Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

To Do List

Full newsletter for WP:PW?

I was thinking: would it be possible for WP:PW to have a full newsletter with info from the WikiProject, including the Collaboration of the Week, member news, cleanup announcements, etc. (got the idea from a newsletter from Saw)? I know we have sort of a newleter (the announcement of the Collaboration), but I was wondering if we could expand that into full. Just a suggestion. The Chronic 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I, myself, like the idea. --Crash Underride 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea has been brought up a couple of times, and the general consensus is that it would be a great idea in the future, but we have too much going on right now to be able to implement it and keep it going. Newsletters take a lot of time and effort to create. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most of the contributors want to focus on other things right now, such as bringing our articles up to standards, getting rid of the cruft, and increasing the project's credibility. While a newsletter would be beneficial for that in the future, I think now just isn't the time. Nikki311 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not good at improving articles, and all I really do is behind the scenes meta-work for the project and revert vandalism, so I'd be willing to help create the newsletter. I couldn't do it by myself, of course, but I'd most certainly be willing to help organize it, write things for it, and keep it running. If I could get a couple of other people to leave me messages and such on notable events within the project, I'd even be willing to just do it all. It would probably be a monthly thing if I just did it, and not weekly, but that would still work just fine. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikki hit the nail on the head in regards to my sentiments on this matter at the moment. Heck, I have barely been editing at all this moneth due to real life commitments. However, if Hybrid wants to head up a small team of people who are dedicated to doing this each week or bi-monthly or even just once a month, I see no problem with it ..its just not something that *I* can't commit to yet - if ever and I believe my efforts at Wikipedia are probably better spent in other areas of this project. If there are people who have time and want to do it though, go for it ..the worst that can happen is that it doesn't last :) --Naha|^(talk) 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in quite a similiar situation. I mostly just revert vandalism, remove week-by-weeks and fix wikilinks. I'd be willing to assist you in creating and organizing the newsletter. Gavyn Sykes 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, fron what I've seen, a lot of newsletters on Wikipedia are released anywhere from a few weeks to monthly. Since we announce the COTW every week, the newsletter would probably have to be released every week. It could affect the structure of the COTW as well. Of course that's something I would be willing to do (along with some other people willing to). The Chronic 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So should we go ahead and create the newsletter (or at least having a trial run) once we get approval from the community? The Chronic 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a minor draft here. The Chronic 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take this with a grain of salt because I haven't gone around Wikipedia to see how different project newsletters are structured or what they include because I just don't have time. What you have done looks really neat... However, aside from the news section and the part about the COTW which is already delivered by weekly notice, it basically just looks like "to do list" stuff which can already be found at the top of this page already. I was thinking newsletters were more news oriented overall? I know people post stuff on this page when something gets accomplished but it soon gets lost in all the other discussions, so its hard to keep up with and sometimes I miss it all together. FAs and GAs and greatly improved articles, changes to project "guidelines" or "policy" that members should be notified of etc ..that is the kind of thing I was thinking the newsletter was for. I, personally, really don't need a "To do" list delivered every so often because I can get that here. But seeing actual news gives me a feeling of accomplishment and notification of new/updated guidelines keeps me informed.

I know we recently was approved some tables for use in certain articles and are contemplating article structure changes. I haven't been able to keep up but I'm not even sure how the COTW is working right now because I've been absent so much..with the normal weekly one and then people proposed some stuff about GA or FA collaborations. I swear I saw an article that had more votes than the one that was chosen for this week but I'm assuming it has something to do with how we are doing differnt types of COTW now? Anyway, stuff like that would make for a good newsletter read IMO.

Another possibility would be to include links to new pro-wrestling articles about recent events, like pay per views that have just happened, so people can "keep up" with them. That type of thing would be relevent to project members that are still current fans. Or anytime something pro-wrestling related is written about at Wikinews or any other Wikimedia sister projects, that would make for a good inclusion in the newsletter.

Disclaimer: These are just random thoughts and ideas flowing out of my brain this morning, I haven't had any caffiene yet, so if none of this makes sense, I place the blame on lack of Dr Pepper. --Naha|^(talk) 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All those ideas sound good. I hope we can get enough approval for at least one trial newletter to see how people think of it. I would be 100% devoted to it (as I'm not really finding myself editing any mainspace wrestling articles). The Chronic 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was talking about a newsletter, I meant a newsletter. I would want to post stories about articles that have just made FA, (really) notable disputes, new consensuses (yes, that is the correct plural form of consensus), current events in the wrestling world, perhaps tributes to members who are doing an exceptional job, things along those lines. When I think of a project newsletter, I'm thinking of a WP:PW Signpost. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm guessing it's clear that we approve of a newsletter. I'll spend the next few days testing designs and news for the first newsletter here. If there are any more suggestions for the newsletter, please post it here or at this talk page. I hope to get the first trial issue released out by November 11 (the day that the next next COTW is announced). Thanks everyone! The Chronic 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Approval poll

• Support - I want to get a summary of how many people would support a newsletter, so I'm creating this section to see. The Chronic 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If there are people willing to do it, then let's give it a try. Nikki311 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If there are people willing to do it, then let's give it a try. Ditto for me. --Naha|^(talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have set up a "home page" for the newsletter (there seems to be a good support for it). If there are any suggestions for it, please post it on the talk page. Thank you. The Chronic 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, for this purpose, and as part of the discussion, I have created a paage titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Outreach. This page may also help with "project recruitment and member interaction efforts". The Chronic 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I say let's go for it!!! --Crash Underride 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I proposed this idea a while back, and still support it now. The Hybrid T/C 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Definitely, and I am willing to help with it in any way I can. Gavyn Sykes 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Davnel03 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support LAX 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus

There is a dispute happening on the Trish Stratus article with another editor claiming that SLAM! Sports is a dirtsheet and is removing sourced information. The page passed GA so obviously the information used can be traced back to reliable sources. I have crossed paths with this editor numerous times as I know many of the editors of this project have and many disputes have occurred. Could some people please help with the current situation at the article? - Deep Shadow 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor, Aladdin Zane, has been on Wiki less than a month, and is making a very bad impression. Oh, and for the record, SLAM! Sports is almost certainly a reliable source. This user is certainly attempting to cause a disruption. December to Dismember (2006) is up for FAC. That has SLAM! Sports referencing, and no one has said that isn't a reliable source. This user is 100% wrong. Davnel03 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 100% wrong, because I don't believe Slam! Sports is a reliable source either. However, I do understand that professional wrestling news' only reliable source is TNA or WWE directly, and that an established communication with these companies is hard to find. For that matter, Slam! Sports, The Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and other big, well-known, established News Sites that have been trusted for years with good news should be acceptable. Plus, this matter has had a consensus stating so, which deems this editor wrong. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (1994)

I did some more work on this article today, and I think it's almost ready for a GA Review. Thank you to everybody who has helped on the article. I would really appreciate it if people could do a copyedit and give some feedback. I've listed it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994), so you can leave comments on the peer review, the article's talk page, my talk page, on as a response to this post. I would love to hear some thoughts on the article and what might still need to be done. Thanks again, everyone. GaryColemanFan 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pay Per View article improvements

There has been a lot of work done lately on pay-per-view articles, and it's getting hard to keep track of what's going on. I was wondering if the people involved could add to the list below to show which articles are done, are being done, or are about to be done. Thanks.

