Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 42

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

Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43

Show Names: Italics or Not?

I need a proper consensus on this, so it can be implied in all PPV articles. The examples below are from the Survivor Series (2003) article:

Current Version (not italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....

Other Possibility (italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....

Current Version (italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.

Other Possibility (not italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.

Which should we be using for both examples? I thought we always have to put TV shows (note to self: ONLY TV shows, PPVs stay always in normal font) in italics, eg. RAW, SmackDown!, ECW, iMPACT. Could someone clear the above up for me? Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was always confused about this, but I think that when referring to the TV Show itself it should be noted in italics, but when you refer it to as the "brand of WWE" then it should be in normal font.TrUCo9311 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What he said. Also RAW is styled Raw and iMPACT is Impact.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Should every use of the word Impact in reference to the show and soundstage be styled as Impact!  ? Mshake3 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
While WWE may use both RAW and Raw, TNA almost always uses iMPACT. I say we continue using iMPACT!. TJ Spyke 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what they use; WP:CAPS, and WP:MOSTM say lowercase.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
On the "Raw/RAW" deal, I'm more convinced now that "Raw" is the official spelling of the brand instead of "RAW" because of the recent press releases and news articles WWE.com has posted up lately. Still, to me either is acceptable.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify:

Correct usage - However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of Raw... (in this case the name is italicized because it refers to the TV show. "edition of...")

Correct usage - At the previous Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven... (in this case the name is NOT italicized because pay-per-view refers to the brand. It is a brand pay-per-view)

Correct usage - Following this, Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff reactivated...(in this case the name is NOT italicized because it refers to the brand. You have to keep in mind that in storyline a General Manager is not just responsible for the TV show, but the brand entirely)

The thing you have to remember here is that the shows on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday are not brands. They are just that, TV shows. The brand extension implied that Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW would run as if each were their own different promotion, therefore the TV shows each week are just the promotions' TV shows, a small portion of a brand as a whole and not a sole representation of a brand. Just like a promotion, brands host their own house shows, PPVs, etc., have their own roster, and have a boss that runs it all.

A pay-per-view is hosted by a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven" and NOT "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven".

A wrestler belongs to a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Therefore, the correct usage would be "Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!" and NOT "Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!".

A General Manager isn't just in charge of a show,(Raw) but the brand entirely(Raw). Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff" and NOT "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff".

You really have to think hard about this one. To simplify things, unless it says something like "On the December 10 edition of..." or "last week on..." italics aren't used. Hope this helps. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Samoa Joe

There are numerous edits on Joe's Page, on WWE roster page, on TNA roster page, that he has been released from his contract and signed with wwe. I see no source and have reverted, but I am also requesting protection as I dont want to break 3rr. Your help is appreciated. If you find sourced info, that would help.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD notice: The Pit Bulls

Just a quick note that The Pit Bulls (Jamie Noble and Kid Kash) was nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter award lists

I know a few people (myself included) have asked if the winners of these awards are listed online everywhere, but we've never been able to find them. I am pleased to announce that such a list does, in fact, exist. The lists can be seen here. It's a German site (that I've actually found very useful in the past), but all of the award lists are in English. Hope this helps, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate title list

I worked on FMW World Street Fight 6-Man Tag Team Championship today, as it wasn't even in a list format. I just finished fixing up the article, but now I noticed that part of the information is repeated in FMW/WEW Six-Man Tag Team Championship. After the first title was retired, it was replaced with another one. The article I was working on lists both titles, but FMW/WEW page only lists the second title. I was wondering how to approach this. Should these be merged or split into two articles? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge, they are the same title. TJ Spyke 03:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Ummm...anyone know how to merge pages? I think the list I worked on should be kept, as it has a lead, is referenced, and shows both titles. Since the title had two names, however, I think the other page (FMW/WEW) is the better place for it. I'm just not sure how to go about moving the contents of one page to the other without cutting and pasting (or is that what I would do?). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Since all the info is already on the first page (that you worked on), I just turned the second one into a redirect. Take a look at WP:MERGE for future merging info though. TJ Spyke 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The WWE Cruiserweight Championship defunct?

