Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 81

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82

I've just noticed something

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

Ever since NXT began, the winners always go to the brand their Pros are from. Is it just me or is WWE creative too scared to move the winning Rookie or Rookie Diva out of their Pros' shadow?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

That could very well be a conincidence. Even though they were on the same show I doubt anyone would say that Wade Barret was in Jericho's shadow.-- (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Not related to editing.--Truco 503 15:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Paul Bearer

This article is constantly being updated with poorly written, unsourced, week-by-week information. I don't watch wrestling, so it would be great if someone who follows WWE could add it to his or her wishlist and help trim some of the unimportant details. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


I know I said I was on a wiki break but I noticed someone moved Dolph Ziggler to well Dolph Zigger. I tried to move it to that in the summer and everyone said too soon yet someone else does it and they say yes which leads me to this question. What The #&%$?--Nascarking Daytona 500 19:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I would direct you to Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


There is one thing I have been wanting to know for a while, is there a specific reason (wikipolicy or discussion) on why the name of the article WWE is World Wrestling Entertainment instead of WWE? It seems like WWE is more common than World Wrestling Entertainment. But is there a wikipolicy or discussion on why we use the full name?--Nascarking Daytona 500 20:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Not everything has to be at its common name.--SteamIron 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
But is there some reason it's the full name instead of the initials?--Nascarking Daytona 500 20:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Its the name of the dang company how hard is that to understand.--SteamIron 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind then. I'll just go back on Wikibreak for the next 8 days like I had planned.--Nascarking Daytona 500 20:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Refer to WP:ACRONYM.--Truco 503 21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think the general public would identify the common name as the World Wrestling Federation, based on references I've seen in recent videos and interviews. I'm not going to be pushing for a move like that, though, since I see no problem in using a company's current name for the title of its article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


Heads up for the group, but I thought to ask for some help here to watch the edits of this user. They seem to be editing only wrestling articles with original research, so I thought some extra pairs of eyes would be helpful. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Is The Miz a Triple Crown Champion?

Say, does The Miz count as a Triple Crown Champion? I know the Triple Crown in WWE counts the WWE Intercontinental Championship as a secondary title, but is the WWE United States Championship count as a alternate?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

After taking a good look at the table, I think possibly so. Whose Your Guy (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
After doing a bit of research, I have added The Miz to the table - hope I did it right!  :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):For that matter, why is The Big Show not listed as a TC champion? He held the tag titles before they were unified, as well as the WWE belt. Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

He was never Intercontinental Champion. --UnquestionableTruth-- 07:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Following the brand extension in 2002, the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Team Championship became alternate titles that can compose part of the Triple Crown. WWE has yet to declare the WWE United States Championship to be an acceptable substitute for secondary championships in order to complete the Grand Slam or Triple Crown Championships." - Triple Crown Championship... sooooo no?--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how many times are we going to have this conversation? Since 2007, I think this conversation has happened at least 15 times. The answer is NO, the United States Championship, originally a WCW Championship, is not part of the Triple Crown. Not only is there not a reliable source that says so, but WWE has a list of Triple Crown Champions on their website and don't include the US Champions. Cena, Big Show and Miz are not Triple Crowns. End of discussion. Feedback 16:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for mis-reading the table. I now see that the tag belts are grouped together, I thought they were counted separately. Whose Your Guy (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen the Triple Crown list on Where is it? Shouldn't we use that as a source? Tony2Times (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why it isn't used in the article, but here it is. WWE doesn't include Benoit though... for obvious reasons. Feedback 17:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I Googled it but couldn't find it. What an odd graphic. Tony2Times (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that they haven't changed the tag belt designations at that link yet LOL! Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Why would they change it? Even though the World Tag Team Championship is retired, everyone who held it without ever wearing the new belt is still eligible for the Triple Crown. Feedback 23:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Grand Slam

Ironically, now the Miz went on air on RAW and said he was a grand slam champion for winning the WWE championship, United States Championship, Tag Team Championship and Money in the Bank.. — Moe ε 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

He's a heel, he lied. Feedback 02:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Well of course we can't quote his on-screen character as a basis of fact lol. I was saying look out for the article being changed for this :P This is like the time JBL said he was a Grand Slam Champion in about 2008 for winning the United States title. However, WWE never recognized it and said his Intercontinental Championship reign a year later was the bare minimum when he won the Triple Crown, so what he said wasn't backed up by WWE. — Moe ε 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe he's a keen Wiki reader and it irks him he never held the European Title :p Tony2Times (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Technically the European or Hardcore title, we actually have a reference for that :) — Moe ε 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

411Mania an unreliable site

Would it be alright if we start considering an unreliable site altogether because someone tried to add something about a special Smackdown Christmas episode on USA. It's been removed already but the source from 411Mania said what I just said. You can easily disprove the source by reading the rest of it because it also said WWE Tribute to the Troops would be next Wednesday the 22nd on NBC but it's not, it's this Saturday the 18th on NBC. Which leads me to believe 411Mania is completely unreliable.--Nascarking Daytona 500 20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nascar, it was me who put that info on SmackDown's special episodes because it's gonna happen. PWInsider also confirmed it. Pro Wrestling Torch confirms it as well. --Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
But why does it say Tribute to the Troops is next Wednesday when it's this Saturday. says it's this Saturday, [1] their Corporate website says it's Saturday,[2] even says it's this Saturday at 9:00 P.M.[3]. Which if you read the 2 sources you used it says Tribute to the Troops is next Wednesday when it's this Saturday.--Nascarking Daytona 500 22:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This Tribute on USA is a two-hour special edition which will contain moments the one hour NBC special cuts out due to time.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
But then wouldn't or even the corporate site has some mention of this and why would Smackdown be on USA instead of SyFy and why would they do it live on Tuesday instead of Friday when it always airs.
For Tribute, it will probably be announced during the NBC airing. For SmackDown, WWE claims that airing SD on USA on December 21 instead of December 24 on Syfy because they don't want to fight for ratings during Christmas Eve.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Unneccessary article

Owen Hart and Yokozuna - It consists of two short paragraphs containing information already found in their individual articles. If Jerishow and ShoMiz don't have their own articles, this shouldn't. (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitely believe both Jerishow and ShoMiz deserve articles, but most users believe a tag team has to be active for a minimum of 4 years for it to have an article. So yeah, I guess it should be deleted. Feedback 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Length of time has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not an article should exist. The article is reliably sourced, so it will stay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with GCF.--Truco 503 15:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I could find a number of reliable sources confirming Beth Phoenix and Nattie Niedhart were a tag team last night, does that make them worthy of an article? I would think LayCool actually are worthy of an article though as they have now been working together for over a year and have won both Women's Titles in WWE as well as a Slammy, which we apparently deem as something more than a joke award here, along with a WON award (albeit a negative one). Tony2Times (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In my view articles like this qualify as WP:NOTNEWS. Afro (Talk) 06:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

TNA Womens Tag Titles

Whats our policy on spoiling and cball as it refers to these articles? We have reliable references, but it is confusing for us to notate something that has not been aired yet. I went to the Angelina Love article then to you tube, then to I would say we should keep something like this on lock until its aired. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also there appears to be date confusion. AL article says two weeks after the 2nd, TKTTC says the 23rd. Its also the only article that mentions that the taping has not aired. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think from what I have seem reading here, it's not "official" until it airs. Whose Your Guy (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a previous consensus at the Jack Swagger talk page reached the consensus that information on this type can be added before the show aired provided there were reliable sources for unaired title changes. I think there were a few other cases of that nature within the last year so I think there is more discussion on the archives and IIRC consensus supported that position.-- (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see much consensus there. All I see is that someone played the spoiler card and that pretty much ended the debate. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, we can have spoilers. If the spoiler is notable and backed up by reliable third-party sources, then it can be added. There's no debate. That's the policy and its been that way for a long time. Feedback 03:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Can we agree to notate that info? General users are not aware of our policies and assume the data to be accurate as of the moment. I think it is reasonable to note in each article that the win has not aired.Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think its a notable fact that it hasn't aired so that should be placed in the articles. At least the date. (i.e. Todd Grisham defeated Kane to become the World Heavyweight Champion on 14 December 2010 in his hometown, the Mushroom Kingdom. This will air on Friday, 17 December 2010.) Feedback 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If that actually happened Feedback it would be funny as hell! Whose Your Guy (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i'll make the changes. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kankuro Kisato has been proposed for deletion

