Jump to content

Talk:WrestleMania 25/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. While the opposes greatly outnumber the supports, I am pressed to find any oppose that either cites an applicable policy or any evidence. JPG-GR (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXV → 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania — Despite the fact it's technically not correct, if this is how the show is officially promoted 99% of the time over the last three or four months, then this is what is should be called here. Now yes, last year the show was promoted as WrestleMania XXV, and some of the early merchandise was reflected as such. But with very few mentions since then, it is clearly the former name, and should be mentioned as so. — Mshake3 (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Strongly Oppose: I don't care what the WWE calls it, it is NOT the 25th Anniversary. It is Wrestlemania XXV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.198.104 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • SupportNeutral -- Looking at the official website, they strongly use the proposed name. Like Mshake stated, the previous names were used about a year ago, a year later they are scarcely used by WWE, versus 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania as they call it about 90% of the time. For those who may think it is proper to call it The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, WWE does not capitalize the when referring it as such. But seeing how there is a dispute over the names, I guess its best to go by the chronological name.--Truco 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Really? Show me where its used.--Truco 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Really, you don't need to contest every !vote against your decision.  iMatthew :  Chat  00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Truco's right, it's never used. It's the main reason to make the move. Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The superstars still make mention of it. That's why I think it should remain the same.--SuperSilver901 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Undertaker mentioned it once. But everybody, I mean, everybody is saying "the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania". Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Not true pretty much all of the superstars say that and say the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. It won't kill you to keep it the same and have mention of the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. --SuperSilver901 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get people to vote with me, I'm trying to see how it is "common" when WWE only uses it rarely.Truco 00:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Just watch the TV shows the last few weeks. They almost never say the words "WrestleMania 25" in that order. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose For continuity's sake I strongly oppose this move. Also, If you look at WWE.com it actually mostly refers to it as Wrestlemania XXV: the navigation bar, breadcrumbs, page title, upcoming pay-per-views section... I actually can't see how people think that "25th Anniversary of Wrestlemania" is mentioned nor used more often than WM XXV -dannerz (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there are multiple names being used towards the event you should be truthful to accuracy, this event is not the 25th anniversary, this event has also been promoted as WrestleMania 25, The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania, and WrestleMania: 25th anniversary, with too many names, common name is out the window. So you name it exactly what it is, the 25th WrestleMania.--WillC 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's clear which way common demand is leaning. Continuity is because someone's who's never heard of it 20 years down the road will never think of looking it up as the 25th anniversary. In fact, it'll create confusion. They'll think it must be Wrestlemania 24. 3pointswish (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support As horrible as a name as it is, that's what it was called. Shouldn't continuity be with the event itself, not other events? Why is 2000 not XVI? Why is X-Seven not XVII and so forth? It's official name, sadly, is The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania and I can't remember hearing anyone on screen refer to it as anything else on the build up. Tony2Times (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to turn your vote or anything, just going to expalin a few things. First JBL and The Undertaker both referred to it as WrestleMania 25 on tv. Early reports on WrestleMania stated WrestleMania XXV, plus the giant star during Raw, ECW, SD, RR, and NWO all had 25th anniversary under WrestleMania, making another name. Naming it The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania is against common name now that the event has no common name with three present. Going by old event names and being correct with what it is, it should stay as WrestleMania 25 or XXV, seeing as it has no common name. As for WrestleMania 2000, we don't have the same problem. As far as I know, WrestleMania 2000 was always promoted as WrestleMania 2000. The same for WrestleMania X-seven.--WillC 05:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • WrestleMania XXV is the former name. It has not been used regularly in months. WrestleMania: 25 Anniversary was never an official name. You just assumed it was by decyphering a logo, but it has never been refered to as such in speak or printed lines of text. When considering Objective Criteria, "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" passes #2, and has a much stronger case for #1 and #3 as opposed to XXV. Mshake3 (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Early reports on WrestleMania X-Seven called it 2001 including the promotional advert during Mania 2000. Also no-one actually spoke the words X-Seven but the logo and the written text is enough proof. People actually said the words 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, ad nauseam, as well as it being on the logo and written in text. Also if you're going by the height of what comes first on the logo as an alterior name, which is incredibly facetious, then WrestleMania 13 was alternatively called 13 WrestleMania. Which it wasn't. Tony2Times (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly OpposeHere we go again...--UnquestionableTruth-- 06:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The name of the event is "WrestleMania XXV." It can be noted in the body of the article that this was often promoted as "the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania," but officially, most people years from now will look this up using the search term "WrestleMania XXV" (or WrestleMania 25, if you use Arabic numbers). The thing one needs to remember is, by what name will this be referred to in the future? How will most people look this article up? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)]]
  • Oppose - The amount of redirect fixing alone is going to be ridiculously time-consuming and, frankly, pointless. The name "WrestleMania 25" was used several times last night, by commentators and wrestlers alike. I completely understand the reasons why people are advocating for the move; I just don't feel that it's worth all the effort to shift everything over to the new page.--ECWAGuru (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Streongly Oppose - Per Naming conventions, the first point says Use the most easily recognized name. WrestleMania is the most recognized Wrestling event that World Wrestling Entertainment hosts. While "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles", I would argue that "If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain."

