Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

→

Archive 70

Justin LaRouche -> Bam Neely

See Talk:Justin_LaRouche#Requested_page_move. --Numyht (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 Not done Adster95 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick Is this really necessary? Nenog (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes because this is a potential Good topic candidate and at GTC, they ask for a navigation template among the subpages.--Truco 15:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Restart: Professional wrestling match types

In my mind this page is entirely too long. Maybe we can make sub-articles. Along the lines of Object match, to have matches that you must do a certain thing to win like a ladder match. Cage matches. Just read the other section to get a better idea.--WillC 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Doing so would also allow us to mention minor match types that have been deleted from that page due to it being too long already. TJ Spyke 22:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See, we can create Cage match or Steel Cage match, in which we can mention the variations. Six Sides of Steel and so on and so fort. Right there is a simple article to get to GA. Ladder match can be changed from a list to a real article. We can then either put King of the mountain, Money in the Bank, and so on and so fort into the article or keep them seperate and just mention a small portion about each in that article. Feast or Fired I'm not even sure what it would fall under. TNA is to bring it back in late 09 and make it one of their most important matches. Where are we going to mention it?--WillC 22:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned something similar the last time this was brought up. We can create a Professional wrestling match types (cage variations) (or something along those lines) for the steel cage, elimination chamber, six sides of steel, punjabi prison, etc. We can also create a Professional wrestling match types (ladder variations) for ladder, TLC, king of the mountain, etc. Remove the dumb lists, and I think it would all work very nicely. Nikki♥311 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes then only matches that are not that popular or do not fall under certain match types like Last Man Standing and Texas Death match can go in the main list while main matches in promotions such as Ultimate X can have their own articles and we will weed down the list and get rid of the match types we don't need: two out of three falls match.--WillC 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any match is worthy of its own article....and it would never be very long because it doesn't take more than a couple of sentences to describe. Nikki♥311 03:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree, How about Hell in a Cell? It has it's special history. ₰imon_K^S_K 03:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell could just have more info in the article, like three or four paragraphs. The special stuff could be mentioned (like Foley vs. Undertaker, etc), but what else really is needed? The match descriptions are in the PPV articles (or will be once they are all done). Nikki♥311 03:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well considering how many variations and info there is about Ultimate X I believe I could make a decent article. Been wanting to do that.--WillC 03:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If it has variations, then maybe. I guess I don't know enough about that match to make a judgment call. Nikki♥311 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell can go in the Cage Match page. Ultimate X would probably go in the ladder match page as that's the closest thing I can think of it being (ie something is in the air and competitors need to climb up to retrieve it. I don't really think any match deserves its own page but that they should go under match types. But I guess we'll see once it comes to fruition as I could be wrong. Also trying to make it less US-centric would be a good idea if anyone knows of any Prureso and lucha libre stipulations that aren't featured. Tony2Times (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it and King of the Mountain I believe should have their own articles since they are the main matches in TNA. Like WWE has all their special matches, TNA has Ultimate X, King of the Mountain, Elevation X, Six Sides of Steel, Monsters Ball, The Asylum, Full Metal Mayhem, Gauntlet for the Gold, Xscape match, Lethal Lockdown, and Feast or Fired. Those are their main matches. Now before we go moving matches to new pages I guess we should figure out what matches deserve their own articles from WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, and ROH. From TNA I believe Ultimate X, King of the Mountain, Elevation X, Lethal Lockdown, The Asylum (maybe), Xscape match (maybe), and Feast or Fired. Ultimate X since it has been their main match and focal point since 2003. King of the Mountain since it is the main focal point of their Slammiversary event, is like their Royal Rumble or King of the Ring in a way, and is held only once a year; though was held twice in 08. Elevation X since it is a scaffold match. Seems soon to be the focal point of Destination X. Lethal Lockdown could be expanded along with War Games since they are very close to the same match. The Asylum is mainly the Thundercage. Xscape match could either be expanded with cage variations or with TNA Lockdown. Feast or Fired is a screwed up battle royal but with title shots.--WillC 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Event Mafia & Frontline

Why Is It That La Familia Got An Article And Not These? MEM Dominates TNA And Frontline Is Another Big Part Of It. It's Been A Good Few Months Now, But Let's Be Real. Just Create The Article. Is There ANYTHING To Lose Whatsoever? No. There Is No. I'm Just Sayin'. KP317 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the better question is why did you capitalized the first letter of every word. Nenog (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of capitalization skills aside, I agree. The MEM is notable enough to have an article. Not quite sure about the TNA Frontline, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. TJ Spyke 07:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing people are blind because for the past week The Mafia have had an article: The Main Event Mafia. The Frontline don't need one at this moment, well when they win more than one title would be better.--WillC 07:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't checked because it had just been a redirect for awhile. TJ Spyke 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I knew was I've wachlisted all their possible names as well as for the Frontline I believe. Someone placed the version I wrote in there so I just left it. If it was in-u and unsourced I probably would have made it a redirect again and came here and talked about it.--WillC 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's there shouldn't it be updated? Surely their stream of success at recent PPVs should be noted, particularly Final Resolution where they fought as a 4 man team. Tony2Times (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well mainly only important things should be noted. Championships being lost and injuries. Them teaming and retaining the title is not really that important.--WillC 02:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't storyline developments important too? Tony2Times (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Only important stuff that happens should be noted. If they injure someone, lose or win a title, someone joins or leaves, stuff along those lines. Anything else is week by week.--WillC 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView.com

I find that it's reliable, don't know about everyone else but look: [1] see, they stated something a few days ago about this week's SmackDown!, which other reliable pages did. Kalajan€₣ 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. My friend, WreslteView.com is only reliable for Television results and pay-per-view results in pay-per-view articles, not for information about wrestler releases or signings. Those are called spoilers, which are reported by fans in attendance at the event tapings, however, we cannot verify whether all the information they send to WrestleView.com is accurate, and as a result, it is not considered reliable.--Truco 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It copied a reliable websites's work. If you type in on Google, "Smackdown 1/9/09 results" you will get more than 10 pages with the results stating the exact same things. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus SD was taped last week or the week before it. Of course they are probably going to be right. That source also states the following which falls under speculation and never once said he was signed: "Christian Cage is believed to be the person they will reveal behind everything unless plans change." The keyword here is "believed". Get that through your head. WrestleView once was good enough for this type of thing but it is called FAC. Armageddon 06, Lockdown 08, and No Way Out 04 all had to removed WrestleView because it is not reliable enough for this information.--WillC 21:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually its only marginally reliable, which means that it can only be used sparingly.--Truco 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Lockdown still had problems with results. They even questioned a review of the event.--WillC 21:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

From the Wrestling Observer/F4WOnline:

There are reports of an angle inserted into Friday's Smackdown show where Jeff Hardy and fiance Beth are injured in a hit-and-run auto accident in Cameron, NC, most likely with Christian as the perpetrator. Jeff will be okay but Beth will apparently be seriously injured in storyline. That surprises me a little because she's always wanted to be out of the spotlight.

Until we have anything official from Christian or WWE regarding his signing, we can not put it in any article per WP:BLP. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats what we have been trying to explain to various editors, but they just can't seem to comprehend Wikipedia's policies.--Truco 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it got so pathetic, that List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees got full protected. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If I see William I'm going to kill him. TNA's Roster got protected for the same reason a few months ago or weeks. Now the WWE Roster.--WillC 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't about Cage this time, it was WrestleView, if you don't want to read a spoiler don't read Wiki, that should be how this works.

