Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 59

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

→

Another opinion

Yeah, I recently have been finishing most of the articles I have on the ppv list and I'm use to alot of stress so I'm trying to find more work, since after I perform a few copyedits and place in the finished versions of Hard Justice, No Surrender, and Slammiversary from my subpages then they'll be sitting on GAN for a while and I want to start on other stuff I have. I was looking at a project I have been wanting to work on for a while, the article is the TNA 2008 World X Cup Tournament. I thought to come here and take ideas from people on how I should go at expanding it since no has one expanded an article like it to a higher class like GA or FA, crap or even B. Before I start trying to improve it greatly I wanted to get some ideas on the tournament format on how I should present the results section. Since I'm not sure a table would work.--WillC 07:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly how that tournament works, because I don't watch TNA much, but maybe you could use the brackets like in the King of the Ring articles. Nikki311 18:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it takes place over a period of a few weeks. Four rounds, each round is worth a point or more. I feel the king of the Ring bracket wouldn't work but the bullet points are too messy.--WillC 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture Switching War on Chris Parks

There are IP's reverting back and forth to 2 pictures, which one is more applicable. --Numyht (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Both are free pics, so either could be used. I would go for the one with the mask though since the other one is sorta blurry. TJ Spyke 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will for now stop reverting the picture changes so i don;t break 3RR, any other opinions? --Numyht (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

I want to know what people think of this image. I don't think it is legit and it has been bothering me for sometime now.--WillC 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I definetly think that that should be deleted. Notice the perfect background? Thanks, Genius 101 ^Guestbook 19:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But if the uploader was promoting the event, it's not out of the question that he or she could get a picture of the wrestler against a white wall. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but my gut instinct is that it's not his. Thanks, Genius 101 ^Guestbook 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Jillian Hall and Kelly Kelly

I don't really think Jillian Hall IS a manager of John Morrison (John Hennigan) and the Miz (Michael Mizanin), I also don't think Kelly Kelly is technically a manager of Shad (Shad Gaspard) and J.T.G. (Jayson Paul)--Brothers of destruction (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FORUM. (Unless you're talking about a particular article?) D.M.N. (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the Morrinson and Miz page did list her as a manager. I am guessing the user in question wanted input on that addition. For the record, I removed it because as far as I know she has never been refered to as their manager and it appears to be more of an allience. --70.24.178.206 (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Pay-per-view events

Yeah, everyone needs to start watching most of the upcoming ppvs next year and List of WWE pay-per-view events. There is alot of ips adding in arenas that haven't been announced, or they do not have a source. I'm tired of having to fix tables and remove info that has no source.--WillC 04:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Change to list tables

Since no one else responded above, I changed the format of the WWE Divas Championship to the one I mentioned above as a quick example since their is only one title reign and it can be changed quickly than one of our FL's. Does it look okay?--S_RX 01:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Besides the datelinking which I thought was not needed.--WillC 03:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think reviewers may have a problem with headings like "Event won". It also doesn't leave space for important notes (eg. if a title is vacated and a match is held to determine the new champion, the person who loses the championship match should be noted). From my perspective, though, one important change is the note "The real name of the wrestler is included in parenthesis if it differs from their ring name." "Their" is being used as a singular pronoun, which is grammatically incorrect. I suggest, "The real name wrestlers are included in parenthesis if it differs from their ring names." GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is 'their' exclusively a plural pronoun? What's the singular form? Tony2Times (talk) 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's what the footnotes section is for. Why have a notes section for just the vacations and stripping's when you can have a few footnotes for them. As a FLC reviewer, the footnotes have become favorable versus having a notes section for a few entries. To get rid of the "event won" we could have a small prose as a key explaining what "Event" means and just leave it as that.--S_RX 20:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Tony: The singular form is "his" or "her". Most of the time, it's easiest just to make the whole thing plural and stick with "their". GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't their also stand in as a singular possessive pronoun in cases where both sexes are being referred to. With the WWE IC champ (that Chyna held) and other indie promotions' championships that have male and female champions

this would be a problem. Wouldn't it just be easier to note "Real/legal names in paranthesis", keep it concise. I also don't see the point for "won" in all the field headers. Does event need explaining? Tony2Times (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New project, new theme

Now that we are a new project, and maybe we can have less complaining about this subject, how about a new color for the project. How about this? Looks brighter and looks nice IMO, but comments about are welcomed.--S_RX 23:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes it a new project? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Like the way we now communicate and how we are more of a project versus always arguing :)--S_RX 23:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but how can a colour change the way people communicate? D.M.N. (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's blue, and blue relaxes people. Before it was red. And red makes people angry. Grrr red. Calm blue. Tony2Times (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

DMN that's not what I meant, Gary asked how we were a new project, and it was through better communication, which is new IMO, so to come with it how about a new color scheme.--S_RX 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should change it to a lighter blue or to black or just maybe back to red, I think changing it to blue does not work very well--Brothers of destruction (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I rather enjoy the new color scheme. It's clear, crisp, and relaxing. Definitely gives the page a new, better feel. Cheers, Dooms Day 19:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it too, not that it makes much difference but I prefer it to at least the old shade of red which looked discoloured and rusted. Blue FTW. Tony2Times (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

Okay, for some reason User:Secreatarian can't seem to get it through his head that the NWA Championship history does not go with the TNA Championship history. They are two different titles and do not have a shared history. Can people watch that article because everyday he adds it back in and has been told on the talk page that it doesn't belong in there.--WillC 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that TNA retconned it that it IS the same title, per their title history page. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Though TNA does have that history on one page it is because of legal reasons. It doesn't make the TNA title the NWA title through all of those years.--WillC 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The position of the National Wrestling Alliance has to be taken into consideration as well. For promotional and storyline purposes, I suppose that TNA can make such a claim but I fail to see how it can be truly legitimate unless the NWA went along with it. A somewhat similar situation exists in CMLL where the promotion still uses the NWA initials for some championships it still regularly promotes, but those titles aren't recognized by the NWA because CMLL is no longer an NWA affiliate.Odin's Beard (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

All good points. As I suggested on the talk pavge of the article in question, why not collaspe TNA's retcon stance into hidable tables that you must click to view? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on something like that in a sandbox. You know it would be better if this is done to make another page called List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions or something like that since it will technically be big enough for its own page.--WillC 21:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody...

...crop the little boy out of the picture to the right?

iMatthew (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do it, how do you want it to look? SteelersFan94 03:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

hey hows this Adster95 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Brand names and TV Shows in Italics

I want to know how did the rule of having Brand names in regular format and TV Shows in italics come up? Wouldn't we have to emphasize the brand since it is not a regular word, per Wikipedia:ITALICS.--S_RX 01:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as a TV show they need to be italicised and it seems important to differentiate between the brands and the programmes. Presumably that's where the rule stems from. Tony2Times (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder: Edgeheads?

Is there any actual proof Edgeheads were a name they used? From what I know: it was a fan name only. The same goes for Rated-R Entourage: I've watched Smackdown regularly for a while, and I don't recall that name. I don't see any source for either name in the article, so if nothing is provided: they should be removed. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

An exact G-search turns up only 6 hits. And it's not on their WWE profiles. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall, Edge called them Edgeheads the week after the helped him win the world title. Rated-R Entournge was used once on WWE.com. One occurence does not a ring name make. I say remove. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider it gone. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

American Wrestling Association vs. AWA Superstars of Wrestling

I found this at the Wrestlecrap forums concerning the rights to the AWA name: WWE vs. Dale Gagner Case Decided

