Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Confirm a fact?

I need some help in doing some quick fact checking for WWE Brand Extension: right now, I have cited "three events over four weeks" for Survivor Series to Armageddon, and, "when combined with TNA events, makes it six events over seven weeks" for Cyber Sunday to Armageddon as an argument to "overdilution of pro wrestling". I was wondering if there was any other similar scheduling anomalies in the past, or if this one could be extended into a longer period of time (with, say, the presence of another PPV show - major or indy - that would make it, say, ten events over 12 weeks). kelvSYC 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

the only other time I can think off was when WWE, WCW & ECW all ran PPVs, there were like 3 a month for quite a while if I'm not mistaken, at least it felt like there was a PPV almost every weekend. MPJ-DK 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We have 16+12=28 now, compared to 12+12+6=30 back in the day. Take that for what it's worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Ring Of Honor Alumni

Nominated this page for deletion as it was removed from Ring of Honor roster to create this page for no real reason. I've already re-added it to ROH roster.PepsiPlunge 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

unreferenced tags

I want to start removing unreferenced tags from pages that really don't need it, but I want to make sure I have this right. As long as articles only detail the goings on of wrestling shows we can consider the shows themselves as a primary source, even if they don't rerun, yes? Pages like K.C. James and Idol Stevens or Paul London and Brian Kendrick have no information on them that isn't taken directly from episodes of SmackDown! or OVW TV, so barring giving actual episode air dates I don't know how we could actually reference it, and giving air dates doesn't give is much because official recaps, to put it bluntly, suck.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling gives details of RAW and SmackDown, but some troll who wrote some columns for OWW back in 2004 kept spamming pages (even after being blocked) and caused OWW to be added to the spam list (preventing the site from being linked to). TJ Spyke 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

www.thehistoryofwwe.com is a good source if you're looking just for WWE show results, I've used it for a lot of my research, and it's adding WCW & ECW results all the time as well. MPJ-DK 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that site will work great for title history articles, especially those on the "when it happened" side of the debates. Mshake3 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected link pimping

A user with the IP 130.76.32.15 has been adding links to something called "ClubWWI" to a series of articles, it looks like site promotion to me. Anyone else agree?? MPJ-DK 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TNA

There is a vote going on at Talk:TNA (disambiguation). A user is trying to get it moved to "TNA" (basically getting rid of the redirect to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling"). I oppose the move since I think that TNA Wrestling is the main use, but all opinions are welcome there. TJ Spyke 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan

Nominated for FA status - discussion is here. Davnel03 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly edit war

Can we not have a blasted edit war over British vs. English spelling in an HTML comment? This is beyond ridiculous, guys. — Gwalla | Talk 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In all seriousness, the main WP:PW page was created using American English spelling and I believe the Wikipedia style convention states that subsequently we should follow that. However, it doesn't really make a tremendous difference to the future of the civilized world if it is in Standard English. It's a shame that certain people seem to see it as a matter of pride to "prove" that American English is "better" (which, to be frank, pisses me off). Suriel1981 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes the other way as well. I have met some editors here who think that British English is the only correct version. There is no "standard" English, unless you mean standard for that country. American English is standard English for American, British English is standard English for the UK, Canadaian English is standard English for Canada, etc. TJ Spyke 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

West Texas Wrestling Legends (WTWL), Paul Turner (wrestling) and List of ROH shows have all been nominated for deletion.PepsiPlunge 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another website on spam blacklist

I was just editing a page a few minutes ago and noticed that PWInsider is now on the spam blacklist. Now I know the reason for OWW being there (from this) but I was just wondering where this came from? -- Oakster  Talk  10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I don't see it listed on the Blacklist page (where articles are supposed to be listed before being blocked). I personally don't check rumor sites (like PWInsider) or believe them (the TNA dropping the NWA titles at Destination X issue is one reason), but I can see how others feel. It shouldn't be blocked. TJ Spyke 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. So where on PWInsider did it say that the NWA titles would be dropped at the March PPV? Mshake3 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty sure it didn't. I can't offhand recall them ever really getting things wrong, at least not to that degree. Suriel1981 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So is there somewhere we can go to actually appeal this? We're losing actual sources here (Rob Feinstein for example).«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Country names in infoboxes.

Okay, I don't know why everyone is removing all the country names of the foreign wrestlers all of a sudden, for ages, you had billed from Blackpool, England for William Regal, now ppl are removing the England bit for no reason, next awhile ago I put down for Layla El in the infobox London, England. Some IP removed the England part, now McPhail is taking the responsibility to remove all the nation names from infoboxes on articles. I really don't understand why he is removing them all of a sudden, they were all there before and most other non-wrestling bio's have country names in them for place of birth. So can we please stop removing them all and put all the country names back. Thank You. Govvy 19:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the country? that's like removing the state for those born in the US - doesn't make a lick of sense MPJ-DK 20:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's because we're tending to use nationality flagicons more now which eliminates the need to put country of origin/death in the userbox. I haven't removed country names myself but I can see the point that it makes the userbox less cluttered. Suriel1981 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Most other bio conventions I've seen uses both the name and the flag of the country - eg. ( Calgary, Alberta, Canada, or Canada, or something similar). I fail to see why it should be different here. Although I do want to propose that this be used only for real but not kayfabed origins, due to the fact that they may not be billed from a geographical location (The Godfather from the Red Light District), a factually inaccurate one (for Finlay, Belfast is in Northern Ireland and not the Irish republic), or not a place at all (recall Monty Brown from "The Animal Kingdom"). The bio conventions are inconsistent with regards to subnational entities: some do include it ( Calgary, Alberta, Canada, or just Calgary, Alberta, but generally never Calgary) and some don't. kelvSYC 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What I've done on the Shawn Daivari article is put the Iranian flag next to birthplace and the US flag next to "resides". I felt it was necessary to put two flags because of course he is legally an American citizen now. Agreed that "kayfabe location" shouldn't be flagged for the points made by Kelv. Suriel1981 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to list the country when the flag is present, it seems redundant.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bdve, it's not redundant if you're colour blind and things like the flagicons are new, the country names were there before people starting messing around. Govvy 21:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as the flagicon template is used a mouseover lets you know what the country is.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but I still like it to say "London, England" instead of just London, looks more complete then. But the norm for most bio's is to put the country name down in the infobox. Govvy 08:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Either all countries should be placed, or none. I like the idea of the flags and no country stated.Halbared 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

ye, but for where you are born, if outside of America it should state the country name and from wrestlers are billed from, if they are not American wrestlers, they always say the country name when billed from by the announcer. So that should stay, that way, is what I am trying to say. Govvy 09:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's because United States promotions are UScentric, other promotions are not, nor is Wikipedia. Halbared 09:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That just made non sense to me, anyway, for Layla El I been doing exactly what Suriel1981 has done for Shawn Daivari, but McPhail is trying to punish me for being it feels like. Govvy 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE is UScenric, other promotions are not, Wiki is not UScentric, and tries to keep standardized boxes for all wrestlersHalbared 09:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Halbared, Can you please stop messing will William Regal secondly, UScentric means nothing to me, I have no idea what it means because I have never heard of it before or seen that word in the dictionary!! Govvy 09:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he means simply that WWE is geared entirely towards an American audience. For example they would say "Paris, France" for Rene Dupree to make sure the fanboys knew they weren't referring to Paris, Texas.

Interestingly, in British wrestling our ring announcers seem to follow the same convention as American ones: AJ Styles or Chris Hamrick would get the town/state treatment whereas Petey Williams or Ulf Herman would get town/country. Unfortunately I can't really understand the NJPW or NOAH announcers so I don't know what their convention is. Suriel1981 13:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles must be internally consistent. Either the city/state should be listed in both fields, or the city/state and the country should be listed in both fields. Omitting the country in a given field is confusing and, as Halbared pointed out, ethnocentric. The only reason I am removing countries is that Govvy is adding "England" to the infoboxes of English wrestlers, but appears to reject the inclusion of "United States". All I ask is that the articles use a consistent standard - I have no preference as to whether this involves always including the country, or never including the country. McPhail 13:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never removed any references or names of United States from anything! I clearly put in England into two areas. William Regal as he is billed by the WWE and the fact that it clearly states on the WWE profile. Billed from Blackpool, England. You just remove the England part saying he is just billed from Blackpool, which is in fact incorrect as the WWE doesn't say from Blackpool, they always say Blackpool, England. Which was how it was in the infobox for likes AGES! anyway, don't know why you keep removing it, because you obviously have backwards thinking I guess! But anyway as for Layla El she was born in London, England as stated by the WWE, so I follow WWE naming conventions on the bio. It's correct information, I don't understand why you want to remove correct information. I have never added false information! Just again you say something about Americanise listing of information. There has been a WWE specific standard way of displaying information which has transferred across all wrestling promotions. I have only follow the conventions set by American WWE standard. Govvy 16:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, the announcers do always say "Blackpool, England" so it makes sense to have that in the "billed from" line. I'm not sure if the country of origin is necessarily needed for the "birthplace" line if there's a flagicon, as the opening sentence will always say "such-and-such is a <insert nationality> professional wrestler". Suriel1981 18:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The announcers say "Blackpool, England" because Regal is an employee of an American company. IPW lists Kevin Steen as being from "Montreal, Canada" and El Generico as being from "Tijuana, Mexico" but only includes cities where English wrestlers are concerned. Once again, countries must always be included in the "from" and "resides" fields or never be included. McPhail 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring more to the actual ring introductions for FWA and Alex Shane's independent shows. Agreed, consistency is needed. Suriel1981 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, whatever we choose, let's make it consistant!Halbared 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have to reiterate that the bio conventions apply only for non-kayfabe origins (eg. Chris Benoit would be from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). Whether this is chosen to be extended into kayfabe is ultimately the project's choice, but personally, I'd rather not, for the reasons I've stated (non-geographic and even non-place billed origins). Under current bio origins, though, if the flag is used, then the country must be included. If you have an issue with this, take it up with WP:MEDCAB or WP:RFC. kelvSYC 19:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Must be included? I wasn't aware that we were compelled to follow flagicon conventions set by a different Wikiproject. As a matter of fact, just check some of the biographies to see that flagicon is often used instead of using the country name. As far as kayfabe origins/"billed from", that is already in place. Flagicons have started to come into play with reference to legitimate place of birth. I don't believe anyone is suggesting putting a Tanzanian flag for Monty Brown or an icon of Uranus for Max Moon. Suriel1981 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the one for the ole, Parts Unknown:oDHalbared 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've created one for if the need arises. It goes a lil' something like this:

Warrior
Born	1876 PARTS UNKNOWN!
Died	1990 (he was replaced by Kerry Von Erich)
Professional wrestling career
Ring name(s)	The Mexican Hunter, The Man So Conservative He Makes McCarthy Look Communist, The Santa Rapist
Billed weight	however much the Anadrol allows
Billed from	PARTS UNKNOWNNNNNNN!!!!

