Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Tony Anthony - new article created

I thought it was strange that there was no article on Tony Anthony, but I guess it was deleted in June because it was unsourced and non-notable. I wrote a new article today on a subpage of my user page that includes sources, but I was hoping someone could look it over before I actually create a new article. If it will just be deleted again, I can put some more work into it. If it will be considered good enough, I'd like to post it so that people with a little more knowledge of Anthony can help out.

And, if it's good enough to post, do I just add it back to the page it was deleted from? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I've never created an article before (let alone one that was previously deleted). Thanks to anyone who can help.

GaryColemanFan 17:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good little article with a great start. I did some cleanup on it for you, performed some structure changes, wording, wikilinking and brought several areas (more could be done probably) "out of universe" with terms like kayfabe, angle, booked, gimmick, etc. It should have no problem staying in the main article space now, you did a good job.

I also added a few tags in some places where there was either no citation or it wasn't clear if a citation a sentence or two later covered the whole area/paragraph.

It would be helpful if you could fix those tags by either adding more citations where they are needed, or removing the tags in areas where I may have incorrectly placed them (as mentioned above). Other things the article needs are (if possible) his birth date/location, and some general information on his personal life before and after wrestling - right now the article is entirely about wrestling and is not "broad in coverage." This info may be hard to find but go ahead and try if you have not already done so. No idea if its possible to find a good free use picture, but that always improves the articles.

Overall, great job - if you can tweak it in any or all of the ways I have suggested it will be even better. --Naha|^(talk) 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went through the article and made some minor changes, as well. I think a good idea would be to add the "Championships and accomplishments" section like in other wrestling bio articles. Nikki311 18:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow I completely missed that, "durnt dur nur" --Naha|^(talk) 18:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I added some more references and I've created the article, so it's now up at Tony Anthony. I'll keep working on finding a bit about his personal life. I know that he was married at one point, but I don't know if they're still together. And I have absolutely no idea how to distinguish a free use picture from any other picture. Anyhow, your help with my first article creation is greatly appreciated. GaryColemanFan 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Punjabi Prison Match

I think we should create an article for the Punjabi Prison Match, it is a unique match that is not similar to any other in TNA or WWE. It should have a seperate, such as the Elimination Chamber and Hell In a Cell becasue of its uniique nature, anyone agree or disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs)

Disagree. The match only took place one time, so it fails the notability policy. Chances are it fails the verifiability policy as well. The Hybrid 22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I do think the section on it should be expanded back to how it used to be. Due to the unique rules, 2 sentences is not enough for it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Theres another one at No Mercy, just like the EC when it first came out wasnt their an article written about it, so what makes this different?TrUcO9311 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that there is another one at NM, but nonetheless two doesn’t make it much more notable, and it would still be unverifiable. I think expanding the section on the match type is the only course of action that can be taken at this time. Peace, The Hybrid 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It should not have its own article. It is already included in the List of professional wrestling match types. Its entry there is sufficient. Anything more could be classified as cruft. Nikki311 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nikki on this, it definitely does not need its own article and the current entry on the match types page is sufficient... and this doesn't need to be modified unless any different rules or whatever occur at the NM or later Punjabi Prison matches. --Naha|^(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It's on Steel cage match, not List of professional wrestling match types. Someone needs to clean it up though since then entry does not explain the rules of the match, it doesn't mention that the inner docks lock after 1 minute of being opened (for example). TJ Spyke 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No, actually its on both. See Professional wrestling match types#Punjabi Prison_match. --Naha|^(talk) 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't see it before. TJ Spyke 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. The steel cage match article is terrible. It needs some definite attention, sourcing, and cleaning up. Nikki311 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up a bit. Maybe this should be merged to the List of professional wrestling match types. A lot of the information is duplicate. Nikki311 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just proposed the merger. Peace, The Hybrid 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, have been meaning to clean up the steal cage article for a while now, but it's a hell of a daunting task. I intend to merge things like the Xscape, and Hell in a Cell matches into it too (and anything else in a cage I can find sitting around -- removing their own articles). I figure putting all those onto one article will allow for comparing and contrasting the rules nuances.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Xscape match seems to have already been merged into steel cage match. It redirects there anyway. Nikki311 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think steel cage match was actually split off of List of professional wrestling match types because the latter was such an awful mess. — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification of GA Nomination coming up

Well in accordance with the proposed guideline that just kinda fizzled out I just want to notify the members of this project that once the Fabulous Kangaroos becomes a GA my next article up for nomination will be Al Costello, it's already been worked over by Naha who's been giving me some great feedback - but it can always stand another pair of eyes or 3 before I nominate it so if anyone feels like having a look I'd appriciate it. MPJ-DK 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article. I fixed some comma problems and added some wikilinks to some of the pro-wrestling terms non-fans wouldn't be familiar with. Nikki311 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for fixing the tenses throughout the article. I meant to go back to and do that myself but apparently it slipped my mind. :) --Naha|^(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I read through it, and it looks good. I did some cleanup, but I don't have any major changes for now. It's mentioned three times that the Kangaroos were the first team inducted into the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame, which seems a little much. That's the biggest I can come up with for now, though. GaryColemanFan 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On that same line I would like to know if someone can lend me a hand in working with Pedro Morales, for a man that is Hall of Famer and the first triple crown champ the article is quite short and I want to give it a GA push. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Review request

Can someone with some knowledge of this sport take a look at The Smokin' Gunns? I can't tell if it would make sense to an expert but as an outsider I find it not entirely clear. RJFJR 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Gunns themselves might have trouble following it. I'll make a few quick changes, but I need to get back to work, so I'll probably have to finish it up a little later (unless anyone else can lend a hand). One thing that bothers me about the article, though, is that the WWF referred to the team as "The Smoking Gunns." I've never seen them referred to as "The Smokin' Gunns" outside of Apter magazines, so I'd prefer the spelling used on WWF broadcasts and in the WWF magazine. GaryColemanFan 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on WWE's website shows 3 pages for "Smokin' Gunns" [1] but only 1 for "Smoking Gunns" [2]. TJ Spyke 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I did some editing, and I think it reads better now. It might have too much information about their careers after the Gunns, though (it already had a paragraph on Bart, so I added one of Billy). GaryColemanFan 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a quick copyedit. It obviously still needs to be referenced. --Naha|^(talk) 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

to put it bluntly that's a shitty article, I'm tempted to give it a total overhaul and actually make it more about the tag team instead of the break up. MPJ-DK 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through today and added some information about the tag team itself (along with some references). It's getting better, but it can still use quite a bit of work. GaryColemanFan 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I did another series of edits. I think it's starting to look decent, but it would be nice if anyone wants to look it over and give some feedback on what still needs to be done. GaryColemanFan 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some info and sources from the WWE title history section of their website. Nikki311 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

2008 WWE PPV's

I've noticed people adding dates for WWE PPV's after WrestleMania XXIV, but none of them have provided any sources. Should we remove them right now, or put tags up and give them a few days to provide sources? TJ Spyke 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider listed them awhile back (and for the last time, yes, they are a reliable source.) Mshake3 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't get into whether PWInsider is reliable or not, but that still is not a source. At the very least, someone needs to provide a URL for the rest of us to check or the info has to go since its not sourced. TJ Spyke 04:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=20994 There ya go, again.] Mshake3 04:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

*Sigh*, I didn't want to do anything unpleasant today, but I guess that I will since assertions are being made without any evidence being presented. Mshake, I am now officially asking you to prove that PWInsider meets the requirements stated at WP:RS. Failure to do so will cause me to take this to WP:RSN to get a third opinion from a larger group. Note: The preceding sentence was not a threat; rather, it was actually me saying that I would give the site a second chance rather than allowing the site to be blacklisted de facto. The Hybrid 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to say why this site isn't reliable. It seems that because it's techincally a "dirt site", it automatically can't be used. Everyone I've talked to who were against it hadn't even been to the site. Quite frankly, the authors have several inside sources from WWE and TNA, and wrestling in general. When they report something, they differenate between what is fact, what is planned, what was heard, what could or couldn't be confirmed, etc. Basically, they know what they're doing. I consider them to be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Mshake3 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof falls to the person making the positive assertion. You are asserting that PWI is (that's positive) a reliable source. I am now asking you to prove that it meets the criteria to be considered a reliable source. Asserting that it has several inside sources, differentiate from fact, etc. doesn't mean much. I’m asking you to prove it against the policy. That means, I want you to show that it is a peer reviewed, neutral, and scholarly source. Can you do so? The Hybrid 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't. We'll have to accept facts that the only sources we can ever use for wrestling articles are those from their officially companies. Take it up for a peer review. It'll make for an interesting discussion. Mshake3 04:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RSN#PWInsider.com. Peace, The Hybrid 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And just for the heck of it, [pwinsider.com/staff.asp here's the staff information.] Mshake3 05:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania logo

Ok, so there seems to be some debate on whether the next WM is going to be titled "WrestleMania 24" or "WrestleMania XXIV." 3bulletproof16 has uploaded Image:WrestleMania24logoNEW.JPG, using the source of "wwe.com", but does not point to the full URL where the image is actually located. He has also redirected "WrestleMania 24" to "WrestleMania XXIV."