Ok usually when a title is vacated in WWE it only lasts about 2 months, but this title has been vacated for almost 5 months. Currently we read the status as Inactive-Status unknown, and for a title to be vacated for that long really is "vacation", that just really is a way to let go of a title. Can we change the wording in the article to past tense i.e The CW title "was" a ...? I mean don't you think this championship is defunct? It hasn't been mention on SmackDown! since September..--TrUCo9311 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think calling it defunct would be premature, since that implies they will never bring it back. WWE.com also still has it listed in the active titles section of the title histories page. TJ Spyke 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I know that would be probably against WP:BALL, but can't it be noted in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I had noted it on Christmas Eve, but someone has removed it since then. SexySeaBass 02:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you think we should add it again?TrUCo9311 03:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Feedback 00:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag problem

I don't know why, but all of a sudden the little flag icons have started screwing up wrestlers infoboxes (here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnny_Devine&oldid=186916200). So if you see an article with a messed-up infobox, try removing the flag and that should fix it. TJ Spyke 08:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this happening on a load of wrestling articles? If so, you may wish to inform the Village Pump. D.M.N. (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I had to fix four or five last night, so it seems to be fairly widespread. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Looked like it was the US flag. Mshake3 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really look at the Giant Baba..--TrUCo9311 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've informed the Village Pump about the problem. We'll have to see what they can do about this. D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The problem appears to be fixed. D.M.N. (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

UWF (Herb Abrams) Championships

Would anyone be opposed to merging the twelve pages at [Category:Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships] into one page? All of the titles have between one and four champions (most have one). It seems like an unnecesary collection of stub articles that cannot be expanded on their own. If we combine them, it seems like creating a page list Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships (it would be a lowercase "c", right?) would be the way to go, as the current article on the UWF is already a fairly lengthy collection of information. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I anticipate that the page would look something like this, although I would add sources and try to expand the descriptions of a few titles. Your thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded some of the descriptions, and I've referenced the whole page. Any opinions on whether this idea would work? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I say go ahead. D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll wait a couple of hours to see if anyone has objections, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks great!!!! LessThanClippers (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I approve. - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, if this many people approve, I'll go ahead and do it. If anyone is really upset, we can discuss it and the pages can always be reverted. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this were I suggest a PW article to become an Featured Article or a Good Article???

I'm asking this for the WWE article, I think it is very well built and to the point, easy to read and very accurate and informal. If this is the right place to ask it, can we open this for disccusion??? If this isn't the right place to ask if the WWE article can become a FA or GA can someone link me to the right page?? I was sent here by TJ Spike. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the World Wrestling Entertainment article? I wouldn't nominate it for GA yet, because it needs a lot more sources. D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
....and this edit is very unhelpful. D.M.N. (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just nominated it and I did what the instructuions said at the top of the page. So that edit is helpful, it is doing what the instructions said at the top of the FA page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh Prince Carlton (talkcontribs) 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That tag is suppose to be at the top of the page, not in a talk section.--TrUCo9311 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake, sorry. We will see on the FA page if people want it as a FA, ok??? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't want the article nominated though. There was no consensus for such... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, But it's already done. Unless it can be withdrawn??

You don't want it nominated, don't say we, you have no right to speak for other people.Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody who understand what constitutes a Featured Article wants it nominated. Nominating articles that do not meet the criteria makes Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling look bad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any active members of the project want it nominated.LessThanClippers (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The article is not ready for FA status. iMatthew 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Fresh Prince, when we say "we", we are speaking for all WP:PW members because they know what a FAC and a GAC article should look like to be nominated. Obviously 6 established/experienced members are disagreeing with the nomination.TrUCo9311 16:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then. Well all of the items on the WWE page can be sourced by something on WWE.com. I guess what your saying to me is that I don't know a FA when I see it. I read the FA criteria multiple times and I guees I'm the only one who thinks it should be a FA. W/e, I guess it is 1 vs 100 now. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a FA as most things can be sourced to wwe.com, but can is different than is. If you would like to help WP:PW be bold, and help us source the article.  :) LessThanClippers (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of us know what it takes for an article to become a FA. This article should not have been nominated. Fresh Prince, we're not trying to put you down or anything, but this article is not ready yet. iMatthew 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. Why don't some of us add more sources to the article. Like I said before, mostly everything in that article can be sourced by WWE.com. Can someone remove the canidate of the FA canidate page, I don't know how. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. Before you nominate an article you should really check with the project. Everyone, Shawn Michaels has just been nominated for FA status. !? iMatthew 16:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Do people agree on this, nominating the Shawn Michaels article???

It has over 180 sources and well written do any of you agree. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to disrupt the project like this. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disrupt the project. I am serious about the Shawn article. It is a very good article, with over 180 sources. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the World Wrestling Entertainment nomination is almost certainly a disruption that we really do not need. And I agree with you on the HBK article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. It is currently a COTM candidate, which means it must be more improved to become a FA. iMatthew 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well yea it kinda is, but remember Fresh Prince, the # of sources does not matter, it is whether detail is sourced throughout his career. And I agree the WWE one was a disruption we did not need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, I didn't know I had to come here first before I nominated. I know it is a distruption, you told me before, I didn't do it on purpose. What does COTM stand for??? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com.Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month, or COTW (Collaboration of the Week). iMatthew 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Will someone withdraw the WWE one, please. And can we continue on the discussion on whether the Shawn Michaels article should be FA and stop ripping on me for making a mistake??? So your saying COTM meens the WP:PW people will work on it to mkae it become FA status??? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats basically what I'm saying iMatthew 17:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, lets continue talking on wether it should be an FA or not. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We know, and you've already posted it. ^^^ D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the double-post. Ttne someone should add that to his article, you know, mention that he is not on any of the roster pages anymore on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels and WWE both were not ready to be nominated. In general, the process is to ask the other members of the project before you nominate an article. While you don't have to do it that way, it is the best process for promoting articles. World Wrestling Entertainment isn't even a GA, yet!!! We are trying to get some legitimacy and respect for our project, and nominating articles that clearly don't meet the criteria is not helpful. Nikki311 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