The most important guideline is Naming Conv (Events). "If there is an established, universally agreed-upon common name for an event, use that name." Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

    • No good reason? How about, it's not the correct name. And the guideline you specified refers to controveral events, not entertainment events. Mshake3 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Streongly Oppose okay there is good arguments to renmane it but i think that naming it the 25th anniversary of wrestlemania is crazy first off bad on wwe even to give it this nickname as its not the 25th anniversary its actually only the 24 so renaming an event thats totally not true seems incorrecton so many levels plus even the poster pic says wrestlemania 25th anniversary it does not have the 25th anniversary first then wrestlemania it says wrestlemania 25 (and as an add on) th anniversary its a nickname or a moniker it doesent eclips the real name also its more of a description on my ppv provider the event was called wrestlemania 25 the description of the event is celbretaing the 25th anniversary of wrestlemania also courtesey of the net i have seen a pic of a real event ticket from reliant stadium and it says on ticket wrestlemania 25 (not the 25th anniversary of wrestlemania) and even in another extent i personally whent to movie theater to watch the event (to clear things cause some one will comment on this with ppv i did not order it but u can switch to the channel where it says whats aon and what u can order and u can hit info button to get more info) so my ticket to theaters said wrestlemania 25 also in the future i can see the dvd saying wrestlemania 25 and from now on for next 10 years or whatever i can see WWE refering to the event as wrestlemania 25 cause anniversary was used purely as promotional use finally wrestlemania 25 is the events name periods the 25th anniversary is a nickname moniker description promotional use name only thanks for reading (and probaly disagreeing ;)

If it's just a nickname then can you tell me if when the official broadcast began, did they call it WrestleMania XXV? Did they say "Welcome to WrestleMania ex ex vee" or even "twenty five", no because that's not the official name of it. Also as I already pointed out, the poster saying WrestleMania then 25th Anniversary is just you reading it in a different order, cf WrestleMania 13's poster. Tony2Times (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

who cares just call it what it is its wrestlemania 25 the people who search for this page will find it that way just leave it alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceking73 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Current

When should we add the current event template? When the first match starts? Or when the PPV broadcast starts? Brady4mvp (Talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

At 7pm Eastern Time, when the broadcast begins.--Truco 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing

We'll list the lumberjacks and battle royal particpants, right? Brady4mvp (Talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Missed One Song

A song was played right at the display of credits (closing video) Artist: "Touched" and the Song: "Vast", if you could edit this within Theme Tunes would be most appreciated, thanks, YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBqSEt8fssk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.247.196 (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There were only 3 theme songs. Maybe a brief mention in the production section (they would need to be sourced of coarse). TJ Spyke 03:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions of finishing moves