Why is WrestleView unreliable, was it done anything so to not be? Kalajan€₣ 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats not how it works on Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia not a news site. Its not reliable because it does not have accurate fact checking.--Truco 22:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Who determined that it's not reliable? The last time I checked, Ealdgyth said it was okay after I presented evidence of credibility. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Check all of the recent FACs: No Way Out 04, Lockdown, and Armageddon. He states in one of those that it is not reliable.--WillC 07:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, if someone wants to change project guidelines, that person can present the information to the project. Saying that "someone said something somewhere" isn't good enough. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename: WrestleMania XXV --> The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was Consensus cannot be built at this time due to the timing of the event, a discussion may take place in the near future.--Truco 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
According to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), they aren't calling this year's event WrestleMania XXV, only for chronological purposes, but they are promoting its name as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The Reliant Stadium is promoting it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. WWE's event details for this years WrestleMania is calling it the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, in addition, at the bottom of that page, they have the name copyrighted and not trademarked, like it would be for a secondary name. WWE's Corporate website is also calling the even the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The name "WrestleMania XXV" is only used sparingly by WWE, mostly where spacing is an issue. I believe, the proper name for this year's WrestleMania is The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, I know it will mess up the flow of how the chronology is set up on Wikipedia, but we must go by its official name.--Truco 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, not because of the links above, but because of [2]. D.M.N. (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, thats just additional support added to my claim, in addition to the logo.--Truco 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose That is for promotional purposes, they did the same with wrestlemania 20.--WillC 18:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support, I've only seen WrestleMania XXV used once, it doesn't even have XXV on the logo. Luther Hull (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)^{User has been blocked.}₰imon_K^S_K
• Oppose - per Will. It has been done before. ₰imon_K^S_K 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, It's real name is Wrestlmania XXV, not The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, and as Will said it's for promotional purposes. Kalajan€₣ 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• For those who opposed - its not for promotion purposes. Its the actual name, WWE Corporate refers it to "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania event not the WrestleMania XXV event. Please, those who opposed, show me proof that WrestleMania XXV is its name because I only see it used sparingly by WWE. For that reference about WrestleMania XX, they did call it the 20th annual WrestleMania but they called it officially WrestleMania XX. Proof?--Truco 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well when they official state on Raw, ECW, and SD "The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania" would be better. I have a feeling they'll say WrestleMania 25 or WrestleMania. Doubtful WWE named an event they have to market with that many words. This is Vince we are talking about, he barely can spell anniversary.--WillC 18:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe its WrestleMania 25, and not WrestleMania XXV. Raaggio ^T/_C Guest Book 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what they call it, not how it's written. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Once again, this source [3] is dedicated to list the official name of the event which is in question by WWE. The name of the event is not WrestleMania XXV, its "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania". On TV, no sh** they will call it WrestleMania 25, since that takes less breath to say "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania". Truco 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've seen both uses by WWE - if you look at the side bar of their main website, it says "WrestleMania XXV", but if you click on the link it says 25th anniversary. Let's just wait and see once we're closer to the event, what the broadcasters start calling it, and especially once we get into the home stretch between No Way Out and WrestleMania, we'll see what they say. No need to jump the gun on hearsay right now. Cheers, DoomsDay 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, thats to save space, because "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" won't fit on the bar. Has anybody read the above links? Don't make a judgment based on what you have seen, read the links and sources. --Truco 19:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose If anything it should be moved to WrestleMania 25. Roman numerals are no longer used. [4] [5] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE Shop is not reliable for naming purposes because of the other type of promoting do. They sparingly use WrestleMania XXV, because the real name is "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania", as seen here.--Truco 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral WWE Magazine bills it as WrestleMania XXV (they use the original logo in the PPV section). WWE Advertisements call it "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania." WWE.com calls it WrestleMania 25. So, I'm just staying neutral on this. SAVIOR_SELF.777 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also, as you can see by the logo, that it is also called Wrestlemania: 25th Anniversary. ₰imon_K^S_K 23:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's clearly called several different things. None of them strike me as significantly more commonly used than the others (this page on wwe.com, for example, refers to it exclusively as WrestleMania XXV and has a WrestleMania XXV logo), so I believe it's best to go for consistency with the other articles. Making a change to something inconsistent with the other events serves no purpose and, if history is any indication, would create unnecessary problems with page moves and frequent revisions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That was long before they began promoting under its new name. From August and back, its called WM XXV, and from then on its been called "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania." Or maybe we should just wait because I remember during WM XX, they called WrestleMania 21 "WrestleMania XXI" but it was called "WrestleMania 21".--Truco 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The page I mentioned was an example. Clearly, it is called three different things. In a case like that, consistency seems to be the best course of action. Moving on would free up editors to pursue other goals that would be of more benefit to Wikipedia as a whole, such as the drive for 100 DYKs for WP:PW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This discussion is not preventing that, see this is the problem with this project, things never get done because users direct one discussion to another, blame other editors for faults, and just bring drama. Sigh, why do I even bother discussing this.--Truco 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that the project could do more good by concentrating on article creation and expansion rather than focusing on bureaucracy that does nothing more than push people away from the project. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I really don't see how this discussion is doing that, its just a discussion to get a consensus about a renaming. Whats pushing people from the project is drama and immaturity, and I don't blame those people. Like this discussion was just diverted away from the conversation to build a consensus.--Truco 00:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
            • This is what pisses me off. Gary, this discussion is for renaming a page. Everything was fine and there was no drama. Then you came and started some pathetic drama. That is what pushes people away from the project. ₰imon_K^S_K 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion is that consensus can clearly not be formed at this time. Therefore, let's keep the page where it is and discuss it again when the PPV gets a little closer and we have more information to go by. Nikki♥311 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

John Cena passed.

John Cena is now a GA. ₰imon_K^S_K 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A GA, not an. 24.139.82.20 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn my poor responding keyboard! ₰imon_K^S_K 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That article has always been a GA, it was just reviewed for Good article reassessment, and it was decided to keep it as a GA.--Truco 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming WWE PPV articles

I noticed that on all of the upcoming PPV articles it states that all future PPVs are going to be featuring talent from all three brands. There are no references stating this and I believe that these assumptions are based on prior PPVs featuring all three brands. Now, if it's allowed to make assumptions for future PPVs based on what happened on past PPVs you could certainly make the case for including things like the Elimination Chamber match for the No Way Out PPV or the Money in the Bank match for WrestleMania. I'm not saying we SHOULD include these things, but I think it needs to be more consistent. I think we need to wait until matches from all three brands have been announced before the articles state that talent from all three brands will be on the show. Let me know what you think. Eenu (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE has stated that all PPV's are tri-branded now, meaning all three brands will be involved in some manner. Here is WWE Corporates official PR release from March 2007 stating that all future PPV's would feature talent and storylines from all 3 brands: [6]. TJ Spyke 01:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TJ, I'm off to add proper references now, I guess. Eenu (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kongtourage

This is the new name for Awesome Kong's knockout stable, better keep a look out --Numyht (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mm, it's also spelt with a hyphen/dash or with a space inbetween. I'm just sayin'. KP317 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: What makes a title "World"?

Is PWI even reliable to be declared as a reliable source to call a title "World"? I though it was if the title was called a World Title by a promotion and defended in places other than the U.S, it was given World Title status? Where is the PWI source anyways about the World Titles? I bring this up because they don't call the ECW Championship a World Title anymore, yet, WWE refers to it as a World Championship. What should be our take on this, PWI or what the promotion says?--Truco 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (the main argument against the international argument is that a company near the US/Canadian border could travel to a town a few minutes away and technically defend it in another country). Dozens of indy feds call their title a "world title". PWI is usually used since they are considered the most respected wrestling magazine and have been for over 30 years. They are about official as we can get since there is no governing body for wrestling. As for the world title category, a ridiculous agreement was made (to end the arguing) to list any title that calls itself a world title. TJ Spyke 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What? So any title that calls itself "World" is a "World Heavyweight Championship"? That's ridiculous. Is there a real published source from PWI that lists the "World Championships"? --Truco 19:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually TJ, just so that we're clear on this, though it is arguably reputable, PWI is by no means a, much less, the definitive authority in world title recognition. Pro Wrestling Illustrated is nothing more than a magazine publication with their own set of views like any other fan. Now what determines "World" title status Truco? Well the fact is that there is no official universally accepted method of determining what constitutes a world title, which leaves fans to decide for themselves which titles they believe have "World" status. Now I can tell you this. In regards to Dozens of indy feds call their title a "world title", while it is true that this is possible, from my discussions with Jesse Hernandez about this, Indy promoters choose not to for respect of business.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So the ECW Championship is a World Championship?--Truco 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PWI has done it in various issues. In the first issue published after ECW's Barely Legal PPV, they announced they now considered it a world title for example. I once e-mailed PWI about what titles they consider a world title, I think (I will have to see if I still have the e-mail) that they don't consider the current ECW Title to have world title status.

As for the category for world titles, I agree that it's ridiculous. I didn't agree with it, but that was done to end a long debate and edit wars about what was a world title and what wasn't. Any title called a "world" title by its promotion can be added. I don't agree with that though. TJ Spyke 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: lots of regular contributors to the various wrestling articles have got major wood for PWI for some reason. For all intents and purposes, some view PWI as professional wrestling's holy book rather than simply being what it truly is: a magazine. The magazine is entitled to its view on whatever, but that view doesn't automatically trump all others. PWI has dropped recognition of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a "world" title twice, yet the NWA hasn't changed the name of the title to reflect that opinion. PWI's view doesn't erase the, at least, 60 years of history behind the title and the fact that it's still defended across the globe. Now while the other various "World Heavyweight Championships" that exist in wrestling today don't have nearly that prestigious level of history I'll grant, that key issue is applies to them just as it does the National Wrestling Alliance: Pro Wrestling Illustrated doesn't control wrestling. PWI could close its doors tomorrow and never publish another issue and most of pro wrestling, if not all of it, wouldn't be affected at all.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Both times that PWI dropped NWA's world title status were when it became little more than a indy title. After WCW left the NWA in 1993, the NWA Title ended up being defended in indy feds and typical crowd sizes of only a few hundred people. Not really deserving of world title status. The mos recent time was after TNA and the NWA ended their relationship and the NWA Title ended up in the same situation; being defended in only small indy feds (except for a brief time when it was in the current largest indy fed: ROH). TJ Spyke 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would only recognize "World Titles" as the major championship in any national organization, meaning in WWE: The WWE Championship, The World Heavyweight Championship, and the ECW Championship. In all other companies there was/is only one World Championship. I'm just sayin'. KP317 17:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it is that we wouldn't be putting things as they are, but rather we'd be making our own interpretations on what things should be like. Do I believe the AAA and TNA World Championships, for example, have as much credible validity to the "world" moniker as the WWE Championship? Not really but I don't believe that "world" should be dropped from the title names in Wikipedia articles either. Even if the TNA World Championship wasn't recognized by PWI, why would PWI's view automatically trump that of TNA? Credibility and validity in professional wrestling are all in the eye of the beholder. Different promoters, fans, wrestlers and everyone else in between have different views on what's what and how everything should be. As for me, I feel that we should simply add information to Wikipedia as is rather than try to enforce a personal view just because it might not be personally agreed with by some. If some promoter wants to name his primary title a "world" title, that's his business regardless of what the staff of some magazine believes or whether or not its disrespectful to the business or undeserving or any of the other bureaucratic BS.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting we re-name titles. We go by what the promotion calls them. I'm just saying that just because a promotion calls it a world title doesn't mean we should consider it one (look at CZW's title). TJ Spyke 23:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Result Sources

