Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

PPV Question

Hi. I'm Adamaniac, a semi-dormant Wiki-editor, but I'm on holidays, got bored and found that the PW section of Wikipedia has finally pulled itself together and started improving the class of all its articles. I had a look at the PPV list and had a question for anoyne that could answer. I see that besides the WWE No Way Out article, there's the seperate articles for years (E.G. WWE No Way Out 2007). My question is relating to whether or not we are changing all past PPVs (such as Backlash 03, for example, because the Backlash PPV page is not divided into seperate year articles). An answer would be appreciated, as I can devote some time and effort into helping create and improve some of these articles. Thanks! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason that some articles are split, and some aren't is becasue we aren't splitting articles in any particular order. I recently did New Year's Revolution (2007), WrestleMania III, Cyber Sunday (2007) and I am going to begin Armageddon (2007). However, New Year's Revolution (2005), Cyber Sunday (2006), WrestleMania 2 and all past Armageddons aren't expaneded. You can choose anyone you like. Now, we are going to turn all the general pages like the one you mentioned up there WWE No Way Out into FLs. Feedback ^☎ 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, we are gradually splitting all PPVs up into their own articles. Which PPV were you thinking on working on? I can give you a hand to get started if you wish! :) Davnel03 15:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, welcome back. The more active members, the better. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

indeed! P X K 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome back, guys :) Seeing as I'm allowed to choose, and I remember some events more clearly etc etc, I'll head up the New Years Revolution 2005 page to start with. Any help or advice, Davnel, would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to helping the professional wrestling project here! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you may want to look at the PPV Guidelines page to help you. If you want, I can shift the necessary 2005 NYR content and create the standard layout at New Year's Revolution (2005). As soon as you finish NYR 2005, the NYR series will be complete. I will then have the task of turning WWE New Year's Revolution into a table, like WWE One Night Stand. :P Davnel03 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've already started. If you need any help, ask me on my talkpage, or look at similar articles to get a grasp of how to write PPV articles, e.g. (December to Dismember (2006) ; No Way Out (2006)). Also, don't forget to reference things! Davnel03 09:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Davnel, you've been great help and thanks for welcoming me back :). I've started the page as you said and I've been using the 2006 NYR page as well as D2D2006 for format etc and I've noted all the reference sites. Cheers again! AdaManiac 11:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Active

Can a notice be sent to all WikiProject Pro Wrestling members with an announcement for them to add themselves to this list? Feedback ^☎ 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to be on the list, they'll put them self there.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Feed meant more of a notification that the list exists so they were aware. However, I think a much better indicator of who is actually active in the project (not just people who work on pro wrestling articles, but work within the project which is what the list is for) is that people who actually ARE active in the project, browse the project pages from time to time and will find the list themselves and if they feel they are around enough or contribute enough to be considered active, then they will add themselves. The act of finding the list in itself is an indicator of activity, and we know people who find and list themselves, do fact, come around here and didn't just put their name on it because they were spammed with a notice. --Naha|^(talk) 23:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, just because a member doesn't post here often, it doesn't mean that they aren't out there improving articles for the project. And either way, this project talk page is EASILY one of the most active on Wikipedia. Perhaps you should instead try a membership reconfirmation? We did one at WP:SIMPSONS a while back (here's the page) and it worked pretty well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing. Read that page's objective goal: The objective is to regularly do a cleanup of the members list to distinguish the real active members from those which don't contribute at all. No difference in what we're doing here. Feedback ^☎ 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I like what Feedback is doing, there are 302 members listed under this project but only less than 50 contribute to it.TrUcO9311 ^{T / GB} 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

ONLY 50??? For 6 months, WP:SIMPSONS only had TWO active members! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. We should try to individually stick out as a greatly organized and highly improved WikiProject, and not compare with other projects. However, the point is that if we have a list of 300 members, at least 1/2 (150) should be active. PS. Truco, it's not 50, it's 20-30. Feedback ^☎ 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Every project needs to do this at some point, if for no other reason than a more accurate reading of who is active in the project and who isn't. This information occasionally becomes necessary, and to the best of my knowledge this project has never done such a thing. Size of the project is irrelevant; this needs to take place. The process may be imperfect, as Scorpion pointed out, bu it is much better than doing nothing. Currently there are at least 30 indef blocked vandals on the list that it would be incredibly tedious to sort out by hand, in addition to the leftover unannounced retirees. We need to purge the list, and this is the only effective way to do it. Peace, SexySeaBass 08:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

Payne X Killer Here, I changed my username to my real name P X K 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You'd best update your signature as well, unless you wish the links to your userpage and talk page to be redirects and the link to your user contributions obsolete. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, I'm on it Jordan Morrison Payne 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Payne (talk • contribs)

In a related matter, I, The Hybrid, have changed my signature to something no longer containing my actual user name. Cheers, SexySeaBass 10:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

sexyseabass lol Feedback ^☎ 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

well that just proved how crappy sinebot is Jordan Morrison Payne 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly all bots are crappy. Feedback ^☎ 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Feedback, there is no need for comments like that, is there? Cheers, Davnel03 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What, am I going to hurt the bot's feelings? Feedback ^☎ 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But my signature is still better! :P The Chronic 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it >>>>>>>>> Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

New Year's Revolution (2007)

I am going to nominate the above article at WP:GAN. Everything addressed in the article's peer review was discussed and improved. If there are any concerns and objections not discussed in the peer review, please comment in a time lapse of 2-3 days, before I nominate the article. Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Brothers (again)

User:KingMorpheus moved the Major Brothers to the The Edgeheads. I am unable to fix this, may someone fix it?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed. Feedback ^☎ 20:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster

Can we work on this article and make it a Featured List? Feedback ^☎ 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Like put references on it? SUre.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd get started soon on the article. Feedback ^☎ 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a bad idea.it is adding nothing but is junk.Davnel03 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Striking comment by indef-blocked user. Davnel03 22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the discussion and my points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster#Citations

Well that doesnt prove anything, there is a tag that reads "underconstruction" meaning that the article is NOT done yet, so it makes no sense to revert things now. If you want to challenge this place your comment under mines.

Approve, Disapprove, Comment about the project with the WWE Roster!

