Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Serious Question

Does this look like an action figure to you? At one point, someone said yes. Mshake3 16:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, lol. The picture is clearly Triple H making his entrance at Unforgiven for his match either Umaga or Orton. There is no action figure of Trips with that belt. Gavyn Sykes 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks a lot like a CGI animation in WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2007. Someone must've had Triple H as their WWE Champion and took this shot of his entrance. Feedback 16:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if it were, it wouldnt have a titantron video playing in the background.--TrUcO9311 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The game has entrance videos. Feedback 17:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This image is from the real No Mercy 2007 pay-per-view. It's not a screenshot. - Deep Shadow 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That. I meant No Mercy when I said Unforgiven. I always mix up PPV names. Gavyn Sykes 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Real photo taken by a real person. Feedback, it's not a CGI animation. Davnel03 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW Sin

Well I will begin doing my first PPV article! I am going to start with WCW Sin, anyone can contribute to the article.--TrUcO9311 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to Sin (2001) to conincide (sp?) with other expanded PPV articles (Starrcade (2000), December to Dismember (2006) etc.) Davnel03 18:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem about the Sin one, having (2001) implies that ther was more than one. There wasn't, so no disambiguation is needed. Since it can't be at just Sin though, wouldn't WCW Sin be the best? TJ Spyke 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all events should have their promotion's name at the beginning; except events that have made themselves even as important as their promotion like Wrestlemania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series and Starcade.

Yet, I understand that events held by multiple promotions at different times like The Great American Bash, December to Dismember, etc. must be left without the promotion's name. (Even though both December to Dismembers were commercially known as ECW December to Dismember) Feedback 03:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Importance does not determine that. Related discussions in the past: Link 1, Link 2. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On another related topic, if it hasn't been mentioned in his article (I haven't looked I admit) mention should be made about what happened at this show to Sid Eudy. It would be remiss to leave that out. The footage of that is horrific to say the least! !! Justa Punk !! 08:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fabulous Moolah - RIP.

Rest in Peace Moolah. You will be missed. Link to WWE article. Watch out for IP vandals. RIP. Davnel03 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected, so IPs aren't a problem. - Deep Shadow 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Now is the time to look to improve the article on her. I'd put her onto the COTW page, but the limit of nominations is ten and it's at that limit at the moment. Third party sources have a tendency to show up when someone notable passes away. GetDumb 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe nominate here afterwards. User talk:TJ Spyke 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

OK, the nominees just went back to 8 so there was room to add her to the COTW page and I did. See what I said above. GetDumb 00:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

how do you add?

How do you add a reference to the same link, like if two important things are sourced in one link (reference), how would you put those two things to be referenced into the same link?--TrUcO9311 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you need to make sure the first time the reference appears has a name. Instead of <ref>, you would do <ref name=example>. Then, each additional time you want to use that ref, put <ref name=example/>. TJ Spyke 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanx--TrUcO9311 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

Is anyone currently working on this article? This PPV is one of only three I've actually seen myself. I am willing to expand the article as much as possible, though I will need help adding sources later. I've gone ahead and added the main Smackdown feud. I can expand it to include the rest of the feuds within the next couple of days. Gavyn Sykes 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

BE BOLD! The Chronic 01:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm not new here. Anyway, I'll have more content in the article within a few days. The only thing is, I can't recall the exact dates that buildup episodes aired on. But yeah, I'll be bold. Gavyn Sykes 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Check WWE's archive of episodes. That's what I did for Cyber Sunday 2006. Cheers, Feedback 02:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know they kept an archive. Thanks, Feed. Gavyn Sykes —Preceding comment was added at 02:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the background section considerably. Before I add the last couple of matches, I'd like some feedback and constructive criticism. Thanks. :) Gavyn Sykes 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Beth Phoenix

We've already tackled the world of Featured Articles, so why not Features Pictures? This is my first attempt, so we'll see how this goes. Mshake3 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured pictures!? I can't believe nobody has suggested that to you before now. Once the incident with the Triple H picture at New Mercy is over. I think that should be your second attempt. I think a lot of your pictures could pass. Nikki311 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that, the featured picture criteria is very closely followed and concepts such as noise, parts being cropped off, angles, lighting etc. can all prevent images from being featured. The Triple H image for example lacks a clear focus, has multiple lighting sources causing shadow conflicts and distractions suchas the laser in the bottom right causing a messy image. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People for the currently featured images. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that one has no chance. Mshake3 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And neither does Beth's. Apparently, since she's not doing anything, it's not really notable. However, I've found one I uploaded that's sure to qualify: Benoit's Crippler Crossface. Mshake3 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it a problem that you can't see either of their faces? Nikki311 20:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially if the focus is on the move. Mshake3 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Color Scheme

Ok, per the discussion here, I decided that WP:PW needs a color scheme update. Actually I decided this a long time ago and just didn't do anything about it till now. Professional wrestling is outlandish and colorful and exciting and bigger than life ..and well, the drab grey color scheme we had going didn't exactly match that description. My original plan was to change everything to golden type colors to resemble that of a title belt. This color scheme can be seen here (except for the nav bar b/c it is subst :( ). I gave notice about what I was trying to do in all my edit summaries during the color updates. However, User:Aaru Bui came along and updated the color scheme right behind me a bit which can be seen here (no fair this one gets the nav bar colors for the full effect! :P) While the colors Aaru chose probably more closely resemble title belt gold, which again is what I was originally going for, they still seem a bit dingy and drab in my opinion. While the ones I originally changed them to were more vibrant. I wont be offended if you think my color scheme sucks :P ... but since at least 2 of us have a differing opinion, I'd like to get everyone's preferred choice so at least the majority of people will be happy with it heh. Does anyone have any opinions on this matter? Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 06:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok for some reason Aaru just changed it back to how I had it lol. But everyone still feel free to comment on it. You might have to go back in the revisions of the WP:PW page now to see the other color scheme though. Thanks again, --Naha|^(talk) 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do something about the to-do list. It's an eyesore. :) The Chronic 07:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I hid it LOL. But seriously, I don't know how to change the colors on it as its like an automated template or something? I looked at it and didn't know what to do besides put it behind a hide/show bar lol :P --Naha|^(talk) 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You chose the brightest colour there is. It's burning my retina but whatever. I think this color should definitely stay. --Aaru Bui ^DII 07:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

lol :P --Naha|^(talk) 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I word: Superb. Davnel03 09:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it needed a color scheme, so great job. Speaking of colors, I need some help on something. I have been editing my user page and subpages giving them color schemes, and when I try Brown it doesn't work :( (Some pinkish plum color appears). Can someone tell me how to do brown, cuz its my favorite color. Cheers, Feedback 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You should have a look at the charts on the Web colors article. There is a chart just for shades of brown. One of them will hopefully suit you. Good luck, --Naha|^(talk) 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, but I think that we should fit Maroon (#800000) in here somewhere. It seems like a good color for pro-wrestling to me, possibly because of RAW's slightly darker-than-red shade of red, as well as TNA's. IDK, it might help to add some contrast to the brightness. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a darker tone of yellow would be better, dark golden would probably fit better, I say this because it just seems to bright now, and that makes it sort of a pain on tired eyes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried messing around with the colors, only to discover I can't figure this table out :P. #D4AF37 is metallic gold, so perhaps it would be more desirable. If someone could try it I would appreciate it. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 04:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - Featured Article!