I'm trying to work on some of the articles covering Japanese wrestlers and I'm looking for websites with wrestling results for the likes of NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, Dragongate & Zero-1. Anyone know of some good sources?? Much appriciated MPJ-DK (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Puroresufan.com is pretty good for NJPW [7] and Dragon Gate [8], NOAH you can get from here [9] (there are links at the bottom of the page to go back in years), and Zero-One have an official english site here [10]. Hope this is useful --Apsouthern (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

[www.cagematch.net] has extensive results it seems for them, it's German but easy enough to navigate. I don't know how reliable it's deemed by the project but I've never come across any mistakes on it. Tony2Times (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks - good thing I read German pretty well.MPJ-DK (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

TNA Frontline

I'm glad everyone put up a MEM article, but... uhm... yeah... I was hoping for a Frontline article too... I'd make it I'm just not that good at grabbing too many references. KP317 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Frontline is too notable right now. I'm in the air on this one.  Hazardous Matt  19:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say if the MEM has an article, then the Frontline should have one as well, but I'm not really sure either should have an article at this point. Eenu (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think MEM deserves an article as they've been around for a while and as a group have had quite a few notable angles and matches. Frontline is more of a reaction to the MEM, and hasn't really accomplished much other than one victory over the MEM, which just happened last night.  Hazardous Matt  19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the MEM disbanded tomorrow (granted, they probably won't, but still) and you look at the article 5 years from now, very few would remember the group. They haven't even been together 6 months. Eenu (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then by that rationale the Front Line certainly doesn't warrant an article.  Hazardous Matt  19:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We also have articles on sports teams (and even some entire leagues) that folded before a single game was played. TJ Spyke 20:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All I'm doing is offering my opinion, which is that the Front Line is not notable enough for it's own article. Take that for what you will.  Hazardous Matt  20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should or shouldn't, I was just pointing out that how long a group is together is not the only factor in deciding whether they get an article or not. TJ Spyke 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if XWF and XFL have an article, why not Frontline? They're just as notable as MEM. Also, there are many other stables that were no more than responses to other stables, so just being a response make it un-notable. SAVIOR_SELF.777 02:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How are they just as notable? They haven't achieved anything as a group other than the two aforementioned victories.  Hazardous Matt  02:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The MEM was created one week, and the Frontline (then known as the TNA Originals) was created a week later. The notibility of the two groups are one and the same. Mshake3 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on TNA/IWGP Relationship

See here. Cheers, JakeDHS07 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD Nomination

In the interest of full disclosure I've nominated the Diana La Cazadora article for Deletion. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana La Cazadora. I don't know how the WP:PW procedure for this is these days, there used to be a page you can list it on?? MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling. Nikki♥311 20:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Showdown at Shea

Does anyone know how to find any reliable source regrading this event or any good sources period that might help improve the article?--WillC 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I got a source on the 1980 one. it's listed in one of my books, both coverage of the individual results and a mention on the profile section of Hogan & Andre. If you'd like to use it here are the specifics and the citation tag to use.MPJ-DK (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Main Event - WWE in the raging 80s by Brian Shields: Major event history, title changes & profiles of WWF stars of the 80s.

<ref name="WWF80s">{{cite book | author=Brian Shields | title=Main event – WWE in the raging 80s| publisher=Pocket Books| year=4th Edition 2006 | id=ISBN 978-1-4165-3257-6 }}</ref>

Here's the first event card. Tony2Times (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a paragraph in the article on Pedro Morales that's well-sourced about his title mach against Bruno Sammartino (the first face vs. face title defense). That information could all be added to the Shea article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I ask since Shea Stadium is being demolished and these three events seem important and maybe we could write a good enough article together to possibly get it to FA, or at least GA.--WillC 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Goonies 'R' Good Enough

Perhaps a strange question, but does having eight well-known professional wrestlers appear in a music video warrant inclusion in this project? I think it's an important example of the Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection, but I wanted to get more opinions before adding the WP:PW banner on its talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say so considering Lauper's involvement with the WWF then. It was also used as theme music for Wendi Richter. Nikki♥311 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

How would everyone feel if I merged supercard, main event, and undercard into card (sports)? They are all pretty short, and I can't imagine any of them getting much longer. They all deal with basically the same thing, so it makes sense for them to be in the same article. Nikki♥311 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would consult the boxing and MMA project, since they use these articles as well.--Truco 01:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm starting the conversation at Talk:Card (sports), and I'll post a link at those projects, too. Nikki♥311 01:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

TNA Title

I want to direct people's attention to the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions article where it seems there is an agreement to create an article that has the entire history of both world championships in TNA on the talk page. I just want to get more people into the discussion than about two users and multiple ips.--WillC 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Project New Year's Resolutions

Want to make a list of New Year's Resolutions for the project to achieve? Make it a tangible goal (like a certain number of GAs, DYKs, etc). List below:

1. To achieve 100 Did You Know?s (we currently have 38). Nikki♥311 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'll try to help out at DYK. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2. To reduce the percentage of stubs to 10% (currently at ~15%). Nikki♥311 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well these might be the project's resolutions but I can tell you by this time next year all of TNA's articles will be done, I'm already getting close.--WillC 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I like the idea of setting goals. I think shooting for 100 Did You Knows would help get the project some good attention and perhaps help recruit more members. This was my thinking behind my personal goal of 20 DYKs in January (I'm at 3, while 3 more have been approved and another 6 are waiting to be checked). It would be great if other editors could help out. I've formed a mental list of some new articles we need, and made a list of articles that could be expanded easily. If anyone wants to get in touch to discuss ideas, please feel free to do so. Right now, my focus is on African American wrestlers who don't yet have articles, but I'm open to working on almost anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not a member of this project but I like this resolution and I'm currently working on helping reduce the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

3. For Will: 50 TNA articles that are at least GA status? Including PPVS, lists, and current wrestlers/alumni. Nikki♥311 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I mean mainly PPVs. I doubt all the lists though probably all their title lists that can become FL and the titles will be GA. I'm sure I'll have A.J. Styles and Samoa Joe at least GAs.--WillC 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

   I've already done some of the previous female wrestlers, like Amy Dumas and Mickie James. I've worked on other articles like Awesome Kong, Gail Kim, Christy Hemme, etc and plan to finish them at some point and submit them to GAN. Nikki♥311 00:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the Cheerleader Melissa article last month with more information on her indie circuit work and with everything cited. With finals and dissertation deadlines due I don't really have the time to nitpick to make it a GA or FA but if you have time feel free to take that into your entourage too. Tony2Times (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That would help, maybe eventually a good topic can be made for the Knockouts title. Kong, Kim, and Taylor Wilde are the only ones who have held the belt so far and Hemme will probably win it soon if her injury is fake.--WillC 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a subpage to keep track of the progress, and I've added a few more. I'll be keeping up with it, but if anybody is interested the link is User:Nikki311/NYR. Nikki♥311 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Roster

The WWE Roster page is protected again. Dear God will it ever quit. I have no idea why it is protected this time but can we figure out a system so this will not happen again?--WillC 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, man. We tell them the newbies to give us reliable sources, and they just don't listen. I confess, I might be the reason it got protected. But, be that as it may, I strongly sugggest that it stayed protected, becuase people can't seem to understand simple policies. ₰imon_K^S_K 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it continues, warn them until level 4 warnings are reaches, once that happens and they continue report them to an admin, so they can be blocked. But, really, what the hell was it this time that the page got protected?--Truco 02:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A user kept adding wrestlers to the list (ones with no articles either from what I can tell) without providing sources. I agree with Truco, if a editor adds unsourced info you use the warning templates. TJ Spyke 02:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid place to put this, but since even the talk page got a semi-protect I cannot suggest this there. But what if they moved the FCW roster to it's own page and on the main roster had only the confirm-able wrestlers (say the champions)? The way the page reads ATM to me is that FCW is a 4th brand, which to anyone that pays the least bit attention to the buisness would know that is not fully correct (AFAIK, Raw, ECW and Smackdown go on national tours while FCW stays in Florida). This is where I'm guessing some of the edit wars take place. As for Christian Cage, for all we know he could have retired and never bothered to tell anyone where he was going. So someone really should build a bot to keep him off the WWE roster until he makes a verifiable appearance as signed talent, either on the website or on TV. Flyingcandyman (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you can still edit the talk page. The main article is the only thing protected. So suggest it there instead.--Truco 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for the projects MOS: Spoilers

