Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 → Archive 60

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees has been semi-ed indefinitely. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2003) is now...

... a Featured Article! Congratulations, and well done to those that spent hours working on it! Congrats! D.M.N. (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

WOOO! That will show those complainers :)--SRX 00:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's good to see that professional wrestling articles can be considered among Wikipedia's best. I would caution the project, however, about using this against people who want to see the format changed. Since many editors, including WP:PW veterans, are not happy with the new format, there is obviously a need for continued growth. I believe that the format is on the right path, but I hope that suggestions for fine-tuning are not shut down as a result of this FA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback Request

On June 22, I added the Hornswoggle (then named Dylan Postl} article to the "Feedback requests" section on the WP:PW page. I've not received and feedback since it's been up there in June. Is anybody willing to review the article, or at least give some feedback?

I don't think the feedback request section is doing any good...anyone else agree? -- iMatthew T.C. 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it redundant since that is what peer review is mainly for.--SRX 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That's true. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I say just remove that section and merge it with PR. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a little unfair. I copyedited the article after I noticed it on the feedback request list. Nikki311 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's unfortunately how it is. Same goes for COTW. Six or seven people !vote on one particular article, then only one or two people actually work on it. If you are actually going to !vote in a COTW, it surely means that you plan to work on it yourself, right? Or am I missing something? D.M.N. (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Nikki, my apologies, I never noticed you copyedited it. Sorry about that! But if someone else were to give feedback, it'd be great. I plan on withdrawing my !votes at the COTW right now, as I don't plan on working of either of those articles. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

IWGP Tag Team Championship

Okay...as some of you know, this list was recently put up for FLRC. Earlier today, the discussion was closed, citing that "No attempt appears to have been made to find more reliable sources than http://puroresufan.com/index.php (Strong Style Spirit)." When in fact, New Japan Pro Wrestling's official site is cited as a source, and nobody seems to have contested its reliability outside of the fact that it's in Japanese, which to me is unimportant. I think this discussion was closed prematurely, and for bad reason. So what can I do here? If it takes removing Strong Style Spirit as a source altogether (even though it itself cites New Japan's official site as a source, so I personally think it's reliable), focusing more on NJPW.co.jp and renominating it I will. --MarcK 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You can contact the user who closed the discussion. Nikki311 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finlay and Hornswoggle

Wizardman closed this debate on August 13 stating the result was "Delete". However, there were insufficient opinions, plus, an unanswered question from iMatthew (someone who coincidentally was on the "keep" side. I'm going to check in other AfD's and see if unreasonable, ridiculous, and immature actions like closing an unsolved debate are happening in other discussions. Feedback ☎ 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman is a great editor. The personal attacks added nothing to your post. If you have a problem with a deletion, go to follow the instructions at Deletion review: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". Please note the word "courteously". GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, point out the personal attack, because I never insulted Wizardman, nor questioned his editing skills. But yes, it was obviously erroneous to close a conversation and make up the consensus. (See WP:CONSENSUS) Feedback ☎ 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"unreasonable, ridiculous, and immature" Sincerely, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

More wrestling slang to cut?

In addition to the terms I mentioned in a previous discussion, I would recommend that we trim the following from List of professional wrestling slang: blow up, bomb scare, double juice, gimmicked, go through, going bush, hard flop, hard way, hood, hope spot, international object (which is interesting, but it probably better added to the "foreign object" definition, as it doesn't warrant its own), lead ass, light, loose, marriage, money mark, Muta scale (again, interesting, but unsourced and probably not sufficiently notable for its own entry), office, policeman, politician, post, pull-apart brawl ("brawl", which isn't slang, implies exactly the same thing), red means green, repackage, rub, save (self-explanatory), schmoz, shine, showing light, spud, strap, stretch, and vocal selling. The vast majority of these terms (if not all of them) will never be used in a Wikipedia article. Some might appear on message boards, but it is hardly the place of an encyclopedia to serve as a translator for message boards. If anyone has a problem with any of these, though, please identify the term(s) that should stay and give an explanation. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of any of those terms. Remove them since I've never heard JR, the king of slang terms, even use one of those. They seem like stuff ips have added.--WillC 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of those terms are from 60s/70s/80s wrestling insider jargon. If you watch shoot tapes or even Bret Hart's Wrestling with Shadows, you'll hear the old timers use a lot of those terms. But I agree with Coleman, they're not notable enough to be listed on the page.--Endlessdan 12:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- iMatthew T.C. 10:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ECW Vandalism

Extreme Championship Wrestling has been receiving some vandalism I've noticed, such as changing the link from Sabu (wrestler) to Footy (wrestler), changing Tod Gordon's name to Silly Billy, and renaming Eddie Gilbert to Vickie Gilbert. Just pointing out for you guys to keep an eye on. Kris (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

John Morrison and The Miz

Should this article not be at John Morrison and The Miz, with the "and" spelled out? Like Jesse and Festus for example. Could an admin move it please? I wasn't able to. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be at and, not &. I think there's something in the MOS about the use of & in article titles. D.M.N. (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I moved it. Nikki311 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reputable website?

http://www.otherarena.com/htm/cgi-bin/tocpage.cgi?history This website seems to have a weekly coverage of the majority of WWF and WCW programming up to 2001 with some ECW as well and the first year of TNA, I think the AJPW and NJPW are stubs though. Anyway, it's not the most formal of websites but they seem to give a minute by minute commentary on episodes and I was wondering if it's a safe website to cite from in terms of GAs and FAs? It has more detailed coverage of pre-mass internet era than any website I've come across so maybe it'll be useful for pages that really don't have any other online sources. Tony2Times (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The website can work for GA's, but not for FA's. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

Chris Jericho's page should be updated and should have a more recent recent photo of him with his new attire, Also his character changed from a comic heel to a more dramatic and concentrated heel. Also we should have more information about Lance Cade as his protege and his current feud with Shawn Michaels. Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to attend a WWE event, take a picture, and upload it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the Jericho page yesterday but im gonna try to find a photo of him.Brothers of destruction (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember that it must be a picture that explicitly states that the copyright holder has released it for free use throughout the world. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but please don't take off the updates that I did on the Chris Jericho pageBrothers of destruction (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Members list and newsletter delivery

I made a copy of the member's list, here. I've removed any user on that list that has been inactive since 2007, and moved them into a list, here. If I move the members list, currently in my subpage to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list and the inactive list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Inactive, it would do three things.

  • Keep an updated members list
  • It would be less work for Miszabot when it delivers the newsletter.
  • Avoid abandoned user talk pages from being cluttered with our project newsletter.

Would anybody oppose this? -- iMatthew T.C. 11:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I would not. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User: PCE

He refuses to stop putting incorrect information in articles and leaving things he has no knowledge on alone. Specifically, he incorrectly states people did moves specifically as certain characters, incorrectly lists whether or not things were ever finishers, ect. It's getting tiring having to monitor all of his edits myself. Can't someone do something? Oh, and he also removes any criticism, ect that it put on his talk page. He's a troll who knows he's putting incorrect info. He's never changed. This is the same guy who put all those fake move names. Maxwell7985 (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Report him to ANI. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI? Maxwell7985 (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
ANI. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More user fun

Special:Contributions/Darkside05 - This user has changed a fair amount of articles from before WWE's name change so that they also read WWE/World Wrestling Entertainment &c throughout the whole article. I've left a message on his talk page explaining we set things in context but judging by the amount of warnings he's had about uploading dubious images I don't think he pays much attention to it so might be worth keeping an eye out. Tony2Times (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Stub article update

Since the project began to focus on expanding stub-class articles in December, the number has dropped from 777 to 612. At the same time, the number of total articles in this project has increased by almost 500. Stub articles used to account for one-quarter of our total articles, and that amount has now dropped to 16.5%. I want to thank everyone who has been helping, as I believe this drive has helped improve the image of the project.

With that said, the (unstated) goal of the expansion drive has been to get the number of stubs below 600. It's getting very close, and any help would be appreciated. A list of some of the articles that may be easiest to expand is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs, or you can check out the total list at Category:Stub-Class Professional wrestling articles. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Need eyes on several pages

Can you guys keep an extra eye on Jason Reso, Dudley Boyz (inc. Mark LoMonaco and Devon Hughes), and Kevin Nash as The Wrestling Observer has recently said that all their contracts expire soon. One website has already got a report up saying that Reso could return to WWE. I'm expecting IP's to go crazy with these rumours on all the articles, so revert on sight as normal. Also, Adam Birch reportedly announced at a indy-show on Saturday he's coming back to WWE, but not *officially* confirmed by the 'E, so revert on sight again if without a reliable source. D.M.N. (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All on my watchlist already, I'll be on the lookout. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As well as mine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Padillo

