Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 44

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

→

Buyrate on PPV template

Can we add like an optional section on the PPV Template for the buyrate of the PPV?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Look at the template's history and talk page. --L A X 21:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok I see it now. Thanks.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing that I would like to propose, is adding the same name chronology in the template. For example like WrestleManias, lets move it from the bottom template and add it to the template with a chronology. I just think it fits better there, but then again I may be wrong, but how do you feel about it?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Alumni

I think that this article should have the same format as the TNA Alumni article. It would avoid the empty spaces left in the "notes" column, and the overload of citation needed tags in the "reference" column. iMatthew 20 08 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make the transformation also. iMatthew 20 08 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds

There is currently a dispute going on over at WWE Roster concerning the status of Vince McMahon. This user will not give up, stating that Vince is active since he wrestled the last two weeks. I believe he has broken the 3RR (that needs to be checked.) Please go to the talk page there and help solve this issue. iMatthew 20 08 23:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Over the Edge 1998 Finished/Peer Review

Hey PW community, I just finished Over the Edge (1998) in just 2 Days!! WOO!!..XD. I have also listed it for peer review here. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant Links

I am having a minor dispute with GuffasBorgz7 over whether having two links to W24 in NWO's article in the SAME section qualifies as a redundant link or not. I have left a message on his talk page, asking to discuss it, and he has ignored it and continued to revert. My reverting again would violate the 3RR, so I'd ask for someone to revert it, or set whichever one of us is wrong straight in this matter. Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, that is just redundant having two links in the same section. Ill go revert it, if he breaks the 3RR rule, I'll report him.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully he'll listen to reason. I even gave him an explanation for my revert on his talk page. Nothing. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

John Cena

What does Cena's article need to do to pass FA? Sexy Sea Shark 17:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article continues to be as unstable has it has been in past months, years when I was actively patrolling it, it may not ever pass FA (in regards to vandalism and "over enthusiastic fans" adding every little detail or match). This is extremly unfortunate, but an article being stable is part of the FA criteria, and we have had articles fail in the past for this reason. As far as article quality, someone else will have to judge that for now, as I don't have time to commit to any particular article at the moment, just sporatic copyediting and comments and such. --Naha|^(talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifying MySpaces

Does anyone know a good way of verifying a MySpace account? There's tons of fakes out there and when people don't know any better they either link them as an external link, or worse, use them as a cite.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the only ways I know is if somebody we know has a MySpace page (like Matt Hardy) confirms the MySpace page of someone else. We also know Gregory Helms has an official one. Just about the only other way I know of is if wrestler has an official website and confirms their MySpace page. TJ Spyke 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sometimes there will be a link from their official website to their official myspace (although people can claim fansites to be official sometimes). Another way is if they have one of those pictures on the myspace of the wrestler holding up a sign confirming the url. Both Ashley Massaro and Matt Hardy have lists of real/official WWE wrestlers' myspaces on their profiles, but they haven't been updated in awhile. The last thing I do to verify is to look through the pictures...if there are a lot of candid shots, then there's a better chance it is real than if all the pictures are from WWE.com or magazines. Nikki311 00:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's something I just found. It is a list of official MySpace pages at Online World of Wrestling. It might help weed out the fakers out there. Nikki311 03:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Billed from"

Normally this isn't an issue, but should be list location wrestlers are billed from if they were only billed from there 1 time? Marcus Cor Von was billed from the "Animal Kingdom" his first week in WWE, then changed to Detroit. Now an editor is trying to put Jeff Hardy being billed from Virginia since a YouTube video shows one of his earliest matches in WWE (in the match against Rob Van Dam in 1997 that was part of a WWF/ECW angle that lead to RVD's "Mr. Monday Night" nickname). Even ignoring the fact that this video can't be allowed as a source, this was the only time he was billed from Virginia (and WWE usually gives random locations to indy jobbers). Does this really warrant listing in his infobox? TJ Spyke 02:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I say no, because to me the billed from section should only be places that they have been billed from for a majority part of their career, like Undertaker was billed from Houston, Texas during his American Bad Ass gimmick, but under his deadman gimmick he is billed from Death Valley, California.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I also say no. A one-time random location from his time as a jobber is hardly notable. Nikki311 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That editor was blocked for abusing editing privileges. He violated 3RR and made personal attacks. Nikki311 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

TJ shouldn't be edit warring like he was doing at the Jeff Hardy article. I didn't go through each and every edit, but if that editor was blocked for 3RR.. TJ should be too. TJ's been warned about this. He is limited to one revert per day. I can imagine TJ will claim it's a verification issue, and helping with vandalism... but I don't think those excuses justify the constant reverting. TJ knew what he was doing, and didn't stop until the other user finally was blocked. A similar thing happened with the Royal Rumble article last month, which was ignored. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He was reverting unsourced info, which is a one step from vandalism. I see no problem with him reverting more than once. There was no conflict, the other user was wrong. He had no argument, so I fail to see how it could be called an "edit war." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is one step away from vandalism, and the youtube can not be used as a source, he was putting in info he thought was legitimate, it would have been better to take it to the talk page, and handle it, instead of 3rr'ing the one, and not the other, thats all.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, going to the talk page would have been a better option, but I still feel Rob is making this out be a much bigger deal than it really is. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you didn't know: TJ is on revert patrole. He is allowed one revert per day, due to the agreement (that TJ personally agreed to when he was unblocked). Revert/edit/3RR warring over borderline vandalism is still disruptive. TJ knows to use the talk page, so this behavior shouldn't be ignored each and everytime he does it. If I have to bring this up at an admin board (or several) the next time it happens, I will. TJ's behavior was supposed to be changed, but he's just going back to his old edit war ways. I'm not going to stand by and let TJ go against an agreement, due to everyone thinking everything his reverts are instantly just "reverting vandalism" and nothing more. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Importance rating for two articles

I was going through some wrestling championship articles tonight, and I noticed that IWGP Heavyweight Championship and AJPW Triple Crown Championship were rated as Low-importance. Since they are the top titles in Japan's two biggest promotions, I raised the rating to Mid-importance. I thought I should mention that here, though, and if the consensus is to go back to Low-importance, I can live with that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No argument here. Nikki311 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Naha|^(talk) 16:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fake move names

Do these kids think they're clever or something? What's the point of putting stupid made up shit like "Glamabomb?" Morons. Max85 —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite annoying and it happens all the time. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. All we can do is delete them and explain why in the edit summary and move on. Unfortunately there isn't a way to control idiocy.--Naha|^(talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Title listings