Suriel1981 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I can only remember Ultimate Warrior being from there. It's a bit of an old style thing.Halbared 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on "Announcements" versus "Announced Matches"

I agree with the policy that discourages entering content that assumes future events will happen, such as "Umaga will wrestle Bobby Lashley at Wrestlemania 23." While this is an event that is supposed to happen, we must abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and stick to the facts.

However, I believe that some editors are going too far in their enforcement of this guideline by not allowing the inclusion of announcements that have already been made about these future events.

The article in question is on Stone Cold Steve Austin. My belief is that there is a distinct difference between saying "Steve Austin will be the guest referee" and "Steve Austin has been announced as the guest referee." The former is clearly forward-looking and not factually true, while the latter is a fact and will always be a fact. I believe the former is not proper content for Wikipedia, but the latter is.

Many of the announcements surrounding Wrestlemania are quite notable, especially in the WWE realm. The announcement that Donald Trump has made his hair-versus-hair "wager" with Mr. McMahon is arguably the biggest one. In keeping with the spirit of this guideline, I changed the Matches header on the WrestleMania 23 page to Announced Matches. It is now factually correct; those matches have been officially announced and have not yet taken place. Even the "Steve Austin as guest referee" note is in there.

But if Wikipedia can be used to record other official announcements about future events - Jay Leno planning to leave "The Tonight Show", or Apple releasing a new operating system, or Steven Spielberg directing Indiana Jones 4, and on and on - then why is this official announcement that Steve Austin will be the guest referee at WM23 any different? Doc502 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point Suriel1981 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Revamp for WP:PW

Having had a glance at our French Wikipedia equivalent Projet Catch, I've decided that I'd like to give our own project page a bit of a makeover since it's looking to be a bit cluttered. My proposed design is at User:Oakster/WP:PW. Basically, I've put everything in a couple of columns and made the subpages more visible to the reader. Due to its size, I think the style guide should have its own subpage. Also I would remove the strategy subpage I believe is pretty useless as we have the to-do box on the talk page. Anyway, if I have the blessings from you guys I'll make the change. -- Oakster  Talk  16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• support 100% It would certainly make the project page a lot more accessable and to-the-point. Suriel1981 16:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I like it a lot MPJ-DK 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the Style Guide have the correct info regarding the infobox? I mean, it should point people to Infobox wrestler for creating bio articles. TJ Spyke 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal re: nationality/flagicon/country name etc. in biography infoboxes

Proposal Howzabout generally adopting the format I've used for the Harry Smith (wrestler) and Darren Matthews pages?

• Opening line states nationality anyway.
• Nationality flagicon next to name. Two in the case of Harry who is dual-nationality.
• Regional flagicon next to birthplace reflecting state or province if applicable (e.g. Harry Smith from Alberta, William Regal from England, Steve Austin from Texas)
• omitting country name from infobox in cases of above being as opening sentence states it anyway and it would un-clutter the infobox. Suriel1981 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think on balance always including the country is more informative. This is also the standard used in the standard biographical infobox and in most sports infoboxes. States and provinces aren't always important in less federalised countries, and flags aren't instantly recognisable to everyone. Country of origin / residence is a fairly core fact, so I don't think it can be considered "clutter". McPhail 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About Harry Smith, can he really be considered British? He wasn't born in and doesn't live in the UK. He was born in Canada and lives in the United States (I think), just being the son of someone British doesn't make a person British. TJ Spyke 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He's spent some amount of time here, is eligible to live here as a British citizen and wears the Union Jack on his attire. When you're talking dual-nationality it tends to go on how the person prefers it. Harry Smith seems comfortable being British-Canadian Suriel1981 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter what he is considered by anyone. He holds 3 passports, so he gets three nations. Most ppl outside of the UK don't know Finley is British...saying that, can someone put the tricolour up there for him? Since that's the way we're going.Halbared 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll support the use of flagicons, but insist that the country name be included for several reasons:

Finlay is from Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), so of coarse he is British. The only people who don't know that are people who suck at geography (it's like thinking someone from Puerto Rico isn't American even though PR is part of the United States). WWE doesn't help matters though by announcing him as from Belfast, Ireland rather than Belfast, Northern Ireland. TJ Spyke 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

WEll he is pushed by the comnpany as Eire/Irish yeh, and with all the green and stuff, so I could understand why people outside of the UK get confused. You bringing up Puerto Rico made me look at it. I thought it was a protectorate of the US, but is is classed as a commonwealth under the federal government. Savio Vega is the only wrestler I can think of (just thought of Calos Colon) from there. So the US flag oes next to his name and a Puerto Ricon one next to his billed status...had somoneone made a Puerto Ricon one yet?Halbared 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Flag icons exist mostly as visual embellishments. An audio reader or a text-only browser would not have this information (thus, these readers would lose out on key information such as " London" referring to a Canadian or British location, because that information is from the flag). Furthermore, they are used in contexts where it is strictly speaking not necessary (or irrelevant) - for example, " John Cena" in the most recent #1 on the PWI 500.
• Consistency - most other uses of flagicons at Wikipedia have both country names with their icons.

For dual nationality persons, one typically uses their primary nationality - for example, Chris Benoit IIRC holds US citizenship, but is regarded as Canadian, and thus only the Canadian flag is shown. I believe that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice hockey regarding whether secondary nationalities (eg. Wayne Gretzky holding US citizenship) should be included. Regional flags seems appropriate, but I'm going against on theoretical principles (even if arguably the majority of professional wrestlers are from federalized states) - the only time I've seen regional flags is from within a national context (eg. Canadian national men's ice hockey team lists the rosters of recent Canadian teams, with players represented by province). kelvSYC 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to think I opened a big pile of whoopass! but anyway this was probably coming. With the flag icons to text. Another aspect is the up and coming Mobile internet like G3. If have used it and had a look that is more text based than graphics. Things like flagicon's wont come up. So it's best if we keep the country names in the fields as one of the reasons for keeping them. Govvy 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Benoit is a Canadian (born in Quebec, raised in Alberta) who legally resides in the United States. Finlay is technically British, but is billed as being from "Belfast, Ireland" because many Northern Irish consider the British occupation of their six counties to be illegal. Manager Of Champions 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to comment on the NI situation, I'm fairly sure that Finlay has only been billed from "Belfast, Ireland" since he's been working in the USA. I'm guessing that this is more to do with his fighting Irishman persona he's used in WCW and WWE. Suriel1981 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the agreement/consensus here? Are we adding them or not. I can see editors both removing them and adding them. If it comes to a vote I think we should simply put the nationality of the person next to the real name in the infobox. So for dual, you get 2 like Findley, for triple like Smith you get three.Halbared 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Konan big

This is a profile for "Konan big". A lot of bad grammar, I tried to fix some things, but I didn't feel it was worth it. Maybe delete the article? Kris Classic 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That article is pretty poor (although you made it better). I have prodded the article. TJ Spyke 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be a headliner for a couple of Mexican indies with some midcard work in AAA (I think). English google hits are to do with his match results and my Spanish is too poor to translate other pages about him. I think he'd fail notability. The picture on his page looks like it's going to be deleted for no attempt to meet licensing criteria. Suriel1981 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Upcoming Events (Matches etc.)

In a discussion over on Batista's talk page, it was deemed against the guidelines to mention that a wrestler has an upcoming match on a card that has not yet happened. But the example arose that if it hasn't happened yet, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia; meaning that the Wrestlemania 23 page, which has the matches that will occur, is violating the same guidelines. That doesn't seem to make sense that the event pages can have upcoming matches on them but the wrestler pages cannot. Here's my original question:

Wouldn't this mean that for the wrestling PPVs, they wouldn't be allowed to post the card until it's already happened?

---- GIGGAS2 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The guideline (which was established by us) is for articles on wrestlers, not the PPV articles. That is why the warning saying that doesn't appear on PPV articles (there is a different warning for that). TJ Spyke 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why the difference between event and wrestler pages then? ---- GIGGAS2 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, how are we supposed to talk about the PPV without the matches? Another, articles on wrestlers and events are written differently. TJ Spyke 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring on the spelling of Encyclopaedia

It's odd that User:Proudformykids would create a profile, be welcomed by User:TJ Spyke and then within 10 minutes make their first ever Wikipedia contribution a revert on Halbared's spelling of "encyclopaedia" and "rumour" on our main page.
Ahh well, I always assume good faith, so I'll have to guess the new user just picked an odd place to start a glorious career on editing. Make no mistake though, if I get the impression someone is creating sockpuppets for editwarring on the WP:PW page then I will harass every single admin I can find to get that person blocked for vandalism.
Peace out! Suriel1981 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome everyone (registered and IPs) who make edits to pages on my watchlist. It is spelled encyclopedia though, hell, even the WP logo uses this spelling (aedia is the old fashioned way of spelling, almost every source both in the US and UK either use just edia or both edia and aedia). TJ Spyke 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start banning people for WP:3RR if this idiocy keeps up. Both spellings are correct, and any English-literate person can read it, so who cares which way it's spelled? Please find something constructive to do with your time. I am not singling anyone out specifically. You're all on notice. Shape up. — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How about some people who OBVIOUSLY have a lot of time on their hands work on improving various wrestling articles instead? I mean it's not like we're lacking articles that can be expanded, if I'm not mistaken there are like 800+ pages listed on the two pro-wrestling stub pages. So work on that, contribute to the project instead of something as silly as this?? Just a thought MPJ-DK 06:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with Gwalla and MPJ-DK with this. First off, you're having an edit war over warnings for our articles. It doesn't matter how its spelt as long as inexperienced editors we're trying to focus on get the point. This is not a British English encylopaedia, an American English encylopedia, Australian, or whatever, it's simply English. And unless there's a split between the different variations (and trust me, I'm already laughing at the fact a Scots Wikipedia actually exists) there shouldn't be a real preference for this. -- Oakster  Talk  12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

26 years and I still haven't learnt the fine art of not overreacting... I apologise to those concerned for my part in this. Time for me to get back to what I do best: creating fancruft, smoking excessively and supporting my fellow WP:PW editors. Suriel1981 13:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep an eye on Wrestlemania 25

We have a bit of a problem going on at the page. User:Jet2006 is adding nonsense to it again. Hope you can help out by keeping a close eye on the page. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW the problem is on Wrestlemania 25 not at WrestleMania 25. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it. While we know it'll happen, that doesn't mean there needs to be a page for it right now. Mshake3 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point of the redirect. The user is reverting it and adding his own nonsense.-- bulletproof ^3:16 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I ment to actually delete the article, so at least if he attempts to recreate it, it'll be with the correct spelling of WrestleMania 25. Mshake3 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern here is not whether the spelling of the page name is correct or not. My concern is the fact that this user is continuously adding nonsense to the page and no one has noticed this but me. That is why I'm bringing this to the project talk page. To inform you of this problem and to suggest that the page be added to your watchlists. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Throw a little policy at him and have it deleted and locked. Mshake3 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He just created the article a few days ago (with that nonsense). As soon as you said something, I put it on my watchlist. There won't be any info on it for a year, so there should be no edits to either page yet. TJ Spyke 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NWA Wisconsin article?

