Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 53

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

Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54

I think it's time we incorporated the "List-Class" into our assessment

The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has just been removed as a Featured List, and FL director, Scorpion13, stated that he would nominate more of our FL's for FLR, if so, we need to keep them at a higher level than B, and the way to do that is to use the "List Class". The GimmeBot updated the rating of the IWGP Championship, but it listed it as List-Class, something we dont have yet, but it looks like it's necessary, as that is what list that are close to FL are, they are "List-Class". Comments?--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not how List-class works, to my understanding. It isn't higher than B...it is for anything that is a list. I wouldn't mind adding it in, as it would cut down on our start-class articles. I've thought for awhile now that we should, but didn't know how to go about fixing it to work. I can do that now, so if nobody objects, I think we should incorporate it in. Nikki311 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Go for it! -- iMatthew T.C. 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, then like you said, we can incorporate it so we can cut down on Start classes and any Stub lists. I dont object. Mayby you should wait a week for other people to comment. I will post this discussion in the newsletter as project news to get more attention.--SRX--LatinoHeat 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My preference would be to keep B-class lists separate. I think it is useful to make a distinction between sourced lists and unsourced lists. It shows both which articles are in need of work and which articles may be within reach of FL status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem at Trevor Rhodes (Murdoch)

Trevor Murdoch's real name is listed at the start of the article as Trevor Rhodes with two reliable sources, however some sources, such as this has Murdoch's real name as Bill Mueller. D.M.N. (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Last month PowerSlam had a supplement which listed all the real names, maybe that may give a confirmation. Otherwise I'm not sure how else to check as most websites use each other for sources. I suppose WWE corporate will give his real name (the usually do a courtesy "wish them well" release). Darrenhusted (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The one time WWE doesnt say their real name *sigh* — Moe ε 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe his real name is Trevor Murdoch :/ Feedback 15:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

According to PowerSlam his name is William Theodore Mueller. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Other On-Screen talent

Am I the only one who thinks these are not necessary, and may as well be deleted. I find them pointless. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. Wrestlers and managers aren't the only ones with careers. Referees are arguably the most important part of a wrestling match.
Understood, but the table format, it just seems annoying and in the way, in the event section. -- iMatthew T.C. 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Where exactly in the article do you want it in? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but that's the reason I started this discussions. To get idea's. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, the table format in the event section seems pretty standard and most of our GA/FA have this formatting. This seems like a case of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. — Moe ε 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the longer tables are in the show/hide format, which I think is good. Whatever format they are in, I do think they should be noted...it is like the minor roles in movies/television articles. They are the "supporting cast", if you will. Nikki311 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrestle War

Should the article's name be changed to "WrestleWar"? WWE.com writes it like that[1] and that's also how it's wrote in The Ultimate Ric Flair Collection match listing. No one replied on its talk page.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

CTC

Is this the new name of the new stable including John Cena and Cryme Time? Any reference would help in creating a new article. --Raderick (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

One. That stable is not official. Two. WWE has not confirmed that Stable. Three. That name has not been confirmed, just because they sprayed it does not mean anything. Four. Even if it is a stable, a new stable does not warrant for a new article unless the stable is continuous for a period of time.--SRX--LatinoHeat 03:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"CTC" could stand for "Cryme Tyme Customs". Unless they continue to work together for the forthcoming weeks and months, no article is necessary. D.M.N. (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

New AfD Here. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedied as Hoax. D.M.N. (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are very small roles worth noting in articles?

I note in the CM Punk article, his mini-role from WrestleMania 22 as one of the "gangsters" is noted. Now, I've just come across this which for #6 says "Bruce Steele and Antonio Banks from NWA Florida worked as the security for Kurt Angle.." - now, is this worth noting in MVP's article (note: for anyone in doubt that this isn't true, please watch this. If the thing about Punk is worth noting, I think this should be noted very briefly in MVP's article. Thoughts? The same goes for all mini roles that wrestlers sometimes portray e.g. Undertakers druids etc. D.M.N. (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, Matt Sydal (Evan Bourne) and Colt Cabana were among the "paparazzi" for Melina's entrance at Wrestlemania this year. --Apsouthern (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think they are worth noting. It is apart of thier carreer1362talk 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it depends. Something like that may be worth noting for smaller-time wrestlers, but certainly isn't worth nothing in say Shawn Michaels or The Undertaker. MVP's article isn't that long, so it doesn't do more harm than good like it would elsewhere. Nikki311 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated#PWI World Champions

For some reason, the post-WWE ECW Champions aren't included... umm... why? Feedback 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PWI ceased recgonized the ECW title as a world title when it was revived. For now, only WWE, WHC and TNA reigns count. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Is ther a reliable source for that? Feedback 20:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
PWI itself, though I don't have access to it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
So... how do we "back up" this claim? Feedback 04:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Find someone within the project that subscribes to PWI and ask them to provide a citation. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Masada (wrestler)

I'm sorry, but this article requires a real name and citation, otherwise it's delete material if it doesn't get that. Govvy (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick search of known reliable sources provides no real name. Perhaps he actually managed to keep it hidden. He is real however, it's no hoax, several title history sites mention him as well as OWOW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Still there are no external links, only one reference, I even added the {{reflist}} function which was missing. Unless a real name can be found I might add a prod on that. Govvy (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added some references, although I am also struggling to find any reference to a real name anywhere. OWW seems to be down for me at the moment, so I will have a look through there later and cite the Ring of Honor info where possible as well.--Apsouthern (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, assuming my German isn't completely off (and we accept cagematch.de as reliable), his real name is Brigham Doane[2]--Apsouthern (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You actually found a name, thats pretty good, I did try to find one but couldn't. Well it's looking better. Maybe the real name should also redirect to Masada (wrestler). Govvy (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Good work, Apsouthern! :) I should be able to dig up some sources for some of his career. I'll see if I can when I have some free time later. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem, there is an article on the Carnage Club site that I have linked to on the article which gives quite a bit of info up to and including ROH At Our Best which could be handy (also mentions Dusty Rhodes being part of the angle which isn't in the article) so I might have another look at it tonight--Apsouthern (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh

I just tried to join the project by adding the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Userbox}} userbox to my user page, thinking that it would automatically add me to the members list, but it didn't - so I took it off again, at least for now.