There have been talks about this in the past but, in order to avoid an edit war, I figured it ought to be hashed out here. DanteAugusta wishes to list all championship reigns of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, including when the title was defended in both WCW and TNA, under the National Wrestling Alliance subsection in the championships and accomplishments section rather than list the reigns according to the promotion a wrestler wrestled for when he won the title. Personally, I prefer listing the title under the various NWA affiliated promotions. A lot of the NWA promotions, particularly some of the more recent ones, don't have articles but the information needed to properly list a title reign under a certain promotion can be found on wrestling-titles.com. Odin's Beard (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While a list specifically for TNA or WCW is appropriate, I also think a full list of the reign is appropriate, and you can create a section in the table that says what promotion it was defended in if it was contracted. Heck, I am even in favor of making it a sortable table (we know how much I love those now) LessThanClippers (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Show

Simple: Should his 'Return to the WWF' be placed in chronological order or fall under his WWF chapter umbrella? Discuss. --Endless Dan 18:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WWF (WWE) section. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I disagree. Someone is citing Jericho's page as example, but that is a poor comparison because Jericho didn't go anywhere after he left the WWE. If compared to someone like Hogan or Nash's article, both guys had 2 seperate stints in the WWE and their pages are in chronological order. It looks and reads less confusing. --Endless Dan 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well they have longer history in the wrestling industry. Show hasnt gone anywhere but wrestle in one place at the MCW event. It wouldnt make sense to have 2 umbrellas of WWE that are seperated by a small paragraph of MCW. Now if Show went to TNA and was there for a while, then we would add another umbrella, but he only went to wrestle in one place for one night.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the MCW junk shouldn't even have it's own paragraph? It is notable, but how notable is it? Does it really warrant it's own section? It was 1 off match at an inconsequential show held by an inconsequential promotion. Couldn't we compromise and maybe include that in a sentence as to what he did during his time off? --Endless Dan 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only reason it's notable is because he stated that he did not want to be called Big Show, and because he lost alot of weight and said he wanted to become a pro boxer. I agree that it could be squeezed in there in a sentence or two. Then this whole edit war can be resolved.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should be chronological and under separate headers. Perhaps the Boxing and Clash of Legends should be in the same paragraph, explaining what he did in the interim between his WWE stints, and used to separate the sections. It would also help explain his weight loss during his time off. On a similar note, I really enjoyed the hidden warning next to the 2008 header in Big Show's article. :) Nikki311 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can do something what about this. It's notable enough that he did the show, but does it truely need it's own paragraph? Perhaps the paragraph can be relocated or retitled (Post-WWE 2007)? --Endless Dan 19:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, happy you liked my message :) --Endless Dan 19:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I like Post-WWE 2007. Then the boxing stuff would fit in the section nicely, it would be a little bigger, and cover more than just the one match. I agree that one match shouldn't have its own section. Nikki311 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Dan you won. Happy?...And I did all that was propose. RIPTrU Co ⁹31¹ 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know the situation. But this isn't a game and it doesn't have winners and losers. Everyone should have what they believe is best for the encyclopedia in mind, and not get all bent out of shape if their idea is not the one that we go with ...its just about what the majority thinks is the most right way to do something if there isn't a set-in-stone rule, because that is the best we can hope to do. Most of you have had various suggestions in the past that I've both agreed and disagreed with and I'm sure that is the case for all of us. You all do good work, don't let your egos get the better of you.

In my opinion, articles need to stay in chronological order whenever possible. The Post-WWE 2007 section suggestion sounds fine to me. --Naha|^(talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. On any note we need to put Show's article, along with Floyd Mayweather on our watchlists. Oscar de la Hoya's name is also being thrown around by the wrestling-news sites so it's worth putting his article on our watchlists too. D.M.N. (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Truco, this wasn't a competition. We both remained level-headed and this was not blown up. I felt reading the article out of order to be confusing. My feelings about that apply to any article out of chronological order, wrestling or not.

If you still feel that the article should be as it was, just air it out. I'm not losing sleep if the Big Show article bugs me or not. --Endless Dan 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It don't matter. I agree to. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 19:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but it still seems like your bent out of shape about this matter. --Endless Dan 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not, All i did was change what was proposed by the WP:PW community. So yea...TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Official" sites

Will someone please look at Homicide187.com and Shawn Hernandez.net and tell me if you think it is the official site, or if its a fan site claiming to be an official site. User: Talia madison keeps removing them from Homicide and Hernandez's pages, claiming that they are fans sites because of who they have listed under "affiliates". Apparently it is outside the realm of possibility for a wrestler to be friends with or know someone who works with WWE if they work for TNA. So please, look at them and compare them to other known official sites such as CM Punk.com and tell me if you think they are real or not.

Oh, and one other thing. Homicide has the link to his (alleged) website on his MySpace page. Nenog (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, User: Talia madison Violated 3RR during this dispute. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

Could some other members please put the page on watch? With the announcements set to begin, the page will likely be hit by a wave of vandals and people who add unconfirmed speculation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the heads up. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Added. Nikki311 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Last year was a problem with people adding fake and rumored names, I don't expect this year to be different. I will watch it also. TJ Spyke 01:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It also wouldn't hurt to put the WWE Hall of Fame page on watch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-Related but I would put the WWE Roster page on watch as Floyd Mayweather may be constantly added to the page. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

COTW

Shawn Michaels has been the FACOTM for two weeks now, and nobody updated the COTW yesterday. I'm not sure how to do most of the updating, but Mr. Kennedy is the COTW for the next two weeks. Nikki311 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have changed it, but I didn't know how and didn't want to "mess up" the setting. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got almost everything updated, except the template which says what the current COTW is (located at the top of the collaboration page and bottom corner of WP:PW). Does that eventually update automatically when I add the {{Current-PWCOTW}} template to Mr. Kennedy's talk page, or do I have to go somewhere special to change it? I've added the template to his talk page, but the COTW is still marked as Shawn Michaels. Nikki311 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I got it. You go here and make the change. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. Nikki311 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetizing

I brought this up during my rumble sorting, but I want to know what consensus is or should be for all lists. I thought we alphabetize by the first word in the name, ignoring "the" So Bob Armstrong would Come after The Big Show. (Bi before Bo). Is this correct? LessThanClippers (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Mshake3 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

Just a quick reminder to project members--if you revert vandalism, please place the appropriate warning on the vandal's talk page. Warnings can be given by any member of the Wikipedia community, so you do not have to be an administrator to use them. If vandals aren't given warnings, nothing will ever be done about them. For example, quite a few of us have the Phil Theis article on our watchlist. Many users create accounts simply to vandalise that one article (and perhaps the Jobber disambiguation page). We need to remember to go through the steps to get them blocked or banned, and the first step is giving out warnings every time.

For a list of warning templates and explanations of how to use them, check out Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates. The vandalism ones are the ones that will be used most often, so if you click on any of the warnings in that row, it will give you examples of how they are used (and can be adapted to mention the specific article).