What happened to it? Obviously it was deleted. Just wanted to know what was on the article. Govvy 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:CesarB, he is the admin who deleted it according to the deletion log. TJ Spyke 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Results

Would someone put this through the proper deletion process? I know lots of "results" articles like this have been deleted before, and since I'm taking a long break from editing, I would hope that one of you could work on it. Thanks. 69.208.72.214 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

PWI 500 lists

I'm not sure if this may be of any help, however I've recently been working on the PWI 500 lists and have completed PWI 500 (1991), PWI 500 (1992), PWI 500 (1993), PWI 500 (1994), PWI 500 (1995), PWI 500 (1996) and PWI 500 (1997). The lists have proved useful in creating/fixing needed redirects as well as providing a wanted list of sorts. MadMax 05:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support this, those are technically copyright violations and will most likely be deleted (just like similar lists like "Rolling Stone Top 100 songs" have been). TJ Spyke 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they'd probably be put up for deletion as fancruft, other listy pages have been removed for that reason. I have no problems with the lists. As a "to do list" it needs serious edits some blue links aren't actually right (ex. Judge Dredd) and some redlinks should be blue because the article has a different name etc. MPJ-DK 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure the list qualify as fancruft, given as the PWI 500 is compiled by a major publication (such as The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time or Sexiest Man Alive). Also, as far as I'm aware, there would only be a copyright issue if the article itself was either unreferenced or was literaly copied word-for-word from the article such as the summeries and other stats; however, neither is the case here. I would think, after some editing, the list might serve as a useful wanted articles list if it cannot be used as part of the PWI 500 article itself. MadMax 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are no problems copyright wise and everything then I'll be happy to help make the links as correct as possible MPJ-DK 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a great help, thanks. I haven't watched wrestling regularly for a few years now and could use some assistance especially in the newer pages such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated/PWI 500 (2005) and Pro Wrestling Illustrated/PWI 500 (2006). MadMax 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a copyright issue since you are just copying their list. An article on the PWI 500 is allowed (it already exists though), these however are copyright violations. I am tempted to nominate them myself. Right from WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia."

So while PWI can't copyright the idea of a top wrestlers lists, or the wrestlers names, they can copyright these lists themselves. AFAIK, every other similar list that has been nominated for deletion has always been deleted. TJ Spyke 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time for how it should be done. You can do like the Top 10, and talk about the list in general, but you can't post the entire list. TJ Spyke 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I've moved the lists to my User page and removed its links from Pro Wrestling Illustrated. MadMax 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Experience - many different shows under the same name

Right now, the information about WWE Experience is regarding several similar but separate shows (the one that used to be on Spike and the one currently on The Score in Canada are prime examples), and the article needs cleanup and possibly a split (I wouldn't go that far personally). As an example, the infobox claims that The Score is credited as the creator, while Todd Grisham is credited as the host (the last time Grisham hosted anything on the Score was when Raw was still on TSN in Canada). So if someone would know a bit more they can help clean it up. Here's how I can chip in, knowing the Canadian version of Experience and having seen the original Experience once or twice:

• The show is produced by The Score and not WWE, and is hosted by Score anchors (Ryan Paton, Derek Snider, and Sid Seixiero have all been seen hosting the show) inside the Score studio, WWE provides all of the content (and my POV statement is that Ryan Paton's announcing is too over-the-top compared to Score Today, Snider's is too unemotional compared to Branded or Sportsworld, and Sid Seixiero is somewhat muted compred to Score Tonight). It also differs from international versions of the Experience in that there are no ECW highlights unless it is of any significance to a Raw or SmackDown! storyline (eg. Battle of the Billionaires), and even then it is only in photos. And, unlike other Canadian WWE broadcasts, no Jack Korpela with that annoying Canadian update segment (the Score hosts do it themselves).
• There are out-of-kayfabe interviews (Outside the Ring) with WWE personalities on the Canadian Experience, conducted whenever said personality makes some promotional appearance in Canada - even if that said personality does not normally appear on Raw or SmackDown! (eg. there was an interview with Lashley not long after he won the ECW World Championship, which focused on his work in ECW)
• There is viewer feedback through The Score, although they have yet to answer viewer questions on-air. Viewer input has been used on occasion - the recent Score 64-like Wrestlemania highlight tournament was a regular feature.

Another issue is the 15-minute Raw pre-show on The Score (which has been in place since RaceNight was off Monday night) which may need to be mentioned. Not having seen the pre-show (credited as WWE Countdown to Raw on the on-screen TV guide and part of the Raw proper on the network), I don't know if it's a special 15-minute edition of Experience, or something with a similar format (but I do know that it is Score-produced and is exclusive to the first Canadian airing, and that there is no pre-game for SmackDown!). In either case it may need to be mentioned on the Raw or Experience article.

On a side note, surprisingly, there is no simsub of SmackDown! in Canada, unlike other shows (Canadian regulations have it that in cases where both a Canadian and American channel have the same episode of the same show on at the same time, the Canadian feed is shown on both channels, which is the case for SmackDown! for two of the three CW affiliates available in Canada - the one on WPIX is on at the same time as the early airing on The Score and the one on KTLA is on at the same time as the late airing - the third is WGN), due to the Score Ticker taking away portions of the screen.

kelvSYC 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Barnstar/Award?

I worked for a bit and came up with a barnstar award for the project. I wasn't going to upload it unless I was informed that it was a good idea, though. It's not the best, but it's decent, I think. I don't want to be uploading something that negatively impacted the project. Thanks! ---- GIGGAS2 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the guidelines that I just found. I'll follow them. Thanks. ---- GIGGAS2 04:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had the proposed barnstar up at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals for a decent amount of time. I don't know how many of you have taken a look at it, but give it a look. It might not look the best but who knows. It could work. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bump this yet again, but it seems that there hasn't been a large amount of opinion about the barnstar. One other one is about to be rejected just because of lack of support, and it has more support votes than ours does. I'm just asking everyone who sees this to go over to the link above and give an opinion for the bettering of the project. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Rationales in List of professional wrestling match types

As we know, PWMT needs to be cleaned up, and I have User:kelvSYC/Professional wrestling match types a draft of what it can be cleaned up to. I've previously tried to establish new criteria that seems to be acceptable to all. But now, i also propose that we include a rationale as to why a match is a specialty and is worthy of inclusion - ie. a match type is not notable just because of its rules. Why is a blindfold match notable? After all, isn't it just a standard match, but with blindfolds? Isn't a "taped fist match" just one where the competitors tape their fists? By this new criteria, the latter would not be included (many wrestlers already tape their fists) and the former could only be included if some context is given (such is "levelling the playing field if one competitor was previously blinded"). My cleanup (still in progress) would cut the sections down to just a few:

• The leading paragraph is now more detailed - why are specialty matches specialty, and why wrestlers "obey the rules" at all, that kind of stuff (after all, a specialty match can have both competitors blatantly disregard the rules, making the point of having a specialty match moot).
• A treatise on standard matches, and common ways of making a specialty match out of a standard match. This includes triple-threat, eliminations, etc.
• True specialty matches - this is the area where if we have too much information we split it off to their own article, in theory. A lot of the crap we can consolidate down to maybe 10 or 12 specialty matches inside the article (either because it's too non-notable or it's been split into their own articles).

I think that PWMT, with these changes (which I am unwilling to commit to the real article until I solicit feedback - and finish my draft), may be to the point where we can give it GA or even FAC status. Your thoughts?

kelvSYC 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

International World Class Championship Wrestling

I'm not sure if this has been brought up previously, however I noticed International World Class Championship Wrestling was deleted recently apparently due to an uncontested prod tag. The article itself seemed to be fairly lengthy and well written, however I'm curious if there are any notability guidelines established for independent promotions? If I remember correctly, IWCCW was a long established promotion in the New England area and much of its roster consisted of present day ECW alumni (many of whom immediatly signed with following the IWCCW's close). I am surprised that there was little discussion on it either for or against its deletion. MadMax 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indy promotions have to pass the basic guidelines at WP:N and WP:CORP. You can request a deletion review at WP:DRV, maybe recommend that it go to an AFD (so that people can discuss whether it should stay or go. TJ Spyke 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only mention it in passing as I didn't notice it on the to do list. I'm certainly far from an authority, however I was curious weither the project it was unaware of its nomination or that the general consensus was it was ultamatly non-notable. I probably would say, having lived in New England, that Chaotic Wrestling was a major independent Boston-based promotion (and, depending on who you talk to, was supposedly one of the factors which kept ECW out of New England until the late 1990s). However, in the face of notability guidelines regarding secondary sources, it admittedly falls short. MadMax 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I didn't know about it and no one mentioned the PROD here. TJ Spyke 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested then I have a copy of the article on IWCCW (as well as ICW and CCW that are also gone now) that I took right when I joined Wikipedia, I was planning on expanding these plus a few others but they're deleted now. If anyone is interested in trying to expand the articles and establish notoriety I'd be happy to give you the text - otherwise they'll remain my pet project. MPJ-DK 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that it was promoted by former NWA wrestler Angelo Savoldi and was the main stomping grounds for many of ECW's veterans as well as many of the top stars on the East Coast, it seems that it would at least be worth discussion at Afd. Arguably under those same guidelines, Stampede Wrestling or World Class Championship Wrestling could face deletion as well. I'd certainly be willing to help on any deleted articles to see if they have a chance can be recreated. MadMax 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Angelo Savoldi must be notable, he doesn't even have his own article LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoax (talk • contribs)

• Actually Angelo Savoldi was a prominent wrestler during the 1950s and 60s who, as well as being former 3-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion, is an inductee of the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame. MadMax 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

With IWCCW and a few other federations closing down before the net got big there aren't that many net related sources to find, esperially not sources that wouldn't be considered "fan sites" - official sites of some of the wrestlers involved maybe, perhaps archives of local papers might have some sources but beyond that it's hard to find sources. MPJ-DK 08:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

btw - if you're interested in helping improve the page and add sources to it I got a version up on my user pages that I'm going to work on user:MPJ-DK/IWCCW

If anyone is interested then MadMax and myself have put a lot of work into the IWCCW article and it's been brought back and expanded so that it'll hopefully stick around now. MPJ-DK 11:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of unreferenced stuff here.

List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoax (talk • contribs)

I've been tempted to go for an AFD on that page for a few weeks but they (somehow) managed to keep the page from deletion in January so maybe it's too soon Suriel1981 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I like wrestling move pages, but I do agree maybe it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the page was a part of that one gigantic AfD. If this page were nominated on its own, then I'm sure that it would succeed. That big AfD was just an overall terrible idea, but this page is pretty unnecessary, and it is unsourced like you said. If you want to AfD it, then go ahead. -- The Hybrid 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll prepare a case and see that it's done within the next hour Suriel1981 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers (2nd nomination) Suriel1981 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

More infobox nonsense

This has been brought up before, and now has to be brought up again for some reason.

