Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 72

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75

WP:WRESTLER?

A good suggestion came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett DiBiase. Maybe we should come up with a guideline for what makes a wrestler notable and submit it to Wikipedia:Notability (people). It would be better than just having to use the general WP:N to determine if someone is notable or not. I know it may not be easy to come up with a guideline that most of us can agree on, but maybe we should do it. TJ Spyke 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely especially since that article , despite the apparent lack of notability at this time, was kept. ArcAngel (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling Vernacular

Okay, I realize this has been done to death but I just have to say this is getting ridiculous. To describe a leg drop , we link to an article as "jumping and landing his leg across Finlay's face" (just a random pick). Yes I understand that Wrestling Vernacular is not something everyone is accustomed to (even though I'm sure most could take a haphazard guess at what a leg drop is and be right), but that just sounds awkward and that's what the linking to the articles is for. In the baseball articles, one does not say someone hit "A play where the ball travels far enough that it goes over the boundaries of the field and it allows all current players on bases to score by crossing home plate" instead of just "Home Run".--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you and have been saying this for months. For a something like the GTS or the Styles Clash, I can understand. For something like a leg drop and choke slam, it's ridiculous. Even those complicated moves could just be linked as that is the point of links. TJ Spyke 21:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Question for members who were around in 2006/2007

Does anyone know what the situation regarding Nigel McGuinness and his real name is? I mean why it's not included in his article. Is it simply because there was no reliable source, or was there another reason? I ask because the Wrestling Observer has confirmed his real name here in their article about him signing for WWE, but I'm aware the article was fully protected over a dispute to do with his real name, so I'm hesitant to add it in. I checked the talk page archives, but they're just full of accusation of censorship, etc. Can anyone clarify this for me? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was deeply involved in it. Basically the webmaster for Nigel's official website bitched to Wikipedia and sent an official request to have his real name removed because Nigel didn't want his real name to be known. The admins who removed his name (and deleted the edits that added it) cited that his name was not public record. I tried pointing out that his name IS public record (when he trademarked his ringname with the USPTO), but they said it wasn't good enough. With a reliable third party source stating his real name, I think we can try it again. I have had my own private protest going on for the last few years (see my userpage and who my "favorite" wrestlers are:) ). TJ Spyke 22:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, they didn't do a great job of deleting the edits from the page history. His real name is clearly visible in edits thoughout June last year, before the article was fully protected again. Does that means there's an OTRS ticket about his name then? Well, I missed that in whole one mention of it in the middle of a paragraph in the talk page archives? *Rolls eyes* I'm gonna drop the protecting admin/OTRS handler a comment, and see what he says. He apparently protected it because there was no reliable source avaiable to back up the name as well as the OTRS ticket. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the original situation in 2006, all edits are deleted. You won't have much luck contacting the original admin who handld it. It was User:FCYTravis, his last edit was in June 2008. TJ Spyke 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It started in September 2006 when his webmaster signed up as User:TrishBunkey and started removing his name. The OTRS ticket number is 2006092210008209. TJ Spyke 23:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I noticed that just as I was about to leave a message. I'd like clarification on the OTRS ticket, i.e. was it was just a simple request for someone to check whether there was a threat of legal action involved. I'm a little hesitant to add it to the article unless I can have confirmation on this. I think I'll try another OTRS handler. That ticket number will come in useful thanks. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I've asked User:J.delanoy for help, so I'm going to wait to see what he says. Thanks for the help TJ. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RATE MY INFOBOX

Stone Cold Steve Austin
Image=Stone Cold Steve Austin.jpg
Austin At Tribute To The Troops
BirthdateDecember 18, 1964 (1964-12-18) (age 44)
BirthplaceAustin, Texas
Weight252 lb (114 kg)
Wrestling Info
Ring Names"Stone Cold" Steve Austin"

The Ringmaster "Stunning" Steve Austin

Steven Williams
FederationsWWE
WCW
ECW
USWA Dallas
Billed FromVictoria, Texas
TrainerChris Adams
ChampionshipsStone Colds Championships
Member Of WWE Hall Of Fame2009 Inductee

im trying to be become a better template maker by making new infoboxed for everyone but so far i have been shut down check out mine for wrestling and rate it and if ya like it maybe we can impliment it? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the one we already use is more user friendly. Nikki♥311 02:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


really? and i think the hall of fame part and a link to championships would be good what about you? BigPadresDUDE (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Federations? Are you kidding me? Try doing that for William Regal who won titles on 40 different feds or Steve Corino or someone of that ilk. I appreciate the effort but I don't see anything wrong with the current infobox. Also having a championships section that just links downwards seems pointless. But then so does listing all the championships in the infobox. Tony2Times (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
What? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Can't find sources for them, but I'm sure I've heard it said in an interview somewhere that between England and America he toured all over the world and won a myriad titles. Tony2Times (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the hall of fame part can we alest add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigPadresDUDE (talk • contribs) 03:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point? Some are members of multiple hall of fames, and not just the WWE.--WillC 05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No point of this, our current Template:Infobox wrestler is fine and to the point, much like other infoboxes.--Truco 503 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Need some pictures?

On Sunday I'm going to a SD/ECW house show... need any specific pics I could take? Feedback 05:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If Matt Hardy is there, a new pic of him would be nice to update his article. One of Christian Cage as champ if possible. A Regal pic if he is there and an updated one of Morrison. Anyone with a championship would be nice.--WillC 05:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Eddie Colón could probably do with a better profile pic on the off chance he crosses brands. Also any new signings and trainees like Drew Galloway or Sheamus, Abraham Washington &c. Tony2Times (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Jericho & Big Show as tag team champions if they go. Also, Michelle McCool as champ.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
In general, any possible picture would be good. Not every superstar that will be there will need a new picture, but it couldn't hurt to take as many as possible (especially if you can get a up close picture through something like a autograph signing). TJ Spyke 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine took some pictures of the house show LAST NIGHT. I have uploaded one at File:Jericho with the tag titles.jpg and another at File:Matt Hardy pinning Mike Knox.jpg. Feedback 23:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Matt Hardy one probably couldn't be used since the only person that is identifiable is referee Charles Robinson (I guess you could crop it and use it for him). TJ Spyke 23:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Or we could use it to start an article about Charles Robinson's hair. Tony2Times (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Feedback/Media

Please visit the above page to see all the wrestling photos I have uploaded. Feedback 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have pictures of Carlito, Charles Robinson, Chris Jericho (with world title), Chris Jericho (with Unified Tag Titles), Cody Rhodes, Cryme Tyme, Dolph Ziggler, The Hart Dynasty, John Morrison (with IC title), Justin Roberts, Manu, Matt Hardy, Michelle McCool (with title), Mike Knox, Ted DiBiase (with tag title), etc. I shall add some more pictures that I have like one of The Undertaker, one of Ziggler on the mic, etc.
By the way, I am going to a second SD/ECW show today. Is there any other type of picture you guys would want?

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help out more.--WillC 13:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Armageddon to be change to TLC pay per view.

PWInsider is reporting that Armageddon will be changed to the "Tables, Ladders, and Chairs" event I mentioned last week. Keep a look out for changes to the article as nothing has been confirmed by WWE yet. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

People are already doing it. All just because Tickemater has a event called "TLC: Tables, La'tters, and Chairs" listed (yes, Ticketmaster has it as "Latter"). I've already had to request protection for the Armageddon page and I have PRODded the article that a user created. TJ Spyke 20:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
It's been confirmed by WWE [1]. Could people keep an eye on Survivor Series though? People seem to think that WWE TLC is replacing Survivor Series even though it's still listed on the wwe.com event schedule and there's still information listed about SS [2] and Armageddon isn't. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we're okay with Survivor Series now. WWE.com has corrected the front page screw-up and has Survivor Series and TLC in their rightful places. --  Θakster   20:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beautiful People (professional wrestling)

Could some people watch the article? Yes Love has been released for now, but Love and Sky, according to the spoiler reports, will be involved in the Knockout Tag Team Championship tournament, where they will win all their matches to advance to the semi-finals at No Surrender, since at the Impact tapings that match did not occur. Plus according to the spoilers Love and Sky will forgive Madison Rayne, so she will be a Beautiful People member again, so even if TNA can not get Love back under contract before she fixes her visa problems, The Beautiful People can still exist and be at No Surrender. So make sure the article does not turn from a one about a current stable to one about a dead stable.--WillC 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They advance to the finals at No Surrender, the semi-finals took place at impact! when Rayne joined up again. Also though it's unlikely there's an outside chance they could sort out the visa issue before the PPV which is another reason it's not a dead stable. Tony2Times (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
While I don't know if there will be a forgiving, I have left messages on Angel Williams and The Beautiful People, stating that Angel Williams is still on television, and the future of the stable is uncertain. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Team 3D

Regarding recent conversations about The Major Brothers and Cryme Tyme, the Dudley Boyz seem like another team to me that maybe could do with being consolidated into one page. The two spent four yearson the indie circuit before joining up in ECW, however both articles only have two or three sentences about this relatively unknown part of their careers. I wasn't watching WWF at the time but I know they were split up, however it seems to be for a relatively short time. Someone with a better knowledge of their whole careers might be able to weigh in but at the moment I see no reason for seperate articles. Tony2Times (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about merging the Major Brothers and Cryme Tyme, but Team 3D; which is still named the Dudley Boys which they haven't used in years and aren't for another three since they resigned with TNA plus have won more titles since then in more companies and main evented a few events; is a bit ludacris. They've both won single titles and had their own feuds. An interesting note, Devon said in an interview a few months ago that Ray was thinking of retiring, while he wanted to continue wrestling and have a good singles run and win the World Title. At Against All Odds (2009), Ray and Devon, not as a team, fought in the main event for the World Title. They both seem to be notable enough for their own articles.--WillC 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it was a Fatal Four-way, the feud was Team 3D vs. Main Event Mafia. They feuded as a team. Feedback 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The articles should definitely remain separate. In fact, I think the others should be split as well. What is the problem with having separate (even if virtually identical) articles for two wrestlers? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
True, I second Gary. Even if their history is mostly the same, there are still little tidbits like the personal history and the picture that makes the articles independent. There shouldn't be a problem of having different articles for each of them. Feedback 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think pictures are encyclopedic enough to warrant different articles - also a Commons Category link would take care of that. Having identical articles is redundant and tautological; I don't know many Wiki policies in particular detail but I think this counts as content forking. I think. Tony2Times (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles should remain seperate, but we have to be careful about overlapping material. When it's just team stuff, it should be very generalized in the individual articles, and detailed in the team article, and vice-versa. Mshake3 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PWI Female 50

The new PWI Female 50 came out recently. I've read the results in a forum but I was wondering if anyone had a more reliable source to put on article pages. Tony2Times (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well cite booking the actual magizine would be best. I'll go to the store later and either pick it up or write down the page number, etc on a piece of paper.--WillC 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I found this. It should do just fine.--WillC 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Feedback uploading copyrighted images under false licenses

Feedback, who above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Need some pictures? posted talking about getting photographs seems to be uploading copyrighted images under claims of self-created free licenses. I noticed the problem after seeing File:Jeff Hardy with World Title.jpg (license changed correctly by Oakster, original upload with Feedback claim of self-created free use in history) and File:CM Punk with world title.jpg (deleted from commons after image was shown to be from a Sun article). The user may take some of the photographs claimed, but these violations are pretty blatant and as these are both only in the last week or so It's not a good sign for their previous contributions and probably means his previous uploads need to be checked for copyright violations. –– Lid(Talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tisk Tisk Tisk....I'm surprised by this.--WillC 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason that this is posted here instead of his talk page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, given the more recent contributions by him specifically to the project I was giving warning that images of his may not be as reliable as they appear as well as putting his previous uploads into suspicion. –– Lid(Talk) 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of rumor sites as sources?