This user has uploaded several questionable pictures. He is claiming his pictures are his own, but he has cropped other pics that did not belong to him and claimed them as his own. The main article John Cena pic is what raised my eyebrow. He is claiming he took the pic at a concert (a little vague - it's from that VH1 Hip Hop Honors show), but the pic has a WWE microphone at the bottom. I have a feeling its another pic he stole and cropped. Can someone look into this? --Endless Dan 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some look fine, but some are questionable, like the Cena one you point out. I'd be tempted to take this to WP:ANI. D.M.N. (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DMN, some look fine others are questionable, either he is a good photoshopper or he just stole them.--SRX 15:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
They look like pics he may have taken from wrestler MySpaces so they would seem fine. I could be wrong, but given that some of the pics are obviously stolen or cropped, I think every thing should be examined closely. --Endless Dan 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I stumbled across Image:DaveyBoySmith012.jpg when I was writing the article for SummerSlam 1992, but I figured the picture was a little too perfect to be legitimate. It would be a great picture to include if it was really free use, but I'm fairly certain it's copyrighted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad this was brought up, too. He uploaded Image:Ashleylondon.jpg to Ashley Massaro and Paul London's articles awhile ago. I thought I had seen it before on Massaro's MySpace, but since I don't frequent it all too often I couldn't be sure, and when I looked for it there...I couldn't find it. I think it should be taken to ANI...as I'm not 100% sure how to deal with this (delete the pics + slap on the wrist?). Does anyone have any more proof or have they seen any of the pics anywhere before? The more evidence the better. Nikki311 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Add: Image:Tagchampslondrick.jpg can be found on the net --> [1] and [2]. It is plausible that these sites borrowed the pic from Wikipedia, but that usually isn't the case. Nikki311 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Image:Mercuryandnitro.jpg. Recently uploaded to MNM, Adam Birch and John Hennigan. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
And this: Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that image from a news article on the wedding it self. He definitely does not own that image. –– Lid(Talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not only wrestling related, the user has uploaded a tonne of images under self-owned licenses that are blatantly false i.e. Image:Promise spoken.jpg, [3], [4] etc. There's more than enough here to warrant a pretty much outright scrapping of all his images as they are likely to all be copyrighted, bring it to an image admin's attention. –– Lid(Talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Soooo... what course of action will be taken? I think this user shouldn't be given the benefit of doubt and all his pics should be deleted. --Endless Dan 01:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the process and we'll see what it results in, but it's looking like if he uploads another one he's getting indefblocked. I also tracked down where I had seen Image:Wwfedge&christian.jpg before - on this article here. –– Lid(Talk) 13:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

We've got another editor doing the same thing. For some reason, articles on Mexican wrestling seem to attract this sort of thing (a few months back, I had to tag about 20 pictures for deletion). That is, of course, unless this editor is an amazing photographer (see here for an example of the type of picture to which he claims to own the copyright). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've also got my doubts about the infobox image for Sting (wrestler). It's not often that a fan just happens to get a professional-quality posed shot of a wrestler standing in front of a perfectly white background. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone check Image:Ronsimmonscrop.JPG to see if it shows up anywhere else online? –– Lid(Talk) 07:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


  • You must find out the original source of the images. Without the origins, it is impossible to state them as "copyrighted". Feedback ☎ 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Look familiar? I don't even get why this guy gets the benefit of the doubt. --Endless Dan 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone please speedy request this. I don't mess around with pics and tagging. --Endless Dan 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: He's been indef blocked. --Endless Dan 03:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New user to take a look at Dj master2 (talk · contribs). The images uploaded have a flair of... not being theirs. –– Lid(Talk) 07:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Warned by Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs) here. D.M.N. (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

More Fun with Stolen Pics

In wrestling and Championships and accomplishments - revived from archive

Does anyone one else feel that these sections are meant for quick reference and thus should not be subjected to WP:OVERLINK much like PPV result tables? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Nikki311 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Now for the real question. Is it possible to make an exception for that and still comply with WP:MOS and all other guidelines? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope I read that right...are you asking that if we still link the "in wrestling", are we still complying with MoS and the guidelines? I think so...as mentioned before, reference lists (filmography, discography, results tables, awards) tend to be the special exception. I don't know of a policy that says otherwise. Nikki311 00:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In other words, moves are linked even if they appear elsewhere in the article, same with managers. For the C&A section, titles and tag partners are linked regardless of the rest of the article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Any other opinions on this? Shawn Michaels article is less helpful without those name linked, IMO. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we'd lose anything in terms of context if we removed the links from the Championships and accomplishments section the same goes for the "Managers" section - however the links should only be removed if sufficiently explained in the prose. D.M.N. (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The sections are meant for quick reference. Without links, they are useless altogether. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I second Gavyn, they need links to help with context of them as they are bullet points, something to scan quickly when in need of factoids not prose. I think if anything needs addressing in the C&A section it should be a seperation between promotional titles and media awards. I think it looks sloppy to break up a list of championship belts won with awards from magazines, I'd much rather they were seperated so that championships come first by alphabetical order of company, then awards second, by alphabetical order of magazine. Tony2Times (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Just on HBK's page Royal Rumble is linked twice (I suspect other pages will do the same) and all the WON awards link to WON, do we need six links to the same page? Darrenhusted (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
They should link to the subsections of said article about each award. If they don't, they links should be fixed accordingly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Right, the WON links do, but the Royal Rumbles don't. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well, for those that won more than one Rumble, I feel they should be listed on the same line, like this:
Royal Rumble winner (2007, 2008)

Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like to get this resolved. Any other opinions? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with you for things like Rumble/KoTR/MiTB/TNA triple crown. Tony2Times (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
What about trying to format it like the other championships, as in:
This seems like the best way to stay consistent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maryse Ouellet - repeated vandalism

Multiple people keep putting false theme song titles on there (crap like "Oui Oui"), and I have to keep removing it myself. Something needs to be done. It's my opinion that theme song listings don't have a place at all, because they just make dumb kids who think they're clever add their B.S. titles. Not to mention people don't know what they're talking about, and don't know what a production theme actually is. 69.23.214.90 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If they keep adding it and you keep reverting then they make breach 3RR, if it continues go to RfPP. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition, a user that has been attempting to fix the vandalism is changing all moves to have words capitalized which is an obvious MOS violation. I've left a note on his talk page, I believe any further edits in that regard should be treated as vandalism. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Killer Kowalski

Need eyes on for any potentional vandals. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PPV results

When we changed from the bullet points to the new table, a lot of people moaned that you don't know how the match was won because the write ups of the events don't go up for a few days, sometimes even a few weeks. I was just wondering if we could answer these critics by having, purely as a stopgap measure until the event section is fully fleshed out, the sentences that were present with the bullet points before. So, say the day after SummerSlam aired, someone edits the Events section to read "MVP pinned Jeff Hardy after a kick to the head. Beth Phoenix pinned Mickie James after a Glam Slam" &c down the rest of the card. Of course, the horse may have already bolted on this one. Tony2Times (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with that. Nikki311 22:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Though I still think we should re-add the finishing move to the table. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gavyn on the finishing move, and with TOny on getting the table up and running before the event section. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Can anybody verify why this is a reliable source? -- iMatthew T.C. 21:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What?--WillC 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha, I'm dumb. [5]. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That one hasn't been proven yet, so if anybody thinks they can... Nikki311 22:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps or not, but the TV results are basically taken from WWE.com. Ex: this and this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Plus the Impact results come from PWTorch.--WillC 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Then shouldn't we use WWE.com and PWTorch to cite that info? Why use a site we can't prove 100% reliable, when we can use sites that we have? Nikki311 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh..... it's a good source of TV results for over a decade. Mshake3 (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It says on the Style Guide part of this project that four websites (411, WIA, OWW and History of) are not yet verified and are being discussed as to whether or not they're reliable. It seems to have been that way for as long as I can remember. Where is this supposed discussion happening? Why isn't OWW a reliable website, it seems professional, historic and quite all-encompassing, not just covering big American promotions but smaller ones too. Shouldn't we finally settle what is reliable and what isn't, now that we're having this big push towards more FAs and GAs? Tony2Times (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
They have to show evidence of fact checking...that's how you can prove it 100%. Nikki311 18:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. So given that criteria shouldn't it be possible to discern which of the 'not verified' websites are acceptable and which aren't rather than leaving them in limbo for months? Tony2Times (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I can recall someone linking to a page that proved 411Mania reliable by Ealdgyth's standards. If I have time, I may try to locate it later. When citing, I generally use OWOW and WIA as "last resorts" mostly the former for move lists and the latter for PWI rankings. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Future class

We've had this discussion before, no consensus. Can we incorporate Future class into our assessments? -- iMatthew T.C. 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've never been particularly thrilled about the idea. However, I've recently changed my mind. Trying to reduce the number of stub articles is like banging my head against a wall as long as new stubs are created for pay-per-views that won't take place for eight or nine months. I'd love a way to separate these from the other stub-class articles (although my preference is to avoid creating articles when nothing has been announced but a date and/or location). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I feel the exact same way. What made me think about this was looking through the stub-articles category and seeing all of these stub class, future ppv's. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that if we add the future class, 9 PPV's and 1 video game (SvR 2009) will be removed as stub classes and will be future classes. That will bring that stub class count to 602, TWO AWAY FROM OUR GOAL. ;) -- iMatthew T.C. 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SVR 2009 is not a stub, its a start class.--SRX 23:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Bitchin'. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been indifferent to this idea in the past and never incorporated it in because I wasn't sure how to change the template to get it to work. I know how to do it now, so I think at the very least, we could do a trial basis. I'm warming to the idea more and more as I type this...it would definitely help with the stub project. Nikki311 23:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I give my support to do this. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about adding the future class for a month now and never decided to make a section about it. I believe we should add this class to the project. Not only will it lesser the stubs, but it will be easier for new editors to class an article.--WillC 01:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WillC. Thanks,Genius101 Wizard (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has obviously been reached. I tried to add it, but I can't figure it out. Nikki, you said you know how, can you do it? -- iMatthew T.C. 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've completed it and added the new assessment. If I did it wrong, feel free to correct me.--SRX 15:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You've done it right, SRX..thanks! -- iMatthew T.C. 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

<600 STUBS!