• Approve---TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Disapprove Doppy88 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve Hardyboyz27 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Unsure due to Doppy's below comment. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve, sourcing is never a bad thing. If the sources for the developmental talent are iffy, that doesn't stop the rest of it being sourced. Nikki311 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There is no such thing as VOTING if we should abide by policy or not! Abiding by policy is obligatory! Feedback ^☎ 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Policy says citations are needed ONLY if the information is challenged or likely to be challenged. "" All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" The information that is getting citations right now will never be challenged, it is common knowledge. Putting citations for developmental talent would abide by the policy. Doppy88 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- Ok but if that is so, why do we have FL's for List of WWE Champions List of WWE Tag Team Champions, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions? Which have every thing sources and cited, same goes for this article, "how would someone, a non wrestling fan, know that Randy Orton was on the RAW brand, or is apart of the WWE roster, that can be "challenged".TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Those lists need sources because they are referencing PAST events. Everything on the WWE roster is about the PRESENT. These are facts that can be verified every week by the viewer watching the product. If a non fan views the page there is no likelihood of a challenge because obviously they have no reason to challenge what they are told if they know nothing about it. If you want to put a single citation at the RAW/Smackdown/ECW brand heading going to the respective roster page on WWE then go ahead. And also citations for the injured superstars would ahere to policy as that is also challengeable as to why and if they are indeed injured or simply off air. Doppy88 (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DONT YOU GET ABOUT "NOT DONE", we were working on that man. We are not done with the article, watch when we finish this article you will change your mind about the whole thing.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not rushing you, I'm simply telling you the things that would make for compromisable citations. One at the heading of each of the three rosters, one for each injured superstar and one noting the signing of each developmental talent. And for development talent only if you accept wrestling news sites as sources because as Dahumorist said, those are the ONLY pleaces that list the signings. Doppy88 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then please tell me what this is [1] and this [2]TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment on the other discussion page where I addressed why those cannot be used. Obviously you do not know much about what sources are good and which aren't in terms of the WWE roster, so why should you be making these decisions? Doppy88 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Really you are unexperienced, those sites I showed you are official websites of the developmental territories of WWE. Those are their websites with their listings of superstars, how can it not be used if it is the most official source to cite for developmental territory talent, the company website itself. (that sounds dumb, cant cite the talent from the company website :p)TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Because like I already said... not all of the superstars listed there are CONTRACTED by the WWE. The WWE does not own those developmental territories therefore the territories let wrestlers on their show who are not contracted by the WWE. Johnny Punch, Justin LaRoche, Serena, Mike Madison, Big Rob just to name a few off the top of my head are not contracted to the WWE yet they appear on those roster pages. Therefore we cannot use those as sources as there is no way to differentiate between who is contracted with the WWE and who is simply wrestling for OVW and FCW. Doppy88 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, so then we click on the links of those who are contraced under WWE, and cite those. The ones on Wikipedia were off some dirt sheet website, so then we just look for the link of their profile and then WHAM! its done.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment by non project-member. Doppy88, to claim on Wikipedia that a fact is "common knowledge" is a troublesome proposition. Common knowledge to whom? To wrestling fans? Wikipedia is geared toward the general reader, not the specialist. A casual wrestling fan will know that Triple H and The Rock were part of the WWE. Other readers might not. And once we consider more obscure entries on the list, the need for outside verification becomes increasingly important. Also you are twisting the words Verifiability policy; read it carefully. It does not say to include references only when "challenged or likely to be challenged." Where does it say "only?" In fact, it says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Readers should be convinced that every entry on the list actually belongs there. We should maintain very high standards.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I can't believe that "it shouldn't be sourced because it is ugly" has actually been an argument in this debate. Every article on Wikipedia should be sourced. Like I said above, if no sources can be found for the developmental talent, that doesn't stop the rest of the article from being sourced. Perhaps, Doppy doesn't understand that there are editors that go around blanking information that isn't sourced, so sourcing information is in everyone's best interests. Moreover, it's Wikipedia policy for articles to be attributed to sources, as has already been pointed out. Lastly, I should note that edit warring on the article isn't a good idea either. With that said, I won't hesitate to block anyone who breaks the WP:3RR rule. Nikki311 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• DisapproveBleek25 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove and Comment i don't think it's needed, at least not on the main roster page, do it for the individual articles by all means (it should already have been done tbh) the main roster page has been done that way for as long as i've been editing on here and worked fine only links needed are for the main roster page to WWE.com's sections for the 3 individual brands and developmental is extremely hard to get WWE source for as they almost NEVER comment on developmental signings and firing, the best place for them is normally wreslingobserver.com or f4wonline.com also have you realised the added workload when they move people to new shows having to check and find the new link (which they don't always update that quickly). So as i said a cite in the header of each section would be more then enough, afterall we don't cite every player profile on a sporting team so why should WWE roster page be any different.Skitzo (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, You may not think that it is needed, but it is. It is Wikipedia policy to cite sources. That is the end of the discussion. Sources are going in to the article. I can't even believe this is a debate! Nikki311 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Wikipedia's policy about sources is not that black and white. As it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources

"Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references—books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article—and inline citations, that is, references within the text, which provide source information for specific statements. Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations."

We already have general references in the WWE roster pages for all three brands, the developmental rosters and also the onlineworldofwrestling roster page which lists active, inactive and developmental talent. And once again, inline citations are NOT needed because the statements in this list are NOT challenged or likely to be challenged as the policy states is REQUIRED for inline citations. I believe this is the end of the discussion, I will be reverting the article back to how it was before these unneccessary changes were made and IF there is a majority approving this change, then they can be added back. Wikipedia policy does not require the inline sources being added so please do not use that as an excuse for reverting my edit. Doppy88 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be challenged. Examples:

a. If Marty Jannetty, Steve Blackman, Rob Van Dam, Scotty 2 Hotty and other superstars not under legend contract competed on Raw, why aren't they on the list?

b. Are you sure John Cena is injured? I haven't seen him on TV. How about if they released him? I don't see any reference saying he's still with the company...

c. Maybe all the wrestlers are competing not under contract...

Even though, the above is unlikely to be said.. IT IS POSSIBLE! And if anyone disputes any of the above, we can't back it up, because the page WOULD NOT have the sources. With that said, the page should continue having the sources.

PS. Also, the links "provided" at the bottom of the page explain NOTHING about the "Other Roles" and "Talent Relations" sections. Feedback ^☎ 12:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I couldn't care less about Wrestling. At all. That being said, I came upon this due to seeing the edit wars. Unilaterally declaring a willingness to edit war to ensure your personal version sees the light of day is quite against policy. Please don't edit war and please don't threaten to edit war. That is all. :) IrishGuy ^talk 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Nikki there is already a source for the info at the bottom of the page, there isn't any need to cite each and every wrestler on the roster. Skitzo (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply, so based on your and Doppy's theories I should go into every Featured Article and delete all the sourcing because it is ugly and the information is not likely to be challenged by experts on the subjects. I'll just provide a few links at the bottom for other articles for people to go read to verify the information. I'll go get started on that right now. Please note the incredible sarcasm. Nikki311 13:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, because as the policy states, general references can be used if the sources support a significant amount of the material. Which they obviously do in this case, are you just blind to see that? One single link to the Raw roster of WWE.com supports around 35 superstars. Times that by 5 because there is Raw, Smackdown, ECW, OVW and FCW and that IS a SIGNIFICANT amount. The issue is far from inline citations being ugly, but being UNNECCESARY and making the page look like a joke because it needs citations for the most obvious of facts. You mention Wikipedia policy so much, but YOU are not standing by it.

To Feedback: Like I have said many times before, if you need to provide individual citations for details such as injuries and positions for the other roles section go ahead. But inline citations for EVERY SINGLE superstar as has been done so far is not needed because as policy states, general references are to be used when it supports a significant amount of the information. Wikipedia does not want an article filled with 200 sources if they can be condensed down much easier.Doppy88 (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be a lack of consistency. This is a list. Or everything is sourced, or nothing is. And, I swear... if you say "nothing is", I will... I WILL.... ... Feedback ^☎ 03:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern about too many refs but listen to me, an FL class article needs possibly everything cited. Mainly because it is a "LIST", so to ensure that the list is accurate everything on that list needs to be cited so it may be proven true. Like say in the WWE roster page, I have sourced all the RAW superstars and all the extra details to the side. That will make the article a FL class article. Do you understand?TrUcO9311 (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Like i said on the WWE Roster talk page, I'm just worried about disputes over developmental talent, which this will inevitably cause. The fact that it uglifies the page is really secondary in my mind. Overall though, definately UNNECESSARY. So if I must choose a side officially Disapprove Dahumorist (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove Spike7000 (talk)
• Approve Changing my vote to Approve (from Unsure), I trust Nikki's judgment. It's now tied. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Approve We strive to source everything that possibly can be sourced well. --Naha|^(talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Disapprove - One link at the beginning of each section should cover it. Mshake3 (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Disapprove- Citations are not necessary.Radiohead12 (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Just a thought here. The discussion seems to be whether or not to use a few references from the roster page at the top of each section, or to cite each and every name. Well when you cite each and every bio, what are you really citing? For example, Triple H's bio tells me nothing about him being a Raw superstar, except for the URL and the Raw logo. You would have to make it clear that those parts of the page are the proof that he's on the Raw roster. Now, if we were to link to the Raw roster, we now see a list of superstars. The purpose of this page is to show the superstars of the roster, and the brand's champions. Seems to me that the later would be a more accurate reference. Mshake3 (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Speaking of rosters, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster has NO sources whatsover in the article. TJ Spyke 23:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Brothers/Edge-heads

Okay I do not approve of the Major Brothers being named as the Edge-heads, they are best known as the Major Brothers and the article should remain being named like that. This article should remain like the Dudley Boyz even though they are billed as Team 3D, and the New Age Outlaws as the V.K.M.