Doing a search of both wwe.com and corporate.wwe.com for "WrestleMania XXIV" or just "XXIV" yields zero results for both articles and images. However, doing a search for "WrestleMania 24" on WWE.com yields 3 pages of results. In addition, page 5 of the latest issue of WWE Magazine, the "2007 Fall Preview" Special Issue Sept/Oct 2007 (which I have in my posession and incidently has a fairly interesting interview with CM Punk) has a full page advertisement for "WrestleMania 24" using this WrestleMania 24 logo (as opposed to a "XXIV logo"). Furthermore, www.orlandocentroplex.com (the location of WrestleMania 24), also uses this picture.

Ok and as I was typing this, my husband walked in after just checking the mail and plopped down an ever newer edition of WWE Magazine on my desk (November 2007 w/ Undertaker on the cover) and on page 25, it again uses the "24 logo."

Whether or not WWE plans to change to using a "XXIV logo", I have no idea, it may very well happen, but right now I can't find any proof that the "XXIV logo" is legit and actually from WWE. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, or in the correct places, I don't know. If someone can show proof that WWE has switched to the roman numeral logo, that would be great. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly they used it in a commercial during Unforgiven and bulletproof ignored a discussion and lack of consensus when he moved the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The new logo did in fact appear for a promo during the Unforgiven broadcast this past Sunday. The reason why WWE.com might have not updated their page with the new logo immediately after Unforgiven is probably because there aren’t any news updates concerning the event therefore there is no rush in updating the page. Here is the link to the new promotional video uploaded on youtube. [3]. Since the new logo now uses Roman numerals the event is no longer known as WrestleMania 24 but rather WrestleMania XXIV, and as a result, the article's name should reflect that change. Take WrestleMania 22 for example. The same thing occurred when the promo that aired during WrestleMania 21 announced the event as being WrestleMania XXII then a few months later the second and final logos were released which replaced Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. As a result the event immediately became known as WrestleMania 22. While I am positive that the change of name will not be reflected immediately in press releases or news media in that sense, the change has been made clear by WWE as proven by this new promotional video. If they chose to release yet another logo like they did with WrestleMania 22 that’s their business but for now the event's name is WrestleMania XXIV.-- bulletproof ^3:16 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so thats where it came from. However, how does that one commercial with the XXIV logo override all the evidence I have provided above for the 24 logo as far as Wikipedia is concerned?--Naha|^(talk) 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A TV commercial is more recent than an AD in a magazine, as far as I'm concerned. Question though, what was the ad in the magazine refering to exactly? Mshake3 04:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean what was it referring to? It is a full page color ad for WrestleMania 24. Dates, times, location, saying when the tickets go on sale (Saturday November 3, 10am EST by Ticketmaster). It looks like a big postcard. I can scan it if you want I guess. --Naha|^(talk) 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I scanned it anyway. The magazine ad can be viewed here: http://pages.suddenlink.net/silverwinds/WrestleMania24ad.jpg. Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So it's the same thing, an on sale promotion date. Still, the TV Commercial was made more recently, so I have to side with that. In fact, I'd bet that next month's magazine will have the same ad with the new logo. Mshake3 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns and PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns by length

I question the value of having these articles at all. Particularly the second, it is fraught with problems, not the least of which is adequate citations to show what titles were "world" titles when, having the table accurately depicting only those champions from the time periods in question and not others (although the reverse also seems an issue, that champions have been removed wholesale because the titles in question are either not now or were not at some point counted), and most troubling is that it (both of them, actually) directly contradict another article, that being World Heavyweight Championship, which currently states the following

" NWA World Heavyweight Championship (1948-1991 / 2002-2007) - claims lineage of George Hackenschmidt's 1905 and Frank Gotch's 1908 version, defended in multiple territories and promotions since 1948, used in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling from June 2002 to May 2007. Although it was stripped of its World Title status by PWI in 1991, with the recent success of TNA, PWI restored its World Title status officially in its August 2006 issue since it began being used in TNA in 2002. Shortly after NWA and TNA severed ties, NWA was quietly stripped of its World Title status, while TNA retained theirs. "

Yet Adam Pearce is listed in both the above mentioned articles. This quite obviously can't all be true.

And yes, I think it's a load of mularkey that what one magazine (which has rarely if ever paid attention to smaller companies - their Match of the Year for 2006 was Shawn Michaels vs. Vince McMahon for chrissakes), time-honored and well-respected though it may be, says on the issue is treated like Gospel, but as I hope I've shown that's really beside the point. These articles have issues, issues that need dealing with, and in my mind (though I doubt anyone would agree with me on this) something this synthetic doesn't cry out for an article to begin with.

And then there's PWI's list of wrestling World Tag Team Title reigns, but World Tag Team Championship makes only three passing mentions of PWI, not like World Heavyweight Championship, the pro wrestling section of which makes it clear what its definition of "World Heavyweight Championship" is (despite, again, that being contradicted in PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns and PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns by length)

I think I'm rambling, and my points have probably been made somewhere in there. Cheers to anyone who read through all that :) Nosleep1234 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also think it's a bit ridiculous how we cling so tightly to PWI's definition of a world title, especially considering how America-centric it appears to be. I think WP:PW's reliance on PWI on this matter needs to end, because nothing I've seen would really seem to indicate that it's an "official" source on the subject. --MarcK 23:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and that's why I question the merits of these articles at all. I would remove Adam Pearce from the tables, since it seems most likely that TNA kept its world title status and the NWA belt is now (LOL) "just an indy title" like the ROH, PWG, and CZW championships (especially considering the NWA title has lost its status in the past), but there's no citation one way or the other. If I weren't so dead certain of the outcome, I'd raise the issue of abandoning PWI's definition of a world title on a larger scale. Nosleep1234 19:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 2006 match of the year, I would like to point out that PWI's awards are voted on by the fans (the only exception being the PWI Editors Award, sorta like a lifetime achievement award), so blame the fans for picking that match. We can't abandon PWI unless we want to just remove all mentions of any titles being world titles. We can't make up our own definition (that would be OR) and half of the indy feds out there claim that there title is a world title. Also, PWI does cover a lot of small organizations. TJ Spyke 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That was really just an off-the-cuff remark. Care to address any of the other issues? I'm not saying we should include every fed that calls their belt a world title, I'm saying it's pointless to have these articles at all, considering that what they document is so subjective and synthetic. Nosleep1234 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I personsally like the PWI article (singles, I never look at the tag team title one since that is far less clear as to what they consider to be a world tag team title). PWI has generally considered the definitive wrestling magazine since it started out, that is why we have articles on it. I would like to know what others think though. TJ Spyke 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

411: TNA Slammiversary

This is a 411 to the PW community: there is a discussion HERE regarding the page movement of the Slammiversary articles. Please post any discussion at the highlighted link, not here. Thank you! MITB LS 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

ECW One Night Stand (2005)

As I did with December to Dismember (2006) a few weeks ago, I have now moved One Night Stand 2005 into the mainspace, which I have been worknig on in my sandbox for several days. Feel free to have a look at it. I will probably put it up for peer review within the next week. Davnel03 14:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I hate to do this, but I have to ask about the reliability of WrestleView.com. I've never been to the site before, and after quickly looking over it just now, it seems to be one of those spoilers/news/dirt sheet kind of websites. Am I wrong? Nikki311 17:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Na, it's OK. It's half and half. Some websites (PWMania, Wrestling-Edge) report virtually every rumour going. WrestleView, while yes, it does have some rumours, it also does have a load of news (not rumours) e.g. results, interviews, columns and just wrestling news in general, that aren't exactly spoilers. However, I'm not going to insert any kinds of spoiler type things into the One Night Stand article. Yes, I've had to use it several times, but my aim with one or two of these articles is to make them GA's, and maybe, just maybe an FA at one point. Although you may not think it, looking at the PPV articles, WrestleView in the PPV case (not for a superstar article) has become a reliable source I believe. In the December to Dismember (2006) article, I've gone and put further detail, on why Heyman left. I would of put WWE.com as a source, but they used kayfabe reasoning. Also, on the ONS 06 article, same goes with Meanie/JBL, that was widely reported, and Meanie even released a picture of what JBL had done. WWE.com never reported the incident, therefore I have had to use WrestleView.com as a primary source. I've tried to use a mixture of source primary with WWE.com, secondary wit WrestleView and an "outsider" like news source in SLAM! Sports. Thanks, Davnel03 17:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of the bits of info is wrong, even getting it from WrestleView or WWE.com. Ariel won her match with a Claw Hold STO, not a leg sweep. I'd change it, but the only way to verify it is the PPV itself.

