Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 46
 | 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 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Sock blocked
Please don't comment with personal opinions to this. I just wanted to let everyone know that User:CinnamonCrunchy has been proven by checkuser to be a sock of User:Hornetman16 and has been blocked indefinitely. Nikki311 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well it looked like he wanted to change, but I guess he wont be forgiven for his past actions. Oh well, R.I.P--TrUCo-X 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- For an unblock to be justifiable, he'll have to avoid returning for a number of months, somewhere in the arena of 8 to 12 being the bare minimum for someone of his history. Then an unblock of his original account might be justifiable, and he could return within process. Returning under a sockpuppet account amounts to spitting in the face of Wikipedia process, which is why it is so frowned upon by those reviewing an unblock. Forgiveness isn't the issue; emotions are entirely irrelevant to this. He needs to show that he can follow basic Wikipedia process for a large period of time in order to be trusted with an account again after receiving a community ban. SexySeaBass 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is this. You all refused to give him a chance. He took it upon himself to prove you wrong regardless and he succeeded in convincing you all without you even knowing. He was blocked because of his own mistake. Posting a link related to his previous sock. An innocent mistake but a fatal one nonetheless. And that one mistake is all it took. What this showed all of us here tonight is that no matter how much someone has improved, no matter how much one has learned from their past mistakes to try to better themselves, no matter how hard someone fights here to regain trust and most importantly respect from the ones who relentlessly attacked him as if there wasn't another human being behind the keyboard, a sock will always be a sock and that is the sad and unfortunate, unquestionable truth. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ladies and Gents, I'm back. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- YAY! We missed you. :) Nikki311 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy, he sunk himself before and now only a consensus on AN/I or Arbcom can help him, there is no point to continue this discussion. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, he only succeeded in that because I taught him to evade the initial stages of sock hunting so he could evade on PWW. I wasn't allowed to unblock him by the other admins, so I taught him how to avoid them. He used the knowledge I gave him on here; he hasn't changed, he just knows how to fly under the radar now. Luckily I only gave him a fraction of what I know about sockpuppets, so he should still be easy to catch even without such simple mistakes. SexySeaBass 05:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- End this now. End this now. End this now. Nothing positive can possibly come of saying another word. Anyone who continues this discussion does so at the expense of the project as a whole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. It is ridiculous to think that one user can affectively bring down an entire project over this. If you think that way then you should really reconsider your place in this project because you obviously think that you can be hurt by something so overrated, that being this whole Aaron ordeal. It is because we refuse to speak that problems like these never cease to exist. It is because we think so negatively about one another that negativity surrounds this project. For Gods sakes people, this isn't a soap opera. This isn't a 3rd grade dispute over who eat someone's turkey sandwich. This online community is as much of community as the real deal. Like your neighborhood, you're always going to have friends as neighbors and neighbors you just cant seem to get along with. And just like a real community, you're always going to have problems around, whether its that neighbor's dog that keeps shiting on your front lawn, or a neighbor that keeps sweeping leaves off his side and on to yours. You don't deal with these problems by ignoring them because if you do, nothing will ever get fixed. And if anyone is the type of person that ignores problems rather than face them, then they have no place here or in any community because that is how a community functions. We face problems and issues at hand. We co-exist. We do all of this for the sole purpose of making this place just a little better for everyone else. If anyone can't deal with that, then I suggest they go buy themselves a little shack in the woods to live in, isolated from everyone else. This problem will not go away until it is addressed formally. If that means this must be taken to ANI again then so be it. I don’t care if he is allowed back or not. I'm way past that. The fact of the matter is that this won't go away just by closing your eyes and wishing for the tooth fairy to make the evil problem go away. Now while I was still an active editor I also contacted Aaron. When I said that I realized having him in the project with hurt us all, I lied. I took the time to talk to him outside of the Wiki in a setting where everything that needs to be said can be said. For about 3 months we talked. I helped him. I knew from the way he was so negatively viewed here that he would not be granted the chance he begged for. So I told him a basic truth of life. You can't wait for someone to lend you rope to save yourself. You have to reach out and take it. I taught him the basics on how to be a good editor. Not to be disrespectful, learn from others, and avoid being ignorant about others' opinions and listen instead ...something everyone here seems should practice more often.... Before all that though, I showed him his wrong doings. I made him confront his mistakes. We went through the list one by one. He doesn't mean to hurt anything, nor has he ever done so. He never vandalized an article, and never attacked anyone in any way. He was blocked because of disruption. Because all he did was continue to add cruft to his user page despite admins having told him to stop and because he attempted to get an image deleted. An image he thought violated policy. He didn't know he was wrong. The only thing he ever did wrong was create a sock (monnitewars) to rebel against what he believed was an unjust block. He didn't even know the block was temporary! Can you believe that? He thought being blocked meant there was no chance of you being unblocked. He didn't know. He just panicked and did something stupid. No he didn't tell me this. I saw it first hand back in June when it all happened. I knew what was going on. He realized many things and so did I. He's foolish at times but still tries to do his best. He's no vandal. He's no troll either. I've seen vandals and trolls before and I've dealt with them for 3 years. He's not one of them. He's a good kid with good intentions. No Hybrid and I weren't stupid for talking to him. He got his chance and that's all he ever asked, and if you ask me he didn't that bad of a job. Like Aaron, we must learn from our mistakes. Everyone is human, and if our thoughts on others were based on bad first impressions all the time, the world would be a worse place. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I've agreed off-wiki to think my view over again, as of right now, my view is the same as it has been. He should not be unblocked. However, I must also point out that since he's received help from both bulletproof and myself without us knowing that the other was helping him while it was going on, he's probably going to successfully evade this ban anyway. If he can pull it off, then so be it, that means he isn't doing harm anymore. If he models himself after bulletproof, then he'll be a fine editor. However, right this very moment, I have to say I don't think he's earned the second chance, and that is something to be earned, earned through patience. SexySeaBass 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That’s not what I meant by it. He got his second chance already. Did he earn it through patience? No. But he did grab it and rolled with it nonetheless and with it he accomplished what he intended. He proved himself to be no threat to this project. We taught him to work and respect here and I'm glad Hybrid and I learned something from this experience as well. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have convinced me to throw my name behind his unbanning. However, he must wait at least 6 months without any sockpuppets at the very least. That is non-negotiable. In the mean time I will be actively looking for and reporting his sockpuppets. I will not stand for him returning outside of due process, and I will not be responsible for him succeeding. I didn't teach him even a third of what I know, and I doubt you did either. I can catch his socks, I will catch his socks, and I hope you realize it is your responsibility to work along side of me to put an end to his attempts at sockpuppetry. SexySeaBass 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- How could you possibly think that? It is my duty to continue as I have always done. I will seek and report any and all socks I find. No one can do that better than I. I didn't teach him a one hundredth of what I know. All I did was do what many were afraid to do. Confront and Rebuild. I taught him the basics on how to be a good contributor. Maybe some day he'll have the opportunity to show this skill to full capacity if he ever gets unbanned.