Thanks for your help, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just put a level 3 warning on Tahi_Paenga's talk page - this user apparently likes seeing their name in the WWE champions list. ArcAngel (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another tool now available for all of us to help fight vandalism is the rollback feature. The feature gives you the ability to rollback multiple vandalized edits to the last good edit. It used to only be available to administrators, but non-admins can now request it. I recently requested it and it definately helps quite a bit. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Be careful though. Sometimes a good edit will be made between vandalism edits and i've seen people use the rollback feature without checking first (so the good edits were reverted too). As for warnings, I always give them. Hell, I think i've given warnings to hundreds of IPs alone. TJ Spyke 00:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently not even the members list is immune from vandalism. I just removed what I'll call "graffiti" from the bottom of the list, and added the appropriate messages to the user's talk page. But the members list has been added to my watchlist to hopefully prevent further occurances. ArcAngel (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

Well even with 2 weeks the delivery is an issue, so what do we about this? (The Feb 17th issue was not delivered).--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if people from the project understood the delivery procedure, we could suggest a way to make sure it goes out on time. As it is now, I try to keep things updated on the newsletter, but I assume that we rely on magic for the delivery system. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well iMatthew/Hybrid they usually contacted Mizabot (the bot who archives this talk page) to deliver it. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronic also did. We contact User:Misza13 to have her deliver it using the greatest spambot in the history of Wikipedia with no strings attached. I'll take care of notifying her from now on. Sexy Sea Bass 02:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bow down to the Sexy Sea Bass, thanks Hybrid. So this is all you will be doing on Wiki since you're on that "retirement"?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just forget about that whole thing. I'm back RC patrolling and everything, the sexy bass is back baby!* Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 02:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC) *Disclaimer:The sexy bass never actually left

GRRRREAT...we need more experienced users patrolling PW articles around here.

TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble qualifications

Do we really need them for the Royal Rumble 2005 and 2006? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 04:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally no, but we seem to have them for the Money in the Bank ladder match. Mshake3 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PWI Awards...again

Am I recalling incorretly, or was the previous consensus was that only each wrestler's highest ranking throughout their career is notable enough to appear in the Championships and Accomplishments section? LAX has been removing them from articles, so I want to check on my memory here. Who made the mistake? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this one the discussion? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remembered a recent discussion about this, but when I went through the archives, I couldn't find one. I must have been mistaken. --L A X 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a consensus was ever reached. People who wanted them removed said that the consensus was to remove them. People who wanted them to stay said that the consensus was to keep them. My personal preference is to keep the highest PWI 500 ranking if it adds to the article (and preferably if it can be worked into the text). I think we should definitely keep the rankings from the top 500 wrestlers of the PWI Years and the top 100 tag teams of the PWI Years. As for PWI Awards, we were far from reaching a consensus. I tried to discuss it, but the people who disagreed with me were not interested in reaching a compromise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to reach a compromise if those that support the PWI rankings and awards have some proof that they're as important and influential to professional wrestling other than their personal opinions. I've been accused of making this same argument over and over again, but that makes it no less relevant. The reason I keep bringing it up is because it's yet to be refuted. Why do none of the major promotions, or any of the promotions for that matter, tout the rankings and awards? Why didn't the WWE go on and on about Cena's consecutive most popular wrestler awards, and so on and so forth. If they're so important and infuential, then it's high time they were proven to be so.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if WWE didn't mention the PWI awards, why would that matter? Pro Wrestling Illustrated is very notable, so why wouldn't their annual awards be worth mentioning? Video game companies rarely mention awards (I say rarely, I know sometimes they do) but that doesn't mean we don't mention them in the articles of those pages. TJ Spyke 01:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about the WWE, I'm talking about all of professional wrestling in general. As for why it matters, recognition in return by the industry an award is set up for is part of why an award is created to begin with. The SAGs, Oscars, Grammys, AMAs, CMAs, Nobel etc. are all have legitimacy, due in part, to the recognition they recieve by what they honor. Granted, PWI and its awards aren't as revered as those organizations of course, but there should be some standard of importance. I know that pro wrestling is basically a collection of multiple entities or organizations and many have different standards for this and that, but for PWI to get nothing from any of them just seems strange. For promotions not to use whatever awards their promotion or wrestlers win to hype their product would say to me "These things are important. They carry weight and influence in professional wrestling". Odin's Beard (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will admit that the awards don't get as much mention now (but they used too). I have found mentions of the PWI 500 on ECWA (one of the bigger indy feds, they host the annual Super 8 tournament): [1], [2]. I can also provide tons of coverage on wrestling news sites. TJ Spyke 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

ECWA isn't a big indy promotion. They've been in business for forever and do hold arguably the most important tournament in independent wrestling, but they're a very, very small indy promotion. But thats neither here nor there. Nenog (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WWF/WWE Title Images

I happen to notice that a few articles for different WWF/WWE Championship Belts are missing images to show the most recent, and past versions of such titles. I know that most of the images that are being used are of metal replica belts. I happen to own a few plastic replica belts that have been sold by WWE and Jakks Pacific, and I am wondering if members of the project feel that pictures of such replica belts would be acceptible to use until someone owning metal replica belts creates pictures of them? (I personally do not know if they will even photograph well, but I do want to help the articles out if I have the ability to do so.)

To list what belts I can take pictures of:

WWE Championship (Undisputed Championship)
WWE Championship (Smokin' Skull)
WWF Intercontinental Championship (Before the nameplate)
WWF European Championship
WWF Lightheavyweight Championship

Please list if you support, or oppose. Kogoro_9_23 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This has been talked about before. See here for reference. The Chronic 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really inform me to too much. It shows that one project member feels that the $30 plastic replicas aren't worth use, and that one other user feels that if one appears as such, it's better than nothing. I personally wish to see more than just two opinions on the matter. I am sorry to dissapoint. Kogoro_9_23 21:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends how well, and closely they really look to the real belt.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I say take the the pictures and let us see them. I agree with Truco, we'll see how good they look. Something is better than nothing. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the massive delay on getting an image to you. Currently, I only have an image of the WWE Undisputed Championship, but I plan to take more once I can get a white BG, I used blue on this one, and had to take a while to edit it all out... you can see the image here. (Hopefully it's ok to link to a photobucket account, since I currently know little about uploading onto Wikipedia.) Kogoro_9_23 06:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really think that would be good to put into an article due to it being a plastic replica of that version of the WWE Undispudent ChampionshipTrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your thoughts on my picture of the WWE Undisputed Championship. I don't feel that it would be good as a permanent image in the article, but it is better than not having any image to show it's appearance, since it was a significant part of the title's history. I was only hoping for adequate to good quality images of plastic versions to be used until an image of a better quality "$300" replica could be used. But I don't mind if that isn't worth doing. Kogoro_9_23 02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that is true, but we'll have to see how the WP Community feels about it...TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Legend Thriller?