The project now has less than 600 stub articles, our goal! -- iMatthew T.C. 15:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: The article stats table on the front page will never pick up Future-Class articles, they will only get picked up when the class is changed to something it recognizes. The reason it is not there is because it is not part of {{Cat class}}. This may sound stupid, but Future-Class will never be on the table - it's like that for every project. I brought this up a while back here, but the class was deemed as pointless, not in a sense that there should be no such thing, but that articles would get added and removed ever so often. Not a thing to worry about, but Future won't get picked up user:WP 1.0 bot and as a result the table on the frontpage won't pick it up. D.M.N. (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that too. Another problem we face that I just noticed is that on the {{pro-wrestling}} when an article is rated, and if you click on the assessment (like "Start") it redirects to Category:Start-Class articles versus redirecting to Category:Start-Class Professional wrestling articles. I tried to fix it, but it didn't work, anyone else want to give it a shot?--SRX 16:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That's impossible - it's the way all of the templates on Wiki work. Take for instance the templates on Talk:Michael Schumacher, Talk:Jermain Defoe and Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, they all work in the same way I'm afraid. The only template I've seen it where it can be done is {{ChicagoWikiProject}}, however the set-up is completely different there compared to ours, so I'm not risking messing up the template. D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, {{WikiProject Video games}}, {{Television}}, {{Film}}, among others, but like you said they have different template set ups. I tried to follow their format but it didn't work..SRX 16:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Quite frankly the set-ups they use are very confusing to say the least... D.M.N. (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
True, one of these days we will fix it I guess.SRX 16:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's up for making it 500? *crickets chirp* PXK T /C 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm not needed, but yes 500 should be our goal from now on.SRX 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
500 would be great. The big problem is that the stub expansion started off really well and then ran out of steam. A lot of the easier ones got done, which left a ton of obscure wrestlers. Up until a couple of weeks ago, the expansion drive was pretty much at a standstill. I think it's worthwhile, so I'd like to see it kept going. Incidentally, if anyone is up for tackling the wrestling video game and/or wrestling album stubs, that would be a great help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Idea

COTW is going nowhere, it seems. I say, we combine the COTW and Stub expansion project. Then the COTW will be expanding stubs, instead of trying to get GA and FA's, which hasn't happened at all from COTW. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea, but on thing, the main reason some of our things are going nowhere is because the project has lost it's life, many members are not active anymore. Look at the members page, over 100 members, and only less than 50 active. I feel that its unnecessary to have the members page if they aren't active..Another thing, I just noticed this but on our Assessment page, there is a request for assessment, like wtf? Only one request ever, not needed.--SRX 17:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the entire section. Since the big storm with the PPV OOU, it seems like this project has lost it's steam IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We've lost a lot of active members, who have gone off to different things. ThinkBlue has been reviewing GA's and is doing great over there. Zenlax disappeared, TJ Spyke is editing on a day-to-day basis, and Hybrid and Chronic have been inactive on-and-off. For the most part, I'd say that this project is being held together by about 10-12 editors. -- iMatthew T.C. 17:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Very true, I am also at time active here as well as I like to work at WP:FLC and WP:AFD, but I will try to help out the project as much as I can. Anyone up for the merger of WP:SPORTS and WP:PW? :pSRX 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
To do with the COTW, partially the reason I'm not !voting for articles is because I'm not going to work on them. What is the point of a process if there is no success result at the end of it? If you !vote for someone or something, you want that thing to be chosen as a whole, yet if that person does not actually work on it, the process will fall down - don't hope the process and the article will build itself. As a project, some members get into little bickerings, little arguments, some members do a lot more work within COTW articles than others, some people have got articles to GA-status involving the project but aren't event noticed. Of course, it's another matter if your doing other work on Wikipedia like I am, at the end of the day the encyclopedia is still getting improved. However, as a project, we need to unite. D.M.N. (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Member recall? -- iMatthew T.C. 17:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would work to well, there are members that aren't very active, but do occasionally pop in and edit. Sometimes (i.e. with TJ) it's due to issues beyond their control). D.M.N. (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, we all know of those users and can add them to the recall as semi-active. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

reopen active members list for a few weeks to tak stock? PXK T /C 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be randomly active and inactive for quite a long time into the forseeable future. once my semester really gets underway, I'll less and less wiki time, with most of my waking hours being spent in class, working or on homework. NiciVampire Heart is also busy, as her user page indicates. And LAX dissapared too, didn't he? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This might be a good time to mention that I might disappear from time to time too, or it might take me awhile to get to any requests on my talk page. School started back and I got a new job (which seems to be the case for a lot of people), so I won't have much Wikipedia/free time. Nikki311 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well since we're doing this, The Chronic has retired from Wikipedia as of August 31, 2008. :(SRX 13:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's time for a new WP:PW

It's pretty obvious that right now, the project is at one of it's lowest points. I think it's time to give the project a "makeover." This would include re-designing the project as a whole, updating and re-writing many of our subpages, creating new and necessary project subpages, and eliminating any subpages not needed.

This project needs a makeover from head to toe. If we say make the project inactive for a full week, while myself and any other volunteers re-make it, we'll come out as a new and improved, much stronger project than what this is now. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda of like when a store gets renovated, it was old and boring, and after the renovation, it attracts more customers and sells more products. After a renovation, our project will attract more users, and make better articles. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is how divided we are. As DMN said somewhere on this page, we need to be more united. I think the best approach is to fix the problems that other users are having with the articles/the project, have a project-wide consensus/compromise, and go from there. Nikki311 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That should be included in a project makeover. I don't think it's just me, but I feel like the project is starting to become boring, and the general feeling around here has become, "Who cares?" We've had a few users leave the project, and who's to blame them, no offense to anybody. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense taken. I agree we've had some big problems lately. I'm not sure how to make researching/writing articles more exciting, though. It's rewarding to complete projects, so maybe we should have some more project-wide goals...like getting down to less than 500 stubs, getting a featured topic, finishing a full set of PPVs, or other things like that. Then we'd have some more focus. IDK...just throwing out some ideas. Nikki311 22:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:PW version of the WikiCup? -- iMatthew T.C. 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That might be interesting. A tournament with points for things like DYK, GA, expanding a stub, adding a reliable source for a sentence with a citation needed tag, etc. That could be fun. We'd have to have someone who ran the tournament and act impartially. All the participants could paste a diff for a completed task and the coordinator could decide whether it qualifies for the points (and keeps track of the points). I think we should leave FA out of it, though, because we don't want to burden them with a whole bunch of wrestling articles, plus I know for a fact that SandyGA hates contests that might compromise FA in anyway. We'd have to get word out (maybe in a newsletter?). Nikki311 22:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I prefer to edit on my own, contests pressure me, but you can call me iHost! -- iMatthew T.C. 23:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea for the future, but not right now...too many problems. Nikki311 23:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe iHost should start working on designing/creating it, and we can begin the contest next Sunday, or the one after that? -- iMatthew T.C. 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(out-dent) Let's see if there is enough interest in it. If we can get about 10 people to do it, it'll be fun. If nobody participates, then what's the point? Also, if it is active for a month or so, then more people might join as the contest continues. It might take more than a week or so to design everything, iron out all the rules, send out a notice to everyone who is a member of the project (plus a week or so for people to sign up before the contest officially starts). We'd also need to agree on tasks and points. Also, I think it should be individual rather than teams like the WikiCup. Nikki311 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The WikiCup isn't teams, btw. I think we should create it before we tell people to sign up for it. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, wikiprojects aren't exactly meant to be exciting and entertaining, they are meant to be the site of productive discussions. I think effort would be better spent improving articles rather than having another long discussion about which colour the main page should be. -- Scorpion0422 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone, 1)I think the project changing it's color would be one thing, its a too depressing color. Another thing is updating our subpages, some of them are out of date, and the style guide also needs cleanup. 2)About the tournament, I don't think it's fun with just 10 active users, right now I don't think its a good idea. 3)I think we should also rewrite the subpages to make them seem less confusing/wordy, a reason why the project doesn't get too much attention. Also redesigning the main page. Another thing is a way to promote the project, I propose an add a while back, User:Oakster said he would do it, but it got nowhere.--SRX 23:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing the color of the project is just a waste of time. Focus on the articles, not very minor things like color. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Not one person can focus on articles 100% of the time, or you get burnt out. This thread is thinking of ways to attract new users to the project, and new, non-depressing colors would help with that. 23:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
True, though I tend to to just not edit when I'm burnt out (or edit less). As for the color, I think we should go back the gold color scheme that we had before. While I'm not too concerned about the project's colors or minor things like that, I do think that Scorpion and Rob need to lighten up a bit. All due respect to both you, you're both fantastic editors. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that this project is still very active by Wikipedia standards. Some editors have come and some have gone; overall, the project has lost more than it has gained. That doesn't mean that the project is on the verge of collapse. A quick look at WP:GAN shows that the project is creating more Good Article nominations than most projects. I think a lot of the problem is that everything gets stale eventually. I agree with Nikki about changing some things up to get the project members working together. One thing that I think could be changed is the Collaboration of the Week. As an editor above noted, with only partial buy-in, there isn't a big payoff at the end of the two weeks. I believe that a better idea would be to have collaborations that last until they reach GA status rather than having it based on time. Perhaps five articles at a time, with various types of articles chosen in an attempt to have something that appeals to everyone (perhaps an old wrestler, a legendary rock & wrestling figure, a current star, a tag team, a stub article, and a pay-per-view). Keep them going until they are ready to be nominated (if things get really stagnant, one can be changed, but keeping them going until there is a payoff would make it seem more worthwhile). GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Great idea! -- iMatthew T.C. 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to that, let's change the pruning process for the collaborations. I find it frustrating that an article with 10 votes gets pruned because it can't get twelve. I don't think we even have twelve people who regularly vote in those things. Nikki311 01:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
How about, say the choices are Jeff Hardy and Matt Hardy for the GA-COTW, neither get pruned, but the one with the most support !votes wins. -- iMatthew T.C. 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GaryColemanFan, on that it's much more rewarding to have the COTW based on an accomplishment. Also, going back to the PW WikiCup idea, I think that that's a great idea! I'd participate, although I'm sure I'll come in last. Finally, I think that a gold colour scheme would look better than our current one. I'm not sure though, because I have no idea what the old gold page looked like. I guess I could look it up, but I'm to lazy to do that. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New Main Page (WP:PW)

