Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36

Contents

WWE Divas

This thread has already been archived, but I know there was some concern a few days ago because the Diva section of WWE.com had vanished along with most mentions of Divas around the website. I am pleased to report that it has been mostly restored back to how it was, save a few links here and there that are dead. Total speculation but I'm guessing the website was hacked. At any rate, its back and there is nothing that needs to be done Wikipedia/article wise about this occurance as it seems to have been a fluke. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was the case with the whole TNA website right after Genesis (which lasted for several hours). I don't know. Similar situations with each other. The Chronic 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't hacked. That's all I can say at the moment. Mshake3 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And how would you know? -suspicious- (Just checking in on my Wiki talk page. I'm still on a wikibreak) Vampire Warrior 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
PWInsider Elite member. It's all in their audio. Out of respect to the site, I won't be giving the juicy details, until it's on the site in written form. Mshake3 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the "juicy details," but the guy who ran the divas section of the website left the company recently, and it fell into disrepair for a few days. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers again!

There was a tag team title change at the Smackdown taping - and users are again insisting on posting spoilers on the WWE page. Watch out for Australian editors as it has aired here. The last edit removed the note about not placing spoilers on the page. There are some very ignorant people around the place! !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "insisting of posting spoilers" may be in the right and this very topic is being discussed above. It has already been concluded that being a spoiler is not a reason for removal, and the fact it has now been confirmed means it probably should be added. –– Lid(Talk) 10:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The matter appears to have been resolved now, as I have reminded everyone that this is an encyclopedia and not a wrestling website. !! Justa Punk !! 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wrong. Lid has reverted it again, and now I'm trapped by the 3RR rules. This has not got an alternative consensus - and until i does, the current consensus holds. That is - would someone please revert Lid's edit? This is bordering on disruptive editing to be honest. !! Justa Punk !! 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just called in someone on the Arbitration committee. Thanks to Get Dumb for reverting Lid's last edit. He has to leave it alone until a different consensus to the established one is agreed to here. The sooner that page mentioned above gets off the ground the better. !! Justa Punk !! 11:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
GetDumb reverting asking for a source is unbelievably ridiculous, professional wrestling falls under WP:FICT and the sources for the events are the events being aired themselves, a previously established fact here. This can't go both ways; with the event airing in Australia it isn't a source but airing in America it is considered a source. This appears to be wikilawyering to game the system. –– Lid(Talk) 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Or he is based somewhere that has NOT seen Smackdown aired yet. That being the case then it's a perfectly reasonable question. Wikilawyering? With all due respect, I think this is starting to sound like the pushing of an opinion - which I'm sure is a WP rule violation somewhere. !! Justa Punk !! 11:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have an opinion on the matter, which is why there is a debate on the topic, because if there wasn't an opposite opinion there would be no debate. I'm not following your point? –– Lid(Talk) 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you are pushing an opinion through edits on the WWE page - which is precisely where you shouldn't be doing it. Here in a debate is fine. Discuss/debate first - edit the page later when a consensus is reached. !! Justa Punk !! 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I edited the page twice, and have been partaking in the debate here for the last two days. I have not been edit warring on the pages and editing the pages in such a way is not pushing an agenda on this topic. Consensus has been reached, above, that claiming removal because it is a spoiler is a really weak argument and I do not think you can find consensus above that supports removal on the grounds of being a spoiler. –– Lid(Talk) 11:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I really wish someone had told me about the above discussion when I didn't notice it. That fact of the matter is, I was involved in a discussion that can be found in the archives and across articles under WP:PW's scope with the outside community involved, including the chairman of the mediation committee, an it wasn't even questioned that spoilers must be verified. That is non-negotiable. If there isn't a source, then there is nothing to say that this event ever actually took place. If you can't provide a source, then you lose per WP:V, period. My consensus is larger, and more in line with the policies. The Hybrid T/C 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I really want to know how the events being watched in America can be reconciled as being reliable but the events being watched in Australia can not be considered reliable? The purpose of this discusson isn't verification, and it never has been, it's been that the spoilers have always been written off and the inserters have been considered on the wrong side of policy when they are in the right. –– Lid(Talk) 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
To explain better; the above discussion relates to the non-inclusion of spoilers as a whole, THIS discussion relates to the inclusion of the information after it has aired and apparently, if after it airs in Australia it's inclusion is still not allowed. They are in the same area however they are not overlapping discussion. –– Lid(Talk) 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion has been about verification ever since the previous discussion reached an end, as it was definitively solved. If a reliable source can be found, then it cannot be removed, and if not, then it must be removed. The catch is, the only sites that post spoilers are dirt sheets who openly admit to getting their information from regular folks. Therefore, no reliable sources exist. End of discussion. Policy dictates that those who insert spoilers are blatantly wrong, period. The Hybrid T/C 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There you go! And from WP:SPOILER just to back that up;
You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details.
Lid didn't do that, which affects his credibility in my opinion. We have an existing consensus - and Hybrid has explained exactly why. The existing consensus therefore should stay. This is an additional reason behind my vote below (I encourage others to vote as well). !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That full section reads As an exception, some recently released work of fiction may carry a {{current fiction}} tag, which is usually removed a certain period of time after the work has been published — typically between a week and a month or two, though this is a matter for editorial judgement. You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details. See similar templates in Category:Temporal templates.
That line relates to, say, movies or novels and when the current fiction tag can be removed. Do not try and misinterpret that last section to be about consensus from the wikiproects about their opinion of spoilers. –– Lid(Talk) 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not the end of discussion The Hybrid - SLAM! wrestling does not attend every event, wrestlingtitles does not attend every event, every wrestling "reliable source" never attends every event. It is acomplete misnomer to interpret certain cites as reliable and others as "dirtsheets", which appears to be the major issue here. People against "spoilers" refer to them as dirtsheets, putting a negative connotation onto their purpose, while I refer to them usually as "wrestling news sites" as that makes the point of that they report wrestling news. If you haven't go up and read my post below with the poker analogy. –– Lid(Talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
They are all unreliable where spoilers are concerned, as they all get their reports from third parties. Therefore, they aren't the actual source, the third party is. The reliability of the third party would have to be assessed, and since that is impossible, all of them are unreliable. Therefore, one cannot cite the actual episode, as there is not any reliable verification that what the inserting user claims took place in that episode actually took place in that episode. The Hybrid T/C 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You keep moving the goalposts, first the spoilers are unreliable, then the wrestling news sites are unreliable now the reporters are unreliable. Just a quick analysis but you are claiming they get their news from third parties... nearly every news source on the planet gets their news from third parties. Take a newspaper article from a local newspaper posting a story from a local person, the reporter can be a complete unknown and this could be his first article however it is considered reliable because of the newspaper.
As a question can you point me to when the spoilers have been wrong in the past few weeks or months? You keep stating they are unreliable because they are by third parties except that all reporters on the planet are third parties. The fact of the matter is that thousands of people attend these events, type up results, and send them out to the wrestling news sites. If the results are wrong they are immediately jumped on as, previously mentioned, thousands attended the event and know what happened. –– Lid(Talk) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not moving the goal posts; I'm just getting more specific. The spoilers are unreliable because the third-parties are unreliable, separate from the actual site. A new reporter is considered reliable because he/she has been hired by a notable company, and therefore is not a third party. He/she is an employee, so he/she acts on the behalf of the company. These dirt sheets post reports they get in emails from non-employees, so they are using third-party reports, and, therefore, are not the actual source of the information. The third party is the source of the information, and since the reliablility of the third party cannot be assessed, they are considered unreliable within Wikipedia policies. Remember, on Wikipedia verifiability is more imprtant than the truth. It doesn't matter if the reports are accurate; what matters is where they are coming from, and they are not coming from these sites; they are coming from any random 12-year-old with an email account. The Hybrid T/C 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Published by a reliable source, not being a reliable source is the threshold. Sources, such as what we are discussing here, relate to a specific for lack of a better word "subculture" that have its own sources for information. The sources are accurate and do not push an agenda nor a point of view. Conversely we use The Sun as a reliable source when it is known in the greater world for making up gossip and being an alround "dirtsheet" but because it is not a wrestling dirtsheet that is fine. –– Lid(Talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More Opinion Wanted

I've copied the following from above, as I want more opinions on the proposal I made yesterday.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Spoilers?

Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be the best course of action. I honestly have been thinking we need to create a guidelines page in general with all of WP:PW's guidelines and reasons for the consensus of each guideline so that we can point users to it when reverting because of the consensus instead of saying well, per WP:PW consensus this, that and there and then not being able to point out the convo without digging through the archives. Bmg916Speak 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and it should also have a place for consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Lid has opened a massive can of worms here, and as a result of the tag team title change on Smackdown we need to address this PDQ so we have a link to present instead of just telling editors about "consensus". It has also been put to me that once the show is aired anywhere (meaning Australia for example) there is no longer a spoiler issue. My view is that as long as WWE don't acknowledge it (which they don't until after the show airs in the US except in exceptional circumstances - ie Edge's title win), it's a spoiler. Not withstanding Lid's argument under WP:SPOILER which bluntly I think needs to be reviewed - precisely because of the can of worms it opens up. !! Justa Punk !! 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we go ahead and create a page, here are some guidlines out of the top of my head. Feel free to comment immediately after each guidline.

  • Spoilers from SmackDown! are not inserted into any article until after the show has aired in America.
    • This seems inconsistent to me with putting dates in championship tables for the actual date won. If, for the purposes of updating the articles of The Miz and John Morrison we don't consider them as having won the belts until November 16, shouldn't that then be the date that's used in List of WWE Tag Team Champions? It's going to be the date used here and always is except in cases like when they gave away Kurt Angle and Edge winning the world title on WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Also, the show doesn't air "in America" at the same time. The East coast gets it three hours before we get it in the West. Tromboneguy0186 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Ah, that's my error. Still, if the Eastern has seen it and its entered into articles, its considered a spoiler for the West. Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The first guideline still fails to address how this is opposite WP:SPOILER and that this policy is unenforcible, to me anyway, in good faith as it has no rationl basis other than not wanting to be spoiled. The argument for "reliability" of these results only comes up with WWE, it is never questioned the reliability of say IWA-MS posted ont the internet and that has an even smaller contingent of people attending. Not to mention that EVERY TIME a title change occurs on a taped show the entire internet comes here to post it and they are always correct in policy to do so. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Spoilers from SmackDown! can be inserted into articles only if recognised by WWE.com before the first airing in America.
    • See above. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not put pure speculation into articles that may constitute a future storyline, and possibly a spoiler.
    • The spoiler part is unneeded, being speculation is removable by wikipedia policy anyway. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • So is the above guidline not needed? Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not create pages based on a current event in wrestling, for instance the cryptic computer messages.
  • If a title change occures at a event, revert any edits that you may see, and leave a hidden note, stating to users not to insert the change. If this persists, ask for the page to be protected.
    • This makes no sense, in fact going to RFPP here seems to be the opposite of what should occur. See above for reasons, but I felt this needed additions as the idea of requesting page protection in this case is counter to wikipedia's own policy. It's a content dispute, not "vandalism". –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope it isn't. We wouldn't get it fully protected, as most of the time its just IP's doing it. We'd get it semi-protected. It's edit-warring I'd guess. Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not use "dirtsheets" as a source for spoilers, as they are not WP:RS.
    • Once again; not everything a dirtsheet says is true, but they are only questioned over the validity of backstage fights orother shenanigans. No one doubts the reliability of their results coverage. This same test can be applied to TV show spoiler websites, no they are not always reliable, but they are used as sources none the less because on the whole they are right and they are not passed off simply because some of it turned out to be incorrect. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • That's been my issue with the general opinion here. It seems that dirtsheets are considered unreliable because of a chance that they're wrong. Some of these sites contain the top reporters of the field we're covering: professional wrestling. That alone is one of the top requirements for a reliable source. Mshake3 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • The only "dirtsheet" I trust is Wrestling Observer. Nothing else. PWInsider has a load of popups, and therefore annoying. The vast majority of them, Wrestling-Edge, PWMania aren't reliable (even though they are posting fact, not fiction). Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If a user repeatedly breaks the above guidlines, on more than five occassions, alert a wrestling-friendly administrator.
    • Admin-shopping is a terrible thing to do, paragraph three of WP:ADMIN "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." This is to say I would recuse myself from wrestling situations as I am knowledgable on the topic but the way I am interpreting this, considering the above, isn't for a wrestling-friendly administrator but a wrestling PROJECT friendly administrator. There is a significant and important difference between the two. –– Lid(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • How? Not many admins know our rulesguidlines. If someone ignores our guidlines, what do we do? Nothing!!! We need to do something. Wouldn't you want to see these spoiler vandals gone? Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Our rules? Admins follow wikipedia rules, not a projects rules. Spoiler vandals? There is no vandalism here, it's a content dispute. I'm not sure if you understand that the nexus of this dispute is that wikiprojects can not overrule wikipedia policy, especially based off personal feelings of "I don't want to be spoiled". –– Lid(Talk) 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • OK, not rules, guidlines. It's not a content dispute. We have never included spoilers into articles, never. Why change it now? Davnel03 16:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Posting spoilers is in no way, shape or form vandalism. Does it go against the conesensus of WP:PW? Yes. Does it go against the consensus of the wikipedia community as a whole? No, and therein lies the problem. If I'm removing spoilers, it's because dirt sheets are not reliable sources. The only issue I see now is solving whether or not we post SmackDown results after it airs in Australia. I could go either way on this one to be honest, and therefore will let the discussion play out. Whatever the consensus becomes regarding this, I will abide by. Bmg916Speak 16:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
              • OK, it's not vandalism. And I for one live in the UK, another country where SD! is broadcast before America (infact, I'm watching SD! on YouTube). Even so, it is not in any way, shape or form credited on WWE.com until after the American broadcast. Reliable sources. I'll try and find a set of spoilers that are reliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
                • It having aired to an audience is evidence enough it has occurred and can be cited with template:cite episode, and is entirely reliable. Not all sources are web based. –– Lid(Talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • I would like to note as a point of interest, that SmackDown! Airs at 3:30pmAEDT on Friday afternoons in Australia, which is 11:30pm EST on Thursday night here in the States. Bmg916Speak 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Ok before this continues I would like to state that the Australia vs America spoiler debate is an OFFSHOOT of the major topic - which is results posted on the internet before the event is televised and their inclusion, especially in regards to title changes. WWE is both a sport and an entertainment - the proponents of the entertainment side see the shows as television shows in general and they do not want the events to be spoiled for them, the sport side see the events as akin to boxing or well... indy wrestling events in which the results exist as soon as the event has occurred. I will state for the record in this regard, if it isn't already extremely evident, I fall on the sport side of interpretation in regards to this.
              • Now the major point of contention between the two, ignoring the "but it's a spoiler" argument which is pretty much considered to have no merit is that wrestling news sites are unreliable i nature and thus anything they post is unreliable. I am going to use an analogy from poker, more precisely the world series of poker, as to why this is a no-win situation for wrestling news sites/dirtsheets. The WSOP occurs in the middle of the year but is not aired until months after. While the website does post the results of the events that most up-to-date news on the event and what is largely used in sourcing what happened during an event is, in fact, poker news sites that have their own "reporters" e-mailing the editors with their information. Take this same situation and apply it to WWE tapings and we have the same situation only that the wrestling results posted on news sites are now unreliable because they are on wrestling news sites. Where else on the internet are these results going to be except wrestling news sites? Nowhere. They are there because they are wrestling news and then they are written off because wrestling news sites report wrestling news, it's a catch 22. The results themselves are, to my mind excluding one incident back in June 2006, been accurate in regards to what happened during the show, and their exclusion on the grounds of unreliability is simply wrong. –– Lid(Talk) 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two of the above are probably not needed and useless, but I've just typed these up out of the top of my head. Leave comments in between each point, and discuss if anything seems wrong with the point I've made. Cheers! Davnel03 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the view that unless WWE announce it on their website, it's the breaching of "privacy" (for want of a better word) - sort of like a report from the set of a soapie saying that a major character is being killed off before any news breaks about the actor or actress leaving the show. We don't want to know! If we want to spoiler hunt, there are ways and means of doing that. I think we should consider Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as current WWE news not on the site could be considered as a violation of that guideline. Besides - this isn't a wrestling site either. It's an encyclopedia. !! Justa Punk !! 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
That section of WP:NOt does not apply, at all, to this discussion. –– Lid(Talk) 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Lid here. If it's aired (regardless of where in the world), I believe it should be added, should a reliable source be reached. Finding one is the problem. WON is probably the most reliable one you could find, I think it should be able to be used, but only for match results. Rumors, speculation and all the other dirtsheet aspects should not. -- Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to agree, too. As I have stated before, to me, it is an issue of reliable sources and the fact that I don't like to use dirtsheets/news sites for any purpose. However...if it has aired somewhere in the world...it becomes a non-issue. It should be included as the episode itself is the reliable source. Nikki311 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be heading off track a little. Heading back to the original discussion, should we have a spoiler subpage, with the following revised proposals:

  • Spoilers from SmackDown! are not inserted into any article unless there is a reliable source.If a reliable source cannot be found, it can only be inserted after it has aired in Australia (the first contry to air that weeks edition of SmackDown!)
  • Do not create pages based on a current event in wrestling, for instance the cryptic computer messages.
  • If a title change occures at a event, revert any edits that you may see if it is not credited with a reliable source.
  • Do not use "dirtsheets" as a source for spoilers, as they are not WP:RS. Certain "dirtsheet" website however are reliable, please see below for information on which websites we believe are reliable.

