Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 70

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 65

←

Archive 68

→

Name of Finishers

Consistency is the fruit of Wikipedia. I know we love to be consistent, in everything we do. But I have noticed some inconsistencies. Namely, in regards to finisher names. Just looking at the Facebuster page alone, I see two. Early in the article (in the leaping reverse STO section) Shelton Benjamin's finisher, Paydirt, is written exactly like that. Later, Triple H's finisher, the Pedigree, written like that. But it doesn't stop there. Elsewhere (no particular instances come to mind) I have seen finisher names written like this. I know that in the "In wrestling" sections, finisher names are Bold and Italicized. How can we fix these inconsistencies? --Oxico (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The move names shouldn't be bold in the prose, that much I'm 100% on (MOS:BOLD). I like the idea of italicizing them in the prose, though, to show that is a special and to differentiate with other wrestling terms. I've never been a fan of the bolding in the "In wrestling" section either...I've always thought it would be better to have a list of "Finishing moves" and "Signature moves" to separate them, because someone who wasn't familiar with the wrestling articles would have no idea what the bolding meant. Other opinions? Nikki♥311 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good point, though I do like the bolding there for aesthetic purposes. That being said, there is little point in it being there if the sections are separated as they are in some articles. Consistency is definitely needed though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think capitalizing them in prose differentiates them from other wrestling moves enough. But you're right about non-wrestling fans not knowing what bolding meant. Tony2Times (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing with the bolding is that, in some wrestling articles (Cyber Kong's page comes to mind) there are not distinct "Finisher" and "Signature Moves" sections, and bolding is used to differentiate. I vote for using Italics for finisher names outside the "In wrestling" sections. --Oxico (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just throwing wild ideas out here but we could always make distinct finisher and signature move sections. A lot of British wrestlers, particularly the older kind, don't have finishing moves, just lots of signature moves and so they just need the one list, while I think a lot of indie wrestlers don't really need a signature moves list because they have too many whereas WWE wrestlers tend to have a limited move category. Chris Hero for example has a list longer than both my arms. Tony2Times (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But to go back to my point of consistency, I don't think WWE superstars and ROH wannabes should be treated differently. Indie and WWE wrestlers' pages should have the same format and, uh, "In wrestling" section length, am I right? Gettin' back to the main point, is it agreed that finisher names are to be italicized in prose? --Oxico (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't think "ROH wannabees" is an appropriate term. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I kid, I kid, I love ROH. Danielson FTW! As for the "In wrestling/Wrestling" sections, I think many of them can be shortened by just removal of some trivial information. I mean, I think it is universally agreed that every wrestler below 250 lbs (and few above) uses a Dropkick at least once a match.--Oxico (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What does FTW mean? 173.136.124.5 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I pretty much thought it meant "fuck the world".

For the Win! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It can mean both, it depends on the context (I am pretty sure Oxico is talking about "For the Win" in this case). TJ Spyke 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than some exceptions (like Booker T has used a missile dropkick as a regular move for years), I agree that some of the more common moves can be removed from many wrestlers articles. TJ Spyke 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now let's define "common moves". I think sunset flip, lariat ("a" or "e"?), clothesline, some diving moves, and some kicks can be common moves. More uncommon moves are ones that are slightly modified by the user (ie Tyson Kidd's dropkick) or are used excessively (and I am talking about the moves that are shown in promos).--Oxico (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Common moves: Dropkick, clothesline, etc. Instances where these are notable mentions: A.J. Styles, JBL, etc. We should only list common moves when they mean something. A.J. is known for his dropkick combo type thing. The clothesline from Hell is JBL's finisher. I believe we shouldn't even list not meaningful moves. Only ones used as finishers or the wrestler is known for. Look at Randy Orton. The only ones needed are: O–Zone, RKO, Running punt to an opponent's head, Randy Orton Stomp, and Rope hung implant DDT. The rest are done by everyone else.--WillC 05:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that. European Uppercut isn't a generic move, nor is the bodyscissors and a few other moves listed there. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The uppercut I somewhat agree with then disagree with. The uppercut is used alot by Orton, but so is the headlock and some even call him Randy "headlock" Orton. Should we list that very common move as well? I see multiple people use the uppercut. Both Hardys, Trips, Angle, etc. Mostly all submission wrestlers or strong style wrestlers use the uppercut. Orton rarely uses the bodyscissors and the move isn't that notable in the first place.--07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We should list the headlock, yes. He uses it multiple times in every match. And I can't offhand think of another current wrestler who consistently uses it. I'm aware of how many people use the uppercut, but now go ahead and list those that don't. I think said list would be much longer. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sykes has a point, IMHO. But to truly grasp which moves are common and are tied to the wrestler, we'd have to edit and argue over just about every wrestler....ever. I think we should set some sort of guideline to determine which moves to keep, and which ones to dub "common". To me, Randy Orton has a notable moveset. A Fave Five, if you will, is a common practice amongst wrestlers, even though some (like Randy) use a dropkick in there. I think Orton's dropkick is notable in its height. Our current Orton moveset is almost perfect: just the gutwrench elevated neckbreaker, the forearm shots and the wrenching chinlock, I believe, are expendable. --Oxico (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true, this could lead to huge edit warring. But Like I said earlier, a Fave Five may work for WWE and some TNA wrestlers, but folk on the indie circuit have a much wider reportoire and don't necessarily use the same sequence of three or four moves every match. I think it's very much a play-it-by-ear situation. I'm still very much opposed to finishers being in italics in prose - words in italics tend to be published works (novels, albums, television programmes &c) whereas a finisher is merely a special move, capitalising it where other moves are lower cased makes it obvious enough. Tony2Times (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If they aren't italicized in the prose, then they shouldn't be italicized in the "In wrestling" section either. Either way we decide to do this, it needs to be consistent. Nikki♥311 19:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I never understood why we italicised them for In Wrestling anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS:ITALICS seems to support your argument that it isn't necessary...italics can be used for emphasis, but I don't know if that's really what we are going after here. Nikki♥311 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion?

So...from this conversation and the other section above started by iMatthew...should we implement the following changes?:

Limit "In wrestling" sections to moves, managers/wrestlers managed, and entrance themes (but only if they can be properly sourced).
- Unsourced moves, in particular, frequently violate the "no original research" policy. Good sources for moves include reviews of pay-per-views and episode recaps by sources deemed reliable on the Style Guide page. Online World of Wrestling can be used for wrestling moves if no other source exists.
- Nicknames relevant to a storyline or ones that are frequently used, can be mentioned in the prose, if sourced.
List "Finishing moves" and "Signature moves" in separate sections to differentiate between them, and remove both bolding and italics in the move names.
- Lists should not include generic moves used by most wrestlers unless in exceptional cases. Ex: JBL's Clothesline from Hell.
Moves listed in prose should be neither bold nor italic per MOS:BOLD and MOS:ITALICS.

How's that? Anything I should add, remove, or modify? Nikki♥311 20:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you saying that nicknames should be moved into prose and not included In Wrestling anymore, or saying keep it IW but also put it in prose - reliant on sources? Everything else, I'm in favour of. Tony2Times (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The MOS:ITALICS says italics can be used sparingly, which is about as often as names of finishers show up in articles. I like the idea of using italics (just italics) for names of finishers differentiate them from names of moves. To simplify, a non/new wrestling fan may become confused when they see "RKO (Jumping cutter)". I know that when I started, I didn't know what an RKO or jumping cutter was, so to differentiate between the wrestler's name for the move and the move itself, I think italics would be sufficient. "RKO (Jumping cutter)" ftw. On another note, I would just like to say that I found the other "In wrestling" sections quite informative. --Oxico (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think putting moves in italics helps at all and looks ugly. Just putting them in quotations is sufficient IMO. TJ Spyke 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

To Tony: not listed in "In wrestling", but written in the prose (reliant on sources), if the nickname is worthy of mentioning or is relevant to a storyline (for background and context). For example, Randy Orton began attacking legendary wrestlers, which led to him being dubbed "The Legend Killer"...or something like that. To Oxico: I missed that part, maybe we should discuss the italics thing more thoroughly (b/c I really do like them as well). Nikki♥311 21:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, looking at WWE.com and some SLAM Wrestling recaps...they both just write them out with no italics or quotations...so now I'm really torn. Maybe we should ask at one of the MoS talk pages or something and get some outside opinions? Nikki♥311 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the question here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Special names for wrestling moves. Let's see what they have to say (if they respond), and move on from there. Nikki♥311 21:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

<--To go back to entrance themes, I'd like to suggest that they be in prose in the In wrestling section, for example, like the way it's done in John Hennigan#In wrestling. I think it makes much more sense that way, as most of the time there's explanatory notes after each theme like if they used as part of a tag team/stable/etc, e.g Randy Orton#In wrestling, Triple H#In wrestling. Putting it in prose makes it look a lot better imo. I'd also quite like other editors to be stringent about removing unsourced theme names added by random ips. About 4 different names have been added to Milena Roucka just today, all of them unsourced and most likely made up by fans. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely against music being in prose as something like John Hennigan's is only after 2 or 3 years in. After a seasoned career it could grow to an unwieldy size, look at Foley's, and that's without descriptions on quite a few songs. If the style of song is important to the character it can be mentioned in the article when the gimmick changes. It's a bullet point section for quick facts, prose is unnecessary and can encourage vague and ambiguous description of music. All it needs is, where available and sourceable, the title and artist, preferably with the years used. A clamp down on unsourced theme names is a wise idea. Tony2Times (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good compromise...a description in the prose if important to the character/storyline/what-have-you and a quick list in the "In wrestling". Lots of times, the song has nothing to do with the character so a description wouldn't even be needed. On the other hand, Foley's list would probably only be half that size if we sourced it and removed unsourceable names. When removing names, I usually try and do a quick search for a good source before just removing it. Nikki♥311 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I kind of like that compromise, but the problem is that people don't just list the name, artist and years used. They start listing stuff like "used for promos" (from HHH) or "used as part of ____", which is why I think it should be in prose, becuase I think it looks better to have it in sentences. Or should we just remove the extra notes? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me, especially OWOW being allowed if no other source exists. Quite often, that's the case. That being said, I'd assume anything at WP:PW/MOS#Sources in the first two lists is acceptable. When I source moves, I tend to go through those sources first, then if I can't find anything there, I try 411Mania, then OWOW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Most notes probably can't be sourced anyway (like the promo thing). Maybe if we have a standard sentence for when the song is used as part of a tag team or stable... "used while a part of ________" or "used while teaming with ________" and that be the only sort of note added. I can't off the top of my head think of another instance where a note would be necessary, unless someone else can. Nikki♥311 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would "Line in the Sand by Motorhead (with Evolution)" not be enough? Brevity is the key I feel. Tony2Times (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would work! I was just giving the first example that popped in my head. I like that better because it would work any either a tag team or stable situation. For Stephanie McMahon: "My Time" by Whomever-it-was (with Triple H) or "No Chance" (with The Corporation. Not sure if that's factually correct, but you get the idea.... Nikki♥311 02:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of anything myself. One thing we haven't discussed is "signature foreign objects." In general, I think these can be removed. The few wrestlers that have them like Edge and Triple H can simply have them listed somewhere in the prose. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

<--So, since all discussion appears to have died, does anyone object to me updating the relevant parts of WP:PW/SG then? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideas

I've been working on a main article or I guess you could say a season article for all of TNA's 2008 PPV events for the passed few months. Today I went to the subpage and removed alot of the info so that I could rewrite it. Now I'm drawing a blank on what else would be useful to add to the article. I was wondering if anyone would have any ideas. Each event will have a small section summarizing the matches, production, reception, etc. The format I have now seems like it is missing something. To see what I have so far check User:Wrestlinglover/2008 Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view events. I had an idea to have a section comparing the reception of the entire year to that of WWE's. I think that would be useful. Plus comparing it to TNA's previous year's events reception.--WillC 12:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No reason to have every event listed outside of the table when it is already inside the table. Better to remove all those useless subsection which all they do is link to the main article (something the table already does). And maybe you could just keep it as a list and eliminate the reception. Comparing it to WWE is trivial. Wikipedia is not a Venn Diagram. Ra agg io 17:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It would be list cruft if I removed all you say I should.--WillC 17:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames

This may have been brought up already but if it hasn't here it goes.Does anyone find it a bit redunant to put nicknames that are just shortened versions of the persons' birth name such as Matthew "Matt" Hardy.I just find it odd to include the shortened version of the birth name when it is stated in the infobox.What does everyone else think? If people believe that this is just to include the persons' most commonly used name then it should be on everyone's page and not just a few pages.Thanks.(MgTurtle (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)).

Nicknames are not the same as ringnames or shortened versions of birth names, so yes to say "Matt Hardy" is a nickname is way off and frankly silly. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tazz

Would anybody mind giving their opinion on the paragraph about TNA Wrestling in Tazz's article? The conversation is on the article's talk page here. I already have, but I would like to see more than two people's opinions (mine and the IP that added it) on the topic. Thanks guys! Bmg916^Speak 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Solie

We use Solie.org is many GAs and FLs. Why? It says on the MoS that it is still questionable. Can anyone tell me why it is reliable enough to be used in these articles? Likewise with Wrestling Titles.com.--WillC 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the ref being used is the Wrestling Titles book by Duncan and Royal, but some page on Solie say at the top "information from Wrestling Titles by..." so it is used for verifiability (so people have something to look at to verify without having to have the book in front of them). If the title page doesn't have that disclaimer, I don't think it can be used as a ref. I think. Nikki♥311 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling-titles.com is an absolute no. It still has not been proven reliable. Solie.org is only reliable when it is publishing information from Wrestling Title Histories by Gary Will and Royal Duncan, and the promotions themselves. But if its published by their staff, it may be questioned for verifiability because the staff writer may not be reliable.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably responsible for adding Solie refs to a lot of articles. Generally, I used them regardless of if they part of the Duncan Royal book or not, due to lack of anything better to use for listed championships. I generally think that something is better than nothing unless a source is proven to be unreliable. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we really should find a reliable third party source for championship histories. Sometimes the company history is not enough, so somehow we are going to have to prove that a site has reliable fact checking.--WillC 00:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's more of an issue of companies whose sites don't keep title histories. That being the vast majority of indy feds. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A 3rd party source is always preferable over a company source, any day. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Championship and accomplishments sections