For the sake of brevity, as well as just for the sake of making the article sound better, the descriptions of the finishing moves should be taken out. Obviously, those familiar enough with wrestling do not need a description, and the finishing moves could always be linked to their specific entry on the page of professional wrestling holds, as is done on so many other articles. John815 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Jargon. Non-wrestling fans do not know what a 619 is. This is an encyclopedia, it doesn't show bias for any certain group, so sorry dude/girl it can't be removed. It can be re-worded but the explanation has to stay.--WillC 05:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think a wikilink is sufficient. We don't need to describe the character's finishing move on every page dealing with every PPV. That would be redundant. the purpose of a wikilink is to link the reader to the article on a topic that they might not understand. Firestorm Talk 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't rely on links though. If you were reading an article on Rocket Science but you didn't understand. The terms that you don't understand could have links, so now you go reading that article. Turn out it has terms you don't understand. So you click there and the samething happens. This continues until you forget where you began and didn't get anywhere. Which would you rather have, the explanation in the beginning or a wild hunt on trying to figure stuff out? The explanations help. They save you time and can have a simple read without having to click on every single term. If we were to not explain anything that is common knowledge to a wrestling fan, then when a non-fan comes along wanting to learn about it, he won't understand anything. What is a heel?, what is a face?, what is a diva?, what is a knockout?, what is a pure championship?, what is a x division?, what is a cruiserweight division?, what is a Hell in a Cell?, what is Lethal Lockdown?, what is a Steel cage Warfare match?, etc. Giving links will discourage and just him a headache.--WillC 06:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
As cliché as it sounds, Wrestling is not exactly rocket science. Describing the motions involved in the finishing moves of each wrestler each time it is mentioned gets redundant, takes up space, and is exactly what wikilinks were designed for. If they want to know what Hell in a Cell is, they can click on the wikilink and read in that article's lede "Hell in a Cell is a type of professional wrestling match where...." Having the descriptions there now looks extremely ugly and bloats the match summaries. However, I won't revert it until a consensus is reached. As such, I would appreciate if any other editors would chime in with their opinions. Firestorm Talk 07:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny thing is -- if you go to the Rocket science page, there is not a single description for anything listed. I don't have an earthly clue what Orbital mechanics is. Fortunately, I can click the Wiki page and find out. So with all due respect, I don't think your argument holds water.--ECWAGuru (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The entire purpose of linking to WP articles within one another is to avoid having to go into unneccesary side descriptions. It's completely redundant. It'd be like having to describe what a car is when talking about a Nascar race...or having to write out just what exactly a homerun is when talking about Hank Aaron. -- TRTX T / C 14:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
But it isn't explained each time it happens. This has been discussed before and a consensus has been reached. This format has gotten a few FAs and multiple GAs, FLs, etc. The link is still there but giving a simple explanation helps. "On the April 6 episode of one of WWE's primary television programs, Raw, Randy Orton challenged Triple H to a Hell in a Cell match at the Backlash pay-per-view event for the WWE Championship, which he accepted. The Hell in a Cell is a match type that involves the ring being surrounded by a giant steel structure, in which there is no disqualification and the match can only be won by pinfall or submission". Compared to having a jargon sentence, this works better. To a non-fan, they now know Raw is a tv show, Backlash is PPV, and get the point to what a Hell in a Cell is. Without all that, they now have to check the Raw link, the Backlash link, the Hell in a Cell link. They get off focus. You want a reader to not ask "what is that?".--WillC 08:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It still gets long and annoying, and it drags the article. Thats what wikilinks are there for. If we have to describe each move, than why even have wikilinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.130.13 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider myself at all to be a regular wrestling fan, and I can't say that I do know every wrestler's finisher, but I also know that when reading an article on Wrestlemania 25, there is no need to have more about the specifics of a wrestler's finisher move than the entire match itself. Can't we all agree that "Triple H defeated Orton after placing Orton's head between his legs, grabbing both of Orton's arms and tucking them behind Orton's back, and falling to his knees to complete a move named the Pedigree to retain the WWE Championship." is much more drawn out and less articulate than say the last line from No Way Out 2008 which is simply: "Finally, Triple H delivered a Pedigree to Hardy onto the steel chair and pinned him to win the match, earning a WWE Championship match at WrestleMania." I can't imagine that anyone who reads the article, fan or non-fan, will be benefiting immensely from the inclusion of the descriptions, especially when those descriptions are proceeded or succeeded by essentially a repeated phrase. John815 (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