If this has already been discussed, I apologize. As most of you know, I haven't been around lately and have missed a lot of discussions.

On Jeff Hardy's article, one of his listed nicknames is "The Legend Thriller." ..now, I haven't missed a single episode of RAW, SmackDown! or ECW since long before Hardy's current return, and I haven't heard anyone call him this. Its possible that I missed it if I got up to go to the bathroom or something ..but [I tend to not get up while Hardy is on screen] and really, has he been called this so much that its a "real" nickname [that deserves article space], or is this just something some fans are saying? I did a google search for "The Legend Thriller" and it got 795 results. JR still refers to him the "Rainbow hair warrior" as of a week or so ago. --Naha|^(talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JR has referred to him as such during his matches several times since he began his feud with Orton. My personal opinion is that the name should indeed be listed in the article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only heard him referred as that once, but it is possible he was referred to it more than that. My personal opinion is that it should not be included in the article. Once the feud with Orton is over, he'll likely never be called that again. Nikki311 15:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

His feud with Orton is over, and I definitely recall hearing JR refer to him as the Legend Thriller during his match with Snitsky on Monday. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Several times, really Gavyn? I mean its possible that I've just misheard JR and assumed he said "Killer", referring to Orton ..but I really don't think I would have misheard it THAT many times? At the moment I'm inclined to agree with Nikki, it would appear to be "fad" name for the stint of this feud with Orton. I mean, its not a HUGE deal, I was just wondering.--Naha|^(talk) 15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible I misheard JR. But I'm pretty sure he did say "Thriller" referring to Jeff, but I could be wrong. And it's not really a big deal, you're right. If it's not in the article, I don't really mind. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep yep! :)--Naha|^(talk) 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JR also refered to him as that after he nailed a whisper in the wind against Snitsky on monday night. At this point, I think it belongs in the article.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the same one specific instance that Gavyn mentioned above. --Naha|^(talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think it's official. Nikki311 17:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What if an article on WWE.com is found that calls him as such? I'm not saying one exists, but it's something to think about. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, its almost the same thing with WWE referring to Orton as a "One man dynasty". But in this case, I would wait and see if Hardy is still referred to as the Legend Thriller. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Vengeance (2005)

I thought I would let the PW community know that I've inserted a peer review for Vengeance and I hope that you can help in getting the article to Good status. The link is here. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An extra set of eyes or two

This is tangentially related to wrestling, and I hate to do this here but I don't know where else to ask, but can someone else add 12 Rounds to their watch list? It seems that if it's left for more than a few hours it gets inundated with vandalism (Al Pacino and Piper Parabo in it, release dates) that are just...random. It's not enough to get it protected, and most of it seems to be coming from one anon with a changing IP. To facilitate their nonsense whoever it doing it is just reverting to a version with all of the citations removed. I'm fairly certain the current article has the latest hard information though.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. Nikki311 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Help please

I'm trying to take a wikibreak, but there's a problem with my pet article, Briscoe Brothers. User:70.81.226.227 is systematically taking the word "World" out of every title mentioned in the article. I reverted once and templated him, but he started to do it again just a few minutes ago (I reverted the first section edit, since that's how he did it the first time, section by section). It's probably going to persist, if I had to guess.

So, yes, help please. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I got you. On my watchlist.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I left him a message explaining that we go by what the promotion calls their title (so ROH can call their titles "world" titles even though they don't have world title status). I will watch the article for a short time. TJ Spyke 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

on my list, enjoy your wiki break. LessThanClippers (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Video Library notability question

is it worth noting on the WWE Video Library article that some WCW programming seems to have been lost or otherwise is unairable? For example, the June 9, 97 Nitro had "recording errors" preventing it from being put on 24/7. I'm fairly certain this isn't the only case (and it's been reported that the WCW tapes were in bad condition and unorganized when they were handed over).«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lance Storm mentions under part one here [3] how horribly unorganized the WCW stuff was when Vince picked it up. I don't know if that helps at all; I just happened to stumble upon it today. - DrWarpMind (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I also heard the lack of organization and lack of preserving the WCW tape library, but that was mostly the fault of Turner Sports and not necessary WCW. I'm sure citing Lance Storm's article could justify putting it in the article. You can also use the June 9 episode of The Monday Night War as a reference when it comes to just that episode of Nitro. --Raderick (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lady Victoria

I just discovered an article today called Lady Victoria. It only has one major contributor, whose contributions are pretty much limited to the one article. It was atrocious when I found it...in terms of grammar, MoS violations, and images without proper licensing. I cleaned up the article as best I could, but User:Rlegaspi keeps reverting to his previous version. I've tried to start a dialogue about it on his talk page, but he ignored it and continued reverting. I'm getting close to violating 3RR, as is he, so could somebody help me out and watch the article for me? Thanks. Nikki311 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it as well. ArcAngel (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

As have I LessThanClippers (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved this problem through e-mail. Nikki311 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hell Brothers

I'm quite surprised that one, if not the most popular stables in Mexican lucha libre today does not have an article. Anyone want to work with me in creating a solid article for this group? --Raderick (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that it was deleted thrice for being total nonsense. Maybbe if done right it will stay put. --Raderick (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania 25

So if WWE announces the location and date for it this monday during the WMXXIV press conference, we can create the article right?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. After all, we can't do it now, unfortunately Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! :D D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok just making sure.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It won't be announcing WM25. They usually announce that during WM itself (so they will announce it during WrestleMania XXIV). Monday's press conference is expected to just be the standard PPV press conference and to announce Big Show/Mayweather for WM. TJ Spyke 02:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

New article: Ion Croitoru/Johnny K-9/Bruiser Bedlam

I've been working on a new article this week, and I finished it today and would like to move it to the main space. I'm not sure what the proper title would be, though. The article is at User:GaryColemanFan/Bedlam. I'm thinking that Bruiser Bedlam would be the proper place because that is the name I am most familiar with. Half of the article is about his personal life, though, so Ion Croitoru might make more sense. I would really appreciate some opinions on this.

