Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 47

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 45

Idea to eliminate the GA nomination backlog

As we've discussed here lately, there is a large backlog on the GA Nominations page, and some articlesare waiting up to about 50 days before they are reviewed. I discussed an idea with a member of WP:WGA, and he suggested I give it a try. I have posted help requests on the talk page of each of the major sports Wikiprojects and asked them to review two specific articles over the next week. If every project reviews two articles, the backlog will be eliminated. I randomly chose the articles, and my request is that people from this project try to find time to review 1966 Liberty Bowl and English Channel (horse). If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. As I've mentioned, I started reviewing articles lately, and I've learned a lot from it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've started the review for the 1966 Liberty Bowl. iMat thew 20 08 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I will review the English Horse.TrU Co -X 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

English Horse, lol. I guess you mean the English Channel (which is a horse race). iMat thew 20 08 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Matt for the humor, CORRECTION:I have reviewed the English Channel (horse) =)TrU Co -X 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol. iMat thew 20 08 19:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. You guys (and girls) are amazing. In just a few hours, the list has been trimmed substantially, and many of those reviews have been from members of this project. Thanks for your help. And if you can, it is always a good idea to ask the nominator of an article you review to review one as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is going great. Currently, 15/31 articles are being reviewed/on hold. Like GCF said, if you review an article, the nominator of the article to review one themselves. Also, No Way Out (2007) is being reviewed, if you can help with the review, please do. There are notes left on the talk page. iMat thew 20 08 15:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen: We have a new FL

List of WCW Hardcore Champions has passes its FL. Thanks to all who helped. --TrU Co -X 21:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats great! iMat thew 20 08 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Scrollable References

I've seen articles (cant remember which ones) where the refs section is scrollable, does any one know the code for it, or what to use?--TrU Co -X 03:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering that none of them should have it....... Mshake3 (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's being phased out on Wikipedia. No articles should have it. D.M.N. (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do double columns instead if you want to save room. They're pretty easy to find amongst the FAs. Normy 13:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a couple that used to have it, but they were removed with the comment that it makes printing difficult (or something) and that they were being phased out. Nikki311 13:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Nevermind then. Thanks for all who commented.TrU Co -X 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The APA

I will nominate it for GA in by the end of the week, please as i stated above, leave comments for fixes and comments about it.--TrU Co -X 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look it over fully yet, but many of the references need access dates. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Done--TrU Co -X 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighting Spirit Awards

A user [1] has popped up who has a special interest in adding FSM awards to pages. I have reverted a few of them but I am going offline and don't have the time to figure out what needs to be done. If someone could look in to it it would be much appreciated. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps contacting the user would be a good first step. These awards don't seem any more notable than WrestleCrap's annual Gooker award. I suppose an argument could be made that they are the equivalent of PWI or Wrestling Observer awards, but I just don't see any need to add stuff like the "Kriss Kross Award", "Sholy Hit Award" and "LL Cool J Award" to Wikipedia articles. The user's name (Fighting Spirit) also brings up the possibility of conflict of interest. And the image used on the Fighting Spirit magazine and FSM Awards page has been used since September with no Fair Use Rationale (which isn't related to the discussion at hand, but is simply a casual observation). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the image, so it'll be deleted within 7 days if no rationale is provided. I don't particularly see these as notable either, and a Google Search proves it. It should be taken to AfD, as I'm sure the COI-user will de-prod. I'm about to log off also, so can someone else do the honors... Nikki311 16:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as an inappropriate username (WP:UAA) Nikki, you may want to speedy delete FSM Awards, as it was created by the blocked indef user. - D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The users only edits were about this relatively new magazine (it just started in 2006), so maybe they work for the magazine or something. The article on the magazine reads like an ad too. I wouldn't consider them anywhere near as important as PWI's awards (which have been around for 30 years) or even Wrestling Observer (which has been around for a long time too). TJ Spyke 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

Just letting everyone know I have solved my internet problems. BTW, why was I pushed back in the interview queue? I did the questions back in january... Straight Edge PXK 17:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You weren't, we started doing newsletters every other week, there were some delays, and it just push you and I back. Welcome back! iMat thew 20 08 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of stables

List of professional wrestling stables has been deleted; I couldn't find a AfD discussion page.TravelingCat (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an article, it was just a redirect to List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams, which was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams. When an article is deleted, redirects to it are usually speedy deleted under R1 (see WP:CSD). TJ Spyke 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay.TravelingCat (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out (2007)

