Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 35

Naming of Articles

I think WP:PW should impose guidlines/ rules about whether to name articles by ring names (eg. Hulk Hogan,The Undertaker or real name eg.Booker Huffman,Chris Parks. If there is already a rule, sorry, but perhaps consider improving it. George bennett 14:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)George bennett

It depends on what they are most known as for instance, people know Mark Calaway mostly as Undertaker, but Edge is widely known as Adam Copeland. Davnel03 16:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we name the articles on a case-by-case basis since there isn't any universal rule of thumb we can use to determine the most common name of a wrestler. Cheers, The Hybrid 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In Edge's case, I thought it was more of a "the word 'edge' has to too many other meanings" thing? And while we could do "Edge (professional wrestler)" he is (as was pointed out) known by other names. Personally, I hate the "(professional wrestler)" tags as part of article names, but understand why they are used in certain cases.
At any rate, George, I think you are probably looking for this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions which states that Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Hope this helps! --Naha|(talk) 20:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

Billy Reil I only know of because he was a JAPW Tag Team Champion. Never head of the rest of them. Mr. C.C. 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this section, so I'll go ahead and list all the articles that I have prod'ed at the moment: Wcw championship challenge, Taylor McKnight, Nick Mayberry, Stephen Earl Maxwell, John E. "Dropkick" Murphy. The last four are non-notable independent wrestlers and the first one is, well, I'm not sure because it's kind of unintelligible. Keep in mind, I only prod articles that I'm almost 100% certain that nobody would have a problem with. Nikki311 17:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Professional Wrestling Portal?

Is there a professional wrestling portal? I don't ever remember reading or seeing one. Just thought I would ask. Mr. C.C. 07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is. Davnel03 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, and I don't think we are ready for one yet either. There is still too much disorganization among this project to start anything new heh :P --Naha|(talk) 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't help but agree with Naha's point. With the amount of disagreements and disorganization in the project (amount of GA's; spoilers; references; notability etc.), and with what's going on currently in wrestling (releases; steroids; suspensions; congress), this certainly isn't the right time for a portal. Davnel03 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why I asked. I have thought of starting one. But will have to work it out in a sandbox or something. Mr. C.C. 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of us who might be behind in the times, what exactly is a pro wrestling portal? - Eggy49er 19:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Portal. A list of all portals on Wikipedia can be found at Portal:List of portals, and for an example of what I consider to be an outstanding portal, see Portal:Scouting. That being said, some day in the future we may want a portal for Professional Wrestling. Right now is not that time. They take a lot of work to keep up properly, and there are many portals on Wikipedia that are severely neglected, see Portal:Baseball (which has actually come a long way since the last time I looked at it, but still has a long way to go as far as being kept up). The reason we do not need a portal now is because the professional wrestling wikiproject is not where it needs to be, not even close. We need to focus on streamlining and organizing this project, settle most if not all major disputes, and come up with a lot more guidelines and policies ..this thing can run like clockwork, I've seen it in other projects, we just have to put the necessary effort into it. At this time, my personal feelings are that ..anyone who wants to spend time on creating a portal, should first (please please please) look into, help figure out ways to, and actually see WP:PW improvement all the way through first. At that point, and at that point only, should thoughts of a portal start circulating. Its a good idea, for sometime in the future, but right now this project needs anyone/everyone passionate about pro wrestling to get this thing where it needs to be. I just feel like we need to focus efforts before we greatly expand them. The people that stick with this project and keep it up, are going to be the same ones maintaining the portal so we need to get them (us) organized first. This project needs to be a well-oiled machine. Again these are just my personal feelings and opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of the project or any other individual. --Naha|(talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It'd be a good idea in the future, but we're clearly not ready yet. — Gwalla | Talk 05:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge!

I have proposed to merge Personas of The Undertaker into The Undertaker. The discussion is here. Thanks - Davnel03 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

John Cena

I have put the article up for Peer review as the article recently failed FA. After the peer review, I hope I can renominate it for FA status. If you which to comment on any concerns you may have with the article, please do so here. Thanks, Davnel03 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Randy Orton failed on hold by a GA re-review made by LaraLove. The re-review is here. Davnel03 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

War to Settle the Score/Brawl to Settle it All

I was wondering if these events are considered noteworthy enough to warrant articles. I was editing some links yesterday, and I was surprised to discover that they don't have articles. GaryColemanFan 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Heavyweight Champions

I've been having this problem with an anonymous user in regards to Adam Pearce's page. I changed his championships and accomplishments to list the actual promotions within the NWA in which he won the Heritage and World Heavyweight Titles. Those being NWA Pro in regards to the Heritage Title, and International Wrestling Association for the NWA World Title. I have noticed that this is the way it is done for many of the former NWA World Champions as well, like Harley Race's page where it lists every NWA World Championship reign separately for each promotion he won the title in. Also of note, the NWA Title changes that took place in WCW, just an example. Is there a policy in regards to how the Championships and Accomplishments should be structured for cases like these? Thanks. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The NWA Title isn't defended in any one promotion anymore. IWA just happened to host the final match (other NWA promotions hosted earlier matches in the tournament). I would just list it under the general NWA name since it is not exclusive to any one promotion right now. TJ Spyke 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this........ I'm asking should the accomplishment be listed for the individual promotion it was won under, or the NWA itself? TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I gave my opinion, the NWA itself. The only time we really listed NWA World Title changes under specific promotions was when it was exclusive to the promotion or really only defended in one (WCW/TNA for example). TJ Spyke 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case here though, I'm talking about the territory days, those being pre-TNA and now with the belt. The belt wasn't exclusive to each territory who got each change, look at Harley Race's page, it lists the every promotion he won the title in separately. I don't know how to be any clearer. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And I'd actually disagree with the way the Harley Race page is done, since the NWA world title is non promotion specific but ruled on by the board of the NWA, it should be listed under "National Wrestling Alliance" both in the territory days and now that it's gone back to being a territory title like it was in the past. so like TJ has already said twice, "list it under the NWA" not the promotion that happens to host the title change. MPJ-DK 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, we can change the Harley Race situation to reflect whatever the decision here is. As for what I think about the situation, I agree with TJ and MPJ-DK. It is a national title currently, not a territory title, and our articles should reflect that. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
With exception of TNA, NWA World Heavyweight Championship was never a one promotion championship. It's just that some promotions get to host an NWA World Heavyweight Championship match more than others. Mr. C.C. 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Still, my question remains, is it the promotion the title was won in, or the promotion that controls the title. Jarrett won the NWA North American Title in the WWF in 1997. There was a time when the NWA World Title was defended exclusively in another company, and that was WCW for a few years. I can go on and on, but what is the criteria for championships and accomplishments here, the promotion where it was won, or the promotion for. Either way, Pearce won the title in IWA(an NWA territory once again), a decision made by the NWA board. You certainly can't say that Jeff Jarrett won the North American Title in the NWA, or that the Headbangers for that matter won the NWA World Tag Titles in the NWA. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should list the title under whichever promotion was controlling it at the time. In other words, we shouldn't go back and change the historical record to match the current situation. In Jarrett's case it would go under WWF, and in Race's case it would go under NWA. As for where the match was held, I think that's incidental. It might merit a mention in the body of the article, but an inter-territory belt should be listed under the overarching body, like the NWA, not what promotion happened to host the bout. - Geoffg 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well put, I totally agree MPJ-DK 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Angle GA

There is now a brand spanking new GA article as Kurt Angle has been passed. Congratulations to all those involved. MPJ-DK 05:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright! Way to go everyone! I had a lot of fun reviewing the article :) --Naha|(talk) 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff! On a side note, Randy Orton is currently on GA Hold. I would be much appreciative if you could help me address the points raised, thanks. Davnel03 11:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution pic

Can anybody get a good copyright notice on this pic: Image:Evolutiontitles.jpg ---SilentRAGE! 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fair use rationale. Hopefully that'll help. Davnel03 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Proposal: NEW Spoiler Templates

Over the past hour or two, I have been designing spoiler templates in my sandbox that go in liine with the vandalism, 3RR, spam templates here on Wikipedia. However, the templates I have designed are only for use with WP:PW. Obviously they would only be used with spoilers, in case somebody goes and adds in a spoiler, that user (or IP in many cases) gets one of these warnings. I wanted to get other peoples opinions on possibly having spoiler templates just for use at WP:PW. I have designed some in my sandbox, located here. If many people like the idea, I will pull it into the mainspace. Also, would this possibly need to be discussed with the whole Wikipedia community on a wider scale? Thanks, and I look forward to the response - Davnel03 18:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. I'd definitely vote "yes" for something like this
  2. The WP:PW would definitely need to vote on this
  3. I am unsure if this needed to be brought up with the larger Wikipedia community or not, I don't know what the policy is there.
  4. (Not to steal Davne's thunder, but) I would like to make a further proposal to create a "voting booth" subpage, where all "polls" (or whatever you want to call them) regarding pro wrestling issues on Wikipedia can be all listed in one neat place. This way, instead of having having to post every poll on this talk page (which sometimes get lost among all the other threads on the page), or go around to individual user talk pages to solicite voting, we all know there is one place we can go check daily to see if there is anything currently up for vote/poll that we need to comment on or vote on. While I'd like to have the actual voting occur on that "voting booth" page (and it probably should be for project-wide votes that do not address a specific article), a simple "notice" on that voting booth page, stating that a vote is occuring on Wrestler01's talk page would be sufficient in cases where the vote/poll only addresses one article. Also, while people sometimes do leave a notice here on this page that a particular article's talk page currently has a vote going on..it doesn't always happen; sometimes I just randomly happen across the poll doing normal wiki work and had I not just happend upon it, I would have never known there was something to vote on/discuss in the first place. Please comment! --Naha|(talk) 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of both of your ideas. The templates would help immensely and a voting booth is indeed a good idea. Gavyn Sykes 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Two things: a) When should I pull them into the mainspace, and b) do I need to tell the wider community possibly at the Administrators noticeboard? Also, if the idea goes ahead, please try and use it even at the slightest spoiler otherwise the chances of the templates being deleted are very high. If we get it into the mainspace by Sunday, it will probably be used there and then (I think SD! + ECW tape on Sunday). Davnel03 20:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You guys know we don't actually have any power, right?«»bd(talk stalk) 20:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why it's a proposal. If the template gets unaminous support from us, then I'll take it to a higher level and get this accepted. Davnel03 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(or try to) :) --Naha|(talk) 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
They won't work, I had create one awhile ago and it got deleted while I was blocked (the main excuse was that they said a wikiproject doesn't have the authority to overwrite Wikipedia guidelines. This pissed me off because the Dragon Ball Z Wikiproject is allowed to ignore the policy of using the most common English names and instead using the Japanese names of characters). TJ Spyke 23:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to misrepresent what Hybrid said in a conversation that was just archived earlier today, so please read this discussion yourself. The relevant part starts with Hybrid's third post on the thread ..."Here's one important thing that I left out of my withdrawn proposal:..." (But keep reading from that point till the end of the conversation). Given what he said there, (and assuming I understand correctly), if we had a Consensus, against using spoilers on the grounds that they hinder the ability of the community to improve articles by driving members of it away for all but Saturday-Monday, then that would be perfectly acceptable within Wikipedia's policies to remove them from articles. And at that point, if it was against policy to add spoilers, then I don't see how it would be against policy to issue warnings (using the proposed templates or something similar) for infractions of the policy. Again, I am getting this information from another conversation, and it was said by someone else (Hybrid). It is not my intention to misrepresent what he or anyone else said, and I don't think I'm doing so but there is always a chance I misunderstood something. --Naha|(talk) 23:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Time for me to chime in. I love your templates, but I'm afraid that these templates need some additions and modifications for them to have a chance at working. As Bdve and TJ mentioned before, a project has no official power to declare what is and is not vandalism. When we remove spoilers, we are simply enforcing a consensus. Due to this, those that insert spoilers into an article are not committing vandalism; rather, they are simply violating a community decision. While they can be blocked for violating this decision, certain benchmarks must be met.