When titles are won by the one person under a few different names, i.e. Jeff Hardy won the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) under the names World Tag Team Championship and WWF Tag Team Championship, how is it listed? On Jeff Hardy's for example, it is listed as "WWF/E World Tag Team Championship", with the names combined. This seems inaccurate, my reading of that would be that the Championship was called the WWF World Tag Team Championship when he won it (false according to the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) article) and then he won it another time when it was called the WWE World Tag Team Championship (again false). Is this simply for brevity or aesthetic or what? I ask mainly because this affects other wrestlers like Davey Richards, who won the PWG World Tag Team Championship when it was known as the PWG Tag Team Championship and the PWG World Tag Team Championship. What do we do then? Just list it simply as PWG World Tag Team Championship, even though it's inaccurate? Or do we list it as PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship? Or even PWG (World) Tag Team Championship? Has there been a consensus formed on this before that I'm not aware of, or did people just start writing the championships in this way? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say if a wrestler only ever won a title under one name then list it as that name with a piped link to the right page (eg Randy Savage only every won the WWF Heavyweight Championship, so it should be listed as that then piped to the WWE Championship). If the belt changed name and then they won the title again then I would say list the two differences (eg Jericho has won the IC title in WWF and WWE so it would be WWF/WWE Intercontinental title). Darrenhusted (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it the way I did it with Davey Richards amoung other wrestlers who have won the PWG Tag, ROH Tag, etc.--WillC 10:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will, how did you write it? PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship? Because I would agree with you, that's the way I feel it should be written, but PCE (talk · contribs) disagreed, so I thought some more opinions would be useful. Re: to Darren, so in Jeff Hardy for example, how do you think we should write his WWF Tag Team Championship/World Tag Team Championship reigns? The way it currently is in his article, the way I just wrote it^^, or a different way altogether? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I wrote it as such. For the PWG tag if someone held it under the PWG Tag Team Championship and not while it was world I left the World out. Now if they won it under both I wrote it PWG Tag Team Championship/PWG World Tag Team Championship. The same with the ROH World Tag Team Championship: ROH Tag Team Championship/ROH World Tag Team Championship.--WillC 04:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@Nici, yes. Hardy's WWF wins are listed as such and piped, and the titles won under different names are doen with a /, this seems like the most logical format. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the title has changed titles properly, I would prefer a slash. Eg NWA European/World Championship whereas if a word has just been added I prefer brackets eg ROH (World) Championship. Plus with Jeff the belt was called the WWF World Tag Team Championship when he won it the first few times, and then the World Tag Team Championship recently so it does make sense. Tony2Times (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the title was just called WWF Tag Team Championship, not WWF World Tag Team Championship. TJ Spyke 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The two were used interchangably for a long time, certainly during the time Jeff was winning it they said both. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unofficially maybe. Officially it was just the WWF Tag Team Championship when Jeff held it and they always said "World Wrestling Federation Tag Team Champions". TJ Spyke 23:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

<--So, just to summarise this, and btw, I intend on adding this to WP:PW/SG so more opinions are very welcome,

If a championship is won under two separate names, they both should be listed, e.g. WWF Tag Team Championship/World Tag Team Championship.
If the name of the championship, however, has be renamed purely by the addition or subtraction of a single word, it should be listed with the differing word in parentheses, e.g. ROH (World) Championship.

Does anyone have any objections/comments? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is that the combo names look ugly. Look at Edge. He's held the gold so many times when the title had so many different names. He's held it as WWF, WWE, World, and now Unified WWE. I generally think the more common name of the belt should be used, for easy readibility, and to avoid confusion. Mshake3 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how that would look. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well what we should do is go on a case-by-case basis, going with what looks best, as opposed to a universal rule where half of them look ugly. For example, refering to Edge again, I'd list the two titles under accomplishments as simply World Tag Team, and WWE Tag Team, that way, the reader can easily tell what belts they're refering to. Mshake3 (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What about this - why not just use whatever the title was named AT THE TIME IT WAS WON? ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Because merging five different names into one looks ugly. And technically, he didn't win a title under that merged name at any point. I suppose you could spell out the full name at each encarnation, and say how many times he won the title under each encarnation. But that would be so repetitive. Mshake3 (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My attempt at a FL

Here I decided to get Dream Gate to FL. But I'm having a problem with the table. It's just keeps disappearing. Anyone can help? --Numyht (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've cleared up some of the mess for you, the problem is you are forgetting to end some of the Wiki Code. Afro Gold - Afkatk 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you just asking to help the table from disappearing or would you like some more input on the article in general? I've got 3 lists to Feature and have 2 candidates on there right now, every time I put a list up I learn something and I'd be happy to help you get this list "Feature list" ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Once I finish it in a few days time, I'll give you a message. --Numyht (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyes?

Hey all. I'm going out of town until July 6, so my computer access will probably be limited for the next couple of days. I'm only mentioning it here, because I have several of our articles nom'ed at WP:GAN and at Template talk:DYK. I'd like some eyes watching in case I can't answer or fix something in time...it would be appreciated! Also, any admin requests would probably get done faster if someone else was asked. Thanks guys! :) Nikki♥311 19:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll help watch.--WillC 19:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

PPV GA

Okay, a few weeks or months ago, I can't remember, we were talking about whether WWE No Way Out, etc should be FLs. There was talk of them being made into articles. I said I was working on TNA Bound for Glory to see if we could get one to GA. Well I just finished the article with an interesting format. Any comments on it would be nice, just leave them on the talk page.--WillC 08:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone up for bringing back Collaboration?

I really think we need to bring back Collaboration. HHow about everyone else? PXK ^T /_C 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is not enough activity in the project to warrant another collaboration. The main reason why it was shut down.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If we could somehow get activity going with this I think it'd be a pretty cool thing for the project again. Afro Gold - Afkatk 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Truco would be correct. There are not enough active members to do this, and I believe that editors are still getting articles done without it. However, I'm sure that if you have an article to collaborate on, many editors here would be willing to do so. iMatthew [[User_talk:IMatthew|^talk]] at 13:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Matthew. I don't know that it would work to have a set amount of time to work together on an article, or that a large group of people could agree to work on one article for an extended period of time. However, how about you (PXK) suggest an article that you are planning to work on? I think people would be willing to help out to some extent. It's certainly worth a try if it will improve one of this project's articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree here as well. A set collaboration every few weeks isn't the way to go. But suggesting any user suggesting a collaboration here once in a while (with no set time limit) could work out quite well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Protection

ECW on Sci Fi - I feel we should request this page to be put on protection till July 7 Noon, I feel we are going to get quite a few edits concerning the SyFy change, I've already had to revert 1 today. Afro Gold - Afkatk 21:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there is not enough vandalism going on to call for protection. If it gets worse for any reason, feel free to leave a request at WP:RFPP. iMatthew ^talk at 13:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

General source

Hey guys, don't know if anyone has already found this website but I know it's sometimes hard to find sources for the basic facts of wrestling, as we all tend to know them. US Pro Wrestling has a rules and history section that might provide sources for this kinda thing. Tony2Times (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes this a Reliable souce?? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Another reason I brought it here for discussion. Tony2Times (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Night of Champions

Since no one seems willing to explain it to me in a way that makes any sense, I need some clarification on something if possible. On Night of Champions (2009) there is a match listed as Randy Orton vs. TBD. It was my understanding that we do not list matches without knowing the participants so I tried to remove the listing. I was then told that since it was stated on Raw that Randy Orton will defend the title at the pay per view, the match can be listed, even though we don't know who the participants will be (non spoilers) and that removing it would be vandalism. Using that logic, I added a listing for the other championship matches since we know that every championship will be on the line as has been officially announced since the birth of the event in 2007 and is written in giant gold letters on the poster. Those listings were removed and I was told they could not be added because those matches have not been announced. By that logic, the Randy Orton vs. TBD should not be listed either because the participants have not been officially announced. I'm trying to go by the guidelines here, but in this case, the guidelines(at least how they've been presented to me) directly contradict each other. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone else may want to explain it more, but matches are only added one they are officially announced. It was announced on Raw that Orton will defend the WWE Championship. Yes we know the other titles will be on the line, but no matches involving them have been announced. It's the same thing we do with the Royal Rumble, we know the Royal Rumble match will happen at the PPV, but we don't add the match until it is announced. TJ Spyke 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Edge Injured

Edge suffered a severe ankle injury (thought to be a torn Achilles tendon) at a house show this week and could be out of action for up to a year depending on if the tendon is actually torn or not. Be on the look out for edits to his page, the Unified Tag Team Championships pages, and the the pages for Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase (WWE is rumored to be trying to find a way to get the titles to Priceless as soon as possible). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Headers

I know this was discussed at least twice before, but the discussions never came to a satisfying conclusion. Does anybody have a problem with me adding into the style guide that headers should be five words or less (not including dates)? I think, at least for now anyway, it will solve the problem of people making them too long. We can always go back and change it if the "5 or less" rule doesn't work out. Nikki♥311 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me.--WillC 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate turned into a conversation about something else on both occasions. I would be in favour of less. Years and feds, but if others want feuds then I'd say cap it at five. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's fine. We can always change it if it doesn't work out. Thanks, gENIUS 101 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything to get away from headers like Super Chico Dethtour 2007, Texarkana Title win and aftermath. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think 5 words is a good limit. The headers should really be mainly years and the names of the promotions in their career section.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Added. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Headings. I've also added some other general rules from WP:HEAD that I see a lot of break. Nikki♥311 01:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't career the relevant section? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not. It could also apply to Promotions, tag teams or stables, etc. Nikki♥311 19:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm in support of it being five words or less, also can we make it clear that it doesn't need to cover everything, just the main story/angle of that period like winning the Rumble and then a world title can just be covered by Royal Rumble winner, because one leads on to the next. Tony2Times (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Title info box on "list pages"

I've been wondering about this for a while - why is there not an info box on the "List of XXX Champions" pages that have been split from the main Championship article? What would the problem be to have the info box on both pages?? MPJ-DK (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about, for example, why WWE Women's Championship has one but List of WWE Women's Champions does not, my only answer would be that it would just be the exact same thing in two places. I don't have an opinion either way at this point, but I'm assuming that's the reason. Nikki♥311 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the same reason that articles of episodes of TV series don't have the TV show infobox on them. List of King of the Hill episodes (for example) does not have the same infobox that King of the Hill has. I don't think it would hurt the articles, but it wouldn't really help them either. The "List of X champions" articles already have all the same info (picture of the title, when it was created, past names of the title, longest and shortest reigns, etc.) TJ Spyke 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It woud be quite tautological to have a list of champions infbox on the list of champions page. Tony2Times (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Professional wrestling at Simple English Wikipedia

Hello everyone! Please forgive the cross-wiki intrusion. I am an admin at Simple English Wikipedia and would like to invite editors to help us with our professional wrestling articles. We have had editors in the past who had a specialist interest in this topic but currently have no editors in this area. If anyone would be interested in helping maintain and grow this area of our project they will find it a clean slate and not to arduous to maintain. Thank you, and once again, apologies for the intrusion. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I will be more than happy to help. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ECW on Syfy

Due to the Sci Fi Channel renaming itself to Syfy, ECW on Sci Fi will have to be renamed to ECW on Syfy next week (which WWE have already started to use now [1]). I was wondering what would be the best time to move the page, on Tuesday when the channel renames itself or next Thursday when the next episode airs? -- Oaks ter 08:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the best time to move would be when the channel effectively renames itself as that's when the renaming of the program will also come into effect. Afro Gold - Afkatk 08:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE is still using ECW on Sci Fi too [2]. We should wait for now. TJ Spyke 15:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The renaming should take place on June 7, 2009 at 12:00am when the channel officially renames itself. Please note everyone that all mentions of ECW before this date should remain as ECW on Si Fi and please do not go around changing each redirect to ECW on Syfy its not necessary because that's the purpose of redirects.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, after the actual channel is re-named officially. iMatthew ^talk at 13:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

When the channel does it doesn't really matter. If WWE continued to call the show "ECW on Sci Fi" (which they currently still do) even after the channel changed its' name, we would still call it "ECW on Sci Fi" as that is the official name of the show. TJ Spyke 15:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not even see that WWE is fully using the new name of ECW on Syfy now. [3] But I still do think that it should be moved on the day of the channel's official renaming, because that's what it seems what WWE is targeting.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend just getting the move over with. WWE has confirmed that the show is renamed, so the name of the article should reflect this. Otherwise, it will just lead to edit wars for the next two days, at which point it would be moved to the very name the edit wars would be moving it from. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. WWE has already updated their website to reflect the change. We should do the same.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

TJ's right, it should reflect what WWE call it not the TV channel. It's not Raw on USA. If GCF is right and WWE have made it clear they're renaming the show, move it now. Tony2Times (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that WWE calls it 3 different things: "ECW on Sci Fi", "ECW on Syfy", "ECW on Sy Fy". TJ Spyke 22:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The only variation that I've been able to find (without digging too deep) is on the capitalization of the letter "F" in the name. The official name of the channel is "Syfy" with a lowercase "f" so I think that's what we should go with. If there are any instances of "Sci Fi" being used on WWE.com, it's probably because they haven't gotten around to changing every single reference yet.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not some deep obscure page on their site, it's the main page fore the shows from WWE that calls it ECW on Sci Fi. So WWE still considers the official name of the show to be "ECW on Sci Fi". TJ Spyke 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say there weren't any, I just said that they probably haven't gotten around to changing their whole site. This page has been completely redone, complete with Syfy's new logo: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/?cid=2009NEWTOPNAV-00 Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

William Regal's section on this article even refers to last week's episode as ECW on Syfy. http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/articles/10573924/newfaces/ Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

See this is what GCF was talking about, look at all the commotion. The best thing to do is wait until Tuesday, because I'm sure WWE will make the necessary changes when the channel is renamed, because they will look stupid still calling it "Sci Fi" when the new name will be "Syfy". The official name will be ECW on Syfy (the official name of the channel).--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I entered this discussion against my better judgment. I regret my decision. I'm out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The upcoming episode is referred to here as ECW on Syfy too. The article should be changed already, reflecting what the programme is called. Tony2Times (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Samgibbs

I don't know what is wrong with this kid, but it has to stop. Okay, first he is creating all these articles that aren't needed, though he says he is going to expand them. Now he has nominated WWE Backlash for FL. I opposed it saying it should go to GAN, now he has nominated it for GA. It isn't talking much. So can we somehow get some order. I'm gald to see some expansion, but he is causing more harm than good at this point.--WillC 18:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the articles that aren't needed? Also, when you say "It isn't talking much," do you mean him? I fail to see how he is causing any harm, he just might need a little guidance. WP:AGF, he's not trying to bother anybody. iMatthew ^talk at 13:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I think by "It isn't much" he means that if it isn't too much to ask we can hopefully calm him down a bit, he recently moved WWE Extreme Rules to Extreme Rules (2009) and I think we need to a have a little chat with him about stuff like this. Afro Gold - Afkatk 17:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

- He is creating more PPV articles. All the Backlash and Judgment Day events have articles now. They aren't needed at the moment. There are plenty of articles already created that need expansion. Moving articles without discussing is another thing. Plus above with the nomination at FL, then nominating it for GA without getting the FLC closed. He is causing a bit of harm. I see he is trying to do good, but he isn't doing much.--WillC 20:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to warn this kid before, as nice but firmly as possible. He constantly made new and unnecessary articles for UK indie federations and didn't even do the bare basic of sourcing even after I told him how to - and he replied on my talk page so he is aware of messages being left. I thought he'd disappeared, evidently not. Tony2Times (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there has to be something we can do. I don't believe he needs to be blocked because he has done nothing to warrant one. But if users keep creating articles that aren't going to be expanded, then we are going to have tons of stubs. We already have too many to begin with. If I could get him to talk more I would help him understand the process more if that is possible.--WillC 03:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to gather up the evidence and head over to ANI. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, i was dealing with problems created by him back in 2006 and through most of 2007/08.. its all coming back to me now --- Paulley (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin to help with move

Hi guys, long time no talk glad to see some of the old guard are still around.