How do I get onto that list? Do I just literally edit the page and add it in manually - like I was editing an article? --The Machine (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you manually add yourself to the list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Done: name added, userbox restored. Thanks. --The Machine (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE United States Championship

I have noticed lately that User:Vjmlhds has been saying that this title along with the WWE Tag Team Championship are not exclusive titles to ECW and Smackdown, respect. But i was just thinking about U.S. title because it was defended on July 4th maybe it was a special match for the 4th . Just thought i would bring this here and see what ya'll thought. 1362talk 18:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The titles might be "home" to a select brand, but he's right, they're not exclusive, by way of the talent exchange storyline. Mshake3 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup. The best way I can think of it is that the tag titles are "owned" by SD and the US title is "owned" by ECW. Due to the talent exchanges, the other brand is permitted to "borrow" the titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyn Sykes (talkcontribs)

Table format

I'll start this thread over, so hopefully we can find a common ground that everyone agrees on. For starters, I've created a sixth option. Even though one has been picked, I ask you look at option 6. I've combined the winner/loser columns to form a "results" column, because having two separate columns for that sounded like a good idea, but turned out not to be, IMHO. I removed the notes section, because the notes are in the event section, and the results section should be just that, the results. I've changes the "match type" column to "stipulation," because it is not logical to say that the match type was a championship. So in the stipulation column, it will say "____ match" or "For the ________ championship" or any other stipulation.

I am open to almost any way others can think of to improve the table, because right now, it just seems to complicated, IMHO. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am for implementing this style as it is more aesthetically pleasing to the normal reader, but where should the extra notes about the match be included, if at all? Below the result, bullet formatted, or should we just leave the details for the prose in the article? — Moe ε 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should leave the match notes for the prose in the article. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That's probably for the best anyways. But I have to think, if the match is like a 20-man battle royal, the result would list all 20 competitors, right? — Moe ε 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, in that situation, the best thing to do would probably be to say something like "Wrestler A won a 20-man battle royal, last eliminating Wrestler B." And add a footnote, that would list the other competitors. Or instead of a footnote, we could just list the wrestlers in the match in the event section. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer this one to the one currently being implemented. I much prefer having the winners/losers column combined into one. It works a lot better. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I voted above, because everyone else was voting. I prefer no tables at all, but if there has to be one embedded, than, I prefer the sixth option.SRX--LatinoHeat 15:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer no tables as well, but for some reason the FA reviewers want them in tables. So if there has to be tables, they may as well be good tables, right? -- iMatthew T.C. 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely love Option 6 as compared to the other table format. I almost like it better than no tables at all - almost. I'm assmuing that "other notes" would include the finishing move, correct? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I'm glad you all like it, but so far, only one of the people who voted for option 2, have responded. We need to get their approval, basically, to make the switch. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to improve Option 6 even further? -- iMatthew T.C. 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it. =D
On that note, there's a new type of reference group formatting around here on Wiki, see here and the result here. =D D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it, too! Good work. That is much easier to read. Nikki311 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad everyone likes it. Should we make the change, to this table format instead? -- iMatthew T.C. 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely!! **high five!!** D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
**Gives D.M.N. a high five** Alright, so I'll be glad to get started making these changes later on. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For an example, go here. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing that I think should be noted is that "Match #", "Stipulation", and "Time" are singular, whereas "Results" is plural. I think there should be consistency. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed the example article, SummerSlam (2007), to fix that. I changed Match #, Stipulation and Time to #, Stipulations and Times, repectively. — Moe ε 00:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just done December to Dismember (2006) with the new format and redone the Elimination Chamber entrances and eliminations table as well if anyone would like to see that as well. — Moe ε 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the table

I'm going to make it known now that I really do hate the idea of a table. Because it is ugly, easy to screw up, and hard to fix. There will be many problems with it. We haven't even started to add tables to many articles and we already have our first screw up see here.--WillC 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

New editors to this website who don't know the ends and outs of wikitext, just like with anything on Wikipedia, is not a reason to remove table formattings and keep the article qualities low. — Moe ε 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it keeping the quality low without a table? I think with a table it makes it look sad. It doesn't make it more easier to read. The old way made it more easier. I just don't see the reason for changing it in the first place? We got articles to Featured and GA without the table.--WillC 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not passing FAC/GAC as it was before, it may have in the past, the more experienced FAC reviewers are actually requesting a table formatting now. My suggestion is if you see someone screw up the table formatting, then see what they were trying to do and either correctly do it or teach them how to if their edits were well-intended. — Moe ε 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I don't know why they want a table. What good does it do? I just don't like the thing. Never have liked tables since I first figured out how to work them. But alright, hopefully we'll get rid of them in the future because I feel there will be alot of screw ups.--WillC 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually have to agree with Wrestling Lover, the table looks horrible in the articles, its actually more confusing, and if you read it as an outside user, its like WTF? I prefer the old format, we cant just make something happen because 1 or 2 editors want it a certain way. This is MO (my opinion)SRX--LatinoHeat 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with him as well. Because you can't do the samethings with the new as you can with the old format and it works alot better with the old format. It is a straight read the old way. With the new it isn't.
match type note
Example 1 defeated Example 2 No DQ Pinned after a Example

OR

  • Example 1 defeated Example 2 in a No DQ match.

I like the second one better.--WillC 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually started to love the current table format. I think it works much better. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understand that plain text results are flawed, and no matter how many bullets, italics, or indents you remove or add, plain text is not wanted for FAC. — Moe ε 12:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's understood. But why? What's the logic behind that? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
TBH, I don't know. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) or start a new topic at WT:FA. D.M.N. (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from SummerSlam 88's FAC: "The data you have in the Results section is perfect for a table. Names of the wrestlers, and the length of match - 3 columns (Winners, Losers, Time, as an example...) I don't see why this is such a problem. At the moment, the data is hard to read in the messy list format. I will consider opposing as per FA criterion 1a which states: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" Is the disorganized list professional?". Other reviewers just suggested it, as the multiple components lends itself to a table format. Nikki311 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just look at it this way, how many Featured lists on Wikipedia all together are promoted with plain text over a table formatting? I'm thinking the same principles for FL's would apply for this section. — Moe ε 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I really fail to see how the list format looked or read at all unprofessionally. It was organized in a clear manner and looks better (only in my opinion of course) than a table. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't unprofessional, but have you looked outside the scope of the professional wrestling articles, and looked at other lists of information, you don't find as much original plain text lists as much as you do tables now. — Moe ε 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gavyn. The way we had it was not messy and it was easy to read. The table pushes it all together and makes the page look weird. The table makes it harder to edit and easier to screw up. With the old format it was simple and effective.--WillC 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Have either of you considered this may be because of your internet browser or the screen resolution you are using as compared to what you are currently using? When I look at these tables they are not pushed together or harder to edit at all. — Moe ε 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And if it that wasn't clear enough, this is what I see when I look at the tables on the WrestleMania 2 article. I can create a screenshot of me editing it as well to prove that the it doesn't look weird in my view. — Moe ε 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't really like any of the tables although I can see why it was thought to be sloppy beforehand. However, if we're gonna have the tables then may I point out the inconsistency of having "standard 1-on-1" and "handicap one-on-two", you can't have one number spelt the other typed, I prefer the latter. Although I also think that it should just be called Standard, or Single(s) Match. Tony2Times (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