1987 WrestleMania III - B

1993 SummerSlam (1993) - Good Article

1994 Royal Rumble (1994) - B

1995 In Your House 1: Premiere - B (Good Article candidate); King of the Ring (1995) - Start

2000 Starrcade (2000) - Start

2005 One Night Stand (2005) - B (Good Article candidate)

2006 One Night Stand (2006) - B; December to Dismember (2006) - Good Article (Featured Article candidate)

2007 One Night Stand (2007) - B

Have I missed any?

Currently, I'm trying to decide between Survivor Series 1993, WrestleMania X or King of the Ring 1994. I want to fill in the gaps, but I'm leaning toward King of the Ring 1994. GaryColemanFan 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to request whether we start a new page, possibly under the heading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs, but thought the idea would be rejected. Given that this is happening at a very alarming rate (faster than I ever expected) I think we need a subpage, so that if anyone does an event, they can just add it to the list. Opinions? Davnel03 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. That would keep two people from wasting time doing the same one independently of each other. Nikki311 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely a good idea, that probably should have been thought of sooner, lol. Gavyn Sykes 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The link will turn colour in a few minutes. :) Davnel03 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we could call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Current Projects and anybody working on an article can list it. Nikki311 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even better. It accomplishes the same purpose and encompasses more. Gavyn Sykes 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just created it under the first link. Feel free to move it. Davnel03 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr photo question

Photos on Flickr are considered free-use, so they can be uploaded, correct? How exactly does that work? I've never had too much success with photo uploading. Nikki311 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends what license the uploader has used.

All rights reserved - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC-ND - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC-SA - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC - NOT OK

CC-BY-ND - NOT OK

CC-BY - OK

CC-BY-SA - OK

You can single-out OK photos by doing an advanced search on Flickr (click here. Tick the Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos box to single out OK photos. Hope this helps! Davnel03 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That does help. I'm currently working on Amy Dumas and was hoping to find a picture of her with her band. Using the method you suggested, I could use one of these? Nikki311 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia photo uploading is very complicated. Maybe this could help. (Note: You must be logged in on Wikimedia Commons to see it). If you can't, create an account. :) Davnel03 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is complicated, which is why I've avoided it until now. I suppose I'll just continue to avoid it. Nikki311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2007)

Just a heads up that I'm starting a "Background" section (obviously for the moment I've only done Michaels v Orton as that is the only match tha has been announced). Revert any SmackDown! spoilers ot vandal edits as per usual. Davnel03 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed a few things in the section (it was Vince who announced that DX would reform next week, all Regal did was say he thought it was a great idea). I will keep an eye on the article since I watch every PPV article anyways. TJ Spyke 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Triple H

Ok, in the Triple H article, are the titles of the contents really necessary as the contents include more than 2 years (ex. "D-Generation X (1997-1999)" thats 3 years) and then the D- Generation X revial goes only for 2 years from 2006-2007 and the contents don't begin in the beginning of that year. To me those titles and the ranges of the years seem unnecessary as it makes the article look bad, what do you think?--TrUcO9311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should have the headers like they are in the Randy Orton article. It looks much better in Orton's article in my view. Davnel03 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so I'm going to do it, and revert the editor.--TrUcO9311 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I think they look better in Triple H's article. It helps to have section names, as well as dates, to help find exactly the time in their life that you want to read about. Nikki311 21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might bear the question: Why do it with Triple H, but not with Shawn Michaels or The Undertaker? I don't mind either way, but its best to be consistent. Davnel03 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mayby, but to me it looks messy, random year ranges, and thats why we put "main article links" for sections like "DX", the other eras arent really necessary, look at hulk hogans page, he has a longer history than HHH, and his article is not like that, although it could use some clean up. Also other HOF pages arent like that. Leaving Undertaker's page how it is, is best! same with HHH.--TrUcO9311 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." (WP:HEAD) Year ranges don't mean much to me. --Aaru Bui ^DII 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio images being uploaded to commons under public domain licences, need help

Recently I added some images to the CM Punk article from commons based off images from the Spanish wikipedia however I have come to think the user who is uploading all these images is uploading copyrighted images and simply labelling them public domain.

User's contributions to commons here. If some of these are copyvios I think it needs to be assumed all are copyvios and a commons admin needs to be contacted. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Definite copy-vio. I doubt the user has even stood inside a hell in a cell. I think some of them have come from WWE.com and possibly some of the photos from Online World of Wrestling. The user has even copy-vios of Mshake3's work I noticed from his contribs. Davnel03 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case can someone with a commons account get in contact with a commons admin to fix this? These images all need removing. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be a serial vandal, and he has been warned about uploading images with fraudulent copyright claim in both Spanish and English [1] I don't have a commons account but any user with enough patience can nominate the material for deletion without the need of creating a account. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin there, User:Raul654 (he's an admin there and here). Feel free to add another comment on contact another admin. TJ Spyke 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing some research for the Briscoe Brothers

(call me selfish or narcissistic, but I get the feeling no one would see this if I added it on to a previous section)

Anyhow, in doing a little research into their careers, I came across something very curious. It's semi-well known that the Brothers worked under masks in 2001 and 2002 when CZW ran in the ECW arena, owing to Mark only being 17 years old at the time both of them being underage at the time and the state of Pennsylvania having stringent laws against people under 18 working in entertainment. I can back this claim up , but what's got me really confused is that the Brothers appeared in the ECW arena, for JAPW, even earlier [2], and it doesn't seem that they hid their identities then. JAPW even now isn't really the kind of company that would go that far out of their way to get someone just to job in their curtain jerker, so did they just skate on the law or something? Anyone know? How would be the best way to introduce this in an article? I've started a subpage for potential article prose, User:Tromboneguy0186/sandbox (and I surely do hope I created that correctly), and I like the section I've got so far for CZW, but this JAPW issue has me quite confused. Tromboneguy0186 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to go off course here but you really need to look at and learn the proper way to cite websites - Template:Cite web hopefully that link will help you so that the formatting problems are cleared right up —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go to the trouble of using cite templates on what's just a subspace. At least not yet. I've just tossed those refs in there so I know where they are for later. Everything will be correctly cited in time, and well before it gets to the mainspace.