Anyway is anyone an admin member? if so, could you please move an article for me XWA (professional wrestling) back to Frontier Wrestling Alliance as now the old company reopening itself a cutting its links from the XWA brand that took over it. ahhh isnt wrestling a simple business lol. once its moved i will do a rewrite to and split off XWA into its own article (or just leave them a section of the FWA article im not sure which would be better till i write it out).

If no one here can do it, let me know and i will request a move. Im just worried if this isnt done quick ppl will "copy and paste" move it instead and we dont want that. Thanks again --- Paulley (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Nikki311, User:LAX, and User:DoomsDay349 are all admins. Try asking one of them directly.--WillC 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --- Paulley (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--WillC 16:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Woah. I was JUST about to bring this up. It's gonna be interesting to see what happens with title lineages and the like. Tony2Times (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, is FWA and XWA becoming separate companies? Or is XWA becoming FWA again?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A month or so ago FWA resurrected their website, complete with event history from 1999 onwards confirming it is the same lineage as the original FWA. XWA is still running and as far as I'm aware using the championships that have their lineage back in the old FWA. Tony2Times (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep so from what we can gather they will both run along side each other, as XWA is mention within the new FWA's website as a seperate company and has dates booked into the first quarter of next year (including what was FWA's Goldrush battle royale event). Which means they are using both the title linages and events made famous by the original FWA but they are not the only ones laying claim on it. --- Paulley (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna be one hella confusing situation to write about. On the plus side there's now lots of sources for the FWA/XWA title histories so I might work on making the title lists sortable and such. Also this'll help fill in some early career info for people like Nikita, Doug Williams &c. Tony2Times (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What was the original company? That would be the one with the rights to the titles IMO. It's not quite the same, but it's like TNA claiming that people like Ken Shamrock and Jeff Jarrett are former TNA World Heavyweight Champions because TNA controlled the NWA World Heavyweight Championship for a few years. TJ Spyke 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The original company, Fratton/Frontier Wrestling Alliance, ran from 99-07 and a few bad things happened leading them to lose respect as a promotion so they ran an inter-federation feud with IPW:UK with FWA going 'out of business' in kayfabe as a result. After this XWA sprung up and used all the FWA belts and their match types and annual event names &c and has run from 2007 onwards - everyone assumed this was just FWA under a new name. Now Frontier Wrestling Alliance is back, or will be from August. I just noticed though that XWA's premiere title is a British Championship while the new FWA is planning to crown a World Champion so perhaps this is a new belt. That doesn't clear up the mess of the once FWA Flyweight Championship turned (XWA) Flyweight Championship as a round-robin for a new FWA Flyweight Champion is being held at the new FWA show too. Tony2Times (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above so far they have left the British Heavyweight Championship alone, so far there is only one title that will be concurrently defended, the British Flyweight Championship (formerly the FWA Flyweight Championship) i have edited that article to show this, along with the main company one. Hopefully its easier to understand. As for the ownership it really depends on how you look at it. the founder took the remnants of the dying company Frontier Wrestling Alliance (previously Fratton Wrestling Association, just to confuse things more) and opened up the XWA with the FWA's main promoter Greg Lambert... now this new company is laying claim by taking the name and history and using much of the previous staff (big names in British promoters like Alex Shane and Ricky Knight). --- Paulley (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Move Done. Nikki♥311 03:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, im guessing we have no choice but to make a XWA article... as it appears people are not willing to leave the redirect alone. --- Paulley (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well they are two different companies so it makes sense even though the XWA one will be pretty short. Tony2Times (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea i know... i have gone through and tidied what i can in the new XWA article. Though someones gonna have to trim down and un pov the history. Hopefully someone can verify some of the claims and such also. And it says the promotions name is X Wrestling Alliance if thats true then maybe we should move the page. --- Paulley (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Gold Belt

I question if we really need this article. It has no sources and I doubt many could be provided for it anyway. I was going to start an AFD, but I'm sure there would be alot of keeps right off the bat. I believe it should just be part of the terms article. How about a merge?--WillC 15:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we've had too many AfDs going on recently as it is. Without having any advance warning, it's been really hard working to save articles that are nominated at AfD. The delete votes come pouring in almost immediately, it sets a rigid time limit for work on the article, and the expansion is often in vain because the delete voters don't return to the AfD to comment on what the article has become. I would like to see a one-week notification period (very similar to the waiting list that this project used to have for Good Article nominations) for AfDs so that people have a chance to work on them. For example, I had wanted to work on some other articles, but I'm now under a tight deadline to see what I can do with Anarchy Championship Wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there is already an extreme amount of articles already. So the high number of AFDs is actually good. I'll probably make a few more, since if articles are going to be made, to just sit there and never be expanded higher than a C at most, then there aren't of any use and are probably not notable to begin with. So I agree with the waiting list idea on noms. But sometimes, articles are just not notable. Like ACW. There is no reason to have all the titles and tournaments in their own articles. If they were all merged, I could see notability, if it was fully sourced with third party refs.--WillC 15:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

to be expanded higher than C at most? So, that does not mean they aren't worthy to being an article. In addition, the information from the Big Gold Belt must have come from somewhere, and I've seen the term used by various sources before. IMO I think it would be best to have that as a "dab" page.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It originally was. Ah, the memories. -- Oaks ter 18:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An "extreme amount" of articles is a good thing. Wikipedia was created, in Jimmy Wales' words, to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge". A lot of wrestling articles means that a lot of information about wrestling is available and that the project is thriving. More information is a good thing. Deleting articles just to reduce the numbers goes against the entire spirit of Wikipedia. An article that is not fully expanded and is at C-class, Start-class, or even Stub-class can be very useful to people searching for information. Just because nobody has gotten around to developing the article as fully as possible doesn't mean that it would be better not to have any information. I proposed the idea of the waiting list because it would be very helpful to have some advance notice that articles are being considered for an AfD nomination. This would enable project members to see if the articles can be saved and get the work done prior to the AfD (often rendering the AfD unneessary). I have been spending the vast majority of my time on Wikipedia lately trying to rescue these articles, and I'm really not enjoying it (especially putting hours of work into an article only to have it deleted because people voted "delete" at the start of the AfD without bothering to search for sources and with no intention of revisiting the AfD to see if the article has been improved). The way things are going, I'm not eager to spend much more time on Wikipedia at all. The waiting list is particularly important for articles just like Anarchy Championship Wrestling. There is a full article about the promotion in the Dallas Chronicle. Being given a week to incorporate that information before people start voting to delete it would be very helpful. As it is, I've got a ton of stuff coming up in the next little while and probably won't have time to save it. And when a useful article with potential for expansion is deleted, Wikipedia gets worse. If you think it is a viable article with the championships merged, then propose a merge. Don't delete everything just because you don't like the current format. I don't care about a waiting list for articles that are obviously trash — titles that don't exist, backyard federations, and hoaxes — but giving a chance to articles about indepedent promotions, long-time independent wrestlers, and wrestlers from before the television era just makes sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You all are taking my words out of context. An extreme amount of articles is good, but an extreme amount of articles that are bad, is not. We don't need alot of stubs and directories. Is this above article even really needed I ask? The best it will ever get is C class with an extreme amount of work. It is useless beyond that. Lets just make it a section in the terms article.--WillC 00:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If an article has potential to be C-class, that's great. If it has potential to be Start-class that's great. And if it has potential to be a useful Stub, that's great too. I started up the Stub Reduction Drive, but not to delete stubs and not because stub articles are inherently bad. I wanted to add information and improve them where possible. Not every article can become a Good Article. It's just a simple fact. That doesn't mean that they are unnecessary and should be deleted. It simply means that people searching for information about the subject can find some useful information but that it may not be fully comprehensive. That's okay. And sometimes things take a lot of work. That also doesn't mean they're not worth doing. Some articles may sit for years as a paragraph or two. If there were 4,000 active members of this project, something could be done about that. With a limited number of editors, there's nothing wrong with leaving them as they are. It provides a useful source for information and leaves open the possibility for future expansion. Someone may very well come along and have good sources, a depth of knowledge, or simply a passion for a certain topic. Shooting first and not bother to ask questions moves Wikipedia away from its stated aim and, as such, is hurting the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Will, there is a certain amount of tradition associated with Big Goldy and it is unique to that belt. Now I agree that the article needs to be sourced, and doubling up on sources from the titles Big Goldy represented would be hard to avoid. It's the sort of thing that would result in a no consensus situation in theory if it went to AfD. Practice of course is a different matter. I agree with your general point about too many bad articles (ie articles that fail the most basic WP rules). I have certainly weeded a few out in recent times, especially from Australia where wrestling across the board is not notable due to a complete lack of reliable third party sources.

Personally I'd like to see this one saved but being in Australia has it's disadvantages. Proving tradition is hard. !! Justa Punk !! 03:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a question: how would this article about a design be more useful than a mention in the terms article? So far, the article is really list cruft. What is mentioned in the article could be merged with the terms article and add up to about a small paragraph that is fully sourced. It would serve the small purpose. I agree with most of what you both said, but when the time comes and there are more reliable sources out there, maybe then the belt design will needs it own article.--WillC 07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would serve better as a dab, because the term is used to describe a set of belts, not just the design. It could go in the jargon list as well, but a dab IMO would work better.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

How? What is the difference from that and what it is now? How useful is it? The belt design is just a representation of the title. It is not the title. So a design isn't really that important. Plus the article is not linked many places so it isn't a widely used term. It would be better served as just another note in the list of terms article.--WillC 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said it could go either way. I'm fine with it in the terms list.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 19:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday to be called Cyber Sunday

If anyone wants an object lesson in why we wait WWE have decided that Cyber Sunday will be called (ta da!) Cyber Sunday and not WWE Annihilation. Just an FYI for everyone watching the headache inducing pages that are the WWE PPV pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's still a long time for them to change it back or give it a new title, but yes this maybe serves as a reason we should't create pages too far in advance. And in case WWE are watching there's also some time to change the ridiculously named Hell in a Cell PPV. PLEASE! Tony2Times (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The name has now been changed to "WWE Bragging Rights." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Source: http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/rw/eventdetail/10146834 Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But leave it until we get past SummerSlam, or has this last name change farrago taught us nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree to leave it where it is for now, but I did feel that a mention was needed on the Cyber Sunday page. Yes, they may change it again, but for now, it's Bragging Rights (horrid name by the way) and it should at least be mentioned in the article until it's time to move it or they change it again. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling photos

While browsing Flickr today, I came across this page, which has great pictures of some older wrestlers. They're licensed under Creative Commons, so they cane be uploaded to Wikipedia. If anyone knows how to upload Flickr photos and deal with the licensing, it would be great to have these added to some wrestling articles. (And for anyone who is ever looking for pictures of WWF wrestlers from 1994-1996, I have a bunch that I took at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - I'm not totally sure if cropping is considered making a "derivative work", but I think it is. Some of the pictures are great as is, but the rest would require the picture taker's permission before cropping. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can do it. Which ones do you wish to have uploaded?--WillC 05:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, looking at his first few images, they can't be uploaded (talking about to Commons now, which I believe is where most if not all flickr images are uploaded to). Only images with a specific Creative Commons licence can be uploaded to Commons (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_images/Guide#CC_license_search for the only two) and this guys images aren't licensed under either of those two. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I checked. None of them are able to be uploaded. They are all copyvio.--WillC 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. When clicking on "some rights reserved", it stated that the images could be used for non-commercial purposes in their original form. I'm still not quite clear on what the difference is between this and acceptable Wikipedia images, but other people here seem to understand it. My apologies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. TBH, I don't understand the reasoning behind it, I just know that there are two types of licences acceptable for Flickr images. You could always ask the person on flickr if they would consider changing their licences to commons acceptable ones. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "No Derivative Works" license is removed then they would all be acceptable. I've asked a few to change their licenses before. Never hurts to ask.--WillC 06:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ECW on SyFy or Syfy