Spoilers should not be added to an article without a reliable source, in which the promotion's website is only acceptable. Other wrestling websites are not reliable, including the sources marked reliable for pay-per-view articles, because their reports regarding spoilers are not verifiable by promotions. What do you think? I think this is needed regarding spoilers because we can't always trust reports by fans because its only what one person says, and we cannot confirm it since we aren't there. So the promotion is the only source that should be accepted as reliable. This can also, in a way (mostly about the sourcing) apply to signings/releases.--Truco 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Most of these "spoiler reports" are sent in to sites and those sites have no way to verify. Once it airs on TV it's fair game (like how SmackDown airs 1 day earlier in Australia). What's worse is spoilers with no source (like the current problem affect multiple ECW pages). TJ Spyke 04:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I understand the SmackDown 1 Day thing, which is fine. But the thing about the ECW title hasn't aired yet anywhere.--Truco 04:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite arrogant to only accept one specific source. Mshake3 (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its because we cannot confirm spoliers reported by fans at arenas, since we aren't there. Chances are they probably misheard things or didn't hear things correctly.--Truco 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It it is a reliable source, for instance The Wrestling Observer, add it. I've just added back info on Swagger's win - we don't embargo information from people. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that the promotions alone control their championships. See The Rockers#Tag team title controversy for a good example of why something happening at a show doesn't mean that it will necessarily be acknowledged. It's a television show taping, and just because footage was recorded doesn't mean that it will be aired. Wikipedia wouldn't accept upcoming information about others television shows simply because someone from the audience reported it. If the episode doesn't air and isn't acknowledged by the promotion, it didn't happen. For another illustration, saying that Apu was the attempted murderer of Mr. Burns simply because it was recorded (Who Shot Mr. Burns?#Alternate endings) would be incorrect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK.... so if it isn't shown [on the offchance] we edit our articles to reflect that "Swagger won the title... but for whatever reason blah blah blah it was edited out of the show". Wikipedia isn't just available for America users - it caters for everyone. D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with America or any other country, it's that spoilers in general are not that reliable since no one can confirm it (WO is a reliable site, but they can't check to see if the spoilers sent to them are accurate or not). I think we should go back to how we used to have it (wait for the first time it airs on TV, regardless of which country it airs in first). TJ Spyke 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If a title change is aired in Australia, India, Botswana, Paraguay, the U.S.A., or any other country, it should be included. Until it shows up on television or on the promotion's website, though, we don't know if the promotion acknowledges the change. As another example, Antonio Inoki defeated Bob Backlund for the WWF Championship in 1979, but the WWF still does not acknowledge that the title changed hands. Since the reign was never official, it would have been wrong to add the information about a title change to the articles on November 30, 1979, even if it seemed at the time that he was the champion. As such, we can't call him a former WWF Champion, but we can state in an article (and on the title history list) that he won a match for the title but that the title change is not acknowledged by the company. I couldn't care less if someone from the U.S.A. accidentally reads about a title change before they see it on television. Wikipedia isn't censored, but it must remain a collection of verifiable facts. That means that no title reign is official until the company says so. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What about situations like this? Mshake3 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

For match announcements? Sure. Title changes would be different since there have been many cases where a wrestler held up the title like they have won it even if they haven't. TJ Spyke 19:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, why hasn't anybody asked the photographer if we could upload that on Wiki. That'd be a shit hot pic for the background section. Tony2Times (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been here this entire time. But the thing is that it can't be uploaded to the Commons without removing the video screen, making the whole thing pointless. It could be done for fair use, but you'd might as well just use the original screen capture from the actual broadcast. Mshake3 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about an example of over a year ago. Edge is stripped of the title, Khali wins the belt in a battle royal (middle of the show), and one of the screen graphics that night says it'll be Khali vs. the winner of Kane and Batista. Mshake3 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Gary said, WWE has the control to edit footage of what they record and air, so we need to wait to add that information until the promotion confirms it. If proof comes up of something on the contrary that the promotion didn't state, like a title change, we can always add it since we aren't censored to what the promotion's want. This is why spoilers for things as such should be avoided because fan reports are not always accurate to what the promotion will produce/air.Truco 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mshake, wwe.com themselves announced that Edge title change (they did the same thing when Batista had to vacate the title and Kurt Angle won it the same night). TJ Spyke 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But I was refering to an announced match for that Sunday's PPV, which I'm sure wasn't mentioned on WWE.com that Tuesday. Mshake3 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So what are ya going to do when a reliable source attends a taping in person? Mshake3 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The only reliable source for a taping is an image, or possibly official confirmation by the website, which has to be WrestleView.com, F4Wrestling.com (or WON), or PWTorch.com (reliable sources), and of course the promotion itself.--Truco 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured Categories

A little while ago people were trying to think of categories to make featured (ie Londrick, D-X &c) and I just realised that if anyone was feeling ambitious a far-reaching and interesting category to do might be Raven's Nest and it's many incarnations. Too much work for me, but I thought someone who had an interest in ECW and WCW might like it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the idea of featured categories. Would that cover the members of the Nest, the Flock, the Deadpool, Serotonin and like the two other groups I think I'm forgetting?  Hazardous Matt  15:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not too familiar with it either, hence suggesting it to other people. I think the idea is you make everything that is related to the group (ie all the members' articles) featured articles and the article itself featured and then it gets a nice little navigation box at the bottom for all to wonder at. Tony2Times (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's that time of the year again

Could some other users please put the various PWI awards, as well as the page for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards on watch? They all tend to get hit hard in January (but unfortunately not hard enough to need protection). They should be semi-protected, since 99% of the IP edits made to it are vandalism (the only constructive IP edits are where they clean up old vandalism), but that won't happen. If an IP changes any old results, you can verify the changes here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard undoing like 10 edits to that article. IPs are always messing it up. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Why's the page all screwed up under Worst Gimmick? RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When you deleted the unsourced info, you used a parenthesis instead ")" of a curly bracket "}" to close the table. TJ Spyke 20:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling promotions

This is mainly a matter of cutting down how long it would take one person to do, but can some people here help with moving various Japanese articles? I noticed that there are a bunch of organizations that have part of their name capitalized for no reason (which violates WP:MOSTM) and thus need to be moved (and related pages like roster pages). Some examples include Pro Wrestling NOAH and Pro Wrestling ZERO1, plus the American promotion SHIMMER Women Athletes. I have already moved a few of the articles, but there are a lot more left. TJ Spyke 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about Shimmer, but Noah and Zero-1 should be caps.--WillC 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Going by MOSTM, neither should be capitalized as they are nothing more than style choices by the promotions. I have looked and could not find any evidence that they were abbreviations or the other exceptions. The defunct promotion WAR was allowed because it was an abbreviation for Wrestling Association R. TJ Spyke 05:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article for SHIMMER isn't capitalized (neither are the pages about their titles), and hasn't been for over a year ago. Nenog (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, I had the SHIMMER one moved awhile ago and I just moved a few articles tonight. There are a lot more (and articles related to them like ZERO1 World Heavyweight Championship). TJ Spyke 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure TJ's right, NOAH has never been an acronym, and the letters aren't pronounced out. Just read "Noah". Should we always type and link Pro Wrestling Noah and Zero1 then? Or is it just the article name? RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved a couple. What about something like JDStar? Should that be left alone? Nikki♥311 16:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the "JD" stand for anything? If not, it should be moved but I don't know where. "JD Star" or "JdStar" would be my guesses. TJ Spyke 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential Picture stealing

This [File:Sting_beats_Jarrett!!!!.jpg] is quite clearly the same as used on Slam Sports' review however the latter is uncropped so maybe this is a legitimate owned picture upload. I wasn't sure but I thought I'd bring it up anyway because I didn't think it was likely that a Slam! Sports photographer would be on the project but if so, hurrah! Tony2Times (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Either tag it for speedy deletion because it is copyrighted by Mike Mastrandrea on Canadian Online Explorer, and we are using here on Wikipedia illegally. I'm not sure how the deletion process works, however, for media on Wikimedia Commons.--Truco 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Teams and Stables

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was Redirect.--Truco 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Since we redirected the main article to the main WWE roster article, is this template still needed?--Truco 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete, I saw it and wanted to delete it, but I'm too lazy and they were everywhere. ₰imon^KSK 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way, what is the point.--WillC 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirected to {{World Wrestling Entertainment employees}}.--Truco 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

WCW Hall of Fame

I just expanded the article, in hopes of a DYK and FLC. Since this is a first for the project, since the WWE Hall of Fame is still in production. I wanted to get the opinions of the project about it. Don't worry about the sources, I got it covered and I know how to handle them at FLC.--Truco 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is fine in my opinion. The prose needs a little work because sometimes I was sitting there going what, but I'm doing forty things at once so I probably wasn't paying close attention. Looks very good to me.--WillC 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better. I'm not sure if you're looking for general feedback or specifics, but a few things I noticed: (1) Big John Studd's name is listed as Studd Big John, (2) the word "ironically" can be seen to editorialize, (3) there doesn't seem to be a need for hyphens in the list of titles, such as (2-times), and (4) I wasn't sure what the criteria was for who "led the class" or which titles are selected for the notes section (what seems important, I am assuming?). I would definitely recommend that Terry Funk's NWA World Heavyweight Championship be included, as well as Antonio Inoki's IWGP Heavyweight Championship. Great job on making the page worthwhile, as it was pretty weak before. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, in response to the comments...