Duo02 ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Abyss Picture

There is a little bit of an edit fight going on over at Chris Parks. Switching between a picture of Chris in character as Abyss, and a recent picture of him without his mask after an event. My opinion is that the article is on the person Chris Parks, and not the character of Abyss, and therefore the new pic of Chris should stay. Yagobo79 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, if it keeps going, take it to Wikipedia:ANI. SteelersFan94 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Though the article is mainly about Abyss. It talks briefly about his personnel life but more of the character and his career as Abyss. I feel the Abyss picture would look better since the one of himself is extremely low resolution and isn't a great picture of him. It looks old and down right terrible in my opinion, while the new shows him recently and in his new character as Abyss. It is only called Chris Parks since no wants to have the article called Abyss (wrestler).--WillC 04:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I agree with William. JakeDHS07 05:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Will and Jake --Numyht (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the picture of him with the mask be placed next to the section detailing his career in TNA, with the picture of him unmasked kept at the top? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it can. Though there is another picture of him with the mask not in the article. The one without I feel hurts the article. He has been doing the Abyss character for a long time, I think one of them with him having the mask on would work better.--WillC 19:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that point of view, the article is about the person who plays Abyss, not about Abyss the character, that itself is just a portion of the article. I think an unmasked pic should be in the infobox, with a masked pic later on in the article. Hazardous Matt 19:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the same rationale be applied to Sting? (signed late) Tony2Times (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say all masked/painted wrestlers should have their exposed face at the top and the masked/painted picture next to the relevant part. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it is not an old picture. I took it on September 21st. Yagobo79 (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I might as well ask. Who took out my image of him taken last year? Mshake3 (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Different IPs. Everytime I add it back in people remove it. They never will just place it further down in the article.--WillC 03:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No Mercy (2007)

I don't know how many people watchlist this, so I'm posting here. The GA review has called for a pretty thorough copyedit. I don't have time, and User:Save Us.Y2J (who nominated it) has been inactive for nearly 2 weeks. Anyone could help out, it would be much appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a quick run-through. It was pretty bad...POV problems, sudden tense changing, grammar, spelling, and a load of other issues. I think one or two more users looking through it should fix most of the problems. Nikki311 18:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell him that it is under review. I talk to him on Yahoo IM sometimes.--WillC 19:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Save Us.Y2J did not nominate it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Names for PPV's (again)

Okay, I think reviewers at the FAC's of Armageddon (2006) make a point, because the main article Armageddon is a religious topic. Armageddon also refers films, songs, and games. A reader seeing Armageddon (2006), depending on their stand point, could think of it as a 2006 song, a 2006 film, or a 2006 game, or something in 2006 about the religious matter. For the controversial topics, like Armageddon and No Way Out, the names should be changed to include the WWE acronym.

Examples

S_RX 21:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't the reader just read the first sentence? If the reader then realizes that he or she is reading about a wrestling event instead of a song, the reader then has the option of stopping at that point and looking elsewhere. I think the promotion's name should go on the main articles (ie. WCW Uncensored instead of Uncensored) but is unnecessary for the individual event articles (ie. stick with No Way Out (2004) instead of WWE No Way Out (2004)). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SRX. For some odd reason that I don't know, I think we should have WWE, ROH, or TNA in it.--WillC 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

SRX has it right. iMatthew (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because films have it like Armageddon (2006 film), we can't be any different, we have to specify the title for disam. topics. So should we go ahead and make the change or wait for other users to comment?--S_RX 22:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a few ideas I have for it unless people do not want WWE, TNA, or ROH in the title. Lockdown (2008 event), Lockdown (2008 PPV), Lockdown (2008 wrestling), or Lockdown (2008 wrestling event). I'm just throwing those out there.--WillC 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008 event) is to broad, Lockdown (2008 PPV) is to broad as well, and Lockdown (2008 wrestling event) wouldn't work unless it was Lockdown (2008 professional wrestling event) remember project, we are professional wrestling not just wrestling.--S_RX 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just throwing them out.--WillC 03:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see why we have to disambiguate them from things that don't exist? Not every FA has parenthesis in the title describing what it is. Unless there's a clash, why do we have to? And where is there a clash; the last Armageddon film came out in 1998. A year before WWF started theirs. Tony2Times (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it does not matter when the date of the film was, it was still a film and that makes it a disambiguation topic. Lets break it down Armageddon could mean many things pertaining to it's definition (2006) could mean something happened in that year pertaining to it's definition. But wait, WWE Armageddon oh it's about that wrestling thing (2006), which took place in 2006.--S_RX 13:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Though this only really calls for certain articles. The likes of Destination X isn't called for. Though it probably will be for no reason.--WillC 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked various users on IRC of their opinion on this. All of them suggest that "WWE Armageddon (2006)" or "WWE The Great American Bash (2005)" or "WWE SummerSlam" is the correct title. We need to make the change, but first - is anyone going to complain? iMatthew (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I will complain about WWE SummerSlam (2008) because SummerSlam does not refer to any other topic, the acronym addition should only go to articles that have controversial names.--S_RX 17:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For consistency, we should make them all the same. iMatthew (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a policy about consistency? Seeing WWE SummerSlam (2008) or WWE WrestleMania XXV is redundant since the main subject is only used or associated with WWE.S_RX 17:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The same could (and should) be said for Armageddon in 2006. It was only used or associated with WWE. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy about consistency, so a few articles that aren't like the rest wont do any harm. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @GCF -No because, sigh I have to say this again, Armageddon is a disambiguation topic and needs to be elaborated because it is associate with many different topics. SummerSlam on the other hand is only associated with WWE.--S_RX 17:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your "sigh" condescending, insulting, and inappropriate. I also disagree with your reasoning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it insulting? I just said sigh because I have explained my reasoning like 3 times now, so I guess I'm tired of typing it over and over, sorry if it was insulting to you but I don't see it. Anyways, if you disagree, then why?--S_RX 18:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania list ideas

Would a List of WrestleMania events and/or List of WrestleMania venues be redundant?--S_RX 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably. The WrestleMania article is only about 29,000 bytes, which is well under the point where we would have to branch off sections into new articles and use Wikipedia:SUMMARY style. When the history section is cleaned up, my guess is the article would be even shorter. Nikki311 23:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the main WrestleMania article could never be a FL because of it's prose size, also I wanted to make the events one like the WWE No Way Out article. --S_RX 00:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I have sent a e-mail to Dave Millican (creator of the TNA titles as well as some WWF/WWE titles) regarding the use of his title photos from his website. I did mention in the e-mail that we would add courtesy of davemillicanbelts.com in the caption to give credit to his site. I am awaiting his response and will update when I get it. JakeDHS07 02:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

New Image of TNA Legends Championship

I dont know if I did the licensing right can someone check or make it smaller I believe the resolution maybe too high. Image:TNAlegendschampionship.jpg JakeDHS07 19:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The image will be deleted because it is a copyrighted image not for fair/free use because it is from TNA.com.--S_RX 20:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

TNAlegendschampionship.jpg IfD--S_RX 20:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

What you could do is contact the creator of the title itself, which he has posted photos of the title and you can then get permission to distribute it on Wiki. [1]--S_RX 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try and send him a e-mail. JakeDHS07 01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Done and granted. JakeDHS07 09:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz

For those who regularly watch TNA, could someone take a look at the Dudley Boyz article and cut out some of the week-by-week from the TNA section. I always find it hard to edit the TNA sections of articles, because I don't really follow it. Thanks! :) Nikki311 22:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it. I've been meaning to work on the article. I'll source it and copyedit it later today.--WillC 13:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Pix

There are 253 pics... and I know Wikipedia doesn't need all of them, and heck, i havent even seen all of them. I've added Jericho and Michaels on a table, Jericho with the belt, Ted with the belt, and a closeup of Pun... umm... what else is there needed? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 02:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A better image of Eddie Colón. Just saying :)--S_RX 03:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I went to a Raw house show, not a SD/ECW one... however, they should've brought Primo and Carlito... but seriously, is there any other pic needed, so I can check my pics? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Raw house show. Um, any image of Charlie Haas? But seeing his gimmick I doubt it. Or one of Manu, Jamie Noble, Kelly Kelly, Mike Chioda, or Layla El.(better ones)--S_RX 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have of Manu, with Cryme Tyme... and a Layla one, but no Mike Chioda and Charlie Haas didnt appear.. *sighs* wanted 2 see him. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ALex! It's really appreciated! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Layla El and Regal? Nikki311 16:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One of Manu on his own

Done, or with BiBiase/Rhodes (have one, but the resolution is bad, so i wont bother) would be good. Also, Paul Burchill could do with a clearer shot. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul didnt appear... Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 03:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Raw episodes in 2007

The title is just an example.