I have seen rumor sites and reports used as sources on articles, What is the criteria for inclusion? I understand third party references are rarely avalible in reguards to wrestling, but we should be careful. Especially with cases like the ones in TNA right now. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the projects MOS, only the reliable sources indicated should be used. That doesn't mean it's followed that way, though. ArcAngel (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't use the rumors in articles, but rumors allows us to be ready. It depends on the situation.--WillC 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We use sources that pass WP:V and WP:RS. WrestleView, CANOE/Slam Sports, PWTorch and WON/Figure Four all pass in that regard since they have proven fact checking. Sites like LOP and WrestleZone do not. I don't know about other users, but I have no qualms using 411Mania and OWOW to source things such as moves and match results even though they've not been proven 100% Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, like Gavyn said. I don't have any problem with 411Mania either nor OWOW. I'm starting to trust PWinsider a bit more, but as far as fact checking I'm unsure, but a few third party sites direct to it.--WillC 05:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep an eye out. I was looking at the reference, and it stated that whatever it was was a rumor, so I had to check. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
There's a quick list of reliable and avoidable sources, but obviously some things slip through the cracks. It's our job to try and remove them where possible :) Tony2Times (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

TNA Women's Knockout Championship

We could use some imput on the TNA Women's Knockout Championship, and O.D.B articles. as you may know, the status of the title is in dispute. according to the TNA website, ODB is listed as the champion, however according to storyline, she is not champion, and she has not been awarded the title. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The storyline is she was champion, but the title was held up. The site can not always be trusted, so considering we got third party sites that say Foley held up the title. We should go by the third party sites.--WillC 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sounds and looks good. Thanks. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

John Cena photo

Hi. Look, I have upload a photo of John Cena Sr. Can I put in the John Cena Jr. article with the tagline "John Cena Sr. John Cena's father."?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User changing WWE.com URLs

I've noticed a user that has been changing the superstar profile pages from http://www.wwe.com/ to http://us.wwe.com/: now I know this isn't really much of any type of change but both links work the same way, and the main wwe.com URL is the US-based one, so is it necessary for the change to us.wwe?--Truco 503 01:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I just tried both links and the US one doesn't work. Cricinfo does this, where it'll auto-redirect you to a local server which makes it fun watching where all the links come from on Wikipedia, however they're accesible by all nations. It could be a coincidence or just my net was bad for a split second but I clicked twice on US.WWE.com and both times it instantly came up as a failed page so I'd be inclined to say revert or else those outside of the States won't be able to see judging from my experience at least. Tony2Times (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspelled the URL. Its http://us.wwe.com/ --Truco 503 01:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well for me http://us.wwe.com/ redirects to http://www.wwe.com/. I mean, to pull a random example off my watchlist, when I click on the link http://us.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/paulburchill the url http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/paulburchill/ comes up the url bar at the top of my page. I'd say that's it's a pointless edit and is not "correct[ing] WWE link" as the user is saying in his/her edit summaries. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This is what I call an exercise in redundancy. Tony2Times (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Hixteilchen is the history of these changes if someone wants to revert them back. ArcAngel (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I dropped the user a note about this and asked him/her to stop, but since I think (s)he's already changed most, if not all, of the links for the bios it's not going to matter much. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

--Hixteilchen (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Hey I am in Germany and here the US.WWE.com links are good so don't whine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hixteilchen (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not the correct links though, o stop going around changing them. TJ Spyke 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
LIke I said on your talk page, they redirect to the original urls that were in the articles. Yes, the links work, but the original work better and, certainly in my case, faster. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

sry I didnt't know that the us makes such a difference. Here in germany the us.wwe.com goes faster cause if I type www.wwe.com they ask me if I wanna go on the english or German wbiste of WWE.com. For me here in Germany it was faster to type us.wwe.com. sry my fault--Hixteilchen (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its okay, but the specific links shouldn't have that. Only when you type in WWE.com should you get the "select language" page, when its specific like bios, it shouldn't matter.--Truco 503 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's right, but if I type for example http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/paulburchill/ they redirect me to http://us.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/paulburchill/ so I thought I do nothing wrong.--Hixteilchen (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)--Hixteilchen (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Just remember, everyone doesn't live in germany, and their speed could be affected. Welcome to Wikipedia. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardy's arrest

Would Hardy's mugshot fall under public domain? I'm not sure, I feel if we could get that pic it would be helpful.--WillC 06:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Do police mugshots enjoy Wiki copyright protection would be the better question. ArcAngel (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The mugshots are a part of Public domain from what I know, and according to the Wiki article (although uncited) "Federal booking photographs are automatically entered into the public domain in the United States". AfroGold - Afkatk 09:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, I would assume them to be public record. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Federal documents are automatically public domain, so I don't see why photographs would be different (although I am not sure if this applies to state/county/municipal documents as well and it sounds like he was arraigned by the Moore County Sheriff's Office). I am not sure what the point of it would be in Jeff Hardy's article though, there are plenty of pictures in it already and I don't see what his mugshot would add. TJ Spyke 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a big topic of discussion these days and would work great in an arrest record section, etc.--WillC 01:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FLRC delegate election

Hi everyone! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. Being that this project is pretty active in the FLC/FLRC process, it was suggested that some editors here may wish to run in this election, or at least vote in it (voting starts on Tuesday). You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew talk at 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WWE Encyclopedia

I got this the other day: It has an article on EVERYTHING ever WWE-related. If you need information on anything, let me know on my talk page, and I'll write out the article from the book for you (most of them aren't that long, but they are informative). iMatthew talk at 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tried this a couple of times. I also have the book. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to add any info from the book, you don't need to wait for someone here to ask. TJ Spyke 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the time to go around and add the information, so I instead made a note that I have it and can give any information needed. Your comment wasn't necessary. iMatthew talk at 03:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
If offers to help source articles aren't appropriate here, please let me know. iMatthew talk at 03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't the point Matthew, nor was the comment made in an offensive manner.. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at it the other day and was very disappointed. I was hoping it would have more stats, pay per view information (including listing full cards), better bios and full histories of every championship, including the obscure ones. Most of the bios are pretty useless (most are too small, the entry on Terry Funk's 40+ year career in 4 paragraphs) and are only useable as sources for the most basic stuff (that is already easily sourceable). They don't give a lot of history and have too much promotional fluff. For example, did you know that Pez Whatley is "regarded as one of the toughest and most entertaining individuals in all of sports entertainment"? There are also some odd errors, for example, Rocky Johnson is noted as a Hall of Famer, but not Ric Flair (who was announced before Johnson was). On the subject, it would have been nice if they had info on the Hall of Famers who never competed in the WWE, such as Nick Bockwinkel, or even individuals that never wrestled for the company but played an important role on-screen, like Mike Tyson or Stu Hart (hell, Big Dick Johnson has an entry, so why not Stu?). Maybe I just expected too much. After all, this is the WWE we are talking about. -- Scorpion0422 02:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Scorpion, this isn't the place to voice your opinion on the book. This talk page is intended for discussion about wrestling articles and how to improve them. Not how you feel about the book itself. Let's try to stay on topic here. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering that we are discussing it as a source, I was simply saying I was disappointed in it for that purpose, and that other users don't have to buy it. And let's not forget: you admonishing me for going off-topic is even more off-topic than I was. -- Scorpion0422 01:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd say commenting on it's quality as a source (or lack of it) is relevant to the project. I'm glad to hear that I could pass it up.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on WWE Legends of WrestleMania

One editor refuses to listen to reason and keeps readding unsourced/fan opinion information about Randy Savage and PlayStation 2. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. ArcAngel (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

King of the Ring/Judgment Day 2006

I've realised it's been a while since I had a hand at PPV expanding and considered working on the latter King of the Ring events. Upon doing so I came up with possibly a crazy idea. The build-up for the 2006 KotR is more or less contained as a whole in the Judgment Day (2006) article and its final was held on that event. Would it be that bad an idea if I move the 2006 KotR brackets into the JD 2006 article and redirect King of the Ring (2006) to this article? --  Θakster   15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the brackets have a place in the Judgment Day article, just like any tourney that ends at a PPV (the 2008 IC tourney at Armageddon and the 2009 Team 3D invitational) but I don't think they should be removed from the KOTR page. It's a bit of an awkward decision what to do with that page as some are PPV and some aren't; I personally wonder if maybe each tournament should be left on the page while the PPV years obviously have their other match results put in a seperate page. That way the KOTR tournament is all on the KOTR page while the PPV results are in their own articles. Tony2Times (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did say it was crazy. :) --  Θakster   13:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Monty Sopp

I just looked on his page for some info and large sections had been blanked out for no reason. I went to revert it and it had happened before, so it may well happen again in case someone wants to keep an eye out. Tony2Times (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates

We need to make a guideline on these navboxes people keep making. On championships, I'm cool with it, I don't know about everyone else. But as long as there has been at least 10 champions, or a Good Topic/Featured Topic is being done for it I think they can be created, but only for the mainstream titles. Titles like the MCW Heavyweight Championship I'm against, but for the ROH World Championship I'm content with. While for groups, only if a topic is being done for it or there is an extreme amount of members like the NWO, The Alliance, etc or for a team that is important to the history of the company like DX, Evolution, or The Main Event Mafia. Not for teams like The British Invasion (no topic is in the works at the moment), Team 3D, etc.--WillC 10:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

World Elite

Would anyone consider this team notable? I think it is too early at this point in time. They've been around for a month at most. The reason I ask is a user created it at The World Elite, but I redirected it and decided to bring the matter here.--WillC 10:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, we could consolidate The British Invasion into The World Elite page to give it a boost. Obviously it depends on where they go for the future but at the moment I think the information on the two articles could merge into one. That said, The World Elite haven't done much as far as I'm aware aside from win the IWGP Tag Team Championship (if I remember rightly, Eric Young helped in the table match so the Brits were members by then). Tony2Times (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking the exact samething. Notability may be established enough in my mind.--WillC 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Most Wanted list

I've seen that some projects have a "Most wanted" articles list based on the "red link" count in their articles, listing uncreated articles by how many current articles link to them. I assume they use some sort of bot to gather this data and I don't know if it's feasible to do on wrestling articles but I thought it may be something for this project to check into? I'd be happy to help turn the red blue once the list is put together, I just have no clue how to compile such a list.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That may be useful. Will you name a project which has this?--WillC 02:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I like this, too. I've been trying to turn some of the old-school female professional wrestlers from red to blue. A list like that would be definitely be helpful. It wouldn't hurt anyway. ;) Nikki♥311 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The one I saw was this one Wikipedia:Most wanted articles.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about future events in biography articles