I would also be very interested in nominating it for Good Article status sometime. Any feedback, proofreading, etc., on the article would be very helpful. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on his time at Taras Bulbas in WCCW? (I didn't even realize he was Taras so I learned something today, awesome) MPJ-DK (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it was the other Taras Bulba who wrestled in WCCW (see here). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've only quickly scanned it for now (I'm supposed to be studying for the two giant exams I have on Monday so I really can't do anything major until Monday afternoon/Tuesday), but it looks good thus far. I don't think anyone would argue with moving it to mainspace. Since he has more than one prominent ring name and half of the article is about his personal life, my opinion is that the article should be located under his real name. Nikki311 05:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have created the article at Ion Croitoru. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"Do not Add Week by Week Events or Future Events"

I'm kinda confused as to... how far this goes? Shouldn't we still add stuff like announced future pay-per-view events (like a Wrestlemania match or something) and things like that? 3pointswish (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I know there was kind of an edit war around this time last year in the CM Punk article over including that Punk beat Johnny Nitro to gain entry to the Money in the Bank match at Wrestlemania23. Some people were for including it because it was a huge win for him that got him into an important match at the biggest pay-per-view of the year, but people kept removing it because saying he was going to compete at WM was against "future events", and without the mention of that the win of Nitro wasn't that big of a deal (and there you got "week-by-week"). Under those situations, I'm for the inclusion of it, but if its stuff like "On the February 21 edition of Impact, Shark Boy lost a random match to who cares" then no. Nenog (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood the future events rule, or why PPVs are seemingly exempt from it. I mean, look at boxers. They have huge fights planned months in advance. I don't check their articles, but I'm pretty sure the big upcoming PPV bouts are listed. Seems like another "conscous created out the wazoo", just like the argument about weights below. As for the "week by week", it should really say "do not add unimportant week by week content." Mshake3 (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

User:NKplatinum

This user is going around adding height/weight templates to wrestlers articles, even though we don't use them for the Infobox Wrestler template. If you see a wrestler article with the template, feel free to revert it. TJ Spyke 04:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always used the templates on articles that I've worked on. Why wouldn't we use them? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get that either, for a long time the WP:PW definitely DID use the weight & height templates I don't understand why that changed or what's wrong with those templates nor do I remember seeing a consensus about it.MPJ-DK (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There never was one. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so - maybe now is a good time to create an official WP:PW consensus? Weight/Height templates? Ya or nay?? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite my having just reverted a bunch of them, why exactly do we not use them? Or does the Wrestler Infobox already cover it? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no rhyme or reason, nor a consensus. In other words, it depends on personal preference. It's nothing worth having a discussion or dispute about. If you want to use templates, or see them as too much trouble, then fine. There is, however, no sense in systematically reverting a user's edits over it. Gavyn, with your permission, I will go through and rollback those reverts you made for you. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you're a rollbacker. Nevermind the offer then. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense when some people would rather spend time with removing templates than actually adding content, especially when those people also come here and say "we don't use templates" like it was agreed on and not just that one person's personal oppoinion of how he personally would handle stuff and it's passed off as a project consensus. I'd personally put the template back on all the articles I oversee but they'd just be reverted back by someone stating a personal preference for the move instead of anything based on a consensus. A WP:PW consensus avoids these stupid "revert wars" over what is really a trivial matter (which I loathe) so why not just make a consensus on the WP:PW "Manual of Style" and be done with it? And I agree it's NOT worth having a dispute over, yet people do and I'm just bored stiff by it, figured we could get a consensus and move on to actually adding content and improving articles instead. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If TJ doesn't respond in 15 minutes I'm rolling back his edits in the name of project consensus against his reversions. Sexy Sea Bass 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just going by what the template uses. I don't recall there ever being a discussion one way or another. As for my preferences, the height one doesn't bother me. The weight one adds in their weight in Stones, which is an obscure measurement only used in the UK and Ireland (and even there its use is declining). The only reason I brought this up was because the user was going ahead and doing this to dozens of articles (even after I pointed out the template to him) and also changing UK wrestlers so that metric measurements are the ones in parenthesis (even though it was agreed a couple of years ago to list metric measurements first for UK wrestlers). If I had to pick, I would stick with out current format (not using the height/weight templates). Also, there is no reason to revert my edits since I am following the template format (as I stated in my edit summaries). TJ Spyke 05:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to be upset about it listing the weight in stones. Obscure or not, it is a real measurement used in the real world today. It's use is nothing to be upset about; you're the one assigning the value to it in your mind. Anyway, I agree the UK wrestlers should have the metric measurements take precedence over the English measurements. I also feel that templates should be used whenever possible as they are the standard on Wikipedia, and make everything automatic. Since you replied, I won't pull a mass revert; it simply appeared that you were ignoring the situation, and I wanted to send a message that people took issue with your seemingly FTW attitude regarding this. Sexy Sea Bass 05:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't ignoring the situation, I was just busy editing and hadn't checked back here yet. I'm not upset about Stones, but it doesn't make sense to use them when they are rarely used anymore and being used less and less overtime. In fact, it's not even an official measurement anymore and is only unofficially used by some people. Using it would be like using other old measurements like Koku. TJ Spyke 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then bring it up on the discussion page for the template, but we should stick with current Wikipedia standards in the absence of a pressing reason not to. Sexy Sea Bass 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is almost zero discussion on the template talk page, there's been 20 edits total since July 2005. People are more likely to discuss it here. There is no one standard for Wikipedia, so we can't really use that argument (different Template Infoboxes use different methods). TJ Spyke 05:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Then bring it up at the village pump or the help desk to get some discussion going. The most widespread difference between some infoboxes and others is that some have the conversions written in, so all that is necessary is one measurement for all to be displayed, and others don't. Sexy Sea Bass 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I gotta get some food. This isn't a huge deal anyway. Sexy Sea Bass 05:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've brought it up at the help desk. I have an idea and will try it out. TJ Spyke 05:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it me or somebody had done exactly the same thing earlier this month? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can recall. TJ Spyke 05:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Me either. Sexy Sea Bass 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, what about switching over to what Template:Infobox NFLactive uses? It would mean having to use this for UK wrestlers too, but it would be even easier to use than the height/weight conversions since all you would have to do is enter a few simple numbers (see Tom Brady for an example of how easy it would be). TJ Spyke 06:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I knew that déjà vu felling was true, see here that time it was a bot switching the template, but the result was the same TJ changed the bot induced changes. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I feel there should be a link to the discussion of every consensus made on here. Otherwise, it's just one man using his personal opinion to control the project. Mshake3 (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, when HBK's article "failed" FA status, one of the things were to fix the height and weight settings. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The conversion template that I use doesn't include stones. See Ion Croitoru for an example. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, do not go around and start removing these templates like you did on Katarina Waters article. [4] If you disagree with 'stones' being added to the template, do not remove the whole template by itself. There is a way to remove "stones" without removing the entire template. The use of the templates for height and weight are standards on the Wikipedia project as a whole with athletics articles, not only to professional wrestling articles and you do not reserve the right to remove them without a consensus to do so. (This is why articles fail WP:FA as mentioned above). — Save_Us † 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1)Shawn Michaels did not fail the FA nomination, it was withdrawn by the nominator. 2)There is no standard for height and weight for Wikipedia (there are multiple conversion formats), and none are used for wrestlers. I do have a right to remove them since there is no consensus to include them either. If I had to agree to a conversion template (which I don't), it would be to use {{convert|6|ft|5|in|cm|abbr=on}} for height and {{convert|173|lb|kg|0|abbr=on}} for weight, and keep that bot from adding stones to it (which is the thing that started bugging me with the template, a bot started going aroung and adding Stones to the weight template). TJ Spyke 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Moe, you are such a damn hypocrite. You bitch about me reverting them back to their original format, then you go around and do the exact same thing? What is your problem? TJ Spyke 01:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1) You need to calm down.