Me and IMatthew worked on a new project page, how does it look?--SRX 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Horrible, but that's entirely subjective. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No offense, but I think I actually prefer our current page. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure TBH. D.M.N. (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, no offense (I don't mean to be harsh), but to me it looks like Barney threw up. It is just too colorful, it seems it was meant for a gay pride parade. It would work but just wouldn't look right. The colors that should be stuck to, in my opinion, are Blue, Red, White, and Black, also maybe Green, but they have to be dark, not light.--WillC 08:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I really like how it looks, seems a lot more smart than the current page. I've never been fond of that garish red. Reminds me of the way a lot of websites are going towards at the mo, last.fm, BBC, Facebook &c. Tony2Times (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It's supposed to have the main page type look, which it does. No offense, but a lot of people here don't seem to like change. Sometimes, you need to change, when the original was not working, such as the current main page. Wrestlinglover, if the colors were changed, would it be better? -- iMatthew T.C. 12:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One person at least likes it, but if people oppose it because of the colors, we can always change them, just come with colors and ideas.SRX 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize it's supposed to resemble the main page, which is why I dislike it. I think the main page look works fine for Wiki's main page. But for a wikiproject, not so much. At the least, I'd like it if the sections were not rounded/circular at the edges. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with the layout. I just believe it is too colorful. We are dealing with pro wrestling, the sport in which people walk around acting dead and drunk. Light blue and green don't work with that. The project should resemble what we work on. I just think the colors should be changed, everything else is fine with me.--WillC 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the above

Right, so from the above, the following has been suggested (summary for those that haven't read the entire discussion; I'm only listing down ones with active discussion):

  • WP:PW version of the WikiCup
  • Get stubs down to 500.
  • Refurbish COTW:

I really like the COTW idea, however if someone "votes" for an article, in my view, it means (as I outlined before) that they are fully commited to it. It's a bit like "voting" for something you're not going to work on, or for "voting" for a candidate you are not in favour of. Not sure about the WikiCup idea, having both the WikiCup and COTW might be a bad idea. I myself would prefer the COTW. And of course, Stubs down to 500 I'm all for. D.M.N. (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should add in there one list to the COTW. As for the WikiCup, we should only try that if the COTW idea fails, which it most likely will not. I'm also all for the stub idea. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on re-designing the COTW, here. Help if you can! -- iMatthew T.C. 15:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

New idea

First of all I would like to say that if I can help in any way on geting stubs up to a higher class please ask me on my talk page as I would love to help. Now since the EOTW thing we had a few months flopped I think we should go back to the member's interview thing like we did before, the reason I say this is because we have a=lot of new user's and it would be a really good way to get more user's deeply involved with WP:PW who agree's? SteelersFan94 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want to help with stubs, see the stub expansion page. The member interviews never did anything, they were pointless, and I don't see how they would get more user's "deeply involved with WP:PW." We don't have many new users around, maybe three or four. We're fine without them. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
O.K it was just a suggestion to take a interest in new user's, something I feel we do not do the extent we should. and were fine without them? I though we could ALLWAY'S have more editor's, I mean someone said it above this project only has like twelve really active user's and we ALL know I'm not one of them (yet). SteelersFan94 20:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
We're fine without them (the interviews) not new users. And member interviews about current members will do nothing to attract users to this project. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would help, we get to know everyone a little better and we all become friends and work together more efficiently. Not just looking at each other as accounts that just watch WWE, TNA, and ROH. We learn everyone's strong points and weaknesses. There isn't so much tension anymore around people. As well as people don't act as arrogant when they know the person they are talking too. Wikipedia isn't myspace so we can't get to know each other. These interviews will help us know each other better and work together as a unit. Not looking at a user account and saying their user name, like saying SRX. Instead of going SRX, we can know each other and go "Hey Bill" (I don't know SRX's real name). This will bring us together as a unit, not as an adequateness.--WillC 00:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, before you became a WP:PW member, we conducted member interviews, see here. Steelerfan's idea is to do another round of interviews. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it's a waste of time. If you want to know somebody better look at their userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I was around when that was going on. I joined around Against All Odds 2008. My first edit was on that page. I didn't become a member of this project till two weeks afterwards. IMatthew just because you've been here longer than me don't act higher than thou, if I may say so. I don't feel our problems are not many editors or COTW. It is us. We are acting like all powerful beings. We are short with the IPs and we are short with each other. We need to have unity. Quit looking at other things as the problems, instead look right in the mirror because the project is dieing, technically, because of us. We are too worried about FAs, instead of getting the other pages to a higher class. Have you noticed that ROH has had around 10 ppvs already. They haven't been expanded. They were the cause of alot of the stubs. There are about a billion WWE articles. But the project has forgot about ROH, TNA, CZW, NJPW, AJPW, ECW, WCW, etc. The project is too focused on WWE. They forget about people that aren't a part of the WWE. Look at Chris Harris. He went from TNA, when his article wasn't really focused on, then goes to WWE and gets alot of attention. Then gets fired. No one focuses on it. Christian's article. Rumors show up he might go to WWE it gets focus. Brain Danielson will be the same way if he goes to WWE from ROH. Gail Kim, if the rumors are true, will probably be a GA, if she goes back to WWE, with in a year. If you want to fix something then right there is a problem. Work on the indy wrestler's bio and the small companies ppvs, WWA's first ppv should be a good place to start. I've got TNA covered.--WillC 08:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrestlinglover, you need to cool down. True - I've been here longer than you. False - Does that make me think I'm better than you. I'm telling you how it is, and as D.M.N. said below, member interviews and EOTW will never be back, they stopped us from editing the encyclopedia. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked EOTW and the interview section! It made editing fun! IMO! I like the idea of getting to know each as Wrestlelover said said "These interviews will help us know each other better and work together as a unit. Not looking at a user account and saying their user name, like saying SRX. Instead of going SRX, we can know each other and go "Hey Bill" (I don't know SRX's real name). This will bring us together as a unit, not as an adequateness."Adster95 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell me one other project that has EOTW (excluding GA WikiProject, because that's for a very good purpose) and that has a interview section. None of them do. What could we be doing instead of interviews? Ah, that's right, edit the enyclopedia. How many people actually read other people's interviews? Also, some people have no intention of revealing their real-life name due to circumstances. I think other people's wishes need to be thought through properly here. D.M.N. (talk) 09:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Guy's (Adster and Will) just give it up iMatt and DMN don't want it so since they don't want it were not going to do it I've come to terms with and sooner or later the two of you will to. I though it was a good idea but I guess (I mean I was told) it's not. SteelersFan94 18:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What does everyone think about the new process of ANC?

So I took the time to create templates to make the process more like WP:CHU and WP:RM, how does it look?. Also, it has a backlog that requires attention.--SRX 23:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Let's see if I can clear some out... D.M.N. (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

PPV help

I've been expanding Survivor Series '98 on a private page but I'm really bad at subediting my own work so it'd be helpful if somebody could come and trim down mainly the event section. It takes me ages to find all the wiki links for moves and the like so I'd rather the prose was edited before I found the links, rather than the other way round. I've included all the build up in the background section because personally I think that's how it should be done in all PPV events, but in this one I think it's pertinent because the tournament involves so many people. Help would be appreciated. I'll be writing the aftermath section once I watch enough of the future Raws and PPVs. User:Tony2Times/SurvivorSeries. Tony2Times (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Members list

So I've brought it up earlier...can we cut users from the members list that have been inactive since as late as June this year? They just sit there while there talk pages fill up with newsletter they don't see because they don't log on! -- iMatthew T.C. 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. In fact, remove everyone that hasn't edited since May this year, some people go on long Wikibreaks but do intent to come back. Also, look at their contributions before removing them. D.M.N. (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I coul help reviewing contributions. SteelersFan94 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- iMatthew T.C. 19:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

article

Someone has created the Beer Money inc article again. I'm not sure if it is notable yet. They are the tag team champions and have tagged together since May, but I'm not sure if it should be deleted now or not. It is located here.--WillC 23:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've requested speedy and protection until a consensus is formed above, but I would say no. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well from what you've said above I believe they might fall under that. They won the tag team championship, their reign has been semi important. They have had three chances at the belts. One on impact, one at Victory Road, and one at Hard Justice. They won the titles at Hard Justice. Storm and Roode have actually been tagging together on and off since last year. They first officially teamed together in June. However, they fought Booker T and Sting before Sacrifice on Impact.--WillC 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's long enough. I'd say a couple more months is a fair amount of time. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chronic?