I understand that Wikipedia is not a news site, but I'm not sure why important matches that have been announced for major pay-per-views shouldn't be included in biography articles. Looking at other actors as a parallel, information about movie roles that they have agreed to, are working on, etc. are included in their Wikipedia articles. If a wrestler has a shot at a world title at a pay-per-view, wouldn't excluding that information to go against the breadth of coverage/comprehensiveness that should be included in Wikipedia articles? Obviously, if it is a minor match, there's no need to include it. A world title match that will definitely be mentioned in the article at some point seems noteworthy enough to include when it is announced and properly verifiable, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Consider how many PPV matches occur in a year. Now multiply that by how many ever year. Multi man matches, so on and so forth. Also consider that all matches are on the PPV article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
From above: "I'm not sure why important matches that have been announced for major pay-per-views shouldn't be included in biography articles." GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
They should be included in the articles. There's no valid reason for them not to be. iMatthew talk at 12:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Totally agree, if they're important matches there is no reason not to list them.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  13:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Which would be fine, if wrestler biographies and wrestling pay-per-views are the home of restrained editors who rely on good sources and don't add speculation. Except that they don't, they attract IP editors who want to add every single rumour sometimes months before events. The rule of no future matches, as fits WP:CRYSTAL, even if those matches are about to happen tomorrow, keeps things simple. Once you allow important matches for major pay-per-views (aren't all PPVs major), then you invite speculation on every article. Included into that is the fact that stuff happens. Wrestlers get injured, or are "injured" as part of a bait-and-switch, meaning that even when a PPV is happening you cannot guarantee that a wrestler will wrestle (just look at the many times champions have lost, despite not taking part in the match). This would also then encourage editors to add rumoured Raw and Smackdown matches (or even add SD matches after a taping). Though the idea seems reasonable it opens a can of worms. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Thats exactly what I was trying to note. Who will decide what is major? Any wrestler vieing for a title? "Major" title defenses? Orton's history would be a mile long. Cena held the title for over a year right? How many major title defenses did he have? Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously the article would be updated after the event otherwise it'd read "Orton was scheduled for the 2008 Royal Rumble" even today. And I love the argument that "some IP's add rumors and unsourced speculation" as a reason to not put in non-speculative, sourced and announced matches, basically you're saying that people can't put stuff in that's totally in line with every single Wikipedia guideline because of people that don't follow the rules? "No one can drive because some people speed".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No but the warnings for Week-by-week come from WP:CRYSTAL, and given that PPVs happen every three-four weeks what is the harm in following the guidelines and waiting until after an event to add details to any bios? Darrenhusted (talk) 10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Saying that someone is scheduled to do something isn't a crystal ball problem; it's being accurate. Giving predictions about results or telling what rumor sites believe will happen would be a problem. The same sort of thing happens with movies and television shows all the time. Actors die; projects are suddenly cancelled. At the time of production, however, it is completely accurate to say that "Actor X has agreed to appear in Movie Y, which is scheduled to begin filming in February 2010" (assuming, of course, that this is backed up by a reliable source). If things change for some reason, part of the beauty of Wikipedia is that it can be updated. I suppose the harm in waiting until after the events is that (1) articles will not be comprehensive, and (2) this will result in edit wars with people who are following Wikipedia guidelines and being accused of vandalism. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is why film articles have WP:NFF, which means that if a film isn't being filmed at this moment then the article will be PRODed or AfDed. If there was a film article which said "Seth Rogen will star in this film, and filming doesn't start until February 2010" then that article would be deleted and that sentence removed from Rogen's article. And TV series have episodes counts (like Raw, ECW and SD) which are updated after episodes are broadcast and not before, and episode synopses for TV programs are different to wrestling matches, which are closer to sporting events. The problem is not "this is Wikipedia we can always change stuff", the problem is do you want to spend all day reverting vandals for adding future matches because they can't distinguish what is meant by "major".
"A world title match that will definitely be mentioned in the article at some point seems noteworthy enough to include when it is announced and properly verifiable, though." and what is wrong with waiting a fortnight (at the most) for the PPV to happen, because when it comes to wrestling the most verifiable thing is a match that has just finished (though the Hart Foundation and the Rockers may disagree with that). Darrenhusted (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
With that argument, I'll counter and say "what's wrong with mentioning it when it's announced"? If people really feel like putting it in with a reliable source only for it to be replaced with an actual result 2-3 weeks later - let them. Personally I would probably improve on of the four gazillion other articles and wait for the PPV, but that's not how everyone rolls. I say let them if they can do it the right way without speculation and with sources.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  19:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My only (minor) problem/pet peeve with adding future matches is that before it actually happens, how will we know that it will be important in the person's overall career? For people like Shawn Michaels, Triple H, The Undertaker, etc. not every title defense or non-title pay-per-view match can be mentioned because of article length...so we need to keep it to the most important (historically or critically) feuds, title matches, etc. Even for wrestlers with smaller articles...the same thing applies. Not every title defense or match is important in the overall career (WP:RECENTISM). Nikki♥311 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nikki is right, not every PPV match is important. The Undertaker has been in 143 PPV matches (more than anybody in history), only a small percentage are actually relevant to his overall career. TJ Spyke 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course not every PPV match is important. I trust that most people can figure out that "The Undertaker is scheduled to wrestle Kamala on the undercard at SummerSlam 1992" is not notable, while "The Undertaker is scheduled to wrestle Sycho Sid for the WWF Championship at WrestleMania XIII" is notable. Anyhow, if I'm being perfectly honest, I brought this up just because I think it is worth discussing. I don't really edit or read any wrestling articles from after 1996, so this doesn't affect me. As for the comparison to NFF, I think it's safe to say that, even after a movie begins filming, there is no way of knowing how things will turn out (eg. Brandon Lee, John Candy, etc.). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
True, but The Crow and Wagons East both finished filming and were released. Even if the WWE say today John Cena will defend his title on the next PPV even that is no guarantee that he will because several times matches have been dropped or defending champions haven't made it to the ring. But whereas every single film Nic Cage does will have an article, and will be notable to Nic Cage's career, not every single title defense will be notable and not every appearance at a PPV will be notable. But unlike films, which can be six months away from release even when finished, then next PPV is in three weeks, or four weeks, so why the rush? May as well wait until the day after then decide which articles need updating, which is a simpler process to explain then trying to spend three weeks defining which matches are considered important enough to add despite the fact that they haven't happened and may never happen. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I get what you're trying to say but those are bad examples - Kamala/Taker was the first ever casket match so that actually is notable ;) and just like the movies will have an article so will every PPV. I'm not saying "go nuts" but why waste this much time on something that's totally within the rules instead of editing/creating articles and let those that add with sources etc. leave it in. That way you have even more time to remove the speculative, crystaballing IP additions that'll happen ANYWAY? it's not like those IPs would stop because of anything said here?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the first Undertaker-Kamala pay-per-view match. The one that led up to the coffin match. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It can still be done 100% within all Wikipedia rules and then removed by some wp:pw editors anyway, I think that's wrong.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I still have to ask, what will be the mesuring stick for inclusion? will it be title matches? As mentioned earlier, that rule couldn't be applied to every wrestler, We also have to consider other companies, I only look at TNA/WWE articles, I'm sure there are articles for wrestlers in WEW, ROH, and developmental companies. What will be the guideline for inclusion in their articles. All in all, I think this needs careful planning, and then come to a vote. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The inclusion is different for everyone - for some their first PPV is notable, others only "significant" title matches, it depends on the point in their careers. An wel if it needs "careful planing and a vote" then I guess it'll just not happen, not in this project anyway.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

First GA PPV

We just got our first main PPV GA, TNA Bound for Glory. Maybe this will set the standard for future articles of its kind, maybe one day WrestleMania or Starrcade.--WillC 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In time we will have a million WillC's producing PPV GA's. AfroGold - Afkatk 16:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, there are plenty on here.--WillC 09:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Congrats on getting it to GA, it's great to see something new for our project. Just a question about the format. How would one apply this format to say events with currently fifteen to twenty editions? It's okay with BFG as it started relatively recently compared to WM or SC, but it is going to make massive articles for the other two. --  Θakster   13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Trimming and being selective? For longer running PPVs I don't think every match needs to be listed under the Event section, after all that's what the main article is for, just the ones that are more memorable/significant by being firsts, championships, gimmick match types or unusual. Tony2Times (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. For events like WrestleMania and Starrcade, it should be limited to main events and anything historically significant. Otherwise, it would just be too ridiculously long. Nikki♥311 21:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree as well. That was going through my mind when I thought about WrestleMania. The article would be extremely long. Like WrestleMania 25, only the two world title matches, Taker vs HBK, and MITB should be noted. Mania was built on those, and possible Jericho vs The Legends.--WillC 00:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes this is a good time to decide between GA and FL, there are various FL type lists that are FLs but they have sister articles that are GA's.--Truco 503 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well maybe we should decide what a reader would like better. In my mind, I feel a reader would want as much information as he could get from an article about WrestleMania. A list wouldn't be able to do that.--WillC 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to take anything away from you or anything but all the BFG article is, is a summary of the events in each article. Something that could be considered a list as well. Now the WreslteMania article would have to be treated differently and probably split off between the events and the concept itself since WM has a long history beyond just the events.--Truco 503 00:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I would expect WrestleMania to be treated differently with it having a long history of not just being a wrestling event but also a entertainment event. The BFG format at the moment is a rough draft, with time it will evolve to suit other articles. I'm just against PPVs being lists, I believe they should instead be article, articles. Nothing to take away from you with WWE No Way Out, it is a good article and I agreed with the format at the time you took it to FLC, but I began to question the format and I feel it would be better as an article similar to BFG, or just goes more in-depth than it does now.--WillC 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Overtime formats change, but the WWE No Way Out article like the Royal Rumble article is just a list of events, because I don't see the need to summarize each event when links to the article could probably do the same thing. But that's just IMO.--Truco 503 22:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Stratusphere Yoga

[3] I would assume it's not yet notable enough to have it's own article. AfroGold - Afkatk 03:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it will be. Add it to the Stratus article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
When the game gets closer to release, it can gets its own article. Right now the only info is the name of the game, the developer, and the platform. Mention it in Trish's article for now. TJ Spyke 03:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, this project has 159 Good Articles. Among those articles, 77 (almost 50%) currently have broken external links. There are also 7 Featured Articles with broken external links. If anyone has a little extra time, it would be great to work on bringing these numbers down. The list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Broken external links. In fact, I would like to challenge this project to bring the number of GAs with broken links down below 50 by the time the list is updated on September 28. Many of them can be taken care of with the Internet Archive. There are also a lot of links from WWE.com that have been moved around and just need the new urls (particularly the Hall of Fame pages). 12 days, at least 28 articles fixed...let's see if we can make it happen. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm game. I'll help out any that I can.--WillC 04:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to do what I can also. ArcAngel (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I replaced the dead links in Punk's article. Thought I'd mention it here so no one goes and tries to replace links that the page says are dead with good ones that end up being identical. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the ones in Lockdown 08. It seems Billboard has taken down everything relating to DVD sales. So, I guess we'll have to find another means when it comes to dvd rankings after release.--WillC 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. We currently have quite a number of article submitted to articles for creation related to wrestling. You guys are probably more familiar with these kind of articles than the average AfC reviewer, so any help you can give would be most appreciated. The pending submissions can be found in CAT:AFC. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

CM Punk

I made some edits today which were reverted instantly. I edited again stating my reasons and again they were reverted with other reasons given and it was suggested it be brought here. Basically I edited it so that under the Raw 2008 section there was a picture of Punk with the MitBriefcase in place of a picture of him holding the World Heavyweight Championship - my argument was that he held two MITBs during this time and will unlikely win it a third time, while he has already gone on to win the WHC in a later stage and may continue. The argument given back was that the picture was taken from before he moved to Raw, which is what that section is headered. I then moved a picture of him holding the WHC to the SmackDown section to illustrate his current reign but it was removed with the argument that neither picture of him holding a WHC is from his tenure on SmackDown. I also changed his Intercontinental Championship picture in his C&A section to another one where his face was more clear, the whole picture was less blurry and the face plate of the belt could be seen rather than just a sheen of light, but I think that revert was just caught in the crossfire. It's only a small matter but I think pictures really add to articles so long as they don't become a clusterfuck and in lieu of having exact pictures, ones that are just as suggestive (cf Shelton Benjamin's Team Angle picture from 2007 in the 2004 section) are still decent. Tony2Times (talk) 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I say the pictures you added were better than the ones already in there and looked better with the flow.--WillC 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe instead of putting across the points I shoulda just said this edit or this one. Tony2Times (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I would change is take the one of him as WHC in the SD section and move it up to the Raw section. It should not be directly under a level three under though. In the MoS, images should not appear on the left directly under level three headers. Just move it a past the first paragraph. The MITB or the second WHC image could then go in the SD section. But since all face right, they must go on the left, just not directly below the headers.--WillC 14:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox wrestling event

