Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 83

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

Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84


The Attitude Era is being consistently vandalised by, who will intermittently change the IP and mark edits as "minor" to drive his agenda. This involves making WM14 the definitive starting point of the era, and March 2001 the definitive end. There are multiple WWE sources giving various dates as the starting point (this user will remove all except the WM14 cite), and there is no official end. Since he is so relentless in his agenda, I suggest protection. (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free use NWO images

I don't want to get into an edit war with User:Jack11111, but I am concerned about two images this user has uploaded: File:Nwo 4 life.jpg and File:Wcw doom.jpg. The rationale for the first image is "to show this group origin", and the rationale for the second one is "to show this scandal". This seems flimsy to me, but I thought I would get opinions from other people before pursuing this. Personally, I don't think a photo of Hogan, Nash, and Hall is necessary when separate images of them are available, and I think people can get a good sense of the "fingerpoke" without a picture of Hogan poking Nash. I'm certainly willing to hear any opinions, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that Fingerpoke of Doom edit war is done and over with. Now the image is subject to individual perception on A) the importance of the image to integrity of the article, and B) whether the image can be replaced with a free use alternative. I'm pretty much undecided on the matter. I mean the image might be replaceable with a free alternative though I doubt a one is easily available with all three (Nash, Hall, and Hogan). These images however are low-res images, which might deem them acceptable for use provided the proper rationale is noted.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If File:Wcw doom.jpg is to be kept, perhaps it should be reduced in size.--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PPV Policy

It seems we need to re define are un written policy of creating PPV pages two months in advance of the PPV as it seems that not gonna fly anymore any thoughts?--SteamIron 06:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The policy that governs this is WP:N. The amount of time isn't relevant. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is required--if that exists four months in advance, the article can be created; if that doesn't exist four months after the event, the article can't be created. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no page for Slammiversary? The PPV is live right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
*Blinks* Are there any real questions? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the IP. Can someone recreate the Slammiversary article? It just happened. Feedback 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone (I think it was Bulletproof) brought this up in the WWE Capitol Punishment AFD discussion. Something I'm not too familiar with that unless the articles name starts with Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, or Survivor Series that we don't need a stand alone article for them. Again this is something I'm not too familiar with.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nascarking... it really is just a matter of going back to that AFD page and actually reading the comment in question....--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If anyone is still confused, please read the following again: "The policy that governs this is WP:N. The amount of time isn't relevant. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is required--if that exists four months in advance, the article can be created; if that doesn't exist four months after the event, the article can't be created." This doesn't mean the articles can't ever be created--SLAM! Wrestling is a great secondary source that publishes reviews of all WWE pay-per-views (maybe TNA as well...I don't know). I'm sure Wrestling Observer, Figure Four, Pro Wrestling Torch, and/or WrestleView will also report on the results, and the major newspapers from the cities in which the events take place probably do the same. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


We need to make a catchphrase section in the In Wrestling section of wrestlers there is one in the rock but the rock isnt the only one with catchphrases so we need to add it to other people pages like for example

  • Cena - you can't see me. the champ is here. if you want some, come get some
  • HHH - Suck It!.
  • Angle - its real, oh its damn real
  • Stone Cold - give me a hell yeah
  • here is a few i can think of right now so i think we should because its a big part of their character - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talkcontribs)
It's trivial information.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nascarking, it trivial and very pointless.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I cant believe i'm going to say this but I also agree with Nascarking its trivial information.--SteamIron 01:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I know how you feel Dchagle. It would also serve the project's best interest if we took the time help User:Black60dragon with our policies and guidelines. Just a suggestion based on an observation of the user's contribs.--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoa heads up! Just removed a chunk of catchphrases on Dwayne Johnson. Might be worth looking around other pages for similar content.--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok ill start going though my watch list.--SteamIron 01:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


I read something recently which I perceived to be a personal attack on me, quitting after about two sentences. I haven't been back since. Last I checked, I haven't attacked anyone personally, unless their status as a public figure possibly warranted it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Anyway, there is a VERY STUPID edit war being carried out in Kayfabe, in case anyone cares or wishes to do anything about it.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed your hidden text and the info in question. I also put a note to stat thatt Randy Orton competes under his real name.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ive requested semi protection of the page this will bring an end to this point less edit war between IP'S.--SteamIron 02:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Its been Semi protected for ten days the edit war is over.--SteamIron 03:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Some of the IPs involved in the edit war were also involved in another one @ Booker T. That page has also been semied. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok thanks for the heads up.--SteamIron 03:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Piper's Pit

I just recently came across the article and well I'm more inclined to redirecting it rather than nominating it for deletion. Any thoughts?--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a redirect would be better then a AFD in this case.--SteamIron 03:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)How about incorporating some of it into the Piper article? I can think of the Frankie Williams interview, and the Andre heel turn as two of the most memorable moments of the segment. Possibly also when HBK superkicked Jannety through the window is another moment that could be incorporated.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
^^My thoughts exactly.--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be even better.--SteamIron 03:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tagged to be merged just in case anyone opposes. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly trivial additions to Bryan Alvarez

An IP editor has added information about Bryan Alvarez liking cats and country music to the article three times. I removed it the first two, but the IP has added it again. I don't want this to lead to an edit war, so I thought I'd see what people here have to say to see if I'm on the right track. Trivial? Notable? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems Trivial and defiantly not notable to me.--SteamIron 03:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

AN discussion

This WikiProject may be interested in this AN discussion in regards to a former member who was banned in 2007. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have supported an unban because HM16 has violated his ban many times. Three years without Wikipedia and he randomly wants to come back? No, that's just not true. I once reported him for violating his ban and the admin told me that there would never be proof because CheckUser doesn't save IPs for more than a year. Therefore, there was no possible way to confirm the banned user had returned to Wikipedia. There's obviously a gaping hole there, don't you think? Anyway, every time he has returned, he starts failing WP:DISRUPTIVE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:COMPETENCE, WP:3RR, WP:ATTACK and many others. At first instance of this reoccurring, I'm recommending him for an indefinite block. Feedback 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


This user has tried to redirect List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees into his created List of Impact Wrestling employees. I need help requesting a deletion of his page because I've restored the old one. Plus the user is trying to add All Wheels Wrestling on TNA's template page. Can someone pleae help me?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I've redirected his page to the former article. For now, let's see where it goes from here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
He's now redirected the TNA employees template into his Impact Wrestling employees template. Can you help me here too?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
FBH has reverted that change and redirected his template to where it should go.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

WWE Roster

The WWE Roster page has always been a dilemma for WT:PW. An article like that will never reach FL status due to all the vandalism and headaches it brings about. However, I think I found a solution. A lot of people visit the List of WWE personell page just to look at the performers and don't care for the agents, writers, trainers, etc. So how about we split it?

List of WWE developmental talent / List of FCW performers (Either name is fine because all developmental talent fall into FCW's roster.)

Anyway, I think these three articles could be much more stable than the current super-article we have. They can all be organized and reach featured status. Especially the second one which usually doesn't change as much as the others. Thoughts? Feedback 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that might work.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
No much responses, but I can set up a prototype on my sandbox starting tomorrow. Would you help? Feedback 01:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure. What do I have to do?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sin Cara trademarked by CMLL in Mexico, not WWE.

I read on PW Torch that WWE failed to trademark Sin Cara in Mexico and CMLL trademarked it themselves. I want to put on Mistico's page, but I don't know where to place it. Can someone help me with this or if you want to put it there yourselves?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you link me to the article? I can't find it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find it on PWTorch, so I got the one from's wrestling section, if you don't mind. Lucha News:CMLL files patent on Sin Cara--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


I know I'm essentially new again and most don't respect me but I have to ask. Isn't it a little redundant to put this line in every PPV article:

<ppv> will feature professional wrestling matches that involve different wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that are played out on WWE's primary television programs. Wrestlers portray either a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that built tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches.

That line comes across as unnecessary to me. The article is about the specific PPV not what the general formula for a wrestling PPV. To me that's like describing how a movie works in the plot subsection of every article about a specific movie. Just saying, maybe we should get rid of it? chrisianrocker90 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's fine. In terms of keeping the articles out-of-universe, it's a simple, one-line solution. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I get that it's supposed to be out of universe and respect that, but why does this have to be there to make it out of universe? Movies, TV Shows, books etc don't have a line like this? What makes wrestling the exception? chrisianrocker90 21:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Because the non-wrestling world likes to think wrestling fans are too stupid to know in the 21st Century that wrestling is a worked sport, despite being the first ones to believe the storylines that make it onto mainstream media. Tony2Times (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
So we're humoring and encouraging a stereotype why? chrisianrocker90 22:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
This has been discussed many times. Please search through the archives for this talk page for further clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
So? That doesn't mean it can't be discussed again or changed. chrisianrocker90 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You want discussion? Fine. My feelings on it are it's fine the way it is, there's no need to change anything. In other words - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
If everyone followed that line of thought we would still be stuck with 80s era TV quality. Just saying. :) In other words, just because it ain't broke doesn't mean you don't try to improve it. chrisianrocker90 03:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I also feel that it's fine the way it is. Nothing broken, nothing in need of fixing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine, whatever, you guys don't even want to discuss improving it. I'm getting back to work. chrisianrocker90 19:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Aaron, we have discussed this a billion times. You know the reason why.--WillC 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Seeing that you totally didn't EVER violate the rules and avoided your ban by editing under other accounts, you seem to be getting the hang of things quite quickly again. Just saying, you're a natural at getting rid of the editing rust. Feedback 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Are you accusing me of lying about spending the past four and a half years at the Simple English Wikipedia, Feedback? chrisianrocker90 23:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
For those of us who really don't care, please continue this conversation on talk pages if at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You do know you are not forced to write or read in any section whatsoever? You're also not forced to start commanding people to go write elsewhere. You're also not... Well you get the point. Feedback 01:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Angle's signature