Does anyone, other than TJ Spyke, have a problem with adding the birth date and age, height, and weight templates to biography infoboxes to keep things standard (it works metric or imperial) or to linking cities and states as separate entities in infoboxes to save people from having to go through a city article to get to a state, should they care?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Check template:Infobox Wrestler for how they are supposed to be formatted (in regards to height and weight). Even at WP:BIO they said to just have one link for city, state (not two). I am not convinced it would help anyone anyways to have two links rather than one. TJ Spyke 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The wrestler infobox was set up in April of 2006, before any of the templates were made. There's no reason it can't now be changed and improved.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

it's probably archived now but the BIO people certainly gave a response that a single city,state link was okay with them. I actually think that birth date/age thing could be quite useful for the simple reason that fanboys sure love to customise the ages of their favourite grapplers and anything that stops unhelpful edits is okay with me. Suriel1981 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

When is the age ever really mentioned though? All the template does is make (age --) show up after the DOB. TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking of occasions when editors have inserted the age of their own volition and got it completely wrong, it could stop that. That would be my only reason for having it though. Encyclopaedias don't tend to have current ages of subjects so there isn't really a stylistic necessity for us to have it ourselves. Suriel1981 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Most encyclopedias don't have such an ability, this one does. It hurts nothing, and makes something available all the more easier. I really don't get the resistance. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The only people I can see it happening are those who dropped out of school when they were 6, everyone else can figure out how old someone is just by looking at their birthdate. So it doesn't really help anything. Even electronic enclycopedias don't inlcude this info. If I said my birtday was September 2, 1986, you could very quicky figure out I am 20. Same thing with others. TJ Spyke 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally get it, you don't like it, aside from that what's your objection?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, while the subject is up for discussion, if it might be practical to official websites for {{Infobox Wrestler}} and {{pwcompanybox}} (especially as they are used on {{company}} such as the WWE). Also, I notice that a lot of trivial information such as nicknames, entrence music, finishing moves, etc. tend to take a significant amount of space on wrestlers articles. Perhaps incorporating these into {{Infobox Wrestler}} might be an option as well ? MadMax 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd be impractical to put those in infoboxes for most people because they do take up so much space. Putting another nine lines for former finisher and entrance music would make infoboxes huge.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I only mention it as it seems a topic which might potentially be brought up as uncyclopedic sooner or later. I hadn't taken into consideration that wrestlers would have as many as nine consistently used finishing moves, as opposed to Bret Hart's Sharpshooter or Ric Flair's Figure Four Leglock, although I certainly see your point (imagine how much room Hart's "five moves of doom" would take). MadMax 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem would be that some people like to have huge lists of signature moves, adding generic holds and even stuff a worker doesn't do but is in his moveset on one of the video games. The infoboxes would end up being gigantic and completely negate the actual purpose of the infobox. Suriel1981 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Suriel1981 here...adding much more would defeat the purpose. --JohnDoe0007 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

article movelists

Just from the point I made above I was wondering if it is worth doing a blitz or establishing a firm guideline as to what signature moves should be retained on an article? I personally grit my teeth when I see some of the crap that's been added to some articles (generally by anon users of course). One issue is that if one removes NN/non-signature moves then generally some bright spark disagrees and reverts it or just replaces it with more crap, hence me pondering the possibility of a formal guideline/consensus. Suriel1981 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

TFA

I have suggested that 2 articles under the WPPW banner should be on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here and here. Davnel03 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Eddie article lacks sources. It won't make the cut unless people cite it between now and then.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Davnel, an article has to be a Featured Article before it can be a Today's Featured Article. Eddie Guerrero isn't a featured article (feel free to nominate it for FA if you think it will pass WP:FAC. TJ Spyke 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the only article we can nominate at the moment (and is currently nominated) is the Montreal screwjob article. -- Oakster  Talk  21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And I've just noticed you've nominated that again. I'll clean this all up. -- Oakster  Talk  21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for independent wrestler/promotions

As a lot of independent promotions, both defunct and active, seem to becoming deleted much more frequently. It might be worth thinking about establishing some guidelines in regards to what constitutes a "notable" independent wrestling promotion (as well as independent wrestlers). In my opinion, backyard feds and short lived local promotions certainly shouldn't considered notable. However, given the monopoly the WWE holds on North America, should independent organizations be excluded from major promotions such as the WWE, TNA, etc. ? Here are just a few suggestions and general questions to take in consideration:

• How long a promotion has been running ?

Certainly any organization older then 5+, I would think should be considered. Likewise, defunct promotions which last between a few months to one or two years would not be considered notable.

• How notable are its competitors ?

Recognized independent wrestlers such as Reckless Youth, Mike Quackenbush, Corporal Punishment, etc. who regularly compete in other notable organizations as opposed to wrestlers who are relatively new and whose careers are limited to a particularly minor and non-notable promotion such as many of the World Wrestling Coalition's roster. Also should former wrestlers from major promotions such as the WWF or WCW be taken into consideration as far as notability ? There are quite a few wrestlers which have won titles in independent promotions and mentioned in their respective articles. Should these promotions also be considered notable and, if not, should these titles be removed ?

• In regards to references, I'm assuming newspaper coverage of wresting promotions to be rare apart from press releases, established magazines such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated, books by wrestling historians such as Gary Will and websites such as the Great Hisa's Puroesu Dojo. Personaly I am reluctant to use Obsessed With Wrestling, WIA and others as I've often run into errors and other inconsistancies over the years.

Again I'm only making general observations as coverage of independent wrestling seems to be inconsistent on Wikipedia. There are numerous title histories, rosters and event articles to and from non-existent independent promotions and a growing number of red links to notable wrestlers. It would certainly help matters to have some sort of set and established guidelines regarding this issue. What's notable to certain wrestling fans may seem completely trivial to others. MadMax 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The time a company has been in business has no direct effect on notability at all. Ring of Honor just recently became more than five years old, but it has been notable far longer than a month. Then again there must have been companies thaat have been around for ten years but still haven't accomplished notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right. XPW for example was around for about 4 years, yet was at one time the number 2 company in the USA (on audience attendance). What it probably comes down to is proof of notability through references. An article on a smaller promotion could be created and if it had enough independent references it would probably survive an AFD even if not many people had heard of it. Suriel1981 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's true enough, however those particular promotions had a bit more financial backing then the average independent promotion and without the benifit of the internet. How much coverage did ECW have, nevermind the USWA, SMW, WCCW or any of the old regional territories, prior to 1996 ? I'm refering to promotions which are recognized if only because they've been around so long. I'm certainly not suggesting a promotion be automatically considered notable simply because its been around a long time. I'm only suggesting if a promotion has been around for an unusally long amount of time if could warrent futrher investigation if not taken into consideration. MadMax 03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When Should Kayfabe Be Brought In To Articles?

Looking at several articles under the Professional Wrestling banner, every word seems mainly under kayfabe, and nothing much real-life. It seems like these days if it's not announced on WWE.com, it's a lie. I can understand, if some idiot attempts to put, say for instance SmackDown spoilers on a wrestlers page, however what I can't understand is why we can't mention some stuff that happens behind the scenes. A few examples of what I'm talking about:

Taken from WrestleMania XX article

• Goldberg defeated Brock Lesnar (w/Steve Austin as special guest referee) (13:42)
  • Goldberg pinned Lesnar after a Spear and Jackhammer.
  • After the match, both men received Stone Cold Stunners from Austin.

Right, so in this little bit, we know Goldberg defeated Lesnar, and they both got Stunnered. Refering back to by earlier point, there should be a line saying that the crowd reaction was not good as they were both leaving WWE (even WWE.com acknolowedges it! [1] South-West section 3rd one down). Why isn't there a line.

The other two examples now: Rob Van Dam

• Right, so we know his contract is expiring, and he is unhappy with WWE (over going to TTTT late last year) and might join TNA. I don't know what you call it, but this is not a spoiler. His contract is expiring isn't spoiling anybody - fact of life, he might join TNA - it might happen again not a spoiler. How is it a spoiler - it's no lie.

Look, all I'm saying is that we should sometimes (not all the time) if necessary go out of kayfabe, if something has happened that should be mentioned.

My third example: Sabu One little part reads: At December to Dismember Sabu was originally to appear in the main event, an extreme elimination chamber match against The Big Show, Test, Rob Van Dam, CM Punk and Bobby Lashley, but was "taken out" and replaced by Hardcore Holly.

Right, now in kayfabe he was taken out, but back to real life he was taken out by WWE as he was in some kind of disagreement with them.

A little note for Paul Wight's page - there should be a note that he was physically unable to compete and he was struggling to compete in matches prior to December to Dismember.

I'm not saying we should step out of Kayfabe in every article, but we should if it is necessary, and I believe it is in these few examples. Leave a comment if you disagree with me. Davnel03 12:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd quite like getting rid of kayfabe altogether in articles. I'm sure there's a WP policy advising not to use kayfabe/equivalent at all, I could be wrong though. I do disagree with the RVD example though. If he was unhappy at WWE that would need to be cited. As for the future, any suggestion that he might join TNA violates WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Suriel1981 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of Kayfabe all together? Huh?? That's like articles on say "Star Wars" movies stripping away all references to the actual story and just focusing on the nuts and bolts of the production. An article on the history of a wrestler has to include the "kayfabe" aspects of the storylines etc as well as any relevant "Non-kayfabe" information that is needed, with proper sources about information such as the claims that RVD is unhappy etc. MPJ-DK 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars is a film, it's easy to know what is real and what is within the context of the storyline. Not many wrestling biogs satisfactorily differenciate between real-life and kayfabe. Suriel1981 15:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Getting rid of kayfabe is probably the right choice. I believe kayfabe falls under the writing about fiction guideline, which states that fictional events should be discussed in an "out-of-universe" perspective. That doesn't mean we can't discuss storylines, or how things were supposed to be perceived by the crowd, it just means that we can't pretend that stuff is "true". I think there are a lot of wrestling articles and bios that could use a clarifying clean-up. - Geoffg 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I weren't thinking of getting rid of kayfabe, it's just that if I put in information that's considered "real" (in RVD's example), it will more than likely get removed - we need a bit of clarification on when and when not to use it. Davnel03 16:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The only policy on kayfabe that we need is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). We just need to actually follow it because in general wrestling articles are very bad in that respect. — Gwalla | Talk 19:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Most of the more "mainstream wrestler" bios are horrific and make me despair of ever seeing another wrestling FA. I'll draw people's attention to the GA candidate Katsuhiko Nakajima as an example of a meticulous article, fully sourced, no cruft, no kayfabe whatsoever. Suriel1981 19:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Could we start putting non-kayfabe stuff into articles, or would we need some sort of consensus incase some users have a problem with us doing that? Oh, I've just found an example of a piece that needs to be edited into somebody's article [2]... Davnel03 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A consensus would be good. I was planning to de-cruft/de-kayfabe Carly Colón but speedily realised that I'd need to butcher the article to do so and run the risk of an edit war Suriel1981 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To the original poster, the problem with your examples are that they are all rumors. Goldberg/Lesnar leaving WWE are mentioned in their articles, but it has nothing to do with WM XX. Van Dam being unhappy and Sabu being in troubled are also based on rumors and not fact. I suppose if they come from a reliable site (i.e. Wrestling Observer) and you make it clear it's just a rumor, that might be acceptable (and keep out OR like RVD might be going to TNA). TJ Spyke 21:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to any attempt at removing kayfabe: the key reason being that kayfabe almost single-handedly define the sports entertainment business, or the career of a sports entertainer. You can't really compare a theatrical work with professional wrestling: the former has the character divorced from the person portraying it - not so in professional wrestling. While one can get sources about the off-camera shenanigans of your favorite movie entertainers (with many reputable sources therein), professional wrestling is still very closed-world (Does anyone know who's next in line to work in the WWE title program? Not only do we not know, we don't know who that person will be working with!). The non-kayfabe information is not very reputable or very verifiable: for example, we knew that Goldberg would leave WWE after WMXX, but he only alleges backstage politics as the primary reason. Does the backstage politics he referred to exist (ie. does Triple H really hold the booking power everyone except him says he does?)? We will never know for sure until the Entertainment has some kind of behind-the-scenes expose, which may never happen.