Forgot to sign--ProtoWolf 17:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All three (SLAM, WrestleView and WWE) state Ariel won via a legtrip/legsweep, so its best to leave it at that. Davnel03 17:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I checked the first three citations for WrestleView, and all three of them came directly from PWInsider. And that site is blacklisted, while this one isn't? Mshake3 18:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I had to revert. The apparent consensus is that minor PPVs promoted under the same promotion are not to be split. If you would like to change that consensus feel free to start a new discussion regarding this matter.-- bulletproof ^3:16 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Davnel03 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That sucks after all of the work that you put into it, but I'm afraid that Bulletproof is correct. That has been the project MoS for some time now. The only reason D2D was an exception is because you sourced literally the entire article, and it has a real chance at becoming featured some day. Sorry dude, The Hybrid 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm off. Maybe, I do some great work, and it gets ruined. Without a discussion. Davnel03 18:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you work on it in your sandbox, and ask for comments on the work here to get some help if you want it, then chances are this won't happen again when you move it into the article. A verified article trumps consensus, and no one in their right mind would try to destroy one anyways. Sorry about this; if I could do anything then I would. Peace, The Hybrid 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I did work on it in my sandbox, for nearly two weeks. I was satisfied with my work and moved it into the mainspace. And it was mostly referenced. Someone tell me what's better: A load of stubs, or a load of GAs? Someone answer that? Sorry, but I'm a little annoyed. Davnel03 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hybrid. If you can provide us with well written, well sourced articles, not just for one of the events under the ONS name but for all of the ONS PPVs, then there would be no reason to keep those events in one article anymore. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's what he's trying to do. I simply trusted your judgment without looking at the diff until Davnel linked to it. That article is refrenced to the teeth. I'm afraid that I will be reverting you. The Hybrid 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's an assinine comment bulletproof - you're saying that the articles can't be improved one at a time but have to be for the whole lot at once? I'm sorry but at lease Davne is trying to IMPROVE the quality of the articles and this is the attitude? that it's not enough? that unless it's all you're appointing yourself the grandmaster of how it should or should not be? MPJ-DK 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You all do realize that there are a grand total of zero references in it's current state, right? And we have to wait until ALL the PPVs in the series are fully writen before spliting them off? Bullshit. If an article is well written and correctly sourced, it should be allowed in the encyclopedia, end of story. Mshake3 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope my point has gotten through. Davnel03 19:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(after 4 edit conflicts) Look folks, if information regarding a pay-per-view can be discussed in enough detail to warrant its own article space, and if it can be appropriately sourced, whether or not it is considered a "big" PPV has no bearing on it getting its own article. Its more than notable enough. The only problem with this ONS article is that its sources are questionable. When that is fixed it should return to the main space. There is no reason for waiting for all ONS articles to be completed before this one has its own article. That is completely rediculous. --Naha|^(talk) 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I meant. If the 2005 event is the only one that is currently referenced, it does indeed warrant its own article. However since the rest are not, they should still remain in the article's mainspace. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to split '06 and improve the '06 article in the mainspace as suggested. Thanks, Davnel03 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was being suggested otherwise. If it was, no no no. Until the other ONS articles are fleshed out and made into their own articles, the main ONS article that lists the results for all of them should remain intact. (ie, don't remove the ONS '05 results quite yet just because it has its own article). Once all of them have their own article, the Main ONS article can probably be deleted. If that is what you are saying then I completely agree. --Naha|^(talk) 19:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the results of the 05 event from the mainspace a la In Your House since those results can now be found in another article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I forgot about the "See Main article here" notices, I guess that is sufficient. --Naha|^(talk) 19:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should keep it in the mainspace as a B or C class article so everyone can work on the sources, and not just the people who know about Davnel's sandbox. Peace, The Hybrid 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's why this is called a project. We work and improve articles together. We help each other. Davnel03 19:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For a moment when the revert happened, you do reliase I was considering from retiring from Wikipedia? Davnel03 19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you felt that way. People retire over things like that all of the time. I'm just glad that we could work it out without any casualties. Peace, The Hybrid 19:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff can get very heated around here very quickly, especially when there is a misunderstanding or miscommunication. We just have to keep our cool and try to work things out, detailing exactly what we mean as well as possible in attempt to avoid that confusion. --Naha|^(talk) 19:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I'm working on the same thing for Lockdown (2007) on my Sandbox. Why this event? As I was actually at it ringside, I could encorporate many of the photos I've taken and make it one heck of an article. And if that works, I can also apply it to WrestleMania X8 and WrestleMania XIX. Mshake3 19:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Before that goes in the mainspace, it needs references. Davnel03 19:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Refs are easy. Coming up with content that sounds great and not crufty is the hard part. Mshake3 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I'm heading offline for the night now, so can somebody try and keep an eye at One Night Stand (2006) in case somebody tries to remove the underconstruction tag at the top of the page. If anyone can improve the article while I'm offline, please do. That'll be great. Night all. Davnel03 19:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool man. I've also got to get ready for an indy show tonight. I should be able to get some photos for the articles, namely for Billy Kidman and Amazing Kong. Mshake3 20:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Page that should be deleted

1PW Second Anniversary Show‎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.240.34 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I nominated it for speedy deletion, but it is on the borderline of the criteria. If that doesn't work I will prod it, and then AfD it. Thanks for letting us know. Peace, The Hybrid 06:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now proded. The Hybrid 07:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 needs to go too. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 is up for AfD. Nikki311 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Armageddon 2007

I've just come across this. Quote from article:

• David Robertson sent this in: Looking through wikipedia today and noticed that Armageddon this December is set to take place Dec. 16 in Pittsburgh, PA at the Mellon Arena.

I'm guessing that a vandal inserted that in, but the fact that its got through to other websites, and the fact that we are credited as a source was beyond me. It seems to suggest that the event place has not been announced yet. What is our stance on this? Davnel03 08:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• That is one of the reasons that I questioned the reliability of wrestleview.com yesterday. I really don't think it should be used as a source at all. Fact checking clearly isn't a priority for them. Nikki311 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think it should be used in superstar-related articles, but I do think it could be used in the PPV articles that are currently being developed, like December to Dismember (2006). If these articles are going to be as compresive and well-written, then WrestleView and sites like it might have to have a few sources in there. As I stated earlier, and I'll state again, WWE.com simply most of the time stays in kayfabe and most of the time doesn't give us the real reason behind things e.g. Heyman's departure, meaning I've had to use WrestleView to expand on why he left. Thanks, Davnel03 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• In any case I'll try not to use it in One Night Stand (2006) which I'm working on now. I'll try and use WWE.com more often instead, but might need to use WrestleView once or twice if something isn't covered fully in another source. Thanks, Davnel03 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• WWE.com isn't the best alternative either for the reasons you pointed out. I think the best tactic is to use books, especially with some of the older pay-per-views, or interviews with the people involved. If those don't exist, then perhaps that particular pay-per-view shouldn't be expanded quite yet. Nikki311 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• WWE.com's a good source for results, but that's just about it (well also, title history I guess). Book sources, magazines, I might need some help with that. It's a good job we have the library page! Davnel03 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here is when the location was added (which, suprising, also states that, while the event might be cancled, no location has been announced). It was removed 47 minutes later. Nenog 09:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling toys

What is the protocol on articles about wrestling toys/action figures? I'm only asking because I came across WWF Hasbro Action Figures. Is this worth cleaning up and keeping or should I prod it? Are there other lists of toys/action figures currently, because I don't think I've come across any up until this point. Nikki311 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just found another one: Raw Deal (card game). Is this one notable enough to keep, as well? Nikki311 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They are both notable enough to keep and have the potential to begood articles at some point. I haven't played RAW deal but have read about it several times in various places. I am, however, a budding action figure collector lol. Believe it or not, Hasbro and Jakks Pacific have a lot of history with and the evolution of their products and that type of information could make a good article. The figures are fairly regularly featured in a couple toy collecting magazines I've read in the past. Although they are mostly about Jakks figures these days as opposed to Hasbro, because that is who is currently producing WWE and TNA figures. WWE actually either currently has or recently had a lawsuit with Jakks Pacific over something or other. --Naha|^(talk) 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. I'll try and clean these up at some point. Nikki311 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Curci

The message below was left on my talkpage, and thought it would be interesting to bring it here:

Hey Davnel,

Considering your interest in professional wrestling, do you think that Rebecca Curci is salvagable? Most of the sections are bulleted lists when they could be paragraphs. I wouldn't have the expertise on the subject you would, but the article could use work. -- Guroadrunner 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Curci's article should be AFD'd, but wanted to bring it here to see if others agree with me on it. Davnel03 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It has some good sourcing. At the very least it could be merged to Nitro Girls. Nikki311 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I should probably mention that I'm indifferent/neutral on this one. Nikki311 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to its good sourcing I think the article should just try to be reworked. It has potential. It doesn't need to be sent to AFDs. --Naha|^(talk) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are a couple of sources doesn't mean she needs an article. Yes she was one of the Nitro Girls and is the wife of Shawn Michaels, but I am not sure if she is really all that notable. I am leaning towards a merger with the Nitro Girls article (for the stuff on her WCW career) and Shawn Michaels article (for her marriage to him). TJ Spyke 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Seems to me that the references are sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. I don't see that an AFD would be in order. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The personal life section amounts to a collection of trivia/cruft, and the appearances section is entirely unsourced. I don't feel that the 3 refs which are used repeatedly assert the kind of notability that we are looking for in an article. I think that an AfD would be perfectly justified. The Hybrid 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the comments above, I have nominated the article for deletion. The discussion is here. Davnel03 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review notification