Poll

• Should Remain Major Brothers--TrUcO9311 ^{T / GB} 03:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as Major Brothers. There is no guaranty how long they will be "Edge-heads" (could be a week, could be a year) but more than likely they will not spend their entire career as "The Edge-heads". Nenog (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is per above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Major Brothers We go by what they are best known as. We don't know how long they will be known as the Edge-heads, or if that is even their permanent new name. TJ Spyke 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Major Brothers But it absolutely must mention the time period when they were/are the Edge-heads. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are they LEGITIMATELY called the EDGE HEADS? Feedback ^☎ 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neither - Use Curt Hawkins & Zack Ryder, or whichever order is prefered. Mshake3 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Are they really a notable tag team? I find that jobbing singles matches to Elijah Burke on ECW, singles matches to Drew McIntyre and tag team matches to the WWE Tag Team Champions on Smackdown! doesn't constitute them as being notable. Feedback ^☎ 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• • cough*Brooklyn Brawler*cough* P X K 18:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • touché Feedback ^☎ 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Being full time wrestlers in the biggest wrestling organization in the world makes them automatically notable IMO (the same way that any pro athlete in the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. are considered automatically notable even if they only played in 1 game). Maybe we should make a proposal and submit it to make it official. TJ Spyke 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Major Brothers NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE No Way Out PROTECTED!

Yes, we've done it again. WWE No Way Out has been protected until January. The dispute is over whether or not to include the elimination chamber match right now, as there are now reliable sources stating that the match will occur. The opposition seems to be that it must be announced during the in-universe WWE storylines before it can be mentioned. One person also suggested that it shouldn't be mentioned because "plans might change". LOL! Mshake3 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats good but an admin should go remove those references of the elimination chamber in the 2008 space and in the see also section.--TrUcO9311 ^{T / GB} 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Maxim to rollback to the correct version. And, yes, I requested full-protection, because I was fed up with the edit warring. Davnel03 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the protection user Mshake clearly does not have a clear understanding of the policy and the ec should not be added much like we dont add smackdown taping spoilers.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to cite which official policy I'm breaking, then STFU. It is YOUR job to prove I'm in the wrong here. I know I'm right, because I'm using a reliable source. Mshake3 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude tell me to to stfu ok you are the one who isnt listening ive stated several times that we are not allowed to put spoilers and we are not allowed to post stuff from shaky sources. You are trying to do both and you have a very bad attitude about as well. If you dont wanna participate and follow the rules then leave.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that if it was a dirtsheet (eg PWMania; Wrestling-Edge), then it would be removed. But its a reliable source, therefore no matter what previous consensus is, we insert it into the article. Previous concensus is irrelevant when there is a reliable source available, and in this case there is. Davnel03 17:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers have been deemed acceptable when backed up with a reliable source (which is impossible to get, so moot point). I don't think full protection should have been enabled. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you fucking dense? what part of "Dont put matches untill announced on WWE tv or WWE.com" don't you understand?LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been previous discussions on this, and the above was ruled out. Here's the thing - the only reliable source IS WWE.com. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

And its not on WWE.com so its not going in the article. Jesus Fn Christ.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

EXACTLY. That's why I said it seems pretty clear-cut to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now why is iN Demand's site considered unreliable? Are they pulling previews out of their ass now? Mshake3 (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifestroke, I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL, calling a superb member of this project "fucking dense" and is unappropriate. Non-reliable = Not allowed. Reliable = Allowed. Davnel03 18:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Davnel. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually i was talking to you not gayvn.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who you were talking too, either way, you insulted someone, which violates WP:CIVIL. Calm down, it's nothing to get so worked up about. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else here think I'm an"ignorant newb". Seems like i'm heading towards WP:ANI.... Davnel03 20:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to go to ANI. If he is warned twice, then you settle with ANI, but he has only been warned once. Anyway, excuse me being ignorant here, but what in GOD'S NAME is a NEWB? Feedback ^☎ 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things, first of all the "fact" that WWE.com is the only reliable source is incorrect and claiming it is simply trying to overturn the previous spoilers debate by pushing the opinion that "dirt sheets" are always unreliable. The articles can simply state "the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Insider have reported X is going to occur but WWE have not confirmed this as such." This is common across articles on all of wikipedia. The "don't post matches until WWE.com states them" is outdated and predates the RFC on spoilers that was overturned by the RFC.

I concur with you, but I still find it a little misleading to see in an article: "[X - Source] says [Y - event] is going to happen, but we're not really sure yet". Feedback ^☎ 22:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Secondly there has been a ridiculous rise in incivility here and people better shape up before I need to start blocking people. It isn't even small things, I have seen several violations of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL in one thread on here alone. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, to everyone talking about dirtsheets.... I WASN'T CITING ONE! Mshake3 (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other reliable sources besides WWE.com. I meant that for spoilers, they are really no other reliable sites, with WON possibly being an exception. And yes, this needs to be toned down. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple days later, the article still looks like shit, and the status quo is that "reliable sources" is on the same billing as "I don't like spoilers." G-A-H! Mshake3 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are fine; you just need WWE.com to back it up. For example, WWE announced when Edge and Khali won their titles and made it okay for us to post it here. Feedback ^☎ 05:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about fucking title changes! I'm talking about WWE using multiple venues (on sale events, local commercials, PPV synopis) to announce that the Elimination Chamber will occur at No Way Out. Mshake3 (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback your statement is incorrect and has absolutely no backing. The RFC was not to asser whether WWE was the only reliable source, it was if spoilers of any nature are allowed and they are. In fact reports from reliable sources are allowed in the format of "several wrestling news sites have reported X" or "the websites for InDemand has listed this event as scheduled to include an Elimination Chamber." WWE.com is not the be all, and end all, of spoilers and arguing that any other site is not reliable is something that the RFC proved was incorrect and claiming otherwise is against consensus and policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Briscoe Brothers Needs some work

It repeatedly says "they were booked to defeat/get beaten by wrestler1 and wrestler2". This gives me the impression that one of them got injured and couldn't attend the match or something. Can't we reduce the amount of times it says this? It's bad on the same scale as Carlito's article saying Jim "Sandman" Fullington. If noone edits it in the next 30 minutes I'm gonna be bold. P X K 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm the primary author of that article, and I was told it was flat-out necessary that claims such as who won and lost whatever match, a good number of them anyway, need to be phrased "out of universe" like that. If I say "they beat Izzy & Dixie to win the ROH Tag Team Championship," somebody's gonna come along and tell me that that sounds too much like it was a genuine, competitive contest. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, it's supposed to be that way. I hate it to, but that was consensus the last time I checked. It is extremely notable in Shelton Benjamin and was discussed in Talk:Shelton Benjamin. Feedback ^☎ 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sign your posts Feedback. and by the way, It's because we don't need OMG WRESTLING IZ FAKEORZ !!!11one!!1eleven1!! waved in our face. It just looks bad to me to have the word booked about 50 times in the same para. P X K 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wrestling isn't real. We write our articles so they appeal to all audiences, not just wrestling fans, hence they are not in-universe. Thtas why they contain words like, kayfabe, booked, legit, face, heel, turn etc. Davnel03 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I respect that but you don't have to do it that many times. It gets into the reaches of annoying. I'll put a toned down version on my sandbox for approval once I'm done. P X K —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

is this any good? P X K 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of the articles need to have the word booked written over and over again, it begins to read terrible. Articles like John Cena and Mickie James get the point across without sledgehammering it home like that.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, other variations can be used to be sure that it still written out-of-universe, but it must be made extremely clear that wrestling is scripted. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