  1. They must be shown the decision. This can be accomplished by cutting and pasting the conversation we had above, moving it to a project subpage, and then linking to it in all of the templates.
  2. We will have to discuss the issue again periodically, perhaps quarterly, to make sure the consensus stays current. WP:CONSENSUS makes a point of saying that a consensus can change, so we must make sure to keep the discussion on the project page recent.
  3. We cannot threaten to block them. What we can do is tell them that we will bring this issue to the attention of the appropriate noticeboard (ANI) so the admins can decide. Like I said, this isn't vandalism, so the AIV board won't work.

Now, even with these benchmarks met, there is no guarantee of a block. Things such as this are up to admin discretion, and all admins are different. If the admins refused to block, which is very likely, then we would have to take this to WP:RFC and attain the community's opinion on the matter. Also, these templates cannot be kept in the main-template space. They would have to be kept as project subpages, and then transcluded as templates. However, I'm feeling some bad vibes from this. This seems like the type of thing that could cause an Arb Com case. However, if the consensus is to create templates for the insertion of spoilers, then I would be more than willing to help you write them. And that is what the poll needs to be: do we want templates for this, or not? The ones currently used as examples won't work, but we could write some new ones. For the record, I am neutral as to whether or not we create templates for this, leaning to oppose. Peace, The Hybrid 00:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

When you say "templates for the insertion of spoilers" do you mean templates to put in the wikipedia articles stating there is a spoiler somewhere in the article, or templates to put on user talk pages to ask them if the would please comply to the project consensus against spoilers (if we ever came to that consensus)? As I have already stated a few times, I am completely against the insertion of spoiler tags into pro-wrestling related articles because thats like sending up a red flag saying (most commonly) "look, there was a title change here!!!!!" which defeats the purpose of the tags to begin with. --Naha|(talk) 01:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The user warning templates are what I was referring to. The Hybrid 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sweet. --Naha|(talk) 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I give a HELL YES to this, finally someone comes up with something that will avoid spoilers. THANK YOU. If you agree with this give me a HELL YEAH--TrUcO9311 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to set up the vote, I'll be happy to cast mine. Nikki311 01:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to give me a little time, I'll set up the voting page that I was talking about (if there are no objects to that) and we can use this dicussion as the first vote to grace that page. --Naha|(talk) 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Or not ..Hybrid beat me with his below poll :P --Naha|(talk) 02:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
;) sorry The Hybrid 02:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

We need to set up a standard time frame for all polls. It needs to be long enough to make sure enough people have time to see it and vote, but not overly long either. 5 days? 1 week? Other thoughts? Do we need a poll to decide on polls? :P --Naha|(talk) 02:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A poll sounds like a good idea to me. We need to set some sort of standard for the length of our polls. The variance poll length has shown in the past is unacceptable, and we have a responsibility to put an end to it. ;) All joking aside, the typical length is 5 days, and if the result after that time is no consensus we'll generally let it go the full week before declaring it closed and maintaining the status quo. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good :) --Naha|(talk) 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to ask the reasoning behind people's votes? Specifically "oppose" votes? (not just here but on any poll). On this particular poll, I have already stated my current reasoning behind my own vote on more than one occassion. While I do have, what I consider to be very firm beliefs on a lot of things, I always consider other opinions and viewpoints, and have even been known on occassion to change my mind about certain issues if I believe a particular point is well founded and/or has a strong argument or good point. I'd wager that there are others who feel this way too. I won't be offended either way and hope I don't offend anyone else by asking this. --Naha|(talk) 02:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. I changed the bolded header of this section to discussion in light of this. Cheers, The Hybrid 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok then I am offically asking people to comment on the reasoning behind their votes if they don't mind doing so. --Naha|(talk) 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I personally think this is a very good idea, IF it can be pulled off correctly in a way that won't be a waste of time. Based on the above discussion, it would seem to be a big "if" but I'm willing to support it. If this goes through, it should generally make life easier for the project. Gavyn Sykes 02:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm neutral because I think that this has a 50/50 shot at working. If we follow everything that we need to follow in the creation of the templates, are careful in explaining our reasoning at ANI when that time finally comes, and show respect and open minds to the admin's thoughts on the matter, then we have a shot at the templates being respected as a legitimate way of getting across a consensus to new users. I lean towards oppose because if someone who doesn't know how to talk to the admins on their territory is the first one to report a user after using these templates, and doesn't ask the project for help, then it could push this project even more into the doghouse than it is currently. It would paint this as a vigilante project claiming ownership over its articles, and as a project telling the admins to go, well, you know. However, I can vote neutral in good conscience because several users who are members of this project watch the noticeboards, myself included, and I'm sure that the scenario just described won't take place without someone noticing before it's too late. The Hybrid 02:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to be online for several hours, but I really don't mind if anyone wishes to make adjustments to the templates I made (located in my sandbox). Davnel03 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by long-time pro-spoiler-tag debater

Recent history of Wikipedia spoiler tags In May 2007, a group of about six editors including famous admins, and led by anti-spoiler-tag philosopher and professional academic Phil Sandifer, used the automated editing tool AWB to remove about 45,000 spoiler tags from Wikipedia articles. This action, which I have described as a revolutionary coup, was unpopular among about 40+% of Wikipedia editors (by poll) and perhaps a million fiction fans in the external web (estimated by my Google test).
This situation has led to a contentious three month debate at Talk:Spoiler. After a million-some bytes of debate, there is no consensus and no compromise, but there is ownership by majoritarian force over the Wikiguide text. The text is strongly biased against spoiler tag use. What little use it does allow tends to be crushed in practice by vigil-antis who search daily for spoiler tags and send "chilling squads" (my term) to suppress any local consensus which dares to insert them.
Meanwhile, some of the maybe-million spoiler-tag supporters on the outside (maybe or maybe not a resistance movement) are reinserting about five homemade tags per day via IP edits.
I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I haven't seen noticeable opposition among pro-taggers to my position that use/not-use of spoiler tags, deciding what statements are spoilers, and placement of tags, should all be decided by the "local consensus art jury", which just means the usual consensus decisions as applied to subjective issues like what looks good and what doesn't. The precedent for this is that the opera project decided that opera stories shouldn't have spoiler tags even though spoilers may be present in the full plot summaries. Bionicle toys-with-stories editor(s) apparently do want spoiler tags.
Spoiler tag template proposals at WikiProject Professional wrestling [this section rewritten] You may have an internal problem with your 'please don't insert spoilers' template unless you make it clear that the unwanted spoilers are those which are unverified, such as unofficial reporting from blogs. On the other hand, officially verified spoilers are proper to add to the article by anyone - though spoiler notice tags may be appropriate to accompany them. Depending on what percentage of the added spoilers are verified vs. unverified, it suggests you are struggling with at least some external readers who disagree with you, or maybe just disagree with Wikipedia reliable source verification policy.
I don't know much about pro wrestling, but what I have heard about the fans/readers tells me you don't want to get into a perpetual fight with them - which they may be "spoiling for".
In the case of the verified spoilers, you could experiment with the Hidable Spoiler Tag Compromise, which is a win-win solution. The idea is that the spoiler notice tags are hidden by default using .css, and a clickable template at the top gives instructions for turning them on. If this template is on every page, there will be no visual clue as to which pages actually have spoiler tags and thus avoid the red flag of "look, there was a title change here!!!!!".
The template you are currently working on could be made to read, "Please don't insert any visible spoiler tags for verified spoilers - click here for instructions on inserting or showing hidden tags." And if they do insert visible tags, just make them properly hidden.
While the hidable spoiler tag approach is experimental and is certain to have bugs, it has the philosophical advantage of reducing the pro wrestling editors "vandalism" battle with readers that they want to serve, at least in the case of the verified spoilers and spoiler notice tags. I hope this helps. Milo 09:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Re-edited to fix incorrect professional title, change "spoilers" to my originally intended "spoiler tags", and also make it clear the opera project consenses that opera stories should have spoilers. Rewrote the second section to make it clearer that hidable spoiler tags are suitable for verified spoilers, since unverified spoilers should be removed per WP:V.
Milo, thank you for your comments and for recapping the history of spoiler tags for us. I actually do remember when all across Wikipedia all of a sudden all the spoiler tags were gone for films and such, but I had no idea until now how or why it had happened. I would, at the very least, be up for giving your proposed system a trial run. If it worked out, it has the potential to solve at least some of our headaches. However, will the spoilers still be visible when the page is in "edit view"? If so, on second thought, it might not be as helpful as I first thought. Hmm --Naha|(talk) 14:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe not as helpful as I thought either. I see that almost all the visiting editors including me have gotten confused on one point or another about the local proposal. I've rewritten my 09:55 post, but I may still not fully understand your situation.
To the best of my knowledge, anything hidden by .css will be visible in edit view. By current Wikiguide, spoilers themselves should not be hidden, which is the part of Phil Sandifer's good article writing standards manifesto that many or all on both sides agree with. That's the essence of the Hidable Spoiler Tag Compromise, write the best possible article with (verified) spoilers, then place spoiler tags hidden by default. Only those who don't want to be spoilered then turn on the tags.
You can still try hidable spoiler tags for verified spoilers, but if I understand the situation (not sure), I think you will also need the 'please don't add unverified spoilers' template as well. This can all be packaged in a cleverly written single template. Milo 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to get my head around this.

  • Davnel03 observes that often "spoilers" of some kind are added to wrestling articles.
  • Davnel03 compares the adding of such information to Wikipedia to gross policy violations such as Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:vandalism and so on, and then he devises warning templates to be placed on people's talk pages by people who don't like reading the "spoilers".
  • Davnel03 then holds a poll.

No, no no.

If by "spoiler" above you mean "the result of a wrestling match described in Wikipedia, said result being appropriately verified and placed in its correct context (ie close to the description of the wrestling match or the career of one of the participants)" then you must absolutely not remove such information from Wikipedia. Doing so repeatedly may result in sanctioning.

And you must not misrepresent your opinion or the opinions of a few people on a wikiproject as actionable Wikipedia policy. Repeatedly placing warnings of that kind on people's talk pages will get you into trouble. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Indeed. I strongly urge that those proposing this - deliberately excluding verifiable information from an encyclopedia (remember, that word means it covers everything in full detail) - to review the archives of Wikipedia talk:Spoiler. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and everything following from that applies to professional wrestling articles as well as for any other articles on entertainment. Excluding complete verifiable information is not something a wikiproject can agree amongst itself to do at all, let alone enforce - David Gerard 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Tony, just reading your response I can't help but think you didn't read everything that has been said here. I could be completely wrong and if so I apologize, but we are not try to make a "policy" here. Have you read Hybrid's comments? --Naha|(talk) 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
David, often times there is no reliable source to verify this type of information until the company itself airs its programming, because until then (in many cases), its just various fan sites making the claims, which can not always be called "reliable", so in addition to it being a spoiler, its simply not verifiable yet anyway. --Naha|(talk) 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Hang on a sec, hang on sec. At the Opera Project we decided that we didn't like {{spoiler}}, because it's ugly and silly. The plot summaries on opera articles are full, complete, and unabridged: we have NEVER even considered providing less that full information. All articles on operas that provide the plot provide the full plot, and if an article on an opera does not provide the plot, that's simply because no one's got around to writing it yet. Moreschi Talk 15:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my writing error, I did intend to state that the opera project consensed to not use spoiler tags, yet I wrote "spoilers" instead of "spoiler tags". I've fixed it, and added the clarity that "opera stories shouldn't have spoiler tags even though spoilers may be present in the full plot summaries." Milo 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Naha, it's always okay to remove unverifiable or inadequately verified information, so if it's just somebody who was at a match or read something on a blog then that can always be removed. If on the other hand the information is well verified but the program just doesn't happen to have aired yet, then we draw the line and say "removing that information is wrong." --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't say I set up the poll when I clearly did not. Davnel03 16:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I got that wrong. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If even the spoilers drive away editors as mentioned above? I would think keeping editors would be in the best interest of the Encyclopedia --Naha|(talk) 18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that these polls are not really all that meaningful. Simply put, to exclude relevant, verifiable information from articles would fly in the face of a lot of policies, and a WikiProject does not have the authority to do so. Any admin blocking for this would swiftly find themselves in front of the arbcom, and they would lose. At best this is a vote on whether you're going to commit wiki-suicide.