This article may be of interest to this project. —J04n(talk page) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Even better, I've speedied it because it's a near 100% copyvio of this page. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Most pages with articles that follow the traditional Wikipedia setup (lead section, same section headers, "In wrestling" section, list of moves, list of managers, etc.) are not the original sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Current WWE logo on WWE article

Can we talk about the current WWE logo. That is not the logo they use on any of their shows. They only use the bold one to cover up the WWF Scratch Logo from the Attitude Era days in their video archives. They use the less bold one on all their shows, well technically they use this WWE Logo, but it's not bold like the one on the article.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 20:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know it's the same logo, but with different backgrounds. Right?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone capable of moving pages here?

Kings of Wrestling redirects to Kings of Wrestling (independent circuit) because their used to be a page on the TNA stable which has since been merged. I assume this doesn't need discussion as it just redirects straight to the page with the qualifier. Tony2Times (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Spoilers

Can we please talk about people posting spoilers and ruining that Episode of SmackDown for everyone else. It's really annoying and it just makes it no fun to watch SmackDown on Friday when someone has already put up what's gonna happen. Can we please make it a policy to remove spoilers before they happen. They're just Annoying.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, per WP:SPOILER, specifically It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. You can avoid the whole issue by not reading the articles until after the episodes air, you know. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure others agree with me that spoilers are more annoying than helpful and we tend to tell users not to add them. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks that.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that spoilers do hurt the quality of some articles. But if its somewhere where the spoilers don't seem necessary, I strongly believe they shouldn't be added. For example, the character of Dr. Reed Adamson was murdered on the finale of last season's Grey's Antomy, but I hadn't watched it. Obviously, I won't search her character article or the season's article if I want to avoid spoilers. But I went to Nora Zehetner (the actress who plays her)'s article and her character's death is spoiled in the article. I was so upset. I spoke to some admins and they told me that when spoilers are unneeded, they shouldn't be there. Feedback 07:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
As long as the information is verifiable by reliable sources, it can be added. Nikki311 02:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, We cant exclude articles in our scope from holding to policy.. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Technically we can. That's called "consensus". But yeah, this shouldn't be one of those moments. Feedback 00:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter Delayed?

Quick question, what happend to the Newsletter? Last one I got was in October.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here.--SteamIron 09:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You are free to contribute to the Newsletter, its not something someone at a certain level is only allowed to do. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
On December 21 I'm going to begin work on the Jan 2 Newsletter which I may combing the last four issues that didn't come out if anyone like to lend a hand that would be much liked--SteamIron 18:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On a related note to the section above me...

Why does TNA's "The Band" have a section in the New World Order article? Hell, why is TNA mentioned there at all. The nWo has never been in TNA. And all these stables have had nothing to do with them so what gives? Feedback 01:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Because The Band is a new nWo. It was call the Band because WWE has the name's copyright. But, same members (Nash, Hall, X-Pac), same entrance theme...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, The Band had Eric Young. And second of all, they had no relation with the NWO. Booker T and Scott Steiner are both former NWO members. Why isn't their stint as TNA Tag Team champions mentioned in the article? Hell, 4 of the 5 Main Event Mafia members (Nash, Booker, Steiner and Sting) were former NWO members. Why isn't the MEM listed? Its OR to say The Band is an incarnation of the nWo. The article should end when the nWo ended when Eric became GM. Feedback 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hell! GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
One important question would be if reliable sources consider this group to be a continuation of the nWo if not it would violate our original research policy and should be removed until reliable sources make that connection.-- (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's face it the only source eligible to confirm whether the Band is an incarnation of the NWO is the WWE since they own the copyrights to it and they aren't going to divulge this information anytime soon. At the moment it does constitute Original research. Afro (Talk) 16:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Since there are enough sources to establish notability, how about splitting off that information into a separate article? I would still think that a sentence should be added to the "Final appearance" section in the nWo article to the extent of "Several members of the original nWo reunited in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling in 2010 to form a stable known as "The Band" (with a wikilink to the new article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So shall we split the Dudley Boyz article in two, along with the New Age Outlaws and anyone other group which was renamed due to copyright reasons but is clearly (and also according to many reliable websites who irreverently referred to The Band as the new NWO, the new Wolfpac and other similar names). The Main Event Mafia had a totally different gimmick, they wore suits, they were all former World Champions &c &c - The Band started as Hall, Nash and Waltman facing Hogan, the four central members of the nWo along with the black and white colour motif. It's just common sense, if every news site we use as reliable sources say it it surely isn't too hard to figure it out. Tony2Times (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point. Yes, I guess we should split all of those articles. Then we should split each wrestler's article into separate articles for each gimmick they have used. Ed Leslie should actually be 15 different articles. Then we could split each of those articles into separate articles based on the signs of the zodiac. Let's split Ray Traylor over and over until we've arrived at The Guardian Angel (Capricorn 1995). Strawman arguments are so helpful! ...or maybe I was just suggesting that the size of the New World Order article justifies the new incarnation split off for ease of reading. Either way works for me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
So just because the same members were in a stable makes it a new incarnation? So I guess "The Brain Busters" were an incarnation of Four Horsemen too? Give me a break. If anything, "The Band" was an incarnation of The Outsiders (professional wrestling) not nWo. Feedback 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not just to do with members, it's the gimmick, the allusions (Nash and Sting and others used the term Wolfpack as well as The Band, which always made me wonder why that wasn't a legally difficult term incidentally if anyone knows), the logo similarities as well as sources calling them the new nWo. I'd be open to reclassifying them as The Outsiders if you wanted to make a case for it, but I would point to the inclusion of Waltman and their attempts to include Hogan and Bischoff as grounds for it being nWo rather than The Outsiders. But the name is a legal obligation and just as we aren't legally obligated to refer to the belt historically as the WWE Championship when it has happened in the 1990s, I don't we see why we need to take a name change in this instance as another reason to disassociate or not call it for what it was. Also I don't think the Brain Busters comparison works because they were operative during the Four Horsemen, much in the same way as the New Age Outlaws have an article even though they were part of D-X at the time too. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Find references

Hi. There are a group of references, TheOtherArena, in the Sean Morley article. Can anyone tell me how I can find a show (august 14, 1999, Shotgun) in TheOtherArena? The main page's links aren't actives. I'm seeking that show for the Vic Grimes article. Thanks. --Sygma 2 (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried something called Google, Bing, Yahoo, or even in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Poorly done sarcasm is the worst sarcasm. As for the original question, I don't know that it's still available. My best suggestion would be to e-mail the site owners. They've been helpful when I've contacted them in the past. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

--If that doesn't work,--Dude just try Google. Or better yet we've got a whole list of sites that'll work better than Google, click the Style Guides Tab on this project page and at the very bottom it has a list of useful sites.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Kennedy

The usage of Mr. Kennedy is under discussion, see Talk:Mr. Kennedy. (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber Poster