By Jove, I think H's got it... across P X K 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Then do it. Wasting time here insulting the article accomplishes nothing. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As the editor that took the Mickie James article out of universe, I try not to overuse the term "booked". I reserve it only for title wins or other important victories. Other terms like "scheduled" or "scripted" actually work better than using "booked" because they aren't wrestling jargon. Just be creative. Use a thesaurus if it helps. - Deep Shadow 03:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, put the sections in order. For example, the PWU section says they started wrestling there in 2005, but the part about them leaving wrestling in 2004 comes after. Also, they started wrestling in ROH in 2002, but the PWG (which was founded in late 2003) section is before it. Same with NOAH coming before FIP. Nenog (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. They're in the order I researched them. I thought it best to section them by promotion since they've worked for a lot of different promotions and a purely chronological sectioning would just be muddy. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so nobody did anything to the article except Nenog reordering sections. Way to whine and complain without doing anything about it, everybody. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the claims. They're back to being in-universe. Shall I also withdraw the good article nomination? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It should be out of universe really. So should every article. Davnel03 09:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know. It just seems that that doesn't work for some people. And, um, if you think you know how to improve the article, please just bloody hell go ahead and do it. The edits I made three days ago are still the most recent edits to the article. It's damned aggravating, especially as I wrote the basis of this particular article but even if I hadn't, to see people bitch and complain about things but not do anything. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:{{Year}} in professional wrestling

I've been doing a lot of category sorting to do with the PPV expansion, as some PPVs have been put mistakenly in wrong categories. I've tried to standardise it. Anway, while doing this, I came across the following categories:

• Category:1999 in professional wrestling
• Category:2000 in professional wrestling
• Category:2001 in professional wrestling
• Category:2002 in professional wrestling
• Category:2003 in professional wrestling
• Category:2004 in professional wrestling
• Category:2005 in professional wrestling
• Category:2006 in professional wrestling
• Category:2007 in professional wrestling
• Category:2008 in professional wrestling

Are the categories really needed? Do we really need them? I was going to go ahead and CFD them, but wanted other opinions to do with these categories. Davnel03 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking no. That seems to be a case of over categorization to me. Nikki311 18:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are. We used to put them in the general sports category (i.e. 1999 in sports), but decided to create one for wrestling. It's like how there is Category:2007 in baseball. It's to tie stuff together that happened in the same year (so the Fingerpoke of Doom is in the 1999 category, the Montreal Screwjob is in 1997, etc.). It was one of the better ideas IMO. TJ Spyke 22:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If they have a purpose, then it doesn't matter to me. I looked in most of them, and they had only a couple of pay-per-views, which seemed un-necessary. I guess they'll fill up as the PPVs are expanded. Nikki311 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just created the 1998 one. So anybody creating an event that involves wrestling from 1998-2008, make sure to add the right category (make sure it's year specific though, don't be adding a year specifica category to something covering multiple years like WWE Backlash). TJ Spyke 03:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this statement weasely?

From our FA, December to Dismember (2006) (aftermath part) :

Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view, with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view.....

Is that statement in bold, weasely? I personally think it isn't really, but Feedback thinks it is. The references are included, therefore I think the statement does not violate WP:WEASEL. Does anyone else think the statement is weasely, even with the references included? Davnel03 14:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

References to do not turn a weasel word into a concrete quantity. I read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words thoroughly to see if there was any exemption, and there is not. However, in the bottom paragraph of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Improving weasel-worded statements, it says that instead of writing:

• "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history."

...it should be written:

• "The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships—about three times as many as any other team."

The later suggests that the Yankees are a superlative baseball franchise, rather than simply the greatest baseball team in history. The idea is to let the readers draw their own conclusions about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.

To apply this to your article:

• Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view 4 out of 10 stars, stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle."

Instead, you can find other ratings of the payperview and it can say:

• Slam! Sports gave the pay-per-view 4 out of 10 stars, stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle; X and Y also had very negative statements to say about the event, stating ______________.

Feedback ^☎ 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do that, when I already have three perfectly good references to use. Anyway, I'd like more opinions on this matter before I make any changes to the article. Davnel03 15:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Infact, quote from [3]: The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts. That's what I've done in the D2D article, so I cannot see what the problem is. Davnel03 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You would have to source the weasly statement. For example, then the sentence would have to say: "Slam! Sports said that many people had a negative reaction to the PPV..." Feedback ^☎ 15:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've done anyway! I suggest you read the very beginning sentence of this topic. I cannot see what the problem is, Feed. Cheers, Davnel03 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dav, you're not understanding. What you did was create a weasel statement, based on Slam! Sports' rating. What you have to do, is cite a source that is using a weasel statement. Feedback ^☎ 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Feedback, I am understanding. Right I'm going to directly quote from the last bit of the D2D Aftermath part as my point is still not getting through:

Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view[weasel words],[46][47][48] with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view 4 out of 10 stars, stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle."[1]

[46], [47] and [48] references refer to the first part, and [1] is a link to the SLAM! Sports rating. I want a comment from another editor about this. Cheers, Davnel03 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that a compromise to this would be changing the word "Many" to "Some" to read Some fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view, with SLAM! Sports rating it.... The references do cite the fact that some fans were not thrilled by the pay-per-view and showed their opinions by chanting negative comments during the match, but it doesn't say that many or most did. With this change, the sentence is cited, so it isn't weaselly. Hope that helps. Nikki311 18:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed it from "Many" to "Some" as you suggested. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 21:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to tell you NPOV does not mean you have to dilute opinion, for example on all movie articles if it was received unfavourably the articles will state as such with "critics widely panned X". In this case I doubt you will find any favourable reviews of D2D from critics and the article can state as such. Trying to avoid negativity when the negativity is accurate isn't the way to make articles neutral, it makes them incorrect. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative suggestion? Or, do you think the statement was fine as it was originally? Nikki311 09:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure, something akin to "Critical reviews of the event were overall negative with the most common complaint being X, X and X" with quotes from critics featured. Something similar, as mentioned before, to a Reception section of movie articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement is OK as it is now. However for your quote Lid, you put "....overall negative with the most common complaint being X, X and X". The whole event was virtually utter garbage, so most of event would be the common complaint. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 11:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Then that's what the article should say, "some fans" gives a very strong impression that the majority were ok with the PPV when it was overall hated across everywhere. The article should reflect this. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Taking a break

I have decided that I need a break from this page. A couple of project members are driving me crazy, and I will enjoy editing Wikipedia more if I put some distance between us. I find it sad that anyone would think that adding a rigid bureaucracy and attempting to control the administrative side of the project is the way to go. Aside from an ego trip, I see no need for pruning COTW articles early, archiving active discussions, making a big deal about which bot will archive discussions, calling for reassessment of all Featured Articles, needlessly criticizing well-sourced statements in Featured Articles, arguing with GA reviewers, and telling me that I'm not a good member unless I put my name on a pointless list. I'll continue to edit articles, but, for the next while, I'll stick to talk pages for contacting people. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this Gary, but I fully agree with you. Cheers, Davnel03 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not even going to answer to that. Feedback ^☎ 16:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I Fully agree with you Gary, people just need to relax. Kris (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I too have been convinced to take a "break". Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it you've changed your mind now. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was convinced to stay. Feedback ^☎ 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. I've been absent from this page for a couple of days, and apparently, all hell has broken loose. I definitely think a number of editors here should consider taking a few days off from this page to cool down. Nikki311 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Like me..lol :pTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Draft