The key part is all about WP:V in this regard - kayfabe is easy to verify, the backstage politics is not. WP:WAF doesn't really apply as much as we want it to apply - to talk about the out-of-universe, you need to delve into sources that are nowhere as reliable or verifiable (as in: Wrestling Observer Newsletter may be the best known apter-like mag, and is generally a good source for the indies, but is what they report about WWE independently verifiable? By WWE sources? Where WWE can muzzle their talent about what to talk about?). I also have to note that the media has freely mixed kayfabe with the real-world in interviews with professional wrestlers (I recall a WWE Experience interview with Mickie James during her psycho-personality era about how fun it is to portray a psycho - or a heel in general, while in the same interview mention Carlito and his mother being Canadian). Point is, if you were to remove all traces of kayfabe from the typical professional wrestler's article, you might as well remove the article outright. kelvSYC 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains that kayfabe isn't real-life which is what's required in wrestler bios unless one was to, for example, write an article on Paul Michael Levesque and a seperate one on the storyline exploits of Hunter Hearst Helmsley. As was pointed out earlier, many wrestler bios are in clear violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). As several (non-WP:PW) editors pointed out in the Hulk Hogan FA debate, that seriously damages the credibility of our work and our chances of getting articles to mainstream WP acceptance. Suriel1981 02:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

But kayfabe is not fiction, and professional wrestling is not fiction. Professional wrestlers are not actors: they are not completely divorced from their characters or gimmicks as easily as actors. The career of a professional wrestler is defined by by the characters they portray. We cannot simply relate work-shoot to fiction-nonfiction, and there have been instances to where this blur is divided (after all, the Montreal screwjob, something clearly nonfictional happened, yet people are still divided over whether it was a work or a shoot). People do not refer to Paul Levesque by this name, as he has adopted Triple H as his own. This is different from an actor taking the name of a character, this is virtually the same as legally changing your name as far as the industry is concerned. A professional wrestler's career is largely defined by the exploits of their characters. I contend that WP:WAF doesn't really apply as much as we want to, and that WP:IAR can be judiciously applied here. kelvSYC 04:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Kayfabe is clearly fiction. It just happens to be fiction that frequently draws on real events. Likewise, a wrestler's character is not the same as the wrestler portraying that character, although the character frequently contains elements of the real wrestler (understandable, since much of what they do and say is improvised). The distinction is obscured by the fact that many wrestlers use their own names for their in-ring personas. But really, that's not all that different from the distinction between Stephen Colbert the fictional right-wing pundit and Stephen Colbert the comedian who plays a right-wing pundit on TV.

Also, any time you have to use WP:IAR to defend a general policy rather than an individual exception to a policy, something is wrong. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm using WP:IAR on an exception: pro wrestling is fiction-like in the sense that kayfabe has qualities associated with fiction, but not fiction itself. Thus kayfabe should be an exception to fiction. That's not general policy from this standpoint, and WP:WAF should not apply. kelvSYC 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main issue is, when deviating from kayfabe, there is a lot of hersey and he said/she said that goes when trying to describe real life situations. Personally speaking, I try to keep a professional wrestling related article as neutral as possible (ex. "Bret Hart defeated Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania" rather then "Michaels agreed to job to Hart"). I do think it's warrented however when it is the basis of a major event such as a law suit or witnessed at an event such as the Montreal screwjob. MadMax 04:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your examples of non-kayfabe information are actually verifiable, as long as proper attribution is provided. For example, we can't say for certain that Goldberg left the WWE due to backstage politics, but we can say that he has said that he left due to backstage politics. Likewise, we shouldn't say that something is necessarily true just because the Wrestling Observer printed it, but we can say that the Wrestling Observer printed it. — Gwalla | Talk 06:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is of course, as you've pointed out, is its a lot easier to verify the "Montreal screwjob" as opposed to a popular rumor (ex. a similar "screwjob" involving McMahon and Wendi Richter [3]. I'm not saying it should be excluded, only that editors should be far more careful on referencing popular rumor, "shoot" interviews, etc. MadMax 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless it can be verified by a realiable source (not just a site like Wrestling Observer or PWTorch), then any non-kayfabe info has to be sourced (like every other articl on WP). I give people a chance to find a source first with a {fact} tag, and only remove the statement if no one provides a source after a few weeks. TJ Spyke 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize the discussion has kind of shifted, so I'll address the original question first. I never got the impression that we couldn't add information that happens behind the scenes. The only problem this creates, as TJ Spyke and kelvSYC point out, is that most of that type of information is based in rumor and speculation...or at the very least, unverifiable. If it can be verified, such as information regarding Owen Hart's death or Brock Lesnar leaving WWE, then it should be included. But there is SO much speculation in the world of pro wrestling that if we were to start mentioning all rumors (and even stating them as such) it would just invite poor edits and additions as everyone who heard something would automatically add it and just say it's a rumor...obviously not the purpose here.

(I feel) it is relevant when the rumor had some sort of significant impact, such as when it was rumored Torrie Wilson was released after the return from Australia...It was reported in so many places that WWE had to release a statement claiming its falsehood and Torrie made her own comments stating how she thought she had been fired and no one bothered to tell her. I actually made this edit (with references) in her article, but it was reverted, seemingly maliciously...but that's another issue.

As for the rest of the discussion, I have no idea what anyone means by the removing of kayfabe completely. That is just beyond me. How is that possible? I read through the article Suriel1981 described as "a meticulous article, fully sourced, no cruft, no kayfabe whatsoever" (Katsuhiko Nakajima). Not only was it incredibly boring, but it was filled with kayfabe if you ask me. Where do you draw the line? Almost the entirety of his article is just listing how he teamed with this person and defeated those people, participated in this match, won that championship...Are matches and championships not considered kayfabe? Or did I just miss something and every one of the matches he competed in and promotions he wrestled for were actually real wrestling competetions in which he actually went into the match not knowing who was going to win and physically overpowered the other guy in the ring? If not, then I don't see how (with the removal of kayfabe) the guy would even have an article.

While I wouldn't go as far as kelvSYC in saying "professional wrestlers are not actors," I understand what he's saying. Pro wrestling is a form of entertainment unto itself, not exactly comparable to any other, in that it is an ongoing play, and (Shakespeare was wrong): the players don't really have their exits...even today, when it is widely accepted by the public and acknowledged by the industry itself that it is strictly entertainment and not an actual series of contests, it is still carried out as so.

The wrestlers are almost always in-character and many of their actions outside of the ring are part of the show. Therefore it is much more difficult to describe anything about them or their lives without describing something that was part of a work of fiction. In addition to this, as previously stated, the world of pro wrestling is still a closed door exclusive club, and it is very difficult to verify real-world reasons for storyline changes and wrestler actions. So if one wrestler were to leave one promotion and go to another, can we not say that "Wrestler A lost the championship and went to work for promotion B" simply because we can't verify that "person portraying wrestler A agreed to job and turn over a meaningless fake 'championship' because promotion B offered him a more lucrative contract and he wished to go fake wrestle for them instead?"

While I agree "Bret Hart defeated Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania," as MadMax stated, is the proper way to address the incident in an article, I would still consider it a mention of kayfabe. And there is nothing wrong with that. While it is stated as fact, and it is obvious one man didn't actually overpower the other, in the case of articles related to pro wrestling there is no better way to state such things. How else does one describe such events of a fictional world without having to say "Mark Hamill, the actor portraying the character of Luke Skywalker then pretended to fly a starship (which was actually a combination of camera techniques and production props in addition to post-production work including special effects and editing that made it look as though he was flying through space) to the fabled Dagobah system, where he made his way through a set that was designed to look like a swamp and met up with an animatronic device that filled in for a character (of a fictional species) named Yoda." Such language is just asinine and completely unecessary to fulfill WP:WAF requirements.

I have read many wrestling related articles that mention events relevant to the character and clarify them as part of the act: from Torrie Wilson: "Al then (kayfabe) died from a heart attack after having rigorous sex numerous times..." or from Hulk Hogan: "After Hogan won at WrestleMania XIX McMahon was frustrated with him (kayfabe) and 'wanted Hulkamania to die. '" While they may be worded a bit more strongly, there is nothing encyclopædically wrong with those statements, even by WP:WAF standards. Those types of storyline events are relevant in describing significant happenings in the subject's career, and therefore their lives; and as we already established in the case of pro wrestlers, their career is very much a part of their real life despite the fact that their career consists of portraying fictional events.

Removing kayfabe from articles would be the act of removing nearly every pro wrestling related article, or at least the majority of its content. --JohnDoe0007 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll address Katsuhiko Nakajima first. It is made clear he is a professional wrestler. Details of the shoot fight he had are followed by His true pro wrestling debut came... to make clear where the sport ends and the work begins. The casual reader is thus able to understand that subsequent career/match results are within the pro-wrestling world.

Where I really have a problem is the lack of distinction between fiction and reality. Whichever way you look at it, pro-wrestling is not a legitimate sport and the storylines are acting. I think we are all able to distinguish between fact and kayfabe in articles but Wikipedia isn't a wrestling fansite, our articles need to be comprehensible to someone with no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling.

What I have a problem with (when I refer to kayfabe) is not match results but presenting storylines as real with no distinction between fact and fiction - no way for the average person to know which bits are real! That is unencyclopaedic and breaches WP guidelines. It certainly is not something I would expect when I pick up Encyclopaedia Britannica.