'Singles match' over 'Standard 1-on-1' IMHO. Singles matches seems to be the most widely used term used throughout Wikipedia and by most other places when describing a generic matchup. — Moe ε 12:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I first saw the new table design a few days after Night of Champions, and I was confused, I didn't understand why you would change it at all; the old way I could go on here, get the info I needed and get done. But you made it so complicated to understand it. L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

I HIGHLY disagree with the change to the new table format. My main reason for going against it is because it completely rids of the match notes, which, IMHO, are quite important. Not that a change is necessary, I would just like the opinions of others on how they feel about the change. Thanks, –LAX 00:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer it, TBH. I think that the match notes are much better suited in the event section. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But what about people who want to "just quickly look"? Isn't that what the results section is for? –LAX 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, why do we need a table? Having the results like that and have no result of how the win was won, is pretty lame. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nici, I much prefer it as well. I also agree that match notes should be in the event section. It just makes more sense. One might want to know who won a race, but is it necessary to mention their method of victory? -- iMatthew T.C. 01:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, to expand on Matt's point a little, if a wrestler wins by countout or disqualification it is, or should be anyway, noted in the table. And, as a person who occassionally "just quickly looks" for results, seeing that "this person" pinned "that person" after a clothesline or whatever, is something that I just skip over. IMHO, all it does is clutter it up. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 01:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! All I need to know is who won the match, who they beat, and even the stipulation, but like Nici said, the extra information makes it a bit messy. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LAX. The notes are important. Not many people even read the whole article. They just go to the page and look for the results section. The table throws the page out of whack. Not many people like the look of the table. I feel the old format was much more effective.--WillC 01:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The look of the table doesn't really matter, as long as the information is correctly placed. And if they are just looking for the results section, and not bothering to read the details of the match, why would they real the details about how the match was finished. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There's one problem with only knowing who won or lost. DQs and Countouts for title matches. Simply putting "A defeated B" sounds like "A won the title from B" when it really means "B got disqualified and retained. I also think the results section is fine for match notes. BUT here's the real question. Do we even need a results section? if so, I disagree with it being tabulated. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly why I disagree. Non-wrestling fans won't know that the wrestler who won via DQ didn't win the title. –LAX 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. I logged in and I wanted to know who won at Night of Champions and to my surprise, it just said that "John Doe defeated John Doe" and that was just strange to have, especially with no report to it on the side. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the point of the PPV expansion, to add the report. When somebody expands the article, and adds it, it will be there. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But if "A defeated B" and the match was won by disqualification, it would say "A defeated B by disqualification." -- iMatthew T.C. 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, why would non-wrestling fans be reading about a wrestling pay-per-view event? -- iMatthew T.C. 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Not only non-wrestling fans. I was editting in SummerSlam (2007) and saw "Batista defeated The Great Khali" in one section and "for the World Heavyweight Championship in the next. I almost edited in Rey Mysterio as another challenger before I realized it was at Unforgiven that match occurred. Point is, I have a bad memory about PPVs and even a wrestling fan can have a "WTF?" moment due to these tables. And in that particular example, Matt, it wasn't and I edited it in. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But that is why the "Singles match" was added before "for the World Heavyweight Championship" -- iMatthew T.C. 01:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
True, though I assumed it was an error and was still thinking of the next PPV. And that above response really didn't rectify my concerns. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your comment sorta confused me, can you restate what your concern was. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure. My point is that "by DQ/countout" does need to be there, and in many articles it is not and it was overlooked during the process. Regardless, I still don't like the tabular format but consensus is consensus and that's that the FAC reviewers want for some reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can go back through the PPV with the table and ensure that it says "by DQ/countout" if you'd like. It won't be that hard, since they're only about 2/3 people about converting the results to the table format. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
As for the look, wasn't one of the main reasons for a table was to sort it and make it look better. With everything that will have to be added to make everyone happy then it would be better to just use the old format. Having to add in that he won by DQ, there was a title on the line, who won, who lost, notes section, and what type of match it was. It would look like this
Winner Loser Stipualtion Match type Note Time
Example One Example Two World Heavyweight Championship Steel Cage Example One pinned Example Two after a Example 22:00

Or

  • Example One defeated Example Two in a Steel Cage match to retain the World Heavyweight Championship. (22:00)
    • Example One pinned Example Two after a Example.

--WillC 01:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is now 27K. If this amount of effort was put into expanding articles instead of endless debating, an entire pay-per-view article could have been written by now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh get over it, not everything on here has to be about fixing an article. If you want to fix and article then fix some of the TNA stuff. It seems the entire project has forgotten about that part of the wrestling community. This is about fixing a article.--WillC 01:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Will, chill out. This is a discussion of what some think of the table settings. And, I'm pretty sure people do care about TNA articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, I'm just not feeling good today. I had my wisdom teeth taken out today. Just a little upset that it is always about trying to expand a article and not thinking about what is the best way to go at it at expanding. If that makes any sense.--WillC 02:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the new format, I find it redundant and a vandal target. I agree with everyone else, it is confusing. The old format "Wrestler A defeated Wrestler B" was the best format we had. I find this situation as a "not broken" situation that "did not need fixing." I call for another discussion to revert back to the original format. Also, revert back to the original format, but keep the notes in the event section.SRX--LatinoHeat 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I disagree with this statement. Clearly it "was broken", otherwise multiple FA/GA reviewers wouldn't have mentioned changing it. One even threatened to oppose because the list wasn't professional. I'd also like to remind everybody that this isn't a wrestling news site...if someone wants a quick look at the results, there are 1,342,532 different sites they can go to, including WWE.com. Nikki311 02:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see your perspective, but the way the information is presented in the table is confusing. If this can't be discussed among us then we should take request RFC for outside users opinions on how it should be presented, since reviewers are outside users.SRX--LatinoHeat 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why not just remove the entire Results section? That would get a lot of IP backlash, for sure , but it would solve problems. And professional =/= easy to read and understand apparently, which I think should go hand-in-hand. An RfC is a good idea, I think. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The table is a lot more professional than normal text, this is one of the reason why PPV FA's are failing because of the old formatting of the table. I agree with Gary that we should focus more on articles - in case any one has forgotten - we do have an FAR currently going on at the moment concerning our WikiProject. If we did have an RFC, and if some "!"voted in favor of plain text, well it'll be downgrading the overall quality of our articles on the whole. D.M.N. (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Times" column

May I ask why some people are making these columns sortable? What's less work, inserting a 0 in front of matches that are less than ten-minutes or making the sortable? The only times we need to make things sortable are for matches where the time is unknown e.g. Dark matches. D.M.N. (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD Debate

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Korpela‎ - D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Loyd too. These two AFD's both need comments. D.M.N. (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Both deleted. D.M.N. (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Date linking