Is there any way to use the "Infobox wrestling event" and get a general chronology (that doesn't say "PPV") as well as a show chronology so that you get both "Previous show" and "next show" as well as the anual chronology? Maybe a setting where you indicate if it's a PPV or not.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • What I'm talking about is to be able to use "|lastevent = " and "|nextevent = " without it saying "PPV chronology" but just "show chronology?
    • Ah I see what I could do, I'm thinking about adding "lasteven3" and "nextevent3" for a "non-PPV" version of the template so that readers can follow through the chronology of a promotions "major events" (PPV or not).
Oh, the discussion I brung up a while ago, to make a parameter like the tag/stable template, where change a letter and one says PPV and one just says event. I'm for it. Would help us when dealing with just live events instead of PPVs.--WillC 20:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll dabble around with the PPV and tag template formats in a subpage. Hopefully I'll figure out how to make it work. While we are at the subject of PPVs, what does everyone think of adding the parameter "network", where we could include what networks like In Demand, etc on where the PPV will air on. That information is usually easy to find.--WillC 20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I was working on this a while ago. Basically my idea (as seen in my sandbox) would basically have "Event chronology" by default. This turns into "Pay-per-view chronology" every time you type "ppv=Y" into the infobox code. And for those sharped-eyed, there's also a future field I've been working on to replace the function of Template:Future sport when that template gets deprecated. --  Θakster   09:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think it'd be best if it was defaulted to PPVs since that's what 99% of the ones used now are, that way we don't have to change those. Less work with the same result.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  11:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So is it okay if with we go with let's say the code "liveevent=Y"? --  Θakster   15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)
Done. "liveevent=Y" is all that you to put in now. --  Θakster   19:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That works really well! Awesome, thank you  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you.--WillC 12:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

TNA Knockout Tag Team Championship

Can we get a picture of these for the article? It may be some time before a free image becomes avalible, I'm sure someone can find a Fair Use image. EDIT: I found an image of them here: [4] I can't verify authenticity, but besides the belts themselves belonging to TNA, they appear to be free. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If Dave Millican made the title, we should have an image soon. He has allowed us to use pictures of titles he creates.--WillC 03:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The pics are up though I don't think many of them are great at showing the plates. Tony2Times (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Perfect, I'll get to uploading one or two, and making a few new updates to my recent expansion of that page.--WillC 16:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. I was lazy and forgot to remove some unneeded additions. I tried to upload a new cut version, but something is going on with upload. Won't allow me to do it. Keeps asking me to check an image like it on commons, when there is only one image on there and I'm about to nominate it for deletion.--WillC 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential problem user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.59.8.89

I don't see the problem besides his vandalism to Hawkins and Ryder.--WillC 06:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Possible sock. Notice that in his first edit he used the code to make his edit visible only in edit mode. It's possible he just has a rotating IP as well. We do have warning templates for this. See: WP:WARN. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I know, I just don't think anything of it. Let them sock, doesn't bother anyone really. The more editing the better. We are running low of editors these days anyway.--WillC 13:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Jason Reso → William Reso

His real name. Reso has competed as Christian and Christian Cage equally so he has no commonname. He is known as Jay, Jason, Will, William, Christian, Cage, Christian Cage, etc so that furthers him not having a common name. There is nothing I know of in the MoS about having articles named after nicknames from friends. Should be moved to his real name to keep consistency with articles.--WillC 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he's gone by Christian and Christian Cage equally. 3 years in TNA as Christian Cage vs. nearly 10 years in WWE as Christain. Also, I would think that if you mention William Reso, Jay Reso, or Jason Reso to almost ANYONE, they would respond by asking, "Who?" You guys can do what you want, but I am of the opinion that Christian is his common name. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Except that he would have to be Christian (wrestler). Darrenhusted (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see your point, what'd be wrong with that?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at the accomplishments between names. In WWE, Cage has been a mid-carder at highest. Winning the ECW Title does not match winning the NWA Title. Comparing his greatest achievement in WWE. 2 time ECW Champion, main eventing ECW. Top achievements in TNA: winning the NWA Title twice, main eventing monthly PPVs, being undefeated for 22 months, having his own DVD released about him, leading his own stable, and being the face of a national/world-wide promotion. Plus Cage used Christian Cage before WWE. Add in his indy days as well. Cage has been in WWE for 7 years. He came in 98 I believe, left 7 years later in 2005, and returned in 2009.--WillC 03:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
A mid-carder on a show that scores higher ratings than the one where he was a main-event player, appearing on PPVs seen by more people and working for a company known by more people.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
When did this become about ratings? Talk ratings, TNA is higher in the UK than Raw. ECW had shit ratings, but we all still say Tommy Dreamer, Taz, Raven, Sabu, and The Sandman are most known for being in ECW. Cage wrestled in Japan for TNA in 2008 at Wrestle Kingdom. Look at the simple facts, Cage accomplished more meaningful things in TNA than WWE. Cage is remembered for winning the NWA Title in TNA these days more than winning the ECW Title. Read a live report every once in a while, when Gail Kim moved from SD to Raw, people in attendance at the event didn't even know Gail Kim was in WWE. Ratings aren't even apart of this discussion. And because Cage has worked and accomplished meaningful things in two companies, that is why I'm saying move it to Will and not to Christian or Christian Cage.--WillC 06:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
TNA doing better than Raw in the UK? Besides the fact that Raw airs at 2AM in the UK while Impact airs at 9PM, you are leaving out the replay of Raw. The UK market is also a very tiny percentage of the North American market (which is the primary market for WWE and TNA). Christian is far more known in WWE than in TNA. Hell, his original run in WWE is more notable than his short run in TNA. TJ Spyke 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion is about what name he's most known under, the higher the ratings of the show where he's CHristian as opposed to Christian Cage", the more people have seen him work as Christian than Cage - common sense really. And thank you for the "read a live report", I wasn't aware that there was a curiculum before I can comment on the fact that the WWE has more followers world wide than TNA and that his 8 years in a more popular and well known promotion count more than 3 years in a less known promotion.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  08:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
my concern is the growing number of wrestlers having their articles under their real names. I suppose its great encyclopedicly, but as a matter of ease of use, nearly every wrestler wrestles in different promotions, and under different names. We may just want to throw it all one way, either real names only with redirects for the others, or name in current promotion. Then you have the retired wrestlers. looks at Dwayne Johnson, I can almost guarentee you that even non wrestling fans know him more often as "The Rock" than Dwayne Johnson. As for MPJ's reply, concider, that ratings mean nothing in this case. I can watch every match on the card except for Christian's matches. The ratings don't get counted per segment. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, ratings DO get counted by segment. Ratings are broken down into 15 minute quarters, it's just that most websites only report the rating for the whole show or by hour. Nielsen does break it down into more specific segments though. So if you were a Nielsen viewer, they would track that you didn't watch the Christian match. Ratings also play at least a small role. TJ Spyke 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So what is your point Sep?? All listed by real name? as for "means nothing", working for a longer time for a more well known company definitly means something, as for winning the NWA title - that hasn't been relevant since Ric Flair showed up in the WWF with the belt unless you're a hardcore fan, hell TNA was a distant second to the WWE, less of a threat to them than WCW or AWA were at their peak. I get your argument "it's a bigger accomplishment winning the NWA WOrld title" and my counter to that is "Maybe in 1990" and to point out that Blue Demon currently holds it.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The NWA Title is still considered a bigger accomplishment than winning the ECW Title. No matter how you look at it, Cage was on top of a world-wide promotion winning a title that supposedly can be traced back to the original world championships. WCW at their peak? I remember WCW at its peak was number one. Winning in ratings and having one of the greatest storylines of all time with the NWO. Why are we even discussing number one or number two, ratings, etc? This was about moving from middle name to first name. Cage is not far more known as Christian, like Kane is with Isaac Yankem, DDS. It is more like Kevin Nash and Diesel.--WillC 20:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "accomplishments" and titles have anything to do with the discussion at hand here. The discussion is about what his common name is. As I said before, ask practically ANYONE about William Reso, Jay Reso, or Jason Reso and they will not know who you are talking about. He has NEVER been promoted under or used any of those as his ring name in any notable way if at all and how any of them could be even considered I don't understand. Also, regardless of what Christian Cage accomplished while in TNA, he was only there for 3 years. He's gone by Christian for nearly 10 years (and won more titles if you want to count "accomplishments") as part of the WWE. It should be obvious that Christian is his more common name. I don't understand how anyone could argue otherwise. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Because he has only been in WWE for 7 years actually, not 10. Cage is widely known by two names: Christian and Christian Cage, because he has achieved great accomplishments under both names. English speaking people know him as both widely. So de facto he is not widely known as one over the other. He has no common name there. So the article is named his real name.--WillC 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been known to WWE fans since 1998 which would actually make it closer to 11 years. During his time in TNA, he was still referenced as Christian in WWE and to their much larger fanbase (via DVD releases, magazines, etc). I could also point out that his name was often shortened to just "Christian" while in TNA. The "Cage" was only added for trademark purposes. But I digress. As I said above, you guys can do what you want. It doesn't have to make sense to me. I was just giving my opinion on the matter. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Plus it can't be moved to Christian (wrestler) either because the MoS says to avoid quantifiers as much as possible. In this case, a quantifier can be avoided easily.--WillC 23:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It can be avoided easily, but by having the article under a name no one has ever heard of. That's the point I was trying to make.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it is bias at either Christian or Christian Cage, because they have large hits in the millions under both on goggle search. So it has to be at his real name, because we can't establish a clear common name.--WillC 00:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So long, overly complicated an unneccesary story short - it's fine where it is.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That isn't his actual name though. It is an incorrect bio title.--WillC 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Carly Colón isn't his actual name, but it's what he's most frequently referred to out of character, just like William refers to himself as Jay in Straight Shootin' and I've heard also in Edge's book. I personally would prefer him to be Christian Cage as he was this both before WWF and then on the indie circuit and in TNA and Christian is just a retraction of Christian Cage. But I've said that before and was mocked for it so whatever. Tony2Times (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I would suspect that since this again is Wikipedia:WikiProject World Wrestling Entertainment and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Anything not WWE is a sin it seems. I would prefer it being William, since that is his actual name and i believe people have begun to think it is Jason, which is incorrect. Trying to teach the public.--WillC 02:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
What the hell does that have to do witha nything? Fact is that WWE has more viewers, so WWE ring names are more well-known. End of story, except in a few very special cases. This is not one of them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said anything about moving it to Christian Cage. Who is to say Christian is more known of a ring name. Where is this proof? Most, if not all, reports on Cage leaving TNA read "Christian Cage". On his return to WWE the same was said. "Christian Cage" returned to WWE. There is a clear bias against TNA and any other promotion in this project.--WillC 02:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking like Jason isn't his name at all, some people go by their middle name, he's referred to as Jay or Jason when people use his real name, how much more do you need? a certified note from his mom? WHy are we wasting time on a pointless discussion?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  05:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