• 1)I fixed that, it was something with the sort templates.
• 2)I will reword that.
• 3)I will remove the hyphens.
• 4)Well, the notes section is intended for the major accomplishments for that wrestler from the NWA, AWA, and WCW only. The accomplishments listed there all fall under during this era, I will add Funk's reign, but not Inoki's reign because it wasn't from these promotions, and that was the original intention of the Hall of Fame. I also added a footnote to explain the notes column.--Truco 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to remove Big John Studd's Royal Rumble win the, as that was WWF. TJ Spyke 00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I forgot that the WWF left the NWA in '83.--Truco 00:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't NJPW a part of the NWA at some point? Not sure it was when Inoki was champ or not but it may be work looking into. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)NJPW had a "working agreement" with the NWA, but they weren't a territory. The IWPG Heavyweight Championship was the NJPW's copyrighted title.--Truco 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, then, the AWA and WWA were affiliated with NWA/WCW? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the AWA and WWA were affiliated with JCP, which was a predecessor to WCW.--Truco 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sacrifice 08

Can someone read Sacrifice (2008) and tell me how the prose of the article is? I would place it on the feed back request section but I would remove it by the end of the day. If anyone can, or if they want to, I would appreciate it. It is a GA but I recently re-wrote alot of it and resourced it. I've taken it from 46 kilobytes to 38. The event had alot of weird things happen.--WillC 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

From a glance, the lead seems a bit cluttered with the entire card. I also see one feud in the background that goes way into too much detail, as it makes up at least 50% of the background. I would take the suggestions and what you learned at the Lockdown 2008 FAC and implement it into this article.--Truco 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, that one match is an entire 8 match tournament. Just explaining the tournament and its reason. It was hard to get it that small and avoiding jargon.--WillC 23:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

When I have time, which may be this weekend, I will review it in depth. However, you may have to remind me because I may forget, so drop a line at my talk page :)--Truco 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I've got someone else also checking over it so it isn't mandatory for you. Just wanting to know how the prose sounds.--WillC 23:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but most of the times, I find flaws with the OOU perspective; this is no intention of saying you're a bad writer :) I'm just saying that we all have flaws with the policy, even I do.--Truco 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm hoping to sort that out with BFG. This is just a re-write, so it isn't my best work I know. It takes me starting from nothing to accomplish that.--WillC 23:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Brawl to End it All and The War to Settle the Score

I created these articles today. I haven't watched the events for a long time, so they're a little sparse. If anyone knows of good, reliable sources, it would be great if you could let me know (or help out with expanding the article). Also, I'm a little confused about the ending of the Hogan-Piper fight at The War to Settle the Score. I've read conflicting reports about who won. Was Hogan disqualified, or was Piper? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen it ever, but my understanding is that Hogan won by disqualification. A good way to get sources for the article is to go to some of the wrestlers' pages mentioned in the article. I'm working on Wendi Richter at User:Nikki311/sandbox2, and I've added some sources to the article that involve those events. WrestleMania (1985) also mentions it a bit. I'm glad someone finally got around to creating those articles because quite a few of the articles I've expanded needed links to them. Nikki♥311 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this card Hogan won by DQ, so Piper must have been disqualified. It's unlikely but there may be some prose about it in a WWE.com list or alumnus page. Tony2Times (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a report that Hogan won by disqualification when Cyndi Lauper and Mr. T entered the ring, but it doesn't make much sense, since Lauper and Mr. T were on Hogan's side. In addition, page 99 in Greg Oliver's book says that Piper won by disqualification when Lauper and Mr. T entered the ring. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Prowrestlinghistory.com (which I usually use for PPV's) says Hogan won by DQ. Online World of Wrestling says Hogan won by DQ after Paul Orndorff entered the ring, Mr. T then entered to help Hogan (setting up the WrestleMania main event 1 month later). TJ Spyke 04:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I also had a bit of a brainwave and I pulled up the match on youtube. Hogan was announced as the winner by disqualification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have Batista's book?

From Eddie Guerrero:

Guerrero was set to face Batista and Randy Orton in a triple threat match for the World Heavyweight Championship on the November 13, 2005 taping of SmackDown! (which would have aired on November 18, 2005). Stephanie McMahon hinted that Guerrero had been scheduled to defeat Batista for the World Heavyweight Championship, which would have begun Guerrero's first reign as World Heavyweight Champion and his second world championship reign overall. However, its was later confirmed in Batista's book that Randy Orton was actually scheduled to win the title that night. Then Eddie would begin another heel turn.

I don't believe that, firstly because it would have made no sense from a storyline perspective. Secondly, at the time Batista was slightly injured, which is why fans believed he was going to drop the title to Eddie so that he could have a little bit of time to recover. So, if he was instead going to drop the title to Orton, why didn't they do afterwards? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That was recently added because from what I remember in a previous sourced revision, that wasn't in that book and Eddie was set to win the title. Try searching it on google books with those key terms.--Truco 01:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was added by an IP a couple of weeks ago. [11] -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think thats correct because I did a google search of his book with key terms like that and I got nothing. IPs these days just add sneaky nonsense, but then again, google books doesn't give the whole book, so I may be about 60-70% sure.--Truco 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't think I could stand the banality of a book all about Big Dave but his interview here which was promotional work for the book confirms what's said in the article. Tony2Times (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have Batistas book from page 215 of Batista unleased "At the time I was champion. The plan was to pass the title back to Randy. But I wanted them to put it on Eddie. I'd told them earlier that I was going to Vince to ask him to do that. Well Eddie called me and left a message saying that he appreciated what I was going to do, but that it was the wrong decision. Randy should be champ, not him. We should do what Vince says. Vince is smart said Eddie. He knows this business and he wouldn't make a wrong decision. Its what's best for the company. He added that he loved me and appreciated that I wanted him to have the title, even though it was the wrong decision." It then talks about later that morning Eddie died. He received the message from Eddie in the early hours of the morning. Hope that was useful Adster95 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SPOILER

Folks, please help in watching Jake Hager and Matt Hardy and related pages until the US airing? TrekFanatic (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

We will. It airs tonight, however (1/13/09)--Truco 12:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC).

Wha... wha.... what are you trying to say? Did something happen?Mshake3 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Attention everyone. STOP TELLING US TO WATCH SPECIFIC PAGES FOR TAPED BUT UNAIRED EVENTS!!!! You can monitor those pages on your own, you don't need all of us to gang up on it! 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, spoilers are added regardless with a reliable source, so if you don't want to see spoilers, don't come to Wikipedia. We need all the help we can get because once we revert good faith edits more than 3 times, we could get blocked, so we need enough editors to do a group job.--Truco 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing for activity on those pages to ruin it. There's nothing that can be done about that. It's another for someone to come on the project page and blurt out "Hey! Guess what? Jack won the title! But we must remove it from their articles!" I don't see why you're scared of 3RR. The policy is policy, right?????? Mshake3 (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to get blocked, be my guest, but the project page is to discuss information about relevant project pages, and this is one of them.--Truco 02:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be a general discussion page about overall issues. It should not replace actual article talk pages. As for this issue, the solution is to create a spoiler-discussion subpage, where you can "round the troops" that don't care about their viewing experience being ruined. Mshake3 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to come on the WP:PW talk page and expect to avoid spoilers. As long as there is a proper source for them, they should go on the page and if they need discussion they need discussion. If you can't enjoy watching the show if you know what happens then you should probably avoid the internet from Tuesday through Friday. Now, I wanted to ask about the SmackDown tapings this week. Victoria announced her retirement and it's been confirmed by Dave Meltzer and WWE. Am I correct in assuming that you should state that this happened on Tuesday January 13 and not Friday January 16? I know that once it's aired you'd probably state that it happened on the January 16 edition of SmackDown but you can't say that things happened on a date in the future. Eenu (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rumble '88

Rather famously the first Rumble wasn't a PPV and was just broadcast on television. However on the infobox for that event it's still included as part of the PPV chronology; isn't this oxymoronic considering it says in the introductory paragraph that it wasn't available on PPV? Tony2Times (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. RR '89 could say previous event - Royal Rumble 1988 (only on television) or something.. I'm not sure what to do.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, it's not a PPV and thus the PPV chronology shouldn't be included. TJ Spyke 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I tend to disagree because I implemented that PPV Chronology, and it was intended to choronolize the events of that particular ppv, anyhow, pay-per-view is television, its just paid for, but its still tv, so I think should remain there.--Truco 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a PPV, therefore it's not part of the PPV chronology. The 1988 one is no different than SNME. The PPV chronology is for tracking PPV's, not PPV's plus TV specials. TJ Spyke 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Okay Mr. Shouty.--Truco 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I say "No rule without an exception" and in this case it's not just the PPV chronology but the EVENT chronology as well, I'd say leave it in the info box, what's the big deal?MPJ-DK (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then add every single SNME and every single other supercard. It is specifically a PPV chronology, not a event chronology. TJ Spyke 22:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being just intentionally contrary, SNME never evolved into a PPV so they can't be compared at all, it's apples and oranges. And I repeat "what harm does it do", I mean other than you don't like it Spyke? and that's not a winning argument. and in closing, chill out it's just Wikipedia, no need to get worked up over it. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore it doesn't say "PPV history" in the info bix, it refers to the Rumble as a show, your argument just doesn't make much sense. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am chilled. The first RR was no more special than SNME or the various other TV supercards. Why should the "Pay-Per-View Chronology" spot be included for a non-PPV event? It implies that RR '88 was a PPV. I can't believe we even need to have this discussion. TJ Spyke 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing the event chronology for it is an event that happened. RR '89 should link to it as it is the former Royal Rumble but PPV chronology shouldn't because it is not a PPV. Nobody payed-per-viewing of it. It's inaccurate. I just wasn't sure if you could delete that section of the infobox without cocking up the box itself. Tony2Times (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The only fields in the wrestling event infobox that have to be used (meaning the fields show up even if nothing is entered) are the name of the event, the promotion that held the event, the date the event took place on, the venue that held the event, and the city where the even took place. Everything else is optional. TJ Spyke 20:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More Style questions