[1] has a poster for Elimination Chamber.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 00:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And? Tony2Times (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your kidding me right. There isn't a poster on the Elimination Chamber ppv article.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried adding it yourself? Tony2Times (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
--Last time I uploaded an image it was removed from commons because of wrong copyright tag of something look I just don't know how to upload an image and there's a link for someone who does know how.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A copyrighted image can't be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. It can be uploaded to Wikipedia, however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well that simplifies the process. But how do you put the image on the article?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 22:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I added "image" and "caption" as fields for the infobox for that article. For the image, just put the name and file extension (for example, EliminationChamber2011.jpg). For the caption, just give a brief description of the poster (see Elimination Chamber (2010) for an example). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Still avoiding the use of "babyface" or "heel"

I know this has been discussed before, but I wanted to check in and get a clarification here. Is it still accepted practice here to avoid anything resembling wrestling slang, including "babyface" and "heel"? I'm totally behind avoiding miscellaneous jargon, especially something like "kayfabe" that's easily replaceable with something like "storyline." However, basically every article on wrestling is going to reference faces and heels, and trying to avoid using those terms creates stilted writing with less precise terminology. A babyface wrestler may or may not be popular, as "fan favorite" implies, and he may or may not embody virtue, as "hero" suggests. Likewise, heels aren't necessarily "villainous," since some are just annoying, etc. Probably the closest definitions that are neither incorrect nor awkward are "good guy wrestler" and "bad guy wrestler," but we'd be repeating those terms a lot. But most importantly, any respected book or newspaper article/blog/whatever else on wrestling is going to use babyface and heel. They're necessary to discussing the concept.

Now, if it turns out that we're still doing it this way, OK, I don't expect to suddenly change everyone's mind or create some kind of havoc. I'm posting here because I'm genuinely curious about whether things have loosened up a bit, and if so, I'll make some changes back to babyface or heel when I'm poking around wrestling articles. Croctotheface (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There's also protagonist and antagonist. I think we're more relaxed than we were at one point where things went really strict, but I'd probably say it's a wise idea to add a little inference with the terms, such as "with this good act he became a babyface". Personally I try and avoid using the terms altogether as they're very limiting and not always that informative anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"Protagonist" and "antagonist" don't have the same meaning, as the antagonist can be the good guy (Bret Hart was an antagonist to Owen Hart; Hulk Hogan was an antagonist to Iraqi sympathizer Sgt. Slaughter). I don't see a problem with using properly wikilinked terms, as I have always said that it is no different from a baseball article using a terms like "earned run average" or "slugging percentage"--as long as they're wikilinked, people can easily find a definition. If the meaning can be made obvious by including some context without sounding awkward, so much the better. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I Agree with Gary. Feedback 18:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea as well. One other problem is that terms like villain don't always work. In some cases it make make sense (ie Randy Orton attacking all of the Mchamon family to get to Triple H, or Mr. Mchamon trying to screw over Austin by any means necessary). Though I don't think the worked well for characters like Santino who were more like comical jerks than real villains.-- (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And that's why I think babyface and heel are limiting when you can better describe the actual character they portrayed rather than a generic one or the other. Tony2Times (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's opposed to doing what you describe here. The issue is that a while back, there was a concerted effort made to excoriate any mention of "face" or "heel" from articles about wrestlers or PPVs or the like. I'm glad to see that current consensus seems to favor being able to use those terms when they make sense. When it makes more sense to describe a more nuanced character with more nuanced language, by all means we should do that as well. Croctotheface (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nexus issues

I've been seeing Nexus on pending changes a heck of a lot, almost all discussing Ryan Reeves. It seems he's not left Nexus, but he's "sidelined" due to injury. As such, there is no consensus as to whether he is a member or a former member. As someone with little interest in wrestling, this seems a little lame to me, but as a possible solution I've suggested that the template has an extra field for "injured member(s)". Any thoughts? see Talk:Nexus (professional wrestling)#How about a solution?Worm 09:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The extra spot in the infobox will do nothing to help the "edit war". The addition of the extra field basically admits that he has not left Nexus so the editors who think he indeed has will still be defiant. Bottom line is that WWE wrote on that he was exiled from the Nexus due to his injury, but they then changed it and removed the "exiled" part. So yeah, I guess thats them showing that he's still in the Nexus. Feedback 11:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stacked images

Is there a reason stacked images have been phased out or have people just got rid of them and no-one's returned them? For Jeff Hardy's article towards the end with moves and titles I think it really helped, among other articles, but I don't wanna put them back in if there's a reason they've gone. Tony2Times (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Stacked images are acceptable in those areas in regions because like you said they help the section out; however, they are not acceptable in the prose of the articles because it will cluttler the section.--Truco 503 18:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Table help needed at Triple Crown Championship

Ok, why does A.J. Styles need every redundancy listed? He has 3 separate lines in the table, sometimes the same title won has 3 different dates listed (or at least two). Can this be consolidated to ONE line by someone with more Wiki table experience than myself? It would take me forever to do it.  :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the prose before the table, "TNA's definition of the Triple Crown Championship, wrestlers are eligible to be a multiple Triple Crown champion each time they complete a new circuit." I'm not sold on including him four times, but I imagine that a change like you are proposing would meet with some resistance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
TNA considers each set of 3 titles its own Triple Crown which means under their definition, a Triple Crown is achievable multiple times. I hate it, but TNA is cheesy that way. It stays in separate lines. Feedback 07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Team Lay-Cool

I have seen a missing article "Team Lay-Cool" on the English Wikipedia. Please create it.


--Ponce (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You've seen it? Where? We've all been looking for it, so please return it as soon as possible. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank Jimbo someone found it. And here we were all beginning to worry. Feedback 21:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

SummerSlam GA topic

We talked about trying to make this a Featured Topic a few years ago, and we made good progress toward that. Things slowed down with that goal, but I was thinking it would be a good time to try to push toward getting this as a Good Topic (meaning that all articles would have to be at least GA). Right now, the articles look like this:

Main page Articles
B-Class article SummerSlam SummerSlam (1988) - C-Class article SummerSlam (1989) - SummerSlam (1990) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (1991) - SummerSlam (1992) - SummerSlam (1993) - SummerSlam (1994) - B-Class article SummerSlam (1995) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (1996) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (1997) - C-Class article SummerSlam (1998) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (1999) - B-Class article SummerSlam (2000) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (2001) - C-Class article SummerSlam (2002) - Featured article SummerSlam (2003) - B-Class article SummerSlam (2004) - B-Class article SummerSlam (2005) - B-Class article SummerSlam (2006) - SummerSlam (2007) - C-Class article SummerSlam (2008) - C-Class article SummerSlam (2009) - Start-Class article SummerSlam (2010)

I'm planning to write some of the older ones (91, 96, and maybe 97), but I thought it would be good to try to push some of the B-class articles up to GA level. For 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2009, it should just be a matter of making sure that the references are good and working and that there are reception sections. For 2008, it's just a matter of sourcing the article. Is there anyone who would be interested in doing some work on these five articles (2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009) with me? Anyone willing to work on any of the others would be great as well, of course. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on Eddie Guerrero at the moment, but I'll help when I'm done with that. I had planned on doing SummerSlam 1989 at one point anyway. Nikki311 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

CM Punk leader of Nexus

Can someone tell Evilgohan2 that CM Punk's the new leader of Nexus since he did put on the "N"-band and saluted to Nexus? It's obivous that Punk's the new leader David Otunga was refering to. Evilgohan2 wants proof, but he deletes the proof. Please help me with the Nexus article?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