2) I know it didn't pass, but as pointed out above, that is a thing that was suggested to be fixed in order to get it to FA status, which is the ultimate goal for articles.

3) Please, please, name a decent sportspersons article (featured or a good article) that doesn't use a conversion template of some kind (besides pro wrestling articles and something that doesn't have an alternate like {{Infobox NFLactive}}). I didn't say there was a consensus, I said it was a standard, a norm if you will. Someone adding something normal to an sportsperson's article, professional wrestling in this instance, and you reverted because you don't like. Well tough, they were being used on wrestling articles long before that and you arbitrarily just decide that something normal isn't allowed because its an article on your watchlist. I remember in 2006 adding these to wrestling articles and no one bitched about it. I removed the "stones" part of the template while readding the normal conversions. Do have a legitimate problem with conversion templates other than you not liking them? — Save_Us † 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got upset after seeing you going around and undoing all my edits after you complained about me doing the same thing. One of the problems I had with conversion templates is that they either looked odd or don't use what we use. The templates I posted above (which I also impletemented at Jeff Hardy is one that I can accept. It automatically converts the info, but continues looking like nice and simple. I would like to see this be the standard if no one has any objections. TJ Spyke 02:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no reason to make personal attacks to begin with. I can live with the other conversion templates as well. I agree we didn't need stones for this particular article (The Highlanders may be different), but I didn't see a reason why you needed to revert all of those changes to the unformatted text when you could have alternatively added a conversion template that was more acceptable to what measurements we use (like you pointed out on the Jeff Hardy article) when you disagreed with a measurement used instead of a conversion. Please, use an alternative instead of straight reverting next time, that was my main grievence. — Save_Us † 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So we're agreed...templates can be useful, stones can be awkward, bots can do strange things, and well-intentioned discussion can be a good thing. I see no reason for further personal attacks or criticisms. I think all sides have made their points, and I think it's for the best if we spend our editing time improving professional wrestling articles. Thank you to everyone for your openness to discuss the issue. I believe we can now put it to rest. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

I have finished expanding this article. The only thing left to be done is to add sources to it. This is not my cup of tea, and I have not the time nor the inclination to actually go and source the whole thing. DMN was going to handle this end, but he has not had time either lately. I'd like to politely ask that if anyone could go ahead and take a look at the article and source them things. I'd really appreciate it. I want to eventually take this article to GAC once it's sourced, so any opinions on any part of the article would be great. Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll add some refs. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicious and Delicious probably should be put in AFD

This was deleted in the past, and I see no reason it should be around again. The team did nothing notable while in WCW. Both members were in NWO, but they still didn't do anything notable as a team. Relevant information is already listed on their articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted because of an expired PROD - that hardly counts as a consensus. At any rate, they were active for two years during WCW's boom period, and that itself is notable enough to warrant an article. McJeff (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't appear notable though other than that they were a minor tag-team section of the nWo. They might be worth some very minor mention in the nWo article, but they don't warrant an article of their own. As RobJ1981 said, they did nothing notable as a tag-team, and they didn't even win the WCW Tag Team Titles. Cody Rhodes & Hardcore Holly, or even John Morrison and The Miz seem more notable to me, since they at least won Tag Team Titles as teams. Yet both of those teams aren't notable enough to be mentioned in more than their personal articles. - Kogoro_9_23 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Brand Extension Complete

< So I am expanding the WWE Brand Extension article like the 2007 WWE Draft article, where the expansion is in my sandbox. But I have encountered a problem, because the first 21 picks were made on TV, but the rest were made over WWF.com, but I have no idea what order the superstars were selected, as all the sources that I have read just list the pick and the two wrestlers chosen. [5][6], since the sources dont list the order, so what order do I put them in?TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The magic of the Internet Archive. Here is the original page from WWF.com from April 2002 listing all the draft picks: [7]. TJ Spyke 22:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I already included that. As for the actual order, just read a show recap. Mshake3 (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the WWE Brand Extension is a new article =). Could it be raised to B class?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

30th Good Article

A quick update...the article on Torrie Wilson passed its Good Article review today, which brings the project's total to 30. Congratulations to everyone involved. I know Nikki did a ton of work on the article, and the article's history shows that quite a few other people helped as well. Great job, everyone.

I also noticed a Good Article that seems to have slipped by without notice. Karen McDougal was apparently involved with professional wrestling, and the article on her passed a GA review at the end of December. And on top of that, we've got seven current GA candidates and quite a few other articles that are ready to be nominated in the near future. Thank you to everyone for your hard work. The contributions from this project have really been impressing me. Let's remember to focus on the positives and keep working toward more and more Good Articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think McDougal can count though. Her only involvment in wrestling was participating in the 2004 Diva Search, and she didn't even make it to the top 10. TJ Spyke 06:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my photos helped out. Mshake3 (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE Alumni (again)

I've brought this up in two previous discussions and got no responses. I think that this list should be re-formated to list format, like the TNA alumni page. The WWE one had IMO too many tables. It also has way too many empty boxes in the "notes" column. The reference column is also full of citation needed tags. Putting the article in list format would get rid all of those problems. iMatthew 20 08 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Imma bit neutral on this, because what are we going to do with the citations already there (if you want to make it into a list)?

You just put it next to the person's name. It would list the ring name, then the person's real name in parenthesize, and the citation right after that. iMatthew 20 08 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well I guess that'll be ok.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 16:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make the change, but first we need more opinions. iMatthew 20 08 16:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I ~~support~~TrU Co ⁹31¹ 16:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

More opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! iMatthew 20 08 17:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was a list format like years ago. O_o but editors requested that the alumni page be in table formatting, so I placed it in table formatting for them. The problem with list formatting was that editors were having to scroll through the large amount of names and it wasn't 'easy on the eyes' so to speak. The table formatting resolved that problem, but I feel it will grow to be sloppy if done in list formatting again. — Save_Us † 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that it's complicated with the coding of the table. There is constant problems with users trying to edit the table. They delete one wrong thing, and the page is completely messed up. It is much easier (again, IMO) to edit a list. I think we should try it out, and if it there are problems with it, we'll change it back. iMatthew 20 08 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Matt but I didn't know the history of the page and now looking at it, with that many names I have to agree with Y2J.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 19:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to test it out. Would anyone have a problem if I did it in my sandbox, and then let everyone review it? iMatthew 20 08 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we can forget this, and change the TNA Alumni page to table format. They should both have the same format. iMatthew 20 08 19:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you test out the list in your sandbox? --L A X 19:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do. iMatthew 20 08 19:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again..