Just passed it's GA review. Congrats everyone, and keep reviewing articles. iMat thew 20 08 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm Leaving

...for WrestleMania XXIV! Just thought I'd drop by before I leave for Orlando tomorrow afternoon. I found a few things online that could be used in the article as well as for your enjoyment. Anyone anxious to see what the Citrus Bowl will look like for 'Mania? Well from what the following links show it looks nothing like what WWE magazine depicted. Check it out. Video Article Article 2 Article 3 These could be great additions to the article's production section. For anyone who cared to read my interview I'll also be going the HoF, Axxess, and other festivities around the city. Expect to see some great pictures when I return. I'll try to be back here editing in full force when I return. Cheers! -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a great time! iMat thew 20 08 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that arena rendering was a bit off when it appeared that Bobby Lashley was being visualized. Seriously though, have a great time. Mshake3 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Have fun. Can't wait to see some of the pictures you take (they should look great in the WMXXIV article and the set-up for the MITB article). TJ Spyke 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like fun. I hope it's great. And if you have a chance to get a picture of Jack Brisco, that would be wonderful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Take as many pictures as you can, everywhere you go (HoF, Axxess, THQ Superstar Challenge if you go there, and WrestleMania itself. Don't let pictures be your only focus though. Have fun, since this is a one in a life time experience. iMat thew 20 08 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a random IP address coming from Florida seem familiar to anyone here? - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. iMat thew 20 08 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh for the love of... Not again. Just ignore him. Anyway, thanks guys. It's actually the second 'Mania I'll be attending live. (1st being 21) I'm really looking forward to all the events! Wish you were there! -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I was there too, lol. Btw. I meant being there for WrestleMania outdoors is a one in a lifetime experience. iMat thew 20 08 00:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah definitely. It sure will be interesting to see what the finished sets will look like. From what the video shows it looks to be really huge. I can't wait to see the outdoor pyro displays!-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Mega Bucks

This article was moved from Mega Bucks to The Mega Bucks without discussion by User:King Gemini. Do we care, or is the new location just fine? To be honest, I'm a little bothered because I worked so much on the article, but my feelings of WP:OWNership shouldn't really come into play. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For god's sakes, fix the Carlito Article!!!

I just edited it to prove a point, WE DO NOT NEED THAT MUCH KAYFABE REFERENCING!!! so Jesus (Son of God) Christ, only refer to other wrestlers by names we actually know. Who would neet to know Thrish Stratus is Really (Patricia Strataigas) I thank you, Straight Edge PXK 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. Your edits were ridiculous. Do not edit an article just to prove a point...it is disruptive. Thanks. Nikki311 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

while you're at it, go and take all the "out of universe" crap out of it. how can it be a good article with that shite in it. I advise the editors who did this to Drop The Goddamn stick Straight Edge PXK 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is the only way it can be a Good Article, which it actually is, if you'd checked. It has to be made clear that wrestling isn't real. Live with it. Nikki311 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Who would need to know that Agent J is played by Will Smith in Men in Black? you obviously haven't encountered pleople tagging wrestling articles with {{in-universe}}, the only thing we are listing are real names at the first mention, wich is both relevant and a consideration for those that aren't familiar with kayfabe, not only rabid fanboys read these. Now if you want all references to the actor behind fictional characters deleted, begin by pestering WP:FILM, but be sure if you continue to edit to prove a point you will end up blocked for disrution. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So click on the link to the sandman's page and you will know that he is Jim Fullington. Hands up who would actually n eed to know what he was called to find out he drank and smoked on his way to the ring, swung a cane around and actually low blowed himself on the barrier when I was at a house show? Straight Edge PXK 14:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You edit make little sense but regardless, how is removing all the "out of universe" material from the article going to help it? how is removing Carlos' much published problems with the WWE going to help it? - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I didnt mean that, I meant the "Paul "Triple H" Levesque" stuff. Why? He is never known as that. This is especially true for The Great Khali (CDalip Singh Rana)Straight Edge PXK 14:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the easy awnser is "wrestling is fake", we must leave that clear, the real names allow us to write in quite a "in-universe" perspective after the players are introduced, just like the film articles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm making my position clear: I don't really care about the names either way. However, adding kayfabe to every line, adding personal commentary, and editing to prove a point is what I'm upset about. Nikki311 14:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Making edits like that is entirely disruptive and is making a point. If you have a problem with certain articles, discuss it here first. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the pages are what the person is best known as...Sandman is what he is best known as..The same goes with the Carlito article.TrU Co -X 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't hate me, but how stupid can you be? Not you Truco, but Straight Edge. Sexy Sea Shark 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Straight Edge PXK made a similar post about this several months ago. D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we make a template to say: "The following section describes a wrestler or manager's in ring career. It should be treated as a work of fiction, not reaal life." or something like that. Just word it better than I Did Straight Edge PXK 16:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we don't need that. I can't see it on other fictional articles e.g. Homer Simpson. D.M.N. (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's redundant, the link to professional wrestling is enough to understand that it is kayfabe.--TrU Co -X 20:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaybabe? :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