And could someone for once please address something I ask here? It'd be kinda nice. Tromboneguy0186 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The link to labor laws that you provided has the labor laws as of January 1, 2007. Perhaps the laws were different in 2001 when all of this took place. That would be a good way to start. Nikki311 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't notice that. How about this (warning, it's a PDF...and since I can't tinyurl it I have to use that beast of a link)? I'll have to look at it in greater depth to find a specific claim, but a cursory skimming shows it lays down some pretty specific regulations regarding child labor in the state of Pennsylvania, and it was written in 1915 (and updated many times through at least the 1980's, so I'm guessing it was on the books in 2001). Tromboneguy0186 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I may have just stumbled on it. Section 7.1(a)(3) - No such minor shall be permitted to perform in a boxing, sparring or wrestling match or exhibition or in an acrobatic or other act, performance, or exhibition hazardous to his safety or well-being. Seems a pretty good reason for CZW to want to hide their identities, but the question remains why JAPW didn't. Tromboneguy0186 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They could have lied about their age (the same way that guy who died after wrestling against New Jack in ECW did). TJ Spyke 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, but the first ECW arena show was the seventh or eighth show the Brothers had worked for CZW. They'd even held the tag straps by that point. I think Zandig probably would have known their correct ages by that point, unless he was in on any sort of deception. Tromboneguy0186 01:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were talking about JAPW with that comment. There's a similar point to be made, though. They appeared two additional times for JAPW in Philly before they ever did for CZW. Tromboneguy0186 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is merely speculation, but maybe because JAPW is based in New Jersey, they were allowed to work under Jersey's child labor laws. Maybe your next step is to find some child labor laws for Jersey, which may or may not be quite as extensive/restrictive as in Penn. Nikki311 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks guys. I'm gonna send an email to the chair of the Labor & Industry committee in the Pennsylvania state Senate, John Gordner. Who knows if he or an aide of his will respond, but it's worth a shot. I figure I'll ask if this law is still on the books (it looks like it's known simply as "Child Labor Law") and if the rules might somehow have been different for JAPW. Tromboneguy0186 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a reply from one of Gordner's aides. The law has been on the books since 1915 and should be enforced in the whole of the state of Pennsylvania. It looks like JAPW more than likely simply ignored the law. Tromboneguy0186 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed merging Jamin Pugh and Mark Pugh into Briscoe Brothers. My rationale is on Talk:Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Women's Championship

I've brought this up before see #Featured List notice, but I want to mention it again since List of WWE European Champions just passed its FL nom. I've corrected the issues brought up by other users (source for Moolah selling title, abbreviations) and added a picture. I, however, could not find specific dates/locations for when the title was vacated, nor could I find a location of Moolah's second win. I really looked, too, but all the sites list it as unknown. Is this going to be a problem with a FL nom or will they take into account that the information just doesn't exist? Anyway, unless anyone strongly opposes, I'll nominate it in a couple of days and try to fix and problems that anyone sees. Nikki311 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job, and I agree that is probably next to impossible to find the rest of the information. I think it should be nominated. GaryColemanFan 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it...feel free to leave comments HERE. Nikki311 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A few concerns in the Hulk Hogan article

I need some opinions on a change in this article as well as someone with more knowledge of wrestling to clarify something. The questions can be found at the bottom of HERE Gavyn Sykes 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The latter issue has been resolved. I would appreciate any more comments on the former. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Cyber Sunday (2006).....

....has been moved into the mianspace by Lex94. Feel free to edit it, clean it up etc. Davnel03 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and wikified all the references. TJ Spyke 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and purged it of redirects and fixed a few move links. Gavyn Sykes 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-notable material. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right major question: Am I right in stating that the "Background" section sounds more like a week-by-week analysis of events? Personally, I think we should do it storyline by storyline - talk about Champions of Champions, then go onto DX/Rated RKO and then onto the third major storyline. I think this makes it flow better so that it isn't constantly changing subjects. Opinions? Davnel03 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Objects

I've gotten into the habit of linking weapons in wrestling articles to [[Foreign object (professional wrestling). See Cyber Sunday in the the results for the Triple H/Umaga match. I've been meaning to bring this up, but does anyone have any objections to my doing this? I want to make sure it's not violating a Wikiproject rule I was unaware of. Gavyn Sykes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, we should try and link to the specific item (i.e. sledgehammer, brass knuckles, etc.) unless we don't know what the item is (like in older broadcasts where we can't see what the item is and the announcers just say "foreign object"). You're not breaking any rule that I know of. TJ Spyke 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Like TJ said, if it is the actual specific object that is linked to, I see no problem with this. --Naha|^(talk) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'll go back and change the ones I edited then. Thanks. :) Gavyn Sykes 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...what?

An IP left this message on Talk:Mark Pugh

Somebody has to change the "references" listed to the Jim Cornette profile on the imposter OWW. The REAL url should be credited to the original website from which that information came from http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/j/jim-cornette.html -- the other website "Obsessed" stole all its content from the real OWW "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com". Thank you.

What the heck? I'd never heard of "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com." The two pages definitely appear to be duplicates of each other, but I recall "OWW" always referring to obsessedwithwrestling.com; what (if anything, in fact) changed? And unless there's proof of plagiarism, what differences does it make? Tromboneguy0186 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling changed its name to Online World of Wrestling. I don't know about plagiarism or anything...they are the same site. Nikki311 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, why would there still be an 'Obsessed With Wrestling?' Is 'Obsessed' just a mirror now? What proof have we that 'Online World' isn't the mirror? Does any of it actually even matter? Tromboneguy0186 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

it happened months ago, check the OnlineWorldofWrestling archives. A bot was created to move all the obsessed links.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed With Wrestling changed it's name to Online World of Wrestling. Read the press release. Davnel03 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that about clinches it. Brad Dykens is certainly the name I remember. Tromboneguy0186 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2006)

I couldn't help but notice that this PPV article was outlining events in a week-by-week format, which is not how it's done in any other Expanded PPV (December to Dismember (2006); SummerSlam (1993); In Your House 1: Premiere etc.). In other PPV's it is done with the three or four main storylines (five if we ever did WrestleManias). It's not done like that in the Cyber Sunday article - and in its current style is seems like the subject is changing constantly from going to talking about the Champions of Champions match to DX to Umaga before going back to the Champions of Champions match. It constantly does that, and for a neutral non-wrestling fan, can make things very confusing, and would probably be brought up if the article became a GA candidate. For ease of flow, should we change the article, so that it talks about one storyline, before going onto another; in this case talk about the Champions of Champions match, before going onto talk about the DX-Rated RKO storyline, like in the above article examples? In my view we should change it as the current version seems quite confusing. Opinions on the current format? Thanks, Davnel03 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed for ease of reading and consistency. Nikki311 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the PPV articles are consistent in their format, there is no problem with either. I prefer the former format, so I agree that this should be changed. Gavyn Sykes 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed. The prose seems quite bad for the background section, and will need a lot of work on. Davnel03 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles

The proposed deletion has run its course for Teenage Wrestling Federation. Can someone explain what happens next? Can the article be deleted by just anyone? I also noticed that another god-awful wrestling article, Dans D Generation X, has a proposed deletion that will be over in a couple of hours. Is there someone who makes sure that these are deleted? I'd just like to get rid of them as soon as possible so that nobody will assume that this project is connected to the articles. GaryColemanFan 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators have the power to delete articles. There is a group of admins who routinely check the expired prods, so it should be deleted fairly quickly. Nikki311 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring (1994)

I began work on this article today. I've written part of the background section (the results of the qualifying matches). Is this the format I should be using? I think it's important to list the results of the qualifying matches and give some detail about the significant ones, but I'm not fond of the two-sentence paragraphs. Does anyone have an idea on this? GaryColemanFan 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Look good, but two-sentence paragraph I'm afraid are the ultimate no-nos. Davnel03 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Full Blooded Italians

Hey I did some work on the FBI article, I know its not like FA or GA quality but can you give it a rating on the talk page, or comment here about the changes Ive done, or if the sources arent good. Thanx.--TrUcO9311 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, TV.com is not a reliable source because anybody can edit it, so that should be removed from the article. Secondly, you need to use a citation template. Template:Cite web should help you with that. Lastly, references go behind punctuation, as opposed to in front of it, as is the case in the FBI article. Hope that helps. Nikki311 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, removed those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension Split

Ok, I have suggested that the WWE Brand Extension article be split into two articles:WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Lottery. See discussion here.--TrUcO9311 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking the hard way out

I figured since everyone else is working on a PPV I'd give it a shot too, only I'm not picking the popular choice or the good shows - I'm starting with Uncensored 1995 and work on that in my sandbox. MPJ-DK 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Help request for reliable sources

I've been working on a couple of pay-per-view articles lately. Royal Rumble (1994) is pretty much ready to go. I was hoping that some people could look over the references and let me know if any of the sources are likely to be challenged.

The other thing I'm struggling with now is finding a source that says that Roddy Piper donated money from his match at King of the Ring (1994) to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Does anyone know where I can find a source for that? Thank you to anyone who can help (or is willing to try). GaryColemanFan 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Blackman

The article has been unprotected and I've (re-)added his wrestling career to the article. I've also sectioned it up by year and it looks pretty good. --Crash Underride 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What needs to happen next is to add sources...otherwise, it'll just get blanked and protected again. Nikki311 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing that could use a little work is changing the mentions of WWE and World Wrestling Entertainment to WWF and World Wrestling Federation. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what the section header should be called and I don't actually know when the name change took place. GaryColemanFan 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When? From the top of your guys' own talk page (this one) Change all mentions of WWE before May 8, 2002 to "WWF" or "the WWF", including championships and pay-per-views. MPJ-DK 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of WWE before May 5, 2002. Should be changed to WWF. That's when the name change happened. I also went and changed the references to WWE in the Blackman article to WWF. --Crash Underride 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2007)

New article. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW welcome template

As part of the Outreach program that I started, I thought it would be appropriate to create a welcome template for WP:PW. So I created one here. Use it for new users who contribute to any pro wrestling article. The Chronic 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW PPVs

As I started to work on Uncensored I noticed WCW didn't have a PPV template box like WWE has, so I created one - replacing the incomplete one someone had started on in September {{WCWPPV}} So please remember to add that to WCW PPVs if you single them out. I've gone through and added the info box to all WCW PPVs and also created a category for WCW PPVs instead of just listing them as WCW shows, that's inconsistent with how the WWE is set up. Just FYI. MPJ-DK 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First FACOTW in review

In less than a day, a new COTW article will be promoted and the Bobby Eaton article's run as the first ever GA-class COTW article will be over. The article had considerable support, achieving the winning 9 votes in the 14 days it was listed. However, as of this moment, the article has had only 31 edits between 6 editors, considerably low compared to the 98 edits to Hulk Hogan and the 158 edits to WrestleMania III during their COTW period.

This, however, may be due to Hulk Hogan's lengthy article and WrestleMania III's major expansion. Going through the edits made, mostly comprised of copyediting and fixes in the references and links. Something I didn't expect, seeing that it is of GA-class. The lack of edits may be because of the reasons for the voting, with some preferring it for its "stability" and how it receives less vandalism compared to articles of more recent superstars. It is an article that is just harder to contribute to by people that are not "old school" wrestling fans.

In conclusion, the support shown through the voting did not necessarily translate in the actual improvement process. This is a good start to this monthly event and certainly has potential, especially with articles whose topic is more well known by our editors. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

consider this as well, the standard was already higher for Bobby Eaton since it was a GA article compared to the stub/start/B level articles that haven't gone through a GA Review (or two). So this probably didn't have as many obvious things wrong with it as the regular COTW articles. Just a thought. MPJ-DK 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through and did a copyedit this morning. I don't have any information to add, but I fixed a few things. There is one sentence, though, that I don't understand: "After reuniting the team, Eaton and Gulas had one final run with tag team champions, and worked an intense feud with Latham and Ferris." Did they have one last run as champions, or did they have one last run, and work and intense feud, with Latham and Ferris? GaryColemanFan 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did several edits throughout the week, but overall the article was already ready to be FAC. I was only able to avoid a couple of isolated redirects and added a few wikilinks (that's pretty much my specialty, I guess). I agree with MPJ, the quality was far and above our other collaborations to begin with, so not as many edits were needed. Gavyn Sykes 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With our other good articles, I suppose there will be more to work on and make this COTW actually beneficial to the article. It just seems like we got little out of this week. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Serious Question

Does this look like an action figure to you? At one point, someone said yes. Mshake3 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, lol. The picture is clearly Triple H making his entrance at Unforgiven for his match either Umaga or Orton. There is no action figure of Trips with that belt. Gavyn Sykes 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a CGI animation in WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2007. Someone must've had Triple H as their WWE Champion and took this shot of his entrance. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 16:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if it were, it wouldnt have a titantron video playing in the background.--TrUcO9311 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The game has entrance videos. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 17:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This image is from the real No Mercy 2007 pay-per-view. It's not a screenshot. - Deep Shadow 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That. I meant No Mercy when I said Unforgiven. I always mix up PPV names. Gavyn Sykes 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Real photo taken by a real person. Lex, it's not a CGI animation. Davnel03 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW Sin

Well I will begin doing my first PPV article! I am going to start with WCW Sin, anyone can contribute to the article.--TrUcO9311 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to Sin (2001) to conincide (sp?) with other expanded PPV articles (Starrcade (2000), December to Dismember (2006) etc.) Davnel03 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem about the Sin one, having (2001) implies that ther was more than one. There wasn't, so no disambiguation is needed. Since it can't be at just Sin though, wouldn't WCW Sin be the best? TJ Spyke 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all events should have their promotion's name at the beginning; except events that have made themselves even as important as their promotion like Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series and Starcade.

