Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 7

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

"The now-defunct ECW"

Should references to "the now-defunct ECW" (when referencing the original promotion) have the "now-defunct" portion removed? ECW has, after all, returned and is therefore not "defunct." Of course, it has returned in a different form (as a WWE brand rather than a stand-alone promotion). Jeff Silvers 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "the former ECW" ?

↪Lakes (Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That ECW is still dead, I think it's fine. Bdve 18:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the now-defunct part should be removed, if only because it would be subject to debate. Users can click the link to the article and find out what happened to ECW. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

how about "the original ECW"? --JFred 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wifebeater

This may sound odd but there needs to be some clearing up of CZW's Wifebeater. The confusion stems from current (and quite talented) wrestler and current CZW World Heavyweight Champion Chris Hero who used to use the name Wife Beater until 2000. This leads to the problem of from before Hero joined CZW (he was in IWA-MS at the time) there was ANOTHER wrestler named Wifebeater in CZW who's real name was Matt Prince - and to be clear was a much less talented wrestler and more a garbage wrestler. Because both used the name Wifebeater people keep linking the championship wins of Matt Prince to Chris Hero and to a further extent the acts of Matt Prince to Chris Hero (i.e. Matt Prince Wifebeater sliced Sick Nick Mondo open with a weedwhacker).

Matt Prince - Chris Hero (look under previous gimmicks) --- Lid 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I've made an adjustment to the CZW roster page. Wifebeater (Matt Prince) now links to Matt Prince. It was directing to a disambiguation page simply titled Wifebeater. --JFred 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Related but the Chris Hero page needs some serious editting, half the moves aren't even wikified and I can't edit them as I don't know what they are referring to. --- Lid 08:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Resurrect the Sick Nick Mondo page?

I know two CZW posts in a row, no i'm not a hardcore junkie I barely even watched ECW when it was around (though that was largely because it was impossible for me at the time), but this deserves discussion. Nick Mondo's page was deleted and now gets pointed to as proof of every wrestling pages notability and as the Nick Mondo page got deleted X page should also be deleted. I wasn't around for the Nick Mondo deletion process but considering the guy has a DVD documentary on his life out I'm wondering how he doesn't reach notability standards? He may have only worked in CZW but he does have some notability to him just as Delirious (wrestler) and Amish Roadkill do and I think it's fair to say that even if he wasn't "notable" before he is now. --- Lid 11:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I think I was the one that nominated the page, and still stand by that decision. Now regarding Roadkill, he was an ECW tag team champion, and is currently employed by WWE, so he's definitely notable. Delirious is debateable. Daizee Haze, who he trained is more notable than him. But Delirious has appeared on national TV on TNA, so I'd say he's just above the notability limit. I'd set the limit somewhere around being on national TV, or being a major part of a notable indy. By that notion, The Ring Crew Express should probably be deleted.

↪Lakes (Talk) 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead with a request for undeletion and as was discussed here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Mondo it was decided that Nick Mondo met notability standards and the Sick Nick Mondo has now been resurrected at Nick Mondo with Sick Nick Mondo being a redirect. --- Lid 02:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rumors

I think there should be a tagged place on all wrestling pages that state rumors should not be posted similar to the Breaking Information Tag. Thoughts. Kyros 04:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bob Orton, Jr.

Will someone please review the recent changes being made to Bob Orton, Jr.? There appears to be an edit war of sorts over whether or not one of his children wanted to be a pro-wrestler, amongst other things. I am not familiar enough with the subject to get involved and felt it best to bring it up here in hopes of reaching a resolution. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've left messages on both their talk pages telling them that talk pages are there to avoid such conflicts. --JFred 20:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

i've left several messages on the users talk page but he has ignored them and not listen to anything i've said an carried on, theres not i can do i've tried to avoid it by explaining it to him but he will not have it Lil crazy thing 20:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've asked him to provide the actual links he's refering to. --JFred 00:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

he'll give you the link to an imdb page, but what i'm trying to tell him is imdb is not 100% correct there have been so many false statements on the orton's thats why i have said provide an exact link to an article or interview where it states it then it can go in, but do you think he listens to that....nope not a single thing, all he wants to do is do personl attacks towards me in edit summaries Lil crazy thing 06:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Attitude Era

There needs to be an "Attitude Era" article, regarding the famous feuds/storylines that took place during this period, and its effects on pop culture P.O.N.Y. 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

True... it should be something like Golden Age of Comic Books. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

UK measurements

I believe that articles on UK wreslters should be in Imperial first, and then metric, like American and Canadian wrestlers. For wrestling events and boxing and MMA, Fighters are announced in Imperial, not metric. It doesn't make sense to put metric first for British wrestlers since Imperial is still the first form of meaurement used for MMA/Boxers and wrestlers in the UK. For nations like Japan and France who might have metric as their PI to announce fighters at ringside that's fine. But I think if a country that announces it's wrestlers in Imperial (as well as a nation that still thinks in feet and inches), it looks strange that the first form of measurement used in the nation is placed second in this encyclopaedia.(Halbared 22:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Metric is "the official measurement system of all (EU) member countries". We should stick to the de jure unit of measurement. In addition, the majority of the world uses the metric system, so it should took precedence where the usage of either system is possible. McPhail 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but metric is also the official measurement system in Canada too, but like Halbared said, Canadian wrestlers are listed in Imperial. I'd have to agree with Halbared, even though metric is the official measurement system, if they still use Imperial with regards to wrestling/boxing/MMA, then our articles should reflect that. --JFred 02:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments JFred. I did not know that Cananda also had a dual system. You must be in the same situation as the UK. It's not like the US or Finland (who have either imperial or metric), we have both here, and we use them for different things. Broadly speaking, Imperial for distance and measurement, and metric for buying petrol and food.(Halbared 07:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Your welcome, and it does look like both our countries are officially metric but still unofficially use imperial for things like a person's height and weight. Canada's only been metric for 20-some-odd years, so many people are still used to imperial. I was just trying to provide a different perspective on the issue. If the UK still officially uses imperial in this situation, we should reflect that. --JFred 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The UK has been officially metric since the 90's I think (McPhail showed me a link) and we have laws now aboot what we can sell produce in. For international sporting events athletes are presented in metric (like the Olympics, but I can't remember how they were announced in the boxing). And probably like Canada, we are used to imperial, though for certain things, we are also used to metric, like food and petrol, not distance though.(Halbared 07:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Have you ever been to a wrestling event where they annouce the weight in metric here? Imperial is the de jure unit of measurement in the UK as far as wrestling/boxing/mma goes. Who goes to wrestling matches? Fans. Who visit the wrestling pages here? The people who go to wrestling matches. The UK is not like the rest of the EU.(Halbared 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Wikipedia is written for casual readers, not experts, so articles should not be written with wrestling fans as an intended audience. McPhail 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I would say the casual wreslting fan is an expert! Regardless though, the UK is not like Finland or the rest of the EU, and people here do not think in metric first, nor is it the measurement we hear when we go to sporting venues, or the measurement we hear when we ask each other how tall we are. You ask someone here and and you get an answer in imperial, if you get one in metric your talking to a European.:oD Imperial system is the British system, and that is the one we are used to. It is silly to put metric first, since it is not what Brits would think of first, it is misrepresenting how things are done here. We understand metric (we have to), but we still primarily use imperial in everyday use.(Halbared 23:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