My bad, typo, fixed it. I meant Kayfabe.--TrU Co -X 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Show Mayweather

Should the Big Show, Mayweather match be listed as kayfabe? Or is it allready? Sexy Steeler Fan 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No it shouldn't IMO. I think it's implied since it's listed as a regular wrestling match. If it was real (which Mayweather never would agree to since he would get his butt whooped), then we would note it was real. TJ Spyke 18:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, as mentioned above there is no way Mayweather could defeat Show in a legitimate fight and getting massacred is not good for selling the 'money' image, its obvious the match will be scripted. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.86.110.155

He is going through prodding countless wrestling articles with out warning us. A lot of them are non notable, but I removed the prods just on the basis of his not informing us. Kris (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, he doesn't have to notify us. Looking at the IP's edits, all of their prods (which is not "countless", they've prodded 2 articles in the last week, and the last wrestling related edit was 2 days ago) were for articles that SHOULD be deleted: Dark Angel (wrestler) and Crybaby (wrestler). Both articles are in terrible shape and they seem to be non-notable. I disagree with removing the prods, but they can't be put back and now both articles have to go through the full AFD process. TJ Spyke 02:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are now up for AfD. Nikki311 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Championship Dates

I've seen some pages listing the dates of championships (like Evolution, I forget where else I've seen it). Is this something we want to do? I personally think it looks a bit too cluttered. It is good info to have but it's also in the championship lists which are linked right there. Opinions? - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

D-Generation X has that too. The only purpose I see of adding dates for stables is to show the changes within the group, which should've been covered in the history sections. I think it's unnecessary. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Evolution, but I think the purpose in DX is because the group went through so many line-up changes that it was sometimes hard to tell which titles were held during an individual member's time in the group. Adding the dates, seemed like a good idea at the time (yeah...I did that) because a bunch of people kept adding titles that didn't mesh with the dates that person was actually a part of DX. You can remove it if you want, just be on the lookout for that. Nikki311 13:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Career Threatening Match

This is hilarious. A few people tell me that my edit is wrong, and two of them revert the articles back to the way I had them [2][3]! Apparently, they strongly believe in multiple consensuses, and will defend both of them to the death.

As for the topic at hand, a Carrer Threatening Match is a fancy name for a retirement match, and as listed in that section, the stipulation can apply to only one of the wrestlers. Reverting that is just being hypcritical. Nothing new there however. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

To have a firm concensus can you please put your name down with three tildes ~~~ next to the version you like here. D.M.N. (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like consensus is going against your version, Mshake. D.M.N. (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But thanks for reverting it back for me last night. Mshake3 (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the difference. Nikki311 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the wrong revision Mshake3. My intention was to revert back to the way it should of been, and the way we've had it all the way along. D.M.N. (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"If you have always done it that way, it is probably wrong." I mean, look at the below secton. We've always done PPV articles a certain way, but it looks like we were wrong all along. Mshake3 (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was via suggestions in a FAC with a civil discussion. What you didn't do Mshake3 is discuss it before hand when you should of. If you didn't like that format, discuss it to attempt to form a new consensus. I suggest you look at the image I've inserted to the right. D.M.N. (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before. Match types are listed before the match name. No one seems to think that a "Career Threatening Match" isn't a match. It's just hypocriticy, again, by the usual suspects. Mshake3 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was absolutely no need to remove the image. Consensus on the Career Threatening Match goes against that. Just have some tea and go for a little break before this gets out of hand. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2005) and SummerSlam (2007)

Passed as a GA yesterday. Keep it up!! iMatthew 20 08 10:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Over the Edge (1999)

I plan on nominating this article for GA next week, please copy-edit, and review it for errors or problems, and note them here, (or if possible) fix them. Please and Thank you.--TrU Co -X 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Austin picture should be right-aligned because he's facing left and because that is the first image. (WP:MOS#Images) Is the Bradshaw photo relevant, being taken 3 years after? Austin looks the same but Bradshaw's changed a little. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant because it is one of the oldest pics of him that we got, and if we use ones from today, it will be completely irrelevant. I also changed the positions of the images.--TrU Co -X 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE Wrestlers at TNA's Event on 3/27/08