Yet, I understand that events held by multiple promotions at different times like The Great American Bash, December to Dismember, etc. must be left without the promotion's name. (Even though both December to Dismembers were commercially known as ECW December to Dismember) Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance does not determine that. Related discussions in the past: Link 1, Link 2. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous Moolah - RIP.

Rest in Peace Moolah. You will be missed. Link to WWE article. Watch out for IP vandals. RIP. Davnel03 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, so IPs aren't a problem. - Deep Shadow 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

how do you add?

How do you add a reference to the same link, like if two important things are sourced in one link (reference), how would you put those two things to be referenced into the same link?--TrUcO9311 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to make sure the first time the reference appears has a name. Instead of <ref>, you would do <ref name=example>. Then, each additional time you want to use that ref, put <ref name=example/>. TJ Spyke 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx--TrUcO9311 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

Is anyone currently working on this article? This PPV is one of only three I've actually seen myself. I am willing to expand the article as much as possible, though I will need help adding sources later. I've gone ahead and added the main Smackdown feud. I can expand it to include the rest of the feuds within the next couple of days. Gavyn Sykes 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BE BOLD! The Chronic 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm not new here. Anyway, I'll have more content in the article within a few days. The only thing is, I can't recall the exact dates that buildup episodes aired on. But yeah, I'll be bold. Gavyn Sykes 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Check WWE's archive of episodes. That's what I did for Cyber Sunday 2006. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know they kept an archive. Thanks, Lex. Gavyn Sykes —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beth Phoenix

We've already tackled the world of Featured Articles, so why not Features Pictures? This is my first attempt, so we'll see how this goes. Mshake3 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured pictures!? I can't believe nobody has suggested that to you before now. Once the incident with the Triple H picture at New Mercy is over. I think that should be your second attempt. I think a lot of your pictures could pass. Nikki311 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, the featured picture criteria is very closely followed and concepts such as noise, parts being cropped off, angles, lighting etc. can all prevent images from being featured. The Triple H image for example lacks a clear focus, has multiple lighting sources causing shadow conflicts and distractions suchas the laser in the bottom right causing a messy image. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People for the currently featured images. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one has no chance. Mshake3 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And neither does Beth's. Apparently, since she's not doing anything, it's not really notable. However, I've found one I uploaded that's sure to qualify: Benoit's Crippler Crossface. Mshake3 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a problem that you can't see either of their faces? Nikki311 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially if the focus is on the move. Mshake3 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Color Scheme

Ok, per the discussion here, I decided that WP:PW needs a color scheme update. Actually I decided this a long time ago and just didn't do anything about it till now. Professional wrestling is outlandish and colorful and exciting and bigger than life ..and well, the drab grey color scheme we had going didn't exactly match that description. My original plan was to change everything to golden type colors to resemble that of a title belt. This color scheme can be seen here (except for the nav bar b/c it is subst :( ). I gave notice about what I was trying to do in all my edit summaries during the color updates. However, User:Aaru Bui came along and updated the color scheme right behind me a bit which can be seen here (no fair this one gets the nav bar colors for the full effect! :P) While the colors Aaru chose probably more closely resemble title belt gold, which again is what I was originally going for, they still seem a bit dingy and drab in my opinion. While the ones I originally changed them to were more vibrant. I wont be offended if you think my color scheme sucks :P ... but since at least 2 of us have a differing opinion, I'd like to get everyone's preferred choice so at least the majority of people will be happy with it heh. Does anyone have any opinions on this matter? Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok for some reason Aaru just changed it back to how I had it lol. But everyone still feel free to comment on it. You might have to go back in the revisions of the WP:PW page now to see the other color scheme though. Thanks again, --Naha|^(talk) 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do something about the to-do list. It's an eyesore. :) The Chronic 07:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I hid it LOL. But seriously, I don't know how to change the colors on it as its like an automated template or something? I looked at it and didn't know what to do besides put it behind a hide/show bar lol :P --Naha|^(talk) 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You chose the brightest colour there is. It's burning my retina but whatever. I think this color should definitely stay. --Aaru Bui ^DII 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

lol :P --Naha|^(talk) 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I word: Superb. Davnel03 09:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it needed a color scheme, so great job. Speaking of colors, I need some help on something. I have been editing my user page and subpages giving them color schemes, and when I try Brown it doesn't work :( (Some pinkish plum color appears). Can someone tell me how to do brown, cuz its my favorite color. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should have a look at the charts on the Web colors article. There is a chart just for shades of brown. One of them will hopefully suit you. Good luck, --Naha|^(talk) 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, but I think that we should fit Maroon (#800000) in here somewhere. It seems like a good color for pro-wrestling to me, possibly because of RAW's slightly darker-than-red shade of red, as well as TNA's. IDK, it might help to add some contrast to the brightness. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a darker tone of yellow would be better, dark golden would probably fit better, I say this because it just seems to bright now, and that makes it sort of a pain on tired eyes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried messing around with the colors, only to discover I can't figure this table out :P. #D4AF37 is metallic gold, so perhaps it would be more desirable. If someone could try it I would appreciate it. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 04:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Featured Article!

The headline speaks for itself. GimmeBot has not yet updated the templates and stuff, but the nomination has been moved to the FA log page. See this discussion on Raul654's talkpage too. Many, many thanks to those who helped me with the article, Aaru, TJ, GCF, Naha thanks all of you for helping to get the article to featured article level! Thank you! Davnel03 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! This is great! Good job everyone :) --Naha|^(talk) 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad all of your hard work payed off. Our third FA (and hopefully many more to come). :D Gavyn Sykes 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Great job! Here's to hoping more wrestling articles get featured status! FamicomJL 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Me too! I helped with the sources. :) Nikki311 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget who pointed you towards Slam! Either way, good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't get so happy yet. It has not been promoted. The last user to comment is not an admin, and has been told on his talk page that it's not a good idea for him to say "Pass & Support" since it implies he has the power to promote articles and can actually cause other people to not comment since they think the article already passed. I think it will pass, but it hasn't yet and the star on the page is misleading. TJ Spyke 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been promoted, that's why it's in the FA log. Its waiting for GimmeBot to update all the templates and stuff. Quote from top of FA log page: This is a log of featured articles from Wikipedia: Featured article candidates. Discussions about failed nominations are located at archived nominations. - Raul moved that and a handful of others in the early hours. When GimmeBot has sorted it all out, then it will be "officially" an FA. The discussion is ongoing here as there appears to be some confusion. Davnel03 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That is a page of the current active articles being discussed, notice that it's the exact same list as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007. I haven't seen anything from an admin about the page being promoted, and it doesn't take 12 hours for an article that has been promoted to actually show up and as a FA. TJ Spyke 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did some searching and found out that Raul did promote it: [3]. It didn't help that no one provided any proof (and that the one user made others think he had the power to promote by saying "Pass & Support"). TJ Spyke 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PWI rankings/awards and Wrestling Observer awards