At least the extended descriptions of the matches are not included, which really helps with clarity. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)]]
They will be added soon. But I happen to agree with you all, this format sucks.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is no need to describe a wrestler's finisher, the signature move often used to defeat an opponent, if there is a wikipedia article, a stand-alone section of a larger written work, that can be linked to if the user cares to read on. -- TRTX T / C 14:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My count has seven opposed to the descriptions and one in support of them. That seems like enough of a preliminary consensus for me to be just a little bit BOLD and remove them. Scratch that, they have already been removed by someone else. Firestorm Talk 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The descriptions can be pushed down a bit, but they are still needed. To pass all the polocies. This format took effect months ago, can we all move on and quit living in the pasted.--WillC 22:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
They are not NEEDED at all, they are wanted by a handful of editors. The long descriptions are ugly, not needed, and less helpful than just linking to the moves article. I know many others feel the same way. I support removing them. TJ Spyke 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, the ones who complain, do not expand them. Probably don't even read them. At the moment, I'm the only one doing that.--WillC 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that we're complaining about them means we are reading them...only we're not liking them. And we're starting with this whole "all you complainers" mentality again. Yet again, the "complainers" are giving valid reasons why we do not agree. It's not a matter of "living in the pasted". When these ridiculously long descriptions are written, it completely drags down the readability and quality of the article. Yes, we are here to inform. But take it from someone with a Journalism degree -- if you beat your reader over the head with gratuitously long prose, you will lose them. And if you are losing readers, why put the effort in to begin with?--ECWAGuru (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If you were reading it you would notice that I re-wrote the description for the Pedigree. It is no longer as in-depth as it once was. Plus valid reasons? All I hear is it is unneeded but no explanation as to why. Just the samething said since July 08.--WillC 23:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"Redundant"
"the purpose of a wikilink is to link the reader to the article on a topic that they might not understand."
"looks extremely ugly and bloats the match summaries"
"The entire purpose of linking to WP articles within one another is to avoid having to go into unneccesary side descriptions."
"drags the article"
"I can't imagine that anyone who reads the article, fan or non-fan, will be benefiting immensely from the inclusion of the descriptions, especially when those descriptions are proceeded or succeeded by essentially a repeated phrase"
"it completely drags down the readability and quality of the article."
"if you beat your reader over the head with gratuitously long prose, you will lose them."
All explanations as to "why."--ECWAGuru (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How is it redundant? The purpose of a wikilink is to direct them to similar articles and more information, not to rely on it as a simple fix of laziness. Look has nothing to do with it. That is just a bad excuse. When it is simple and to the point it helps. It is actually being discussed at WT:PW at this very moment. Like I said there, the wikilink to some descriptions are not understandable by everyone, including some wrestling fans. So why link to something they still will not understand? Plus linking is not used to avoid discriptions. Only to you and a few others who want wrestling to be real (not saying that is what you want but some do) is it unnecessary. Explain how it drags down the article. Seeing as I've got no complaints during GA, FL, or FA reviews I see that it is rather taken as good work from outside sources. Plus nothing is ever repeated. It is explained once and that is it. If I were to explain the Styles Clash in the background of an article, I do not explain it in the event or aftermath sections. I feel it helps quality and readability seeing as it has gotten the project multiple higher class articles, including five FAs. A long prose is not with-in the article. Some things are harder to make smaller explanations but this is the early stage of expansion. Somethings like a Swanton are explained by just saying "performed a front-flip onto his opponent". That avoids the link to Swanton completely and the reader can continue to read, though the link is still given under front-flip.--WillC 00:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here's your first tip: if you don't intend to lump me in with the category of "people who want to pretend this is real", then there is the magical little thing called the "Delete" key that will prevent you from doing so. Covering it up by saying, "Not saying that is what you want" doesn't change the fact that you absolutely misrepresented my intentions. Do you want to know why I don't want to pretend it's real? Believe it or not, I was inthe business for over six years on the independent circuit. I worked with several of the guys that you see in WWE and TNA today. Does that make any more special or qualified than anyone else here? No. But bottom line -- considering I know the intricacies of professional wrestling first-hand, your condescending remark really does not fly with me.
As I already mentioned, my second "qualification" (if you want to call it that) is that I am an Editor for a living. My job is to look at articles and find typos, mistakes, and yes...to clean them up when things are too wordy or convoluted. (And trust me -- I am fully aware that I am currently writing in a much more casual style than I would in an official article) When I look at some of the PW articles, I absolutely cringe. And before you even try to imply that I should do something about it, take a look at all the grammatical fixes I have made, particularly to this very article. Part of my frustration is that they are too wordy. I have to cut down sentences that approach 20-25 words in length. No sentence ever needs to be that long. This is my primary point about the whole finisher issue. I respect the fact that you have cut the descriptors down in length, but the fact remains that it is still incredibly hard on the eyes to read. I don't know who wrote this one, but "JBL performed a running kick to Mysterio in the opening seconds before Mysterio was able to position JBL on the middle rope, run to other-side of the ring and come back, spin through the middle and top rope to kick JBL in the face, a move Mysterio calls the 619." is insanely long and difficult to read. There are 10 prepositions in one sentence; forget about "out-of-universe" -- it's a grammatical nightmare. Again, as Firestorm has said, we totally respect your arguments. I see the validity to what you and others are saying. But it's preposterous to accuse us evil dissenters of not giving valid reasons for our arguments. And it's even more preposterous to stand on a soapbox and say, "This is the way it is. Deal with it." You can't have it both ways. --ECWAGuru (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what this format has gotten you in the past, the overwhelming consensus on this page (eight to one by my count) is that the descriptions are not needed and hinder the page. Please be aware that consensus can change and if the current consensus here is that the format is not useful, then that's what the consensus is. We understand your arguments, and those who have come here thus far to discuss the issue feel that a wikilink is the best way to go. Also, consider that there are many different types of articles that get promoted to GA and FA status. Just because the format was good for a few of them does not mean it applies to all articles on similar topics. Firestorm Talk 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well on WT:PW it is 2 to 1. With the out of universe format going over. Also consensus isn't the final word. If a user wants to follow the rules of WP:Jargon, WP:IN-U, etc he can.--WillC 00:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a note at that page stating that the discussion is already taking place here. There is no consensus there, and there is one here. Firestorm Talk 00:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Four people agreeing is not a consensus, and a consensus cannot be formed in one day. The consensus will be formed at WT:PW, because it is the general place to discuss guideline changes that affect all articles, not just WrestleMania XXV (this article).Truco 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no consensus here, just a bunch of complaining. No ways of changing the format. Just lets get rid of it all and have a fan's perspective format. Everyone in this discussion don't even expand the articles or even read them. They come on here to complain. As far as I see, that doesn't change a format. A real discussion does. Just saying, hey i don't like it. Well I don't like it that WWE gets more attention than TNA and ROH stuff on here. Do we delete all the WWE stuff as a result?--WillC 00:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I do see a consensus (to just list the move names). I see a way of changing it (linking to the article on the moves, which is something even articles like rocket science do). Something like rocket science it a hell of a lot more complicated than wrestling, but you don't see them explaining every single little term. The whole purpose of the linking system is so you don't need to explain everything, if somebody wants to know what a Pedigree is they can click on the link. As for people expanding the articles, please point out the Wikipedia policy that says a user has to even be involved in articles in order for them to be allowed to form a consensus on something? I don't edit music articles, so should I be banned from giving my opinion on stuff concerning guidelines for music articles? TJ Spyke 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