Some of the WWE Superstar's pages should be watched, including Robbie McAllister's. I fear some crazy comments being writen on Robbie's page within the next couple of days. By the way, I'm sorry that I was gone for the longest time. JediYoda1120 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

i added this

John cena was the first one chosen by Gm william reagle in the triple treat take over

i did this cuz i was relevent to me and my frenids in a prgect were working on so it would be helpful to others two KCDavis (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It has none notability whatsoever. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for Backlash (2004)

I thought I would let the PW community know that I've inserted a peer review for Backlash and I hope that you can help in getting the article to Good status. The link is here. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007)

Since No Way Out (2004) has recently failed its FAC, I would like to nominate SummerSlam (2007) for FA status. I would like to do this now, rather than later, because I feel that the article is as good as it'll ever be and that it cannot get much better over time (although I am probably over exaggerating). If there are no major objections, I will nominate it in one week. Thanks, –Cheers, L A X 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

New Page for Watchlists

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 has just been created as it has been announced for production by THQ/IGN. And with the problems encountered with WWE SvR 2008, 2009 is definatley going to have IP edits/vandalism. So watch out for it. Thanks.--TrU Co -X 19:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So no thought of semi-protection on this page to help cut down on that sort of thing? ArcAngel (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, as Ip edits and vandalism hasn't begun as the news of the game were just released. But I fixed the entire article, as a previous user created it, but I added alot of finishing touches. when Ip edits and vandalism begins, then Semi-protection will be requested.--TrU Co -X 20:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

I know said I was going to source the thing over my spring break. I didn't, as I was ill for most of it and would have probably ended screwing up the article somehow. But I have not abandoned the article. I WILL source it, and once that's done, I intend to ask for some feedback and eventually nominate for GA status. I know I'm taking a lot longer to do one PPV article then most of you take for six combined, but I do intend to finish it. After that, I don't intend to really actively participate in PPV expansion much, but I may undertake 'Mania 24 later should I get 23 be granted GA status. My apologies for the empty promises, but I will get the job done. Slowly but surely, as they say. As for a timeframe, I'm not too sure, but my semester is over in a month, so I'll have much time after that. :) Regards, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. In my view, if it only takes you a few days to fully expand a PPV, the chances are it's not as good as another PPV article that has been expanded over several weeks, with thorough copy-editing by other editors. D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes in PPV results formatting - as a result of comments in No Way Out (2004) FAC

There are slight changes in PPV pages from now on due to comments at the No Way Out 2004 FAC, see here. The first change is within the first line.

First Change

Instead of it being:

No Way Out 2004 was the.....

It is now changed to:

No Way Out (2004) was the.....

This has been done so that the event name matches the article title.

Second Change

Results are no longer in bold whatsoever per a discussion again at the No Way Out 2004 FAC. This has been done as it does not relate to anything specific.

Third Change

At the very beginning of the results section for expanded PPV articles, can you put this line in:

{{Small|Numbers in parentheses indicate the length of the match.}}

I'm informing you guys of this, as a result of the ongoing FAC. These changes will need to occur on all PPV articles for consistency. When this topic gets archived, I'll shift it to the PPV guidelines page so that every one knows. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's weird how these didn't come up on the FAC of D2D'06, but if this is what will stirve NWO to FA, then it is what we shall do from now on, and should do to existing articles. Also, I want to publically thank, DMN and especially Nikki for replying on the FAC of NWO, I have been to busy to work on it due to school, but you two deserve so much credit if it passes. Thank You.--TrU Co -X 14:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't really commented on the NWO FAC. I've only brought this here, as if it's like that in the NWO article, we need to be consistent and do it in every article. Otherwise editors will be thinking, "those two aren't similar - why?" D.M.N. (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great...new issues pop up all the time, but it is a way to continue to improve all of our articles. People miss things sometimes, but they'll get caught eventually by someone. Nikki311 17:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Should all these articles really be changed based on the opinions of one editor? Mshake3 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is he wrong? Nikki311 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