The headline speaks for itself. GimmeBot has not yet updated the templates and stuff, but the nomination has been moved to the FA log page. See this discussion on Raul654's talkpage too. Many, many thanks to those who helped me with the article, Aaru, TJ, GCF, Naha thanks all of you for helping to get the article to featured article level! Thank you! Davnel03 12:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! This is great! Good job everyone :) --Naha|^(talk) 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm glad all of your hard work payed off. Our third FA (and hopefully many more to come). :D Gavyn Sykes 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

WOW! Great job! Here's to hoping more wrestling articles get featured status! FamicomJL 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Me too! Me too! I helped with the sources. :) Nikki311 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

And let's not forget who pointed you towards Slam! Either way, good job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't get so happy yet. It has not been promoted. The last user to comment is not an admin, and has been told on his talk page that it's not a good idea for him to say "Pass & Support" since it implies he has the power to promote articles and can actually cause other people to not comment since they think the article already passed. I think it will pass, but it hasn't yet and the star on the page is misleading. TJ Spyke 17:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been promoted, that's why it's in the FA log. Its waiting for GimmeBot to update all the templates and stuff. Quote from top of FA log page: This is a log of featured articles from Wikipedia: Featured article candidates. Discussions about failed nominations are located at archived nominations. - Raul moved that and a handful of others in the early hours. When GimmeBot has sorted it all out, then it will be "officially" an FA. The discussion is ongoing here as there appears to be some confusion. Davnel03 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. That is a page of the current active articles being discussed, notice that it's the exact same list as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007. I haven't seen anything from an admin about the page being promoted, and it doesn't take 12 hours for an article that has been promoted to actually show up and as a FA. TJ Spyke 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did some searching and found out that Raul did promote it: [1]. It didn't help that no one provided any proof (and that the one user made others think he had the power to promote by saying "Pass & Support"). TJ Spyke 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

PWI rankings/awards and Wrestling Observer awards

Did we agree to remove these from the articles? My understanding was that there was no consensus reached. They're being deleted on quite a few articles, though. I'll agree that they can clutter up articles, and a lot of awards could be written into the article if they're considered noteworthy enough (eg. mention that a feud was named Feud of the Year to highlight how big a feud it was). I think the rankings can really add to articles at times. For example, in the Bobby Eaton article, he made the list of PWI's top 100 tag teams with three different partners. I think that does a lot to show that he is a talented and flexible tag team wrestler. And I think, particularly with wrestlers who aren't considered "big names", that it can help establish notability. For example, the Tony Anthony article was deleted at one point. I think, though, that mentioning that he was ranked #25 in the world in 1994 does help establish notability. Anyhow, can someone explain whether or not a consensus was reached, because it doesn't look like it was to me. Thanks. GaryColemanFan 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I consensus was on its way to being reached, but the discussion was archived before we could finish it. I think we had decided that the PWI 500 rankings and Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards could go, but we hadn't reached an agreement on the rest of the PWI awards. Mostly, the list of all the awards is what the problem was...if an award helps establish notability or was particularly important (ex: Ric Flair's wrestler of the decade award) then it can be incorporated into the text. Nikki311 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't a consensus either way. I thought the PWI 500 should be included (but not every year, just their highest ranking and their ranking in the PWI Top 500 of the PWI Years ranking which is how things were done), one or two thought they shouldn't, and everyone else was indifferent. As for the PWI Awards, only one user even mentioned them (and that was after everyone else stopped discussing). There was no consensus at all about removing the PWI Awards, so feel free to put them back in like I did with the Kurt Angle article. The PWI Awards are particulary notable since wrestlers actually get their picture taken with the awards (I can point out a page where Hulk Hogan is shown posing with his "Most Hated Wrestler of the Year" award in 1997. TJ Spyke 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone would like to set up a straw poll in regards to the different options that Nikki mentioned for keeping or trashing certain things but not others, along with the option to keep everything as is ..and any other option not mentioned ..that would be great. I'd do it but several of you know much more about this particular thing than I do. --Naha|^(talk) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Aside from cluttering up the articles, my problem with them is that I haven't really seen anything that convinces me that the PWI or WON honors are important beyond the realm of simple ego boosts for the wrestlers. For instance, Ric Flair's acceptance of the PWI Wrestler of the Decade award might sound like a big deal on the surface. However, an obscure ceremony that took place over 17 years ago that's part of a DVD segment doesn't really convince me. As for the photos, of course PWI is going to feature photographs of wrestlers that've won their awards in their publication. Whenever Ric Flair is mentioned or spoken of, whether it be on wrestling broadcasts or radio interviews or what have you, he'll be referred to as a 16 time World Champion or a multiple World Champion in professional wrestling. I never hear him referred to as PWI Wrestler of The Decade awared winner or a multiple winner for PWI Feud of the Year or so on. Same goes with any WON award. If they're so important, why are they never mentioned in wrestling in and of itself? Why aren't they exploited by the wrestling industry in and of itself for the purpose of pushing their stars. I don't recall any wrestling announcer on any broadcast or for any interview given to John Cena by media outlets outside of the wrestling industry say something to the effect of "Here he is folks, WWE Superstar John Cena. Three time WWE Champion and back to back winner of the Pro Wrestling Illustrated's Most Popular Wrestler of the Year Award." The awards aren't used to promote any of the wrestlers, they're not mentioned as being a part of a storyline or angle. With the exception of the Ric Flair PWI Wrestler of the Decade Award presentation, I can't recall any instance of PWI or WON mentioned on any wrestling broadcast. I'd be willing to accept the possibility that the various PWI and WON honors might've meant something to wrestling at one time and had been considered influential honors, but I certainly don't see it now and haven't seen any indication of it for some time.Odin's Beard 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So something is only mentioned if it's important to the wrestlers or the announcers? isn't this an encylopedia, not a "Popular oppionopedia? How about this one, it's a way to illustrate any claims of popularity (or the opposite), a way to support statements that someone had a great year or what not, it's a way to actually lend some sort of credibility to statements about the individual - I mean you look at the page and see awards for say Tag-team of the year and it really underlines that "yes this was indeed a really good tag team" more so than 1000 words ever could. And they're neutral, no POV problems since they're fully sourceable and not original research. Sure take out the annual 500 ranking, no problem - but when you start removing the "top 500 of the PWI years" or "top 100 teams of the PWI years" you do a disservice to especially articles on older wrestlers since fewer current fans know about them (much less non-wrestling readers). Take the Bobby Eaton article, his awards and "top 100 tag team" rankings help explain just how much of the tag-team scene he used to be. MPJ-DK 05:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with popularity. The claim has been made that the various PWI and WON honors are important industry honors though I've yet to see any solid evidence that the industry in and of itself considers them to be so. The idea of going through picking and choosing which PWI or WON honors should be included and which shouldn't contradicts any claim of importance. That does nothing but reduce them to trivial bits of information that many already percieve them to be. We don't go through picking and choosing which of Hulk Hogan's, Ric Flair's, Triple H's, Verne Gagne's, or Harley Race's world title wins are included and which aren't. So, if its eventually decided to keep them, why should these other honors and accomplishments be any different.Odin's Beard 15:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Any other input here? I have a feeling that this is just going to get archived before consensus is reached again. --Naha|^(talk) 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination for Wrestlemania III