Again just for general use not necessarily wrestling: when using the cite template for a website, if the publisher only exists as a website (ie it's not the BBC or WWE or any company like that) then do you put just the name of the website (ie UK Hip Hop) or the full address (www.ukhiphop.co.uk) or a mix of the two (ukhiphop.co.uk) or something else? Tony2Times (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You go by the sites name. For example, nintendoworldreport.com would just be listed as Nintendo World Report. Obviously use what the site does though (i.e. use Amazon.com and not just Amazon). TJ Spyke 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tony2Times (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Honor/ Pro Wrestling Guerrilla

I just wanted to throw out this possibility of possibly expanding the Ring of Honor and/or Pro Wrestling Guerrilla database of events, I'd be willing to help on possibly the results side, I know it'd at least be worth it for ROH as they do actually have somewhat of a PPV deal. All thoughts are appreciated. afkatk (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean articles on the ROH "house shows" or non-PPV shows? Such articles have generally been deleted and I see nothing to change that, unless there is something to make a specific show notable in itself. that'd be like putting individual Raw or Smackdown results on here as well.MPJ-DK (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

PWG is probably questionable, but I wonder whether annual Ring of Honor supercards might qualify for individual articles. I.e., the annual Final Battle or Glory by Honor. There have been 6 annual Final Battles and 7 annual Glory By Honors, and ROH has a few annual shows in a similar vein. Perhaps for the other shows, a list of results could be made, i.e., Saturday Night's Main Event results. Cheers, DoomsDay 21:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Aren't the supercards on PPV? I reckon that qualifies them to be expanded if you find enough reports for sources.. Tony2Times (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe they are as part of a new DirecTV deal --afkatk (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No the supercards are not on pay-per-view. ROH annual and biggest shows of the year: the anniversary show, Supercard of Honor, Death before Dishonor, Glory by Honor and Final Battle. The Surival of the Fittest tournament is also held annualy (with the exception of last year), but is not one of their biggest shows. The pay-per-views are built up as big shows, but are not the biggest of the year. Nenog (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Official confirmation that the World Tag Team Championship is on ECW?

From WWE.com about Mr. McMahon's return: With WWE’s two tag team titles currently held by members of SmackDown and ECW, now could be the perfect time to introduce a third tag title to be defended on Raw. I don't know, from my understanding of the text, it seems like the WTTC is now on ECW, dis/agree?--Truco 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Take it, roll with it. Make it happen Truco. Move the titles. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty official to me. PXK ^T /_C 01:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I would wait and see if it happens. Remember a couple of years ago when Cena was drafted to Raw, leaving SmackDown with no world title? Theodore Long announced they were gonna create a new SmackDown World Championship. It's also only part of a page of possible things McMahon could do (including bringing back the Cruiserweight Championhip). TJ Spyke 01:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha. TJ I love how you disagree with everything I say :D. But, the way the wrote it seems to tell me that Raw is without a tag-title and are placing the same ruling of title changes between brands like they did with the 2008 WWE Draft.--Truco 02:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree. In fact, I have yet to see a source that states the titles don't belong to ECW. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any harm in waiting 3 days and seeing what happens on Raw? TJ Spyke 02:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The snippet above doesn't say the titles have left Raw, just that they're not held by Raw roster Superstars. Let's leave them on Raw until one way or the other it's made official that they're not on Raw. The blurb seems speculative in itself, so there's no concrete evidence to say the titles were moved at all.  Hazardous Matt  03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the title has changed brands yet. It is still being featured on Raw and was won during a Raw house show. Miz and Morrison appear on all three brands. Whats to stop us from saying it is a SD championship. Lets wait and see if a title is even announced instead of speculating. The article doesn't even say it is apart of ECW. It just says it is now held by ECW/SD stars.--WillC 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick thought: would making the change violate Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material which advances a position? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears so (at least to me) since the the WWE source does not actually say the title belongs to ECW, only that it's held by ECW superstars. TJ Spyke 06:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE never says anything about which brands have what since the brand extension is practically non-existent. But, fine lets wait.--Truco 14:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With WWE’s two tag team titles currently held by members of SmackDown and ECW, now could be the perfect time to introduce a third tag title to be defended on Raw. Or, perhaps even more exciting, Mr. McMahon could reintroduce the fan-favorite Cruiserweight Championship, but this time making the title exclusive to the Raw brand.

I would say this isn't offical, but if it is done, it can be undone. --Numyht (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ignore ny ignorance. --Numyht (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that WWE cares about our opinion, but I think a third tag belt would be a stupid idea. The overall tag team division in WWE is pathetic now and not enough for 2 tag belts (yet alone 3). TJ Spyke 16:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• coughdivastitlecough* Yeah, I'll get back on topic now.... --Numyht (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Giant problem with User:King Indy

This user is creating made up stables and wrestlers. He is making them up with an entire history for them, such as WWE starts holding the championships in one stable and fighting TNA stars. I don't know how many articles he has created but they all need to be deleted.--WillC 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged all of them as hoaxes to be speedy deleted. It seems all of this users edits have been these hoaxes, isn't Nikki an admin? Maybe Nikki should warn him (a warning from an admin carries more weight). TJ Spyke 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I told her to about this section, kind of. D.Alliance.X, De Uno Loco, De Loco, and Talk:Albert Ramos Jr still need to be deleted though.--WillC 03:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted them and warned him. A lot of those articles had been deleted before and he recreated them, so I'll keep an eye on him. Nikki♥311 03:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What would we do without Nikki :)--^TRUCO 03:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The project would die.--WillC 03:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No Mercy (2004) GAN review on hold

Hi, this message is to inform any interested project members that the good article nomination for No Mercy (2004) is currently on hold and awaiting changes to the article so it can be approved as a good article. Please check out the article's GAN review page if you're interested. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ROH Rising Above

These two events present an interesting naming problems in that while they were taped in 2007 and 2008, respectively, they both aired a few months later in 2008 and 2009, respectively. While the Rising Above event taped in 2007 remains under that name, the event taped in 2008, was recently moved and sparked this question. Originally, Manual of Style concerns were cited, but since, myself and Will have found that this was a mis-cite (note: Will originally made the move). So, I wanted to bring this up to the project: essentially, should these articles be named by the date they were taped (07 & 08) or by the date they aired (08 & 09). It should be noted that Ring of Honor refers to and promotes these events by the year they were taped, so the event that airs tomorrow night will be referred to as Rising Above 2008. I also go to the fact that if someone comes to Wikipedia for information on the event, they would likely search for the name that ROH uses, which as I said before, is the date of taping. I'd like to get some project member's opinions on what year to place these two articles under. Cheers, DoomsDay 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think they should go by when they air. Semi-not related, but ROH really bugs me with this whole taped PPV thing as it creates a lot of problems for us. TJ Spyke 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit odd. One has to imagine they'd make more money with showing these pay-per-views live. But anyhow. The thing that worries me about placing them under air date, is if some regular old Joe searches for Rising Above 2008, he'd wind up with the one commonly referred as the 2007 event, and the problem will continue as more Rising Above events occur (assuming that they do). Cheers, DoomsDay 21:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess in trying to remain a self-aware indie fed, they maybe wanna remain in the traditions of old. And also wanna make the live crowd feel special and thus get bums on seats. I'd definitely say do it by the date it was done. If RoH make no attempt to disguise the fact that it's not live and the commentary team and promos refer to it in the year it was filmed then that will presumably be what people will most likely search for. The lead should contain a note saying "though the event was promoted, and is referred to, as being in the year 2008, it did not air on pay-per-view until 2009." Otherwise I'm for going with RoH's method. Tony2Times (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone looks at the history log, you can see i'm all for it being 2008. Nenog (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, don't complain about a company's action in how it effects Wikipedia. Very petty. As for this, ROH releases DVDs of the shows using the date the show was taped. That is what's important. Mshake3 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So will anyone object if I moved Rising Above (2009) back to 2008? We seem to have a 4-1 consensus here towards going by the taping date. Cheers, DoomsDay 03:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim Neilson

Can someone check this article - I think it maybe a hoax (sorry, don't have time to check fully now). D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

She's real. I did a search and found various bios of her. I tagged the article however for many issues.--TRUCO 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's real but it has no sources. I listed it for deletion. It has been deleted before. Go here. Simon \\ KSK ^{Yes we can!} 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Champion Lists

Seeing as I reckon I'm the only one who watches over RQW's page I thought I'd ask for some advice here so that I'm not just being despotic. As an umbrella company with three other promotions in their auspices, the list of champions has not just RQW, but also IPW:UK, WAW and SAS champions listed there. I put it in one list whereas someone else has edited the page and split them up and I was wondering if there was any particular way it should go? Tony2Times (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Project wide effort to help backlog at WP:GAN#Sports and recreation

Since we have many GA's listed for candidacy at GAN, right now the section has a huge backlog of 63+, if members can voluntarily review one article, or more, it will help the backlog and our article can be reviewed quicker as well. I just reviewed 3, which is my first 3 reviews in over half a year.--TRUCO 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article request for No Way Out (2004)

Coincidentally, No Way Out (2009) will take place on February 15, the same date as No Way Out (2004), so I want to nominate it for WP:TFA (Today's Featured Article), but since this is the first time, I need some assistance to help the article get a good chance at making it for that day (February 15). Seeing the criteria, I think it may have a good chance..