Could there be any use for it? I obtained it last Summer and just uploaded it today. [1] --Endlessdan (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know politicians and some actors have them in their infoboxes and Shantelle Taylor has a picture of her autograph on her page. I'm neither for or against it really. Tony2Times (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I saw and I tried adding it to Kurt's signature but it wouldn't work. So long as it's a good scan and legit, I don't see why this wouldn't add something to his article. --Endlessdan (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Champions lists

In the lists List of WWE Champions, List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of ROH World Champions and so on, why do some people appear more than once? Wouldn't it just be easier to list every person once. They are "Lists of champions" and not "Lists of championship reigns". Feedback 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's better left alone. The title of the page doesn't matter. People go to the page to see the title lineage, not a list of people who have held a belt at one point. If you're just pushing for an unnecessary name change discussion, you may have an argument, but it would just make the encyclopedia worse to spend more time thinking about this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought we could make the articles more concise. For example, the List of WWE Champions article can then have only 40 rows instead of the 100+ it currently has.
# Wrestlers Reigns Date First Won Days
Notes Ref.
December 13, 2009 161 [1][2]
The Miz
November 22, 2010 160 The Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank contract after Randy Orton successfully defended the WWE Championship. [3]

Something like that. Obviously one that looks better. I just made this up on the fly. Per WP:ARTICLETITLE, I think this would make more sense so the title can represent exactly what the content is. As for a name change, it really depends. What's more notable, a "List of WWE Champions" or a "List of WWE Championship reigns"? Feedback 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You understand that nobody would want to read the article in its new format, right? The reason that the list is useful is because it traces the history of the title. There's no good reason to make articles worse. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
If we really are gonna do this, then let's change the article title to List of ROH World Championship reigns &c because I have no interest in looking at a list of names, irregardless of chronology. Tony2Times (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RAW/SmackDown Special Episodes

Considering that the table for the special episodes take up a fraction of the pages should we consider splitting the special episodes section of The RAW and SmackDown articles into their own articles?--Voices in my Head WWE 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. If you split the special episodes from Raw and SmackDown, then you have to make pages for all of the episodes divided by their "seasons".--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily, most TV shows on here, if they have any episode articles, are special episodes to a series, like maybe Emmy winning or stuff like that, because an article for ever episode would border Fan cruft. chrisianrocker90 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, any particular reason that Raw Roulette isn't listed? Crisis.EXE 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Respect Female

I have found the RESPECT Top 50, we'll put in the articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And why is that notable?--WillC 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

PPV results table

Wouldn't it be better to align it in the center of the page and center the text? I mean sure it's aesthetics, but it just seems to me to be logical. chrisianrocker90 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of requesting that your ban be overturned so that you can return to work on something so trivial. I believe the current layout is fine and, as such, doesn't need to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
What, you expected different? Feedback 18:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you guys quit focusing on me for two seconds and consider the proposal. chrisianrocker90 18:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Given the amount of text in the table, putting the text in the centre would look pretty ugly and harder to read. I don't know how the table being centred would look so I can't comment. Tony2Times (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll grab a results table to show with here. Give me a minute. chrisianrocker90 19:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here are the examples. chrisianrocker90 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, those look very ugly, why would you want to change it? Feedback 20:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being dense, I don't see the difference between version 1 and 4. Also, having generously made a mock up for us, surely you can see matches 1, 5 and 6 look less easy to read and are unbalanced in comparison to the left align? Tony2Times (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't see a readability difference on my screen. Could be my browser, the only difference I see are aesthetic. chrisianrocker90 20:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for the changes either, and oppose any proposals made to change them. They look fine as they are, and changing every single one would involve a lot of work as there are lots of PPV articles that would need to be changed, and I don't think anyone would want to waste their time with that, sorry.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Just an idea I must mention, why is everyone so caught up on he being unbanned? It is childish and immature to continue to hold crap against people. Hmm I can recall of a few things alot of editors on here have done that are completely absurd, yet I and many others have chosen to sweep it to the side. Now as for the proposal, I am indifferent to it. I work on new formats and prefect them before pushing them out there to be honest, as seen from my experimental work on Turning Point (2008) and Genesis (2007). I just noticed one thing, however, which bothers me a tiny bit. This idea, trivial it may be, was shot down so quickly with such hostility it appears to me. Now whether this is due to ChristianRocker being the one to propose it or just fear of changing or debating the general idea of changing things anymore. I implore everyone to think about this theory.--WillC 18:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't keep track of sock puppets and bans and so forth,I hope I wasn't shooting it down because I didn't like the look of it, having asked for an example, and gave what I feel are valid reasons. It's a long line of text which doesn't fit centreing; it's better suited to headlines and similar length text the whole way down. Tony2Times (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
It's gonna be uneven no matter how you align it, the best you can do it make it look good, which, IMO, is centered. chrisianrocker90 07:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I frankly think it looks bad, but maybe because I'm not used to it. I still use MonoBook because I refuse to get used to another skin on Wikipedia when this one works fine. I like the motto of "Don't fix what's not broken". And these tables aren't broken. They're readable, they're coherent, they're aesthetically pleasing and most importantly, no one complains (or cares). So let's just keep them how they are. Feedback 16:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I'm of the belief that that motto is a cop out. As for aesthetically please, I don't think it is. Give me one good reason not to change it other than "they're not broken" or "I don't like it." Please. chrisianrocker90 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Because it's a full sentence, which is read left to right (or right to left in Hebrew and some other cultures but not in English), it's not a single word or headline/non-full sentence which would be centred or an address which would be left aligned. Tony2Times (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused, CR90. Are you expecting people to say, "They're fine the way they are, and I don't like the alternative suggestion, so I think we should go ahead and make them worse for no good reason"? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, Tony, thanks for pointing that out, though I still don't see a reason the table itself can't be in the center of the page. @ Gary - I don't even know how to begin to respond to that it's so loaded with bias. chrisianrocker90 07:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That's why I asked earlier to see what a centred table would look like, but I really can't see the difference in your mock-up page. I don't know which of the four tables are centred and which aren't. Tony2Times (talk) 07:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Version four has the text left justified and the table in the middle of the page. chrisianrocker90 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I just logged out and had a look, in the skin/view I use it makes no difference. In the default mode, I don't feel strongly either way. Tony2Times (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Very well, any other opinions that don't involve "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? chrisianrocker90 23:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Your version is ugly. Good enough reason? Feedback 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you have to be so hateful? chrisianrocker90 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Only the mainstream Feds?

I've created some articles in the past which have all been deleated, I'm guessing because of that stupid 'lack of interest' claim. So what articles are we actuactly allowed to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM (talkcontribs) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ones achieve notoriety based on a number of things such as Google searches and coverage by reliable wrestling websites or, far better, other websites such as respectable newspapers and the like. Not only the mainstream feds are covered, I for example have done some work on Ring of Honor articles like American Wolves and I'm particularly proud of my work on MsChif's article who is only a wrestler when she can get time off being a genetic biologist or Jetta and Eden Black who wrestle almost entirely in the UK.

But Wikipedia is free and it isn't limitless, so not everything can go in. Tony2Times (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Im starting a bit of work at would be appreciated if someone could give me a few pointers cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM (talkcontribs) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Could someone give me the link to reliable sources? Thanks. Varghoo (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC) GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, didn't see these mentioned so I gotta ask, are Wrestling New World and considered reliable. They're the only two I read. chrisianrocker90 07:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, not proven or backed by a already known reliable source.--WillC 13:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't read but its chief editor Jason Powell was a long time contributor to PWTorch and until recently still wrote for their newsletter. I don't know if that in any way vouches for anything. Wrestling News World always seemed like your average rumour mill dirt sheet to me but I haven't looked at it in a long time. Tony2Times (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say anything by Powell would be acceptable because of his history with PWTorch. It comes down to who wrote the info. If the authors are reliable, it usually leads to the site being reliable. At least that is what it seems when it comes to the reviews I've had.--WillC 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Wrestling News World has been very accurate from my experience. chrisianrocker90 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Still need to show a way that would be true.--WillC 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And how would I do that? chrisianrocker90 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Find evidence of editorial oversight by someone who is an established expert in the subject area. Then prove that all content written for the site undergoes a fact-checking process. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen them pull stories when new fact contradicting what was originally thought to be true was proven false, and I've seen Richard say he likes to prove things before he posts them. I'll see what I can find. chrisianrocker90 01:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

PPV expansion

I've noticed that there hasn't been many PPV expanded lately. Apart from the ones I've done, I only know of Elimination Chamber (2010). Even with such small expansion these days, I have some good news that I'm not sure anyone will really care about but it is kinda of a milestone to me. Just wanted to say, that now a very good number of TNA PPVs have been expanded. I'll list all expanded so far, but the main point is now that from Victory Road (2004) to Lockdown (2005) have all have their own articles and up to Destination X (2005) they have been expanded. So most of their earlier events are done. Add that on to how many other PPVs are done, this is a bit of a milestone. So far Victory Road (2004), Turning Point (2004), Final Resolution (2005), Against All Odds (2005), Destination X (2005), Genesis (2007), Lockdown (2008), Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), and Turning Point (2008). I'm possible just blowing smoke, but this is a nice thing regrading how there use to be none expanded at all.--WillC 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

We should AFD them all due to lack of notability. What's TNA again? Feedback 23:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a full time job now, so I basically spend my time upkeeping existing articles I've expanded or that need to be watched. However I have expanded the background/history sections of all the recent Ring of Honor iPPVs. Tony2Times (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful! Been wondering who has been doing that.--WillC 22:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Vince McMahon and Triple H

In light of the recent storyline, it'd be wise to keep an eye out on their articles, people thinking that Vince's "ouster" is real and such. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 14:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to do with this guy, Ouloul94. As you can see from his talk page, he's been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing. From what I've seen, he usually removes old finishers of wrestlers (Miz's Reality Check, Ryder's Zack Attack, Cody Rhodes' Silver Spoon DDT), even though these moves are all properly sourced. He doesn't reply on his talk page. What should we do?