-- bulletproof 3:16 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have convinced me to throw my name behind his unbanning. However, he must wait at least 6 months without any sockpuppets at the very least. That is non-negotiable. In the mean time I will be actively looking for and reporting his sockpuppets. I will not stand for him returning outside of due process, and I will not be responsible for him succeeding. I didn't teach him even a third of what I know, and I doubt you did either. I can catch his socks, I will catch his socks, and I hope you realize it is your responsibility to work along side of me to put an end to his attempts at sockpuppetry. SexySeaBass 08:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That’s not what I meant by it. He got his second chance already. Did he earn it through patience? No. But he did grab it and rolled with it nonetheless and with it he accomplished what he intended. He proved himself to be no threat to this project. We taught him to work and respect here and I'm glad Hybrid and I learned something from this experience as well. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- While I've agreed off-wiki to think my view over again, as of right now, my view is the same as it has been. He should not be unblocked. However, I must also point out that since he's received help from both bulletproof and myself without us knowing that the other was helping him while it was going on, he's probably going to successfully evade this ban anyway. If he can pull it off, then so be it, that means he isn't doing harm anymore. If he models himself after bulletproof, then he'll be a fine editor. However, right this very moment, I have to say I don't think he's earned the second chance, and that is something to be earned, earned through patience. SexySeaBass 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. It is ridiculous to think that one user can affectively bring down an entire project over this. If you think that way then you should really reconsider your place in this project because you obviously think that you can be hurt by something so overrated, that being this whole Aaron ordeal. It is because we refuse to speak that problems like these never cease to exist. It is because we think so negatively about one another that negativity surrounds this project. For Gods sakes people, this isn't a soap opera. This isn't a 3rd grade dispute over who eat someone's turkey sandwich. This online community is as much of community as the real deal. Like your neighborhood, you're always going to have friends as neighbors and neighbors you just cant seem to get along with. And just like a real community, you're always going to have problems around, whether its that neighbor's dog that keeps shiting on your front lawn, or a neighbor that keeps sweeping leaves off his side and on to yours. You don't deal with these problems by ignoring them because if you do, nothing will ever get fixed. And if anyone is the type of person that ignores problems rather than face them, then they have no place here or in any community because that is how a community functions. We face problems and issues at hand. We co-exist. We do all of this for the sole purpose of making this place just a little better for everyone else. If anyone can't deal with that, then I suggest they go buy themselves a little shack in the woods to live in, isolated from everyone else. This problem will not go away until it is addressed formally. If that means this must be taken to ANI again then so be it. I don’t care if he is allowed back or not. I'm way past that. The fact of the matter is that this won't go away just by closing your eyes and wishing for the tooth fairy to make the evil problem go away. Now while I was still an active editor I also contacted Aaron. When I said that I realized having him in the project with hurt us all, I lied. I took the time to talk to him outside of the Wiki in a setting where everything that needs to be said can be said. For about 3 months we talked. I helped him. I knew from the way he was so negatively viewed here that he would not be granted the chance he begged for. So I told him a basic truth of life. You can't wait for someone to lend you rope to save yourself. You have to reach out and take it. I taught him the basics on how to be a good editor. Not to be disrespectful, learn from others, and avoid being ignorant about others' opinions and listen instead ...something everyone here seems should practice more often.... Before all that though, I showed him his wrong doings. I made him confront his mistakes. We went through the list one by one. He doesn't mean to hurt anything, nor has he ever done so. He never vandalized an article, and never attacked anyone in any way. He was blocked because of disruption. Because all he did was continue to add cruft to his user page despite admins having told him to stop and because he attempted to get an image deleted. An image he thought violated policy. He didn't know he was wrong. The only thing he ever did wrong was create a sock (monnitewars) to rebel against what he believed was an unjust block. He didn't even know the block was temporary! Can you believe that? He thought being blocked meant there was no chance of you being unblocked. He didn't know. He just panicked and did something stupid. No he didn't tell me this. I saw it first hand back in June when it all happened. I knew what was going on. He realized many things and so did I. He's foolish at times but still tries to do his best. He's no vandal. He's no troll either. I've seen vandals and trolls before and I've dealt with them for 3 years. He's not one of them. He's a good kid with good intentions. No Hybrid and I weren't stupid for talking to him. He got his chance and that's all he ever asked, and if you ask me he didn't that bad of a job. Like Aaron, we must learn from our mistakes. Everyone is human, and if our thoughts on others were based on bad first impressions all the time, the world would be a worse place. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- End this now. End this now. End this now. Nothing positive can possibly come of saying another word. Anyone who continues this discussion does so at the expense of the project as a whole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- YAY! We missed you. :) Nikki311 05:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ladies and Gents, I'm back. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back BulletProof 3:16, and please can we all avoid this drama with Hornetman, he shall be gone for a long time and he will be forgotten, lets just look into the future.TrUCo-X 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This whole discussion was about making future plans as it relates to this user. We are trying to move forward. We just needed a place to discuss this publicly. With only bulletproof and myself participating this was quick and painless. There is no cause for concern, SexySeaBass 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- All I have to say on this matter is: he got more than enough chances, and blew them all. People shouldn't be teaching him how to get away with sockpuppetry, period. This discussion needs to be closed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Acknowledged, that was a mistake on my part. However, there is cause to believe he has the potential to be a good user. I saw potential in him under the Monnitewars account, at one point even offering to adopt him. If bulletproof has helped him understand how Wikipedia works, then I'm willing to give him another shot. Like I said, if he models himself after bulletproof, then he'll be a fine editor. I have also said I'll be actively hunting his sockpuppets down, and bulletproof has said that also. That means there's nothing to worry about in the mean time. He hasn't been taught enough to stand up to either one of us, much less both of us. I understand why you're upset, Rob, but there's nothing to be done about it at this point. When the ANI discussion starts, feel free to oppose his unblock then. SexySeaBass 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- All I have to say on this matter is: he got more than enough chances, and blew them all. People shouldn't be teaching him how to get away with sockpuppetry, period. This discussion needs to be closed. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- This whole discussion was about making future plans as it relates to this user. We are trying to move forward. We just needed a place to discuss this publicly. With only bulletproof and myself participating this was quick and painless. There is no cause for concern, SexySeaBass 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The fact of the matter is this. You all refused to give him a chance. He took it upon himself to prove you wrong regardless and he succeeded in convincing you all without you even knowing. He was blocked because of his own mistake. Posting a link related to his previous sock. An innocent mistake but a fatal one nonetheless. And that one mistake is all it took. What this showed all of us here tonight is that no matter how much someone has improved, no matter how much one has learned from their past mistakes to try to better themselves, no matter how hard someone fights here to regain trust and most importantly respect from the ones who relentlessly attacked him as if there wasn't another human being behind the keyboard, a sock will always be a sock and that is the sad and unfortunate, unquestionable truth. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm starting to believe we should just take this to AN/I and leave things clear, maybe if he sees the community's possition he might finally understand why he is not allowed back. Personally I'm becoming tired of playing Whac-A-Mole with all of his socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I would like him to be aware of the discussion, that way he can understand why he keeps being blocked, can you contact him before opening a thread? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- He's already aware of the discussion and I believe he fully intends to cooperate. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm awaiting confirmation from Hybrid's e-mail, Bullet have you contacted him about this? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Via MSN yes. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did he directly state that he is willing to comply by the community's decision and put end to all arguments no matter what that decision is? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did and his response was "yes"-- bulletproof 3:16 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have confirmation on my end as well. SexySeaBass 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok then, the thread is located here, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have confirmation on my end as well. SexySeaBass 04:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I did and his response was "yes"-- bulletproof 3:16 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did he directly state that he is willing to comply by the community's decision and put end to all arguments no matter what that decision is? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Via MSN yes. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm awaiting confirmation from Hybrid's e-mail, Bullet have you contacted him about this? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- He's already aware of the discussion and I believe he fully intends to cooperate. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(De indent) Guys, are you kidding me? He's bragging about his ban on other wikipedia's (including the simple english one), and has been caught sockpuppeting by check user just last week. I think any discussion of an unban has to start with six months of NO SOCKPUPPETS whatso ever, and then we can discuss it then. SirFozzie (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- The AN thread was created to finish all these silly threads and all arguments that he "hasn't received a second chance", after this nobody can say he didn't received a opportunity and we avoid these long threads about him. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this article really necessary? Every WWE championship article lists whichever wrestler is the champion. Odin's Beard (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. It connects all the other WWE championship articles, allowing them to be part of a Featured Topic, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions. Nikki311 02:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Although I do think that List of current champions in TNA is somewhat unnecessary. -- Scorpion0422 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Floyd Mayweather
Need to keep an eye on wm 24 article. due to his "injury" from last night on raw S-PAC54 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- What some people do to avoid fighting Miguel Cotto... I will keep the page on my watchlist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams?
What does everyone think of List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams? I think it is pretty useless, as it doesn't define how long two people need to team together to be considered a "tag team" and more-or-less just reiterates what is already located in the various sub-cats of Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. Anyone hopelessly attached to it or should I take it to AfD? This seems like another case of having a list for the sake of having a list. Nikki311 04:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've edited that in the past, but I don't see a need to keep it. I've copied and updated it to the wrestling wiki now, as I doubt it will survive an AFD. With some work and splitting into multiple pages, it would be a nice addition to the wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- On more than 1 occasion I have gone through and taken out teams that existed for 1 or 2 weeks. Some people keep adding anybody that teams at all (even if it's a random pairing, like Mr. Kennedy and MVP). I say get rid of it. TJ Spyke 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- To me its list cruft, no really real purpose for it's use. I say AfD it or better expand it.--TrUCo-X 14:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Nominated. Nikki311 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Please add this to your watch lists as his middle name keeps getting changed from Alki to many different things.Skitzo (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it ok if I nominate NWO again for FA status, it failed for no reason (mostly for no responses and the two oppositions did not make sense, and one we fixed what was required) And this time we need votes from the project, but I only insist on 2 votes, also List of WCW Hardcore Champions might not be raised to FL because of few responses, I fixed what the one person said, but no one else has replied, I also insist on 2 votes from the project, it doesn't matter if its opposition but we need some type of responses. Comments/Suggestions?--TrUCo-X 14:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- "I insist on 2 votes" - honestly that's the kind of statement that's very quickly taken as you canvassing for votes. it's a fine line you walk when wrestling editors vote on wrestling articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- But did I say Please two people support these, I am just asking for people to respond to the article (that's what I meant) two responses from the project, either a comment, opposition, or support. But see this is why the project's FL/FA fail, because editors think that when WP:PW members vote, it is biased. (Sigh), Forget about it people, lets just wait for people outside the project to respond. But I want to know the opinion on NWO.--TrUCo-X 20:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Touchy aren't we? All I said was be careful how you word it, the whole "Insisting" thing comes off as you canvassing for votes. Honestly to avoid any and all "canvasing" charges all that should be done here is announce that "Article X" is not nominated for FA/FL and then let people vote or not if they feel like it. That's how you avoid any controversy. And they think that when WP:PW memebers just vote "Yeah it's good, support" it's biased or due to canvassing, you may not think it but I'm trying to HELP the project here. no one benefits if the rule is once again "No WP:PW memebers can vote on FA/FLs" MPJ-DK (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I understand, that's why I'm gonna wait for more responses from outside the project. But Im going to renominate NWO once again and lets see how it goes from there.TrUCo-X 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
NWO Renominated
No Way Out (2004) has been renominated for FA.TrUCo-X 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
is officially an ROH title. Should it be listed under that promotion (now/future winners/never)?
And no, I'm not back. Consider this part of my "edit or two here and there" :p Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and I meant on the pages of the wrestlers who hold it. I see it's already on Ring of Honor. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Serious problem for many PPV articles
Online Onslaught has gone dead, so none of the references to the site are working. I know that a lot of people (myself included) rely heavily on it as a source, so that makes for a lot of dead links. I'm trying to find out if Internet Archive will work, but it's not working for me right now. Web Cite doesn't have anything from Online Onslaught saved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I say give it some time, last time one of the sites I used to source a PPV went dead but came back up like a week after. One question though, was this site actively updated?--TrUCo-X 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I don't watch wrestling from after 1996, so I've never looked for anything more recent than that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh because if it wasn't (like The Other Arena) I don't think they will bother to renew the domain, since it wasn't an active site.--TrUCo-X 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was last updated a week ago, don't panic yet.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the rest of the site, but the Oold Tyme Rasslin Revue (where they would review an older WWE PPV, they were up to King of the Ring 2002) part of the site was updated at least once a month. It says the domain is pending renewal, so I say we should at least give it a few days. TJ Spyke 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was last updated a week ago, don't panic yet.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh because if it wasn't (like The Other Arena) I don't think they will bother to renew the domain, since it wasn't an active site.--TrUCo-X 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I don't watch wrestling from after 1996, so I've never looked for anything more recent than that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
PPV Expansion:TV Reports
Ok sometimes it is hard to find TV reports for some of the PPV articles and not all of the sources we use have reports 100% of the time, so here is my question other than these 3 (that I know of), are there any other websites which have TV results (especially before 2002) and are considered reliable?
