Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 73

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 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Undefeat Streaks

Undertaker has an invict in Wresatlemania and it has a place in Undertaker's article. Why you don't write the invict of Rob Van Dam in WrestleMania & Invict of Sting in Bound For Glory? The tree have an invict, but only one have it in his article. --83.38.169.25 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What in Jehovah's name is an "invict"? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The who has a what now? Tony2Times (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can infer from this is about Undertaker's undefeated streak. If this is the case: it's only included in his article as it's part of his storylines and mythos. RVD's was never mentioned and Sting's will likely be broken this month. Long live Undertaker's invicts. Tony2Times (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I talk about undefeat streak. "Invicto" in spanish and i call it invict. Also, I read that Sting can win to Styles in BFG. If Sting win, will you put his invict in Bound for Glory?--83.38.169.25 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

As others have said, WWE focus heavily on his streak every year and who can break it. I should point out thought that they didn't really start mentioning it until he was about 12-0. I don't think anyone has ever talked about RVD's streak and I don't think TNA has ever mentioned Sting's streak. TJ Spyke 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Only streaks very popular, like Goldberg's streak. But Edge has a streak in Ladder matches, also in wrestlemqania. You can put it? --83.38.169.25 (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about popularity, it's about notability. As you mentioned, Goldberg's streak is also notable because WCW put a heavy focus on it (every match with him they would talk about the streak and what it was up to). Same thing with Tatanka's undefeated streak when he entered the WWF. You would need to show that a streak is notable. TJ Spyke 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus the problem with doing Goldberg's streak is that they lost count of it, so it'd be hard to prove in a list that he had a 200-0 streak, I would think. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Edge's streak in ladder matches is very notability no? Durning his feud with Cena, he said that isa a match that never lost.--83.38.169.25 (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the promotion has never promoted Edge's streak. WCW and WWE have promoted Goldberg and Taker's streaks, a wrestler mentioned that they are undefeated is not evidence of notability. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging article

The article Head and Neck Rake is made of two sentences, shouldn't it being merged with the Professional wrestling holds article? Jeangabin (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely merge. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 12:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually would suggest the page to be deleted as this is the only place which links to it [1]. Afro Gold - Afkatk 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea that sounds like a better idea I'll take care of that.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a plausible search term, so it should be kept as a redirect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ive already marked it for Deletion. How should I go about this now.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Navermind looks like you fixed it.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt people would refer to the move as a Head and Neck Rake though. Afro Gold - Afkatk 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't ether but im just gonna leave it for now.--Dcheagle (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway since its seemed as somewhat Valid, I'm just gonna drop it. Afro Gold - Afkatk 00:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's not very likely that people would search for it, but I've seen stranger ones kept, so I figure this should stay as well. Ultimately, the rule seems to be that if the page was created in good faith, there is at least one person who would think to search for the term (and therefore probably others who would search for it as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Cell query

Just a slight question about WWE Hell in a Cell after tonight. Potentially, this may be the first WWE pay-per-view in the tri-branded era to not feature the ECW brand (with the addition of R-Truth/McIntyre making this even more eminent). Now assuming that this does happen tonight and taking into consideration that Morrision/Ziggler had that one segment on last week's ECW, would this be a suitable intro for the background section:

Hell in a Cell featured professional wrestling matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that were played out on Raw, SmackDown, ECW and WWE Superstars—World Wrestling Entertainment's (WWE) television programs. Wrestlers portrayed a villain or a hero as they followed a series of events that built tension, and culminated into a wrestling match or series of matches.^[1] All wrestlers were from WWE's Raw and SmackDown brands—a storyline division in which WWE employees are assigned to a television program of the same name.^[2] Wrestlers from the ECW brand did not appear at the event, the first time since WWE's announcement in March 2007 that all three brands would appear on their pay-per-view events.^[3]

Also, if it turns out ECW have a dark match, how would this be affected? -- Θaks ter 07:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If ECW has a dark match, we could just say something like "All wrestlers on the televised broadcast were from...". TJ Spyke 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well my guess ended up true. The changes have been made. -- Θaks ter 08:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mami Kitamura

Is anyone familiar with her enough to at least create a stub for her? Right now "Mami Kitamura" redirects to Ōmuta murders (about a series of murders involving a mob family, the wife of the mob boss was named Mami Kitamura). Maybe Mami Kitamura (wrestler)? I am not familiar enough with her to even create a decent stub. TJ Spyke 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cormier family

