Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

Legacy

Legacy It's in my sandbox, no week-by-week. So any opinions?--Falegas (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The editing is inconsistent. Step One is standard while Step Two is italicised, one has punctuation inside the quotes while the other has it outwith; there's some references floating about not attached to sentences. Most importantly though Manu and Sim were never part of Legacy - they had their chance and they failed. Taking a driving test and failing doesn't mean I get to drive. Also Rhodes&DiBiase won their 2 tag team belts before they joined the group. Tony2Times (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that as you've found so many errors you can remove them? I get head aches and all confused--Falegas (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't stop me disagreeing with a lot of other parts of the article. I'll remove them later if you want, I only didn't because I wasn't sure if it was the done thing to edit others' sandboxes. Tony2Times (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I am 99% sure that this is a sock of User:Kalajan as you can see User:Kalajan/(The Legacy) and User:Falegas/Legacy. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Other problems you have with the article is it is in-universe. Heel is a jargon word, it should be villianous or something along those lines. Stable is as well, so it should be alliance. You need to explain what Raw is and what a brand is. Plus you've got it all wrong, the stable was not founded at Night of Champions. Orton was injured at that time. It needs a major re-work. You've gotten your history of the stable wrong and it is in-universe. You are explaining that Priceless is The Legacy which is wrong, because The Legacy stable only began to be hinted in September. The Priceless section shouldn't explain that tag teams history, it should explain that they were teaming at the time and joined Orton to create a new stable called Legacy. You also explain things too much. The Raw promos Orton had after kicking Vince are too detailed. They should be short and to the point sentences. You also have future events in the article. His fights with Trips should not be in there. Only pasted events should.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aurelian Smith question

I have been expanding this article in a sandbox (User:GaryColemanFan/Blond), and I was hoping for some input from the project before moving it into the mainspace. The article includes some criticism/accusations from his son, Jake "The Snake" Roberts. Because this is a biography of a living person, I'd like to make sure that the subsection about Jake's accusations is okay. It's all referenced and taken from an interview Jake did for a WWE DVD. Opinions fromt he project would be appreciated, though. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's out of place though perhaps delving into the sister's relations and death is a little strained; I think the selling of angles at home is enough. I believe Jake also talks of his father on Beyond The Mat but I haven't seen it in ages so I can't remember if there's anything there not covered by the WWE video. Tony2Times (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've moved it to the mainspace. If someone from the project could reassess the article, I would appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Wrestlinglover for the quick reply and assessment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

PPV Background sections

Was it me or didn't there use to be a mention in the MoS to how many matches/fueds to include in the background section? I'm just looking at the WrestleMania XXV article and while I have to give credit to User:Crippler4 for doing background feuds, I think it's becoming a little too long. -- Oakster  Talk  22:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You can have as many as you want in there, as long as they are written well, reliably sourced, and notable (had enought build).--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 22:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The limit to how many matches and feuds included in the background section should only be limited to how many matches are on the card. Unless there's no storyline behind a match, then it's reason should be written about. Just because it's a curtain jerker, doesn't mean it's not important. Obviously main events will get more coverage because more tends to go on, but that doesn't mean that some people might not be interested in why Team Extreme is fighting T&A at Fully Loaded 2000. Especially at WrestleMania where more effort tends to be made to give every match an angle. Tony2Times (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Per the FAC of Lockdown (2008), the # of feuds are limited to the notable ones. A match that has no build up (background to it) should not be explained.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
In the case of WrestleMania, 7 of the 9 matches should have background. Those being Taker/HBK, Orton/Triple H, The Colons/Morrison and Miz, Edge/Big Show/Cena, Jeff/Matt Hardy, and Jericho vs the Legends. They all had good build to them. The Colons vs Morrison and Miz seems to not be a main match but still had more build than the IC Title match and the Divas battle royal, and was built up over multiple weeks of title matches. Unless something big happens at the event for the two lesser matches then there could be build for them as well.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
You missed out MiTB. Also the Tag Team unification match is as much a main match as the Hardys, if not as intense a feud. It's pretty important historically, for WWE, owing to the unification but I guess that's splitting hairs as long as they both go in. Unless Santino gets his way into the match which will need explaining, that & the IC match probably only need mentioning that they were announced, if even that much. Tony2Times (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. -- Oakster  Talk  00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot MITB. At the moment the IC Title has no build. You could explain how JBL won the belt then Rey challenged him but that isn't that important. I say if something big happens at the event. I would love to have background on all the feuds but at the moment I don't think there is enough for the IC Title match.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FLRC alert

I have nominated IWGP Heavyweight Championship for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. iMatthew // talk // 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Your animosity toward the wrestling project makes a move like this inadvisable at best. Given your history, it's hard to assume good faith. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm? This is a part of User:Scorpion0422/FL audit -- a project intended to improve the FL process. This will not be the only list I nominate, as the aim of this project is to clean out lists that are not Wikipedia's best work. My nominating this list has nothing whatsoever to do with my feelings towards the project. It's hard to assume good faith with you, GCF, when you make accusations like that. Besides, this is just a notification, and any personal comments should be directed to my talk page. iMatthew // talk // 02:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You tend to delete my comments when I place them on your talk page. If there are any further wrestling lists to be nominated, I would strongly recommend that you allow another member of the FL audit project make the nomination. I can't see in what way you are implying that I am not acting in good faith. Certainly, if I were to call for a reassessment of an article you've worked on, that might be a different story. Telling you to put space between you and those with whom you have had disputes is not only appropriate, it is in keeping with Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Gary can we just move on. Clearly Matt is just giving a warning, and I myself would have nominated that list for removal too, its not up to standards. If he still has hatred for WP:PW, then let him hate us, but at least he's not showing it through this nomination. Although, Matt it would be appreciated if you didn't remove others comments when we try to talk to you, but I have no control over that.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Gary if you wish to nominate one of my lists for removal, go ahead - though I guarantee they are up to standards. And I will continue to delete your comment from my talk page, GCF, as long as you continue to assume bad faith, and leave rude accusations. iMatthew // talk // 01:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I have too much integrity to get involved with assessment or reassessment of any article in which a main editor is someone with whom I have had a dispute. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait a second here, when did iMatthew have a dispute with MarcK? I don't think iMatthew did anything wrong here, it's not like the FLRC was completely uncalled for. Gary, why don't you just stop with this "iMatthew is only doing it for revenge!" crap? -- Scorpion0422 02:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, I was responding to iMatthew's comment about me listing one of his articles for removal. Wikipedia guidelines and common sense dictate that shouldn't happen, and it won't. It would be nice if the same could be said about his listing of WP:PW lists for removal. If they are to be nominated for removal at some point, so be it. But it should come with advance notice to leave open the possibility of getting things straightened out first, and it should never be by someone who has recently stated a desire to take the entire project to MFD, accused its members of being whiny children, and been told to avoid WP:WP altogether because of a Wikiquette alert filed about him. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, I did warn the project almost a year ago about these lists (and several times since). The IWGP and NWA womens titles are just the ones I forgot about. -- Scorpion0422 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Rules

The circus around this events name continues. WWE.com is once again listing this event as "Night of Extreme". Might want to keep an eye on this page. This is the 4th time the event has change names (from One Night Stand to Extreme Rules, to Night of Extreme, back to Extreme Rules, and apparently now back to Night of Extreme). Should we keep moving this page every time WWE decides to change the name? TJ Spyke 23:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not until they say it holds the One Night Stand history should we move anything. Right now lets just wait. WWE Extreme Rules is fine until we get passed Mania.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 23:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if it has been noted yet, but the dates for the Great American Bash and Night of Champions have also been swapped in this WWE.com update. They might be worth monitoring as well by your rationale. -- Oakster  Talk  00:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, forget that. The live events schedules have also noted the date change, but not the Extreme Rules change. -- Oakster  Talk  00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no June 7 event listed at all. Mshake3 (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I rather wait for a published sourced, as in ticket information before even moving it again. The schedule on the right hand side is not accurate at times, a published source we can directly source to is better to use to verify any information, so we should wait until WWE's circus ends.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. This was brought up because of the very "published source" you continue to rely solely on. Mshake3 (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, the side bar thing changed as well. So the so called "side bar schedule" thing you rely solely on is also inaccurate. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I say we invoke what I will now be referring to as Rankor Rule and say unless we can categorically prove something has changed, we shouldn't change it. And for the moment, WWE's detailed schedule still lists it under the ridiculous Extreme Rules name so let's we should leave it there until substantial evidence discounts this. Tony2Times (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
For now, it should stay at Extreme Rules until that link either gets killed by WWE or a new one is put up for "Night of Extreme".--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur, with Truco and with Tony for the Rankor Rule. All hail Rankor!!! lol.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what you guys are talking about. The side bar still says Extreme Rules or either it has been changed back. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They must have changed it again because yesterday it did say "Night of Extreme". TJ Spyke 21:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Extreme Rules has been removed from the live event schedule, though.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Who here thinks it would be a better idea to make one template just for Grand Slam champions and Triple Crown champions. There are templates for this on the WWE side. I would make one for the TNA side but thought it would be a better idea not to waste the space instead just making a template just for these champions alone. Something like these two. The championships share an article, why not just a template.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Grand Slam champions are necessarily Triple Crown champions, is there not a way we could incorporate the two into one template? I don't know what the title of the template would be though. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no purpose as to having the templates hidden for only 2 templates. Maybe if it were 3 or 4 then yeah, but 2 it is not necessary.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between hiding two and hiding three? If it removes the clutter from the bottom of the article by having a single template to hide/show all related links, the number of templates doesn't really matter. — Moe ε 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I just hid them for no reason. Just did it.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of hiding 2 templates? There is no written guideline that requires hiding this to avoid clutter. 3 or more is probable clutter.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I've made a new template adding both the Grand Slam and Triple Crown championships in one right here.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I think that looks very well presented. I wonder if their might be a better title like Championship distinction or something better but that's just a minor quibble. Also shouldn't Grand Slam go above Triple Crown seeing as it's a higher honour? I suppose one has to be Triple Crown champion first but Grand Slam is undoubtedly a higher distinction. Tony2Times (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well does anyone have a problem with me making this template?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Made minor style edits so the template doesn't exceed 100% of the width. Other than that, it's fine. — Moe ε 00:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Alright, is there any objections? If not I'll make this template come morning (Kentucky time) and place it in all articles that it should be placed in.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I still think Grand Slam Champions should be above Triple Crown as it's a superior achievement (and it's alphabetically ahead). Tony2Times (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Done.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 22:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

NWA Template

I just notice the NWA World Heavyweight Championship template which has a seperate part for TNA like I implemented for the NWA/WCW/WWE US Championship. However, while I can see the argument that TNA had control of the NWA Championship at the time, the flow doesn't look right as TNA is underneath as if it comes after yet Blue Demon is above them, therefore coming before Ken Shamrock. Also, didn't JCP/WCW exclusively operate the NWA World Title for a time in the late '80s/early '90s so that would have to be added in as well, and again you have the problem of the chronology looking weird. The title never changed names also, it was always the NWA World('s) Heavyweight Championship. Unless I'm not thinking things through properly and I've missed something? Tony2Times (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WCW was part of the NWA at the time. They were really the only ones on TV and the most famous, but still part of the NWA (and the belt was still regulated by the NWA board of directors). TNA was not part of the NWA, but did have control over the belt and didn't have to consult with the NWA over title changes. I can understand why the TNA era champs are separate. TJ Spyke 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I created the template. I was going to have a field for NWA, WCW, and TNA. But I couldn't remember when WCW had control of the belt. I knew that Dusty vs Flair, Race vs Flair, and Flair vs Steamboat was WCW, but they were still NWA GCW at the time. I read WCW changed its name to WCW in 89, but all champions from there till they lose the belt were already champions. So I removed the WCW section, and just kept the TNA section since I knew when they got the belt and that they had complete control of it. I also had a problem with the order, maybe we could have an NWA section, then a TNA section, then a new NWA section for the order.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmmkay, although are you sure WCW didn't have control of the belt? They seemed to exclusively operate it through much of the '80s up until Flair departs for WWF and both WCW&NWA strip him before awarding their new belt to different people. Also if that's the case of it being operated by TNA and not NWA during the time then I suggest repeating the names in that section, as I did for the US Belt, seeing as they're under different governing bodies. Speaking of template structure, I was wondering if we shouldn't do the same for ECW? To seperate between the promotion and the brand, not to mention highlight the 5 year hiatus? Tony2Times (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Sting the only person to win the NWA Title both when TNA controlled it and when they didn't? I'm not sure if WCW at one point did control the belt, but I know that they didn't have control the whole time of their existence. I know they didn't have control after 1991 (when they left the NWA), the NWA had a couple of title changes that WCW pretended never happened (like WCW ignored Flair losing the title to Fujinami). TJ Spyke 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
They took control of the title in the mid to late 1980s, around the time where JCP became WCW and most of the other territories began to fade away. I'm not sure of which reigns were generally NWA and which were WCW. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reigns 32-42 change hands exclusively at JCP/WCW events but this could be supposition that they weren't being defended at other territories at the time. Tony2Times (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC

Triple H and his kids

User:Raven1977 seems to have a problem with HHH's kids, and other McMahon children, being mentioned on HHH's page. This despite t6hat fact that almost every wrestler bio mentions the names of children, and the births of all 4 fifth gen McMahons were acknowledged by WWE.com. The user has request a 3O and he has no problem with the information being on Vince's, Stephanie's or Shane's pages. If someone could look at this as I don't feel I am getting through. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't want members from non-immediate family on Triple H's page. Personally, I agree. Other than WP:BLP, its also cruft. Raaggio 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it would violate BLP. Hell, WrestleMania XX opened with a video of Shane and his newborn son Deacon (so they don't have a problem with exposing their kids to the public). As for cruft, plenty of other wrestler pages mention non-immediate family members (though usually just family members who are involved in wrestling. Bret Hart's page mentions Teddy Hart and D.H. Smith and Natayla). TJ Spyke 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but all those people are notable. Would you really consider Deacon notable? Raaggio 22:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe in a couple of decades (as he will probably take over the company eventually), but not yet. In the unlikely event any of the McMahons read this, I apologize for getting Shane's son name wrong (it's Declan, not Deacon). TJ Spyke 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that every wrestler page tells of children, and if they have other relations (such as the Harts and Guerreros) that are known. With the McMahons they all have cross article information. It is not secret who HHH's nephew is through his in laws because all four fifth gen McMahons have had thier births announced on WWE.com. If someone posted the name of Matt Hyson's nephews I would understand the concerns (not that I know if Hyson has nephews) because that information would only be on his page, but where is the logic of excluding the relations of Shane and Stephanie (or naming all four grandchildren of Vince and Linda) on HHH or Marisa's pages. All four names are known and the information is public knowledge through WWE. To me (as I made the first revert) the information is not controversial to keep on because it is just a replication information already sourced on other pages. If Colin Hanks were to have a child would you exclude the name of Tom Hanks's grandchild on his page? There seemed to be no logic to the edit, which was why I reverted (and the information has been there since the births). Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is considered crystal balling and also, unless WP:N is wrong, but notability isn't established by the speculation of eventual notability. Raaggio 23:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Championships

I didn't come on the page after No Way Out because I was trying to avoid spoilers but is there a reason I'm missing as to why the two World Championships have moved to SmackDown, but the World Tag Championship stays under the Raw banner on the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment. Tony2Times (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the World Title has been defended as a part of the SmackDown brand, but the World Tag Team Championship has not been defended on ECW at all, which is why those titles remain on Raw (which is where they are mostly defended).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Tony2Times (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yet the World Tag Titles are held by ECW guys and have been defended on Raw and next week on SmackDown during their reign. Even on the WWE web site they're on the ECW brand. I don't get why people still argue that they're not ECW property even though they clearly show that on the web site. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Because like you stated, they have not been defended on Raw only on Raw and SmackDown.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
There is also the fact that wwe.com has specifically said that the WHC is a SD title, while they have never said that the WTTC is a ECW title. TJ Spyke 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes but you could also argue that due to ECW having it's talent shared with both Raw and Smackdown that it's just as much an ECW title as it is Raw and SmackDown. And you could also argue that Vickie Guerrero's GMship of both Raw and SmackDown makes the WHC interbranded. It's a slippery slope. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not implying it will happen, but it seems like WWE is leaning towards ending the split. You mentioned about Vickie being GM on Raw and SmackDown, they seem to be teasing unifying the tag belts (they have had 2 separate title matches recently and JR/Tazz kept talking about them trying to become undisputed tag champions), the Womens Champion Melina is feuding with the Divas Champion Maryse, rumors are that JBL will retire as IC Champion (they could use that to phase out the belt), superstars appear on any brand for no apparent reason (like Kofi Kingston being on SmackDown this week), etc. TJ Spyke 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the titles haven't been defended on the ECW brand, but the WWE website clearly shows that titles are on ECW. I don't understand why we're doing original research to figure out something tht is clearly presented on WWE.com. L2K (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is what I'm saying. ECW has deals with both Raw and SmackDown, and Vickie is GM of both of those shows. It isn't uncommon for something like this to happen as Miz and Morrison once held the WWE Tag Titles from SmackDown and defended them on ECW, yet on Wikipedia the official standing of the belts were that they were SmackDown's because at the time they hadn't changed the specifics. Remember the draft in '07 when Lashley was drafted to Raw and the ECW belt was immediately vacated because it was ECW's title? Now remember last year when Kane was drafted to Raw as well, except they didn't vacate his title, they decided to have champions despite what title they held(i.e. brand specific titles, the only one being the ECW title)bring their titles to the brand they are on. Mark Henry was drafted to ECW and won the triple threat at Night of Champions in order to get the title back to ECW. This also was furthered in angles involving Edge twice so far. Edge appeared on Raw to rub it in the brand's face that they didn't have a World Title on their show last year and what happened? CM Punk, a Raw superstar cashed in MITB and won the title, thus giving Raw a world title. What happened last month at No Way Out? Edge inserted himself into the Raw Elimination Chamber match and won the World Heavyweight Title and since he was a SmackDown superstar, the title became SmackDown property again. The same NEEDS to be applied here due to what has happened in the last year with the draft and Edge's antics. By rule of what has happened in these recent events I have presented, the World Tag Team Championship became ECW property when Miz and Morrison won them. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
They have never said the titles belonged to ECW, so that would violate WP:OR. TJ Spyke 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It says so right on WWE.com...it's not original research. I'm simply stating FACTS. Triple H (WWE Champion) and Kane (ECW Champion) were drafted to SmackDown and Raw last year respectively. In the case of the ECW title, unlike the previous year's draft(where Lashley was stripped of the title immediately upon being drafted to Raw), became Raw property with the draft. It took Mark Henry winning it to get it back on ECW. Edge, who was World Heavyweight Champion on June 30th was challenged by Raw superstar CM Punk and Punk won the belt, making the title Raw property. And Edge just last month, entered himself into the Raw EC match and won the World Heavyweight Title. Unlike 2007 where his MITB cash-in against Undertaker on SmackDown(where Edge switched to SmackDown upon winning the title), he didn't become a Raw superstar by winning the WHC in this match. Due to his standing on SmackDown, the title became SmackDown property. I'm using straight facts based on what has happened in the last year. I don't get why you're ignoring my points. This is the new way they handle titles switching brands. By evidence in numerous circumstances over the last year, Miz and Morrison's standing as members of the ECW brand made the World Tag Team Championship an ECW property when they beat Punk and Kingston for them. Don't skip over this, you know I have a legitimate point. To add more to it, Matt Hardy took the US Title with him to ECW when he was drafted. He lost the title to Shelton Benjamin and what happened? The title became SmackDown property again. So Like I said TJ, ignore my points again, because I know all you want is to be right but you're totally wrong on this one. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the title listed in the ECW section? Yes. Does that mean it's a ECW title? No. That isWP:SYNTH. All I am asking for is somewhere that WWE specifically says the World Tag Team Championship belongs to ECW now. I wasn't around during those periods last year and don't know what WWE said. WWE has made it clear that the World Heavyweight Championship is a SmackDown title now and I could present proof that WWE has said that. Is it too much that I think the same proof should be presented for the tag titles? This might all become a moot point after WrestleMania though (I wonder what we will do, and what WWE will do). TJ Spyke 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes but as I have explained. The numerous other brand switches due to the draft and title switches that happened involving inter brand competition lead to those titles becoming apart of the brand of which the superstar is a member of their roster. The same IMO could be said here even though the titles haven't been defended on ECW, it says on the site, and if you go by the points I made previously, they would indeed be ECW titles. If you're going to say that the title is still Raw's because ECW had a talent sharing agreement with them, then you would also have to consider that the title is SmackDown's is well by that logic since ECW also has a talent sharing agreement with ECW. The only constant in the argument is that based on what happened with championships switching brands in the last year, Miz and Morrison winning the titles made them ECW property because they were members of the ECW brand. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Except the titles changed hands months after the draft. And the rules change from year to year. Re: Rankor - The only thing we definitely know is that Edge said that he's taking the WHC to SmackDown and nobody has said that the WTTC has moved anywhere, nor has an ECW official sanctioned any matches with it. More to the point, in six days it won't exist. Tony2Times (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
...The draft made the ECW and US titles change brands. Matt went to ECW with the US title, and the belt became ECW property. Kane went to Raw with the ECW title, and it became Raw property. Mark Henry wins ECW title at PPV, it comes back to ECW..being that Henry was an ECW superstar. If Big Show had won the belt in that match, it would have become SmackDown property. Shelton Benjamin(SD superstar) defeats Matt Hardy for US Title, US title becomes SD property once again. Punk beat Edge for the WHC, and Punk being a Raw guy made the title Raw's. Last month...Edge won the title in the EC..and since he was a SD guy, it became...get this...SMACKDOWN PROPERTY! Sorry but that's more than enough examples to show regardless of the title being defended on ECW or not, Miz and Morrison winning the titles made them ECW property even if those two guys are on every show in the first place. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Young (wrestler) Atlas DaBone --> Ricky Ortiz

Moved the conversation down here, because the conversation is now between Atlas DaBone and Ricky Ortiz, instead of Richard Young and Ricky Ortiz

I propose said article be moved, because he is better known because

  1. He is better known by the media as Ricky Ortiz,
  2. We can remove the quantifier {(wrestler)}
  3. He is not notable under his real name or any other alias. The only other alias is Atlas Dabone, but he only used the name when he was in Developmental.

Raaggio 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

  • Hey, I live in KY, and I don't live near Louisville at all. I see OVW. Just thought I would help out. Though I'm still local, it is seen farther than that. It is shown in Ohio, Indiana, and Tennessee to name a few.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
According to OVW's site they are seen in Louisville, Lexington, London Kentucky and the "Louisville Metro Area". Anyways, I think you got my point though, the name he used in a small indy fed (even one that is more notable due to having been affiliated with WWE) would not be used over the name he has used since entering WWE and has been seen by millions of people worldwide. TJ Spyke 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the name, just showing you I've seen it other than Louisville.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

That is only when it doesn't conflict with WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H). TJ Spyke 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
How is he best known by his real name? Raaggio 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess it isn't a distinction between his real name anymore, so do u still oppose? Raaggio 01:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, he hasn't had any "notability" under "Ricky Ortiz", only exposure on TV. He hasn't done anything under that name. Thus, he is not best know by that. His real name is what we should abide to in this case, see Nick Nemeth and Dustin Runnels.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Dustin Runnels is not under his real name, and in Nic's case it's really different. Nic Nemeth has 3 established names, where 1 was on HEAT and 2 were on Raw (Nicky, Nic Metro and Dolph Ziggler). Ricky only has 1 national name, which is Ricky Ortiz. It's obvious he should be under that name.
Okay, but a common name is not established in 1 year. Just because he has gained WWE exposure does not make him commonly known as such. His OVW career is nothing more than his current WWE ECW career. Take Braden Walker as an example. Also, take note that we should not be voting on issues.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are using different cases. Come on, you know Chris Harris is obviously more notable because of his time in TNA (which is nationally televised unlike OVW). And I must add we're not voting, I divided the sections to easily note the different points for and against the naming of an article. You, of all people, no its a traditional format for some consensus-reaching discussions. Raaggio 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the Harris thing as well. A 7 time tag champ compared to telling dumb knock knock jokes.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let me ask you this. How does less than a year of work under that name establish any notability? What if he's released tomorrow? What if he (forbid it) passes away tomorrow? What if his name is changed? Would he still be notable as Ortiz or his full name? Which he has wrestled under as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm just stating I think Harris is more notable as Harris. As for Ortiz I'm not sure. When I saw him on ECW, I remembered Atlas Dabone because the OVW commentators annoy the hell out of me when they said his name on OVW TV. And believe me, they are more annoying than Don West when he says "You've got to be kidding me!!".--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone can establish notability under a name in under a year, if that is what your asking. He is only notable for a few things: being a football player for the XFL/CFL/AFL/NFL at different periods, being a wrestler in OVW and being a wrestler in WWE. Since the current article name is Richard Young (wrestler), he is presumably most notable as a wrestler. So ask yourself, what is more notable and more of a common name: Atlas DaBone/Richard Young, a name he used in OVW, a local independent promotion, or Ricky Ortiz, the name he uses on television every week in WWE, the largest conglomerate in the entire professional wrestling industry. If he did die tomorrow or was released and didn't do anything notable the rest of his life, he would probably be best known during his year of being a wrestler in WWE as Ricky Ortiz. — Moe ε 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

It's been twelve days since I posted the section, and I think the consensus is to move, am I right? Raaggio 15:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say, as this was turned into a vote rather than a discussion, and a vote can't prove consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's been almost unanimous. Only 3 opposes, and 2 were answered and corrected by Spyke when he explained about WP:COMMONNAME. And another says he is more notable under his real name, but his real name is now irrelevant. Other than that, the only other is Will who is "neutral". I don't see any opinion damaging consensus. Raaggio 03:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Telling people that you disagree with them doesn't discount what they had to say in the first place. If they change their mind or strike their oppose, that might mean something. When going for consensus, though, a multi-party discussion is the important part. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No, if you could read, then you'd see that TJ Spyke proved their reasons for opposal wrong, utilizing guidelines. So, yes, consensus is achieved when utilizing guidelines to create it. Raaggio 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

'Consensus needed - move links

An IP user has been deleting all links that lead to origins of move names. Some are probably not necessary, but some lead to terms that may not be familiar to every reader.