I think Wrestlemania III is good enough for GA. Anyone oppose? Feedback 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. But, as you mentioned on my talkpage, you need to sort out the issue of pictures and their licensing. Apart from that, I can't see why not. Don't forget, though, the article is currently under Peer review. Davnel03 19:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done Got rid of the pic. Feedback 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Currently there are two instances of multiple Wikilinks coming right next to each other, making it appear as one link. Reviewers and the MoS frown upon this. The areas in question are the first sentence in the lead paragraph and the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the report. In addition, there is a "citation needed" tag smack dab in the middle of the report section. I caught these two things just by quick skimming. Once they are addressed I will be happy to read the entire article and make further suggestions if they are needed. Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 19:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The instances are: Intercontinental Champion Randy Savage and Professional wrestling PPV. I don't deem it necessary to change it, and I can't find solutions anyway. There is no way of making the instance into 1 wiki-link, as there is no article for "professional wrestling pay-per-views", and we can't just leave one of them wikilinked and not the other... Feedback 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the ones I was referring to were WrestleMania professional wrestling pay-per-view (the very first sentence of the article which has THREE links right next to each other, which makes it look even worse because its the first thing people see, and "WWF Champion Hulk Hogan" in the Report section. I was in no way saying any of it shold be de-linked or combined into one link. The sentences can be re-worded so that the links do not fall next to each other. This is a problem I have already pointed out to you once on the Jerry Lawlwer pper review page where you also dismissed my concerns. Again, please see Overlinking and Underlinking at The Manual of Style which asks editors to refrain from using two links [that] are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well actually the Overlinking and Underlinking section of The Manual of Style states that An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true... Two links are next to each other in the text, so that it looks like one link — such as internal links. However, because the article is clearly not overlinked, and because it does not say in any section of the Manual of Style that 2 links next to eachother, outside an overlinked article, is against the Manual, then the concern you are bringing up has no foundation. If you can show me a section in the Manual of Style where it states that a non-overlinked article must not have 2 links or more together, than I can find a way to get rid of them. If not, Peace, Feedback 03:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread the MoS. It is saying that an article is considered to be overlinked when there are two links that appear as one. - Deep Shadow 04:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It clearly states An article may be overlinked if...; which means it can or can't be. And in this case, it is a can't. Feedback 04:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies where you are misreading. It is not saying "may" as in it is giving permission under certain circumstances. It is saying "may" as in "an article may be considered overlinked…" - Deep Shadow 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the current way sounds fine. If we had to though, what about "pay-per-view event produced by professional wrestling company..."? Says the same thing without having two links right next to each other. TJ Spyke 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback, you are completely misreading the MoS as has been pointed out to you. TJ, yes it "sounds" fine but it doesn't "look" fine as there are clear MoS errors. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No. You say its a MoS error, but it is not. It says it may be an overlinked article, not will be. Do you think the article is overlinked? Because I for one, don't think the article is overlinked. The MoS says that 2 close wikilinks MAY be a problem, not ARE a problem. Feedback 00:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, one of our Featured Articles, December to Dismember (2006), has the same instance in it's lead; and an instance where it says ECW representative Paul Heyman Feedback 19:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone missed it when they reviewed this article doesn't mean it should not be fixed in both articles. We try to make the articles as good as possible, taking all suggestions under consideration. --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How does these close wikilinks make the article not "as good as possible"?Feedback 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it goes agains the MoS which the majority of Wikipedians go by. I don't understand why you appear to be continually trying as hard as possible to get around every issue/problem I suggest to you about articles, using clearly flawed logic in your "reasoning" for not fixing them. If you take the time to ask for people to look at articles you have worked on to see if improvements can be made, and then not follow through, you are wasting not only your time but the time of other valuable edtiors who are trying to help you. If you happen to only be asking for help because you feel you need to give WP:PW "lip service" before you flood GAN with submissions, then by all means please stop asking if you plan on continuing to ignore our suggestions, because that completely goes against the spirit of the the pre-GA nom system we have been using and the spirit of our Wikiproject. If I have somehow misread this entire situation and you actually really don't understand why I am making the suggestions that I have, then I suggest you find a mentor at Wikipedia who can coach on all the nuances of Wikipedia because I feel it may be of great benefit to you. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until some of the other GA noms are done? We don't want it to seem like we're overwhelming the reviewers. - DrWarpMind 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes we should wait. We just had that whole conversation a couple months ago. Too many noms too fast. There is no reason to hurry and waiting gives more people the chance to look over the articles for errors and make suggestions. --Naha|^(talk) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really much of a problem, as there are currently A LOT of articles on the GAN page, and 1 more article won't hurt them. Feedback 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback, I'm sorry but I'm beginning to wonder why you ask for help and suggestions when you routinely dismiss the ones people take time to give you? Overnominating IS a concern. If it already has "a lot" then we definitely don't need to be adding more right now. --Naha|^(talk) 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

By us not nominating 1 article, this doesn't change the fact that the other WikiProjects (which are also A LOT), will stop nominating articles also. The more articles nominated. the better because it shows how hard we work to turn many of our articles into Good Articles. But with thoughts like "there's a lot of articles already, let's not nominate another", we are dismissing the chance for other articles to become good articles; and ignoring the fact that the other projects understand what I'm saying and won't stop nominating their articles. Feedback 21:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about other WikiProjects, this is about us not getting GAs passed because they get overwhelmed with all of our submissions. We feel it has happened in the past, which is why we have tried to cut back on how many articles WP:PW has at GAN at one time. --Naha|^(talk) 12:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mikedk9109 returns to the project

Former WP:PW member Mikedk9109 has been unblocked after an 8-month absence. [2] We welcome him back to Wikipedia and wish him the best of luck. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't upload copyrighted images and claim they are his (that was why he was blocked, right?), then he is welcome to come back. TJ Spyke 02:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why; I'll keep tabs on any uploads he may make. I do hope he avoids making any uploads at all, however. Anyway, I'm very pleased to see that the unblock request was successful :) The Hybrid T/C 04:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To all the veteran members of WP:PW, who most likely know what I did, and all the new members who I have yet to meet, here is a personal apology. I say thanks for the welcome back, bulletproof, and I appreciate the second chance. Cheers, --—mikedk9109 21:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Article importance

I have just realized how few High-importance articles there are in this project. Another thing I have realized is that of our 3 Featured Articles, none are of high-importance (even though I think CM Punk should be a High-Importance article).

• Yet of our GAs, 4 are High-importance:
  • Triple H
  • Kurt Angle
  • Shawn Michaels
  • John Cena

I think we should concentrate on making these 4 articles into FAs, so we can have high-importance featured articles. Feedback 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, I'd like to know why Bobby Eaton is of low-importance. His background and history surely should dub him high-importance or at least mid. Feedback 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I also need to note that importance is pretty subjective, and it really changes whenever someone feels like changing it. I've thought for awhile that most of our articles could use an importance upgrade. In fact, I was the one who upgraded Angle, Cena, Michaels, and Triple H to high importance from mid importance (at least I think I was....I upgraded at least most of them...it was awhile ago). Nikki311 04:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that whoever rated Eaton may have done done so since he was primarily a tag team wrestler and hasn't been in the spotlight since the '80s. TJ Spyke 04:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

With Eaton I think the Midnight Express should be rated High and Eaton/Lane/Condrey/Cornette as mid, when it comes to tag team wrestling they did help write the book after all. If no one complains I'm changing those ratings later today. MPJ-DK 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce likely to be banned

Per this, it looks like Burntsauce will be banned as a meatpuppet of JB196. While BS had been leaving wrestling articles alone as of late, this ban will probably result in sockpuppet accounts being used by him. This will likely result in his return to our neck of the woods. Everyone should be on the lookout for their signature page blanks/article slashings, and incivility. File CheckUsers to establish whether the account is a sockpuppet of one member of the pair, as WP:SSP will probably be useless in dealing with them. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 06:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He's quit! :) Davnel03 07:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't trust him... The Hybrid T/C 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid is right, he's not to be trusted. He has assumed bad faith overall been a dick to this entire project (not a personal attack, it's a fact). I'll keep on the lookout, my friend. Gavyn Sykes 16:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol! He is a dick. Fact. 5 people are for him being banned, 6 is a majority. He'll get banned. Prediction. If anyone wishes to contact this dick outside of Wikipedia, Mr. Google is here to help. Well, does the ban go on every Wiki? He has a profile on WikiQuote. Who gives a........ I'll leave it there! Davnel03 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Unnecessary. Over-reaction on my part, apologises. Davnel03 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the strike-through comment, actually 5 is a majority, so he's gone, on that account anyway. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this drama for the last couple of days. All the reports and things are very interesting reads. In any event, I'll be on the lookout for socks. Nikki311 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have two white socks on my feet but you can't have them! --Naha|^(talk) 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about red then? Sorry - couldn't resist it! GetDumb 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it though, if he actually was JB196, then who kept giving him tips about pages without sources? Was it simply him trying to fool us? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

He was being advised by JB196. He wasnt actually JB196. See, a meatpuppet is recruited by someone else to do dirty work. Burntsauce was simply recruited by JB196 to go around starting stuff and being a dick. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember ages ago I accused Burntsauce of being a sockpuppet and no one believed me! Now this!! heh. Makes me laugh. Govvy 19:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it was kind of an open secret. Everyone knew that he had something to do with JB, but the CheckUsers couldn't prove it, and a number of admins agreed with his actions, so no one could justify a block that would last (as that would require a consensus). The only people who really could have done something would be a CheckUser that was willing to lie, or the arb com. We got the latter; woot! Peace, The Hybrid T/C 20:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Formatting help

I was wondering if anyone with knowledge of formatting could look at the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship article. Is there a way to move the table of contents box up to get rid of some of that blank space? Thanks. GaryColemanFan 14:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You could remove the {{-}} at the end of the lead, but that would cause the infobox to overlap the table. Sorry, I guess that wasn't much help. Nikki311 17:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured out a better way. Take a look and tell me what you think. Nikki311 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks great. GaryColemanFan 00:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance: Night of Champions

New article currently undercontruction. Davnel03 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin is a Featured Article!