TJ, you're right. Consensus can be made anywhere, so I've reverting Truco's closure. I don't know where you got the idea that consensus can only be made at a certain page? I also do see a consensus here, though Truco is right, it's not final. It shouldn't be made final in one day. However, TJ's comment about the point of a linking system is more than accurate. If we were support to explain everything, we wouldn't have links available.  iMatthew :  Chat  00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of building a clear consensus, can we direct this discussion to WT:PW. Two discussions does not help. We can still take consideration everyone's comments here, a more general area available to users should be used instead like the talk page of the criteria (but seeing how it has been started at WT:PW) its best to discuss it there (Template:Guideline).Truco 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If anything, direct it here. The main topic is obviously this article, so it makes the most sense.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I feel it should stay at the project page, a better discussion is going on there and more users watchlist that page. Plus I would like a reply on what I stated on how relying on just linking is a bad idea. But I guess I'll never get that one. Also, yeah you're right it isn't just the articles that make us look bad, it is users who pop in every once in a while and complain.--WillC 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The users wouldn't have to pop in once an a while if people like you knew what they were doing. You clearly don't. Oh, and to complain - I'm not doing any complaining. Are you using a definition of "complaining" from that urban dictionary website? Hmm..  iMatthew :  Chat  01:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
iMatthew, while I agree with your position, I think this comment is approaching the borders of WP:CIVIL. Firestorm Talk 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, people did reply, including myself. Just because the explanation is not to your liking, it does not mean that people have not attempted to give their rationale (or, as you call it, complain).--ECWAGuru (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Its okay Will, lets just discuss it here, and he is mainly referring to myself. Anyways, I didn't even know this mas made, but WP:JARGON has its own subpage and directly states that Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it. -- So yeah, defining every term is clutter (like in SummerSlam (2003)), but It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to Wikipedia articles. Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. -- So linking helps, but linking all terms does not satisfy this guideline, basic explanations should be given as well. Now tell me which is more FA quality or an example of Wikipedia's best work? Over the Edge (1999)/The Great American Bash (2005)/Lockdown (2008) or Backlash (2003)?Truco 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Lets just remove Lockdown 08, I hate that article. My wrost work yet, I'm hoping I can re-write it and make it better. The question I'm referring to is this following statement: "The fact I misspelled it didn't help, but seeing as even a wrestling fan does not know what a plancha is, what makes you think a non-fan will even have a clue while reading the linked explanation? We could always explain is like this: Styles then ran and jumped over the top rope to the outside onto Samoa Joe, completing a plancha. As for the CD, Williams then jumped off the top rope landing on Styles headed, quickly jumped over his back and forced Styles' head into the mat to gain the pinfall. Compared to the reader having to click on the link just to get gis explaination: "The move, which is also referred to as a front flip piledriver, begins in a position in which the opponent is bent forward against the wrestler's midsection, the wrestler grabs around his / her opponent's midsection latching onto the opponent's back, with his / her head to one side of the opponent's hips, keeping his / her legs around the opponent's head. From this position the wrestler pushes off the mat with his / her legs to flip the opponent over. As both wrestlers flip the attacking wrestler uses his / her body weight to land in a seated position driving the opponent's head down to the mat between the wrestler's thighs. A double underhook variation exists in which the arms of a bent over opponent are placed in a butterfly prior to performing the flip". That is the explanation at Piledriver (professional wrestling)#Flip piledriver." Someone please give me an answer, which is better explaining the main point with-in the article, which is a rough draft, or giving the link to the clusterf***.--WillC 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"My wrost work yet". Do you grasp the concept of Wikipedia? It is not "your work". It is not "your article". And if a reader (a person who is "consuming" the information on a page) does not know what a specific wrestling move is, then the link (a piece of text isolated in order to provide a means of access to a new web page) is available for them to read a description (a series of words or phrases used to explain a preceding section of text). -- TRTX T / C 16:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
C.) Rewriting the clusterf*** and linking to it.--ECWAGuru (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That isn't the only one that will have to be re-written. Every single one will. To a point that they are explained that even an 8 year old will understand. Plus they will have to be sourced. Which is easier, re-writting all the articles expanded after the OOU format came into existence and re-writing all the explanation articles so they are 8 year old approved or keeping the current format and ending this now and once and for all?--WillC 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't the overall (albeit lofty) goal to improve the quality of ALL PW articles? If a long-term project is to rewrite, source, and (for the lack of a better term) "dumb down" the articles, why is that such a bad thing? If the ultimate intent is to make as many wrestling articles OOU as possible, then let's start doing it. If you simply strive to add move explanations to current articles while overlooking the larger issue, we're really no better off than we were before. It still leaves us with poorly-written articles, one way or another.--ECWAGuru (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's see what we can do about starting fresh here. I think it's important that the articles can be understood by a wide audience, and I think it's important that they're not overly bulky. A compromise solution that fits all Wikipedia policies seems to be the best idea. When describing a Pedigree, it's not necessary to go through the intricacies of how it's set up. The key point is that "Triple H slammed his opponent's head to the ring floor with a Pedigree," "Rey Mysterio performed the 619 to kick his opponent in the face," etc. People get the idea. If they want more information, they click the link. If not, they've at least got enough to continue following the match description. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, that is exactly what I want done. To explain the move just a little, just enough that the reader gets the key points of the move. I'm all for that compromise, hopefully the rest are so we can end this.--WillC 06:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is an incredibly fair compromise. --ECWAGuru (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was trying to state in both conversations. Thank you Gary, it looks like WP has a guardian angel after all. If we can get a consensus on this, I will rewrite the guidelines at WP:PW/PPVG.--Truco 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Anoying, but i'll support it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's stupid to draw out the finishers sentence by saying he completed a pedigree and so on and so forth if you dont watch wrestling and dont know what the moves are click the link. Prolonging the sentences just makes it easier for the lazier people and doesnt improve the article at all.