Examples:

Throwback
Edgucution

Are there any WP guidelines that would indicate that such links should not exist? What is everyone's opinions on this? I myself added quite a lot of said links to In wrestling sections myself, so I may be biased in this. Myself and several other users have reverted most of said IP's edits, but I wanted to bring this up here to get a decision on this once and for all. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the links are really needed to be honest. Ones like Edgecution are OR anyways. TJ Spyke 19:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of the OR argument. That's a good point. The meaning may be fairly obvious for Edgucution, but it is OR. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Something I neglected to bring up before. Several articles link a move name to the wrestler with a similiar move name. Jay Lethal and Chris Benoit both link move names to The Dynamite Kid. Elix Skipper's "New School" links to the In wrestling section of The Undertaker. Are these instances any different than above. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Well those ones are often sourcable. They tend to be linked to them because that person called the move something different in which case the link is self-proving or because they took it from that person, in which case they will presumably have said it in an article. It's a shame that it's OR because I've always thought it was a good idea, doesn't detract from the article in any way. Tony2Times (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
That was always my aim in adding them. It doesn't detract and it can add some info for certain people. Assuming a way to source them could be found though, we could still keep them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On some cases it is OR, on others it is common sense. Of course Edgucution stands for death sentence. You would have to be blind and dumb to not get that one. On other cases it would be different.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

American Males AFD'ed

Someone put an AFD on The American Males but have neglected to inform the project of it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Males. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would urge those who have commented in this discussion to revisit the discussion and remain involved. I have done some sourcing for the article, and I would appreciate feedback as to how it now stacks up against Wikipedia's notability criteria (multiple mentions in established third party sources). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Encyclopedia

I bought the WWE encyclopedia and BOY does it have a LOT of information in it. It has every superstar that has ever been in the WWE, including Benoit and people no one has ever even heard of (Battman anyone?). It also has info on all tag teams and stables as well as pay per view events and other large events (something called The Big Event). If you guys want, I can start going through this thing and adding info to articles. Just let me know what type of info is relevant and how to reference something that's in a book.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it has some notable wrestlers missing (at least based on reviews i've read). It should still be good as a source though. I would suggest starting with wrestlers that have stubs for articles. TJ Spyke 05:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
You reference info from a book using the Template:cite book. Nikki♥311 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I'm not sure of who, if anyone is missing. Everyone I could think of is in it, again that includes Benoit, and there are TONS of people I've never even heard of. Anyway, I'll start going over some of the articles tonight and go in the order that they are in the book. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some missing:Sean O'Haire, Mordecai (Kevin Thorn is in but not this gimmick. The reason I point it out is that some wrestlers have different entries for their different gimmicks), Rico (mentioned but no pic or bio), Nathan Jones, Ernest Miller, Velvet Mcintyre

Doug Furnas, Philip Lafond, Max Mini, Tennessee Lee, Matt Morgan, Ultimo Dragon, Chris Kanyon, Sakota, Rodney Mack, Tiger Ali Singh (is showed in a pic, mentioned at 2 times, but no bio), Daniel Puder, Chris Walker, Frankie Kazarian. TJ Spyke 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

:O Been plagiarising Amazon TJ :p. Tony2Times (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I did say I was just going off of reviews I have read. I plan to get the book myself when I have the money (Amazon has it listed for $26). TJ Spyke 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That list of people IS missing from the book, but none of them were people I thought to look for which is why I didn't notice I guess. Anyway, I've started going through the articles (going on the order that they are in the book) and updating and adding to them. Most of the info is already there so far on the ones I've worked on, but some of the articles can be expanded a little with the info given in the book which is what I've been doing. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Suicide?

I don't watch TNA, but I gather the Suicide character is a source of debate, especially because who plays him hasn't been 100% confirmed. Should Suicide (character) be kept then? Merged to whoever plays him? Merged to the video game? Nikki♥311 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the character in general, but 2 sources that I consider pretty reliable for PPV results (Online World of Wrestling and Prowrestlinghistory.com) both confirm that Christopher Daniels played Suicide at Destination X. So for that article we can change to links to Daniels. Other articles are more tricky as I am not sure when Kaz got injured and when Daniels started playing him, or if Daniels is still playing him. I think the character article can stay though, and it would maybe help if it were expanded to include info on the character in TNA's game since the character was created specifically for the game. TJ Spyke 02:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the article should stay. The X Title reign belongs to the character and not Daniels or Kaz. It would be a valuable character article seeing TNA went to alot of trouble to make it a TV character plus by doing so are up for an award. Would be a better link to use and no other character in a wrestling game has been taken from a game and used on TV. I feel it is notable. Plus we could place a history of Kaz's and Daniels' time playing the character, instead of filling in a long history in both of their articles. Suicide may return for TNA's next video game also.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and apparently Kaz is ready to come back so he might be resuming the role really soon. And oh yeah I wonder who'll publish the new TNA game since Midway declared bankruptcy. But I agree with Will C is this is a character and there's only wrestlers who play the character. This isn't like Daniels with Curry Man. This is a gimmick that TNA owns and the wrestler who is unmasked at the end is the one who gets all the credit on screen. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Midway isn't going under, they entered chapter 11 bankruptcy (something lots of companies enter while they come up with a restructuring plan). That is beside the point. Does anyone have a problem with listing Daniels in the Destination X article only? So it would be "[[Christopher Daniels|Suicide]] defeated...". TJ Spyke 04:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Plus they are supposed to be rushing TNA Impact 2 for a quick release, though the game hasn't even been officially announced yet. I say lets just keep linking to the character considering there is still alot of problems with the character. Some think it is Daniels, some think it is Kaz, and for some strange reason they think it is Low KI, since he did the voice in the game.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Professional wrestling throws overhaul

The editor Azihade (talk) has made some significant changes to the page on professional wrestling throws by moving the section on Drivers (e.g., Half nelson driver) to the piledriver page and moving the Death Valley driver and its variants to the brainbuster page.

I disagree with these changes as they do not fit the description of the move detailed in the introductory paragraph of the page (i.e., the introductions of brainbuster and piledriver). However, when another editor attempts to revert the edits, he undoes the revision. I think the Pro Wrestling WikiProject should come to a consensus as to where these moves belong. If the consensus is to restore the previous edits, we should work towards fixing the changes and informing Azihade, as this task is a little difficult for just one editor. If the consensus is in agreement with Azihade, the WikiProject needs to work on editing the pages of countless wrestling-related pages in order to fix the internal links. -WikiFew (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought this up previously, but not too much was decided. I agree with you. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I also agree, which is why I reverted many of that person's edits.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
PCE appears to have rectifyed some of them as well. Now we need to go through articles that those things might link too and check for links that have been changed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've reset the altered movelists back to how they originally were as best as possible. PCE (Talk)

Discussions supporting and/or opposing an argument

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Well, GaryColemanFan and Truco both disagree with the format I made above for the two discussions I brought up for the moves I requested. Truco says Wikipedia is not a democracy and Gary says it's against consensus. However, I must point out that:

  • Polling is not forbidden and can be utilized in discussions, which the guideline specifically states move requests as being one of them.
  • WP:CONSENSUS is not gained by majority of votes, instead by the strength of an argument. However, by splitting a matter in opinions, we can easily adhere to deal with concerns from an opposing user. Also, the more support an argument gets, the more visible is the strength of the argument
  • Straw polling may be used for matters of article content, and are helpful. Item #9 states: In the context of Wikipedia articles, straw polls are most helpful, if ever, in evaluating whether a consensus exists or in "testing the waters" of editor opinion among a few discrete choices such as two choices for an article's name. Even in these cases, straw polls may never be understood as creating a consensus, but merely as one tool in developing a mutual and voluntary consensus.

So, basically, if we all are devout to create voluntarily a consensus, then the guidelines do in fact let us abide by straw polling, specifically in debating moves. Although the guidelines are right, I might be wrong. So comments are always invited. Thank you, Raaggio 05:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My concerns are: (1) a project-wide tendency to go straight to voting, straw polling, or whatever people want to call it, (2) a straw poll is a vote; people use the term to get around the guidelines, but I'll invoke the Shakespeare Standard — by any other name, it's still just a vote, and (3) structuring a discussion in the format of a vote discourages productive discussion; in addition, there seems to be an idea that responding to someone's vote (and yes, it's a vote) by saying that you (used as a generic pronoun, not referring to anyone in particular) disagree cancels out the vote. I vote for petitioning Wikipedia to obtain funds for everyone involved to attend a retreat somewhere warm where we can attend a workshop on the finer points of consensus-building discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you say Gary, but voting is not against the guidelines. Not in WP:CONSENSUS, not in WP:VOTE, not in WP:NOT and not in WP:!VOTE. It's not "going around the guidelines", the guidelines are there, and they directly state when to use voting/polling. Also, no one thinks that answering a vote cancels it out, it's answering their concern with the explanation of a guideline. For example, if we were to poll for voting and you vote against it saying the guidelines say they never can be used and I answer saying it's stated that it CAN be used in three different guidelines, then I have corrected you and fulfilled your doubts. That means you have no reason for saying that unless you bring up a new point, effectively nullifying your opposal. However, you can still bring up more concerns for opposing if relevant. I understand you think voting is ineffective, and that defers from my opinion and I respect that. Raaggio 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
First, WP:CONSENSUS states that "New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one....Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others." WP:VOTE states that "Polling, while not forbidden, should be used with care, if at all, and alternatives should be considered." It also states that "article straw polls should not be used prematurely" and that "if a straw poll is inconclusive...the poll and its results tend to simply be ignored." WP:NOT states that polls "should be used with caution." WP:!VOTE repeats much of that information and also adds that "Once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing of the poll are likely to result in an all out battle over whether the poll itself was fair. This means that consensus should be reached on the precise questions to be asked before starting a poll." It's also important to note that my response above did not say that voting was against the guidelines. I did say, and I will continue to say, that throwing a question out to the project and telling people to Support or Oppose is a premature poll that discourages consensus, fosters incivility, and is quite likely to miss out on the best option (which, if not present from the beginning, invalidates that whole thing anyway...as was the case with Percy Pringle). Claiming that a consensus has been reached to move the article to Paul Bearer when it clearly hasn't been proven from such an inconclusive and inherently flawed poll, is obviously not true. Taking it to Wikipedia:Requested moves at that point and making a false claim about consensus having been reached further undermines the process. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, no one was continuing the discussion. I asked if consensus could be admitted with only the small number of votes, and the discussion was ignored as well. Before the discussion would be archived, I took the measure of accepting the consensus, because no one was against it. After I requested the move was when people started adding to the discussion. And I don't regret it because my actions brought more people to the discussion and therefore added to the dispute resolution consensus-reaching process. Second of all, like YOU stated, polling should be done at the BEGINNING, and used to FACILITATE consensus. It's exactly what I did: I created a polling process, spotted concerns, [TJ Spyke] answered them (proving them erroneous) and eventually got a lot of people to agree with the move. Not one person had a legitimate concern or opposition. And even so, if there were, it would have been discussed just like the other ones. It's an easier way to discuss things and achieve consensus, and the guidelines even state so. How can you still say it was the wrong thing to do? Raaggio 21:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem determined to misunderstand, so there isn't much I can do. My comments clearly showed that if a discussion, rather than a poll, had been attempted in the first place, the choices for the poll would have been much more logical. As it is, the poll is inherently flawed because the choices changed halfway through, thus casting doubts on all previous comments, as many of the editors gave their opinion before being presented with the choices. If you are unable to understand that, then we have nothing more to say to each other. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this needs a discussion. At its introduction, the above discussions were just that discussions. Just because someone bolds support or oppose it does not mean that you can instantly decide it will be a poll. Yes you're right, polling and voting is not forbidden but it should be after a consensus cannot be reached when discussing. Splitting them up into 3 sections is a poll, a discussion is one that is not like that, even if the supports and opposes are bolded. Straw polls are always last resort not the first resort. We used to have a process here on WP:PW on move requests and yes it was a vote, but it was agreed upon to remove that process and have the community discuss it here if it is a controversy.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If polling was used as a last resort to make a consensus, wouldn't that be unfair? Wikipedia is not a democracy. Raaggio 22:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No because WP:DEMOCRACY is a guideline that states that voting is not a substitution for discussion, thus if a discussion has not reached a consensus, a straw poll can be taken instead, which has been done with many WP and MOS guidelines in the past.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Ha. Agreed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Support iMatthew's proposal. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing Help