--TrUCo-X 16:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Slam! Sports is good. DDT Digest is great for WCW PPV and every WCW TV show (mainly from 1997-2001). TJ Spyke 16:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion from an outside editor
I had an editor comment on SummerSlam (1994) today (no, not a review...that wait is at 46 days and counting). The editor suggested changing the name of one of the headings for pay-per-view articles. It was suggested that "Background" wasn't very descriptive and that "Background storylines" or something like that might be better. I thought it was worth asking about here. I can see a benefit in that it immediately clarifies that wrestling is scripted and cuts down on the need for "booked", "angle" and "storyline" repeated in the description of events when taking the article out of universe. What do people think? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like, definitly helps make it clear we're not trying to say "this is real people" with the articles. Really good suggestion. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Why hasn't this been moved?
Well to fit the other list of "things" in pro wrestling, why hasn't List of professional wrestling match types been moved to Professional wrestling match types? Can it be moved?--TrUCo-X 17:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- It used to be there, then somebody requested it be moved. I would support a move request if you want to propose one. TJ Spyke 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I was thinking of doing that, and I think I shall.
Move
- Support-It should be moved to fit the other articles that lists "things" from professional wrestling.--TrUCo-X 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Make sense to have all articles under the same style of title. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support per Truco and Nici. You might want to mention this discussion on the articles talk page though. TJ Spyke 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Weirdness has struck (again)
Jeff Money is creating a page in his userspace on a "wrestler" called Jim Samuel. Only problem is, looking at the article, I think it's entirely fictional! Can someone else have a look at it, and see if I'm correct. If so, it may need to go, even if it is in his userspace... (and these pages) D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, he's already moved it to mainspace (see: Jim Samuel. I did a Google search and found nothing, which is odd for somebody who supposedly wrestled the Rock for the Undisputed Championship. I have to ask though, why waste so much time creating a fictional wrestler? Unless somebody can prove to me this wrestler exists, I'm going to put the page up for speedy deletion. Nikki311 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is crazy....the page in mainspace was created by User:Self Preteder. I looked through the deleted edits (which you can only see if you are an admin) and the page was originally created by User:[email protected], who if you look at his talk page has been blocked for sockpuppetry. I bet both Jeff Money and Self Preteder are sockpuppets of this original account. If anyone wants to help my with some research and add to the list of suspected puppets, I'll eventually take it to checkuser. Nikki311 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- FYI: Jeff Money's account was created on December 16th, 2007, a month after (another sock of Asadaleem) Kevin Hotfury was indef blocked. Money recently created In Your House 13: Final Four, but hasn't completed it despite it being created a week ago. Kevin Hotfury, looking at his contributions also created PPV's. D.M.N. (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser created: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/[email protected] if anyone wants to add anything. Nikki311 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The speedy tag for Jim Samuel was removed, so I guess someone should afd it. Looking over it, it's pretty funny. This guy supposedly was a regular challenger for various heavyweight titles (and was screwed out of winning many times) but never appeared in a pay per view and was apprantly interfered in the Flair/Steamboat match at WrestleWar 1989. -- Scorpion0422 22:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Kayfabe edits
A user at 70.49.194.124 has been deleting and altering info related to kayfabe, including the main professional wrestling article. This is just silly; I don't know why anyone can't accept that the cat's out of the bag! It's not like it's going to stick. (Although I did notice a while back that someone deleted huge sections on kayfabe info, and it stayed that way for weeks.)
Is there any way we can get key pages like professional wrestling, List of professional wrestling slang, kayfabe, sports entertainment, etc restricted from anonymous editing? TravelingCat (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not in this case. If you feel that this IP address is only being used for vandalism, bring it up with one of our administrators (LAX or Nikki311). But the thing is that at this point, the IP cannot be blocked (yet). He/She has not been given any warnings. iMatthew 2008 11:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
GA reviews
Since SummerSlam (1994) and Ricky Banderas are now the two oldest unreviewed Good article nominations, I am proposing that we review our articles (without bias), and ask a user outside of the project to review them (inorder to ensure that we reviewed without bias). Thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks, –Cheers, LAX 15:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I felt the same. iMatthew 2008 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, you're proposing that we review the articles, and then ask another editor to review our review? Why not just ask the editor to review the article directly? Feedback 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because some people don't bother to review the article themselves. iMatthew 2008 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need to continue to trust the system. I know that I wouldn't want articles that I've contributed to reviewed by a WP:PW member. I think the fact that so many editors skip over them is something we could bring up on the WP:WGA talk page. If we explained what was happening and showed them how hard it is to get a review for wrestling articles, I'm sure someone there would be willing to do a review or two. For now, our best bet is to continue reviewing "Sports and recreation" articles to get ours moved higher up on the list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with GCF...somebody will review it sooner or later. I've started reviewing articles myself, and I kind of like it. I've reviewed 9 articles thus far, but from every category, not just Sports and Recreation. Nikki311 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I always brought this up before, but I always get the same response like if I was asking for people to review it or getting votes for FAC/FLC. But because of this whole biased situation, we always should have someone outside the project review our articles. Also, the current FA is about to fail due to the sourcing, to me NWO now doesn't seem like a FA type article, anyone else have an article that may fit the FA criteria?..and also, the FL is going to fail due to again "few responses". But that's all I am going to say as people might think I am vote canvassing. Just an update on our FAC/FLC's.TrUCo-X 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with GCF...somebody will review it sooner or later. I've started reviewing articles myself, and I kind of like it. I've reviewed 9 articles thus far, but from every category, not just Sports and Recreation. Nikki311 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need to continue to trust the system. I know that I wouldn't want articles that I've contributed to reviewed by a WP:PW member. I think the fact that so many editors skip over them is something we could bring up on the WP:WGA talk page. If we explained what was happening and showed them how hard it is to get a review for wrestling articles, I'm sure someone there would be willing to do a review or two. For now, our best bet is to continue reviewing "Sports and recreation" articles to get ours moved higher up on the list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because some people don't bother to review the article themselves. iMatthew 2008 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Basically, you're proposing that we review the articles, and then ask another editor to review our review? Why not just ask the editor to review the article directly? Feedback 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ricky Banderas
Moments ago, Ricky Banderas passed it's GA nomination. Congrats everyone! iMatthew 2008 16:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
SummerSlam (1994)
FINALLY, this article just passed it's GA nomination. Congrats GCF iMatthew 2008 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Introducing.....Caden
Hi, my name is Caden! I've just joined the WikiProject Professional wrestling as a member. I'm rather new as a Wikipedian so I still have much to learn about how the encyclopedia works. I will do my best to help out with edits just as soon as I feel more comfortable. I just thought I'd drop in and introduce myself. CadenS (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
PPV Guidelines Update?