His birth name is William. His reportcard said William when he was in school, his year book picture says William. I'm saying go by first name, not his birth middle name. It is about being correct. I've asked time and time again, where is the guideline that says go by what the person prefers to be called?--WillC 05:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong: his birthname is William Jason Reso, as for what his report card says - I can't begin to speculate if they listed him by William or Jason - that'd be Original Research without actually seeing the report card ;)  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That is common sense to say that a school would list a student by his first name. Well his name is William either way. I just didn't include Jason in the middle. By such it should be named William Reso. Unless there is a guideline which says to include his middle name, which means we got alot of articles to rename.--WillC 06:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
So what was Grover Cleveland's first name? And what is Tom Cruise's surname. I'll give you a hint, it ain't Grover and it ain't Cruise. He is known as Jay Reso when he is not wrestling. The choices would be Christian (wrestler), Christian Cage or Jason Reso. But I have no problem with it staying where it is. And FYI:William Reso is getting around 2 views a day on average. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well how many times is Jason Reso searched a day? Tom is short for Thomas, that is fine. Jason is not short for William, and Tom Cruise is his common name spelling, his stage name of sorts.--WillC 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Thomas wasn't the point, Grover Cleveland was born Stephen, but always known as Grover. Reese Witherspoon was born Laura. Jason Reso gets 2k views a day, but Christian gets 43 views a day on average, so I see no issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
That could be because when a common fan comes onto wikipedia and searches for "Christian" it takes you to the religion. Click on disambiguation and the link takes you to "Jason Reso." That's why "Jason Reso" gets more hits than any of the other names, not because he's more well known by it. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
He's better known as Jason Reso, not William Reso. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be at Jason Reso if we're not using one of his ring names. I fail to see what the issue is here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Where is the proof he is better known as Jason Reso? The problem is Jason is not his first name, William is. The article is incorrectly named. Plus read common name. Even the title says "common name" the most used name technically. Jason nor William is used. Mainly Christian and Christian Cage, so you wrong there.--WillC 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Calm down Will, it's okay. Look, as a matter of record, lets keep it as Jason. with redirects at William and Christian Cage, and I'm sure there is a disamb at Christian. We can't do "Christian" because it most likely is already taken at a disamb, or the religion. Christian cage should not be used because it cannot be used because it can't be confirmed as the most common name. If we were to list his know names, it would seem, that Jason would be next, it is the next highest known name. I have to agree with Darren, there are likely many people on this encyclopedia, which do not have their actual legal birth name as their common name. I think we can agree that both names can be used in the lead, as is common. That way, people will know that his name is William, and he is also known as Jason, and better known by his ring names Christian, and Christian Cage. He is currently signed to World Wrestling Entertainment....and so on. Agreed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine, ThinkBlue wanted me to bring it here to discuss anyway since I mentioned moving it after we were done because we are working on his article together. Trying to make sure everything is correct. I guess this way we just by passed a possible edit war.--WillC 13:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on image

To anyone familiar, is anybody aware of which In Your House event had File:Inyourhouse1.jpg as its VHS cover? It's being used for the In Your House 1 event, but I have extreme doubts about this. The reason being is that Goldust is on the cover, Goldust did not wrestle his first match until October 22 (5 months after this event). Goldust's first match was at the October In Your House event at a match taped for VHS release (in the early days of IYH the WWF would tape several dark matches to be used for VHS releases, hence the enormous amount of dark matches). This makes me think it was image is for the VHS release of In Your House 4, I am not 100% sure thouh.

Check it yo! [5]--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitly not 1, it also has the "Heel" Bulldog look which wasn't until between 2 and 3  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
IDk, but the original source website has a bad reputation on WOT: [6] Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

I thought I'd let you lot know that someone has created a separate article for her career, which needs some sorting out, the separate article is here On-screen roles of Linda McMahon. AfroGold - Afkatk 18:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I merged the new article into Linda's. No sense in having a separate article for that, as per GCF. ArcAngel (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They are at it again

I'm signed up for a WWE newsletter for some reason, I forget how I got it. Well they just sent me an e-mail. In this e-mail they asked me about another future PPV event name. Guess what they are this time? WWE have become WCW and TNA all rolled into one, because we are looking at another gimmick PPV. Good thing this time is, we already have the one they are pitching. They just want to rename it. It is WWE No Way Out and the Elimination Chamber. The names given are Battle Chamber, Elimination Chamber, No Way Out, Chamber of Conflict, and Heavy Metal. Be on the look out for this stuff from ips.--WillC 21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, wow. WWE can't do anything right. They have Orton drop the title, they will eventually have DX squash Legacy. Theres no other reason to watch WWE since Lilian left. Come on Orton, jump to TNA... Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Since this is not a messageboard Sep (which means your comment could be deleted), I won't respond to your comments since I disagree with all of them (especially Lillian, WWE will be better without her since she was the worst of WWE's ring announcers). Anyways, I got the same e-mail earlier. At least it won't be a new event, they are just seeing if fans want the event to be re-named (I picked to keep the No Way Out name, BTW). 23:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(Likewise) Yeah, best to tell everyone though. It is likely they will rename the event if past experiences have shown us. I hope to God it is not "Heavy Metal". We may need to get NWO protected.--WillC 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You wanna protect the New World Order(?) Tony2Times (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you aren't being serious, but remember that was written nWo.--WillC 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines say we shouldn't write using others' typography unless it's an acronym :p. Tony2Times (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unified Championships

Although this is mainly inspired by the Unified WWE Tag Title, it applies to others. I was looking at the J-Crown to see if they listed a different way and they semi-do but in a way it's even worse. J-Crown winners seem to have a list of the eight titles that make up the J-Crown as well as listing the J Cup. For people who don't really know what it is, that makes it look like they've won nine championships which I get in a sense they have but not really if the title has been unified. For Sasuke and The Colóns it's different because they held one of the titles beforehand, so The Colóns don't necessarily need it but I think it's disingenuous to not at least note that other people have won it AS a Unified Championship. For people who already held some of the titles involved in it, it's tricky because of how many times they've owned it but say Mark Henry won it, I think it should just be listed as Unified Tag Team Championship as that is all he won, he didn't win two separate titles. Tony2Times (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But they ARE separate titles. For titles that are separate but just held together, they should be listed. Same is true for the J-Crown, the champions should not have "J-Crown" listed in their title sections. TJ Spyke 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this in reference to the J Cup or the J-Crown? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I meant J-Crown, I've changed everyone's edits to reflect this if no-one minds. Tony2Times (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
With unification matches, the result of the match can spawn two different outcomes. One outcome results in one of the championships being decommissioned with the champion choosing to hold a single championship (...as was the case with the WCW U.S. and WWE IC unification match at Survivor Series 2001, where Edge chose the IC championship.) The second outcome results in the champion choosing to hold both championships (...as was the case with the WCW Cruiserweight and WWF Lightheavyweight unification match on July 30, 2001, where Xpac continued to defend the two titles both simultaneously and separately. Also, as is the case with the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship and the J-Crown.)--UnquestionableTruth-- 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah but therein lies the difference here. When X-Pac won the Cruiser and Light titles, he defended them separately and they were billed as two different championships. Just like when Joe and Kurt fought in the Winner Takes All match last year, the titles were billed separately. X-Pac was "the WWF Lightheavyweight Champion and WCW Cruiserweight Champion" and four all three belts I don't wanna bore you with. The J-Crown during its brief existence and the Unified Tag Championships are billed as that. JeriShow have never defended only the World Tag Titles and are never introduced as "the WWE and World Tag Team Champions". Tony2Times (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raw Celebrity GMS

Hello,everybody! This is in regards to the Authority figures in wrestling page (not sure if that's the correct title). Anyways, there has been a big debate with certain contributors and TJSpyke (who suggested I ask you guys) about the inclusion of the celebrity GMS on WWE RAW. Certain people would like them included. TJSpyke believes its FANCRUFT (though what I gathered from the FANCRUFT page, I do believe people would be interested in a list, not just hardcore wrestling fans). I do agree with TJSpyke in the fact that it would disrupt the balance of the page. However, I do think it would be a bad idea to ban it altogether. TJSpyke on the talk page compared it to listing every episode of Saturday Night Live ever made. The thing is, There are several pages here devoted to each season of SNL with every Host, Musical Guest, Cast Member as well as annotations for every little particularity of every show. In fact there are many TV Show pages that have complete episode Guide Wiki pages and pages about magazines with seperate pages about Cover stars. Why do we have the Lost Wiki, Eastenders Wiki etc......?I'm just curious as to why it would be a problem for this particular page. (This is something that is a bit puzzling to me when using Wikipedia)

So what I would suggest to appease everyone is to create a seperate article dealing with the Celeb Raw GMS and maybe you could have a link to that page on the Authority figures page. Then it wouldn't disrupt the balance on the page and it would make everybody happy. They do this on certain other TV show and magazine pages that I frequent on Wikipedia. I just wanted to suggest this. I hope it's cool. I don't know how long this edit war is going to be, but I just want to see everyone happy Any advice would be appreciated!70.31.220.110 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)samusek2

It is fancruft, and other crap exists don't mean we make more. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it anymore fancruft than listing that Maven had GM authority for one week in 2004? I think that whole page is a bit iffy really, shouldn't it be informing the reader of what an authority figure in wrestling is, the difference in roles and how they factor into storylines. That's just a glorified lists that banded together all the United States televised wrestling authority figures. Tony2Times (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said on the article talkpage, I would be more than happy to get rid of all the one-night only GM's (does anybody care that a Make-A-Wish kid was "honorary" GM?). At least temporary GM's belong on the page, guest hosts do not belong. I agree that the page should do a better job of explaining authority roles in wrestling. It would help if someone familiar with Japanese and other authority figures could add to the page. TJ Spyke 22:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a bit confused, but say someone did create a page for the Raw temporary GMs, would someone just tag it for deletion right away? I understand a bit what Darrenhusted linked to, but still I think it is a bit odd that there are pages for TV Shows like Eastenders that have their own Wiki Space, and have pages for every character that's ever been on, even if they were on for only a week. No one calls that as Fancruft and that stays on Wikipedia. I understand what you are saying TJSpyke, but if you have all these other pages on WWE RAW, ( every pay-per-view, wrestler etc....), would those be considered Fancruft pages as well? I'm sorry for seeming like I don't understand this fully, not that I disagree with any of it. However, I've seen pages that could be considered fancruft in other domains and if you said anything, they would berate you for speaking up. (I've had that happen to me on here) That's one thing that's puzzled me about Wikipedia and one reason why I don't really feel like registering. I just want to understand. Hope that's cool70.31.220.110 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)samusek2

WHat I'm saying is that just because there are 3,000 pokemon pages doesn't mean that there should be a page for the Raw GMs, or that the Raw GMs need to be listed. Everything is judged on its own merits. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Darrenhusted. I understand what you are saying. I guess it's just different strokes for different folks, depending on the topic. I am certainly not going to challenge you. I just wanted to understand what was going on. Whatever happens, I hope you guys can come to some valid solution to make everyone feel happy70.31.220.110 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC) samusek2

By the by, if you're just after the information WWE.com is listing it.Tony2Times (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! Much appreciated. I was trying to find that page but it was tough to find on the official website. In fact that gave me another possible solution. I've noticed on the Raw page that it's noted under General Managers, it's mentioned that various General Managers have been on Raw since Donald Trump Left. I was thinking instead of continually listing all the general managers on the Wikipedia pages, why not link the page that Tony just mentioned in his last post next to that part of the WWE Raw page and perhaps also in the Authority figures page (with only the Start and eventual end date for the temp GMs) so that whomever wants to see all the GMs can just click on the link. Besides, Isn't that what Wikipedia's big rule is. Provide sources? Sorry if I'm being a pest. I just wanted to find the best solution. Thanks for reading.70.31.220.110 (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)samusek2

If anyone wants, they can post the information at the Wrestling Wiki found here: [7]. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Would it be better to at least acknowledge that there are Guest Hosts under the Temporary General Managers section? Maybe mention in a note that they are celebrities and WWE Alumni or give the link to the WWE site that list all the hosts that was mention up above? MrUnoriginal (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
As long as the actual list doesn't exist, that would be OK to me. TJ Spyke 01:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I too, would love to see a page with all the WWE Raw Guest Host. The link from the WWE page is late to list and they do not include future Guest host. An example would be next week guest (10-05-09) is Big Ben Roethlisberger. I even tried to add it to the individual pages an example is the guest host for Sep 28, 2009 was Rev Al Sharpton. I added the comment for him as a guest host and it was changed back within five minutes. So Please create and keep a Raw Celebrity GMS page. Ssgdonp (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Century Wrestling Alliance