Per this edit, do not link dates. Before we were doing it like December 3 2006 but per a new consensus at MOS we shouldn't be linking them, so it should be in plain text, e.g. December 3, 2006. This mainly concerns PPV articles, but also is used in other articles. D.M.N. (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we make the changes then? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I say we go with it since SandyGeorgia did the edit and she knows about it and plus it's new MOS guidelines.--SRX--LatinoHeat 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that it was just not mandatory. I didn't realize it was not allowed. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the Manual of Style and the relevant talk pages, and I haven't seen anything that says it's not allowed. If anyone knows where the discussion took place or where the wording of the new policy is, I would be interested in seeing it. As for whether to do it ourselves or not, I think a bot might be de-linking the dates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I agree with GCF "now," because in the WP:DATE there is nothing that says you cant wikilink dates, in the talk page however, it is discussed that it's not mandatory.--SRX--LatinoHeat 13:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No one should be Wikilinking dates now. Check Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s talkpage, notably this where someone asks him about it. I suggest removing wikilinks in dates to reflect new guidelines. Overall: We should make the changes - besides if any of our articles get to FAC again, they will just get asked there to remove date linking. D.M.N. (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So when we remove the dates, we should cite User talk:Tony1#MOSLINK#Dates?SRX--LatinoHeat 13:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you wish cite User talk:Tony1#WP:MOSLINK#Dates when oding it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more pictures

I uploaded the rest of my potentially useable wrestling pictures. It would be great if someone could look at them at let me know which ones are worth keeping available. They can be seen at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures (the ones that were uploaded last week are just links, but there are about 12 or so new ones that appear as actual images). In addition, I have a somewhat decent picture of Skip and Sunny (Chris Candido and Tammy Sytch). Unfortunately, I had my finger over the top of the lens. You can still see the picture clearly, but the top of Skip's head is noticeably orange. If anyone has decent Photoshop skills and thinks they can fix it, please let me know and I'll upload it as well. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I would describe my photoshop skills as more in the "moderate" bracket, I'm more than willing to have a go at fixing it for you. If you want me to have a try, just leave a message on my talk page. --Apsouthern (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie

This article has been proposed for deletion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney...

has been tagged as possibly not meeting notability requirements. ANy thoughts? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:ATHLETE an athlete's notability is reliant on either having "competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." (ECW and Smackdown) or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" (Chikara and CZW), or do we use WP:ENTERTAINER for pro-wrestlers? I'm biased (as I am with regards to most indy wrestlers), but I would argue that he meets criteria for either--Apsouthern (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration?

I think I've offered to work with someone on an article, but haven't heard back from anyone. I guess this group works as loners. I've done some stuff on my own, but thought quality would improve with a team approach. Whatever. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 13:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you? You posted here about something along those lines, but this is the first I've heard abotu a "Collaboration". You say you "think" - actually look around before posting to prove if you have actually offered as at the moment your post comes across as trying to prove a point. D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, wrong project. However, I would be happy to work with someone on an article here. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Our current Collaboration of the Weeks are Sean Waltman and The Attitude Era. Nikki311 19:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

♠ I propose we change the name from Collaboration of the Week to Tag Team Article Bash of the Week. Wooooo! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Tag team? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It was a joke! OMG! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 01:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ROH Chaos At The Cow Palace

I just came across the article, and I added an infobox, headers, etc. I then went to find sources or it, and realised that it wasn't a PPV, just a regular show. Should it be sent to AfD? ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 07:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest a redirect first, to ROH. Then if that doesn't work an AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 DoneNiciVampireHeart♥ 17:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Project!

List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) is today's (July 11) Featured List! Congrats, see here for more. (link).--SRX 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SD! Australian broadcasts

I recall we had a RFC over this a while back, but I've since think we need to revist this. I think the consensus is to insert happenings even are they are spoilers for American viewers if it has been shown on the Australian broadcast, correct? I'm about to watch the Australian broadcast (via media downloaded off a website) and have been embroiled in an edit war about whether a Divas' Championship match for the Bash. If I see that it was announced during the broadcast, can I insert it, citing the broadcast? D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep that is correct, because this Wikipedia is not American based, because the broadcast aired already in an English speaking country, the information is not a spoiler. Yeah, you should cite the broadcast.--SRX 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Verna

I've put a {{Peacock}} tag on this article because at the moment it reads as though it was written by his number one fan.

Also, I was going to recategorise it from Category:Professional wrestlers to the appropriate country-specific category, but the article says that he was born in Australia, moved to Belgium eighteen years later and then finally settled down in Singapore seven years after that, so which country-specific category would that put him in? --The Machine (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW gets a Did You Know?

On the main page right now, the article about Porkchop Cash is one of the featured items in the Did You Know? section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a DYK column on our main page in the hopes that it will motivate some other members to do this. Nikki311 23:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions/Comments about article assessment

  1. Are the lists that are currently rated as B-class going to keep that rating? I believe they should, because it is useful to distinguish them from the unsourced lists. Leaving them as they are would allow editors to look at the List-class articles when they want to source something and the B-class articles for something that may be ready for Featured List status.
  2. Should the "List of (insert title here) champions by length" articles be included as List-class (or B-class if they are sourced)? Currently, they're "NA"-class, which seems a little strange. Is there a reason for this?
  3. When assessing articles, please remember that the bot can't recognize lowercase letters for C-class or B-class articles. These will show up as unassessed. "stub" and "start" are okay, but "c" and "b" don't work. It needs to be "C" and "B". GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For 2, I think that they should be rated List class. Also, is there a reason we don't use A-Class and Future-Class? -- iMatthew T.C. 22:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For 2. It should remain NA, because that list is information that does not need to be sourced and is info that is updated constantly every 24 hours. Nevermind, it should be list class. For 1. Yes they should because they are sourced better than lists that would have only 1 ref or 2. For Matt, Future class was proposed before, but people disagreed because not many of our articles use that, I highly disagree because of the many PPVs we have in that category, and video games, but then again, some of the info on the pages can become great, as info is released we write the BG section, 2 weeks later the event is over, so the Future class would do no good. For the A-Class, not many of our articles reach that level as they aren't "Complete" or "great". Plus if we had that category, only about less than 10 of our articles would utilize it. Remember, A is more than GA, once at A- it should be ready for FA. That's my view.--SRX 22:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well A-Class is almost FA, but not just there yet, so I don't see why not. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
1) I agree. I even mentioned something similar the last time the list-class was proposed. 2) Not sure of the reason, but I don't oppose them being list-class. Nikki311 23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know for PPVs?