Did we agree to remove these from the articles? My understanding was that there was no consensus reached. They're being deleted on quite a few articles, though. I'll agree that they can clutter up articles, and a lot of awards could be written into the article if they're considered noteworthy enough (eg. mention that a feud was named Feud of the Year to highlight how big a feud it was). I think the rankings can really add to articles at times. For example, in the Bobby Eaton article, he made the list of PWI's top 100 tag teams with three different partners. I think that does a lot to show that he is a talented and flexible tag team wrestler. And I think, particularly with wrestlers who aren't considered "big names", that it can help establish notability. For example, the Tony Anthony article was deleted at one point. I think, though, that mentioning that he was ranked #25 in the world in 1994 does help establish notability. Anyhow, can someone explain whether or not a consensus was reached, because it doesn't look like it was to me. Thanks. GaryColemanFan 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I consensus was on its way to being reached, but the discussion was archived before we could finish it. I think we had decided that the PWI 500 rankings and Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards could go, but we hadn't reached an agreement on the rest of the PWI awards. Mostly, the list of all the awards is what the problem was...if an award helps establish notability or was particularly important (ex: Ric Flair's wrestler of the decade award) then it can be incorporated into the text. Nikki311 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus either way. I thought the PWI 500 should be included (but not every year, just their highest ranking and their ranking in the PWI Top 500 of the PWI Years ranking which is how things were done), one or two thought they shouldn't, and everyone else was indifferent. As for the PWI Awards, only one user even mentioned them (and that was after everyone else stopped discussing). There was no consensus at all about removing the PWI Awards, so feel free to put them back in like I did with the Kurt Angle article. The PWI Awards are particulary notable since wrestlers actually get their picture taken with the awards (I can point out a page where Hulk Hogan is shown posing with his "Most Hated Wrestler of the Year" award in 1997. TJ Spyke 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone would like to set up a straw poll in regards to the different options that Nikki mentioned for keeping or trashing certain things but not others, along with the option to keep everything as is ..and any other option not mentioned ..that would be great. I'd do it but several of you know much more about this particular thing than I do. --Naha|^(talk) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from cluttering up the articles, my problem with them is that I haven't really seen anything that convinces me that the PWI or WON honors are important beyond the realm of simple ego boosts for the wrestlers. For instance, Ric Flair's acceptance of the PWI Wrestler of the Decade award might sound like a big deal on the surface. However, an obscure ceremony that took place over 17 years ago that's part of a DVD segment doesn't really convince me. As for the photos, of course PWI is going to feature photographs of wrestlers that've won their awards in their publication. Whenever Ric Flair is mentioned or spoken of, whether it be on wrestling broadcasts or radio interviews or what have you, he'll be referred to as a 16 time World Champion or a multiple World Champion in professional wrestling. I never hear him referred to as PWI Wrestler of The Decade awared winner or a multiple winner for PWI Feud of the Year or so on. Same goes with any WON award. If they're so important, why are they never mentioned in wrestling in and of itself? Why aren't they exploited by the wrestling industry in and of itself for the purpose of pushing their stars. I don't recall any wrestling announcer on any broadcast or for any interview given to John Cena by media outlets outside of the wrestling industry say something to the effect of "Here he is folks, WWE Superstar John Cena. Three time WWE Champion and back to back winner of the Pro Wrestling Illustrated's Most Popular Wrestler of the Year Award." The awards aren't used to promote any of the wrestlers, they're not mentioned as being a part of a storyline or angle. With the exception of the Ric Flair PWI Wrestler of the Decade Award presentation, I can't recall any instance of PWI or WON mentioned on any wrestling broadcast. I'd be willing to accept the possibility that the various PWI and WON honors might've meant something to wrestling at one time and had been considered influential honors, but I certainly don't see it now and haven't seen any indication of it for some time.Odin's Beard 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So something is only mentioned if it's important to the wrestlers or the announcers? isn't this an encylopedia, not a "Popular oppionopedia? How about this one, it's a way to illustrate any claims of popularity (or the opposite), a way to support statements that someone had a great year or what not, it's a way to actually lend some sort of credibility to statements about the individual - I mean you look at the page and see awards for say Tag-team of the year and it really underlines that "yes this was indeed a really good tag team" more so than 1000 words ever could. And they're neutral, no POV problems since they're fully sourceable and not original research. Sure take out the annual 500 ranking, no problem - but when you start removing the "top 500 of the PWI years" or "top 100 teams of the PWI years" you do a disservice to especially articles on older wrestlers since fewer current fans know about them (much less non-wrestling readers). Take the Bobby Eaton article, his awards and "top 100 tag team" rankings help explain just how much of the tag-team scene he used to be. MPJ-DK 05:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with popularity. The claim has been made that the various PWI and WON honors are important industry honors though I've yet to see any solid evidence that the industry in and of itself considers them to be so. The idea of going through picking and choosing which PWI or WON honors should be included and which shouldn't contradicts any claim of importance. That does nothing but reduce them to trivial bits of information that many already percieve them to be. We don't go through picking and choosing which of Hulk Hogan's, Ric Flair's, Triple H's, Verne Gagne's, or Harley Race's world title wins are included and which aren't. So, if its eventually decided to keep them, why should these other honors and accomplishments be any different.Odin's Beard 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination for Wrestlemania III