We're not your meatpuppets. I took a quick look through the revision history, and what Evilgohan2 deleted was unsourced original research. There was no source, so it violated Wikipedia:Verifiability. The statement that he is the new leader is based on an assumption. I see nothing in the prose that was added that indicates that anyone actually called him the leader by name. As such, it violated Wikipedia:No original research. You're not going to find anyone here willing to violate three key Wikipedia policies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't help but disagree Gary. I think it is WP:COMMONSENSE that Punk was the leader of Nexus after last night's end. said he was "seemingly seizing control" of the group. And the announcers said it as well. Anyone who doesn't believe it is lacking WP:COMPETENCE. Feedback 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC) should cover it and if not then by this time next week all should be cleared up...--UnquestionableTruth-- 21:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
[2] also states that Punk is the new leader. Finding a source is the easiest way to solve a problem of this kind. Nikki311 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
All Hail Nikki :)--Truco 503 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what? How the hell does a sentence in a Slam Canoe! article "fix this up"? If we're not going to go ahead and call this a WP:COMMONSENSE issue and we need reliable sources, this definitely wasn't it. On TV, they never explicitly said CM Punk was the leader and is questioning "Is Punk the leader?" so how the hell does a comment by "Dale Plummer" from Slam Canoe end up being the deciding factor? Feedback 06:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Because it is a reliable secondary source that analyzed what happened, which is what Wikipedia articles should be based upon. I'm confused by your argument, though. First you say that it is commensense that Punk is the new leader, but now what happened isn't enough for Dale Plummer to come to that same conclusion? Nikki311 07:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You know exactly what I meant. Dale Plummer's opinion is obviously not an expert one. And he was obviously assuming from what he saw just like all of us. Technically, that means the source is very challengeable. Not only is it challengeable, but obviously not neutral, since its based on one man's opinion alone. And if we're going to cite a man's opinion, we are obligated to use his name per WP:CHALLENGE. And a citation at the end of the article saying "By the way, Dale Plummer from Slam Canoe thinks CM Punk is the leader of Nexus" seems really out of line and unproductive in the article. The best compromise would be to use the first-party source that says Punk MIGHT be the Nexus leader. It says [paraphrase] "Punk seemingly took over the Nexus". Feedback 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the source Nikki provided was sufficient... and damnit all hail BulletProof...--UnquestionableTruth-- 07:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

New image on WWE Tag Team Championship is a copyright vio

The new image in the WWE Tag Team Championship page is a copy right vio and I cant for the life of me find the image on where i know the image is from can some one take a look at this.--SteamIron 07:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked the user about it on Commons, we'll wait for his response, or until you find it elsewhere. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Disreguard, I found it here: [3] I'll prod it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ive been trying to find it all night.--SteamIron 07:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Awesome Kong in WWE?

Hi. I read that Awesome Kong has signed with WWE. But the PWTorch's souce is an interpretation of the original souce. Kong only says "My dreams just came true today. I got my dream job. Yes, THAT one", never talked WWE. Perfeclty, Kong can sign with AAA, ROH or other job outside wrestling.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Kong never says that she has signed with WWE, that is the imagination of PWTorch reporters.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with the CM Punk ending of Raw. What we saw can be used to interpret something else, but unless we think its an OBVIOUS ASSUMPTION, then we can't just declare it fact. Feedback 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
We never declare anything as fact. We report what we see. If we have reliable sources that claim she's signed, then it can go in, as can any rebuttal. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but apparently WP:PW's new motto is that whenever anyone who has a computer and somewhere to publish writes down their opinions, we can state them as fact. See the thread above about Punk and Nexus. Feedback 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this look like a screen cap?

Since we were on the subject of possible copyvios... Well does it? --UnquestionableTruth-- 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a waiver that you sign before buying the ticket that says that any picture and video you take at any of their events is property of the WWE. So technically, any picture we have are all in violation of copyrights. So yeah, WWE will sue Wikipedia for all its worth and we'll be shut down. Feedback 09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just checked SummerSlam 2009, indeed it is a screencap of the opening pyro. I'll tag it right now. -- Θakster  10:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

lol, Wana bring that up at the copyright noticeboard Feedback? Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Oakster forgot to tag, i'll do it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was a bit held up from outside this computer. -- Θakster  11:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Haha yeah, lets totally do that so we can end up with imageless articles. Imaginary lawsuits are far more important than article content, right?! Feedback 12:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaval (wrestler) to Low Ki

After been released, Mr. SIlvestry can't use the name of Kaval, because it is owned by WWE. Kaval used the name of Kaval only 6 months in national TV, so i think that is better to change the name article to Low Ko or Brandon Silvestry.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Start a move discussion at the article's talk page. Inform us here...don't start it here. Nikki311 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Feedback closed the move request, per WP:SNOW, which is an essay. Seriously, this has to stop. This is totally uncalled for and flies in the face of Wikipedia:Consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

How we name Royal Rumble articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed thread per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:COMPETENCE. Feedback 18:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if someone has brought this up before but shouldn't the titles of Royal Rumble articles instead of saying Royal Rumble (2011) shouldn't it say 2011 Royal Rumble?--Voices in my Head

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WrestleMania XXVII 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I know everyone is watching NFL games right now so when did a discussion on this happen?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Feedback nailed it with WP:COMMONSENSE. Afro (Talk) 22:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No the discussion is NOT over, we didn't even have a DAMN comment on this. Just Feedback saying closed by WP blah blah blah.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Where on this official, year specific poster does it say 2011 Royal Rumble(?) Tony2Times (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Better yet on these 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 where does it say "(Year) Royal Rumble" Afro (Talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Feedback saying closed by WP blah blah blah"... His attitude has gone far beyond ridiculous. That statement, among many he has written throughout his tenure here on WP:PW proves he doesn't give a crap about policies, guidelines, essays, wikietiquette or any wikilink for that matter. He never decides to research what other people are telling him and spins up pointless discussions like this one that just waste everyone else's time. Although this might all be done with good intentions, it is imperative that he understands that good faith can only take him so far and that COMPETENCE is required to be a user on Wikipedia. Although this immaturity is probably a side-effect of his young age, it sill shouldn't be acceptable. Feedback 05:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I know Feedback's a dick aint he? :P --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have a like button yet(?) Tony2Times (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah, we should discuss that too, Feedback is a major prick! Feedback 10:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well now that we've discussed this proposal I think we can put it to one side, who's up for strip poker? Afro (Talk) 17:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "His attitude has gone far beyond ridiculous. That statement, among many he has written throughout his tenure here on WP:PW proves he doesn't give a crap about policies, guidelines, essays, wikietiquette or any wikilink for that matter. He never decides to research what other people are telling him and spins up pointless discussions like this one that just waste everyone else's time. Although this might all be done with good intentions, it is imperative that he understands that good faith can only take him so far and that COMPETENCE is required to be a user on Wikipedia. Although this immaturity is probably a side-effect of his young age, it sill shouldn't be acceptable."...Now you are taking my words out of context when I said WP blah blah blah I meant it as in what ever policy Feedback was saying earlier but you've taking my sentence and spun it around into something else.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? When you ask a question on Wikipedia, people WILL cite policies 98% of the time. That's how it's done. And after they give you the page, you READ IT. It's not that hard. But seeing as I "spun your words", I guess you did read them. Did you read them, understand them and then notice why I post them? Or are they still "blah blah blah" to you? It's obvious you didn't because if you did, you wouldn't have continued this conversation. Be COMPETENT. Here's an excerpt from WP:CIR (you know, that page I linked above, that you obviously didn't read):
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. Don't spend much time trying to figure this out, because many of our trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence – disruption is disruption, and needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent.
Read it again and again until you understand what its trying to say. Feedback 19:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This will be my last post on this topic. This train has derailed and is unable to get back on the tracks or as Feedback would put it Ain't a snowball's chance in HELL of getting this back on track.