I'd stay stick with metric as we have so far.

↪Lakes (Talk) 07:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if the UK officially still uses imperial for things like this? If UK wrestlers are supposed to be in metric because metric is the official measurment of the UK, then Canadian wrestlers should be listed in metric because metric is the official measurement system of Canada as well. I just want some consistency here. --JFred 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Which means there is one rule for Canada, and another for the UK, there should be consistency.(Halbared 07:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm all for all non-us wrestlers' units being metric.

↪Lakes (Talk) 07:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think since you come from a country that is comfortable with metric, you would be. With the UK and Canada, it's more ambiguous, because imperial is what we know first, which we (if we have to in any particular case) convert into metric.(Halbared 07:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Ok, but for US users, I'd add imperial in brackets beside the metric. Heck, not just for US users, even though I'm Canadian, I better understand imperial than metric when it comes to height and weight. I'm sure Halbared's the same way, same with other Canadians and Brits. Actually, both measurements should be listed regardless, with the country of origins official measurement system first. --JFred 07:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That's of course what I ment. Didn't mean to imply that imperial or US measurements should be removed.

↪Lakes (Talk) 07:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your right, I have to use a converter. I am not savvy with metric height, though I am with weight because I go to the gym (where both metric and imperial are represented)(Halbared 07:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

Well I am slowly going thru the wreslters to make sure that both metric and imperial are added. There were a lot that had metric missng. I have corrected this, tho no doubt there are still lots out there. From going thru all these wrestlers it seems that the rule that concerns those wreslters that hail from dual backgrounds that have Imperial as being the older more established, more well known and still active system, have imperial first, and metric second, which makes sense to the people of those respective nations, I am citing both Canada and Australia here, though there might be others. Therefore I am putting Fit Finley's stats first in imperial, then metric.(Halbared 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

I definitely still disagree here. Metric should be first in all non-us wrestlers.

↪Lakes (Talk) 17:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the da facto unwritten agreement that appears to have come up, from the fact that all three nations have their history in imperial, the metric measurements are satisfied, and all three counties also have their most famous wrestlers operate within the US.(Halbared 17:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Well my suggestion is to have metric first on all non-US wrestlers, and I won't accept your claim. Start up a vote then if you must.

↪Lakes (Talk) 08:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a 'claim'. All the Canadian wreslters have imperial first, as do the Aistralian/NZ wrestlers I have come across, it is the predecedence set and the de facto rule. Your reverts make things inconsistant.(Halbared 08:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Canadians might have been improperly ordered before, and I'm saying they should be corrected now, as British wrestlers have been. If you still wish to make the orders non-logical then open up a vote here. Otherwise I will add the logical order to the project to-do box, and start going around fixing Canadian and other wrestlers.

↪Lakes (Talk) 08:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It's you opinion they were improperly ordered. It is not non-logical. If you don't live in these countries, you might not understand that imperial is still the system used for practical means in measurement. The way Canadian, Australian/NZ and 99% of British wreslters have been added is by the people who know those wrestlers and what heights weights they werre announced at, because all these counties (and more have dual systems). What will happen? You go around changing every single one of them, or you let Finley be consistant with the unspoken rule that as occured?(Halbared 08:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

I will also add that it makes sene that the dominant system (which is still imperial here, and prolly so in the other places) retains it;s first place not just for people from those nations but to allow others to understand that people from those nations don't think in metric first.(Halbared 08:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Since you obviously don't want to have a vote, I'll have to start it then. So we're voting on whether the person's home countries official units take preference in the wrestler profiles, or older units which are on their way out, but still used by many people, which some people percieve as a majority. So either Official units or Legacy units. ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

By having Finley have metric first, and imperial second, it goes against all the other bios, so until the vote is over, it should be consistant. I don't mind having a vote. I would have to say though, that you are wrong that the majority is perceived. But I am happy to vote.(Halbared 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Official units ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Legacy units.(Halbared 08:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC))
Official units, as long as there's consistency I'm happy. --JFred 23:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

User 68.104.12.142

This guy doesn't seem to get it. Whenever his article edit on Triple H is reverted, he reposts it in a matter of days. . . This has been going on for more than two weeks. It generally involves him adding "King of Kings, a title only reserved for Jesus Christ." It's totally extraneous and un-necessary. And this is not the only article for which he does things like this. . . He learns nothing from people reverting his edits all the time. He adds un-necessary information, undescriptive hyperbole, and non-POV descriptions that sound like they came from the WWE front office.

Can something please be done about this? I'm unaware of any other course to take other than to bring it up here. I feel I've "assumed good faith" for quite long enough here.