May I help improving the article so it can become an FA. Do I have to join the COTM or be a member of the WP:PW project??? Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can help improve any article on Wikipedia. Being the COTW/COTM just means that that is the article we are concentrating most on. You are free to help improve it if you want (just like you can work on wrestling articles without joining this project). TJ Spyke 00:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Great Khali moved...

The Great Khali article has just been moved to Dalip Rana. As I cannot see any reason anywhere for this; should I revert? D.M.N. (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say revert it. No consensus for it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Reverted by Bulletproof. D.M.N. (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

Can this article be promoted from Start-Class to B? iMatthew 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Many of the paragraphs don't have any references, and I think referencing is a requirement for B-class. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not COMPLETE referencing. Then it would be of GA class or higher, probably even A. B is for if it has SOME references, which the article does have. Really should be a B. FamicomJL (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO, an article should have at least one reference in every paragraph to be a B article, as well as be thorough in describing their life beyond wrestling. While the article covers the second part pretty well...I'd say it could still use some more sources before it reaches B level. At least that's the method I've been using up until this point. Nikki311 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1994) peer review reminder

Just a quick reminder that I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status this week. I opened a peer review 9 days ago, but the only feedback has been the standard automated review. I know people are busy (I haven't had a chance to respond to a Peer Review in a while), but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could look it over. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Havn't had a chance to really look it over, but Ive done some scanning, and it seems to be written "in universe" too much.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I went through and added some "out of universe" stuff. Any better? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD Notice: Mike Posey

Nominated for deletion here. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As is Schmitty Robinson. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
A good thing for everyone here to do is put Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling on their watchlist. Then you'll know about most of the wrestling-related AfDs, as most of them end up being added there sooner or later. Nikki311 18:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It also eliminates the need to constantly post AFDs here, leading to fewer topics on the page. - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE Roster Poll

There is a current discussion about using tables for the Roster here is the discussion.--TrUCo9311 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WrestleCrap

Anyone know why the WrestleCrap article is so protected?--Bedford 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The log says it was protected back in November for "mass vandalism". I will request its unprotection now since it's been almost 2 months. TJ Spyke 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Citing

When it comes to adding a reference to an article, is there any limit to a site? I ask this because when I added the Jericho-JBL feud to the Background subsection, I only added sources from wwe.com. Also, one of my sources was already sourced earlier in the article; In this situation, do you keep the second source or not? Also, since I am only use to wwe.com, I never really heard of these other wresting websites, does anybody know what happened to their older articles? In fact, the reference that is titled "Time on Rey's side" does not even link to an page; wwe.com states that the page cannot be found. JediYoda1120 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You can use a site as much as you want to add references to an article, but it is better to use a variation, as it generally is more reliable that way. Also, WWE.com has a history of eventually deleting stories, so a lot of their links eventually go dead (with the exception of maybe the title history pages). Also, you can site information from one source more than once, and you can site any sentence more than once with more than one source. Hope that helps. Nikki311 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rick Derringer

Should his article be considered under the scope of this project? I was thinking about adding the template, but I figured I'd ask here first. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are a lot of bands/singers that perform music for the wrestlers and pay-per-views (Motorhead and Saliva are the first two that come to mind), but they aren't in the scope of our project. If they were, we'd have twice as many articles! Nikki311 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. I just wasn't sure, as he was closely associated with the WWF. "Real American" is a very recognizable theme song, as is Demolition's theme. I can see your point, though. I suppose it's a slippery slope situation. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

COTW

This week's collaboration of the week is Shawn Michaels. Now, I've added the (current COTW) tag to Michaels page, and the (previous COTW) tag to Ricky's page. I know that a lot more things need to be updated, but I've never done this before. Can somebody update the COTW nomination page please. Thanks! iMatthew 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't Michaels the COTW on October 6?Feedback 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope iMatthew 14:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If so, then what is this? Feedback 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That looks like HBK as the COTW for October 6..lol..TrUCo9311 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week/History, it was Jerry Lawler that week. I remember working on Lawler's article for the COTW, so I don't know why the newsletter says that. There might have been confusion or a mix-up in the process, because Michael's article was already a GA at that point, and it wasn't a week that we would do a FACOTW. Nikki311 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I know it was Jerry Lawler, cuz I was the guy who nominated it. But I also remembered doing HBK's article. Feedback 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Expanding PPVs

