Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Several things to keep an eye on

Orange Country Wrestling Federation, The Avalanche (wrestler), Zodiac (Wrestler), Eddie Suzuki, Night Stalker (wrestler). All of these appear to be non-notable: I googled the promotion and found no decent results, so I'm assuming the wrestlers aren't notable either. I prodded them, hopefully it lasts and they just go. RobJ1981 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And another: Melissa Merida. Appears to be vanity as well. I did a search for Melissa and her wrestling name as well, and came up with very little. RobJ1981 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Two more: List of PWG World Tag Team Championship defenses and List of PWG World Championship defenses. RobJ1981 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes?

Moe Epsilon has been removing them from pages. Unless I missed it, I don't remember the project agreeing to this at all. A big decision like that, shouldn't just be decided by one person. RobJ1981 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It was discussed here before, unless I'm mistaken. — Moe Epsilon 20:16 September 22 '06

I checked the project page, and didn't see anything. I haven't gone through talk archives, so it could be there. RobJ1981 20:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's in the talk archives, we don't discuss things on the project page, but on the talk page. — Moe Epsilon 20:23 September 22 '06

[1] FWIW, I think this proof enough we don't use the format anymore. — Moe Epsilon 20:26 September 22 '06

Archived discussion here: [2] I believe we agreed they they took up too much space and conveyed too little information. I support their removal. --James Duggan 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

There might also be an archive in late June/July that may have relevant discussion. — Moe Epsilon 20:52 September 22 '06

Ah, yes, [3] James Duggan 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the descision to ommit sucession boxes was decided on when we replaced them with the "won from" "Lost to" version that allowed us to give the same information plus more in a shorter fashion... --- Paulley 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You may think that format is long also but its way shorter than listing titles and adding sucession boxes --- Paulley 21:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Both the "sucession boxes" and all the "won from - lost to" information takes up too much space. If that information is wanted it's available on the title pages, for titles that have them.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 22:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If the title doesn't have an article, then it probably isn't worth noting anyway, otherwise it can be mentioned in the article's career section. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll (stemming from above conversation)

Instead of complaining, and since there is no consensus from everyone, lets just do a straw poll for each discussion. If you're for or against boxes, please list yourself below. Likewise for the format of the articles. Please only place a support once for both topics :) Wikipedia is not a democracy, but with this straw poll, this might better understand where we stand on this situation to build a strong consensus one way or the other. Let this straw poll hold out until 00:00 September 26, 2006, then we can can evaluate the results from there.

The result of this debate was we don't keep succession boxes. With only one user for keeping the succession boxes, it's apparent that they are not wanted. — Moe Epsilon 19:52 September 26 '06

Succession Boxes

• For Succession Boxes:

1. ----Darren Jowalsen 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
2. --
3. --
4. --
5. --

• Against Succession Boxes:

1. — Moe Epsilon 22:54 September 22 '06
2. -- Giant onehead 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
3. -- TJ Spyke 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
4. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
5. -- McPhail 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
6. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
7. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
8. --Geoffg 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
9. --Normy132 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
10. --Oakster ^(Talk) 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
11. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
12. --James Duggan 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
13. -- Edgecution 00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
14. -- Kyros 04:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
15. --Aaru Bui 11:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The result of this debate was No Consensus as there are equal amounts of users who feel that both formats are suitable. — Moe Epsilon 19:52 September 26 '06

Championship and accomplishments Formatting

Format 1

---

• Ohio Valley Wrestling

• 1-time OVW Heavyweight Champion

---

1. -- Giant onehead 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
2. ---- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
3. -- McPhail 00:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
4. -- Normy132 01:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
5. -- --Darren Jowalsen 01:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
6. ----Oakster ^(Talk) 09:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
7. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
8. --James Duggan 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
9. -- Kyros 04:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Format 2

---

• Ohio Valley Wrestling

• OVW Heavyweight Championship (1)

Defeated Leviathan on February 20, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA.

Lost to Nova on May 15, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA.

---

1. — Moe Epsilon 22:54 September 22 '06
2. -- TJ Spyke 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
3. -- RobJ1981 23:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
4. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
5. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
6. --Geoffg 00:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
7. -- Edgecution 00:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
8. -- Jonathan Burgess 20:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
9. -- Night Bringer 16:49, 26 September 2006 (GMT +10)
10. --Aaru Bui 11:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
11. --Paulley 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) -- late vote

Mass Transit Incident (ECW)

Does it make more sense for this article to be title Eric Kulas and have all links redirect to this page. It makes more sense? Kyros 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

A suggestion: more use of animated gifs for mid-maneuver images. Often single images make it unclear as to what is going on. While animated gifs are larger, the point of images in not just to entertain, but to inform, so making the action that they are portraying clearer would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.180 (talk • contribs) .

We still have to consider people with slow Internet connections. A lot of people who can use Wikipedia, particularly those in emerging nations probably have slow connections. A well done text description supplemented by a preferably free image suffices in most cases. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jtalledo, animated GIF's would be hell for those on dial-up and other slow internet connections. If a move is described well enough (which I will admit that there are many that aren't) then a person should be able to see the move in their mind. TJ Spyke 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WWE Championship Template Article

Since the Women's Championsip is now defunct, it really shouldn't be listed under "RAW championships". Also, I think it would be nice if we added "Former championships" to the template, and added the Woman's championship to that section. I just wanted to know all of your opinions on this, and get some consensus on the matter. ^---SilentRAGE! 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Add new topics to the bottom. The Women's title is not defunct, it's vacant, there's a difference. They're still mentioning it and setting up something to crown a champ between Lita and Mickie James.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My bad, there's actually a tournament being set up for it. Still, not defunct and should stay where it is.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what about my suggestion about adding a defunct title section to the template? ^---SilentRAGE! 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2 wrestling pages that probably should be locked