Four articles so far! Gavyn Sykes 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Two articles added in two days! Wwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooo! Anyone wishing to take bets on the fifth??!! Davnel03 17:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

$10 on Bobby Eaton, lol. Gavyn Sykes 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Superb job everyone! --Naha|^(talk) 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Best cheers go to Nikki311 and Deep Shadow for the article. I read the article, found it was perfect and nominated it and for some reason Nikki311 was against me nominating it, yet DS was all for it. Well, Nikki, you did a great job on the article and now it's an FA, so you don't have to be modest about it. Cheers, Feedback 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Remember, remember the fifth of November, Shelton Benjamin achieved Wikipedia's top spot. I know of no reason why Shelton Benjamin should ever be forgot."

I'm pretty happy that an article I contributed to has become an FA but unlike what Feedback has said, I was not "all for it". I had a similar reaction to Nikki when I found out it was nominated. Reason; I'm sure people here know that I'm not a fan of articles being nominated for GA without discussion taking place first and it's no different for FA. But then again, my purpose is not to create featured articles, it is to create good articles to help set a certain standard for this project. With all the work everyone is doing, I'd say I'm comfortable with where we are. - Deep Shadow 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Please look at this. We're gonna have to be on the watchout for new IP's creating wrestling pages. I believe this will be enabled in the middle of this month according to a thread at AN. Davnel03 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if someone in the project could become an admin. I'd nominate The Hybrid, but I'm not sure if he'd agree. Gavyn Sykes 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's been asked a few times, but he has either not passed, or he doesn't want to be an admin. I wouldn't mind being an admin, but I think some editors (not necessarily part of this project) would probably not trust me with admin tools. Davnel03 19:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about it, but there is so much I still do not know regarding wiki policies. Also, I've been rather outspoken on different issues at various times and it seems like people go out of their way to oppose RFAs by digging up every little thing that a nom has ever said and anything even remotely negative is blown way out of proportion. Granted, its been months since I've perrused the RFA pages but it seems like seemingly nice, well educated (as far as wiki rules are concerned), valuable contributors get a stack of oppose votes over very minor issues and the extra value they could have added to Wikipedia is lost because admins should be perfect.

If I thought the several times I've called people out on BS they have spewed would be looked at objectively, I'd brush up on my wiki knowledgde and give it a shot because I know we could use an admin (or 2 or 10) around here, and Wikipedia as a whole can always use more good admins. I have a feeling even some folks even within this project, however, are probably not completely enthused with ways I have handeled past issues, but are too polite to say so or just don't want to get into it lol. I don't blame them for those opinions though, I am well aware that I can be quite rough around the edges at times, to put it lightly. If I knew I had the support of this project, or at least the majority, I'd really consider it. I'm sorry ..I really hate fishing like this. --Naha|^(talk) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

About a month ago, an admin approached me and asked me if I had ever considered being an admin myself. I agreed and after some correspondence, I told him that I wanted to wait a month so that my schedule would settle down and I could do some research on admin work. The month is going to be up fairly soon, so as soon as I let him know I'm ready, I'm going to go through the RfA process. Nikki311 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I was so hoping you would be up for this. I've had you at the forefront of my mind for awhile now regarding adminship. This is good, very good indeed. --Naha|^(talk) 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is great. I think both of you (Naha and Nikki) would make fine admins. Gavyn Sykes 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You'd both be great admins; y'all have my vote. To answer Gavyn, I've tried twice, and failed both, obviously. I've since decided that I much prefer being able to call a troll a troll. I still have the "civility issues" that caused me to fail the second, and I have no intentions of giving up my ability to call a spade a spade without going to arb com any time soon. I'm perfectly content to use the admins as my slaves right now ;). Peace, The Hybrid T/C 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I would vote for both of you. I would love to be admin, but I have about as much chance of becoming one as Scott Steiner has of passing a steroid test. It would be nice to have a member of of the project as an admin (although I do know of a couple of admins that are friendly with us). TJ Spyke 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't admins be people with at least 2 years experience?Feedback 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Admins should be trustworthy, and generally knowledgable. There are no other qualifications. I do know several admins that I can contact if we need them, however. I know I've taken advantage of one of my friend's admin status on several occasions. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So, to chime in with what Feedback was saying, when someone votes "oppose" to an RFA and states "I'd like to see them have more experience" as their sole reason for voting oppose, is that oppose vote not counted, since there are no other qualifications other than being trustworthy and honest? Seriously, I have no clue :) --Naha|^(talk) 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think our doubts should be posted on some help page, preferrably the rfa. I just thought that people like Nikki, who has yet to be on wikipedia for a year wouldn't be allowed to be nominated. Don't get me wrong, I'd think she'd make an excellent admin! I just thought they had rules. Feedback 01:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Naw, I went for my first one with only a few months experience. To reply to Naha, they do count those, but when people talk about experience they are addressing edit count related issues, not actual time periods. The Hybrid T/C 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Shad Gaspard

I just need an extra set of eyes or two on the Shad Gaspard article. Gaspard himself has decided to include as much detail about himself as he possibly can, breaking links and disrupting cites as he goes.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure its him? Has the IP said "I'm Shad?" Davnel03 19:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is indeed Shad, he would be in violation of WP:COI as it is... Bmg916^Speak 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User has just vandalised [3]. Davnel03 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Warned by Yamla. Davnel03 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Davnel. This is getting ridiculous (that happens far too often around here, does it not)? Gavyn Sykes 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The user didn't listen to Yamla, went ahead and did it again. He's got the consequences - an indef block. Davnel03 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And it was Shad. Davnel03 20:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just by having a wiki username with Shad's same name, doesn't make you Shad. And I got the feeling he isn't Shad. Call it indigo intuition. Feedback 00:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is Shad, he sent me pictures of himself holding up a piece of paper with my user name on it. Bmg916^Speak 03:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the message of him saying that. That's one of the reasons I immediately found out he was lying. Most people on the internet tend to "prove" they are someone they're not by taking the photo of someone holding a pad, and they get to photoshop any single word they can into that pad. So if he had a pic of Shad with some pad saying: "Cryme Tyme", he can substitue it with "Bmg916". Feedback 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the photo? If not, then zip it. Mshake3 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Let him call himself the real Shad Gaspard, whether it's true or not. It only makes things easier for us, since it's a conflict of interest to edit an article in which you are the subject. - Deep Shadow 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

These pictures (there were two) were definitely not photoshopped. I work with photoshop on almost a daily basis, there is no way this is photoshopped, unless Shad is an expert on making Sharpie marker (extra lines and all) backwards in a mirror (like in one of the two pics) look real, which I doubt. It's really Shad. Bmg916^Speak 19:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you could upload the image to ImageShack or something? Davnel03 22:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

here and here. Hope this helps. Bmg916^Speak 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think its photosopped, then you're (no offense) stupid. Click on the image to get a zoom in shot and you can clearly tell its real. Davnel03 22:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Like has been pointed out before, this is a severe violation of WP:COI, and with how clear-cut this violation is there shouldn't be any trouble dealing with it. Now that Yamla is involved, I'd say just keep her posted, and everything should work out fine. Yamla has dealt with this type of thing more than almost any other admin as far as I know. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't the problem anymore. The problem was some people still didn't believe this was Shad. With Yamla's knowledge Shad told me what he would like in the article and I did it. However, if someone could copy edit it, that would be wonderful, I'm not the most graceful writer. Thanks! Bmg916^Speak 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it's taken care of. I just went through and did a major copyedit for punctuation and grammar. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hybrid :-) Bmg916^Speak 01:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you happen to have contact with Shad, do you think it would be possible to get a better photo from him for his Wikipedia article? Nothing fancy, and obviously not a copyrighted WWE promo photo or something ..he'd have to take one and relase the rights to it for us. Is this even appropriate? I don't know much at all about the COI stuff. --Naha|^(talk) 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If I can get back in touch with him I could ask him if he wouldn't uploading a photo under his Wikipedia account, I would have to point him in the right direction of how to do this but I don't forsee that being much of an issue since he has uploaded many photos to his MySpace profile. As long as one of use added the photo ourselves, I don't see it as a COI violation. Bmg916^Speak 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Tired old issue brought up again