I expanded the articles about the four Cormier brothers a while back and just thought about nominating one or more for GA status. I would really appreciate some opinions about which one(s) might have sufficient information for GAN. The articles are Yvon Cormier, Rudy Kay, Bobby Kay, and Leo Burke. Thanks to anyone who has a chance to take a look. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The family and some of the individuals are covered in the "Hall of Fame" series, the "Villains" and "Canadians" have info on both, I could add some sources etc. to the ones you want to nominate. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumored match for Braggin Rights

Keep an eye on WWE Bragging Rights. There are rumors that a John Cena vs. Randy Orton Iron Man match will be at the show. Heads up until it's officially announced. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok we'll keep a look at but i think nothing will happen as WWE Bragging Rights is Protected from IPs and new user editing but ill keep an eye out.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that most of use would have reverted any unsourced matches anyways. I guess it can't hurt to have more people watching it though. TJ Spyke 00:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

yea thats the same thing i thought of cause i would revert any un sourced match faster then they can blink but it never harts to keep an eye out.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

New format idea

It may just be me, but I've never been too fond of the championship and accomplishments section in bios. I always thought a table would make it a bit more organized, then add some prose to make it look lot better. Just a summary of the championships a wrestler has held. Maybe even forking the listing of titles out like other projects do, but only for people who have won alot of titles and awards. I came up with a rough draft format I want to get some ideas on. Nothing amazing just an idea. Check it out. I took A.J. Styles section and put it in a table, but when I got passed the TNA section, my computer screwed up and I lost everything I had done. So instead of redoing everything, I just did his TNA section where he has won most of his titles, etc. Any ideas of improvement?--WillC 23:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

TBH, think the current format is fine and works great (although I am not fond of NWA titles being split up by the promotion hosting that particular match). Tables don't really work that well for it, that very short title history for Styles was extremely long. Just so it's not me being all negative, I will offer some suggestions (although I don't think we should use tables): dates are not needed for title reigns. TJ Spyke 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I more or less agree. I might support the idea if the amount of space it takes could be greatly condensed. But overall, I'm not fond of it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main reason I like the table format is bullet points don't seem organized nor professional in bios. I changed to a new format. Any thoughts on this? I really feel this could improve the articles an extreme amount.--WillC 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't really like it, too large and dominant in an article. Have you ever seen a professional powerpoint presentation? Bulletpoint city! I think it looks just fine and encyclopedic, not all lists have to be tables, especially not big honkin' ones like that. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But why use bullet points? It is unorganized and sloppy. Hell, changing it to just prose would be better. We could move the championship lists to actual lists like John Wayne filmography (1926–1940) with List of A.J. Styles' championships and accomplishments. I have yet to hear a reason we should stay with bullet points other than "I don't like it".--WillC 06:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To tell the truth, that's all thats needed. You asked and they gave their consensus, and it looks like they gave solid reasoning, you may not agree with it, but:

Quote:"Tables don't really work that well for it, that very short title history for Styles was extremely long."
Quote:"I might support the idea if the amount of space it takes could be greatly condensed."
Quote: "too large and dominant in an article. Have you ever seen a professional powerpoint presentation? Bulletpoint city!"