--Pathogen 22:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Give them a warning then report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if they persist. McPhail 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

ECW World Heavyweight Championship

There's something wrong with the page. I don't know if it's just my computer or what but only a small part of it shows up.

--Error411 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It works just fine on my computer. Maybe its just your computer that's acting up. -3bulletproof16 02:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Try refreshing the page. Or, failing that, clear your browser cache and then refresh the page. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Los Guerreros Page

I've tried to clean up this page and make it more orderly. The look of it goes along the same lines as most other tag team articles now but I don't have enough knowledge to expand it more. If you guys could lend a hand that'd be great, I really don't know where to start when it comes to other sections to add... I've moved it from Articles to Recreate to Articles to Expand.Tigermave 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New ECW championships on wrestler articles

I know I'm thinking ahead a bit here, but it's probably important that we do. If WWE reactivates any of the ECW titles (ECW World Heavyweight Championship|World, Television, or Tag Team), will these titles, if won in ECW(WWE), be listed under World Wrestling Entertainment or Extreme Championship Wrestling in the title history section of wrestler pages? Maybe we should take a vote? (I'm bringing this up now to avoid conflicts later.) Jeff Silvers 23:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Listed under ECW, they're continuations both officially and legally. --- Lid 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just brought it up because it seems like some people want to recongize ECW(WWE) as an extension of the original ECW (as I do), while others want to view it as a brand on the same level as RAW and SmackDown! Jeff Silvers 00:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, personal feelings are irrelevent thus regarding the championship as not a real ECW championship is wrong. --- Lid 01:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE PPV and Championship templates

Do the PPV and Championship templates really belong on the WWE brand pages? I would have thought that the PPV template would be restricted to the PPV pages, same with the Championship template. --JFred 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well my original intent for the pay-per-view template was that it was to be used on the article for the main pay-per-view pages only (i.e. ECW One Night Stand and not it's 2005 and 2006 articles). I don't know about the championships template but I guess it wouldn't do harm removing off the brand pages once as there's already (or in ECW's case, will be) a championship section. --Oakster ^(Talk) 08:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken Anderson (wrestler) to Ken Holmes

Just to let everyone know Ken Kennedy's page to his actual real name (Anderson was mother's maiden name). However, someone needs to update and move his Wikiquote page since I don't have an account on that site. --JFred 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a tad bit unsure about as while Anderson was his mother's maiden name, his dad's obituary listed him as Ken Anderson. --Oakster ^(Talk) 12:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because Anderson was his professional name at the time. I'm sure if that obit. was written now, it would list him a Ken Kennedy. --JFred 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you don't think this page should be at Ken Holmes, then it should be at Ken Kennedy, as that is what he is best known as now. --JFred 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The obituary was written last April and actually mentioned him both as Ken Anderson and Mr. Ken Kennedy. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest moving the page to Ken Kennedy since that is what most people know him as. TJ Spyke 20:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe Holmes was his birth-father. He is an Anderson... I've seen his speeding tickets :P -- NickSentowski 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Expansion of Embassy (professional wrestling)

I'd expand this myself but my knowledge of a lot of most of the embassy's tenure is quite small. --- Lid 05:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommended the article for deletion. It really doesn't add anything and what it does add could easily be noted in the participating wrestler's pages. NegroSuave 16:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been listed I would like people to put some input in on this issue. NegroSuave 18:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Australian Wrestling Events Results

Hey. I've put a requested move for the Australian Wrestling Events Results article to professional wrestling tours of Australia. Seeing as the only individuals who are posting approvals are the same guy and he can't really provide much of an opinion I am asking some of you guys to post your approval/disapproval on the move of this article. Normy132 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on Turn (professional wrestling)

Ugh. There's an edit war going on, primarily between me and ChrisP2K5. I already explained my deletion of the lists on that page both on the talk page of the article and his talk page, unfortunately reason (of which ChrisP2K5 says I have none, despite the fact I clearly explained myself several times) and official Wikipedia policy aren't winning out here. The lists are clearly POV - it's a matter of opinion if a turn "notable" or "didn't work so well". I have to admit, I naively started one of the stupid lists in the first place, but thankfully now I know better. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While both those lists seem to be pretty POV-heavy, there are some turns which no wrestling fan would deny are notable (for instance, Hulk Hogan at Bash at the Beach 1996, or the Austin/Hart double-turn), and those should definitely be mentioned somewhere in the article. Jeff Silvers 00:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

They definitely merit a mention, but unless there's a way of verifying their notability, they shouldn't be there. At any rate, lists aren't the way to add "notable" turns as they encourage way too many non-notable additions. I'll work on some prose. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I converted some stuff in the article to prose and removed the non-notable stuff - primarily in the "Modern turns of note" section --Jtalledo (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vengeance

Can we possibly put a protection on the Vengeance PPV for a while? I and a few others have been removing DX spoilers from the article for the last two weeks and it's really starting to get annoying. Normy132 00:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Added the kayfabe note. That should be enough for now. If that doesn't do it, then it might need protection. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

removing backyard fed

someone add this title "PWA British Heavyweight Championship" at the links of the British Heavyweight Championships so i checked out the title and its for a backyard federation... Psychotic Wrestling Alliance UK.... these lengthy articles are well written but i dont see how a backyard fed and its title believes itself to be noteable on wiki. I think these articles need to be removed now. --- Paulley

Agreed, despite the effort if everyone wrote a well written entry on whatever anything could become an entry. --- Lid 09:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Listed the two articles for deletion NegroSuave 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers

This article is a disaster, I know it's supposed to be a list but nearly NONE of the moves listed match up with the descriptions on the actual wrestler pages plus a whole tonne of them are un wikified. --- Lid 11:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the list part even necessary? The rest needs to be rewritten as well, but I see no point in having the list at all when you get down to it. Bdve 15:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed With Wrestling

This article has been proposed for deletion and although currently the content is miniscule and utterly useless should we instead fix it up considering OWW is quite an important website in wrestling and the source of a lot of information for a lot of articles on wikipedia? --- Lid 14:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dunno - it doesn't meet WP:WEB and the Alexa ranking isn't up there. A number of articles on Wikipedia use it as a reference, but that really doesn't imply that it's notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

TheSmartMarks.com

I have recommended that the article TheSmartMarks.com be deleted. While the members of this project may not agree with this proposition, it would be useful to get some valid votes either way rather than the current forum wars. McPhail 17:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

A legend in wrestling and for some reason he has no title history? Was there one before and it got editted out? I tried looking through history but couldn't find one. --- Lid 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe this edit killed it. I'll restore it. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Cutter & Stunner

I stumbled upon the fact that both cutter and stunner have pages. They're the same move and the pages seem, to me at least, have about 90% of the same information.