I was wondering if I could help in the process of expanding PPV articles into their own, by year, with a written article? If yes, would it be already if I did any of the PPVs of WCW from late 1999 to 2000 and the WWF from late 1999 to early 2002? Also, how do I create a page? JediYoda1120 (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I recently just started the Report section for Invasion. If anybody wants to help, just sent my a message in my talk page, stating what you think could help out the article. JediYoda1120 (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good so far. Just remember to source everything, and you'll be fine. :) D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning

For those of you not wishing to be *spoiled* may wish to avoid Wikipedia for over a week next week, as WWE is heavily adjusting their taping schedule [1]:

  • Next Monday WWE is taping RAW (for February 4th and 11th)
  • Next Tuesday WWE is taping SmackDown/ECW (for February 5th/8th)
  • Next Wednesday WWE is taping SmackDown/ECW (for February 12th/15th)

This is advanced warning for those not wishing to get spoiled. D.M.N. (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind readin spoilers, but this is gonna be hell with people adding them to articles. TJ Spyke 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jillian Hall albums

I have nominated Category:Jillian Hall albums for deletion. Peace, SexySeaBass 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:WrestleMania venues also CFD HERE. D.M.N. (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Read

There is currently a poll going on at the WWE Roster page. Please, please go and place your votes. The poll will close on Monday February 4. iMatthew 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

King Kong Bundy

I am leaning up the article a little, and in the info box, it says one of his ring names was Chris Canyon. Obviously, I remember chris canyon/kanyon of WCW days, but I don't remember that ever being an early ring name of King Kong Bundy (but I just am not sure, maybe thats why Canyon used that name?) does anyone know, I don't have external internet access to check that right now... thanks LessThanClippers (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Tables

I Posted this on the Royal Rumble 2008 page but realized this could work for all Rumbles, and I really like the idea. I am proposing the use of sortable tables on Rumble pages so that we can easily look at elimination order, who spent the longest in the match, or sort by elimianted by, so you can see how many were eliminated by a certain wrestler. I have made a table for the 2008 rumble as an example, you can see it at User talk:LessThanClippers/royalryrumbletable LessThanClippers (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it, including being able to sort by how long they are in the match. Assuming others agree, I would support implementing this in RR articles. TJ Spyke 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - I think it's a great idea, and I agree with TJ. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Looks good. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - per TJ. Cheers, LAX 00:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support-its funny how I came up with the idea before, but people opposed it. Now they support it, either way I support it. But its gonna be a difficult task trying to put these types of table in every Royal Rumble article.--TrUCo9311 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - But I agree with Truco. iMatthew 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
While, consensus can change. I remember a time when people were opposed to expanding PPV articles. TJ Spyke 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I love the overwhelmign support. It shouldn't be that hard, I did some copy and pasting from the old table and another table I found, so now it should be easy. I'm gonna go ahead and make the change on 2008 and start working backwards.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Its not that its gonna be difficult, but it will take time, eventually you will get tired of doing it, but that's just me.TrUCo9311 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh Im sure, but the thing is, WORK IS DEAD right now.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


OK second question - To make the time sortable, I had to put a 0 in front of single digit minute enterances. On 2006 rumble I am now running into the issue that 2 wrestlers lasted over an hour. They currently are listed as 1:09:23 would you rather i do 0:08:00 for an 8 minute wrestler, and 0:23:22 for a 23 minute wrestler, or should I change the 1:09:23 to 69:23. I prefer the 69:23. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we use {{sort}}, like we do at WP:PW/PPV? Cheers, LAX 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a command I'm aware of. Remember im still a newbie at WIKI. In fact, this is probably the most signifigant thing I've done to an article. LessThanClippers (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, noticed I have to fix the sorting again, i will work on it. LessThanClippers (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) In order to reverse look up entrants (from 30 to 1) or eliminations from 29 to 1. I need to set the single digit entrance and eliminations as 01 to 09. Unless someone knows a command. I will change this to the 4 i have already done, and then I will work in talk space until I have the answers to the others. ThanksLessThanClippers (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Status update ---- I am through 2004 and leaving work for the day. Will probably finish tomorrow. LessThanClippers (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Virtual Console games (North America) to see a good way of sorting. It would require a little more work, but would work. Here is an example: <span style="display:none">61:02</span> (that would sort 1:01:02 at the bottom without having to change to 61:02). TJ Spyke 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess that didn't work, I just tried a test and it didn't work. Try contacting someone familiar with sorting tables. TJ Spyke 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
{{sort}} is the way to go. Here's an example: {{sort|Undertaker|The Undertaker}}, to list it under U instead of T. I'd be happy to answer any other questions (or at least try to) - DrWarpMind (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try that on my talk page and start replacing the tables. LessThanClippers (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finished making some sortable templates, hopefully these should work in tidying the order numbers and times.
{{User:Oakster/RumbleNo‎|3}} for example should show 3 but is sorted under 03.
{{User:Oakster/RumbleNo‎|1|03|04}} gives 1:03:04 while {{User:Oakster/RumbleNo‎||2|00}} gives 2:00, both sort in total of seconds.
If that's the kind of templates you want, I'll be willing to move this into template space. -- Oakster  Talk  18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber and Hell in a Cell future FLs?