...a user has moved WWE Friday Night SmackDown! to WWE SmackDown! with no previous consensus for it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the little move war, the article has been protected from being moved for 1 month (it's not protected from being edited, just from being moved) since the Move button is only for uncontested moves. If somebody wants to move it, they will have to do what they should have originally done, go through the moving process at WP:RM. TJ Spyke 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a consensus about the moving? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One has been reached, its still called "Friday Night" SmackDown! a discussion is still ongoing in the talk page.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gorilla Monsoon

I was looking up Gorilla Monsoon, and noticed typing that in takes you to a disambiguation page, apparently because there is an obscure German band with that name. The article about the band is horribly written, I seriosuly doubt many people are looking for the band when they type in "Gorilla Monsoon".

If anything, "Gorilla Monsoon" should take the user to the wrestler's page, with perhaps a disambig link at top. I don't know how to do this, someone else want to tackle it? --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have requested a move. See Talk:Gorilla Monsoon (wrestler). TJ Spyke 00:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw it and added my support. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I urge people NOT to fix the links (changing from "Gorilla Monsoon" to "Gorilla Monsoon (wrestler)") since they will just have to be changed back if/when it gets moved back in a few days. TJ Spyke 02:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Delivery

I left a note on Misza talk page, has anyone received it?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow another delay. *Sigh, this newsletter is on a 2 week delay.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad, i never should have committed to reporting it to Misza. Anyway, she does have the 24 hour leeway period. I remind everyone, we're lucky to have her doing this at all. Sexy Sea Bass 02:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

True that. But still, this is too much. 2 weeks on delay. Well hopefully we can get it by morning =)TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the newsletter mention that we have a new admin, (LAX)? iMatthew 20 08 03:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done Sexy Sea Bass 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE SvR 2008 roster: list or prose?

This is cross posted with the Wikiproject: Video Games here

There has been an edit war in the past possibly 6 months whether to list or prose the roster. Since discussion guidelines to reach consensus is not to vote for a decision but to discuss it and make sure most people agree with it. And read the Talk page of the article and archives to see previous discussions of the issue. Please voice your opinion.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How is "Online world of wrestling" a source?

It's just a random fan site with nothing official about it. Max85 —Preceding comment was added at 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a random fan site, you would know if you bothered to actually check. It's one of the more reliable third party wrestling sites out there, especially for match results. TJ Spyke 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what TJ said. I have attended a fair share of shows myself and always check the results posted there when I return home. I'm not saying they are not capable of making mistakes, but I've never seen one for a show I've attended. --Naha|^(talk) 16:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they were formerly known as "obsessedwithwrestling.com" and were (and still are) one of the most reliable sites out there. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think the wrestling observer should be allowed to be used as a source as it too is 1 of the more creditable third party sites for results and other news, obviously anything proved false is easily removed in any case.Skitzo (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

I'd say this is ready to be nominated for GA. Any objections? iMatthew 20 08 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over very quickly and it seemed pretty good. A few things were unsourced, so I added references. A few things came to mind that I wanted to mention:

In the infobox, it says that he has competed as Wolverine and Ingus Jinx, but neither of these names are mentioned in the article. Is there any information available about when and where they were used? If not, it's not a big deal. I just finished writing an article on Ion Croitoru, who apparently competed as The Mysterian, but there are no sources available that show where this happened. If the information is available about when Hardy used these names, it should be included, though.
The "In wrestling" section says, "He has also used Matt's V.1. Sign". There is no information given about what this means, though. Would a wikilink to Matt Hardy#In wrestling solve this?
Did he only appear at one ROH show in 2003? It would be nice if the "Time off and independent circuit (2003)" section could be expanded.
The article is written in an in-universe style. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#The problem with in-universe perspective, the article should make it clear that match results, backstage segments, etc., are fictional storylines. I find this a hard thing to do, but I have tried to work on this in the most recent articles I have written, SummerSlam (1994), Jos LeDuc and Ion Croitoru, so you may be able to find some ideas there about how to take the article "out of universe".

I think it's definitely close, and I think that it shouldn't take long if people can work together on the finishing touches. I hope this helps. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good as Gary says, but the 1998-2002 section seems excessively short, considering the 2006-present section is several paragraphs long! I think the 1998-2002 section could be expanded a little, and I think the 2006-present section needs to be shrinked a little, at the moment, I could say it suffers from recentism. D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to cross-post these points in a To Do List of Hardy's talk page. Nikki311 19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible speedy deletion candidate

I was looking through a few lucha libre articles tonight and I came across Mexican Wrestling Association. It is a blatant advertisement ("So if you want the real Lucha Libre experience without crossing the border then come down to MWA. MWA is held every Friday night at Lienzo Charro "Los Castro". For more information visit www.mwa915.com We hope to bring in more big names in the future, we are currently working on bring in Sicodelico Jr, The minis from AAA, and a few others! So stay tuned for more details."), and I don't know enough about the promotion or have enough time in the near future to turn it into a decent article. My preference is to fix articles rather than delete them, so if anyone would like to take this on, that would be great. If nobody is willing to fix it up, I will go about nominating it for deletion in about a week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I would speedy it. I just read the article and it is just blatant advertisement. TJ Spyke 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, but my point was that it's almost always better to fix rather than simply delete. As it is, however, someone saw my request for help fixing the article and decided to delete it instead anyway. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it as there had been, apart from bot edits, no edits to the page at all from its original adding to the encyclopedia. The article can be recreated, but that article was nothing but an advertisement. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell cares? It had been tagged as an advertisement for a few months. I wanted to bring it to the project's attention and set a deadline for removing the advertising. The point of the project, or at least what I believe to be the point, is to improve the content of professional wrestling articles. Why not give someone a chance to do just that? Perhaps it could be re-created now, but it would have been quite a bit easier to adapt the existing text. For some reason, it's become the unofficial motto of this project to "Delete first and ask questions...well, never." How does that help build an encyclopedia? This isn't directed at you personally, Lid, but it's a symptom of the huge stack of problems with this project. People are constantly focused on one of three things:

1. Working on articles on their own, with no input or help from anybody. And in return, they refuse to help anyone else.
2. Lengthy discussions...unfortunately, these are almost exclusively about trivial bits of policy and are prime candidates for WP:LAME.
3. Deleting articles instead of putting any effort into actually improving them.