I don't know if this article has been brought to this project's attention yet, so if so, my apologies. You may be interested in it. You have a GA, if not an FA, on your hands. It was created through AfC by an IP, who wrote almost all of it. The history of this potential FA is rather interesting. Thought the primary wikiproject would want to know. :) Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I haven't had a proper chance to look at it but it's so long and has so many sources for being only a week old. Tony2Times (talk) 02:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Pretty good, but definitely not FA level yet. It needs a good copy-editing, and quite a few of the sources (Solie and Wrestling-Titles, for example) won't pass the FA source checkers. Nikki♥311 06:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrestling titles won't but solie has a possibility. There is a few MoS problems, prose problems, other source problems, format problems, etc. Long shot imo to become even a GA.--WillC 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Solie.org's only difference is that they sometimes put a name on who compiled the list, while wrestling-titles.com does not. A name does not make it a "reliable source" according to the wikipedia guidelines.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  14:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well soile gets most of its info from Wrestling Title histories (book), plus if you look at the site's main page, it seems they've released a book as well.--WillC 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
They get the same amount of information from that book as wrestling-titles.com does, doesn't differentiate between the two in any way. And if you're talking about the book on Gordon Solie then Solie.org has nothing to do with that book, the author, Robert Allyn, is not mentioned on the site at all. Yes they show it just like a website about Stampede Wrestling would show and promote a book about Stampede Wrestling. It's a book about Gordon Solie, they're named after him... that's where the connection ends. So I still don't see how solie.org could be considered any kind of reliable if wrestling-titles.com is not. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see both sites as reliable sources.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Article edit needed immediatly

Someone needs to edit Women Superstars Uncensored right away, or it will have to be tagged under A7. I would also like to see more information on why it's notable, besides having a lot of popular stars on the roster. Make no mistake, I love womens wrestling, and I have nothing agaisnt the article, but it needs help, or it'll likely be deleted. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on it. A little bit of work should get it long enough (and notable enough) for a DYK. Any help is appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
you got it. If I have time, I'll see what I can do. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely notable. WSU and Shimmer are the top 2 female promotions in the States, and surely the amount of famous women who have come up through it makes it notable. Could be hard to find many sources though. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Expanded, sourced, and submitted for DYK. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Naked Women's Wrestling League

Does this article need recategorizing an update? I don't know if it used to be a pornographic company, however the site claims "This website is exempt from 2257 compliance because it does not contain pornographic images, nor does it contain the inference of sex. While our products do contain full frontal nudity, we stick to nude wrestling!" If this is indeed the case, which it appears to be, we should remove it from Category:Pornography, possibly Category:Adult intertainment companies (an arguement could be made to keep this), and of course to change the article heading. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Um... yeah Category:Adult entertainment companies.--Celtic + Cross talk 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
On other hand, I just checked the website (not for my pleasure, of course :p) and it did seem somewhat... I think we should do Category:Adult entertainment companies.--Celtic + Cross talk 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another problem user

Someone has been repeatedly vandalizing the Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder article. Here is one such edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Curt_Hawkins_and_Zack_Ryder&diff=prev&oldid=316590111 69.23.156.97 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've warned him, lets just hope he dosen't repeat it.--Celtic + Cross talk 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

SD Theme

Ahem... Ahem... just a heads up... SmackDown has a new theme song... Now carry on...--UnquestionableTruth-- 17:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Foundz Itz... Thanks to a simple Myspace Music search of the words "Let It Roll" (which is part the chorus of the new song)... The new theme song is "Let It Roll" by Divide The Day. The sample is up on their Myspace page. ...carry on now... --UnquestionableTruth-- 17:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PWI awards

Does anyone know where I can find a reliable list of the PWI awards? All I've found is a German site which lists only a few and Wrestling Information Archive which is unreliable because they get info from us. Also I need source for Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards as well. I would directly link the awards to the respective magizine releases, etc but do not know all the info needed to make out the ref.--WillC 01:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it looks like it only goes to 2007 you can find them here: [8]Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the Wrestling Information Archive he was talking about. Though I hadn't realized they took info from Wikpedia. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh... duh, lol. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Sykes, take a look at their TNA article. An exact copy of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling from a while ago unless they've changed it since the last time I looked at it. Here is a link--WillC 01:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
They even say it is from here. I try to not use them at all anymore because of it.--WillC 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If you look around some more, you'll see that they have copied their WWE article and a few others.--WillC 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
That site hasn't been worked on since Jericho won his World Title at Unforgiven last year btw.AfroGold - Afkatk 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask why they are even considered notable?--UnquestionableTruth-- 17:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these sources have ever been considered notable as such, but people seem to tend to use them because they provide the information needed, I don't think it has been stated that this is a notable source. AfroGold - Afkatk 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I meant the PWI awards in gen...--UnquestionableTruth-- 18:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh you're talking about the magazine, lol, well I guess what makes a wrestling publication notable could be up for debate. AfroGold - Afkatk 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Because it's been discussed several times, and consensus has always been to keep them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I was only talking about a discussion involving what makes a wrestling publication notable, not whether we should delete the PWI articles. AfroGold - Afkatk 18:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
There is the general guidelines. PWI is notable, how could anyone claim it isn't? What possible reason? PWI's notability is helped by the fact that WWE frequently uses their pictures for WWE Home Video releases. TJ Spyke 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
source?--UnquestionableTruth-- 19:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A WWE Video. Are we having to source discussions now? :p Tony2Times (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
bulletproof, do you ever watch any WWE bio DVD? WWE frequently uses PWI pictures (the pictures will have "Photo courtesy of PWI" and in the copyright notice at the end of the video they will again acknowledge PWI). The most recent one I watched was the Twist of Fate DVD set, but many others use them too. TJ Spyke 20:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Nah dude im just asking... a link would be nice.--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me repeat, does anyone know the ref information for the PWI awards in Cage's article?--WillC 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe try going on a reliable wrestling forum and see if anyone has the publication notes there? It doesn't seem like anyone here buys PWI. Tony2Times (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So how does WWE using images supplied by PWI make them notable anyway? I honestly don't see how that would outline them as notable. AfroGold - Afkatk 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I never said that alone made the magazine notable (although it DOES make them notable), I just said that off the top of my head. It boggles me that anyone would even question the notability of the magazine. TJ Spyke 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
It also adds a good counterpoint to WON because PWI is kayfabed and based on entertainment whereas WON is critical and based on style. Generalisation alert. Tony2Times (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave Millican

Is the license Dave Millican gave us limitless, to a certain extent? Obviously we shouldn't upload every picture from there as lots are just fan belts but I'm wondering why more belts haven't been uploaded. André's special belt is a really hard picture to find and I think would make a good addition to the article I reckon, while it makes sense to have the original WWWF belt on there among other ones on there. But I thought I'd check to make sure that it's not something which should be used sparingly. Also, I was wondering if text can be entered into the Previous Belt Designs parameter to convey, in small text, the years that design was used for. Tony2Times (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Only for belts he has made for companies, not for orders he has done. It was mainly for the TNA Belts. Plus it seems his e-mail reply isn't good enough because he didn't release them under a certain license. It would be best to send him a new e-mail and get this all sorted out some more.--WillC 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Diva videos

I would like some opinions on listing the Diva video shoots on the WWE Diva page. See this version, under promotion. It seems like WP:LISTCRUFT to me. The videos are basically just footage taken the during the photoshoot, spliced with some interviews and some "adventure" type deal. Doesn't seem notable to me...it is like a video version of a WWE Magazine interview. Anyone agree or disagree? Nikki♥311 02:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

DVDs are notable, but photoshoots (which I guess is what you are referring too) don't seem notable. Stating that they host photoshoots at times is notable, but only like one line, not mentioning everyone that has been done.--WillC 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That is what I mean. Saying that they did an annual photoshoot every year (with accompanying video), but without the list of every single one. Nikki♥311 02:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be fine. That is what I plan to do with TNA Knockout.--WillC 03:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Lauren C. Mayhew

There are three sources confirming that Lauren does indeed work for WWE and that she is working the Smackdown brand. [9] [10] and [11] I and several other users have tried to update this page using the sources above and one user keeps reverting the changes claiming that there is no source despite the three provided. In order to put a stop to this user's edit warring, I am bringing it here for discussion. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources, then add her. Simple as that IMO.--WillC 22:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I say let it stay in this case, as it is likely accurate. Otherwise there would be some legal issues that i'm sure Ms. Mayhew would rather avoid. if there are any more issues, let them know that while the site is a primary source it can be included, provided that it is not being used incorrectly. This is borderline since it is the only reference, however it is only being used to reference a specific fact. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What proof is there that the MySpace and Twitter account are hers? See Wikipedia:External links. Anybody can make one up. I could go and make a Twitter account and MySpace account, claim I am Lex Luger, and say I signed a contract with WWE. So the only confirmed source among those are the first one, and all it says is that she works for WWE. It says nothing about SmackDown. TJ Spyke 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The myspace page is linked from her official site. It is legit.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I know its her site. It's considered a primary source. See WP:RS. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
That was in reply to TJ who keeps using the arguement "How do we know it's real" when he clearly didn't even look at the site or he would have found the link like I did. Also, an email to her management asking if the sites (myspace and twitter) were real got me this reply: "It's cool. They're real." I read WP:RS. The use of those three sites (or even just ONE of them) seems to fall within the guidlines. The article uses mostly second party sources and this primary source is only used to verify ONE statement in the article.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Don't take it personally, I'm sure TJ was just attempting to protect the encyclopedia. Thanks for your help.Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If no one has any legitimate reason not to, I'm going to go ahead and put her back on the page. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Now when I said add her, I meant to the WWE roster. There is no source she works on the SmackDown brand. Until a source she works on there, she can't be added. But the WWE roster only.--WillC 02:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There IS a source. That's what this whole discussion was about. Her myspace page and twitter page (both of which have been verified as REAL) confirm that she will be the ring announcer for Smackdown. And while both are considered primary sources, their use in this case falls within the guidelines since they are only used to verify on piece of information.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
MySpace, yes. Twitter, no. Her site does link to the MySpace, but I didn't see any reference to the Twitter page. Of coarse there has yet to be confirmation from WWE that she even works for them. TJ Spyke 03:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I already told you I emailed her management team via their contact information on the official site and they confirmed that the Twitter page is real. Before you say "how do we know," I took pictures of the email with my camera phone and would be more than happy to provide a link or forward the emails to you, not to mention that you yourself could email them just like I did and get the same response. Also, WWE usually does not publicly announce the hiring of new employees. It's funny that you've had to resort to suggesting that Mayhew is lying about it. And you accused ME of spreading BS... You're grasping for straws and your desperate attempt to keep things your way for no good reason is starting to look really sad. The information is verified and real. There is no reason for you to keep fighting something that is obviously and unquestionably the truth. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the past, I don't have any reason to take your word on anything. Mathews has not even said she's the new ring announcer, just the "voice" of SmackDown. That could also be backstage interviewer or commentator. I didn't say she was a liar. Excuse me for not wanting to just accept what a random editor with sketchy past claims are facts. If you want to say "Matthews claims to be the new announcer on SmackDown" (or something like that), that could be OK. TJ Spyke 04:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Except that her official site clearly states that she is a ring announcer. Try again. And you say I have a sketchy past (and you've brought this up before) yet everything you have ever questioned me on has been correct. You didn't outright SAY that she's a liar, but your edit on her wiki page suggests that what she says could be a lie. There's not much of a difference there. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I said she has not been confirmed to be working for WWE. All we have is her word that she is. So saying she claims to be the new announcer is fine, but that's it. As for your past, you don't have the most reliable past. TJ Spyke 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, WWE does not publicly announce it every time they hire a new employee and once again you've suggested that her statements about working for the company could be a lie. If all you can come up with at this point is "she might be a liar" you should just give up now. Your statements about my past are BS. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