Also, can I check does Wikipedia list a timeline for finishers? For example Rough Ryder (Jumping leg lariat)[49] – 2010–present. And also, when a certain move can finish off people only sometimes, like Kofi Kingston's S.O.S., is it a signature move or a finisher? Starship.paint (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WWE Champion

Is CM Punk the current WWE CHmapion?. He left the WWE, but only in Kayfabe. Also, McMahon started a tournament at RAW, but Punk apears in as WWE Champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, as far as I know, Punk's leaving was legit. chrisianrocker90 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The title is vacant as of last night as for Punk's leaving it looks legit however he has say that him and wwe are still in talks for a new contract.--Dcheagle 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Forgive it, Punk was removed from the champions section. But he still apearing in the roster, no? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Guys, please suspend the naivety. CM Punk became WWE Champion. In Vince McMahon's globally-traded company. He didn't give the title to a man whose not under contract. He's obviously under contract and this is all an angle for TV. A great angle I must add, but its still an angle. CM Punk is still employed, he is WWE Champion and Wikipedia should reflect those facts until being explicitly proven otherwise. Feedback 23:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source for this, Feedback? Because all the websites I've read say otherwise. chrisianrocker90 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
CM Punk has not been released from his contract. Corporate policy is for all releases to be informed on the corporate website and there has not been any post whatsoever. If you have a reliable source that would most assuredly know CM Punk's contract expired, then be my guest and present it. Otherwise, its pure speculation if we just assume his contract expired. Especially considering he's still the champion of the company. Feedback 06:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't remember them announcing any such expiring contracts before with Batista, Tommy Dreamer, etc. chrisianrocker90 07:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong. WWE has been very consistent. They even announce TNA releases sometimes. Feedback 20:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
But here Punk doesn't appear as WWE Champion. The WWE Championship doesn't appear, so I think that it is vacant. Like in TNA, Kaz is the X Division Champion, but Douglas Williams has the belt. In the same page, Punk is in the roster.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
So what are we doing? The WWE Championship is not listed in the current champions slideshow. And Punk isn't in the current roster. chrisianrocker90 05:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The WWE Championship isn't in the current champions section, but is an active title. Here isn't in the section of retired titles.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although it is pure speculation that Punk was released from his contract, it is not speculation that he is no longer WWE Champion. In WWE's title history, they considers Punk's reign a one day endeavor starting July 17th and ending July 17th. Just like with Trish Stratus and Edge, WWE has vacated the title upon retirement. So I guess we should consider the WWE title vacant, even though Punk is running around with the WWE Championship. Feedback 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pure speculation to say he's either under contract or not. Logic doesn't not factor, facts do. chrisianrocker90 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
So... What were you saying about Punk being gone? Feedback 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
That any statement needs to be backed up with reliable sources. At the time (even though it doesn't come as a surprise to me that he's back), the sources stated that he was gone. WP:V says that's what should have been reported. Now the sources report that he's back, so WP:V says that's what should be reported now. Going with what we're sure is going to happen is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, so we have to keep in mind that WP:V begins with the clarification that "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I had read many news reports from reliable sources saying that almost no one in the WWE has a clue and other reports saying that he might be gone, but they weren't sure. Furthermore, I also read one saying it was all a work and that WWE was trying to get CM Punk more media appearances to push the angle. So enlighten me. What "reliable sources" said for sure that he was gone? Feedback 07:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Now, how is the champion? Triple H said that both are the legitimate champions, but our principal soucre, says that only Cena is the champ. Is like HBK Razor Ramon, both were the champions, but only Ramon was considered the real champion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

A reliable source?

This website isn't typically considered a reliable source, as its hosted on, a site similar to Geocities, where anyone can create a website. I would like your opinion on this though, would you all consider it to be a reliable source?  Office of Disinformation  23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Feedback 07:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It uses Wikipedia as a source.--WillC 04:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

World Champions

User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions

I created this page a little over two years ago and just finished updating it completely. I personally think it's a very notable subject (at least more notable than Triple Crown Championship), but I would understand those who believe its trivial. I was thinking of making it into its own article, but if you all disagree, then I guess I'll just keep it in my subpage where you can all view it whenever you wish. Feedback 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it Feedback. I think it would make a great article, but my only opinion is that it might get too messy and trivial. Good work.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that is very subjetive. Why not are the PWG, CZW and japanese titles in the list?-- (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I didn't want to include any independent wrestling promotion. That's why no titles from the independent Mexican circuit or American circuit are included. Although Ring of Honor used to be an independent wrestling promotion, most companies have been independent before so I decided to judge them all by their current status instead. I do believe I should add the Japanese championships, I'm just not very familiar with Japanese wrestling. If anyone wants to help me out, I'd enjoy the help. Feedback 21:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists the major promotions in Japan to be All Japan Pro Wrestling, Dragon Gate, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Pro Wrestling NOAH and Pro Wrestling ZERO1. agrees with these five and PuroresuCentral substitutes Big Japan Pro Wrestling in place of ZERO1. Either way I'd say the top championships of AJPW, DG, NJPW and NOAH are locks? Starship.paint (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The list would never be complete. Because it is very subjective. Every single wrestler who ever won a title called a world title by a promotion would have to be included, because that is what was agreed. If the promotion declares the title a world title, then it is a world title. That would included PWG and CZW, since they started calling them world titles after they were defended outside the US. I like the idea, but its just impossible.--WillC 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well I disagree there. I don't think independent wrestling promotions should be included and that would be specified in the lead section to avoid confusion. Feedback 22:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Then the title is misleading. It would have to be "List of professional wrestling world champions by major promotion". Only way the article would be able to work with the MoS and Listcruft. It would need to be complete.--WillC 23:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure there's somewhere in the guidelines that says article titles don't have to specifically represent the article content if the wording would be too long. I think it was something about "concise is better than precise". A list like List of Americans isn't in fact a list of every single American, but its worded like that in the title just to keep the title short. But this is all null because I you can go ahead and change the title if you want. Titles aren't as important as article content to me. Feedback 10:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are the Japanese major promotions' World Heavyweight titles: AJPW, Dragon Gate, NOAH and NJPW. Not sure if ZERO1's a major promotion? Starship.paint (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
My main problem is that neither of those titles include the terms World and Heavyweight in their names. Do the companies market the champions as "the top wrestler of their promotion" or do they market them as a world champion? And are the champions traditionally heavyweights? This is a list of World Heavyweight Championships after all. Feedback 17:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I'm only familiar with Dragon Gate, but the other promotions do have "heavyweight" in their titles, but I have no idea how the champions are marketed. For Dragon Gate, the Dream Gate title is no doubt a traditionally "heavyweight" title for the heavier wrestlers in the promotion, though the lucha-libre style of wrestling typically renders the average DG wrestler to be smaller and lighter than of other promotions. The Dream Gate title has been defended internationally in the USA before, not just in Japan. Does that qualify for the "world" part then? Starship.paint (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Criteria for what qualifies as a world champion is non-existant. There was a past consensus a long time ago that if a non-independent wrestling promotion calls his title a World title, it's a world title. I agree with that. But defending it internationally can't be the only indicator because if that's true, then MVP's IWGP Intercontinental Championship and other minor titles would also be World titles. I guess all I need to know is if the promotion HAS CALLED their title a World Heavyweight title before. (i.e. ROH doesn't have the word Heavyweight in their name nor are the champions usually heavyweights, but it has been called the ROH World Heavyweight title on programming before) Feedback 16:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested protection

I requested protection of SummerSlam (2011) due to the amazing amount of IPs and newly registered users posting rumors and unsourced matches. chrisianrocker90 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

2 things: One, Wrong Place to do this. There's ain't a single admin on this project. And 2...Actually that's it's.--Voices in my Head WWE 22:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok two things back, I wasn't requesting here. I was notifying about the request on WP:RFP. Two, actually what is? chrisianrocker90 22:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Protected for 5 days by Gfoley4 (talk · contribs) chrisianrocker90 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

WWE (article)

Apparently people don't know (as usual) where things that don't have any place on an encyclopedia keep ending up. The lastest thing is people trying to put Zach Ryder's so called "Internet Champion of The World" on the article. I know Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit anything but last time I checked there were standards that kept such crap as Ryder's non existent title off this website.--Voices in my Head WWE 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, though I think we're close to having to accept it as an unsanctioned title, like the Million Dollar Title or the ROH Intergender Tag Title given the way Ryder's presence is growing on TV. Tony2Times (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It hasn't appeared on TV though. However, it was defended at a house show and a reliable source for that could easily be found. I think it should definitely be added as an unsanctioned title. One title defense is good enough for me. Feedback 16:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's officially unsanctioned until it's been defended on TV. If you wanna take WWE house shows as legitimate then you're gonna need to put a heck of a lot of birth towns for Mason Ryan and some inexplicable face/heel turns, among other things. Tony2Times (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