World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster need locks on them. Anons have been sticking Kurt Angle in heavyweight division, yet Angle hasn't wrestled for TNA once. One recent promo isn't active. This seems to be an ongoing trend that should be stopped. WWE roster had a lock at one point, but was removed. WWE roster has constant reverts as well. Anytime someone new has a promo, they are put in an active section. Same goes for anytime a rumor pops up, anons usually stick it on the roster page. All these edits need to be stopped. Posting things on the talk page isn't helping alot. Locking seems like the best solution. RobJ1981 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Normy132 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sirelda

Sirelda (Jaime Dauncey) is still on the TNA roster page under he inactive section. I'm pretty sure TNA said they were finished with her just after her match with Gail Kim. Can someone follow this up please. Normy132 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

She's still on TNAWrestling.com's roster page. We should leave her on our roster until they take her off their roster. --James Duggan 02:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments formatting pt. 2

It's apparent from the above straw polls, that the succession boxes are not wanted. But there appears to be no consensus about the Championships and accomplishments formatting. I think it might be better to list some positives and negatives about these two formats. Anybody wanna start? — Moe Epsilon 19:58 September 26 '06

The additional information is interesting, but I fail to see how it qualifies as being encyclopedic. A wrestler winning a championship, the month day and year, the city and state where the wrestler wins the title, who they win the title from, the month day and year they lose the title, the city and state where it's lost, and who they lose it to. It's interesting, but there's no real use for it as I can see. It takes up far too much space, unnecessarily. Listing the championships and accomplishments of some wrestlers in that format, in all honesty, requires it's own article onto itself. It looks so clustered and disorganized. As far as I'm concerned, the only relevant information is to list all the titles a wrestler has won and the number of reigns. As far as a negative to that format, I really don't see one. To me, it looks much neater, more organized, and doesn't take up unnecessary space. Odin's Beard 23:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Odin's Beard (wtf? lol). Format one is space-consuming, disorganised and for the most part it is trivia. Format two is the complete opposite. It's small, quick and straight to the point and there are already articles with complete histories (some better organised than others) of all the major championships in all the major promotions. Normy132 00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said up there a ways, if people really need the whys and wherefors of title changes they can hit the specific title pages. For titles without those pages we generally don't have that information anyway and it's debatable if they're even worth listing. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also voted to simplify the titles. The thing is, is that there are predetermined titles, so documenting all of the factors just doesn't seem necessary. And like bdve says, if you really want to know the cities and dates, you can go on the page for the title and find out for yourself. Simpler is always better, and it will save time for editors as well. Giant onehead 03:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but its just the case of making sure seccession boxes are not added in its place... funny how everything comes back on itself after time... considering i was the first one to display Championships and accomplishments under the general "1-time" list fashion on wikipedia, though it was called "Titles Held" back then. --- Paulley

Lol, I also missed the voting. personally i would prefer to see Format 2 where possible --- Paulley 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the positives of Format 2. In this format the chronological display of titles won is easily established and visiable... which goes double for tag title reigns, where it allows people to clearly see who the wrestler has won titles with and in what order, which cant be said for the first format.

Another advantage for the second format come when titles are renamed. For example format one would say a wrestler is a 2-time WWE Intercontinental Champion, while format two allows a user to clearly show that the same wrestler infact held the WWF Intercontinental Championship (1) in the fist reign, and the WWE Intercontinental Championship (2) in the second. It also spots people even considering to readd sucession boxes (note: this is what it was made for in the first place) as the information is clearly (that word again) visable--- Paulley

The information in the first positive can be found in the article on the specific championship. Alternatively, this stuff can be noted in the wrestler's career section as prose if it's relevant enough. As for the second one, rarely if ever are titles renamed and in the case of the WWE ones, the new names retroactively apply to all past title reigns, as is evident on WWE's website. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, NWA Cyberspace has changed names god knows how many times... also as for WWE, they often refer to titles before the name change in interviews and in the Today in Wrestling Hisory segment like "Sgt Slaughter won the WWF Championship...". For encyclopedic reasons alone we should be refering to titles be the right name. -- Paulley

as for the other remarks; i said clearly shows... pros are good but the attention span off most people wont wanna read 900 line collection of week-by-week (as are what im sorry to say most these articles are) to seek out and put together the same information... lol then again i guess its easier with week by week that it would be with pros... in a random comparison, movie stars have filmography list along with the written pros information which shows the name of the movie, when it was made, what character they played and often other titbits of info. --- Paulley 19:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The format works well when a wrestler has only won a few titles, but it looks absurd when dozens upon dozens of meaningless title reigns are listed. McPhail 22:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I think things should be uniform, and not give Joe Smhoe some lengthy title write-up and Ric Flair gets simplified. It's best to just keep it simple. The info is still out on other, easily accessable pages if you need it. Giant onehead 22:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If the lengthier format is what the consensus prefers or the shorter one, then it should be applied to all the articles. Otherwise, to me, it would appear that some type of favoritism or personal point of view is being imposed on the articles. If all the details of all of Ric Flair's title victories are to be listed, for instance, then it should be done on all of them. I've seen a couple of articles that've listed some of the title reigns by including where the wrestler won it, who it was won from, etc. while other title regins are just listed with the number of times won. Some of the titles don't have articles of their own, many of which don't because they no longer exist or haven't existed for decades, and the information is extremely difficult to locate. If all the information on various titles can't be located, and a good deal of it probably can't be, then it just looks unorganized. I've seen others where the number of title reigns are listed and months and years are included as to when a wrestler would lose a title, but nothing else is given. Not where they won it, who it was won from, the exact day it was won, etc. It just looks half-assed that way, even though it's not intended to be. The smaller format is simpler, neater, doesn't take up as much space, and there won't be some titles with details on who won it, where, how long they had etc., and some that don't because nobody knows the info. Odin's Beard 23:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The second choice is more organized and cleaner. The belts will have a link to their respective lineage page. The first choice will get messy. Imagine listing everyone of Brian Christopher beat when they won a combined 25 USWA Southern Titles ..... So were going to have list everyone he beat for the belts and the locations .... come on ... let's get serious (in kayfabe) :-) Kyros 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But thats what happens when people add sucession boxes... they only add boxes for titles, for the most part, in WWE and leave the others. If information is hard to locate then isnt that the point of these articles to research and bring together information thats is almost impossible to find in one place anywhere else.. i understand for some wrestlers it just isnt viable but for some pages esspecially team articles where a entire section is used for a line to say "1-time...." followed by a subsection with a box in it to show the titles sucession, isnt the three line format 2 better to use. its provides more information in less space under one section. You could just remove the sucession boxes but then you are using a whole section for one line and that looks messy---Paulley