One Night Stand (2005) - discussion here. Davnel03 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PPV's

On PPV's where it says "Results", then the years under isnt there another word we can use instead of "results"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• What? Nenog 21:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at one of the PPV pages (like WWE Backlash) to see what he means. I don't think it's a big deal, so why change it? TJ Spyke 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why change it? They are results. Nikki311 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering thats what they are ...results, I don't know what else we could change it to. Nothing comes to mind, although I'm not really trying to think that hard because ..well, I don't see why it needs to be changed. Did you have a specific suggestion? --Naha|^(talk) 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess maybe it could read "Match results." Slightly more descriptive but adding one word doesn't accomplish a whole lot. I guess I just don't know what this person is looking for. *shrug* --Naha|^(talk) 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Match results, PPV results, Results of each PPV, etc. There are several things that we can change it to, but I, like the others, don't see why we should. The Hybrid 06:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Results is fine as that's what it is. For the expanded articles, I'd change it to "quick results." Mshake3 04:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hack Meyers article

I noticed yesterday that this article had a non-notable tag on it. I've been working on it, and it's getting better. If anyone wants to look over it, I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to get the tag removed and make sure that the article doesn't get deleted. GaryColemanFan 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if it's good enough to be considered notable now, how much more work would it need to take it from stub-class to start-class? GaryColemanFan 15:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Y2J Chris Jericho Return

I dont kknow if anyone else saw it but, WWE has confimed the chris jericho return, in a weird way. Listen this link is not considered reliable but the video is from last night on Monday NIght RAW (9/24) and they ahve written its significance, I actually paused the video to see if it was true, IT WAS!. Click Here >>[4].

P.S. Before you read what they have wrote, scroll down to the video box and watch the video from last night and then read it what they wrote

So should we request and admin to add this information?--TrUcO9311 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not confirmation in the slightest bit. That is just some people speculating on what they think a weird promo was about (personally, I thought it was a promo for Cyber Sunday). So, no, I would not ask an admin to add anything. TJ Spyke 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think this will prove anything but also on his myspace, [5] his headline is "im coming back", dont know if its helpful just thought i let you know.

TrUcO9311 21:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he is. We can't say for sure he is though, I hope you understand. TJ Spyke 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Of Course I Do, dirt sheet sites always speculate things sometimes true sometimes false but we will see what happens.TrUcO9311 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's becoming more and more suspicious about Y2J's return, another vignette aired on ECW (9/25) about the Save_Us 222 promo.--TrUcO9311 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The myspace page is believed to be a fake. The Hybrid 06:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea we know, the website is fake. I mean if people will just take the time to pause the video and think about what that "dirt " website says it all adds up. To Y2J and vignettes keep airing on the WWE TV Shows, but we should stop havig thsi conversation as it is non-related to improvin PW articles, and "his" return is unconfirmed.--TrUcO9311 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Chin Music

There seems to be a grammatical disagreement in several articles. Another editor and I are disagreeing on how Shawn Michaels move should be mentioned in PPV results. He thinks it should be listed by itself (i.e. "Michaels pinned Austin after Sweet Chin Music"). I have told him that doesn't sound right to me and should have something listed in front (i.e. "Michaels pinned Kane after a Sweet Chin Music" or "Michaels pinned Hart after the Sweet Chin Music"). What do others think? This issue has been on and off for a few months, never anything serious but it should be settled once and for all. TJ Spyke 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose my preference is "the Sweet Chin Music." I think it sounds best that way. Of course, this is only based on my personal preference. But I think I recall hearing announcers refer to it that way. GaryColemanFan 00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TJ, can you show me one instance where your wording is used on WWE.com? Mshake3

I don't think it's ever been mentioned "Shawn Michaels hit the sweet chin music on Undertaker" or whatever on WWE.com (or other reliable sites). Hasn't results for a finisher of Shawn Michaels always been listed without the words "the" and so on? Let's not nitpick little things. RobJ1981 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I change it to having nothing in front of it is because music is a collective noun and does not need an "A" in front of. Just basic grammar. Plus no other sites have "A" in front of it. TheHeartbreakKid15 20:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: as a wrestling move Sweet Chin Music may validly have an article—either definite or indefinite—placed before it; however, as a capitalised proper noun, it is easily recognisable as a move—distinguishable from adjectival sweet chin music—and, as such, does not require either the or a. Therefore, my suggestion is that both forms are acceptable and that changes should not be made to the initial occurrence (as with policy governing use of American and British English), although, in contrast to that policy, consistency within the page is not required, i.e. just because the first Sweet Chin Music appearing on a page had the in front of it, it does not mean that all occurrences on that page require the too.

Whatever the ultimate concensus is—and whether it requires a simple discussion here, conversations with the mediation cabal, or a formal dispute resolution—please wait until that concensus has been reached before continuing in your petty edit war. ObfuscatePenguin 00:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, but I am gonna stop anyways. I am just curious as to why THK all of a sudden started going around removing all instances of "a" and "the". I don't feel like risking a ban on it though. TJ Spyke 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no reasoning other than what I think sounds right. That being said, *to me*, it sounds funny to say "a" or "the" in front of the names of the moves, and between the two of them, "the" sounds much stranger than "a" to me. That is my 2 cents. In any instance, depending on the sentence, it needs to be grammatically correct. --Naha|^(talk) 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If THK wants to waste time removing articles, then we should just let him have his fun. It's nothing worth any thought, The Hybrid 05:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even having this conversation? Davnel03 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Becuase he started doing this same thing earlier this year, and then started doing it again not long after I returned. Considering that Michaels has competed in nearly 90 PPV matches, that is a lot of edits to remove the words "a" and "the" everytime he used the Sweet Chin Music. TJ Spyke 23:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it referred to as anything other than simply "Sweet Chin Music." What's more, "the Sweet Chin Music" sound absolutely horrible. "A Sweet Chin Music" is not much better. Koberulz 15:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Antonino Rocca

There appears to be a lot of discrepancies and questionable information on Antonino Rocca's article. Case in point: him being a national champion rugby or soccer player & starting his wrestling career when he was 13. Can anyone check out the article or maybe fix er up? --Endless Dan 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris Jericho

Just letting you guys know that due to recent vandalism stemming from the promo on RAW, the Jericho article has been fully-protected, and the talkpage has been semi-protected. Davnel03 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is that wonderful time of year

It's that wonderful time of year again...the Diva Search and everything that comes along with it. As expected, a couple of the contestants have had pages pop up. I've put a speedy delete on Eve Torres and Jessica Hatch. The latter was contested, so I took it to AfD. Feel free to comment. Nikki311 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Federation Years (WWE)

I've also recently come across this new article: Federation Years (WWE). Should it be merged into History of World Wrestling Entertainment and/or 1980s wrestling boom? I think it should...there's a lot or redundancy. Thoughts? Nikki311 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one that falls into the same category: New Generation (WWF). Nikki311 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Saying that the History of WWE article needs a lot of work. Davnel03 18:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else have an opinion on this. Should I suggest a merge? AfD? I'm not sure how to handle this one. Nikki311 01:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say merge them both. There isn't that much in New Generation not already in the History article so the merge shouldn't be too bad to do. DrWarpMind 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the merge tags on both articles with a link that redirects here for the discussion. So, I guess voice your opinions below:

Merger to History of World Wrestling Entertainment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge into History of World Wrestling Entertainment and 1980s wrestling boom. - Nikki311 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support, both articles replicate info already located in the History of World Wrestling Entertainment and 1980s wrestling boom. Two more articles are more redundant than necessary. Nikki311 01:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per Nikki. No length issues exists, so centralized information should take precedence. The Hybrid 02:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per Nikki and Hybrid. --Naha|^(talk) 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per above. Davnel03 15:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - per all the above. Gavyn Sykes 17:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I already agreed above but might as well add it here too DrWarpMind 21:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Agree per all of whats above.--TrUcO9311 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survivor Series Poster

I know the site is a "dirt" wrestling site, but they have the poster for the 2007 event. [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs)

I really hope that ends up being fake, because it's not that good IMO. TJ Spyke 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's from In Demand [7], which means it's likely to change. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I just tried putting that in the article, but some other user reverted it and put back a fake image they uploaded (that has no source, no copyright, nothing). Would it be acceptable for me to revert it since the image I added has a source, copyright, and seems real since it's from In Demand (which has a history of getting the real posters). TJ Spyke 01:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need to rush to put this in the article. It is just a poster, not a breaking news report. Pay-per-view articles can never be complete until the event actually occurs anyway, so leaving this image out until a WWE source becomes available does no harm. --Naha|^(talk) 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To reply to your question TJ, I would say that switching a sourced image to an unsourced one counts as copyright vandalism, and is open to multiple reversions. The Hybrid 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Honstley, I'm wondering if posters are even allowed in the articles. I think the one criteria it fails is that we're not discussing the posters themselves. Logos, while less interesting are more acceptable. Mshake3 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What about UFC articles (like UFC 64 for example) or movie articles? I think posters are acceptable since they represent that specific PPV (and WWE tends to use the same logo for a PPV for several years). TJ Spyke 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture in Ted Arcidi article