He is actually correct, how can an article be named one thing, and then not be mentioned ever again in the article. Like Nikki said, is he wrong?''TrU Co -X 23:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Except for WrestleMania, the years are not considered apart of the event title, and are only used to separate the yearly events. That's why the years are in parenthesis. So from a sentence structure standpoint, saying "Royal Rumble (2008) was an event" doesn't make any sense. The only problem I have is finding another way of saying it. It's not an issue with the Royal Rumble or the Survivor Series (the 2007 Survivor Series was an event, for example), but I can't say "the 2008 No Way Out". Mshake3 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now since this is a drastic change, could it be discussed here in the future before changing all of the articles? Mshake3 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

NWO failed

No Way Out (2004) failed its FAC, I think its about time to call it quits for now and present a new article for FA. Suggestions? --TrU Co -X 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was failed prematurely. The Rambling Man didn't get a chance to review the changes made, and the discussion was still going on...but whatever. Nikki311 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was two, but I think it past it's time of being a FAC.--TrU Co -X 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about NWO, Truco. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to the WP:PW main page, Triple H is going to be nominated on April 4. I've been trying to clean it up a little. Let's wait until that passes/fails before trying something else. Nikki311 01:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I was more on the lines of a PPV, but HHH is good.--TrU Co -X 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of a future PPV FA, how would people feel if I nominated SummerSlam (2007) for FA status? –Cheers, L A X 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing how NWO just failed, it will be unlikely for that to pass FACR. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats twice, I guess it needs more work. Ni mi Ti ze 16:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Online Onslaught

Its been about two-three weeks since Online Onslaught's domain expired, and it looks as if it won't be renewed. I think its time for 1)To remove the refs with this source from our articles, or 2)Re-place it with results from The Other Arena if it hasn't already been added as a ref, as the same writer from The Other Arena wrote columns from Online Onslaught.TrU Co -X 01:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Rick Scaia, the owner, is having trouble getting the url back but is working on it so it should be back eventually.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of authority figures in professional wrestling > Professional wrestling authority figures

Not sure if there was a consensus on this, but someone has moved the above page. It was probably a good idea. Anyway, I just thought I'd post this here. If you're editing an article, be on the look out for that, there may be broken links and/or redirects to fix relating to above move. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed earlier this month, and I pointed out that the list above and List of professional wrestling match types still had the "list of", so I moved them to Professional wrestling match types and professional wrestling authority figures.--TrU Co -X 15:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dont Question My Heart

^^ See title. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Further into the GAN reviews

Well, this has been going great. The list is shorter now more than ever and articles are quickly being review. Today, I request that a few people find an article to review. Then ask it's nominator to review a PW article. iMatthew 20 08 18:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed another article today. And while I'm thinking about it, Ion Croitoru passed its GA review, bringing our project's total to 42. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing one later. Oh, and New Year's Revolution (2007) passed as well. iMatthew 20 08 18:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

SvR Question

How are SmackDown vs RAW games a part of the SmackDown! series? --TrU Co -X 15:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, I think its because it starts with SmackDown. Ni mi Ti ze 16:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's because the SD! vs. RAW games are part of the same franchise as the original SD! series; same developer, same publisher, etc. The term "SmackDown! series" is used to refer to the whole franchise as a whole, in reference of the old SD! games. The Chronic 17:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's what I wanted to know..So these are also apart of the RAW game franchise?--TrU Co -X 17:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be SMackdown! vs. Raw 2009.Just like the last three and the first one Smackdonw! vs. RAW. Sexy Steeler Fan 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To Truco's question: yes, the SD! series are apart from the RAW series (which was exclusive to the Xbox; the SD! series was originally meant for the PlayStation 2). The Chronic 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Thanks just wanted to clarify, so why isnt it mentioned in the games that it is a part of the Raw series as well?TrU Co -X 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Truco, apart and a part mean the complete opposite. Chronic said apart of, not a part of. Feedback ^☎ 13:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. --3L Va K3 r0 14:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 30, 2008

I'm not sure if anyone has noticed it, but... December to Dismember (2006) has been scheduled as the "Today's featured article" for tomorrow (obviously on the day of WrestleMania). Thought everyone should know ahead of time. The Chronic 18:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wonder who specifically requested that date! >>>> D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. ^^^^^^^ iMatthew 20 08 18:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The suspense is killin' me. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Should I make it specifically clear, lol. :D D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For those who haven' caught on yet. iMatthew 20 08 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG, I was so surprised. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome. Congrats to everyone who helped, and especially to DMN. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously it's a great thing, but it will attract a nasty substance along with it. Please put it on your list. D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Please remember that pro wrestling articles tend to attract the worst kind of vandals, and the Montreal Screwjob was hit pretty hard when it was on the main page (remember that guy who kept tagging it with notability and reference tags?) so keep a close eye out. As well, I am fully expecting someone to afd the page (it happened to Through the Looking Glass (Lost)) so we'll see hoe things go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

lol...hoe things go. Editing under the influence ---> Nikki311 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny moment. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ay, I remember the incident with the Screwjob's TfA. Albatross and Excalibur tried to get it deleted for non-notability when they were clearly biased against pro wrestling. Then Vampire Warrior threatened them and made the whole project look bad. Good times, huh? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done guys, I'm gonna go watch for 10 minutes Straight Edge PXK 03:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And so it begins... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm coming back to this project