But aren't there Wiki Policies that keeps The Internet Title off Wikipedia? All I'm saying is do we really want to add something a tool like Zach Ryder added to himself to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia?--Voices in my Head WWE 19:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's a title which has been defended in a WWE ring. That establishes notability. The LongIslandIcedZ channel is notable on its own as well and might probably be due for an article. The Internet Championship can be a sub-section there. Feedback 22:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This whole idea that it is an unsanctioned title is kinda idiotic. The title is a storyline and part of his gimmick. It is property of WWE. They decide when it is defended, how it is used, etc. It is a title of the WWE, just not a highly promoted one.--WillC 22:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not a storyline and it's not property of WWE, though. Z! Long Island Iced Z is his own fun hobby and the title belt is something he made up for fun, then had made for even more fun. That's the difference. If it was property of WWE they probably would have mentioned it some time in the last four months of it existing. I imagine they'll incorporate it soon enough but so far it's been at two house shows, and at house shows the Welsh Mason Ryan was billed from Seattle, Boston and more. Tony2Times (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That's why we consider it an UNSANCTIONED title. If WWE sanctioned it, it wouldn't be unsanctioned, would it? Feedback 00:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
An "unsanctioned title" is still sanctioned by WWE the corporation, just not the storyline entity. Ted DiBiase didn't personally spend $125,000 on the Million Dollar belt, it was a storyline made up by the WWF and they just acted like they didn't sanction it. The Internet Championship was actually made up by Ryder four or five months ago and it's so popular they're starting to bring it onto TV. Seeing as they don't have their main angles planned more than a few weeks planned ahead of time, there's no way this was. Tony2Times (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
WWE hardly ever use property they do not own. In such, now that they are using it, it has become property of the WWE. This is not a legit sport, where people can just make up titles without company consent and promote them on tv. All of this was planned ahead of time.--WillC 01:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You guys have swung and missed at the original post. I posted if Ryder's title is something that really belongs on this encyclopedia. You guys have completely turned this into a different discussion.--Voices in my Head WWE 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Until it is featured on TV, definitely no. Once it's featured on TV, then we can discuss it. Tony2Times (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Why is TV so important? Should we erase all the pre-TV information we have about the early WWWF? How about all the other promotions without any TV deals, should they be removed and deemed not notable? The title is notable because it has been on a highly viewed web show, is part of the gimmick of a popular professional wrestler AND it has been defended in a WWE ring. Therefore, it most definitely belongs on the encyclopedia. Feedback 10:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If you saw the majority of things I edit (Shimmer, British wrestlers, ROH iPPVs) then you'd know I have no reverence for TV but this is WWE in the 2010s where only TV is important. Finlay got fired because at a house show he interrupted the US national anthem with The Miz's music. Why did he get fired rather than stopped? Because there was no creative at the house show, there was no Vince, no Brian Gerwirtz, no Michael Hayes, nobody higher than a road agent because house shows in the current WWE product play no role in the main storyline. Wrestlers act as faces at house shows, then reappear on TV still as heels for months/years later. Wrestlers are billed from different places at house shows to generate heat. People wrestle each other at house shows, then at PPVs later on the match is built as "first time ever" because house shows count for diddly in WWE just like the self-created Internet Championship does at the moment. But if you'd just wait a fortnight, I'm sure it'll be on TV soon enough. Tony2Times (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
If the non-televised aspects of the WWE are not notable, then why do we list the dark matches for every PPV? Why are try-out matches and non-televised appearances mentioned in some wrestlers'articles? And using your own example, why is the national anthem incident even mentioned in Finlay's article? And if a title change occurred on a house show, why do we list them in the title lists? The fact is, we list them because they do matter. In fact, Vince McMahon stated himself on Bloomberg TV that the live events are the most important aspect of the WWE business model. Live events and television tapings are equally as notable. Plus, WWE covers the world tours on TV all the time. WWE's failure to acknowledge "first-time" matches happening before is not isolated to house shows. Taker/Triple H at WM17 was completely ignored during the build-up to WM27. Feedback 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
They never billed WrestleMania XXVII as the first match between Triple H and Undertaker, nor WMX-Seven (they'd met on SmackDown the previous year) in fact, they just didn't mention that they'd wrestled before. Anyways, have fun listing all those house show title defences in people's articles. Tony2Times (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I gotta say I agree with Feedback, it was already pretty notable among internet fans but now WWE has mentioned it on TV it seems like WWE is endorsing is internet gimmick, and part of that gimmick is the Internet Championship. It seems to be kinda like the Million Dollar Championship in every aspect except it's not WWE's creation and the belt itself has never appeared on TV but it has been mentioned. If you remembered Cole has mocked Ryder for the past couple of weeks over it. It seems notable to me, regardless of if it's appeared on WWE TV. chrisianrocker90 08:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
WWE has mentioned the Internet Championship on Smackdown, both Zack Ryder and Michael Cole have made references to it. I just heard Cole mention it during Ryder vs Jackson. Starship.paint (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It also has been seen on TV during the backstage Cena/Ryder segments. Feedback 10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Face and Heel: Should We Use These Terms?

I've noticed over time that the addition of text such as 'so-and-so did such-and-such and due to such, turned [face/heel]' has been becoming more and more contentious and it struck me that it might be wise to create a dialogue on it. I especially notice that it's added not so much by older editors but more by newer ones who seem to have a desire to have absolute up-to-the-second information added to a page regardless of whether it's verifiable or sourced (in that it usually isn't - i.e.: Sheamus has been quoted as entering into no less than 3 feuds over the past month alone by numerous editors - mostly IP editors and new editors; edits which were promptly reverted).

This creates multiple inherent problems which, no matter what is said, cannot be overlooked:

  • Can it be proven that this one act, no matter how miniscule of an act it was in the grand scheme of things, resulted in the change of the persons alignment?
  • "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
  • How can one prove the statement is not perception and actually fact?
  • How can one prove that one's own perception didn't play a part in the edit - which, in and of itself, would be equivalent to a POV edit?
  • The above is actually extremely difficult to prove, if not impossible, because the entire business is based around perception which leads me too...
  • John Cena.

The lines of face and heel are no longer what they used to be and cannot just be arbitrarily drawn like they could 10-15-20 years ago with absolute confidence of who was "the good guy" and who was "the bad guy". Those lines have been blurred and today, things realistically exist within shades of grey (i.e.: CM Punk). The perfect example of this would be someone 10-15 years ago like Steve Austin who could do not harm and was always cheered no matter what. Meanwhile, someone like Triple H, for a long time, was the guy who was booed consistently week-in and week-out. Then you look at someone today like John Cena, who under traditional terms would be billed as a face (all things considered); however, it is clear that John Cena is quite hated by many, and yet celebrated by many. Such a reaction goes even beyond the traditional perception of what typically defines a tweener; and while the term tweener could debatebly describe CM Punk, the fact of the matter is that reactions to him have been just as grey as those to John Cena over the past few weeks. Does this mean he is a face now? No. Does this mean he is a heel now? Again, no. What is he? It's all in your perception - which, for Wikipedia, is the exact problem.

The above examples have only been based around WWE. The problem is further exasperated when you look at companies like TNA (and their product Impact Wrestling), Ring of Honor, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Combat Zone Wrestling, etc., which tend to completely blur the lines of the good and bad with an extremely wide palette of shades of grey - save for some rare examples.

What I'm basically proposing here is that we stick to pure verifiable encyclopedic content only and leave out those items which could be perceived as POV such as who is a heel, who's a face - or someone became a heel, or someone became a face based upon singular/multiple actions/circumstances. This way, we solidly remove a point of contention, there's absolutely no perception of editor's perspective what-so-ever, and we all breathe a collective sigh of relief as contention lessens. If a person absolutely must be cited as a face or a heel, do so with proper citations using reliable sources in accordance with both Wikipedia policy, and, specifically policy as it relates to BLP articles. It should be noted that a source mentioning the action which a person typically cites as being the cause of a persons alignment shift usually does not state that that person actually made the alignment shift, therefore it is - under the very policy of Wikipedia, not valid as a source for the statement as it does not support it.