Kyros has a good point. I edited the championships and accomplishments section for Scott Levy, AKA Raven, a few days ago and it looked completely ridiculous. Some reigns of various championships were written in the first format and some in the second. Raven won the WWF Hardcore Championship 27 times with each reign listed individually. It's ridiculous. By writing it in the first format, his Hardcore Championship reigns practically needed it's own article. Granted, most wrestlers don't have as many championships to their credit, but I fail to see the true encyclopedic value of the first format. Odin's Beard 00:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Canadian WWE Experience

Although I started the article on WWE Xperience (some time ago, even) for the new Canadian WWE recap show, it should be merged with The WWE Experience as this is the correct title and has a similar format. However, it is presented in a substantially different manner (having Score anchor Ryan Paton host it rather than, say, Steve Romero or Todd Grisham), and would require massive structural changes to the article in question. Your thoughts? kelvSYC 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake move names

What's deal with adding gimmick names to some people's moves when WWE has never named them as such? This should be undone.

(In Kayfabe) Suggestion

I think I have a solution, replace (in kayfabe) with fictional or storyline.

• Example: When he started he used the character of Troy Orndorff and Terry Orndorff, the ficitional cousin of Paul Orndorff Kyros 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot better than (in kayfabe), especially for people who are not familiar with a wrestling term like kayfabe. --Darren Jowalsen 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much the exact same thing, only replacing the wrestling specific term with a generalized term. I still don't see the problem with (kayfabe) and (in kayfabe) when it's necessary. "Undertaker was attacked out of nowhere by his (kayfabe) brother Kane" doesn't disrupt the structure of anything, conveys the fact that he's only his brother in the world of VinceCo, and all is well.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, just make sure to put kayfabe instead of just kayfabe, this way people can find out what kayfabe means if they don't already know. TJ Spyke 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I usually link it the first time, then don't link it two or three times, then link it again, repeat. Having it linked every time can get a bit annoying and redundent, especially if they're one after another in the same section.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have the fictional or storyline idea because many of the articles seem to throw (kayfabe) in at arbitrary points and is rather distracting. Plus, paranthetical comments should be avoided whenever possible, in my book at least.--Darren Jowalsen 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything with ( ) seems out of place. The fictional and storyline mention maintains a harmonious flow. That's right I said harmonious :-). Kyros 02:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marty Wright

I don't know why, but users keep adding him to the TNA roster. I have heard nothing on him signing with TNA. --James Duggan 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They keep adding that he signed to TNA on his page too. I just flagged it with {{fact}} and left it at that because, in all honesty, it's Marty Wright.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont know, i did a clean up on his article and removed the statement but it is sourced someone can re add it --- Paulley

Samoa Joe's winning streak

Listcruft and fancruft, I put a PROD on it but someone might have to nominate it for deletion if that gets removed. TJ Spyke 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Media of wrestling

Is this WikiProject still working? I was just wondering as it might be a good idea to merge this back to WP:PW if there's a lack of activity. --Oakster ^(Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably best - or we could make a Media of Sport in general project. Kingfisherswift 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Images of The Serial Thriller (talk · contribs)

Namely Image:Marufuji as GHC Heavyweight Champion.jpg and Image:Johnny Nitro2.jpg. These are both marked as "I am the creator" but they both look like promo images, though I can not find the source. If anyone can find the source of these please tell me? –– Lid^(Talk) 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Related but has anyone tried to contact Mary-Kate Grosso about using ROH images on wikipedia? ROHCamera1 (talk · contribs) a while back claimed to be Mary-Kate, and ROHCamera1 is Mary-Kate's username on ROH photos, hwoever before I had a chance to ask about the images the user appeared to stop being active. Anyone? –– Lid^(Talk) 04:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The Nitro picture is indeed a promo pic. [4] I'll sort out the tags and set it up for deletion over at Commons. --Oakster ^(Talk) 06:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know where the Marufuji picture came from? –– Lid^(Talk) 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Wrestling event

Something odd is up with the template, several of the lines are highlighted, and any PPV where these are not filled in show up as highlighted as well (see Fall Brawl for example). Does anybody know what is going on? TJ Spyke 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I took 2 screen caps in case you are not seeing it for some reason. [5] [6] TJ Spyke 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks normal in FireFox. [7] [8]-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 00:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TJ uses Internet Explorer. I had similar problems, but through this screenshot method, we were able to see what the problems were. I suggest someone, preferably one of you two :) to go and edit it until both of you recieve the same screen shot likeness. — Moe Epsilon 01:11 October 02 '06

I don't know what the problem is, it was fine a few hours ago and according to the edit history no one has edited it in a few days. TJ Spyke 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also using Internet Explorer and it works fine on my COM. You might not have the current version of IE. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

TJ, I'm thinking this might have to do with something on your computer. If mine and 3bulletproof16's browsers are working fine, and assuming all three of us are using Internet Explorer, and it was working earlier like you said, It's probabaly some kind of setting on your computer. — Moe Epsilon 01:37 October 02 '06

It's working fine now. TJ Spyke 01:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange :\ — Moe Epsilon 01:52 October 02 '06

Proposed Solution to Championships formatting

I am just going to throw this out here as a possible solution to the formatting so let me know what you think:

---

The debate was whether to include it as Format 1:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• 2-time WWE Champion

or as Format 2:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• WWE Championship (1)

Defeated John Cena on January 8, 2006 in Albany, New York, USA.

Lost to John Cena on January 29 2006 in Miami, Florida, USA.

• WWE Championship (2)

Defeated Rob Van Dam on June 11, 2006 in New York, New York, USA.