I proposed the Merge but didn't want to go ahead and do it before getting some feedback. Bdve 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To most observers they are different moves and although they both begin with a three quarter facelock the moves are identified differently between them. I stand by keeping them seperate. --- Lid 01:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

They're the same move. The pages even have the same information in the same order. Explaining in the introduction that the cutter is often called a stunner because of the Steve Austin influence would clear up the confusion of anyone who doesn't realize it.Bdve 01:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The cutter is a bulldog, the stunner is a jawbreaker, a stunner isn't a cutter. --- Lid 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Stunner you go straight down, Cutter (aka RKO) you move forward. That's the main difference. Maybe one of the articles isn't worded properly. --JFred 03:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Both moves begin with the 3/4 position, but the stunner is more of a jawbreaker/chinbreaker type manouver (involving the opponent landing chin/jaw first on the performer's shoulder) while the cutter is a DDT/bulldog variation with the opponent landing face-first on the mat. Clint 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

They are different moves and the fact there is alot of confusion around them being closely releated just proves the point that they need their own article... for anyone that doesnt know the moves then it would only lead to utter confusion if both moves with their alternating variations were included in one article.... and they are worded differently just in the same format.. i should know i wrote them --- Paulley 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I posted here first. Personally I think it's a lot of semantics but a group consensus is a group consensus.Bdve 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE Championship vandalism

Several times tonight I have had to remove an "ECW Chant" from the top of the page, WWE Championship. Dburg90 keeps putting it back up after myself and a few others remove it. Electricbolt 03:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Steel cage match

I noticed some double redirects with this page, and after fixing them found that some wiseguy did a cut-and-paste move from a page with different capitalization. If I made the situation worse, it's only marginally so. But I think someone needs to take a look at this and see where it belongs. Tromboneguy0186 06:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I redirected it to steel cage match, the original page. McPhail 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moves

I have requested that Jake "The Snake" Roberts be moved to Jake Roberts. See the talk page of the article for more info. "Stone Cold" Steve Austin should really be moved back to Stone Cold Steve Austin. The quotes aren't needed in the name for anything but emphasis. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mass Transit Merge

Who here thinks that the Mass Transit Incident should be merged into lawsuit section of the original ECW? Kyros 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. TJ Spyke 04:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John Cena#Championship succession

Is this some new format? It's a mixture of the old boxes and the new succession however it seems to ommit Cena's wins in OVW. --- Lid 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it, though with the language used it would be better if the headers were 'Won from' and 'Lost to' 71.54.196.231 06:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that was me, not signed in Tromboneguy0186 06:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bio format

In reaction to some of the controversy over week by week edits and pro wrestler bios becoming large and unwieldy, I've posted an essay on a possible format at User:Jtalledo/pwbio. Thoughts, criticism, etc. can be placed below. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like, especially the stuff about no trivia. --J Fred 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it. I'd suggest you put a note about spoilers as well, as they're a pain to revert all the time. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that wrestling characters/personas should be seperate from the wrestler portraying them. I know it could get dicey for guys who perform under their own name, but with TV shows and movies, the actor and character have different entries and it makes it WAY easier to write information and keep kayfabe and reality seperate. --Davetron5000 17:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and as such I don't think the personas and characters should be different. kayfabe may be fine for the entertainment, but as an encyclopedia we should follow what is formal and correct. --- Lid 17:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Personas/characters for TV shows and movies have different entries for the characters and the actors. Richard Dean Anderson's entry doesn't talk about him going through a wormhole with Daniel Jackson (which redirects to Micahel Shanks' entry)! Wrestlers are actors. Mark Calloway portrays a character named The Undertaker. There's just so much confusing verbage in the wrestler profiles and I think, as an encylopedia, the storyline things that happen to a character is a different type of information than things that happen to the guy who portrays him. For example, Sable never sued WWE for sexual harrassment; Rena Mero did. However, she never kissed Torrie Wilson; Sable did. I know it's confusing sometimes when guys' characters are their own name, but you don't see the Jerry Seinfeld page discussing his relationship with Elaine or living across the hall from Kramer. --Davetron5000 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it would cause all sorts of problem with current articles to only aid a small number. Most of the wrestlers are known solely for their wrestling and as such this is reflected on their pages. However if we start to make exceptions and say "this is the wrestler, this is the person" we'll need to make a hell of a lot more articles on the topic - not to mention if we list wrestlers as sportsman in which case this is their identity. --- Lid 17:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said it would be easy :) --Davetron5000 18:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ashley2k2123

This user created the article Ashley Bemrose and added it (himself) to the WWE roster page, which I removed. It's obvious that this user is Ashley Bemrose. That article needs to be deleted and the user warned, which I need help with, I'm not sure the exact process to use or even what this exactly violates. --J Fred 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, who ever deleted the article. --J Fred 20:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE roster: Inactive talent section

I have added a disclaimer to the top of that section, but it might need to be fixed up. --J Fred 01:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam as Champion

How should RVD's title status be written? Is he the WWE Champion or is he the ECW Champion? Or is he both? He still carries the lineage of the WWE title with him. He only seems to have renamed the belt and its design, despite keeping the spinner belt. Maestro25 06:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically he's both, so it's an Undispuited championship situation --- Lid 06:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Holding two titles does not constitute an undisputed championship, it merely means that you have two championships. As long as the WWE World Heavyweight Title and the NWA World Heavyweight Title exist, RVD can't claim to be undisputed, just the currently most deserving of the claim "true world champion". Clint 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to…

The promotion info boxes? I just visited the WWE and TNA articles and promotion boxes have been replaced by business info boxes. Have I missed a discussion or is this incorrect? Normy132 11:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The business infoboxes are more suitable, given that WWE and TNA are corporations. McPhail 13:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another ECW Championship question

I take it just like the current situation where titles won in TNA are not listed under NWA, titles won in the new ECW should not be listed under ECW and instead be listed under WWE? --Oakster ^(Talk) 14:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, by that precedent it makes sense. However, it adds even more fuel to the debate over "continuation of old promotion" vs. "WWE brand" for the new ECW. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been able to solve that debate. --J Fred 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We need a championship listing consensus

Right now there are three seperate championship listings on different pages and it looks bizarre as it's not uniform.

