Open main menu

Hello, Galatz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.


July 2019Edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of WWE personnel, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop. He (or she) who has a belt ALWAYS automatically goes on the roster, and everything else is window dressing. Stop the edit warring now. Vjmlhds 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:XFL (2020)Edit

Why is it not needed to separate teams into divisions? See Template:NFL, Template:Canadian Football League, Template:AAF, and Template:XFL. Formatting can be corrected but no need to undo separation. Help me understand your decision. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Americanfootballupdater: The biggest issue if you look at how it was formatted [1] compared to the other examples, it is that its not formatted correctly. Notice how sloppy that is with the words just randomly spaced and bolded, versus the others where there are subsections that are neatly organized. I disagree with AAF having them also because there are no pages for East/West and there are not a lot of teams that dividing into divisions does not really help navigation. WP:OSE applies here, just because others have it, does not mean this one should. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: Do you think we should re-format or leave as a single list of 8? Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Americanfootballupdater: I believe a single list of 8 is appropriate. There is no East vs West pages and only 4 in each it does not really have a big benefit for splitting. That may change in the future, if more information is added or those pages are created. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: I understand your point, but I thought that separate in and of itself gives more information, especially in the template. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Americanfootballupdater:While it does give more information what is the benefit of that. Per WP:NAVBOX the purpose is to facilitate navigation. The question is, does dividing into division do that? Its not about providing information to the user looking at it, the question is does to aid in navigation. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Galatz: Got it. Agreed. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "I quit" match, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing of SummerSlam 2019 wiki pageEdit

Dear Sir, As I have got permission to edit in Wikipedia by Static Valor. I added the tagline of SUMMERSLAM 2019. But then why did you deleted that? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Sir, As I have got permission to edit in Wikipedia by Static Valor. I added the tagline of SUMMERSLAM 2019. But then why did you deleted that? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sahebsheik0110: It was unsourced, it requires a WP:RS. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


Sir what is the WPRS? Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sahebsheik0110: I provided you the link, click here --> WP:RS. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sahebsheik0110: Clearly you do not even know what it is, since you added [2] [3] two different ones to the article - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the poster of SUMMERSLAMEdit

Sir I added the poster of SUMMERSLAM 2k19 last on 13 th July,but you removed that. And today I saw that you have updated that poster. What was haapened? Kindly clarify. Sahebsheik0110 (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No idea what you are talking about - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Clearing (Homeland); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I obtained consensus for the edits I have made. I have now made over a hundred of them. Do not mass revert until we have finished discussion. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Funny how you ignore WP:BRD, you were reverted yet just reverted back while a discussion is ongoing. YOU are the one who should stop your editing. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Quit the reverts until it's been discussed, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan: Articles should remain unchanged unless a consensus is reached. The articles should therefore all be restored to the way they were until a consensus is reached. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
BRD does not apply because I discussed the changes before making them. There's nothing "bold" about them; rather they were an uncontroversial implementation of a current consensus. You now need a new consensus in your favour before you can revert the edits, particularly when we're dealing with large scale changes. I hope you plan to revert your 100+ edits if a consensus that my edits were correct is found. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Gamergate discretionary sanctions alertEdit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Rollback noteEdit

I am now about to use rollback to undo your 116 reversions of me, per consensus at this discussion. This falls under standard usage of rollback per WP:ROLLBACKUSE#5, To revert widespread edits unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, this being a relevant talk page (and I will also be leaving a similar section on my talk page). Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curatedEdit

Hi, I'm Onel5969. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hell in a Cell (2019), and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Care to share why? - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at the log, I unreviewed my review of it. Not sure what generated this message. Onel5969 TT me 18:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Onel5969: haha ok - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Pay AttentionEdit