• Date relevant to article topic:[1] 1 point
• Requestor has not previously had an article appear as Today's featured article and is a significant contributor of the article requested: 1 point
• A similar article has not been featured on the main page:[4] Within six months of requested date: 2 points

---

4 Points

I was thinking that importance could be 1 point, but I don' think a twelve-year old would be looking for this topic for a school project, comments?

Also, did I calculate that correctly?--Truco 03:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. I've added it to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending. If you wish, I'll move it to Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests later in the month? =) D.M.N. (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks DMN, I was hoping you would comments since you got D2D as a TFA. Sure you can move it, that would be great, but you should do it at least 20 days before Feb 15 (since that's what the rules say).--TRUCO 14:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it says 20 days or under. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 15 - D.M.N. (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Real names

Okay, something was bothering me so I decided to get on and start this discussion. The real names besides the ring name. I have no problem with it but people do. There is the idea that using common name is okay on people like A.J. Styles, instead of the adding his real name at all, just linking the ring name as if everyone already knows who he is, but I disagree. I think it should only be used when someone is widely know, like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting, Randy Savage, etc. Because if we use common name then there is no point to even place the real names in because then there is the argument that they aren't known enough and people wouldn't know the difference between Allen Jones and A.J. Styles. There needs to be a ground rule here, because in the end using common name would just mean we shouldn't even place in the real name period. Any thoughts, if you know what I'm talking about?--WillC 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The original consensus was to add real names only to wrestlers who used many ring names in their career, who have not gained notability under their current ring name, if their ring name has not asserted the person any notability. So The Undertaker, might require his real name because he used many other variations of his name, but most likely not because he has used the same name for 10 years now. Shawn Michaels doesn't require his real name. Jack Swagger (Jake Hager) requires his real name. A.J. Styles shouldn't require a real name because he gained most of his notability under that name.--TRUCO 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think with anything you will have people who are unfamiliar to those not already fans. Take rap for example, almost every single rapper uses a pseudonym. If you are not a fan of rap, I doubt you would know who Young Jeezy is even though he's one of the more well known rappers. Same with wrestling. I think the idea is to write based on the average person that would be reading that article, isn't it safe to assume that someone who is reading a wrestling PPV article has at least some knowledge of it? I can't see too many people wanting to read Genesis (2009) who don't know who James Storm or Booker T are. I don't think real names are required to be out of universe and should really be used when needed (like for SummerSlam 1994 with the Undertaker vs. the fake Undertaker) or when the person is known for more than 1 gimmick (like Edward Leslie). If someone is known enough by one name to have that as their article name, I think that is also a sign that they are well known by that. TJ Spyke 00:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats the original purpose, to add it to those who have used many names or if they are not notable under their current ring name.TRUCO 00:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue arose for some wrestlers who are not big wrestlers but are still well known outside of wrestling. James Storm has been wrestling in TNA since 2002, he is a 7 time NWA World Tag Team Champion and 2 time TNA World Tag Team Champion. He and Chris Harris won the 2004 PWI Tag Team of the Year award and 2005 WON Tag Team of the Year Award, IMO that is notable enough to not need his ring name. TJ Spyke 00:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right.--TRUCO 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, about the rap analogy, lets be completely honest here. If you're not a fan of rap, you don't know who Young Jeezy is, chances are you don't really care who he is and knowing what his real name is isn't going to make that much of a difference. Same goes with wrestling. And the casual fans, they probably aren't into wrestling enough to look up and/or remember a wrestlers real name, so whats the point of putting "Texas Red (Mark Calaway)" when they don't know Calaway is the Undertaker. also, to the guy who said it, he's been using the Undertaker name for well over ten years now (just past 18). I don't think we should have them because this isn't a printed encyclopedia, its an online encyclopedia, and everything is linked. So if I really cared enough to want to know a wrestler's real name while reading an article about a pay-per-view, all I'd have to do is click on the link. Its not hard. Nenog (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nenog here. Real names are essentially extraneous information. Plus, since there is no clear-cut line to constitute what stage names need to be coupled with real names and what don't, the rule shouldn't really come into effect. The most important thing should be that the stage name links to an article, so that if anyone wanted more information, they have easy access to it. Real names in no way help to better explain the wrestling events. Additionally, back to the rap analogy, in the article The Notorious B.I.G., it needn't mention in parentheses the real name of Lil' Kim beside her stage name for the very same reason. This ruling needs to be overturned. It's preposterous. Dahumorist (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. If you have complaints, you should have complained 6 months ago when the policy went into effect. Real names are to be used only if the wrestler is not well known under his ring name (which means that their ring name is new) or if the wrestler has competed under various other names (like different gimmicks) [i.e. Kevin Fertig who worked as Mordecai and Kevin Thorn in WWE]. If the wrestler has used the real name for over 5 years, then it is not needed, like The Undertaker. This also depends on the user, some users like to write the real names for all of them, it just depends. But I will rewrite this prose in the MOS to make it clearer.--TRUCO 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So am I to understand that because 6 months ago a rule was passed, there is no way we can amend the rule and/or get rid of it completely? What are the benefits to this rule in the first place? A wrestler's real name is extraneous information, especially considering wrestlers are primarily known by their wrestling names in the first place. And in that case, why is this rule in place for event articles only? Why not ALL articles? Not that I think it should, but I don't see why one and not the other. To me, it all seems equally irrelevant. Dahumorist (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick request for clarification: Why does it affect things if a wrestler has used multiple gimmicks? Unless multiple gimmicks are mentioned in the same article, I can't see why it would make a difference. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like take Stevie Richards for an example. People could know him as Steven Richards (from TRTC), but in the article in question, he is called Big Stevie Cool. And for consistency purposes, we add it to other articles. In addition, in some film articles or television articles, the characters are written with their Character Name (Real name), and then they are referred to as their character name from then on. Since pro wrestling is a similar work, this is why it was implemented.--TRUCO 22:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair nuff, but it's important to know that Bruce Willis played John McClane. It is, however, extraneous information that Beth Phoenix is portrayed by a woman named Elizabeth Carolan, especially when the public know this woman best under the name Beth Phoenix. It's already prefaced on the page that it is a pro wrestling event. That sets the tone for stage names and such, does it not? Dahumorist (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Like I said above it depends on the nature of the name of that wrestler; notability of the name is substantial.--TRUCO 22:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Consensus states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because it was voted on six months ago doesn't mean we can't start the vote over again. I say we put it to a vote to decide to keep the real names with all their rules and exceptions, or drop them all together. Nenog (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't only think of the project(ourselves), readers outside the project would like to know that it is a scripted work. No Way Out (2004) is about to be the featured article of the day, and that can attract readers, which is a format that is used in film articles.--TRUCO 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you but its the god's honest truth, the cats out of the bag about wrestling being staged, and an article on Wikipedia is not going to attract new people to wrestling. Another truth, the wrestling industry & wrestlers and movie industry & actors are very, very different. Christopher Irvine wrestles as Chris Jericho. When he is interviewed by media outside the wrestling interview, its under the name Chris Jericho. When he wrote his autobiography, he used the named Chris Jericho. He is best known as Chris Jericho. Name one time Tom Hanks has conducted an interview under the name Forest Gump, or James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano. They are actors, their job is to play different characters, not the same one over and over and over and over again on a daily basis. And I got a newsflash for you, a lot of them use stage names (i.e. Nicholas Cage) and are list on Wikipedia by their stage names. Yes wrestlers sometimes change characters and/or ring names, but the huge vast majority end up picking one and sticking with it for a lengthy period of time. And even if they change their name ever week, you can...link them. So if some random person doesn't know who Joe Blow Nobody they can click on the link and find out he and Jobby McJobbenstein are in fact the same person. You ask a random non-wrestling fan who John Morrison is, chances are they don’t know. You ask them who Johnny Nitro is, chances are they still aren’t going to know. And if you ask them you John Hennigan is, do you honestly thing they are going to go “Oh, now I know who you’re talking about”. If an article is on a pay-per-view, people are not going to read it to find out a wrestler’s real name; they’re going to read it to find out about the pay-per-view. If they wanted to know the wrestler's real name, they'd look up the wrestler. Nenog (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are not paying attention to the discussion. Jericho is his common name, so its common sense not to place his real name. Even people who know about wrestling would sometimes find it useful. Isaac Yankem, for example, lets say they didn't know who he was, yet they know that Glenn Jacobs played Kane. Placing his real name can help the reader understand who he is. Another good example is the 3 personas of Mick Foley. Your reasons were already brought up in past discussions and at FACs, but they were turned down due to my reasons above, which is the reasons the opposition proposed.--TRUCO 21:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that could be confusing to readers. If only there was some way to link Isaac Yankem and Kane to Glenn Jacobs, or Cactus Jack, Dude Love and Mankind to Mick Foley. By the way, lets overlook the fact that more people know who Kane is than Glenn Jacobs. So, with by your "wrestling is like movies" argument that it'd make more sense to put "Isaac Yankem (Kane)" instead of "Isaac Yankem (Glenn Jacobs)" since a) Kane is his stage name and articles on movies use their stage names over their real names, and b) he is better known by his stage name Kane. Nenog (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty inconsistent to me. And who decides if they're notable enough to not have their real name there? RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read above? It depends on the wrestler and how long their name has been in use. TRUCO 22:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, no. Way too long to read it all. How long does their name have to be in use then? Either way it's inconsistent reading an article and seeing it in some places but not in others. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to all professional wrestling articles or just pay-per-view articles? This is only used in pay-per-view articles. It can be used in biographies as well, but it has yet to be discussed. It has to be at least 5 years in use, thats a reasonable amount of time.--TRUCO 00:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Both. And I think the 5 year thing needs a consensus. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be best to leave this up to the discretion of individual editors rather than discussing every detail until we've got 50K of "If Wrestler X competed primarily as Wrestler Y, then he should be known by that name, but if he also competed under another name in a smaller but also notable promotion prior to entering the second, then that should be taken into consideration unless there was no NWA/AWA/WWF affiliation; however, in the case of some newer promotions and established Japanese promotions, gate receipts should be totalled before making a decision. Keep in mind, however, that the average gate receipt, not the total, is to be used. For free events, an amount may be substituted that is equal to the previous comparable ticketed event from that promotion. If multiple ring names are used simulateneously in different promotions, however, see the flowchart on the rules subpage." I say we use common sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