Also, I struck out the description of me as professor - hope nobody minds, but I'm not, and I'd hate anyone to think I'm misrepresenting my credentials, since I am going to be on the job market before too long. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Phil, your user page mentions "professional academic" and "teach". It didn't occur to me that my respectful assumption could become too close to a libel per quod, so yours was an appropriate edit in my posting space. I've changed it to read "and professional academic".
The Chronicle of Higher Education has been telling me for years that professors are an endangered species. My hypothesis is that the whole category of teaching academics are being proletarianized. Good luck in your job search - they say you'll need it. Milo 01:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


If you read what I have already said, I said that if this gets accepted here (which at the moment could swift either way), I would then take it to a higher power. Davnel03 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see :-) Yep. If it's unverifiable crap, it's unverifiable crap, yeah. Kill it. But even then you won't have much luck defining it as "vandalism." Mostly it's just overenthusiasm and not getting it. Which is INFURIATING ... but not "vandalism" as such - David Gerard 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I've just been ignored. If I come across harshly, I apologize, but I am legitimately frustrated by the lack of understanding of what I've said. I repeat once again, there is a consensus, as in consensus the policy, saying that spoilers are not allowed because they damage the encyclopedia. They do so by causing many users to stay away all week but Friday through Tuesday. This severely damages our ability to maintain the articles. Therefore, we decided that banning them is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. This is perfectly' acceptable within Wikipedia's policies, indisputably so, because it keeps the best interest of the encyclopedia in mind, not the personal preferences of the users editing those articles. This is not a poll about banning spoilers; we've already done that. This is a poll about whether or not we use templates or personal messages to inform users of that already established consensus. The Hybrid 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but didn't want to repeat the information for the umpteenth time for fear of being harassed about it. I don't want to sound rude either but really seems like people are replying and making judgements about this without reading everything thats been said, and understanding what is actually going on here. I can only gather this by the responses, some of which have very little or nothing to do with anything. I am as well frustrated. --Naha|(talk) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have the feeling that I will be cutting and pasting that paragraph to the bottom of this discussion shortly, as well. I'm not very optimistic that I will actually get a reply that tries to refute what I've said. Lid's suggestion was a terrible one, I'm afraid. The Hybrid 22:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. No matter how many warnings or "bans" we issue, spoilers are going to appear in the articles and there's no way around it. It'll appear in the edit description. The article will have numerous edits so you know something important happened with the person. The championship articles will likewise receive numerous edits so you know that title changed. Basically, if you want to edit at wikipedia, you'll have to accept the fact that your Friday viewing experience will be spoiled. Mshake3 22:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

We have to try. Anything is better than the situation we had before. The Hybrid 22:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We've already stated numerous times that we understand and accept spoilers will still happen. That is not up for debate. This is an attempt to try to reduce their occurance so that there is a much greater chance spoilers will not be seen, the less frustrated the editors are, the less chance they will leave Wikipedia. --Naha|(talk) 22:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong that a WikiProject can decide to exclude verifiable and relevant information. Phil Sandifer 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If the insertion of said verifiable and relevant information before a certain time causes disruption and damages the encyclopedia more than it helps it, then yes, a group of Wikipedians can choose to exclude it. The Hybrid 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Phil Sandifer 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Editors voluntarily avoiding editing Wikipedia for part of the week isn't disruptive. They're entitled to absent themselves temporarily or indefinitely as they see fit. They're not entitled to remove, or get other people to remove, verified relevant information from Wikipedia articles. If they persistently do so they may find themselves, in extreme cases, involuntarily absented from Wikipedia, at least as far as ability to edit goes. --Tony Sidaway 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There's room for compromise on compartmentalizing the most recent info to limit spoiling.
This is dynamic weekly sports reporting, not a fixed release movie review. The local editors are more likely than occasional editors to know what "the best written article" looks like. Milo 01:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm open to your idea of invisible spoilers, personally. In fact, I think that I have an idea to keep anyone from knowing which articles currently contain the spoilers; however, I don't want to discuss this right now. I need to take a wikibreak for a couple of hours, as I'm fuming. I appreciate the respect that you personally have shown use here, Milo, and if others were more like you, then I believe that this would already be over. If others want to discuss a compromise with you, then of course they are free to. I'll be back on tomorrow, and if a compromise hasn't been reached by then I will tell you my idea. Peace, The Hybrid 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Pardon, that's a misunderstanding. The current Wikiguide, which I don't agree with, prohibits hiding the spoilers themselves. The original compromise proposal is to hide the spoiler notice tags.
However, I'm now suggesting a different compromise, to compartmentalize the recent spoilers, say in a "Pre-broadcast information" box at the bottom. After the recent information is seen on TV, that info can be moved elsewhere into the article.
I'm a pro-tagger, part of the 40+% minority of editors. IIRC, all of the other visiting editors who posted are anti-taggers, who for various reasons think readers who don't want to be spoiled should not read Wikipedia.
I need to take a break, too. Milo 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for any special kind of tagging policy, just use normal spoiler tags over the spoilers.--Nydas(Talk) 08:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That idea has been discussed just a week ago in this project, and although I thought it would be OK, it became a no consensus. The problem is is that spoilers are being revealed before they have aired on TV, and has also not been revealed on the official website. Anyway, this discussion is about the templates I suggestion, and now, it seems to of spiralled out of control, and I at this moment, can't see a logical conclusion that will satisfy everybody, both members of WP:PW and the outer community. BTW, the tags are for warnings on user pages if they insert spoilers into wrestling articles (proposed tags are here. After all, if they put spoilers in articles, yet they don't get warned about it, then what is it, are we encouraging them to do it again? Yes, at the moment, we are. Because, we are not warning them! If they violate and violate and violate the warnings they get, a block is enforced for violating WP:PW's policy on spoilers. Davnel03 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's horribly authoritarian, like the anti-spoiler crusade in reverse.--Nydas(Talk) 08:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Neither side is going to win this dispute, so all we can do is compromise. It's best to just let both original proposals die, and come together to work on new ones. The Hybrid 08:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea for a compromise. As part of the project manual of style, we insert hide/show boxes into all of the biography articles under the project's scope similar to the ones on my user page. This would contain any spoilers, and since it's in all of them it wouldn't reveal any title change by being there. The spoiler tags could be placed above and below the box, or we could simply title the box Spoilers and not deal with the tags. When show is clicked, it would reveal a subpage of the article, so someone could edit the spoiler section without it going into the history of the main article. That way, those who want to avoid spoilers simply have to keep the article subpages off of their watchlist, and not click show. Thoughts? The Hybrid 08:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of giving editors warnings for acting in good faith simply because you do not want to know about something ahead of time. - Deep Shadow 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the poll, and warning was a bad choice of word for what we were proposing anyway. However, this discussion isn't even about that anymore. All hell has broken loose, and now we're trying to build a dam to stop the flow of hellfire. This has degenerated into a dispute about spoiler policy, and neither side will be able to win. Therefore, all we can do now is compromise, and I would appreciate you taking a look at my proposal, if you would like to. Cheers, The Hybrid 09:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how that would stop IPs or other editors from adding spoilers to the main article in the prose. And I wasn't voting with my earlier comment, I was giving an opinion. I never vote. - Deep Shadow 09:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It won't, that's why it's a compromise. The Hybrid 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no room for compromise. Wikipedia editors must not remove or conceal relevant, verifiable, well-sourced information from Wikipedia articles. This is longstanding Wikipedia policy and follows from the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Fan sites are thataway --> --Tony Sidaway 09:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
So no room for compromise. So spoilers stay in wrestling related articles and effictively drive users away from something they like doing for several days a week? The IWC (internet wrestling community) reveal spoilers every week, but because it hasn't been announced by the official company it is a spoiler. Professional wrestling spoilers are different to other kinds of spoilers. Davnel03 09:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No, they aren't. Television spoilers aren't announced on the official websites either. –– Lid(Talk) 09:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Percisely. If they aren't on the offical website, then just why should they be on Wikipedia? (obviously cannot apply for house show rule as discussed a few conversation above). Davnel03 10:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
(3 edit conflicts) There is room for compromise; you never proved my original argument wrong. I simply chose not to correct you in favor of trying to end the dispute, but since you are so persistent I will oblige your desire to dispute some more. Saying that editors were leaving of their own free will is like saying that John McCain chose to sign the anti-American document while he was a POW in Vietnam. Technically it's true, but he was being, shall we say, encouraged to do so. This is a similar situation, albeit without the permanent injuries. Technically editors are leaving of their own free will, but they are being put into a situation where they feel like they have no other recourse. This is a situation that must be changed. The level of vandalism to wrestling articles has increased significantly ever since the Benoit-murders and the Congressional investigation began. Keep in mind that before that, a regular amount of vandalism to these articles in one day would have meant semi-protection for a non-wrestling article. We literally need all of the editors that we can get watching these articles. We are overwhelmed. That is why there is room for compromise; compromise is the only way to keep these articles from being damaged. The Hybrid 09:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing vandalism with information you dislike. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, which states "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Picaroon (t) 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Section break

20 minutes with no response. I'm satisfied. So, if people could comment on my current proposal for a compromise, then that would be great. Once again, my proposal is:

  • As part of the project manual of style, we insert hide/show boxes into all of the biography articles under the project's scope similar to the ones on my user page. This would contain any spoilers, and since it's in all of them it wouldn't reveal any title change by being there. The spoiler tags could be placed above and below the box, or we could simply title the box Spoilers and not deal with the tags. When show is clicked, it would reveal a subpage of the article, so someone could edit the spoiler section without it going into the history of the main article. That way, those who want to avoid spoilers simply have to keep the article subpages off of their watchlist, and not click show.