{In General) Can these articles be well sourced and nominated for FL status?--TrUCo9311 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Every article can have a chance to be a featured one. Feedback 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I forgot to mention, that I wanted to make them similar to the Royal Rumble page. But I ask this because the Elimination Chamber is a short list, also for the HiaC, can we move the detailed Hell in a Cell matches to like List of Hell in a Cell matches?--TrUCo9311 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That works. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There was talk a while ago about gutting the match results from those pages and merging them into the BIG list of match types. I don't know if that's still being considered. - DrWarpMind (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember that, but it was concluded that these matches are too unique to be in that list. TrUCo9311 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a better idea is to merge them into a List of professional wrestling cage matches, including the cage match variations from the List of professional wrestling match types. There was talk on the latter's talk page about it, but nothing ever happened. The list of matches in both Elimination chamber and Hell in a Cell are more listcruft than FL material, IMHO. Nikki311 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with merging them, and thought it was a bad idea to merge Steel cage match into the wrestling match article since it deserves its own article. TJ Spyke 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with spawning a page to contain all the cage match varieties. And yeah, I think the detailed list of results for the Hell in a Cell page is kind of crufty... - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant idea. Definately merge them into one article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<spoiler removed>

User:Shazza keeps adding a second Elimination Chamber match scheduled for No Way Out featuring SmackDown! talent only. Anyone care to help?-- bulletproof 3:16 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Gotta love Smackdown spoilers in the header titles. Mshake3 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There's that sense of humor! :) -- bulletproof 3:16 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've filed a request for protection, which would at least stop IP's and new users. I will check in on the article from time to time to help out. TJ Spyke 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, it's been semi-protected for 1 week. So we won't have to worry about IP's and accounts less than 4 days old. TJ Spyke 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the original title, as I've basically now been spoiled about this Friday's SmackDown! episode. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding being spoiled, so will anyone else if they decide to check the history page.  ;) ArcAngel (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Spoilers aren't bad, because Wikipedia is not censored. Feedback 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ricky Banderas as GA Candidate

Seriously? this article has so many problems that would keep it from being a Good Article I mean I can see 10-15 things right now I'd point out if I was reviewing it. I mean it's whomever put it up for GA's decission and all but personally I think it needs a lot of work. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me guess you don't like the language, again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well if you don't agree with it becoming a GA, notify the user who put it up for GA, tell him the problems you see, and then "contribute" to the article so it can pass it's GA review. Cheers--TrUCo9311 13:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of time to fix whatever problems you see. It is pretty far down in the never-ending list of sports-related GACs. List the problems on the article's talk page, and I'm sure they will be taken care of. Nikki311 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just language but thanks Carribbian I appriciate that. I could just have sat back and let it fail spectacularly. Side note, it should have GA quality at the time of nomination not "at time of review". I'll do a detailed review and post it on the article's talk page over the weekend, then whatever you decide to do from there is up to whomever. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Phil Theis

The protection is off, and the vandals are back. I have requested blocking of the main vandal, as well as requested full protection. I am out of reverts, can someone help me keep an eye on this? LessThanClippers (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE TV channels

This has been bugging me for awhile, but there are no sources for what channels RAW/SmackDown/ECW air on in international markets. People will add a country and a TV station without any source provided. I will put citation tags for now, how long before we just remove those that don't have a source? TJ Spyke 06:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Is there a reason it's never being sent out anymore? This is an problem every week, as it is never sent out on time. What's going on with it. iMatthew 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a constant problem. I think we should really think about just making monthly editions and not weekly.--TrUCo9311 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a good idea. If it is monthly though, there will be almost no excuse for it not going out on time. iMatthew 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why this won't work as the other busiest project is the GA project and their newsletter is weekly. Don't see a reason why our's can't be monthly either. Although the PW community has to agree.--TrUCo9311 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to take a vote? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, why not?