I leave the floor open for discussion, now. Please comment. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 10:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious who is a face and who is a heel, and whomever doesn't notice it, is severely lacking WP:COMMONSENSE. "Face" doesn't mean you're gonna get cheered. "Face" means you're the good guy. John Cena is the good guy wether he's cheered or booed. Lots of faces get booed and lots of heels get cheered, that's besides the point. Those terms are practically synonymous with "protagonist" and "antagonist" and neither is WP:OR or a WP:NPOV violation. Anyway, if you still don't get it, just remember "getting it" is required to edit on Wikipedia. Feedback 17:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
No need to be a jerk about it; remember that civility is required when editing Wikipedia. Comment on the content, not the contributor. You also seem to have confused the purpose of WP:CIR as it applies to persons acting disruptively to Wikipedia - whether they realize it or not. As this is merely a proposal, and not even a modification to an article, CIR does not even apply to the situation. It appears you are of the same mentality as you were during the AfD of The Corre (professional wrestling). My statement was a legitimate one and if you're not going to address it without offering constructive input, I'm going to respectfully ask you to recuse yourself from the topic. To address the content: Playing the face or heel does not necessarily equate to BEING a face or heel. In example; on Impact Wrestling, Hulk Hogan plays the part of what would traditionally be defined as a heel but is regularly cheered instead of being vilified by the crowd. As I said before, in the wrestling business, perspective is everything - and based on that, it is practically impossible to definitively state, without any sense of personal point of view coming into play, what a persons alignment is; especially when there are no reliable sources of such to back the claim - which, in and of itself, is the very definition of WP:OR. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 18:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Added note: To loosely-quote User:TenPoundHammer related to NPOV, 'if, after reading an article, you come away with even a slight idea as to what the editor's point of view was, then the article was not neutral'. That said, I remind you once again that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Face/heel statuses are irrelevent because turns occur so frequently and therefore mentions of face/heeldom should not occur in articles except in highly-notable (i.e. landscape changing) turns such as Hogan at BATB 1996, Bret/Austin at WM13, Savage at SNME prior to WM5... IMHO, anyway. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversed and Unofficial title reigns

As some of you may know, I'm making a list of world champions here at User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world champions and I'm pretty upset that many articles including List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions, List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions and List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions like to include many "reversed" or "unofficial" reigns. There are many reigns included when they were eventually reversed by the organization. For example, Ric Flair lost the title once, but claimed a fast count and the organization reversed the decision. Why include the title change in the official numbering when the organization decides to reverse it?

Does that mean Chris Jericho won the WWE title when he beat Triple H in a fast-count and it was later reversed? Does that mean John Cena was co-winner of the Royal Rumble along with Batista before Vince McMahon restarted the match?

I bring it up now because Kurt Angle is in his 4th TNA World Heavyweight Championship reign starting tonight, but Wikipedia considers him a 5-time TNA Champion. After his first title win in a controversial finish, TNA took back the title and decided to crown the "first-ever" TNA Champion afterwards.

I think a promotion is COMPLETELY entitled to alter the history of their fictional title's lineage and if an unofficial title change occurred that was later reversed, it should be added in the Notes section and not as an official part of the title's history. What do you guys think? Feedback 10:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In the case of your examples, of a quick reverse decision by the promotion, I agree that we should follow the promotion's decisions. Starship.paint (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Regrading the TNA point, it is not a reverse decision. It was a vacancy. it clearly shows through the sources it was a vacancy and currently TNA do not have an official history listed. TNA stripped Angle of the title. Then set up a match for it. Angle won it again, then TNA stopped recognizing the first reign. The problem with the others are they haven't been expanded or updated in forever. While List of WWE Champions is an FL failure. If taken to FLR right now, it would fail all the criteria, mainly sourcing and factual accuracy. It does not follow a factual history, it follows WWE's jump around history. We are not here to post WWE's view, but what actually happens. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. It violates guides as well.--WillC 20:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Will, it's a fictional title with fictional history solely created by WWE so we should follow what WWE says. If CM Punk wins in 20 seconds at SummerSlam due to a fingerpoke of doom, he's champion. If next week on Raw, CM Punk trades the WWE Championship with Santino for a cookie and they start recognizing Santino as champion, guess what, Santino is champion. If Tony Chimel beats Punk for the title in a hide-and-seek contest, Chimel is champion. If WWE decides to reverse the CM Punk win due to a rule that prevents steroid-free wrestlers from being champion, then the decision is reversed and CM Punk is NOT champion. WWE can do whatever they want with their own fiction. Altering their fiction for the encyclopedia and calling it fact is pure WP:OR, it's the same thing as re-imagining the chapter of a book or the scene of a movie. Feedback 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There's something else to remember: the infamous Dusty Finish. During the 1980s, wrestlers like Dusty Rhodes and Hulk Hogan (AWA) would frequently "win" a title at a show only to have the referee's decision reversed to a DQ/no contest. None of those occasions bear mention on WP because a line has to be drawn. However, a case of Tatsumi Fujinami beating Flair for the belt is different as another major promotion (NJPW, obviously) recognises it as an official change. In that case, it bears a mention on Wikipedia. After all, we're chroniclers of demonstrable fact who take a WP:NPOV, not enforcers of kayfabe. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Regarding proposed List of World Champions My advice is DON'T DO IT or BE VERY CAREFUL WITH WORDING. Because professional wrestling is fiction, any promotion of any size can create a championship and name it the "world title". This means that there are demonstrably a vast number of wrestlers who can claim to have held a "world title". And you have to add every single one unless you can produce firm evidence of what constitutes a "world champion" in the wrestling business. Anything else is going to violate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. When I was a regular Wrestling Project contributor several years ago, we AFD'd a very similar list and the result was a resounding delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC

I agree, if that happens that is the history. What you are saying is to deny the events as they occurred. If a title reign happened and is recognizes it is official. That was the consensus reached long ago during the many world title discussions we've had. Angle was recognized as champion, so it became official. That is the fact. It is fictional of course, and as such we must be correct with what has happened in the events. Not ignore things which occurred. We state WWE changed its view later on in the history. The problem with many WWE reigns is they are reversed immediately. If they've occured and were recognized for a period of time then reversed, it must be noted in the title history.--WillC 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We can note in the notes section, why add it in the main table? It seems like OR to me to just add Antonio Inoki as a former WWE Champion and not Ted DiBiase. Feedback 21:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The way the consensus goes is this, if the reign was recognized officially but then later viewed as not having occurred by WWE then it is added with the note. If in the case of a reversal its has to be an actual reversal; like proof it was that case not being stripped or the title vacated like with Angle, where most think it was a reversal when he was stripped of the title; then it gets noted in the notes section.--WillC 23:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems reliable I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be editorial oversight and fact-checking involved. "All information used from any sources is evaluated for correctness and conflicts against other sources."  Office of Disinformation  23:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks legit to me... Starship.paint (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much the disclaimer helps, as no site would claim to post false information. I think this is a tough one, because it gets information from reliable sources as well as several that would not be accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. It would be helpful if it could be proven, but I don't know if there is enough information yet to make an informed decision. Is the site run by experts, or is it just a hobby site? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I know this isn't really official or anything, but it might help. probably it is useless. They emailed me this: Based on Wikipedia's criteria on self-published sources, none of the places you mention are really reliable sources.

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.

Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.

Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.

As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.


Varghoo (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's definitely helpful, particularly the review in PWI. Knowing the content of the review would make this more clear, though. Any statements made about fact-checking, accuracy, etc. would be an asset toward trying to meet WP:RS. Certainly, a stamp of approval from a publisher that definitely meets WP:RS is a very good thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo (talkcontribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it qualifies to be a reliable source. By the way, did GaryColemanFan just say that PWInsider is a reliable source? Then that too should be listed user reliable sources in the style guide. Starship.paint (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
PWInsider is a for-profit production (i.e. not a mere fansite) and has a history of accurate and up-to-date news. I wouldn't approve of its use to cite possible future events or rumours but it seems reasonable to use it to prove things we know to be true. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing problem

The problem is with Template:WWE_personnel. User:Mikeymike2001 continues to remove David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty from the list of tag teams despite the fact that they are the regining tag team champions. (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Mikeymike2001's issue is that Otunga and Perfect Jr's team doesn't have its own article? If so, then his intentions are good but the fact Otunge/McGillicutty are tag champions is undisputable proof that they are a tag team at this time and should therefore appear on the template. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:NAVBOX, if the team of Otunga and McGillicutty doesn't have its own article, they shouldn't be listed on the template, regardless of whether they hold the belts or not.TheFBH (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a guideline, not a policy. It's fairly pointless to even have a list of tag teams if the tag team champions are not going to be listed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I do believe that we should ignore the guideline for the case of any tag champions until an article is written for them. Starship.paint (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
A NAVBOX's purpose is to direct you towards other articles. If a team doesn't have an article, there is absolutely no point for them to be in the NavBox. So, No, a team withut an article shouldn't be on it. That being said, Otunga and McGillicutty are still being announced as The New Nexus, so they can just be redirected towards "Nexus (professional wrestling)". Feedback 09:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an effective solution. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That seems like a good compromise. Since we have three people agreeing already I'll just add it in now. Starship.paint (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Nexus (professional wrestling) Move Request

This is slightly off topic but there is currently a move request to move Nexus (professional wrestling) toNexus (wrestling) so far no one has responded to it so some input would be useful.-- (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Note: This was originally placed in the preceding discussion, hence the wording. To not refactor the persons comment (even in good faith), I have left it standing as is (specifically with regards to the "off topic" portion). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 07:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I honestly didn't even know about it. Shouldn't a {{move header}} or {{Movenotice}} template have been placed in the article's header to notify visitors/editors of the suggested move? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 07:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes it should have! Thanks for taking care of that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Header for championship articles?

I don't care about articles discussing title belts. If I search for one or click on a link to one, it's only as a way of getting to the list of champions. For example, I might be reading about a wrestler, see that he won a title, and want to get more information. The link in the text will just take me to a page discussing the creation, appearance, etc. of the belt. If I want to actually get to the list of champions, I have to then scroll down to the title history and then click on the link (likewise, I don't bother searching for "List of..."; I just do a search for the championship itself, scroll down, and click on the link). Mind you, this isn't unique to professional wrestling articles. For example, to see a list of basketball Hall of Famers, one might follow the path: "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of players in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame".