Cheers, The Hybrid 10:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Those who want to avoid spoilers don't read articles that contain spoilers. Picaroon (t) 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
They have no way of knowing which articles those are. That's why that won't work. The Hybrid 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Articles on wrestling can be expected to contain the details of the event(s) in question. Not including the (verifiable) details is a dereliction of the goals of the encyclopedia, one of which is to provide information. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explains the threshold for inclusion. If information is verified with reliable sources, and its relevance to the article can be established, hiding it in a box is not acceptable. As per the Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains spoilers." Picaroon (t) 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about a large portion of the people who edit, patrol, and expand these pages leaving as a result of information being inserted a couple of days before the event has taken place. Surely we can wait a few days to insert the information to prevent that from happening. We aren't leaving it out entirely, just postponing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Without the editors, there is no encyclopedia, and without enough editors, there is no good encyclopedia. That is perfectly acceptable, The Hybrid 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Besides, if you read over my compromise, I've found a way to keep the spoilers while not driving these people away. The Hybrid 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you're proposing putting the info on a separate page? Sorry, but absolutely not. Splitting edit histories on purpose is not a solution, it is an additional problem. I suppose you expect admins to come along and perform history merges for you once the shows have been aired? If you don't want to see the info, de-watch the articles. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a problem at all. I don't propose history merges; I propose cutting the information, pasting it into the article, and giving credit to the original poster in the edit summary so that they receive attribution. There is no policy against this. The Hybrid 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I could keep debating you, and expose more and more holes (how do people know to edit the subpage instead of the article? who is going to monitor the subpage for vandalism? which namespace is the subpage going to be in, since it can't be in article space?) in this well-intentioned but completely impractical proposal, but I'm not going to. Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it contains spoilers, and it is not censored. Just because there is no policy against screwing up the edit history for the sake of users who don't understand the preceding three facts does not mean it is going to be done. Period. Picaroon (t) 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I know how to address all of the concerns that you just pointed out, and I am currently writing up my idea in a completely developed way to post in a new section on this talk page. Look at it when I'm finished. The Hybrid 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No hide-show boxes wrapped around article text, please. The template to create such boxes, Template:Hidden, may completely hide the hidden text when a reader's browser does not support JavaScript, or when a reader has disabled JavaScript in his or her browser. (For an example, view the navigation boxes of Art Modell with and without JavaScript.) Doing so is terrible in terms of usability and is a disservice to the readers. --Iamunknown 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Opportunity for negotiation toward compromise

Please ignore the statement "There is no room for compromise" as any kind of generalization. In general, there is always room for compromise.

I don't know the editors here, nor any details of the article or editing history. However, I know a lot about the Wikiguide-level struggle over spoiler and spoiler notice tag philosophy. I'd like to add a philosophical context with an opportunity for negotiation, since it may have some useful effect on the amount and type of disagreements here. Bear with me for some background paragraphs and then I'll make my point.

If it's not something that editors here have studied or observed, the philosophy of an organizational system controls much, though not all, of its detail behavior. A philosophy that centrally micromanages every detail is known as fascist, or operates by control-freakery in slang terms. A philosophy that centrally manages nothing is known as anarchist, or "wild west" in slang. Either extreme is rarely seen.

Good systems try to strike a balance between central control (top-down pyramid hierarchy) to avoid anarchy, and peripheral control (bottom-up grassroots democracy) to avoid fascism.
Hierarchies try to hold on to the past and fail to survive by adapting poorly to changing conditions. Anarchies want to dismantle past controls but fail to survive by institutional inability to collectively implement the good strategies or collectively avoid mistakes of the past.
Social evolution selects balanced (= good) organizational systems for survival, because balanced systems are usually the fittest. (Consider the analogy that the wrestler in nearly perfect physical condition is also in a state of nearly perfect physical and mental balance.) By understanding social evolution, individuals (= Wikipedia wrestling editors) can enhance the possibility that their organization will survive by choosing balanced viewpoints, compromises, and accommodations for diverse populations. There is strength in diversity, because the environment is always changing. Skills, abilities, and other characteristics that may not be useful in the current environment, may become vital for survival in the next environment.

The point of writing this is to address The Hybrid's remark, "All hell has broken loose, and now we're trying to build a dam to stop the flow of hellfire." If this significantly true after discounting some degree of hyperbole, it suggests that the professional wrestling or the WikiProject environments are changing. If I correctly understand him, there is or may be a threat to the survival of usefulness of the professional wrestling articles.

Remember that I don't know what's 'really' going on. I could analyze it in detail, but it's not my gig. So I'll just remark on what I read from you folks doing the debate in the context of social evolution survival and spoiler/spoiler notice tag philosophy.

I hear (meaning the message I get from the actual words) The Hybrid saying there's a crisis. Picaroon isn't denying there's a crisis, but I think he's saying there's Wikiguides to be followed, and if WPPW implements the compromise suggested by The Hybrid, it would mean accommodating a class of users of which Picaroon doesn't approve (Picaroon (22:31): "users who don't understand the preceding three facts").

Many wrestling fans are union members, or at least are familiar with labor negotiations and collective bargaining. Negotiating and bargaining in good faith is the internationally sanctioned method of reaching a satisfactory compromise which allows organizations to survive and prosper. If editors who disagree are willing to negotiate, the chances of WPPW's usefulness survival will be improved.
Negotiating for wages and benefits is somewhat different than negotiating among differing organizational philosophies. A way to approach the latter is to find out if the negotiating parties can agree on an ideal state for the foreseeable future. It turns out that an ideal future is easier to agree on than the practical present. An ideal future is not possible to achieve, partly because it's a moving target. However, if parties can agree on what that ideal future is during any particular negotiating period (classically when a contract expires), it creates a unity of purpose among parties with quite different ideas about how to operate in the practical present.
When there is agreement on an ideal, even a moving one, people work together to achieve that ideal, and many otherwise intractable practical disagreements fall by the wayside. A simple example of this concept is that neighbors who don't ordinarily get along well will unite to repel an invasion of their neighborhood by gangs, because their ideal is a gang-free neighborhood.

I suggest for an opening negotiation, it's very important to find out whether Picaroon primarily objects to doing things differently, or whether he primarily objects to that certain class of users. Each of those possibilities calls for a differing negotiating strategy. Milo 06:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to comment on this situation. Instead, a member involved in this situation, The Hybrid has decided to retire from Wikipedia, partially because of this argument. Davnel03 08:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
He's retired again? He'll likely be back. He retired once before and came back about two months later. In any case, this is very unfortunate. In my opinion, he was one of the keystones of the project. It may have to do with the family crisis he mentioned though.

In any case, I agree that negotiations need to happen. I appreciate your mediator skills, Milo as well as the good faith you've shown towards the members of this project (rather rare these days). Gavyn Sykes 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In light of recent events I am ending my participantion in this discussion. I would like to thank everyone to tried to help regardless of their stance or in some cases, misinformation or misrepresentation. I am trying very hard to believe that in everyone's own way, they are attempting to help build a better encyclopedia and that is their only agenda. --Naha|(talk) 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting booth

Per the previous discussions about this higher up on the page, I've gone ahead and done this. Please let me know what you think. I'm sure it could be improved, so please make suggestions also. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's what we'll try

I'm just going to be bold and hope this works. We are going to insert a hide/show box into all BLP's under the project scope. When show is clicked, it will reveal an article subpage containing verified spoilers if there are any. Those who don't want to see the spoilers simply have to keep the subpages off of their watchlist, and not click show. This should dramatically shrink the problem spoilers are causing while addressing the concerns over removing verified information. When the show airs, the spoilers can be cut and pasted into the main article with credit being given to the original poster of the information in the edit summary. This addresses the concern that history merges will need to be performed, and also gives attribution to the original poster. We keep these boxes which will look like this...

...in all of the BLPs under this project's scope. That way the box just being there doesn't create concern. The subpage will contain a subsection heading (three = signs) or sub-subsection heading (4 = signs), depending on the article, which will be titled spoilers. That way anyone coming along who wants to insert spoilers has an edit button to click when they decide to. Those here who don't care whether or not the shows get spoiled for them, I fit into that category, will be the ones to monitor the subpages for vandalism. There are enough of us to handle this task effectively and efficiently. Since pages in article space have the subpage function disabled, we will create the spoiler subpages in project subspace. One naming convention that we could use would be to simply title the subpages Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/ARTICLETITLEspoilers. I believe this to be the easiest one. The way to go about inserting these boxes into articles would be to copy the code for the box, and then copy simply paste the code into the articles. I have used PAGENAME in the code so all that we have to do is copy the code, and paste it without any modifications necessary. After every article has a box, we can go back to the articles and use the redlinks to create the subpage. I'm going to dinner now, so I won't be back on a for a couple of hours, but when I get back on I will begin this process, and I would appreciate any help anyone feels like giving. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't intend to add this to any articles until there is consensus to do so, and I mean consensus across Wikipedia to allow this project an exemption from Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I'd recommend starting by posting at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Picaroon (t) 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
You have a warped understanding of WP:CENSORED. Read over the section and the links. This is not prohibiting material from being in articles. This is not a disclaimer, either, though there is a slightly better case that you could make for that. This is simply a different way of presenting material in articles which makes the articles available to a broader audience while maintaining the same information. This is not censorship, and this is not preventing verifiable material from being inserted into articles. Therefore, this is not a violation of any policies, and I will be bold in inserting this into articles because I do not need any exemptions from policies. I am not violating any. Now, something important has just come up within my family, so I won't be back on until tomorrow when I will begin. If anyone wants to get a head start on this, then be bold. This is not a violation of any policies, regardless of what Picaroon believes. The Hybrid 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:SUBPAGE#Disallowed uses, point three. Daniel 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a bad solution to a problem that does not really exist. Also, an individual project consensus cannot override sitewide guidelines such as Wikipedia:Subpages, Wikipedia:Spoiler. If you "will be bold in inserting this into articles", you will be reverted for doing so against guidelines and with no consensus. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not notice this section. I think that my comments above are relevant, so I will post them here. I strongly object to hide-show boxes wrapped around article text. The template used to create such boxes, Template:Hidden, may completely hide the hidden text when a reader's browser does not support JavaScript, or when a reader has disabled JavaScript in his or her browser. (For an example, view the navigation boxes of Art Modell with and without JavaScript.) Doing so is terrible in terms of usability and is a disservice to the readers. --Iamunknown 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I admit that my idea is against policy due to Daniel's comment, and plead ignorance. Whatever happens you all can sort out. Regardless of what you may think, spoilers are a problem for these articles, and I hope that a compromise can be reached. In the mean time, I shall be retiring again due to a combination of regret over this dispute, all around disillusion with the Wikipedia system, and real life problems stemming from a car accident a family member was just in. The Hybrid 05:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that Hybrid. Unfortunately this discussion got so petty and so stupid that it spiraled ou of control. Because of this, I'm only going to be a semi-active member of this WikiProject, as I'm going to be trying some new things in my sandbox. Davnel03 08:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you want to do, but you should not hide text from the reader. Mr.Z-man 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In light of recent events I am ending my participantion in this discussion. I would like to thank everyone to tried to help regardless of their stance or in some cases, misinformation or misrepresentation. I am trying very hard to believe that in everyone's own way, they are attempting to help build a better encyclopedia and that is their only agenda. --Naha|(talk) 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD) — 5 September

Why isn't it listed on the pages nominated for deletion for that day? It would pretty much be unanimous. But nevertheless, it should be listed. Mr. C.C. 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitro (wrestler)

I've PROD'd this article, because I came across it and it looks rediculous. It looks like a fan made article to me. --ProtoWolf 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE World Tag Titles

To end the headache of reverts and speculation and guessing as to what happened, here is the WWE confirmation regarding the World Tag titles http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch. Apparently they switched hands twice, and currently Cade and Murdoch have them back. Edit articles accordingly. --Naha|(talk) 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Bautista

You may want to keep watch on the Dave Bautista article. The Wrestlecrappers have struck again, and are bragging about it on this thread on the Wrestlecrap forum. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads-up. Gavyn Sykes 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to get the page semi-protected by an admin. This will cut down on any vandalism on the page. Mr. C.C. 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus

Deep Shadow and I have been working on Trish Stratus' article, trying to get it ready to be nominated for Good Article status. According to that discussion we had while back on the nomination process, everyone decided it would be a good idea to post here first so other members can look over the article. If you have any suggestions or comments, you can post on the article's talk page (rather than here). If everyone agrees it's ready, then I guess either Deep Shadow or I will nominate the article. Thanks. Nikki311 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for mentioning this here first rather than just nominating it. Would you two mind taking a look at User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 please? This is something MPJ and I are going to offically propose to the project soon, but since you have gone ahead with the pre-nom notice, I thought you might want to check this out. I'll look at the article too but may not be able to make any suggestions till later tonight :) Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I just read the article, scanning for redirects and I found none. There is something to fix in the first paragraph though. It listed her as a former "WWF Hardcore Champion" with no mention that the WWF became WWE. That could cause confusion to a non-wrestling fan reading the article. Gavyn Sykes 19:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I clarified it. Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know I haven't forgotten what I said earlier today, I am currently looking at this article and making list of suggestions. I haven't found anything too major, but I will post my when I am done in a little while. It looks really good overall. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've nitpicked it to death! Pre-GA review posted on Trish's talk page :) --Naha|(talk) 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow the week will be up, so if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and nominate it at some point tomorrow afternoon. Nikki311 22:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Works for me! --Naha|(talk) 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of NWA World Heayweight & World Tag Team Champions list

I need help in improving the list of NWA World Heavyweight Champions and list of NWA World Tag Team Champions lists. I've improved it some, but I can't completely improve it all alone. I need help. I would consider improving the lists to match the quality of the WWE championship lists (cite sources, cleanup, etc.). Perhaps we could get them to featured list status. Please help! MITB LS (t·c) 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Title change at house show - what do we do?