Others are sick of this, I am sick of this. Maestro has decided to once again go and remove the dash from the "Fatal Four-Way" at WWE No Mercy. This is at least the third time we've been through this in the last few months, and he put it back in even after I told him that the consenus (not much since not that many people commented) was to just use whatever the article used. The article originally used the dash. Any suggestions on how to end this? I am personally sick of dealing with him on this issue since it will be dealt with and then he will start it up again a few months later. TJ Spyke 22:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what standard you all are using for the placement or removal of the dash, but Fatal Four-Way is the grammatically correct form. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I already tried to intervine once early last month regarding this issue and all the effort received was criticisim of the debate as opposed to insightful reasoning in order to figure out which way is correct. At that time I said I didn't care either way, but in an effort to strive for grammatical correctness and the use of the same spelling of terms project-wide, I would have to go with Fatal Four-Way. --Naha|^(talk) 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should set up a vote on No Mercy's talk page, then once consensus is reached, you can point to that for reverting any edits that go against it. Nikki311 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's acceptable, but having to invoke consensus simply to use correct grammar seems like a waste of everyone's time. The Manual of Style says to use standard English grammar in articles regardless of what the company uses. If the WWE says it without a dash, then that doesn't matter. It should have a dash in it, The Hybrid T/C 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hyrid, that is what I have been saying. Using the dash is grammatically correct. His argument is that WWE doesn't use the dash. I have shown him proof that WWE is not consistant in that sometimes they use the dash and sometimes they don't. The dash is also used in every other PPV article with a fatal four-way match. TJ Spyke 23:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, screw him. The Hybrid T/C 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it waste more time than arguing over it, letting go, only for it to be brought up again months later? At least if we reach a consensus, it'll be over and we can move on with our lives. Nikki311 23:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that we can start up a discussion, but just because I like you ;). The Hybrid T/C 23:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". Leave in the dash per policy (WP:MOS) and correct grammar. We can use WWE for a source of information, but as a source of freaking grammar? Give me a break. No wonder this project is still looked down upon and as a joke, even after all the hard work we've done in the past 4 or 5 months, because of stupid shit like this. Bmg916^Speak 23:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

She was just trying to help, but then again I've been harsher than that for smaller things than this in the past, so I guess I'm no person to reprimand you. The Hybrid T/C 23:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I've set up the debate at the bottom of Talk:WWE No Mercy. Nikki311 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments weren't directed at anyone specifically, let alone Nikki, she is one of the finest editors of this project, and if I ever, and The Rock means EVER get incivil with her, I'll be the first to report myself to AN/I. My comments were merely venting frustration about how ridiculous this has gotten, that we are even bothering with this. Bmg916^Speak 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, frankly, in my opinion: SCREW HIM. We will tell him to read the MoS, and SEE the correct grammar section. If he continues his behavior of getting rid of the dash, he should be blocked for 30 days. If, on his return, he does do this again, he should be blocked indefinitely. We should really be harsher on the people who join this encyclopedia just to do stupid discussions and confrontations like this. Feedback 00:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It'll never happen. The Hybrid T/C 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on since April! If I'm correct, we are now in November! Seven MONTHS this dispute has been going on. Geez...... Davnel03 17:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox championship}}

I need help changing the background color on the collaspable box from white to #FFFFCC.--Sweetsweetdaddy 00:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that while I like the yellow color on our project pages, I'm not a fan of it in the actual articles. I think the infobox championship template should be changed back to the color it was previously. Nikki311 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I just changed it back. Bright yellow in the actual articles is distracting and un-encyclopedic. Nikki311 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, our articles should be more formal, and less Superstar Billy Graham-like ;). Peace, The Hybrid T/C 01:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad i'm not the only one. I think the same thing should be done the the PPV event template since it looks odd on a normal page to see that bright yellow template. TJ Spyke 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Missed this thread somehow. Did Hornet go around and change all the templates to yellow or something? If so I guess it has already been fixed, as everything on the project template page looks fine to me. --Naha|^(talk) 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I rolled back those edits, and CHQ did an admin (total) rollback when he blocked him. The Hybrid T/C 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He had changed the Championship Infobox and Wrestling Event Infobox do be the same yellow color as this page now is. The problem is that on other pages it just sticks out like a sore thumb. TJ Spyke 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see. And yes I totally agree, the color update was just meant to be for WP:PW project space, not main article space hehe. --Naha|^(talk) 02:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He even changed the template for Template:MMAstatsbox and said you guys "owned" it. Nice to see you guys are stealing our boxes from us! ;)

I was at least glad to see that you guys reverted the rest of his changes to your stat boxes. I didn't want to say anything since I'm not a WP:PW member, but DAMN that made your boxes fugly. Good thing it wasn't permanent. Tuckdogg 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh please do feel free to comment any time our stuff looks ugly ...we'd want to know! ;) --Naha|^(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Sweetsweetdaddy

What do y'all think; Hornetman, or no? The Hybrid T/C 01:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My gut instinct says yes. Nikki311 01:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He seems awfully experienced for someone who registered only yesterday (although I know that doesn't mean much since they could have been editing as an IP). TJ Spyke 01:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q. thinks so as well. He's also been messing with the same stuff; I just rolled back several of his edits. Since CHQ is an admin, he should be blocked shortly. The Hybrid T/C 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope... :P The Hybrid T/C 01:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably him. O_O I had no idea CHQ was an admin. Gavyn Sykes 01:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow I had no idea HQ was an admin either. Very good to know! No idea about the sockpuppet stuff, I haven't been following the situation very carefully. --Naha|^(talk) 01:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked by CHQ for being a sockpuppet of Hornetman. TJ Spyke 01:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Then should we cross out his ridiculous vote about the dash issue at WWE No Mercy? :) Nikki311 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out we were wrong. It was hornetman's father, not him. My dearest apologies to him.</sarcasm> Yeah, cross it out. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it hon, cross it out, sockpuppets don't get votes! /bonk Hybrid :P --Naha|^(talk) 01:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

His stupidity is starting to astound me. Gavyn Sykes 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Y'all might want to watch his talk page. Screwing with vandals is what I live for. The Hybrid T/C 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

^^This is why I think I will fail RFA hehe, it gets really hard not to speak my mind sometimes. --Naha|^(talk) 01:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were to create a sockpuppet, I'd go to a completely different wikiproject and sproadically edit WP:PW articles. And id my desire for all things for Pro wrestling like most can't keep myself away from the articles, I'd review WP:PW's GA nominations. And after like 8-12 months, I'd join WP:PW and do completely different edits than what I did before. I wouldn't be so lame like this guy. Feedback 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...Dude... I'm sorry, I just can't finish this without busting out laughing XD -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the most fun I've had in ages. Come one everyone; let's mess with Hornetman. Everyone join in. The Hybrid T/C 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you guys are having fun, but you have to stop: User talk:3bulletproof16#User:Sweetsweetdaddy. TJ Spyke 03:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Technically, if you look at the part of WP:BAN Deskana was citing, the purpose is to let them leave with dignity in tact. I'm sure we all can agree Hornetman willingly gave up his dignity a long time ago, as Monnetwars at the very latest, but yeah, we're done. The Hybrid T/C 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed this Wikipedia guideline :( My Bad Feedback 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them.

I was enjoying the conersation you guys had with his "dad", I just don't want you guys risking a banning (which i'm sure he would love). TJ Spyke 04:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bravo, both of you. I just went back and read the talk page history. It made me laugh harder than Santino's promo tonight. Gavyn Sykes 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning on stopping when an admin told us to. I figured we wouldn't be blocked for it, seeing as we have been model Wikipedians (mostly) in the past. Coming back from RAW to have a message from the Deskana on my talk page took me by surprise, I'll admit, but nonetheless, that was a lot of fun, and it was refreshing to speak my mind to someone that actually deserved it. The Hybrid T/C 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

100% Agreed. While I do realize it was against policy, (and Lord knows I take policy very seriously) the bottom line is, the guy deserved it plain and simple. I've been dealing with trolls like him since my first day as a serious editor and all this time I've complied with Wikipedia policy and kept my mouth shut. But there are certain times when it gets to a point where you just can't stay silent. This was just one of those times, unfortunately at the cost of violating policy. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article GA notifications

Deep Shadow and I have been working on the articles Mickie James and Amy Dumas, respectfully. After checking over each other's work by reviewing each other's article (plus some copy editing by Naha) we think they are both ready to be put forth as Good Article candidates. So, this is the week notification. Please make any suggestions on either James' or Dumas' talk page and either Deep Shadow or myself with take care of it. Thanks. Nikki311 14:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through both and did thorough copyedits, trying to split up back to back wikilinks, taking out comma splices and all that fun stuff. The articles are looking great, but I had a few minor things about each article that I mentioned on their talk pages. Hope this helps. GaryColemanFan 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW Sin

hey Ive been working really hard on the WCW Sin article. Not quite done yet but Its getting along, and will hopefully reach GA status, you can comment here or in the articles talk page for things to add, remove, or edit. P.S.-tell me whether the article is on the path to GA stauts.--TrUcO9311 15:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. One thing. Can you put references after a full-stop, not before. Thanks, Davnel03 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable all those sources are. You should at least avoid the dailymotion video and imdb. DrWarpMind 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List nominations

Just a reminder that there are currently two title lineages that have been nominated for Featured List status: IWGP World Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Women's Championship. If you have time, please feel free to look over the articles to determine if they meet the criteria. The nomination pages can be accessed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP World Heavyweight Championship and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/NWA World Women's Championship. GaryColemanFan 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In Your House 1: Premiere a GA!