Maybe I just need a break from this project. I find the deletion-happy, self-absorbed, policy-focused nature of the project tiring. It would be great if some of that effort could be focused on helping other editors and providing feedback (just once, it would be nice to put an article up for Peer Review and get more than just the bot replying). I can think of a couple of exceptions, of course, but this project is in need of a serious overhaul. I suppose if I need help on an article in the future, I won't waste my time asking here. Next time I go straight to outsourcing it by bribing someone at WP:AWC. Sad. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A Google search gets 74,700 hits, all of which cannot be used of references (our own [now deleted] article, YouTube/MySpace links) etc. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW Alumni

Ok to avoid me getting into and edit war, I want to discuss this here. Is the Alumni really needed in the article, I removed it once, but a user readded it. To me its a redundant list, it just tells you the people who were in OVW who got called up to the main roster. This is just a repeat of whats here, can't it just be made into a small prose?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a small prose is the best way to go. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As do I. Alumni lists just feel crufty. Sexy Sea Bass 04:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the NWO template be used?

I just came across this today: Template:New World Order. It's currently not being used in any articles. It was in templates for deletion in April of last year (which only had a few comments in it). I don't see it being that useful, as NWO was a stable and I havent seen any other stable templates except for Template:TeamCanada which doesn't seem that useful either. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of both of them. Nenog (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, neither is really useful. - DrWarpMind (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That NWO template is, without a doubt, the worst template I have ever seen. Why give full names for some members, last names for some, and initials for others? Why give The Giant's initials as BS/G when he didn't go by the Big Show name in WCW? Why include only a few random members of the New World Order? Ugh. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Big Show was in the WWE version of the nWo too, that's probably why. TJ Spyke 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about this? --Endless Dan 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

TeamCanada is now in TFD. I wasn't sure how to do a second nomination for TFD, so I didn't nominate the NWO template. The South Africa template looks like it should be deleted as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected cock sock

I reported this. I've noticed this similar IPs constantly disrupting wrestling articles. Then, I found this. I'm not sure what they can do or if they can do anything, but I took a shot in the dark. Just a heads up. --Endless Dan 19:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Makes sense now. Anyone ever report a sock? What steps will be taken? --Endless Dan 19:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is determined to be a sock, the sock will be blocked as well, and if it was a sock to avoid a block extra block time may be taken against the blocked user, and the use of puppetry will definately be looked at when considering reinstatement etc. Less Than Clippers 21:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had to deal with a few of those. I'll go over the report to make sure everything is in order, and after that it's just a waiting game. Sexy Sea Bass 23:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And, the report doesn't exist. Woot Sexy Sea Bass 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This report? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like they archived it before I got there. I take it everything was in order then :P. Thanks GCF, Sexy Sea Bass 00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

PPV Article Layouts Results and Aftermath

I am sure this has been discussed before, and if anyone can give me some background, please let me know, but I think the results should come prior to aftermath. I think it makes more sense when reading an article for things to be seen chronologicaly. Aftermath comes directly from what occured. Just a thought. Less Than Clippers 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It wouldn't make sense to have the Results after the Aftermath. IMO, it will kill the article. -- Sexy Blue (Hit BLUE) 00:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The results currently are after the aftermath. Less Than Clippers 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue made a mistake. But I dont think it would because that would make the article look messy. Thats why the Bg/Event/Am sections are withing the Report vignette and the Results section is a different vignette of the article. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My bad. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

NYR07

Of course,WP:OWN prohibits me for being mad, because someone nominated the article at GAC, but I would like to know who it was, and why they didn't inform it on this talk page, because I am the main editor of the article. Feedback ^☎ 13:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It was User:Kaypoh. Nikki311 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's like me being General Manager, and wanting to put a wrestler in a WWE Championship match, and I just come to the show one day, and see that same wrestler in an Intercontinental Championship match. Feedback ^☎ 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Great example. ;) But, yeah. I think you should have nominated NYR first for GA and then to FA. But, you always have Cyber Sunday '07 and Armageddon... '07, for the future. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of when Shelton Benjamin was nominated for featured article status in almost the exact same fashion. To quote WP:GA "If you find or contribute to an article meeting the good article criteria, you can nominate it on the good article nominations page", so it really doesn't matter who nominates it as long as it gets done. Also, it's probably better to call yourself "a primary editor" rather than "the main editor". - Deep Shadow 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sorry, that was my bad. I didn't know about the steps, the rules, and our normal routine by then, but Nikki explained it to me afterwards. Sorry for the mix-up. Oh, and thanks for the "primary editor" term, cuz I was searching my mind for a term in my mind that wouldn't offend other minor editors. Anyway, is User:Kaypoh even a member of this project? Feedback ^☎ 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking... many people do offend other editors when they call themselves the main editors. But however, you have to tend to agree with the term, because for example, DMN is the main editor of the One Night Stand and December to Dismember articles, Truco is of the NWO04, etc. What I as thinking was, why not this project can start an "Adopt a page" program, so each article can have a parent editor, and the editor can be reffered to as such. Obviously, we can specify that we shall follow WP:OWN. ANyone agree? Feedback ^☎ 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Sexy Sea Shark 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with this would be editors being offended who are not a project member and do not wish to be. There are many of them out there and I don't blame them... we've gotten into some pretty petty and childish disuptes in the past. Some people also just purely want to edit and not get into dicussions or have fancy user pages or join projects etc. That is perfectly acceptable. Sometimes it irritates us, because we have a hard time understand what particular edits are about, and they don't want to talk about it ..and wow I've gone off on a tangent.

Basically, I can see how non-project members might take offense to the article adoption thing and the "main/primary" edtior names/tags. It could also be a non issue. I just like to play devil's advocate. Oh and Feed, while the term "primary editor" is great, I don't think we should use the term "minor editor" as you did above...just to avoid opening up a big can of worms. There is also the philosophy that ..we can try to implement anything ..and if it becomes a problem, we can always stop/cancel it. So ...yeah. Later taters, --Naha|^(talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Importance of WWE Draft and WWE Brand Extension

Are these really low importance? Can they not be mid importance? Also can the Brand Extension be raised to a B-Class?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 16:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that both should be mid-importance, and the Brand Extension should be given a B. iMatthew 20 08 16:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was also wondering the same thing for World Wrestling Entertainment roster, it has a low-importance rating, despite this article having being one of the top 10 articles with the most revision on Wikipedia. — Save_Us † 17:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd say the Draft/Extension/Roster should be raised to mid at least.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. iMatthew 20 08 17:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it, how come there are only two top importance articles? It seems to me that articles like WWE, WCW, Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon, NWA and others should be top importance. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That's also true. WWE and WCW (as you said) are very important topics in professional wrestling. iMatthew 20 08 17:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. But more opinions will be nice, that way there is no issue about raising the importance.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As well as the above discussion. iMatthew 20 08 17:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to raise or lower an article's importance. As a project member, you can change the importance or assessment of any article you like and if someone disagrees, you can debate on the talk page. You don't need project consensus because after all, it was only one person who decided the rank of the article in the first place. I was just wondering why there were so few. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE, NWA, HULK HOGAN, ETC - Should not be top rated, only high, as top's definition says - is the basis for all information in the topic. Less Than Clippers 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)