TJ this isn't about Wwehurricane1's past, as I recall you don't have a great pasted either. Anyway, if we have a source she is apart of WWE now then we should add her to the roster. Although, if we have no source she is a ring announcer for any brand, then we can't add her as an announcer. That simple.--WillC 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

We do have a source that she works on a specific brand.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I see that, but does it say she will be the ring announcer verbatim?--WillC 04:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does. On her official website. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok how can we best settle this issue? I would suggest having an independent source confirm with the management staff. That should answer the RS question. Confirm that she has been hired by WWE and in the capacity in which she is under contract. Until such time as that is confirmed, I suggest that we leave the article with the data that can be sourced and is not contested. That she is a WWE anthem singer.She will also be listed on the WWE employees page because of this. Once we confirm the information, the rest can be added. All parties remember , this IS NOT PERSONAL, we are verifying information as required, to provide accurate information regarding a BLP article. Lets not bring history into this. Can We all agree on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs)
For those wondering, PW Torch is reporting that she was NOT the announcer on SmackDown this week (which means she should not have "September" listed as her start date). Apparently she screwed up her cues during the dark match and was replaced by Justin Roberts (but embarrassingly was forced to sit at ringside and take notes). So Justin Roberts is still officially the announcer since Matthews has not started. TJ Spyke 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Once again, people are overthinking things. She said she would be the ring announcer. Last month, Kirstie Alley announced that she was hired to replace Paula Abdul on American Idol. Saying it doesn't make it true, although it might soon be confirmed by a reliable source. The article should be edited to state, "On September __, Mayhew announced on her MySpace page that she would be the new ring announcer for WWE's SmackDown! shows." This can be sourced to her MySpace page, although Wikipedia is not claiming that it is necessarily true. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I can live with that. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Do what you want. I'm done. I'll come back to say "I told you so" when you end up adding the information anyway, but other than that, you don't have to worry about me messing with your precious articles anymore, TJ. Sephiroth storm, I already said above that her management team has been contacted and the information verifed through them. I offered to post pics that I uploaded of the emails or to forward the emails themselves to anyone who wanted to take a look. It's clear that there's more at work here besides "the information can't be verifed" since it has been, in triplicate and is uncontestable. Certain people just refuse to look at the indisputable evidence in favor of having things their way. Good day to you all. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Guys, the information has been confirmed. Add her. WrestleView, PWTorch. etc have published the info that she was the ring announcer last night. Yes she only did one match, but she was a ring announcer none the less. Add her and say she is in training, etc.--WillC 21:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
She did not do ANY matches on SmackDown. The only match she did was a dark match. She has yet to do a televised match. Justin Roberts did all of the SmackDown matches this week. And after the way she screwed up and was publically reprimanded (the reports are that WWE officials came out to the ring rather than call her to the back and do it), I would't be so sure she will make her debut next week either. This is all speculation, but the what is confirmed is that she has yet to do any announcing in WWE and will not do so until next week at the earliest. TJ Spyke 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have agreed with several propositions here, I don't really care one way or the other, my concern is that we verify the information, Hurricane, I said that if the information that you provided is verified I would have no issue with it. Will, as you stated, the information that as of this moment, because Hurricane has not provided the documentation, is that she is a ring announcer. No one here has disputed that recently. What is disputed is whether we can/should include information that can be sourced to her, but not be verified to be true. I would remind you all of WP:TRUTH. So after that, several options have been offered, no one seems to be willing to say yes or no, but just keep arguing. I will continue t offer my opinion, and push for us to choose one way or another. Thats all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephiroth storm (talk • contribs)
TJ, She did a dark match, which is a match. She has done some announcing, one match counts as announcing. So you are wrong that "she has yet to do any announcing in WWE". At the moment, we can add her to the roster and the SD page because we have third party reports. On the roster page we can add that she announced a dark match. It would be written as so " Ring announcer; announced one dark match for the SmackDown brand at the tapings of the October 2, 2009 episode." I don't see why we are even debating this. We have the proof, that is final. Not like tomorrow all sites will report she never existed or it was all a joke.--WillC 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
WWE roster page, maybe. Not the SmackDown roster page though. Justin Roberts did ECW this week (and occasionally in the last few months), should we add him to the ECW page as a regular annoucer? What about FCW wrestlers competing in dark matches? Eric Escobar has been wrestling a lot of dark matches for WWE in the last few months, but we don't add him to any brand yet because he has yet to actually debut. Same thing should be done for her, she has yet to actually debut. I don't get why we are arguing this either, there has not been any proof that she is the new ring announcer for SmackDown as she has not down any announcing for SmackDown. TJ Spyke 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Are we agreed that she can be listed on the WWE roster? I think so. Put her on it. Anything else, I think, to prevent future problems, we wait until she announces an entire show, or is added to the roster. Can we agree on those? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that on the roster but not listed as announcer till she does an entire show. All so i would like to bring up the fact that Justin Roberts is listed as the Announcer on Raw atList of World Wrestling Entertainment employees I don't deny the fact that he could be but as of right now WWE has said nothing on this matter. So I say that we list him as being the announcer for raw and smackdown. What are your thoughts.--Dcheagle (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
AHHA! I have an idea! Why don't we list them both under other personnel! There is a notes section, say what status they are in, say so and so has announced on this or that show. Sephiroth storm (talk)
Why would we want to do that for Mayhew she has not done a show so why should we list her I would be ok with if for Justin Roberts but not Mayhew.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hulkamania