What I am proposing is adding a hatnote to these championship pages. Something to the effect of: "This is an article about the championship belt. For the title history, see [[List of WWE Intercontinental Champions]]." Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. The championship articles are pretty boring if you ask me. We should merge all the lists to the championship articles. Hardly any of them break WP:SIZERULE and those that break it are irrelevant because sizerule does not apply to sortable tables. Feedback 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We are talking tons of articles and lists. Boring is not a reason. How about expanding them than getting rid of them. All the TNA Titles have been expanded. The WWE Titles have been left to rot. Plus these lists are FLs, which would take several FLRs to even get to merging.--WillC 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There's NO good reason to keep the championship articles and list of champions separate. I feel that the whole subject can fit into one neatly packed article. No need to keep separate articles. And I know its TONS of articles. But they can stay "lists" and be nominated for FL, just add the championship's prose at the top of the page. It will make the list articles feel even more complete, IMO. Feedback 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The point is two different subjects. There is no reason to connect. Some titles have so much history is is necessary such as the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. To merge them is pointless and we wouldn't be able to keep the lists. The point of separate articles is to cover the subject more in depth. If the articles were expanded this would be seen. Lists are to only have a small portion of prose as the lists are exactly that, lists. What reason is there to merge them other than I don't like them? Try expanding the current articles at this time. Come on, all the current WWE FLs fail the criteria imo. I've been trying off and on to update the Cruiserweight list in a subpage. Better content, more information, etc can be gained from working on them as is. I'm trying for two topics with the TNA articles. The WWE topic was just delisted not long ago.--WillC 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Need help reverting

An IP has gone through a bunch of articles and removed any reference to Nash and Hall's ring names. I have reverted some of them, but help with the rest would be great. The IP's contributions are here: [2]. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:WWE RAW Arenas

Aside from a minor naming problem (capitalization should be "WWE Raw arenas"), I think Category:WWE RAW Arenas represents overcategorization, specifically categorization by a non-defining or trivial characteristic. Some venue articles don't even mention use by Raw (e.g. Danville High School (Pennsylvania)), while many others have hosted just a few events (trivial/non-defining relative to the venue; e.g. Rupp Arena). I wanted to raise this issue here first rather than simply go to CfD. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a travelling show that's been running almost every week for 19 years, I definitely think this is a pointless category. It's not like there's a handful of arenas that people think of as the home of Raw or anything. Tony2Times (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems pointless to me.--Dcheagle 15:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
CfD it. I'd wager good odds it'll end up getting speedy'd on WP:SNOW grounds. Tabercil (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Another editor took it to CfD about the same time I was commenting here. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 24#Category:WWE RAW Arenas cmadler (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Create separate page for Otunga/McGillicutty tag team?

I know David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty are still teaming together and dropped the Nexus name, but should we make a page just for the McGillicutty and Otunga team or continue to update the Nexus page even though the group is dead?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither, they have done nothing of note except winning the tag titles which is already in the Nexus page. Wikipedia frowns on week-by-week results so whenever they do something big or at least actually have a feud, we'll decide then. Feedback 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the above. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
If they do enough they'll get their own tag team page, if they don't but tag on for a bit then I don't see the harm in adding "the stable was phased out, although Otunga and McG remained a tag team and..." sentence or two on the Nexus page. Tony2Times (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

^ This consensus applies to all tag teams including Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston which I have nominated for speedy deletion. Feedback 12:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Company articles

So we have PPVs, bios, special moments, etc as GAs, FLs, FAs, etc but we don't have a single promotion article. I've thought about it for a long time at trying to do the TNA article, and even attempted for a brief point in a subpage before becoming bored with it. Thought about trying again, but I'd like to get some opinions first. What exactly should our format be for them?--WillC 06:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Repost of This seems reliable I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be editorial oversight and fact-checking involved. "All information used from any sources is evaluated for correctness and conflicts against other sources."  Office of Disinformation  23:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks legit to me... Starship.paint (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much the disclaimer helps, as no site would claim to post false information. I think this is a tough one, because it gets information from reliable sources as well as several that would not be accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia. It would be helpful if it could be proven, but I don't know if there is enough information yet to make an informed decision. Is the site run by experts, or is it just a hobby site? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I know this isn't really official or anything, but it might help. probably it is useless. They emailed me this: Based on Wikipedia's criteria on self-published sources, none of the places you mention are really reliable sources.

"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.

Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.

Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.

As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.


Varghoo (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's definitely helpful, particularly the review in PWI. Knowing the content of the review would make this more clear, though. Any statements made about fact-checking, accuracy, etc. would be an asset toward trying to meet WP:RS. Certainly, a stamp of approval from a publisher that definitely meets WP:RS is a very good thing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo (talkcontribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it qualifies to be a reliable source. By the way, did GaryColemanFan just say that PWInsider is a reliable source? Then that too should be listed user reliable sources in the style guide. Starship.paint (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
PWInsider is a for-profit production (i.e. not a mere fansite) and has a history of accurate and up-to-date news. I wouldn't approve of its use to cite possible future events or rumours but it seems reasonable to use it to prove things we know to be true. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Since there are no objections, who can add PWInsider or ProFightBB to the reliable sources list? Am I allowed to do it? Starship.paint (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I called Pro Wrestling Illustrated a reliable source. I have never visited PWInsider, but I know that some people have some pretty serious concerns about it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Real life intruded pretty hard lately. Pardon the late response to this. I applied my own test and the site failed. Ric Flair easily had well into the thousands of matches during the 1970s, including countless main events. Seeing as how the only matches found in their database are of his two MSG matches, this constitutes another manifestation of the bias I've been harping on for far too long.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise, Gary. I mixed the two PWIs up. I meant Pro Wrestling Illustrated, it was an honest mistake. KAOS, what bias are you talking about? Perhaps the database on ProFightBB is incomplete, that does not mean any other information found on their site is wrong and unreliable. Starship.paint (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any other comments regarding Pro Wrestling Illustrated and ProFightBB? So far only RadioKAOS has objected to ProFightBB, but just because a source has incomplete information on a certain time period doesn't mean the rest of the information presented is unreliable. Missing information from the 1970s does not mean any info after the 1979 onwards is incorrect. If one needs to cite a source about matches in the 2000s, one can easily use ProFightBB. If one is looking for a 1970 Flair main event, one would simply search somewhere else. So I think it still should be considered a reliable source. Starship.paint (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Boom