Nothing personal. You guys do good work. But I think that when I return full(er)-time to Wikipedia (still a couple weeks away), I'm gonna find other things to work on, outside this project's purview (for the most part, anyway). There are some things that are bothering me about the project that are no one's problem but mine. And other areas I'd simply like to concentrate my efforts.

Look at me wax grandiose. You won't even notice, I'm sure. Many of you probably don't even know who I am. But in case there's someone who does, I thought it would be courteous to leave this note. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've left before. Although it was more of an experiment to see what my life would be without Wikipedia. I got bored. Turns out I devoted a lot of time to Wikipedia. I think I've felt the same way about the project. I think the project's died down a bit over the past half year. Well, goodbye. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

New barnstar design?

What do you guys think about this barnstar design? Made by me. ;) iMatthew 20 08 19:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Calendar

I have noticed that although we have been going to every two weeks with the newsletter a number of calendar items, especially members birthdays, from the 2nd week are left off. I noticed this with my bday coming up, and did soem back looking, and it seems to be the case. Just a heads up, I really don't care if my bday gets mentioned :) Less Than Clippers 19:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the calendar, we've showed the calendar for the entire month. This newsletter, all things on the calendar for April are shown, since it is released next Sunday. iMatthew 20 08 19:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple H FAC

Well its been nominated for FA; its here. Ni mi Ti ze 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was going to be nominated on April 4. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea me too, but I looked over it alot, it seemed perfect to me. But, knowing me, I might of missed something. Please improve further so if you can. Ni mi Ti ze 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of waiting until April 4th is so that we have time to look over the article, and further improve it before it gets nominated. iMatthew 20 08 10:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Why can't people just wait until they say?? There's even a citation needed tag in the article. I suggest finding a source for that or nobody will support. It won't kill anyone to wait the extra couple of days. Nikki311 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I removed the info altogether. You really need to be careful about things like that when nominating articles. Nikki311 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For those who have not been informed, a reviewer has given his opinion on some sources that the article has. I've done all I can with fixing some of them. Help is really needed at this moment. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Nikki, to me it felt like a well written article and better then meeting the FA status, Its not that I didnt want to wait, its that, why wait? Ni mi Ti ze 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said...to finish fixing the article...like the citations needed tag in the article, for one. Here's an update, though: all the problems pointed out by the commenter have been fixed or the reliability of the cites explained. Special thanks to Zenlax for helping me out. Nikki311 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, since it is the day after WrestleMania, where HHH had a match, there is likely to be a lot of vandalism and additions of useless/trivial information. Stability of an article is an issue when nominating at FAC. Waiting until April 4 would have helped to eliminate that problem. Nikki311 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is going to be a big issue in the FA review. Again, why was it nominated like now? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel so fuc_in stupid. Ni mi Ti ze 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

:(

O.K guy's I think I'm going to take a wikibreak for a while. Some of you might not know me, and some of you know me pretty well, I will probably be back in a couple months maybe not that long lol, and if you leave a message I will respond trust me but i'm not gonna go out of my way to help on article's for the time being. Nothing personal, look forward to seeing you guy's real soon :) Sexy Steeler Fan 19:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fire at Wrestlemania

Anybody else here about this [4] S—PAC54 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article already. –L A X 19:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Backlash '08

Um, the article has been created. Thought I should let you guys know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not enough information, sorry Blue (If you created it) Ni mi Ti ze 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, no I didn't create the article, as I know nothing about the upcoming matches. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, ok. Ni mi Ti ze 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW/PPV March Statistics

I've updated the stats today and we now have 100 articles expanded or partially expanded. Thank you to all that have contributed. However, the amount of articles marked as "Incomplete and Inactive" has increased significantly. (from 7 to 26 over the last month) --13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, I guess we will need to work on the vacant articles. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