Maybe before you make some edits you should notice what you are doing. Because all of my edits I made was to fix the mistakes you made. How about noticing you have been removing stipulations on articles, changing the consistency of the articles, editing Featured and Good Articles in a manner that have hurt their quality after I spent years writing, sourcing, editing, and raising them to the status they are at. Take your recent edit to Lockdown (2008) where you link to articles that don't even exist. Lets run down the list of issues here. You quote the redirect policy when the redirects didn't exist in the first place. That policy is in line for when to not fix redirects. It does not mean go out of your way to make them. There was no redirects in those articles when they were either GA reviewed or FA reviewed because I made sure before moving them to the mainspace from a subpage. So you are actively going out of your way to create redirects and currently, as above with Lockdown, is to create links to articles that don't exist and thus creating broken links that don't help readers absolutely at all. As for the WON issue, I returned to the previously review approved prose that used the previous links because that page didn't exist when the articles were reviewed. The WON page was built in 2017. Lockdown passed review in 08-09. Beyond that, you have changed materials in the articles to suit your preference rather than any actual need. Why are you decapitalizing proper names for matches that have been approved by committee? Why are you altering article layout without stating so in your edit captions? Why are you removing "see also" sections when they were approved by consensus to be warranted? Why are you adding redundant tables when the miscellaneous section exists saying the exact same thing with sources. If you are going to make edits, do them to improve articles not to hinder them. Now I have to fix the issues you've made once again. Now I have to return the articles to the previous formats because you want to create redirects that didn't exist in the article space to begin with.--WillC 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: Except you are not editing based on the correct way of doing it. Reverting back to something years ago just because that how it was at the time it was approved for GA is just silly. Edits like WON were lost because of this way of editing. Every edit I made was to attempt to move it in line with the WP:PW/SG. You may want to review that, because my edits were correct. I might have missed a couple of link fixes, but its because you went through and mass reverted without paying attention, and I went in to clean up your mess. You have been gone for a while and clearly missed several style guide changes, but that does not make the changes wrong. I appreciate all your hard work in creating those articles, but just because things were changed, its not a slight against you, its just people working together to create the best article possible,
Why would I decapitalize things like Tag Team, because that is what our style guide calls for. That is why every article has it lower case, because our style guide calls for it to be done that way. Or things like "Four Way" were correct to change to "Four-way", if you even look at the target, that is how it spells it in the article Professional wrestling match types#Basic non-elimination matches. Our SG also refers to a "Steel cage match" with lowercase, not uppercase.
If you read WP:NOPIPE you would understand why I fixed the edits the way I did. I created redirects that should have existed to begin with, not just so I could avoid piping, and once they existed it was correct to not pipe them. For example, I have spent countless hours in recent months fixing links that were piped to [[Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple man teamed matches]] because it was changed to [[Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple wrestlers teamed matches]]. Changing the word "man" to "wrestler" was correct, but it broke at least 500 links, probably more. If these were all not piped, and linked directly to [[Six-man tag team match]] or something similar, then every link could have been updated in 2 minutes, just by updating the redirect. But because people like you force the piping of them, it means every link needed to be manually updated.
The other thing this is fixing is consistency. I have come across about 4-5 different piped locations for a Hardcore match. Some sent it to Hardcore Wrestling or Hardcore wrestling, some sent it to Professional wrestling match types#No Disqualification match and others to Professional_wrestling_match_types#Hardcore-based_variations, among others. By forcing this to the redirect, we ensure consistency in how things are linked as well. And if consensus were to change where the target should be, one edit fixes hundreds of articles.
Or take Drake Maverick which was recently moved from Rockstar Spud. Based on that you are saying, hundred of edits need to change from [[Rockstar Spud]] to [[Drake Maverick|Rockstar Spud]] and there also would be hundreds that would have previously been [[Rockstar Spud|Drake Maverick]] that now need to be changed to [[Drake Maverick]]. That just adds more work than is needed. If every link is just linking to the redirect there would be no need to update based on every name change, in addition to complying with WP:NOPIPE.
I am guessing by article lay out, you are referring to the reception section I saw you move. Until May 2018, reception was to be a subsection under aftermath, but that changed with [4] that edit, based on conversations in the WikiProject. So when I made the change [5] it was correct, and based on consensus and the current standard at the time, but it has clearly not been updated since. So to say I am making a change to align with my preferences is just plain wrong.
I have no idea what "see also" sections you are referring to me removing. You didn't seem to revert any of them so I have no idea what you are referring to. Chances are they only had items linked in the article, and therefore it was removed per WP:SEEALSO.