I just received an email saying he retired from Wikipedia. Is this true? I'd post this on his talk page, but if it were true, I would never get an answer... Feedback ☎ 00:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is, see here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It is also true for The Hybrid, for the time being. -- iMatthew T.C. 00:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I don't know Mshake3 that well but I was wondering what everyone thought of this picture: Image:Sharkboylockdown.jpg? Now take a look at this link: here. Their the exact same picture but one is from Shark Boy's official web site. The other says he created it. Unless Shark Boy took the picture from wikipedia I'm not sure what to do.--WillC 05:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith and contact MShake3 directly to ask about it. It's certainly not unheard of for wrestlers to post things that they find on other sites. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering Mshake's great contributions in the past, I couldn't see why he'd start stealing pics now. Only thing that troubles me is that according to this, Shark Boy uploaded this pic (tna3.jpg) on April 13th of 08. Mshake uploaded his pic in July of 08.--Endlessdan 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Mshake uploaded it in July of 07. D.M.N. (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. --Endlessdan 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The webmaster took it from here, simple as that. It happens all the time on fan sites and forums. I've seen my Triple H image posted everywhere. Mshake3 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a ridiculously good picture.Tony2Times (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chronic released

Wikipedia has come to terms on the release of WP:PW Editor The Chronic as of August 31, 2008. Wikipedia wishes Chronic the best in all future endeavors. -- iMatthew T.C. 12:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

XD Tony2Times (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Now it is time for him to show up in TNA. (I'm a TNA mark but I have to be truthful).--WillC 19:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please remove your comment before dirtsheet sites make it the next breaking news, "The Chronic signs a deal with TNA Wrestling." -- iMatthew T.C. 20:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol.--WillC 20:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, alright, settle down, this topic is not too relevant to the project, in all respect to The Chronic.:)--SRX 23:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

Okay, I've been expanding, well, rewriting Slammiversary (2008) in my Sandbox to GA since when I wrote it I didn't know what I was doing. After Slammiversary, someone died by falling off of a scaffold. Does this belong in the event section or Aftermath section. Or perhaps a new section titled pre-Aftermath, or following the event. I'm not sure where this goes. Can I get some opinions on this matter?--WillC 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think it shouldn't go into the event section because that mostly pertains to kayfabe but I suppose the same could be said of the aftermath section. I feel it is more suited to the aftermatch section because it did happen afterwards, when the set was being dismantled, right? Some of the newer style of articles contain a section on production, maybe it would fit in there if you can find the time to create such a section. Tony2Times (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the article on Over the Edge (1999), Owen Hart's death has its own section. I know that this death wasn't nearly as high-profile as Hart's death, but if it can be stretched to a couple of decent-sized paragraphs, that might be the best way to go (as it would take it out of the storyline sections). A production section might also be a good idea, as Tony2Times suggested. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Well if you take a look at the Slammiversary article, in the event section where it is written a good sized paragraph on the death is written. I'm sure more can be wrote to make it more high profiled since two were actually injured. One died and one got his finger ripped off.--WillC 18:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I say just create a section for it near the end. The headings don't have to be identical for each and every PPV article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs)

Article examples

Can the article examples be moved to a sub-page? Nothing to be lost, much to be gained. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Over at the Simpsons project we do have a page devoted to featured content. But, we still list them on the main page, just not in as much detail. Why exactly do you want to move the examples off of the project main page? -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
They make the page design off balance when you click "show". The right column becomes much longer than the left, throwing the page off balance. Plus, the list will only grow from here and make it larger. -- iMatthew T.C. 01:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about putting them in a scrolling box like we do here? -- Scorpion0422 01:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm working on the new page in a subpage on my account. How would you like the page to look? With bullet points or in tables?--WillC 01:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I oppose moving it because the article examples shows the best work of the project on the main project page, which is where is should go to show that the project has featured/good work. That's the reason why the examples are collapsible to not throw the columns off by default, only by manually doing it. But I like Scorpion's idea, a scrollable box will do fine.--SRX 02:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
(E.C.) @Wrestlinglover. Actually, no need. I have the tables covered if it is decided to do so, but thanks anyways. -- iMatthew T.C. 02:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Scrollbox would work just fine, but I think a subpage could be used as well for all featured content. -- iMatthew T.C. 02:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

PPV Template

I'm not sure if anyone noticed but some IP added a Director section in the Template:Infobox Wrestling event. What does everyone think of keeping this in the template, even though I just removed it.--WillC 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm, snowy remove, that is redundant, and not relevant to the PPV.--SRX 01:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, seems pointless. It'd make more sense to put writers in than directors but even that seems silly. And unsourcable. Tony2Times (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use images

I'm not too up with all the legalities of fair use pictures but I've assumed that fair-use ones aren't to be used that often on Wiki. Basically I was wondering if I could use Image:Rock_and_sock_connection1.jpg on the Survivor Series 1998 article as both of them met in the finals, albeit they weren't the tag team at the time. I fear because it's not a free picture it can only be used on the one article. Tony2Times (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you put a NFUR on the image page it should be OK. However, it is preferred if you use free-use images. D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
An N in the F for the what now? Doesn't it already have the relevant warnings? Tony2Times (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC) (and thanks for making it not appear on the page, didn't mean to do that.
You can use it in the article now. I put the NFUR for Survivor Series 1998 on the image page. =) D.M.N. (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks man, much appreciated. Tony2Times (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme Championship Wrestling --> ECW

I brought this up before, and now I think it's the time to bring it up again. Yes the letters "E" "C" "W" literally stand for Extreme Championship Wrestling, but quoting from WP:ACRONYM (or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)), Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form, e.g., (NASA and radar). When was the last time "Extreme Championship Wrestling" was referred to as on WWE Television or .com? Looking currently at [6], nowhere is it used, only ECW. In the SmackDown and Raw articles they spell the shows name entirely e.g (Monday Night Raw/Friday Night SmackDown), but in ECW, they just say "catch ECW this Tuesday on Sci-Fi." I think it's time we officially go by policy, and rename the ECW article. IF we do rename it, I was thinking..

  • ECW (WWE)

or

  • WWE ECW

--SRX 23:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a better option is to name the article "ECW on SciFi." No quantifier and no awkward acronym combo Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

One, didn't we have this discussion already and, Two, why isn't this listed on the Article Name Change sub page, is that not what that is for? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it went nowhere, now I'm bringing it up here so the entire community can have a say as not everyone pays attention to ANC, plus I am doing this to go by Wiki's policy.--SRX 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I admit ANC isn't getting the views it should, but "went nowhere"? 10 Votes, 7 against, 3 for. That seems like a conclusive vote to me (bearing in mind 37 active users that is a 27% turnout). This looks like re-running a vote because you didn't like the result. At least message all those who took part in the previous vote to see if they have an opinion on this matter. Darrenhusted (talk)
Wrong. 10-7, thats not a big difference, a more conclusive vote is needed. As not everyone had a say in the last survey, thats what the project page is for, so everyone can look at it and have a say. It's not because I did not like the result, it's because I want the article to go by policy and not because "wrestling fans" dont like the title of the article.SRX 14:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same thing, I saw ten votes in total, 7 against moving, 3 for moving. That's more than 2:1 against. Not a massive vote but still large enough for consensus. That was opened on the 18th June and closed on the 4th August, a seven week window. To open it up after two weeks seems like running the vote to change the result. Darrenhusted (talk)
ECW (WWE) should not even be an option. The current ECW and the previous ECW share the same lineage, even though they share nothing in common except name alone. ECW (WWE) suggests a seperation where there isn't one.-- MeHolla! 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
@Darren, I was unaware of when it closed. Only 10 votes is not enough for consensus, and the people who voted were mostly those who are unaware of the Wikipeida MOS policy of WP:ACRONYM, I am not trying to change the result I am trying to go by policy.@Me, ECW is just an acronym, it just is a shortened version of "Extreme Crappy Wrestling, I mean Championship".SRX 16:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Isn't that the point of this? Aren't you wanting to change "Extreme Championship Wrestling" to "ECW (WWE)" (or something of that ilk)? I'm saying that it should be called "ECW" because that's the name of the brand.-- MeHolla! 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ECW (WWE)
    • Shortening of original title.
  • WWE ECW
    • The literal term of how tv programs are names.
  • ECW on Sci-Fi
    • The name as it appears on WWE.com, commercials and tv ads.
  • ECW
    • The actual name of the brand.

State which you prefer or state if you oppose this whole thing with an explanation.

  • Support WWE ECW - It is the official name (ECW) and like WWE Raw and WWE SmackDown this is WWE ECW.SRX 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support WWE ECW - But, reluctantly, for comformity. My main issue with this is I never hear it referred to by the commentators as "WWE ECW". I've heard "WWE Raw" from Jim Ross and "WWE Smackdown" Michael Cole, but never "WWE ECW". Additionally, since this is a re-use of an existing trademark, it's dificult to concede which should be the focus, the trademark itself or the parent company.  Hazardous Matt  13:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support WWE ECW per WWE Raw (Which itself is originally an acronym of Real Action Wrestling) and WWE Friday Night SmackDown PXK T /C 13:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Support ECW on SciFi on ECW (WWE) - It's never been referred to as ECW WWE or WWE ECW. But ECW on Scifi is said just about every week. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ECW (WWE). "ECW" is the official name of the program, "ECW on SciFi" is just something they say like "Monday Night Raw" or TNA sometimes says "Thursday Night iMPACT!". TJ Spyke 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • ECW. That is the name of the brand and should be refered to as such. -- MeHolla! 15:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
ECW is not on the list of options. Darrenhusted (talk)