I'm looking for sources for ROH Respect is Earned (2007). I'm fine for background and aftermath info - referencing event DVDs and old Newswires will take care of that. I've got PWTorch ready to go for the event info, but I'd like a second source to help out if possible. If anyone has access to Wrestling Observer Newsletter, could you please check if they have a report on the event, and if so, can you link it for me? Thanks a lot. Cheers, DoomsDay 21:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

They have a search function if you have difficulty in finding it, you can also search it within Google.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't help you. Slam has an article but not a play by play. Would work great with the reception section though. Also I'm about to update the PPV expasion project article, could you tell me if you are going to work on it in a subpage or in the article?--WillC 22:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You need a subscription to WON, don't you, to access it? But you can access it via direct link, I believe? So I was hoping someone here who was a subscriber could find it. I'll be expanding it directly in the article, as well, if you like to keep track of that. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you probably do need to subscribe. Alright thanks for the heads up. I'll just leave a word of advice before I go. I mean this as a friend and just thought I would mention it, maybe you should expand it in a subpage. From what I've seen, you seem to start and stop then move on. Like with Vengeance 03, to Royal Rumble 01, to Backlash 08. Maybe it would be better to have it expanded in a subpage so then if you get tired and move on, we don't have another unfinished article. Just thought I would state that. That is one thing I have a problem with. I'll start an article then stop and move on, one reason I expanded mainly in subpages.--WillC 01:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the way I see it, might as well have some content in there. Better than none, and if I leave it off, someone else can pick it up or I can always finish it up later. I also don't like subpages because it doesn't let everyone else look at what you're doing and add to it. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ECW Template

I mocked up this template for the ECW Championship in the same vein as other belts that have gone through various promotions. I know technically it was Eastern Championship Wrestling but funnily enough that's the same initials as Extreme Champ Wres so I put it as NWA seeing as it was under that promotion. Part of me still wants to, like I did with the US Championship, put people in it for each different era seeing as it was awarded by a different governing body and also that way it won't look as if Mikey Whipwreck was the first ECW Champion rather than Shane Douglas, but I can see why Will put it the other way. Any problems with doing it this way? I wondered if people might have beef with it seeing as it's always been under the banner of ECW. Tony2Times (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a small problem with Tazz. He won the title both as "Taz" and as "Tazz". I honestly don't see the need to split up the champions. ECW was also an independent promotion and controlled their own belts, the NWA never had any control over who was ECW Champion (the NWA doesn't say who the regional champs are, that is up to the individual promotions. The NWA only says who holds the world titles, which the ECW Championship wasn't until Shane Douglas threw down the NWA belt and announced that ECW was leaving the NWA, until that point it was like the NWA Virginia Championship or the NWA Upstate Championship). TJ Spyke 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Split it along ECW/WWE lines and list Tazz as Taz(z). Darrenhusted (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why split it along ECW/WWE lines? --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Combo names suck. Just use the most recent name. Mshake3 (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well seeing as we only list the first time they win the belt, shouldn't we list the first spelling/gimmick used? Tony2Times (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this more preferable then? My argument for splitting it along promotion lines is that the championship is being awarded by a different governing body and it is being used towards a different purpose. As the WWE Belt it is no longer the top tier of a promotion but the top tier of a brand. Tony2Times (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense, and fits with other current championship navboxes. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.wrestlingattitude.com/

Quick question, I don't really do much work for WP:PW anymore but i was watching Impact! back from last week and noticed that they said that Mick Foley & Sting vs. Angle and Steiner was the most watched match in TNA history. I was thinking about adding it into the page, and found a reference in http://www.wrestlingattitude.com/results.php?subaction=showfull&id=1235708353&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10& - is this an acceptable website to source from? I couldn't find a list of ones approved. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really notable considering it is wrong, the Empty Arena match actually was watched by more. Plus the source is unreliable. Not really a big deal.--WillC 19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Percy Pringle --> Paul Bearer

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved to Paul Bearer. It seems that almost everyone thinks the article should be moved, but opinion is divided on which name it should be moved to. While the "vote" on this is split 4-4, the results of discussions like this are judged based on the strength of the arguments. Wikipedia's naming conventions clearly state that we should use the "most easily recognized name". This requirement takes precedence over almost all other naming considerations, and advocates for moving to the performers real name have shown nothing to overcome that requirement. -- Aervanath (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This one is just obvious. Read the article, the article is completely about the Paul Bearer character, the small mention of the Percy Pringle character is overshadowed by He is best known for his career with World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment as the manager of The Undertaker, Kane (Undertaker's storyline brother), and Mankind. So, anyone who can read, will notice the article should be under Paul Bearer. Raaggio 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support to Paul Bearer

Except that neither Cat Stevens nor Yusef Islam are subject to trademarking and copyright. Moody does not own the name "Paul Bearer" and if he is not employed by WWE he cannot use it in a professional context. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Support to William Moody

And by William Moody I would assume we mean William Alvin Moody to avoid a quantifier. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - It would be POV to say that either one of his well-known ring names is his best-known name. In cases like this in the past, we have always gone with the real name. William Moody seems to be the best choice to avoid future disagreements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • How is it POV to name an article for someone's most commonly used name? Wikipedia does it all the time as long it's not OR. Read WP:NPOV — there's nothing there prohibiting such judgements. — AjaxSmack 01:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
      • You say one identity was more important; I say the other is at least as important. Either way, it would be a POV judgment to take one opinion over the other, as they both have substantial evidence to back them up. It may be your point of view that his time as Paul Bearer was more important, but that doesn't make it fact. The only thing that can be stated unequivocally is that his real name is William Moody. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - per my comment below. Nikki♥311 00:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


Oppose any move (keep as Percy Pringle)

  • Oppose, just like last time this was discussed and not approved. He refers to himself as Percy Pringle (see his website at http://www.percypringle.com. He has been using the name Percy Pringle from 1977-1990, 2002-2003, and 2005-present. He also published a book under the name Percy Pringle (Inside Secrets on How You Can Enter the Exciting World of Pro Wrestling!). I see no need for a move. If it's not broken, don't fix it. I also see no need for insulting anyone who might choose to oppose by labeling them as illiterate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, then you should change that article, because the WHOLE article is about him as his time as Paul Bearer. So what his book is authored by Percy? The article is completely about Paul. Have you not read the lead of the article? He is best known for his career with World Wrestling Federation effectively stating he is best known as Paul Bearer. <font face="jokerman" Raaggio 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please revisit WP:POINT, RandySavageFTW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
By telling him to visit WP:POINT, you're effectively telling him his point was proved. ;) Raaggio 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • He left WWE 5 years ago, from then on he's been referred to as Pringle. If I'm correct, WWE also referred to him as such in a "update interview" (I think). So I oppose as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Comments Well, there's only 2 people supporting the move, while 1 is against it. I would like it if more people are involved in this consensus reaching. Thank you, Raaggio 00:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between reaching consensus and getting a slim majority in a three-person vote (particularly when Truco opposed the move but his comments were left in the "Support" section. The latter is certainly not enough to justify a move. As a matter of fact, this discussion should not have been reformatted, as it takes away from the discussion and encourages voting. Likewise, I have already mentioned that refactoring another editors comments is a violation of Wikipedia policy. To strike out RandySavageFTW's comment is unacceptable, regardless of how useless it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Voting is discouraged in Consensus reaching, Raagio you need to stop making every discussion involving a consensus a vote, this is not a democracy. If he strike his comment, it needs to be unstriked because he did not have the consent to do so.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And as before I would oppose a move to anything other than his real name. Especially as Paul Bearer is (C) and TM WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
So is "The Undertaker". I don't mind the current name for his article, but he is more known as Paul Bearer. TJ Spyke 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
But he (UT that is) is still in the employ of WWE, so it's not a problem. William Moody is not employed by WWE, and couldn't use the name Paul Bearer in a professional context without having to pay WWE. Lest we forget the problems The Rock and SCSA, and especially the Dudley Boyz, have encountered when trying to use (C) names. I would feel the same way about Mark Calaway if he were to lose his job with Vince's Empire of No Wrestling Fun. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment, he spent 10 years as Percy Pringle in numerous promotions including WCCW and FCW. As mentioned before, he authored his book under that name and his official website is under that name. That is enough to make the name just as "common" as Paul Bearer. I like the idea of a move to his real name, because he doesn't have a common wrestling name. Nikki♥311 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • BLP is not a legitimate argument, as it is completely unrelated to moving the article. The requested move actually goes in the face of NPOV, as it asserts that one long-term stage name is more important than another long-term stage name. This explains why the current discussion has four people supporting the move and four people supporting a move to the subject's legal name (far from the "consensus" mentioned in the earlier post). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of those who opposed have since struck their votes, so we are split 4-4 for a move to either Bearer of Moody, so at this point the page stays where it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"talent"

I see the word talent used a lot in wrestling articles. This seems very subjective (WP:PEACOCK/WP:POV) - I mean, who is to say that these people are talented? I think better words would be (as applicable): wrestlers, personnel, staff, employees, commentators. --Jameboy (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is how the companies tend to refer to employees. It's the same way WWE used (sometimes they still do) call all of their wrestlers "superstars", even jobbers like The Brookyln Brawler. TJ Spyke 21:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the original poster. It shouldn't matter how the company refers to the employees. "Talent" in this sense is not an encyclopedic terms; both "talent" and "superstar" are POV/Peacockish and should probably be avoided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is POV. A "talent" can be someone with a gift or skill. Are you telling me it doesn't take skill to do what wrestlers do? TJ Spyke 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also used in the film business to refer to actors. It may be jargon so could be replaced. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Talented is a peacock term, talent is not the same in this connection. I don't disagree that it'd be better to use a different word but I'd say WP:JARGON is more applicable as it's a slang term and not a "point of view" term. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Multi AFD??

Someone removed the prod on the following articles:

But frankly they're not notable enough for Wikipedia nor do they have any reliable sources. Wouldn't it be appropriate to put them up as one collective AFD to just get rid of them??MPJ-DK (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we wait a week on this? I think the best thing to do might be to create an article for the promotion (I checked, and it appears that sufficient reliable sources are available to establish notability) and merge the championships into the article (I think I can find reliable sources for this as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Who decided to make articles for all the championships of a promotion without making one for the promotion itself? :s Tony2Times (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm in no hurry GCF, so if you want a crack at it feel free. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If you do decide to nominate them (I would probably support deletion in their current states), yes it would be best to have 1 AFD discussion. WP:AFD has directions for how to do that. TJ Spyke 18:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I've got the new article started in a sandbox, and multiple independent reliable sources are, indeed, available. In addition, reliable sources are available for all title reign information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I created the article at Great Canadian Wrestling, merged and sourced the title information, and redirected the championship pages. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Meltdown

Does anyone know if the site The Meltdown is reliable? It seems like it to me, but I forget the criteria for what makes a site reliable.--WillC 05:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Professional wrestling match types

A lot of IP's are targeting the Professional wrestling match types page, so best to keep eyes on it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

50 edits in a fortnight is not a lot, but today they have targeted. I say let them attack then hit it with a semi-pp. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Titles on ECW