As far as I am aware I did not remove any stipulations. I assume based on your edit history you are referring to what you undid here [6] which if you spent 30 seconds you could find was removed by an IP two years ago with [7] that edit. Considering I have been editing on WP for over 10 years under this user ID, I don't think I would have removed that under an IP rather than my own user name. But sure, just blame everything you do not agree with on me. Oh and it also looks like this was done while you were actively editing, so you failed to undo it 2 years ago. Perhaps you should take your own advise and "pay attention"
So did I accidentally link to a couple of red links, yes. I am human I make errors. But do I pay attention and edit based on policy and guidelines, yes. You have been gone for a couple of years, perhaps take some time and review the style guide and what pages have been created since you were last here. Things constantly change, and thats a good thing. Don't just revert back to the way things were years ago, because chances are they were changed for a reason. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh this is rich, you are pointing to the style guide. Tell me, who do you think helped create the style guide? It was me. I was there when it was created. It is also nice of you to point to it, when several of the recent edits are by you, including trying to add material without a consensus. Thats the neat thing about a document anyone can alter and no one pays attention to. Very interesting at how that style guide adopted my style of article. I'm the one that made the whole production, event, reception, aftermath, and then results format that was discussed and adopted project-wide that the style guide lays out. Several of your edits show you altering articles away from that format. So, you are pointing to it as long as it fits your argument.
Where is the consensus that calls for matches to be styled that way? Where is the project wide discussion that said this is the common name of those matches. Where is the English doctrine that requires them to be written in this manner? I don't see it. Because the matches are official names and are proper nouns, they should be capitalized for that reason alone. Otherwise, the layout is also pleasing. I also have a consensus on this seeing as TP 08 and LD 08 are both consensus driven featured articles for these layouts, stylizations, etc.
Your whole hardcore thing there is faulty entirely based on lack of information. TNA specifically, liked to call things by different names solely for the sake of it. The Last Man Standing match at Hard Justice 08 was a Texas Death match, not a last man standing match. A universal redirect doesn't work for that topic. That shows lack of information on the subject manner.
The Rockstar Spud thing doesn't matter. Those links still work. Nothing changed. The issue you are doing is changing [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]] for no reason. The link already worked. You are creating a redirect for the sake of it when that redirect links to the already correct space to begin with. Nothing was broken. No harm was done. What you are doing is changing a brand new link for a new PPV from [[Drake Maverick|Rockstar Spud]] to [[Rockstar Spud]] for the sake of it. When it was created just like that. No redirect was ever fixed. Someone just knew the name of the proper article and decided to go straight to it. Did it take a couple more seconds? Yeah. It didn't matter.
As for your timeline on the reception section, I was there when the convo was done. The style guide was never updated. No one paid attention to it. I wrote 60 articles based on reviews. The style guide was forgotten about almost entirely by the project. You want to point out you've been here 10 years, I've almost been around for 11 years. How many articles have you expanded? Did you read the weekly tv reports for these events? Did you take the months to get them reviewed? Do you know exactly what these matches were called? How they were promoted? Do you know anything about them? Or are you just pointing to a style guide that you edit regularly that you have your edits reverted for lack of consensus? We can keep doing this? I'm happy to just go ahead straight to an administrative board and argue these points. We can get to the bottom of it. Because it will be fun to watch you argue to why you are creating redirects in articles that never existed in the first place, making redundant information, and pointing to a page you edit regularly.--WillC 19:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, I have no problem reporting you for edit warring.--WillC 19:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: If you want to go to an admin and explain to them why you are reverting back to edits from 2+ years ago without looking at what you are reverting, or going based on the consensus of the wikiproject than please go ahead. There is a guideline in place for a reason, and it is actively utilized and discussed, despite what you are saying. There was a conversation about the reception section and then updated right away after. I made no material changes to the style guide without first discussing them.
I am not changing [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]] for "no reason" as you state. This is no different than the Hardcore Match example I mentioned above. If the target is changed, it makes more sense to change just the redirect than hundreds of articles.