This picture has to violate some sort of Wikipedia rule. It's about 10 times larger than any other picture I've seen on Wikipedia, and a non-wrestling fan might have trouble figuring out which one is Arcidi. Is it possible to crop the picture or is it an all-or-nothing deal? GaryColemanFan 06:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the size of the pic. I would add a caption, but i'm not sure which one is Arcidi. TJ Spyke 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

The wrestlers are confirmed: but has it been confirmed they will appear on those brands in the game? If not, the roster should be changed back to just a general listing (until the game comes out). Just because someone is on a certain brand for WWE now, doesn't completely mean he or she will be on that brand when the game actually comes out. The game comes out in a little over a month, but that doesn't justify original research in the article. I posted this on the talk page of the article as well, to get a few more opinions on this.RobJ1981 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the characters should be listed at all to be honest. That kind of info is usually kept off of real fightin game articles since it's usually considered cruft. TJ Spyke 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Tekken games, Mortal Kombat games, Dead or Alive games, Street Fighter games all have a list of characters in the games. Nenog 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nominee proposal - December to Dismember (2006)

I am planning to nominate December to Dismember for good article in a couple of days time (I brought it here after our recent change in policy). Is anyone against me nominating this for GA? Davnel03 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No once against it, so I've nominated it for GA. Davnel03 09:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Main Page Request - CM Punk

I have asked for CM Punk to be put onto the main page for October 26. To voice your opinion, click here. Thanks, Davnel03 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I don't support CM Punk being on the main page, but... the 10th anniversary of the Montreal Screwjob is coming up (November 9). It would also be very nice to have that on the main page. Of course, it would seem kind of unethical for two WP:PW pages to be on the front page within very close proximity (14 days). I'm just saying: it would also be very nice if the Screwjob article was also on the main page on it's 10th anniversary. It would be even more nice if we could fit both articles on the main page this year (unlikely though). In my opinion, CM Punk being on the main page on his birthday next year makes more sense; his 30th birthday is next year. (Just a thought.) :) MITB LS 23:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they will wait more than a year to put Punk on the front page. We wanted to get Wii as the FAC on its 1 year anniversary (November 19), but the person in charge of the FAC didn't want to wait 7 months to list it (the request was in March). So I doubt he will let it wait 13 months. I have no preferance to when/if it gets listed. TJ Spyke 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, maybe not wait until next year. My main concern is the proximity between Oct. 26 and Nov. 9. Both dates are very important for their respective articles, and would be suitible to have on the main page. It would be hard which to feature on the main page (kind of like my current personal war; which should I get: the iPhone or the iPod Touch *This is something off subject*). Has there been any two articles of the same WikiProject in which they've been on the main page that same range from each other? If so, my view on this may change, and, I don't know, get both articles on the main page on their respective requested dates (I haven't put in a request for Screwjob yet, as per the guideline on that page). MITB LS 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If it does come down to a choice, I'd rather have the MSJ on the main page on it's anniversary. The Hybrid 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Both can be featured, just request a different date for Punk. What day a FA appears as the FAC doesn't have to mean anything. If you want to have Punk appear on the front page in 2007, just request a certain date (or don't request a date, and just let the admin in charge of the FA program pick a date). I agree that the MS is the more important one. TJ Spyke 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah what TJ said. Although it would be cool to have the MSJ on the front page on its anniversary--Naha|^(talk) 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Could you all look at Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment#Hornswoole and tell me if that source passes WP:RS, please? Peace, The Hybrid 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No it does not, it is something we call "dirt wrestling websites" and those are spoiler sites, which are unsourceful.--TrUcO9311 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Some dirt sheets are able to pass WP:RS (such as WON) so I figured that I should ask. TJ Spyke didn't give it the thumbs up, so I'm going to trust his judgment, which is the same as yours. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, The Hybrid 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Spilers" are not a violation of any policy, and ommitting facts flies in the face of wikipedia. This has been gone over again and again in policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right, "spilers" aren't a violation. ;) Seriously, not posting spoilers isn't violating any policy, and this project has been against including spoilers since I even started editing (March 2006), and it seems to be working. TJ Spyke 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten this already? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 38 and Wikipedia:Spoiler#Should this article contain spoilers?. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet PWInsider remains blocked (and yes, I will beat the holy hell out of that horse until justice is brought to the world). Mshake3 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you request it be unblocked if you feel that strongly? Some of us did the same thing after a troll joe jobbed OWW. Of coarse that was different since someone got that site blacklisted on purpose and I don't know why PWInsider was blacklisted. TJ Spyke 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It would help if the people of this project actually trusted the site. Instead, they trust [www.wrestleview.com another site], which gets all of it's info from PWInsider.com. GAH! Mshake3 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't trust most rumor sites, so they are all the same to me. TJ Spyke 06:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've stated several times that I don't trust wrestleview.com. I don't think any of those sites should be used either. Nikki311 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There are certain rumor sites I don't trust (Wrestling-Edge and PWMania to name two), but I do trust other sites, like WrestleView and PWInsider, along iwth of course Wrestling Observer. Davnel03 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Lid, if it doesn't cite a reliable source, then we will remove it per WP:V. This isn't about omitting spoilers; it is about what dirt sheets pass WP:RS. The Hybrid 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to contribute to this discussion. Davnel03 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who started it :P The Hybrid 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Segments

I was thinking about putting tabels in the "recurring segemnts" sections of the WWE TV Shows, but I wanted to get your opinion on it.

I was thinking of placing all the info of segments into the tables?--TrUcO9311 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "placing all the info into the tables"? MITB LS 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tribute To The Troops

Should we create a seperate article for Tribute TO The troops as it is an annual event, and it has a symbolic impact on those fighting in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I think maybe it could be mentioned elsewhere. Having a whole article listing results and stuff would be nothing more than cruft. Nikki311 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This has been discussed before. Davnel03 09:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They actually did have an article, but they were deleted along with other special editions of RAW (like RAW is Owen). TJ Spyke 10:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a new article would probably violate criterion G4 of WP:CSD. Even if it didn't, it would be deleted as non-notable, most likely. The Hybrid 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

On date.. type list!!

I have noticed some of the wrestler bio articles when I decide to view them have this type of list thing going, On date he did/she did, in single sentence paragraphs. These are suppose to be biographies not just a list of On so so date! Try and remember that when editing, Thanks Govvy 09:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed, however you are preaching to the choir here. The regular participants of WP:PW (also the ones who happen to utilize this page) are not the ones doing that. Pro wrestling articles are a major target for edits by children, general fans who just want to insert info here and there without the thought of the greater encyclopedia in mind, and vandals. We do not structure articles like this as a rule, and attempt to incorporate this type of information into paragraphs on sight. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Botches

On the Botch (professional wrestling) page, Sean Waltman's win over Razor Ramon is listed as a "botch". Someone at least put a "citation needed" tag on it, but it's been that way for a week now. When is it okay for me to delete the paragraph, when the poster hasn't found any source whatsoever besides a vague statement of "it was all over the national news when it happened", which I seriously doubt? Phoenix 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit. I seriously think the user in question is wrong. Unless a source can be found, the paragragh should be removed. Davnel03 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree, but how long does the user in question have to find a source before the paragraph gets deleted? -- Phoenix 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has inserted several non-sourced statements in several articles (see his contributions). Revert his edit if you wish. Davnel03 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Kidman's cruiserweight titles

A move seems to have been made unilaterally on this (I can find no discussion). I don't necessarily disagree, but I thought I'd bring it up. Kidman won the cruiserweight title four times in WWF/E - the first two were "WCW" cruiserweight titles during the Invasion, then a "WWF" cruiserweight title during the few months the belt was known by that name, then a "WWE" cruiserweight title a year or so later. Previously, his article tried (somewhat vainly) to differentiate all of these, but now it just says "Cruiserweight Championship (4 times)" with no promotion name given. Does this work for everybody? Nosleep1234 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the same belt renamed, so either leave it without a qualifier, or just call it WWE Cruiserweight Championship. --Phoenix 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

When a title is renamed, it's customary to have the article of one its holders show the name of the title as it was when it was won, unless 1) the title changed names while that particular wrestler was holding it (i.e. Samoa Joe and the ROH World Championship), or 2) the wrestler won it again under the new name (i.e. Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Kane and probably others and the WWF/E Intercontinental Championship). Kidman's case is a unique one, because the title changed names twice and he won it under both new names. The fact that he has WCW cruiserweight title reigns listed under WCW (obviously) only further complicates the issue. Now that I think of it, a similar issue exists with Rikishi, considering he won the WWE Tag Team Championship but also won the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) at the time when it was called the "WWE Tag Team Championship." Nosleep1234 21:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Segments Table Approval

I created a table for the Recurring Segments section under the weekly WWE TV shows.