Now that we have some sort of guidlines, what websites are reliable? Below are a list of sites that are unreliable and reliable. Discuss which are reliable and unreliable. If there is a clear consensus that a website listed below is unreliable, it can be removed. It's not the best thing to do, but I couldn't think of any other way to solve this issue. Thanks!

Reliability of

WrestleView

  • I personally think this website is reliable, but there has been disagreement about this website before. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • This site just copies all their news from PWInsider. Every news article I've seen you use as a source starts out with "PWInsider reports...."Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling-Edge

  • In my view, this is almost certainly unreliable. Several of their headlines read unreliable to me. Their headlines are a clear copy-vio of PWMania. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PWMania

  • Same opinion as Wrestling-Edge. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerweck

  • I'm torn over this one. Some aspects of it say reliable some say unreliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider - blacklisted.

  • I used to go on the website, but never do anymore. Not because of whether its reliable or not, but because of annoying popups. Even though it does have some good reporters, some of its website is unreliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought we're discussing the reliability of a website, not it's annoyance. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, you consider Dave Meltzer one of the most respected reporters in the business. I have the same respect, and more, for PWI's Dave Scherer and Buck Woodward. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer

  • Reliable. Dave Meltzer is one of the most respected reporters in the business, and I doubt he would put false information on his website. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Meltzer posts the Smackdown tapings results on his site. So, we can add spoilers if they're from Meltzer? Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, although it is reliable, Meltzer doesn't go to the events himself - someone e-mails him the taping results, which he puts on his website - so the results might still not be reliable. Davnel03 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Every newspaper, and newssite in the world's articles are made by a third-party reporter. The reliability of the reporter is never questioned, the reliability of the publisher is. So, the person who writes the results is completely irrelevant; if Meltzer thinks the report is appropiate for his site, then it is considered reliable by Meltzer. Now, the real question is, do we trust Meltzer with: What is reliable. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
          • IF the report sounds believable he will post it. I have seen reports that were wrong. While Melzter may be reliable (and maybe the rest of the people who work for his site), e-mail from random people aren't. If Meltzer himself goes to the event and writes the spoiler report, that is different. TJ Spyke 19:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Just what I was going to say. Davnel03 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SLAM! Sports

  • This isn't a "dirtsheet" as such, but the reliability I remember was questioned by someone a few weeks ago. I'm pretty sure its fully reliable, though. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I could list loads more, but some are definite copy-vios of others, most notably Wrestling-Edge and PWMania. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I think it's about time we put this to a vote. This debate - until Get Dumb's edit - was disrupting the article no matter who was at fault. It's why I called for an opinion from a member of ArbCom (I haven't checked for a reply this morning yet). So - let's get a consensus on this. The options are;

  1. Wait until the WWE event airs in the US
  1. Wait until the WWE event airs elsewhere if applicable
  1. Wait until a reliable spoiler appears on the Internet

Also - we need guidelines, and Davnel certainly has my OK to create that page. We can get a consensus that way as well. I strongly recommend that we make a decision on this by the next Smackdown taping - just in case. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Option 1 !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment option 1 can not, rationally, be a choice. After it has aired, at least somewhere in the world it can not be considered a spoiler still and after which point it is definitely against wikipedia policy of inclusion. We do not write the rules, and this looking for consensus is still ignoring the problem as a whole. –– Lid(Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm with Lid on this discussion being pointless. Consensus is useless here, as this is a discussion about who has interpreted the policies correctly. We know that one party has it wrong; once it has been determined who it is this will end. The Hybrid T/C 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with Lid about option one. It was my misunderstanding over that part yesterday. Depending on what you consider a reliable sorce (see above), I believe only SLAM! Sports, PWInsider and Wrestling Observer are reliable sources. Davnel03 09:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Do you even know why it's blacklisted? Please provide proof of it. Mshake3 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. We're talking like a previous consensus doesn't exist - and it does. That consensus was that all spoilers be removed until it airs in the US. Bluntly, I'm of the view that Lid is violating WP:NPOV by pushing the WP:SPOILER policy in such a way that it has been disrupting Wikipedia. Whether or not he's right or wrong is beside the point. We'll never get a fresh consensus if this keeps up - no matter what policy may be right or wrong. We'll just keep going around in circles on the left of the chart at WP:CCC. The point is that the only reliable source in this instance on the Internet is WWE.com. I take up Hybrid's point about third party info to wrestling news sites in saying that. Now - let's bring in the issue of places that see Smackdown before the US (such as Australia). We are now in the same position as the news sites. Who's to say the edit is correct and accurate? I could make the edit and say it happened - but where's my back up? I don't have it - therefore the edit fails WP:OR.

So in a nutshell, we can't apply WP:SPOILER, unless we pass WP:OR, WP:V or any other applicable policy. The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US and is acknowledged by WWE.com. And not before. I invite Lid to prove otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I shall add that not all policies are equal. The legal policies, such as WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:FAIR, are non-negotiable. They exist to prevent Wikipedia from having any legal troubles, and as such they trump any other policies and guidelines, such as WP:SPOILER. The Hybrid T/C 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
To Justa Punk; You have not rationalised why the event airing in Australia means it can not be posted and instead keep assuming I'm doing what I a doing in bad faith. I am not, and despite your claims to the contrary I am trying to improve these entries so that they are in line with the rest of wikipedia and not an arbitrary consensus you keep makining reference to. This line "The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US" has absolutely no basis in both fact or policy. –– Lid(Talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I believe that you are doing what you are doing in good faith. Anyway, the basis in policy is that the only reliable report out there for the results is the WWE.com report, as no wrestling sites actually have an employee do the research, so they aren't even the source. The Hybrid T/C 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The episodes themselves have always been reliable sources, and no one on wikipedia will claim otherwise if you brought this topic to them. The general public can not be omitted as a source and for fictional television, which is what this is, wikipedia allows the citing of the episode it occurred in as a reliable source because it is the same thing as WWE.com (so long as it lacks OR or an editorial agenda). –– Lid(Talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that there is no reliable way to know what has happened on that episode until WWE.com reports it. There is no way to omit the middle man, ie. the original research required to know the results before the actual site acknowledges that it has taken place. The Hybrid T/C 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That is the completely wrong way to look at it, that means assuming the website goes down after an event, or during a pay per view, then what is happening on the event and pay per view in front of tens of thousands of people is unreliable. WP:OR does not apply in this as the events themselves are the sources. This has been agreed upon not just here, but on wikipedia as a whole, far longer than any debate about "spoilers" have existed. If you wish to counter this you would need to argue that every television show ever can not be usd as a source on its own content unless they have a website that published daily synopsis which is impossible. Not all sources are web based, and more importantly they do not need to be. –– Lid(Talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I can get into more detail if asked, but my real quick opion; I agree with waiting until it airs in the US (this only really applies to SmackDown since people tend to rarely add in iMPACT spoilers due to it airing in the US first). The worst case scnerio would be to write the spoiler but have it hidden (using the <!--- ---> tags), it would only be listed for 1 day max. Is it at least agreed to revert spoilers before they air ANYWHERE? Sometime people add them Tuesday night and Wednesdays. TJ Spyke 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Being spoilers does not mean they are to be reverted. –– Lid(Talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never said the edits were bad faith. I don't recall spoilers being described as bad faith edits. They are simply haven't been accepted by consensus. My issue with Lid is that he is pushing WP:SPOILER without taking into account the other policies (thank you Hybrid for adding other relevant policies). Now then, suppose someone says that there has been a title change on Smackdown after it has aired in Australia? Do we just accept it? As long as WWE.com has not reported on it - the posting of such is a violation of WP:OR. Reason - there is no back up. No way to comply with WP:V. Is Lid saying that we should ignore those policies? I hope not.

So let's make this clear - perhaps we should say that the reason "spoilers" should not be presented is not because of WP:SPOILER. It's because of WP:OR and WP:V. Who's the say an Australian editor is telling the truth? I could say after next week's Smackdown is shown here that Edge won the World Title in an impromptu triple threat match with Batista and the Undertaker if I wanted to - and by your suggested process, Lid, it would be accepted. Where's my back up? Not WWE.com - so WP:V is in instant violation. I hope that settles that. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be different if you and eleventy billion internet sites, who may or may not be copying from one another, all said the same thing? There comes a point where if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it probably isn't a turtle. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Punk, this would be a matter of WP:AGF. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR and WP:V supercede WP:AGF, Lex. Because even though the edit may be in good faith, if it fails the other two (at least) it can't stay. WP:AGF prevents punishment for such a edit - as it should. It isn't a automatic green light for violations of other WP policies. !! Justa Punk !! 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "Original Research". How can it be original research if it is cited by the episode, as they saw it wih their own eyes. And I am not too familiar with WP:V, but the source is verifiable, by any single australian who watched the show. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
It has everything to do with original research, Lex. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable (direct from WP:OR). Presenting something from a TV screen without back up is promoting one's own point of view. I could turn around and say I saw a story about someone famous on my local TV news - by your logic. And because it's someone famous it passes the notability rules for a start - just like WWE would. WP:V is there for a reason, and no - any Australian who saw it would NOT be a reliable source. The show itself is not the source - which again is what Hybrid was saying. We - as editors - are NOT reliable sources by WP definition (ie WP:OR). And also; Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. (direct from WP:V). Heavy emphasis on published. TV is not a published source, so it fails as a source by that definition. Even the American WWE showings fail - they pass because of WWE.com and other third party reports from people who saw it combined. That is - an original source with third party back up. Not purely because of TV presentation. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Punk you are the minority in this view, and are the one misusing policy. If you are so sure of your position I would recommend requesting template:cite episode for deletion because from your interpretation this template endorses an unverifiable view as it is put in by wikipedia users. Episodes of television series are not OR, verifiable and accepted on wikipedia, claiming otherwise ignores the facts of wikipedia and the spirit of the rules. –– Lid(Talk) 09:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Where's the proof that I'm in the minority, Lid? We haven't even got a new consensus yet to over ride the previous one. I shall certainly look to have that template deleted - because this is asking for open slather for anyone to cite anything on television (such as on the news) and no one would be any the wiser outside of the local area. I could go ahead and claim that I saw Edge arrested on drug charges (outside the Wellness Program so it wouldn't appear on WWE.com) on that TV newscast. And according to you - it's fine. See the problem now? And that's just a single possibility of literally hundreds. It's OR without another source. !! Justa Punk !! 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You keep believing the consensus here is the consensus of wikipedia, which it isn't, and even here from comments from most users (excluding yourself and The Hybrid) have been that the episodes are reliable. Your claims are hyperbolic and excessive, say I invent a book out of thin air and cite it on the same quote. Would you have the book cite deleted because it can be abused? No, you wouldn't because it's abuse is not its purpose; its use is its purpose. The potential for harm is one that is taken into account but that potential does not mean that these, that exist, are not to be used. Your position is, truly, on no solid ground and has so many holes in it whether through policy, logic, application and common sense that I have no idea how you came to the conclusion you have. –– Lid(Talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - this is getting us nowhere. I can not continue this debate without violating WP:CIVIL because it is clear I am not being believed or understood. In fact I believe Lid is running clcse to violating it himself (hyperpolic and excessive - I take extreme offence to that as I consider it to be a rude misrepresentation). Unless anyone other than Lid has an objection - I'm taking this matter up with the appropriate people. This needs to be sorted out once and for all to the satisfaction of all parties, and we need new people in to view the situation. I just have to choose which course to take.
Quick note - Lid should review WP:CCC and recognise that until he came in we had a WP consensus by the chart noted, because no one lodged an objection until he did. !! Justa Punk !! 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"we had a WP consensus" "Lid should review WP:CCC" Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one.
"I am no being believed or understood" - no you are being understood just fine the only problem is that your arguments have no footing. I used the phrase "hyperbolic and excessive" because you chose a position tha can be applied to any medium but are instead applying it only to television. I saw that you are "taking it up with appropriate people" whose response was "Please do not bring your kerfuffle over here." I truly stress that you look over your statements and replies and try to understand why there is such resistance to your stance. –– Lid(Talk) 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't "taken it to the appropriate people" yet. What you mentioned is seperate - and the aforementioned template has now been sent to TfD. You don't understand my offence at your attitude towards this issue (Hybrid reflected on this quite well at the bottom of this section), and are in effect ignoring it. Hence my reference to having to bite my tongue before I violate WP:CIVIL. !! Justa Punk !! 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me that other editors don't want to include information unless they "see it for themselves." I know this has come up with local cable company PPV commercials, leading to the warning tag of "do not add information unless it has been confirmed by WWE on WWE weekly television or WWE.com." Mshake3 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well isn't "see it for ourselves" the same sort of thinking that gave rise to rules like WP:OR and WP:V, MShake? The rules are there to ensure accuracy. I'm sure we're all for that. A great example was the argument as to whether or not New Year's Revolution had been cancelled. It wasn't until WWE.com posted their upcoming pay per view table that the argument was resolved. Before that, some people were insisting that it had been, but they couldn't get past either OR or V or both. Even the one user who claimed that he'd got an email from WWE and posted a screenshot. The sceptics were all over him, because it was in effect WP:OR. That's the issue here. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The news of NYR's cancellation came from PWInsider, which of course is blacklisted. >:( Mshake3 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And it's blacklisted for a good reason. PWInsider's strike rate on accuracy is appallingly bad. So the majority didn't believe it and rightly so. Especially as WWE put out a program earlier in 2007 which contradicted the claim. !! Justa Punk !! 08:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WWE.com is they can rewrite history of the show whenever they want. For example, while I don't believe their edits went that far, they could remove all mentions of Chris Benoit from their show results. Does that mean it never happened? As for the concern of fans sending in inaccurate information, who cares? Once again, we're considering something to be unreliable due to the small chance that it's inaccurate. Mshake3 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once it's been on WWE.com originally, they can remove it if they want. It doesn't change the fact that they recognised it or whatever. And the third party sources that backed up their first line would still be there as well. Anyway - we're talking about post showing with your statement there, not (dare I use the word) spoilers. WWE are more likely to just ignore rather than delete. A great example is that they aren't mentioning Taker's win-loss record in Hell in a Cell at all. If they did, they'd have to mention who he lost to - and I can't see WWE acknowledging that on current TV even though it did happen and it is still all over the third party sources - reliable and otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the episodes are unreliable; I'm saying that until WWE.com confirms what happened in the episode you can't prove that the events you're inserting actually took place. WP:AGF applies to inter-Wikipedian relations, not to content inserted into articles. We don't assume that a person is telling the truth when they insert content; we ask for a good source, and then remove it if they can't provide one. We assume they had good intentions, but we still remove it. Like I said, you can't prove that the event actually took place in the episode, as the content contained within the episode is undefined. A while back you mentioned "not excluding the general public". The general public would be those who watched the episode on TV, not the few-thousand people who were at the event. The general public can't be used until the general public actually knows what happened. Do keep in mind that the IWC is only a very small percentage of wrestling fans, as is the fanbase in Australia, so the general public is happily oblivious until the event airs on US TV. The Hybrid T/C 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I've said before that consensus is entirely irrelevant to this matter, so I would like to see that word not be used anymore, but I would also like to not be told I'm in the minority, as the larger group who hate spoilers are sick of arguing about this ad nauseam, and are content to let those of us who are willing to debate this do so on their behalf. The Hybrid T/C 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Hybrid! And you'll find that the silent majority who hate spoilers have another good reason as well. Wikipedia is not a news site. In this case WP:NOT supercedes WP:SPOILER. I'm getting pretty sick of this debate, and Lid's obvious lack of understanding of pro wrestling and how spoilers differ in it to any other spoiler. I'm going to look for options now regarding this issue, and I'm leaning towards RfC at the moment, but it might change. Other options are 3O (which I doubt because there are more than two editors involved) and ANI. I haven't seen Morven so it looks like ArbCom is out, unless things get worse. !! Justa Punk !! 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT would only apply if this information wasn't going to end up in the articles of the wrestlers in question anyway. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We are an encyclopedia, we are not social workers!
  • Encyclopedia- Comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.
    • Spoilers are information; therfore they should be in the articles. This point cannot and will not be opposed, because it is a fact. (See WP:Spoiler)
  • Social Worker- concerned with social problems, their causes, their solutions and their human impacts.
    • Social workers care for the feelings of people who were spoiled, and would tend to their whining. But because we aren't social workers... WE SHOULDN'T DON'T CARE. Please don't oppose this point with saying that "We are social workers" because this would be a very poor argument, as it is completely false. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
what this got to do with it, Lex? Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What it's not is a news site - social workers have nothing to do with it. Allow spoilers and it becomes a news site. Do you care about that? I think the silent majority do. !! Justa Punk !! 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - because an RfC would take too long, I've opted for ANI. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Punk, can you link to this "previous consensus" you keep talking about? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an explanation of motives would help you all to understand why I'm so against spoilers in our articles, when I actually read them myself. Spoilers provide very short term benefits with permanent drawbacks. Spoilers are a major turnoff to many users. They wreck the suspense and fun of a television show. This isn't like a book, or a movie synopsis. We would only have to wait for 4 days to add the information. That's the short-term benefit, it puts the information in there as soon as it's available, but it is only 4 days; after that the benefit is nullified. The long-turn drawback is that it pushes many new and experienced users away from the project. This damages our ability to maintain and improve articles on the macro scale. The drawbacks are more influential than the benefits, and they are permanent. I oppose spoilers because I have the long-term, big picture interests of the project and our articles in mind. I'm tired of all the idealistic, "this is an encyclopedia" bullshit. This is an encyclopedia that requires a constant influx of users, and a good morale level amongst the users for it to survive. The Hybrid T/C 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's get something clear - your special interest group is a mechanism for people to organise, it does not have any special power. it's irrelevent if this SIG decided that results should only be posted once they have aired in the USA because ANY editor can add relevent sourced information as it becomes available and let's cut out this "wikipedia is not a news site" nonsense - making sure an article has the most update information on a subject has nothing at all to do with being a news site. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Do keep in mind that we have what's best for the articles in mind, and spoilers are not it. If you keep in mind that users maintain the articles, and without them everything goes straight to hell, and spoilers push a lot of people away, then you will understand this. Adding spoilers would be completely retarded. The Hybrid T/C 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two different issues here - core policy and the impact of core policy - I am saying that core policy (that any editor can added sourced material as it becomes available) must be enforced (otherwise why have it), you are saying that enforcing core policy will have a impact on this wikiproject and this sub-set of articles. If there was a massive and noticable impact on article quality then how we work around that should be discussed - I'm not currently convinced that such an impact would occur. The special interest groups on here are out of control as it is and I am of a mind that we must resist their efforts to produce wall gardens that operate outside core policy. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue at List of WWE Tag Team Champions