Yes another ridiculous topic. But a user has moved ECW on Sci Fi to ECW on SyFy (which is how WWE spells it, despite the proper name of the channel being Syfy). With that being said, do we go by what WWE calls it or by the official name of the channel --> ECW on Syfy? --Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You better move it back to ECW on Sci Fi or you'll get reported for vandalism. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I give up. WWE is obviously gonna call it "ECW on Syfy", it's just a question of if they consider it down right now or not. The TV show page still says Sci Fi. I am gonna request it be moved now since consensus seems to support it. wwehurricane, stop with the attitude just because your vandalsim has been reverted multiple times. TJ Spyke 04:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Show me where I've done anything that could be considered vandalism. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[4] Here for one. Blanking a match that had been announced on Raw several days earlier. TJ Spyke 04:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalism that's just simple confusion. It's easy to forget the tournament led on to Night of Champions, I almost did. Anyhow WWE have twice written it ECW on SyFy so I'd say go ahead with that but I can understand why people don't wanna move it just yet. It doesn't matter what the TV Channel is called, we don't have Raw on USA or WWE Superstars on WGN; ECW on SyFy will be the name if WWE so chooses that typeset. Tony2Times (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering Batista said that the winner would face Randy Orton for the title at Night of Champions and the announcers mentioned it a couple dozen times that night, I don't see how anyone could "forget". Anyways, the article has been moved to ECW on Syfy. TJ Spyke 15:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I make a regular habit of ignoring everything and anything Batista has to say and almost all of what the Raw announcers have to say. Good to see the move done, I still think it should be SyFy but that's a minor quibble. Tony2Times (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked for an example of vandalism. Not an example of getting confused by the contradictory "policies" of this project. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move it to the correct name, the name of the channel. It doesn't matter what WWE does, we are supposed to be held down by facts alone, and the fact here is that the correct name is Syfy.--WillC 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The correct name is whatever WWE wants it to be. It looks like they want it to be ECW on SyFy, so that's what we have to do. Thanks, gENIUS 101 00:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The correct name is the name of the show. As I've said before our articles aren't Raw on USA or impact! on Spike. We moved it from ECW (WWE) to ECW on Sci-Fi because that's what the programme was called, the programme is now ECW on SyFy as far as we can deduce, thought it might change upon airing. Tony2Times (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...This would all be so much easier if we renamed the articles by their international names... Just plain and simple WWE Raw, ECW, and WWE SmackDown... Just saying...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that would happen. ALthough we could argue that the current way is US-centric. Hmmmm. Thanks, gENIUS 101 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...and thats just what I'm arguing...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The programmes still broadcast themselves as WWE Raw, ECW on Sci Fi (sic) and Friday Night SmackDown. The idents and announcers call it that on broadcasts watched internationally so it's not really that US-Centric. They can't help it if TV Guides are lazy. Tony2Times (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I contest your argument largely because its incorrect. [5] You see the little links they have to each stations' site? Go down the list of countries too. From Japan to Mexico and UK to Canada, each of these stations list and refer to the shows simply as WWE Raw, ECW, and WWE SmackDown.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's merely shorthand; the domestic titles are also abbreviated. Tony2Times (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no... look up each show at each specifc station's website. WWE.com/schedules/television/ has a link to each station next to each listing (its the station's logo). They all list the shows as WWE Raw, ECW, and WWE SmackDown ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well what other show on Wiki has a International based name?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That argument cannot apply to this one because there are no other shows which carry the US station's name that are also shown in international markets. There's no NBA on TNT in Australia... Because this is the English Wikipedia, the names most commonly used in English speaking countries should be used and the "...on Sci Fi" and "Friday Night..." names are only used in the US. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Which as I said is just laziness on the part of the TV guides by the local broadcasters. They are merely using a shortened recognised version of the name, as does the page that you linked to and I linked to. This doesn't stop each show from being opened vocally in every country as "welcome to WWE Raw [sometimes Monday Night]", "welcome to Friday Night SmackDown" and "welcome to ECW on S..." however they spell it. Tony2Times (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does. The commentators used for non-English speaking countries do not refer to the shows by their US names. But thats non-English speaking countries. Obviously for English speaking countries they do not dub over the commentators. However in Australian broadcasts they do edit out any mentions of "...on Sci Fi" and "Friday Night..." for some odd reason... Hmmm. Additionally, the commercials for the WWE shows in other English speaking countries do not refer to them by their US names. Again, only WWE Raw, ECW, and WWE SmackDown are used. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I vote a move all to the correct names. Raw, Smackdown, and ECW. That will rid us all of the problems. The shows are really about the brands. This kills two birds with one stone. No more having to move the articles.--WillC 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Except those are the wrong names. The show is "WWE Friday Night SmackDown", not "WWE SmackDown" (same with ECW). The only reason some international markets don't use FNS is because it doesn't air on Friday nights there (same with ECW, it doesn't air on their local Syfy channel). Why shouldn't the articles on these shows use their full and correct name? Why shouldn't a US show use the name used in the US. Yes WWE is shown internationally, but WWE does the majority of their shows in the US, clearly makes the US their primary target, and the announcers use the US names for the shows. TJ Spyke 02:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TJ. Which is why their shows are called as such on http://www.wwe.com/shows/--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't about where the show is from TJ. And your "reason some international markets don't use FNS" is completely false. SmackDown IS shown in Australia, Canada, and the UK on Friday nights and yet they still call the show simply WWE SmackDown. And again about the "Wrong names", The names of the shows are not unquestionably "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" or "ECW on Syfy" for the following reason: "ECW on Syfy" doesn't air in Canada, "ECW" does, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" doesn't air in the UK, "WWE SmackDown" does. "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" air in the US.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What do the show's graphics and logos tell you? You don't see any "Friday Night SmackDown" graphics on the LED ribbon boards around the stands of the host arenas, you just see "SmackDown" graphics.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Under that logic, the shows should just be "SmackDown" and "Raw" with no "WWE" in them. You are confusing the shows name with what is called in some international markets. The show is "ECW on Syfy", it's just re-named in some international markets, but the show's name is still official "ECW on Syfy". I will ask for the input on the TV Wikiproject on this. TJ Spyke 03:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Under what logic? The graphic, logo, ribbon board logic? In that case the shows would still be WWE Raw, ECW, WWE SmackDown because the WWE logo is used. And No, I am not confusion the shows' names with what they are called in "some" (<--ridiculous, that's what the shows are called everywhere else) international markets. The simple fact is this: whatever they call a show IS its name! I am not disputing that SmackDown's or ECW's name is "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" or "ECW on Syfy" in the US. That's a plain and simple fact. I can't contest that. However, what you cannot contest is that the names of these shows are in fact "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW" in Australia, Canada, and the UK because its just what these stations and the WWE decided to call the shows in those countries. Whatever these shows are called in Non-English speaking countries (which also just so happens to be simply "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW") is irrelevant because this is the English Wikipedia. The other Wikis can take care of that issue. So yes "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW on Syfy" IS what the shows are called in the US and those are their official names in the US. The same cannot be said however in the UK, Canada, or Australia for the simple fact that the official names of these shows there are "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW".

To help you better understand the logic, again I use this example: "ECW on Syfy" doesn't air in Canada, "ECW" does, and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" doesn't air in the UK, "WWE SmackDown" does. "ECW on Syfy" and "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" air in the US. Get it?

Because this is the English Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia, the common names should be used, those being "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW"^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just move ECW on Syfy to WWE ECW, WWE Friday Night Smackdown to WWE Smackdown and leave WWE Raw where it is. This way, everything is correct. The brands are Raw, Smackdown, and ECW. The tv shows are Raw, Smackdown, and ECW internationally. They may be named just a bit differently, but the bottom line is, they are Raw, Smackdown, and ECW.--WillC 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On the ECW show name, only "ECW" is used everywhere else so it would be moved to ECW (WWE) or back to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are not the correct names though. Just because alternate names are used in some other countries doesn't change their correct names. "The Principal Factor" is a UK show that is aired in the US as "The Boss", but the article is still called "The Principal Factor" (for example), same thing with many UK movies with different names in the US. How about just mentioning in the articles that some international airings use different names? God forbid that US shows should use their US names and what WWE calles them on their site. Something like in the International Brodcasters section you could add something like "ECW on Syfy is refered to as ECW in several international markets" (same with SmackDown). TJ Spyke 03:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, provide me with those specific show articles because for some reason I find no results on Google or Wikipedia when searching the show names you listed (and as you listed) in your counter-argument. Maybe Wikipedia or Google or something else is being stubborn. Second, you still have yet to prove how these aren't the correct names. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I mixed up the name of the show, but the show is The Peter Principle (TV series). In the US the show was called "The Boss". As for movies, one example is A Matter of Life and Death (film) (re-named "Stairway to Heaven" in the US) TJ Spyke 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

TJ you are applying a non-valid argument to the situation. This isn't about what a "thing" is called in its home country. Yes A Matter of Life and Death was the name of the film and for the US it was renamed to Stairway to Heaven. Yes The Peter Principle was the name of the show and it was renamed to The Boss for PBS. Let me ask you this though, what is the most common name of the two examples you brought up? Where else other than in the US are those titles known as Stairway to Heaven or The Boss? Wow! Isn't it weird that their most common name also happens to be the name of their articles? Weird! TJ... I think you just agreed with me... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what is the correct name is. The only reason is it called ECW on Syfy is the old ECW was called ECW on TNN and WWE just decided to carry on like that. Of course WWE's American site will say ECW on Syfy. The UK site will say ECW.--WillC 04:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE doesn't have a UK site. They have their main site and their corporate site. TJ Spyke 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/unitedkingdom/ Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a seperate site, it's a section on their main site. That would be like saying each article on Wikipedia is a different site. TJ Spyke 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here is their t.v. listing: http://www.wwe.com/schedules/television/?country=United%20Kingdom Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already go through this? Their US TV listing also says just Raw, SmackDown and ECW - it's shorthand. The rest of the US website calls it ECW on SyFy so you can't use that TV listing as any official bearing on the names. Also the articles aren't about the brands so saying that we should rename to reflect brand names doesn't make sense either - unless you want to delete TV history, ratings and special episodes as the only brand information on there is commentators, GMs and maybe segments. Also Raw and SmackDown's history before 2002 would be deleted. I live in the UK and I still hear the announce team say Friday Night and on Sci-Fi. Tony2Times (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We did go through this and you didn't do a single thing to support your point. This isnt about the brands. This argument is about the name of the articles being the most common name of the show. We've already established that they are known as WWE Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Sify in the US. However, outside of the States they are only known as WWE SmackDown and ECW, thereby making "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW" the common name.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Tony. The article is about the television show not the brand. Before the brands ever existed, what would have the article been about ? (exactly) In addition, the article should be named after the prime names used by WWE, which would be the ones used in the United States since the promotion is based in the United States. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 15:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm.. Truco, I have to disagree. Just because the articles were about the TV shows before the brand thing started dooesn't mean that they have to be about the shows now. I really am not sure about this, because, for example, we use American English on those articles, even though they air in the U.K as well. Thanks, gENIUS 101 16:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:TV would beg to differ with that Truco. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well WWE uses so many names internationally, how could we choose one without OR? I think we should keep this discussion in one place, at WP:TV or at the Naming convention talk page.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See that "WWE uses so many names" argument would be valid if it were true. Unfortunately though, all international stations list the shows simply as "WWE SmackDown" and "ECW"

Direct the rest of this project to either WP:TV or WT:TV-NC to continue the discussion. I'll let you choose Truco.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Either one, they are both active.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping up with this, so I'm not sure where the main discussion is. But here is the deal. The shows common names are ECW, Raw, and Smackdown. The WWE part of the name is mainly for disambiguity. So when it comes down to it, the articles should be moved to WWE ECW (because there is no difference between it and the parenthesis), WWE Raw, and WWE Smackdown.--WillC 06:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I watched ECW last night and I don't think the announcers said "ECW on Syfy" a single time during the whole episode. It was "Welcome to ECW..." and "We're back on ECW..." and "Later tonight on ECW..." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 06:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because they didn't... Interesting...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So... um... what now? The consensus here and at WP:TV seem to be to change the articles to the common names. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support a move proposal^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Too move Smackdown, we will have to get an admin.--WillC 02:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wtf? -> ECW (World Wrestling Entertainment), what kind of BS is that? Be consistent like with other articles ECW (WWE) or WWE ECW--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE doesn't use "WWE" in front of ECW so it should be moved to ECW (WWE) or back to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). Will don't move a page to a certain name just because its available if you know we have a certain format to follow. Ask an Admin to help you with the move next time. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, they don't. I support ECW (WWE) though because WWE does not refer to the program as Extreme Championship Wrestling any longer, just by the acronym.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well actually Striker does still say Extreme Championship Wrestling at times during the show, but WP:ABBR indicates that acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form. So I support the move to ECW (WWE) for that reason. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You also have to bear in mind that this is one of the few instances (if any) where a acronym is disambiguation an acronym. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it where it was avaliable. It really should be ECW (World Wrestling Entertainment). Some do not know what WWE stands for.--WillC 03:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE is a well known acronym that no other organization or product uses, it does not need to be spelled out because not complications would come as a result. Now if it was say ECW (WCW), then there would be complications because there was the American World Championship Wrestling and the World Championship Wrestling (Australia). But WWE will suffice in this case. Bullet, yeah occasionally they do, but more than 80% of the time its strictly ECW. I really feel we should seek intervention or an RFC on this matter over at WT:ACRONYM because I've never seen an article use an acronym and then use an acronym to disambiguate. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 03:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: One-week notification prior to AfD nominations

I would appreciate it if this project would provide a space on the main page, similar to the "Waiting list" that used to exist for Good Article Nominations, where people can give advance notice before nominating articles for deletion. This would provide several benefits:

It gives time for interested editors to search for sources to help establish notablity.
Work could be done on the article before the pile-on "Delete" votes. Because few, if any, "delete" voters revisit the article to check on the progress, this would avoid the problem of people doing a ton of work to save an article only to have it deleted anyway.
This could help foster discussion about the project's notability guidelines, which I believe are currently too strict.
This would provide an easy place to check, which would prevent the problem of AfDs slipping by without interested editors ever knowing about them.

What do people think? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If improvements have been made there is nothing to stop an editor from contacting all those who vote delete and asking them to look at the improvements, and as AfD is not a vote the editors who makes the improvements can show evidence of this on the AfD page and the closing editor (or admin) can take the improvements into account. There is nothing in the current XfD procedure which stop an editor from making improvements, just put a 7 day timetable on it, and if the improvements are made after the 7 days then the article can be user-fied and re-created, or even taken to DRV. You seem to be proposing an un-neccessary extra step for wrestling XfDs. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Darren. There's nothing stopping someone from notifying the delete voters that the article has been improved and their concerns have (in the opinion of the improver) been addressed. I know that I withdrew my delete vote over Peter Stilsbury after changes (even though I didn't vote keep because I had a personal view and I knew that isn't a valid reason for a vote either way) but then I was watching the page as I did have an interest in the process of that article's review. I suggest that Gary do that in the future. !! Justa Punk !! 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a common courtesy guideline that said "please inform WP:PW if you're thinking AFD", at least if you're a WP:PW member or know of the project, can't expect everyone to follow it but it wouldn't hurt. Yes you can notify those that voted delete, but there is something to be said for not being under the gun with improvements, if the result is improved articles without AFD what's the harm? And if they're not improved the AFD a week later is even more justified when not even the wrestling project can do anything about an article. Common courtesy does not hurt anyone. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not one to advocate policy changes for the sake of policy changes, so I can assure you that I would not be trying to fix it if I didn't sincerely believe that it is broken. I think it is important to note that many "delete" voters are not eager to revisit discussions and some can become openly hostile (see here for an example of User:Rick Doodle telling me to stop my work on rescuing the article on Peter Stilsbury). Others are just giving pile-on votes at AfDs because the coach for their upoming RfA told them to vote on AfDs as part of a training checklist. Discussions with many are "delete" voters quite difficult, as they often say little more than "per nom" or "not notable". When questioned about the latter, they simply repeat "not notable". Contacting everyone to vote in an AfD could help a bit, although it would inevitably also lead to accusations of canvassing, but it's not the answer. As for the comment about AfDs not being about votes, I wish I could agree, but many administrators have done a poor job of closing discussions. From what I've seen in quite a few, all that matters is a simple majority. They may be "per nom" voters, give reasons that aren't valid (often from the list of "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), or may bring up concerns that are more than addressed during the AfD but simply refuse to change their vote. In any event, 5 non-reasons wins out over 3 votes that cite policy. I have been in similar positions lately, and administrators have not bothered to take anything but the simple majority into account (including one that involved a "delete" voter repeatedly removing information supported by a reliable source, then canvassing another "delete" voter to continue removing the information to get around 3RR, all taking place during a talk page discussion and an RfC that went against the "delete" voter...even while all of this was clearly being discussed, an administrator came along and deleted the article). Anyone who thinks that the current XfD process doesn't work against people trying to rescue articles has clearly never tried to save an article from deletion any time recently. I completely agree with MPJ-DK. There is a lot to be said for not having things sprung on you at inconvenient times and being forced to either watch a useful article deleted or make real-world sacrifices in order to add information under a tight deadlines. The extra week of warning would just be a common courtesy. It hurts nothing and has potential to effect substantial positive improvements in professional wrestling articles. Isn't that what this project was created for? GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested you stop and gave a valid reason!! One more false accusation like that above and I'm going to Wikiquette! You ASK for the hostility with your holier-than-thou attitude! For goodness sakes......