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think, as long as they're well-written, GaryColemanFan has the best compromise out of everything discussed. I'd much rather it be. "Triple H slammed his opponent's head to the ring floor with a Pedigree," than "Triple H put his opponent's head between his legs and then grabbed his arms and slammed his face down into the mat in a move he calls the Pedigree." (this wasn't an actual sentence, but that's just an example to show what my initial concerns were).--ECWAGuru (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree as well, because it is actually pretty hard to explain the move. I've had problems explaining pins/roll ups/etc. This way it is much simpler and both parties get what they want.--WillC 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I would rather a simple wikilink, but I think that this is an acceptable compromise. I support it. Firestorm Talk 21:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I take this as we are done. Discussion is over and we have a consensus?--WillC 21:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry...I don't agree with descriptions. As I said before, you wouldn't expect the following in a baseball article: "And then Barry Bonds used his bat to propel a pitched ball over the fence, called a homerun, to win the game for the San Francisco Giants." No. You'd say: "Barry Bonds hit a homerun to win the game." I'm sorry, but while this is a compromise, it still drags down the quality of the article. You don't see this kind of styling in other sports or entertainment articles. And it's not "jargon" if there are articles available to expand on it. What's the point of having articles for wrestling moves if you're just going to describe them in the referencing articles everywhere? -- TRTX T / C 16:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No, but baseball is far more known. Tell me right now what is a Canadian Destroyer off the top of your head. Or a Styles Clash, how about a Muscle Buster? The link description doesn't explain the move correctly and explained it in a way no one would get it. This way people get the point of the move and can continue to read the article. Otherwise they would have to leave the article and begin to read the description. This way both parties get what they want. No more long explainations and the out of universe stays in to a small point. Lets all just agree on this and end it. Because anyone who knows of baseball knows what a homerun is so you use common sense. While hardly anyone that is not a wrestling fan knows what a Rock Bottom is.--WillC 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Wrestler A hit Wrestler B's head on the mat to perform XYZ move. Its not as bad as it was before, such as in SummerSlam (2003) [which I need to fix :P]--Truco 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
And a matter of a fact, the explanations are considered helpful by ones who do not watch wrestling. Check the Turning Point (2004) GA review, where the reviewer says thank you for the explanations. Then went on to state (not in these exact words) that there should be more explanations in articles on wikipedia. So it only seems that wrestling fans don't like them, when a totally uninvolved party who, as far as I know, doesn't watch wrestling loved the explanations in the articles. So right there it shows you that we are doing our job of being neutral to all parties. Now I believe the descriptions should be cut down to "Triple H slammed Orton's head into the mat to complete a Pedigree" or something along that nature is very understandable and simple for both parties. I don't see the problem anymore. Either one party is trying to be greedy or just doesn't know what to do. This is the best compromise we have at the moment.--WillC 22:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
WillC, explain to me right now the infield fly rule. How about the double switch? Could you tell me what it means to hit for the cycle? How about the difference between the suicide squeeze and the safety squeeze? Stop focusing on what the example is and focus on the reason for the comparison. I could've just as easily used football. What is the horse-collar tackle? The tuck rule? How about "The Play" or the "Music City Miracle"? Heck, why stick with sports. Perhaps you'd like to tell me what a Jasper unit is and why I should check to see if the 360 I'm buying has one. Or perhaps you can tell me what the Cell processor is for. Etc etc etc. Just because wrestling terminology may not be as well known as other terminology doesn't mean we need to ruin articles by going into unneccesary explanations. Heck, if you want to eliminate "in-universe" altogether, why even bother using the name of the move? Why not just say "Triple H struck Orton with the sledgehammer before using a modified facebuster to score the pin."??? Does that not sound much smoother. Then if anybody gives a crap what Triple H specifically calls that move when he uses it, his article's right there. -- TRTX T / C 22:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We must think of all parties, not just wrestling fans. Plus it doesn't matter what another project does. The video game project has character articles, should be make a character article for every wrestler, including when their character is their own personality like A.J. Styles. At one point we didn't use the names but alot of people wanted the names so it was changed to use the move names.--WillC 22:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
WillC, once again you are ignoring the comparisons in favor of arguing the semantics of the items being comaprred. Yes, video games have specific articles for certain key characters. Guess what, so do wrestling articles. The odd thing about wrestling "character" articles however is the odd inconsistency with which they refer to either the wrestler's persona or his given name. For example: Paul Levesque's article is actually Triple H, where as Glenn Jacobs is the name of the article which also describes his "Kane" persona. -- TRTX T / C 04:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Because I don't know what they are just like you didn't explain what a Styles Clash, CD, etc are. It is obvious these help considering outside parties find them useful. Remember this is an encyclopedia. We must cater to no group. Make sure they are understandable by everyone, not a select few. I have heard no argument against the format other than it clutters, when it doesn't. It gives the key points. Otherwise someone wouldn't understand what is going on. There are clearly polocies dedicated to these types of things saying the explanations are needed. It doesn't matter what another article from another project says, that belongs to a different group. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the cutting down on terms that was agreed on. A simple compromise is better to end this debate that has been going on since July. The whole tucking arms behind back etc is gone. It is now forced his head into the mat. No more play-by-play just a straight forward answer. That way the article is clear and no detours. Both parties are happy. But I guess that is not enough. As for the Triple H and kane thing, you lost me where you are going. If you are referring to the names, it is because of common name. Trips is widely known by one name, while Kane has four or five different names.--WillC 05:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right, you don't know what those other sports items are...which is why people have created Wikiarticles for them - Infield Fly Rule, Tuck rule, horse-collar tackle, squeeze play, etc... And how did I lose you on Triple H/Kane? You claimed that video games and wrestling aren't the same because video games have articles for each character, so I pointed out how (just like every media outlet) wrestling does give articles for each "character" (in this case, the wrestler). Whatever though. It's clear at this point you're treating wrestling like some kind of special case that gets to follow it's own rules/style here on WP. It doesn't matter if "baseball is something else", it's all still WP...and the goal in all cases should be to produce the best possible article. It doesn't matter if I'm comparing wrestling to british literature...if there are simliar situations in regards to formatting content, the comparison is valid. The argument regarding jargon that you point to like some bible is meant to avoid turning articles into senseless babbling without context. If you're so concerned about using jargon, then why even use move names AT ALL. (As I said before). Why not just say that Triple H won the match using a modified facebuster and leave it at that? Then if the reader really cares, they can click the link and see that Triple H calls it the Pedigree when he uses it. End of problem. -- TRTX T / C 14:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Because modified facebuster is also jargon. No one knows what a pedigree or what a facebuster is. So it is lose/lose. Giving the name to make wrestling fans happy and stating the main point fixes all the problems. It is a compromise that settles both sides but the wrestling fan group who live in their own little world can't stand that we say the main point. In wrestling jargon is almost unavoidable, but trying your best is the best thing to do.--WillC 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