In the List of WWE Tag Team Champions article, I've put (John Morrison formerly Johnny Nitro) under Miz & Morrison's reign, but it was reverted by BBoy, citing that it isn't done in other articles (namely List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Personally I think it should be, because your typical non-wrestling fan layman is going to read this article and wonder who John Morrison is and how he got 4 title reigns. I just don't see why we would list former ringnames in individual title lists but not tag title lists. I did essentially the same thing on IWGP World Tag Team Championship quite a while back. So I was just wondering what the community's opinion was on this before it goes any further. --MarcK 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in listing the "formerly", if it's a new name, just link it and those that don't know can check the link if they're curious enough. That way the title format isn't cluttered up with too much information MPJ-DK (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with MPJ. Davnel03 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it IS done in other title lists (crusierweight), so I think it should be done here. Mshake3 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mshake is right. Helms had three reigns, under three different ring names and that was noted. It shouldn't be any different here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
So the "someone did it somewhere" is now consensus? How about discussing the pros and cons of each and then make a decision based on that - not being all sheepish about it you know? My 2 cents is, link the new name, keep the count (or if you must put it in the "Note" section, for the love of puddin' it's there for just such a reason) MPJ-DK (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I think the "Note" section is a great compromise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's exactly how the notes section should be used. Mshake3 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification over COTW thing

Lex94 recently pruned Survivor Series (1997) from the nomination list, see here, with the argument that it never had twelve votes at the time of the deadline. Infact, a user added a vote 13 hours later. I've since reverted the edit, as I really don't think this is a valid argument. His argument is stating that if it doesn't have twelve votes by 00:00 on 19th November or whatever day it is, it should be pruned. In other circumstances, I have tended to leave till the final few hours to at least give the article the chance. Was I right to revert? Davnel03 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you did the right thing to revert it. If there was an extra vote then the nomination of the article should still be put. Zenlax T C S 20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. I think the voting should last until the end of the day, or at least until the evening. Either way, it got the vote before it was pruned, so it should stay. Now, if it was pruned first, and then someone re-added the nomination with the extra vote (which in this case didn't happen) that would be different. Nikki311 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the revert was justified. The article got the vote before it was to be pruned, that is the important thing. --Naha|(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The article was set to be pruned on 0:00 of November 19; It needed 12 votes, and by that time it only had 10. It should've been eliminated by someone before, so I did what was 12 hours coming. Lex94 Talk Contributions Guest Book 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pics added

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this, but I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded my personal photos for George Steele, Buff Bagwell, Tracy Smothers, New Jack, and Marty Jannetty to their respective pages. If any of you have photos that you have taken, I suggest going to that wrestler's page and see if it's in need of one. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That is excellent! Thank you very much Greene. --Naha|(talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Just added Chris Hamrick and Tommy Dreamer as well. I think that's all I have. If you're wondering, I used to be a referee, thats how I managed to get all these pics. Any striped shirts you may see on the edges of my pictures is me!--Smart Mark Greene (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Very cool! :) --Naha|(talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Move links

I recently went through every wrestler's articles on the Raw and SmackDown! Rosters. I've gone and fixed the links in Finishing and Signature Moves to direct to the exact move, as many of them went to the top of an article. I'd appreciate anyone that would help this by checking over my work, as I may have missed a few. I'll be going over ECW and TNA wrestlers sometime this week when I get a chance. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I catch those myself every once in awhile and fix them but have never systematically gone through all of the wrestler articles to fix them. Everyone please remember that when linking a move, if it has its own specific entry/section, please link to that section. Linking to the general page doesn't help as much as the specific link would be when someone is trying to read up on the move. Good work, Gavyn. --Naha|(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Boredom is a powerful tool, apparently. I'll likely get to the rest of them sometime on Wednesday since I have a night course tomorrow. And the general article definately does help, I've had that happen before and been left in the dark. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
One more little tip: When linkning a move, be very careful. The text must link exactly. Linking to "List of professional wrestling attacks#Samoan drop will link directly to the said move. Linking to "List of professional wrestling attacks#Samoan Drop will redirect it to the top of the article. The text must be exact. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes Username

I have changed my username. I, Lex94, am now officially Feedback (which is my real name). Just to clarify. My signature still states I am the same person, but I just don't want to cause confusion. Cheers, Lex T / C Guest Book 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cage of Death

This is notable? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a major show that's been held annually for the last 8 years by a well-known promotion. It sounds okay to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So, in other words, 8 years > 5 years, and that makes all the difference? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Gary didn't vote to delete anything of that stuff you linked. Also, while some of us would have voted to save some of that, if we didn't notice it was up for nom, we wouldn't have known to vote or comment. The same goes for all AFDS ..you have to know its there to vote which makes comparisons like this unfair. Also, of the people that did vote in that AFD, I only recognize one of them as a frequent WP:PW contributor who may have known what and what not we consider to be notable even within Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ring of Honor is notable and if good articles can be created for their promotion, there is no reason for them to be deleted. --Naha|(talk) 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Christ, are comparisons never fair? Someone always says that they're strawmen, or contrary to something like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or just "unfair." Is this something I should just wholesale eliminate from my knowledge and experience? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
How could this instance possibly be a fair comparison if the reason it was deleted is because hardly anyone familiar with the pro-wrestling scene voted in the AFD? I mean heck, one of the delete votes is from an Admin basically just stating that he doesn't like pro-wrestling and its coverage is too widespread on Wikipedia - not a valid argument obviously but who knows if it was striken. No one said "RoH is only 5 years old but if it were 8+ it would be ok" - heck, no one even brought up the age of the promotion at all. If you want the articles back ..re-create them, and source them well and they wil be fine, RoH has lots of coverage and references should be easy to locate. While I completely understand your frustration and disagree with the deletion of the articles (at least based on the arguments that were made), I don't think the comparison is valid ..thats all. Had the reason for the ROH AFDs been due to age of promotion, then we'd have something to talk about. --Naha|(talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just looking for consistency, that's all. (tromboneguy on a public computer)

My understanding is that events are notable enough to have pages if they either had third-party coverage (which almost always proves notability) or if they were on pay-per-view. I'm not 100% sure, but that is the sort of pattern I've seen when deleting wrestling events as non-notable. Nikki311 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ack, One Night In Hackney again? His user page seems to have been deleted at any rate. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we are on the topic of notability of tournaments...what about Champion's Carnival? I don't know much about professional wrestling tournaments in Japan, but this article doesn't really make it seem all to notable. Opinions welcome. Nikki311 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Briscoe Brothers

Another friendly request for comment-slash-shameless plug ;\ Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed the article for GA. Perhaps with this brouhaha about spoilers going on, there shan't be a conflict of interest with someone from the project reviewing it :P Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures that have nothing to do with the PPV

Recently, I noticed that the WrestleMania 23 page has two pictures which have nothing to do with the article. The pictures are of Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the first picture on the page of John Cena. I inquired about the pictures on the talk page and was told that "Pictures like that are being included in most of the expanded PPV articles. They help illustrate the point of who everyone at the was. If a non-wrestling fan reads this article, the pictures help them visualize the event." It struck me as bizarre, but if that was the consensus, I'd be okay with it. I was told, though, that, as far as it was known, "a consensus wasn't reached, but no one has objected to it, so one wasn't really required." It was then suggested to me to bring it up here. Does an article about a PPV really need pictures on it that really have nothing to do with the event in question? The two pictures I mentioned are free-use, but their usage just doesn't seem to fit. I would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the picture is of a wrestler who played a large role in the ppv, then yes, it does have something to do with the event. I don't have a problem with it, because there will always be a lack of free pictures from a certain event, so it's not like we're throwing in random images when there are perfectly suited alternatives. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that the picture would work better for the article on the wrestler in question, and not the event. We have a picture of John Cena at WM, which is far more relevant than the first picture of him on the page, which is just him being interviewed who knows where. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This is why I'm working on Lockdown and No Mercy 07, as I've taken and uploaded plently of photos to use in those articles. I agree that the same repetitive pictures don't enhance the article. Mshake3 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The pics should at least be from the same era. The Royal Rumble 1994 article had a pic of Scott Steiner from around 2003, after he pumped up using steroids (I guess I should say "allegedly" to avoid slander) and getting short blond hair. TJ Spyke 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon History

WWE has eliminated all Armageddon histories from its website:

http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/

  • The above link exists, but these don't:

I was trying to find a source one of the matches on the card, for the New Year's Revolution 2007 article which I am working on in my sandbox; and I found that all the Armageddons are broken links. Lex T/C Guest Book 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All match results, exclusives, interviews: GONE! Lex T/C Guest Book 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This has caused a number of broken links in MANY of our articles

Seems like someone at WWE has opted to delete all the links. :( Nothing much we can do, although you could e-mail WWE telling then that all the Armageddon history links are broken. Davnel03 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
They might be cancelling the event. Which worries me because if they do that with Armageddon, then I bet they'll do that with D2D and NYR. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Cancelled? CANCELLED? Why would they cancel an event in which sales have already began and promotions have already begun airing on their main programs? Mshake3 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm D2D and NYR is already cancelled, and Armageddon isnt going to be cancelled, WWE is just probably working on the Armageddon website and probably took the links down, nothing to worry about!. =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone tried using this? I'm not all that familiar with it or wrestling. Epthorn (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know about that. I am going to use that on all of the links in the NYR07 article. Lex T/C Guest Book 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to now - all above links look like they have been fixed. :) Davnel03 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We should use the Wayback Machine, because if WWE ever decides to eliminate all history files of NYR and D2D because they are retired, this would break a lot of links and references on our site. They don't have information on IYH, Bad Blood, Insurextion, Mahem in Manchester, InVasion, etc.; so what would stop them from eliminating those? Lex T/C Guest Book 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And either way, if in 20 years, WWE retires, the links on all the stable articles (mainly FAs) would break, and we'd have no way of ever recovering those files. We should use the wayback machine. Lex T/C Guest Book 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they will do the same thing they did as the Survivor Series History site ... delete any piece of Benoit , because I check Armageddon 2006 picutres and you see pictures from Benoit vs Guerrrero Guiltypetit89 November 22, 2007 19:36 UTC

Every single one of those links is functional again.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

PPV Question?