November 4: December to Dismember (2006) became a FA!

November 5: Shelton Benjamin became a FA!

November 6: In Your House 1: Premiere became a GA!

November 7: ???

Seems like we've had a good few days!! Let's keep up the good PPV work, we now have over twenty, either complete or currently under work. I think we should give ourselfs a pat on the back, because this seemed impossible a few months ago, and now look where we are going with the PPVs! Davnel03 19:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin Creed

Hello! First post here, anywhoo, I created Austin Creed awhile back and I see the articles become quite nice looking and I'd like to thank whoevers been working on it for buffing it up during my mishap-related absence. I've been scouring the internet for any information I could find, but only came upon his MySpace and NWA Wildside page. I contacted Mr. Creed himself and he was happy to see the article and he gave me permission to use the picture which is on the article currently. If you have any questions, feel free to add and ask him, he's a nice guy. But back on topic, thank you for the notable progress on the article, it looks great.

P.S. One thing does come to mind. He has the same notability as Jamie Szantyr, a.k.a. Talia Madison. Austin and Talia were both in minor feds before going to TNA, and they both recently signed with TNA. But whenever someone creates an article for Talia, it gets deleted due to lack of notability. Well then, why doesnt the Austin Creed article get hit with the same? He has exactly the same notability. I am seriously starting to wonder if anyone has any clue what they're talking about anymore because if one article has the same notability as another, yet survives deletion, somethings wrong. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Eaton FAC

After being the COTW and all the Bobby Eaton article has now been nominated for feature article, if you haven't contributed to the article then feel free to go by here Bobby Eaton FAC Page and voice your opinion on the article. Hopefully we'll soon have an "Old School" FA :) MPJ-DK 11:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone left comments and listed a few (28) concerns about the article. I've fixed up 3, and it would be great if a few other people can help address these issues so that we can reach consensus on the article. GaryColemanFan 00:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me with citations?

I'm trying to change the simple links in my userspace into actual citations, and it's not working. The subpage is here. I've been trying to use Template:Citeweb, but it just results in a mess of text (you can see one such mess in the edit history). I'm probably missing something pretty easy, so any help is greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You need to add <ref> before the cite web template and </ref> at the end...so it looks like <ref>{{cite web|url=|author=|date=|...}}</ref>. Hope that helps. Nikki311 20:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tromboneguy0186 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Superstars Template

User:Crazy4metallica has been editing all the WWE performer's articles to include the following template:

Personally, I like it and think it's a fine idea, but I don't ever recall a consensus (or even a mention) for it's creation or institution. Commments? Gavyn Sykes 03:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it completely omits ECW so that's a start. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports athletes tend to have a template of all their current teammates, so this isn't out of the norm. Mshake3 04:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It needs to include the ECW Divas (all of 2) though. Davnel03 15:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Very good idea. Doesn't Regal belong in the RAW section though? He does wrestle as well as performing his GM duties. --EndlessDan 20:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Regal hasn't wrestled since becoming GM though. I've added an "Inactive Extreme Championship Wrestling Superstars" section and put The Boogeyman in it. Gavyn Sykes 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Regal does still wrestle at house shows. TJ Spyke 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the current layout. Could "Inactive Extreme Championship Wrestling Superstars" be shortened to "Inactive ECW Superstars"? There's a lot of empty blue space in the left column right now, and the right side of the template gets cut off on the right on some screen sizes). "Friday Night SmackDown!" is shortened to "SmackDown!" for its inactive list, so it would remain somewhat consistent. I'm fine either way, though...I rarely visit a current wrestler's page unless it's a collaboration or someone has requested help or copyediting. GaryColemanFan 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair points. I'll make the change now. :) Gavyn Sykes 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It still wouldn't fit on my screen because of the width. I changed the template's width from 70 to 67, and it now fits on the screen of each of my computers. If people want it back to 70 (or down to 65), though, that's fine with me. GaryColemanFan 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this table is very ...large. --Naha|^(talk) 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I merged the diva sections with the rest of the roster to make it smaller. Seemed pointless to have separate sections for males and females on the same brand. It took too much space. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Boogeyman is inactive, or rather appearing in a non-wrestling role. Gavyn Sykes 04:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we split it by brands so it's not so large? It takes up a lot of space.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, by splitting it by brand we don't place a humongoloid info box at the bottom of a lot of pages. MPJ-DK 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we even need a roster template, but one split up by brand would be better than one large template since there are so many wrestlers in WWE that the template is huge. TJ Spyke 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I could take a stab at separating the templates when I get a chance (tomorrow morning at latest) if no one else gets to it. Gavyn Sykes 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think this template is necessary. --Naha|^(talk) 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless, I've gone ahead and split it up, as it couldn't hurt even if it isn't implemented. :)

You can see them here, here and here Gavyn Sykes 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There's too much white space on the left hand size. Template:Cubs is an example of how the rosters should look like. Mshake3 20:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source search; John Hennigan

After reading the Hennigan article I noticed it not once made mention to the John Morrison character connection to Jim Morrison. After discussing it with Bmg916 it was decided that there exists no direct reliable source that states the connection between John's gimmick and Jim Morrison, which near as I can tell seems to actually be true. While everyone on the planet knows that the gimmick is an homage to Jim, from look to personality to phrases, I could not locate a reliable source for it to add it to the article so I decided to come here to see if anyone could find a reliable source that listed the connection. It's a glaring omission that needs rectifying. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking, but I can't seem to find anything. Sorry. Nikki311 20:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything either. That is my biggest beef with Wikipedia. While I completely understand the reasoning behind the policy and am a total advocate of references and citations ...it really is a shame that information that everyone knows to be true, can't be included into articles without an outside source. Oh well. --Naha|^(talk) 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I can find more than a few opinion pieces saying it, can we go with "people believe it to be" and cite those?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, what are the sources? --Naha|^(talk) 20:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Aaru Bui has left Wikipedia permantly

The headline, and this speaks for itself. Davnel03 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's unfortunate. He was a good WP:PW contributer (barring the time he nominated all the PPV articles for deletion). Gavyn Sykes 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who "left permanently" about 14 months ago, I say he'll be back ;) Wikipedia is like a drug. I don't know the guy but if he had a good history he might be back sometime. Tromboneguy0186 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, from leaving to blocking and SpeedyC1, who from time to time contributed to wrestling articles has, per this been indef blocked as a sock of Cowboycaleb1. I'm attempting to wonder just how I didn't notice..... :( Davnel03 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Briscoe Brothers

I've finished my major rewrite of this article, and put it into the mainspace. Before I request a wider-scale peer review, I think it might be helpful if some WP:PW folks took a look at it first. One way or another, it needs more than just my eyes on it. Any help is greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing that stood out was the use of references before punctuation. According to the Manual of Style, they should always come after punctuation. I went through the article and moved them, so it should conform to the manual now. GaryColemanFan 22:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that when you started doing it, thanks. I'd have jumped in and done some of it myself but I figured it'd be better to avoid an edit conflict. Tromboneguy0186 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it of great importance that claims be phrased "out of universe," such as "they were booked to drop the tag team title to CM Punk & Colt Cabana" and not "they lost the tag team title to CM Punk & Colt Cabana?" Seems to me that that would provide a pretty dry and uninteresting tone, especially as some claims (like the PWG no-shows; possibly that entire section) are necessarily "out of universe." Tromboneguy0186 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want the article to be eligible to become a Good or Featured Article...then yes. You don't necessarily have to say they were booked to win or lose every match, but you do have to make it clear that wrestling is scripted. Nikki311 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Well....I do ;\ So I best get on that. Tromboneguy0186 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nidia Guenard