See now you two are just trying to bite each others heads off, the discussion was already snowballed long before this when the posters were first brought up, lets just finish the discussion as a no. Afro (Talk) 20:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Feedback is direct. I don't think that is a secret. However, as you see above, there were legitimate posts that supported the current naming convention is accurate. Yes, the conversation was sidetracked, but you were as much off-topic as anyone else. Let the discussion drop, definitely, but your issue was addressed by three other editors so do not imply that the matter is unresolved and has merely drifted off-topic. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
He has no idea what "side-tracked" even means. He just rambles different words and cited an essay to try and establish an illusion that he is competent. The problem is that he was incoherent while doing so. Feedback 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WrestleView sources aren't working

I was at List of WWE Champions and the whole page is sourced by WrestleView's results. All the links are dead. I assume the same goes for all the WrestleView links in articles. I also assume that this now means that we have tons of Featured Lists with no third-party sources. Feedback 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe in the case of the 2009 articles, replacing the likes of with should do the trick. Just as long as it's the same number. I'll fix the champs list. -- Θakster  17:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Guess I got a little carried away there. I guess its an easy fix. The broken external links tool will help us find the rest. Feedback 17:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ricardo Rodriguez (wrestler)

It was created in October. It's an orphan. I don't know if we should prod it or expand it. Personally, I think it should be redirected to Dos Caras, Jr. What do you guys think? Feedback 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably redirect. I doubt you'd be able to find sufficient information to expand it for at least a good few months if he becomes more involved in angles. Tony2Times (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
One small thing. Caras's article currently does not mention the personal ring announcer character at all so that should be added before we redirect otherwise it would not make any sense. I also don't see any reason why a brief sentence regarding Ricardo Rodiguez would be problematic or controversial in any way so I think it would be safe to add.-- (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Started Newsletter

Got tired of waiting for someone to make another newsletter so I got to work on the January 16th edition but since I know nothing about TNA or Ring of Honor It's mostly about what's happened in the WWE lately. So just throwing it out there that a newsletter is coming while it needs some work it's a start.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, this is the type of thing you don't do until you get a WP:CONSENSUS. A newsletter will spam every member's talk page, it's a big deal. Establish a consensus and then get people to work on it. Feedback 22:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a consensus to have a newsletter, as a newsletter has been part of the project for years. People even said in a recent discussion that editors are welcome to work on a newsletter. I don't understand how this could be seen as a problem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as that the last newsletter was almost 3 months ago, I was sure that the newsletter was inactive. The reason its inactive is because I don't think there's really any demand for a newsletter anyway. After the first issues that The Chronic would work on, people just stopped contributing to them and reading them altogether. If I read 10, I'd be surprised. Did you read every issue? Feedback 23:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason it went inactive was because no one had the time to do it. If I had anytime I would work on it.--SteamIron 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"A newsletter will spam every member's talk page" - If this is an issue Feedback, I'd request someone sending a message out to everyone signed up for the newsletter requesting to remove themselves if they don't want to receive the Newsletter, the newsletter is optional after all and if someone wants to make it active all the more power to them. Afro (Talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
No one signs up for the newsletter. The newsletter is automatically sent to everyone. If you don't want it, you have to add yourself to the no spam page. And other than Nascarking, not one person has complained about the absence of the newsletter. Feedback 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 81#Newsletter Delayed?. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I see the relevancy of that topic, but no one complained. Someone just asked what happened to it. And someone else said they would work on it to get the next issue out... and then they didn't. If anything, that conversation shows how disinterested people are in the newsletter. Feedback 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Feedback you are without a shadow of a doubt the biggest critic I've ever seen. Can I ever do something without you ever critisizing my ever DAMN move. Lately that's all you've been doing. Somehow I'm starting to think you might have a problem with me how was I ever supposed to know We couldn't make a newsletter even though we already have a newsletter? Before you critisize me like you've been doing check you facts they did say the newspaper is optional and anyone ANYONE can edit it. What your doing Feedback is more of biting an editor because this is might be something personal.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As one of the original contributors to the newsletter, I feel that with a project that has lost much of its activity with membership and contributions, a newsletter isn't needed. The most that people get from it is the "In the news" section. --Truco 503 03:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I, also as one of the initial contributors to the newsletter (I started as early as the 2nd issue), agree with Truco. There is not much to report in a weekly newsletter and the trivial news reports like "John Cena is injured" and "Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank" are frankly unnecessary.
And Nascar, the newsletter is of course editable by anyone only if there actually is a newsletter to contribute to. What Truco and I both think is that the newsletter is unneeded and therefore shouldn't be edited by anyone. Of course, it does little harm to the project as all it does is waste time and effort of a few people from actually contributing to the encyclopedia. Why don't you try doing stuff that actually makes articles better? Instead of pointless move discussions and unnecessary newsletters? Feedback 15:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Then maybe we should talk about the Elimination Chamber article (not the PPV article) it's currently a Good Article nominee and I've been doing a lot of work on it and according to the reviewer he says It's much better but the lead is still a problem and why did bulletproof delete the whole lead I worked weeks on building. Now it's just one sentence again. Other than that and two references on the article the reviewer says the article is better.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Open a section at Talk:Elimination Chamber, I'd be glad to chime in. Still though, I'm not Bulletproof's mother nor his keeper. You should try asking him about it. Feedback 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that information can be found on the main WP:PW page, if people are needed to see that information. If a newsletter is absolutely needed, it needs to be condensed to reflect the smaller the project has become.--Truco 503 01:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I understand why some people might' like the idea of it, but why would a newsletter ever be needed? Feedback 01:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Another easy solution would be that the people who don't think the newsletter is necessary could add their names to the list of editors who do not want to receive the newsletter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I find that the newsletter is necessary as it not only list the news but it also informs the ones that get it to what is going on in the project.--SteamIron 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The people who actually read the newsletter are the ones who know what's going on in the project. Scratch that, they don't read the newsletter because they already know. Did you regularly read it, Steam? Or how about you, Gary? Truco? Afro? Anyone? Feedback 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes read everyone I get its great insight the whats going on did you ever read it your self froms the looks of it you never even knew about it.--SteamIron 02:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely looked it over. I added my name to the "do not deliver" list because I tended to read through it when I was making a few additions here and there. Like I said before, adding your name to the list is by far the easiest solution to receiving the newsletter if you don't want it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a personal issue, its a project-wide one. Its not that I don't like the newsletter, its that the project doesn't need one. Feedback 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Then project members are free to unsubscribe. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point. There shouldn't be a newsletter to unsubscribe from. Feedback 02:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a question why should we end the newsletter as the only reason you have giving is that the projects smaller.--SteamIron 02:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, thats the reason Truco gave. But how many members are actively editing professional wrestling articles on behalf of the project? Already 191 people have WT:PW on their watchlist so do they really need a newsletter to know what's going on? In fact, not much goes on in a weekly or bi-weekly basis to merit a newsletter. Following WT:PW and WP:PW is a fine way of seeing what the project is up to. And there is absolutely no need of reporting WWE news in the newsletter. Feedback 03:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This discussion isn't worth my time. The facts remain: (1) There is no actual problem with having a newsletter, (2) People can unsubscribe easily, (3) Some people appreciate the newsletter, (4) This discussion has more to do with Nascarking than it does with a newsletter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a list you can add your name too if you don't want to get the newsletter this one here just pointing that out.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 12:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

PrettyBoy FloydStarr

Resolved: Article deleted as copyvio.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could someone here take a look at PrettyBoy FloydStarr please? I've come across it whilst categorising new articles, and I find it a tad odd not least because the article doesn't seem to be about the person it is named for. Ta muchly ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the article was created by User:Preacher floyd2003 there is most likely a conflict of interest. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I tagged it for a PROD. I'm not familiar enough with the AFD process to add it. (Seriously. I tried. Failed misreably.) Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've put a speedy tag on it as a copyvio of this site, it is a word-for-word copy of it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the AFD process so I erred on the side of caution. Thanks. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys. However the wikia source is linked as the source and is cc by sa. I was really wondering whether this guy is a real notable wrestler? ϢereSpielChequers 02:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
No clue on that question WSC, but apparently an admin agreed with my tagging as they deleted the article.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Just click the link and read the top that says THE EWRESTLING ENCYCLOPEDIA and that shows you that the guy is an ewrestler (in other words, a non-existant wrestler created by someone with much too much time who lives in their mother's basement.................. now that I think about it, probably a Wikipedian). Feedback 11:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

A few potentially useful images

@ flickr ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know.--SteamIron 10:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all a work!