This is for SmackDown!

Segment	Segment Type	Host	Years Active	Notes	Source
Piper's Pit	Interview	Roddy "Rowdy" Piper	2003	Debuted on SmackDown! during Piper's feud with Hulk Hogan.
Café de René	Interview	René Dupree	2004	Replaced Piper's Pit in 2004;appeared only once on WWE TV.
$1,000,000 Tough Enough	Competition	WWE	2004	Segments were featured weekly on SmackDown!.
Kurt Angle Invitational	Wrestling Challenge	Kurt Angle	2004	Format: an invitational to any local wrestler to defeat Kurt Angle in under three minutes for his Olympic Gold Medals. Ended on SmackDown! after Angle was drafted to RAW, continued there until 2005.
Carlito's Cabana	Interview	Carlito	2005	Created by Carlito after Wrestlemania 21 to compete with Piper's Pit. The segment ended on SmackDown! after Carlito was drafted to RAW.
Peep Show	Interview	Christian	2005	Created shortly after Christian was drafted to SmackDown!. Ended when Christian's contract expired with WWE.
WWE Diva Search	Competition	WWE	2006	Segments were featured weekly on SmackDown!.
Miz TV	Interview	Mike "The Miz" Mizanin	2007	Created after Mizanin's brief absence from SmackDown!, but ended when he was drafted to ECW.
The Cutting Edge	Interview	Edge	2007-present	Debuted on SmackDown! after Edge was drafted from RAW. The segment was in absence during Edge's 2007 injury.
V.I.P Lounge	Interview	MVP	2007-present	Replaced The Cutting Edge

Do you approve for it to be put in the articles?--TrUcO9311 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the tweaks have been made.--TrUcO9311 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Approve-I like it and I think it's a fine idea. I'm not sure if there will be any issues getting it into the article, but I can't foresee it violating any policies. Gavyn Sykes 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Approve-Same as Sykes. Davnel03 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Approve but, obviously, tweak the links in the title, a little rewording on some of the rows, and... yeah. MITB LS 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Approve Go for it. The Hybrid 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpick - Christian was never released. His contract simply expired and he declined to sign a new one. Nosleep1234 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Something to tweak. MITB LS 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I made some fixes on the SmackDown page. Cafe de Renee can't be considered a recurring segment if it only appeared once, and technically the Diva Search has no host. TJ Spyke 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Approve Neat idea. --Naha|^(talk) 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going table crazy where prose and standard lists will do fine. Someone added tables for authority figures on the WWE brands.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mayby, but it is a better way to have the sections of articles organized more neatly. --TrUcO9311 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

True about Bdve's comment: we are brginning to maybe add too many tables on the articles. Of course a few tables on a page wouldn't hurt, but in Bdve's case, the whole article can't be composed of all tables. i.e. for authority figures: I wouldn't really approve of a table for that. The past format looked better and simpler. Compared to the recurring events table, there are several parameters to fill out ("segment", "segment type", "host", "years Active", "notes" and "source"). Probably just a guideline not to add too many tables. An artile should be kept simple and not too complex. MITB LS 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK NOW ALL WWE TV SHOWS HAVE A TABLE, FEEL FREE TO REMOVE SEGMENTS, as TJ SPYKE DID, THAT YOU FEEL DONT BELONG, CORRECT WORDING, YEARS, HOST, SEGMENT, SEGMENT TYPE, OR ADDING SOURCES. THANK YOU :)--TrUcO9311 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that tables improve readability. Of course the entire article can't be tables, but I think that we should even use them more often. *Sigh* if only I could write them :P The Hybrid 06:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's harder to read. The largest cell in the table is all in small type.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Masterlock Challenge should be added since it lasted mroe than a year.--ProtoWolf 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer review request: SummerSlam (1993)

Inspired by Davnel03, I have expanded the article on my favorite pay per view. I have placed it up for peer review, so it would be great if some people from here could check it over and comment here. If possible, I'd love to see it reach Good Article status. Thanks for any help you can provide. GaryColemanFan 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Other on-screen talent" section from expanded PPV articles

An IP recently inserted a "Other on-screen talent" section into the One Night Stand (2005) article, see here. Now, I can understand why they are in the WrestleMania, SS, SummerSlam and Rumble articles because they aren't as detailed, but do they need to be in the articles which now have a full reivew (ONS '06, D2D, SS '93)? Davnel03 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously man, he/she simply thought that it should have it since other articles do. If you think it doesn't, remove it. Here's my question: does the article mention everyone that would be listed in the "other talent" section? Mshake3 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The "other talent" section lists the referees (which the main article doesn't) and other people like the commentators and ring announcers. If you think you can comeup with a way to mention all those people that normally would appear in the "other talent" section, go ahead. TJ Spyke 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A table might be a good way to go. Nikki311 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

birth year vandalism?

An anonymous user has been changing the birth years for various wrestlers without citing sources, see Special:Contributions/84.43.0.85. I'm not sure how widespread this is, but thought someone associated with this project might want to look into this. I'm pretty sure Curt Hennig was born in 1958 not 1959, and 1960 as the birth year for Road Warrior Hawk looks improbable (one source says 1957). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

An example with Ted DiBiase. It was originally 18th January, 1954. The IP changed it to 19th January, 1954. According to OWW, he was born on 18th January, 1954. The IP in this case is wrong.

Another example with Curt Henning; it was originally March 28, 1958. The IP changed it to March 28, 1959. OWW states that he was born on March 28, 1959. In this case the IP is right.

Double-check it with OWW, if it is wrong, then revert, and if it is right, then obviously change it back to what it originally was. Weird. Davnel03 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/halloffame/curthennig/bio/ (and http://www.arthurshall.com/x_2006_wrestling_08_perfect.shtml) says 1958 for Hennig. Is OWW more authoritative than wwe.com? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I weren't saying it was. OWW in Hennig's case is wrong, therefore the IP is wrong on both occasions. Davnel03 18:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The more I look into this the more confusing it gets. Apparently Road Warrior Animal was born on Jan 26, 1960 (the date now listed for Hawk). Various sources also have Hawk's birth date as Jan 26, some say 1957, some say 1958. I suspect the IP is simply using a different source. I'll add fact templates for the dates and let someone more interested in this topic than I am figure out which sources are more reliable. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Bautista

Enhanceddownloadbird has nominated Dave Bautista for GA. The article is a lot better than what is was when it was last nominated but I still think it has a fairly long way to go. Also it is constantly vandalised by IPs. Moves like this (nominating articles on the fly) gives the project a bad reputation, despite the efforts of its members to improve the credibility of the wrestling project by discussing GA nominations beforehand and recently wanting to revive the collaboration of the week. - Deep Shadow 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uumm, I think it has got a bit to go. Yeah you could nominate it for next weeks COTW. I've just put one on there if anyone wishes to take a look. Davnel03 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Its not ready for GA yet. I'd also like some more help on the post-GA review I'm doing on Shawn Michaels' talk page. IMO it should have not been passed and I am listing some things that need to be fixed. I'm not quite done going through the entire article yet, but if anyone can start helping to try to fix some of the things I've pointed out, that would be great! The entire review is still in progress. Thanks :) --Naha|^(talk) 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I'm sorry I give the project a bad reputation. I was trying to Be Bold. I view your comment as an attack on my person.

I'm sorry I'm not informed of procedures, but I requested this article be re-reviewed on it's talk page to no reply for some time. Unsure of where to go, I went to the top. Believe it or not, not all editors of wrestling articles know the procedures of WP:PW, as opposed to Wikipedia policies that are well posted. I have been an editor of several articles within WP:PW for quite some time, and never have I heard of this policy.

I'll take this as a learning experience and won't do it again now that I know, but I still resent the manner in which you brought the topic up. Why didn't you message me? Why did it take someone that hadn't even posted on this topic informing me of both policy and that my action had been brought up in WP:PW? This is my initial frustration (and continual distance) towards the project. Enhanceddownloadbird 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