I was wondering whether we should add or have examples on how to outline feuds in the BG section, how to write matches in the event, and how to write aftermath? Also I think the "reliable sources" should be updated..comments?--TrUCo-X 03:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. Just keep an eye out. Mshake3 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well WWE announced it so its official, but expect vandalism by IPs and newbies.--TrUCo-X 14:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this is not a forum, but I just have to say it: what a moron. He was in the midst of the biggest push of his career and was IC champion...he completely screwed himself over. Nikki311 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Its alright. I felt the same way when Randy Orton was found guilty of the same cause. And sorry if I disobeyed Wikipedia guideline standards. Zenlax T C S 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto here. I'm really really dissapointed in Jeff. As a major fan of his, I feel really let down as well. --Naha|(talk) 13:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know this is not a forum, but I just have to say it: what a moron. He was in the midst of the biggest push of his career and was IC champion...he completely screwed himself over. Nikki311 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
COTW
Is it safe to say that Big Show is the COTW for the next two weeks? iMatthew 2008 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I would say so. It's unlikely that there will be a massive surge in votes in the nextfew minutes/hours. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone else wants to take care of adding the pruning notices, I don't mind updating the COTW every two weeks. I pretty much have been doing that for awhile now anyway. That way nobody else has to worry about it, of course, unless they really want to. Nikki311 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, myself and Nici seem to take care of pruning notices, and I can prune articles once the date hate passed. iMatthew 2008 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, I think that the COTW is getting us nowhere, because most people seem to think that the structure and organization of the COTW page is more important than actually collaborating. Feedback 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a lot of people don't bother working on the COTW. I do a little bit, nowhere near as much as I probably should, but there would members who don't particpate in COTW. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's just the general opinion I have gotten. I know Matt has started discussions on various aspects of COTW, i.e. whether the FACOTW should be pruned, and got about 3/4 answers. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know I try to do a general cleanup of the article at first and then add some refs later if I have time. There are a few other people who work on them, as well. I'd like to see more people help out...but honestly, Lex, aside from WrestleMania III, you don't help out that much, so you probably shouldn't complain. Nikki311 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another list change
Can List of authority figures in professional wrestling be changed to Professional wrestling authority figures or Authority figures in professional wrestling?--TrUCo-X 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Another FL?
I was looking at the original FLC nomination for the Elimination Chamber, and the main problem was that it lacked references and that the article was poorly written, well I reworded the article a while back, and I added sources to the list, and added sources to the proses, so I would like to know if it's ready for FL?--TrUCo-X 14:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not really a list though. It's an article that has been gutted of all content and narrowed down to primarily being a list. It's also too short. -- Scorpion0422 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- The original nomination was as a Featured Article, not a list. My personal opinion is that a list of every elimination chamber match is too trivial to be a FL. Most of the lists of matches have been deleted from the other match-type articles as cruft. Nikki311 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok, but question, does the 2007 WWE Draft meet FL or FA criteria?14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)TrUCo-X
- The original nomination was as a Featured Article, not a list. My personal opinion is that a list of every elimination chamber match is too trivial to be a FL. Most of the lists of matches have been deleted from the other match-type articles as cruft. Nikki311 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Can some of you please make a quick check on this user's image contributions? I believe most (if not all) were taken from somewhere else, but he is licensing them as GDFL-self, I for one am sure that I have seen this image in the past, but am not sure about the others. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Most of them are indeed WWE.com photos (it'll take me a while to find the exact links). And despite it already being free the Carlito photo is not his photo. [1] -- Oakster Talk 09:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually Carlito's image says it has "some rights reserved", it isn't completely free and shouldn't be on Commons, some time ago this photo was deleted from Commons for that reason. I will begin deleting the other ones as replaceable fair use images uploaded under fraudulent copyright claim. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- These two images must also be deleted from Commons [6][7] as replaceable uploaded under fraudulent copyright claim. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually both Carlito images are licenced under Creative Commons ShareAlike (which you can see if you click on that "some rights reserved" link), a free licence on Wikipedia. The one you posted wasn't deleted for your reason, it was deleted as someone thought the Flickr user took it off OWW (in fact it was the other way round). I had to stop the admin from deleting any more photos from that Flick user. -- Oakster Talk 08:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- These two images must also be deleted from Commons [6][7] as replaceable uploaded under fraudulent copyright claim. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was deleted as "copyvio" if I recall correctly, if it was or not is not within my jurisdiction, but I can recall the deletion. Regardless I already cleaned the mess on Wikipedia, now its up to the admins on Commons to examine the remaining ones. This is about the third time that I have encountered users uploading images hijacked from WWE.com, wich is a rather disturbing pattern considering that all of these users seem totally unconected. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive problem
Why is it that in this archive page, this conversation is archived twice? Feedback 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does it matter? It was archived last month; what makes you bring it up now? D.M.N. (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
CFD that we all missed
It sure would have been nice if anyone who was discussing this had thought about contacting us to let us know this was going on: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 4#Category:Pro wrestling alumni. I'm okay with losing a few of those, but some (like ECW alumni) were worthwhile categories. Is this worth going to a deletion review for some of them? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if a deletion review is in order, but only 3 people voted, 4 if you include the nominator, and none of them are names I recognise from WP:PW. I think that it's quite ridiculous that we weren't informed of it at the very least. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥
- This is why cfd is a joke, this affected thousands of articles and nobody decided it was worth informing the project. This is likely intentional because the nominator has shown in the past that he wants them gone and knew that some members would object to their deletion. -- Scorpion0422 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although I agree with the nomination of some of those (like JAPW alumni), the major ones like WWE and WCW should not have been deleted. I think it's obvious that Otto never intended to notify us since I think he's nominated them before (I remember voting to keep on a similar CFD before). I do think we should go through DRV for some of them. No reason not to when you see other sports have it even more (for example, every NFL team has a category for all players plus subcategories for every position, and players get included in both. Drew Bledsoe is in both "Category:Buffalo Bills players" and "Category:Buffalo Bills quarterbacks" along with the other 2 teams he played for). TJ Spyke 21:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Rikidozan
I noticed in the to do list section that one of the articles that had a request to be created was about Rikidozan. There's only one that I know of by that name and there appears to be an article already existing. If this is the same one, the spelling is different from what appears on the to do list page. On the to do list it is spelled Rikidozen. This is incorrect, as the proper spelling of his name is Rikidozan. Just throwing that out there for everyone. Let me know what you find. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's a pretty common misspelling. I'm going to make it a redirect. Nikki311 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, but I didn't want to make a move without people's input. --Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it ready for GA yet? What needs to be fixed. If anything, please state it, as I will probably nominate it two weeks from Monday. iMatthew 2008 20:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Expand the "Hardy Boyz" section, and add more refs to the "Singles career" section, are the two main things at the moment. I'll take a proper look later. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the "Hardy Boyz" section should remain as is, since there is a link to the main article for the Hardy Boyz. What specifically needs to be sourced in Singles competition? iMatthew 2008 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Matt winning Euopean title, Hardy Boyz winning titles, Matt turning on Jeff, Matt joining SD, Matt defeating the Undertaker on several occasions, Matt turning on Lita + storyline w. Kane, and Matt and Lita's relationship. So, pretty much the whole section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the "Hardy Boyz" section should remain as is, since there is a link to the main article for the Hardy Boyz. What specifically needs to be sourced in Singles competition? iMatthew 2008 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added a "To-Do" list at the top of the talk page with a few suggestions. I will try to look this article over more thoroughly this week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
WrestleMania III for FAC
It was discussed here, but the discussion didn't really go anywhere. Can I please have feedback on the article. Thanks, Feedback 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Every time you've asked for feedback, you've reacted angrily when people thought improvements could be made. When you nominated it for GA, you got very angry at the reviewer. Why ask for feedback if you're unwilling to listen to it? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Peer review? D.M.N. (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought the article was so so. Even though there is sourcing and all it just feels as though it's missing something. The two matches that everyone talked about coming out of the event were Steamboat/Savage and obviously Hogan/Andre but I don't think the descriptions did the matches justice. --Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I started reading and came to "Kayfabe turn" very early on and I just stopped reading right then and there - the use of such an "insider" wrestling slang term is something that'd make me vote AGAINST it in GA, especially since there are plenty of other terms that explains it in clear, normal English instead of the slang term. I'm sure there is more but I stopped there for nowMPJ-DK (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Has been listed for peer review, please comment in hopes of becoming a GA.--TrUCo-X 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Tru, I took a look at the Summerslam article. The article is a good read, although there were a lot of uses of thus in it, that was the only thing that felt kind of repetitve. Just a small thing. The article is also sourced well and explains the origins of what led up to the major matches during the show and the angles that formed after it.