The tag titles currently held by Miz and Morrison, should be considered a part of ECW. If Edge's WHC is a part of Smackdown, there really is no way to say this belt isn't on ECW. The WWE has put the WHC on the smackdown page. But the tag titles are on the ecw page, and not the raw page, meaning they belong to ECW.Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Present some evidence where WWE has says the belt belongs to ECW (what you have their is WP:SYNTH). WWE has flat out said that the WHC belongs to SD, I have not seen them ever say that about the WTTC and ECW. TJ Spyke 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we look at it the other way and say how can we assume a championship held by two members of ECW, with the championship on the ecw page, is a part of Raw? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we assume until we have proof otherwise that a giant autocratic alien sapien called Rankor controls the moon by remote control from two galaxies away until we have proof otherwise? WWE have said the World TTC belong to Raw previously, they are yet to say they belong to Raw. We have proof of one, the other is ambiguous thus we go with the certain choice. Besides which they're being unified in a fortnight, does it really matter? Tony2Times (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
How long have you been waiting to use that one? As for the Tag belts, maybe they belong to no brand. They are on all brands each week, been defended only on Raw and SD, mainly SD. It seems to me, that they are no longer held by a brand.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Rankor uses telepathy, not a primitive remote control. Raaggio 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going far away from the discussion here, but I don't think what I'm doing is against WP:SYNTH, because the belt is actually on the ECW page. Nowhere does it have any indication that the belt is still on Raw. Just like every other belt, it becomes a part of the champion's brand. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have are a group of dedicated Rankor followers making the consensus clear to you. The belts stay where they are until you have positive evidence to support your position. You don't, so the consensus (the belts are assigned to RAW) remains, at least until unification. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
So how many times has the title been contested on Raw? And on SmackDown!? WWE has got it on the ECW page, it's held by two ECW superstars. That's my given opinion--Falegas (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Equally to that point, has it ever been contested on ECW? I don't watch but I don't remember any recaps about a World Tag Team Championship match on ECW. Tony2Times (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, check '.com, it's held on ECW, but is contested on other brands due to all that exchange gig up--Falegas (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's held by ECW wrestlers. That page is a roster page. Two people on that roster hold a Raw belt. If they retained the belts on the Raw page then they'd have to put Miz & Morrison there and you'd be saying that M&M been drafted to Raw. Tony2Times (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Correct. Also the tag belts have not be defended on ECW. They've been defended on Raw and Smackdown since Miz and Morrison got them. That is a fact. Punk and Kofi got their rematch on Raw. The Colons have defended the WWE Tag belts against them, while Morrison and Miz have defended the World Tag against them.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you note that the belts have never been contested on ECW, that is against WP:OR. When Edge won the WHC, he took it to Smackdown, and when Miz and Morrison won the Tag Titles, they took it to Smackdown. I just don't understand why that is being disputed. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As it has been stated multiple times already, WWE has never said that the WTTC belongs to ECW while they HAVE said that the WHC belongs to SD. Also, the WTTC was already able to be defended and held by ECW wrestlers due to the talent exchange. Raw and SmackDown have no such agreement, so SD basically "stole" the belt from Raw. If you can present proof where WWE plainly says that the title belongs to ECW (saying they belongs to ECW because it is on the ECW roster page violates WP:SYNTH), then that will end the argument. TJ Spyke 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, Falegas and Ive Cena nuff... if this were true what you were saying, then when Kurt Angle won the World Heavyweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw and not moved to Smackdown. When Helms won the Cruiserweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of moving to Smackdown. When Edge cashed in his Money in the Bank and won the World Heavyweight Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of moving to Smackdown. When Matt Hardy won the World Tag Team Championship with his brother, he would've moved it to Smackdown instead of staying on Raw. When Rob Van Dam won the WWE Championship, he would've taken it to Raw instead of staying on ECW. You see, these people won titles from other brands, and the championships stayed on their brands. Regardless if Matt Hardy stayed on the Smackdown roster, Rob Van Dam stayed on the ECW roster, and so on, they all kept defending their championships in their original brand. It's the same case with John Morrison and The Miz. Raaggio 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The titles should be in ECW. Miz and Morrison hold them. Just because they don't defend them on that brand, doesn't mean the titles belong to Raw. Hell, you could say the same thing about the WHC at the moment. The last time Edge defended the belt, he did on Raw. Does that mean the WHC is a RAW property? Azuran (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No, before that defence he defended it on Smackdown against Kofi Kingston.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
And, as has been said before, also Edge cut a promo saying how he was taking the belt to SmackDown, how Raw sucked because they didn't have a top tier belt. Tony2Times (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've been giving points on this argument in the WWE championships talk blip at the top. If other titles change brands now when a person from said brand wins x title then the same should have been applied to the WTTC when Miz Morrison won them. For instance. Cena is a Raw guy and last night won SmackDown's WHC, which Edge brought to SmackDown after winning it from Cena, the Raw guy, in the first place. I have numerous other pieces proving that this is the way titles switch brands now...dependent on WHICH BRAND the WRESTLER belongs to, the brands themselves don't own any titles. The brands possess titles based on the guys on each brand's roster that actually hold a title. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE and World Tag Team Championships

What will happen with both articles when the titles will be unified at WM? Say Miz & Morrison win, the WWE Tag Team Championship article will be merged into World Tag Team Championship (WWE)? Brady4mvp (Talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Like agreed upon here. We will wait to see what WWE does with the titles.--Best, TRUCO 23:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Neither will be merged. It will just be noted that one title was unified with the other and this one is no longer active.--WillC 00:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The same thing that has happened to all defunct and unified championships. Tony2Times (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
To put it simply, whichever title is retired for the other to become the sole Tag Team Title of the WWE after the unification, the article remains. Did the WCW Title's article get merged with the WWF/E title's article when they were unified? No...because Wikipedia didn't exist then, and they were separate titles altogether and still are. Unification is simply a means of saying "there can only be one" and seeing who's the better man. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus anything is possible, the titles may not be unified, or if they are, we might get a brand new championship all together. The WWE Unified World Tag Team Championship. Brand new history and belts.--WillC 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt they're gonna dump their original World Tag Team Title's history. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Possibly but they dumped the Light Heavyweight for the Cruiserweight in 01. Discontinued the IC in 2002 for a bit. Anything is possible, plus they are teasing a new belt.--WillC 21:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TFA, the new belts will no doubt keep the 1971 history, just like the unified title kept the 1963 WWWF history. The SD tag team belt created in 2002 (if I remember right) will cease to exist and the new belts will keep the history of the Hart foundation/LOD/Demoltion and all that. Plus the IC title has the same history it did from before it was merged away.Darrenhusted (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The IC reference was to show they still can get rid of the original stuff.--WillC 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens, there's a precedent for all forseeable situations and if they throw us a curveball, we'll decide on Monday. Tony2Times (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you go to the title history section on WWE.com now, in the flash box to choose which title history you want to look at, both sets of belts are pictured together as Unified Tag Team Championship, and the link brings you to the original World Tag Team Title's history. Guess that settles that, for now. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really, who is to say the belts will not become seperate again? Plus if this does settle it, we must move the world tag to Unified WWE Tag Team Championship.--WillC 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that its noe faie to say that the WWE and World Tag Championships have now become one. WWE.com shows the two titles as one on their Title History section with the link taking you to the World Tag Team Championship history. Also on the Smackdown Superstar section The Colons are refered to as the 'Unified WWE Tag Team Champions'. I suggest that we change the name of the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) to Unified WWE Tag Team Championship and also note, on the WWE Tag Team Championship article, that the title has been unified with the World Tag Team Championship to form the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, which took the heritage of the World Tag Team Championship (WWE).--KillerCalC 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Both belts are still active, if they got rid of one belt then they would have placed that belt in the defunct list and would have ended this reign on April 5, 2009, but since both titles are still considered separate, their reign as WWE Tag Team Champions continues. They also have the images of both belts representing the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship". Basically, both belts are still active, they are just held by 1 team, the history of the belts remains separate, they are both on the SD brand, and the unity of the belts is referred to as the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship".--Truco 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that you can say that just because the Unified WWE Tag Team Title is represented by two championship belts then that means that it is two different titles as when the WCW and WWF/E Championships were unified to become the WWF/E Undisbuted Championship for a few months the the champion carried both the WCW and WWF/E Championship belts even though defending the title as one championship. As for this reign you can't say weather or not this reign has been ended as it doesn't state that anywhere on WWE.com.--KilllerCal 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seeing how controversial this is, its best to wait for official confirmation by WWE, but for now (from what is known), both titles are unified and are on SmackDown as the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship". It is unknown how the lineage will be affected.Truco 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV and WrestleMania XXV

I'm interested in getting WrestleMania XXIV back on it's feet, and running towards FAC again. If anybody would be willing to copyedit the article, or give it a nice peer review to get me started, it would be really helpful.

Also, WrestleMania XXV is obviously tonight. Just thought I'd let you know that I've already alerted about three administrators on IRC about the article, and as they are online most of the day, I should be able to catch them and have the article protected if a massive amount of vandalism blows through. (It's just going to prevent waiting forever at WP:RFPP).  iMatthew :  Chat  11:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice call for XXV. I was a bit worried when I heard the current semi-protection expires tonight. As for XXIV, I believe I have a few more articles for the production section (including a probable reason why the proposed rig design from WWE Magazine was scrapped). However, some of it is pretty much technobabble which probabily might not be useful for a general audience. -- Oakster  Talk  12:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
WrestleMania XXV will be semi-protected until about 10AM tomorrow, so need to worry about vandalism tonight. As with most WWE PPV's though it will be a clusterf*ck with lots of editors trying to edit it, it will be even worse due to it being WrestleMania. TJ Spyke 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rumble and No Way Out

Many editors have expressed concern that the above pages are more articles than they are lists. It's an article about the event, not a list of the events. Would anybody seriously object to having an FLRC opened regarding these two articles? Please don't consider keeping them as lists for the extra stars you get out of them (btw). If they are de-listed, they can surely be taken to GAN.  iMatthew :  Chat  16:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I consider them both lists because the prose is about as long as it is going to get, but a new event is going to be added to the list every year. Also, the proportion of list to prose is about the same as a good many of the TV season articles (see Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), etc. for examples), and it can be argued that those articles are about the seasons themselves and not a list of episodes. Nikki♥311 17:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Nikki. The prose in each article is as long as they will get and a new entry will be added annually. Like Nikki pointed out, television season articles are similar to of the ones pointed out above, as the article is about the events themselves. Also, trying to create a list just for the events would be content forking and the prose in each article would not be enough for GA. Who says we want them "for the stars we get out of them"? --Truco 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Ignore that part, I wasn't talking to anybody in specific. People in general sometimes like their articles kept to keep those extra stars on their userpage.  iMatthew :  Chat  19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I say keep, they are list articles, the only way to make them legit articles is to follow what I did with TNA Bound for Glory. I have yet to take it to GAN so I'm not sure if that format would be enough to make it a GA or future FA.--WillC 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The Royal Rumble page could be expanded quite a bit and include more history. It's basically a small article that happens to have a large list. When you think Lost (season 3), you think "list of episodes", same with the Hart Memorial Trophy, etc. where the list portion makes up a huge part of the reason why there is a page. In this case though, one would expect an article that I do think could be expanded. Take for example, this. 90% of the page was lists, which would qualify it as a list, right? Nope. Instead, it's been expanded into Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. -- Scorpion0422 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but some season articles get their own List of episodes pages as well, unless with the new criteria those end up being delisted. The Royal Rumble possibly can be expanded, NWO (I'm not so sure about).--Truco 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
They both can be.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesting then, that the lists be divided off into List of Royal Rumble events and List of No Way Out events? Nikki♥311 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that will be content forking as the tables can easily be merged into the main article. IMO, these types of articles can be a GA or FL, I've seen many instances in which Season articles go from GA to FL, there is a current one actually up there at FLC.--Truco 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well we will soon see if these list can be made into articles and taken to GAN. I'm working on TNA BFG again in a subpage and it should be ready here in a few days, then I'll place it on GAN and hopefully get our first GA PPV event article.--WillC 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dave Scherer

We might have some BLP issues at the Dave Scherer article. Could use some eyes over there.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 11:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That is an SPA, I will issue an indef block if it continues being disruptive. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Colóns