Sorry, I'm relatively new at this, but have one pressing question....

All PPV articles have a paragraph stating that it's scripted, predetermined outcomes etc. Is this really necessary? Doesn't everyone already know this? And aren't the only people who would be looking at wrestling PPV articles be wrestling fans already? Turnstitle (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

They do in fact have that paragraph. It's accurate, it's true, and it helps to give perspective when comparing a pro-wrestling event to a legitimate sporting event, such as Boxing or MMA. It is a significant fact as the event is portrayed as a contest when it is in fact pre-determined. And we can't assume that only pro-wrestling fans read the articles. Also, welcome. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's easier to put that caveat at the beginning rather than having to constantly remind the reader, who may not be a wrestling fan and has stumbled upon it through a pipe link, celebrity involvement or some other reason, throughout the article by saying that everything is kayfabe and a work. After a while you'll just stop noticing it's there. Tony2Times (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Turnstitle (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Turnstitle has been indefinitely blocked as yet another sockpuppet of ECW500/Seeker of the Torch. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I new it was a sleeper account...--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PWI Awards

Wow, no edits for a week *watches tumbleweed*. At the risk of someone accusing me of having more pressing edits to make, I wondered why PWI Awards have an individual page per award whereas WON awards have one collective page. I think I'm certainly more in favour of the latter. Also, should it be styled "PWI Feud of the Year" or "Feud of the Year" in the C&A sections? Once again, I'm in favour of the latter. Tony2Times (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favor of neither... Magazine-given "awards" aren't notable... --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose deleting them until Triple Crown Championship is deleted. If the latter qualifies for an article, then these certainly do to. But yeah, one article for all of them would be much better. Feedback 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The information should stay, but one article seems sufficient. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd support a merger, too. Nikki311 02:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2011

Edge vs Dolph Ziggler has not been confirmed by WWE that it will happen at the Royal Rumble (2011) while likely, it still has not been confirmed. Yet everyone else doesn't get the message. It's getting ridiculous, Someone adds Edge vs Doplh without a source so we remove it and less than 5 minutes later it's up there again. I'd remove it but I've already done 2 Reverts on that page.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So, if it's just a bunch of IPs request semi-protection. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I did but the admins are a little slow today.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It's now been protected. Just curious, did you request that type of protection so that any unsourced edit as above would potentially be rejected?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
What was the point for a Pending Changes protection? Semi-protection would have been fine. Feedback 06:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In note regarding the first comment since you don't read ploicies or guidelines, but if its obvious vandalism like you are suggesting WP:3RR does not apply. Afro (Talk) 18:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
How is that "obvious vandalism"? Its obviously good faith edits. They're adding true information, the IPs just don't know about WP:RS. What Nascar was wrong about is that 3RR is a maximum of three reverts so he could have reverted it one more time. Feedback 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay 2 things: 1, I've was once banned for 24 hours for doing 3 reverts, and 2, yeah IP's don't know how to cite but it can still get annoying.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ah, I was under the presumption that it was obvious vadalism since I don't look at Spoilers, my mistake, and its not really about IPs knowing how to cite, IPs I understand add links to Wikipedia all the time. Afro (Talk) 20:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Afro, I wasn't referring to IPs in general, I was referring to these IPs in particular. And Nascar, I'm sure you're mistaken. You must have done 4 reverts. The maximum you're allowed to do is 3. But you'd know that if you read WP:3RR. Feedback 10:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't noticed yet the page that lists the entrants for this years Royal Rumble on is not there anymore. Just throwing it out there it's a dead link.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Found the new link and ive updated it.--SteamIron 02:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WWE Over The Limit

Can we go ahead an move WWE Over the Limit to Over the Limit (2010) so we can use the title for the ppv's section.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 05:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I'd wait until WrestleMania is over and done with until we decide to move it, any number of things could change in 5 months. Afro (Talk) 05:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Unlikely that it would be dropped from the lineup 5 months to it since tickets have already on sale.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 05:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Im with Afro hold off on it for now.--SteamIron 05:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. After all, Invasion popped up replacing a regular PPV for only one year, and rather suddenly. I forget which. I want to say Vengeance. Revisiting the issue three-months from the event might be more prudent. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Fully Loaded; they even advertised it as such after King of the Ring although with the low rent graphic you could tell something was up. I'd wait till after Mania but I don't wanna kick up a fuss. Tony2Times (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Let's not forget that "Wild Card" (the original rename for Over the Limit) didn't pop up until the middle of February. -- Θakster  19:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame

Do you think it should be featured that WWE All Stars is the official "promoter" of the 2011's WWE Hall of Fame? --Ponce (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean "official sponsor," in which case it would be self-sponsorship... though either way IMO its not notable. --UnquestionableTruth-- 22:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. WWE sponsoring their own event is expected. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Not unless they pony up and sponsor the Wiki article too. Tony2Times (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
WWE Presents "Conflict of Interest"! Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


Why is the Smackdown Nexus group under The Corre when surely it should be at The Core? Crisis.EXE 17:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Reports from those in attendance state the name of the group is "the Corre" as depicted on the group's entrance video. Take that for what it's worth. Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I nominated it for speedy deletion. Their existence hasn't even been acknowledged on TV yet alone established some notability. Feedback 18:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably for the best. No reason it can't be added to the Nexus article when there's something to be said. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, I'd put information on the Nexus article, redirect there too, until they do enough that the page gets unmanageable. Tony2Times (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, someone went ahead and contested probably the most obvious speedy deletion I have ever tagged. Can someone else handle this because I do not deal well with tolerating stupidity. Feedback 18:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I've sought AFD instead. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Corre (professional wrestling) Feedback 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Would a redirect not be less hassle for you, Feedback? Tony2Times (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article isn't notable AT ALL. Therefore, I don't think the article, along with its page history should be deleted. You can create a redirect post-deletion. Feedback 10:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Did any of you guys even watch RAW last night? The Corre is definitely in no way affiliated with Nexus just because 3 of its members are ex members of Nexus. If your gonna use that argument then you could also reason Legacy is just a copy of Evolution. Or that Evolution is nothing more than a Bishoff Era Dx just because Triple H was apart of it or that DX was, well it was a total spinoff of the Kliq.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly all this talk was before last night's Raw, check the timestamps. Secondly none of those groups began a day after all but one guy was chucked out another group. Tony2Times (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly like I said in the AfD they are just the Aftermath of the faction. Afro (Talk) 09:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
A strange amount of IPs are voting in the AFD. Doesn't that seem like sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry? Feedback 12:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
It might be cause for concern and a look into if you suspect something. Afro (Talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Problem on List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel

Vjmlhds believes that Jerry Lawler should be in the Male wrestlers section on the Raw section, but Hixteilchen believes Lawler should stay in the Other on-air employees section. I know Lawler's been more active in the ring in recent weeks, but does that merit a move to the Male wrestlers section? I don't want to start an edit war between Vjmlhds and Hixteilchen over this matter.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The three of you are known to like to fight over stupid things. Its not an insult on any of you, I call that DEDICATION, but you guys have to understand that your DEDICATION sometimes gets in the way with the natural actual PROGRESS or IMPROVEMENT of the encyclopedia. I moved him to the On-Air once, but someone moved it back. Guess what I did? Nothing. It doesn't matter. It isn't something to stress about.