There's nothing wrong with the AfD process. It works well enough and there is DRV if one isn't happy with the decision. I'm sure deleting admins are capable of telling the difference between reasons and "non reasons". This is a case of making mountains out of molehills and perhaps a bit of self interest creeping in as well which is getting awfully close to something resembling WP:OWN if there is such a thing applied generally instead of with a specific article. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also nothing wrong with this project asking this project's members to alert the project about articles they're considering putting up for AFD, not like it's a wikipedia rule but a common courtesy amongst project members, the result end result is that either the article is improved or put up for AFD, I can't see the harm in that. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling and Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts do a fine job of warning the project about AfD's the minute they are opened. But 7 days is a bit extreme IMO, I think a day or two is fine because then that list will be come piled up, and I don't expect every editor who likes to nominate articles for deletion will comply.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have the delsort page on watchlist then you can check there. Also is this not an issue of WP:N. Most AfDs start because of WP:V issues but once that is overcome then there are almost always WP:N issues, for most small feds we know they exist but they don't meet the GNG. If the GNG is met then no admin would delete an article, even if there are a hundred delete votes as XfD are not a !vote. If an article (or subject) cannot be verified and meet the GNG in seven days then they don't deserve to be on Wikipedia (and even though GHits should be avoided a quick Google search of anything will give you a rough guide as to whether GNG can be met). AfDs were 5 days but since they have been expanded to 7 (and up to 14 days through re-listing) so that should be enough time, and if not then there is DRV and re-creation. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the one week prior notice is not a good idea. It already takes a week to get rid of an article that doesn't meet criteria, why make it two weeks? Why are we so quick to blame the AfD nominators and process? Why the author didn't care enough about the subject to write it properly and source it properly? Where is their responsibility? Yes, some can and should be rescued. Many should not or cannot be. Pick the ones that can and work on them instead of re-inventing the wheel to make it harder to get rid of the ones that can't or shouldn't be rescued. BTW, pretty much everyone knows that "per nom" just means, "their reasoning is correct in my view and I simply see no reason to type it all over again." It shouldn't be discounted. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. Gary said: "Anyone who thinks that the current XfD process doesn't work against people trying to rescue articles has clearly never tried to save an article from deletion any time recently." I respectfully disagree. Within the past two weeks, I successfully rescued an article that was in AfD (Lisa Niemi), so I think I meet your criteria as recently trying to rescue one. I'm working on rescuing another one, a wrestler and body-builder by the name of Melissa Coates. So far it looks promising. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether we agree to this or not...I don't mind notifying everyone before I start an AfD. Nikki♥311 17:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it. How about instead of having a waiting list for AFDs, why don't we have a waiting list for everything on our main page. Not a thing you must do but something you can do. This list is where you can tell which articles you plan to improve for GA, FL, FAC, etc; which articles you are thinking about nominating for speedy, AFD, etc; which articles you are thinking about moving; which articles you are thinking about nominating for removal; etc. This way everyone can get a little more heads up for everything and possibly start a discussion to avoid the problem before it happens. Like I said, this is not a requirement to tell, but it is encouraged.--WillC 17:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We use to have a "waiting list" of sorts for nominating things to GAN, FAC, etc. but everyone hated it, and nobody was using it to provide suggestions to help the articles when they were finally nominated. Nikki♥311 17:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'll explain my idea a bit more. The list will be used before expansion has even begun. This way we do not have double expansions and everyone will know who is working on what. They can nominate the article for whatever whenever they feel like it. For the ones who want to notify the project before nominating for deletion, all they have to do is tell the ones they are thinking of nominating and why before they do. This gives a heads up to people who wish to save the article from deletion. People can state which articles they are thinking about moving before starting a discussion. This will allow others to think about their opinion before that discussion comes up and stop edit wars before they begin. I hope I'm not the only one who has noticed that some of our oldest GAs, FLs, FAs, etc are a bit out of date and fail the current criteria. So this will also allow users to have time to work on the article before it is nominated for removal. Again this would not be a requirement, but used for users who wish to give a heads up and maybe avoid some problems.--WillC 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gary here. He stated my own opinions more eloquently than I could. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Just to give everyone a helpful heads up, I'm thinking about AFDing Chaotic Wrestling and any articles related to it. It seems to be a small MA based promotion that doesn't have many reliable third party sources out there to cover its history. I found a few news articles but they were mainly about wrestlers who have been apart of the promotion and nothing about the promotion.--WillC 06:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advance notice. I'll take a look and see if anything's out there. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Also I may nominate Force One Pro Wrestling. That nomination is doubtful though since I've discovered in my search they are apart of the NWA. But seeing that I only found dirtsheet sites and some primary ones, I may still nominate it and any related articles. I am thinking about just merging the titles into it since the titles I do not need actual articles. IDK.--WillC 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was able to find sources that discuss Chaotic Wrestling in substantial detail from The Boston Globe, The Worcester Phoenix, The Boston Phoenix, Boston Magazine, SLAM! Sports - Wrestling, WrestleView, and World Wrestling Entertainment. The article has been improved substantially with these sources (see diff). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unified WWE Tag Team Championship

Now I know that I voted to keep this article, so don't rant me on that, but I just realized that when we use this term and link to it, we are linking to a disambiguation page, which we we should avoid. When referring to the Unified titles in general, its best to state the name of the title and then the names of the two sets of titles, or vice versa. Unless someone else can come up with a solution.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 04:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a disambig page, because you can not replace a link to that article with one of the links listed in the page. The solution is to follow the model set up with the J-Crown article. Mshake3 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, it's as of this edit catted as such and it even says "This disambiguation page" so how can it NOT be a DAB? ArcAngel (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship" was like a unification of 4 different tag team championships, I would also say follow the J-Crown, but its only two titles. That would be like lets create a article for the Undisputed WWE Championship, which would be redundant. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The difference is the Undisputed WWE Championship saw the end of the WCW Championship, so it was basically a rename of the WWE title. However, in this case, both tag belts are still active. And Arc, the user who put that template in is wrong. I think everyone should take alook at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) and see how you're wrong. Mshake3 (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet, if we make that an article, it will be a worthless stub and it would be AfD'd. Its not necessary to make this like the J-Crown though, lets say the titles are separated tomorrow? Hmm, two champions. That wouldn't be much of an article. For now, its best to have them as separate articles because WWE does not even acknowledge a separate history for that title like they would for the J-Crown. I will also agree that reading WP:DAB, this page above is not a disambiguation page. It will be best to redirect to some relevant article for this, like in Championship unification.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a stub if the vultures of this project would let others expand it. Mshake3 (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to realize though that two champions isn't much, if you give it time maybe six months, then we could possibly expand it. For now its best for redirects.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the joy of Wikipedia means that if they do seperate them tomorrow (bearing in mind there only are two tag teams on the roster right now so that seems heavily unlikely) we could later get rid of it and make it a disambig. Bear in mind unlike the Undisputed WWE Championship which deactivated the WCW Belt, they have added the two Unified reigns thus far onto both belts' histories. Linking it just to one is misleading. Tony2Times (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Career section idea I had

While procrastinating from my dissertation I had some fun attending to some indie articles that had little information in them and building them up. Because they're on the indie circuit there wasn't a huge precedent for what to do so I tried my own idea to address a somewhat recurring problem: wrestlers on the indie circuit, prominent ones especially, while not being exclusive to one company tend to spend most of their time there while doing guest stints elsewhere. Now for someone who went between the Big Three back in the day (TNA and ROH let theirs do indie stuff so doesn't count so much) you could easily cover these stints as "independent circuit" in between runs in WWF/WCW/ECW. But for someone who spends most of their time in, say NWA and ROH but appears very limitedly in WWC, NJPW &c it's misleading to call that independent as if NWA isn't, also it can happen concurrently. So I started, as can be seen in MsChif and Cheerleader Melissa's articles to put an "Other promotions" section as an addendum which stays at the bottom even though much of it could have happened chronologically before. Anyhow I just wanted to offer it up as an idea to other editors if they find someone has made a lot of notable, yet infrequent, appearances in other feds. Also if anyone had a major problem with it. I put it on Serena Deeb's bio but someone's since changed it since she signed up with WWE since she won't be making any more indie bookings for a while I guess. Tony2Times (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Slammin Ladies

I read this article tonight, and I still have no idea what SLAMmin Ladies is. I was so confused that I went to the website to try to figure it out, but I'm still not clear on what it is. Does anyone understand the description? I suppose the next logical question would be whether or not the ?promotion? has any notability. I can definitely say that I won't be fighting to keep an article that raises more questions than it answers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a really bizarre service whereby wrestling enthsuiasts/people with a penchant for women fighting each other can book matches how they want them - with the wrestlers (as available) they want to face each other, commanding the length and even the moves that are done. Initially the matches are sold just to the person who commissioned them but I think they later appear on compilation DVDs like the Dangerous Divas collections. They're also performed without an audience. Tony2Times (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It probably isn't notable. I just did a quick search and couldn't find any good sources. Nikki♥311 17:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'm still confused. Luna Vachon has nothing better to do than record a 15-minute match that might be seen by only one person...and she's willing to do this for a cut of $250 (part goes to the opponent and part to the company, so I imagine she'd be making less than $100)? And is this intended to be erotic? Anyhow, I suppose I don't really need answers to those questions. I added a "proposed deletion" tag, though. If anyone knows of some great sources to help save it, feel free to remove the tag and expand the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not intended to be erotic that was just me being glib. It's run by former NWA World Champion Lexie Fyfe who takes her wrestling understandably seriously, but I'm sure there are some people with more money than sense and a bizarre fetish who'd take advantage of it. Tony2Times (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Afd Notice - Eric Gargiulo

I'm probably going to AfD Eric Gargiulo within the next couple of days unless someone objects. Nikki♥311 03:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

International names for WWE TV

Okay, since it was agreed for international names. WWE Raw is still WWE Raw, ECW on Syfy is now ECW (WWE), and WWE Friday Night SmackDown is now WWE SmackDown. --Tru co ₅₀₃ 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear... It wasn't agreed that they be moved to their international names. It was agreed that they be moved to their common names, which just so happen to be the international names.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm gone for 1 week and the shows gets moved to the wrong names? You're right, who cares about accuracy on Wikipedia. Even though the show name is "WWE Friday Night SmackDown", let's move it what some international channels call it. Ignore that WWE itself considers the US names to be the correct names. TJ Spyke 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point. We are not U.S.-centric, meaning we cannot base everything off the U.S. name when internationally its known as something else, now WWE uses a common name in the U.S. that is used internationally, which happen to be just Raw, ECW, and SmackDown -> Like the brand names.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RM has been opened at WWE SmackDown

Just to let everyone know, User:TJ Spyke has opened a WP:RM to move WWE SmackDown back to WWE Friday Night SmackDown. Yes another round of the drama.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh brother...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

RfP and RfUP Notice - Tazz and Chris Jericho

Just to let everyone know, I have requested Semi protection for Tazz and unprotection for Chris Jericho. Bmg916^Speak 14:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unassigned talent on List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Checking history of the page there has been an unassigned talent section - which should be added as the page is called List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees - not List of World Wrestling Entertainment active employees-- Celtic Cross 11:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no unassigned talent at the moment.--WillC 11:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the section probably should say that. Thanks, gENIUS 101 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not normally opposed to jargon, but "talent" seems very unencyclopedic...it's an odd combination of jargon and POV that I think should be avoided. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, then Unassigned employees/superstars/anything else. And I thought there were newly acquired superstars like Dos Caras ect.-- Celtic Cross 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Employees" is fine. "Superstars" is the same problem as above (peacock/jargon/POV). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Employees then, but I ask, should it be added?-- Celtic Cross 13:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Zach Ryder

I propose that Zach Ryder be given his own page independent of Curt Hawkins as their association on-screen ended months ago.

MDowdal (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Has he done anything notable on his own? Nikki♥311 02:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he has that song that goes..."ohhh radiooo tell me everything you knowwwww..." Really what else has he done? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Woo Woo Wee Woo? Bmg916 (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Until either establishes themselves as a singles competitor, Zack hasn't done anything yet to really establish himself, he wont get his own page, Woo Woo you know it. Afro Gold - Afkatk 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion's going on just after I edited the talk page... but what exactly do we mean by "do something to really establish himself?" He's in the midst of a winning streak right now, has been given TV time nearly every week on ECW (no small feat, given how crowded the show's roster is at this point), and he's being presented as a possible threat to the title. He is, in fact, the ONLY wrestler on the ECW roster (aside from the Bella Twins) right now who does not have his own Wikipedia page--including Yoshi Tatsu, who had a title-less New Japan run before jumping to WWE development and has been on air for less than a month. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing a consistent standard for notability here. Is there something I'm missing?LordSousa (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Having a title is not the important thing. It just helps establishing notability. Zack Ryder has done nothing notable to deserve his own article. Most of his career has been as apart of The Major Brothers. So it would be content forking in a way to create a page for him when outside of his ECW stint it will just be a copy that page. A guy like Naofumi Yamamoto has a page because he has wrestled in two major promotions in two respective countries. That pretty much established his notability off the bat. Plus he has not spent the majority of his career in a tag team. If he had, he would probably not have an article, instead just the tag team article.--WillC 06:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That accounts for Tatsu, but what about Tyler Reks? Abraham Washington? I'm not saying that these people don't need articles, but a reasonable standard seems to exist for Ryder to get his own as well. And I completely disagree that the fact that most of his career has been spent with the Major Brothers/Edgeheads/Two Blonde Dudes What Kinda Look Like Edge team indicates that his article will essentially be a copy-paste job. Road Warrior Hawk spent the vast majority of his career in a team--in fact, his short singles run in WCW in 1995 is only briefly mentioned--but his article isn't a copy-paste job at all. That's something of an unfair comparison, of course, because Hawk is an important figure in wrestling history with a long and certainly notable past in the business. But I still don't see a consistent standard being applied here. LordSousa (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

But there are other precedents at work here, most notably the Harris Brothers who have wrestled for decades but largely as a tag team and thus individual articles aren't needed. Perhaps Hawk's should be taken into account too, but maybe his was a de facto reaction to Animal getting his own article because the latter's career involves being outside the Road Warriors. Tony2Times (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, but I'd argue that the Harriseses were a team for nearly the entirety of their 17-year career, only splitting briefly two years before their retirement. Hawkins & Ryder were a tag team on WWE television for less than two years, and the article even mentions that after July 2008 they were barely on television at all. They won the tag team straps once, but it was an uneventful run that ended after their first title defense. The section on Ryder is short now, but notice that it stops after May 19, 2009. Ryder has, since that time, been given original entrance music (which isn't even mentioned in the article!) and has had at least one competitive match against the ECW Champion. He's gone from a tag team that's been an afterthought for nearly a year to a featured member of the roster who's on television every week. Hardly a Harris Brothers-esque situation at all. LordSousa (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryder has not been in any notable feuds, not done anything significant, and not in the title picture. I'm not saying he shouldn't get an article, just wanting to make it clear that he has not done anything note-worthy so far in his singles career. TJ Spyke 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Only splitting briefly two years before their retirement" - The Majors have been split for three months. Also they appeared on the New York indie circuit and in OVW and DSW so a total of five years. Like TJ says if he has some feuds then it'll be worth an article but it's possible that they'll let him and Hawkins go and they'll reunite on the indie scene (like Rhodes & Murdoch, except those had careers prior to joining). Having a one off title match isn't a feud. Having said all this, I think Cryme Tyme should have a single article for these reasons. Tony2Times (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