His comment was no intended to be a personal attack in any way. Your mistake is an understandable one and it's not that big of a deal. To be honest, I was unaware of this page's existence until several months after I joined the project. The WP:PW does have it's own consensus on things that can be interpreted as policy. There is no need to distance yourself from the project. We need all the help we can get. Now you know the procedure and this won't happen again. There shouldn't be any problems. :) Gavyn Sykes 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I know others who are in the same boat as this and seem to fail to be able to work with WP:PW, and I wish that this could be fixed. I do hope to fix the distance issue between myself and the project, as I need others to successfully collaborate on Wikipedia. And while I realize the comment was not meant to be a personal attack, putting 2 (Enhanceddownloadbird has nominated Dave Bautista for GA.) and 2 (Moves like this...gives the project a bad reputation) together does not make it a very happy 4. And I am still quite upset that no one in this conversation informed me personally of my project policy violation, instead it took Nikki to inform me. It would have been preferable for Deep Shadow to talk to me first before making it public. Enhanceddownloadbird 19:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's one of the problems of this project. Davnel03 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't necessarily like the comment I left but it wasn't intended to be an attack. It probably would have been ideal for me to discuss this with you first, but the reason I came here is because this project has recently become about making and maintaining good articles. The idea of discussing nominations beforehand was formed the last time I brought up the topic of articles being nominated on the fly. It is not you that gives the project a bad reputation, it is lack of communication amongst its editors. I am (obviously) guilty of this too, although I am technically not a member of the project. - Deep Shadow 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We're currently working on improving communication, ie the creation of the Notice Board, and the revival of the COTW. There is still a long way to go, but with new and/or previously quiet users making their presence felt like never before this project is beginning to move away from its former, hollow self. Before there were only a few active users, and after a couple of them retired the project basically became a hollow shell, and its articles fell into disrepair. Now, several users have stepped up to the plate and are replacing the old guard, so this project is now more effective than I have ever seen it. There isn't the in-fighting like there used to be, and this project is beginning to move away from its old, isolationist self. It now actually cares what outsiders think of it, and is beginning to embrace the overall policies like never before. The good project policies have been kept, such as no week-by-week information, but all-in-all the house has been cleaned, and the project is starting over again on the right track. I've gone off on a tangent. EDB, what I was trying to say is that the problems with a lack of communication are currently being worked on, and should be solved fairly soon. We'd love your help solving them, and hope that there aren't any hard feelings. Peace, The Hybrid 02:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

why is there a Save Us.222 article?

Why is there a Save Us 22 article???>>>Saveus.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BECAUSE SOMEONE CREATED IT LAST NIGHT! GAH! Instead of wondering about it, do something about it and get it deleted. Mshake3 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Because User:RedSoxTeen0626 created it --Naha|^(talk) 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

YOu know its official, the video says JER_ICO above SAVE_RAW. And 222 in the dewey decimal system and refers to the books of the old testament of the bible, which talk alot about Jericho. How much more proof do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.190.119 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Jericho to appear on WWE programming is the proof, which hasn't happened yet. Wait six days, please. Davnel03 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if Jericho was to appear on WWE programming this wouldn't deserve an aricle on its own, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Woah, I weren't even suggesting that. Davnel03 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Martha Hart

There is an IP that keeps adding possibly libelous info to Martha Hart's article lately. I reverted a couple of times yesterday and posted a warning in both my edit summaries and on their talk page about WP:BLP. Anyway, they keep posting information about her religious affiliations and that she had affairs on Owen Hart without providing a source to back up the info. Can some other people keep an eye on the page for me, because I have a really busy week and can't spend all my time possibly violating WP:3RR. Thanks. Nikki311 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Reported to ANI. Davnel03 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

IP range 206.40.96.0 - 206.40.96.24 blocked for 24 hours and article protected for 15 days. Davnel03 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AFD nomination

Discussion here. Davnel03 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week

Are we ever going to try and resurrect this page. I wouldn't mind giving it one last stab, but I need the assurance of other members to do that. Thanks, Davnel03 14:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should. I think there are a couple of articles that could really benefit from out collective efforts. We could use this to expand some of the individual and more notable pay-per-views, as well. Since each of use owns different magazines, books, DVDs, and what-have-you, it would really help increase the quality of sourcing. Nikki311 19:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I think as a whole, we could like as if "vote" (couldn't think of another word!!) as to which PPV to improve next, or something like that. Davnel03 20:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A vote is fine for this. The difference between a vote and a consensus is that, in order to determine a consensus, people argue constantly until a compromise is reached. Since there isn't a way to compromise with this, only one article can be the drive after all, holding a discussion ad trying to find a consensus would cause completely unnecessary disputes. Just have people provide an optional rational for their votes, and be done with it. The Hybrid 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming off Wiki for the night now, but can somebody attempt to get the ball rolling on this, if its possible? Night all, Davnel03 21:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd throw in my opinion. I'd really like to get the Collaboration of the Week running again. Focusing on an article kind of gives meaning to the WikiProject idea. It would also help with the group's stated aim: to create and edit featured articles. If we could focus on a wrestler or PPV each week, we should be able to get a bunch of articles up to Good Article level, and possibly even to Featured Article. Pedro Morales has been mentioned a few times lately, and I think it would be a great article to work together on. I'm not opposed to everyone doing their own thing (and I think it should still happen either way), but I think that setting goals (more Good Articles, more Stubs brought up to Start or B-class, etc.) would be great. GaryColemanFan 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. It's a fine idea and something that this project really needs. Gavyn Sykes 01:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, I gave my vote to revive this two weeks ago and my support is still there. Pedro Morales could use some help, especially a little expansion, web sorces aren't really that good in this case but some written material can be good. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that Pedro Morales is going to be our first project? If it is, I'll look over it tomorrow and try and add some sources from some of the books I own. Nikki311 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should vote on it, but Morales sounds great to me. I've got at least one book that has a section on Pedro Morales (maybe two). If we decide on Morales, I'll dig them out this week and see what I can add. GaryColemanFan 03:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's just do Morales. GCF, with your reputation for quality, I want you getting you hands on that article ASAP :). The Hybrid 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully intend to help. I've got a stack of essays to mark right now, though, so I might have to wait until Wednesday or Thursday. "Reputation for quality"...I like it. GaryColemanFan 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea on how to turn this into a program that will greatly increase the credibility of the project. Every month, or maybe two months, we select the article from one of this project's GAs. That way we are all but guaranteed to pump out an FA at a relatively constant rate. If we could turn this project into one that is constant producing featured articles, then perhaps the outside community would look upon it a little more favorably than they do now. What do y'all think? The Hybrid 03:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I like anything that boosts our cred. Nikki311 03:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what she said. I've already given my support on this twice on the CotW's talk page, but I'll give it here a third time. Lets do it! --Naha|^(talk) 03:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Anything to raise the project in the eyes of others, who always seem to assume bad faith. Gavyn Sykes 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this seems fairly unanimous. So, I'll see what needs to be done to fire it up, and starting tomorrow the drive will begin with Pedro Morales. Cheers, The Hybrid 04:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the page, and will now add the template to Pedro's talk page. Now we need nominations. I suggest that every week we post a thread on the project talk page to prevent this from becoming inactive again. We might even request that a bot deliver a notification to all project members weekly. Peace, The Hybrid 04:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A bot notification would be outstanding! --Naha|^(talk) 14:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Naha, if you wouldn't mind, you could probably use AWB to deliver the notification. I would do it myself, but AWB doesn't work for me. Would you be willing to? The Hybrid 16:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I would love to. I use AWB all the time for various tasks, although I've never used it for anything like this. Do you know exactly what I need to do with it to perform this function? I'm going to fire it up and start looking at it to see if I can figure it out as well. But any instructions or suggestions would be greatly appreciated (from anyone!). --Naha|^(talk) 16:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading iver the user manual, I'm not sure that you can, actually. However, since you've actually used it, you would probably know if this is possible or not. You would use Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants as the list, and set it to paste the notification like a template onto all of the user's talk pages. If you can't do that with AWB I do know of a couple bots that were once used to deliver newsletters before another bot usurped them, so I could ask a couple of the operators if they'd be willing to let us use their bot. The Hybrid 22:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok here is the thing. I can do this, just not with the category link you have provided. The links (user names) in that category are automatically created by a bot (for people who use the PW userbox or just add the participant's category to their userpage) and when you click "edit" on that category page, you do not see the user name links, just a mostly blank page. AWB sees the same mostly blank page with no user name links (so it can't perform this task using that page to my knowledge). HOWEVER, I can point AWB to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list and it sees all the user name links there just fine. That being said, there seems to be another problem. The list of members on the Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants page does not match the list of members on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list page. Some names are on both pages, some are only on one or the other. For example, Hybrid, your name only appears on the automatically generated page, but not the manually edited page; you would not get the talk notice. If anyone has any ideas to remedy this situation, that would be great. Meanwhile, I have created this template which I will use AWB to place on talk pages once we figure this out:

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for November 25 - December 2 is ??. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, November 11. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone "cleaned up" the members page a while back without permission, didn't tell anyone, and wasn't reverted. I can't think of a way to fix this without hours of work. *Sigh*, well, thanks for setting up the template :). If you can't get AWB to do it, then let me know and I'll go talk to a couple of bot programmers. The Hybrid 01:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I can point it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list, but that wouldn't get everyone. :( Yeah I guess go ahead and talk to your friends with bots and see what they can do. I would like them to use the above template, and the template will need to be updated every week with the correct dates and article name (which we can do, obviously). Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 11:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went over the article, and fixed one link in addition to avoiding a redirect. Unfortunately, that's really all I do on Wiki besides reverting speculation and vandalism. What else needs to be done with this article? I'm willing to help in any way I can. Gavyn Sykes 17:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just exhausted my usual sources for the article. It's come along way, but still needs some filling in. If anybody knows anything about his time in the NWA and wants to fill in some details, that would be helpful. Nikki311 02:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Batistabuster"

