in the citation?

I have seen so many of these dead links, maybe we should switch to webcitation.org if the wayback machine's links just die!?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Steele once said "Everything Dies". Then he died. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
"And what about the parking lot? We've all been there." InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
"Men look in the mirra, and say 'No, that can't be me!'" InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

Do you care about this or do you just care about making fun of others? Is Wayback Machine a reliable archive if the links seem to die? Or did someone force them to remove it? Why would these links die?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RAW results 1996 http://web.archive.org/web/20110609235352/http://www.wwe.com/404-not-found RVD profile http://web.archive.org/web/20080321015059/http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/extremists/rvd/profile/ (How can it say "they page cannot be found"? It is archived, what does that have to do with WWE?) But these two are different kind of errors. If necessary, I'm gonna search for more of these errors, but someone has to know how this could happen? The archive should be a place where things are archived, not deleted.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WrestlingLegendAS: The first one is literally a link to a "404 not found" page. The second link works when you go to an earlier capture, as seen here. Prefall 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why did someone link an archived version of a 404 page? That kind of link helps nobody.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Ring

Okay we've got a problem that was apparently previously mentioned here. It is alleged that a consensus exists that King of the Ring 2015 is a WWE Network Event. I contend that it is not, because it took place over two nights (Raw is on network television and not the WWE Network) and that the semi finals and the final were not a stand alone live event at the venue - but rather an extended full show that included that week's Smackdown taping and the live Main Event at the venue in Moline, Illinois. This is distinct from any of the NXT Takeover Events, Elimination Chamber or Beast in the East. It should not be included in the PPV/WWE Network list for this reason. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Previous King of the King tournaments have had qualifiers on network television yet the actual King of the Ring show was still a PPV. I am not aware of the criteria that it has to be a "stand alone live event" to qualify? That seems to be a bit arbitrary to say that it does not count since other matches were taped prior? that seems Illogical.  MPJ -US  01:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fine going into the infobox since it was billed as a King of the Ring event, similar to the PPVs. I also want to note that while there is a merge discussion going on at Talk:King of the Ring (2015) this shouldn't affect the infobox. If it is merged then the 2015 section on the main King of the Ring article can use the same infobox.LM2000 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Curse decided not to be more forthcoming in the details of what prompted this discussion, allow me. Earlier this evening, I added the 2015 King of the Ring to {{WWEPPV}} as it was a WWE Network event, or at least the semi-finals and finals were. Not to mention it has a standalone article (of which I oppose the merging of, but I will discuss that on the merge discussion, though I think it has already, clearly failed). A little later, Curse reverted it, I noticed it a few minutes later and reverted back and left a message on his talk page. He responded that he did not agree with my reasoning and stated basically what he stated above and reverted back. I replied one more timed and said that if he does not agree with consensus, he needs to bring it before us here at WT:PW and try get a new consensus, but until then he needs to honor current consensus, and reverted one more time. He replied that he will get consensus changed "easily" because the "facts are on [his] side", and here we are.