I just found out about this. Perhaps it could take the place of policy discussions, renaming pages, and deleting articles. See you in five days, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I say we rebel and form The Great Wikipedian Bash and up the ante on all in-fighting. Just for the craic. Tony2Times (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and then in 4 years time we could rename it The Bash for sounding to Wikipedia like. Afro Gold - Afkatk 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Purolove.com

Is it a reliable source? --Numyht (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC) No. Ra agg io 17:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable Titles

Why are Florida Championship Wrestling's Titles even notable? I ask for many reasons. Now I see why they are notable because the promotion is notable though that could be debatable. Now are they notable enough to need their own pages? Really are they? They are indy titles that have existed for little more than a year. This project is so focused on the WWE related information that once something new happens it must be created. Now I know I expanded the FCW Florida Tag Team Championship and List of FCW Florida Tag Team Champions, but now I've grown to wonder if they should even have articles. FCW has nothing regarding their champions on there website that I can find. The only sources regarding them that are even a little reliable are Solie, Wrestling Titles, and Online World of Wrestling.--WillC 23:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a promotion is notable, then the titles are notable enough to be mentioned somewhere. If the promotion is small, then maybe they should all be listed on one page like the Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships article. If there are only a couple of championships or each one only had a few holders, then they can be listed in the promotion article like Women Superstars Uncensored. I've been thinking about merging all the Organization of Modern Extreme Grappling Arts titles into one page. Nikki♥311 23:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that should also be done for FCW. It is only known as WWE's developmental promotion, and nothing really more.--WillC 02:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a reincarnation of the original Championship Wrestling from Florida, well OVW and DSW were just that, developmental territories for WWE, but now they are indie feds and popular due to their notability. The same thing would happen if FCW became an indie fed.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That is speculation somewhat. No could be. There are less than 10 champions. There isn't any history on the titles besides small remarks here and there. I purpose they all be included in the main article instead.--WillC 02:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Eventually they will get more than 10 champions, or they might now, only time will tell. But for now, that list is pretty good, why make it go to waste. If anything, what you can do is merge the list of champions and the main title together.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes the list could be merged. But a reason as to why the title is notable enough for its own page has not been presented.--WillC 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said for List of PWG World Champions, List of CZW World Heavyweight Champions, and even List of ROH World Champions. Newspapers and journals just don't dedicate entire articles to discussing titles. That doesn't mean that they aren't notable. They inherit their notability through being an important part of notable promotions (and yes, I am familiar with the essay that claims that notability is not inherited...but it is just that, an essay, which is neither policy nor guideline. This places it on equal ground with the essay that claims that notability can be inherited (Wikipedia:Inherent notability)). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Hell, we could have said that the TNA X Division Championship seven years ago was not notable, TNA wasn't in its prime as of yet, but look at TNA seven years later. FCW will be nothing more than a developmental territory for WWE for now, and its titles are notable due to it being part of the company, in addition to FCW being a reincarnation of the original CWF.Truco ₅₀₃ 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have still yet to hear a reason as to why they need their own articles.--WillC 15:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think this issue is one that needs to be raised. We have more important things to discuss, honestly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a great big fuck'er myself ;) FCW titles having their own page is not a major offense (having 2 pages is a semi-large offense) but there are really more important things to worry about than the WWE's farm-league have had articles specifically about their titles, the answer is "No and neither have 99.99% of the other titles on here". MPJ-DK (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and to follow up, if they're fully sources then there is no problem - if they're not sourced then THAT is the issue more than anything. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I bring this up is to clean up some of the articles. We have alot of articles and that is good, but I'm trying to find out if they are all notable. I see the FCW titles notable, but not notable enough for their own pages.--WillC 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How are they not notable for their own pages? --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They are widely unknown championships with very very few reliable sources and even the promotion's own website makes no mention of them, that I found that is. While championships like the PWG World, PWG World Tag, ROH World, ROH World Tag, CZW World Heavyweight, CZW World Tag, TNA X Division, etc have all become established championships that have been defended in multiple countries, states, etc with plenty of reliable sources to back these claims up.--WillC 17:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that its the Florida Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship and the Florida Tag Team Championship right? They are only defended in Florida, mainly. See how the OVW Heavyweight Championship was mainly defended in Kentuck and Indiana? Yet its an established title, it takes time. They are about a year old, approaching their second year. --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't start deleting belts that aren't defended on a global scale. I don't follow puroreso so I may be just naive but I can't remember seeing the IWGP Belt being defended outside Japan yet it's still a notable title. That being said isn't validating FCW's belts' pages on the argument that they will become notable crystal balling? This is Wiki, we can delete and remake articles and seeing as even big companies need 10 reigns to have a separate list article, I don't see why FCW would have one. Tony2Times (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know they are only defended in Florida. Did you not read the full statement? The world and state part was regarding the other titles. This is not about the list. This is about whether they even need articles.--WillC 06:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well your rationale as to them not having articles is weak because you state they shouldn't have articles because they aren't notable since they have little exposure outside Florida. Well, the company is based and promotes events in the state of Florida, so little exposure is expected. FCW is a developmental territory for WWE, which asserts the company's notability, as well as its assets including titles. These titles are held by wrestlers who in turn have been called up to WWE's main roster. The title is now approaching its second year of operation. From this, I see its notability.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeat: Promotion = Notable; Promotion's Titles = Not notable for own articles. Just because the promotion is notable, is not a reason for them to have their own articles. Reliable sources establish the notability. And in this case, the titles have very very few sources and none reliable that allow them to have their own articles. I'm going to be bold and begin to merge them with the main promotion's article because they are not notable enough to have their own articles.--WillC 01:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:CONSENSUS here states otherwise.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus here and a decision here is never the final one. If a policy is against any decision here, then it said decision means nothing. The titles are not notable enough for their own articles since there is not enough reliable third party sites to establish it, so they fail notability.--WillC 05:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean reliable third party sources as used on the List of ROH World Champions article? A FL you helped promote fails the overblown, over interpretation of WP:N. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There are reliable sources which help establish notability for ROH titles at PWTorch, Slam Wrestling, etc. While the same is not said for FCW. Lets stay on subject.--WillC 05:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, such sources exist for ROH. I believe his point was that none of them are used as citations in the article in question. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct and that could be changed, but at the moment the primary sources are enough for the ROH list. It has never hurt the WWE lists which are mainly sourced only by WWE. Now please lets stay on subject. The FCW Titles don't even have primary refs. I've checked FCW Wrestling.com multiple times and nothing. I've checked Slam, WrestleView, and PWTorch, and still nothing. I know their could be a few results on WrestleView, but I haven't found any yet. I agree the titles are notable enough for inclusion here on Pedia, but do not need their own articles. At the moment they are best fit to remain in the FCW article.--WillC 01:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks quite cluttered with the championship info boxes there. Are they necessary for such a briefly existing title? Tony2Times (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove them if you wish.--WillC 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PPV templates

How about we just delete the PPV templates. Not the main ones, the ones we no longer use. Like Template:Backlash, etc. The main templates (TNA, WCW, WWE, etc) all link to the articles. These are no longer needed. How about we just delete them?--WillC 05:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I say yes: yes because you're right we have the main ones for it, you could argue that the templates are for closely related articles but the Template:Infobox wrestling event does the same job the current templates are doing, which is serving as a chronology.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If a template isn't being used, it should be deleted. If you can provide a list of the templates that are not used, drop a note by an admin's talk page and hopefully they'll do it for you. iMatthew ^talk at 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it. That would be all the WCW, TNA, and WWE ones at the moment.--WillC 01:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unassigned talent on List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees 2

Checking history of the page there has been an unassigned talent section - which should be added as the page is called List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees - not List of World Wrestling Entertainment active employees.

Take notice that above, we decided that instead of unassigned talent; unassigned employees-- Celtic Cross 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a rather severe case of Déjà vu. Tony2Times (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, but as no one cares to read old messages I thought I would update it...-- Celtic Cross 21:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again like above, there is no unassigned talent at the moment in WWE. If you can provide a source for talent which are not assigned to any of WWE's developmental promotions nor brands, then add them.--WillC 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But what about Nick Dinsmore for example, or Dos Caras Jr?-- Celtic Cross 21:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just forget it actually-- Celtic Cross 22:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources can be presented that they are signed, then add them.--WillC 23:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, verifiability is the main problem with unsigned sources. WWE like to keep it on the down low as much as possible to make a shocking entrance so unless they say it in an interview or Dixie Carter takes an amusingly bitter swipe at them it's unusual to have a reliable source. But Dos Caras has already debuted in FCW under his forename only (I'll be interested to see if they repackage his mask) while I read somewhere like The Sun or COA that Dinsmore is being used as a trainer mostly. I hope not, I'm one of the few people who wants to see a Eugene return. Tony2Times (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all points. Yeah, good wrestler, bad gimmick. We Kentuckians are not that dumb. We know how to spell, not well but we can spel.--WillC 01:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah you're a witty one Will. I actually like the gimmick; initially it was rather uncomfortable viewing but once you remember it's fiction and we're also supposed to be watching some form of zombie-cum-biker I thought he was really funny as an unwitting stooge with delusions of grandeur. He played a very hard role to act better than I'd expect. Tony2Times (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, but for someone of that caliber being used for comedy effect is just sad. It is like taking AJ Styles and making him wear a clown suit. It is just sad.--WillC 23:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE Pay-per-view chronology

I think that Pay-per-view chronology in Template:Infobox Wrestling event should be linked to a list all WWE pay-per-views listed chronologically (something like this but with more columns). We have List of WWE pay-per-view events, but that lists only the event "brands", not the individual events and how they are sequenced. I think it is useful to know what followed what without having to click through every single article's infobox. I'm not sure if my proposed new list could be added to the existing PPV list or would need to be a new page. I would welcome any thoughts on this. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with something like that is the length and it being WP:CRUFT. The current List of WWE pay-per-view events should be enough as it explains and gives a timeline of events as to when they were active and were deactivated.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not cruft. There are list of episode articles, list of awards, list of films, etc articles out there. A simple list of all PPV events hosted by WWE, then one by TNA, then one hosted by ECW, WCW, etc could each be made and sourced.--WillC 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Pay-per-views are not television episodes, literally.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but what exactly is the difference in listing them? We have their main articles in which all we do is list the events, see WWE No Way Out, an article you promoted to FL I believe Truco. From listing all events compared to that, they are not very different. If this list idea is list cruft, then so would that.--WillC 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For one, the main articles such as WWE No Way Out (which I expanded) will do the same job that a chronology would, which would just be content forking.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how?--WillC 20:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A chronology will just list the order of events right in the WWWF/WWF/WWE history, correct? Well each individual article and the main List of PPV lists each event by date by which they occurred and by which they were active. The main template also does the same thing, a chronology would just be something similar. There is no need for 20 different articles about the chronology.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

First it must just be me but that made no sense. I don't know why, it should. I guess I'm just not all here today. There are multiple reasons I feel this would be useful. One is a main article for a GA or FA topic of events. Another would be a comprehensive list of all the events which would be a better link than List of WWE PPV events which is incorrectly named to begin with; it would be alot like a list of episodes article. I don't see how it would be list cruft in anyway. What we are doing with events is no different than any other project does with TV episodes. So if they can get them to FL, FA, GA, etc and still be notable, then this would be the same case.--WillC 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

While part of me thinks it might be excessive I can see some advantages. It's quite difficult to work out from List of WWE Pay-per-views the full chronology considering some PPVs only happened once (One Night Only, Tuesday In Texas) while some have been swapped around (The Bash, Vengeance) some have been totally moved around (Vengeance). However, this isn't a WWEocracy and I think it'd be more valuable for other promotions - ECW for example fiddled around with their dates a little bit and had some running from 97-98, some 98-00, some the whole way through, some one off, some in one month &c. Also if you add in their supercards then you'd have good cause for an article. ROH could do with one too as their PPVs aren't often repeated titles &c. Tony2Times (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Dont be a smartass Will, all you want is your way recently and its complete bullshit, were here as a project. Now, on to the issue. I agree with Tony, while it has advantages it has its disadvantages, not every promotion is like WWE.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm in the process of creating lists for all promotions fully sourced so each can be taken to FLC. Well all the main ones that have promoted PPVs: WCW, ECW, TNA, WWE, ROH, etc. I'll finish the TNA list here in a few days and we'll see how it can be improved and if they are really needed. The thing about WWE here I don't understand. WWE being different was never apart of this. As for me being a smartass, I'm not. And never were trying to be. As for me getting my way. I have no idea what you are talking about.--WillC 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, It doesn't really matter to me anymore. Do what yall want.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to improve the wrestling section. We are not all going to agree I see that. But I just feel this list could be useful.--WillC 02:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A format discussion everyone will like