People need to be careful when updating the page. I've noticed that a couple of the pay per views that I've worked on have been removed (one after reaching Good Article status). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about championships

In the Championships and accomplishments sections of Wrestler articles, is there an exact order of how the championships should be ordered?--3L Va K3 r0 02:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Alphabetically. –L A X 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, alot of these articles are messed up then, I see that the triple crown championship is always the last one for some reason.--3L Va K3 r0 02:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was just to my knowledge. I'm not for sure, though. –L A X 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The TCC and Grand Slam are in order that they were acheived. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Stub article expansion

As I'm sure you've heard, one of the goals of this project is to reduce the number of stub articles by expanding them until they are at least start class. Since mid-December, the number of stub articles has dropped by 129 (while our overall number of articles has grown by almost 300). The stub expansion has slowed down, though, and this looks like the first week in which the percentage of stubs will actually increase. It would be great if a few people could choose an article to expand this week. A list of some of the more famous wrestlers is given at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs, but there are quite a few more to choose from. I would like to see the number of stub articles drop below 600, so help would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Took a quick look, and the Oliver Humperdink article appears to have been expanded enough that it's no longer tagged as a stub, though it is in your list of stubs. I'll take a closer look at the list when I get home and decide who I want to work on. ArcAngel (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Humperdink should be a stub, it has zero references, and is a very short article. D.M.N. (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Raw" capitalized?

ummmm........ is it.......?

142.162.187.79 (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Monday Night Raw? you mean as in RAW? - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. The argument is from the Backlash (2007) article. –Cheers, L A X 22:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be, per the manual of style. It's been discussed in the archives of this very page numerous times, but that doesn't stop certain people from changing it to the way they prefer it anyway.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com doesn't seem to care about such trivial details, they always use "Raw" in the results. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes or no?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Raw is not capitalized. Per this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again with this discussion. WWE Raw--> this is the name of the TV show and the whole thing is not capitalized and is italicized. WWE RAW-->This is the name of the WWE brand which is capitalized, so TV show (not), the brand (yeah). Also, why is this conversation continuing, its not like the IP will return to comment back, plus this conversation has been going on way too long. I think its time to establish Wikiproject:Professional Wrestling:Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)'TrU Co -X 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Truco's right, we need to get over this. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like a Manual of Style would be nice. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The show and the brand's official names are the same. ("RAW") They are different here because MOS changed the show to "Raw". The brand was unaffected. Am I correct? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, when it is referred to as a brand, it is how WWE trademarks the name of the show. So basically the brand should be RAW, but some article list the "RAW brand" as "Raw brand". But I have to agree, its time for the WP:PW/MoS.TrU Co -X 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things can be broken off from the to-do list. Also should be guidelines for capitalization of moves/match types, and which moves should be preceded by "the" and which should be by "a/an". --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:PW/MoS

Well its clear that we need this for the new users, and for most of us users who forget sometimes. Please list what should be included, as I will create it in my sandbox and then move it to the main space. Thanks.--TrU Co -X 14:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Could we not just expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we could, I guess we can put it under a section labeled "Television/Brand titles"?--TrU Co -X 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the items under "Changes" in the to-do list. I think we should only use "WWF" or "the WWF" for consistency. The issue with moves/match types capitalization. Whether to precede "Royal Rumble" and "Survivor Series" with "the". The RAW/Raw discussion. Whether to drop the exclamation mark in SmackDown! (the MOS:TM argument and the correct name argument). --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the style guide, not that anyone ever checks it. We can't make blanket rules about when to precede something with "the" because different situations call for different things.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Acolytes Protection Agency/Over the Edge (1999)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clearly nothing project related or constructive is coming from this discussion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message before, but Scorpion0422, removed it because "this is not the place for good-bye comments", as I am retiring from Wikipedia, but "project wise" I would appreciate it if the project would respond to any queries that would come up on the APA's and OTE's GA-Review. Thank you, and good luck to this project in the future.--3L Va K3 r0 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The box at the very top says "Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes "Wikipedia Officer", but now, I am talking about the "Pro Wrestling Articles and their GA review".--3L Va K3 r0 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to get sympathy, you'll probably be back in a week. If you're leaving fine, have fun, but it has nothing to do with the project so I fail to see why you need a goodbye thread. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have serious issues my man, but no I will not be back. This is not to gain sympathy for my leave, you can think of it that way, w/e, but I want to inform the project of the "professional wrestling articles" that are current "GAC"'s, and that they should be noticed if something is to come up in their GA-review.3L Va K3 r0 23:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Serious issues? Why, because I don't treat Wikipedia like MSN or a forum? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No because I am clearly informing the project of a serious matter (not my leave) and you are ranting me about it.--3L Va K3 r0 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I am also leaving, so I'm leaving Matt Hardy, Brock Lesnar, and Brian Kendrick's review in your guy's hands. Bye mostly everyone. iMatthew 20 08 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, your leaving. Yet, you can't for some reason be bothered to review the GA's when they come around, your leaving it for us to pick up the work? And is there any specific reason why your leaving Wikipedia, the amount of bickering I've seen on your, Trucco's, NimiTize's and LAX's talkpage is beyond belief and in my view plain stupidity. D.M.N. (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done anything, but I will remain for that if you have such a grudge about it.--3L Va K3 r0 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right D.M.N. that is rude. I will stick around for a short while, but only to answer to those reviews. And you're 100% right, it's plain stupidity. iMatthew 20 08 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion, you've got to loosen up and chill out. A member leaving our group is important information for the pro wrestling group. Is it really such a big deal that you need to go out of your way to remove the message? Kris (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Backlash 2008