Now that the background is out of the way, I want to say that I do not agree with you, Curse. It took place as it's own event on the WWE Network and that's what the templates are meant to do, categorize and make for ease of navigation. It was a WWE Network event and thus logically must be listed with the WWE Network events. Basically, I oppose any change in consensus per MPJ-DK. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 02:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Every single recognised pay per view in the traditional sense never had any other matches at the venue on the night except dark matches, or pre show matches - the latter of which is recognised as part of the actual event. This also applies to all of the WWE Network events - except for this one. The entire show consisted of Smackdown tapings and Main Event live also on the Network straight after the King of the Ring portion. Including this in the Network/PPV event set up sets a dangerous precedent and greys up the definition of a WWE Network exclusive event. An encyclopedia would never do that. There needs to be consistency, and adding what I think was a one hour show to it that was never a one hour show live at the venue is inconsistent with this. Did the fans in Illinois go to King of the Ring? No - they went to see a WWE event that including a taping and two separate live presentations. The fact that qualifying matches have in past taken place on Raw (and indeed Smackdown) when KOTR was an actual pay per view doesn't alter the fact that from 1993 to 2002 it was a separate 100 percent single show. In 2015 it was not, as distinct (again) from NXT Takeover, Elimination Chamber and Beast in the East. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not sure what it matters that they taped other matches before - what difference does it make? Was it a live Special on the WWE network? Yes - end, of, story.  MPJ -US  03:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, not end of story, because you are totally ignoring the fact that the name of the event at the venue was NOT King of the Ring. Find me a flyer/poster that says "King of the Ring - April 29, 2015 in Moline, Illinois" and I'll back down. You're creating a monster here doing this. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were plenty of qualifies from 1993 to 2002, let's not distort history here, yes they had a bigger field but there were plenty of KOTR first round matches on network television in the past. Nor sure what the "dangerous precedent" would be set here? That is the part I do not get, listing this as a network special - which it was - is encyclopedic and factual in nature. Excluding it due to some criteria that does not have concensus - THAT is the dangerous president, especially since your argument really boils down to "I don't like it". You want me to find where it was advertised as King of the Ring? Go to the network under Network exclusives. Listed to the Raw before the show where they called it that. How was the name of the network special NOT King of the Ring? You keep alluding to creating a monster, what the heck do you think will happen?  MPJ -US  03:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the "Box of Horror and DOOM!!" was opened with the King of the Ring (2008) article.  MPJ -US  04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know if we can find sufficient reliable, third party sources we could create an article for every single Raw or Smackdown and be totally within the rules and framework of Wikipedia, even if the specific show happens to be uneventful. Still not sure what "monster" it is you are so worried about?  MPJ -US  04:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not talking about a Network advertisement. I'm talking about a venue advertisement. The monster would be that EVERY time the WWE Network puts on something that at the venue incorporates other tapings or live presentations, it would go up alongside the likes of Wrestlemania, Summerslam etc etc. It doesn't belong there. This is not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is about being consistent. Lining this up purely based on "on demand/pay per view" is fraught with danger. WWE might end up doing something like it every week - there's your monster right there. Adding all sorts of stuff weekly. They could do it given that they have to come up with fresh material to keep people subscribed, and doing something extra when the equipment is already there (as was the case with King of the Ring) would be the easiest to do. See the problem?
I have no idea what you're talking about with the 2008 KOTR reference.
Raw and Smackdown aren't pay per views and are on network TV so that's irrelevant. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curse, let me put this to you in the simplest terms possible. The discussion in May yielded three criterion to be considered a special live event on the WWE Network.
  1. Was it live? (i.e.: an event that happened in an arena in front of a crowd)
  2. Was it promoted and televised on the WWE Network?
  3. Did it feature live wrestling matches?
King of the Ring (2015) meets all three of these criterion. Criterion that was hotly debated and finally agreed upon. I know this because I was the originator of that discussion and heavily involved in it. @OldSkool01 was another. I suggest you read that discussion to see why we arrived at these criterion. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 05:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the fourth criteria that is essential if you want to put it alongside the pay per view events. "Were the matches featured the only matches at the venue on the night?" The answer is 'No'. The error here appears to be putting it with the pay per view events. Anything that is Network exclusive should in fact be separate to the pay per views as we know them. But you've chosen to put them together through this consensus you're talking about. So you have a choice to make - separate the Network exclusives from the pay per views, or don't add King of the Ring per the fourth criteria for a pay per view. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fourth criterion as of now. So no, it does not fail it, because it cannot fail a criteria that does not exist. You can propose it, but I will staunchly oppose it because whether it was the only event at a taping is irrelevant to its importance in the chronology. Why? Because as stated, the only thing that matters is the agreed upon criteria, and whether is has the sources to meet WP:N and WP:V. Period. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The previously "agreed to" criteria is wrong, and I stand by it and will staunchly oppose a position to the contrary because it includes a Smackdown taping and a Main Event presentation. You can't avoid that. Again - fans did not attend "King of the Ring" in Moline, Illinois on April 29, 2015. They attended a WWE event which included Smackdown, King of the Ring and Main Event (plus maybe a dark match or two before the tapings for all we know). That is the correct chronology, and the fourth criteria MUST be added in order to be consistent with the existing pay per views. You're opening a can of worms if you aren't consistent. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the deal. Curse of Fenric, you're talking about separating the Network events from the PPV events. That's already been done. There's already a "List of WWE Pay-Per-View events" page that are strictly for shows that air on traditional PPV channels. The "List of WWE Network events" is a separate list that was created to include ALL events that air on the Network, not just PPV. And let me add in that "King Of The Ring 2015" is not the first event to include matches taped for other shows on the same night. The "No Holds Barred" ppv from December 1989 also included several weeks worth of "WWF Wrestling Challenge" episodes taped the same night. The "Tuesday In Texas" ppv from December 1991 included matches and angles taped for "Prime Time Wrestling" and "Wrestling Challenge"(including the infamous Barber Shop/Rockers breakup episode). The very first "In Your House" ppv from May 1995 included a match or two taped for future Monday Night Raw episodes on the same night. Also "In Your Your House: Beware Of Dog 2" from May 1996 included not only the ppv matches, but matches taped for several weeks worth of "WWF Superstars" episodes. Also, what about almost every PPV event from 1998-2006 that included full episodes of "Sunday Night Heat" before the show, complete with live matches? Does that not count as a "different show" on the same night? So if your criteria is that for a show to be included on a Network/PPV events page "only matches for that specific event have to take place" then I just killed that theory. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sunday Night Heat was always seen as part of the pre show back then so no it's doesn't count as separate. It didn't gain it's own show identity as such until later. No Holds Barred was a single match which as a package on a pay per view went with the movie of the same name - so that doesn't count either. Please provide proof of those other claims. Curse of Fenric (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Go to TheHistoryOfWWE.com to confirm everything I mentioned. Also Sunday Night Heat debuted on August 2, 1998 as a weekly television show. It didn't just air on PPV nights. Also I forgot to mention "In Your House" from December 1995 included tapings for episodes of "Monday Night Raw" and "Superstars" after the PPV went off the air. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not agree with consensus, you want tobdo it differently than the standards and you want to add a criteria that no one else wants.... explain how that is not "I don't like it" cause it is waddling through the duck test to me.  MPJ -US  12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • No you don't have consistency, and it's a shame that you are unable to see it and neither is anyone else it appears here. I shall not be joining this project as was my intent as a result. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • YOU are the one advocating inconsistency, omitting a major event just because "they taped other matches too". So actually we do have consistency between the WWE Network specials.  MPJ -US  22:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this debate was over? I don't understand what it is Curse was complaining about. He brought up an issue for debate. That issue was that King Of The Ring 2015 does not belong on a WWE Network Event list because matches for other TV shows were held on the same night. I then brought up about 5 or 6 examples of WWE PPV events in the past that also had matches taped for other TV shows on the same night. And those PPV events are still included on the list of WWE PPV Events. So that right there shows consistency since a precendence has already been set. Was his complaint that we should also eliminate all those PPVs I mentioned from the List of WWE PPV Events page? I really don't understand what his complaining was about. He also tried to delete this post I made, saying I was "baiting" him. Check the edit history page and you'll see what I mean. I just wanted him to explain what his complaint was. I guess NOW the debate is over. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curse, you can't remove other people's talk page comments. You've been involved in a number of different conflicts with a lot of people from this wikiproject lately. I understand that things can get heated sometimes but if it continues at this pace you should probably consider stepping back from editing for awhile.LM2000 (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now Curse has cleared his talk page, including deleting what LM2000 wrote to him and blocked people from posting messages. I saw the comment he left on LM2000's talk page about me having a chip on my shoulder. Why? Because I asked him to explain what his "inconsistency" complaint was? Instead it appears he's throwing a virtual tantrum because nobody seemed to agree with his point of view. I don't understand some people, and Curse isn't the only one I've seen on WP do this, they bring up a topic for debate, the general consensus in the debate does not go the way they wanted it to and then, instead of conceding to the consensus or politely saying that they disagree with the consensus, they make sure to tell everyone who disagreed with their viewpoint that they're totally wrong, and usually not in a nice way, and then they hold their breath until they turn blue. Welcome to Wikipedia I suppose. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'chip on your shoulder' is this attitude you have that you know everything and don't like being proved wrong. That is not just about this lack of consistency. It's also about your manipulation of a source to get your way over Global Warning. You don't know everything - when it comes down to brass tacks no one does. Lose the attitude if you want my respect. If you don't, no skin off my nose and you can stay away from me from now on. Either way, it would be best for all concerned if this was the last comment on the section. The matter is closed and adults move on. Agreed? (my talk page clearance has been reversed after an overdue admin warning to another user that and looked like never happening) Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I have an attitude, I know everything, I don't like being proved wrong, I manipulate. These are personal attacks on me. For what reason? I don't even know you. Where is this coming from? All I asked was that you clarify what it is you find inconsistent about King Of The Ring 2015(a debate you started) and you never clarified it. Instead you bring up other articles like Global Warning for whatever reason when one has nothing to do with the other. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a Wikipedia WP:LookInTheMirror essay, and Curse of Fenric could be their main piece of evidence. If he spent half as much time editing articles as he did crying off on multiple Admin pages when something doesn't go his way he might become a useful editor. As it is, shame his self-inposed block was nothing but a 10 minute sham. 81.141.246.36 (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestle Kingdom 9 peer review