Okay, another format discussion that I believe everyone will agree is needed. I'm in between on the whether names should be given outside of the ring name kind of deal. I say lets just be rid of that format. It is hard to be consistent with it, and yes I believe that it helps to show the wrestlers play characters, but it is just annoying these days.--WillC 22:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You mean for PPVs?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 00:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The inconsistency is a bitch, but can we get FAs without it? I don't care but others do. Tony2Times (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about the PPVs?--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything. No more anywhere. No bios, PPVs, promotions, titles, etc. The rest of the format is fine with the explanation of professional wrestling's continuous plea to act real. The real names thing is starting to get annoying. I kind of like it in PPVs, since it helps to show the wrestlers are characters. But this common name thing adding on, makes everything inconsistent. And only doing it is certain articles, makes everything inconsistent. I feel the "Wrestler A (Name A)" has to go.--WillC 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should go back to just using their ring names (except in cases where you have to use their real name, like SummerSlam 1994 when you had the real Undertaker vs. Ted DiBiase's fake Undertaker). You don't see the real names being used when talking about rappers (i.e. you don't see "Snoop Doog ([[Snoop Dogg|Calvin Broadus, Jr.]])) or with actors (i.e. "Tom Cruise ([[Tom Cruise|Thomas Mapother IV]])"), there is no reason to do it for wrestlers. It is especially not needed for PPV articles since all PPV articles are starting to have paragraphs that explain how wrestling is scripted. TJ Spyke 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. With paragraphs like that in the articles, that make completely clear that wrestling is scripted, the real names may not be needed anymore. Though for bio articles, that becomes tricky, since I doubt anyone wants to see a paragraph in every bio explaining that wrestling is scripted. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, it should only be in PPV's in the background section only in the first instances.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there is the problem with common name. People like William Reso end up having his name is parenthesis, while people like Triple H don't, which causes inconsistency. Lets just get rid of it entirely for all articles, and only used in special cases like SummerSlam 94 when there is the same character twice or when a wrestler wrestles more than once at a event under different ring names like Mick Foley at Royal Rumble 99 I believe.--WillC 03:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For those saying keep let me ask you, what does it add to the article? It's nothing but a trivia point what William Regal's real name is, it does not add anything to the article, it does not make you understand something better at all. If you wanted to know more about someone, including his real name you'd go to that article. And if you're saying "it matters when they have several names", non-wrestling fans do not care that William Regal previous worked as Steven Regal if they're reading about a Royal Rumble. Like Will said the rule is also terribly inconsistent, quoting "Notability" and what not makes it a judgement call with a whole block of "mid-range" wrestlers. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a requirement to get the most recent Featured Articles. The problem I see with the names as well is that the real names are mentioned but not mentioned elsewhere. I'm really on both sides, but mainly leaning towards getting rid of them.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, it was only 1 editor who suggest it might be worth including their names. The problem is that sometimes when a reviewer mentions something, some editors think that is now policy and has to be applied to every article to get promoted (instead of realizing it is just the suggestion for that article and just from that 1 reviewer). TJ Spyke 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but other reviewers then started asking for it as well. So unless we get a consensus here, reviewers will still ask for it.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 15:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A compromise solution: if you like it, include it in the articles that you write. If you don't like it, don't include it. If you nominate an article as a Featured List, someone might ask for it. Then again, maybe not. If they do, it's still up to you whether to include it or not. Perfect consistency between articles isn't necessary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:OWN, IMO. Its just best to have consistent formats.Tru co ₅₀₃ 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Call it what you will. I call it reality. Most pay-per-view articles are written (almost) exclusively by one editor, and I see no problem with that editor being empowered to make some decisions. I also call it unpaid writing. People are volunteering their time to create articles. Loading them up with a list of requirements that they don't agree with doesn't encourage them to keep going. It's also important to remember that a lot of people simply aren't interested in getting pay-per-view articles to Featured Article status. I don't see why they should be held to something that may or may not be required in an FAC. Overall, if perfect consistency causes fewer articles to be created and expanded, I don't think it's done a lot of good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Its just how the reviewers want to review the articles.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

if it's this projects consensus that real names are not mentioned then it's part of the Wrestling MoS and means articles should be reviwed to see if they uphold the MOS. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So I take it we have a consensus to no longer include the real names?--WillC 00:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what it is looking like (and I couldn't be happier since I have been very vocal about removing the real names). Should we wait a couple more days though to see if anyone disagrees? It's been less than a day and I wouldn't want us to start removing them from articles only for someone to say they didn't get a chance to offer their input. TJ Spyke 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FWiW I don't mind seeing The Undertaker (Mark Calaway) at the first mention in PPV articles, and if all FA reviewers have asked for that format then it seems futile to fight against something which is easy to do. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I have against this is, however, that we need to mention in that paragraph about pro wrestling that wrestlers portray characters, some of whom use ring names. That will replace that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thought. Sometimes it may be difficult to source real names, particularly fresh faces to WWE. Adds more fuel to the idea that we should stick to ring names and contradicts GaryColeman's apparent view that it would make creating good articles harder. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things here: (1) I did not mention Good Articles at all. (2) You have clearly misunderstood absolutely everything I said above. Your comment has absolutely no relevance to what I said. Do not try to speak for me. Showing up here out of the blue just to disagree with me seems to be a clear-cut case of trolling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are over reacting and not for the first time either. I said apparent. You spoke of "creating and expanding articles" which clearly insinuated what I said. There was no direct statement on your view, and what I said was perfectly relevant. See below for why as others have responded before this edit. Don't accuse people of things they aren't guilty of, and do a crash refresher on civility while you're about it. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? Not a word of that made any sense. Are you trying to argue against me by saying what I said? If you are going to comment on the issue, do so without mentioning me. If you feel the need to include me in your statements of opinion, I will call a spade a spade and a troll a troll. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rick don't bother with him. Anyone who critcises his work rightly or wrongly gets called names just to get a reaction. Karma will get him when he does it too often. !! Justa Punk !! 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no wrestlers on the main WWE roster whose real names are not known. That isn't relly an issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a universe outside of Stamford, you know. Daizee Haze, Nigel McGuinness and I'm pretty sure Delerious have no known name. I bet there are tons more aswell. PXK ^T /_C 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually McGuiness's real name is known, he has specifically asked Wikipedia not to use it. And the only FA PPVs as the moment are WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but when it eventually happens, I'll be there holding up a banner that say's "I told you so!" (PS, yes I just checked and I definitely FAILed re Delirious) PXK ^T /_C 12:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)I find my lack of grammar disturbing

Well, there is a non-WWE FA PPV. Seeing as it is known a TNA event can make it that far, and all of the above wrestlers have wrestled for TNA at one time or another, that may become a problem.--WillC 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

But are there any wrestlers currently on an FA PPV article that don't have their real name known? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but I plan to make sure that Victory Road (2004), all the TNA Lockdown events, all the Slammiversary events, and all the TNA Bound for Glory events all become FAs one day. And of those events there is bound to be at least a few wrestlers whose names are unknown.--WillC 14:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The second I try to bring a Mexican show event to FA there definitely will be MPJ-DK (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This project still can't keep on track with things. I proposed that with the removal of names, we add in the introductory paragraph in the Background section that the wrestlers use ring names to replace the removal, not a biggie.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is fair enough I think. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Truco has a point about things tending to go off track somewhat. I also think his whole comment is fair enough. !! Justa Punk !! 03:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lets remove them and add another line to the opening paragraph in the background section. It seems it is unanimous that we should remove the names. Does everyone else agree?--WillC 04:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking this as a consensus. Does anyone object to that being so?--WillC 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Will I already stated that I see nothing wrong in the current format, or are you ignoring comments made further up this page? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking if anyone objected to there seeming to be a consensus, not if someone disagreed with the change.--WillC 12:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but what the hell is the difference? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well to change it, the agreement does not have to be unanimous. It is a majority rule usually. I was asking if I was incorrect in saying we had a consensus. Darren's interpretation made it seem like I was asking if anyone disagreed with changing the format.--WillC 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then here's what will happen, you will ad a paragraph then all the wrestlers will be referred to by their stage names and an article will go to FAR and an editor will say "I don't understand, is The Undertake his real name, is it all real, or is it all fake", and someone will have to explain and then someone will say "well we did use the format Stage Name (real name) but some people don't like parentheses so we agreed to change" and the FAR editor will say "who agreed" and we will say "us the WP:PW" and the reviewer will say "well, I preferred it with the parentheses" and it will change back then in six months someone will get bored and say "let's change the way we refer to wrestlers in PPVs" again, and it will all happen again. Change it, you have majority rule, even though voting is evil and we don't rule by majority and this isn't a democracy, change it because you gotta change something. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see you like it alot, and I like it as well a bit, but I don't see what it adds anymore. We have editors changing names because they believe they are common which is causing inconsistency and if what you say is true it will come up if we don't change. In fact I don't care what is said at FAC anymore and the way the project handles discussions these days, if it is changed now then in 6 months there will be no change because discussions do not come to a final agreement anymore. Plus I do not believe "Are they real" would be a good reason to FAR. The only reason I'm bringing this up is to figure out and fix all the problems we have with the PPV format at the moment.--WillC 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition, is it agreed to not use real names unless they are needed (like the two Undertaker's at SummerSlam 1994)? TJ Spyke 21:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but Darren still is against it. So let the discussion continue.--WillC 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess another day can't hurt, but remember that a consensus does not require that everyone agree to it (just that more people agree to it than oppose it). TJ Spyke 22:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You must be thinking of a majority vote, which is very different from consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require everyone to agree though. Darren doesn't seem tobe totally opposed to it either, just saying he likes the current format too. TJ Spyke 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it

Speaking of format and such - who ever thought that feud was a jargon word? I'm all for variation in diction so I have nothing against rivalry but since people started writing OOU I noticed this word disappear as if it only exists in wrestling parlance. Feud is in the dictionary, why can't it be in our articles? Tony2Times (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not jargon. But in a way, rivalry still makes the articles sound more..."professional" I think. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well as I say I'm not aversed to rivalry being used but I don't think feud should be avoided, and repeating the same word time and time again (and let's face it, feud or rivalry it's gonna come up a lot in wrestling prose) doesn't read well. If The Wire (an FA) can use feud, I don't see why we can't too. Tony2Times (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not really avoided, its just in the articles that we got to FA recently don't use it as much, if at all. It shouldn't be avoided because "rivalry" will get worn out in an article, so another would have to be used and feud would do that.--Tru co ₅₀₃ 01:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well feud is not jargon unless it is used a certain way. The wrestlers are not really having a feud. They are just acting to seem like it. It should be used in a way in which it is professional and at the same time does not seem like it is in a fan's prespective.--WillC 03:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They're not really having a rivalry either, they're just acting to seem like it. Tony2Times (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD heads up

I was thinking of nominating the NWA Wisconsin X Division Championship, the NWA Midwest X Division Championship, and the NWA Florida X Division Championship all for deletion. The first is supposed to be contested for in All-Star Championship Wrestling and it doesn't have an article so other than it being a NWA title, it is not notable enough for its own article if the primary promotion is not notable enough for one, if you understand what I mean this is a run-on sentence I know. The second has the same problem. The third also does. Championship Wrestling from Florida is dead, though there has been a revival of it under NWA banner, but it does not have an article. I don't see notability other than they being NWA Titles and being the rare X Division kind.--WillC 10:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What about merging them as "NWA X Division Championships" or something along those lines? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that GCF, we've never tried that before. I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I'm not to sure if it will work well with pro-wrestling titles. How about just redirecting them to the List of National Wrestling Alliance championships page?--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It worked well at Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships. Redirecting is no different from deleting, as the information is lost. Merging them would keep the information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well thats a list of overall titles in a promotion, while your idea is about a certain type of championship in one company. I mean it could work, wouldn't hurt to try.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes in style

Resolved

Didn't we agree to change the style of listing finishing moves and signature moves to indicate better the difference between the two &c? The style guide seems to be unchanged so I just wanted to check what the final consensus was. Tony2Times (talk) 12:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there was one. Which is usual for this project.--WillC 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, nobody had any real problems with making them separate and getting rid of the bolding. We got stuck on the italics, so that's when the discussion dropped off. I'm in favor of separation an un-bolding...so if we want to restart that convo... Nikki♥311 17:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of that too. I don't mind italicising on the list to visually differentiate between move name and description (I know there's brackets too, but it dinstincs them) but I still don't think we should italicise them in the prose. Other than it looking a bit weird I also think it would conflict with the italicised weekly shows and book titles &c. Tony2Times (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with changing the format to separate finishers and signatures. Though keeping move names italicized would be good, I think, but definitely not in the prose. If we do get a consensus, count me in to help standardize articles. I tend to gravitate towards the In wrestling section when I edit anyway. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What about nicknames? Are we still supposed to list those? I forget.--WillC 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe nicknames were agreed upon to be moved to prose and only inserted there with sources. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the style guide to have an In Wrestling heading to point out not including nicknames or catchphrases and the way music is to be written. Tony2Times (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

<--My two cents: Remove the bolding, and split into finishing and signature. Keep the italics in the lists to distinguish out names. And to Tony, yes, the style guide should be updated, so we can refer people to it when the undoubted reverts, questions, etc, happen as a result of the change. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's give a little more time to see if anyone disagrees, and then I'll be happy to update it. :) Nikki♥311 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to keeping nicknames, but only sourced ones, and listed in prose within the In wrestling section. I always thought that John Hennigan's article had the right idea in that regard. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind nicknames being listed as long they are sourced and are prominent as opposed to one or two times uses - also Mr Monkey In The Bank isn't really a nickname. However I'm thoroughly against prose in the In Wrestling section becuause to me it is a bullet point read out of the vital statistics/factoids of the wrestler. It should all be direct and brief. Explanations about nicknames would be better suited in prose when gimmicks change. Also terms like "self-proclaimed" or "bestowed upon by" I find superfluous, it's a given that someone coined the name and that person is probably unnamed and backstage. Tony2Times (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've always quite liked the prose, but meh. By the way, John Hennigan's was changed to regular old bullet points, Gavyn's talking about it how it was in this diff I agree about the "bestowed upon by" though, it just seems unnecessary to me. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough John's article was the example I used for why to remove prose in the section, perhaps leading to it being changed from that diff. Tony2Times (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I should probably have explained my reasons for being against prose. I think if you look at John's page before it was edited into bullet points and then consider that he's only been wrestling some 4 or 5 years. Imagine what it would look like by the end of his career, it could end up being more than a paragraph or two. I especially don't see the point of having it in prose if it's just gonna be a list anyway, rather than perhaps explaining the meaning of the nickname which would probably be better placed in the prose where a gimmick change leads to new nicknames. Tony2Times (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I always liked the explanation of saying he was known as "The A-Lister because..." because I've always looked at some nicknames in bios at times and gone "I wonder why he's called that". It probably would be better off placed in the main prose, though. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Nikki♥311 03:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's all get stuck in with the changes. The relevant section is at WP:PW/SG#In wrestling. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"World Wrestling Entertainment" instead of "WWE"?

Resolved

I have always wondered why some articles (List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment and List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees) weren't titled with the acronym (List of current champions in WWE and List of WWE employees), like other articles with the acronym? --Truco ₅₀₃ 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a consistency project someone could do. :) ArcAngel (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there are rules about initialisms and when to use them. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

To write it out. Plus some people do not know what WWE stands for.--WillC 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The correct way to title them is "WWE" I believe. Most sports projects use the acronym instead of the written out name. iMatthew ^talk at 01:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the FA topic discussion, it was asked to write it out for a reason I forget.--WillC 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be consistency through out all articles, and WWE is a well known acronym which does not need to be spelled out, and it is one of the only few things out there using that acronym. I say change is needed.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? I still fail to see how "W.W.E." is widely known. I also see no policy which says we should.--WillC 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason how "T.N.A" is widely known either. The thing is, no other company or item uses the WWE acronym, so per WP:ABBR, it does not cause a confusion as to what the acronym stands for. I can't say the same for TNA, however, since TNA stands for various things, unlike WWE.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the question about consistency? So should they all be spelt out or all abbreviated? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Not every time. The WWE Championship is never called "World Wrestling Entertainment Championship", while it's not uncommon to say "World Wrestling Entertainment employees". TJ Spyke 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But WWE Championship is a proper noun so it doesn't really compare as List of WWE/World.... employees is just a header. Belts, events and the like don't come into this consistency. Tony2Times (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I could agree with what Tony said, I just wanted to make sure.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So it is WWE for titles and programs, World Wrestling Entertainment for everything else. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, since WWE titles their programs and titles mainly under the acronym.Truco ₅₀₃ 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it is settled. In this case it should not be moved.--WillC 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That was never the purpose of the discussion.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Is this resolved? My point about proper nouns merely meant that the WWE Championship cannot be World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, but it doesn't necessarily dictate that it can't be List of WWE employees. Tony2Times (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem

User Hippo3 or whatever has returned to cause problems at the TNA X Division Championship. I'm trying to fix the situation, but I fear it will end up like the last ones. I could use some help.--WillC 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What Will means is that I've returned to improve a few minor things in the article but he feels he owns it and nobody is allowed to touch it. I'm happy to discuss things at the article talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the article. I'm trying to improve the article. Maybe you should discuss beforehand.--WillC 00:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to discuss before I edit - my edits don't need to be pre-approved by you. Your suggestion that I run things by you before editing the article is exactly what suggests you have ownership issues. Maybe you should take a step back. Other interested editors may take things less personally. Cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

When did I say run them by me first? I never recall ever saying anything of that sort. I remember saying, discuss them with editors of the project who edit the articles regularly.--WillC 00:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Among other times, on 10 June at 16:39 you wrote this on my talk page:

"I ask of you please, before you do anything to the article ask me. You do not know what the refs cover or what is important and what isn't ... Yes you don't have to ask me, but when you don't know shit about what you are working on you should."