What is the reason that we shouldn't create these lists? List of (Raw/SmackDown/ECW/Impact) episodes in (Year)... These are TV shows and I don't see a good reason why the shouldn't exist. The content of the episode summary could either be a list of the results or a summary of the show. iMatthew (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, just remember that there are 52 weeks in a year so 52 episodes of Raw, hope I'm right?, anyways, that can be accomplished like List of television episodes, but what would the summary be? The matches and segments or what?--S_RX 16:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes - 52 a year. Not a lot. The summary could include the results in prose form. iMatthew (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to shabby of an idea but I don't know, seems a bit different from TV episodes since wrestling shows are not like regular programming, I say also ask the input of one of the FL directors.--S_RX 16:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Off to ask Matthewedwards - already talking to him right now on IRC. iMatthew (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Are they really episodes, or just weekly televised sport events? Check with the TV Wikiproject. Also, you'd have to provide episode summaries for each episode, so instead of any episode table being like List of Lost episodes or List of The Simpsons episodes, it'd have to be more like Lost (season 3) or The Simpsons (season 9). See List of 7th Heaven episodes, which I tried to get listed at FL, but was knocked down for not having summaries or season pages where the summaries were contained. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well they are just weekly televised sports event, but are also scripted like a TV program, so it could go either way.S_RX 17:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always opposed this idea, and similar lists have been deleted in the past as listcruft. If we make one for Raw episodes in 2007, we'd also have to make one for every brand for every year (eventually). Plus, someone might decide to make these sorts of lists for TNA, WCW, and the original ECW. That's hundreds upon hundreds of new lists!! I think we should concentrate on the articles we have rather than making hundreds of new lists that will only attract endless vandalism and really serve no purpose. Besides, what if we do make all of these lists...then someone might decide to expand them like the PPV articles (because they are like television episodes after all). Then we'd have thousands of new articles. When would it end??!?!?!?! Nikki311 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed :)S_RX 22:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great concept and something that one day, could be done. But one day is the operative point. There's a lot of more important information to go over now, PPVs, wrestler bios, a lot of stuff. Lists of every Raw, Smackdown, ECW, TNA episode is, in my opinion, notable content for Wikipedia - but not something that is important enough to be written and maintained write now. Wikipedia's a work in progress, and so we should get the information that's most important (wrestler bios and PPVs) hammered out first, and one day we could indeed look at episode summaries for every Raw episode. I mean, there's one for every Simpson's episodes, and Raw's been running longer than the Simpsons. Monday Night Raw is certainly among the most notable of television shows (I don't think anyone's hit the 800 mark before) and yes, it would count as a television show in the same way the Simpsons does (I would think, at any rate). But right now it's just not something the project can handle maintaining. Better to work on what we have and create more important articles now, and one day look towards listings and summaries of Raws, Smackdowns, etc. Cheers, Dooms Day 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This world isn't perfect. There are some trashy streets and roads out there that need serious work. Does that mean that we shouldn't create new roads to lighten traffic, because the other roads need work. No. So relate that to Wikipedia. There are some trashy articles and stubs out there that need serious work. Does that mean we shouldn't create new articles to expand the encyclopedia, because those stubs need work. No. We need to do both, and we shouldn't trap new work in a box until the other roads are re-paved. iMatthew (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about a format like in List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes where we have a long lead, and the tables just like this one. iMatthew (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But wrestling shows don't have titles, or unless you use the main events. It sounds like a good idea but to me seems a bit trivial since wrestling shows differ from other programs.--S_RX 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WWE title's their episodes on the episode results on WWE.com. There is no different between the Raw television show, and the Simpsons television show. iMatthew (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but what about episodes from 1999, 1993?--S_RX 15:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

~~I guess we may need to use main events, then. iMatthew (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)~~

That has season pages, and summaries are there. As I said, see List of 7th Heaven episodes and its FLC. It wasn't promoted because there were no summaries. Matthewedwards 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually - I see nothing wrong with doing the articles by year. (see my comment above). iMatthew (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Suggestions

Can we get rid of this now, really? The complaints and suggestions have toned down and no edits have been made in a while, and if so, they aren't suggesting anything. Redirect to WT:PW?--S_RX 00:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take it and put it in to the next archive and place a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was bold to redirect it to this talk page and added the contents to the archive.--S_RX 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful news for the betterment of the Pro Wrestling Project

I have received a response from Dave Millican. He has fully granted our use of ANY and ALL photos on his website davemillicanbelts.com This especially important as he is the creator of the TNA titles which we need pics of as well as old WWE/WWF titles which we can also use pics of. Here is the text:

ViewSunday, October 26, 2008 4:52:12 AM To:jakedhs08@yahoo.com Hi Jake,

Absolutely, that is no problem at all. Thanks so much for having the courtesy to ask, I really appreciate it ! Please use the photos that will suit your needs best & I appreciate the link back to the site.

Thanks again, Dave www.davemillicanbelts.com

My original message to him was as follows:

In a message dated 10/25/2008 9:05:10 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jakedhs08@yahoo.com writes:

Hello all at Dave Millican belts,

Love your work on the professional wrestling titles. I help to run a professional wrestling project on wikipedia.org which mantains articles on all pro wrestling championships. We have just created a article about the TNA Legends Championship that was just revealed on the last TNA iMPACT!. We are looking for a photo of this title and the other TNA titles such as the World Heavyweight, World Tag Team, X Division. These are hyperlinked so you can see the articles in question. Just click the name of the titles. This e-mail is in regard to asking to use the photos of the titles on your site to improve the quality of your titles articles. You will of course be credited with courtesy of Dave Millican Belts.com with a link to your website in the caption of the photos. We look forward to hearing from you.

Wikipedia Professional Wresting Project Member, JakeDHS07

If anyone doubts this being genuine I will forward the e-mail to you just leave your e-mail. Any way now we can get photos of the TNA World Tag Team Titles, World Heavyweight, and X Division titles. (The current ones suck) So get on it guys. davemillicanbelts.com And your welcome lol. JakeDHS07 09:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a screenshot of the e-mail? Not doubting you, but if a "random" adminstrator comes along and sees it, they will want some kind of evidence.... and actually, we never credit a website in the caption, I have never seen any article do that... D.M.N. (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I amended that because the photos have the website in them. No credit necessary. Also how can I take a screenshot without a camera can it be done? JakeDHS07 10:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind did some research. Here is the screen shot here. JakeDHS07 10:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm worried that the name of the graphic is rather generic, and another "Proof of authorization" could be uploaded, resulting in this one being deleted.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 10:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have saved the screenshot in case of such a event. Do you have a suggestion as to a different title maybe? JakeDHS07 10:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe make it "Proof of authorization Millican"?--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 10:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Will keep in mind if it needs to be reuploaded at a later time. Meanwhile its safe on my hard drive. JakeDHS07 11:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The one problem I see is that he is asking for a link back to his site on here, in exchange for the project using his pictures for the project. That could be seen as a form of advertising, so you would need to go back to Dave and explain to him that WP doesn't allow the advertising of websites, and if the project could just use the pictures freely. TrekFanatic (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