--Drunknesmonsta (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Major Brothers or Hawkins and Ryder?
Which one is it? Cause, KingMorpheus redirected "Hawkins and Ryder" to Major Brothers. So, which one is it? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well they are best know as the Major Brothers, but I don't think they will use that anymore since Vince found out they are not really brothers, so I think it's time to reach consensus on whether we should change the title of the page since they are really more known as Hawkins and Ryder more than the Major Brothers, no?--TrUCo-X 00:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This again? Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder is the way to go. Mshake3 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. They've gotten their biggest push as Ryder + Hawkins, and I'd say that they are the names they're going to keep in WWE. course, you never know with Vince. The likelihood of them reverting to using the "Major Brothers" is slim to nothing, at best, IMO. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
To-Do list of articles needing reviews and comments?
I was wondering if it would be possible to create a list where people could list articles that they would like proofread, copyedited, looked over, etc. before nominating them for GA or FA status. I know that people list them on the project talk page, but I have a hard time keeping track. I've temporarily lost interest in writing and expanding articles, but I'm willing to do pre-GA reviews, etc. for editors who are looking for feedback. A few people asked me for help, but I took a few days off and then went on a short vacation and I can't remember who needed what. If there was a place that we used regularly, it would help keep all of this straight. The newsletter comes out every two weeks with a list of articles needing peer review (although the last list was outdated), but I would like something that we can see every day. Ideally, it could have sections for articles needing peer review, articles about to be nominated for GA, articles about to be nominated for FA, articles needing general suggestions on what is needed to get to GA level, etc. Alternatively, editors could just list articles and make a note of what is needed. Is there any chance we could do this in a well-traveled location (perhaps on the project's main page)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's a great idea. Couldn't a new page be made for it? Like what was done for the Broken external links? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also like that idea. I think a subheader on the main Wikipedia:PW page might be good...somewhere near the list of current nominations. I also think it would be good to put the date you listed it, so people will know how long it's been there and when the notification week is up. Nikki311 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added a little something. Feel free to mess around with it... Nikki311 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also added a "Feedback requests" section for articles (such as Brock Lesnar) where editors have requested input on what is needed to get the article to GA level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I added a little something. Feel free to mess around with it... Nikki311 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also like that idea. I think a subheader on the main Wikipedia:PW page might be good...somewhere near the list of current nominations. I also think it would be good to put the date you listed it, so people will know how long it's been there and when the notification week is up. Nikki311 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
DC Hannon
Dc hannon - notable? worth cleaning up? --Fredrick day 17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, looks like it just got speedy deleted (about 1 minute after you posted that). TJ Spyke 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
"SmackDown" starting WrestleMania XXIV
Why was is chosen for "SmackDown" to replace "SmackDown!" for PPV articles after and including WrestleMania XXIV? Did any significant event/change occur before WM and after the previous PPV? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused. What are you talking about. :* Matt talk 22:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- IF you are taking about the lack of the ! at the end the reason is simple. Since the last PPV Smackdown was part of the show no longer uses it. --76.66.189.163 (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I thought this was a bigger change. Turns out it was just the WrestleMania article that dropped the exclamation mark. (Backlash: [8]) Sorry about that. Still, I would like to know why we changed for that article. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please review this article, and possibly create a "To-Do" list, in hopes of it becoming a future GA. iMatthew 2008 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I glanced over the article and started a to-do list on the article's talk page. I'll look it over in more detail soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Jack Korpela
hey im adam and im doing a sandbox with Steelerfan-94 and i'd like to make sure it would stay this is it here User:Adster95/Sandbox Adster95 (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Three Year Anniversary
As many of you may or may not know, today, March 21, 2008 is the project's three year anniversary. The project has come a long way since the beginning. The project has welcomed new users, who have quickly became great editors. We have gained a few administrators. We have many Featured Articles, Featured Lists, and Good Articles, with the nomination list constantly growing. The professional wrestling project has been a great success, and the future is still looking great. My congratulations and thanks go out to all of the members of this project that are a part of it's three year anniversary. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work everybody. Let's keep it up. I brought the champagne! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Guerrero Family
I leave it up to the masses--
Should Chavo Guerrero be part of the Edge/Ryder/Hawkins/Vickie stable?
I say yes because they all helped Chavo win the ECW Title, and WWE.com constantly refers to them as the Guerrero Family (see WWE.com's Wrestlemania's preview of the ECW Battle royal/Title match).
Ever since Chavo has been every bit the henchman for Edge like Hawkins and Ryder are.
Also remember the "one big happy family" deal when Chavo first started going after CM Punk?
Tell me what you think.