Two questions:

  1. What exactly is the problem?
  2. Can I solve it by coming out of my Wikibreak every Saturday for about 15 minutes? SexySeaBass 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Poll

This poll is to determine whether we should keep the newsletter weekly, or we should have it be issued monthly or every two weeks, that way we can avoid future delivery/delayed problems. This poll will close on February 8 2008.

  • MonthlyEvery two weeks-I originally wanted monthly, but I agree for every 2 weeks per Gary.TrUCo9311 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • MonthlyEvery two weeks - per Gary. iMatthew 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks - More communication than a monthly newsletter is necessary for a project with so much going on. If weekly isn't working, the next logical step is every second week (and resuming the notification for the Collaboration of the Week on the other weeks). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks - per GCF. Cheers, LAX 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks - works for me. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks yup -- bulletproof 3:16 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks. - seems like a good idea. Baseball16 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Every two weeks works for me. As Gary says it's more logical than skipping straight to a month, and people need to know what's going on with the project a little more than once a month, IMO. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Reminder

There are still two polls going on at here about the format of the WWE Roster page. Format (Tables/Normal) and Citations (Yes/No). iMatthew 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

for a couple of months now i have seen spoilers on wikipedia. isnt there a rule against spoilers until theyre announced? Baseball16 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia has no rule against spoilers and also should not have spoler warnings. Try reading WP:SPOIL and WP:NDS. As long as the information is properly sourced, and notable, it should stay. LessThanClippers (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know. wp:nds stands for Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --76.66.191.62 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

userbox

sorry if im posting this on the wrong page, but can someone put the wrestling userbox on my page. I have been trying to do it for a while now. Baseball16 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, LAX 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Article stat updates

Any chance that we could get an update on the article ratings? I'd update it myself if I understood how, but I'd really like to see how things have changed this week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done - If you want me to do this on a weekly basis Gary, just leave a note on my talkpage when you want it doing. D.M.N. (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Jos LeDuc

After several months of procrastinating, I finally (re-)created an article that seemed like a notable absence. LeDuc once again has a Wikipedia article. With that said, the other articles that I've been thinking about creating for a while are the Brawl to End it All and the War to Settle the Score. Would these be notable enough to have their own articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User vandalizing under two different usernames

User:CactusJack1234567 and User:CactusJack12345678 are two usernames being used by one person. This user is constantly vandalizing the WWE Roster page. Where does this need to be reported? iMatthew 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Report it to Nikki or LAX (two admins for PW) or you can always report it at WP:AIN.--TrUCo9311 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the edits look fine to me. What's the problem? Mshake3 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

He was removing the sources on the injuries list. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Former WWE programs

Ugh. Do we need articles for every single one of them shows. I'm pretty sure some, for instance WWF Friday Night's Main Event should be deleted, while others could be merged. Do others agree, that some of the articles located in the template should be deleted/merged? D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, some of them should be merged into other articles. For instance some of the "Main Event" named articles should be merged into like WWE Saturday Night's Main Event article, or the shows that recap programming should be merged into like WWE Experience. Or something like that...--TrUCo9311 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree. All Main Event shows should be merged and Velocity should stay it's own article, in my opinion. I know little of the other former shows, so I can't assess their notability. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We could have a Former WWE programming article where we could have sections on some of the more notable programs (which are stubs now), links to former programming notable enough for a separate article, and delete the ones that only lasted two weeks (WWF Friday Night's Main Event). Nikki311 01:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that would be a good way to get rid of a bunch of stubs that I originally didn't think we'd be able to do much with. Nikki311 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely agree with Nikki. iMatthew 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree!!! :) LessThanClippers (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next couple of days....I'll get started on it. Nikki311 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I also like the idea. Would it also be worth moving the information from WWE Byte This! into the new article? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
If anything, Byte This! should be in the World Wrestling Entertainment article. It technically isn't "former programming" as it was on the internet and apparently is going to return at some point...or something. Nikki311 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I've started the merging. I'm only going to merge the stub articles and add {{main}} tags for the articles with sufficient info to be a separate article. Nikki311 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fatal Four