JohnDoe0007 might find the Nakajima article boring but how many other WP:PW articles have appeared on the Wikipedia front page...?? Suriel1981 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have it, but I think we need some guidlines for sources:

For instance, a point for, say for instance, Joey Mercury's article: After missing a few weeks, Mercury returned wearing a protective face mask and his injury was worked into the angle, with both he and Nitro attempting to injure the Hardys in various ways for revenge. After returning later in the month Mercury continued to wrestle, both as a singles competitor on SmackDown! and with Nitro on RAW until he was released on March 26.

A note after should be made about why he was released, many websites have stated the Wellness policy as a reason: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Something that possibly contributed to his release was [8], which mentions several superstars of possibly taking steroids.

I'm going to try and do an outline for a policy we could use in regard to sources in articles:

• 1 Source
  • If it doesn't go in-depth it should be deleted unless another source is provided
  • If it goes into siginficant detail, it could be OK, but a second source might still be needed

• 2 Sources
  • Good - the absolute minimum
  • If the 2 sources don't tell the same story for instance:
    • If source A says Mercury was released because of the policy, but source B says he was released because of family trouble, get a third source to try and back up one source. Delete the souce that lies, unless new information comes to light.

• 3 Sources
  • Any point should have three sources unless any new info comes to light.

I've just thought this up from the top of my head - any opinions? Davnel03 12:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

On the Mercury thing there have been no verifiable and credible sources as to why he was released. Per wp:bio it could be considered libelous to claim he has a drug problem and that's why he was released. What you posted are considered rumor sites as for their credibility and as recently as last week were posting that he was fired because he "attacked Stephanie McMahon" because he was left off the WM card.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the sourcing, yeah, I think everyone is in agreement you need sourcing for real-world events...and as we already established those are hard to come by, so yeah we should decide on some type of protocol for that. However I think the bigger issue here is the suggestion of kayfabe being removed from the articles completely.

I understand that articles need to be written for non-"wrestling fans," but to remove the majority of content from the majority of pro-wrestling related articles because we don't think the average person can distiguish what is part of a fictional storyline is insulting. I think many of the articles do just fine in describing the storylines as storylines and not real life events... Such as the articles I quoted mentioning kayfabe as the reasoning behind actions. The Rena Mero article doesn't even do this (it mentions "storylines" and the like instead) and it has good article status.

If all it takes is "His true pro wrestling debut came... to make clear where the sport ends and the work begins" as you say, I think most of the articles more than do this. If you ask me, I would have to say that just that simple sentence is not enough for the type of person you're talking about to understand that that is to be translated as "now began his fake-wrestling career." Is it not much more clear to make a simple statement and label it as kayfabe with an internal link, so that someone who is interested could actually do the research himself and figure out what I would argue anyone over the age of nine knows?

The problem is, like it or not the matches and their outcomes are part of the storylines. And as I illustrated with the Star Wars example, it is insulting to any reader to have to remind them every two sentences that what they are reading about is a contrived event. What Suriel1981 states:

What I have a problem with (when I refer to kayfabe) is not match results but presenting storylines as real with no distinction between fact and fiction - no way for the average person to know which bits are real!

does not make sense to me. Part of the inherent definition of "storyline" is that none of it is real. And the parts that are real and that are worked into the storylines are usually mentioned as such in the articles, such as the situation with Matt Hardy, Amy Dumas and Edge. Anytime I've read about a relationship it has either been pre or proceeded by the words "on-screen" or "real-life" or something of the sort. This is adequate for the purpose of distiguishing fact and fiction for anyone. And on top of that, there is also usually an internal link to shoot and work and the like, at least once in the article. This is more than enough.

Actually, going back to your quote of "His true pro wrestling debut came..." being enough to satisfy that requirement, that would mean that a person with "no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling" as you say, who can't distinguish anything described in the articles as fact or fiction without being so told, would have to know and understand that by "pro wrestling" you really mean "wrestling with contrived storylines, characters, events and match outcomes." I think most people would agree that is quite a stretch.

Even if that is a stretch, (and especially, if it's not) just mentioning the person is a professional wrestler in their opening description (with an internal link to the topic of pro wrestling and its encyclopædic definition) should suffice to let this "person with no knowledge whatsoever of wrestling" know that what they are reading about is likely part of a storyline unless otherwise stated. Reading the article for Professional wrestling one should no doubt be able to read any other pro wrestling related article and be able to understand that it is not at all suggesting that Hulk Hogan legitimately overpowered the Iron Sheik or that Al Wilson really died while having sex with Dawn Marie.

Again, yes, some articles need clean up and stronger wording, but for the most part, there is really no problem with they way they present storyline events. And I again content that removing kayfabe would mean taking most pro wrestling biographical articles down to: "_____is a professional wrestler who worked for _____ promotion between the years of ____ and ___. That is all that is relevant because the rest is fiction."

--JohnDoe0007 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the inherent definition of "storyline" is that none of it is real. You think? Okay, clearly I didn't make it obvious enough that I dislike articles mispresenting storylines as actual facts. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) has been brought up a few times already, guess I may as well do it again. Suriel1981 03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Why is anyone claiming that WP:WAP means that you can't write about fiction? People need to actually read the guideline before dismissing it. — Gwalla | Talk 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAP? I'm not sure anyone's saying you can't write about fiction, it's mostly about how much is used and whether there's a clear divide between fact and fiction in the article. Suriel1981 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Suriel1981, the reason I made that statement is because you said "presenting storylines...no way for the average person to know which bits are real!"...I understand now you were talking about which bits of the article are real. The way it is worded it leads a reader to believe you're saying there's no way for the average person to know which bits of the storylines are real, which is why I said it doesn't make sense.

But are you kidding me? How is this still an issue? Did I not make the point that there is a clear divide for the most part in most articles? If not, please elaborate. Or at least articulate any problems you have with the way the articles do it, such as the examples I provided. Or provide examples of how the articles do lead people to believe kayfabe events are real. Just quoting my one line and mocking it doesn't really do much for the discussion.

This is still a different discussion, besides. Am I to assume from the lack of any related comment or response that we are in agreement that removal of all kayfabe from all articles is a bad idea? This was essentially the main topic of both of my responses. --JohnDoe0007 06:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, having started the discussion in the first place, I think kayfabe should stay in articles, but we should add some stuff that's real, e.g. the three things I mentioned at the beginning (WMXX, RVD etc.). Davnel03 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christ we got sidetracked a bit. I agree, noting that the RVD example would need watertight references. Suriel1981 18:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to set up a discussion/consensus (seeing there might be a divided opinion)

Davnel03 18:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - In favour of bringing non-kayfabe issues into articles

• Aye Suriel1981 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes with high requirements for sources and verifiability. MPJ-DK 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, I don't see how you can have an encyclopædic article about anything professional wrestling-related without incorporating both (kayfabe and non-kayfabe). But yes, non-kayfabe would need source citation. --JohnDoe0007 00:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yes - We need to be able to talk about how Mark Calaway, for example, is from Texas, and not just the "fact" that the Undertaker is from Death Valley (provided both of those things are attributable, of course). - Geoffg 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Although, while this survey covers the original question, it doesn't seem to incorporate the opinions of those who say the opposite, that kayfabe shouldn't be in articles at all...are we assuming everyone agrees kayfabe should be there in the first place? --JohnDoe0007 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the results of the cards should be revealed... that's kayfabe, isn't that? ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although a win in a major show can have both kayfabe and non-kayfabe significance. - Geoffg 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't initally thinking of removing kayfabe, I just thought, maybe, we should insert some, not all non-kayfabe things. Davnel03 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - Several opinions and do not know which one to support

• Neutral but in favor of not putting in backstage "news" because most of the "news" is actually rumors. It's a crap-shoot whether or not they come true. Some non-kayfabe stuff should probably be included, but not those that cannot be verified. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I agree that real reliable non-kayfabe stuff should be added. I do not think that we should add everything that Wrestling Observer and other dirt sheets/rumor sites say though because no one can confirm whether they are true or not. TJ Spyke 21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I've voted for support I also agree whole-heartedly with Skyke's comment above. Gary Albright's article was admin-wiped yesterday for lack of sources, with reference given to this email by Jimbo Wales [9]. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral per TJ Spyke-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Mu - I don't think this is even an issue (is anybody seriously suggesting that we never mention kayfabe? That'd reduce most wrestling articles to stubs at best, and obliterate articles like suplex). The real issue is how we refer to kayfabe vs. non-kayfabe events, and their relative priority. — Gwalla | Talk 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU...That's what I've been trying to say...but the point is no one has responded...this whole survey is asking whether non-kayfabe should be in articles...which (while it was the original question) I'd have to say is almost as absurd as the opposite. --JohnDoe0007 09:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Comments

• This poll is so loaded - of course the kayfabe and the non-kayfabe have to mix and mix well. That's the point of a good article. But in an industry where the non-kayfabe is non-verifiable (for the most part), the truth is writing an article that has a balance of both will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible. And no, Pro Wrestling Torch and Wrestling Observer Newsletter is not considered to be verifiable sources when it comes to WWE. Or perhaps even TNA or ROH. kelvSYC 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

FINALLY. Someone has actually acknowledged my point. --JohnDoe0007 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you consider a proper source. Do you really think WWE would acknoledge things like this? Obviously not. They wouldn't reveal thing like this on their official website, but how in the living hell would we ever have a wrestler FA-Class status without some kind of non-kayfabe stuff. Some things on the websites mentioned, yes, can be seen as bullshit, but if you can get 4 or 5 sources, it must be, in one sense true. Something, [10] like this could be considered wrong (unless any of you people heard HBK say it...). By the way, books are always a good source, for non-kayfabe stuff. Eric Bischoff's book does go out of kayfabe (I have it; I should know), and I know Mick Foley reveals behind the scenes stuff in his book. That's good enough to be true, surely? If that can't get inserted into an article, what the living hell can? Davnel03 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And who published Bischoff's and Foley's books? That's right, World Wrestling Entertainment. So, yes, WWE would certainly acknowledge things like this - but only long after said event has happened (even though it is from a subjective point of view). And saying that an article on a wrestler can never be FA-class without non-kayfabe is absurd - there are no current FA-class wrestling articles that has the non-kayfabe, that doesn't mean anything. Last time I checked, the non-kayfabe is not a necessary condition for an article to be an FA-class article. In fact, I'd argue that the non-kayfabe weakens the article's quality standing as WP:V is a much harder concern. kelvSYC 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Previously deleted articles

here is a short list of previously deleted articles which have been deleted in the last few months. I should note, with the exception of one, all of these articles were deleted due to an expired/uncontested prod tag.