A question? Can you change the article of Los Colóns and make more similar to Los Guerreros? Wrtie about the family. --79.156.23.137 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Has any other combo the family been called The Colóns besides the two brothers? If not, I see no reason. There have been many different parings of family members in the Guerrero family, that i why it is that way. If, for example, Primo and his father were a regular team than I could agree. TJ Spyke 20:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that Primo and his father wrestled as Tag team, they won the BANG tag Team Championship. --79.156.23.137 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Any other version of the Colons is not notable, "The Colons" as WWE unified tag team champions is. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WWC is a notable promotion, if they held belts and had storylines in that promotion then another version of Los/The Colóns is. Tony2Times (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
WWC calls them La Dinastía Colón (lit. The Colón Dynasty) and they are more of an stable. Now, most of the promotion's storylines from 1999-2007 included them in one way or another, probably peaking at a feud between Eddie and Carly that featured segments filmed at OVW, which intended to justify his heel persona before entering the WWE. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand it. --79.156.23.137 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Colón and Eddie held the !BANG! Television Tag Team Championship. As far as how many combos there are, mix all of them plus Orlando Colón in all sorts of combinations to get an idea. I do believe that we should expand this to cover the entire family, each and every Colón has wrestled internationally, the first three are/were WWE talent, while Orlando has wrestled for Pro Wrestling Zero1 and was a first contender for the Zero1 World Heavyweight Championship once. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There's definitely a precedent for this. See Von Erich family, Vachon family, Rougeau wrestling family, or Hart wrestling family. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
To clarify I have no problem with the Colon family being a different article, but the article about Primo and Carlito (The Colons) needs to stay focused on them as a WWE tag team. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? I don't think it should turn into the wrestling family style articles that Coleman suggested but if Eddie and Carlito worked tagged together in WWC or elsewhere, that's the same tag team; why shouldn't it be included? Different Colón combinations may require more discussion but articles like the Hart Foundation discuss various versions of the team with different members but the same concept. Tony2Times (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If they weren't billed as "the Colón" then they belong in a Color Family page, the various Hart Foundation groups share a name but you'll notice that the Hart Family has their own page - I'd say the same Could apply here. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly

Wrestleview.com are reporting that Kevin Kelly is returning for the new WWE Superstars show I'm not saying we should add it but giving you the heads up! Adster95 21:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Raaggio 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me kill this.--Truco 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's best to wait till the actual debut of the show before discussing anything to do with the Commentators. Afkatk - Afro Twinky (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes were moved

I moved the userboxes from their original locations, which were in the Wikipedia space (i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Userbox). I moved them to {{User WP PW}}, as these are templates. [The name follows the formula of other wikiproject templates. So the original {{User WP PW}} was moved, the {{User WP PW2}} ECW alt. was moved, as was a new one I made with the project's logo {{User WP PW3}} was also moved. From my glance, the redirects didn't cause a problem with the transitions, although I can't speak for everyone. If it created a problem, simply rename it.--Truco 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think you should have mentioned something before. Now you will need to get a bot to go and automatically fix it since it screwed up the userpage of anyone using them. TJ Spyke 01:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Quote from original comment: From my glance, the redirects didn't cause a problem with the transitions, although I can't speak for everyone. If it created a problem, simply rename it. (I'm currently using the original transclusion of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Userbox) and it had no effect.--Truco 01:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It messed up my page: [1]. TJ Spyke 01:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's because you have a double-redirect to the article. --Truco 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TNA PPV template

Does anyone have a problem with me changing the current TNA PPV template from this:

to this:

I'll make any fixes needed to the second, just not good with the codes in templates. I think the second, though it doesn't look great, would be better to use. We get rid of all the extra templates and then only have one template to update and keep up with at a time. This could also be done to the WWE and ROH ones, if it is a good idea.--WillC 07:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed before (this format). It was agreed not to because eventually these will get to big and become clutter. If anything, the TNA one should be changed to the current WWE one.Truco 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think even at the moment it looks too big, let alone when it grows. I've never been fond of the first one though, they way the second line isn't centred. It might as well be like the WWE one. Tony2Times (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I stumbled upon this marvelous page: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. This page states numerous things to do to decide on an article's name. This, along with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), WP:COMMONNAME, WP:MOS#Article titles, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions have concluded the following:

  • "The Google Test" -- Use Google to clarify the popularity of an article's name to find out if its the common name. (WP:NCON)
  • The article is made for readers over editors, so we must utilize the name in which most English speaking readers will rapidly identify the subject. (WP:COMMONNAME
  • Although disambiguation is key, COMMONNAME should not be violated just because the addition of the quantifier. For example, Adam Copeland should be under Edge (wrestler), not mattering if we need to add the quantifier or not. Stage name naming conventions

Raaggio 18:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think time is better spent working on other things than renaming articles endlessly. Redirects do the work for everyone, so why does it matter? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Gary. In addition Googlehits should not be used to declare popularity. Although I will agree with you on the Edge part after reading the naming convention guidelines on qualifiers.--Truco 22:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
True Gary, I'm not nomming anything for a move. I'm just stating the guidelines some people did not know of. Informing the community. Raaggio 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreement

I believe there was an agreement with davemillicanbelts.com, that allowed us to use fair use pictures of some of the belts that they have online. Am I mistaken or does anyone else remember this? Because they have a few images that could be useful.--WillC 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there was something. I'll look in the archives to see if I can find anything. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Here it is:[2] Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 21:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I forgot when we had the discussion.--WillC 22:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Stub article update

I just wanted to mention to the project that the focus on improving stub articles is still going strong. Since beginning the focus in December 2007, the number of stub-class articles has dropped from 777 to 562. Meanwhile, the number of total articles under the scope of this project has increased from 3230 to 4060. This means that the percentage of stub-class articles has dropped over 10%, from 24.06% to 13.84%. Any help on continuing to improve the stubs is appreciated. Some of the longer ones just need a little bit more information, and some of the shorter ones are great targets for future Did You Know entries. Thanks to everyone who has been helping out, and if you're wanting to get involved, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a little time to spare in the next while, I'm giving a new idea a try. I am declaring the next 30 days the first Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive. Details can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive. Barnstars are available for significant contributions, but remember that every bit helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

# of Defenses

The ROH Championship article includes a section called "number of defenses", counting all successful defenses each champion has had. Why is it inconsistent with every other championship article which doesn't have it? Raaggio 18:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody put it back in. I remember having a discussion about this before and it was agreed to remove it. There is no need for such a section IMO and I think it should be removed. Wrestling is not like boxing or MMA (where they defend their title only once every few months), I guess Japanese wrestling is similar in that their champions only defend their titles like 1 time per month. TJ Spyke 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.--Truco 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, there's one thing we must look at. The length of the reign isn't as important as the defenses. Someone who defended it 50 times in 10 months is different to someone who defended it 20 times in 2 years. Now, boxing is different because the credibility of the reign is based on how many times he defended it. However, in wrestling: the length, the defenses and the reign itself are all scripted... what makes the length more credible than the number of defenses? Raaggio 18:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
For one, it shows the company's faith in the wrestler to hold the title. This is especially true for the world titles as the world champion is basically the face of the company (or brand in WWE's case) and the longer they let the wrestle hold the title the more that increases. Title defenses don't really mean much. WWE for example will usually have several title defenses on every house show to help people feel like it was worth their money for a ticket. TJ Spyke 19:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding (and I may be incorrect) is that it was agreed that because ROH publicizes and emphasizes the number of title defenses, it is more notable for ROH and therefore worth including. Since the information is available and can be sourced, I think leaving it in improves the comprehensiveness of the article. I consider that to be more important than perfect consistency between unrelated titles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That is my understanding, as well. Some championships and some promotions emphasize it more than others, and some promotions list the defenses in their official title reigns (I saw one recently but I'm forgetting which one, sorry). However, it really isn't possibly to do it with all championships, especially the NWA World Heavyweight Championship or the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, both of which have unofficial reigns that would make it impossible to be accurate. Nikki♥311 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion about this took place a few months ago. There it was decided if it can be sourced than keep it. ROH keeps a list of defences for each champion so we can reliably source it, or at least we'll see since I'm working on the title here (next FLC).--WillC 02:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The list is now at FLC and reliably sources the defenses section. I guess this means we will just have to wait.--WillC 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the pay-per-view articles format?

I was looking at Super Bowl XLI GA, and I saw somethings I liked.

  • In the background section, I liked the "Host selection" part. If information can be found on how WWE decides the stadium they will use, we should use it.
  • The Broadcasting section: If you saw WM last night, they mentioned that it was being broadcasted in many (I forget the exact number) different countries, including Israel and Mexico for the first time. If sources can be found, this section would be a great inclusion.
    • The broadcasting section can also, rather more importantly, list all of the other on-air talent. This would take them out of that ugly table that always get in the way.
  • The entertainment section: I like the idea of using a section like this to put information about their WM pre-tour. Sources must be all over the place, so it shouldn't be hard. This section could also include information about musical guests when they have them, like last night.
  • I also like the idea of changing the "Event" header to "Event summary" as well as "Results" to "Matches summary".
    • These sections should only be summaries of the event, and of the matches. I feel we've been writing far to much (and the terrible match descriptions really don't help, I'm starting to find them more unhelpful and pointless as ever). Look at this Super Bowl article, they don't explain how they play the game, what football is, what a SuperBowl is...they tell you what happened, simple as that. We really should consider changing back, and dealing with FA/GA reviewers individually.
    • I think we should move the "Matches summary" to a sub-section under the "Event summary" - it looks and flows much better.
I like the idea. Few things though. (1)WWE doesn't really bid for host venues like the NFL does, so that type of information is almost non-existent. (2)The broadcasting section can go under the already new Marketing section. If I remember correctly they said 24 or 26 countries, and the sources for Israel and Mexico are on the corporate website. (3)The entertainment section is really more like production if you ask me, since that stuff is used to promote the event. (4)I like the "Event summary" and "Matches summary" (5)I agree with the point that we write too much, but I disagree that we should get rid of the entire process. I agree we need to cut down on explanations, comparing SummerSlam (2003) to Over the Edge (1999) (there is a major difference in amount of explaining). I don't think I see a problem with "Kane lifted The Undertaker by the throat and slammed him down to execute a chokeslam." Maybe for moves like the Pedigree, we need to find alternate ways to explain that instead of the long explanations we have now. More like "Triple H would then execute the Pedigree by slamming his opponent's face towards mat."--Truco 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate the explanations. They read akwardly and are usually poor in explanation. WP:WIKILINK states that wikilinks are utilized when they add significantly to readers' understanding of the topic. This is a clear case of it, and the wikilinks are suffice for the article. If someone really wants to know exactly what Triple H did to his opponent when it said "pedigree", they should just click on the damn word, and be redirected to the appropiate explanation. Raaggio 02:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes the explaination doesn't explain it correctly. Go down to where the discussion is cut off. Read what I said about the CD. Just because some people don't like that it shows wrestling is fake, doesn't mean we should undo months of work. It was decided at the talk page of WrestleMania 25, I believe the discussion is over that is, that simply saying that he forced his head into the mat is fine. Not going into too much detail.--WillC 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree the format needs to be re-worked a bit, but not gotten rid of. More people watch the NFL than wrestling. You don't explain something that most get. Wrestling is not understanded by most. A smaller explanation of a move is fine and adding of new sections, but removing the entire format is the editors choice. Because I'll follow policies such as In-U, Jargon, etc over any decision made here. I would like to see the reception section expanded, something I've been working on.--WillC 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not thrilled about "Matches summary". It sounds awkward. "Match summary" sound better to me, but I'm not convinced that it needs changing. I can't see any benefit, as the current heading is clear and is what people expect when they come to Wikipedia. It strikes me as change for the sake of change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to do this is through example, and working off of it.  iMatthew :  Chat  23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