Lost to John Cena on September 17 2006 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

So why not have the best qualities of both formats with a more different direction. The extra information that comes afterwards in the two extra lines are space consuming (but at the same time helpful), and the information is made elseware, but not directly. So how about this for a Proposed Format 3:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• WWE Championship (2 Reigns)

The part that says 2 Reigns is a direct link to the champions list (with the benefit of not changing readding the information to the wrestlers article. For the non-notable championships that don't have articles, we just don't add a link since theres nothing to link to. This has the simplicity of the first format and the extra information directly linked to format. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 23:49 October 01 '06

Moe I like it, expect for the Reigns ..... just make the number a link Kyros 00:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Like this? — Moe Epsilon 00:26 October 02 '06

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• WWE Championship (2)

I could accept that. TJ Spyke 00:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, after hearing these two endorsements, I'll start a straw poll below. Hopefully this time we might reach a consensus. :) — Moe Epsilon 00:42 October 02 '06

What if there is no list article but the wrestler has won the title more than once? Would the number just not be linked?--Darren Jowalsen 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Until an article or list of some kind is created we should make it normal text. — Moe Epsilon 20:57 October 02 '06

Straw Poll #2

Ok, it's that time again :) But seriously, we must reach a consensus on which formatting we are going to use. Let's let this one end on October 5, 2006 00:00:

The result of this debate was to use The New Format that was proposed. — Moe 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Format 1:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• 2-time WWE Champion

---

1. --
2. --

Format 2:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• WWE Championship (1)

Defeated John Cena on January 8, 2006 in Albany, New York, USA.

Lost to John Cena on January 29 2006 in Miami, Florida, USA.

• WWE Championship (2)

Defeated Rob Van Dam on June 11, 2006 in New York, New York, USA.

Lost to John Cena on September 17 2006 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

---

1. --
2. --

The New Format:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• WWE Championship (2 times)

---

1. — Moe Epsilon 00:42 October 02 '06
2. - TJ Spyke 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 00:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. -- -Umdunno 01:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
5. -- BionicWilliam 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. --Paulley 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC) - oh what the hell... as long as i dont see sucession boxes i dont care
8. --Kyros 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Perfect ... use this. I wouldn't object if you used Times after the number 2, whatever you use, this is better.
9. --Oakster ^(Talk) 18:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC) I'd prefer if it was "X times" or "X reigns", but it wouldn't bother me too much if it didn't. Nice format.

   Comment I changed it to X reign(s) as suggested. It might not be clear to newcomers to Wikipedia that the number links, so we might want to make the link a bit longer. Regards — Moe Epsilon 20:50 October 02 '06

   Make it Times, Reigns .... I don't know Kyros 01:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

   Times it is :) — Moe Epsilon 01:50 October 04 '06

10. -- Chadbryant 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
11. -- Hack-Man 21:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

New format

Just before we go around altering every article can i just ask how you want tag title reigns to look? including incidences of multiple partners and such.

The issue of name changes, i know you guys were not keen on adding seperate ones for title that were under a different name i.e. WWF Championship - WWE Championship... but then you would have to be just as discrimitive toward incidences with the WCW cruiserweight title in WWE. At the moment we say Billy Kidman won two WCW CW reigns in WWE and has two reigns as WWE CW champion, surely if we dont seperate cus of name changes then he is a 4 time WWE CW champion.

Also if its tournament/other would it look like this:

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• King of the Ring (2006)
• Royal Rumble (2006)

And i was wondering about renaming the "Championships and accomplishments" section to simply "Achievements"---Paulley

No, leave it alone. Championships and accomplishments is just fine. RobJ1981 19:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

You're just full of questions Paulley :) I was thinking about it some of things like above and have given it a rough draft so please comment/correct me if it is too hard or complicated etc.

• Tag Team Championships formatting: This would probably require a slighty bigger format than the above proposed, but it would suit us for people with many partners. This example is for Sean Waltman's tag team reigns:

---

• World Wrestling Federation

• WWF Tag Team Championship - with Marty Jannetty (1), Bob Holly (1), and Kane (2)

---

• WWE/WWF issue: This is in effect if I'm not mistaken. While the title was under the control of World Championship Wrestling, it should be added under a WCW section. During the Invasion storyline, if a title went to someone employeed to the WWF/E, it's added under thier WWF/E championships and accomplishments under the WCW name, not the WWF/E. If the title switched when WWF/E made it thier title, it's under the WWF/E championships and accomplishments. Kidman's championships and accomplishments are correct I believe and this new formatting wouldn't change anything.
• Tournaments and Others You hit it dead on Paulley list it like this:

---

• World Wrestling Entertainment

• King of the Ring (2006)
• Royal Rumble (2005)
• Royal Rumble (2006)

---

This format should first be Alphabetical order, then in chronological order for accomplishments that they have achieved twice, like my above example with the Royal Rumble.

• Championships and accomplishments heading I was also thinking that the name was a little long. But that way is more efficant. We could always have a straw poll later on about a heading name, but for now, it should be left alone while these other issues are being discussed.

Any comments or concerns? — Moe Epsilon 20:47 October 02 '06

I've got one, on the "tag" thing, wouldn't it make more sense to list it as:

• World Wrestling Federation

• WWF Tag Team Championship (4 times) - (once with Marty Jannetty , and Bob Holly, twice with Kane)

That keeps the same format [title with page link (reigns with list link)] and still allows for multiple partners.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I forgot about the link. How about:

• World Wrestling Federation

• WWF Tag Team Championship (4 times) - with Marty Jannetty (1), Bob Holly (1), and Kane (2)

The other way with the "once with" and "twice with" can be wordy if theres more than 3 partners (like Kane). Does this work? — Moe Epsilon 04:16 October 03 '06

Fair use images

Wrestling being what wrestilng is there's no shortage of "fair use" promo images of (current, at least) stars around. Can we, as a project, set a policy on the amount of images we use and when? It's understandble, say, when a gimmick changes and there's a notable difference, but do we really need a post match picture every time Edge wins the title?