The first example is list of championships followed by succession boxes as sseen at Rob Van Dam#Championships and accomplishments. The rationale behind this is that comprehensive succession is listed on the individual championship pages however this does not extend to most independent wrestling awards which don't have the notability for their own title page.

The second example is a listing in order as seen at Glen Jacobs#Championships and accomplishments. The rationale behind this is that it is comprehensive listing chronologically and detailed. However it leads to very long championship listings.

The third examples is a combination of the two as seen here which combines the boxes with the detail. It doesn't however list the wins chronologically.

We have a problem with these as there needs to be a uniform one and yet we end up having edit wars over them. --- Lid 06:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It should just be a list of what championships were won and how many times - this is to keep the focus on the wrestler, not on the championships. If the title isn't notable enough for its own article with its own succession details, then no one particularly cares about the succession anyway. Having succession info on the pages creates unnecessary clutter on already cluttered wrestler articles and does little good because there's no context for or details about each championship reign. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the Rob Van Dam way, if there's a vote, I vote for that.(Halbared 12:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

I prefer the way that it was to begin with, like on John Cena. Having it in boxes allows people to look at it without haveing to really read it. You can't do that with a list. --sonicKAI 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes are not a good idea. They are inefficient where space is concerned, contain limited information and duplicate information. The listing format used on the Glen Jacobs page only works well when the wrestler has only won a small number of belts, e.g. Randy Orton. Ideally, all the information should be contain in the body text - paragraphs of text are preferable to lists and tables. McPhail 17:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's actually something I'd prefer. The lists are quite useful for info at a glance on championships and accomplishments, but they can get really long and are not nearly as good as writing the info as prose. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with the RVD style, it tells people what titles they've won and people can then click on the title if they want more info. Both the Kane and John Cena versions are OK for people with only a few titles, but would be way too long for someone who has won many titles(like Ric Flair with his 22 world title reigns or Booker T with his 30+ total WCW titles). TJ Spyke 00:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I do prefer the the new format (Kane) over the succesion boxes... on that note why has John Cena only got successsion bocxes where is his championships and accomplishments sections gone!... anyway the new format is good its just takes alot of effort to iniciate i think where ever possible we should add the new format (say to new wrestlers holding there first title i.e. Lashley, or wrestlers with a small number of titles i.e. Johnny Nitro) but for older wrestlers from times gone past we can leave it as the old Championships and accomplishments... as for sucession boxes id rather see them removed ---- Paulley 11:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) --- on that note John Cena needs to be conveted to the new format.

I'd prefer the Kane way, I didn't like having to go through and make the changes months and months ago to all those succession boxes, it wastes time and effort to something more valuable we could be doing. Making the "Kane way" isn't as space consuming as a list and it lists it chronologically. Succession boxes gotta go one way or the other.. — The King of Kings 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the John Cena article. — The King of Kings 17:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Until someone reverted are edits... i have readded the new format back in for both the in wrestling and chamipionship sections... lets see how long they last --- Paulley

Johnny Grunge dead?

Is there any proof that he is dead?

Right here: [1] --- Lid 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Shooting star press#Imploding star press

Is this a shooting star press at all? a 450 splash inwards would make it simply a 450 facing the turnbuckle which is nothing like a double rotation shooting star. I think we're combining two seperate moves, a 450 facing the ringpost and a double rotation shooting star. --- Lid 07:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling:

Hello everybody,

A few days ago, I was going to upload some Images from onlineworldofwrestling.com and I was going to see if we had permission from them to use thier site as a source or not or if I could use his Images or not. I sent him an e-mail and this was his response:

Sorry for the delay. I have spent a few days thinking about this proposition. Every so often I will get an email from someone pointing out that some profile on Wikipedia has taken photos and information from OWW. Sometimes they will link OWW at the bottom but they don’t necessarily give credit as a resource. I often see photos that I personally modified or cropped so I know they came from my website. I usually don’t care about websites doing this and that is why I have never raised an issue (unless they are hotlinking images). The big thing I am afraid of is that you (Wikipedia) will just turn into an OWW clone. A lot of the info for wrestlers after 1990 is pretty easy to find anywhere; but when it comes to wrestlers before that, and even more so for wrestlers before 1980, going all the way back to 1900 the information and photos are much more difficult to come by and I have spent a great deal of time, energy and money getting this content from literally thousands of resources and I don’t think it is appropriate for another website to get it in 5 seconds. There are over 3,500 profiles featured on OWW, and a good 1,000 of them are wrestlers who get literally ZERO exposure anywhere else on the Internet. So after thinking about it I have come to the following decision.

1) You can use whatever you want for any wrestler who made his or her name AFTER 1990, with credit going to OWW as a resource.

2) For wrestlers who made their name between 1980 and 1990 you can use info (credited) and a limit of 2 photos per wrestler, and under the photo you have to put “Source: onlineworldofwrestling.com”

3) For wrestlers BEFORE 1980 you can use information (credited) with a limit of 1 photo per wrestler, and under the photo you have to put “Source: onlineworldofwrestling.com”

I always hate when websites get all high and mighty about giving them credit. So I feel kind of weird about making these demands. But like I said before I have sacrificed a lot to keep OWW alive and growing at the rate it has for almost 5 years. As far as the information goes, I never want to see anything copy & pasted. You can use OWW as a resource but you should always reword the text, which is what you usually do anyway so I don’t see a problem with it. I guess that is all I needed to say. Best of luck to you and Wikipedia.