Since new WWE Tag Team Champions Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston got a team name, Air Boom, could someone rename that article to Air Boom? Starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not until it gets a reliable source first.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
They have only been tagging for three weeks. They are not notable enough for their own article due to their short period of tagging together. The article just ends up being a glaring WP:CFORK violation. Anyway, I tagged it for a speedy deletion due to lack of notability. I doubt anyone can coherently argue for against that. Feedback 12:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The speedy deletion was declined, the article Air Boom exists with sweet F.A. on it aside a week-by-week of the last three weeks. I don't know how to nominate for deletion, but it clearly isn't notable enough to keep BulbaThor (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
How was it declined? It's a one sentence article. "They formed one week and they won a championship the next week." Tony2Times (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
From the looks of the revision history page it was declined because they're champions. Graeme Bartlett did the declining, I don't recall seeing his name crop up on wrestling articles though, so I assume he's not familair with notability guidelines for them. BulbaThor (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to clear a couple of things up, it was more than a "one sentence" article when it was nominated Tony. Graeme may not be familiar with wrestling articles, however he IS familiar with WP:CSD criteria, and at the time that SP tagged it, it passed WP:CSD#A7 by making a credible claim of significance or importance. Notability for wrestling articles is no different from any other non-wrestling article Bulba - even wrestling articles need to show some sort of notability (as evidenced by the somewhat recent PPVgate fiasco a couple of months back).   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What's the credible claim to notability? Because they're champions? So are you going to start the Cena & Otunga, Cena & Shawn, Cena & Miz, and Cena & Batista articles or should I get on it? Feedback 01:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Being champions is enough of a claim to notability that the article is not eligible for speedy deletion. I doubt it would be considered notable enough to survive an AfD, however. There are very different criteria between the two. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to the enWP scene all over again but that seems like some pretty significant sourcing establishing notability. As an alternative to an AfD, would any be opposed to me keeping this in my sandbox should they become notable? CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 06:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
To clearify WP:A7 calls for a creadable claim of importance which has been for years been stated as a lower standard that notability. A declined A7 is not a declaration that an notability has been established but simply that it meets the lower standard.-- (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean Batista and Rey Mysterio get an article? Afro (Talk) 23:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No only that it would most likely have to be deleted per an AFD or Prod. An article surviving an A7 deletion is by no means undelatable nor is it a sign that the content is endorsed.-- (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it should've been deleted at all. They're champions for crying out loud, they've also already got a tag-team name. So what if they've only been teaming for a few weeks? I think it's notable enough. Deely1 12:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I did the sourcing. I got reliable sources from PWTorch, Slam! Sports and Wrestling Observer. How was it not notable? They might be a huge team later on. There's no need to delete the article now. Regarding the Cena and Miz teams, use your common sense, really. If Kofi and Bourne lose the titles tomorrow and never team again perhaps the article would not be as notable. But you never know the future. So I say we give the article a benefit of the doubt and keep it. CRRaysHead90, please keep the old article, thanks. Starship.paint (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The article wasn't deleted. Some ChristianandJericho changed it to a redirect before the matter was settled here. I have restored the page. My suggestion is this: we leave it until the team breaks up. Then we decide whether they were notable. It looks like ChristianandJericho just nominated the article for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom Well it would be better if we finished the discussion here first. Starship.paint (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
yeah...sorry I didn't know about a discussion here... Anyway it should be deleted because drew McIntyre and Cody Rhodes were a longer team and never had a page for them. Also I have nominated the page for deletion --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, you're forgiven for not knowing about the discussion. McIntyre and Rhodes not getting an article is not a good argument for this article being deleted, what if Rhodes and McIntyre were deleted by mistake or an article was never written? Starship.paint (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Well why did The Corre take so long tiger an article? And it's about to be deleted too, Just wait until Air Boom holds the title for awhile or they exist for at least a week --ChristianandJericho (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I take the opposite point of view. Why don't we wait for them to lose the title, then we decide whether they have held it for long enough to be notable? The article is already written, already there is all and well. I don't think anyone disputes that the article is good. If they lose it next week and break up, then fine you can delete it. But you don't know, so give the article some chance. Starship.paint (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep it for now, if the readers look the page up it's because they want to read it. And if the team disbands in a few weeks (not likely) then it can be deleted, but deleting now isn't the best idea. Deely1 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Have none of you heard of WP:CBALL? You can't just keep an article awaiting for it to have future notability. To have an article, it must be NOTABLE now. This article doesn't even have enough content for crying out loud. It should be deleted, and it should be speedy-deleted. Just because they have some belts doesn't mean they should avoid speedy deletion. They do not warrant notability in ANY SHAPE, WAY or FORM and would fail an AFD simply because of WP:SNOW and that alone warrants the A7CSD. Anyway, we should continue the conversation at the AFD now that it is active. Feedback 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading CBALL, it doesn't talk about keeping an article to wait for future notability. It says that "unverifiable speculation" should not form articles. This article is not speculation. It has happened. SNOW says exercise common sense and don't follow process for the sake of it. And common sense to me is that since it is already written properly then leave the article be. Starship.paint (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Starship. Deely1 06:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Feedback is right it is not CURRENTLY notable and should be deleted until it is, also where's JeriShow's article and ShoMiz, and Edge and Chris Jericho? --ChristianandJericho (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If JeriShow and ShowMiz's articles don't exist, it doesn't affect this article at all. Perhaps you should consider that there is a possible scenario that due to some negligence, their articles were deleted or were never created despite their notability. Therefore their non-existence does not affect Air Boom's claim for notability. How is it not currently notable there are a load of third party reliable sources and they are the current Tag Champions. Starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Christianandjericho all your comments are the same, "So where's the JeriShow article?" "Where's the Cena and Batista article?" No. It dosen't work like that I'm afraid. If they don't have an article it's because nobody was willing enough to create one. Deely1 08:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
JeriShow's revision history disproves your "not willing to create theory", it's just the fact that you're assuming that they'll eventually become a notable team (WP:CRYSTAL), winning the tag belts does not prove they're notable and the article is WP:CRUFT it adds nothing new that can't be added to Bourne and Kingston's individual articles. Afro (Talk) 16:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Because the article makes a significant claim of importance or significance, that's enough to pass WP:CSD#A7, so it is NOT a speedy deletion candidate.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Since GaryColemanFan has explained that the factors considered for notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources no matter how long the team has tagged for or how long the article is, and also considering that Air Boom are the Tag Team Champions, I henceforth will be subscribing to this view. To all those protesting because "JeriShow doesn't have an article!", why don't you go write that article? Starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Def Jam Vendetta and Fight For NY.

I've manage to do my best on those articles. I just need someone who knows how to proof read and maybe improve those two articles. It would be helpful since that's as far as I can do. If anyone reads this, please help. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I put two images in the infobox for tag teams?

Yeah I'm a newbie, does someone know how to do this? It's hard to find a public image for a tag team so I was thinking of showing two individual public images. If you could teach me I would greatly appreciate it. Starship.paint (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, but it's frankly a formatting nightmare. I personally think that putting two images next to each other in Photoshop, uploading it and adding it into the infobox would be a much better solution. Feedback 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Do we know anyone who goes to WWE shows regularly and could take pictures? Because I've noticed we're in need of them right now. Deely1 18:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I took a few pictures last Friday. I don't think I took any that's really needed though. Punk, Del Rio, Ricardo, Swagger, Kelly, Mason, Primo, Ziggler and a few others. Not the tag champs though, Kofi didn't come to my live event. Feedback 20:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you upload them so we can see if we need any? --Deely1 21:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
mm, okay, thanks for your help Feedback. Also, Ricardo needs a picture, could you upload his photo...? Starship.paint (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they're the best quality, but I'll upload them. Any picture is better than no picture. Feedback 02:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded about 25 pictures. You could see them all along with my old ones at commons:Special:ListFiles/Feedback (and some other ones at Special:ListFiles/Feedback. Hopefully, most of them are useful. Feedback 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I uploaded a few to Beth Phoenix, Eddie Colón, Jack Swagger, CM Punk, Ricardo Rodriguez (wrestler), Alberto Del Rio and Evan Bourne. I'm pretty sure there are a few other useful ones so take a gander at them. Feedback 04:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Added pics to Punk, Tarver, Nexus, Maryse, Goldust, Orton, Sheamus, Roberts, Armstrong, Natalya, Fox, Ziggler, Jericho, Bourne Starship.paint (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man, you just made me feel the most useful in months. xD Feedback 12:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to be of service, after all, you did take the pictures. Quite obvious you're a fan of Orton. Personally I think he's boring heh. Starship.paint (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Orton is bland, don't like him either. Is it because I have many pictures? I try to take as much pictures as I can and upload the good quality ones. Orton just happened to be in most of the good quality ones. Feedback 21:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Hey just a quick question here. Is the WP:PW Newsletter still active? Deely1 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, although someone tried to bring it back a few months ago. Some people didn't like that editor, though, so they refused to give permission (?!?!) to resume the newsletter. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Woah really? What editor was that? --Deely1 21:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
No one disagreed because of the editor. We disagreed because it's a dumb idea. The newsletter just serves NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. If anything, it just takes valuable time away from actual editing and contributing to the encyclopedia. Most people who would read the newsletter are followers of WP:PW and WT:PW and know about mostly everything that goes on around here. Plus, the news section was very lame and have no place in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a social network, a forum, a news site, nor a place where we all can join hands and talk about our love for wrestling, it's just a place where we can maintain information as best we can. The newsletter does not help that goal in any way and therefore shouldn't be made. Feedback 01:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should leave it there. --Deely1 02:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh come on, the newsletter wasn't even worked on by most editors. Usually it was just Nici who worked on the thing. For a long while all I ever saw work on them was Nici and I. Most of the editors today still don't know what is going on around here. I wonder who knows what the most recent PPV was that passed GA. The newsletter helped keep everyone up to date because really no one watches the talk page anymore. Its obvious at how this page will go through weeks of really no activity. It really only takes one editor to keep the newsletter going. Its true, since I watched Nici keep them up regularly for a long time.--WillC 16:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────When I think of the newsletter, I think of User:The Chronic, the original chief editor and creator of the newsletter. I remember really liking it, but eventually, I felt it was just spam on my talk page. I wanted to use my time ACTUALLY editing or seeking consensus in discussions instead of reading and editing a newsletter. I remember day-long arguments about wether or not the newsletter should include a bit of news or not. It was just a waste of time that distracted us from actual constructive editing. Nor the Portal nor the Newsletter really do anything for the articles. Basically what I'm saying is, let's focus on improving our content. Feedback 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, didn't know ignoring a newsletter you weren't working on and I assume weren't reading was preventing you so much from editing and expanding stuff. If only we had stopped the newsletter long ago, every article would be finished. Wow, we'd have two articles nominated at GA, rather than one. I would agree with the argument if the project actually worked on articles, but we don't. Only a handful of editors work on things anymore, the rest bicker about everything. A newsletter is a fine idea, it helps bring the project together. Thats part of the point of all this stuff. Being a unit. Come on, we can't even have a consensus about some things, because the first thing is criticism. I don't recall any agreement to end the newsletter. Hell, Deely could start it back up if he wanted too. Nici doesn't edit as much, which is why I think it is dead.--WillC 00:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I love your way of expressing yourself, it's so delightful. Feedback 01:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I know right! I was the prom king.--WillC 08:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Seriously though, you're right. Users like me who don't want one can just ignore it. So go ahead with the newsletter. Those who want to be involved should totally go for it. Feedback 16:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I know, the project is dead these days... A few years ago it had loads more active members (we have 16.)--Deely1 18:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the linking of tag teams in templates

Okay just take a look at this template for example.