We can put to rest that the term "Fatal Four Way" does not use the hyphen. (See here) Feedback 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--TrUCo9311 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Any paticular reason you needed to tell us this? Mshake3 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There used to be a war about whether the hyphen was used in the Fatal Four Way name.TrUCo9311 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:LAME#WWE No Mercy –– Lid(Talk) 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to think we should officially close all article talk pages. Mshake3 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
=D, why because no one posts article comments to their corresponding article?TrUCo9311 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. This page should only be for things that everyone needs to know about. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM! Mshake3 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Then ignore it. But the attitude doesn't help anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This issue was put to rest three months ago. A poll was held and the clear consensus was to use the hyphen. WWE does not use the hyphen on the page linked to here, but they do use the hyphen on some of their other pages. I don't see this as any reason to override consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, WWE is not consistant on this issue (although I remember providing proof that more pages at wwe.com used the hyphen). TJ Spyke 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The only sections in wwe.com that may use the hyphen are the articles written by writers like Craig Tello, Greg Adkins, Bryan Robinson, Louie Dee, Lennie DiFino, etc. These men may make mistakes, but the article I linked too was the WWE dictionary definition of the match, and it did not include a hyphen. Feedback 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The WWE page is full of mistakes. The page refers to Bastion Booger as Bastian Booger. The one that bothers me the most, though, is The Smokin' Gunns. In the WWF, they never used that name. They were always The Smoking Gunns, but the WWE page has rewritten that part of history (and, unfortunately, the Gunns' Wikipedia article has followed). Nothing on the WWE page should be taken as gospel, so I don't see how this changes anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Format

I thought that the original newsletter took up too much space on our talk pages (in length). So I took the liberty to have the newsletter have the show/hide feature. Do you like the new format? --TrUCo9311 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with having the show/hide feature, but it shrinks the size of the newsletter. Is there any way to fix this? iMatthew 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That is one thing I could not figure out to do, the editor of the WP:WPGA newsletter told me it may have to stay like that since that's how their size is. TrUCo9311 14:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe we should change the format. Instead of having two columns, it can be one long column (since it is show/hide). iMatthew 2008 14:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not to good with columns, so I won't be able to do that. It was by miracle that I was able to add the hide/show feature.TrUCo9311 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try it out. If anyone objects, you may revert it, but please explain why. iMatthew 2008 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done - iMatthew 2008 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks good. I like it good job!TrUCo9311 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter is finished. Issue 10 is ready to be released, so I will be leaving Misza13 a message. Based on the poll above, the newsletter will now be released on an "Every other week" basis. The dates have been updated. The next issue will be released on February 17. iMatthew 2008 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Relase the interviews independent from the newsletter. At the current rate, it will take a damn long time to release all the interviews via newsletter. Why not just have a seperate pages with links to each interview, which can be completed by the interviewee at any time? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we can go back to one interview per week, and on the weeks that the newsletter is not released, we can send out a notice to all members that states the current COTW (still to be updated weekly), and the member interview of the week. One the weeks of the newsletter we can state the current member interview, the interview from the last week and next week. iMatthew 2008 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought it'd be entertaining...

...to read this. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake...pathetic. Next he'll be saying the WP:PW should not exist since wrestling isn't notable. Is anyone from here going to speak up, or would it be best to ignore the issue? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We need a Spokesperson. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
He's being disruptive in my opinion. Blanking clearly-notable sections from a large number of articles and edit warring. From the discussion, it doesn't seem he's willing to discuss the issue with an open-mind or willing to compromise. He has a clear agenda: rid all the stadium/venue articles of anything remotely related to wrestling. This clearly needs to be reported somewhere. I'm not sure how to handle the issue as an admin, and he might accuse me of COI since I'm a member of this project. Nikki311 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's the case, why not ask Yamla? She's not a project member, but has been wrestling-friendly in the past. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
An editor tried to go to mediation over the issue, but Paul refused and continued to delete the information. The information is sourced, so removing it without discussion is a serious problem. In the past, there was an issue in the article for someone who was very tangentially related to wrestling, and I agreed with him that adding information about wrestling to every possible article isn't appropriate (in case anyone is curious about the comments at the beginning of his talk page--they're not related to this article). At any rate, Paul has gone quite a bit farther than I agree with, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI [2]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI[3]-- bulletproof 3:16 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bloody hell, Hackney is back now...not good. Though based on his post there, he may have actually realized he was wrong (he once tried to get about thirty wrestling articles deleted for being unsourced cruft). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you remind me of how Hackney is? I don't recall the user. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
See here. Prior to that, he had mass AfDed a bunch of articles and failed. Basically, he was biased against pro wrestling for no good reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I've posted this on 4/5 talkpages but I'll post it here to. Just a quick note that I'll be on a break till the end of the week, so any requests for help or any questions (e.g. "When are you going to finish.....") will be ignored. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2008)

Please see here. Opinions are welcome. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania logos/posters

Hey there. I'm slowly making a return to Wikipedia with a help out by expanding the WrestleMania X-Seven article and I just have a query about the infobox image. All of the other pay-per-view articles feature the show's poster except for the WrestleMania which show the logos. Is there any reason as to why this is different? -- Oakster  Talk  21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is because not all WrestleMania's had a poster. So a logo is the next best thing. But that's my guess, mayby someone else know's the right answer.--TrUCo9311 22:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously man, did you even think about your answer? Why would WrestleManias, the longest running and biggest event of the year, not have promotional posters? As for a good answer, it has to do with the old formats of PPV articles. The Big 4 had their own, and for some reason used logos as opposed to posters. No one knows why it was like that, but when someone tried to change it, it was often reverted because "that's how we do it." Mshake3 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