… Brad Dykens - http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com

I'm hoping now, we can improve on some less-than-good articles now that we have permission to use this site as an source. — The King of Kings 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of the photographs on ObsessedWithWrestling are WWE/TNA promotional photographs and screenshots, which OWW hosts without credit or disclaimers. With that being said, nothing should be copied verbatim from any website. McPhail 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

About copying verbatim from any website: I agree, which Brad stated in the final paragraph. About the Images: Some of the Images, stated above, are not spread across the Internet, which it means he was the original who first placed it for viewing. Examples being Images of wrestlers from the 1900's featured on his site are not WWE/TNA promo pics, which we now have permission to use as long as we state OWW as a source and we have proper tagging on the Image. — The King of Kings 20:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We should mention the source of the picture (with the pic) no matter where its source anyway. It's common courtesy. --J Fred 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mania Era expansion

I've been off and on cleaning up the slang page all day (I need a job) and the entry for "Mania Era" is just a monster. While the majority of the information is legit and noteworthy it doesn't belong on this page so I'm officially requestong someone else either add it to the main World Wrestling Entertainment article. I'm cutting it on the slang page by a lot so I'm going to cut and paste what's there here for safe keeping:

# Mania Era, refers to time period spanning from 1984-1993 in WWF/WWE when Vince McMahon took the company and pro wrestling in general from being a regional promotion with only a small devoted following to a hugely successful national business with appeal to the mainstream on the shoulders of McMahon and Hulk Hogan. Hogan winning the title from the Iron Sheik in January 1984 is considered by many to be the beginning of this era and Hogan's departure from the WWF in 1993 in the midst of a steroid abuse scandal is considered to be the end of this era by many Wrestling fans and historians though others claim that WCW acquiring several top stars from the WWF due to budget cutbacks by McMahon and Ted Turner's higher salaries as the end of this era. Also is known and considered by many to be the "second golden age" of professional wrestling. The era was also notorious for gimmicks which many saw as cartoon-oriented and circus-esque. The term "Mania" in denoting the era is attributed to Hogan's fan following known as "Hulkamania" being the dominant aspect of the era though the flagship WWF/WWE Pay-Per-View WrestleMania starting in this era could have also gave the era this name though Wrestlemania flourished long after the "Mania Era" had ended. Sometimes referred to as the Showtime Era, the Superstars Era, the Hulkamania Era, or the Federation Era

Bdve 21:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Rights

With regards to the Obsessedwithwrestling site allowing us their images (thanks to them) I attempted to upload one of Lex Luger, but now it appears to have been lost in Cyberspace. I someone finds it (I think it's LexLuger.jpg) can they stick it Lex's infobox please? Sorry about this! Kingfisherswift 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE template

I've noticed a few templates around the WWE articles such as WWEHistory, WWE Championships and WWEPPV and I was wondering if it might be a good idea if we try to combine them all into a single template? If anyone's interested I'll see if I could make a mock template for it. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A big template encompassing all of WWE - key personnel, history, events, titles, subsidiaries, etc. - would be great. McPhail 19:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started working on it at User:Oakster/WWE Template. It also has a hide function seen in a few other templates in Wikipedia just in case it gets a bit too large. --Oakster ^(Talk) 20:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to put the McMahon family on that template as well seeing as they've run the business since the start and will continue to do so in the future unless something goes horribly wrong. Normy132 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You should probably put the WWE title back under RAW since it is being defended at the next RAW PPV. And is SNME really "current programming"? Isn't it on some every 4 months special kind of deal? It's a show, but not a regular one is what I'm saying. Just one nerds opinion.Bdve 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm just basing the titles on the current template. That situation should be hopefully sorted out in the next week. SNME would be listed as it is a recurring TV special as opposed to a one-off like WWE vs. ECW Head to Head. I'll see if I could add the McMahon family in there as it's a good idea but I don't want to overcrowd the template too much. --Oakster ^(Talk) 08:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

A.M. RAW is simply a redirect back to the normal RAW page, it needs fixing --- Lid 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Oakster ^(Talk) 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Week by week note

In response to some of the issues regarding people adding week-by-week events to articles on wrestlers, we could try to put a little note at the end of the career section, something like:

A note could also be placed in the infobox telling users not to change the height or weight unless a source is cited. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it, especially the part about rumors. Can we expand it to include Spoilers for people on shows like SmackDown! or TNA guys? Bdve 19:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. It's not meant to be a cure-all - I've seen similar tags ignored, but it's better than nothing. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So a tag that covers week to week, rumour, and stats then?(Halbared 20:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC))

A tag covering stats would probably be separate, since that would go inside the infobox, while the one covering week by and week edits and rumors would be placed at the end of the career section. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. --J Fred 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Does sound like a good plan, I hate having to revert edits every week because people want to add spoilers for WWE and TNA before they air on TV. TJ Spyke 22:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of proposed page moves

On the talk pages for Jonathan Rechner (Balls Mahoney) and Allen Sarven (Al Snow) there are requests for page moves to their ring names. Feel free to add your two cents. --J Fred 05:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also made the same proposal for Franklin Lashley (Bobby Lashley), Michael Sean Coulthard (Michael Cole), Virgil Runnels, Jr. (Dusty Rhodes), Michael Manna (Stevie Richards) and Francisco Pantoja Islas (Super Crazy). --J Fred 06:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made a proposal to move Phil Brooks to CM Punk as he has gone by Punk since his backyard days, refers to himself as Punk in interviews including shoots and on his website doesn't like people referring to wrestlers by their real names as he sees it as arrogant and elitist. --- Lid 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I've proposed Chris Scoville to Jimmy Jacobs Tromboneguy0186 06:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to propose the Mark Calaway to The Undertaker move that was proposed on this talk page a while ago. I've also to prevent this topic from becoming a stack of "I've propose moving this page to this page," I've added a new section on the To Do page. --Oakster ^(Talk) 13:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also added Sylvester Ritter (JYD) to that list. --Dubhagan 16:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DaffyDuck619, User:Lil crazy thing and John Cena