He didn't ask for it he said it would be appreciated therefore not required. JakeDHS07 19:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it. The way I interpret his message is that if any of his pics are used, he is expecting a link back to his site in return, which in my view would be website promotion and therefore not allowed under WP policy.TrekFanatic (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that if any new title comes out we can get a picture of it through this guy? Way to go Jake!! SteelersFan94 19:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I did this. Thanks btw. JakeDHS07 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He may have created the belts, but wouldn't WWE/TNA still hold all of the copyrights? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That was my thought. If I took a picture of a WWE logo on my camera and gave permission to let Wikipedia use it, wouldn't we not be able to because the logo is still copyrighted by WWE. iMatthew (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How is that different to us taking close up pictures of the belts on wrestlers and using them on here as we presently do? I'm pretty sure this was discusssed in one of the professional bits of Wikipedia that I have no knowledge of a few months ago and there was fear that the picture of stage set ups for PPVs would be a problem. It started with an argument over whether a picture of Winnie The Pooh violated Disney copyright. Dunno where you'd find it though sorry. Tony2Times (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See images like this one are not good to upload because they have a watermark, unless someone can edit that out. Also, that title doesn't look like the legit TNA title, why aren't the initials in red? (the TNA logo).--S_RX 22:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time you seen TNA? The World Heavyweight has never had the logo in red. That is only for the X Division belt and the Legends belt I believe.--WillC 22:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time I saw TNA? Well, never really, not a fan. Anyways, well if it the title is correct than okay but the watermark has to go because it lowers it's quality and makes it less of free-use.--S_RX 22:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to cut out the website link or just try to remove the link and leave the background? Also you might want to catch up with TNA by watching Impact on youtube. They upload every week's episode.--WillC 22:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are able to remove the watermark then it will be alright, but if you are also able to remove the background and leave a white one, it will be much appreciated. No thank you, about the TNA on YouTube.--S_RX 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've worked on it and I'm about to upload it as a replacement to the already here image.--WillC 22:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version.--WillC 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this not only has to be done to that one, it has to be done to all titles that were uploaded directly from that site with the watermark, like the TNA tag titles one.--S_RX 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know but I wanted to know if what I've done is fine and looks good or if I should just cut off the bottom part entirely.--WillC 23:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: these images can only be used on the respective articles and not freely because they are not free use images.--S_RX 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as good work. I'm off to fix the other ones.--WillC 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, why is the newsletter out of universe? What is the point of that?--WillC 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it hurt to have it?--S_RX 01:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh, well since the newsletter is just between the pro wrestling project, I guess we can have it in-u.--S_RX 02:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, new proposal for the tables on championship lists

Singles

Wrestler (Real name)[A]	Times	Date	Location	Event	Notes
Rikishi (Solofa Fatu)	1	January 8, 2010	Baltimore, MD	Friday Night SmackDown	Was awarded the championship by General Manager Vickie Guerrero, an on-screen authority[reference if needed, if not can be covered by general ref]

Tag-Team

#	Tag team	Wrestlers (Real names)[B]	Reigns	Date	Location	Event	Notes
17	Brothers of Destruction	Kane(4)[B] and The Undertaker (Glen Jacobs and Mark Calaway)	3	September 21, 2008	Berlin, Germany	Rebellion (2002)
29	—	Kofi Kingston and CM Punk (Kofi Sarkodie-Mensah and Phil Brooks)	5	July 9, 2007	Washington, D.C.	Survivor Series (2008)	Were awarded the championships, in storyline, by WWE Chairman Vince McMahon

Better? Also, notes should not contain the type of matches only important notes such as vacations, controversies, etc.S_RX 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If the project chooses to carry the in-your-face out-of-universe stuff over to lists, I forsee complaints in these articles as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles are in the format, what makes Featured lists any different?S_RX 21:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing. But the writing style for articles is still unsettled, as it needs improvement. I'm just saying that complaints should now be expected on the lists as well. The biggest problems I see with the way they are now written is that "in storyline" is going to get really old really quickly..."stripped of the belts, in storyline", "awarded the belts, in storyline", "vacated the belt, in storyline", "turned on his partner, in storyline", etc. Nobody in their right mind would want to read a list of "in storyline"s. And "a portrayed match maker" is awkward grammar. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you say in the lead that the belts are awarded or taken away "in storyline" (rather than as a result of actual competition), then it won't be necessary to keep repeating it in every row. Also, I agree that "portrayed match maker" should be reworded in every article that it is in currently. How about "on-screen match maker" or "on-screen authority figure" which I saw in some other article I read recently? Nikki311 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, I really want to make a consensus on this fast because our lists are getting removed one by one, and most of them fail the criteria. So can I go ahead and make that change?--S_RX 22:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have so far been pretty silent in the "lets add real names wherever possible" stuff, but this really is unnecessary. It is nothing more than trivia that is just going to clutter up the list and make it twice as long. What exactly does the fact that Kane's real name is Glen Jacobs have to do with the championship? Absolutely nothing. I am 100% against the adding of real names to the table. I also don't see the need for having a seperate column for tag team names, especially considering that quite a large number of tag teams don't have names. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was a standard wanted for Featured articles, so how about just adding in the prose that some used ring names and we don't have to list it in the table? Also, so if we do what I said above we can just have the name of the wrestlers and if they have a tag team name place it in small script underneath the wrestlers name?--S_RX 22:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see the point. Tables are a lot different from articles because you only have a limited amount of stuff to say things, thus only the important facts should be stated. So if anyone wants to know what The Undertaker's name is, they can very easily just check his article. It would make the table a LOT less cluttered and confusing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Which is why I said to add a small sentence in the prose about how some used ring names to win the titles and that way we don't have to list the real names in the table. As for the tag teams, wouldn't it work if we, like I said to to remove the real names and add the prose, have the wrestlers in regular font and the tag team name in smaller font underneath?--S_RX 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give me an example of this and show me what you're thinking of? Personally, I like the formatting of listing the team name (if there is one), then the individual wrestlers below. And even if it's just in the notes, I still don't think the real names are necessary. Yes, we don't follow kayfabe, but what exactly does it add? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you being the FL director, I guess it's your call but for Featured content the material should be elaborated that wrestling is in kayfabe in the prose, then that way the list can just be the list.--S_RX 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not my call, I don't have any authority to over-ride any kind of consensus or policy. I can see your point that we want FLs to be equal to all featured content, I just don't see why we should take up space with it. In this context, real names are no more important than age, who the referee was, or who made the match. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, Wrestlers either won the title under a stage name or under their real name. Is taking up too much space?--S_RX 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you're saying now. I thought you meant add their real names in the notes section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So how about like so...

Singles

Wrestler	Times	Date	Location	Event	Notes
Rikishi	1	January 8, 2010	Baltimore, MD	Friday Night SmackDown	Was awarded the championship by General Manager Vickie Guerrero.[reference if needed, if not can be covered by general ref]

Tag-Team

#	Wrestlers	Reigns	Date	Location	Event	Notes
17	Kane and The Undertaker (Brothers of Destruction)	3	September 21, 2008	Berlin, Germany	Rebellion (2002)
29	CM Punk and Kofi Kingston	5	July 9, 2007	Washington, D.C.	Survivor Series (2008)	Were awarded the championships by WWE Chairman Vince McMahon

Then in the lead we can have the explanation about how each title wins were storylines and how ring names were used and for the tag teams I feel that the tag team name should be underneath the wrestlers because to me it shows who specifically won the championships, which is more important iMO--S_RX 13:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree to that. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a new newsletter delivery bot

No offense to Misza13, but s/he's been less inactive now and the newsletter is sent on delays at times due to delivery issues, is their another bot we can get to deliver the newsletter?--S_RX 20:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about someone from the project that is highly active make one of their own and license it so we can use it, or somehow figure a way out that the project can have its own bot as a whole that anyone can use. I've not read into bots on here but I just thought to give my two cents.--WillC 21:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would do it, but the bot coding is very confusing.--S_RX 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If I find time I'll look into it. I've been wanting to have a bot of my own but just haven't done anything about it.--WillC 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If not one wants to create a bot we can make a request at Wikipedia:BOTR.--S_RX 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the delay this week? It was delivered on sunday. There was a problem for the last issue granted, but then again, Misza is giving up his free time just like the rest of us. For anyone's information, I tried User:Newsletterbot last issue, when the delay got more than a few days, but its creator's on a wikibreak too. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was delayed but I saw that it got delivered on time, does Misza have a specific time he runs his bot? That way we can catch him online to deliver them.--S_RX 20:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

images

Can someone either put the following images up for deletion or just delete them theirselves since they are copywritten, do not fall under fair use, and the uploader says he created them when they are from TNA wrestling.com. Okay the first image is Image:Maineventmafia.jpg. Its link is right here: http://tnawrestlingphotos.com/impact-photos/2008-photos/october/IMG_6092.jpg.php. The second is Image:Shaque.jpg, its link is here: http://tnawrestlingphotos.com/impact-photos/2008-photos/october/IMG_5579.jpg.php. The third has already been uploaded once and I believe we all know it is copywritten, it is Image:Tnacunt.jpg. It's the new Legends Championship and its link is here: http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/view/1133/84/. I don't know how to put them up for deletion and I would rather not find out how at 3:30 am. So I thought to place it up here so someone else can.--WillC 07:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done All tagged and done but I recommend watching User:Jkerl8 he seems to just blank the warnings and do what he wants. Also he is uploading copyrighted images with the same obviously incorrect rationale. If this continues I will recommend block. JakeDHS07 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New changes to PPV articles