If you are free and willing, please offer your comments on the article that Ribbon Salminen and I have written up. We're gunning for a Featured Article after this. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Match aired on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCW_Florida_Heavyweight_Championship

Only twice it is mentioned when the match actually aired. Is there a reason for that or are the other air dates just missing?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find the air dates? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules of this WikiProject state to ALWAYS use the date it actually took place, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To commemorate the next BIG wrestling show in August

No not Summer Slam, but a show that will actually give us the dream match that the WWE has talked about for years Rey Mysterio vs. the original Sin Caras/Mistico/Myzteziz Triplemanía XXIII. I have been going through all the Triplemanía articles and man they need help, most of them are start articles with just the results listed - up until today they were not even using the pro wrestling result table template but I fixed that. I am asking for help since there are 30 Triplemanía (yes XXII is 23). If anyone has time working on any of those articles I will take all the help I can get, after all Triplemania is the wrestling event with the third most number of shows (and no WrestleMania is no where near 81 shows). Sources, copy editing, turning red links blue, finding posters or pulling images of competitors off their pages and into the articles, I will take any and all help and thank anyone who pitches in with my Triplemanía project. Btw. I am working on #1 right now.  MPJ -US  01:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help a little. I don't know a lot about Triplemania, but I'll use it as a learning opportunity. Nikki♥311 01:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, anything you can add is helpful. MPJ -US  02:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mediotiempo.com - A sports website published by MSN and covers all sports - they had a day by day breakdown of wrestling articles you can jump to by using urls such as http://www.mediotiempo.com/mas-deportes/lucha-libre/noticias/2015/07/05/
http://www.thegladiatores.com - like SuperLuchas it's a wrestling magazine with editors and everything that constitutes a reliable source
http://www.terra.com - Website of the Mexican terra network with a sports section that covers wrestling as well as other sports.
When I google newer shows I often get hits on Mexican newspapers for individual articles, once I find one lucha story on a newspaper site I use google to search only on that site to see if there is anything else I can use.
  • And you are right, pre-internet sources are tough to come by, I have been fortunate enough to buy a number of old lucha mags off eBay and I have a number of lucha books, but even then it's hard to get too much detail on some of these, I would say from around 2003, Triplemania X or XI and forward it gets easier to do, which is why I will probably focus a lot of my research or 1 through 9 initially. MPJ -US  11:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=671112591"