• Bill Tabb (Black Assassin), October 2006
• Gladiator Championship Wrestling, December 2006
• X-Girls, December 2006
• Vicious & Delicious, December 2006
• Slaughterhouse (professional wrestling), December 2006
• Old Age Outlaws, December 2006/March 2007

The articles WCW Jesse "The Body" Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament and WCW King of Cable Tournament were listed as non-notable wrestling events with two votes for delete (see afd discussion). MadMax 07:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, The Old Age Outlaws deserve and article, and maybe Vicious & Delicious. The others I am not so sure (although I don't see why a arm wrestling tournament deserves a article (although I actually do remember watching it when I was younger). TJ Spyke 10:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I'd have to say that most of them really aren't that notable IMO MPJ-DK 10:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WCW King of Cable Tournament was an early (and long running) televised supercard (predating Clash of Champions) for World Championship Wrestling and also marked one of the earliest victories of Sting over Big Van Vader. It seems to be just as notable as the original King of the Ring or WWF Kuwaiti Cup Tournaments. Also, I would think an event connected with the present governor of Minnesota has some notability (as well as a short lived push for Maxx Payne).

I'm suprised Bill Tabb was deleted however as he was one of the top heels in the Florida Championship Wrestling under Oliver Humperdink during its later years. I believe he also wrestled for the National Wrestling Alliance, Jim Crockett Promotions and the American Wrestling Association during the 1980s as well. MadMax 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I can actually remember the Jesse Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament, geez that's scary. Despite being mildy amusing it was total WrestleCrap and really NN. The Slaughterhouse is the other one I remember (assuming it's the Kevin Sullivan 89/90 version) which did feature Sullivan, Foley and Bigelow (I think) but they didn't achieve much in WCW and not really worth an individual article Suriel1981 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

King of Cable did NOT pre-date the clashes, the first clash was in 88 before there even was a WCW. It was a one time tournament to build Sting into a contender for Vader's title that's it. the King of the Ring tournament only became notable when it was repeated annually. MPJ-DK 19:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, a careless mistake on my part (I'd confused the dates with Clash of Champions XXIII while looking up a record of Vader and Sting's first non-Wargames meetings). However, the tournament wasn't a one night event but which ran from November-December of 1992 concluding at the 1992 Starcade. Additionally, as you've pointed out, was used as a build up for Sting's eventual title run. Also, if I remember correctly, it was their fourth major meeting with Vader having two out three victories (if you include the WarGames) over Sting. I had also meant the King of the Ring tournament of the mid 1980s (ex. Harley Race, Haku, Jim Duggan, etc.) which itself had a lasting effect on the promotion. MadMax 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of the articles mentioned, only King of Cable could possibly be re-made. RobJ1981 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

King of Cable was a 'flash-in-the-pan' event because WCW weren't capable of building long-term programs. I'd completely forgotten the name of the tournament and don't think I've heard it mentioned in years. I'd vote to delete that in an AFD and I can't see that any of the others are worthy of entire articles either. Suriel1981 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think this is a mirror of the original KoC tourny article. Checkiddout! [11] Suriel1981 21:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I do think that short lived tag teams such as the Old Age Outlaws would be better served being merged to single wreslers careers written in the point of view of that particular wrestler. If there were one article I would suggest to recreate, it would be Bill Tabb. MadMax 21:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nikita Allanov

Nikita Allanov has recently been proposed for deletion. Althugh the article is barely a stub, I think the article can be saved with some effort. MadMax 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've since establed his nobility, specifically his PWI 500 rankings as well as his matches with Dan Severn, however the article has been nominated for deletion. MadMax 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Those don't make him notable enough, sorry. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

J.R.

I can seem to find any reference for J.R.(professional wrestler) online or otherwise. Someone might want to see if this should be nominated for deletion. MadMax 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww man, this article is by the same dude that created Konan Big and keeps uploading copyrighted pictures to Wikimedia Commons... Suriel1981 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have prodded the article (so it should be deleted in 5 days if no one removes the PROD). TJ Spyke 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already had to warn the creator for removing the AFD template from Konan Big twice, I reckon this article's gonna go the distance too... Suriel1981 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can gather from the article, his ringname is Jesus Herrera who belongs to a stable including El Hijo del Perro Aguayo and Hector Garza called Los Perros del Mal however neither article mentions his involvement. Apart from being mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia, I can't find any references to support any claim in the article. MadMax 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Media of Wrestling

Is anything going on with WP:MoW? I know RobJ1981 was thinking about putting it up for deletion a while back. It's pretty dead and pretty much all of articles in its scope can/have be/en adopted by ourselves. Suriel1981 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think it needs to be up for deletion, as a matter of fact. It serves little to no purpose. As I've stated before: there is no other "Media of ..." projects (that I know of at least). Wrestling has video games, music and so on (but so does just about every other sports and entertainment company). RobJ1981 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What media there is tends to be WWE-released to pass notability so it isn't really as if WP:MoW is gathering together a wide variety of articles from different producers. As it is at the moment one might as well create a category for WWE media and have it overseen by ourselves (not that I'm suggesting that) as it would be far more effective. I'd support a deletion certainly. Suriel1981 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why that even existed. It's so niche that it apparently can't even sustain itself. — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we just redirect the page, have what templates and categories that need to be deleted deleted, and just officially take over that project. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Streaks and Factions

OK, so Cena has beaten both members of DX in the main event of WM. Is this notable? Cena is 4-0 at WM (not really that impressive), is this notable? Edge was 5-0 and that was mentioned a lot. Undertaker has defeated all four memebers of Evolution at WM (although they were not in Evolution when he did this), is this notable? Interesting maybe, but not notable. So that people don't keep adding these facts back in can we agree they are not notable and leave them out. I guess what I'm saying is as a project can we make is clear where we stand on trivial matter such as these. Darrenhusted 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cena being undefeated at Mania is notable, the rest are trivia at best MPJ-DK 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a trivia bit on WrestleMania 23 stating "This was the second year in a row that Cena main evented WrestleMania, and both times he won with the STFU. It is also the second year in a row that the World Heavyweight Championship has changed hands, but not the WWE Championship." which to me looks like rather uninteresting fancruft. Suriel1981 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See this stuff keeps turning up, on Undertaker's page, Cena's page and WM23 page. And I don't think any of it is notable. If you add Cena's not notable 4-0 then it would be neccessary for a listing of any wrestler with a small WM un-defeated streak. Darrenhusted 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're faced with an unfortunate situation of having many anonymous (and quite a few registered) editors going batshit crazy with WrestleMania frenzy and a burning desire to add anything they can think of (even if it's total bollocks). I don't know if it's best to leave them fight for scraps of recognition amongst themselves and then just delete all the crap, or to just keep reverting. Suriel1981 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Cena, he may have beaten Shawn Michaels last night but today his Daddy Dearest's article is up for deletion! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena Sr. Suriel1981 15:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil Apollo

I've been working on an article for Phil Apollo, however I've found two sources with contradict each other. His article at Imdb.com states his real name as Ray Liachelli Apollo born in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey while onlineworldofwrestling.com claims his real name is Phil Panos "originally" for Massachusetts. Are there two people who have wrestled under Phil Apollo or is this simply an error (as OWW doesn't mention his wrestling as Doink the Clown) ? MadMax 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is tough, since both have been known to make mistakes (like how IMDb has several things wrong in Undertaker's entry). TJ Spyke 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMDB is wrong. Their article is about Ray Apolo, one of the Doinks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Phil Apollo and Ray Apollo (Ray Liachelli Apollo) are not the same - Ray played Doink and is the guy on IMDB, Phil is a former ICW champion. MPJ-DK 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. MadMax 05:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Diva Breasts

Okay, so I've got a few people at Talk:Shelly Martinez that are adamant that details on breast enhancements (and even actual cup sizes now) are of importance and should be added to WWE diva articles. I myself disagree but I've run out counter-arguments. Is there any kind of policy/convention on this? Thankfully a potential discussion on whether nude photos could be used to source the statement "it can be confirmed she shaves her pussy" never left the starting blocks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They should only be mentioned if notable (like Stephanie McMahon and how it Jericho turned her breast implants into a storyline, even showing before and after pictures). TJ Spyke 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I got stumped when it was said that WWE divas are models and other wikipedia model sites often have those details which is I guess half-reasonable. Ahh I'll just tell them they're not officially models or something. Goddamn teen hormones. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, whether they are models or not doesn't matter. They have to show why their breast size is notable enough to warrant a mention. TJ Spyke 04:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the topic seems faily trivial. Should wrestlers physical enhancements or weight gain be included in articles for example Randy Savage and Scott Steiner suspicously increased muscle mass during the 1980s and 90s ? As TJ Spyke suggests, it would be much more practical for information to be included as part of a storyline or subject to some kind of relevent news source such as The Blue Meanie's weight loss. MadMax 05:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is trivial and unnecessary. I'll take a look at the talk page, but right off the bat I would offer the arguement that (like previously stated) it's not really relevant unless it was part of a storyline...and storylines are what the divas are involved in. Just because they take pictures for WWE material and do the occasional fitness or car magazine cover doesn't classify them as models by profession. Why do you think the WWE popularized the term "diva?" Because calling em "wrestlers" would be 1) too manly, 2) too generic (when was the last time you heard em call anyone a "wrestler"...it's "superstar" now), and 3) it's not exactly accurate for all of them, as they really don't do much wrestling...and to top it off, there's no term that really encapsulates what they are and the duties they perform...so, their job title is made-up. Otherwise, they would be called models. I guess the arguement here is that they aren't models.