I see you have a severe case of WP:OWN and would rather have it your way than to discuss. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 19:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No I don't own the articles, I just appreciate my work not being turned upside down for so many years. I've seen the FLs for NJPW be split off and thus effectively all the work I did is useless now that they aren't lists. I've seen people come around without any information to the subjects and just change the information without any idea of the entire article is written in a consistent manner. The words in the results section are the same ones used throughout the entire article. I spent the time to get them FA and GA, I'd like to see they remain that way instead of people changing things to fit the "WWE mentality". Matches changed to Three way dance, when they were promoted as Three Way War. Texas Death matches changed to Last Man Standing. I want them to be accurate. I took pride in that. Adding tables that are redundant is useless. They are in the way and don't add anything to the article. Moving the narrative flow to match WWE articles. TNA is a separate company that did things differently. Giving them the match names that WWE give things is inaccurate. It isn't that I own anything. It is that the edits are wrong. I watched your edits. I went edit to edit on every one of those pages. I watched the 6 edits in a row you like to do on pages. I watched what was yours and what was someone elses. I watched you change the steel cage above on Lockdown. Some edits work. Changing to Lethal Lockdown because it exists. Changing to WON. Those work now that they exist (Despite Lethal Lockdown being nothing more than a list of matches). Changing match names for the sake of changing match names that don't reflect what they actually were is factually incorrect. For the ones who took the time, it matters.--WillC 19:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What did I change? I didnt change Three Way War to Three Way Dance. I fixed the linking and capitalization. I am not to blame for every edit you do not like. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent undoing and reverts is exactly what you are doing there. You are switching them back to the wrong names. So, yeah you are. I was changing the wrong names. I don't care if they are redirects. As long as redirects aren't made from links that already work.--WillC 21:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: I did not change any wrong names. What wrong names did I change? I changed Three Way War to Three-way War, which per MOS:CAPS is not changing the name. And again just because the piping works now, it does not mean it will work in the future, which is why there are times piping it to a redirect makes sense. If every instance of [[Professional wrestling match types#Cages|Six Sides of Steel]] was changed to [[Steel cage match|Six Sides of Steel]], it would not affect a person clicking the link. But if Steel cage match was ever created as a stand alone page, or if the target in the pipe was changed (see the multi man match example above), it would enable hundreds of pages to be updated at once.
Or perfect example based on your edits. You are linking a tag team match as [[Tag Team|Tag Team match]], as I have seen many others points to as well, but hundreds of articles pipe it as [[Professional wrestling match types#Tag team match|Tag team match]]. Which one is correct? Where should these point to? There are merits of both, but it should be consistent. If every article however point to [[Tag team match]], then we could open a discussion, come to a consensus, and instantly every article points to the same place. Just because your link works, it may or may not be the best answer (I am not sure which is), but linking directly to the redirect makes these updates much simpler down the road. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Number of things, first there is a difference between Three Way War and Three-way war. Just like there is a difference between hell in a cell and Hell in a Cell. It is objectively very clear. What exact part of CAPS does that fall under? Just pointing at it doesn't mean anything unless there is a specific line in there that says to do exactly that. Because under the common name section of CAPS it says for proper names to capitalize the name. And Three Way War would be a proper name that falls in line with the policy as a proper name. So would all match types because they are proper names for an actual advertised contest. Hence the reason the articles and results were done like that in a consistent manner. Not preference, but logical argument. In fact, several of these names can be understood as being copywritten, such as Three Way War which would thus fall under the trademark banner of CAPS and need to be caps as proper names. The only difference between the Three Way War title and Elimination Chamber or Hell in a Cell is fan sentiments. Nothing more. Three Way matches are just more common so they don't feel as special so editors don't capitalize them like the more rare matches. When in reality, they aren't different. Next thing, if the steel cage article became a thing, the link would still work. It would take you to the section about cage matches. Just like how the entries for Lockdown, Chamber, and Hell are all still there serving their purpose. If you want the article to exist, I suggest actually making it and sourcing it. Unlike the Lethal Lockdown article which doesn't even have a status as an article or even a talk page header. That would be much more beneficial than making links to things that don't even exist all because we hope someone may do it. It is Wishful thinking and it isn't rational. As for tag team, they are both correct because they both give the correct information regardless of page. They both explain tag teams and matches. They both work. They both given the reader the exact information needed to understand. No change is needed to either other than to call it by the proper names.--WillC 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: I don't care what your complaints are about Lethal Lockdown. I did not create the article, but if you bothered to look at the edit history you would know that.
Clearly you did not bother to read WP:DONOTFIXIT or else you would realize why your "wishful thinking" comments is ridiculous. Its literally the first bullet point. Reasons not to bypass redirects include:
  1. Redirects can indicate possible future articles. I am not saying I wish to create it, or want to create it, or think it should be created. If there is a POSSIBILITY that SOMEONE would, you don't bypass the redirect. Plain, simple, straight forward.
  2. Lets look at the second bullet point Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form. Both [[Tag Team|Tag Team match]] and [[Professional wrestling match types#Tag team match|Tag team match]] clearly introduce unnecessary invisible text when comparing to [[Tag team match]]. That is a no brainer