I'm aware this is picking nits, but it can be annoying to see some articles turned into almost image galleries.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:FUC covers this stuff pretty well, particularly #8, which states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." An image that just shows a wrestler with a belt doesn't really contribute significantly to the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a few seemingly inexperienced/immature editors who insist on inserting a number of fair-use images into various articles. There is another user uploading vast amounts of WWE promotional photographs to Wikipedia without tagging the uploads properly, then adding said images to articles. WP:FUC is pretty clear, and there is a Wikipedia-wide movement to include as little copyrighted material as possible. Given how aggressive WWE's legal department is, it is not too unreasonable to assume that they will eventually object to the inclusion of so many of their copyrighted promotional photographs on Wikipedia. - Chadbryant 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're being a little over aggresive now. Taking out Cena's album cover and the picture of Edge & Christian from the Edge article may be a little much when considering overall article size. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cena's album has its own article. Edge and Christian have their own article as well. - Chadbryant 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which doesn't change the fact that they're both notable on the other pages as well.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that if people want to see the cover of Cena's album or a picture of Edge & Christian together, they can view the articles those images are relevant to. - Chadbryant 02:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede the Cena album cover, but the images are supposed to be allowed when showing the difference between eras of someones career, no? And Edge looks different enough when he was with Christian compared to now to warrant it's inclusion.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The "small number" clause in the WWE photo template comes into play here. - Chadbryant 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think you're over reacting. Two or three images per article, with the size of some of the articles, is a "small number", especially when they're demonstrating something like the change in someone's look or a finish.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ECW chants

One more nitpicky thing, this one about a whole article. There's an ECW chants article. I've maintained it for a while and linked it from a few others, but it feels like cruft. I'm not sure if it should be deleted outright or maybe expanded to a more generic Wrestling chants and include TNA chants and the like. Suggestions?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki it to Wikiquote, it's more appropriate there. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I moved it and just nominated the original for deletion, but the wikiquote page has already been nominated for deletion on wikiquote, and I can't really argue with their reasoning.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much trivia on championship pages

I've marked several for too much trivia. What are people thinking? This isn't an all wrestling wiki. Not every little note or fact is notable or needed. Either put the information in the article somewhere else, or remove. Don't just simply rename trivia as facts (or other similar names), because it's still trivia that way. An enyclopedia isn't about every little non-notable detail or fact, it's about important things. I don't think it matters that X # people won the hardcore title and also won the I.C title, or whatever the case might be. RobJ1981 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many promotions

I mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. There is simply too many wrestling promotions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about notable things, not just every promotion ever. There is many England promotions: all of them simply can't be notable. Someone that knows wrestling and lives in (or around) England needs to go through them, and either prod or afd them. Wrestling in England is no different than wrestling in North America: there is some top feds, some top indy feds, then there is lesser feds that aren't that known. Lesser feds simply shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise a promotion. Here is where you can find the promotions:Category:Professional wrestling promotions. I think Canada promotions should be gone through as well. I'm simply sick of people just adding their personal favorite promotions. Put that type of thing on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well in total there is 18 promotions that are listed from the UK and have articles on Wikipedia. Out of those these ones should be deleted:

• Independent Wrestling Federation (IWF)
• K-Star Wrestling (KSW) - previously removed but someone had simply readded it
• Nitro Pro Wrestling Alliance (NPWA) - and its roster page
• Ulster Championship Wrestling (UCW)

Hope that helps and good luck with the other clean ups -- Paulley

I added prods to all of those pages, so keep an eye on them if you can. AFD if the prod is removed. RobJ1981 04:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i have removed British Championship Wrestling (BCW), that is the major Scottish promotion.. i only added it as a vandal had edited it to reflect a Backyard promotion. --- Paulley

All were deleted except for Nitro Pro Wrestling Alliance, which had the PROD removed without an explanation. I have nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 19:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Formatting for championships and accomplishments set in place

Now that everyone (or everyone how decided to comment) here has given thier input, I will put an example format for everyone to follow, so we can a set format to go by. I urge anyone who sees succession boxes or the original formatting to change it to the new revised formatting I am placing on the main page. If you have any concerns, questions or comments please let me know on my talk page or drop a note here for me. — Moe 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have put the format in practice here, but i do think we need to put the format in use on some high profile wrestler to gauge public opinion -- Paulley

Yeah, I was going to start doing it on Hogan, Sting, I think if we get a couple of bigger names started, people will follow suit. By the way, good work Moe. You really did a good job on pressing the issue and same for the people involved. Kyros 03:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Feels good to get recognition for something good :) — Moe 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are the PWI awards supposed to be listed alphabetically or chronologically? It's not in the format.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 15:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Chronologically. — Moe 03:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Stable infobox

Now that we have an infobox for singles wrestlers and tag teams should we make one for stables?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

well we kinda have been using the tag team one for that.... can i suggest we put a caption section for the tag team/stable picture section as it would be nice to stat who the ppl are in the pic --- Paulley

I actually tried to do that a little earlier, but have no idea how to make it work.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 23:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggested this a while back, I'm for it 03:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to sort out some fields for the tag team infobox later today. --Oakster ^(Talk) 07:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've finished the infobox changes now. The infobox will now show whether the article refers to a tag team or a stable through an indicator in the type field. If you type in "T", "Tag team" will show up on the grey bar while "S" gives out "Stable", otherwise it'll show "Statistics" as it did before (compare Latin American Exchange with Hardy Boyz). A caption section has also been added now. The only thing that needs doing is a rename for the template as Template:Infobox Tag Team is inappropiate now. --Oakster ^(Talk) 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The caption section doesn't seem to be working.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First, Oakster, let me thank you for all the help with this thing. Now that it's got the caption & works for stables I think it's pretty solid. I moved it to Wresting team instead of Tag Team, that name works for stables and tag teams I think.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. And thanks for the complement, I really appreciate it. --Oakster ^(Talk) 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Professional wrestling stubs needs some help