For those articles that have the collapsible text box with the on-screen talent, per the FAC of No Way Out (2004), they should be moved to a different section, most likely the Aftermath (which is where I moved it); this is to be done to avoid squeezing and hiding the text. --S_RX 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2004)

Has been promoted to Featured Article status, thanks to all who helped :) Looks like third time was the charm--S_RX 22:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Main Event Mafia

Okay someone has made this article. I don't think it reaches notability yet. It is a day old and a few things have happened. Can someone place it up for a deletion discussion since I've never done that before?--WillC 03:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I say redirect it to one of their articles, seems like a stable that will eventually gain notability.--S_RX 03:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll redirect it to Sting. He is technically the lead of the group.--WillC 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See there I would disagree. When they all came out at the end of iMPACT! it would appear Kurt Angle was the leader. He told them all to wait and confronted Mick Foley. If anything it should redirect to Kurt Angle. JakeDHS07 04:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this can be discussed another time who it should be redirected too. I just said Sting since he is the World Champ and really is the starter of the Vets vs Young Blood storyline. He just seemed like the leader because they all agreed with him and act as if he is the leader.--WillC 04:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, now that's 5 elements of this episode I've had spoiled by wikipedia. Note to self, don't look at TNA articles or WT:PW on a Saturday. (But yeah, I think from what you said, Sting is the main one PXK ^T /_C 15:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mater? TNA just aired the replay this morning. Replays now take place on Saturday mornings.--WillC 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK, Saturday night is our episode premiere for iMPACT!. but we're eading off topic here and SrX and D.M.N. pick me up enough for that (no offense) so I'm not gonna go any further off topic. PXK ^T /_C 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Did someone call me? Not sure what the point of randomly mentioning my name was.... D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess they did call us, but hey if you go off topic that's your deal, I'm not going to keep enforcing over and over Wikipedia:FORUM on this talk page.--S_RX 16:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy is persistent he keeps unredirecting it as it were I've moved it back and about leave him a note on his talk page. But just in case I think we should put it on our watchlists! Thanks Adster95 (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness the creator of the article hasn't undone the redirect, but an IP did. I have redirected it. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Although looking at it again Main Event Mafia is more of a problem. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

True, activity has stopped on this one and has been redirected to that one. Maybe we should just make the article. Someone source it and write it, so that it fits the standards of wikipedia. No more edit waring then. It probably will gain importance over the next two weeks with Steiner joining the group and more will later.--WillC 18:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We can't just predict TNA is planning to use the stable for a while. Rumor sites, and personal opinion isn't enough to make an article. Until it's been around for a while (like just about every other stable and tag team article here), it doesn't need to be an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Really it isn't about how long they have been around. It maters how well sourced an article can be. The only reason Beer Money, Inc doesn't have an article is that reason. If someone had sourced the article the last time it was made with reliable sources it would still be around today. Plus the stable has already gained notability by having two champions in the stable and being involved in a major storyline in the company.--WillC 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It should be how long they are around. Otherwise, Wikipedia is flooded with wrestling clutter. Every stable and every tag team simply isn't notable for this site. They must show notability. Just appearing for WWE and TNA isn't enough (if that was the case: every jobber would have an article here). Being in the main event is more notable, however it should be around longer. What if TNA gets rid of the group right away (due to injury, people quitting or whatever)? Then Wikipedia has a tiny article about a very brief group, that wont get expanded at all. If it can be described fine in other articles (which it can at the moment): that's the way we should do it. We don't need to crystal ball, just because we think it might be around for a while. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm going by what an admin told when he deleted Beer Money, Inc. If it is sourced it can stay. But anyway, why don't we just delete the articles? Redirecting is not doing any good. They are just removing the redirect.--WillC 05:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

Okay, I would like to get a consensus on the issue that has been bothering the TNA World Heavyweight Championship since the article was made. Should we place the NWA Champions into the article? TNA's official history includes the NWA champions into the history even though people like Ron Killings never held the championship or was even active when the belt was introduced. The top ideas I've seen are to include the history and separate it by saying official champions in-between it or making two tables and having one collapsible with NWA Champions explaining why it is there. It wasn't for a few months that TNA started to add the NWA Championship history into the TNA Championship history. I would like to get a consensus so the argument will end. Also if we include the NWA Champions, I think another page should be made; a list.--WillC 01:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I say make it into two separate sections, one with unofficial champions and official, official being the ones after the NWA era and the unofficial being the theory of those how held the TNA title under the NWA title. --S_RX 01:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would say to go along with TNA's viewpoint since it's their championship. However, TNA is incorporating the lineage, or at least part of the lineage, of a championship that belongs to another organization. This is a unique situation, I can't recall another instance of a promotion incorporating the lineage of a title still active in another promotion that promotion A doesn't control. I know that "legitimate" can be a loaded term in pro wrestling but, from an enyclopedic stand point, I can't see how it can be considered "fact" if the NWA isn't in agreement with TNA's position.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we have the list of TNA Champions from Ken Shamrock onwards with that section under a grey banner that reads NWA TNA Championship and then TNA Championship in grey from that point onwards. Then maybe Interim Champions for Christian and Kurt. I don't follow TNA that much but it was referred to as NWA TNA Championship wasn't it? Surely the name alone implies part ownership/creative control by TNA. That and they stripped Severn because he couldn't make a TNA show. Tony2Times (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No because they were two different championships.--S_RX 01:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that probably no solution will satisfy everyone. While I doubt the complications it'd cause to the Wikipedia:PW were first and formost on their minds:P, this was a truly a bonehead move by TNA management. TNA is incorporating the lineage of an existing championship outside their control to their own world championship. My opinion, just insert a statement regarding the situation into both championship articles. We see examples of wrestling history getting rewritten all the time, but with a promotion doing so with a title it has no ownership of.Odin's Beard (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA never once in their history to my knowledge ever said NWA-TNA World Heavyweight Championship. It was the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Only the NWA-TNA X Division Championship was ever said since that is the first official TNA Championship. TNA created the X Division. They made the first title and control all rights to it, but not the the NWA history of the World Tag Team Championship or World Heavyweight. There is the problem. TNA refers to people like Abyss as a former TNA World Heavyweight Champion. They never mention the NWA anymore. A list of TNA World Heavyweight Champions would be hard to make. It has been discussed on the talk page for a while now. People want the NWA Championship history added and people want them removed. Some want to have Cage and Angle's reigns removed and some want them added. I don't know what needs to be done. I was thinking to have a table with NWA Champions under TNA banner saying they are unofficial TNA World Heavyweight Champions though they technically aren't since the belt was not made till May 23, 07. How can they be champions to a belt that was not made. It is confusing.--WillC 02:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The reigns from Shamrock to Cage were NWA Championships, simply defended in TNA. When they broke off their business relationship, they created a new title. They are seperate titles and have exclusive title histories. Cheers, Dooms Day 02:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm sure TNA can't even use the NWA name in any way, shape, or form. Ever seen their souviouer guide? They have photos from their early years, and the NWA title plates are blurred out. So it's their only option. Second, if we created an article called "List of World Heavyweight Champions of TNA", you could include everyone from Shamrock to Sting. I've used that wording every now and then in articles, such as King of the Mountain. Mshake3 (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an idea. Instead of making an article that would never make it to FL as a result of it not being accurate. Lets instead be correct and make an article called "List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA". Not just TNA but NWA as well. Then the NWA Champions stay out of the TNA article. It is a compromise and we can have a link in the TNA article. Then when there is more official TNA World Heavyweight Champions, we can make an article about it too and be correct there as well. What does everyone think?--WillC 05:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Mshake3, I did not see your add before I added my own. I guess great minds think alike.--WillC 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is the decision?--WillC 02:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a decision to either make the article or not? If we do a Tag Team would have to be made as well.--WillC 19:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So what's the result with these discussions?