5 star matches

OK, TJ wants to remove them but I still think they should be there. The consensus here was 4-2 for TJ, but I'd like a bigger one since I took the time to add pretty much all of them. I explained why I want them on that link. RandySavageFTW (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't really think we should have PWI or WON awards there in the first place. However, if they are there then I don't see why 5 star matches don't go up there because it's an award given out by WON just like any other that we deem necessary to list. I would like to suggest, though, that all feds get moved up and publications get moved down so that the list of Championships & Accomplishments goes through promotions and titles before it goes through magazines and awards. Still alphabetical, natch. Tony2Times (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep em. Nenog (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

5 star matches aren't awards, they are just ratings. We don't go adding Ebert's ratings for movies eve though his reviews are almost universally respected in movies (unlik Meltzer and his opinions). Why not add ratings from other notable sites? TJ Spyke 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You only cry about Meltzer and his ratings because he isn't a WWE mark. Show proof where he isn't respect in wrestling, because I can name a couple of wrestlers that do respect him and his ratings. Nenog (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. I have said in the past that I think the WON awards are notable, i's just his ratings that are not notable. There isn't any proof that his ratings are notabe, and even if hy are they should stay on his page since 1 persons ratings are not an accomplishment. TJ Spyke 16:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"...are almost universally respected...(unlik Meltzer...)." You did't say "Meltzer's ratings", you said "Meltzer and his ratings", so yes you did say Metlzer isn't respected. Nenog (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Remove the ratings are subjective and not neutral, awards that are voted on by more than one person is one thing but the ratings is basically "one man's oppinion", which isn't what Wikipedia should be about. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony2Times, where's the rule that the publications go after the feds? That's just messy and inconsistent. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, suggest, lol. Well TBH I disagree.RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not related but I don't want to make a separate section. Should Playboy appearances really be included in the Championships and accomplishments section? My understanding is that the section for wrestling titles and accomplishments. While being in wrestling may have led to the chance to pose for Playboy, it is no a wrestling accomplishment. As for wrestling publications, I agree that we should just stick with the current format of listing them alphabetically with the fed names. TJ Spyke 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts on the above: As mentioned, the match ratings are subjective, so they shouldn't be included in a wrestler's bio. However, they could be included in the reception section for events (if they happen to occur in PPVs or for events we have articles for). As for Playboy...they should definitely be removed and any appearance in the magazine is usually located in the article itself and in the lead. Nikki♥311 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it was only a suggestion, my argument being that within a federation awards come after belts, regardless of alphabetical order (ie Slammy Awards, TNA end of year awards) so I think that publications which only give awards, never championships, should also come last. Playboy isn't an accomplishment for a wrestler, it's a disgrace; I assume people started adding them because it's listed in Diva publications under accomplishments. I've also acquiesced to the idea that it is not an award and it is subjective to one person's opinion so it fits better in a reception section or main prose than statistics at the end. Tony2Times (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about Playboy appearances being more appropriate for the lead and main article body. Perhaps its own section, if approriate? Use your judgement.

As far as star ratings go, I just got a glance at the arguments and I wonder: has the general subject of star ratings, as applies to such things as movie and album reviews, been discussed on their respective project pages? Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss the topic there, so that we're consistent all the way across the board. I think Wikipedia needs to have a consistent "star ratings" policy as applies to all entertainment-related articles that have reviews included. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)]]

From what I can tell, album articles include ratings from notable sources like Allmusic, while movie articles don't have any ratings. 17:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of articles on movies have a "Reception" section where it talks about the ratings the movie has gotten on various websites, as well as what critics thought of it. Nenog (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute on Nelson Frazier, Jr.

There is a dispute on this article about whether the move in which Frazier jumps off the second rope onto his opponent should be called a "Running splash" or "Big splash". I have created a section for discussion on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate it if editors from this project could comment there to resolve the dispute. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be ANY dispute on this, IMHO. At any rate, I put a comment on that page that should help clear things up.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ECW Championship name/Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) name

This may seem a bit "retarded", but since WWE replaced the ECW belt with the platinum version, the new one has the name "World Wrestling Entertainment ECW Champion engraved on it, so wouldn't the name of the title be "The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship"? or would it be "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)"? In addition to this, wouldn't this also add more evidence that WWE is alluding the Extreme Championship Wrestling name, and is using the acronym more and thus the article should be renamed to ECW (WWE) per WP:ACRONYM?--TRUCO 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just to identify it as a WWE belt. Remember that both tag belts say "World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Team Champion" and Raw's title says "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". WWE on TV and their site still just call it the ECW Championship. TJ Spyke 04:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Ortiz

The page is really terrible and needs loads of work, I'd appreciate some people helping me with it. I spent most of yesterday improving it but... And we need a better photo. Kalajan€·₣ 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving it... but all you did was change it back to an in-universe style. I'm not wishing to get into a revert war, but I'll be happy if someone else reverts. IMO, the article was in an OK [not perfect] state before. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted it back to the out-of-universe style until it can be improved while keeping the OOU style. ArcAngel (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted yet again to out-of-universe. Kalajan - you are welcome to edit the article, but you must keep it in the out-of-universe style it is in currently. ArcAngel (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Help request

My latest project has been creating articles on some older wrestlers. Over the past week or so, I completed articles on Rip Hawk and Swede Hanson (wrestler), and an article about them as a team (Blond Bombers, which also discusses the other three teams to use that name), as well as Skull Murphy and Brute Bernard. I've read through them so many times now that I can't really judge them well. I know they need better lead sections (I'm terrible at writing leads, so any help is appreciated) and could benefit from some copyediting, but I'm wondering if any of them would be worth submitting as GA nominees. Masa Saito was recently failed because there wasn't enough information about his personal life and what made him unique as a wrestler, and these might fall into the same category. If someone (or more than one person) could take an objective look at them, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawk and Hanson both seem like they have enough personal life info, plus more narrative elements (other than straight wins and losses) to make interesting reading. They both have a good chance at GA, IMO. Likewise, the Blond Bombers also seems to be pretty comprehensive (and personal life info isn't really needed for a team). Murphy and Bernard, however, both have very little personal info, but you can still try at GAN, but they have less chance IMO than the other three. Nikki♥311 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible spoiler - maybe worth putting page on watchlist

Possible spoiler for Royal Rumble

Just a heads up, several sites are reporting that Bob Orton Jr. was on a plane to Detroit, Michigan (the location for Royal Rumble) this morning. Might be worth putting his page on your watchlists. No IP's have hit it yet.... but give 12 to 24 hours and IP's are likely to be editing it.

D.M.N. (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of WWE Divas Champions

I was looking at this, and I questioned, do we list reigns by the date the individual won the title or the day it aired?--TRUCO 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Date won. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure I reverted correctly on this matter.--TRUCO 14:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)