These two have had an ongoing war going on on the John Cena page over whether or not John Cena liking cartoons or not is notable. The problem lies with that they both, but mostly Daffy, revert much older versions of the page to reinsert their own trivia thus negating recent edits and updates. I need some backup here to sort this shit out. --- Lid 10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If it comes to a vote. I say leave the cartoon and pokoman stuff out, it is not notable.(Halbared 10:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

Yeah - personal information should really be limited to family stuff and some notable real-life events outside of wrestling. If we keep listing stuff like favorite food, favorite color and hobbies that otherwise have no bearing on the rest of the article (notable exceptions include something like Gregory Helms affinity for comic books, which influenced his "Hurricane" character) it's going to look like some MySpace entry instead of an encyclopedia article. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know it isn't just me that has removed the cartoon stuff, many others have aswell. If you take a look at the edits this person has made you will see most of his edits have not been kept as its not notable. All he does is see something on imdb and will add it thinking everything is completely true on that site when that is not the case, me and others have told him reasons but he doesnt take no notice. The same happened on Bob Orton jr page (see talk page and page history) others told him the information he posted wasnt notable but he ignored everything. This person has an obsession with cartoons, and no matter what he will add it everytime whether he is told over and over again. I like to try and keep pages looking professional and information like this isn't needed. This user has made threats against people on here saying if they remove anything he puts there blocked, he has also made un-nice comments towards me, all because i like pages looking at least decent and the information he adds is not needed.Lil crazy thing 12:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have removed it too at times, simply puting , nn.(Halbared 13:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

I've tried talking to User:DaffyDuck619 but he just doesn't seem to care. I've even provided a link to show him that we don't approve of general trivia, but he's ignored it. --J Fred 18:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

someone need to say something to him, he is still continuing to add it and his doing the same to other pages aswell, his has also been told about making personal attacks towards people but he still does it. This shows even more it doesnt matter what people say to him he has the attitude he can add whatever he wants and will make sure it will remain. Lil crazy thing 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We need to follow wiki protocol as per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes as bullying and stubborness are not listed as vandalism. If this fails it goes to Wikipedia: Request for Arbitration in which we can list Daffy's inseessant additions of inconsequential details. --- Lid 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

well how long is that gonna take, it to confusing for me to go through it all, this person has been doing it and getting away with it for months and its getting beyond annoying now that he thinks he can do what he likes and no-one is willing to say anything at all to him other then me and jfred and he doesnt take no note still. Lil crazy thing 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported Daffy for 3RR violation Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:DaffyDuck619 reported by User:Lid and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-22 John Cena an informal request for mediation also. Help at the 3RR would not go amiss and we'll see how the mediation request goes out. --- Lid 18:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Under the 3RR violations Daffy received a 24hour block. --- Lid 01:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am mediating the John Cena dispute. Please feel free to participate in the mediation, and I encourage you all to do so. Thanks - BrownHornet21 02:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I provided DaffyDuck619 with this link. Hopefully it helps. --J Fred 02:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an observation on the John Cena page. If we consider his enjoying video games as notable, then why not his liking of cartoons? Also, I see nothing wrong with the other point he's adding. If John Cena states something like that in an interview, then why can't we include it? --J Fred 03:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i posted a reply to that question on this page John Cena dispute. Lil crazy thing 06:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

Just like to say that now onlineworldofwrestling.com have given us image rights, I feel we should create a Category:Infobox Imageless Wrestlers or something, so we can put images in the Infoboxes that still need them. I've put in two big names - Lex Luger and Matt Cappotelli - But there must be countless others. If you see one, stick it on the list and we'll put in an image. Cheers Kingfisherswift 17:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I think we should probably focus on improving the prose content instead and adding fair use photos only for critical commentary and in order to properly illustrate certain points in the article. Although OWW has "given us" permission (I still think they don't have copyright to most of those images anyway), it would just be adding more fair use images to pages that don't necessarily need images. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

ECW vs. Extreme Championship Wrestling

Maybe its just me, but has anyone else heard a mention that the revived ECW was called Extreme Championship Wrestling? I've heard Extremly Crappy Wrestling, but that doesn't count. :-) I know it might seem irrelevant, but I haven't seen anything on TV, on TV guides or mentioned on commentary on WWE programming that the revived brand, by name, is Extreme Championship Wrestling. I know ECW is an acroynm for Extreme Championship Wrestling. But since no one calls it Extreme Championship Wrestling, why cant we make the article about the revived brand be called "ECW (WWE)" instead of "Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)"? — The King of Kings 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the logo on the ECW website :) --J Fred 01:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The baseball cap they came out with on ShopZone has the full name too above the initials. --J Fred 01:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the project

I just added Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards to an article to be created but realised i'm not sure how we go about formatting it or have a different section for each winner. Luckily there is a comprehensive website here that lists all the info needed to make it. --- Lid 07:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Finished. ;-) — The King of Kings 07:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Move List of professional wrestling throws to Professional wrestling throws