At a house show a new champion(s) were crowned. I respectfully will not give away spoilers, but here is where it says about the title change. WWE.com (as of yet) has nothing on the title change. What do we do? Davnel03 14:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well considering that the event isn't suppost to be televised, it's not really a spoiler. Mshake3 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough but should we revert the edit on sight just because WWE have yet to confirm it? Davnel03 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, because it's not verifiable. Mshake3 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How isn't it verifiable. Why don't we (for the time being until we get official announcement) state that the title change occured on related articles and link it to the link I provided above? Davnel03 15:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A title change is a major deal. Unless it is acknowledged by WWE it doesn't really "count." If WWE plans to acknowledge this title change, they basically have no choice but to do so by time of the airing of Monday Night RAW on September 10. If it is not acknowledged by that time, it never will be, and at that point we could include something in the article like "the title changing hands at a house show but because it was not acknowledged by WWE, as often happens with house-show title changes, it was not an offical reign and Cade and Murdoch are still the offical champions blah blah." --Naha|(talk) 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on! It's 2007. WWE always acknowledges these things now. Just take the current show report as a reference and change the articles accordingly. Mshake3 15:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Was that sarcasm? --Naha|(talk) 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. There's Mickie James this year, and then Nunzio a couple years ago. These events are now acknowledged and not ignored. Mshake3 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, they only acknowledge house show title changes when they are planned. Sometime earlier this year or late last year (I'm sorry I can't remember exactly when), Victoria won the Woman's title at a house show because the title holder "forgot to kick out." Later during the event, the two woman had another match where the belt went back to the original holder. Now, I do realise that this case is different as the reports are of London and Kendrick finishing this particular house show with the belts. However, whether this is because WWE meant for them to change hands, didn't mean for them to change hands but didn't have time to hold a rematch to get the titles back (or some other reason prevented them from doing so), they flat out didn't mean for it to happen and don't plan to acknowledge it at all, or something else entirely, we don't know.
Also I'm confused why your previous comment stated that we should revert on site because "[the information] isn't verifiable" and without giving reason you have now seemingly changed your stance to "change the articles accordingly." ? --Naha|(talk) 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think WrestleView would be reliable, but I changed my mind. Oh, and the incident where the champion "forgot to kick out" was the Mickie James incident I mentioned above, and it WAS mentioned on WWE.com. In the last few years, all title changes at live events have been mentioned a day or two after they happened. It's WWE admitting the sign of the times. Mshake3 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to add the source. Please don't bother reverting. Davnel03 15:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the title change. Please, as I said don't revert. Hopefully WWE will clear up the situation within the next few hours or days. Until then, I don't wish to get into a edit war. I did this as it's being bold. Davnel03 16:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[1] –– Lid(Talk) 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"You are not authorized to view this page." Please elaborate on the purpose of your link and comment, Lid. Thanks --Naha|(talk) 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
fixed –– Lid(Talk) 16:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats great, good picture. Unforunately that still doesn't mean WWE will acknowledge the title reign. At this point, whether or not they will be recognized as the tag team champions still remains to be seen, and anything currently stating otherwise is crystal balling. --Naha|(talk) 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

THis is silly, officially recognized or not it did happen and it's not a TV show spoiler so I say put it in, if the WWE choses to "magically undo" it, then that goes in the article as well because that's what's happened. Remember people Wikipedia is fact based, they did win the titles that is a fact (unless it turns out this fan report is a hoax ;) )MPJ-DK 16:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's crystal balling on when you say that WWE have recognizing it, because as of now they haven't. However, until we get clear clarification, the information is vital and must be entered into the article, like it or you don't. Even if WWE don't recognize it, the point stays in the article, but after it carry's on WWE didn't recognize the reign...... Hang on, I remember a few years back that (with the Hardcore title) the title changed constantly at house shows in between TV shows, but always went back to the first holder before the next TV show. My guess (yes guess) is that C&M will win it back tonight at the next house show. It's highly unlikely the report is a hoax, that picture is on several websites, including this one, and same goes with the report. Davnel03 16:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to spend all day arguing this. However, (1) I don't like being threatened ("don't bother reverting"), and (2) www.wrestleview.com shouldn't be used as the only source, especially for something as significant as a title change. More sources are needed, and not ones that simply say "as reported by wrestleview.com ..." because that defeats the purpose. I don't understand why people are so quick to put information into articles using fansite information only. Rarely is there much if any thought given to holding off or trying to find confirmation. The particular source in question is a e-mail from a single fan who says they were at the house show. Again, I'm not saying any of this didn't happen but this seems like premature insertion.--Naha|(talk) 16:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this good enough (scroll to bottom)? Davnel03 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As long as OWW's source wasn't wrestleview.com, adding that source would be helpful. --Naha|(talk) 17:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to throw in my two cents, I agree with you, Nahallac. Dirtsheet sites aren't usually acceptable sources. OWW is the most trusted one, but even then, I don't believe it should be the only source. Gavyn Sykes 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Observer source, for what it's worth. I say add it but note that WWE hasn't acknowledged it yet. Then by the time Raw comes we can edit accordingly. Normally that wouldn't be purdent (for tapings and the like) but house shows are different. --MarcK 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In the past, we have always said that a dirtsheet site isn't a reliable source, and we should stick by it. OWW is bascally getting its sources from the dirtsheets, and dirtsheets tend to get their information from other dirtsheets, so I think until the WWE announces that the titles did indeed change, we can't really be sure that it did or did not happen. The dirtsheet that I read allows anyone to send in information to be posted by the webmaster. I don't consider that reliable.--ProtoWolf 18:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Neither do I, but Im guessing we should go with what WWE has posted, if they havent noted the title change in any of their pages it shouldnt be added until they add it into the history of the title. (For Example, when Mickie James won the Womens title at a house show, but then Melina won it the same night, the title change was listed by WWE), so im saying we should wait a couple of days or weeks to see what will occur.--TrUcO9311 01:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read anything posted above this comment but the introduction, so if I'm repeating things then forgive me. If the WWE confirms a house show title change on their website, then add it with the source. If not, then wait for it to be announced on TV so it is confirmed, or if a reputable source such as WrestlingObserver.com announces it, and not some rumor/dirtsheet site, then it can be added as well. House shows aren't televised, so there aren't any issues with spoilers and such. The only issues would be with verifiability, and following what I just said should negate any issues there would be. Cheers, The Hybrid 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this, for what it's worth. http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=191103278 --ProtoWolf 02:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't matter what those dirtsites say. we have always gone by what wwe has confimed. do any of you remember the ashley survivor thing. until wwe,ashley, or cbs comfimed it we left it off her page.User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In this situation we have decided to keep them in as we have several sources (two of which [Wrestling title and OWW]) are considered quite reliable. Davnel03 16:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please learn. Davnel03 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason the Survivor: China information wasn't added is because it was a WP:BLP violation (regarding the addition of potentially contentious material). It's not exactly the same thing. Are the sites reporting this title change high quality references? No. Is the information contentious? No. - Deep Shadow 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick note: apparently Londrick retained over...um..Cadoch. --MarcK 17:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Why sould we add this information, if the COMPANY the titles belong to, doesn't do it? We often had reliable sources, but didnt add information, like with the Triple H - Booker Match for summerslam. There was a Promo Video for that by an official wwe partner, but it was added, when wwe added it, because it was only a partner and not wwe itself. So why should we "change the rules" here? To quote darrenhusted - just wait until it is announced by wwe and then add it. Diivoo 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, considering we're going to have to start using parenthesis to represent title reigns should the titles return to the Redneck Wrecking Crew tonight on the last day of the tour. --ProtoWolf 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The tour finished last night. Davnel03 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
and since there are no results for this event, what do we do now? we cant say if or if not the titles changed hands again and since wwe.com still lists Cade and Murdoch as champs, we should do the same. Diivoo 18:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I got this off Gerweck: The RAW brand South African tour has come to an end as all Superstars should be back Stateside today. Four live events were held this week over a period of five days. The next International tour will be headed by the Smackdown! and ECW brands with shows in Spain and France between September 11th and September 14th. The World Tag Team title switch from Cade & Murdoch to London and Kendrick from the first event in South Africa was never acknowledged on WWE.COM. - I say we leave it until Raw then go from there. Davnel03 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that wrestleview also doesn't acknowledge the title change, as you can read here. Diivoo 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Some of you must feel like the biggest fools ever by making all those changes. the biggest fool is User:Davne103. He probably though that kendick and london would return back with the titles. What a fool.Ha Ha Ha. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 04:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That user page doesn't exist. :| Mshake3 04:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC). Edit: Not unheard of. Mshake3 05:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL, Caleb. Davnel03 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I posted this below in its own segment but since its relevent here and no one else has done it:http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch. --Naha|(talk) 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Allthough this has all cleared out now, we should find a solution for the future. My oppinion is the same as before. We should leave it away until it is officially announced by wwe.com. first of all because wikipedia is not a newswire (as said by many before) and that is definitely news. second, if the titles dont change back (what normally doesn't happen), wwe.com would post something like "WWE has a big Announcement for Raw/Smackdown/ECW" and then it would be a spoiler. Thats all i got to say. Diivoo 14:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All I ask for is a credible source. But Diivoo, we cannot predict what WWE will or will not do, as they appear to often handle each situation on a case-by-case basis, no crystal balling please. --Naha|(talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, but considering wwe's top goal is to get its ratings higher, or keep them high, there are several things, they allways do the same way. If a houseshow event is relevant to a storyline (what rarely happens), they use this event to promote the next tv show. We can also by now say, that title changes at house shows (accidential or not) is posted at wwe.com after the titles change back. We've seen that twice this year now. We also have often seen, that news on such dirtsheet sites (as someone before called them) can not allways be taken serious. therefore, the only credible source in such cases can be wwe.com. and thats what i said in my last comment. Diivoo 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
We can only say what has happened in the past, not what will "probably happen" in the future "because they did something this way or that way in the past". --Naha|(talk) 15:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. We can't say what will happen, but we can take what has happend in the past as a guideline for the future. So wait until wwe announces title changes, even if dirtsheet sites allready announced it. Diivoo 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've personally always been a proponent of waiting for an offical annoucement. --Naha|(talk) 12:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