Is there some way that we can make the WWE Draft into seperate articles by year similar to the NFL Draft, NBA Draft, NHL Draft yearly drafts, like each year was written in similar format to those draft articles ? That way the WWE Draft can also have it's own category what are your opinions? --TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, if all of the years were sourced, and were in a huge amount of detail, I wouldn't mind. Cheers, Davnel03 17:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok im constructing the 2007 one in my sandbox.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear god no! Except for perhaps 2002, none of the drafts have enough picks to warrent separate articles. And with drafts, a single table is pretty much required, so your format in the sandbox would look awful. Mshake3 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, the tables should really be in the one-pick-per-row setting. Mshake3 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it Master Shake, go check out my sandbox is that right?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. It should be one table, and not split into multiple one-row tables. Here's what categories I would include: Overall Pick, Brand, Wrestler, Leaving Brand (2007 only), and Notes. The notes section can include things such as the matches used to win picks, any trades that occured right after the draft, releases prior to redebuting, etc. Mshake3 (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain to me what should go under each of those sections of the table?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Sigh....... Using The Great Khali as an example.... Overall Pick: The number of the pick for the evening (1). Brand: the brand that received the wrestler (Smackdown). Wrestler: The wrestler (Great Khali). Leaving Brand: the brand that lost the wrestler (Raw). Notes: other information (Edge defeated John Cena to win the draft pick from Smackdown.)

December to Dismember (1995)

I've finished expanded the article. All three sections need a bit of improvement, and copy-edit. I've done what I can with the sources I have. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should have a longer aftermath section. Feedback ^☎ 04:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your right. But I cannot expand it as I don't have many internet sources available to me. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to help expand the Aftermath section. I have a pretty good memory of how some of those feuds turned out. I might be a couple of days, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Shannon Moore

I've been adding references and so on to the Shannon Moore article, and I'm looking for suggestions, help, etc, on how to improve it further. All help greatly appreciated. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll help. I'll do some copy editing for you. I think my #1 suggestion, though, is to cut down the extremely long signature moves section. That thing is ridiculous. Also, I'm pretty sure Crash Holly wasn't his manager so much as his lackey. I'll remove that. Nikki311 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem on many wrestlers articles (especially indy wrestlers). If a wrestler used a move more than once, some people insist on adding it. TJ Spyke 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Also, I'd appreciate if someone could help find sources for the independent circuit and TNA sections, as I'm having problems finding reliable sources for them. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, it is best not to use the IMDB as a source. It isn't considered reliable because anyone can edit it. I have a few things to do first, but I'll help you replace those and find sources for the rest of the article. Nikki311 00:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can submit edits to IMDb, but the people running the site choose whether to make the changes or not. That's the problem though, they do have some incorrect info and don't always change it when they get proof of the correct info (especially when it comes to birthdates). TJ Spyke 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Use less WWE cites, it's a primary source.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You've done a good job so far. If you can take it out of universe, and add a few more references, as well as expanding the lead, you could (if you wish) nominate it for GA status. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit double murder and suicide

This article has been vandalised multiple times over the past few days. The edits in question all have the same pattern but appear to be made by mulitiple anonamous IP addresses. Stephen Day (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just went to semi-protect it, but it looks as though another admin has beat me to it. Nikki311 01:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully this puts an end to it. Stephen Day (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I requested the protection after seeing this. In the future you can just request protection at WP:RFP if it's mostly IPs vandalizing the page. TJ Spyke 02:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I wasn't sure where I should report this. Stephen Day (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WCCW Parade of Champions and WCCW Parade of Champions results merger

I think WCCW Parade of Champions and WCCW Parade of Champions results should be merged. Anybody else agree (and anybody who could do it, please do, I'm not sure how it works). Kris (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Most Definitely- The regular article is one paragraph short, the results can fit into the same article, good job for noticing that.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, as of right now, there is absolutely no point in these being separate articles. If a few more people agree, I don't mind performing the merger. Nikki311 04:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge I didn't even know these articles existed. I agree that they should be merged since they are too short to be seperate. TJ Spyke 04:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge I didn't know about them either. SexySeaBass 07:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge per above. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I merged them. Nikki311 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the promotion, so I might be wrong, but is the page actually notable for inclusion within Wikipedia? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the promotion itself World Class Championship Wrestling is definitely notable. This event seems to be a supercard memorial tournament. There are a couple of those around (Brian Pillman Memorial Show for example), so there is no precedent to delete that I am aware of. I'm not sure what the protocol is on this type of event. Anyone else have any thoughts? Nikki311 20:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Ok, wat do i need in my browser or my computer to view Wikipedia tables because when I look at the WWE Draft Lottery tables they have white backgrounds and I know they are suppose to be red, blue, and purple.Help? (what do I neen ie.java,?)TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

They are very, very light to the point where it is hard to see them. The only thing I can think of is to reset your monitor to True Color, if it isn't set to that already. Nikki311 05:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanx Nikki, It was in fact that i had to much contrast..lol (i feel dumb

p)TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 06:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Raven

Ok, this one needs some work. I don't know who, but someone a while back "sourced" the article, but really only sourced the "Championships and accomplishments" section. There are 57 sources, only 5 of which aren't citing titles. Nenog (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort by whomever did the sourcing, but I think one source per title is sufficient. Nikki311 17:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikipedia:Peer review/In Your House 1/archive1

What the title says. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week

COTW is in a huge mess. Sould I remove the nominations that are currently on the page, and start back at scratch. Virtually all of them seem like they would be pruned by now. Should we just let The Fabulous Moolah go on till this Sunday? Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should prune them. There are some quality suggestions in there. I think we should leave them and reset their clocks to zero....meaning that seven days from now, we prune what doesn't have three votes and so on, regardless of how old they actually are. Did that make sense? It's 4:17 AM right now. 8/ Nikki311 09:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we just get rid of pruning entirely, and remove the 10 nom limit? It is causing too many problems for such little improvement. SexySeaBass 09:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that means we could have 30 articles on the list at one point! :D Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I publish it now? (Update)

So ive worked on the 2007 WWE Draft in my Sandbox. Go check it out and tell me if I should add/remove, or if you have comments for improvements, tell me here in this section. If nothing stands out, can I publish it?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt the second column (spelling is bad tonight) say Brand (From)?--ProtoWolf (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Can it be published now?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 17:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one else responded and it has been more than 12 hours since I posted this, you can now find the draft in my sandbox, published at 2007 WWE DraftTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Idk I gave the article a "Start" class rating, do you think it was a good choice?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominate it for FL. Feedback ^☎ 03:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In Your House 24: Breakdown

New article. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to Breakdown: In Your House. By that time, WWF stopped really calling them In You House and made that like a subtitle (Full Loaded: In Your House, Breakdown: In Your House, etc.). TJ Spyke 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help with AFD

I've never actually put an article up for deletion, so I don't know how to. Can somebody help me? Thanks. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What article and why? Nenog (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cherry (Kara Drew), and Matt Cappotelli. I think that Cherry's profile is not needed, as she is not an actual part of the tag team. There is a page for the tag team Deuce N' Domino, and I think that and information on her page can be transferred or is already present on the team's profile. Matt Cappotelli is just not notable enough. Plus his profile is in need of additional references. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well did you take the time to look for sources? Cherry actually does wrestle in developmental territories, and has previously wrestled in other promotions. You should go to her OWoW Profile] and search the promotions mentioned in her history and management services. For Matt cappotelli, I think he should stay because he is notable, he gave up his OVW world title for a brain tumor [life threatning-NOTABLE], and he won the tough enough. You should googles these two wrestlers to see if you can find any more sources for them. If you cant, then come back here and tell us u couldnt and then we will give you the steps for the AFD on these ppl. Cheers -)TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I'll get right on that.. Hardyboyz27 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I googled both names, and I actually did find many sources, so over the next few days, I'll work on adding them to the profiles. Thanks! Hardyboyz27 (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's good but make sure they arent sites like TV.com, IMDB, or forums. Check the PPV Guidelines page for good sources. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out (2004)

I, and many other users have worked hard on this article over the past few months, do you think its good enough to nominate for GA?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, it most certainly was not "the first brand exclusive SmackDown! pay-per view event." That would be Vengeance 2003, about half a year prior. I'll make the change in a moment, after I look at the citation. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was NWO's first time as a Smackdown exclusive. Either way, it's not really notable. Mshake3 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that would be a true claim (and the only thing present in the particular citation that would be relevant). Not necessary even so, I agree. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the sources fall on the "Reliable/Unreliable Border". Given that you clearly have used a whole load of different sources, I'll let you off on that one. Good work! I'll give it a clean-up later, and I do think it should be nominated for GA status. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 09:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New FL candidate

Feedback suggested I nominate the 2007 WWE Draft for FL status, you can find it here.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Which Samoans won the belts?