In the Background section of the PPVs, are you suppose to put info of all the feuds that are led to that event?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I only tend to do the main three feuds (one from ECW, Raw and SD!). Depends really. Only 2 - 4 at the most. Some feuds don't last long and aren't notable enough too have a paragraph in the PPV article. Take the Survivor Series (2007) World Tag title match for instance - that never really had any buildup. Same goes for several matches at the December to Dismember (2006) PPV last year. So your doing No Way Out (2007). I'd concentrate on the main Interpromotional tag match, the 6 man tag (Benoit/Hardys/MVP) and Kane/King Booker feud. Davnel03 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright thanx, --TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should also add Deuce n' Domino vs. Paul London and Brian Kendrick, which was build-up for weeks and Mr. Kennedy vs. Bobby Lashley; mostly a short mention in the Background section, just because it's a world title match. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Truco was talking about Vengeance: Night of Champions. Personally, that would be appropriate, since adding all the background info would explain the matches to come. Comments? The Chronic 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Chronic I was talkin about my no way out article, but the Vengeance article still needs to note the ECW championship feud. TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, also the Background section seems very short. If you can find no way of improving it, you might want to add two other feuds, possibly the US title and World Tag title? Davnel03 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I got another question, is the "access date" and "date" two different things in the (citeweb) template?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The "access date" is the date that you found the source (the date you accessed it). The "date" is the date it was written...this isn't always available. Nikki311 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider.com

Since my questions have been lost in the shuffle above (and answered only by those who have no idea whatsoever), I'll repeat it here. Why is PWInsider.com (which has N O T H I N G to do with PWI magazine by the way) blacklisted anyway? Also, if you believe it is unreliable, shouldn't we be removing sources that explicitly credit that site as a source? Mshake3 (talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I did some digging and found that user Naconkantari of Meta-Wiki blacklisted the site (see here). Viewing the talk page history, the reason given was the site was spammed over a period of a few days (see here). The section was archived before more discussion took place (see here). To me, that is not enough of a reason to keep the article on the blacklist. It should have a good chance of being whitelisted now, as the only reason for its ban was because of disruptive editors. Hope this helps. - Deep Shadow 03:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Even though if it is taken off the blacklist, it is still a dirtsheet, and dirtsheets should not be sources. So, yes, you should remove/replace PWInsider sources. Lex T/C Guest Book 04:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, no clue. Mshake3 (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Only in this project will users reject sources from those with the most knowledge of the subject at hand. Mshake3 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Remember, it is a wrestling news site created by a third party which is not widely respected by the internet wrestling community (reffering to Dave Meltzer). So, any other site which follows this description (all except Meltzer's The Wrestling Observer) are dirtsheets and thus, unreliable. Lex T/C Guest Book 05:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of a reply, but I have an idea of what your reply to it would be. (Me: Who doesn't respect Dave Scherer? You: Me.) Yet another issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mshake3 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, neither should be reliable sources. But, PWI Pro Wrestling Illustrated has accepted and praised Meltzer's work [1] and more others, and accept it as a reliable source. However, Scherer is not the case. And you also have to admit that Scherer is nowhere close to Meltzer. Lex T/C Guest Book 05:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Meltzer is a joke for only releasing news once a week in a printed newsletter. Also, how is that PWInsider praising his work, when you're showing a link to Sports Illustrated? Mshake3 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
PWI is the typical abbreviation of Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Lex T/C Guest Book 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Now if only people would smarten up and learn the differences between Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Pro Wrestling Insider. Mshake3 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What I try to say is that when people refer to "PWI is the most reliable source other than wwe.com..." on this project, they are talking about Illustrated, not Insider. And I said that the only reason Meltzer's dirtsheet is reliable, is because PWI (Illustrated!) declared he was. Lex T/C Guest Book 02:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
PWI also considers the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame to be the "official" wrestling HOF (and even feature it in their annual PWI Wrestling Almanac & Book of Facts) due to the fact that its voters are based all over the world among other reasons. TJ Spyke 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Good for Meltzer, and good for Illustrated. That doesn't make Dave Scherer or PWInsider.com any less reliable. Mshake3 (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You still don't understand. NO DIRTSHEETS ARE RELIABLE. No, if's, and's or but's, yet there is a HOWEVER. The however is that Meltzer is the only dirtsheet which is reliable, because he is approved by PWI (Illustrated!). Lex T/C Guest Book 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The above comment by Lex was interrupted by the following:

What is the defintion of this "Dirtsheet" term you throw around? How do you determine what a "dirtsheet" is? it's just a blanket term you throw on basically any online wrestling news site from the looks of it, you're saying that NO online news sites could or do fullfill the WP:RS guidelines? MPJ-DK (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

End of interruption, and continuing of Lex's comment...

  • Not no online news sites, but no wrestling online news sites. The only exceptions:
  • Wrestling Dirtsheet- Wrestling online news site, created/published by by third-party publishers who are mainly civilians with absoulutely no relation to wrestling just like you and myself. Lex T/C Guest Book 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Civilians with absoulutely no relation to wrestling? I was right. You people have no clue whatsoever. None. Dave Scherer's bio:

Dave Scherer has been covering the business of professional wrestling for the past decade. After writing for various publications in the early 1990s, Dave started "The Wrestling Lariat" newsletter in June of 1995. Over the next few years, the Lariat grew steadily and became one of the must-read publications for those in and around the wrestling business.

In August of 1997, Dave was approached by Bob Ryder to become a part of the new website 1Wrestling.com. Ryder wanted the name value of Dave and the Lariat to be one of the draws for the new website, and the two joined forces. Dave worked at 1Wrestling.com as columnist, reporter and webmaster until January of 2004 before deciding to branch out on his own and start this website.

Dave's extended network of contacts and ability to consistently break the top stories in pro wrestling has made him a must-read for anyone who follows the wrestling business online. Dave's column, "The Daily Lariat," quickly became a favorite of cyberspace's wrestling fans around the world and will now be featured here on PWInsiderElite.com.

Also during Dave's time at 1Wrestling.com, he was a staff writer for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines. He also penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. And he was the webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling website until the company ceased operations in 2001.

Dave's combination of reporting skills, humor and ability to succinctly analyze the trends and patterns of today's wrestling business allow for him to pen informative and entertaining pieces for the readers of PWInsiderElite.com.
I could post more about the other editors of the site if you'd like. Knowing you, I'll probably have to. Mshake3 (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He has no relation to wrestling, just being a wrestling journalist like all other dirtsheets. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And Meltzer's relation to wrestling is....... Mshake3 (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's why I keep calling Meltzer the only exception, for the mentioned reasons above. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion - if they pass the WP:RS guidelines, no matter if people don't like them, then they are reliable sources - call them dirtsheets, give an arbitrary, irrational definition that isn't based in logic or whatever you want. WP:RS is the guideline. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, because they don't pass WP:RS. See this section in WP:RS. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles should be based on reliable (check), third-party (check), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (big check). I still don't see the issue here. Mshake3 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Reliable is not checked, as the site is, like mentioned in this entire section, a dirt sheet. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The sites you label "dirtsheets" don't fall under the definition "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs" so the supposed support you think that link gives you is actually non-existent. Tell me again what your reason was for saying they're not RS?? So don't thank me, I didn't provide any support for your claims (Although gratitude is always nice ;) ) MPJ-DK (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:V on questionable sources

"Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."
Don't even think of syaing that these dirtsheets don't rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as it would be completely untrue. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You say "these dirtsheets" like you've named them, I guess you have when you said "Everyone but Metzler". I'm just going to give up on this pointless discussion, no matter what you'll just cover your ears and go "Na-na-na can't hear you only Metzler reports news the rest are just rumors". I've made a resolution to stop arguing when logic has gone out the window. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter Format

Now that this week's issue has been cancelled, can we implement the Show/Hide format that I made in the next issue? Lex T/C Guest Book 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of votes in FAC's

I'm a tad concerned after this discussion we had this week, where an editor argued that we shouldn't have "vote stacking" and therefore shouldn't support FACs unless you have a valid reason for support. This, seemingly has driven some people from participating in FAC's. A FAC that I nominated, In Your House 1 has only had one support, which has come from a non-project member, see here. I'm concerned, because if a candidate does not have enough consensus then the article cannot be promoted. At the moment, the candidate doesn't have a consensus with only one users opinion. Nothing is stopping members from supporting/opposing articles. At the same point, the nominator shouldn't mind if anyone writes a list of problems, if that happens with an FAC that I'm in, I'll deal with it. A valid issue has been brought up at the IYH1 FAC, which I would prefer to have comments on. I'm not stating that you must Strong Support and say "this is the best article ever", but I would prefer you to comment on it with problems (every article has problems in one or two areas) - e.g. POV, citing sources, sentence structure etc.. I think we need to be more involved as a whole in FAC's to help our articles, by not comment we are doing ourselves no favours. If anyone has problems with the article, write it at the FAC, I'm not going to bite your head off. It's just a tad annoying when no one (or very little) comments at the FAC, when several other FAC's have tonnes of comments on. I think I've gone on for a bit too long now. Cheers, Davnel03 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It could just be the time of year and many people (well, Americans anyway ..this week), are busy with Thanksgiving stuff. However, if the previous conversation (as linked above by Davne) has caused you to stay away from FAs completely, it shouldn't have. As long as you aren't voting blindly, there are no issues with it. If there is a PW article up for FA, please please read through it as soon as you have time. If you find issues with the article that would make it fail FA ..or issues with it period, list them (with possible ways they could be fixed if you can). This is the type of advice the nominator needs and should want to receive. If, by the time you do get around to reading the article, you feel it is supurb and can't find any errors, voting for it is not "vote stacking." Leave a comment with your vote letting the other reviewers know that you have read the entire article, reviewed the FA criteria and you believe it should pass. Thoughtfully going through this proccess is the way to do it and should yield no arguments. That beintg said, I'm not trying to be hypocritical ...I haven't looked at this article yet because I haven't had time yet. I will though. I just wanted to comment on this discussion. Happy holidays, --Naha|(talk) 17:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little torn on this one. The article has never received a Peer Review, as it was nominated for GA status with no notice. There has never been a request to have the article copyedited by project members. I have mentioned a couple of concerns about the article, but neither has been addressed. I don't see the relevance of the discussion of Lawler's mother with no indication in the article that his "mother" was a young woman hired to play the part (or am I mistaken? The woman looked considerably younger than Lawler, if I remember correctly.). I don't see why the 411mania sources are there if reliable sources are also used to cite the same information. In addition, there seem to be excessive internal links (just looking at the Background section, Razor Ramon, The Roadie, Jeff Jarrett, Sycho Sid, and the 1-2-3 Kid are all linked more than once). If no information about the reason behind creating the pay per view is available, what about indicating that In Your House pay per views were promoted as being cut-rate/"cheap" pay per views?

GaryColemanFan — continues after insertion below Surely that last point would be WP:OR if I can't find a point to back it up? Davnel03 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I've been holding back because I'm not convinced that it's ready for FA status yet, but in hindsight, letting you know that would be more helpful, as it would at least let you know what my concerns are. I apologize if some of this comes off as a little harsh. I think you've done a great job on the article and on many others. I just think that having a few people look it over before nominating it for FA status would help and would have addressed some of my concerns in advance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually have a long list of comments on the article, I just haven't had 10 minutes to sit down and write them down - a lot of stuff jumped out at me when I read it but I didn't just want to say "I object... I'll tell you why later". Not to be a wet blanket, but I'm not convinced I would have passed it to GA even if I had review it, but it deserves a full, detailed feedback I just haven't had time, I figured others would point it out but they haven't so I'll probably give you a list over the weekend. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I really don't mind if you Oppose to start off with with a long-list of concerns. Its an FAC. An article is never perfect. One thing I will sort out as GCF mentioned is the overlinking and I will get onto that. And no, GCF, I don't find your comments harsh, I really don't want to force people to support the FA. The article has problems. Hopefully now is the time to sort it out and hopefully get it promoted. I apologise if I nominated it too soon, at least I know to wait a bit in the future. The reason I didn't go to peer review, is because for some reason, not many people from this project tend to comment on them. Anyway, I'll get onto the linking issue now. Davnel03 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the time to sort out the glaring issues is before it is nominated as an FA. What happened to the rule about informing the project of your intent and waiting a week so others can look over it and give feedback? Everyone else is following that rule. Nikki311 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I never noticed any notification of the Bobby Eaton FAC before it was nominated. The only mention I can find of it and FAC in the archives is here, and that's when a user informed the project that it was up for FAC. I've only followed the same system as everyone else. Anyway I thought the "One Week Rule" only applied for GA's, as only one person reviews them. With FA's, many people can make comments/supports/opposes etc. Davnel03 19:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Bobby Eaton was the FACOTW....that is the weeks notice to improve the article in preparation for nominating it for FA status. Nikki311 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it? It doesn't say that on the COTW page, maybe it needs to be made clearer. So, I should of informed you guys a week earlier. Sorry that I never, at least I know to tell you guys about FAC's a week in advance in the future. I can't see whats the problem with a long-list of Opposes at FAC's really. At least it makes the FAC director know that the reviewers have looked over the whole of the article. Davnel03 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
the problem with a long list of opposes is... well simply put it'd be hard to get FA status ;) I think the point is that if people are notified then they can look at the article and give you input more informally to be fixed instead of opposing it on the FAC if it's the first time they've ever taken a critical look at it. It's meant to be a help, a service to anyone who wants to nominate for FA. Also Eaton was the FACOTW - I wonder what the "FA" stands for?? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The Eaton FAC had a long-list of opposes, which have now all been sorted out, and that particular editor is now supporting the article. And I do know what the "FA" in FACOTW stands for, so please don't attempt to assume that I have no idea of what it means when I do. I admit that I made a mistake of not informing you guys earlier - sometimes comments get ignored and no one else comments, which can become annoying as it make you (or rather me) feel like no one appreciates the work that I've done. Anyway, as I said I really don't mind a long-list of opposes if you do oppose it. I'm off for the night now, so hopefully I'll have some comments on the FAC waiting for when I come online to Wiki tomorrow. I admit I should of told you guys a week in advance, and will do for future FAC's. Cheers, Davnel03 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I've sorted out the linking issues that have been raised by GCF. Diff. Davnel03 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you should just be patient and wait for other users. If it doesn't get any opposition, then you don't need to worry about it being closed due to a lack of support. The FAC process is not meant to be a series of revolving doors where project members can help get an article featured. -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

IP editor editing almost all PPV results

71.255.5.18 has been going through a ton of pay-per-views today, amking small changes to match results. They're not malicious changes, but they're not always helpful. The user is removing team names from Survivor Series results, adding to internal links (making them redirect by changing Roddy Piper to Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.), changing names that don't need to be changed (every reference to Davey Boy Smith has been changed to The British Bulldog, etc.). If you've been working on a pay-per-view lately, you might want to check it out. And if you've got a little bit of time, going through some of these edits to see if they are actually helpful would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

He's also been listing Champions in non-title matches. Just another thing to watch for... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Pay-Per-View Events

Did anyone know this page existed? Anyone up for a prod?-- bulletproof 3:16 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod away. Nenog (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I also left a notice about the prod on the user's talk page.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't delete the article! We can turn it improve it and make it a featured topic. It just needs better formatting, referencing, images, etc. It can have some success. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it could also feature PPV's from other wrestling organizations that didn't produce many (like the WWA PPV's, LPWA Super Ladies Showdown, AWA Superclash III, etc.). TJ Spyke 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
We can even make it a featured list for the future. Lex T/C Guest Book 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Publishing embargo on televised WWE match results?