And I ask, why does someone who doesn't watch wrestling's opinion mean more than the actual readers of the article. We want to appeal to wrestling fans, not football or baseball fans. Are football of baseball fans going to read this article? Or are wrestling fans going to read it? Either way, explaining everything is redundant to the link.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine IMatthew, let all the ips write the articles. Lets all leave. You quit working on Mania 24 and 25. Let the ips work on them. Lets have sentences like "Triple H hit a kick to Orton ear, and with his deviststating finish the pediagee to win the main event contest and retain the prestigious WWE Title". Yeah that is the best way to go. Or we could write intelligently and not cater to wrestling fans because they can't get over the fact it is scripted. Lets have a professional standard and write like so "The main event encounter was between then-champion, Triple H, and Randy Orton for the WWE Championship. The two fought for a brief time, until Triple H performed his signiture maneuver the Pediagree and forced Orton's head into the mat. He followed by covering Orton for the three count to retain the WWE Championship." Not the greatest sentence but good enough that an 8 year old can understand let alone a 24. But who am I kidding, it wasn't like you supported the format in the beginning Matt, oh wait.--WillC 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I stated above...Citing WP:JARGON-- Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it. -- So yeah, defining every term is clutter (like in SummerSlam (2003)), but It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to Wikipedia articles. Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. -- So linking helps, but linking all terms does not satisfy this guideline, basic explanations should be given as well. In addition, like Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions states, When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists [wrestlers]. Though, On the other hand, do not treat every “scientific” word as a technical term Ask the question: Is this the only article or one of a very few where the term might be encountered in Wikipedia? Consider the examples presented below.-- So yes, jargon should be explain but not in excess that it clutters the page. The last part of that quote may not be applicable here since wrestling jargon is not used throughout Wikipedia in other subjects other than pro-wrestling.--Truco 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the only reason it's at Glenn Jacobs is because Kane is a disambiguation page. He is really only known under the name Kane. His other 2 best known ringnames was as the brief evil dentist Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS and as the fake Diesel. Neither were very succesful and neither lasted very long (although he did appear in the Royal Rumble as both). He has wrestled only as Kane for 11 1/2 years and won multiple major titles. Hell, he was credited in See No Evil as "Kane". TJ Spyke 06:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe the DDS gimmick is pretty well known. At least I think so.--WillC 06:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, caught up on semantics. I could just as easily have comparred Sable (wrestler) to Trish Stratus as an example of inconsitency (both are known primarily for their in ring careers...yet one uses her given name as the article name and the other uses her ring-name. But that is a completely different discussion that has no value here beyond arguing the semantics of a comparison. I'm done with it. -- TRTX T / C 14:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