Keep as is - per previous vote.--Endless Dan 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why because its not broken? It is broken because it is against WP:ACRONYM.SRX 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
What the fuck?? Because I am exercising my right to vote. Why are you pestering me? Because I didn't side with you?--Endless Dan 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No. First of all remain civil because that is not the reason why I am pestering you. You said you oppose because of your previous vote, and I saw your previous vote and you said because its not broken so I explained why it is broken, you take things out of context my friend.SRX 17:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well that's my vote, pal. Per previous voting and all discussions that lay within. --Endless Dan 17:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support WWE ECW But, like Hazardous Matt, reluctantly. My second choice is ECW (WWE). Genius101 Wizard (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep as is - per previous vote, per the fact that it's not broken, per Endlessdan's reasons, and per search results on wwe.com. A search for "Extreme Championship Wrestling" gets 9 pages of results, a search for "ECW (WWE)" gets no results, and a search for "WWE ECW" gets no results. I don't understand why, if the argument (which has been proven false by search results) is that the name "Extreme Championship Wrestling" isn't used, the article would be moved to a different name that is never used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep as is per Endlessdan and GaryColemanFan. -- iMatthew T.C. 21:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is seriously crap, it is broken because when in the hell was the last time WWE said "Welcome to Extreme Championship Wrestling?" This Tuesday on Extreme Championship Wrestling, go to Extreme Championship Wrestling.com for more info. The title of the article should be what it is most commonly known as, per WP:NAME. Quoting from there, The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. As I see editors want it to be as is because the acronyms are crap and "its not broken," but would the general audience be looking up for Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) here on Wikipedia? I think the acronym is more search-able. Also, GaryColeMan Fan, you should not base you vote on an engine search, per WP:SET. ECW would also be WP:COMMONNAME. Another thing, following if ain't broken, dont' fix it, it's an essay and not a guideline so it should only be used when appropriate. I may be sounding like a dick and want it my way, but I just want it to go with Wikipedia's policies.SRX 22:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't we just rename National Hockey League to NHL, Major League Baseball to MLB, National Basketball Association to NBA, or even World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Because those organizations use their entire name in promotions unlike ECW, seriously iMatthew, when was the last time you heard Extreme Championship Wrestling referred to as on ECW on Sci-Fi?SRX 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
When was the last time you heard World Wrestling Entertainment (on television)? -- iMatthew T.C. 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In every WWE press release, on every WWE show, and event on "OMG!" WWE.com. But unlike ECW, it is only referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling on rare occurrences versus "commonly.--SRX 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that "I haven't heard it lately" constitutes original research. As this press release from May 2008 shows, WWE does still refer to the program by its full name. I also find the argument that readers wouldn't be able to find the article confusing, as a redirect could easily solve the problem. Please also note that my vote is not based exclusively on search engine results, as was claimed above. The search engines results was one of four reasons I listed. Obviously, referring to the brand by its acronym happens quite a bit in the age of text messaging (3 letters is shorter to say than 8 syllables, and it's shorter to type than 28 letters), but the same can be said for "Taker" in place of "The Undertaker" all over the internet. I certainly don't think that would be grounds for redirecting The Undertaker's article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it is rare that WWE refers to ECW as Extreme Championship Wrestling, and per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ACRONYM an abbreviation covers for the most common titled subject.--SRX 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
OKAY! I believe this is going nowhere. @iMatthew. Moving Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) to ECW (WWE) or something like that is not the same as moving World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE because WWE is a company and ECW is just a brand. And, ECW, unless it is a reference to the original ECW, is not called Extreme Championship Wrestling by WWE. So, it would be good to move per WP:COMMONNAME. BUT, @SRX, it is also a bad move because it is WWE's version of Extreme Championship Wrestling. And, if you look closely at the scrap logo, it says "Extreme Championship Wrestling" on the top. BUT, if the decision is to move the article, here's a list of reasons why some moves are bad.
  • WWE ECW is bad because it is never reffered to as WWE ECW.
  • ECW (WWE) is a bad move because it's pretty much the same thing as keeping it as it is.
  • ECW is a bad move because many people may be looking for the original ECW when they type "ECW" in.
The only good move would be ECW on SciFi. Not just because or what I stated above, but because of this. I'm not supporting anything here, and I'm not trying to be uncivil (although, I will admit I am a little uncivil in the beginning), I'm just trying to set things straight. SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand this, the reason for this discussion is to cut down the title of the article to the abbreviation because WWE's ECW is never referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling. Cutting it down to ECW (WWE) means that ECW (the title of the show) (WWE) [the company that owns the company]--SRX 16:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I do understand this. Plus, I think I worded my statement wrong. I meant to say to you that even though it's not (often) referred to as "Extreme Championship Wrestling," it's still "Extreme Championship Wrestling," just WWE's version. I don't support a move, but I don't oppose one either. If you're gonna move it, I suggest moving it to ECW on SciFi per the above link. SAVIOR_SELF.777 01:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Did this ever get anywhere?

Looking at the above, I see no consensus brewing fast. Archive? D.M.N. (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree all we reached was a deadlock. You may want to hold vote about whether to archive it though...(I joke, or do I?) Darrenhusted (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Move splitting

User:BrunoXico2345 has been splitting all moves that have ANY variation to them at all. I think that some of them (like the Complete Shot) are justified, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. Thoughts? His contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BrunoXico2345 Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

He is allways popping up on my watchlist and at first I though that his contribution's were good but then went down hill. Like with John Cena instead of the "fire man's carry" witch had a link explaining it, he put "Standing Fire Man's carry". What I would do is leave a message on his talk page asking him if he means well, if it keeps up would WP:ANI be the right place to go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelerfan-94 (talk • contribs)
Already left a message on his talk page, actually. My bad, forgot to mention that. No response yet. Some of them are valid. But we don't need a seperate entry because someone crosses their arms during a scoop piledriver. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ANC needs more rules

One, I think there should be a rule like if there is a certain number of votes to one side and none to the other in a certain time period(i.e 5-0), it should be automatically closed. Another thing is, I think that there should be one user who is the only one who should close it. I bring that up because sometimes people get to sarcastic and the discussion should end in SNOW.--SRX 20:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it shouldn't be that big of a deal. It's renaming articles, you go in, nominate it, discuss it, consensus reached..you're done. iMatthew (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the basics of it, just like WP:AFD, you go there, nominate it, discuss your vote, and you're done. But then it goes in-depth to times like when arguments need to be closed/reopened due to many reasons, examples include WP:SNOW, WP:NONSENSE.--SRX 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

True. Well I think a director is a great idea. I think that having a newsletter and COTW director would be a wise idea as well. Just committed individuals that would make sure all runs smoothly, keep things in line, and keep everything working. iMatthew (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Before we begin with candidates, we need to see if people agree to it.

Directors for ANC/COTW/Newsletter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I suggest some read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF as this thread quickly became disorientated. Laughing at a suicide threat, legitimate or not is just a horrifying violation of AGF. Closing this. D.M.N. (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This survey is to decide whether the project should have directors (like at FA/FC/AFD) to manage certain departments of WP:PW. Please state if you support a director for any of the three departments, if you oppose please state why, and if you have any comments state them as well.

  • Support for ANC/COTW/N - ANC is need of a director, there are too many nominations and without one the page can get a huge backlog, which I took upon to clear and enhance the process of nominations. COTW, this also needs one since it goes really unheard of and in this way the director can promote COTW and manage it. The newsletter needs not necessarily a director, but someone who is up to copyediting information added by members of the project and contacting Misza for delivery (the day before it's suppose to be delivered [for time purposes]).SRX 20:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support for ANC/COTW/N  Hazardous Matt  20:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - That will turn into a situation where some will be considered to be in a higher-authority like position, and I think that'll be unfair. Everyone deserves the same treatement. D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • No, directors should never be thought of as in that way because all they do is "manage" the department not own it. Like in FLC, everyone has an equal chance to vote and the directors were voted in to close discussions and that's it. Directors are not higher authority, they are like "General Managers," managing the department, but not owning it or being a bragger about their higher authority.SRX 21:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • How do we decide who is Director? Have a "vote"? Discussion? D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • The same way FA/FL directors were appointed, through a thorough discussion and survey with nominees.SRX 21:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • (I want to be serious but I can't) We could have a beauty pageant. Or editor pageant. Mainly a popularity contest. Who is best fit for the job. We could get someone who has nothing to do with the project. Everyone sends in their votes to him. Who ever has more votes gets the job.--WillC 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The newsletter and COTW have run fairly well without directors. As for the Article Name Changes page, I think there is a bigger problem at hand. I believe that creating it as a separate page has encouraged editors to search through all of the project's articles to find any that could possibly be moved. I don't find this to be a productive move. Adding more rules is one of the things that I believe has hurt the project and driven people away. In many cases, editors should just be bold and move the page. Wikipedia policy supports this; there is no Wikipedia policy concerning a minimum number of votes for page moves. Frequent moves should be discouraged, as should searching through articles looking for something to move. If you come across one that you're sure should be moved, move it. If you think it should be moved, ask on the project's talk page (not a dedicated subpage); if people generally agree, move it. If not, don't move it. If there is no response, go with what you believe should be done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with the comments made in this point. In my view, ANC has for the most part run well, apart from one or two nominations which I think are bordering WP:POINT. D.M.N. (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Then I guess the real discussion here is to remove ANC?SRX 21:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
        • My comment doesn't even suggest that. D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm referring to GCF's comments, which he actually makes a strong point.SRX 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose More changes and more rules... just what WP:PW doesn't need. --Endlessdan and his problem 21:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • ppose per Endless Dan's comment. {further comment removed for civility's sake} SteelersFan94 00:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per DMN and Endlessdan. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The main thing I see here is that people dont want Directors because they are too lazy to follow rules, Wikipedia is not a fun site its an encyclopedia and collaboration, if its "not fun" because of the rules and you are too lazy to follow it then get out of here, rules is what makes society and rules is what makes up WP:PW. (Sorry to sound uncivil.SRX 00:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm not judging it on if it's fun or not. I think my 80 year old grandmother knows Wiki is not fun. I just fill that giving a user(s) extra tools in WP:PW would just o wrong. Comments? SteelersFan94 00:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually find editing Wikipedia very enjoyable. If I didn't, I wouldn't edit. I have no idea why anyone would if they weren't enjoying it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
O I do to I'm talking about the project; I mean it's not like somebody has a gun to our heads saying we must edit. SteelersFan94 01:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to notice a pattern. Every time things don't swing SRX's way, he begins to pout and stamp his feet. You asked for people's opinions and you become upset when they don't agree with you. And I agree with what was said above - if Wikipedia isn't enjoyable for you, SRX, maybe it's time to move on. --Endlessdan and his problem 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Ouch, first of all, people make strong points so I can't argue with them and I actually agree with the points, like GCF said, what's the point of ANC, people should have the knowledge when and when not to move a page and if they don't know they should bring it here. Hell if I'm wrong or if I'm the only one who supports something, and people are against me, well majority rules and case closed. I actually enjoy wikipedia, so Dan don't put words in my mouth.SRX 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting words in your mouth? You were the one who felt editors on WP:PW were being "lazy" and having "no fun". I just assumed you were reflecting your feelings towards Wikipedia onto us. --Endlessdan and his problem 02:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a productive turn in the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
(Indent). I read SRX's comment about as: "The main thing I see here is that people dont want Directors because they are too lazy to follow rules," - How? Who's too lazy? The people that are lazy are the people that treat Wikipedia as MySpace, if you're trying to say that everyone in this project is lazy, I consider that an insult as a several users in this project who expand articles to include sources, expand articles so they survive deletion, expand PPV articles, cleanup articles - I find that statement insulting. D.M.N. (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Eh, "lazy to follow rules" not "lazy" in all aspects of Wikipedia. You know like someone said above I guess the best thing is for me to move on..--SRX 10:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, SRX, don't go! I nominate you as director!! Just don't go! I abso-fucking-lutely loved your comment above! The final reach for sympathy; the trailing thought periods. And then topping it off with the tear inducing edit summary.[7] I'm sure someone will come to your rescue before this goes any further, but seriously, that was great!!--Endlessdan and his problem 12:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think the ANC page has worked fine in that it moved all the move discussion to one place, and at the time of its creation this page was filling up with them. I think that there may need to be a time limit (not too short though, like eight weeks may be enough) and then the discussion is moved to the relevant page to serve as evidence that a move has been discussed and consensus reached. Of course once the big contentious moves were resolved (like The Rock) then the page has encouraged some to keep adding when a move may not be needed or may not be contentious. I think even is the page is empty it still needs to be there in case someone proposes a move which seems against consensus and it is a handy way to establish the project's thoughts. I don't think a single figure in charge of it would be needed if there was an established set of guidelines as to when a move can be made (say 70% or higher votes in favour of a move, or if no one votes then any suggestion would be closed after eight weeks). If we can agree a set of rules then that may solve most of the problems. However I do agree that we should be able to invoke snow if it seems like there will be no objections either way (all in favour or all against). Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Simply Priceless