List of professional wrestlers who died young

Hello. I am not a member of this project, and I have made very few edits to pro wrestling articles in general. However, the attention given recently (thanks to the Chris Benoit incident) to early deaths of pro wrestlers led me to search for a WP list of wrestlers who died young. Finding one did not exist (at least not that I could find), I ended up creating my own: User:Skudrafan1/List of professional wrestlers who died young. I modeled it on List of ice hockey players who died young. The hockey article is currently up for deletion, though, on the grounds that it is an indiscriminate list of players. However, I think a list of wrestlers who died young is more than an indiscriminate list: again, given the recent attention on wrestlers' health. The list of wrestlers who have died in their 30s and 40s of heart attacks and drug overdoses is staggering. Do you, the members of WP:PW, think that this should be moved into the mainspace and expanded? If so, feel free to use what I have already created. If not, just leave it on my user page and I won't be offended. :)

Also, I apologize if you have already considered this type of a list and rejected it. As I said, I am not a member of this WikiProject. Skudrafan1 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand the point of this list, or any other lists similar to it. "Young" is a relative and subjective term in the first place. Also, I'd have to agree with lists of this type being indiscriminate, its not like they all died of the same causes. There is a pretty wide range of causes actually: suicide, murder, car accident, heart problems, other health issues, etc. That is my take on it anyway /shrug --Naha|(talk) 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is why I brought the idea here before I put it on the mainspace; I wanted to gauge opinion rather than just creating and then going through the shame of an AfD :) Skudrafan1 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Naha, that's why the way they died is listed as well. It's very well done and should be put in the mainspace. I mean, if there are other lists like that then why not have one for professional wrestling? Mr. C.C. 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree to put the article up, with all the media buzz, people might be interested in such a list. With the cause of death listed, it will be pretty easy to distinguish between accidents, natural causes and anything involving drugs or foul play. The PW Torch webste has a regular column about deceased wrestlers, lists for 2007 and 2006 are up, the guy doing them is working his way backwards through the years regularily, so I'm sure lots of infos can be gathered from there. The link to that category is http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Annual_Obituaries_39/. --Darkguy 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The existence of one article isn't reason to create another. I'm just giving my opinion and am only one person. --Naha|(talk) 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

History of professional wrestling

I recently read the History of professional wrestling article for the first time. While it is rather well-written, it is mostly a "history of professional wrestling in the United States". There is no history of puroresu, history of lucha libre or history of professional wrestling in Europe article either. I also propose that some information of catch wrestling should be merged into it. Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom also has some interesting tidbits, that might be merged into the main article, as do some biographies of wrestlers such as Rikidozan and Salvador Lutteroth.

But as far as puroresu and lucha libre are concerned, there is virtually no real history to be found in Wikipedia (I am not sure if there is more/better info in the Spanish- or Japanese-langage versions of Wikipedia, since unfortunately, I don't speak those languages). Also, history of wrestling in Canada (Stampede et al, although I am sure Stampede was not the beginning) and maybe also in Germany/Austria (CWA/Otto Wanz was really big here in the 1970s and 1980s and continued to promote well into the 1990s) should be collected and put into the article, respectively should get their own articles.

My expirience with Wikiprojects is limited, so please bear with me if this has been discussed before. I would be willing to help out with the history tidbits though, as far as my time allows and would also be willing to dig into finding out more about the early periods and find verifiable sources. --Darkguy 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Professional_wrestling_in_the_United_States

Why is there no template:Professional wrestling in the United States as there is for puroresu and lucha libre? I was thinking of something more similiar to the puroresu one with major and indy promotions, maybe divided into active and defunct promotions. I'd be willing to get into it (we could easily sort through List of professional wrestling promotions for a start and for the U.S. just list any promotion regularily covered by the Observer or Torch in theor respective daily news/indy sections).

On a related note, I also noticed there is hardly anything listed for Germany/Austria - I'll go through the local promotions that come to mind in the next couple of days and put up new articles for those (and mabe get into doing a Template:Professional_wrestling_in_Europe) while I'm at it. Please tell me if this is undesired, but I think this project deals with pro-wrestling worldwide, not just in the U.S.? --Darkguy 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't add any smalltime local hick promotions. Add the ones that are at least notable to an extent. I shall be making one for Canada. Mr. C.C. 06:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I already started this little project yesterday, and the current plan is to add all the Indies that are listes under "Top Independet Promotions" on Online World of Wrestling promotion listings. For defunct promotions, I shall be adding most of what's loted under "Defunct promotions" and "Kayfabe area promotions". Right now, it would be covering the U.S. and Canada, since historically there have been tight links between those two countries.
If things get too big, we could either split the template into Active and defunct promotions, or major and indy promotions. My work in progress can be found here. I did not yet decide about the order in which the promotions will be listed (time of establishment, folded most recently, years in operation, etc.). --Darkguy 14:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Flaw spotting time: Carolina Championship Wrestling, Chaotic Wrestling, Cleveland All-Pro Wrestling, Empire Wrestling Federation, Great Championship Wrestling, Impact Zone Wrestling, International Wrestling Cartel, Memphis Wrestling, National Wrestling Superstars, New England Championship Wrestling, New York Wrestling Connection, Pro Wrestling Iron, Pro Wrestling Unplugged, Texas Wrestling Entertainment, USA Championship Wrestling, USA Xtreme Wrestling, Windy City Pro Wrestling, World League Wrestling and World Pro Wrestling are not what I'd considere "Top" promotions, in fact most of these don't have/warrant a Wikipedia article and definitly shouldn't be on the template at all and that's just at a quick glance. MPJ-DK 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, with the exceptinon of Memphis Wrestling. They are, more or less, an indirect heir to CWA/USWA/MCW in Tennessee. People like Jerry Lawler, Brian Christopher, Sid Vicious and others are currently wrestling there, they a weekly tv show and had some of the major indy cards of 2007 with the Hogan vs Paul Wight (which should have been Hogan vs Lawler) main event. They regularily get covered by Observer, Torch, PWInsider and 1wrestling.com, among others.
I'll go through the OWW list again within the next few days, maybe we can discuss which (active andd efunct) promotions should and shouldn't be on the template. --Darkguy 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I started the professional wrestling in Canada template. Sure there is a link between Canada and the United States, but seperate templates are better. I feel like starting the template for the United if it doesn't get started soon. Mr. C.C. 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't think some kind of input from others might have been a good idea before it's added to articles? I'm having a hard time figuring out the criteria for what's a "major" federation on your list, some of the supposed major ones I've never even heard except maybe a passing result mention on PWTorch or the likes. You're also missing the Rougeau's "Lutte Internationale" under the "closed" list and probably more. MPJ-DK 07:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree - there are no "major" promotions in Canada at all, that might be comparable to current or former "major" U.S. promotions (WWE, TNA, WCW, ECW, AWA, etc.). I suggest changing the template into active and defunct promotions only. I'll take care of the U.S. template now, should be finished in a few hours. --Darkguy 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The template is done and could be considered finished. Please check it out (and discuss it) here. it did get a bit big, we might split it into acitve and defunct promotions. I only tried to add such promotions as were really noteworthy in some way or another. Believe it or not, I even put considerable thought into the order, better-known/more important promotions appear before the "lesser" ones.
I did not yet add it to the pages for any of the promotions. Feel free to do so, if you consider the template usable, I shall check out the articles to all the promotions listed within the next days and will also add the wrestling-promotion template to those that still lack it. --Darkguy 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Any feedback whatsoever? If there are no objectiosn, I'll work it into all the articles of the promotions covered. --Darkguy 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

TNA Bound for Glory pages

It has come to my attention about a somewhat "page move conflict" around the TNA Bound for Glory pages. A user redirected each of the BFG pages (2005, 2006 & 2007) to include the prefix "TNA". Another user would undo that a few days later. It now seems that a consensus from the WP:PW community is needed to settle this: whether to keep the pages at "Bound for Glory (200X)", or at "TNA Bound for Glory (200X). I will put a {{Multimove}} on each of the BFG pages. I would suggest keeping the pages at "(without prefix) BFG" until a decision is reached. MITB LS (t·c) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, while I don't think theres going to be a problem with other BFG pages, the main article that lists the years is TNA Bound For Glory, so I think the rest of the pages should be TNA Bound For Glory (200X). (Afterall, the announcer does say "and now, TNA Bound for Glory.") --ProtoWolf 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've been moving them lately, I shall give my opinion. Company initials (TNA in this case) should not be in the article titles unless it's to avoid conflict with another article. Now Bound for Glory does have multiple uses, hence the wrestling article is at TNA Bound for Glory. However, when adding the year to the title when refering to each individual event, IMO the company name is no longer necessary. Besides, notice how the mains of the articles don't start out with the initials. Then how come the article titles are? Mshake3 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I set up the discussion for this to reach a consensus through the WP:PW community. So, if you wanna say something, say it HERE. MITB LS (t·c) 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The initials do seem to be part of the official name of the events. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but can't the same be said for the WWE PPV events, and thus shouldn't they carry the initials? Mshake3 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Voting booth already up for MfD

  • Please vote or at least comment regarding your personal feelings, thanks.
  • I personally believe the page was completely misrepresented as "a far off corner of a WikiProject" for us to have secret meetings and hold secret polls, which is clearly NOT what it is intended for, nor was it ever meant as a REPLACEMENT for discussions which was also implied in the MfD. No where was that ever said or even implied on the actual voting booth page to the best of my knowledge. However, I have clarified these important points with a few edits to the page. Please make any other further changes you think would be helpful. --Naha|(talk) 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If we can't come to a consensus, than a vote would exasterbate the situation. Voting is good in some cases, but not for general project duties and whatnot. Mr. C.C. 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
We do not decide things by vote on Wipedia. --Tony Sidaway 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope we argue until someone gets tired, he who cares afterwards gets his way ;) (kinda kidding, yet sadly not)MPJ-DK 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I've written on the MfD page has been read or these comments would have not been made. --Naha|(talk) 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD = no consensus. Per request, this page has been redone and renamed as Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notice board. It appears in the Project Navigation banner. Please use it! It is an attempt to strengthen communication in regards to PW related articles. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship anniversary

There is a very interesting article up at WWE.com now celebrating the five year history of the World Heavyweight Championship. The lineage of this championship has often been debated whether WWE considered it the same title as the WCW World Title, or whether an entire new lineage was created when Bischoff handed this particular belt to Triple H. It has now been confirmed in this article that the WWE World Heavyweight Championship IS the same championship as the WCW World Title and the lineage has continued. I tried to click on the section entitled Five Years Later but it just kept sayin "Not Found". Anyhow, if this is the case, I recommend keeping an eye on the articles of those that've won the World Heavyweight Championship. I just have a feeling that someone is going to go around changing their reigns to read WCW World Heavyweight Championship instead. Odin's Beard 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link:[2] DrWarpMind 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The way the article reads, it sounds like the current WHC decends from the WCW World Title the same way the the WCW World Title descended from the NWA World Title. I don't think this changes anything (unless we are supposed to pretend this is the same title as the one Flair/Race/Steamboat/etc. held). TJ Spyke 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember 2006