Vjmlhds 17:00 March 21, 2008 (UTC)
- This again? Guerrero is a part of the stable, case closed.--TrUCo-X 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Case re-opened. =] I don't see how he is a part of the stable. They sometimes appear together, but not enough to be considered a stable. iMatthew 2008 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- These past weeks I have seen Vickie book matches with Hawkins/Ryder/Edge and adding Chavo to the matches, like Vj said, Edge helped him win the ECW title, and WWE clearly states that Chavo, Edge, Hawkins and Ryder, and Vickie are "[Guerrero] familia"TrUCo-X 17:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And I was wondering, when (if ever) should the stable get its own page? They've been around almost four months and have been appearing together on a weekly basis. It may not be very long, but we do have pages for relatively short lived stables that were around for about half a year like The Power Trip, Rated-RKO, The Un-Americans, Team McMahon, The New Breed, ECW Originals, The Mexicools and even Vince's Devils. The main problem is that they don't really have an official name, I think the "Guerrero Family" has been mostly used by WWE.com and I don't believe I've heard them use it on Smackdown (although I'll admit I don't watch it every week). -- Scorpion0422 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Um, most of those groups were around a lot longer and were actual stables (not just a few people allied occasionally). The only one less notable than the Guerrero family would be Vince's Devils. TJ Spyke 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, most of them were around 6 months or less, and Edge, Hawkins and Ryder have been allied quite a bit. -- Scorpion0422 23:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we are going to add a page, I would say add it in the Los Guerreros article.TrUCo-X 00:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't notice of an intention to nominate this article for GA status, but I was wondering if GA is a possibility for this article. After seeing some of the articles nominated for GA, size doesn't seem to be much of a requirement. This article is thoroughly referenced and covers the full history of the team. I would still like to tighten up the prose, expand the lead, and add an external links section. Subsections within the "Career" section would probably help as well. Does anyone think it would have a chance at GA? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not too sure about this one. Any thoughts on Brian Kendrick becoming a GA? iMatthew 2008 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I expanded Money Inc. a bit today. The Kendrick article looks good and it has GA potential. I'll look it over later to see what needs to be done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It might have a chance. I've been reviewing articles lately as well, and I have to agree that there are some short ones that get nominated and pass. As for Kendrick, it needs some general cleanup first. Nikki311 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's no real harm in trying. I've made some additions to the article today, and I'll work on it a bit more tomorrow. If anyone could give suggestions on what could be added or what it needs before it's at GA level, I would appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just looked over it again, and all grammar/spelling/things of that nature seem to already be in order. Nikki311 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I would source some of the lead for Money, Inc.TrUCo-X 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand (and the Manual of Style seems to back this up), the lead should either be fully sourced or fully unsourced. There is no firm rule, as many people see sourcing the lead to be redundant because all of the information is sourced in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've heard both too, which is really ridiculous - no set standard? but then again if you source it the first time it's mentioned in the main text then you have the sources and if it becomes a point of contention you can just lift the sources up higher in the article. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- From what I understand (and the Manual of Style seems to back this up), the lead should either be fully sourced or fully unsourced. There is no firm rule, as many people see sourcing the lead to be redundant because all of the information is sourced in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well I would source some of the lead for Money, Inc.TrUCo-X 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I just looked over it again, and all grammar/spelling/things of that nature seem to already be in order. Nikki311 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this going anywhere? iMatthew 2008 20:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Randy Orton
I would like some feedback about the article. I got some stuff that was left on the talk page, but I don't know if that's enough for the article to become a future GA. Anything is welcomed. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2007 WWE Draft FLC?
Is it worthy of being nominated for FL?--TrUCo-X 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
is being nominated for GA next sunday by me. Look over it please, and comment on the talk page. I've taken care of everything on the to-do list, so that shouldn't be a problem. All opinions welcome. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looks fine to me. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Anytime Nici ;) NimiTize 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody please review this article? All feedback is welcomed, maybe on a to-do list. Also, Nici and I have completed the to-do list for Brock Lesnar. I gave my notice yesterday (a few threads up). I will be nominating it next Friday or Saturday. iMatthew 2008 11:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- I took a crack at the first review of the article, I gave feedback on the talk page instead of a "to do" list. Hope it's helpful. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Today is supposed to be the day I nominate it for GA. Before I do though, can somebody give it a pre-GA review on it's talk page? It would be greatly appreciated! iMatthew 2008 11:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are still several items left on the "To-Do" list on the article's talk page. The biggest problem is that there are still sections of text that are unreferenced. I added a few more things this morning. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't nominate it until the to-do list is taken care of. Nikki311 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on it. ;) iMatthew 2008 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nici and I have completed the to-do list. It is now nominated. iMatthew 2008 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've done a great job. If you don't mind, there are a few other things that I noticed: (1) A few of the external links don't work (see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Matt_Hardy), (2) I still don't see anything about Hardy's first five years with the WWF, (3) Reference #43 doesn't back up the statement in the article, (4) The final sentence of the "2005-2006" subsection could use more detail--who won the match?, (5) The NEWA and NFWA titles don't seem to be correct in the "Championships and accomplishments" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I've fixed most of your suggestions Gary, but I don't understand your second point. His first 5 years would have started in 1998 when he signed his contract surely? I added some info about 2 jobber matches he had in 95/96 but that's the only info I can find. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- He wrestled for the WWF long before 1998. For example, looking through http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/94.htm shows that he wrestled Nikolai Volkoff, Owen Hart, Razor Ramon, Crush, The Undertaker and IRS in 1994. Likewise, he wrestled in quite a few matches for the WWF in 1995, 1996 and 1997. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I've fixed most of your suggestions Gary, but I don't understand your second point. His first 5 years would have started in 1998 when he signed his contract surely? I added some info about 2 jobber matches he had in 95/96 but that's the only info I can find. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've done a great job. If you don't mind, there are a few other things that I noticed: (1) A few of the external links don't work (see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Matt_Hardy), (2) I still don't see anything about Hardy's first five years with the WWF, (3) Reference #43 doesn't back up the statement in the article, (4) The final sentence of the "2005-2006" subsection could use more detail--who won the match?, (5) The NEWA and NFWA titles don't seem to be correct in the "Championships and accomplishments" section. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nici and I have completed the to-do list. It is now nominated. iMatthew 2008 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't planning on it. ;) iMatthew 2008 16:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't nominate it until the to-do list is taken care of. Nikki311 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrestling Film
Hello, I have a request for all members looking to keep pro wrestling topics in good health on Wiki. I have tried to create a page for the Bloodstained Memoirs documentary (starring Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Mick Foley, Roddy Piper, Jimmy Snuka, Christian Cage, Ultimo Dragon, Great Muta, Molly Holly, Christy Hemme and more) Unbelieveably, user Brian Kendig has removed my page and put it as User talk:Commoncase/Bloodstained Memoirs, as he does not think the film is notible!?! Starring all those major names, he does not think it is notible!?!
In the page, I even listed several reasons for a lay peraon why it is notible (featured in nationwide magazines etc), but Jesus, I think it goes without saying (starring all those names) why it is.
I told him that he should research the subject, and see for himself why this is notible, but I don't think he cares. What can we do to put the page back up onto Wiki space?