Anybody would like to comment on what kind of information that is notable and would qualify as a DYK from a PPV article, like SummerSlam (2003), which I just expanded on 7/10, which would qualify for DYK?--SRX 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it would qualify, as I believe that it has to be expanded fivefold within five days (fivefold is definite, but I'm not sure about the timespan). I'm thinking that the next PPV expansion I work on will be in my sandbox so that it still qualifies for DYK. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thats right. But still, what kind of notable info can qualify for it?--SRX 23:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if it was Bischoff's first match as a wrestler in WWE. Off the top of my head for other articles, if there was a notable occurence at the event (new stable formed, fan jumping into the ring, something that affects someone's employment with the company), if a wrestler made a debut or return, if a wrestler won a title, etc. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Firsts (like the first time someone won a title or the first instance of a match) or any tidbit that is really interesting. WrestleMania (1985) doesn't qualify because I've been taking my sweet time to expand it, but if it did...I might say something about Cindy Lauper, Mr. T, Liberace, and other celebrities being involved. Something interesting for non-wrestling fans would be ideal. Nikki311 23:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

little help with explaining

I had someone remove a title from a wrestlers page under with the explanation (and i quote) They don't have their own wikipedia page, I really don't see why this title is included - he never defended against a 'name' wrestler. im trying to convince them that just because the promotion isnt very good doesnt mean we dont add the title but im not getting much luck... and this editors other edits for the most part have been good and helpful.

Other minor discussions im having with this editor is over the "Other Title" section of the "Championships and accomplishments" he now wishes to take off the promotions name and move it down to other titles as the promotions are not big name enough. I know i have been away for a while, but we are still trying to move every title we know the name of the promotions of off that Other Titles list. Aren't we?
Second discussion, and this is for the British editors mostly, that the Frontier Wrestling Alliance which scaled itself down and changed its name to XWA after the IPW:UK feud made the promotion "go out of business". he believes that FWA/XWA should be in a seperate articles from each other rather than being in what is now the XWA (professional wrestling) page.. if you know the promotion you will know that the XWA uses the FWA website as a homepage and has FWA's history as part of their achieve aswell as using most of there staff, equipment, concepts etc etc.

The discussions can be found here and here, any help to better explain the points would be much appreciated. ---Paulley (talk)12:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

PPV Expansion

I'm currently watching week by week episodes of WWF from 1998 so I thought it'd be a good opportunity to expand on some of the earlier PPVs. However, I'm not the greatest at following all of the guidelines or at Wikifying things, so I wrote in a lot of detail so that it can be edited out if it's too long (which it most probably is). Not only will I need help editing the length, I'll also likely need help with sources and references as I'm not too flash with coding and the like. I've only managed Royal Rumble and No Way Out thus far, and will write the aftermath as I watch later episodes. Also I'm disputing with LAX whether the PPV was titled No Way Out of Texas or No Way Out of Texas: In Your House. Tony2Times (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well according to WWE.com, it's just called No Way Out of Texas, but WWE doesn't refer to In Your House any more and they dont use that name in their history any more. If you refer to the history of the first events of Backlash/No Way Out/Judgment Day, they dont use the In Your House name, but that is the official name of the event like Over the Edge: In Your House.--SRX 15:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That was my argument, also the ring apron has the In Your House insignia on it and the week before Michael Cole referred to it as No Way Out of Texas: In Your House, I assume LAX thinks otherwise because of the website or the poster not listing the IYH prefix. Tony2Times (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the poster does have the IYH insignia, its on the bottom left hand corner.--SRX 15:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, very good. Can someone who has a clue about things please go move the article back to its original place No Way Out of Texas: In Your House because I don't really know otherwise I would have done it without annoying y'all. Tony2Times (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- iMatthew T.C. 17:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Nope, you haven't done it. What you have done is moved it to No Way Out of Texas:In Your House. Note: There is no space between "Texas:In"' - it should be moved to No Way Out of Texas: In Your House - note the space between ":" and "In". Seems like we'll have to ask one of our two admins again.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
My bad! -- iMatthew T.C. 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Tony2Times (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Table problems (again)

The size of the results tables is now intercepting with the infoboxes, look at SummerSlam (1999), articles that are not expanded should have smaller boxes, no?--SRX 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

One day all the PPV articles will get expanded. We'll have to live with it. Not much harm is being caused by it. I'm pretty sure someone will come along one day and start an expansion! Meh, it's not a problem as such IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
How is not a problem? It makes both the results and the infobox almost unreadable. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I can work on it after I've finished working on the In Your House 2: The Lumberjacks article if it's a big issue. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a huge issue, but it's still something that should be rectified before the page is expanded, IMO Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem rectified. When expansion begins, the width will need to be increased back to 100%. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
For that article, but there are still many others out there.--SRX 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter though? Over time the articles will be expanded, so I can't really see the point of it TBH. D.M.N. (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Bloods

Is any notability established in this article? -- iMatthew T.C. 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Seems to be a major tag team in WCW in the mid-1990s seems to assert notability. D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, Blue Bloods was an important part of British wrestling in the late '80s, early '90s. Although it's hard to find sources with detailed information, you often hear people mentioning them or harking back to them, as trainers as well as wrestlers, or early influences. Tony2Times (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Another suggested PPV change

I really hate to suggest something that might make us have to go through and change all the PPV articles again, but I had an idea that might improve them. It has been brought up before (here and here) that information like tagline and theme music might be too trivial for the lead. In my understanding, the lead is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. So...my idea is that we add the tagline and theme music to the infobox and remove it from the lead. That way it can still be mentioned, but since (in most cases) it isn't that important, it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb in the lead. Thoughts? Nikki311 23:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

NICE! That sounds like a great idea! -- iMatthew T.C. 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Then again, what makes the tagline and theme song notable enough to even be included in the article. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion. I'm sure that was originally the idea of some article-controlling schmuck. Mshake3 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Great suggestion Nikki, I added it; Matt it is part of the production of the event, it should have been in the infobox from the beginning. Here is how it should work.
WP:PW III
Wikipedia-logo.png
Tagline(s) ..Slamming professional wrestling articles
Theme
song
(s)
"Enter Sandman" (Metallica)
Information
Promotion Wikipedia
Brand(s) Wikiproject
Date July 11, 2008
Attendance 1
Venue Internet
City Computer
Pay-per-view chronology
WP:SP WP:PW III WP:WP
WP chronology
WP:PW I WP:PW III WP:PW II