I think Wrestlemania III is good enough for GA. Anyone oppose? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But, as you mentioned on my talkpage, you need to sort out the issue of pictures and their licensing. Apart from that, I can't see why not. Don't forget, though, the article is currently under Peer review. Davnel03 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Got rid of the pic. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Currently there are two instances of multiple Wikilinks coming right next to each other, making it appear as one link. Reviewers and the MoS frown upon this. The areas in question are the first sentence in the lead paragraph and the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the report. In addition, there is a "citation needed" tag smack dab in the middle of the report section. I caught these two things just by quick skimming. Once they are addressed I will be happy to read the entire article and make further suggestions if they are needed. Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The instances are: Intercontinental Champion Randy Savage and Professional wrestling PPV. I don't deem it necessary to change it, and I can't find solutions anyway. There is no way of making the instance into 1 wiki-link, as there is no article for "professional wrestling pay-per-views", and we can't just leave one of them wikilinked and not the other... Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ones I was referring to were WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view (the very first sentence of the article which has THREE links right next to each other, which makes it look even worse because its the first thing people see, and "WWF Champion Hulk Hogan" in the Report section. I was in no way saying any of it shold be de-linked or combined into one link. The sentences can be re-worded so that the links do not fall next to each other. This is a problem I have already pointed out to you once on the Jerry Lawlwer pper review page where you also dismissed my concerns. Again, please see Overlinking and Underlinking at The Manual of Style which asks editors to refrain from using two links [that] are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the Overlinking and Underlinking section of The Manual of Style states that An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true... Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links. However, because the article is clearly not overlinked, and because it does not say in any section of the Manual of Style that 2 links next to eachother, outside an overlinked article, is against the Manual, then the concern you are bringing up has no foundation. If you can show me a section in the Manual of Style where it states that a non-overlinked article must not have 2 links or more together, than I can find a way to get rid of them. If not, Peace, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 03:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread the MoS. It is saying that an article is considered to be overlinked when there are two links that appear as one. - Deep Shadow 04:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It clearly states An article may be overlinked if...; which means it can or can't be. And in this case, it is a can't. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 04:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies where you are misreading. It is not saying "may" as in it is giving permission under certain circumstances. It is saying "may" as in "an article may be considered overlinked…" - Deep Shadow 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the current way sounds fine. If we had to though, what about "pay-per-view event produced by professional wrestling company..."? Says the same thing without having two links right next to each other. TJ Spyke 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex, you are completely misreading the MoS as has been pointed out to you. TJ, yes it "sounds" fine but it doesn't "look" fine as there are clear MoS errors. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of our Featured Articles, December to Dismember (2006), has the same instance in it's lead; and an instance where it says ECW representative Paul Heyman Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone missed it when they reviewed this article doesn't mean it should not be fixed in both articles. We try to make the articles as good as possible, taking all suggestions under consideration. --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How does these close wikilinks make the article not "as good as possible"?Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it goes agains the MoS which the majority of Wikipedians go by. I don't understand why you appear to be continually trying as hard as possible to get around every issue/problem I suggest to you about articles, using clearly flawed logic in your "reasoning" for not fixing them. If you take the time to ask for people to look at articles you have worked on to see if improvements can be made, and then not follow through, you are wasting not only your time but the time of other valuable edtiors who are trying to help you. If you happen to only be asking for help because you feel you need to give WP:PW "lip service" before you flood GAN with submissions, then by all means please stop asking if you plan on continuing to ignore our suggestions, because that completely goes against the spirit of the the pre-GA nom system we have been using and the spirit of our Wikiproject. If I have somehow misread this entire situation and you actually really don't understand why I am making the suggestions that I have, then I suggest you find a mentor at Wikipedia who can coach on all the nuances of Wikipedia because I feel it may be of great benefit to you. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until some of the other GA noms are done? We don't want it to seem like we're overwhelming the reviewers. - DrWarpMind 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes we should wait. We just had that whole conversation a couple months ago. Too many noms too fast. There is no reason to hurry and waiting gives more people the chance to look over the articles for errors and make suggestions. --Naha|^(talk) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really much of a problem, as there are currently A LOT of articles on the GAN page, and 1 more article won't hurt them. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex, I'm sorry but I'm beginning to wonder why you ask for help and suggestions when you routinely dismiss the ones people take time to give you? Overnominating IS a concern. If it already has "a lot" then we definitely don't need to be adding more right now. --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By us not nominating 1 article, this doesn't change the fact that the other WikiProjects (which are also A LOT), will stop nominating articles also. The more articles nominated. the better because it shows how hard we work to turn many of our articles into Good Articles. But with thoughts like "there's a lot of articles already, let's not nominate another", we are dismissing the chance for other articles to become good articles; and ignoring the fact that the other projects understand what I'm saying and won't stop nominating their articles. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about other WikiProjects, this is about us not getting GAs passed because they get overwhelmed with all of our submissions. We feel it has happened in the past, which is why we have tried to cut back on how many articles WP:PW has at GAN at one time. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikedk9109 returns to the project

Former WP:PW member Mikedk9109 has been unblocked after an 8-month absence. [4] We welcome him back to Wikipedia and wish him the best of luck. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't upload copyrighted images and claim they are his (that was why he was blocked, right?), then he is welcome to come back. TJ Spyke 02:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why; I'll keep tabs on any uploads he may make. I do hope he avoids making any uploads at all, however. Anyway, I'm very pleased to see that the unblock request was successful :) The Hybrid T/C 04:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To all the veteran members of WP:PW, who most likely know what I did, and all the new members who I have yet to meet, here is a personal apology. I say thanks for the welcome back, bulletproof, and I appreciate the second chance. Cheers, --—mikedk9109 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Article importance

I have just realized how few High-importance articles there are in this project. Another thing I have realized is that of our 3 Featured Articles, none are of high-importance (even though I think CM Punk should be a High-Importance article).

• Yet of our GAs, 4 are High-importance:
  • Triple H
  • Kurt Angle
  • Shawn Michaels
  • John Cena

I think we should concentrate on making these 4 articles into FAs, so we can have high-importance featured articles. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to know why Bobby Eaton is of low-importance. His background and history surely should dub him high-importance or at least mid. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I also need to note that importance is pretty subjective, and it really changes whenever someone feels like changing it. I've thought for awhile that most of our articles could use an importance upgrade. In fact, I was the one who upgraded Angle, Cena, Michaels, and Triple H to high importance from mid importance (at least I think I was....I upgraded at least most of them...it was awhile ago). Nikki311 04:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that whoever rated Eaton may have done done so since he was primarily a tag team wrestler and hasn't been in the spotlight since the '80s. TJ Spyke 04:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With Eaton I think the Midnight Express should be rated High and Eaton/Lane/Condrey/Cornette as mid, when it comes to tag team wrestling they did help write the book after all. If no one complains I'm changing those ratings later today. MPJ-DK 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce likely to be banned

Per this, it looks like Burntsauce will be banned as a meatpuppet of JB196. While BS had been leaving wrestling articles alone as of late, this ban will probably result in sockpuppet accounts being used by him. This will likely result in his return to our neck of the woods. Everyone should be on the lookout for their signature page blanks/article slashings, and incivility. File CheckUsers to establish whether the account is a sockpuppet of one member of the pair, as WP:SSP will probably be useless in dealing with them. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 06:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He's quit! :) Davnel03 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't trust him... The Hybrid T/C 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid is right, he's not to be trusted. He has assumed bad faith overall been a dick to this entire project (not a personal attack, it's a fact). I'll keep on the lookout, my friend. Gavyn Sykes 16:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol! He is a dick. Fact. 5 people are for him being banned, 6 is a majority. He'll get banned. Prediction. If anyone wishes to contact this dick outside of Wikipedia, Mr. Google is here to help. Well, does the ban go on every Wiki? He has a profile on WikiQuote. Who gives a........ I'll leave it there! Davnel03 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Unnecessary. Over-reaction on my part, apologises. Davnel03 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the strike-through comment, actually 5 is a majority, so he's gone, on that account anyway. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this drama for the last couple of days. All the reports and things are very interesting reads. In any event, I'll be on the lookout for socks. Nikki311 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have two white socks on my feet but you can't have them! --Naha|^(talk) 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting help

I was wondering if anyone with knowledge of formatting could look at the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship article. Is there a way to move the table of contents box up to get rid of some of that blank space? Thanks. GaryColemanFan 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You could remove the {{-}} at the end of the lead, but that would cause the infobox to overlap the table. Sorry, I guess that wasn't much help. Nikki311 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured out a better way. Take a look and tell me what you think. Nikki311 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance: Night of Champions

New article currently undercontruction. Davnel03 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin is a Featured Article!