Ktip.svg A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

This RfC is being called to determine two separate, but somewhat related issues.

The first issue is about whether there existing Wikipolicies allow for a embargo on publishing the results of pre-recorded WWE wrestling matches between when the matches are broadcasted in Australia and when they are broadcasted four days approximately 36 hours later in the United States and subsequently published on WWE's website.

The second issue concerns whether a television broadcast is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources because television broadcasts are not "published" in print form but "aired". --Farix (Talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments 

I'd just like to point out the time between the Australian and earliest State side broadcast is maybe a day and a half at most...not four Bmg916Speak 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If the difference is only 36 hours, then it is just less of a reason to keep the results off the articles. If editors really don't want to be spoiled on match outcomes, they can avoid Wikipedia in that short time frame. --Farix (Talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it's more like several days. The show, in this case SmackDown, is taped on Tuesday. The results (spoilers) get out to wrestling-dirtsheets on Wednesday morning through insiders. This means that, unless you read spoilers (this week I have not), you have to avoid the vast majority of wrestling articles for three whole days. Davnel03 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
We are going around in circles here - let me repeat - The time difference is irrelevant and a complete red herring. It is not worth discussing because whatever this RFC said - deciding that information should be embargoed until it appears on U.S. WILL NOT HAPPEN. If american editors feel they have to avoid articles on the basis that they will be spoilt - then that is what they need to do. Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia for the world, no nation get special privileges. the rest of the world already has to do that for 90% of the shows that we have articles on for far longer periods. There is NO policy based reason to put such an embargo in place and this wikiproject has no power to a) insist on one or b) enforce it. It is a waste of bandwidth to even discuss it because it's not happening and cannot happen due to fundamental policy and the core function of the encyclopedia. The ONLY issue here is that of source (and to a large extent, that question is irrelevent because justapunk's nom here, clearly indicates where the community consensus is in this area). --Fredrick day (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • (side note: the template above has broken the layout of this talkpage!!) Davnel03 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • That's just evidence of why you should avoid doing tricks that that with the code. --Farix (Talk) 22:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand you. Davnel03 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 1st Issue. You seem to have got it slightly wrong. For SmackDown, it is aired on the same day in both Australia and America. However, due to time difference and stuff, it is aired first in Australia. You need to change the "four days later" part to "several hours later" or something. I'm 50/50 on this one. How do we know when the broadcast in Australia has finished? We don't. Programmes beforehand could over-run, it could be on earlier, it could be on later etc. I think the policies allow for an embargo, but at the same point, people in this project are being spoiled about the result(s) of a pre-taped event. WWE.com does "not" recognise SmackDown till Friday - why should we? If it is not recognised by the official company (or another reliable source (see 2nd Issue), why should we put it into articles? Davnel03 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the policies that I have seen allow for any publishing embargo of match results. If an editor as information that is relevant to an article and he as the source to back up that information, he is fully permitted to post it. Also, other editors can not remove it on the bases that it is a "spoiler" since the source has yet to be broadcast in the US.
  • 2nd Issue. Nope, a television broadcast is not a reliable source. Unless it is verifiable by multiple sources, which it is clearly not, it shouldn't be into articles. It is not a valid argument to say "I watched it, it goes into the article". The person (or IP) could easily lie through their teeth and fool us. I don't know whether this is against Wiki policy or not, but I know several users put up SmackDown! before it airs in America (as a matter of fact, I watch it off YouTube), so what stops us linking the ref to a YouTube video just for several hours until the US airing? Or is this a violation of policy? Davnel03 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • See [[]]. YouTube is not allowed as a source for ANY WWE broadcast (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. We are not allowed to link to sources that violate others copyrights, and YouTube does not have permission to carry WWE programming (TNA allows SOME of their programming to be on YouTube, like TNA Today). That means you can't link to SmackDown spoilers on YouTube. TJ Spyke 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me as a very basic question. Why isn't a television broadcast a reliable source? Are episodes from a TV series not reliable about the plot line of that episode/series? Is the evening news not reliable because it is broadcasted instead of in print? Is the live broadcast of the World Series not reliable on the outcome of the games? The only types of broadcasts that probably wouldn't be considered reliable are the so-called "documentaries" that run on Christian channels, commercials, and infomercials. But a broadcast of SmackDown! wouldn't register in the "unreliable" category. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If an editor says they watched a television broadcast, other editors have no way of verifiying that. It's like me saying a car just crashed into my house. Readers should not have to take an editor's word on anything. Editors are not reliable sources. Editors need to cite reliable sources. The term "original research" refers to unpublished facts. And the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I think if the information hasn't been published in a reliable print source, Davnel03 can remove it per the policy on verifiability. "It was on TV!" is not a reliable source. A reliable source describing what they saw on TV is. Editors cannot cite themselves. And Wikipedia is not a news site. --Pixelface (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me also add that you are assuming bad faith on the part of the Australian editors who watch the program by stating that they may lie through their teeth and fool us about what they saw. This is, of course, a policy violation. If you don't think the information they added is accurate, then request a source using the {{fact}} tag. Otherwise, wait until the US broadcast to personally verify that the information is correct. If it does turn out to be incorrect, then you can fix it. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How am I assuming bad faith? All I said is that people may lie through their teeth. Some people could (IPs for instance). Unless it is verifiable my multiple sources, it should not be in articles. Why can't we provide a link to a YouTube video when they are uploaded, so people can watch it for themselves? Davnel03 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Davne103 for the first issue. We wait until it has aired in the U.S. Concerning the second issue, we can use the "episode" (for lack of a better term) as a cite concerning matches, changes in championships, and storylines where it is proper to mention storylines. Stuff that the commentators say during matches or when someone is on a mic I would say are not reliable. However, when they announce a match or a match stipulation, or something else official, then I would say it is reliable. It may seem like a double standard, but the only time they can really be reliable is when they are officially announcing something. Anakinjmt (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We are conflating two separate issues here - one of publication date (red herring), one of sources (important). Let me deal with the first - in no way shape or form is it supported by policy to tell users that they cannot add correct, current information to an article because americans don't like it(which is what the U.S. issue boils down to) - that is clearly against WP:BIAS and WP:SPOILER - more importantly it is against the fundamental purpose and principle behind the project - the encyclopedia anyone can edit, this is not Wikipedia - "the encyclopedia that you can edit when the wikiprojects tell you can". It is not even worth discussing the "wait for U.S. broadcast" because it is so far out of line with core practice and the fundamental principles of the project that it will never be allowed to stand regardless of what this RFC says. THe only issue that needs to be discussed is that of sourcing. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the English-speaking Wikipedia, not the American one. Users will simply have to avoid reading the articles in question if they wish to avoid spoilers. As for the second issue, in general a source does not need to be "in print" to be a good source. A television episode would be classed as a primary source and completely legitimate, as long as no attempt is made at interpretation. However, I assume that this relates to the first issue due to the lack of any other published material about the matches, and the first appearance of the results "in print" is on the WWE website? Unfortunately (or not, depending which side you're on), the point still stands, and the episodes can be cited. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The real issue is whether editors are reliable sources, and they are not. Editors cannot cite themselves. If material hasn't appeared outside of Wikipedia in a secondary source independent of a subject, the Wikipedia article is not the place to first write about it. When an editor describes something they saw on television, how is that not original research? --Pixelface (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(E/C) Concur. I'm not convinced that we should start turning articles into walled gardens because editors from a geographic area don't want to see spoilers. That pretty much goes against a number of guidelines, as is pointed out above. Further, to address the concern raised about TV as a reliable (primary) source, I think the deletion discussion makes consensus abundantly clear. Best, --Bfigura (talk)

21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex:

  1. I believe that we should post the results from the Australian taping. The event DID happen, the event AIRED on television, and the event is SOURCED. This is an encyclopedia, all information which has undergone the 3 verbs above, should be in it.
  1. This second discussion should be snowballed. Completely unrational. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


  • There is no Wikipedia embargo on factual information. If there were an embargo in this situation, then surely it would extend to many other similar cases involving films, books, TV episodes, and so forth, that are not released simultaneously to all locations. There is no need for a separate "wrestling rule".
  • The second question is a little tougher, because the RfC didn't state the purpose for which the broadcast is being used. Our existing practice allows an article on a film to include a plot summary, with the film itself being the source. Likewise with books, plays, TV episodes, comic books, or what-have-you. Again, I don't see a need for a separate "wrestling rule".
  • Obviously, as is the case with other types of articles, a source is needed if the information is likely to be challenged. If the outcome of a wrestling event was ambiguous, and editors disagreed about what happened, then the disputed information should be removed from the article until a reliable source can be found. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. An article can be 100% factual but if it's not verifiable, it really shouldn't be here. A reader has no way of verifying another editor's personal original research. If Davnel03 challenges the material, the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants to add or restore it. And saying "I just watched it on TV" is not evidence. --Pixelface (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that once the event airs somewhere in the world, it is verifiable and therefore can (and should) be included. I thought the real issue in this discussion was what to do in the time between when the event was taped (Tuesday) and first shown on TV somewhere in the world (Thursday). The argument is that wrestling news sites post the information, so it should be included. The opposing argument is that the news sites are not always reliable and the results of said event should only be added when a reliable source posts the information or it is aired in Australia (which is the first place it airs, as I understand it). The conflict is whether the news sites are reliable in their event summaries, which are e-mailed in by people who visit the show and not actual reporters. Supporters of this argument claim that the results are verifiable, as enough people e-mail the sites to get an accurate report. The opposing side claims that people can and have intentionally deceived the new sites before and it is best to wait until a more reliable site reports the information or it airs on TV. Anyway, that's what I thought this argument was truly about. Nikki311 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on the Pump, no matter where it airs, a televised program is verifiable. I mean, it's not like you can't take a few minutes to check some fansite, which more often than not will get reports ahead of time. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Nothing to really add to what has already been said here. About the 1st "issue", there's no real issue - if the information is out there, it's out there, embargo or no. That's what the spoiler template used to be for, to alert people (no, I'm not going to rehash that old argument again), but in any case, there's no privilege accorded to any particular time zone when it comes to results; you don't want to be spoiled, don't read the article. About the 2nd "issue", it's even less of an issue than the first: of course broadcasts can be reliable sources, subject to the same caveats as any other primary source. Just because it's in print doesn't mean it's any more reliable, just easier to verify. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor saying they watched a television program is not verifiable. And editors are not reliable sources. The policy on verifiability and the policy on no original research and the guideline on reliable sources say nothing about broadcasting, only publishing. A band nobody has ever heard of can make a MySpace page in two seconds but that does not make the band verifiable. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Pixelface (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Publishing something isn't just related to print - ask any intellectual property lawyer. But in any case, the idea that editors watching a television programme is not verifiable is mere sophistry: editors saying they read something in print isn't verifiable either, does that mean we get ride of the cite book template? By that criterion, everything is unreliable and unverifiable. One editor can lie. What makes you think two editors, three editors can't? A line has to be drawn somewhere, but this really ain't it. Challenge an editor's assertion, if you must, but the issue isn't the inherent reliability or verifiability of the source; it's the reliability of the person making the claim. When you say the statement "I saw it on a TV show" is worthless, you're not saying the TV show itself is worthless, you're saying that the statement's truth is in question. You're confusing the source with the viewer. Further, to extend your metaphor, an author nobody has ever heard of can get a print-on-demand book set up on the web within an hour but that doesn't make the author verifiable. You're not talking verifiability here when you talk about reliable third party sources. You're talking about notability, which is something else entirely. --khaosworks (talkcontribs) 11:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Issue 1 - I've had a good hard think about this, and I will now refer to this part of WP:NOT and say that allowing wrestling spoilers is a terrible idea. I go to Hybrid's argument and leave it at that.
  • Issue 2 - I agree with the assertion that TV fails WP:RS without other sources. Also - for the record - the time difference at present between Australia and the US East Coast transmission is something like 10 hours. Fox8 has been known to edit the Australian transmission as well (they've done the same to Raw and ECW). !! Justa Punk !! 01:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, that part of WP:NOT applies to new ideas, but the fact is this is an old idea that simply hasn't been implemented here. It's not a gigantic new change to the rest of wikipedia. As for your TV fails RS without other sources I point you to the arguments that simply being difficult to obtain is not reason for removal. Your assertion of that FOX8 edits the transmission is, itself, without source and that sees odd with SmackDown being the issue here as it airs here first so technically it would be the US that edits the transmission. Editting Raw and ECW makes more sense as they are aired live in America and delayed here. –– Lid(Talk) 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
*exasperated* Where does it say "new ideas only", Lid??? It still applies - it's a terrible idea. The Hybrid has explained why and I'm not inclined to add to his comments. And how do you know Smackdown isn't edited in Australia? I go on the transmission - which by your own admission fulfills WP:RS. How many times has the previous program over run and they've cut back? That doesn't happen in the US. I'm making that point simply "for the record" and you automatically assume a more sinister reason for my mentioning it. I'll give you a great example from Raw. When Mark Henry was injured against Chris Benoit. The whole match was cut from the Australian transmission. !! Justa Punk !! 09:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • FOX8 does not edit the show to affect the outcome or misrepresent the program. When the show runs overtime, they cut out unimportant sections like when the wrestlers head to the ring and showboat for the crowd. I don't really understand your point in bringing this up. - Deep Shadow 02:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On the 2nd issue "whether a television broadcast is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources because television broadcasts are not "published" in print form but "aired".":
I was told that the USA Supreme Court made a decision that broadcasting is publishing. (I've looked for a citation on the open web, but couldn't quickly find reference to that case. Someone with access to Westlaw on line may be able to find this.)
I agree with Liquidfinale (21:35) that TV is a reliable source, but whether it is primary source depends on the program. A news or news magazine broadcast is clearly a secondary source, essentially no different than a newspaper, because a significantly-sized staff of personnel have checked the facts, especially in search of libels that could put them out of business. Note that these shows tell the viewer about things other than themselves.
On the other hand, a program of entertainment or sports is a primary source. These shows tell the viewer about themselves. A primary source may be cited provided: "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" (WP:NOR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Milo 06:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Milo, if it's the case I think it is - it was a reference to live broadcasting. But I could be wrong. If I'm right it doesn't apply here. !! Justa Punk !! 09:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wrong - screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite out of the question