If that's not good, I think it would look good under the image as well, but suggestions are always welcomed, and I will change it gladly ;)SRX 00:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely put it under the image. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I was just about to suggest that. --UnquestionableTruth-- 00:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Could we also move the Attendance above the City seeing as how attendance has more to do with the Venue? --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So I guess this means we are going to change the info boxes now? Just wanting to make sure before I change a few in the TNA section.--WillC 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too picky but I think attendance should go above venue rather than below it. Mainly because it needs to be next to venue, as they are related, but I think it has more flow if you read it as venue then city without a number in the middle. In grids under the venue column it will often read the arena then city name. Also then in the mind it'll read "X amount of people were in the X arena in X city" if that makes sense. Didn't like the tagline/song idea originally but looking at the infobox, directly under the image works great. Tony2Times (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so the new additions are under the image, and the attendance was moved above the city. I also propose we move the date, venue, to be the first parameters, as to comply with other sport related events, like the superbowl infobox. In response to Tony, if nobody disagrees with it, I will move it again, and if nobody disagrees with the new changes, (Wrestlinglover) you can start adding them to TNA infoboxes.SRX 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Since songs need to be in quotations marks I suggest the name of the band be placed in parenthesis to save room. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we have the "Information" bar moved up, so it covers the whole of it as the The Song and Tagline is part of the "Information". Good suggestion, BTW! D.M.N. (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I definitely prefer the information bar being below the song and tagline, because it keeps them with the poster, which is all promotional work, whereas underneath are more clinical facts. Tony2Times (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And while I think about it, we're probably gonna need to come to a consensus about what to do for events such as WrestleMania, I believe it's the only one, which often has two theme songs. Tony2Times (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

So why have the artists placed within parenthesis? –LAX 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Due to space.--SRX 20:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
How does it save space? It's not really any smaller than if you were to say "by...". –LAX 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it looks more smart, especially as you can have a line break instead of a run on line. I don't like the quotation marks though around specifically the tag line, I'm not too keen on it on the song title but that's just the way songs are written here. Could the (s) get closer to the text on Tagline and Theme Song? It seems like it's seperate entity. Or just get rid of it. I mean, people will be able to see if it's two seperate taglines or two seperate theme songs anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Jason Reso moved without consensus

It was moved to Christian (wrestler) and then to Jason Resso. It won't allow me to move it back to Jason Reso for some reason. Any help? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The history of the articles has been altered, so in that way regular users cant move the article, only admins, report it to an admin, and they will revert it back.--SRX 15:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ask Nikki or LAX. Only admins can do it. D.M.N. (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. LAX got to it. Thanks. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone also move the talk page as well since that is sitll at the incorrect name. --76.66.183.202 (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Got it. Nikki311 04:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ideas for featured lists?

Is there a way we can make lists like WWE Backlash, WWE Vengeance, etc. FLs? They don't have that much information like the Royal Rumble, suggestions?--SRX 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Crap!, you beat me too it. I was going to try and do that to TNA list. I think we should at least give it a try.--WillC 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a reasonable goal. Gary King (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well Gary, you are one of the experts at FLC, any suggestions (from anybody) on what info to include?--SRX 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
References, for one thing. Also, make sure that the lead educates readers on what the list is about by giving background information. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I will try to do that in my sandboxSRX 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I expanded WWE No Way Out and nominated it for FLC, to see how the review goes, if it fails, at least we will know what to do to improve it.SRX 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
SRX, you haven't moved No Way Out (2000) and No Way Out (2001) to their pages [3]. You've lost a lot of vital information. It's best to do it when all articles for a particular PPV have been expanded. D.M.N. (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Done it for you. Needs a big clean-up though. D.M.N. (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think the Notes section shouldn't be there. Especially in these tri-brand days, it is just gonna get huge and look stuffed and ugly. I think it should either contain special notes rather than descriptions of all the main events, or not be there at all. Tony2Times (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. SRX, I feel like you rushed into the FL nomination. FL shouldn't be a way that you can find out the flaws in an article, thats for peer review. FL is when you think the article is ready to pass. If you were looking for "what to do to improve it" you should have went to peer review, and not rushed into FL. Cheers, -- iMatthew T.C. 12:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary King said it was ready and I believe it is, he reviewed it, plus we don't get outside assistance in our PR's, so it's better to get a response from outside users, which can happen on the FLC. Also, DMN told me to follow that formula (taken from WWE One Night Stand): the main events are important because that is what basically headlines a show and which is important to list in the list, the purpose of lists are too list vital information, the length does not matter, look at the List of tallest buildings lists from WP:SKYSCRAPER, they are huge. Anyways, thank you DMN, I knew I forgot to do something.SRX 13:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've raised my issues with the One Night Stand list too, I mean look at it. Do we really need to be told that Cena won by delivering an FU to The Great Khali from a crane, onto the arena floor, defying expectations, lifting a 7 foot man from Punjab &c &c ad nauseum. Couldn't we just say Cena faced Khali for the Championship. Or Cena faced Khali in a rematch from Judgement Day. Similarly, for NWO 08 wouldn't it be more succinct to note "Two Elimination Chambers headlined this event, one for Raw and one for SmackDown/ECW, with the winners of both going on to headline WrestleMania XXIV. If people want to know results and details, they can look at the article. Tony2Times (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I took your ideas into consideration and I removed the details from the box, I only listed the main-events, thus being a list.SRX 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that looks much more presentable. Tony2Times (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep.--SRX 14:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Draft articles

Anybody up to nominating 2008 WWE Draft for FL, it is written better than the other draft articles and meets the FL criteria.--SRX 14:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was planning on doing it within this week. Let me clean it up and make sure all is ok, and I'll nominate it. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, me and you wrote it right? (Cant remember)--SRX 14:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok. You should ask Nikki to copyedit it.SRX 14:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of No Way Out, is there any credence to the title being a sly jab at nWo? I suppose it could never be proved but I wondered if it worth mentioning. Tony2Times (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research. Nope, shouldn't be mentioned. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I need some help..

I expanded Armageddon 2006 in my sandbox yesterday, so that I can move it into the article space, and nominate a fact from the article for DYK?. But I'm having trouble thinking of a fact from the article to nominate for DYK. Can anybody think of anything? -- iMatthew T.C. 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well nothing to notable occurred in that event. DYK's have to be something that stands out and is out of the ordinary, the only thing I see is the ticket sales/gross. This is IMO.--SRX 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I was reading somewhere, that this event featured the return of the Inferno match after 7 1/2 years of inactivity. That good? -- iMatthew T.C. 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

That is notable, lets see if the DYK directors see it as that too. Try to set up to make it seem out of the ordinary and grab people's attention.--SRX 13:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK?

This project has two three current DYK's on the talk page for the Did you know template. See here for both nominations. -- iMatthew T.C. 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics

I don't know why we never thought of nominating List of current WWE champions for Featured Topic, and nominated the other list of set of champions to go along with it.--SRX 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

So is nobody against me nominating it for FT? --SRX
It already is a FT: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions. Nikki311 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well don't I feel smart. ;)--SRX 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
How about PPV articles, like lets say WWE No Way Out and then GA's and B articles of NWO?