I'm doing a few edits in my sandbox, and am planning to split December to Dismember into two seperate pages in a few weeks (seeing as there were only two events). The current page would then be a short page with a short description with links to the 1995 event and 2006 event. However, in order for this to happen, I am writing a report in my sandbox (link here). I think that I've done OK at the moment having done a little bit, but wondered who I could improve the preview part to the event. Please don't say that I shouldn't even be doing it otherwise I will ignore your comments. If I happen to move it into the mainspace in a few weeks I will do experiements with other PPV's (possibly One Night Stand 2007) to see how they would look. I chose D2D as it is possibly no doubt the worse PPV, and would have an interesting aftermath section (Heyman quitting, Show leaving, poor buyrate etc.) How do you guys think it is so far? Thanks in advance, Davnel03 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about some OR, but outside of that it's a good start. Anything to make the PPV articles more than a bunch of stubs is a good thing. Mshake3 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not expecting it to be "the greatest article ever" because that's probably not possibly, but as you said, anything more than a bunch of stubs is a good things. On the OR point, I'm guessing your talking about the first part of the background section? Davnel03 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but some detailed Raw and SD results, showing the emphasis on Survivor Series and lack of for D2D could take care of that. Mshake3 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to go to in-detail with the Raw and SD results because I could then head completely off track and head into the wrong direction. Maybe just three or four sentences stating what was going on (in general) on Raw + SD? Anyway, thanks for your comments, Mshake3 they are helpful in helping me improve. Davnel03 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I just ment using a detailed result as a source, showing the lack of emphasis, thus not making it OR. Mshake3 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, OK, my misunderstanding. Davnel03 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You can't just ignore the comments of u not supposed to be doing this. December to Dismember was ressurected, not completely remade. So they should both be in just 1 article. However, you can add everything you want to the article about the aftermatch, but don't split it in 2. Lex94 17:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Keeping them together would make the article excessively long. Also, it's just like with WrestleMania event articles. Anyway, I'm just doing this as a "trial" to see how it goes. Davnel03 17:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Except this doesn't fall under the "comments" here at all, since each PPV was by different companies, see the Great American Bash with WCW and WWE versions. The consensus is actually that they should be two articles as they're by different companies. MPJ-DK 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you intend to show this much attention to the 1995 show?«»bd(talk stalk) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the future, yeah. At the moment, with D2D it's going well. It's going to take time to get PPV reports out of "their stubby state", but we can do it. 1995 events, yes, it's going to be hard to find sources, but never say never. At the moment, as I said, I'm purely concentrating on December to Dismember in my sandbox, and if I like the way that goes, I'll go on to another one, and another and so on. Obviously I won't just go ahead all on my own, hence the reason why I came here to discuss to see where I need to improve at the moment. When I get D2D 2006 in a satisfactory state, I will split the article in two probably. I can't help but reiterate what Mshake3 said earlier: Anything to make the PPV articles more than a bunch of stubs is a good thing. Davnel03 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I've finished the background section. Any feedback here or on my talkpage, positive or negative will be helpful to help me improve the section. Davnel03 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert time again, but do we need to?

I've just come accross this. My question. Do we need to revert seeing as we haven't had anything official that Booker Huffman has quit WWE, or should we include it in his article, like we did with Flair? Davnel03 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If its true, WWE.com will post it like they always do "WWE has come to terms with the release of Booker Huffman, we wish him the best in future endeavors" unless it was an ugly break up, and then they will leave off the "we wish him the best..." part. Using dirt sheets as the only sources is never a good idea in my opinion, but I seem to be in the minority. --Naha|(talk) 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely WWE will do that. They never did it with RVD - he's now off the ECW roster - and they never did it with this man if it's indeed true also about him. Anyway we put it in Flair's article, what's so different with Booker? Davnel03 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I just came across the King Booker Article, and Some Spoiler sites, as well the spoiler sites say Booker is done with WWE, and on the article it says that he is best known for his work with WWE and WCW (implying that he isnt employed by WWE anymore) should that be left like that or should it be reverted back (as when he was employed by WWE).??--TrUcO9311 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That Ric Flair thing shouldn't be in there without a trusted cite either.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Davn, from what I've seen they annouce it more often than not. That being said, whether they will or won't is just speculation on both our parts. Until there is a good source for the information ...Booker, Flair or anone else, the information should not be in the articles. --Naha|(talk) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a small point, but Booker Huffman is still negotiating with WWE, unlike RVD who declined to discuss a contract from the start, booker may remain with WWE if negotiations are favorable to him. RVD was gonna walk to TNA/Indies no matter what. Sparkyboi
Considering that King Booker signed a 2 year extension last September (to bring it up to 2009) and that just a few weeks ago he said in a interview that he loved the gimmick, I wouldn't trust these rumor sites (the best thing to do is treat all these rumors as BS unless they are proven true). TJ Spyke 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Wow.

Take a look. :P Davnel03 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well if no one else will toot your horn eh? MPJ-DK 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Not bad. Now if only we could get more PPV pages to look like that, especially some of the important ppv pages like WM3, Summerslam 1992, Royal Rumble 1991, etc, etc. -- Scorpion0422 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If we work at it we can do it! Anyway, do you like my format? Davnel03 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Do we really a full run show run down? Encyclopedia, not recap site.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
What would you rather? A load of stubs that mean nothing or a review of the event? Davnel03 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't really a place for "reviews" but thats not really what you did, you did more of a coverage kind of thing. --ProtoWolf 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just worry it will lead to other PPV articles being done in a similar fashion by other people who let themselves stray from the facts and then we're dragged into POV argument after POV argument until everything grinds to a halt. I'm all for summaries like NFL season articles, which seem to be kosher (for now), I'd just hate to see the project shoot itself in the foot by inviting the type of people who need to add commentary to their RAW review read by three people to review WrestleMania 2 or rush to Wiki right after (or during) Bound for Glory to slip in how stupid the VKM gimmick is.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, all of the info is sourced, so if it is possible to create a page like this for all PPVs, then I wouldn't be opposed to it. However, it isn't possible, so no worries. The Hybrid 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ultimate World Wrestling Entertainment Trivia Book

Released in 2002 (ISBN 0743457560), this can be used as another source. Here's an interesting thing I found.

  1. The Tag Team Championship was originally known as the U.S. Tag Team Championship. And the first champions were Eddie and Dr. Jerry Graham. Mshake3 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Great Khali article

A few people are vandalising this page tonight. I've been reverting the edits, but it would be great if someone else could watch it for a little while (or get it semi-protected for the time being). And is it possible to get an IP ban for 84.9.149.87? GaryColemanFan 03:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe its those WrestleCrap guys who were vandalizing the Batista Article too.--ProtoWolf 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. However... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Page I've Just Come Across

I've just come across this page. Should I prod it? Davnel03 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Prod away. Nenog 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need a PROD it could be CSD instead, look at the list of CSD categories, it is bound to fall under one. (edit) On second thoughts turn the page in to a redirect. (edit again) I've redirected it. Darrenhusted 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Except there are more wrestling ppvs than just WWE. Nenog 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a quick fix. If you want to take other action feel free. Darrenhusted 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: British Wrestling Federation

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether British Wrestling Federation is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Genki Horiguchi

Is there anyone here who can explain the reason why the page was deleted? I'd say he's a fairly well known wrestler in Dragon Gate, with history pertaining to Ring of Honor and Wrestling Society X as well. I'd recreate the page, but I'm not too familiar with earlier work with the surfer gimmick and Do Fixer. Anyone have any links to help me out with this, or anyone want to start the page and I can add on afterwards? Thanks! Ghanarhea 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First it was deleted by Prod for being a non-notable wrestler and no one challenged it (gee, I wish people would inform the project so we don't have to go through every single page daily to check to see if it has a Prod or no). It was then recreated and deleted a second time due to no assertion of nobility. The third time it was because someone recreated it and just mashed the keyboard (i.e. "a;lsdkhfoajdshp") Nenog 07:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

FIP Heavyweight Championship

This is a little bit of madness. A user moved this page from FIP World Heavyweight Championship, saying that it "is not world title status." [3] [4] and scores of ROH and FIP DVD pages on ROH's website all call it "FIP World Heavyweight Championship," effective after it was defended in the UK. Just because some magazine doesn't give its phoney baloney seal of approval and "world title status" doesn't change what the title is called. I mean, shall we move CZW World Heavyweight Championship or PWG World Championship or even ROH World Championship for this reason? Nosleep1234 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Typically, "World Title Status" is defined by Pro Wrestling Illustrated and nothing else. In fact, as of right now the ECW and ROH World Titles are not recognized as world titles by PWI. Gavyn Sykes 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Big deal. Does that change the name of the title itself? Surely, the almighty PWI doesn't so recognize PWG or CZW's titles? Nosleep1234 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And you mentioned the ECW Championship. Everything on WWE.com and in its programming uses that exact name. So that's the correct name for the article, clearly. If I'm not mistaken, when the title was first revived, WWE called it ECW World Championship despite PWI not granting "world title status" to it. Does that mean it was incorrect to have the article there at that time? Nosleep1234 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Darrenhusted 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they called it the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. It was early in The Big Show's reign that they changed it to ECW World Championship. TJ Spyke 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's asinine. Oh well, go ahead then and move every championship article except WWE's and the couple from Japan. Nosleep1234 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The company who creates a title gives the title its name, period. A Pro Wrestling magazine coming up with its own criteria for title designations is not relevent, regardless of how popular the magazine is. In addition, the magazine is not affiliated with the promotion in question. --Naha|(talk) 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My point was that Wikipedia itself uses PWI as it's source for calculating a wrestler's "official" World title reigns. My personal opinion is that the company should decide for themselves. Gavyn Sykes 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be used a source to aid in calculating all title reigns, not "World" title reigns if they infact have their OWN criteria for what they decide is and is not a "world title." Its just a name and every article must reflect the proper name of the title according to the company/promotion who created/uses the title. --Naha|(talk) 16:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but that consensus was the use PWI. *shrugs* Gavyn Sykes 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, what? We can use PWI as a source for title reigns, but we can't use their personal criteria for what designates a world title when it conflicts with what a promotion/company calls their own title. --Naha|(talk) 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, unfortunately, that's exactly what the project has decided to do. See here and here. Gavyn Sykes 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok I don't think I'm communicating my point well. There is nothing wrong with the pages you just linked. Those 2 articles clearly state, via the article's names and further explanation in the lead paragraphs that the lists given are just for PWI and do not represent how the promotion's classify their titles. I'm not concerned with those 2 pages at all. What I am concerned with is favoring PWI's criteria for what constitutes a "world title" OVER the ACTUAL NAME of the title as given by the wrestling promotion to NAME AN ARTICLE about the title (like the above mentioned FIP World Heavyweight Championship). I was under the impression that this is not the type of thing that can be up for change by "group consensus" according to Wikipedia naming policy? --Naha|(talk) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god in heavens above! The naming of the title and what's recognized as a "world title" are two totally and utterly different things people. The name of the title is... and pay attention now... whatever the promotion choses to name it, it's status is seperate but if the title is officially named the "FIP World Heavyweight Championship" by FIP then that's sure as hell what we should call it, we can't change facts. PWI has no bearing at all on the naming of a title only if it's considered a true world title or not. MPJ-DK 16:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I've been trying to say. --Naha|(talk) 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I understand now. It was a simple misinterpretation on my part. My apologies Gavyn Sykes 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MPJ, let them call their title whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean that they are world titles (hell, half of the indy feds out there call their title a world title), just that the promotion calls it that. If FIP calls it the "FIP World Heavyweight Championship" (even though it's not a world title), then have the article be called that too. TJ Spyke 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I never meant to suggest that the article's name should be changed because of PWI. The promotion has every right to call it whatever they want. Gavyn Sykes 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I was the one who made the move. For the most part, the FIP Heavyweight Championship is not regularly defended outside North America if at all. One defense outside of North America doesn't give it official World Heavyweight Championship status. For the most part FIP holds shows in Florida with the odd show in the ROH territories. Therefore it's not a World Heavyweight Championship. It's just a Heavyweight Championship. Mr. C.C. 18:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


If you thought Cherry Coke tasted like lemon, would you move that page? Nosleep1234 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Let it go, the page is located at FIP World Heavyweight Championship and isn't moving. --Naha|(talk) 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

As many of you know, I am doing work on PPV events and have recently finished December to Dismember (2006). I'm now working on 2005's ECW One Night Stand in my sandbox. Should I make a mention to the Hardcore Homecoming event that occured two days earlier or not? Davnel03 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Hardcore Homecoming didn't really effect One Night Stand in any way, so whats the point?--ProtoWolf 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because they both happened on the same weekend. They both had former ECW superstars. They both were at former ECW arena.[5] That's why I brought it here if your wondering. Davnel03 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
With that information, its more a Trivia stub, that maybe you can slip into the backround, but its not worthy of much more mention then that.--ProtoWolf 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Mark Henry Vandilism??