Category:Professional wrestling stubs, there is currently 645 stubs. I've improved some with bits and pieces, but certainly not enough to remove the stub tag. If others can help me out, this category will be alot smaller in a matter of months. Many of the articles (such as the old WWF tv shows on the last page) could easily be merged together. The old WWF shows aren't always notable, so a page of just minor or lesser WWF shows should be made. I don't see much point to an article on a show that just aired recaps. I believe someone was going to do this before, but forgot? Also, it should be noted... many of the stubs could easily be non-notable things. I've found several things that I put prods on. So it's just a matter of going through them. RobJ1981 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• I say we start deleting the Fat. That would be the best place to start. I am going to Be Bold WP:BOLD and start the trimming NegroSuave 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Pro-wrestling

I've added a article assessment and importance rating to the Pro-wrestling template. If you don't like it or don't want it, you can revert it, but I really think it'll help identify what articles are in good condition and what articles need attention. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it could work, but I don't think it's completely necessary. I'm not going to change it at all, until others decide what to do with it. RobJ1981 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I've changed the template image as fair use images shouldn't be used for templates. Since we haven't actually discussed about this, I've hidden the article assessment fields for now except for when the article has a rating (e.g Talk:CM Punk) so that we get a smooth transition whether we agree to this or not. As for article assessment, I'm all for it as long as we have some dedicated people to rate articles or else there's not much use to it. --Oakster ^(Talk) 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've created the categories for stub, start and B class so far. When articles with other classes are made, make sure to add the correct cats. I didn't add them yet, since I haven't seen a good article or above yet for pro wrestling. I will assess as many articles as I can, to help start the assessment process. Hopefully others help out as well, I don't want this to end up being a huge task months from now. RobJ1981 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

The article should have a "Return to WWE" section, not having both of Jeff's runs merged into one. As it is right now it's hard to read if you want to read about Jeff's career from start to present. Paulley said in one of his edit summaries that we don't make a section for each show Christopher Daniels does in ROH. While this is true, these are hardly parallel cases, Daniels is working for TNA and ROH at the same time...thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? Bananas? Anything? If we impliment this as a project-wide policy, then many, many articles are going to be affected and would have to be cleaned up, i.e Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, etc. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

I'm gonn ahave to agree with breaking his WWF/E runs into two sections with TNA between them. Every other wrestling bio goes in chronological order and sections where necessary-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 13:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea but it really shouldnt... cus it seem stupid to divide his career into promotions and then say it needs to be in chronological order... i could understand it being chronological order if it was written with subtitles like (early career, Hardy Boyz, independent, Charamatic Ignigma, Return to WWE) or had no sections, but to put them into promotions then add a Return to WWE because he went back to it is untidy... (most places we got around this because they left when it was WWF and returned when it was WWE) --- Paulley

I like they way its done now, giving the section dates while still having the main promotion names... though i did like the promotion names in italics basicall cus i think it looks nice -- Paulley

Generation Next

I believe I have completely cleaned up the article. It now reads a lot better than it used to, so I removed it from the to-do list.Shot and Botched 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

StarrCade

I was cleaning up the Lex Luger page and trying to link to StarrCade '97 only to find that the main Starrcade page links to a lot of (redirects) to seperate StarrCade pages. Is the article being split and who's working on it if it is? -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to fix them in a few days, right now I am working on other WCW articles (I've already gone through and fixed most WCW PPV's, like Fall Brawl and Souled Out. There is no reason for them to be seperate. TJ Spyke 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, if Survivor Series can be split there's no reason Fall Brawl can't too. It was a pretty important show in it's day.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In addition, the main Starrcade page is long and unwieldy. McPhail 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggested putting the pre-PPV ones(1983-1986) on a seperate page and call it something like "Starrcade (1983-1986)". That will enable the main Starrcade article more than small enough since there won't be another Starrcade to make the page bigger. TJ Spyke 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The pre-PPV events could be put on a single page, but the PPV era Starrcades definitely deserve individual articles. The current situation reflects the huge imbalance where information relating to WCW and WWE is concerned, and cramming the articles on the major WCW PPV into a single page will only exacerbate this situation. McPhail 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to come up with criteria for which shows deserve to be seperated by year, and which ones shouldn't. The TNA pay per views seem to all have their own pages for each year.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Format change

Is it me, or does it seem the main users trying to implament this new format have no clue what there doing. Namely CJLUKE93 and an anon users.. they delete everything and replace with unlinked badly spelled alternatives they are not even adding the "(1 time)" part and yet they cite here for the reasons they make the changes!!!???? i know this is a big task but they aint making it any easier --- Paulley

You know something, I am making this quite a bit easier for everyone. There have been lots of pages that aren't even checked for sucession boxes and I have gotten rid of quite a few. I don't appreciate the insults and I think I am improving things one way or the other. 69.209.105.235 10:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No your not, blanking parts of an article isnt helping... if your going to start a job why dont you finish it? -- Paulley

I'm not blanking anything, it was agreed that the sucession boxes were to be removed. That's the bulk of what I'm doing. I'm doing this out of my own spare time, and I think that should be appreciated. I may not be perfect help, but I am help. And if you don't like my contributions, that's your problem. It takes a long time to get the format and links right, and more than likely, it isn't going to be applied to everyone. There are better things to do, and I think the other editors agree with this to an extent. 69.209.105.235 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact your removing sucession boxes is fine, i dont have a problem with that what so ever... and u are not the whole reason why posted this issue... aside from your sucession box edit you did (when i wrote this) peformed several unsuccesful format edits which i adressed to you in your talk page with no responce... i have been doing this out of my spare time for over 2 years and appriciation has never come with it... also how long does it take to move "1 time" over and add "ship" to the end of a title. --- Paulley 18:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox height and weight