I've been working on Sika Anoa'i's article, and I managed to find sources for almost everything. There is one title win, however, that has me confused. On June 1, 1973, The Samoans won the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship. Accoring to one source, this was Afa and Sika. According to a different source, however, this was Tio Tio and Reno Tufuuli. Does anyone know how to find out for sure? Should this be listed if the sources aren't clear? I've taken it off of Sika's article for now, but it's still in Afa's article as a sourced statement. Any suggestions? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Name Change

Hardyboyz27 here, I have changed my name to iMatthew. So that's how I will sign off in the future. iMatthew (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

New Member Introduction

Hello. Per Gavyn Sykes's invitation, I have added myself to the Members list and the appropriate icon to my user page, and hope to have an active presence here.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the team. :) Nikki311 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Editing! iMatthew (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance (2006)

I've placed it for peer review. You can comment here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

NWO 2004, GA Nominee

No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for GA status, feel free to contribute to the article, or if you have comments, leave them here. Th@nX..--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger

• List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length
• List of WWE Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of World Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length
• List of WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of World Tag Team Championship (WWE) reigns by length
• List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE European Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Hardcore Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Television Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Cruiserweight Championship reigns by length
• List of WWF Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
• List of WCW Hardcore Championship reigns by length

I suggest the above articles be merged into the normal title history pages of each championship. It's basically the same list, except sorted by reign length (which can be done with a sort table). Feedback ^☎ 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested this before. The concern was over the date column, as once sorted, it can't be resorted unless you use some sort of template for each date. Mshake3 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the technique suggested in this conversation? Feedback ^☎ 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add all that information, then go ahead. You might also want to try Template:DTS. Mshake3 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to start doing this between today and tomorrow. I have started in my sandbox, but I am not going to be here for the rest of the day. When it's finished, I will ask the community for approval, and then apply the new format to all our lists. Feedback ^☎ 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Wreckless Intent needs to be watched

People keep changing the track listing (even though there is clear warnings not to), every few days. Not quite enough for page protection, and most of it is from random IP editors with little or no other edits. So posting a warning on their talk page probably wouldn't do much good. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it out of the table format. It's not really suppost to be. That way, there aren't places to "fill in the blanks". Mshake3 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or just put "N/A" since the CD did include wrestlers for most of the tracks. TJ Spyke 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, then the title would be inaccurate. Mshake3 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would that make the title inaccurate? It would be correct since there was no superstar listed, thus it's not applicable for that track. Seems obvious to me. 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

Help needed with WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

There is currently a disagreement on how the roster should be setup: a prose, or the general list (which has always been on wrestling game articles, but there is no set rule that they must remain that way). The discussion is on the talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "disagreement" I see is that you (and only YOU) feel the roster should be in "paragraph" form, versus "list" form, as WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 is currently set up. Just because there is "no set rule" doesn't give you free license to set the page up any way you like.

I do not feel you are making warranted edit to how you think the roster list should look, and you only made a posting on this page to try and get people to agree with your side of things. Why aren't you making the same revision(s) to the 2007 page?
ArcAngel (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While there is no set rule for lists, it doesn't mean paragraphs need to be put in either. You know, A table wouldn't be bad. A list would still be awesome. But a paragraph? That's just crap right there. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to read. Not jumbled up, and making you forget in 3 seconds. Oh, and I started this debate anyways, so, Rob, you are easily outnumbered even on this page! Tech43 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) The decision has been made to make a table instead of a list. Tech43 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When / Where / Who made this decision? Feedback ^☎ 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I insisted of making a table for him, but now I see that there is a concern, as it will be too big. Check it out in my Sandbox.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a list would do better after all. Tech43 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania III DVD release

I don't think that the DVD release is notable. Every single WWE PPV has been released on DVD, and none of the PPV articles include anything about DVD releases. The fact is that sporting events are produced mainly for the live audience, and are taped additionally for people who couldn't be there. Obviously, because of this fact, the DVD releases of many live events of every other sports are not covered in their articles. Just take the Super Bowl for example. Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts on the issue. Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about a seperate article for it? Then I agree. The only mention of the DVD release I know of is on WrestleMania, in the section about VHS and DVD releases of the the different events. Also, it is not true that every WWE PPV has been released on DVD (while, actually they have. But not every WWF PPV has been released on DVD). TJ Spyke 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my GA review of the article, I said that it might be worth mentioning that it was released on its own on DVD. It's really not the kind of thing I'd fail the page over. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Project vote stacking

I nicely asked the members of this project not to vote in each other's FLCs because it looks like vote stacking, and there you go again. An FLC that passes thanks only to project support isn't much of an accomplishment, is it? And don't give me that "nobody else wants to vote in professional wrestling related things" garbage, because eventually, there will always be enough votes for a pass or fail. I've been closing FLCs for six months and I've never had to fail one heading for promotion due to a lack of votes. What really makes me think that nobody really looked at it is the fact that it's not really a well formatted table - there's needless colour in the header, there's too much whitespace and there are citations in the header. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what Im tired of your BS!!, if it makes you happy im gonna pull the article from becoming an FL!! Dammit, Happy?!--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said it should be withdrawn - the FLC should be allowed to run its couse - I just dislike it when project members support eachothers work. I can always tell when that happens, and it's not a good thing because then the FLC regulars will see that an article already has enough support and won't look at it, then an article doesn't have a chance to become as good as it can be. Like I've told this project many times, the FL (and FA) process is not meant to be a series of revolving doors where articles are herded through as fast as possible, it's meant to make an article perfect, and having project members support things takes away from that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then if youre so against that then message other ppl not from this project and tell them to join the discussion. Let them put "NOT SUPPORT", then mayby you will quiet down =)

--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)----

First of all, you didn't ask us not to vote on nominations. You asked us not to vote on nominations without giving a reason. I gave a reason. In fact, I withheld my vote at first because I thought there was a problem with the list. Second, I appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why you would have the authority to decide who is allowed to vote on Featured Articles/Lists. If there are a couple of problems you see with the list, you are welcome to fix them. If you want the color removed, you can do that (or I can do that). If you want the citations moved, let's move them. Would moving citations 9 and 17 to right after "Televised Draft" be better? As for white space, I don't see that being a problem.