We have an IP calling Batista's spinebuster a "Batistabuster." I have reverted it at least five times. After that many times, is it appropiate to mark another edit of the same nature by that user as vandalism? Gavyn Sykes 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it is vandalism, it isn't techically a Batistabuster. In any case the IPs violate 3RR, so I've left this on the IPs talkpage. Davnel03 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's one thing when the info is added once, it's another when a legitimate explanation to why it shouldn't be there is ignored completely. Gavyn Sykes 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The user has since created a user name (as if that will make this situation any different?) BatistaBuster (talk · contribs) and was blocked for 3RR and vandalism of the article for 31 hours. If he comes back and starts again I'm requesting an indef. block for a vandalism only account and a bad case of the I didn't hear thats. Bmg916^Speak 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you. Gavyn Sykes 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

John Cena WWE Champion status

In the WWE article it says Cena has to surrender the WWE title, and WILL NOT compete this sunday, so does that mean the WWE title is currently vacant???--TrUcO9311 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, almost certainly. Davnel03 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Cena is still champion until Sunday. On Sunday he vacants the title. --Maestro25 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you work that out?Just read article - you're right. Davnel03 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

He's still champ. WWE.COM still recognizes him as champ. Raw Superstars page WWE Championship Title History

• You cant tell me they haven't got the time to edit that, because they have been going crazy updating wwe.com with cena's injury. The title hasn't been vacated. It's still Cena's. But at No Mercy, Cena will give it to someone else. Lex94 23:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

From what i've read on WWE's site, he will officially vacate the title on Sunday. It also says that Vince McMahon will address the situation at the beginning of ECW tonigh, so I expect a lot of IP edits. I don't like Cena that much, but I hate to see any wrestler have to give up a title because of injury. TJ Spyke 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

IPs don't worry me much, established editors are the ones that will give us headaches, we should also keep an eye on the WWE Championship page, until WWE recognizes the title as vacant that page should stay intact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already had to revert the WWE page and the List of WWE Champions page. TJ Spyke 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Come on folks, just look at the home page. "WWE Title vacant" "Mr. McMahon vacated Cena's WWE Title on ECW on Sci Fi" It's vacant. Mshake3 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know that now. These posts were made before ECW aired and before the announcment was made. TJ Spyke 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

I was adding some references to this page today, but I can't figure out what's wrong with one of the footnotes. Would someone be able to look at reference #3 and tell me what I've done wrong? Thanks.

Incidentally, I hit 2,000 edits today. Hooray me. GaryColemanFan 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it working correctly. Nikki311 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what you did, but it works now. There's only so long I can stare at editing code before I start to lose my mind. GaryColemanFan 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PPV Win Percent

User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent I created this subarticle awhile ago after months of working. It's an article featuring the PPV Win percentage of every wrestler with at least 10 PPV matches (the same way most statistics have minimum requirements). Does anybody have any ideas on how to turn it into a full article or would be willing to help? I have the info saved on my computer, but think it could make a good article. TJ Spyke 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It shows up as a red link to me. --Naha|^(talk) 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It got deleted as "original research". Nenog 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit horrible, even if it was OR. Did Alkivar even contact TJ? Ah, it was deleted seven hours after TJ started this topic. Guess Alkivar seen it and hated it.Davnel03 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm. It was in his USER PAGE space. Why was that deleted? Its not in the main article space! I cry outrage! --Naha|^(talk) 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a bullshit abuse of power. There are so many garbage pages in people's user space and they target your good idea? Just look at that guy who nominated your page for deletion. He's got a page in his user space jerking himself off for his contributions. This place isn't for tooting your own horn. At least you were working on an article. And his claim about original research? So because you were the first one to put PPV win percentages on the internet, it's original research? How can it be faulty if the stats have to be backed up by PPV results and those are all on the internet! Are you just supposed to wait for somebody else on www.markymarksmarkwwewrestlingwcwecw.com to write it and ONLY THEN can you bring it over here? It's a ridiculous and over abused rule. You can feel free to make a new page in my user space with your PPV Win Percentage page and you can touch it up from there. And that admin who deleted it silently hours after you posted here acted worse than the guy who nominated it months ago. F-402 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been restored, but it nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Anybody got suggestions or is willing to help? TJ Spyke 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Vachon wrestling family

Does this need its own article? It doesn't give any family history other than listing the family members involved in wrestling and a sentence or so about each. All of the people listed have their own articles and this unsourced stub doesn't seem to add anything. GaryColemanFan 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the article, but I'm not sure how to word the AfD nomination. If someone else could tackle that I would be ever-so-grateful, assuming that's the consensus of course :P. The Hybrid 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has opposed an Afd, and I'm in agreement with GCF. I'm going to try prod'ing it first. Nikki311 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

COTW

I have a few questions about the COTW Candidates for next week:

• Are people allowed to vote on two different articles? Personally I think they should, so others are not discouraged from putting there article on there seeing as the one above it has several votes.

Yes. --Naha|^(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Are all articles that failed to become COTW votes get carried over to the next week? For isntance One Night Stand (2005) is not going to be COTW for next week at the moment; it has 5 votes compared to Jerry Lawler's votes. Are the ONS 2005 votes carried over or does it start from scratch. Again, I believe the votes should be carried over, so that every article, at one stage or another are COTW.

I believe so. Don't be so discouraged though, Lawler only has one more vote than ONS :P --Naha|^(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. I just voted for Lawler in addition to ONS so Lawler wouldn't be pruned out. I never expected it to pass ONS, but whatever :P. The Hybrid 06:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Should, after putting down a nominee, come and write a comment on this page just basically stating: "I have nominated.... to be COTW..... to register your vote click here", somthing like that? Again, I think this should happen - so interest doesn't disappear in the page.

I see nothing wrong with that. Anything to help get people involved! --Naha|^(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it either, at least until most of the active WP:PW members get the page onto their watchlist. The Hybrid 06:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts? (sorry if I haven't explained that properly.) Davnel03 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid, why did you think Lawler wouldn't pass ONS? The article is barely a stub, I think it needs more help than ONSLex94 10:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PPV articles

Over the past two weeks several users of this project have been working on PPV articles as follows:

• Davnel03 - One Night Stand (2005), One Night Stand (2006) (WIP) and December to Dismember (2006)
• GaryColemanFan - SummerSlam (1993)
• Mshake and Kip - Lockdown (2007)

Right, I'm about to propose something, might get rejected might not. Instead of working on these articles individually (others can still do that if they wish), I wondered if we could work on these articles together, one per week maybe, similar to the COTW. I was thinking if we use a similar format to the COTW, possibly create a new section on that page named "PPV's". A user can then nominate a PPV that needs severe work to it (WrestleManias, SS, Slam, TNA etc.) and then the one with the most votes we work on. Same can happen with the In Your House PPV's, but might be harder work and will need a new page created. Opinions? Davnel03 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Having more than one collaboration of the week is a very good idea. Between all the members of this project, I believe we could sort through and improve one PPV and one non-PPV article a week. Gavyn Sykes 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for PPV articles to have their own COTW, but thats just me. I mean if that were the case, we might as well let promotions have their own, or a COTW specifically for wrestler (people) articles etc. I don't see an issue with having 2 COTWs somewhere down the line in a few months, after we are sure people are actually going to participate in it, now that it is back up and running. The second article should get voted on just like the first one though. It might be a PPV article, it might not be. Thats just my 2 cents. I'm weary of jumping in too deep too soon. Little slow steps build a good foundation. --Naha|^(talk) 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Naha raises a good point. A separate subdivision for PPV articles is rather unnecessary. Voting on two CotW every week sounds fine. I do agree we should give this a little bit of time and see how one CotW goes before we jump straight to two. Gavyn Sykes 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We could just make a task force for PPV articles. It would be like a smaller WikiProject, only it is a subdivision of this one. For an example of what I'm talking about, see TF:DMC, a task force of WP:CVG. The Hybrid 05:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think they understand it is UNNECESARY, but it is still a good idea. Obviously, it isn't necessary, but it still gives more oppertunities for articles to be upgraded and improved. there could be the 'Wrestling Event' Collaboration of the Week (not necessarily PPV's, you can add SNME and others) and the 'People associated with Wrestling' Collaboration of the Week. Something like that. Lex94 10:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

I've been doing some work on this list, trying to get it all sourced. I'm almost there, but I was hoping someone could look it over. My two biggest concerns are January 24-26, 2000 and July 9, 2000. There were quite a few changes in each of those time spans, so I'm not quite sure that I'm following correctly. I wasn't watching wrestling then (truth be told, I haven't watched in over a decade), although I imagine that I'm not the only person confused by WCW in 2000. If someone could help me with those and let me know what else would need to be done to get it to Featured List level, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. GaryColemanFan 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wrestling-titles.com/home.html is a good source (be warned, the site is screwed up and sometime has trouble loading in Internet Explorer. It works fine in Firefox though). I was a loyal follower of WCW at the time (even though it was getting harder every week), so I will take a look. TJ Spyke 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a little off topic, but the Featured List reviewers really like pictures, although not having one won't keep it from becoming a FL. Does anybody know of a free-use pic (perhaps from another article) that shows the belt? Nikki311 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)