I've done a lot of changes to the article and I was wondering if it looks good the way it is now. If some of you can take a look it'd be great. Also I'm not really sure how to request a peer review so if someone could do that instead of me it'd be awesome. 80.80.140.50 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:PR and that should tell you everything you need to know. Tromboneguy0186 23:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon inspection, you're probably setting yourself up for a mild embarrassment if you request a peer review on that article. It needs quite a lot of work, most obviously and glaringly in sourcing (being that there...is...none right now). Source as many of the claims as possible, and in doing so you'll probably uncover new claims to help expand the article (a minor concern, but a glance it does seem pretty short). Tromboneguy0186 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Good start. Try to find some sources aside from OWW, and though they aren't required I find cite templates are helpful in organizing your references. I went ahead and added them to the article (particularly as the way the references were inserted before left one link absent from the references section). Tromboneguy0186 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the cite templates because I wasn't sure how to do that. I'll add more sources to the article these days. The problem is that there are only a few sources I can find for Nidia. Also I wanted to ask if it's OK to use OWW as a source for all the weekly results? 80.80.140.50 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Although they sometimes have errors in bios, they are still a very reliable site (especially for TV/PPV results). TJ Spyke 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris Mordetsky to Chris Mordetzky

Was this a cut and paste page move? The history of both articles don't indicate a move, only their respective talk pages do. - Deep Shadow 06:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Can somewhat alert an admin to fix this ASAP please? Bmg916^Speak 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A user moved it because in the article on WWE.com that stated that Masters was released, his last name was spelled with a "z." Gavyn Sykes 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way can we get an admin to fix this mess please? Bmg916^Speak 13:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN Special

Did anyone catch the special on Chris Benoit, relating to the aspects of the wrestling world. And if so, is it notable to add some information to WWE's article? Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

NYR reliable source but how?

Ok if you go to WWE.com, and look to your left, you will see the upcoming PPV schedule, and you see all PPV's listed up to one night stand (as you see WWE NYR is not on there). So how can we omit that into the article as the source?--TrUcO9311 02:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S: For those of you who dont know, NYR stands for WWE New Year's Revolution

Are you asking how to source WWE.com? You've never done a web citation before? Mshake3 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know how to, but how can you if the PPV timeline is on the side of the website..ok n/m i c how to now.--TrUcO9311 15:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Divas section removed from WWE.com

Why? Who knows. Mshake3 05:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the profiles, which previously could be accesses through the brand pages, are gone as well. This is very concerning, The Hybrid T/C 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they took it down to do an overhaul and will put it back up soon? I hope so, I've used their profiles to cite a lot of info in the Diva's individual articles. Nikki311 05:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Women's Championship is still listed as active, but other than that there is no trace of the divas. I don't think they would fire them, especially Cherry who was just a valet, but this development is positively stunning. Hopefully this will all be sorted out soon. In the mean time, watch the articles for additions of unconfirmed firings and such. The Hybrid T/C 05:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They even removed Molly Holly, Lita, and Trish Stratus from the alumni page. [4] I'm intrigued. Nikki311 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't be. This is starting to look like a server error to me. Oh well, nothing we can do. If anyone has any information we don't, or any updates as this situation develops please post the info and keep us all up to date. The Hybrid T/C 05:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Diva Search site is also gone. And box the Diva Search box and "Diva Hot Box" were removed from the main page. Mshake3 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe WWE is giving up on Divas, in hopes that TNA will follow suit :P Vampire Warrior 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope not, Beth Phoenix was really starting to impress me, and I think that she and Mickie could do wonders if given the chance to wrestle each other. That, and I'm a guy ;). The Hybrid T/C 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Giving up on the Divas isn't something they would just decide overnight. Given that, and the fact that WWE just finished with their latest Diva Search, I seriously doubt they are doing away with them. They are probably just working on the website and started with the Divas. --Naha|^(talk) 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to speculate but that's probably what they are doing. The individual Diva profiles may be down at the moment, but their subtopics are still up (E.g. Melina's bio, photos, videos etc). - Deep Shadow 10:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Somethings wierd. The only mention of Women I can see is on the ECW homepage. Davnel03 12:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW Sin finished

Hey Im done the Sin article, may you all mind checking out and commenting here, on my talk page, or on the article's talk page for errors, stuff to delete or add, and tell me what rating it currently could be considered at. Thanks!--TrUcO9311 16:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just briefly scanned the article, but there are a few problems that immediately stand out:

• The cite web template is not complete. You need to also state the author, publisher, date accessed, and date published for each source.
• It could use some manual of style cleanup, especially with the dates. Only full dates should be linked (ex. November 10 2007). Stand alone months and years should not be linked (ex. November or 2007 or November 2007 or November of 2007 = wrong).
• It could use some copyediting, as well. I saw at least one spelling mistake. You might want to get a copy editor here or someone from the League of Copyeditors to look over it.
• I'm worried about some of the sources. 411mania and IMDB should definitely not be used. I'm not sure about some of the other ones. How reliable is Accelerator?
• Because of these issues, I'd probably still rate it as a start for now.

Nikki311 16:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

well Accelerator gives you the Biographies of the wrestlers. Whats copy ediotrs? and ill changed the links on the dates and the cite templates.--TrUcO9311 16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editors can be anyone. They just mainly give the article a cleanup and change whatever needs to be changed. Seeing as you've posted this, other members of WP:PW will probably give it a cleanup. I would, but I have some school stuff to be getting on with. It looks good so far, though! Davnel03 17:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Two articles about to be PRUNED!

Two articles are to be pruned, well today. Given the lack of activity on the COTW page over the past few days, I'm leaving an advanced warning here, and if not enough people have voted within the next six hours, I will prun them. The two articles are:

• WrestleMania
• Bash at the Beach#2000

Please support the articles here within six hours otherwise they will be pruned at 5pm ET/2pm PT/10pm UK. Thanks, Davnel03 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Both removed and pruned. If anyone wishes to start off Bash of the Beach (2000), please do. Davnel03 22:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Split

On November 9, 2007, I suggested that the articles be split, it has been a week and there are 6 supporters (including myself), and 1 who disagrees. I will leave the split discussion open until Monday I am already working on the WWE Draft article in one of my subpages (i will post the link later). Please respond to the discussion here, if there are at least 10 supporters by Monday for the articles to be split, it will be split.--TrUcO9311 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Link-WWE Draft article in Truco9311's subpage

WWE Roster help

Could someone revert this IP's edits. He keeps adding unsourced info and I can't revert again without violating the three-revert rule. Gavyn Sykes —Preceding comment was added at 02:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

DH Smith

Somebody moved Harry Smith to DH Smith. I tried moving it back, but something is messed up. Could somebody please change it back to Harry Smith, considering it is the name he is best known as, compared to a name he has used for only two matches. Kris 06:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 06:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment now the COTW

What the title says. Davnel03 12:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Two users on a "crusade" to delist Montreal Screwjob and Bobby Eaton from FA status