As for notability, you arguments seem flawed. This is definitely notable, as it changed the entire face of the world's largest wrstling promotion. Lack of coverage by the media seems like a bizarre requirement. To the best of my knowledge, the New York Times hasn't covered any of the changes found in the CZW World Heavyweight Championship article, either. I've never heard of that being a requirement, though. Finally, this draft was much larger than previous drafts and there is enough information to warrant a separate article. Do you honestly believe that this draft is comparable to the 2006 draft? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have said several times that people shouldn't vote in project FLCs, because then people can just say "it only passed because of project support" and I've actually seen that statement used in FARs. It's not notable enough for its own page. It's basically cruft and goes into detail on a one night event that has to do with a scripted TV show. The WWE Draft Lottery page isn't that long, and the 2007 WWE Draft doesn't really justify why it needs its own page. I may be crazy, but I don't page about a barely notable one-night event an example of Wikipedia's "very best work". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion, I tend to avoid voting in any project featured candidates (I didn't even vote in the nomination of CM Punk having been the person who spent the most time working on the article as I felt it would be biased). Featured content requires readers who are neutral and from a broad spectrum, if the article is of quality and supported by the requirements of featured material then it will pass without interference. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Every other projects vote in FACs and FLCs, so why can't we? D.M.N. (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the other projects shouldn't be voting in their FXCs either. I agree with Lid, members of the project are hardly neutral judges. The only people who should be judging the quality of it are those with no ties to it. Commenting is fine, but actual voting isn't, IMHO. Also, as Scorpion pointed out, it is far too easy to strip an article of its status when it (appears to have) passed as a result of project support. For the record, I also abstain from project FXCs even though the default mode for me is to vote on anything involving the project. Peace, SexySeaBass 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is old BullS***, FELLOW WIKIPROJECT MEMBERS DONT VOTE IN THIS FLC, I will get people not from this project to vote. Is that better Lid, Hybrid, Scorpion? :p TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about not voteshopping at all? Let the omination take its course. Your sarcasm is misplaced as we are looking out for the project as a whole rather than a temporary featured gain. 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lid (talk • contribs)

Iight fine then, lets let this article sit out it's nomination for the next week and let it stay with its 2 supports (since we need 4 by 10 days). I doubt any random person would vote. Case closed!TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has three supports, and you asked all three to go there and vote: [4] [5] [6]. Please do not do that again in the future, because finding people who would vote support pretty easily defeats the purpose of having Featured Content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. Asking me to look at an article in no way guarantees a support vote. I was planning not to vote at all because I have no interest in wrestling from the past decade. I was interested in seeing what sort of article had been nominated, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that it fit all of the Featured List criteria. I saw that it needed some copyediting, so I did that and requested rewording of a confusing statement. Had I just gone and voted support without looking at the article closely, I would have been out of line. But I have not, do not, and will not support anything simply because it is a wrestling article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes FLC Police I will not do that again, are you gonna arrest me?? :p Even though it has 3, it wont get that 4th one. All your dreams will come true...TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you check your previous statement, you simply said that people should not vote without giving their reasons for supporting or opposing. I voted and gave my reasons. You seem to think this is a completely different situation simply because you do not like the article. You came here with one complaint, jumped to another when your first was address, jumped to yet another when that was addressed, and now you're back to the beginning. So, what is it? Is it not notable? Is it poorly formatted? Is it that it needs to be mergerd? Is it that people from the project are voting on it? If so,

1. It made major changes to the rosters of all three brands. Lack of mainstream media coverage is a ridiculous argument, as few of our 3240 articles regularly receive mainstream media coverage.
2. I have no problem with the formatting, but it can be changed quite easily.
3. I think, due to the complicated rules and the large nature of this draft, that it stands out from the rest. Adding it after the 2006 draft (2 picks) would look stupid.
4. If the real problem is that people from WP:PW, like people form every other project, vote on their Featured Articles/Lists, take the matter up with Wikipedia as a whole and try to get the rule changed. We have done nothing wrong, and your accusations are out of line.

If there was any consensus (a word you're tossing around without pointing to where the consensus was reached [for a Simpsons reference to parallel your own, this is like saying something is from the Bible and simply stating, "Near the back" when someone asks you where you found it]) reached, it was that project members should not review WP:PW GA candidates. Strangely enough, the only person I see going against that consensus is you. In fact, you are about to pass an article despite the fact that only one of your four concerns has been addressed. Aren't you concerned about how the perceptions of conflict of interest will make the project look? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that any of my concerns have really been addressed. Even if it did make "major" changes to all three brands, it still goes into detail about a one-night thing about a TV show and it's no more notable than, say a "List of characters who have been killed off in the fifth season of 24" as in that case, it also involves major changes to a prominent TV show. The first draft is the only one that might be notable enough for its own page. As for WrestleMania III, I am reviewing the article because of the large backlog in the sports section, and it had been there for well over a month and I feel that my concerns about have been somewhat addressed/corrected. There is a difference betwen the GA and FA/L process because featured content is supposed to be the absolute best Wikipedia has to offer, so if an article is passed, it should be because of support from impartial reviewers, not members of a WikiProject that the article belongs to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your concerns in the GA review. Despite your position as an objective and impartial GA reviewer, you are about to pass an article even though your concerns have not been addressed. And if your intention is simply to cut down on the GA review backlog, there were plenty of non-wrestling articles to review. Why didn't you choose one of them?

As for the topic at hand, you can't even remember which point you're arguing at this point, so I see no point in continuing this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please See This Started By Me. D.M.N. (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

Anybody want to help with this page? Somebody kept adding unsourced info, and now keep trying to add different MySpace pages (first one that they claimed was Jeff's despite the fact that Matt has said on his official page that Jeff doesn't have one). Now they keep adding the MySpace page of something called "Itchweed" that Matt says Jeff is involved with. I don't think any should be listed since Jeff doesn't have a MySpace page, and the MySpace page of the Hardy Show can go on the Hardy Boyz page (if it isn't already there). TJ Spyke 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm confused, Jeff Hardy is involved in both the "Itchweed" and "Hardy Show" MySpaces but you don't think they should be linked from his solo article?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says links to sites like MySpace should be avoided unless they are the subject of the MySpace page. The Hardy Show is really about the Hardys together, so is fine for their tag team article but shouldn't be mentioned in their individual articles. "Itchweed" (the only things online I can find about this are things like MySpace) is the same. The only MySpace page that would be acceptable in Jeff's article would be his MySpace page if he had one. TJ Spyke 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder

The newsletter is sent out tomorrow afternoon, make sure that you add all last minute things if you need to. I also put a suggestion in the "suggestions" section of the interview set-up page. Please go there and read my idea/thought. iMatthew (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request: Steve Keirn

I have been working on improving this article, and it's definitely much better than it was a few days ago. One of the big problems I have with wrestler biographies, though, is naming the sections. Could someone please look over the article quickly and recommend better names for the sections? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Early career", "WWF/WCW" and "Later career" sound okay. Don't know what you think, though. FamicomJL (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted ideas, well I already renamed them, Idk if you like them (you can change them if you want)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster = New look?

I have created a tabled look for the WWE Roster page in my sandbox. Please visit my sandbox and tell me what you like and what you don't like. Feedback ^☎ 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping "wrestlers" for "superstars." Technically, it's what WWE calls them, and no way in hell are Kelly Kelly or Layla El "wrestlers." Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Also, I'm not sure if the footnoted information should have both legit jobs like producers and on-screen roles as managers. One or the other (maybe even neither), I'd say. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this guy, swap the names. Also make make female wrestlers like female superstars or divas or something like that, are you moving the creative team to another article?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't Kelly Kelly or Layla El wrestlers? They consistantly wrestle matches. What other requirements do they need? Nobody ever said you need to be a good wrestler to be a wrestler. Kris (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called an opinion, but being in matches doesn't make you a wrestler anyway. Are Jay Leno and David Arquette wrestlers? Or how about Eric Bischoff or Teddy Long? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be listed by brand, personally. It makes it much easier to read and find what you're looking for that way. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about contracted talent, the show in which they appear isn't really relevant. It's not like if each show has different contracts, etc. I believe that the wrestlers should be grouped together, and the brand which they appear in can be specified next to the name, as I did. However, it's the wiki-community's right to decide... so decide away :D Feedback ^☎ 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep that format but group the indiviual rosters together ... Skitzo (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like WWE is phasing away the brand split anyways. SmackDown and ECW are basically 1 roster now, and Hornswoggle appears as often (maybe even more) on RAW as he does on SmackDown. TJ Spyke 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are but while they still officially have it we should continue to separate the performers as such. Skitzo (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the stupid roster template box thing at the bottom? Isn't that a little redundant. Nenog (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2007