However, something that is important is that their are notes like "injured", "inactive", "also an agent" and things like that which are ALL non-sourced. Sure, they have false references right after them that link to the WWE Bios, but those bio pages make no mention of injuries or backstage duties. Someone needs to clean-up this page of non-sourced information. I have done it before, but I was immediately reverted by "dedicated" people. We need to get a consensus to clean-up that page. Feedback 19:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we compromise and put him in both sections? Tony2Times (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards

Just to let you know that I got the Wrestling Observer awards issue and used the following to source the 2010 awards:

<ref>{{cite journal|last=Meltzer|first=Dave|authorlink=Dave Meltzer|date=January 26, 2011|title=Biggest issue of the year: The 2011 Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards Issue|periodical=[[Dave Meltzer#Wrestling Observer Newsletter|Wrestling Observer Newsletter]]|publication-place=Campbell, CA|page=1–40|issn=10839593}}</ref>

The same issue also lists ALL previous winners of both current and defunct awards back to 1980, so it COULD be used to source years and years worth of awards IF someone had the patience and time to go through all the articles. Frankly, I don't, but thought some of you might be interested.TheFBH (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

How is "Stand Up for WWE" a disgusting promotional tactic? Or a better question might be, how is John Cena the most charismatic wrestler?! Feedback 02:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Because it portrayed itself as an innocent victim of media bias and then offered celebrity's 'endorsing' WWE (all saying the exact same thing, some verbatim) as a reply to allegations that were never made. It never once replied to the real issues which were over WWE classing their employees as contractors still even though they're exclusive talent or the burnout you can see in some wrestlers (most notably Matt Hardy). Not only did it not reply and pretend it was being victimised, it called upon fans to send messages to all media outlets, basically asking us to be sheep and say that because WWE is PG friendly, it doesn't matter that even after a steroid trial 18 years ago, the company never had a rigid wellness policy until Eddy's death and even then was private and so lax Soma pills among others were still allowed. I'm assuming a lot of people read it as a veiled pro-Linda campaign too, given it's timing, so you could argue it's pretty tasteless, and wasn't there talk of it being illegal, for WWE to essentially campaign on Linda's behalf; not to mention the 'Fan Appreciation Day'. Cena as charismatic, well he elicits a big pop all the time even if it's not from you and most of the people who don't cheer him boo him, which means he connects with the crowd even if it's not in the way intended. I get sick of Cena but he does sell the most merchandise and when he was off TV for a week or two the ratings plummeted. You could argue that's because he's the most pushed, but them's the breaks; awards don't come with caveats, you can only award what you see. Personally I'm shocked Daniel won Outstanding Wrestler of the Year considering he spent the first three months not wrestling, the second quarter on NXT and the last few months barely wrestling since HiaC. He's a great talent but this year it shoulda gone to Davey Richards IMO, but then everyone has a different opinion. Tony2Times (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought the WON Awards were going to be hand-in-hand with in my own. Davey Richards deserved best wrestling, Black/Richards deserved best match and many other awards were terribly given, especially "Best wrestler". This wasn't Cena's best year at all, the award should have gone to someone like The Miz, Tyler Black or Randy Orton who actually had great years. Kane winning Most Overrated is also a stretch when guys like Jeff Hardy, Kevin Nash and David Otunga are pushed as top guys. As for the Most Charismatic thing, I strongly believe The Miz, The Pope or Mr. Anderson deserve it much more than Cena.
Anyway, I think they got it wrong this year, but oh well, hopefully the PWI Awards are better. By the way, didn't we get a consensus to move all the PWI Awards to one page? Why hasn't that been done? Feedback 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I think it's a consensus. I'll try and get round to it tomorrow or Friday, it's just a cut&paste job really. Their results came out over the past few weeks, check their blog for the awards. Some are better, some are worse but PWI is always a little odd because it's awards in kayfabe (as their PWI Female 50 remarkably demonstrates). I don't agree with Kane either; before Undertaker had to take time off and thus Kane had to take Paul Bearer as a manager, he was doing the best promo work of his career and was suitable in the ring. I'd still put Cena as most charismatic but I do agree it wasn't his year for the Lou Thesz award, but then I wouldn't agree Randy Orton as being babyface has left him directionless, 2009 for me was Orton's year. This is a conversation better saved for the pub really. Tony2Times (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


A former WWE creative writer has opened up his own blog where he reviews shows and talks about original plans for storylines. Is this notable? I think so... but I don't know how to prove its legitimacy. John Canton, the webmaster of Mickie James' personal website, has mentioned to me that Mickie James confirmed the guy's legitimacy. What do you guys think? Feedback 03:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if wrestlers confirm its legitimacy we only have a forename which could be a pen name for all we know so we have no way to prove whether he was actually on the creative team or not even if there was someone named John on the creative at a time. Afro (Talk) 12:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
John Piermarini is the guy's name. He is posting some of his reviews on TheJohnReport (John Canton's personal website). Before that happened, Canton conversed with both him and Mickie. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that unless James and Canton are both in on the ruse, Piermarini is legit. But how do we find a way to confirm this? Feedback 15:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Unless WrestleView, The Torch or the Observer cover this without fan interference I don't think we can at the moment. Afro (Talk) 22:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Just those three? How arbitrary. Mshake3 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
By my comment I meant a Reliable source, since those are deemed reliable sources I thought it would be easier and a change of saying the line posted hundreds of times. Afro (Talk) 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PWTorch has gotten wind of Piermarini. They even interviewed him. I just first want to point out that their reporting really sucks if they went a whole week without reporting an EX CREATIVE TEAM MEMBER GIVING FREE INSIDE SCOOP on the internet. Anyway, apparently his interview with the Torch reveals a lot of information for our articles. The problem is that because you have to PAY to hear the interview, it is in violation of WP:RS. Suggestions? Feedback 12:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a case of their reporting sucks because they're not reporting on him having that blog, they're simply noting that in the interview from a few weeks ago, among the things talked about was why he set up that blog. It's not a news report it's a Though you have to be VIP to hear the interview and him talking about why he did it, surely that free link shows that regardless of his reasons why, he is the author of that blog/that the author is a former WWE creative member? Tony2Times (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok then now we're past part 1, how are we going to use the information he's provided in the blog? Afro (Talk) 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, now that he's been deemed a reliable source, we could add all his tidbits to the articles. He said Drew McIntyre was booked to win Money in the Bank, but they chose Kane at the last moment. Same with Orton and Miz. He also said an Edge/Christian main event feud has been pitched to death and rejected every time. He also said Pope pitched his current character to WWE and was rejected. All these things seem like notable information for their respective articles. Feedback 21:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it will add an extra encylopedic dimention, rather than us just reciting what happened. The only thing is hoping that we don't run away with it, like Pope's character being his own idea is notable but is the fact that at any givn time an E&C feud was pitched but not wanted? I wouldn't say so. Tony2Times (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be careful with what is used for notability purposes. The information about Drew and Pope can add some depth to the articles. :::Proposed fueds that never saw television just seem trivial. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Depends on the article. Doesn't it seem notable for the "Edge and Christian" article or do you still feel the same way? Feedback 21:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
To me, not that notable. Fortunately we go by consensus, not what I think. :) It just feels like, if I was told that, my first reaction would be "...and?". Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
You're probably right. There should be other notable tidbits on the blog. The thing is, he took them all down... Most dirtsheets copied all the info though so I'll search around for some interesting stuff and post them all here to get consensus on what to use. Feedback 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I would find it notable to include the E&C feud that never happened if there was like a specific reason they couldn't do it (something happened: an injury, bad press outside the company for one of them &c) or if like some mystery angle was gonna end with that but they swerved it (Christian was gonna be the Anon GM when Edge was attacking the laptop). But as it is, it's just some writers wanted to do it, Vince/Brian didn't just because. Hope that clarifies why. Supposedly his blog will be back online soon, but I wonder if maybe WWE legal stepped in. Tony2Times (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Far be it from me to correct anyone here, but an Edge Vs Christian feud DID happen (so you can't say never) it happened when the team broke up. To list that since Christian returned no one wanted to do an Edge Vs Christian feud is just trivia though.  MPJ -US  23:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Sarona Reiher for deletion