I have used up my three revert rule. Please see the edit history of WWE Backlash as well as User talk:DeadmanUndertaker. That user insists that I am wrong and that Wikipedia's policy is trumped by WWE. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but you should be careful because some admins don't like it when users ask others to revert for them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that, but this user is failing to heed to policy his edits are becoming disruptive. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's disruptive? He's saying that only matches announced by WWE should be listed, and you're saying other reliable sources are allowed, save for "dirtsheets" (there's no trusting on here), which basically also means "only announced by WWE." And this edit war involves hidden tags that have no baring on the article. Mshake3 (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To put a quick stop to this "only announced on WWE is allowed" is incorrect in regards to sourcing and matches, so stating in a hidden message that the source must be WWE is also flying in the face of guidelines and previous examples. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my argument. He was wrong, in that he would not accept that other reliable sources could exist (WON, for example). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I misconstrued one of your reverts as one of your edits, I apologise. You are in the right and he is in the wrong. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I reverted my own edit since I have impulsively reverted one of his, but then I realized I had violated the 3RR so I reverted back. It would have been confusing to someone just briefly checking the history. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

World Wrestling Professionals

I have put this fed up for AfD, and bundled in all its titles and wrestlers, none seem to be notable and three are already up for AfD. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A sock?

I discovered the talk page of this user: User talk:Palmer-Ridge, who uses the page to list the moveset of a fictional wrestler. This immediately reminded me of Jeff Money (talk · contribs) who had dedicated his user space to chronicling the fictional career of one Jim Samuel. Jeff Money was a sock of [email protected] (talk · contribs) and I was wondering if anyone thought this guy could be too. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like him alright. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I may have discovered several sock puppets, he's edited the user page of JerichoOfWalls‎ (talk · contribs) whose user page was also edited by Palmer-Cat (talk · contribs) and there is also Palmer-Out (talk · contribs). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Di-Hardcore (talk · contribs), Hardcore Sentence (talk · contribs), and ‎Hardcore07‎ (talk · contribs) might be a part of it, as well. A checkuser might be in order here. Nikki311 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Um... and El Hardcore (talk · contribs) and ‎HardcoreTen (talk · contribs). Nikki311 20:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And Flyerman (talk · contribs), he and two of the above ones vandalised the page of Derek Bryant and replaced it with the bio of a fictional wrestler. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this right now...so I suggest taking it to either the suspected sockpuppet noticeboard, the admin noticeboard, checkuser, or wherever. I'm logging off for the night to deal with a crazy load of work I have to do for school. Nikki311 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bolding

I thought bolding in the match/results section was to be discouraged, but i see at WrestleMania XXIV it has bolding (the match names)?--TrU Co -X 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The bolding can say "au revoir" when the event concludes. :) D.M.N. (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? lol--TrU Co -X 21:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

After WrestleMania happens. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh. lol--TrU Co -X 23:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any positive value of removing bolding from PPV results, as it makes it harder to read. I vote that all bolding should be left as they were. Mal1988 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007) FAC

Since it has been one week and no one has objected my request above, I have gone on and nominated SummerSlam (2007) for FA status here. –L A X 10:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone please fix

[5] will be deleted tomorrow. Needs sourcing, which shouldn't be hard. I have no access to the net. --Endless Dan 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Backlash (2006)

If anyone has time, can feedback be given for Backlash. As I would like to see if the article meets Good article criteria. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)