A look at the [What links here of the List page shows that nearly all the pages on wikipedia link to the redirect page and not to the "list of" page, although the "what links here" page doesn't list everything that links there obviously as you can look for a lot of wrestlers and not find them. In addition to this it is the only page that doesn't follow the move list name format even though I am aware it was the first one. --- Lid 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still a list of professional wrestling throws though. And although a lot of pages do link to the redirect, a lot of pages directly link to this one as well. The only problem would be if there are any double redirects, which should be corrected. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A signifant higher number, ~~at least 3 out of every 4, more likely 5 out of 6~~, link to the redirect page. Look at when "Professional wrestling throws" starts on the List what links here page and scroll down. Nearly all the pages that link to throws link to Professional wrestling throws, and not the list. Even though its still a list the format with others i.e. Professional wrestling attacks, Professional wrestling holds etc. is not followed and it's an oddity. --- Lid 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit to myself, I just did a count of the pages that link to Professional wrestling throws: 477. Considering the numbers only go upto 500 that means at most only 23 link to the list of page. --- Lid 13:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Even so, redirects don't matter as much. They can easily be corrected with a bot or using AWB. Double redirects are the big problem, but that seems to be a non-issue here since there are none to this page. Moving to "Professional wrestling throws" is problematic because it's in plural form (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions) and if it was called "Professional wrestling throw" then you'd expect an article about the history of professional wrestling throws etc., instead of a list of common throws. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions include Hermite polynomials, Arabic numerals, ... - see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural - I consider this an exception, especially as we don't go around renaming Professional wrestling holds to List of professional wrestling holds that, though while correct, would cause more problems as more people link to Professional wrestling holds rather than List of. This case is that the vast vast vast minority link to List of, and the vast majority link to a redirect page. It may not be a problem but it doesn't follow convention. --- Lid 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, the redirect thing doesn't matter as much since they can easily be corrected using a bot or AWB. Just because a lot of articles link to an article under a certain name doesn't mean that it's the right name to use. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the only one that doesn't follow the wrestling move list name format, and it's not "A lot" it's nearly all of them. --- Lid 14:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The page should be at List of professional wrestling throws per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). If the redirects bother you, then why not correct some of them? Professional wrestling holds and professional wrestling attacks should really also be moved. McPhail 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If they get moved no one will redirect to "List of". Linking to "List of professional wrestling aerial techniques" or "Professional wrestling aerial techniques", which do you think will happen more? --- Lid 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Neither is a "natural" page name - very few people will search for either term; rather, they will reach the page using redirects and links within articles. The article should therefore be at the technically correct title. McPhail 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, we can make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests for the redirects to be fixed. It seems like a simple solution. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Major shows

I think I've brought this up before but does anyone think it would be a good idea to split articles like Survivor Series, The Great American Bash and SummerSlam (particularly SummerSlam) into separate articles based on the year of the show? The page seems very cramped with the event boxes in there now and TNA shows have their own articles so why can't major WWE shows have one? Normy132 07:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. We could always expand on what happened during those PPV's and seperate them like the WrestleMania articles. If its alright with everyone else, I cold get started as early as tomorrow with helping. ;-) — The King of Kings 07:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for it. If you guys need any help, just ask. --Oakster ^(Talk) 10:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume we're doing this then? If you want my help it's now or never - I'm going away over the weekend and won't be editing. Earliest I can edit is Monday afternoon or now. Kingfisherswift 15:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I see no objections, I guess its alright. I'll get started now and if anyone else want to pitch in, I'll gladly take the help. ;-) — The King of Kings 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Other PPV's are split by year (ECW ONS, TNA's PPV's...) so I think it should be done for all. Just make sure the pages currently existing are turned into a main page of sorts for the annual recap pages, like is currently done with ONS. --J Fred 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Like this for thre article? This is article for SummerSlam with took place on 1988. Also, instead of a list of the events, I made a table format for SummerSlam. (see SummerSlam for table format). — The King of Kings 23:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that by major WWE shows, you mean Summer Slam, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and WrestleMania right? I suggest that a template be made like this one to keep the articles organized and easier to reach... (It would make it easier to detect vandalism). By the way, I'm not too fond of the idea of separating minor PPV articles like The Great American Bash for example (again because of vandalism). -3bulletproof16 22:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all the pay-per-views. I already started doing SummerSlam and I have created a similar template already. About not seperating Great American Bash, well, I agree it does produce a greater hazard for vandalism, but that kind of thing can be monitered. The current GAB article is really in need of a cleanup. — The King of Kings 23:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If all TNA PPV's are split by year, then all WWE PPV's should be split by year, even the minor/brand ones. It's a little something called consistency. --J Fred 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

When I said the GAB should be split up I meant the NWA/WCW events, seeing as they were one of the more significant events of the year. If it doesn't get split, fine by me. I'm happy with 'Mania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and the Rumble being seperated. Normy132 04:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean GAB alone, I meant minor PPVs in general. I could have used Backlash or New Year's revolution for that matter. My only major concern is the potential increase in vandalism the minor PPVs will be subject to if they do end up separated. I have no problem with WrestleMania, Summer Slam, Royal Rumble, or Survivor Series being split.-3bulletproof16 05:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you make a good point. We'll stick with just those four. Normy132 05:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know, I'm moving the SummerSlam articles out of the parenthesis as it helps with more direct linking rather than the current titles which would need more piping to from articles. --Oakster ^(Talk) 09:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised they were put in brackets, as the ECW ONS PPVs and TNA PPVs don't have the year in brackets. --Dubhagan 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the splitting of the "Major PPVs"? I though SurviorSeries, SummerSlam, and the Royal Rumble were all going to be split. All I've seen split for the past couple of days has been SummerSlam. What-up-with-dat? --3bulletproof16 02:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a surprisingly long process. We still haven't finished editing the SummerSlam articles! We'll eventually get around to them though. Normy132 02:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

How about including King of The Ring in the list of PPVs to split (up to 2002), that was once an important event. Maybe after the other ones are done Aceboy 06:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

IWGP Title

The page here states that the IWGP Championship started in 1987, but the sources i've seen state that it started in 1983 when Hulk Hogan beat Antonio Inoki in a tournament. Can someone verify when the title got World Title status? TJ Spyke 04:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually IWGP World Heavyweight Championship states it started in 1983, then Inoki won it in 1984 and then vacated in 1986 then won it back in 1986 a month later and held onto it for two years so i'm guessing in 1987 he defended it outsde of Japan. --- Lid 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit the List of IWGP World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length page then with the correct dates. If no one else does it by tomorrow then I will. TJ Spyke 04:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The championship was started in 1983, but NJPW now only recognizes champions from 1987 forward. This is noted in New Japan Pro Wrestling#Titles promoted, should probably be included in the article. I don't think you should update the lenght page since those reigns aren't recognized.

↪Lakes (Talk)