Who wants to make the article on the promotion? It is clearly notable because there are enough reliable sources out there, and that is what makes material notable. The only question is: What should we include in it?--WillC 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a promotion, it's a tour. I'm not sure it is notable either. TJ Spyke 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually reports say it is a promotion that is hosting a tour.--WillC 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What are the references? I would like to take a look at them before we say it's notable. I haven't heard of it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it even matters if its a Tour or a Promotion, its still got quite a bit of coverage [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] though I'm not sure about the ifight365, and plus Wrestle View has information up. AfroGold - Afkatk 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Given how many times wrestler's promise matches and how cards are subject to change it is worth waiting until it has happened then judging if it was notable, then adding a mention to the right articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed the problem a few months ago after the SmackDown and ECW articles were moved to their current names.[18] [19] I spoke with TJ about the matter but he seemingly ignored me... [20]It was only after other editors spoke to him about the issue that he at least finally responded. (Afkatk) [21] [22] (Truco) I chose not to take this further (as in to WP:ANI) because I just assumed TJ would simply stop this ridiculous behavior...[23] ...but every single time... ARGH! ...getting annyoying... This needs to be addressed before it escalates any further...--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that the official names of the show ARE WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy (and some morons revert even when I don't change the links but just change how it appears; i.e. [[WWE SmackDown|WWE Friday Night SmackDown[[), I am not doing anything wrong. People still go to the correct article. I also don't go looking to change the links, I only do it once in awhile and ONLY when I have to make a edit to the article anyways (like updating info). None of this would be an issue if these 2 articles hadn't been moved away from there official names (they ARE the official names, the international names are just alternate names). TJ Spyke 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Dude, just stop. I didn't want to bring this up here, but you can't afford another strike of any kind and you know it. Knock it off. Even if you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you're doing is fine, I doubt WP:ANI is going to agree and then you'd be screwed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have heard the ANNOUNCERS say Friday Night Smackdown so the article SHOULD be named that. ArcAngel (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Got any proof to back your claims? TJ you do it about once a day. There is no reason to change the links. I don't like it Cage's article wasn't moved to William Reso, you don't see me going around and changing links. Those are the US names like we've told you a 100 times. Even if the international names turn out to be alternitive names, there ones they are at now are still the common names because on a world-wide scale, the shows are known as ECW and SmackDown.--WillC 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why it's ECW (WWE) rather than WWE ECW. Tony2Times (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not WWE ECW because its a fan term and not the official term for the program, since the WWE don't refer to it as WWE ECW they simply refer to it as ECW. AfroGold - Afkatk 14:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen anything official call it WWE SmackDown either. The only show with a regularly used WWE prefix is WWE Superstars. Tony2Times (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The original argument was this. yes WWE is a U.S. based company but that doesn't mean Wikipedia is. WWE does not only broadcast in the United States, but globally in international markets. The common name used by WWE for this program is simply SmackDown (like the brand name), and it is used as the name for the international shows, because in some countries, SmackDown does not air on Friday Night like in the United States. Per WP:RETAIN, the common names and spellings for articles and in general usage are to be used. Friday Night SmackDown is not how it's known in other countries. The same applies to ECW (WWE) and ECW on Syfy. Notice how these are the US names and how these are the common names. --UnquestionableTruth-- 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I know, I get that. But my question was why WWE SmackDown rather than just SmackDown or why not WWE ECW just like WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown? Tony2Times (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the question is this, is TJ changing the links to point to the articles or o a redirect? Or if he just changing them to look like a redirect? Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Check the links given above or just look through his contributions, he does it about once a day. I've been watching him on and off since his little campaign began.--WillC 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT??  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I inform everyone, that he is using his edit summary incorrectly still. Still asking for help it seems to get the articles changed back.--WillC 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not asking for help in the edit summary. Just linking to ECW on Syfy and WWE Friday Night SmackDown is not wrong. I would also like to point out to bulletproof that you are just as wrong as I am in changing the links. You complain about me changing them. I am not breaking any guidelines or policies. You, on the other hand, ARE breaking guidelines by going around and "fixing" them (see Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken). I am not talking about just the links I change, you are going around and changing every article that links to them. TJ Spyke 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Then lets go to AIN and see if you are? You seem to trying to make a WP:POINT. Plus you can change redirects, it is just seen as an unhelpful remedial task.--WillC 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that bulletproof is complaining about me changing links (which I change about 1 article per day on average) while he is breaking guidelines himself by changing them, in the last 1 hour he has changed links on 5 articles from my watchlist alone. People may find it annoying what I do, but I am not technically doing anything wrong. Hell, people revert my edits even when I leave the links alone and just change what appears in the text. There is nothing wrong with writing ECW on Syfy or Friday Night SmackDown since those are the primary names of the show (the others are just alternate names used in foreign markets). This is the only time I agree with WikiProject Anime (who seem to insist that every article in their scope use the Japanese names, even if the English names are far more common and is the reason I stopped editing Dragon Ball Z articles). TJ Spyke 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We've shown you a 100 times that those are not the common names. Those are the US names. As such we should write the common names. A consensus was established. "People may find it annoying what I do, but I am not technically doing anything wrong." We can go to AIN and see if they feel the same way.--WillC 19:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, using the official primary name of the show (like it or not, the US names are the primary name of the shows and the international names are alternate names) is not doing anything wrong. Some people seem to think that it's wrong to write "Friday Night SmackDown" or "ECW on Syfy" and seem intent on changing every occurrence to just "SmackDown" and "ECW". I am also not the one violating guidelines here. TJ Spyke 20:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke has a long history of edit warring over very minor things [24] and seems to think that his opinion means more than a consensus discussion. He has shown that even a threat of a long block will not convince him change his editing patterns permanently, so there really is no point in going to ANI as nothing of use will be done. -- Scorpion0422 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that I was still new to Wikipedia at that time (and no one had told me about the 3RR rule), I was right in that case but also regret doing it. I also don't get what that has to do with anything because there was no consensus against me in that article and I actually provided proof that the other guy was wrong. TJ Spyke 20:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I just brought it up as an example because I found it hilarious that you were edit warring over a fact tag. And you didn't learn anything because I've seen you war over fact tags since. I always thought that we went with Raw, Smackdown & ECW because they were the simplified brand names whereas Friday Night Smackdown was the name of the TV show (also, the Raw and Smackdown shows have had various titles over the years, so why not do what we do with wrestlers and go with the most well-known name?). -- Scorpion0422 21:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
So... WP:ANI? ...are you ok ANI? You've been hit by... a smooth criminal! --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It basically boils down to this TJ. Are you going to stop or is this something thats going to have to go to ANI, because I personally think this disruption is ridiculous, but if it has to be taken to ANI then... --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You're the one violating guidelines bulletproof, not me. If anything, you would get in trouble. I have made 1 change today, you have made at least 5 (and my edit was within the rules, yours weren't). You might want to be careful with your edits if you don't want to be reported. I am not gonna be threatened by someone who doesn't feel like follow the rules them self, especially since I know I am not doing anything wrong. I used to respect you as an editor bulletproof, but you have changed for the worse. TJ Spyke 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
WHAT?!?! Are you mad!?!?--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
TJ, just let it go! I personally feel you're usually a good contributor to this project, but your tendency to become hell-bent on something very minor being changed is horrible. Seriously, I don't want to see you get blocked, and as I said above, you can't afford another strike. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
TJ, there is nothing wrong with changing redirects. That is allowed. Changing correct links to redirects to prove a point, and campaigning to push a point are not. I think the admins at ANI would see your actions as disruptive.--WillC 00:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, changing redirects is discouraged per WP:REDIRECT (I'm not one to talk, I do it all the time). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is discouraged but allowed. No one has ever been blocked for fixing links that I know of.--WillC 00:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No, but users do get warned. I got extremely frustrated when I would fix links (mainly video game ones, like changing links from "Nintendo Revolution" to Wii) only to see someone else go and revert them right after. bulletproof is acting like I spend all day doing this. I change MAYBE 1 article on average per day, how is that "disruptive"? I will stop if others stop trying to "fix" the redirects as well. I think admins would look down more on someone knowingly violating a guideline over and over again vs. someone doing something that bugs a few editors but is not breaking any guidelines or policies. TJ Spyke 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You shouldn't be changing the links in the first place which is the point which is trying to be made. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ you are breaking a consensus. It was agreed on to move the articles to the new names and refer to the shows as such. You are doing something against policy. I'm upset Jason Reso wasn't moved to William Reso but you don't see me going around changing links to William Reso. The links can be and should be changed from ECW on Syfy/ECW on Sci Fi] and WWE Friday Night SmackDown because those are not the names. ECW and WWE SmackDown are the names. To be correct, they are supposed to be changed.--WillC 01:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not breaking any policy, I know that for a fact. The users changing the redirects to the alternate names ARE breaking guidelines. I won't change any more links, but I WILL enforce the guideline about "fixing" redirects. Also, the agreement was about the article name, there is nothing against using the correct name of the shows. TJ Spyke 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The article name is the correct name of the show. That is what those three discussions were entirely about. Your opinion they are the alternative names. You are in the minority there, because the consensus was against you. So the correct names and the ones to be used, per the consensus, is SmackDown and ECW. We are forcing the consensus, you are breaking that consensus. So in fact, you are the only one doing anything wrong here.--WillC 05:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel like I am arguing with a brick wall here. You don't get it, do you? I am not the one violating guidelines here, so people trying to "fix" the links to the "correct" names are more wrong. Consensus is not always correct, it used to be consensus in the US (and other countries) that segregation was correct, for example. The international names are not the main names of the show. TJ Spyke 15:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Holy hell. Wow. TJ, do you know what a WP:COMMONNAME is? Its the name most known to the shows globally, not just in the United States. Once again, yes WWE is U.S. based company; however, Wikipedia is not a U.S. based Encyclopedia. The English language is spoken worldwide and can be accessed worldwide, and as a result, WWE Friday Night SmackDown is not the name used in other countries except in North America. The International name of the program is "SmackDown", the international name is "ECW". Syfy does not have international markets (to my knowledge) and thus WWE cannot call it that in other countries except here in the United States, which is why its called "ECW" internationally. The common name internationally outweighs the name here in the United States because its the "most used name on a global scale", not just the national level. To my knowledge ECW on TNN only aired in the United States, which is why the program is at its current name. If it were aired internationally, the common name used globally would be used instead. See the difference? See how WWE Raw is the international name? --Truco 503 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Truco. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm done. This entire conversation is horribly lame. Honestly, does it really actually matter that TJ is changing links? Seriously? There's more severe things to revert. It's honestly not hurting anything. It's a very minor issue. If you want to revert TJ's edits, fine. If TJ wants to change them back, fine. Just leave it be. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
It might be lame to a point, but that doesn't justify ignoring the problem. Revert/edit warring isn't needed. TJ (as well as everyone else posting in this discussion) knows this. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting ignoring it because I honestly don't think it's a problem. If I did, I wouldn't ignore it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your reasons Gavyn, but ignoring it now will just cause future probelms. If we fix this now, then we will not have to deal with it or even a bigger problem in the future.--WillC 19:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right, it's a big problem that users like bulletproof are going around "fixing" links to those articles. Hopefully they stop since they are aware that they are violating guidelines. TJ Spyke 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Misinformation is not breaking guidelines, it is improving the project. I know you are having a hard time understanding that, but look at it this way. The articles say "When things go up they must go up", when they should say "When things go up, they must come down". Bullet, myself, etc are fixing these problems, and that is completely reasonable because we can ignore the correcting links guideline to better the project. We wouldn't have these problems if you wouldn't have changed a correct link to a redirect in the first place.--WillC 20:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the bullcrap you are trying to feed me. First, bulletproof is going around changing all of the links (meaning the ones that already existed, not just ones I changed). Second, don't try and pull that IAR lie just because you want to violate guidelines and get away with it. If you try that, I will use it too since I would be adding the primary name of the show. I already said I would stop changing the links as longs as you and a select few editors stop breaking the guidelines. I won't change any more links, but I will revert those who willfully break guidelines. So it boils down to this, I won't change links if others don't (although I am not the one doing anything wrong). TJ Spyke 20:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
TJ, what guideline do you think is being broken by changing the names back? Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The guideline that Will and bulletproof think they are free to violate is Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. TJ Spyke 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You say you are not breaking any guidelines but even now you seem to be breaking WP:POINT, [25] [26] [27], those are all recent edits right after you said you'd stop, and I think it's pretty clear by now you wont stop. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Did I put put links in? No. I said I would stop changing links, there is nothing wrong with saying something in the edi summary. I have not changed any links since I agreed to stop. TJ Spyke 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus says otherwise TJ. You are putting the US names in, we are to use the common names. No matter how much you wish those were the correct names to use, they aren't. You are breaking multiple guidelines. First you are breaking consensus, second you causing a disruption with your disruptive editing, you are using your edit summary incorrectly, you have begun to harass editors with your link fixing sections, etc. You are asking us to quit fixing redirects and misinformation because they aren't broken, but in the last hour or so, you have fixed numerous redirects. See this and this edit as two examples. You either stop completely or I will be forced to take this to ANI, and with your history I doubt they will just let this pass without a serious block of some type. There is no, I'll stop if you stop, because fixing redirects is helpful. Yes we don't have to fix redirects, but when it comes to misinformation, we must fix them. I don't like redirects, that is why I fix them.--WillC 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC) TJ why are you editing redirects in the archives? See here. For someone so fit on people not fixing redirects or links in general, you seem to like to fix them.--WillC 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep spewing crap out of your mouth, you just don't want to admit you are wrong. First, I have not been disrupting anything since I have not changed any links since I agreed to stop (and even when I did change them, I did MAYBE 1 per day). Second, remninding editors not to willfully violate guidelines is not harrasment (that's like a criminal saying the police are harassing them by telling them to stop breaking the law). Third, if I get reported for this then you and bulletproof will get in trouble too (and NiciVampireHeart), do you really want this project to lose 4 good editors just because your are bitter? Just because you don't like the US names doesn't mean they are misinformation, they ARE official names and thus ARE acceptable to be used in articles. You don't HAVE to violate guidelines, you choose to. Yes I use WikiCleaner, but I only change links that are no longer used (i.e. in the NWA template I fixed a capitalization issue by changing "The Disciples of The New Church" to "The Disciples of the New Church"). There is a difference between changing are no-longer used name for a link and making a controversial change from one official name to another. I don't know what your problem is Will, you seem so bullheaded that you don't want to compromise. TJ Spyke 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen someone be more redundant. You've said the samething since this situation began. "I haven't done anything wrong, you are wrong." Lets say we are wrong, you are still violating a consensus. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong in their actions over the name dispute. There was still a consensus on which names to use, and you must abide by that. There is no compromise in that situation. You used a crime scenario, so I'll use one as well. The man who shot a cop can say he did it out of self-defense because the cop pulled a gun on him. However, the cop pulled the gun because the convict just shot and killed a gas station employee. You are like the convict, wanting a compromise of "don't take me to prison, just give me a slap on the wrist and walk away." Either way, you just did something wrong. "Third, if I get reported for this then you and bulletproof will get in trouble too (and NiciVampireHeart), do you really want this project to lose 4 good editors just because your are bitter?" So you admit you have done wrong. Then quit your campaign and your consensus violating edits. Nici? Why bring her in on this, she isn't even involved in this discussion or this problem. The template edits are ok because that is a by in the guideline, but that was to show you continue to be a seeming hippocrite. "no longer used" What? If they exist they are still is use. That would mean all the SD and ECW links are no longer in use because the names are no longer used. "Keep spewing crap out of your mouth, you just don't want to admit you are wrong." I think the shoe may be on the other foot in this example. "You don't HAVE to violate guidelines, you choose to." Enough said.--WillC 22:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

*sighs* I am taking this to ANI. TJ, Guidelines are not set in stone. Technically if what I am seeing is correct, by TJ changing the links to something that redirects to the original article, he is following the Redirect guideline, but has failed to read WP:Double Redirect, which states that they are undesirable. This is an inherent failure of the policy and is not the fault of TJ.

TJ, You undoubtedly are causing a disruption. This ridiculously long section is proof of that. There is clearly a consensus to either change the links to the titles of the pages, and a movement to leave this whole subject alone. In addition, again, WP:Redir is a guideline. It is overruled by the very nature of WP, and this WikiProject.

After this ANI, I suggest that before anything is done, we discuss here whether or not we would like to change the redirects, and to what. Once a consensus is reached, have a bot go through and make the edits. That way we avoid any COI issues. I will post a link to the ANI. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is sad it had to come to this.--WillC 22:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No surprise at all. TJ up to his same old tactics: he thinks he is right, and argues with people about it, and makes rude comments. "Spewing crap" is just one of the rude and not needed comments I see here. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't we all just go back to editing and forget this nonsense? If anything is done at ANI (which I doubt), TJ still won't change his ways. He's proven this many times, even after a ban, he still edit wars over silly things like the word "the" and the order of yet-to-happen pay-per-view matches that will soon be changed. It's just creating an unnecessary heated debate which will drain the will to edit of several of the participating members. -- Scorpion0422 22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree, but if an indef block is the answer to his endless controvesal edits, then so be it, even if karma may bite us in the ass one day for having a helpful editor at times blocked.--WillC 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
No, this isn't just nonsense. It's a problem that should be dealt with. If it's ignored, it could get worse. Ignoring it isnt the answer. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
link to ANI. [28] Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I have not changed any links to ECW or SmackDown since this issue began. So I stopped several days ago, certain editors seems to think they don't have to follow guidelines though. I am done with this section, I have shown I am right, I have stopped the supposed disruptive activities (1 edit a day is not considered disruption I guess), and bullheaded people won't listen to reason. TJ Spyke 22:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
1 edit a day is still a problem. You know people have a problem with it, but you continue on because you think your view controls the articles. That is NOT how Wikipedia works, and you know it. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_72&oldid=1190131880"