Pay-Per-View articles names

What's the result from this discussion above? Should be we go ahead and make the changes to the controversial names of pay-per-views?--S_RX 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--WillC 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary You have provided no valid point above, per other controversial topics those PPV names should have the acronym, it doesn't hurt to have, really.--S_RX 02:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have presented a valid point several times. You have dismissed it because you don't access its validity. As the Dread Pirate Roberts would say, "If there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse". GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I have counter-replied to your points. Yes Armageddon the movie in the 1990s will probably never be made into a future film again, but Armageddon has many meanings. A religious person could be searching for Armageddon, and when they see Armageddon (2006), they could think of an Armageddon that occurred in 2006 in religious meanings. But others that don't have controversial names can stay the way they are, like SummerSlam (2003).--S_RX 21:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If they are searching for an apocalyptic end-of-the-world battle that occurred two years ago, they are too stupid to be trusted with a computer. If they stumble upon Armageddon (2006) by accident (which, of course, is impossible, since the disambiguation page that leads to WWE Armageddon clearly states that it refers to a wrestling event), read the first sentence, and somehow get the impression that the article describes an apocalyptic end-of-the-world battle that occurred two years ago, they are too stupid to be trusted with a computer. Either way, there is no need to move a ton of articles, because no confusion exists whatsoever. This is just another case of "The FA reviewers suggested an unnecessary change, and I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and shout until I get my way and we go through a ton of unnecessary work that will be of absolutely no benefit to the project or Wikipedia whatsoever." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well here's another thing, if "our" Armageddon is called WWE Armageddon, shouldn't it be consistent with it's sub articles because the main article is a disambiguation, and it's sub articles should follow the main one, it just doesn't make sense to have the main one as "WWE Armageddon" while it's sub ones differ. Hell, a song could be named Armageddon and be released in (2006). Also, nobody said anything about FA reviewers, all I said was that I agree with what they said, because it makes sense, on most times I get annoyed with what they propose, but this one thing I agree.--S_RX 22:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes.-- Hazardous Matt 12:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. iMatthew (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Championship list tables

What's the result from this discussion above as well? Should we make these changes?--S_RX 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--WillC 22:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
We should focus on sourcing them before anything else. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well FL's are already sourced so

Done. Plus the FL director approves of the idea as does other editors, so I will begin to update our FL's.--S_RX 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary probably met sourcing the 604 lists that aren't FLs first. Nikki311 02:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well the above list was mostly intended for current FL's so they can remain FL's, me knowing the criteria by heart, none of them meet it 100%. But after we get the FL's, we can get the other championship lists, we really have 604 championship lists?--S_RX 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Just 604 lists in general, but they are all unsourced. Sourced lists are moved to B-class, so they aren't included. Nikki311 02:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that, since Scorpion0422 has announced his intention to have half a dozen or so Featured Lists delisted because of the sources, addressing the sourcing issue should be the top priority. He did not, after all, say that he would go after those lists because they don't include real names, etc. For example, AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship is a candidate for removal because of the sources (see here). The only thing that will help it remain as a Featured List is addressing the referencing problem. Two or three have already been delisted, and Scorpion has no intention of stopping any time soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because Scorpion won't go for them, doesn't mean anybody else can list them for removal. The problem with some of the sourcing is that there are no reliable sources to prove the title reigns, mainly foreign championships. S_RX 10:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How hard have project members looked for sources? I did some digging and was able to switch 21 of the sources for the AJPW title over to reliable sources. I'm sure that more good information is out there, and this list is quite a bit more urgent. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well some don't like to dig for the sources. I was going to help, but I know nothing about AJPW and I can't help an article that I am not familiar with. I will go ahead and start the changes.--S_RX 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I know little more about AJPW than where the letters are located on a keyboard. Fortunately, that is all the background knowledge necessary to search for sources. If you are determined to make unnecessary changes to the format of lists for the sole purpose of making unnecessary changes to the format of lists, by all means do so. Please don't pass it off as an effort to preserve the existing Featured Lists, because (1) nobody is challenging the format and (2) several people are challenging the references. If preserving the Featured Lists was the priority, logic dictates that the latter of the two would be the priority. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, sourcing is an issue now, but format is as well. Just because it is not pointed out doesn't mean anything, me an FL reviewer could take let's say List of ECW Champions, that for one fails Wikipedia:LEDE, so it fails FL Cr 1 and 2 (because there is no more prose). It fails Cr 4, the sortability features don't cope well due to some entries not in sort templates and plus the sourcing, wrestling-titles.com is not reliable. It also fails Cr 5 because of the linking of dates and the non-linking of repeated terms, because in a sortable table each linked subject should be linked every time. So you see, nobody is taking away that sourcing needs work on every FL, but so does the formatting. --S_RX 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem determined to believe that, so I'll let you have it. Change the format, change the talk page colors, change the talk page colors again, and watch the lists have their FL status removed. Now I remember why I left the project a few months ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you left because you don't get your way. You think I don't care about the sourcing, of course I do, that's the main thing at FLC. See, I spend more time over there than here, I've reviewed about hundreds of lists, and I've seen other reviewer's comments, formatting and prose is a biggie while sourcing is as well, but less people comment on it. I have also seen FLRC's, they get removed for the same reasons. Our lists dont comply to the FL criteria, but you didn't also know that as well with the sourcing I am attacking the unreliable sources. What does the talk page's color have to do with anything?--S_RX 23:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Now children play nice! Just be bold and change the table. What difference does it make? No one pays much attention to the list anyway. The tables aren't going to save the list from being delisted and the sourcing issue isn't going to stop them from being reviewed for removal. If someone still feels it isn't up to standards even if we checked for the sources they can still place it up. If you're so worried about them being delisted then work on each one at a time until they are all up too FL standards. Sitting here and arguing about a table isn't helping the articles.--WillC 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I left for a variety of reasons. None of them had to do with not getting my way. Many of them had to do with not wanting to feel forced to write articles in such a way that even I wouldn't want to read them (ie. the oxymoronic "imposed consensus"). Other reasons had to do with the misplaced focus of the project (eg. the monthly talk page color debate, unnecessary formatting changes, etc.). I still want to edit wrestling articles, but I want to be free to do it in a way that I find enjoyable. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am already working on them here and here. Will, this also applies to TNA's lists as well :)--S_RX 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, I'm going to work on TNA's X Division Championship list after I get all of the 2008 TNA ppvs articles done I'm working on. If a consensus is ever made on making an article called "List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA" I'll work on that as well. I'm almost done with TNA's Roster article.--WillC 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have updated the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) list, I have expanded it's lead, reformatted the tables, and removed unreliable sources. The only question I have is, what can replace references to the unreliable (wrestling-titles.com)?--S_RX 20:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Raw and SmackDown don't need to be linked everytime. I don't give a shit about FLs and I don't review them, but that's just something I noticed that I don't feel like fixing. RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Randy you are wrong per Wikipedia:OVERLINK and Wikipedia:SORT. Sortable tables need to have content linked every time because when you sort it, you can't guarantee that the only linked same subject will appear first when sorted. --S_RX 21:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are wrong. Citing Wikipedia:OVERLINK The same link multiple times. Redundant links make future maintenance harder. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own). - tables are the only exceptions, I know this Randy, I am an FL reviewer. Also per the sorting, which was brought up at this FLC. --S_RX 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason for reverting the link for vacated and the link for No Mercy '02? RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It occurred with my revisions with Wikipedia:TW. Sorry.--S_RX 22:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't Benoit's win be listed as a triple threat w/ Michaels, HHH's '05 win be listed as an EC, etc.? Featured list, List of WWE Champions lists all match types.. Don't want to do it myself, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, new consensus made above was not to include the match types because it is trivial, those that are mentioned are either because it was a great deal of importance, like the first EC ever, or to explain how the title was won after a vacation.--S_RX 23:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to it. I don't wanna read through everything. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It was originally here then it transferred here, consensus to not include it because of Wikipedia:TRIVIA. The list is about the reigns not what match it was in.--S_RX 23:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article name changes

MfD for ANC.--S_RX 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirected to WT:PW.--S_RX 00:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Watching needed on Nattie Neidhart