May I query why when a team article is written like John Morrison and The Miz only the "and" in John Morrison and The Miz links to that article while "John Morrison", "The Miz" links to the individual wrestlers? After all the team has already received a team page, so why doesn't the whole John Morrison and The Miz link to the team page? One would think that looking in the template for tag champs people would want to read the team articles more than the individual articles. If one wants to read the individual articles one can access them from the team page. Another issue is that the "and" is small that people might miss the team page altogether, see theoretically you have only a 20% chance of picking the "and" when clicking on "John Morrison and The Miz" and being directed to the team page. Your thoughts? Starship.paint (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I remembered that there was a previous discussion about this. According to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 30#Tag Team Wikilinking, the Manual of Style frowned upon it, so the project stopped using this style of link (linking the wrestlers separately and using the "and" as a link to the team). It seems that the Manual has been revised a bit since then, though, so I don't see anything about not linking like that. I find it too confusing, though, and a statement against that stle of link may very well be located somewhere else within the Manual these days. Finally, I should probably do something more productive with my brain space than memorize discussions of linking styles from four years ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Erm... after reading your post and the old discussion... I am slightly confused. Did the previous discussion agree with me? TJ Spyke and Deep Shadow apparently do. How about you Gary? You do agree with me right? If so I'm going to edit the links "my way"... Starship.paint (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Who even came up with that idea? Deely1 10:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the previous consensus agreed that linking the wrestlers separately and then linking the "and" to the team article was confusing and went against the MoS. Gavyn proposed the idea of linking them that way but then changed his mind when he found out about the MoS guideline. Of course, it's possible to change the consensus now if another discussion takes place (and only if the MoS really doesn't say anything against that style of linking anymore). Personally, I think just linking the whole thing to the team name seems easiest and is the least confusing option. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the parenthesis are unnecessary. If it's the tag team champions template, there is no need to elaborate that Los Guerreros are Eddie and Chavo. Just link to the team's article and if people want to access the individual articles, they can access it from there. It's a tag team template, let's focus on the tag teams. Feedback 16:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah lets try to get a consensus for that because it's well confusing. Deely1 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think it should be like this: {{User:Feedback/Template}} Feedback 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. Deely1 18:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me too, removes clutter. But I have one small query. If you look at the WWE World Tag Team Champions template, you'll see Demoliton listed twice, once as (Ax and Smash) and once as (Ax, Smash and Crush). So if we were to follow your format Feedback, are we going to remove the second mention of Demolition? The problem here if different members of a certain stable win the tag belts, and then we just list the stable. Starship.paint (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have implemented the style I argued for, but not Feedback's as I am still pending his reply. Starship.paint (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I guess we must consider Demolition and La Resistance the exceptions and clutter them up with the members. Here's a prototype:

{{User:Feedback/Template2}} Feedback 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I approve of this. Oops, I think Camp Cornette should be another exception as there is an article for Owen Hart and Yokozuna? I think someone should merge these two articles. Other than this I find no problems. Starship.paint (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll switch Camp Cornette to Owen Hart and Yokozuna because I don't believe a tag team should be named by the stable they were in unless the whole stable held the tag titles (Demolition, Spirit Squad, etc.) Because the whole Camp didn't hold the title, I'll put Owen Hart and Yokozuna instead. Feedback 03:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you can go ahead and make the changes if no one disagrees in 24 hours. By the way, are you going to leave Jericho and Edge/Big Show separate? I wrote an article for Jeri-Show.... Starship.paint (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I don't think they were never announced "Jeri-Show" to the ring. They are listed as "Chris Jericho and Big Show" in's title history so I think that is more appropriate name. swears that DeNucci and Rivera are still the tag team champions today so I don't really know if we would trust their website. Speaking of DeNucci and Rivera, I was under the impression that Edge and Jericho's reign never ended and Jericho just replaced Edge partner with Big Show just like DeNucci replaced Rivera with Barrett. What do you think? Feedback 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The title history doesn't list Air Boom, the Hart Dynasty, Too Cool, Lords of Destruction and the Colons. This page lists Jeri-Show I agree that Jericho's reign never ended. Display it however you want, it's just a minor issue. Starship.paint (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Feedback since nobody protests I think you should go ahead and edit the templates. Starship.paint (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor style point

In the C&A section, Money in the Bank winners are credited as Mr Money in the Bank (2010). However, I would argue that's the title of them as a person, not the title they won. It's the same as listing Alberto Del Rio as WWE Champion (1 time) rather than WWE Championship (1 time) or Edge Royal Rumble Winner (2010). Shouldn't it just be Money in the Bank (2010)? I realise this is minor, but there's a few articles it affects. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This might also apply to people who are referred to as winning the "Xth Triple Crown Champion" rather than "Championship". GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly, you wouldn't say King Booker (1 time), you say King of the Ring (whatever year it was)--Deely1 14:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R-Truth & The Miz

So I nominated the page R-Truth & The Miz for deletion as it isn't an official tag-team. Just saying.--Deely1 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, I beg of you, tell me why R-Truth and The Miz aren't notable while Air Boom is? 20 bucks says you'll mention the title. Feedback 16:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The only difference is, that Air Boom are an official tag-team, while Miz and Truth aren't.--Deely1 16:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, Deely, if I were to reference up the page, I think it might pass a notability test.... If they weren't an official tag team, why are they getting a title shot at NoC? Starship.paint (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah never mind. They never even tagged together yet following their alliance on 22 August. Starship.paint (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
So a tag team match is all it takes? I'd love to see the part of WP:GNG that says "The subject might have done nothing, but if they had a tag team match on Monday Night Raw, CREATE AN ARTICLE NOW!!!!" That would explain why some people think Air Boom is notable... Feedback 02:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well that's because if they did tag together... I'd be able to find reliable sources for the article... Starship.paint (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
How about all the sources of them tagging in live events? They've been tagging for almost a month and they have had televised promos where they announced their alliance and their tag team. So the match at Night of Champions is all that it takes to make them notable? Feedback 17:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes well I think so. I reckon that if after Night of Champions they continue to tag together then we could consider creating the article.--Deely1 17:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Too soon for an article. It is content forking. All the information listed can easily fit in another article.--WillC 08:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Percy Watson

Percy appeared on WWE Superstars during the Raw tapings last monday which aired today. Does this mean that Percy's apart of the Raw roster or wait until he appears on TV during Raw?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd wait to see if he even appears again, they may have just needed some jobbers. Tony2Times (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
...and for someone to provide a source. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Naofumi Yamamoto to Yoshi Tatsu

At the begining of 2011, I asked on the talkpage about changing Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu, but since then it has been ignored so I brought it here. Should I change Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Definately.--Deely1 01:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If no one posted there, it is because they weren't alerted (using the template {{movenotice}}) and didn't know (It's fair to say he's not a high profile wrestler in WWE as of present so traffic to that article is probably relatively miniscule compared to others), or because they have no objection to it. I say go ahead and rename the article. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 07:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It would seem that the former was the situation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Anderson move proposal

This is a notification that it has been proposed that the article Ken Anderson (wrestler) be moved to Mr. Kennedy. Please feel free to comment on the discussion on the article's talk page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Boom...

...was closed as keep. CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a worrying precedent. Tony2Times (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If it worries you, why didn't you !vote? CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 21:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You're worried that Wikipedia notability guidelines hold more sway than "Just wait a while. There's no specific length of time or requirement for accomplishments. We'll all just sense it a wave overtaking each of us. And we will feel peace. Notability can't be determined based on reliable sources. It's just something that hovers in the air out of reach until just the right time. Not yet. Not yet. Not yet."? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hurray. Starship.paint (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and make lemonade out of lemons here. If this article has come to fruition, can we all start articles for teams like Kurt Angle and Chris Benoit, Edge and Rey Mysterio, ShoMiz, Paul London and Billy Kidman, etc.? I think it would be beneficial if we could have a WWE Tag Team Champions topic. Feedback 16:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that's great if you're up for it.--Deely1 17:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I wholly support new articles for Tag Champions. I actually created/mostly wrote Jeri-Show and Big Show and Kane recently. It's great to see your enthusiasm for this, Feedback. Unfortunately while I would like to contribute more I regretfully have exams which will probably prevent me from doing so until November. Yeah, so if you're bored and nothing to do, go ahead and write up some tag teams.. Starship.paint (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


Utilizing Air Boom's AFD result as a representation of current consensus, can we restore this article? It would have to be kept at The Unholy Alliance (professional wrestling), of course, but I believe the article could be even longer than Air Boom's current state and have many more sources due to this tag team forming during the much more popular WWF era. Feedback 17:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Due to the consensus reached on Air Boom, I say restore it.--Deely1 17:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Please use the proper deletion review process ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 17:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Why? I am not challenging the result of the AFD. That was an old AFD and the new consensus happened today. I am seeking to create the article with my fellow peers, not trying to revert an AFD outcome. Feedback 19:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Because it seems that you are appealing for the article to be recreated, and DRV is the appropriate place for that.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I see DRV as being more focused on problems that came up during the AfD. A case could be made for that, as two of the accounts have since been blocked as sockpuppets. Since there was no opposition to the deletion, though, and since the AfD was initiated by Nikki311 in good faith, I don't think it would be overturned on procedural grounds. That's not really what Feedback is going for, though. This is simply a case of a new consensus being reached which can override a previous consensus, so it seems like going ahead and re-creating the article is the way to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you should go ahead, Feedback. The AfD had a problem with independent sources, but I'm sure you'll be able to find reliable secondary sources. In that case your article should be good to go. Starship.paint (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing more to say really... Go ahead.--Deely1 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'd prefer if an admin could restore the deleted article so we could expand upon that. Feedback 15:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ 16:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────  Done It's not located in my user space (User:Feedback/The Unholy Alliance (WWF)) and I'll start working on it tonight. If anyone else wants to work on it, they can freely edit the page as well. Thanks, Feedback 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there would be real difficulties in demonstrating notability - the present citations are incidental (mentions of match results) and could thus be seen as trivial. Being that it was a makeshift team that existed for barely a couple of months, the argument will always be that information could be easily contained on the individual bios of Undertaker and Big Show. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I've helped you edit it, Feedback. Also requesting someone to help me expand Big Show and Kane's introduction. Starship.paint (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)