Would anybody second nominating this article for GA status? iMatthew (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I'll just nominate it for GA status. Can somebody help me with this, (never done it before) =] iMatthew (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Several parts of the article are unsourced and it has one citation needed tag. D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I guess I should have read it over a few more times. Sorry about that! iMatthew (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern with a couple of FLs (not vote-stacking)

Two recently-promoted featured lists, IWGP World Tag Team Championship and AJPW Triple Crown Championship, have gone against typical WP:PW policy by using large print in the notes section and (less importantly) making the table sortable. I don't think either of these is necessary, and frankly I think they make it look ugly. They were changed because of a concern from the voters during the nomination, and I certainly can't blame the nominator for implementing their wishes, but I'd just like to see what general consensus is in the project itself. --MarcK 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do all of my editing from my laptop these days, and it shows the small font just fine. When I check a page from my home computer, though, I have a very hard time reading notes written in small font. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The small/large font thing really isn't that big of an issue with me, but maybe that's because I, too, am on a lap-top...so it looks fine either way to me. The sort-table thing, though, seems pretty un-necessary in most of the columns. I mean, the lists are already sorted by date, and who really cares about sorting by location? The only column I can see that might benefit from being sortable is the "times" section (which would also sort the winners, if I'm not mistaken), so you can see each one of a multiple-winner's reigns. Nikki311 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Carlito and Santino Marella

Recently created article. I don't feel they are notable enough yet. Should we take it to AfD? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should take it to AfD, they are only a week old and WWE has only one article about them. Mayby if they continue to tag team all the way up to 'Mania then they can have an article, but for now not notable enough.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ket's not AFD it just yet. If the article gets deleted next week and they win the tag team championsips the day after, we'd just have to recreate the article. Let's just keep it under supervision. Feedback ^☎ 16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If its not deleted at the very least it should be moved to "Cantino" wich is the name that WWE has been pushing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I sincerely doubt that Lilian will actually begin annoucning them to the ring as "Cantino." It's just a shorthand to make the articles easier to write, just like how most of the IWC calls London and Kendrick, "Londrick." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Big Show and Kane were the champions for a few months, yet we deleted the article. Even if Carlito and Marella won the titles next week, they haven't been together for a long enough amount of time. iMatthew (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

iMatthew is correct. Just winning the tag titles doesn't make them notable enough to have a tag team article (see Kane and The Big Show, Batista and Rey Mysterio, Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio, Edge and Rey Mysterio, etc.). They've wrestled together only 1 time, not even close to being notable yet. This looks like just another random tag team that WWE creates when they have nothing else for 2 mid-carders to do (like when they put Carlito and Masters together). TJ Spyke 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have PRODded the article (and adding an unreferenced tag since it has no sources either). TJ Spyke 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I've been waiting since Raw aired for someone to create this article. It is major crystal balling to create the article now, and like it has been pointed out, even if they win the championship, they doesn't mean they are notable as a tag team. Actually, I think an AfD would be a better way to go (as opposed to a PROD) because then the article can be speedily deleted when someone (and you know someone will) recreates it. Nikki311 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so I put it up for AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella. Nikki311 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about References/ Update our Guidelines

When adding references to articles, is the name of the website supposed to be listed as the Work or Publisher? For example, with a match result from the Wrestling Information Archive, would Wrestling Information Archive be listed as the Work or Publisher? I've always listed it as the Work, but many people list it as publisher. Does it matter either way, or should be just be consistent in each article, regardless of which is used. Listing it as the Work puts it in italics, but listing it as the Publisher doesn't, so I've noticed that a few articles have a mix of the two. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Website is the publisher. If it's something like a column, that is the work. For example, one of the sources we use for WWE PPVs is called Oold Tyme 'Rasslin Revue. It's a column on the website onlineonslaught.com. So OTRR would be the work and OO would be the publisher. Template:Cite web has the details. TJ Spyke 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the explanation on the template page, and it seems to say that the website would be called the Work. If the site is published by an institution such as a government or university, that would be listed as the Publisher. I don't really have a problem with it either way, as long as it's consistent throughout each article (ie. no one article mixes the two). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the "Wrestling Information Archive" site, a non-project member suggested here that WIA and Angel Fire (Which is the "history of the WWE site" in the PPV Guidelines) are unreliable. They have suggested we remove/update our Guidelins policy, comments??--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The information found on those sites is reliable. If we had to rely solely on information that is the result of someone's "day job", we would have a very hard time sourcing anything. In fact, most sites that are the results of "day jobs" tend to be unreliable dirtsheets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do 2, but Colin said it is owned by some guy who just puts stuff down in the site, although to me it's reliable. And I have removed those citations from the 2007 WWE Draft, so I guess it's up to project members to decide whether we should follow that statement or ignore/decline it.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan/AWA World Title

Does anyone else have an opinion on listing the AWA World Title in Hulk Hogan's list of titles? I know we sometimes list "unofficial" title reigns (usually WWE going back and striking out title changes they want to ignore, like when the WCW Championship was held up after Flair and Steamboat double pinned each other at Spring Stampede 1994). However, the original AWA never recognized Hogan's title wins and neither does the WWE (which legally owns the rights to the AWA). The only ones who recognized the title wins are "AWA Superstars of Wrestling", a indy wrestling organization that does not legally have any say over the AWA or its history (WWE purchased all rights to the AWA from its legal owner Verne Gagne). So this is not a case of an organization deciding to alter history since Hogan was never recognized as AWA Champion. TJ Spyke 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well with the facts you presented I say dont' list it, if only a rip-off promotion can list it and a major promotion that has ties w/ the original AWA. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a Collaboration of the Week?

The newsletter is supposed to go out today, but it doesn't list a Collaboration of the Week. I've been focusing on stub articles lately, so I'm out of the loop. Is Dusty Rhodes this week's collaboration? If so, can he be added to the newsletter? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I would assume Dusty Rhodes is the Collaboration of the Week, considering he had the most votes as of today. iMatthew (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request (yes, again): Money Inc.

I went through this article and added references. I'm not sold on the section headings that have been used, though. I don't know of any other aticles that have headings for each of the feuds. Should this all be combined into one section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that you merge them and rename the sections as ==Career==, ===Year - year===, ===year - year===, ===etc==.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 2010?

Umm.. ive read on "dirt sheet" sites that WM2010 will be in Phoenix, Arizona because some owner of an NHL team wore a WrestleMania shirt that has 2010 on it and "destruction in the desert", the image is here and the article is here Just thought I'd mention it so you can watch out if it get's created.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably just the guy wanting it to be there. For the last several years WWE has announced WrestleMania 1 year early (i.e. they announced WrestleMania XXIV at WrestleMania 23, they announced 23 at 22, etc.). I don't see them announcing WrestleMania XXVI 2 years before it happens. Hopefully not one will try and create such an article. TJ Spyke 19:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It makes little sense to announce it now especially since they have not even announced Wrestlemanina XXV yet. --67.68.153.94 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2007)

Ok SS '07 is finally done. May someone go rate it. Thanx--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning...

Might want to add WrestleMania XXVI, WrestleMania 26, and WrestleMania 2010 on your watchlists. [7] [8] Thanks to Wayne Gretzky and his apparent desire to have a 'Mania in Phoenix, expect to see trolls bombarding Wiki soon. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I posted it 2 sections above. Sign my guestbook.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Eeeh, its what happens when you don't read the talk page. My bad. Still, the pages should be added to your watchlists as a precaution.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All 3 are on my watchlist now. TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope we have a Mania in Phoenix. Anyway, I'll watch them as well. Peace, SexySeaBass 08:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

08 (UTC)