People keep adding an unsourced, made-up theme title "Hart Breaker" just because a YouTube fan video said it. I put an invisible warning in that section, but they just ignore it. Also, even though it has yet to be seen on TV, people keep putting Layla El's ringname as Layla London. Maxwell7985 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Scissors Kick

Do you think it's a good idea to this

Scissors Kick (Running jumping leg drop to the back of the head of a bent down opponent)

If you think it's a good idea, say on this page--Brothers of destruction (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't read that well. I remember on SummerSlam (2003)'s article there was an explanation on the Scissors kick.--S_RX 14:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Beer Money, Inc and Main Event Mafia

Someone has created Beer Money Inc.. I find the team notable. If someone sources the article it will reach notability as per the admin that deleted it last. Main Event Mafia has gone crazy. Either we get it fully protected or delete it. Because I had it redirected but people kept removing the redirect. Then I quit placing it back in and fixed and sourced the article, and now they are removing the out of universe. I'm not sure what to do anymore and I'm violating the 3RR and I don't want to do that to keep it up to date with the rules. Plus people keep placing in that Sting is a two time TNA World Champion when he is but only once while being in the team.—WillC 23:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind Beer Money, it was deleted.—WillC 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I redirected MEM to Kurt Angle, the stable does not meet Wiki's notability guideline. I also left a hidden note, if it is recreated once more, I will request full-protection. Beer Money seems more notable, as long as it is fully sourced and accurate.--S_RX 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, before Raw goes off tonight someone is going to remove the redirect. Protection will probably get declined since there is no recent activity. Beer Money is being worked on in a sandbox by me as well as Main Event Mafia which will eventually gain notability. I just need to source Beer Money Inc.—WillC 00:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Priceless (Professional Wrestling)

Someone created an article about them. Is it notable at this moment?--WillC 21:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that needs a lot of clean up. I think they've been around for a while now and don't look to be going anywhere, have been big in the tag team division, have 2 reigns as a team and 3 for Cody. I think they're notable enough for an article, but it needs a lot of clean up. Cheers, Dooms Day 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if 4 months is notable, see what happened with Cody and Holly? No article for them despite a WTT title reign. I say redirect or AfD.--S_RX 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. You make a good point. Maybe it should redirect to Cody Rhodes for the moment, and we'll see whether the whole Orton stable angle gets done. I think if Orton were to ever lead a stable of these guys, it would be notable enough. Cheers, Dooms Day 21:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah because they just formed in June, and both are rookie wrestlers even though getting a push, but four months together isn't notable, while Cody and Holly were about over half a year together and they didn't warrant an article despite their tag title reign.--S_RX 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been starting to make an article for them in my sandbox here .Adster95 (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I did object to an article of theirs before but I'm starting to think they're getting to the level of notoriety where they could justify an article. Being as Holly&Cody didn't have an article, maybe their should be a Formation/Background section which explains how Cody was a face under the tutorship of Holly, they won the titles on Raw XV and then go on to explain about the current team. They've feuded with Cryme Tyme, Kofi&Punk and are engaged in this bizarre storyline with Randy Orton and were involved in the WHC dispute at Unforgiven. I think that's enough to get them a page considering it doesn't look as if they'll be imploding any time soon. Tony2Times (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hows That?Adster95 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Much better, although I think there might be a bit of overdetail there, like listing all of the matches and rematches they've had, rather than just the important ones (PPVs and title-related matches, and probably the match on SmackDown as it was against other champions). Also it'd probably be prudent to point out Ted DiBiase was debuting when he made his first promo and that the Championship win was his first match in the company. Tony2Times (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a Priceless article on my sandbox, it's under work since I've not inserted references yet and I have not uploaded a photo of them, but other than that I think it's pretty good.--Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The main problems you have in the article is it talks about the history of Rhodes and Holly which isn't need, it isn't cut into subsections, and it isn't out of universe.--WillC 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are two people working on the same article in their sandboxes? Seems a little pointless. Could the two of you collabprate or something? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot aka User:Cobi

Cobi has created User:Cobi/WikiProject Professional wrestling/Member activity check per my request on his talk page. He runs the page when asked, so if anyone remembers, try to have this list run before the newsletter is run every other week. He said it takes 2-5 minutes to run, so every other week shouldn't be a problem.

The bot checks users contributions and has different codes for different states of activity. It also has a code for marking users "with less than 25 edits." iMatthew (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but why? What does that accomplish? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, what's the harm? This project is very hostile. Backs away. iMatthew 19:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiliarious. I meant who cares if the user is active or not? I plan to be inactive for a while in a few months, and I've got to say if I return after a few months, and find I've been removed from the members list because I wasn't active ebough, I wouldn't want to return. It's stupid. Who are we to declare that people get taken off the members list because they're inactive for a while. It's bullshit. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy. iMatthew 21:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my previous statement. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, no need to get so worked up over something so minor. It's just a member's list. In this project, people fight and bicker over the stupidest non-mainspace related things, it's counter-productive. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Trust me Scorpion, I'm not worked up. Nobody on this project has seen me worked up, but I'm tired of the stupidity of this whole thing. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really no big deal, it's a member's list, only reason we really have it is for newsletter delivery. Why deliver a newsletter to a dead talk page of an inactive person...? iMatthew 22:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In case they come back and want to do what been going on in the project, without having to read through the archives? Besides, whats the harm in it? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the harm without it? It also is less work for the bot to have to do. iMatthew 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

If you remember Matt, the bot delivers the newsletter to people in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants, not just the people on the members list, so unless you intend to go around removing the userbox from people's userpages, it isn't less work for the bot to do, and it is just a waste of time/space/whatever. Like I said, it's pointless. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

can i just point out that even when i may not actually edit pages I'm always watching them for reverts and such, so please, should I be removed can you add me back Skitzo (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The list doesn't automatically remove people. I never said we will remove somebody immediately. iMatthew 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

in which case I second the question, what's the point? Skitzo (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) No, but people have been removed from the list. And it's pointless. And having a list that says "this person is active" or "this person isn't active" does absolutely nothing for the project, and it completely pointless. BTW, Skitzo, if you were removed, just add yourself back in again. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a major article contributor. I mainly contribute ideas and suggestions on discussion pages and revert what I can during work hours between calls. So, is a project member now defined by how many article edits they make? Hazardous Matt 17:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

CZW World Heavyweight Championship

Has been nominated for removal as a Featured List. Please comment here. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image question

What does everyone think of this image? I don't think it is legit, it looks like a TNA Wrestling.com picture.--WillC 23:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Steiner Bros.jpg

The Steiner Brothers

It's from Flickr, it's okay.--S_RX 23:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean it is legit. Look at it, the person would have to be inside the ring or standing next to it to get a picture that good.--WillC 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe the person works for TNA or was able to get an upclose shot, looking at the owner of the images, he owns some of the rights to it and he has other images from far away places like the rafters, to me they seem legit, if not Flickr would have removed them.--S_RX 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a pro-shot. No fan could get that close. If it was a professional, that means it was most likely a TNA employee, so it can be assumed the copyright on the photograph extends to TNA, not the photographer. Also, Flickr can't police each and every file that gets uploaded. I'm sure their priorities are well beyond monitoring pro-wrestling photos. Hazardous Matt 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

A look of any photo set from the Impact Zone pretty much confirms that this pic was taken from that site. It's not just that either. This Kelly pic originated from here. It's just a fan uploading some of his favorite photos. But the licenses posted aren't valid. Mshake3 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

So when are this, and all his other images, being removed? Mshake3 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New member interested in British Pro Wrestling

Hi. I am a new project member (joined today, 2nd November) who is interested in maintaining and assisting to expand articles on British Pro Wrestlers such as Big Daddy, Malcolm Kirk, Les Kellett, Mick McManus and also trying to get some articles sorted about the notable faces, referee Max Ward for example. If anyone else on this project has knowledge of the British Pro Wrestling circuit, especially the stuff that was televised through World of Sport, please get in touch on my talk page or through here. I would be interested to collaborate with you. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to help you, I've tried before but have found it very hard mostly because there aren't really any sources available on this, let alone reliable ones. I've done a few things with modern female wrestlers but then RQW revamped their whole website and deleted all their old news archives and results page. It seems like a lost cause I'm afraid. Tony2Times (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I managed to find a decent image of King Kong Kirk to add to his article, and also corrected the infobox to show where he died. I watch a lot of World of Sport here on TWC Fight, so I am learning a fair bit about some of the wrestlers. I am pretty sure we can dredge something up from somewhere which will give us something to go on. Its not over till the fat lady sings! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete this image, I don't know how.