Im going to create a article for Simply Priceless (Ted DiBiase (Jr.) and Cody Rhodes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs)

  • Not sure whether it would be considered notable enough yet. IMO, I think it is, but I'll wait for the opinions of others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, an article was created just over a month ago, and deleted. See here. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Why can't they have a page? They've held the titles twice and they are a real tag team. The Highlanders, Major Brothers and Cryme Tyme all got articles fairly quickly, and they hadn't held any major titles at that point. -- Scorpion0422 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Scorpion, an article should be created. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles should also be created for Finlay and Hornswoggle, Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes. -- iMatthew T.C. 19:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC) I created the page but it was deleted by an administrator, and I agree with IMatthew im gonna work on a Finlay and Hornswoggle one and I'm gonna try to make the Simply Priceless one with some help, oh and if any one can find a photo of them post it on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Finlay and Hornswoggle should have an article, IDK why there isn't one. Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes, not really; they were a tag team for a while and later disbanded, so no use of creating one. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Highlanders and Major Brothers both have articles because they are that unnotable that one article covers two people - neither team has articles on individual wrestlers. Rhodes&DiBiase (are they even called Simply Priceless? Isn't that just their catchphrase) probably will be notable soon, it feels like they're gonna get a push but as yet they haven't had a proper feud with anyone. They dropped the titles to a tag team that were feuding with eachother, not them and only lost the titles for a week. I think we should wait for a while before creating a page. Totally against Holly&Rhodes getting one, they barely defended their titles in their prolonged reign. I don't really know what you'd say on the Finlay/Hornswoggle one, I feel it would be more about the illegitimate son storyline than them as a tag team. Tony2Times (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Holly and Rhodes SHOULD get an article. They held the tag titles on Raw for many months. If you look through Category:World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables, I would bet there is useless teams in there that have held no gold, or had a much shorter title reign than Holly and Rhodes did. If we go by "they were a tag team then disbanded" as a way to determine what articles aren't made: then a lot of teams would never be made. Not being an active team isn't relevant to the matter. Also, not defending isn't very relevant either: WWE hasn't been using the tag divisions much, so the tag titles (for quite a while) havent been defended much. So because of this, should we delete all tag champs that didn't defend? I don't think so. Anyway, what is relevant: they were a notable tag team for WWE that held the tag titles for a while. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should also be based on how long the individuals' articles are. Neither Holly nor Rhodes have particularly long articles, so we don't need to break off a make a new one for their time as a team (but we could if they were long, see WP:SUMMARY). Therefore, I don't see the point of creating a new article, when we could add a short paragraph in each of their individual articles about their time as a team. Nikki311 22:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that was my point on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was because disbanded. All tag teams eventually disband. My point was that while they were together for a long time, they barely did anything. They sort of semi-feuded with Santino and Carlito but not really and it never had a pay-off match. They were involved in no storylines as a team aside from the veteran/rookie one that was their formation rather than them as a team. Sure they held the gold, but if you look down the tag title champions list lots of teams held gold without having a page, they have a page if they are a notable team. How are Holly&Rhodes noteable? They were together for six months and what storylines did they engage in during that time? What would that page consist of without resorting to week by week results. Similarly, at this time 'Priceless' haven't been involved in any proper feuds, they were involved by proxy with JBL&Cena and they're now entering a programme with Cryme Tyme but for all we know that could end at Unforgiven, so it could easily be covered on the individuals page. Tony2Times (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The disbanded comment I was talking about: was what ThinkBlue had said. Next time, please read the other comments in the discussion. I suppose Nikki has a point, which means Finlay and Hornswoogle doesn't need an article, neither does Simply Priceless. Finlay and Hornswoogle havent been teaming much, and most of the involvement between them was Hornswoogle as the sidekick, followed by the whole son storyline. Simply Priceless: havent been around long, and havent done much. Lots of brief tag champs don't have articles, so they don't need one either. On this subject, is an article for Mexicools needed? They didn't do much as a stable (later just a tag team). This article seems to be the usual trend of "it's a named WWE team, so it must be notable". What about The Heart Throbs? Another very brief team in WWE that did nothing. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We need to set some sort of criteria for tag team articles, I'd say:

  • If the article is about a team with both members that don't have an individual article, they are excluded.
  • Must have had a tag team title reign that can be considered notable or Must have been in a match contested for the tag team titles at least twice.
  • Must have been together for a fair amount of time.

-- iMatthew T.C. 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding why Finlay and Hornswoggle" don't have an article is because the one that did exist was Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.181.37 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not that new here on Wikipedia but how do you start your "Sandbox" because I want to work on some of those articles there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 14:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For you, BoD, your sandbox would be created here. D.M.N. (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have an article of Dibiase and Rhodes here and while we're on sandboxes I've got an expansion for Vengeance 2002 here! I think its nearly done it just needs a check over from a more experienced user before i move it into mainspace! ThanksAdster95 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Adster95 I'm also working on the page--Brothers of destruction (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok thats a problem Adster95 (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Brittany Brown

Can somebody verify that this broad is actually notable? I came across her name in the Killer Kowalski article, but I've never heard of her. The article was created by and being maintained by one user (who also added her name under Kowalski's notable trainees). There are also pics of questionable permissions found on the page. --Endlessdan 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No doubt she existed, but the refs mention her in passing, list results, mention her in passing again, show a picture of her, show only pictures and list more results. The user in question has done other work but it has been deleted, leaving a contribs listing only that one page, and they have made odd edits like this. And the article is full of fan like justifications like Brown is seen in hundreds of Videos, TV shows and Magazines including Pro Wrestling Illustrated, New Wave Wrestling, Fighting Females, Wrestling Gold and many, many more. It has been PROD-ed in the past so I would say AfD. A google search puts the Wiki at the top, and no immediate notable sources for the first few pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone fixed up the article and it looks pretty respectable now. --Endlessdan and his problem 15:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: her C&A says she won the "WWWF Ladies Championship (1 time)"...if they mean the WWE Women's Championship, she definitely hasn't won that. Are there any other titles by that name? Nikki311 18:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I Think it is the woman's championship. There is a link on that page refering to the Fablious Mulah with that name that goes to the womaman's championship page. Based on that and since she is not listed on the page that lists winners of the championship I removed it. --76.66.187.34 (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
"Brown is the only female professional wrestler to be awarded and legally defend three women's championship titles at once," - is there any reason MsChif doesn't fall under this category? I would be bold but this may be a very specific statistically confusing factoid. Tony2Times (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Mick Foley

Would it be worth having a couple of extra editors keep an eye on Mick Foley for a few days? His press release is probably going to encourage some unnecessary edits.  Hazardous Matt  13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to mention it, but forgot. Yes until he is officially announced with TNA I do foresee a lot of action on that page. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually updated the TNA section for readability and verifiable information. He's got a short term deal but there's been a few edits about "appearing in the near future" or "might be appearing as Mankind". Just something to watch.  Hazardous Matt  14:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
He can not take a previous WWE/F persona to another organization. Or has Vince since mellowed? TrekFanatic (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It depends. Foley could use any of his gimmicks if they aren't copyrighted by WWE. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I think he owns Cactus Jack, but not Dude Love and Mankind is tm by WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good news for the project

Since there has been a little anmosity lately, I just wanted to mention a couple of positives that have happened.

The new Collaboration of the Week page is up, and it's looking pretty active with nominations in each of the categories. Check it out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week.