--SRX 18:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The individual NWO articles would all have to be GAs with a couple of them being FAs. Featured Topics are hard to do, but I'm not against anyone trying. Nikki311 19:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE Diva Articles

Speaking of Featured Topics, with all of the Diva articles Nikki has gotten to GA, we could definitely make a Featured Topic out of WWE Diva. Thoughts? -- iMatthew T.C. 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Several of them would have to be FAs first, but a FT was my ultimate goal. Nikki311 17:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That should be no problem. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Victory Road (2008)

Victory Road (2008) is going on right now. There is alot of IPs on there writing in links and changing stuff. I've tried to fix it back. Everything is in a table right now. If no one minds. Just keep I eye on it because it seem I'm the only one watching it since my name is the only user name in the history section.--WillC 01:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Added to watchlist. --UnquestionableTruth-- 02:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it really a Background?

I would like to request that we change the rule where only 3 or 4 matches are talked about in the background on PPV articles. The article is suppose to be about the entire event and not the three main matches. Lets say Night of Champions. The entire event was about every title being on the line but we only spoke of the 3 world title matches. That isn't a accurate article if it is only about the three main matches. We want all articles to be accurate well we haven't made a single article accurate in this case because we're stating that the other matches meant nothing. I feel we should include the background story for every match that has a background story besides fillers. Like in Lockdown (2008), we should mention everything besides the Cuffed in the Cage and the Queen of the Cage matches. Not sure where to mention this so I said it here.--WillC 04:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you are going with this, but what is hyped in a PPV event? The main matches. What is hyped in a boxing event? The main event. Why, because the lower card matches are not as notable as the main matches, and the dont build up to the event. Citing here, the lower card matches in the BG would seem redundant to add due to being non notable. --SRX 04:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

How can they not be notable? If the storylines aren't notable then why are the matches even in the article. If the storyline isn't notable surrounding the matches then the results of the lower card matches shouldn't even be placed in there. It should just be the Background, event, and aftermath of those three matches. How can the out come of the lower card matches be notable in the event and results sections but not in the background?--WillC 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Another reason, is because they dont have that much promotion and a good length prose cant be written like the main matches, another reason is that an articles will be too large in size. (which is a restraint all Wikipedians have to follow), also the FA, December to Dismember (2006) is written in that way, as well as other many GA's.SRX 05:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel differently. Because if you try a good length section can be written to each of these small matches. I did with Lockdown. All I said was the main matches. In Night of Champions the feud for the World Tag and possibly the Women's and US title should be written. Matches that got focused on enough should be added. Like with GAB, JBL vs Cena and Y2J vs HBK is notable in my mind.--WillC 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I always discuss the background to all of the matches when I expand an article. I'm not sure of a rule that requires editors to do otherwise, but I don't see what the point of limiting the breadth of the article would be. There has always been sufficient information available, so I'm not sure why it would be hard to find enough to describe it in a decent amount of detail (perhaps WWE doesn't build up the undercard matches like they used to, so this might have changed for more recent events). I've never been told that the articles are too long, and all six of them have passed their GA reviews. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Style guide it says that it should be 3 to 4 matches because any more it would be unlikely to reach GA or FA. Which I found false because without the matches it seems that it wouldn't get to GA or FA because it isn't complete. It also says that you can place more than 3 to 4 matches. They should be able to get to GA or FA either way. I think we should change the policy. To unlimited amount of matches added.--WillC 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's been proven not to be the case. For example, SummerSlam (1994) (31,600 bytes) describes the background to all seven matches and it has reached GA status. From the top of the list at WP:PW/PPV, Backlash (2006) (28,400) describes the background of two matches and has reached GA status. The difference in length is actually very minor, and it hasn't been an issue at WP:GAN. I suppose that it comes down to the personal preference of the editor expanding the article. Of course, there are times when information about a match just isn't available (for example, there was literally no background for the match between Leilani Kai and Alundra Blayze at WrestleMania X, so I left it out of that section). GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Correct. It also depends on the sort of PPV it is, for instance it would be justified to have backgrounds for most of the matches at WrestleMania as there would be enough detail, but for a PPV like December to Dismember, there was only proper build-up for two contests. D.M.N. (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Basically, you are not limited, you should just have at least 2-4 feuds outlined in the background, if there isn't enough detail to add to each background for each event, you shouldn't add it, but again, you aren't limited. It was just a basic idea on how much you should at least have.SRX 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I just feel we should add every match that we can because the article is supposed to be about the entire event and we aren't talking about the entire event. Now if you can't get no info or there just wasn't any build to a match then leave it out. I just say we should write more than 3 matches in the background.--WillC 21:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a "at least" situation then that should be noted, I think some people think that it means exclusively three or four feuds because I wrote a background for a Divas match (Phoenix/Melina at ONS I believe) and it was deleted without any reason. If there is a reason that two people are feuding then it should be noted, we can't exclude just because they aren't at the top of the card. Tony2Times (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Impact! vs. iMPACT!

I was looking at articles for TNA last night and noticed that a lot of the articles have it styleized as iMPACT. Our style guide says it should be Impact. Shouldn't this be changed 1362talk 14:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of MOS are you thinking of, iPod is styled so and referred to as in all articles. The article title will have to be Impact, but all other mentions should use the correct title. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I recall there was a huge edit war over this last year. See this for more discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I might have read over it to fast but to me it didn't seem like there was a consensus. 1362talk 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well "iMPACT!" is the official typeset. "Impact!" is how we're suppose to write it. Lets just keep it "Impact!".--WillC 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that the iPod exception mentioned earlier does not apply here. That is an exception because of this part of the MOSTM. Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules: Simply put this exception does not appply on two counts. First, have PACT all in caps does not otherwise follow normal capitalisation rules and secondily, to the best of my knowledge the word is not pronounced I Pact as it would need to be for this exception to apply. --76.71.209.138 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Buyrate?

I know there was some disagreement in the past about this (although a load of you guys probably weren't around then), I think we should have the buyrate in the infobox. It is widely available for most of the WWE PPV's and I think it should be inserted as it is a key piece of information to whether a PPV has succeeded or not. D.M.N. (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to suggest that yesterday, but I support it to be added, as Pro Wrestling History.com gives buyrates. Like it is used in the articles I expanded, like Backlash (2003) and SummerSlam (2003).--SRX 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea but I don't think it should be added in the info box because it would be hard to get all of the buyrates for all the ppvs. I can't even get how much money TNA made from a ppv they did 2 years ago from Prowrestling history.--WillC 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why it will be an optional parameter in the template.--SRX 17:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, whatever.--WillC 17:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've supported the idea for a long time but it was previously rejected so we should maybe take a while before adding it, to see what the consensus is. My only concern is ProWrestling's source? Is it from WWE and if so, can we guarantee the E don't cook their numbers? Tony2Times (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE have never made up buyrates AFAIK, it's factual information and they release it to the media. I strongly doubt a PPV buyrate can get made up. I can even find buyrates for 1995 PPV events, and all go with the same number. If two different sources use 2 different figures, that's where the problem arises. It's best to cross-check with other sources to be on the safe side. D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think they'd make them up, but they could be massaged ie rounded up to the nearest thousand/ten thousand (I have no idea how many people buy PPVs 'cause we don't have the info here) and they might make approximate guesses, which are more liberal than conservative, on international buys. Tony2Times (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I always supported it. If it is any help I have PowerSlams going back to May 1999, and every few issues they list buy rates. If there is a problem then leave them off but for big events (like WM) the E release the number to the press, so they should be easy to find. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

PWI singles and tag?