Then I would say that unless a strong case can be made for the relevance of the info, their chest measurements aren't to be considered significant information. And even if they were, what would a viable source be? --JohnDoe0007 09:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A breast enlargement is a serious operation. If there is proof, it should certainly be noted. A life-changing procedure involving complex surgery is considerably more notable than 90% of the junk that ends up in wrestling biographies. McPhail 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Factually stating, with referenced sources, that someone had a surgical operation to increase the size of her breasts is one thing. Speculating as to the actual measurements of her anatomy just so 10 year old punks can fantasize using tape measures from Dad's tool box is another. --JohnDoe0007 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. And we have to go by WP:LIVING "editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Robbie Ellis

This might be a minor detail, however when compiling PWI 500 rankings for Robbie Ellis I noticed his website claimed he had been nominated during the years 1991, 1992, 1997 and 2005. However, according to the PWI 1999 Wrestling Almanac he isn't listed in 1997 and online sources state he was listed in 2004 instead of 2005. MadMax 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think PWI is more reliable for their own rankings than him. TJ Spyke 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the discrepency be cited in the website though ? MadMax 11:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's less controversial to just use the PWI Almanac. There's a bit of potential for conflict if it's mentioned in the article that exaggerates his own importance (also, many many people lie about themselves on their personal websites) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, nice one for getting some newspaper references in there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it has occured to me the article could be the subject of a revert war if anyone were to note his website and assume there had been a mistake (especially as the PWI Almanac is not available online). MadMax 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but this happens all the time when fanboys read some rumour on a forum and decide it overrides sourced material. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hardy's

I just noticed their belts are messed up, well it looks like it. First of all there are two different tag team belts in WWE, World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team. Why are these mixed together on both their pages? Also, the WCW one in the WWE? I don't see any information in either profile for that belt... Maybe some of you can clear this up? Govvy 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hardys have never won the WWE Tag Team Championship. Furthermore, the records for the WWETTC and WTTC have been mixed together in certain contexts (similar to the world titles). The Hardys have also won the WCW tag titles during the Invasion era, justifying their inclusion in the WWE section (the Hardys themselves have never competed in WCW). kelvSYC 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

okay, I get the title naming now, seems to be fixed by some of you. :) But the other bit, there is no information in the bio's about winning the WCW title or the invasion. Shouldn't that be in the bio's somewhere? Govvy 12:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber

I've added a free use image of the structure I took at NYR 06, if anyone cares . Peace, Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed, especially since the EC article has 2 pics of it (since people interested in the match type would likely click on the link). TJ Spyke 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are a lot of free use images, use a {{commons}} link. McPhail 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on age template

It's probably best to address this now rather than later. Should the birthdate in infoboxes be formatted as (A) "January 2, 2000" or as (B) {{birth date and age|2000|1|2}}, which produces (2000-01-02) January 2, 2000? McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for A (no template)

• Strong Oppose There is little benefit to using the age template, and just clutters up the infobox more (especially when it causes another line to show up (when they are born on something like December 24 or some other long date). It's also simpler and easier to just enter their birthdate normally. TJ Spyke 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with TJ, it clutters up what little space is already there, and anybody with a first grade education could figure out how old the person is with in seconds. Kris Classic 01:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for B (template)

• B. From my perspective, the latter format is preferable. It displays the current age automatically, which saves time and benefits readers who use an alternative to the Gregorian calendar such as the Islamic calendar. McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Don't forget the Hebrew calendar as well. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• B as well. McPhail brings up some great points. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• B I like that the age is part of it. MPJ-DK 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• B It is just plain superior for the reasons stated. -- The Hybrid 01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• B Per the above. However, I also agree with the below user that something as insignificant as this should never have required this, as I posted on one argumentative user's talk page. SteveLamacq43 11:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Votes for C (neutral)

• C couldn't care less either way. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• C Agreed. It seems to me that most of the work in this project goes towards settling pointless arguments about minor things like the match order and who gets listed first and now whether a template should be used or not. We should be more focused on improving articles. -- Scorpion 01:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• DING*DING*DING* you hit it on the nose Scorpion MPJ-DK 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah your'e damn right. Seems like some people don't care on the quality of articles, a discussion is hanging on the balance, but, oh no, no-ones leaving the opinions. I wonder if anyone will. By the way, non-kayfabe is much more important than a template. OMG what has this project come down to? 1 FA class article out of 2,000... Now you get MY point. Davnel03 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• C Just like Eminem I could not give a f**k. And I'm going to kill you. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• C I really don't give a s**t. Hhmmmm... I wonder what could be more important to you people... this or this. Oh well. Seems like a template is more important than bringing non-kayfabe stuff into articles. Maybe, it's just me. Davnel03 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Collaboration

I was thinking that since this project seems to have a pretty good number of members who are active on the talk page, we should consider having a weekly GA collaboration. WP:PW covers a lot of articles, but only has 4 GAs, so it would be nice to get a few more. I have been looking through several PPV articles and it would probably be easy to get some of them to GA status, especially the Wrestlemanias because there are several good WWE sources, so perhaps we could consider doing a PPV (Wrestlemana I?) first if we decide to do it. -- Scorpion 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of champions (by ring name?)

Unless I'm mistaken, aren't all these lists by date (and not ring name), or am I just reading that part of the articles wrong? Mshake3 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which ones? Do you mean articles like List of WWE Champions or List of ECW World Champions? Those are listed in chronological order, which is just common sense. Or is there some other list you are thinking of? TJ Spyke 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE Tag Team Champions: "This is a list, by ring name, of people that have been WWE Tag Team Champion." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Has someone changed the WWE Tag Champ article? It reads chronologically to me ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixes the wording at the top, since that was the only problem (it said they were listed by name, when they are actually listed chronologically). TJ Spyke 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Danielson

Admin Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) has removed nearly all of this article citing lack of source concerns. These removals include his entire moveset, his career and his past championships. I'll need help to get this back up to scratch. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why he did. BLP only call for removal of info that could controversial or libel. I added his profile at OWW, which should at least cover his moveset and titles, as well as most of the match results. TJ Spyke 03:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it all back. I think, hope it helps. I shall monitor it. Govvy 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs) is going by the theory that if it hasn't got a reference it should be there (he did the same to Gary Albright). He's a good admin but this kinda sucks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bob Backlund has been wiped out too. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You can revert it all back if you go through the history list, this user keeps messing with the Bob Backlund, Burntsauce. I just had some dealing with him/her on personal talk. But him/her is behaving like a sockpuppet and is rather irritable. Govvy 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He is not doing what is right either. BLP says only controversial material should be removed. Blanking an entire article just because it needs more sources is not acceptable or in the rules if I am interpreting them correctly. TJ Spyke 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's NOT in neither WP:BLP nor WP:A that all material without a source should be removed, only "contentious" material, so controversial claims and the likes. He's ignoring the actual rules and is vandalising the pages then wikilawyering that it's in the interest of WP:A and WP:BLP. MPJ-DK 06:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I been trying to get my point across but I feel wall and it made me feel annoyed. Really annoys me in a way that he can get away with removing loads of information like that. Govvy 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly_sourced contentious material has a quote from Jimbo Wales which flat-out states unsourced info needs to be "removed aggressively". He does make it clear this is "particularly true of negative information about living persons" but "is true of all information". That subsection can be interpreted by some people as to give them carte blanche to get rid of entire articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 06:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds more like wikipedian fundamentalism to me 71.190.13.186 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

World Championship Wrestling

Hi, I've just nominated this article for potential GA-status. If you feel it could be improved in any way, can you edit it or leave you comments here. I feel we need another GA article. Having only 4 out of 2000 + articles is very slim. I will edit the article as appropriate. Davnel03 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It won't pass in it current state as it is nearly entirely unsourced. A GA guideline is that footnotes are required to pass, not simply good prose. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The prose is surprisingly good. If it is possible to properly source everything (no small task) then I'd say it had an excellent shot. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's great to see how far that article has come. It used to be a mess. It just needs a few references and I think it could make GA. — Gwalla | Talk 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Mike Kahlua

• I'm trying to compile information for an article for "Hurricane" Mike Kahlua however does anyone know if he is the same wrestler as King Kahlua who wrestled for the American Wrestling Association in the mid 1980s or the "Prince" Kahlua who wrestled in the independent circuit during the early 1990s ? MadMax 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that "King" and "Price" Kahlua are the same guy, the guy that worked for IWCCW and trained Tom Brandi, I've never heard him nicknamed "Hurricane" but with a last name like that odds are good it's the same guy MPJ-DK 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming wrestling biography conventions.

I have noticed a lot of Request move of real names to ring names to title wrestler biographies. I really am not understanding why people are doing this it really annoys me. I can understand two wrestlers only atm. Hulk Hogan and André the Giant. But why are others doing this? The redirects should be of the ring names to the real named profile in my view. Can we at least have an order here? I feel and I would like all profiles to be titled by the real name. For instance, CM Punk is called Phil Brooks, Phil Brooks should be the name of the biographical article. Not CM Punk which is the wrestler name! What do the rest of you think? Can we stick to a rule that if the real name is known we can name the article by it. Govvy 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a rule, it's called WP:NC. One of the first lines: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". Most wrestlers are known by their ring name, some of the exceptions are wrestlers who are well known by more than 1 name (like Brandon Silvestry, who is well known as both Low Ki and Senshi). TJ Spyke 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is too much variation between subjects to have a hard and fast rule. In some cases the real name of the wrestler is little known, or even unknown (and in the case of Nigel McGuinness we are prohibited from adding the name of the subject due to external objections, so having the article there is a non-starter). In other cases, the wrestler has a lot of ring names, changes ring name frequently or is legally prohibited from appearing under their best known ring name due to trademark issues. It's impossible to abide by one rule all the time. McPhail 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is to use the ring name when talking about wrestling, and the real name when discussing his real life. Mshake3 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think being a "smart" fan can colour our judgement about this issue. People like us make a point of learning wrestlers' real names, but the "majority of English speakers" are not smart fans, and only know wrestlers by their public name, which is generally their ring name. - Geoffg 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Harris Brothers

Should we merge Ron Harris (wrestler) and Don Harris? They have wrestler just about their entire career as a team, and their articles are basically mirrors of each other. It wouldn't be unheard of, The Highlanders only have 1 article for the same reason. TJ Spyke 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe either have had a significant singles career. I would assume merging the two articles to the Harris Brothers would be the most logical solution. MadMax 08:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support completely ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've proposed a merge on the related pages. Davnel03 09:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking articles

user:Burntsauce has repeatedly blanked the Gary Albright article and also had a go at Shelton Benjamin and a few other articles, removing most of their text with the excuse "no original research". This CANNOT be how Wikipedia intends for matters like this to be solved, it can't be the intention of "No Original Research" to give people a free hand in blanking out material left and right if it doesn't provide 700 sources. Is there anything we can do about this guy? MPJ-DK 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:AN. I don't think blanking entire articles (except for the infobox) is allowed, and am tempted to give the test2 warning. TJ Spyke 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

, Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in his history he blanked I found yesterday. His policy is misguided, he didn't even bring up anything on our project page. Didn't request for immediate citation and certainly wasn't very helpful. In fact he has created more damage for us to clean up which is very unfair. I would of liked him to be punished but it doesn't look like that will happen. Not only that he had a go at me for his own vandalism on my talk page. That upset me!! 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the discussion and joined in, this guy is misuging WP:BLP to blank out pages, that's not what it states. MPJ-DK 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Gary Albright can be faulted for not having sources now :-) MPJ-DK 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt Bentley and Al Blake have been blanked.Nenog 04:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone in an reverted all that had not already been reverted. WP:BLP and WP:A does not support blanking uncontroversial material just because of lacking sources, I've called him on it and now he's namedropping the founder of Wikipedia instead - I know we're supposed to assume good faith but every time we point out that the policy he quotes doesn't support his actions he changes his reference - now to e-mails and what not instead of official policy. Frustrating MPJ-DK 06:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

New featured list

Just to let you guys who haven't noticed, WP:PW has its second piece of featured content with List of WWE Champions. Great stuff guys. -- Oakster  Talk  11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

SHOUT OUT!!! (copyright: The Public Enemy) to Scorpion0422 for his work ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. It really wasn't that hard, and with luck, we'll be able to get the other belt historys to FL status. The one for the WHW title is close. -- Scorpion 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)