D-X Importance

Reading the talk page I was suprised to see it listed as low importance. The NWO and D-X are jointly responsible for the change in pro wrestling. D-X was one of the biggest players in the attitude era, and I think should at least be considered a medium, especially if NWO is a high. Thoughts? LessThanClippers (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I say mid importance, the n.W.o was more important than DX in my view as DX was kinda derived from the n.W.o.--TrUCo9311 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd say mid, as well. DX was partly responsible for the whole Attitude Era and the popularity of wrestling during that time. Go ahead and change it to mid. Nikki311 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Sortable Tables Update

Well, this has definately been a chance for me to learn a bunch of wiki codes. Here is the update. I am done with Royal Rumble 1988 and 1989, and thought I was done with 08,07,and 06 but I have decided to make a few changes. I now have the winner listed as before, but sorting as 30 so he shows at the top or bottom of the list (already corrected in 88 and 89. here are some questions though. What type of sorting conventions should we be using for names. Sort by first so its easy to read, or by last, the more proper, and in cases of The, should we sort by the first word like sort The Undertaker by The or by Undertaker. And What about guys whose ringname includes a nickname, like Big John Stud. Obviously you would sort by John Stud by Stud, but as Big John Stud I would say by big. I personally think we should sort all names by first names, but skipping "the". Opinions? Has there already been consensus on this? LessThanClippers (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should go by the first name except in 'the' cases. - DrWarpMind (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the sorting of the 2008 royal rumble. When you sort by time in the match from less to most, John Cena (8:29) is before Mark Henry (7:49). Feedback 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I know I might have finaly gone overboard on this but I thought it might also be helpful to sort by the 4 brands. i created 3 different options.

4 brands? Feedback 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
OK 3 Brands and "ALUMNI" —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talkcontribs) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Option 1 Keeping it the way it is.

Option 2 Removing the color, and having a sortable Brand Option

Option 3 Color and Sorting.

Let me know what ya think, I will make the adjustment to all the tables (so far 4 done). LessThanClippers (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW, 0 opinions? That might be a first here. LessThanClippers (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the current format works fine. Maybe add a sortable table though (so option 1 or 3). TJ Spyke 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

I do not know how to prune a nomination, so I need somebody to prune Hornswoggle's nomination. It did not have nine supports by last Friday. Also, Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need nine supports by Monday. Chris Jericho needs nine supports by Tuesday. Otherwise they will be prunned as well. iMatthew 2008 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I don't know how to prune either, but both Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need to be pruned as well. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Randy Orton

Okay, in the article, we all know that he's referred to as "The Legend Killer", however Dlae keeps removing "The" from Legend Killer. Any suggestions on what should be done? SexySeaShark 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep the current revision. Who cares? This isn't quite as bad as the dispute over the dash in Fatal-Four Way but c'mon. This project has much bigger things to worry about... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

Does anybody think that this article could soon be a GA? iMatthew 2008 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

With a few more citations then yes, but right now its not GA worthy because some of the info is unsourced.TrUCo9311 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it. It might take a couple of days though. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
There are also the issues of citation variation, lead fixes, and some other small things. I want to look it over before anyone nominates it. Nikki311 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've added a whole bunch of references now, so the unreferenced part shouldn't be a problem. So, if people want to look over it and correct anything, personally, I think once that's done, it can be nominated for a GA. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Heads-up people. I intend to nominate Jeff Hardy for GA in a week. So if you could all look over it and perform any fixes, etc, or leave notes on the talk page and I'll do it ;), that would be great. Regards ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania (1985)

I think this that WrestleMania (1985) should be changed to WrestleMania I. yes I know that at the time it was just called WrestleMania, but there are other Wikipedia sports articles that use the name it is known by now. Shuch as Super Bowl I at the time it was called "AFL-NFL World Championship Game"--JB (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Never thought about it, but you make an interesting point. I agree.--TrUCo9311 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
In this case it’s different. The first Super Bowl wasn't called Super Bowl I until later on. However, the first WrestleMania has never been referred to as WrestleMania I. It has only been referred to as such chronologically speaking.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Check out one of Hornetman's first "proposals" for more info. [4] -- bulletproof 3:16 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it should be WrestleMania I, but I do think it should be simply "WrestleMania", and the WrestleMania article should be "List of WrestleManias" or "List of WrestleMania events". Feedback 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree there. That would be like having Super Bowl be about only the first one. I am fine with the current setup, but my secondary choice would be "WrestleMania I" (although it wouldn't be the best idea IMO). TJ Spyke 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)