Quick question. If a wrestler is ranked both as a singles wrestler in any given year and as a tag team wrestler in PWI's top 500 tag team list, are both listed, or is only the highest ranking notable enough to include? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think both, as they are different. Nikki311 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
That was my assumption, but I wanted to check. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Another move problem

World Heavyweight Championship moved to World heavyweight wrestling championship w/o consensus. Not a big problem, but the article name shouldn't have all those lowercase words, right? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so, it's a proper noun and title, thus all capitalised surely. Tony2Times (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs to get moved back by one of our two admins. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that page has been turned into a disambiguation page, so I think a discussion needs to happen on the talk page (including the mover) before it gets moved back. Nikki311 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Ok one, I propose we move World heavyweight wrestling championship to World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship, World Heavyweight Professional Wrestling Championship or World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling). Two, World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) already exists but in a list that I see as redundant. Why does that list even exist it just shows title reigns listed in other title reigns lists, consensus?--SRX 03:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A move to World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship would be the best option, in my opinion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say World Heavyweight Champion (Professional Wrestling), and move the page that's currently there to List of.... Tony2Times (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is grammatically correct

I'm having a dispute with an IP at New Year's Revolution (2007) over whether "the" should be placed before Kemper Arena, see IP's revert. Which one is correct:

at the Kemper Arena....

Or

at Kemper Arena....

I think the first version is correct, but the IP seems to disagree. I'm directing the IP to this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The first version is correct, as that is how Over the Edge (1999) reads it as well, at the Kemper Arena.--SRX 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The first one is correct. I had this exact same problem on the History of World Wrestling Entertainment article. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 22:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The second is correct because the title of the building is Kemper Arena. If Arena wasn't part of the title, (such as when people refer to The O2 arena, arena not being part of the title) then it would have a The but because it's officially called Arena, it has no 'the' as in "Led Zeppelin played at Wembley Arena." Tony2Times (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, The article "the" before a noun generally indicates one specific

instance of the object named.--SRX 14:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jack Korpela (New)

User:Muhand has created an article of Jack Korpela exactly like the last one (must of copied and pasted it) here's the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Korpela (2nd nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adster95 (talkcontribs) 10:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryme Tyme Cenation -- iMatthew T.C. 10:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Template regarding Table Format?

Hey all,

I've been watching a few of the PPV pages. I've noticed that there have been a few redundant posts lately regarding the table format, which always ends up with referring someone to discuss the table format here. If I recall correctly, there were quite a few posts on the same topic in Night of Champions. Would it be beneficial at all to create a template for the talk page headers directing someone to talk about the tables here, rather than on a talkpage for a specific article?  Hazardous Matt  16:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need a template at the top of every PPV talkpage for that. At the end of the day, some people will like it, some will dislike it. If they start to change it back to the old format, that's where the problems will begin. Not needed IMO unless people start reverting back to the old version (which I've only seen occur once or twice so far, and that was a week or so ago just as it was getting implemented). D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Style guide updates

Due to recent discussions, I have updated WP:PW/MOS. The difference can be found at [4]. If there are any concerns, discuss here, contact me on my talk page or be bold and change it back. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt Sydal

A user has twice moved this page to his real name which is against previous consensus and WP:COMMONNAME. I have moved the page back both times and explained why on his talk page. No dice. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels..... FA?

Alright, after going through the past "FA", I think the issues have been resolved. Now, my question to you guys, is the article FA material? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me Gary King (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is ready, not to many comments were given last time, 7 months into the future, more FA reviewers are out there.--SRX 01:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I see some problems:
  1. Still pretty long.
  2. The Montreal Screwjob and MSG pics need specific fair-use rationales for this article.
  3. I think some of the jargon can be explained better.
  4. The Other Arena, Online World of Wrestling, and PWWEW are going to fail the "reliable source" criteria.
It is closer, though. Nikki311 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)'
Second question: In what area is the article long? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing. I think it can be trimmed down more. Summary style. Nikki311 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess it could work like that. There are short feuds in the article, maybe if their removed..... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
(RE to Nikki) I believe that PWWEW would actually be reliable. Because PWTorch articles are written by established writers. PWWEW just copies off of them. If PWTorch can be said to be reliable (if we can prove that) then PWWEW would technically be too.--WillC 02:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to prove it reliable...go for it. We need all the sources we can get. Nikki311 02:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it was questioned at Triple H's FA and I think replacing the refs. would just be the way to go. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Seeing the recent edits, I have to ask: Can we not still link "crowd favorite" and "villian" to the face and heel articles respectively? Or would that violate WP:EGG? If we to change that wording in all articles, the face and heel articles would essentially become orphaned... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe once...the very first time it is mentioned. Nikki311 04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone with a photo editing software upload the newer version of the FCW logo found at their website, here.--SRX 16:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this ok Image:Fcw.JPG Adster95 (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs a fair-use rationale and needs to be added to the article, or it will get tagged for deletion. Nikki311 21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Note quite, remove the background features, logos should be on a basic color background. Which is why I asked if someone had the editing software to remove the background.--SRX 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do now that I'm not blocked anymore. I've added a fair-use rationale to it and added it to the article. I'll see if I can remove the back ground features.--WillC 07:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind but I've had a bit of a play around and removed the background--Apsouthern (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That looks great! Thank You very much. --SRX 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem, let me know if there is anything else like that you need and I'll be more than happy to have a go--Apsouthern (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ANC attention

I know this is another page, but seeing how it is a major part of the project as it deals with renaming 2 championships, see here and here.--SRX 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New sources Question

Since TNA, ROH, and WWE all have youtube accounts, I would believe we would be able to use videos they upload for articles right? Am I'm correct? I was wondering because TNA mostly uploads all major announcements from Impact and other stuff on their account and it is from TNA. Would it alright to use their videos as a references or external links?--WillC 00:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos are rarely used as sources, but if it's absolutely necessary to cite an episode, use {{cite video}} to cite the you tube video, as videos are usually linked to external links per WP:YOUTUBE.--SRX 00:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay because it seems alot better than looking up a website to get a article, instead just showing the actual announcement from the actual company.--WillC 00:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)