I'm not especially happy with having two values for height and two values for weight. This is leading to many articles having two sets of statistics, which can only cause confusion. In my opinion, the "real" height and weight values, which are virtually always unsourced, fields should be removed and the infobox should contain only the billed statistics. Where the wrestler in question is irrefutably known to be drastically different in height and/or weight from their billed statistics, e.g. Andre the Giant this could be mentioned in the personal life section. Having both fields, however, detracts from the article, particularly when the two figures are both unsourced. McPhail 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While the intention behind adding the fields was probably good (e.g. to stop the incredibly lame height edit wars), their "real" heights and weights normally have no source and are just the product of speculation. We can only go by the billed height and weight. I think those two "real" fields should be deleted and the other fields should be kept as "billed height" and "billed weight" to decrease the chance of them being changed. As per WP:V, verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. 10:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So long as the heights are sourced, there shouldn't be an issue. And a great many are, Andre, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Giant Gonzales, Bill Goldberg etcHalbared 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RAW Family Reunion

I recently noticed this. This was deleted before, so I added a speedy to it. Wikipedia isn't a wrestling guide to every special edtion/season premiere of Raw. Keep an eye on it. This Raw special is still going on, but I doubt an article for it is needed. RobJ1981 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WWE Homecoming

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Homecoming. Also, check out the one for RAW's Family Reunion --James Duggan 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania XIV

Someone reverted an edit of mine with the edit summary WP:PW, so I guess I should have to explain it here:

• In the main event, the article formerly stated that Shawn Michaels was "with Mike Tyson as Special Enforcer" and later that "Tyson turned on Michaels".
• However, a Special Enforcer is a special kind of referee and a referee, as biased as he might supposed to be, is a neutral man and not a valet, manager etc. Yes, Tyson was thought to be siding with the DX at that point but "technically" he was neutral. If he were a valet, he couldn't have counted any pin.
• Because of Tyson's association with the DX, it is correct to say that he turned on Michaels, as his actions were unexpected. Hence, I have retained this in my latest edit.

I hope that statisfies the need for explanation. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Special referees and enforcers are lister as (w/ ) next to the last name. So if Michaels had won it woulh said Michaels defeated Austin (w/Tyson as Enforcer). TJ Spyke 06:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Then this seems like a ambiguity to me and suggest a better format, even if it only means separating the ref from the losing competitor by a semi-colon, dash or whatever. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But the current version seems clear enough for me. But still, the project may consider such problems for the future (there's not always a title to separate ref from loser). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Randy Orton

Our immature/inexperienced editors are once again disrupting the editing process by insisting on including an image taken from a marksite that does not fall under fair-use criteria, while improperly tagging the image taken directly from WWE.com (and properly tagged & cited) that was uploaded to replace it. The same users have also instigated a campaign on Adam Copeland that blatantly violates WP:OWN as well. Other editors (and possibly an admin) need to get involved to deal with this strongarming & vandalism based on pure ignorance. - Chadbryant 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DXRAW 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough of you actting like what you say goes. The picture currently on the randy orton page was ok'ed by an admin he said it was fine. You keep removing templates from your picture and not even doing what the template has asked and because it does not contain the info it doesnt go on the page, your picture was not correctly tagged. The picture currently on there is better and his appearence hasnt changed at all so it isn't need so understand that. Understand this you do not overall an admin and you can't expect everyone to accept your edits. Also for your information i dont edit the edge page so you cant use that one, my edits will show that.Lil crazy thing 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

His look hasn't changed so why change it? It seems pointless to me. --James Duggan 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The image that our resident Randy Orton Fan Club insists on using was not taken directly from WWE.com - it is an image that was taken from one of the numerous marksites that Orton has inspired. The image I replaced it with is properly tagged, and the URL where it can be found on WWE.com is provided. The same can not be said for the other image. - Chadbryant 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

it was taken from wwe.com its not my fault you can't understand that. Your picture was not properly tag which i have been telling you but you also fail to understand that thinking everything you do is right. an admin has even re added the tag that shows even more that you havent tagged it right. Just leave the randy orton page alone, consistant name calling from you is getting pathetic, i am not a fan girl, you know nothing at all about be or anything so before you make statement like that you need to get your information right. Lil crazy thing 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nora Greenwald

is it me or did this page get really long... either someone knows alot about Molly Holly or they copied her book into the article? --- Paulley

It got huge. I tagged a section with {{cleanup-section}} - there's way too much detail there. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The article needs some serious work. The "Behind-the-scenes issues" section in particular is somewhat unnerving. McPhail 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Paula Finlay

Is this article necessary? It doesn't look like there's any assertion of importance here. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it up for deletion. --James Duggan 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RAW specialty shows

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE RAW X Anniversary Show and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen. --James Duggan 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Botch (professional wrestling)

You may want to keep watch on Botch (professional wrestling), since the anons keep on adding "weekly botch reports", as well as adding some non-notable ones. I've added a warning to let the editors know. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the list. See the article's talk page for further discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User: B-Boy2006

This user has been changing the heights and weights on many articles without providing a source, when I reverted the change on Jeff Hardy he/she just changed it back later and still didn't provide a source. I will put a warning on his talk page, if he keeps it up though someone will have to report him. TJ Spyke 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Supercards

What's with the nominations of deletion of articles on supercards, anyways? A lot of WWE's supercards, including tribute shows (Raw is Owen, Tributes to Eddie Guerrero) have been nominated for deletion, as are one-time specials (WWE Homecoming). Next thing you know articles on PPVs will be nominated for deletion. I have not seen this trend for any other wrestling promotion, even though they might go into even greater excesses (TNA PPVs have a separate article for every year, WWE does so only on the four major PPVs, for example). Can someone fill me in to what's going on? kelvSYC 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

None of those are supercards, they were just special edition of RAW. Clash of the Champions and Satuday Night's Main Event are examples of supercards. RaW is Owen was just an episode of RAW dedicated to Owen Hart, same thing with the Eddie tributes. RAW Homecoming was just an episode of RAW celebrating the return to the USA Network. TJ Spyke 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I contend that these are considered supercards in the sense that they are not be regularly scheduled, just like SNME, the rare 3-hour Raw or 90-minute SmackDown!. kelvSYC 05:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Not regularly scheduled? They were episodes of RAW in the RAW timeslot. Of course they were regularly scheduled because RAW is regularly scheduled. James Duggan 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Homecoming and Family Reunion were season premieres, you don't see seperate articles for the CSI season premieres, do you? James Duggan 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Tributes to Eddie Guerrero was nominated I thought? I don't see an AFD on it. Just a heads up, in case someone vandalised and removed the AFD. I looked at the history a little and didn't see an AFD listed. This article isn't worth keeping, per other tribute one-time shows such as Raw is Owen. RobJ1981 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Too many promotions (pt 2)

Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW is just one of many many unnotable american independents that needs to be removed. we have gone through the UK's ones and they have nearly been removed so its time for others to follow suit --- Paulley

TNA PPV's

Why do the TNA PPV's all have a seperate article for every years edition? It's quite annoying. --Mikedk9109 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a downside to having individual articles for each PPV? It allows more direct linking, it prevents pages from becoming long and cluttered and it enables the individual PPV articles to be more detailed. There aren't a huge number of articles, and neither are they being created at a fantastic rate. McPhail 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saito suplex and the backdrop driver

Someone needs to fix one of these two as the current descriptions seem to be the same move. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the descriptions aren't synonymous. Although a notice about how they are similar could be added. (Saito suplex is belly-to-side, while backdrop driver is belly-to-back). The funny bit is that in Judo ura-nage refers to the move described in pro wrestling as a Saito suplex.

↪Lakes (Talk) 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

WWE New Year's Revolution

I don't know why, but for some reason a user nominated this for deletion. I hope that the people in this WikiProject help make sure it stays. TJ Spyke 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats wierd. --Mikedk9109 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This same poster, User:Aaru Bui, has now nominated several other WWE PPV's. TJ Spyke 00:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolls...-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The user has now removed themselves from the members list of WP:PW. I'm assuming this is an attempt/violation of WP:POINT in response to the deletion of RAW "supercards". –– Lid^(Talk) 00:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, something's up with this user. Perhaps doing this as retaliation? -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How does removing myself as a member help to illustrate a point? --Aaru Bui ^DII 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll tell you what you illustrate... WP:TROLL -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is probably in response to all the RAW specials that have been nominated for deletion. James Duggan 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I support the deletion of those RAW specials. --Aaru Bui ^DII 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The importance of results

Personally, the listing of results in articles is useless and not important. That sort of info is basically fan/markcruft. It's something I think we need to talk about, possible putting up to a vote. --James Duggan 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The results are an importent part of the show. It's like having an article on a Super Bowl without the score, and what about all the UFC articles, like UFC 10/UFC 61? Would you want to get rid of the results in those as well? Taking out the results would pretty much turn all the PPV articles into stubs. TJ Spyke 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what else is there to put in a PPV article than results? The attendence and where it was held? --Mikedk9109 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Major storyline developments during the event (with links to the participants whose articles have more detailed information of such), and other trivia (such as the fire at the one TNA ppv).

↪Lakes (Talk) 13:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with including results, but the buyrate / buys of the events are much more important and should always be included. McPhail 13:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the buyrates / buys of the events already included in the infobox? --Mikedk9109 14:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have gotten Glen Jacobs and Chris Benoit semi-protected because of all the vandalism in the past days. (Spoilers, results, wins etc.) It had gotten to a point where no one could handle it. It was quite annoying also. --Mikedk9109 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, the pages that need semi-protection now are World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster. Both are vandalised and edited way too much, everytime a Smackdown is taped on Tuesday... people disrupt the page and post many spoilers. Same goes for TNA's page, after every Impact taping. RobJ1981 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll request when I get the chance. --Mikedk9109 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the 1PW page keeps getting vandalised by someone adding The Ryans as a stable and adding bogus quotes to the page. Oh, also I belive The Ryans have a page on Wiki that is full of bogus stuff as well. Id deal with it, but i dont know how. :( darkie

I'll take a look at it. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What should be done with List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams

Tag teams are more common, that's the majority of the page right now. A rename to just stables would be helpful I suppose, or just a split into 2 pages. But then we need to have a good definition of stable, so every tag team with manager doesn't show up on the page all the time. In my opinion, a stable includes at least 3 people and they all wrestle on a regular basis. So for WWE, Spirit Squad is the only official stable, and possibly the alliance that includes Heyman's security and Holly and Test. Or I wouldn't mind just deleting it altogether, since it's technically original research. This isn't an all wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Money in the Bank

Should the Mr. Money in the Bank really be included in the championships and accomplishments section? --Mikedk9109 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be listed, it's similar to being #1 contender.. which is never listed in championships and accomplishments. The information about the wrestler winning it (in the career section) is enough. RobJ1981 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So, should we delete it from Rob Van Dam and Edge's article? --Mikedk9109 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should be deleted. Hopefully people don't re-add it. RobJ1981 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I deleted it from both their articles. --Mikedk9109 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, hold on now, I disagree. The Money in the Bank is similar to the Royal Rumble in as far as an accomplishment. There's no reason not to list it, especially if they continue to do it and make it an annual thing.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, until they make it an annual thing, it shouldn't be listed. --Mikedk9109 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an annual thing. It's been at Wrestlemania, 2 years in a row, and it's almost safe to say, it will be in 2007 at well. As I stated before: MITB is just like being #1 contender, that's not listed everytime someone is the current #1 contender to a title belt. RobJ1981 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Royal Rumble makes someone #1 contender with special circumstances too. MitB goves them a year, Rumble makes it a WrestleMania math. If we list one we may as well list the other.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, might as well. --Mikedk9109 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Keep it. Just as everyone else said. Plus, they are announced as such, when then come to the ring. ^---SilentRAGE! 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me)

WWE vs. ECW Head to Head

Somebody needs to fix the Infobox for that article, because I have no idea how to do so. And about the infoboxes, why do all of them look so bad now?Shot and Botched 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I can try. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think AFD should be put on that. It was a one-time special, and wasn't that notable in the long run of things (in my opinion at least). If things like Raw X and other related specials get deleted, then WWE vs ECW certainly shouldn't remain. RobJ1981 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)