A user started this conversation on the Montreal Screwjob talkpage, basically stating that the article should not be a FA. The user in question Albatross2147 has since left a comment on Excalibur's talkpage, see here. It seems like the two are engaging in some sort of "crusade" to delist Montreal Screwjob and the Bobby Eaton article. I think we should keep a watch, seems like they are planning to attempt to delist them. Davnel03 12:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• They're objecting to the subject, not the content - that's already blatantly obvious in the Bobby Eaton FAC.MPJ-DK 13:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, looking at the FAC now, you're right. Surely it isn't a Conflict of Interest? Davnel03 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we do anything proactively instead of waiting for them to request delisting? These two (especially Albatross) clearly just hate the subject matter. For example, while the Montreal Screwjob article was on the main page, he tagged it with:
    • Its notability is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be listed for deletion.
    • Its tone or style may not be appropriate for Wikipedia.
    • It reads like an advertisement and needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.
    • It may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Please edit according to the fiction guidelines.
    • It may be too long. Some content may need to be summarized or split.
    • It contains a trivia section.
    • It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
    • It lacks information on the notability of the subject matter.
    • An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted.
    • It may contain too many colloquial terms, phrases, or words.
  • Obviously, this is inspired by a dislike of wrestling articles, as these are simply not true (A trivia section? No distinction between fact and fiction? Notability not established?). Is there an administrator we can talk to to get this settled? GaryColemanFan 16:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell...We should contact Yamla. She's a very wrestling-friendly admin. Gavyn Sykes 16:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked her to look at this conversation. Link is here incase anyone wants to add anything. Davnel03 16:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly guys, does this surprise you at all? Definitely just some editors having an agenda pushing problem. It's too bad, too. The stereotype on wrestling is getting old, I think. It will never end it seems, though... FamicomJL 16:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really surprise me. It normally gets resolved quickly but the detractors always launch another attack on us soon enough. From Burntsauce to One Night in Hackney, to the time that Aaru Bui tried to get all the PPV articles deleted. It's getting really fucking old. Gavyn Sykes 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And annoying. This diff tells me the editor hates professional wrestling. Any way we could have a topic block imposed? Davnel03 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Says a lot about the editor's maturity level, too. Has this editor been banned for stuff like this before? FamicomJL 17:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. This line on his userpage tells me a lot:

• Far too many User's pages here on Wikipedia reveal that they are sad and pathetic.

It speaks for itself. He has been blocked before, once for 3RR and once for racist comments. I'll wait for Yamla's opinion before I ask for any more intervention. Thanks, Davnel03 17:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone think they could both be socks?-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're really socks persay, but more of two editors with an agenda pushing problem. FamicomJL 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This seems to happen every year... -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say quite a bit more often than every year. I've only been editing since January of this year and this is the third occurence I can remember (I only saw the one involving Aaru Bui) in archived discussions. Gavyn Sykes 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is still an issue, call them on the floor, listing diffs to prove that they dislike the subject matter, and have nothing to say about the actual quality of the article. Point out that this is a neutral encyclopedia, and let the closer of said discussion exercise his right to ignore the bad faith votes. That's how you deal with those who POV push in discussions. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 19:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I advise everyone to refrain from posting anything on the offending user's talk pages. Vampire Warrior handled that quite well, and not in the most civil way either. I say we just duck out and see what Yamla says before making any move.

And I agree with Hybrid. Gavyn Sykes 21:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

ECW Version of Userbox

User:PayneXKiller/ECW_PWbox

Is it alright if I use this instead to show my live of ECDub? The Straight Edge Superstar PayneXKiller 15:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) hmm. small glitch for some reason. will fix.

Fixed it. Feedback 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks feed, I realised when I posted it. The Straight Edge Superstar PayneXKiller 15:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) do we need someone to approve this as official? The Straight Edge Superstar PayneXKiller 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday

Because the WP:PW members have not started writing the information on the "event" section. Wait a couple of days mayby a week, and then you will see the "event" section filled up.TrUcO9311 15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad man. I created the article and I have been meaning to write the Event section, but havent had time on my hands. I have been practicing for some drama competitions, and yesterday, I won 2 awards (1st place in the Oratory Category with Spartacus; 2nd place in the Poetry Category with Paul Revere's Ride. Now that that's over, I can start wikipedia-ing again. Feedback 15:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm not sure who archived the talk page, so this is a comment for everybody: when archiving a talk page, please make sure that you leave comments that are not yet a week old. There were active discussions going on that just got archived, which makes it difficult to continue them. Thanks. Nikki311 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it was Feedback that archived it. That's one reason why I never archive things (apart from my own talkpage!). Nikki, why don't you just take the discussion out of the archive and carry it on underneath here? Davnel03 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realize they weren't a-week-old. I just saw that they hadn't been replied, and/or the matter seemed resolved. Sorry, Feedback 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we use a bot to archive this page like I (and many others) use for our talk pages? User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto will automatically archive any discussions older than a certain number of days (I have mine at 7) to a specified archive page. We could set it so any discussions with no replies after 7 days will be archived by the bot. TJ Spyke 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I really like that idea. Nikki311 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was opposed to this idea before because while something may be a week old, it still may not be resolved. But that makes the talk page get very long at times and we can't "make" people post and resolve things so I guess I am no longer opposed to this. If it ever got to be a problem for some reason we could easily just go back to manually archiving. Go for it! --Naha|^(talk) 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Davnel03 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have set up the archive. It's set at 7 days. The way the bot works is that it does not archive any sections without a timestamp, but that could be handled just by making a short reply. Like Silverwind said, we could always just go back if there is a problem. TJ Spyke 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References

Is the above page inactive? Now that the COTW is back running, isn't the list jsut gonig to go down. Should I redirect it to the main WP:PW page? Davnel03 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is inactive or not, but if it is decided we don't need it, a speedy delete would be better than a redirect. Nikki311 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need it and would not object to a speedy delete. But that is because I've only looked at it once or twice just to see what it was and what was on it. I don't use it. If there are lots of people who use it ..keep it I guess, otherwise, trash it. --Naha|^(talk) 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put a CSD notice on the page. Davnel03 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Split

Im putting this again since someone archived the talk page. On November 9, 2007, I suggested that the articles be split, it has been a week and there are 6 supporters (including myself), and 1 who disagrees. I will leave the split discussion open until tonight I am already working on the WWE Draft article in one of my subpages (i will post the link later). Please respond to the discussion here, if there are at least 8-10 supporters by tonight for the articles to be split, and when there are it will be split. --TrUcO9311 17:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am also working on the article in my sandbox click here to see it

Cyber Sunday (2007)....

...has been nominated for GA status by User talk:BlackDart D. I'm concerned, as I don't think it is up to GA level because of the following problems:

1. It has one citation neeeded tag at start of Results section.
2. The Aftermath section is one line long.
3. Most of the sourcing is from WWE.com, something that also occured with One Night Stand (2006) and that was speedy failed. (now a GA)

These problems (at least the first two) need to be fixed for it to achieve GA status. I would do it myself, but I have several things outside of Wiki to get on with. Thanks, Davnel03 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CS 2007 just ended 2 weeks ago, the aftermath section won't be that long. TJ Spyke 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no aftermath, why have an Aftermatch section? Feedback 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question...I know that someone can withdraw their own nomination, but as a WikiProject can we decide that the article being nominated is against the consensus and remove it even though we didn't nominate it? We could renominate it as soon as all the concerns are addressed. Nikki311 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd quickfail it right now due to stability, which it fails, due to the fact that it's been only weeks since the event took place. I say wait a few months before nominating it again...maybe put a note like that on the talkpage? FamicomJL 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided to be bold and remove the nomination myself. I left a note on both the user's talk page and the article's talk page explaining what needs to be fixed before it can be renominated. Hope that's okay. Nikki311 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed the right way to go. It would've been quick failed for stability issues. Maybe in December or January, it can be re-nominated? FamicomJL 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WAIT A MOMENT... I wanted to nominate Wrestlemania III: an excellent article that many editors have contributed to, including myself; and I was answered with: "too many articles are already nominated". How did this not stop this article from being nominated? Feedback 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because anybody can nominate an article at any time, whether they should or not. As you can see, it quickly was removed. TJ Spyke 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user that nominated it is also not a member of WP:PW so he doesn't know about our guidlines. Davnel03 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I nominate it now as there are only 2 nominations? Feedback 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline within the project is to give a week's advance notice before nominating articles. I know that Nikki posted notice 5 days ago that Mickie James and Amy Dumas would be nominated soon. I had planned to give a week's notice for Royal Rumble 1994, but Nikki beat me to it. GaryColemanFan 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus applies when the candidates are listed under different headings on the GA nominations page. The reason there is such a consensus is because at one time, the 'sport and games people' section had too many wrestling articles all at once. Pay-per-view nominations shouldn't be a problem as they are listed under a different heading and won't interfere with the other section's candidates. - Deep Shadow 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Touché. GaryColemanFan 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, can i?? Feedback 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikki311 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, I said Don Kent would be up for GA in a week... about 3 weeks ago ;) well I'll probably get off my duff and nominate him today or tomorrow. So consider this the "one week warning" expiring after 3 LOL MPJ-DK 10:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)