25-diva battle royal

Does someone plan to include the complete list of divas that participated in the 25-Diva Battle Royal? I thought (and correct me if I'm wrong) that standard practice for wrestling PPV articles is to include a complete list of participants of battle royales. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)]]

The event just happened last night, you need patience. We need to wait for sources to come out. I found a good source for now, but hopefully we'll find something better later.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I figured they would be added eventually. Even if the source is just "good" and a better one can be added later, I'd go ahead and add the information. We can always add the second source, as — with any other Wikipedia article — there is nothing wrong with "double-sourcing" or having two sources for a single statement. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)]]

does visual confirmation count as a source as i know what i saw with my two eyes or even linking it to an illegal video link of the participants is that allowable not that would do it but just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golefsgophan (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, and no. Saying you saw it is not a reliable source (WP:RS). As for illegal video links, what do you think? Of coarse not, see Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. TJ Spyke 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what about having an eliminated by section? Too unimportant, or what? 3pointswish (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Santina Marella

I don't want to be picky, but isn't inking Santina Marella to Santino Marella WP:OR? I mean, we all know they're the same person, but do we have a source? Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one at the Santino Marella article. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not saying it's the same person. It's the same way that the names of Stephanie McMahon's kids redirect to her article. Since "Santina" would not be notable enough for "her" to have article, "her" brother's article would be the best redirect target. TJ Spyke 22:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception Section-Wade Keller liked the Kid rock performance the canadian observer guy and the comcast guy didnt. And he was giving the wrong link on the sentence he's 41 not 43. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.231.123 (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

what santina is not santino. Santina is his twin sister so I guess ur half right have the same DNA as santina wrestles more she should have her own article Golefsgophan (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Santina is Santino, if you click on Santina, it's just gonna redirect to Santino. Jeez, have some common sense. Save Us.Y2J 8:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Move result not correct

Per WP:NAME, Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. So yes, the majority of sources call this WM "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" (or other variants). However, per WWE's Official WrestleMania History, they are known to call each WrestleMania chronologically. Thus, they titling the official website as WrestleMania XXV. In addition, since their is a WP:Naming conflict over this matter: A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. [which in this case is WrestleMania XXV]. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term. [which many redirect to this article]. Within an article, there is no technical constraint on using synonyms. [which this article uses]. Now what we can do to make both sides happy is (according to WP:NPOV#Article naming) If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources., so we can cover the naming controversy a bit further in the article. Thus, it should remain at WrestleMania XXV. In addition, A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. [and you as I know that the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania is not a neutral title]. These are just a few of the guidelines and policies that we should keep in mind about the naming of this article.--Truco 16:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they did for the first 24 events. The 25th was promoted differently. Everything else you said can apply with either name in use, so it doesn't help this discussion. Mshake3 (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes "promoted", like they promoted WrestleMania XXV as "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania". The latter is not a neutral title, and there is a purpose for redirects, as I stated above in addition to other policies.--Truco 14:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WrestleMania_25/Archive_5&oldid=1230954879"