Four articles so far! Gavyn Sykes 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Two articles added in two days! Wwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooo! Anyone wishing to take bets on the fifth??!! Davnel03 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

$10 on Bobby Eaton, lol. Gavyn Sykes 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Superb job everyone! --Naha|^(talk) 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please look at this. We're gonna have to be on the watchout for new IP's creating wrestling pages. I believe this will be enabled in the middle of this month according to a thread at AN. Davnel03 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if someone in the project could become an admin. I'd nominate The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if he'd agree. Gavyn Sykes 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's been asked a few times, but he has either not passed, or he doesn't want to be an admin. I wouldn't mind being an admin, but I think some editors (not necessarily part of this project) would probably not trust me with admin tools. Davnel03 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it, but there is so much I still do not know regarding wiki policies. Also, I've been rather outspoken on different issues at various times and it seems like people go out of their way to oppose RFAs by digging up every little thing that a nom has ever said and anything even remotely negative is blown way out of proportion. Granted, its been months since I've perrused the RFA pages but it seems like seemingly nice, well educated (as far as wiki rules are concerned), valuable contributors get a stack of oppose votes over very minor issues and the extra value they could have added to Wikipedia is lost because admins should be perfect.

If I thought the several times I've called people out on BS they have spewed would be looked at objectively, I'd brush up on my wiki knowledgde and give it a shot because I know we could use an admin (or 2 or 10) around here, and Wikipedia as a whole can always use more good admins. I have a feeling even some folks even within this project, however, are probably not completely enthused with ways I have handeled past issues, but are too polite to say so or just don't want to get into it lol. I don't blame them for those opinions though, I am well aware that I can be quite rough around the edges at times, to put it lightly. If I knew I had the support of this project, or at least the majority, I'd really consider it. I'm sorry ..I really hate fishing like this. --Naha|^(talk) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

About a month ago, an admin approached me and asked me if I had ever considered being an admin myself. I agreed and after some correspondence, I told him that I wanted to wait a month so that my schedule would settle down and I could do some research on admin work. The month is going to be up fairly soon, so as soon as I let him know I'm ready, I'm going to go through the RfA process. Nikki311 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was so hoping you would be up for this. I've had you at the forefront of my mind for awhile now regarding adminship. This is good, very good indeed. --Naha|^(talk) 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is great. I think both of you (Naha and Nikki) would make fine admins. Gavyn Sykes 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shad Gaspard

I just need an extra set of eyes or two on the Shad Gaspard article. Gaspard himself has decided to include as much detail about himself as he possibly can, breaking links and disrupting cites as he goes.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure its him? Has the IP said "I'm Shad?" Davnel03 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is indeed Shad, he would be in violation of WP:COI as it is... Bmg916^Speak 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User has just vandalised [5]. Davnel03 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned by Yamla. Davnel03 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Davnel. This is getting ridiculous (that happens far too often around here, does it not)? Gavyn Sykes 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The user didn't listen to Yamla, went ahead and did it again. He's got the consequences - an indef block. Davnel03 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And it was Shad. Davnel03 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired old issue brought up again

Others are sick of this, I am sick of this. Maestro has decided to once again go and remove the dash from the "Fatal Four-Way" at WWE No Mercy. This is at least the third time we've been through this in the last few months, and he put it back in even after I told him that the consenus (not much since not that many people commented) was to just use whatever the article used. The article originally used the dash. Any suggestions on how to end this? I am personally sick of dealing with him on this issue since it will be dealt with and then he will start it up again a few months later. TJ Spyke 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what standard you all are using for the placement or removal of the dash, but Fatal Four-Way is the grammatically correct form. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to intervine once early last month regarding this issue and all the effort received was criticisim of the debate as opposed to insightful reasoning in order to figure out which way is correct. At that time I said I didn't care either way, but in an effort to strive for grammatical correctness and the use of the same spelling of terms project-wide, I would have to go with Fatal Four-Way. --Naha|^(talk) 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should set up a vote on No Mercy's talk page, then once consensus is reached, you can point to that for reverting any edits that go against it. Nikki311 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's acceptable, but having to invoke consensus simply to use correct grammar seems like a waste of everyone's time. The Manual of Style says to use standard English grammar in articles regardless of what the company uses. If the WWE says it without a dash, then that doesn't matter. It should have a dash in it, The Hybrid T/C 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyrid, that is what I have been saying. Using the dash is grammatically correct. His argument is that WWE doesn't use the dash. I have shown him proof that WWE is not consistant in that sometimes they use the dash and sometimes they don't. The dash is also used in every other PPV article with a fatal four-way match. TJ Spyke 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, screw him. The Hybrid T/C 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it waste more time than arguing over it, letting go, only for it to be brought up again months later? At least if we reach a consensus, it'll be over and we can move on with our lives. Nikki311 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that we can start up a discussion, but just because I like you ;). The Hybrid T/C 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". Leave in the dash per policy (WP:MOS) and correct grammar. We can use WWE for a source of information, but as a source of freaking grammar? Give me a break. No wonder this project is still looked down upon and as a joke, even after all the hard work we've done in the past 4 or 5 months, because of stupid shit like this. Bmg916^Speak 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

She was just trying to help, but then again I've been harsher than that for smaller things than this in the past, so I guess I'm no person to reprimand you. The Hybrid T/C 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I've set up the debate at the bottom of Talk:WWE No Mercy. Nikki311 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments weren't directed at anyone specifically, let alone Nikki, she is one of the finest editors of this project, and if I ever, and The Rock means EVER get incivil with her, I'll be the first to report myself to AN/I. My comments were merely venting frustration about how ridiculous this has gotten, that we are even bothering with this. Bmg916^Speak 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

{{[[Template:Infobox championship]]}}

I need help changing the background color on the collaspable box from white to #FFFFCC.--Sweetsweetdaddy 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)