    • I'm not liking the match summary idea either. But part of the format, in which we explain moves which are somewhat needed, because not everyone knows what a Pediagree is, we should just cut it down a bit like I just did with WrestleMania. " Triple H defeated Orton after forcing Orton's face into the mat to complete a move named the Pedigree to retain the WWE Championship". Juts a shorter explanation.--WillC 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • A small explanation is fine and the move is linked if they want to know more. Just giving the point of the move so the reader gets the picture is better than them asking why and going on a wild chance trying to figure out what the move is. Even the explanations of the moves in those articles are rarely understandable to even a wrestling fan. I've read a few explanations in Pin (professional wrestling) trying to match a type of pin with one from some of TNA's ppvs and couldn't figure out which one it was. So reverting to the old format would mean making all the explanations in those articles easier to understand and that would take alot of work.--WillC 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Will, pro wrestling isn't as widely recognized (only by being "fake") as legitimate sports are. This is why some moves need explanations, because articles are for the general audience not just wrestling fans, and having the reader click link after link is distracting to do while reading, especially if its a lot of maneuvers involved. Small descriptions are fine, there is no need to go overboard (like I did with SummerSlam (2003)). Example, like I stated above "Triple H slammed Benoit's face towards the mat to execute the Pedigree. Also, looking at it, "Match/es summary" doesn't read to well, how about "Match summaries"? Or just leave it as "Match results".Truco 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How do you suppose? WWE.com is (according to this link), the 415th more viewed website on the internet, while NFL.com is (according to this link), the 829th more viewed. That's about 400 behind WWE.com. The statements made here about WWE being less known than football are opinions, and with the proof from this website, wrong.  iMatthew :  Chat  23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Have you ever thought maybe it is the same people looking at the site over and over and over. Compared to ratings, there is about 5.2 million watching Raw each week. That doesn't mean they know what a Plancha is. Or, just maybe, what a canadian destroyer is.--WillC 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't know what either of those are. I'm sure if you provided a nice link to it, it would be more than simple to find out.  iMatthew :  Chat 
You also have to consider the "children", which WWE targets, and there is a vast majority of youth fans. In addition, NFL games gain 2-4x the ratings of WWE, that tells me that WWE is not as watched. Either way, professional wrestling all together cannot compare to football, as pro wrestling is a work of scripted combat not a legitimate sport.--Truco 00:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion redirect to Talk:WrestleMania XXV#Descriptions of finishing_moves--Truco 01:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact I misspelled it didn't help, but seeing as even a wrestling fan does not know what a plancha is, what makes you think a non-fan will even have a clue while reading the linked explanation? We could always explain is like this: Styles then ran and jumped over the top rope to the outside onto Samoa Joe, completing a plancha. As for the CD, Williams then jumped off the top rope landing on Styles headed, quickly jumped over his back and forced Styles' head into the mat to gain the pinfall. Compared to the reader having to click on the link just to get gis explaination: "The move, which is also referred to as a front flip piledriver, begins in a position in which the opponent is bent forward against the wrestler's midsection, the wrestler grabs around his / her opponent's midsection latching onto the opponent's back, with his / her head to one side of the opponent's hips, keeping his / her legs around the opponent's head. From this position the wrestler pushes off the mat with his / her legs to flip the opponent over. As both wrestlers flip the attacking wrestler uses his / her body weight to land in a seated position driving the opponent's head down to the mat between the wrestler's thighs. A double underhook variation exists in which the arms of a bent over opponent are placed in a butterfly prior to performing the flip". That is the explanation at Piledriver (professional wrestling)#Flip piledriver--WillC 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is already taking place at Talk:WrestleMania XXV#Descriptions of finishing_moves, where the overwhelming consensus is that a simple wikilink is sufficient. Firestorm Talk 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I will state it here as well, complaints is not consensus. In addition, its only been a day, consensus takes place over time. In addition per WP:CON, consensus among one project cannot override the community consensus of the WP:JARGON, WP:PLOT, and WP:IN-U guidelines.Truco 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Consensus taking time, yes. As for that other stuff, I don't 100% agree. Just linking move names instead of writing a description does not violate any of those guidelines. Take a look at rocket science for an example. That is full of jargon that the average person wouldn't understand, but that article is a good example of the point of the linking system. If somebody wants to know what reliability engineering is, they can click on the link to find more. Same if somebody wants to know what a Pedigree is or a Batista Bomb. TJ Spyke 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The discussion on the WrestleMania page was redirected here because it involves guideline changes that need to be discussed by the project as a whole, not just on one article.Truco 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted you. Where did you get the idea that consensus can't be made on an article talk page? It can be made anywhere, and can change anytime. One day isn't enough for a consensus, but the consensus is certainly leaning in favor of using Wikipedia's useful (you'd be surprised) linking system.  iMatthew :  Chat  00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I see over there an attempt to build consensus. One user asked if the descriptions were necessary. Another user replied yes, they were, and several (eight, by my count) users stated that they were not. WP:JARGON actually states "On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it." and "It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers." This seems like it would lean towards wikilinking instead of describing each and every finishing move. I fail to see how WP:PLOT applies in favour of your argument, as it suggests that plot summary should be as short and concise as possible, which also seems to be an argument in favour of wikilinking. WP:IN-U also does not apply here, as the article is primarily written from an out-of-universe perspective. I don't see the rationale behind the arguments here. The descriptions clutter up the page and make it more clunky and unappealing to readers. Firestorm Talk 01:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be a common thought around here that consensus should only be made by active members of this project. I'd like to tell you, that's a false assumption. Consensus can be made by anybody, anywhere, and anytime. We are always concerned about our readers, and when our readers come along and offer their opinion, some people don't like counting it as part of the discussion (for some strange reason).  iMatthew :  Chat  01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Guideline does. Actually, this discussion should be taking place at the talk page of WP:PW/MOS. I wanted to close and direct the discussion here because its difficult to have 2 discussion on the same matter open. In addition, I didn't even know this mas made, but WP:JARGON has its own subpage and directly states that Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it. -- So yeah, defining every term is clutter (like in SummerSlam (2003)), but It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to Wikipedia articles. Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. -- So linking helps, but linking all terms does not satisfy this guideline, basic explanations should be given as well.--Truco 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you keep making these comments about "this should be taking place somewhere else?" Consensus can be made anywhere relevant to the subject.  iMatthew :  Chat  01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thats for immediate editing, consensus on guidelines is made on the talk pages of the guideline or in a centralized area like here on WT:PW (Template:Guideline).Truco 01:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fine go ahead. I'm still writing in the out of universe format. I'll follow guidelines. Also TJ, that is a different project. It doesn't matter what they do, it matters what we do. I was just making a scenario. As for consensus, I still don't see it. I just hear I don't like it. No reason for change. I tried to compromise but it seems everyone wants to go back to format that made us look bad.--WillC 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey buddy, it's not the articles that make this project look bad!  iMatthew :  Chat  01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes its me Matt, give it a rest already man.Truco 01:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dean Hart

In response to Gary's stub drive idea, I was reviewing stubs and came across this particular article regarding Dean Hart. I am thi king of prodding it for failing notability. I wanted to read your opinions first, but here is a google search on his name with only 12,100 hits and most are not about him, and those which are about him are not reliable sources (and don't say much either). He died prematurely at age 36 while still wrestling small independent promotions presumably Peter Maivia's Hawaiian promotion. Bret and Diana have mentioned him in the past, but being related to someone notable does not establish notability. Thoughts? Raaggio 05:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Using an advanced search (The Google Test), I have come to found only 325 hits and yet most of the links are trivia like his birthday, or a list of dead wrestlers and some are not even him. Raaggio 05:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be some good information about him in print sources. For example, http://books.google.com/books?id=Fz2MnEdOhOoC&pg=PA39. He's also discussed on page 361 of "The Rock Says..." This site indicates that Stampede Wrestling runs a Dean Hart tribute show. I'm also sure that Bret's book must discuss Dean a bit as well, if anyone has a copy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but I'm pretty sure its because of his death. I understand he was Bret's brother, but does dying at a young age make someone notable? I haven't read any record that states he had accomplished anything in pro wrestling before his death. Also, you misinterpreted the link. The DVD included a "Dean Hart tribute", and it was listed right after an "Interview with Stampede Wrestling", however, there is no Dean Hart tribute show. Raaggio 06:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a copy of Bret's book, and it does mention him and his death, but as far as I can recall, nothing about it proves his notability. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 13:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I did misinterpret. I should have read the link rather than just what it showed in the search results. Being discussed in some detail in multiple third-party sources establishes notability, though, and the two book sources (aside from Bret's) listed above do that. I can try to work on the article some time in the near future unless somebody else does it first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of us understand that discussion in third-party sources establishes notablity, but only if there is something to be notable for. What we can agree on is if you can find a third-party source that establishes something Dean Hart did or established that can qualify him as someone important and therefore notable, but in reality, the only information the world has is that he lived, wrestled minimally, died and had his family grieve. However, he didn't live long enough to do something in the wrestling business to establish his notability. Raaggio 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of us understand that Ross Hart, Wayne Hart and others existed, and 3rd party sources back it up, but they don't have articles, because they didn't do anything to establish notability [regardless of the 3rd party sources]. Why is Dean any different? Raaggio 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
You make a good point. I'll add Ross Hart to my to-do list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Lmao, I give you chops for the my first big laugh-out-loud moment of the week. But seriously though, maybe we can merge all minimal information on Ross Hart, Dean Hart and other non-notable Hart family members into the Hart wrestling family article. Raaggio 22:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Our own processes

Like other projects, why don't we carry on our own Wikipedia:Request for moves, Request for redirecting, Request for merge, and all the such. I think a page where we all can carry on these requests would be beneficial to the project. Raaggio 05:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

There was one. I'm not sure why it was taken down.  iMatthew :  Chat  13:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it was because a certain user (cough, User:RandySavageFTW, cough) was filling it up with moves that didn't require consensus here, but I'm not sure. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 14:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, no need to put people out on the spot like that. Yes we did have one in the past, but it was agreed that some of the requests that reached that area did not need a consensus to be moved, some were WP:COMMONSENSE (about over half of the requests). Thus, only moves that really need a thorough discussion, like the Paul Bearer and Ricky Ortiz one should be discussed here at WT:PW, while others that are COMMONSENSE (such as a name that falls under WP:UCN) should just be moved, or an admin should be asked to move it.--Truco 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Truco, but you see, one like Edge (wrestler) and Paul Bearer are easily explained in WP:UCN, but people still oppose them. Before making a move, we should clarify the basis, the argument and the guideline(s) utilized to back it up. We should have a page for discussing them. Obviously, ones like Michael Hickenbottom --> Shawn Michaels shouldn't be posted, but others really are necessary for discussion. And we should not flood WT:PW with these requests. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Moves could be a nice place for this. Raaggio 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Joey Styles

I've reverted the edit on Joey Styles page which said he was dead, if someone could go through and check all the facts it would be good. --Skyhawker666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.21.183 (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 2 days ago I rollbacked 3 edits on Robert DeNiro that stated he was dead. I was in total shock and believed it. I don't know why people think that's funny. Raaggio 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There was a proposal that would require IP's and other new editors to have their edits to articles on living people to be approved before being added (to prevent vandalism like this), but it failed. My personal opinion is that registration should be required in order to edit. Anyways, there is not much we can do but watch articles and revert the vandalism (and of coarse warn those vandals). TJ Spyke 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is going to be a trial, of flagged protection which takes the locks off all pages, but makes IP edits invisible until approved by registered users. You may want to watchlist this or any associated pages, as this will change the way we all edit. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarence Whistler

I came across this the other day and just got around to updating it. I don't usually edit wrestling articles so could someone please check it out and make sure I have it correctly. If there is an Australian editor there may be some more information at http://nla.gov.au/nla.cat-vn684941 but it needs a library card to access. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Jack Mulligan (wrestler)

Black Jack Mulligan is a disambig page for Blackjack Mulligan and Black Jack Mulligan (wrestler), but the terminology is faulty. I believe the disambig page should be eliminated and have them both under Blackjack Mulligan and Black Jack Mulligan respectively with hatnotes directing to the other article. (See WP:HATNOTE) Raaggio 19:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if there are only 2 articles a HATNOTE is usually the recommended option rather than making a disambiguation page. TJ Spyke 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it's a standard guideline, I would have been bold and done it, but I don't know how to move an article to a page that already exists. Raaggio 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to do this? Raaggio 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:RM has full instructions. TJ Spyke 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done -- An administrator did it after I requested it at RM. I fixed the hatnotes myself. Raaggio 03:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Poll: autoformatting and date linking

This is to let people know that there is only a day or so left on a poll. The poll is an attempt to end years of argument about autoformatting which has also led to a dispute about date linking. Your votes are welcome at: Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy

Why isn't their a page for it they have a shirt released and all the works so don't tell me it's not notable enough yet. I mean the Main Event Mafia and TNA Frontline already have articles why not their be one for The Legacy. TG 50 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Each group varies, but the TNA Front Line only got a article a few weeks ago and the MEM about 2 months ago and both groups have actually won titles (something The Legacy has not done) and been the main focus of TNA storylines. It would help Legacy's case if they would win a title (not saying they need a title to be notable or that a title would automatically make them notable, but it would help). TJ Spyke 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Plus if they would be featured in a meaningful match. It took WWE X number of months to give them a meaningful PPV match. Maybe in another few months the group will be notable. They might even be broken up by the draft (unlikly but still possible). At the moment Legacy have done nothing but stand around and try to look pretty.--WillC 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Very very pretty. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Except for Rhodes (I am not gay, but but Orton and DiBiase look much better than Rhodes). Anyways, if they stay together I think Legacy could be notable soon if they continue to be pushed. TJ Spyke 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with TJ, Rhodes looks weird, and we are best to wait for the daft to pass because WWE has a habit of breaking things up just when they start to achieve momentum. In addition the bar for Tag Team/Stable notability has to be high otherwise every time two wrestlers tag up they would get an article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, continue to be pushed like Orton was before Mania. Built up so strong and so great then buried like RVD, Benjamin, Benoit, etc. They'll have to change their name to Triple H's bitches though. Anyway, they will probably be notable soon. Their push will probably include the WWE Title and the WWE Tag Titles. Hopefully DH Smith joins the group. But IDK. In due time they will be notable. I agree about the Rhodes thing, maybe if he didn't look like a shinny bitch he would be better. For the ones wondering, I'm in a good mood.--WillC 22:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Rhodes' shininess is what keeps him in the group. They should be called The Oiled Legacy. Would they need a Tag Title to be notable? Orton won the Rumble when the group had begun (and largely with their help) and if he wins the WWE Title at Backlash it will also be as part of The Legacy, I think that is enough to warrant them an article. Are we all in agreement that The Legacy is the stable and not the tag team by the by? I think it's fairly obvious but on the current Backlash preview they are listed as Randy Orton & The Legacy. Last week on SD though it just said Legacy when it flashed up the card. Tony2Times (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Even the announcers can't get it straight, I hear them say both "The Legacy" and "Randy Orton and Legacy" on TV. As for Orton, he pretty much inherited his dads face, but is super skinny. TJ Spyke 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Phil Theis, yet again