Once episodes of a TV program are broadcast on a public network, the events depicted are in the public domain. To embargo comment on those episodes until they are broadcast in one particular country is out of the question. Utterly unacceptable. Moreover, should a wrestling bout take place in public arenas, clubs and the like before members of the public, there can be no embargo on any reliable reportage of the bout, in any form. As long as the source is reliable (for instance, ESPN, CNN or BBC reports the result of the bout) no embargo can apply on Wikipedia, and no decision made here can override that fact. --Tony Sidaway 10:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). Quibbling about the meaning of the word "published" won't get us anywhere. A TV program that has been publicly broadcast has been published within the meaning of the word as used on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to rewrite WP:V and WP:RS? They don't say anything about broadcasting or airing. When an editor cites a primary source, they become a secondary souce and editors cannot cite themselves. A band can put up a MySpace page, but if a third party has not reported on them, the act of publishing on MySpace is no way of verifying the band actually exists. --Pixelface (talk) 10:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That is also my understanding reading of the use of primary sources in this case - straight reporting of results is allowed, interpreation of those results would not be. Therefore results on matches a) can be published and b) removing them on the grounds of "unsourced" or "not shown in the US" is (note I say IS not SHOULD) not allowed. The bottom line here regardless of what people say in this RFC that policy supports adding that information - leaving aside entirely wooly attempts to use WP:NOT to say that it's a terrible idea. I'm afraid that the small minority of U.S. editors who expect special prilividges will have to accept that here at wikipedia, they are wikipedia "citizens" along with the rest of the world. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Before this is a complete snowball, I would add (or at least reiterate)
1) An embargo, no matter how short, is unacceptable for several reasons. Censorship, to me, is the most prominent. Lacking a significant reason that would start to rise to the standards of WP:IGNORE (which this clearly does not) or is a legal matter, it's a non-starter.
> Also, the "silent majority" argument is patently ridiculous. You can't build consensus on people NOT talking! While you may believe there is a consensus in your favor, it is thoroughly unhelpful to everyone else if they disagree.
2) The sourcing argument is similarly flawed. Limited access to a source does not castrate that source (nice image, eh?). In fact, some of the BEST sources are those that are difficult to come by- old references, aged tomes, etc. Epthorn (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a related question. Many members of the project are expanding articles for wrestling pay-per-views. If, as people seem to be saying, the broadcasts themselves are reliable sources, does this mean that we no longer need to include citations in our articles? Almost all of the information included is either broadcast on weekly shows or on the pay-per-views themselves, and people seem to be saying that both are reliable sources. And by extension, does this mean we no longer need citations for wrestlers' biography pages if the information relates to match results or the plot of television broadcasts? I can picture it now...during the next GA review, the reviewer wants to know why the article doesn't have a single citation...the editor simply replies by saying it was all on television. Case closed. Rubber stamp. GA passed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No the viewing is a suitable source for things that are not open to interperation - "X was declared the winner" - it could not be used for "x was clearly angry at the result" or detailed accounts of the storylines that appeared. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's ridiculous. Wrestling is staged. The matches, as the reactions are also staged. You cannot imply that the sources are good for the staged matches, but not for the acting, because that would be unreasonable. Lex T/C Guest Book 14:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The point is that saying someone is "angry" is somewhat subjective. If someone is declared the winner in a clear fashion, that's a lot different from using giving your own narration of the match. That moves in to Original Research territory.Epthorn (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - a clear unequivocal statement from the ref saying "Wrestler X is the winner of the tinpot belt" is straight forward and requires no interperation. This is obvious stuff. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You can still cite a wrestling broadcast to describe the factual events that occurred. What you can't do is cite the broadcast to interpret the meanings of the events. It's the difference between saying that "Rook's defeats Samson via a submission hold on the December 7 broadcast of Shootout!" versus "As the culmination of their long running feud, Rook pulls an upset victory by defeating Samson on Shootout! by what was clearly a 'dirty move'". See the difference? Besides, who said anything about taking citation out of the articles because the events were broadcasted? All we are saying is that the broadcasts can be cited like any other reliable source.
Note: Any similarities in names of actual wrestlers or events is purely coincidentally. This was merely a fictional example. --Farix (Talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Broadcasts are clearly sources, but are they reliable sources? They're obviously not independent of the subject. Unless an editor includes a link to a video, the episode has to be described by a secondary source. Editors are not reliable sources. Citing an episode is just another way of citing oneself and unless that information has already appeared in a reliable source, it's original research. --Pixelface (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Correct. I agree (see seperate comment below). Davnel03 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Seperate Comment - I'd like to direct you guys to Wikipedia is not journalism. It states: "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." So surely, when someone watches a new episode of WWE SmackDown for the first-time and straight away come onto Wikipedia and basically report what happened, surely this isn't a first-hand report on a news story. As the content first appears on Wikipedia, is that not self publishing? Many spoiler reports given by "dirtsheets" just give the results with no detail most of the time. So say, if a user decides to give a detailed report into a match, surely it isn't original research based on this paragraph? Davnel03 17:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If they tried to give a detailed account with their spin on it - it's original research. If they say "Wrestler X was the winner of tinpot title Y" then that is acceptable and entirely in line with existing policy and practice. This was *never* about giving detailed accounts so please let's not get started on that strawman - nobody is arguing that should be allowed - we are arguing (backed by policy and current practice) that primary sources may be used as Tony states above On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). that is what is being discussed here - not a single policy based reason has been presented to say why this cannot occur with those shows - all of the "anti" arguments boil down to "I don't like it" or "I don't want to be spoilt" - neither are valid and this wikiproject will not be allowed to dictate to the wider community OR any good faith editor who wants to add current, correct information to articles - that will not stand, it will not stand. As for the WP:NOT#journalism - an equally bogus argument - as this is not about a breaking story - Journalism refers to NEWS not to fictional events such as the pre-determined performance art we are discussing here. In addition, you missed this bit Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. - that NOT is mainly intended to stop people creating articles on breaking news stories, it is not intended to stop people updating existing articles with the most correct factual information available. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

  • OK - fine. The Hybrid has given up, and so do I. You lot win. Turn this section of WP into a news site. See if we care anymore. We don't. Let WP:SPOILER destroy the integrity of the wrestling section. And don't come back and apologise later because I for one won't accept an apology. Do what you want. (/vent) !! Justa Punk !! 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I wish I could add more, but everything I think has already been said by Hybrid and Justa Punk. Also, most of the spoilers are added on Wednesdays and Thursdays by people reading unreliable dirtsheets, not people watching international broadcasts (there are some who do that, but the majority are from people reading dirtsheets). TJ Spyke 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell me how you expect a horde of IP's to listen to or even know about any sort of consensus we may or may not make here. The bottom line is you're not going to stop people from adding spoilers. I'm not saying "Why try?" (this isn't like pure vandalism - when an IP {or anybody} adds the WWE tag team title to the Miz's article, that's true information and a "spoiler" to those who don't want to know it; you only have to see it once and you're "spoiled," rendering whatever gets done here totally moot. When an IP, or anyone, adds the WWE championship to Funaki's article, that's just patent nonsense) or don't edit them out if that proves to be the consensus, but you are not going to stop being "spoiled." You all talk of "it's only 4 days!" between the taping and airing - well, it's also "only 4 days!" that you'd need to go without editing articles of Smackdown or ECW wrestlers. Is that so hard? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) - and I'm not saying you would have to do that every week. Just when something undeniably notable happens at the taping. Surely Lid or I or some other member of the project could extend the courtesy of posting a note here, saying a "spoiler" is likely to be posted to the articles of ECW or Smackdown wrestlers. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that if you say "a spoiler is likely to be posted", you're basically saying "a title will change hands tonight", which itself is spoiling an outcome. However, your original point is valid. Mshake3 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And how is that worse than the status quo, as far as Punk and Hybrid and their camp are concerned? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well instead of simply finding it out in one of their articles, they'll now discover what it is by coming to this talk page. Of course, they would have found out about it anyway, as shown by this section (does every little thing really need to be brought to the project's attention?). I know you're trying to find some sort of compromise, but when it comes to spoilers, it is impossible. Mshake3 (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
"Miz and Morrison won the tag title on SmackDown!" versus "Something notable happened that is very likely to be posted to Wikipedia articles of Smackdown/ECW wrestlers (and WWE Friday Night SmackDown! for that matter)" I think one is clearly better than the other, but you're of course entitled to disagree. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And as soon as a tag title match was announced for Smackdown, editors who saw that note will now realize that a title change is about to occur. Basically, they're still being spoiled, only in this case it's done 10 minutes before the result, as opposed to four days. Technically, that might be worse! And while it is a better option, for spoilers, it needs to be much, MUCH better in order to be effective. Mshake3 (talk) 03:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, when someone would spoil me with the title change, I'd say I'd prefer to watch it on the show, but if someone tells me that "something important will happen", I would be psyched [not angered, or sadly spoiled] to watch the show.

Comment- Even if the consensus is "don't post spoilers", the day of the smackdown tapings, any IP Address or disruptive user like Hornetman, etc.... can post the results against consensus. This meaning that you will still be spoiled, regardless of consensus. We can make a policy, but we can't force people to abide by it. Lex T/C Guest Book 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I gave up not because I don't care, but because this isn't worth it. It's the holidays people; this is supposed to be a season filled with happiness, and this is the season that first coined the term Peace on Earth. Shouldn't we be doing better things than arguing about spoilers, like spending time with our families, shopping for the children in our family, and eating little animals in massive quantities? Just let the spoilers be added for now. If things do get bad, then I'll restart the discussion later. That's what's great about Wikipedia; nothing is written in stone (except the law). Let's all just enjoy our holidays, and take a look at this again later on if it's necessary. Happy Thanksgiving Americans, and cheers all. The Hybrid T/C 07:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What is there to look at? there is not has been a single policy based reason to restrict the addition of the information discussed. For what you want to do, you'd have to change policy at the highest level, rather than at the wikiproject level. Oh and Happy Holidays to you (althought I'm not sure what holidays you are referring to). --Fredrick day (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
...Or provide legitimate rational to invoke WP:IAR, such as policy standing in the way of maintaining the encyclopedia. Like it or not, that little disclaimer does exist, and it occasionally can be invoked legitimately, as rare as that is. Like I said, if necessary (which it shouldn't be if everything you've said is true) I'll deal with this later. This isn't worth the time it would take out of the here and now, the holiday season. Just let this thing die, and be satisfied with the outcome. The Hybrid T/C 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The obstacles to implementation of Wikipedia policy here are red herrings. Public TV broadcasts, whether pay-per-view or not, may be used as sources for the result of a wrestling bout (whether staged or not). Wikipedia editors must not remove such well sourced material from the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And I thought I was the argumentative one. If I may be so blunt, it's over, so go away! The Hybrid T/C —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
go away from where? wikiprojects exists at the suffurance of editors not the other way around - good faith editors post where they like. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You are seeing patterns where they don't exist; you're out thinking yourself. When I said go away, I was saying stop beating a dead horse. The dispute is over, you all won, so quit pretending we are still resisting. If you want to join the project then that's fine, but put down the stick, and back away from the horse carcass. The Hybrid T/C 01:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NYR07

Please comment on New Year's Revolution (2007) which is currently in my sandbox. (User:Feedback/Sandbox) Lex T/C Guest Book 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, now dont take what I say the wrong way as you did the other time.
    • I don't understand this one.Lex T/C Guest Book 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, put the results of the main matches in the beginning of the article (before the Table of COntents), like "The main event was for the WWE Championship........" (in that paragraph add the results too the other main matches e.g dx vs rko)
    • Ok, it's a good to summarize the important stuff in the event, if the reader doesn't want to read much. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ummm, the picture of the promo poster is needed.
    • It's going there, but I can't use fair use images in my sandbox.Lex T/C Guest Book 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • and yeah thats it basically youre doing a splendid job.

Cheers =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I'm gonna write the Event section later on today. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • You need to source the match lengths, that's just what popped out at me MPJ-DK (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually lex they are sourced, the reference you see next to the match lengths in the results section of D2D is what MPJ means.
The references next to each match length, says nothing about the length. They are Deceiving References. I just checked them out, check them yourselves. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, One Night Stand (2005) and One Night Stand (2006)'s match lengths aren't either. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess he meant that he didnt he see a reference next to the match length.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I left a message on Davnel03's talk page telling him about the false references, and advised him to fix them. Lex T/C Guest Book 02:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. They weren't actually false, they were actually telling the user the result, but didn't provide the match time. I've added refs to the three concerned articles. Davnel03 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also what I meant by putting the refs at the end, is for the matches in the event section. (It was just a tip for when you write it). TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2007)

New article. Unfortunately, it looks like the creator has just dumped it, and looks like he's not going to be improving it. Davnel03 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? Lex T/C Guest Book 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Give it some time, he stopped editing it yesterday. People do have lives =), he probably is doing other things that are important in real life. If he doesnt edit it in maby 3 days, then you can say he dumped it.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

My proposal is...

How about we actually USE this?

Lex T/C Guest Book 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • OK then. I've brought up our little issue. ;) Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out (2007)

Ok Im done the article, will you all go check it out and tell me if its good, if I need to change things or comment on it. Thanks.TrUcO9311 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-

  • Fraction from article:

The main feud heading into No Way Out, was between SmackDown's World Champion Batista and the Undertaker against RAW's WWE Champion John Cena and Shawn Michaels. This feud began after Undertaker won the 2007 Royal Rumble match. The following week on an episode of Friday Night SmackDown!, the two world champions demanded an answer from Undertaker, but Shawn Michaels would interfere and also wanted an answer.

-You are informing the reader, that the champions wanted an answer, without specifying the question. Lex T/C Guest Book 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Check, thanxTrUcO9311 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have finished New Year's Revolution (2007)!

The above title states it all. Please review the article, and if you see any problems, errors, etc; write them here. Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have listed the article for Peer Review here. It would be more appropiate if you post your conerns there.

Thank you, Lex T/C Guest Book 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the comments that were below to the article's Peer Review

WrestleMania 23 and other updates

Due to the end of my college semester approaching, I have much to do in real life that my time on Wiki won't be suffcient to do much more than hit buttons to revert vandalism when I get the chance. Therefore, I'm putting my work on WrestleMania 23 and fixing the move links in the TNA wrestlers articles on hold until my semester ends. In about two weeks, I'll have the time and energy to continue. If anyone wants to work with what I have on either thing, feel free. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Nash and Scott Hall

The page was recently moved from The Outsiders (WCW) to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall (since they're now wrestling in TNA). I think it should be moved to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as it's the proper naming convention for tag teams/stables that have wrestled on several promotions. But I need to get an insight from everybody here. The Chronic 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Outsiders definitly, that's what they're most famous as, it's what they're referred to by everyone but TNA who can't for legal reasons, it's an actual team name as well. I think that's plenty of reasons MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Mike Tenay has called them the Outsiders several times. TJ Spyke 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
How bout NWO? Lex T/C Guest Book 16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
NWO is the superstable that consisted of more wrestlers (in different combos, some not involving Nash or Hall). The Outsiders are just a tag team of Nash an Hall. The Chronic 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok, then I think Nash and Hall should just be merged into the NWO article. It's not like if we have seperate articles for DX and "Triple H and Shawn Michaels". Lex T/C Guest Book 18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The Outsiders (Nash & Hall) have also been successful in their own right (outside of NwO). That deserves their own article. Besides, mostly the only times that HHH and HBK wrestle as a tag team are when they wrestle as DX, and that doesn't need a separate article. The Chronic 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's more comparable to the New Age Outlaws and DX. They were a team before they were part of the stable, and they were a team afterward. Nikki311 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The article should not have been moved since they have always been known as the Outsiders. TJ Spyke 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing. I can't move the page to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as that page already has a bit of edit history (besides my double-redirect fix). Would it be alright to just copy and paste it, even though the history wil not be preserved? The Chronic 05:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I will ask an admin to do so (in this case, Nikki). The Chronic 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Good thing you didn't decide to do that, since it would have been reverted. Copy and past moves are NOT allowed, you are supposed to use WP:RM for move requests. TJ Spyke 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I forgot that rule for a second. The Chronic 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Prune notice

The following articles from Pro Wrestling COTW, are about to be pruned:

Nomination Votes Votes needed Date of prune
Survivor Series (1997) 13 15 November 26 (2 days)
The Fingerpoke of Doom 10 12 November 26 (2 days)
Cyber Sunday (2006) 7 9 November 25 (1 day!!)
Santo 4 6 November 25 (1 day!!)