Thanks. Commoncase (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Edit it here, and reliably source it. If you can't find any sources, then it probably is non-notable. D.M.N. (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Guys, you know the business. My analagy was, if Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise made a film that was not released yet, are you telling me it would not be put on Wiki? The fact that all these wrestlers are together in a big budget project makes it notible in itself. Let alone the fact it has been featured in high street magazines, PowerSlam and FSM, as stated in the artcile??? Commoncase (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It would be put on Wikipedia if reliable sources were found to back up the information. If there were no reliable sources found, then no, it would probably not be put on Wikipedia. iMatthew 2008 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
But I have listed in the article, that the documentary has been covered in Powerslam magazine and FSM magazine multiple times. These are nationwide, high street magazines?? Commoncase (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well yes, but if you have them with you you can cite them with the {{Citation}} template, but if not you have to find sources from the web.TrUCo-X 15:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much every wrestling news site has mentioned it? But I dare say wrestling news sites would not be deemed "notible" enough. This is so laughable unfortunatly. Look at the names in the project!?! Commoncase (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia consensus and guidelines aren't laughable. The only thing laughable is your spelling. Feedback 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even if his spelling isn't correct, there is no need to personally attack him over it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't go on accusing me of personal attacks, when he was openly mocking wikipedia guidelines. And I for one take Wikipedia guidelines very seriously. Feedback 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit too seriously? Honestly there is NO need to take a swipe at the guy or his spelling just because you disagree with him. You should take Wikipedia:CIVIL seriously, just a friendly suggestion MPJ-DK (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't go on accusing me of personal attacks, when he was openly mocking wikipedia guidelines. And I for one take Wikipedia guidelines very seriously. Feedback 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Even if his spelling isn't correct, there is no need to personally attack him over it. D.M.N. (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia consensus and guidelines aren't laughable. The only thing laughable is your spelling. Feedback 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Only 33,200 hits from Google, the first handful don't look reliable. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- While it will probably warrant an article at some point, it doesn't look like this is the right time for the article to be created. As previously mentioned, you are welcome to create the article in your sandbox and add to it as reliable sources become available. Once it meets the notability requirements, you could bring it into the main space. Unfortunately, appealing to our emotions can't trump Wikipedia guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Even though I was not a fan of the old ECW, I will begin to look for sources, and make the article worthy enough for GA-status. (This is my first tag team article). Thanks, Feedback 19:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just like Feedback and Truco, NiciVampireHeart and I will work on Rated RKO (another tag team), again in hopes of another GA. iMatthew 2008 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, its tag team frenzy today.lol--TrUCo-X 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I might as well mention that I've been working on Faces of Fear, as the article was only two sentences long a couple of days ago. I don't know much about the team, as a lot of what they did happened after I stopped watching wrestling, but I'm hoping that GA is a possibility for the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
COTW
I apologize for the multiple threads I've posted. For the COTW, is it possible that we can go back to choosing a COTW every week instead of every other week. We can ask Misza13 to deliver this message every week:
|
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for March 16 - March 22 is The Big Show. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 23
|
iMatthew 2008 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should depend on the article. I mean, the current COTW has had many edits to it and I don't think we should stop the momentum. There have been COTWs that have had little development and extending the length of time would have made little difference. This method should maximize the impact of the system. I believe the change to 2 weeks was because of a decrease in contribution and interest? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- The change to two weeks was made because of the decision to send out the newsletter every two weeks. We just went along and did the COTW every 2 weeks as well. iMatthew 2008 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to 13's suggestion You don't to stop the momentum on the current article. But then, how would you decide when to change the COTW? When the momentum stops? How would you define that? I personally like Matt's idea of going back to a weekly COTW. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like every two weeks because it gives more time for anyone who wants to help, so that they can. I know that I've been really busy lately, so I like knowing I have extra days if I need them. The only problem with it is that nominations are getting pruned to fast, because we haven't extended the time limits to match the change in how often we have a COTW. Nikki311 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- How about two votes every week? iMatthew 2008 00:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I believe that Matt has made posts about that in the past, and got no replies. see here for instance. I think you make an excellent point Nikki, but if we keep it at 2 weeks, then we need to increase the amount of time before pruning. Also, I think the notice should be sent out anyway, because the newsletter is sent out the week before the COTW changes, so there is a week delay. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about working on two articles every two weeks? That way people could still contribute when they have time. If someone is able to get at one right away, however, there would still be the second article to edit rather than waiting until the two-week period is over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like Gary's idea. That way, we have time to work on both and see if we can achieve something with them. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- What about working on two articles every two weeks? That way people could still contribute when they have time. If someone is able to get at one right away, however, there would still be the second article to edit rather than waiting until the two-week period is over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I like every two weeks because it gives more time for anyone who wants to help, so that they can. I know that I've been really busy lately, so I like knowing I have extra days if I need them. The only problem with it is that nominations are getting pruned to fast, because we haven't extended the time limits to match the change in how often we have a COTW. Nikki311 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to 13's suggestion You don't to stop the momentum on the current article. But then, how would you decide when to change the COTW? When the momentum stops? How would you define that? I personally like Matt's idea of going back to a weekly COTW. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- The change to two weeks was made because of the decision to send out the newsletter every two weeks. We just went along and did the COTW every 2 weeks as well. iMatthew 2008 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
So to summarize/confirm everything:
- This week, there will be a FACOTW, and a COTW, at the same time.
- This week's FACOTW and COTW will close next Sunday.
- This week's FACOTW is Kurt Angle, and COTW is still Big Show
- Changes made. Edit away. Nikki311 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- And what will happen for the next two-week period? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Just like Feedback will work on a tag team, so will I. I will work on the APA in hopes of it becoming a GA as well.--TrUCo-X 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ready for GA
Ok before I nominate it for GA, I would like WP:PW members to review the article and point out anything and comment it on it here or on my talk page. Thanks.--TrUCo-X 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fix the inconsistent use of A.P.A., A.P.A and APA. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 04:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Triple H
I'm planning on nominating Triple H (Date not decided) for FA, if anyone has a suggestions for improvement, please say so (Refs, more sources, grammer, etc.) NimiTize 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it needs quite a bit of work. I want to expand the lead a bit, copy edit a little bit more, and format the couple of citations that need it. Let me finish that before you nominate...and I'd actually wish you'd hold off a few weeks as Kurt Angle is the current FACOTW and you already said you wanted to nominate Shawn Michaels. Nikki311 14:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Our PPV Expansion Page
I made some changes and fixes in my sandbox to it. The setup right now makes some rows bigger than others (depending on the amount of users working on a project). In my sandbox, instead of separating user's names with <br>, I separated them with ";". It makes every row the same size, and makes the page smaller. Can I switch it over? iMatthew 2008 12:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note that this article passed its GA review this morning. Thanks to everyone who helped out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)