  3. The next bullet point Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links is EXACTLY what I am describing. It makes large-scale changes easier, something I can speak first hand to, and explained to you above.
  4. Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links - Yup, once again, that seems like a perfect example. Is tag team match a redirect to a section, yes. Well then, per that it should NEVER be bypassed, which you are doing.
The other two bullets do not apply, but we are 4 for 4 with the first bullets, in support of what I was saying. So when WP:DONOTFIXIT specifically says "redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed" what justification do you have to bypass a redirect to a section of an article, when it specifically says to never do that? If you want it to say "Three Way War" fine, I don't care, but the other edits are all valid, and I suggest you self revert. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You do know that Tag Team match exists right? That solves all of your problems right there.--WillC 02:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess you forgot--WillC 02:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: I didn't forget it. I created it because it is likely that someone, like you, would incorrectly put "Tag Tag match" in instead of "Tag team match". It is still incorrect, but it doesn't solve all my problems. My problem is that you are force piping when you shouldn't be, that is the BIGGEST problem. I asked you to explain why you are going against what it says, but you failed to address that question. It appears you just want to respond to the parts you want, regardless of what was actually asked. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Like you ignoring the entirety of my MOS comment to focus on redirects. So you made a link in a logical way that suggested enough people would view it as being that way. Hmm, trying to have it both ways. Potential articles and titles, but hey this isn't really needed. Wanting to have it both ways I see.--WillC 17:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. How am I trying to have it both ways? Per WP:POFR you create a redirect for Likely alternative capitalizations which is exactly what I did. Common errors in capitalization and misspellings are always created as redirects, its standard practice. If a hypothetical "tag team match" page existed, "Tag Team match" and "Tag Team Match" would all be alternative capitalizations that I would create. Take a look at what redirects to SummerSlam or WrestleMania]. All sorts of likely capitalization mistakes link there. Tag Team match is no different. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Just say that again....but slower.--WillC 20:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: Common. Errors. In. Capitalization. And. Misspellings. Are. Always. Created. As. Redirects. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 20:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"Likely alternative capitalizations" means any other way to write the name. Doesn't mean it is incorrect. Tag team match and Tag Team match are equal in that regard. You should notice when you say things at how they also help my point as well.--WillC 22:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Wrestlinglover: Except Tag Team match is an error, not a likely alternative. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, I just wanted to know if uncredited appearances count towards an actors status on the shows character list? For instance, a character on Fear The Walking Dead has appeared in one episode (as far as I know of), was uncredited in an earlier episode (I don't recall seeing her in the episode tbh), and on her IMDB page, she is listed to appear in a future episode of that season. So, with 3+ appearances she is deemed as recurring on the table (since its a recurring character table), but she's only appeared once (maybe twice, uncredited though), therefore she should remain off the table until she has appeared and been credited for 3+ episodes, right? I'm just having editing issues with another user about this at the moment and would like to get a more experienced editors' opinion on the manner before it becomes an edit war. Thanks in advance, hope my question was clear! MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@MSMRHurricane: Sorry, I am really not familiar enough with that. Your best bet might be to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and they should be able to point you in the right direction. My thought would be if you have a WP:RS that states its 3 episodes, than its fine, but I am sure this is not the first occurrence of this, so there must be some examples to lean on. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


I just edited as it was done before. I can't keep up with all the new guidelines for the wrestling pages. DCF94 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@DCF94: This is nothing new and nothing wrestling specific. Looks like its been in that MOS for 7 years [8] - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 17:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that I, like many editors, learned how to edit pages "on the job", and that's how I saw it done before for those kind of names. DCF94 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pixel 4Edit

You'll have to revert one more time. I added a ref to existing content. // sikander { talk } 🦖 16:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


WP:PW/SG calls for ordering the names on the list, not to have a higher place on the table if the no. of days are the same. i.e.: (from the example) Bo Dallas & Adrian Neville have the same no. of days and they are tied at 3. Therefore Jinder & Mike can be sorted above the other names with <1 days reign, but they are all tied for 5. DCF94 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal.Edit

Greetings. No doubt you've seen this IP making a load of theme song-related edits to WWE articles. He's been doing it for many years, and mainly seems to be fixated on WWF Full Metal and WWF The Music, Vol. 2‎, writing nothing but utter tripe. I would highly recommend you revert any and every one of his edits on sight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Galatz".