A user (GaryColemanFanboy — how clever) has been adding news about Phil Theis (Damien Demento)'s death to the article. Apparently, Theis posted a video today stating that he died. Since Phil Theis death rumors have been a dime a dozen for the past couple of years, can people help with watching this page (until, of course, a reliable source confirms something)? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with 3RR? They ad rubbish, you revert, they revert, you revert, they revert and you give them a 3RR, then they have two choices, revert again, and get blocked, or leave it alone. As they are unlikely to take the second option then you get a 24hr block, lather, rinse, repeat. There have only been 50 edits since November so RFPP won't work. I've put a 3RR on the new guy's page, if they try for another revert just put in a 3RR report. This doesn't need more eyes, just firmer action. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Name changes

I wanted to ask a few people for some opinions on moving two TNA articles. The first is TNA Weekly PPV. I was going to write it out, but I then thought that would be incorrect. Should it be call TNA weekly pay-per-view event era, or something along those lines? It will be expanded out in the future if anyone is wondering. I'm just looking for a better name. The second is List of TNA pay-per-view events. As it stands, this title is incorrect. It does not add the weekly PPVs into it. I believe it would be better if it was titled List of TNA monthly PPV events or List of TNA monthly PPV event titles, just something along those lines. Any ideas?--WillC 01:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Were the names of the shows officially "TNA Weekly PPV"? If so, it should remain where it is at.--Truco 01:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
They had no names. They were just 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. But that article, as agreed at the AFD discussion, is to be changed to a format similar to Raw, Smackdown, ECW, and Impact tv articles. I think weekly ppv should be changed to a more fitting name.--WillC 01:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
How about TNA weekly broadcasts on pay-per-view? Or TNA broadcasts on pay-per-view, yyyy-yyyy Replace the yyyy with the years. Just a few suggestions.--Truco 02:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about going by what is in the TNA article. It says the TNA weekly ppv era. Instead of writting it like the tv show articles, this could be more of a history/era article.--WillC 02:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What does TNA itself call these episodes?--Truco 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they had a specific name for the individual episodes. They treated it exactly like a TV show. The number format is only to separate one from another (like we do for Saturday Night's Main Event). TJ Spyke 02:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a problem with me changing the article name to "The Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view event era"?--WillC 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we list the results like Saturday Night Main EVent? Also, what about PPV #17-96, why aren't they in the article? Raaggio 04:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the SNME article shouldn't even exist. I forget why we haven't deleted it yet. Plus there was 110, I believe, events. With each having around 6 matches. I'm starting to hope I can find enough sources and change a few people's opinions on here with each having their own article. If there is enough sources, and the more I look, I find out that they had a Bound for Glory event in 2003, that was three hours long. So technically that was the first Bound for Glory. Plus they had a Slammiversary in 2004, and I believe, 2003. So technically there was the first two Slammiversary events.--WillC 05:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The delete discussion was only closed as a keep if the article was changed to a tv type format. So the list of results are not needed.--WillC 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a problem with the target name. If anything it should be the acronym form, its too long of a name like that. I really feel that because this was before TNA came up with impact, it should be a name that implies it was before it got TV. Like "TNA weekly pay-per-view broadcasts, yyyy-yyyy"--Truco 15:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That is fine, but I don't like broadcasts being in it. Plus TNA had local tv during this era. They had Xplosion taped and it aired. Impact came along in mid-2004. The weekly PPVs ended on September 8, 2004, around four months after Impact first came around. Does anyone have a problem with moving List of TNA pay-per-view events to List of TNA monthly pay-per-view event titles?--WillC 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't you just add a link, maybe with some description, about the weekly PPVs under the section "Former pay-per-view events"? Tony2Times (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a big part of their history. Two years+ worth. They made most of their revenue with these events. There were 110 event, all two hours live (most were) for 10 bucks. I just want to know if anyone has a problem with me moving the article to a different name. Plus the live of events.--WillC 10:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
No I meant, rather than change the List of TNA PPV events title, put a link to your Weekly TNA PPV page on the List of TNA PPV events page seeing as all those weekly PPVs were TNA PPVs and thus can be linked to from the current List of TNA pay-per-view events article under the defunct pay-per-views title, if you see what I mean. Tony2Times (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling before the 90's

Well, to start I am a big fan and wrestling historian. I feel that there should be more about wrestling before the 90's. Like AWA NWA and Other Jim crcket Promotions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington95 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Read all articles relevant to Monday Night Wars, AWA, etc. and if you want to go even further back, there's 1980s wrestling boom. Raaggio 05:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a pretty well known fact that if it's A) not WWE or B) happened before the mid 90s it just doesn't get much attention except from a select few editors that stray into that "dark area". But I agree with W95 there should be more about it, sources are harder to come by and the work requires that extra level of effort compared to most mainstream articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think part of the reason is that those articles usually are harder to source. I do wish more people would edit them though. Until about a year ago I was pretty much the only one updating TNA PPV articles since no one else was. Many were in bad shape (here is an example of what the typical TNA PPV article used to look like [3]). TJ Spyke 15:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly like to see more earlier articles worked on so that I could read them and so we could show fairweather fans there's more than WWF but as everyone points out it's hard to find sources for old stuff. Heck, even current indie stars are sometimes hard to source. Tony2Times (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and then I came along and took the bad PPV articles and made them better. I'm like Jesus to TNA. No I'm joking. But the less known stuff needs to be expanded. One that certainly needs to is Professional wrestling. How can the pro wrestling project not have the pro wrestling article to at least FA status?--WillC 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Any help expanding some of the older articles is greatly appreciated. Many are still stubs, and others haven't even been created yet. I've been working on some older stuff this year, and I've found it really interesting learning about wrestlers like Burrhead Jones, Aurelian Smith, Tiger Conway, Sr., the Blond Bombers, and so forth. I've been able to find good sources for them, and a few have passed reviews and been listed as GAs (the Bombers, Rip Hawk, Swede Hanson, Jos Leduc, Antonio Pugliese). For examples of references that might help, these articles might be a good place to look. I've found Mike Mooneyham and SLAM! Wrestling to be very helpful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
"I'm like Jesus to TNA." Just, No. From a religious standpoint that is offensive and from a non-religious standpoint it's wrong. While you did expand many TNA PPV articles, they were all at least decent before you started editing them (not GA or FA quality, but far from being bad). I am glad you are working on the TNA articles though and think you have done a good job in general (even if we disagree on stuff like whether to use "singles match" or "standard wrestling match"). As for the professional wrestling article, other projects are similar. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music doesn't have music at GA or FA, but many other projects do have at least the article about their subject at FA. TJ Spyke 21:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude don't worry, I'm a Christian. I live in Kentucky so we are all technically Christians lol. I just used Jesus since he came and healed/saved. I helped heal the TNA PPVs (the three that were expanded and some more). Not to sound high I mean. But VR, TP, and FR were all in bad shape. Not what they once were, but still weren't sourced reliably, gave wrong information, and were written in a fans perspective. I'm just happy I'm not the only one watching the articles. Because if I were by myself I would be blocked at the moment for undoing all the ips on Lockdown 09. Hopefully I can re-write all the articles from VR to AAO. Because they are all good, and I want them great. I just wish we could get Pro Wrestling to a higher class. There must be enough information.--WillC 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
We're not all Christians. I'm a Rankorist. Tony2Times (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
What, you live is Kentucky as well? If that is true, we should meet up. All hail Rankor!!--WillC 09:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, I didn't read the Kentucky bit. I'm from God's country: England. Tony2Times (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:TNA Roster

I propose we change the TNA Roster template from this

to this

I think it looks better and lets people know what role (in general) each employee is. If I can get some support on this i'll make the permanent change to the template, I'd like to hear everyone else's opinion first. The Jay Experience 10:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead change it. I don't care. Cody Deaner should be in male wrestlers since he is wrestling now.--WillC 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
When has he started wrestling? Must be either house shows or taped Impacts that haven't aired because he hasn't wrestled in anything Impacts that have aired. TJ Spyke 05:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Been awhile since I read the spoliers, but Deaner and ODB vs Abyss and Daffney this week on Impact. While the main event is Christopher Daniels vs Kurt Angle, a dream match.--WillC 05:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and make the change then, unless there is any objections. The  Jay  Experience  05:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I doubt there will be any, but it is always good to discuss this change first.--WillC 08:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't Hate me...

Don't hate me, but I resurfaced the discussion about Adam Copeland to Edge (wrestler) at his talk page (Talk:Adam Copeland). Please, before publishing your opinions, read WP:STAGENAME, WP:QUALIFIER, WP:UCN and/or WP:COMMONNAME that state the commonname should be the title of a page eventhough a qualifier would be necessary. Sorry if some get upset. Raaggio 03:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If that last line does indeed appear in guidelines, then I'd say we have A LOT of page moving to do. I'd prefer for pages to stay with mininum qualifiers, but if the guidelines state otherwise...which would be odd, since I can recall us using "creates a quantifier" as a reason NOT to do this. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right, we always used the "creates a qualifier" argument. Even I did! But, after my error of dividing the discussions in supports and opposes last time, I was researching everything to do regarding moving articles, and I came across WP:STAGENAME. The guideline states that the qualifier argument is invalid if the stagename is the common name. Above in WT:PW#Naming conventions, I brought it up for the whole Project to see and now I'm trying to enforce it. Raaggio 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Might as well throw Steve Borden in the mix to change back to Sting (Wrestler) while you're at it. Tony2Times (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's nice to see a nominator who keep neutral and don't want to let his opinion influence the process, nice one. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia a fair while but have only just started contributing to wrestling articles (only minor edits so far) and I have to say I was confused at how you have articles named Hulk Hogan (ring name) and Adam Copeland (real name, despite "...better known by his ring name Edge"). But would it be fair to say that this is one of a number of problems that stems from the blurring of image and reality in sports entertainment? I mean, a sports star would have one article, whereas a TV character and the actor playing the character would be two separate articles. The character of Edge and the person who plays that character, Adam Copeland, could each have their own article, yet the two are so intertwined I don't see how it could be done, and even if you did it isn't always easy to tell what is "real" and what is staged. Anyway, I'd appreciate any advice from veterans as to how you handle the whole kayfabe thing - for instance, some sources may accurately report a match but be part of the kayfabe in terms of storylines. --Jameboy (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I suppose we could have two seperate articles on Edge and Adam Copeland but the one on Adam Copeland would be pretty sparse. Also, while it is scripted when Edge wins what match and belt, the achievements are still mostly down to Adam Copeland's athletic and acting ability. There is a current drive on Wikipedia as a whole to reduce the amount of esoteric vernacular and replace it with more universally understood language. This is a constant source of contention right now because of the argument of how far does it need to go (using fan favourite instead of face and heel instead of villain seems to be quite accepted while describing moves is annoying some) before brings down the quality of an article. The best thing to do really is to read the Featured Articles, listed on the project's main page, and apply the same standards to any edits you make. Tony2Times (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone state a single benefit in moving articles from their current locations? Has nayone here had difficulty finding the page on Adam Copeland, Edge, Edge (wrestler), or whatever you want to call him? If so, we need to look into creating more useful redirects. I would love to hear one reason, though, why there is something to be gained from these constant discussions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency with the guidelines of the encyclopedia and for the sake of consistency itself. Raaggio 20:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GCF. Stop with moving the pages already!!! It is such a waste of time both to argue over and to do. Redirects get everybody where they need to go, and we have more pressing issues to worry about. Nikki♥311 20:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

PPVs

I'm starting this discussion to get a few opinions on the format of articles like List of TNA pay-per-view events, List of WWE pay-per-view events, List of ECW pay-per-view events, and List of WCW pay-per-view events. Maybe to come to an agreement if we want them to be lists or articles. I was thinking about working on List of TNA pay-per-view events, but couldn't figure out how to start. If I should turn it into an article or keep it a list and go for FLC. The second option made me go entirely blank because I didn't know where to start or how to even go about it. How it would work, etc. I thought maybe all the members of the project could throw some ideas out on how to improve these articles. If anyone has an idea, opinion, etc just state it.--WillC 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_67&oldid=1190128533"