Please save the articles from pruning! Lex T/C Guest Book 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2006) pruned. Davnel03 09:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple H now the FACOTW + pruning notices

What the title says, and several pruning notices. The following articles from the COTW, are about to be pruned:

Nomination Votes Votes needed Date of prune
Survivor Series (1997) 13 15 November 26 (1 days)
The Fingerpoke of Doom 10 12 November 26 (1 days)

Please save the articles from pruning! Davnel03 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Officially Done

Okay now No Way Out (2007) is officially done, will you all fellow wikipedians go check it out.TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment here

  • In the sentence: The match begins with MVP and Benoit locking up, where Benoit gains control over MVP; the verbs are in present tense. They should be in a past tense, to be consistent with the other match descriptions, and becasue of the fact that the event happened long ago.
How do I do that?TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to the Peer review page and follow the nomination procedure explained there. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a copy-vio of WrestleView.com. You should really use the proper WrestleView source, not a copy-vio of it. The references are inconsistently formatted too. Davnel03 16:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand the copy source, but what do you mean about the formatting?TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh and yeah I removed the liberty post reference.
The refs looks a mess - some of the dates are 2007-1-28 format and some are in full format. You need them to look in the format like in December to Dismember (2006). If you wish, I'll clean up the refs for you? :) Davnel03 17:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure Thank You. Thanks Alot--TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal: The Fabulous Moolah to Mary Ellison

I propose moving the page to title her real name. Always after death in the wwe.com keyfab always seems to be broken, they see each person as an athlete/actor in the end. So who agree's to this? Govvy (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The naming conventions say use the most commonly known name, and in her case that's the name she used in public for ~50 years.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Then why is Eddie Fatu not Umaga; Adam Birch not Joey Mathews/Joey Mercury; Alvin Burke, Jr. not MVP; Ken Anderson not Mr. Kennedy; Glen Jacobs not Kane; Carly Colón not Carlito; Lisa Marie Varon not Victoria; Kevin Fertig not Kevin Thorn; Anthony Carelli not Santino Marella/Boris Alexiev; Mark Copani not Muhammad Hassan; Bob Holly not Hardcore Holly; Chris Chavis not Tatanka; Paul Wight not Big Show; Jason Reso not Christian Cage; Adam Copeland not Edge; Booker Huffman not Booker T; Dave Finlay not simply Finlay; Marty Wright not The Boogeyman; Ronnie Arniell not Shawn Spearsl Dylan Postl not Hornswoggle; John Hennigan not Johnny Nitro/John Morrison; Oscar Gutierrez not Rey Mysterio; James Maritato not Nunzio; Jim Duggan not Hacksaw Jim Duggan; Darren Matthews not William Regal/Steven Regal; Harry Smith not DH Smith; Sean Morley not Val Venis; James Reiher, Jr. not Deuce/Deuce Shade; Cliff Compton not Domino; Drew Hankinson not Festus; James Yun not Jimmy Wang Yang; Ray Gordy not Jesse; Mike Mizanin not The Miz; Nelson Frazier, Jr. not Viscera/Big Daddy V; I could go on, but I am tired... Lex T/C Guest Book 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it's Lilian Ellison. Even if that was actually her middle name, it's the "real" name that's been used 100% of the time. As for the above...

Then why is Eddie Fatu not Umaga Disambiguation, for one - go to Umaga; Adam Birch not Joey Mathews/Joey Mercury Tough to say which of those names would be better; if he were currently in WWE, it'd be a likely move; Alvin Burke, Jr. not MVP obviously disambiguation, but I'd imagine a RM to Montel Vontavious Porter would pass; Ken Anderson not Mr. Kennedy; Glen Jacobs not Kane proposed and not moved; some project members vehemently oppose any wrestler's article having to have the (wrestler) qualifier; Carly Colón not Carlito disambiguation, would require (wrestler), is also pretty well-known worldwide as Carly Colon; Lisa Marie Varon not Victoria other than disambiguation, nothing; Kevin Fertig not Kevin Thorn beats me; Anthony Carelli not Santino Marella/Boris Alexiev if he's Santino much longer, this one'll be moved; even Bobby Lashley wasn't moved from Franklin Lashley at first; Mark Copani not Muhammad Hassan simple; he CAN'T use that name anymore, and apparently he's going for some kind of acting career; Bob Holly not Hardcore Holly "Bob Holly" IS a stage name, and it's no less well-known than Hardcore; Chris Chavis not Tatanka probably disambiguation; Paul Wight not Big Show you're kidding, right?; Jason Reso not Christian Cage propose it; Adam Copeland not Edge "Adam Copeland" is also well known - so is "Amy Dumas," for the same reason; Booker Huffman not Booker T I got nothin'; Dave Finlay not simply Finlay now you're just nitpicking; Marty Wright not The Boogeyman disambiguation, probably going to be fired at any time and lose the rights to use the name; Ronnie Arniell not Shawn Spears who? does this even matter at this point?; Dylan Postl not Hornswoggle definite disambiguation; John Hennigan not Johnny Nitro/John Morrison which one?; Oscar Gutierrez not Rey Mysterio because there's another Rey Misterio; you could do Rey Misterio, Jr, but that's not his current name, so the benefit is negated, plus there are like twelve different permutations of this name; James Maritato not Nunzio obviously disambiguation, plus Little Guido is just as well-known; Jim Duggan not Hacksaw Jim Duggan do we put nicknames in titles?; Darren Matthews not William Regal/Steven Regal go ahead; Harry Smith not DH Smith he's been using that name for what, two weeks?; Sean Morley not Val Venis allez-vous; James Reiher, Jr. not Deuce/Deuce Shade disambiguation, likely not going to be with the company forever; Cliff Compton not Domino same; Drew Hankinson not Festus hasn't had the name very long, has several other ring names that are well-known; James Yun not Jimmy Wang Yang some other well-known ring names; Ray Gordy not Jesse well disambiguation obviously, but also hasn't had the name long; Mike Mizanin not The Miz this should be moved; Nelson Frazier, Jr. not Viscera/Big Daddy V which one? and why not mabel?

Yeah, there's one or two in that list that might/should be moved, but most have legitimate reasons. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Miz is disambiguation, as is Booker T. As for Darren Matthews he published his autobiography under that name thus putting him on any ring name would be incorrect, as precedent of "Adam Copeland on Edge". –– Lid(Talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. A deceased pool player whose nickname only appears in an external link versus a current TV star who's used that name both in wrestling and "reality" TV. I think an {{otheruses}} template would be sufficient there. I am embarrassed I didn't recognize Booker T as a disambiguation. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also the point where they've worked under several names and achieved something - Steven/William Regal springs to mind, he's better listed under his real name than suffering a semi-monthly move from Steven to William and back.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Viscera, Montel Vontavious Porter, Mr. Kennedy, Hornswoggle and Christian Cage? Also "Hacksaw" is not a nickname, as "Hacksaw Jim Duggan" is his full ring name. He will never be announced to the ring as "Jim Duggan" alone, because it wouldn't be his full ring name. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, "Hacksaw" IS a nickname as his ringname is Jim Duggan. Article names are on a case by case basis, but Moolah should stay where she is since she used the name in and out of the ring for almost her entire 50+ years in wrestling. TJ Spyke 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For people who have worked under multiple ring names for large chunks of their career we tend to demure to real names. Viscera, Honswaggle, Regal, & MVP fit that description. Just because someone has been on WWE TV for the last 2 months or year with a name doesn't make them more known with that name.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hornswoggle has only competed under that name. He was Little Bastard, when he didn't compete; MVP has competed under that gimmick for a long time and is much better known as MVP, than with his indie name, Antonio Banks; Viscera is much better known as Viscera, than Nelson Frazier, Jr., so the article should be renamed; every time I mention Mr. Kennedy and Christian Cage, the following comment always ignores them. Lex' T/C Guest Book 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Dylan Postl competed in NWA Wisconsin as "Shortstack, the World's Sexiest Midget" and won their X-Division Championship before appearing in WWE as Little Bastard and Hornswoggle. Check his article, I believe it's sourced. Jason Reso used the name "Christian" for many more years than his current ring name. If anything, the article should be called Christian (wrestler). But I personally think that sounds really stupid, and should just stay Jason Reso. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He also wrestled as The Little Bastard at No Way Out 2007 (teaming up with Finlay to take on The Boogeyman and Little Boogeyman). TJ Spyke 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And what is he in the WWE? Little Bastard? Hornswoggle? Hornswoggle McMahon? Not even the WWE can keep his name consistent for more than 6 months, which is why the best option is to pick the one name that's stable, his real one. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nelson Frazier has been known as, and held titles in WWE alone, both Mabel and Viscera, and currently works as Big Daddy V. How are you deciding which of those is best known? Everytime I see him I still think Mabel. Christian and Christian Cage are supposed to be separate ring names, so there's no reason not to go with the "multiple names → ring name" guide line. I have little issue with Ken Anderson being moved to Ken Kennedy—not Mr. Kennedy, but Shortstack (title)/Little Bastard/Hornswoggle/Hornswoggle McMahon just recently went through a name change. I'll say it again, just because someone has been using a name on WWE (or TNA) television recently doesn't erase their past where they used a name for much longer.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Hornswoggle...

NWA Wisconsin is indie-wrestling, which isn't really that famous and notable as WWE. A minority would know Dylan Postl as "Shortstack". He only wrestled 1 match as Little Bastard, which wouldn't be notable, so that name doesn't count (Santino Marella has worked 8 months under that name, and the article continues to be Anthony Carelli). The issue would be between Hornswoggle and Hornswoggle McMahon. I'd say to go for Hornswoggle McMahon, as that would be his kayfabe full name, and everyone knows him by the name.

    • He wrestled one match, but appeared for almost a year as only Little Bastard. When his name was changed to Hornswoggle they (Cole) continued to call him Bastard. Multiple equal names → real name.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Christian Cage...

It isn't really that much of a difference from Christian (wrestler) to Christian Cage. Because Christian Cage has been using that name for the past lustrum, the article should be Christian Cage.

    • But he used just Christian for much longer, and is much better known as simply Christian.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Mr. Kennedy...

His article should be entitled Mr. Kennedy instead of Ken Anderson. First of all, Ken Anderson is a disambiguation, so it is unwise to put him under that name. Mr. Kennedy seems appropiate as it's the name he's been using since his debut. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    • What's the purpose of moving the article to Mr. Kennedy? Are none of the other people with the surname Kennedy worthy of being called Mr.?«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On MVP...

Is there any objection that his article should be Montel Vontavious Porter instead of Alvin Burke, Jr.? Lex T/C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Yes, including that he's used Antonio Banks so much that people thought that was his real name.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Adam Birch/Joey Mercury...

His article should be entitled Joey Mathews, as it's not a disambiguation and it's his current ringname and more popular name. Joey Mercury must be owned by the WWE, so I believe he's not entitled to that name. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Again, because you think people know that name better that makes it better known? Multiple equal names → real name.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On Santino Marella...

As mentioned above, Santino Marella has already used the name for 8 months. He should have his article renamed to it. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Eight whole months? He was Alexiev for a year.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
WOW!! You guys have gone off on a tangents and what of The Fabulous Moolah to Mary Ellison? Two sources are provided with her real name. Including the WWE! The article should be titled to her real name and The Fabulous Moolah should be directed to it. Not the other way around. It's a shame that some of you guys don't follow true biographical rules and instead followed the wwe's naming convention instead. Because the simple fact remains Moolah is a character name, if you want to know the real person like you should do instead of the character the biography should start with the title of the real name. That's how it should be. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No one is arguing if it's her real name or not, the point is Wikipedia naming conventions regarding common names.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I do remember reading, title by common >> redirect to correct. Govvy (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Why rename her? Plenty of other articles on people are at what they are best known as, not their real name (like Snoop Dogg instead of Cordorzar Broadus). Also, so what that WWE said her real name? They usually do that when they announced a persons death. They called Mike Awesome Michael Alfonso after he hung himself, do you want that renamed? Moolah is best known as Moolah, and the naming conventions would suggest sticking at the articles current name. TJ Spyke 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not worth bring this up, I guess you guys respect a character more than the real persom. Such a shame. Govvy (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with a lack or respect at all. People here are simply following WP:COMMONNAME and the person in question is better known under the name currently. Also, I have not seen any mucic fans accused of a lack of respect for using Snoop Dogg over Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr or sports fans for using Pelé over Edson Arantes do Nascimento even though the article titles do not use there real names. I don't see how this is any different. --70.48.108.213 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble table Approval

I made this table for the Royal Rumble matches to better organize it as to me the ones that are in the articles are kinda messy.

This is for the 2007 Royal Rumble

Red indicates a RAW superstar, blue indicates a SmackDown! superstar, and purple indicates an ECW extremist. A new entrant came out approximately every 90 seconds.

P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)

    Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability. 
# Entrant Elimination # Eliminator Time
1 Ric Flair 1 Edge 05:40
2 Finlay 12 Shawn Michaels 32:32
3 Kenny Dykstra 2 Edge 04:05
4 Matt Hardy 9 Randy Orton 18:55
5 Edge 28 Shawn Michaels 44:02
6 Tommy Dreamer 3 Kane 06:41
7 Sabu 4 Kane 05:27
8 Gregory Helms 5 King Booker 06:50
9 Shelton Benjamin 14 Shawn Michaels 22:22
10 Kane 11 King Booker[1] 13:21
11 CM Punk 22 The Great Khali 27:16
12 King Booker 10 Kane 09:23
13 Super Crazy 7 Edge and Randy Orton 04:32
14 Jeff Hardy 8 Edge 03:38
15 The Sandman 6 King Booker 00:13
16 Randy Orton 27 Shawn Michaels 27:14
17 Chris Benoit 19 The Great Khali 17:52
18 Rob Van Dam 21 The Great Khali 15:27
19 Viscera 13 Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn 06:22
20 Johnny Nitro 5 Chris Benoit 06:18
21 Kevin Thorn 16 Chris Benoit 06:15
22 Hardcore Holly 18 The Great Khali 10:21
23 Shawn Michaels 29 The Undertaker 24:11
24 Chris Masters 17 Rob Van Dam 03:32
25 Chavo Guerrero 24 The Great Khali 06:24
26 Montel Vontavious Porter 26 The Undertaker 07:21
27 Carlito 23 The Great Khali 03:19
28 The Great Khali 25 The Undertaker 03:45
29 The Miz 20 The Great Khali 00:07
30 The Undertaker - WINNER 13:15

^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.

or

# Brand Entrant Eliminated Eliminated by Time
1 RAW Ric Flair 01 Edge 05:40
2 SD! Finlay 12 Shawn Michaels 32:32
3 RAW Kenny Dykstra 02 Edge 04:05
4 SD Matt Hardy 09 Randy Orton 18:55
5 RAW Edge 28 Shawn Michaels 44:02
6 ECW Tommy Dreamer 03 Kane 06:41
7 ECW Sabu 04 Kane 05:27
8 SD! Gregory Helms 05 King Booker 06:50
9 RAW Shelton Benjamin 14 Shawn Michaels 22:22
10 SD! Kane 11 King Booker[2] 13:21
11 ECW CM Punk 22 The Great Khali 27:16
12 SD! King Booker 10 Kane 09:23
13 RAW Super Crazy 07 Edge and Randy Orton 04:32
14 RAW Jeff Hardy 08 Edge 03:38
15 ECW The Sandman 06 King Booker 00:13
16 RAW Randy Orton 27 Shawn Michaels 27:14
17 SD! Chris Benoit 19 The Great Khali 17:52
18 ECW Rob Van Dam 21 The Great Khali 15:27
19 RAW Viscera 13 Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn 06:22
20 RAW Johnny Nitro 05 Chris Benoit 06:18
21 ECW Kevin Thorn 16 Chris Benoit 06:15
22 ECW Hardcore Holly 18 The Great Khali 10:21
23 RAW Shawn Michaels 29 The Undertaker 24:11
24 RAW Chris Masters 17 Rob Van Dam 03:32
25 SD! Chavo Guerrero 24 The Great Khali 06:24
26 SD! Montel Vontavious Porter 26 The Undertaker 07:21
27 RAW Carlito 23 The Great Khali 03:19
28 RAW The Great Khali 25 The Undertaker 03:45
29 SD! The Miz 20 The Great Khali 00:07
30 SD! The Undertaker - WINNER 13:15

^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.