The article Sarona Reiher is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarona Reiher (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bsherr (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No votes or replies to my comments. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know the reliability of this site? I didn't see it in the list of sources (reliable or otherwise) in the MOS. Reason I ask is that an editor has quoted this site in relation to Booker T returning to the WWE, and I wanted to confirm the reliability of this source first before advising as to whether it can be used or not.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that strikes me as it being reliable. I don't see how they check facts or anything. Seems near dirtsheet to me.--WillC 06:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in the FAQ to suggest it should be used as a RS. Afro (Talk) 08:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Question though. Even if they did say they had a rigorous fact-checking system and they detail the whole process, how do we confirm they actually use it? Feedback 01:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Good faith I guess.--WillC 04:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... then what's the difference of just assuming good faith for this site? That's what bugs me about Wikipedia's "reliable source" classifications. Feedback 23:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe ask TPTB? There's people who oversee like all of Wikipedia right, they must have some kind of way of differentiating between good faith and reliable sources? Tony2Times (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MONDO LUCHA!

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article MONDO LUCHA! has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability per WP:CORP

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter Delivery

Would anybody know why the newsletter from the 16th didn't deliver? I didn't even receive it. And will that happen to tomorrows edition?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If we're actually going to continue with the newsletter, I propose deleting the "Wrestling news" section as that has nothing to do with the project. Also, on a more esthetic note, we should move the "Navigation" to the top. Feedback 02:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Your proposal has absolutely nothing to do with the question. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to this discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I am adding in my own proposal. Your observation is equally as relevant as mine. Anyway, I've said numerous times that the newsletter has no point. But if we're going to do it, then we should do it right. Good thing that the Jan 16th issue wasn't delivered, it shouldn't in its current state. Feedback 03:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Was a bot even assigned to deliver it? Afro (Talk) 14:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If we do this lets scratch the Jan 30 edition and move to the next one in the line. As for the Wrestling news if we remove it it needs to be replaced with something else what would be that something else be.--SteamIron 16:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright this train hasn't crashed yet it can still be saved and put back on track. We'll discuss Feedback's proposal later, but can we please figure out why the newsletter hasn't delivered.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 16:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cause it was never giving to the person who runs the bot that has it delivered it to us.--SteamIron 16:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
And who would that be?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I dont know but we could most likely get MessageDeliveryBot to do it.--SteamIron 16:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
If we were going to replace the news section, maybe some type of articles of interest section about what needs to be monitored or updated etc, articles outside of Featured content. Afro (Talk) 21:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Afkatk, that's not I REPEAT NOT what this discussion is about. This is about why the newsletter isn't delivering even though their published. Start another section and discuss this but not here.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Knock it off Nascarking your not makeing friends by acting the way you are. As for Afkatk that sounds like an idea.--SteamIron 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
You want to restart the newsletter forgive me if I am actually trying to contribute ideas of improving the relevance as to why its useful to the project, I can now see it was wrong of me to try to back the idea of keeping it around. On a more serious note examples of where the article alerts could be useful would be around the Anni of the Benoit murders. Afro (Talk) 22:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your idea is a good one don't let the Him stop it. To add to it I think we should also list maybe an Article of the month open for improvement in the month of when ever the newsletter comes out. This would be done to get the article to GA or FA what do you thinks--SteamIron 22:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I was joking before in case you didn't get it. Anyway this is what I was thinking as a basic idea which can be expanded upon, I've underlined my comments to hopefully give a better idea on certain sections, My sandbox. Afro (Talk) 12:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I Like it it looks good--SteamIron 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Needs a little work, but I like it. Remove the "professional wrestling news" part though. That section makes us seem like a dirtsheet or a forum. Feedback 19:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Before we implement any changes I think we need to discuss what articles to include, I think PPV and TV is common sense and articles relating to recent events, I've added a Current and recently dethroned champions section to the Sandbox example to replace the News section to see how it looks. Feel free to implement any ideas in the sandbox which come to your minds. Afro (Talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see maybe something like an Article needing improvement which for the month of whenever that issues comes out could be a project for the whole PW project to work on getting it to GA or FA Status. I think some thing like that could be great for reducing the number of stubs and low class articles this project has. What do you guys think.--SteamIron 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I would think we'd need some type of discussion for articles which we're aiming for Featured or Good status, so maybe we'd need to work out like a timeframe. Afro (Talk) 11:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Yea but thats someting to be ironed out with further desscusens. Any other ideas.--SteamIron 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Would anybody be opposed to making separate newsletters sections one devoted to WWE, the other to TNA or would that not work?--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for that. Some are having dificulty justifying the purpose of a newsletter at all. I don't think splitting the project newsletter into two separate pieces would be beneficial. There's not that much information to report in the newsletter, there's no reason why it shouldn't be consolidated. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber Article

If any of you haven't noticed yet. Elimination Chamber is in the middle of a GAR. Just throwing it out there.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 23:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, why did you remove the notice for the GAR when it was requested? Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Twice. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to assist in anything which needs sourcing btw, I'm not a prose guy so. Afro (Talk) 23:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If you all got some ideas on what to do to the article go ahead. I'm feeling like the longer I keep tackling this on my own. I'll be in the hospital. This week has been hell on my body and this GAR isn't doing me any favors.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call removing a notice on a talk page tackling it, you've been hindering the process if anything. Afro (Talk) 01:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I did most of the work on the article to get it to GA status. It's been mostly a combination of dealing with the constant revising of the Rumble articles the past few days and things outside of wikipedia.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 02:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
But why, when the GA status was debated and someone asked for a review, did you remove the notice? "I worked hard on it" isn't an excuse for that. Hazardous Matt (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've agreed to work on it, in hopes that it'll calm down this "its not fair" chatter. Afro (Talk) 03:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Is reliable?

Question, is reliable?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is.
Umm, please wait for other members of the WikiProject for their responses. I'm trying to help you.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You do not need to help. It is not necessary. Everything is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
But you do need help. I'm trying to prove if your source is reliable enough to post.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And I already answered it. Yes, it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
No it's not. I also need to check if and for reliablity.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Of course it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

^Very funny conversation. Feedback 04:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Im staying out of he got himself in to it let him deal with it.--SteamIron 04:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll stay out as well. But isn't the "You do not need to help. It is not necessary. Everything is ok. " line hilarious or what? Feedback 06:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Normal questions are asked: How do they check their facts? Are they backed by any known reliable source? etc--WillC 05:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
...and hey, even if it isn't (noting that "newz" is synonymous with "unreliable dirtsheet"), the IP has conclusively instructed, "Do not go by the "reliable sources" thing every time." Case closed, I guess. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

After takeing a good look and to bring this nonsense to an end

  • looks to be nothing but an unreliable dirtsheet, out of all the articles on the site that Ive looked at most source other sites or fans that were at the shows.
  • This one to me looks to just be a gossip site, some of the stuff comes from good sources but at most its just gossip.
  • has Sources from other sites that have been proven in the past to be reliable but this looks to just be a Blog site as most of the post come from the same guy.

--SteamIron 03:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)