Arrogant? Yes. Ownership issues? Yes. Civil? No. --hippo43 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconds after being blocked for our previous disagreement: "I was right, you are an idiot! See you in 24 hours. If you actually want to discuss things like an adult, I'm all ears."

Looks like the shoe is on the other foot. Also I remember it being July 24, 2009, so aren't we in the present?--WillC 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, can we get back on track and leave your personal issues on your talk pages and not the project page? Second of all, what is the main issue?--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree Truco. It is content removal again and believing jargon should be used.--WillC 01:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw, all he did was removing the unsourced claim that it is the second highest ranking belt in TNA and listing both the wrestling term and non-wrestling terms (i.e. he would mention faces and heroes, rather than just heroes). I don't see anything wrong hippo did. TJ Spyke 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your opinion on the matter TJ.--WillC 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If the agreement here is to not include it. Then that I fine with me and I will not try to include it again.--WillC 01:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrestlinglover, it seems necessary to step in here and say something. You are treating Hippo43 unfairly and rudely. TJ Spyke is correct, Hippo did nothing wrong here. You clearly claimed ownership of the article by asking him to check with you before he edited the page. If you disagreed with his edits, or any of them in particular, you should have taken it to the talk page, not him. This thread doesn't show off well in terms of the project's appearance, so I strongly recommend tagging this resolved and archiving it. I don't see your point in starting this thread, other than to get other editors to cabal-up and "take down" someone editing an article that you happen to take care of. Sorry if that sounded harsh, but you need to talk to others how you'd want them to talk to you. After looking over some of your comments here, and at his talk page, I'd recommend you re-read Wikipedia's civility policy before thinking about pointing someone else towards it. Nothing else needs to be said here. If you have more concerns about the article, take it to the article's talk page. If you have a concern about Hippo43, take it to his talk page. If you have a reply to my comment, please come to my talk page. Thanks, iMatthew ^talk at 19:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded (on the resolved and archiving). Darrenhusted (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that. Plus the statement to check with me is out of context and is over month old. Anyway, lets end this. The reason this section was opened in I read somewhere that when dealing with a disagreement in content, to get editors involved who edit the article regularly.--WillC 21:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please archive, rather than deleting. Will, the quote I added is not out of context at all - it illustrates a pattern in the way you have communicated with me. Your reaction to it just shows your lack of perspective or self-awareness here. That it is a month old is irrelevant, as our previous disagreement is obviously related to our most recent disagreement. Anyway, IMatthew, Spyke, thanks for the support. Can we put this to bed? --hippo43 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, put it bed. We delete discussions all the time around here. There would be no reason to keep this one. I'm tired of it, this is annoying.--WillC 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing something wrong all the time doesn't make it right. iMatthew ^talk at 22:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but why continue this discussion? It is done with. There are other pressing issues at hand. I kind of feel it is embrassing on my end. I was wrong.--WillC 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already over, you just keep commenting. :P IMO though, it's more embarrassing to try and cover up and hide your errors rather than admitting them and then moving on. iMatthew ^talk at 22:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A few questions

First, have we determined an order the championship templates should go? Small unimportant question I know, but I've been wondering since I've been working with them. Something else is, there are articles dating back to mid-2007 that passed GA, FA, FL, etc that are somewhat out of date among other things. They no longer pass the criteria. Would anyone object if I started a few GARs, etc for some of them? I was going to go one by one since recently I started reviewing some at GAN and I enjoy it. I feel making sure previously passed wrestling articles still pass the criteria would be useful.--WillC 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in wrestler articles? Alphabetical order seems best in my opinion, it's neutral and avoids any kind of judgment call. TJ Spyke 01:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical is the most logical choice in bios. As for the GAR's, I would object. Being that you're a wresting editor, in an active wrestling project, there's no reason to take them to GAR. Improve them yourself, or ask someone in the project to help you improve them. It's not taken well (I learned recently) when you nominate articles for deletion/removal/reassessment/whatever of a project you're active in, and could easily clean up yourself. (By the way, this isn't intended to offend anybody. Sorry if it has!) iMatthew ^talk at 01:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing the numerous title templates we have and all the articles having them in different orders, I wasn't sure exactly how they should be arranged so we could have consistency. As for the removal nominations, I was going to speak with the original editors, if they are still active, who got it to that level before I started it, to allow them time to begin work on the article. This way problems could be avoided if possible. While I would also improve some of the already existing articles. I'm hoping to try and update all of the current FLs that passed a good while back. Mainly the WWE lists.--WillC 02:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd like to see them go in rank order of world followed by tag by second tier by divisional then accomplishment then stables (alphabetical thereafter) but maybe with current employees of at the top because it's currently happening. But I doubt I could get a consensus with that. Tony2Times (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I would object to nominating articles at GAR. Please bring up concerns here, as there is no need for a formal reassessment when there are several active editors able and willing to improve articles. Please remember, however, that these are judged by Good Article standards, which are considerably less stringent than Featured Article standards. I agree that some are in need of work (one, in particular, that I helped get to GA status needs almost all of the sources replaced, and I intend to get to that soon), but many editors in this project are well aware of the GA standards and are wiling to help. Going one-by-one and contacting the major editors in addition to a message on the WP:PW talk page is the best way to do it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with article should be brought up with the project before listed at GAR, it's common courtesy if I'm not mistaken also the recomended way of dealing with any potential problems. MPJ-DK (No Drama Wrestling) Talk 20:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I've created this section. I was only going to start a GAR if there were no editors willing to work on the article or if they were a lost cause.--WillC 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Then please list what articles & problems you see. MPJ-DK (No Drama Wrestling) Talk 02:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will. I was just announcing my future intentions first.--WillC 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling

I just wanted to let the project know that this article has been vastly improved, I don't plan on working on it much anytime soon but I believe I've helped open up the floor for anyone who wants to continue to work on this and possibly attempt to make it an FL. Afro Gold - Afkatk 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jericho's tag titles

WWE says that Jericho/Edge and Jericho/Big Show are separate reigns. However, all indications WWE has given are that Jericho by himself has been tag team champion since The Bash (meaning 1 continuous reign for him). WWE doesn't count the number of reigns on his bio page though (they only list the titles, not how many times for each). Should we count them as separate (making Jericho a 5/2 time champion) or together for him (making him 4/1 time champion)? I bring this here because it affects multiple articles. If somebody could find something on WWE's site that says Jericho is a 5 time World Tag Team Champion/2 time WWE Tag Team Champion, that would settle this. TJ Spyke 19:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jericho's reign is continuous, with the wording used here: After an injury left his partner Edge unable to compete, Unified Tag Team Champion Chris Jericho exploited a contractual loophole that allowed him to choose a new partner. They still recognized him as champion by himself. In addition, his reign with Edge didn't end officially until July 26, 2009. So his reign individually is continuous, you just have to properly note in the article with footnotes.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'll say is, what did we do for the Rhodes, DiBiase, and Holly situation from last year? Mshake3 (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What we did was incorrect as well.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes didn't just pick DiBiase as his new partner, he teamed with him to win the titles. Slightly different situation. I tried to think of similar situations. This has happened I think only twice in WWE: in 1975 when Victor Rivera left the company and Dominic DeNucci picked Pat Barrett as his new partner, and in 1981 when Moondog Spot was unable to enter the United States from Canada and Moondog Rex picked Moondog King as his new partner. Both of those resulted in one person remaining champion with the new partner. WWE never said Jericho was not champion and has continued stating he was champion and just picking someone to share the belts with. I could be wrong on Rhodes, I don't know about that. TJ Spyke 23:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes was still champion entering NOC '08, he was just picked by DiBiase to be his partner to fight Holly so he could win Holly's belt: different situations, same principles apply. I still enforce my argument from above, which agrees with TJ.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE seems to consider Rhodes/DiBiase to be a different reign than Holly/Rhodes. This is from Cody Rhodes' Bio page at wwe.com: "The second-generation Superstar has already won championship gold twice, the first time obtaining the World Tag Team Championship with partner Hardcore Holly, and the second time turning on Holly with new partner and fellow wrestling scion, Ted DiBiase, to win the title again at Night of Champions." So WWE.com considers Rhodes' second reign beginning the same night his first ended. I wish the bios helped with the current situation, but Jericho's profile doesn't mention it. TJ Spyke 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's simple really.

New partner, new team, new reign.

You guys are over thinking this.

WWE.com lists the Jericho/Show reign as beginning on 7-26-09.

That means the Jericho/Edge reign ended, and Jericho/Show began.

New partner, new team, new reign.

Vjmlhds 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of copying and pasting the same thing over, how about read the above discussion? Yes new team reign, but did Jericho ever lose the title??--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cody never lost his title either, but it counts as a new reign with a new partner.

Jericho/Edge and Jericho/Show are 2 distinct and different teams with 2 distinct and different reigns.

WWE doesn't consider it as 1 long continuous reign, they consider as a new reign with a new partner.

And since it's their title and they write it's history, their word should be law.

Vjmlhds 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE said Rhodes lost the title, they never said Jericho lost his. In fact, they specifically say Jericho just picked his new co-champion. Where did WWE every say Jericho lost the title? TJ Spyke 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They never said Cody lost his belt, they said he won it again...re-winning it if you will.

His share of the belts vs Holly's for all intents and purposes.

It's a tag team title, thus each new team that wins the title is a separate reign from the previous one.

Jericho/Show is a different team than Jericho/Edge, thus the reigns are counted as separate from one another.

So therefore, individually it should count as a new reign for Jericho, because though he never lost his belt, he did start a new reign with a new partner as recognized by WWE.com.

Vjmlhds 00:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Rhodes WON it again and WWE says it was his second reign. Jericho didn't win the title again, he just named who was replacing Edge as his championship partner. Rhodes did lose the belt, there is nothing to indicate Jericho lost his. Do you have any actual sources that say Jericho's reign ended? WWE's wording implies it is one continuous reign for him. Also, please stop putting each sentence on it's only line, it's annoying and it is wrong from a writing level. TJ Spyke 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WWE considers this as a new reign, otherwise they wouldn't have listed it separately from the Jericho/Edge reign.

The reign of one team ended, and a new one began as soon as Show was announced as the new partner.

Remember when Randy Orton substituted for Booker T when he was injured in that best of 7 tournament for the U.S. Title vs Chris Benoit?

If Orton had won, Booker would have still won the belt, not Orton.

Show wasn't wrestling on Edge's behalf, he wrestled because he became the new Champion when Jericho named him as his new partner.

Thus Jericho/Edge was done, and Jericho/Show began.

One reign ended, a new one began.

Vjmlhds 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said Big Show was wrestling on Edge's behalf, I said that Jericho picked him to replace Edge (as stated by WWE). So far there has yet to be any proof of Jericho's reigns being separate rather than one. WWE seems to just want to make it clear Edge's reign ended at NOC and Big Show's began that night. TJ Spyke 00:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a tag team belt, when the reign of one partner ends, so does the reign of the other partner by proxy since it's a team reign.

Since the reign of the TEAM ended, that meant that by proxy, Jericho's reign ended as well, and a new one started immediately with Big Show.

Vjmlhds 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are reverting to original research now? TJ Spyke 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Jericho's reign never ended because he was never stripped of the title nor were the titles vacated during this time. His reign continued, as evident by WWE sources. Just because the team reigns are different, it does not constitute that his individual reigns were also different.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

How about the non-dramatic solution eh? Add Jericho & Show as the current champions, do not add another reign to Jericho's count and in the notes list that Jericho's reign is a continuation and use the "days held" counter in the notes as well, that way you have Show & Jericho being the current champions, Jericho is not credited with another title win and they have two different "length counts". Under the "Reigns as a team" you cannot count from before they teamed up but Jericho's individual count still goes from the day he and Edge won the title. - Is there ANY argument not covered by this solution? Everyone happen? Any Original Research? Just take the drama out of editing wrestling titles and let cooler heads prevail. MPJ-DK (No Drama Wrestling) Talk 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking but both WWE Tag Title lists are outdate to be using the notes system we have been using in our most recent lists.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Never a bad time to start using footnotes, it may not be in place everywhere but I'd say this would be a good place to start. MPJ-DK (No Drama Wrestling) Talk 02:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Utility of outlines to wikiprojects

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Vartanian

I'm thinking of AfD'ing Mark Vartanian unless somebody thinks they can save it. I didn't get much in a Google search and couldn't find any sources to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 01:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a hoax. I can't find any sources that this guy event exists, yet alone is notable. TJ Spyke 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here, Nikki. A quick Google search shows that the article isn't a hoax. However, this isn't an article that I care enough about to devote a ton of effort to improving. His notability is negligible and comes almost exclusively from his membership in the Dudley Family. With that said, he's mentioned in the Dudley family article, so that seems just fine. No complaints from me if it's AfDed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done Nikki♥311 02:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on SummerSlam (2009)

Lets keep an eye out on the above PPV because we're reporting wrong info to websites. Lets try to avoid speculation and rumors.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Great journalism from WrestleZone: "Some guy off the street e-mailed us with a hot tip confirmed by anonymous internet address 207.98.135.72!" GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tell me about it, once this news hits one website it hits others too.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why I think we should use WrestleZone as a reliable source. It's obviously the most up-to-date, completely confirmed wrestling information available on the internet. iMatthew ^talk at 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm much? --Truco ₅₀₃ 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can call it that. ;) iMatthew ^talk at 22:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

=] Well, I just thought to let people know since when one site gets the news, the whole "dirtsheet" world gets the same news and it eventually comes back to the articles on here.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has apparently become the number one source for news new [6], granted the site isn't very well known but this so called "Rumor" has made the rounds on a few Wrestling sites. Afro Gold - Afkatk 23:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

At least the more reliable dirtsheets (like WO/F4 and Pro Wrestling Torch) aren't stupid enough to use Wikipedia as a source for news. TJ Spyke 01:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

With enough work we'll turn them into reporting stuff put on Wiki, we just need more "Benoit Wiki incident" stuff put on Wiki. Afro Gold - Afkatk 04:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)