Image:Maineventmafia2.jpg is copywritten though it is from Commons. The link to the photo is on the image page. It is from TNA, need I say more.--WillC 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The image has to be deleted over there. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to propose it's deletion at Commons.--S_RX 22:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we can't do anything 99.224.117.66 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Waitling list?

I know someone (SRX?) proposed we get rid of the waiting list, and I agreed at the time, but nobody else really said anything. The list was useful at first, because people would copyedit and give suggestions to articles on the list, so they were as good as possible before being nominated at GAN. It helped eliminate problems such as with Talk:No Mercy (2007), where the GAN reviewer claimed the article wasn't ready. After it had been picked for review, I copyedited the article, and SRX also pointed out some problems. Clearly, neither of us used the waiting list that may have been beneficial in this case, and if we had, the article may have already been passed. I know a lot of us have much busier schedules now-a-days, so I am wondering....is the waiting list worth keeping around if people re-commit to using it properly? If not, should we remove it and allow people to nominate freely? Nikki311 01:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove. iMatthew 01:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Remove - I say remove because the project hast lost a lot of activity and are not taking advantage of the waiting list, plus other projects don't have this. If a user wants a review, they should take the liberty to ask or they should just nominate it. Btw, it was me :)--S_RX 01:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Remove - The list of GAs is quite long anyway, and we may as well put the articles on the GA page and let them wait there so that other sports related articles don't get ahead of us. It's not like we can't just ask someone in the project to review an article if it's needed, and unless the article is very poor I'm sure the GA reviewer would leave an adequate review to get it to GA. Cheers, Dooms Day 02:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now unless there are any serious objections. Feel free to nominate to your heart's content. Nikki311 19:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Removing watchlist" - lol iMatthew 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK suggestion for Royal Rumble (1993)?

I just expanded this article and would like to submit something for Did You Know?. I can't really think of anything from the article to submit, though. Does anyone have a suggestion? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What about something to the effect of: "... At the Royal Rumble (2003), for the first time, the winner of the Royal Rumble match was guaranteed a match for the WWF Championship at WrestleMania, which subsequently became an annual tradition." Nikki311 00:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been staring at the article for a while now trying to think of something. That works well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) or: "...at the Royal Rumble (1993) Ric Flair left the WWF after losing a loser leaves town match and did not return until 2001." Nikki311 00:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Loser Leaves Town match was the Raw after the RR.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We could also go with "...at the Royal Rumble (1993), Giant González made his debut in the WWF by eliminating the Undertaker from the Royal Rumble match." Cheers, Dooms Day 03:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

I've had the article fully protected due to it's edit warring. It needs some consensus reached and discussions discussed. Please head over to the talk page to help address and possible concerns brought up. iMatthew (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left one of the "problems" a message on his talk page, about some stuff he can look at. SteelersFan94 18:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees page right now it looks bad --Brothers of destruction (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This photo album has great pictures, is anybody interested in contacting the uploader about using them on Wikipedia? iMatthew 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, those are some awesome pictures. We could definitely use them on a lot of articles. I'd send an email but I'm not a Flickr user. Anyone on the project who is, should definitely get an email off to this guy. Cheers, Dooms Day 00:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Most of those photos are mine. Thiefs. What can I say? My work is just that good. My gallery is here. I'll see if I can start uploading images again soon. Mshake3 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, how could you not have uploaded these sooner? They're great. Don't forget to add the category for them whoever uploads/transfers/whatever you do to them from Flickr. Tony2Times (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I started to again. Here's Shiek Abdul Bashir and CM Punk. Remember, those on Flickr are low quality (or at least lower quality) photos than what I upload on here. Here, I always work from the original, and in most cases, the photos are a 100% zoom of what was originally taken. Mshake3 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Billy Graham (wrestler) -> Eldridge Coleman

Quantifier. Don't get pissed off, I'm not the one who deleted ANC. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be beneficial. Per your recent comment in a discussion about an article move ("Why? He's not known as Shayne Bower... at all."), Billy Graham has never and will never be known as Eldridge Coleman. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NCP#Qualifier_between_bracketing_parentheses RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that page does support my statement. Can I assume, then, that you have changed your mind about the move request? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I support it per other moves that occurred like this, such as Sting (wrester) to Steve Bor? (Bor-something) to remove the quantifier, and from Sabu (wrestler) to Terry Brunk.--S_RX 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually it says avoid using this type of disambiguation where possible. Plus we've done it to many articles now like the wrestler who owns everyone, and meh. RandySavageFTW (talk) 10:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a move to "Superstar" Billy Graham not be more obvious? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of that at first , but Wikipedia:NCP#Qualifiers_not_between_brackets RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is just beating a dead horse. It was moved to its current page (from "Superstar" Billy Graham) through consensus achieved through a discussion of project members. Your idea ("Eldridge Coleman") does not "apply more 'naturally'", as nobody knows who Eldridge Coleman is (unlike the *now censored* "gay" and "meh" examples you gave above...the phrasing of which, I must say, does not help your case). Trying to override a consensus by citing a policy that does not apply is pointless. It's not broken, so don't try to fix it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Applying naturally is complete Wikipedia:POV thus it should be named Eldridge Coleman. I put Kane as gay because he sucks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hawkins & Ryder

I have a really good photo of them as Hawkins and Ryder, but how do you upload it into the article again????, I also have pictures of the Boogeyman, Miz, and several more--Brothers of destruction (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first you have to upload it to wikipedia. Use the "Upload file" link at the toolbox on the side of the page.

<-----

Then just follow the instructions. Btw, I take it these are photos you've taken yourself, not copyrighted images. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you've already done that, that to put it in the article it's [[Image:(image name)|thumb|(size in pixels - just number)px|(image caption)]] If you want to put it on a certain side, than add in either "left" or "right". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Gail Kim

Everyone watch Gail Kim. The rumors are going around she has signed with WWE but there is no source for this, at least a reliable one.--WillC 22:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Watched.--S_RX 22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PWInsider reported it. That's reliable. Mshake3 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In your view it is, but on Wiki it's blacklisted. Why don't you try and actually change that..... ask round to try and make it "un" blacklisted? D.M.N. (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. See here. Mshake3 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is a list that has many unreliable sources. The only 2 sources that can verify it is either WWE.com or PW Torch.com, the only 2 non-rumor free sources.--S_RX 01:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not even WrestleView? Man, this place is strict. Mshake3 (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

WrestleView was proven reliable for PPV and TV results only, not for speculation or rumors.--S_RX 02:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not according to our Style Guide. I sense another discussion coming. Mshake3 (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Our style guide says that it is reliable, but at previous FACs, it was proven marginally reliable, enough for TV shows and PPV events.--S_RX 02:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Crap, WrestleView was rejected for that as well. I was told to remove all WrestleView refs besides ones for small things.--WillC 02:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Who?--S_RX 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Both people who opposed Lockdown in its FAC.--WillC 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they look at the FAC of Armageddon, a later FAC which concluded that WV was marginally reliable.S_RX 03:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They agreed with it being marginally reliable but thought that FAs should only contain fully reliable sources, I guess. They weren't fully sure on it being used as a source.--WillC 03:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees‎

Holy crap, this page was just unprotected and reformatted, and it's attracting vandals already. Please help out on the talk page so we can reach consensus and warn users who go against it (so we have a valid consensus to work off of). I just need some help over there. iMatthew 00:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to establish the consensus here. That talk page is filling up with IP's and unexperienced editors trying to get the old page back and establish consensus amongst themselves.

Can we try to start off here by forming a consensus about adding championships to the notes section of the table? Many are adding them, and I've reverted them until we can reach a consensus about it. iMatthew 13:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)