Do you approve of it to be placed in Royal Rumble articles? or comment if something should be changed or added

Approve, Disapprove, or Comment:

TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)

    Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability. 

Or now you can choose the other one w/ the brands listed

  • Disapprove - The colors suck. I perfer the current color use. I like the idea of splitting up the categories and making them sortable, but that's it. Mshake3 (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the current format is fine. If we did use this one (sortable tables I mean), the colors have to be extended to all of them. TJ Spyke 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So? I did it with the 2007 drafts. Mshake3 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Approve 2 - Looks great, just needs some colors (the ones used in the current tables will be fine.) Mshake3 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Mshake. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Eliminator" sounds cheesy as hell. Might that be swapped for "Eliminated by," which is what I believe is in use right now Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment-Okay its changed.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Approve #2, I think the colors in the first one are pretty, but un-encyclopedic. I prefer the second option. It was a good idea to turn them into sort-tables. Nikki311 04:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite #2 The colours in the first one look terrible. -- Scorpion0422 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not sure, but couldn't we just plug in the sort-tables into the current ones? The Chronic 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well Chronic thats basically what I am doing, just plugging in the table to the current ones w/ a few adjustments.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I mean pluging in the sort-thing into the Royal Rumble tables that are existing on the Royal Rumble pages right now. The Chronic 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, thats what I am doing, I just wanted to show you how it would look. (w/ a few adjustments)TrUcO9311 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - are brand affiliations important enough to warrant a column or colour coding? «»bd(talk stalk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well they are since superstars are not from one brand, they are from three. Notable since there is different talent coming from different places.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Can it not be handled with a dagger & obelisk (†, ‡)? A column seems extraneous.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a design I'm proposing, like this:
Entrant Eliminated by Time
1 Ric Flair 1 Edge 05:40
2 Finlay 12 Michaels 32:32
3 Kenny Dykstra 2 Edge 04:05
4 Matt Hardy 9 Orton 18:55
5 Edge 28 Michaels 44:02
6 Tommy Dreamer 3 Kane 06:41
7 Sabu 4 Kane 05:27
8 Gregory Helms 5 Booker 06:50
9 Shelton Benjamin 14 Michaels 22:22
10 Kane 11 Booker[3] 13:21
11 CM Punk 22 Khali 27:16
12 King Booker 10 Kane 09:23
13 Super Crazy 7 Edge & Orton 04:32
14 Jeff Hardy 8 Edge 03:38
15 The Sandman 6 Booker 00:13
16 Randy Orton 27 Michaels 27:14
17 Chris Benoit 19 Khali 17:52
18 Rob Van Dam 21 Khali 15:27
19 Viscera 13 Edge, Punk, RVD, Benoit, Nitro, Benjamin, Holly & Thorn 06:22
20 Johnny Nitro 15 Benoit 06:18
21 Kevin Thorn 16 Benoit 06:15
22 Hardcore Holly 18 Khali 10:21
23 Shawn Michaels 29 Undertaker 24:11
24 Chris Masters 17 RVD 03:32
25 Chavo Guerrero 24 Khali 06:24
26 Montel Vontavious Porter 26 Undertaker 07:31
27 Carlito 23 Khali 03:19
28 The Great Khali 25 Undertaker 03:45
29 The Miz 20 Khali 00:07
30 The Undertaker - WINNER 13:15

-The Chronic 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Approve The Chronic's table Now that's more like it! Nice work Chronic!-- bulletproof 3:16 03:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Table Re:Approval

Ok apparently there has been some dispute over the RR tables, so here we go again.

If you agree on this table being put into the RR articles put Agree, or if you disagree put Disagree, or if you want to comment/question about the table put Comment.

TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR?TrUcO9311 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Approval Posts:

  • Disagree - I agree with The Chronic. I believe we should use the current table but make it sortable. -- LAX 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. Keep the current tables as they are, just make them sortable. TJ Spyke 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree0 I like the second table Truco displayed, having the numbers being seperated from the wrestlers. In this table, it's possible to sort by name, in the other, it's not.

Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR?TrUcO9311 (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

They already do that. We just need to pick some colors and stick to them. The current colors used for SmackDown and ECW (at least in the 2007 article) are way too similar. TJ Spyke 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No they dont, when I go look at them its white.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody made the colors lighter, but they are not all white. They just need to be made darker (maybe match the colors used in the main WWE article). TJ Spyke 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Idk if its my browser that shows the table colors white cuz on the main wwe article I see a white background in the tables.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that this table: World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders looks all white to you? Then it must be your browser because they are not even close to white. TJ Spyke 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow it is my browser (Mozilla FireFox). But when I go use Internet Explorer 7, i still see a white background.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe others can chime in. I use IE7 and do not see a white backround, I checked with FF and do not see a white backround. TJ Spyke 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
TJ what do colors do you see? I see like a dark whitish color, a little less than GreyTrUcO9311 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
I see a light lavender for ECW, a really light blue for SmackDown, and a really light red for RAW. RAW and SmackDown could probably be a little darker though. TJ Spyke 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If we do decide to change the table, which I don't see the point of doing, I suggest we go with The Chronic's table posted above. The colors are perfect and its much better organized than the ones recently nominated. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we do go with my design, there's just one or two things that need to be fixed. The "Eliminated by" and "Time" columns, when sorted, are not sorted correctly (by numbers, going up or down depending on what is selected). Can someone fix that? I've tried something, but it's no use. The Chronic 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See List of Virtual Console games (North America). The table will sort by number (meaning 12:45 wil show up before 6:32 since "1" comes before "6". You would have to manually set that up (so it would be 01, 02, etc.). That means someone would have to manually adjust those two columns in every table. TJ Spyke 06:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IWGP World Tag Team Championship

Is anyone opposed to this being nominated for Featured List status? All of the IWGP championship lists are fully sourced, so I would like the see them all get up to FL status (perhaps a Featured Topic?). This list currently has no picture, which is the only drawback I can see. I don't know where one could get a picture of the belt, but the article for Matt Bloom (one of the current champions) has a free-use picture (with no belt, though). Is it worth adding, or is the article okay as it is? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some small copy edits I'd like to do before it is nominated, as I saw some MOS issues just now when I skimmed it. I'll probably get to that tomorrow afternoon, and I'll post here when I'm finished with it. Other than that, the sources look good. I think the free-use of Bloom would be good. There aren't any pictures of the NWA World Women's Championship or the WWE European Championship titles, so both of those FL's use free-use pics of current or past champions. Nikki311 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I've fixed what I wanted to. I have no objections with it being nominated, except for the addition of the picture. Nikki311 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I added the picture. Could someone give it one last look before I nominate it? I'm not great at writing captions, so I'm not sold on what I wrote. In addition, I don't know much about spacing, so I'm not sure if there's too much room after the Table of Contents. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we doing PPV expansions in a particular order?

Or would it be OK for me to do Backlash (2004)? It's always been a favorite show of mine.....or at least it used to be, if you catch my drift. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok if you do it, I did WCW Sin a while ago and that was really a long time ago. So go on ahead.
Go ahead. Sounds fine to me. Davnel03 16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Off question

Mostly every superstar has tattoos, now I know they are added in the "Personal life" section, but do they need to be cited? Zenlax T C S 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is everything needs to be cited. I've found that the best way to cite tattoos, if they're notable enough to be in the article, is with pictures.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. All I needed. Zenlax T C S 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
WWE also has their superstar ink section on wwe.com Lex T/C Guest Book 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good news

I have some good news to lighten the mood. Bobby Eaton, our first Featured Article collaboration, got moved to the FA Log, which means it has passed and is now a FA! Hopefully, our current FACOTW, Triple H, will be just as good. Please copyedit, repair links, etc to Triple H's article, and please add suggestions to his article's talk page so it can be promoted to FA status, as well. Nikki311 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news, congratulations are in order to the whole project. I've just been through Triple H's article and fixed various minor things, but I haven't the time to contribute much more than that right now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, it really is horrible timing, as it is my last couple of weeks of class, too. I have a million things to do and won't be able to contribute anything major, other than some minor things here and there either (unless I decide to do some major procrastinating). Nikki311 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd imagine it will be the same for several other editors as well. Can't really be helped though. *shrugs shoulders* Oh well. Let's hope there are some younger editors that can pick up the slack, so to speak (not that I really do a lot around here to begin with). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I am in the same boat as well and that is why I haven't been around the last several days. I've made promises to copyedit and proof read some stuff and I feel really bad that I haven't gotten to it yet (sorry Davne I honstly haven't forgotten I'm just really bogged down). That, together with Thanksgiving and the fact that I'm graduating in a few weeks and trying to find a job ....ugh ...REALLY busy. Everyone keep up the great work you always do, we college folks will surely be back in full force once we get our stuff done. --Naha|(talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Really? Why are you two finishing up class this early? Did you two start school in the spring? Normally (at least here in the US), school goes from August/September to May/June unless a college student starts their semester in the spring. No matter what the reason, you two are both good editors, but real life is more important. TJ Spyke 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I go to school at the University of Georgia, and we're just finishing the Fall semester, which started mid-August. I have two more weeks of class and then a week of finals. Then I have about a month of break before the Spring semester starts. Nikki311 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Same here as far as my schedule is concerned, but I'm at Texas A&M University. No class for me in the spring though, I'm finally graduating after 7 years of college ...Woooooooooo --Naha|(talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I started late August and I have two more weeks of classes. I go to a community college (currently in my third of six semesters before I have enough money to transfer out). I have a month and a half before my Spring semester starts. And thanks for the compliment, TJ. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

One word: Awesome, two words: Freaking Awesome! our first FACOTW pays off and it's the first article I've been really involved with that's gone FA so it's a great start to my day. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW newsletter

Hey, has anybody recieved the newsletter yet? I'm having User:Betacommand deliver the newsletter, but nobody seems to be getting it yet. The Chronic 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I received it. --ProtoWolf (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I got it. Bmg916Speak 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I got it. Lex T/C Guest Book 23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Good. The Chronic 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List candidate: IWGP World Tag Team Championship

I have nominated this article for Featured List status. If you have time, please look over the article and leave your feedback. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

NYR07/Peer Review; New List

No one has been answering NYR07's peer review except TRuco. Come on people, give suggestions! Anyway, I believe WMIII and NYR07 are written great already, so I am gonna start a 3rd article: List of WWE Hardcore Champions.

I am going to try and get sources for this article, and eventually nominate it for FL, as all the other List of WWE Championships. Cheers, Lex T/C Guest Book 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions

I am now in the process of expanding the list, hopefully until I can get it to FL status. I will be using NWA World Women's Championship as a template to help me. Anyone who would like to help can. The Chronic 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Al Burke

Al Burke is an article on a supposedly former professional wrestler. However I highly suspect this is an elaborate hoax, so I put it up for AfD discussion. Comments welcome here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Burke. Pegasus «C¦ 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No Mercy (2007)

I'm close to implementing my work of No Mercy 2007 into it's article location. Obviously I still have to complete the aftermath, as well as add some photos. But if see where improvements can be made (fixing wikilinks, adding them, better sentence structure, references, etc), please feel free to help me out. Mshake3 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

New article - No Way Out (2006)

Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article No Way Out (2006). -- LAX 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talia Madison IS notable

I noticed that Talia Madison does not have a page on Wikipedia. When I attempted to create this page, it was blocked from creation as she isn't notable. I have however typed up a wiki page ready to use. She is a talent on the weekly broadcast TNA, and although I could see how she may have not been notable when the page was originally created, she certainly is now. How can we remove the creation protection? -Frenchbreadpizza 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I had gotten the page unprotected, but then someone created a bad article and caused it to be deleted and protected again. If you have an article that is sourced and well written (so it wouldn't be speedy deleted), show it to User:The Anome, who protected the page from being recreated. TJ Spyke 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I see, well thanks for clarifying and I'll let him know. Thanks again. -Frenchbreadpizza 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review for No Way Out (2007)

The headline says it all, please review here thanks to all.TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE Hardcore Champions

I will start improving this list in hopes of raising it to FL status.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex said he was going to work on it, too, here. Nikki311 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
We will work together on it, we cool like that.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll help out too (I already have). The Chronic 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Championship Image

Does anyone have or can upload a fair-use image of the WWE Hardcore Championship I would really appreciate it. Cheers =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out (2004) new article

Hey I agree with what Nikki said above, So now im going to work on NWO 2004 as I have previously worked on NWO 2007. Hopefully we will finish all of the NWO PPV's. So step up people. YEAH! =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the fake move names

Do people think they're clever when they keep putting fake, unused move names on articles? Glamazon-Plex? Har dee har har. When was this ever said on TV? Enough with all these fake move names. Max85 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I see all these move names in articles that I never heard them ever say on TV or in the wrestlers profile. I say put a fact tag for plausible names and give it a couple of days before removing the name, and just remove the fake sounding names right away. TJ Spyke 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You are speaking to the choir. We try and remove them when we see them and/or source them. It's mostly IPs and a few annoying non-WP:PW regulars (that you can't do anything about because they aren't necessarily doing anything wrong, but all their edits are non-notable or just plain un-needed). Nikki311 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance 2006

I want to get in the PPV crazed. So I'd like to work on the article, but before creating it I'm gonna work on it on my Sandbox. Thought I should let you guys know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture Nomination

Hi all,

Just letting the project know that I have nominated one of my Triple H images on Featured picture candidates (would probably be a good addition if the article is soon to be put up for FA, as it seems from the above discussion). If you'd like to see just this nomination it's here. It will remain on the FPC page for approximately one week.

Please don't take this as a petition for votes. If you would like to cast a vote please check to see whether you agree that it meets the Featured picture criteria first. --jjron (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Man, I got a lot of complaints from my nominations for little things. Yours gets nothing but supports despite the actual quality of the images. There's got to be a secret to this. Mshake3 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, check again ;-). I suspect (as with the Featured Articles) that any wrestling based pics will always face automatic opposes from a certain number of people. (BTW, I didn't think the images were that bad). --jjron (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)