On the Mark Henry article someone put under his personal life that he is married to some man, and they were the hottest/gayest couple in some magazine, now that sounds fake, but is it?--TrUcO9311 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its fake and and its vandalism. Nenog 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Are We Going To ADD....to the PWI Article ?

Golden boy enterprises just bought the PWI, should it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source? I don't see any mention on their website. TJ Spyke 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Im not sure if this is reliable but it looks like it, [6]--TrUcO9311 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE/TNA PAY PER VIEW ARTICLES

WHy are most of the TNA PPV events written like the Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series, and Royal RUmble articles. And the WWE PPVS (other then the Big 4) arent written like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? Davnel03 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think what he means is how, for example, TNA Lockdown 2005 has its own article, TNA Lockdown 2006 has its own article, TNA Lockdown 2007 has its own article, but every single WWF In Your House is lumped into one page. Nenog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenog (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but Lockdown, Slammiversary, and Bound for Glory are the only ones like that, last I checked, and they are considered TNA's most important PPVs.--ProtoWolf 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. How many times are we going to have this conversation? Nikki311 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Every time someone "new" comes along who doesn't want to spend days digging through archives to see everything that has ever been discussed probably ;) --Naha|(talk) 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Professional wrestling throws

something is up with the Professional wrestling throws page (see the reference section)... i think somes missed tagged a reference somewhere in the article. --- 88.108.144.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.0 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem Solved! Davnel03 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

TNA Womens Championship

TNA mobile has infomred subscribers that their will be a womens title created at Bound For Glory and The Champion will be determined in the Gautlet. Should it be created?--TrUcO9311 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's already been created. See TNA Women's Championship. - Deep Shadow 20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet to watch out for

There is a sockpuppet account deleting the recent title change information on the Paul London, Brian Kendrick and Paul London and Brian Kendrick articles. I have made two reports to two different admins but currently no action has been taken. Please keep an eye out for AwesomeKong07 on those articles. They are a sock of user BloodRunsCold1996. Thank you. - Deep Shadow 22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rock, The Rock (professional wrestler), The Rock (entertainer), Dwayne Johnson, The Rock (my page moves more often than a U-Haul truck)

Are we done yet? Since my start as an editor at Wikipedia this article has been moved an excessive number of times and it got old a long time ago. We need to settle on a damn name and leave it be. To that note, are there any policies for this kind of thing, a page being renamed every time we blink an eye? --Naha|(talk) 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. It's quite annoying. I have no clue why the page is constantly being moved nor if there's some sort of policy that keeps changing. Gavyn Sykes 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm don't think I worded my question right, I was thinking more along the lines of a policy that would force the article to stay with 1 name for at least X amount of months due to it's excessive movement, or if we could "prove" that one of the article's various names is indeed the way he is "best known" so that is the way it needs to stay and, perhaps get protected from being moved or something, because seriously ..this is rediculous. --Naha|(talk) 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I performed the move following a request, clearly he is best known as "The Rock" since he has been credited as that since his pro wrestling years and has continually used it trought his acting career, a quick search proves this The Rock (955,000,000 hits) Dwayne Johnson (8,970,000 hits), the most common name is the one that should be used, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is quite clear on this matter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. He is clearly best known as The Rock. He even uses the name for his acting career. I suggest the page be moved (and stay at) The Rock (entertainer) as it is the most common name, and he is no longer strictly a professional wrestler. Nikki311 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine, at this point I personally no longer care what his article is called as long as it stops moving every 5 seconds. Seriously people :( --Naha|(talk) 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The aritcle had been at The Rock (entertainer) for a long time, then it appeared to go to hell during the 2 months I was gone. Hopefully people leave it where it is. TJ Spyke 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Any unsabotaged redirects I will now sabotage to make sure the article can't be moved without a move request being filed. Peace, The Hybrid 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New pic Of Taker and Pic 4 MIchelle Mccool

I have this pic, and im wondering if someone can cut them (like the naturals and cryme tyme). Plus im not sure if its wiki compatible.

heres the pic.[7]--TrUcO9311 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That can't be used. It's a fair-use image, and only free-use images can be used for living persons. Check WP:FU. Nikki311 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Sorry. Can't be used. Davnel03 09:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE Diva

I saw the "Women Wrestlers" section and it said for more info to go to "WWE Diva", shouldnt it be more accurate if that article was renamed since TNA is adding a womens division, maby it should be called "Professional Women Wrestling" or somethin like that.--TrUcO9311 14:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused by your post. You saw the "Women Wrestlers" section where exactly? - Deep Shadow 14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we're all confused by the posts. Seriously, how about some frickin links for goodness sakes? Mshake3 14:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
No offense, but many of your posts Truco9311 have been confusing. Davnel03 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The Women's wrestling subsection of Professional wrestling has a "main" link to WWE Diva, which is incorrect.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Further information" link is incorrect. Would anybody object to a "see also" link? Nikki311 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Im Sorry, [8] here.--TrUcO9311 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Peer review notices

I've just put December to Dismember (2006) up for peer review. That discussion is here. Also, I put John Cena up for PR a few weeks ago, yet it is getting very little comments. I would be much appreciative if anyone could make comments on the artice here. Thanks, Davnel03 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE New Year's Revolution

I have a question, since the NYR 2008 is questioned whether it will occur, should we add a 2008 section and place "TBA" where needed?--TrUcO9311 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. However, I would like an official source off WWE.com or any other wrestling related website before it gets inserted into the article. Davnel03 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what you do, but if there's another edit war over something so pointless I swear I will flip. The Hybrid 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I say no. It seems like speculation at this point. Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Nikki311 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I remember PWI saying that it wouldn't be taking place. I know the concern about using "those sites" is the backstage gossip and whatnot. But this seems like something that could be considered reliable. Why would they be wrong about the scheduling of a PPV event? Mshake3 16:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as i'm concerned, we should continue listing it unless WWE says they are cancelling it. They announced a date for the 2008 event in the WrestleMania 23 program they sent out to affiliates back in March (I no longer have access to their affiliates page though), so we should continue to include it. It's annoying seeing some people removing it because they read a rumor that the event won't take place (almost as bad as when people would remove Armageddon 2007 even after being shown proof from WWE's corporate website of the date). TJ Spyke 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.asp?id=26224 Why can't we consider this as a source?] Mshake3 21:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, that should be treated as "PWI reports there may not be a 2008 event", but we shouldn't remove mention of the 2008 event unless WWE says something (since they already announced a date for it). Not to mention that I wouldn't call PWIinsider the most reliable rumor site (aren't they still blacklisted here? They were a couple of months ago). I would also like to know the source for 2008 PPV's after WrestleMania 24. TJ Spyke 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Who cares what their sources are? Why don't we trust it? Were they wrong with something? Mshake3 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, it makes more sense to write an article about something, after it has been announced that it will occur, not beforehand. It really has nothing to do with a fan website reporting something may or may not occur. There is no reason I can think of (other than someone wanting to stroke their ego by being first to write an article or add information to an article) to include this type of information until there has been confirmation by the company it involves. Again, no events should be in article space until they have been officially announced, regardless of what has or has not happened in the past. It doesn't help anything, it doesn't make the article better, because its unconfirmed. --Naha|(talk) 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspended WWE Superstars

Can anyone tell who the 13 suspended WWE superstars are? Im not sure atm.Ocelot 13:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for that, just about every dirt sheet site has what they claim is the "confirmed" list though.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't directed at you Ocelot, but why are we having such utterly pointless conversations over the past few days? *sigh* Davnel03 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I was aware there are only 10 suspensions. As it is not possible to ascertain exactly who the suspended Wrestlers are, the media is "recklessly" speculating. WWE has previously threatened legal action against people who make false allegations about anyone on their lists. WWE is also well known to zealously protect the interests of the wrestlers in the "wellness programme". The following link will direct you to the offical WWE statement on the matter; http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wellnesspolicysuspensions . I do recommend to everyone editing pages NOT TO refer to any wrestler as suspended for breach of the wellness programme, at least until it is offically confirmed on 01/11/2007, after all, they might not be! Sparkyboi 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Speculating is illegal anyway, The Hybrid 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I would not say Illegal per se, as freedom of speach is paramont, but I take your point The Hybrid , any speculation on this matter in text without sources could be considered libelous. However and *winks* more importantly speculation is just plain unprofessional, silly and unencyclopediac as it it considered "Own/Original Research" and is just unproveable! Sparkyboi 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Project 161/Age of the Fall

Last Night, at ROH's PPV taping in Chicago, the 4 first members of Age of the Fall(161) were (finally) revealed;Tyler Black, Jimmy Jacobs, Lacey, and Necro Butcher. Do you think it would be appropriate to make an article for it now? If so, I'll probably need your guy's help(To make sure it doesn't get deleted right off the bat; to make any searches for "Project 161" redirect to the AotF article.).--Andy duke 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I STILL don't know what this is about. Mshake3 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
As a lot of us are still confused about this, I suggest you first do a mock up of the entire article you wish to create in a /sandbox or something in a subpage of your user space and then link us to it so that we might get a clue and have a bit more info under our belt so that we can make informed comments :) Please use references and citing too! Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Additional information needed. Yeah, pretty much everyone is confused. The Hybrid 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
$50 says if an article was created on Age of the Fall it would be Prod and/or nominated for deletion in less that a week seeing how it is new and "hasn't achieved anything notable" (like what happened with the No Remorse Corps), so I don't think there is any real reason to create an article on it just yet, and to put all relevant information about AotF in Jimmy Jacobs, Necro Butcher and Lacey. However, since several of you are confused about AotF, I am working on a timeline explaining the background of Jacobs and the setup of Project 161. Nenog 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

With all the complaints about people not looking into the search, I was wondering what is the best to search the archives, without having to manually look into each one? And if there's an easy way, could it be used to create a search bar at the top of the talk page?Mshake3 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles with creation requests

I'm not sure who has visited Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports#Wrestling, but there are some questionable requests: backyard wrestling federations, non-notable podcasters, developmental wrestlers who violate WP:Crystal, articles that have already been deleted several times before. Is there a way to delete/weed out the bad requests, while leaving the good ones? Nikki311 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I went through and cleaned out some of those that fail out of the list, but I only deleted those that I could delete with the information at hand so I wouldn't risk deleting the good ones. Any that I missed can just be removed from the list so long as the deleter is confident the request fails. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to delete other's requests. Thanks. Nikki311 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_28&oldid=1190107740"