The project also got two more Did You Know entries today. Antonio Pugliese made the list early this morning, and Millennium Wrestling Federation is currently featured as the top entry (with a picture of the Iron Sheik). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I love good news...here is some more: I've been keeping track of our article stats for a few months now. In the last four months (since May) we have:
  • 2 more Featured Articles (Insane Clown Posse and SummerSlam (2003))
  • 1 more Featured List (although we had some demoted, we've also had some promoted)
  • Our Good Articles went from 46 to 84 (an addition of 38, or 9.5 per month)
  • Stubs have decreased from 635 to 586 (49 less)
  • Our total number of articles has gone from 3559 to 3698 (an addition of 139)
Keep up the good work! :) Nikki311 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
This project seems to be heading back in the right direction. iMatthew (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to everybody in their most appreciated work. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania now an FL. D.M.N. (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Intercontinental Championship tournaments

Hey I just saw this article! IMO I don't think its very notable and that it should be deleted! Any other thoughts?Adster95 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable. If people want to keep it then perhaps it'd be more suitable on the Intercontinental Championship page as I doubt many people will search for that page individually. Tony2Times (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'ved afded it here Adster95 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

COTW

Should the page be moved to WP:PW/Collaboration since it isn't based on time now? Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This went nowhere before (WP:PW/ANC)

Okay, before this went nowhere and people were just ranting on me causing me to almost leave, but I really want to discuss this department. Like it was said above, most of these nominations are common sense nominations and do not need consensus, they can be moved on the spot. I see this page as a joke because people search and search for article to rename and submit at ANC that can be move per common sense citing WP:UCN. I feel that common sense should be used and that nominations that really need consensus should be brought here.--SRX 21:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it does more good than harm. iMatthew (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
What does?--SRX 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
ANC. iMatthew (talk) 21:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, ANC does nothing. I'm sorry I have to put him out in the open, but User:RandySavageFTW is nominating so many minor articles that can easily be moved per WP:COMMONSENSE, which like I said is no need for the department when we all have commonsense.--SRX 21:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I only ever come here when discussing the project and I'd be inclined to think it true of many somewhat fairweather editors like myself, I think ANC should take place here of course it does somewhat clutter the page. Tony2Times (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The page is needed. Whenever somebody is bold about moving a page, it gets reverted because a consensus was not formed. iMatthew (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If I see an article that should be moved, I put it there. I don't care if I'm the only one making the threads. And I find it completely ironic how there's a rule that says ignore other rules. I'm not going to ignore any rules when everyone at PW is giving awful reasons for opposition. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
@IMatthew, we are the only project that has this nonsense, if projects want to form a consensus, they go to WP:RM, the page where it is suppose to go.SRX 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The rash of moves was to be expected, and this page was cluttered before ANC was formed, ANC just moved it al to one side so that this page didn't become a list of moves. Of course by it existing it is encouraging editors to bring page moves to ANC but if a move is common sense then it will get consensus quickly and the page will be moved, so if in future someone tries to move the page back to an old name then the discussion will serve as evidence of the consensus. In an ideal world the page will never have more than one or two pages on there and eventually (after a year or so) all the controversial moves will have been made and the page will become dormant. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Potentially unfree images.

Greetings. In clicking "Random article," I happened upon Sara Del Rey, which has, in the section Sara Del Rey#In wrestling two illustrative gifs of wrestling maneuvers. They were uploaded with {{PD-self}} by User:Victoria93 a day ago. It is my contention that they were made with screen captures taken from DVD's, which would constitute copyright infringement in this case. I have listed the images at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and notified User:Victoria93. I thought it prudent to notify the WikiProject associated with the article as well. Regards, Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 06:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

These are all blatantly video captures taken from a SHIMMER DVD. The user has uploaded a lot of these, and all are copyrighted. –– Lid(Talk) 07:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wrestler

I know that WP:Film will probably have it covered but The Wrestler may become a target for fanboys, although it has won a film festival prize [8]. Maybe one to watch, and something which may be easier to get to GA or FA than PPV articles (I am, of course, assuming that members of the project will be seeing it when it comes out). Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandals

I have a problem with 203.87.21.220. He keeps changing the WWE Women's Championship history, but I don't know how to report him. Unfortunately, I tried talking to him about it, but he keeps doing it. Please tell me how to stop him or you can do it yourself. Camelglue22 12:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Names in brackets

Now that we're writing performers legitimate names in brackets after their stage names, do we write their contemporary names or ones in context? Examples I'm thinking of include people like Chyna and Ultimate Warrior who have changed their names legally. Should we put Ultimate Warrior (Warrior) or Ultimate Warrior (Brian Hellwig)? Chyna or Chyna (Joanie Laurer)? Also what about people whose marriage circumstances have changed? Debra (Debra McMichael) or Debra (Debra Marshall)? Tony2Times (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding name changes in marriage, the name should correspond to their present legal name. Has Joanie Laurer made Chyna her legal name, or just a registered stage name (I thought Chyna was owned by WWE anyway). I have no idea what's going on with the Ultimate Warrior: Brian "Warrior" Helwig.  Hazardous Matt  19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For examples like those, you would refer to them by their most known name, and because Chyna has only used Chyna to credit herself, we would just use Chyna. Another example is Hulk Hogan, we will not write Terry Bollea, but Hulk Hogan because that is what he is most known as and is the only name he goes by.--SRX 21:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally find that ruling a bit misguided. Not so much for people like Chyna whose legal name is now Chyna but Hulk Hogan who is legally called Terry Bollea. If this is the case, and I'm not necessarily against it, then why is Triple H billed as Paul Levesque in brackets? He is credited in the film Blade as Triple H and has only ever really been famous as Triple H or the derivative, Hunter Hearst Helmsley. Similarly, WillC edited my Survivor Series draft to put Ken Shamrock's birth name in brackets because I had overlooked it, completely unaware that that wasn't his real name seeing as he fought in both pro-wrestling and MMA under that name. Aren't the majority of articles titled under the most common/well known name so shouldn't we just put that in brackets if they have a different ring name at the time. I don't wanna raise the whole OOU argument again, I'm not for it but I'm complying for the sake of piece and the project but this ruling seems like one clouded in ambiguity. Tony2Times (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Good question. Does anybody know the ruling for television articles and movies? Here's what I know: Jessica Simpson was always credited as Jessica Simpson, even though she was Jessica Simpson-Lachey for awhile. Angelina Jolie is credited as such, even though her birth name is Angelina Voight. So....in regard to Debra...I'd think Marshall would be correct. As for Chyna, her friends call her Chyna (at least they did on all those VH1 shows and some TMZ things) and her name is legally Chyna now, so I think that's okay to use. I'm not as familiar with The Ultimate Warrior, so I don't have an opinion there. Nikki311 02:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
An issue with performing artists can also come down to duplicate names within the Screen Actors Guild. For example, if two actors, both named John Smith join the SAG, only one of them can be credited as John Smith and the other would pick a variation, such as Jonathan Smith. So, it's possible that using the example above, Jessica Simpson had been registered with the SAG or another guild as Jessica Simpson simply when being billed.
Now, the way I understood we were labeling the wrestlers was stage name (legal name) to coincide with movie listings. If we go by common name "Chyna" could just be "Chyna". However, how many people refer to Dustin Diamond as Screech (including reality show participants) only for him to denounce the name. This would conflict with any WP:COMMONNAME practices as even though it's considered a common name by many fans and professionals, it's not what he prefers to be called. Dwayne Johnson is going through a similar transition.
I say we should stick to performing name (legal name) for the time being. I think it's the simplest solution while still conforming to the new guidelines.  Hazardous Matt  03:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was Stage (Legal), but with those where there is no difference (Brock Lesnar, Matt and Jeff Hardy etc) then we just link. With Hulk Hogan it should be Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea) because he has also been Hollywood Hogan, Hollywood Hulk Hogan and Mr America. Chyna would just be Chyna and Warrior would be Ultimate Warrior (Warrior) in WWF and Warrior in WCW. Triple H is Hunter Hearst Helmsley (PL) until around 1997 then he's Triple H (PL). Darrenhusted (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what I think makes sense, but considering we put WWE as WWF prior to the name change, should be put the performers' contemporary legal names or should we put what their legal names are now, because that's what they're called. Tony2Times (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That had crossed my mind, so that all WWF references to Ultimate Warrior pre-1993 would say Ultimate Warrior (James B Hellwig) and post-1993 would be Ultimate Warrior (Warrior (wrestler) piped Warrior) but I think with the exception of Warrior and Chyna this is not an issue, and they could always be the exceptions, but the rule is Gimmick (Real name), when there is a difference, and Real Name linked when they are the same. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania

Obviously the project wants as many FAs and GAs as possible, but considering we're now writing this even more expressly for non-wrestling fans, would it not be logical to try and push as many WrestleMania articles as we can to the upper echelons of the project I say this because to non-wrestling fans, WrestleMania is probably their main exposure to mainstream wrestling. This is only a suggestion of course 'cause I'm too inexperienced (and lazy) to do anything about it, plus I'm working my way through '99 trying to improve on stubs but just in case anyone is bored and wants something to do. Tony2Times (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think WrestleManias would be great to work on. There's currently a push to get the SummerSlam events done, but WrestleMania would be great to focus on after that. Another one that warrants a look is Starrcade. Of the 18, 13 have been expanded and just need a bit of work with sourcing. That would just leave 5 to get all of the Starrcades finished. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article reformatting

With the recent changes in the projects pay-per-view formatting, such as the removal of jargon, and change to out-of-universe writing, we need to apply the change to all of our current pay-per-view good articles. In order to do this, users who got a pay-per-view to good article status should return to that/those pay-per-view article(s) and apply the new format to that article. Cheers, iMatthew (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the new format is a work in progress and everyone involved seems to agree that it needs to be fixed up, I plan to wait before making any drastic changes. I've written 6 pay-per-view GAs, have 2 more at GAN, and have another ready to nominate. Rewriting 9 articles in a format that won't stay would be too much work. The encyclopedia would be better served if we continued to work on new articles that need a lot of fixing up rather than making temporary fixes to 125 articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, when I started working on Bad Blood '04, it took some time to write/expand. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the new format on writing the PPV's and stuff, but fixing every other articles that are GA will probably be worse to do, all the extra time it will take. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly do not have much time on my hands to re-write the PPV articles that I've worked on, I'm almost certainly going to have a lot less time than what I've had in the previous two months. D.M.N. (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_56&oldid=1190123059"