IMO, I like the current system, I look at a wrestlers championships, but I am generally only looking in one promotion. So I can look under AJ Styles, and see what he was had in TNA. I would be against moving to List articles. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how bullet points look unprofessional seeing as they're used in bullet points, in lists, in curriculum syllabuses and every other kind of print out sheet I've seen in a workplace. Changing it to prose would not be better, it'd just be annoyingly repetetive and poor English. "Mankind won the WWF Championship on December ?? 1998. He lost it two weeks later in an I Quit match. He won it back two weeks later in an Empty Arena match. He lost it two weeks later in a Ladder match." If I wanna found out the hows and whens, I'll look in the actual article. I can see the logic behind putting it in a table but it saturates the section so that AJ Style's C&As in TNA alone takes up almost as much room as his entire section currently does. Further, outside of the situation peculiar to NWA affiliates, there's not much to write in a notes section about someone who won a World Title, it would get to the point where for the most part, you're just looking for things to write. I find the current section brief, concise and informative for the basics of information, for more detail I will read the rest of the article. Tony2Times (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally think it could work, rather than just shoot down the idea of doing it we need to look at how it could be formatted, I like the idea of the table but I think the table could be done much smoother, rather than clogging up the Title Reigns in one single slot (if we're talking the second table here), I think the reigns could be in their own individual column as it'd be kind of scruffy looking explaining all reigns within just one note column, especially if we end up doing this with someone like Booker T or Dudley Boys who are a Million Time Tag Team Champion. Afro Gold - Afkatk 16:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If I don't like the idea and don't think it would work why would I not say so? Hopefully everyone is mature enough to handle honest opinions, I don't sugarcoat anything. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said you were doing anything wrong in voicing your opinion, I just feel maybe rather than have a bleak look at a possible new format, we could try to work towards something. Afro Gold - Afkatk 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I've been saying. It seems everytime a new format has been brought up since the out of universe change, people shoot it down on the spot. They don't think of a way it could work. Tony, by prose I meant a summary of his reigns. Not a redundant mixure of the above prose. I'll give an example of this in the above subpage. Plus the length of a table is fixable. The code can be changed to make it smaller.--WillC 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess people just suck for liking it the way it is now, the way it's been for a long time and in like a thousand articles. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, lets stay the same. We can see from history staying the same always helped. Not just online but in real life. Why don't we kill people today because they might be witches? That worked so well and I really liked the smell at night time of burning flesh. Just because people like something, doesn't mean it is correct, helpful, etc. We were shown that with the Out of Universe change. People like giving teams fan names and placing them in here, is that correct, helpful, etc? Nevermind answering that question, I know the answer already.--WillC 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are also times when changing just for the sake of change has been disastrous (New Coke anyone?). The OOU situation has been mixed at best because some people don't understand what it means and incorrectly think that every single wrestling term needs to be explained (even though JARGON specifically says some jargon is to be expected and is why pipelinks exist). As for fan names, in the 3 1/2 years i've been on Wikipedia I don't recall fan names ever being allowed (I personally hate fan names, and I cringed when I heard MVP say "JeriShow" on Raw this week since that only encourages fan-names). TJ Spyke 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've seen fan names used. I've seen OR, etc. In fact fan names for songs are stilled used today. It is point of view on which jargon should be explained and which should not. That is why all is explained. Of course face and heel should be explained. What about stable, tag team, etc? I would say explain stable but not tag team. But that is off subject. This is about the championships and accomplishments sections. I'm just searching for a better way to present that info for various reasons. I'm sure it will come up during the FAC of tag team or bio in the future. That is why I chose working on Styles' section, because I plan to work on his article and take it to GA, then FA. To be honest, I'm surprised Bobby Eaton, Shelton Benjamin, and CM Punk have not been taken to FAR over prose, sourcing, format, and MoS problems.--WillC 01:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I can agree about Benjamin's article, since it's sort of fallen into disrepair since being promoted. Lid was the main contributor to CM Punk, and he got it promoted to FA far before the OOU style or most current issues we face. Since then, I've attempted to get the article up to current standards. What else needs to be done with it? I'll take care of whatever I can. I can see possible issues with prose, format and MOS, perhaps, but I've tried to source EVERYTHING possible. What's wrong with the sources? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not saying your work hasn't been helpful or anything, I'm glad to see someone trying to keep our current GAs and FAs up to date so they don't fail a future reassessment. A few problems I see is statements not sourced, unreliable sources, improper sourcing, etc. Some unreliable or questionable sources imo are The Wrestling Clothesline, Chicago Wrestling, Wrestling Truth, Online World of Wrestling, 411mania, Pro Wrestling History, Pro-Wrestling Edge, Cagematch.de, Rajah, wrestling-titles.com, and Solie.org. Least we forget, that countless primary sources that are used from WWE, ROH, etc. We are talking about a man who has wrestled for the top 3 promotions today. There are plenty and I mean plenty of third party sources out there to cover this information. I've known this for a while, but never mentioned it because 1) It would cause alot of bullshit 2) An argument would begin to figure out if this problem falls under this section in the MoS 3) Alot of work would start to fix this problem. The MoS speaks of self published sources. WWE, TNA, and ROH sources fall under this self-published section in the MoS. We aren't supposed to use these sources at all the last time I checked a year ago around the time of Turning Point 08. After a few reviews from people, a few more problems for those articles would become clear. Just like a review of all our GAs, FAs, etc would as well though.--WillC 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that The Wrestling Clothesline and Chicago Wrestling are citing interviews with Punk, so I can't see how that would be a problem. As for others, I'm of the opinion that "something is better than nothing" and NONE of those sources have been proven reliable OR unreliable to my knowledge. If they have then the MOS needs updating. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The entire MoS needs to be rewritten to be honest. They are interviews yes, but who is the say the comments featured in them were actually by Punk or where not pick and choose? Yes something is better than nothing, but this is supposed to be wikipedia's best work, or in this case our best work. If this was just another GA, B, C, Start, stub, etc I wouldn't mind or care because that is to be expected of those. Punk is a high class featured article. His article should be of high regard. I thank you for working on his article. I don't want to seem like a dick, piss anyone off, or make enemies. Understand, all I have said here and tried to do is improve the project, articles, etc. I just want wrestling articles to be at their best and have a place people can come to, to learn about the history of wrestling. I may have high standards though, but that is just me.--WillC 04:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You have an odd opinion of what is considered a reliable site and what isn't. PWH and OWOW are both great sources and have been very reliable in the past. You also seem to misunderstand what is self-published media. WWE is NOT a self-published website. Self-published media is stuff like wrestlers Twitter feeds, blog accounts, wrestlers personal websites (like laurenmatthews.com). Something like WWE.com would be considered a primary source, but not a self-published one. You seem to think that anything that got promoted before you started working on articles don't deserve to keep their GA/FA status and need to be radically changed (even though you are the only one I see ever challenging the GA/FA status of them). You also seem to take a persons suggestion at A nominations and act like it's a new rule that has to be done to every article. TJ Spyke 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Prove everyone of the mentioned site's reliability. How are they reliable? OWOW and PWH have always been marginally and in FA articles you should have top notch reliable sources, not questionable sources. I found out on this problem last year when I placed in that Disturbed's Indestructible song was the theme of Turning Point in the song's article. A user told me that Disturbed and TNA Wrestling sources fell under this MoS section. Though that is up in the air, and like above I said a argument would begin to determine if they fell under this section, at the moment they seem to do. Either way, third party should always be used over a promotion published source. When did I ever say they don't deserve the class? If I believed that, I would have nominated articles for GAR and FAR long ago. When have I ever done that? I debate with reviewers on GANs, FACs, and FLCs all the time, so that would be incorrect. A consensus would have to be established to change articles first, like I am doing now. Not like I'm going around changing articles because I disagree with a consensus. I would like to get some opinions and see if this change could help. That is why I am here.--WillC 04:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick comment on one of your points (I am gonna log off in a couple of minutes), whoever told you about the theme song was mistaken. Only TNA can decide what is the official theme song of one of their PPV's. A third party can't decide that, and no admin or user who knows what they are talking about can say a promotion can't be used to cite what is a official song for that promotion. TJ Spyke 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it was, instead if it was being used. Check through my talk archives to find the discussion, should be in archive 2 or 3. I argued the same point that TNA were usable in this situation, instead just gave up. I was a bit more lazy at that time.--WillC 08:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering as to why the main reason of this being shot down is, is it that the idea of putting the accomplishments into a table or is it more to do with the work load? Afro Gold - Afkatk 23:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Let's kill people"?? Wow do you have ANY kind of perspective on this? Pathetic and I'm done with the discussion if that's the maturity level you bring. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 03:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, bye.--WillC 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And you wondered why I told you not to post on my talk page. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because I don't like people to begin with. I just find you hippocritical because your signiture says No Drama, but yet you tell me to never talk to you again, etc on my talk page starting drama and now you ask me if I have never wondered, starting drama on a page that question is not meant for. I was nice to you, and you turned on me. So I don't care about your reasons. If you wish to start over on a clean slate I would. At the moment, I am here to improve articles and trying to find a new format that may work. If people came here giving reasons it didn't work other than the vague rebutals of "the table don't work, I don't like it", etc I would understand. Now, lets stay on subject please.--WillC 04:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, I thought the comments were obvious. It's not the work load. I can't speak for others, but I think a table for them just looks ugly (both versions presented). The tables you have shown are just clunky, look unprofessional, and seem to be far worse than the current format. The current format is organized, looks nice, and is easy to edit/update. I might as well say it here, I don't like what you did to the tables on the List of WHC and List of WWE Divas title articles either, they look uglier than the tables in other articles and more difficult to edit (so that doesn't inspire confidence in your table suggestions). TJ Spyke 04:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is, those are the exact tables we agreed on 6 months ago. Here together as a group. A consensus was established. WP:I DON'T LIKE IT not really a good reason. It is a work in progress, tell me what is wrong with the tables and I will fix that. Where are they clunky and how do they look unprofessional?--WillC 04:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall any such discussion, I just did a quick search of the Archives for that period (mid-March through end of April) and couldn't find any discussion on this. The only table discussion I could find was about using sortable tables, which all of the title tables already did before you decided to screw with the WHC and Divas ones. The tables you want to use offer no benefit over the ones used in other lists and add unneeded difficulty to editing them. TJ Spyke 05:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it is in there. It involved adding the event, location, days held, etc columns. Also, the sorting fuction is apart of the FL critieria. The articles must be sortable, and the sort templates are usually apart of that. There is no added difficulty to them. Be more clear with that. Don't pin anything on me, I use the same table that everyone else uses on FLs. Difficult editing has nothing to do with an article being the best it can be. Ignorance to coding, critieria, etc doesn't change the fact the table format was still agreed on. Then add on the added Ref column from a month or so back, that was agreed on as well, which I had nothing to do with. Plus the notes that have nothing to do with the title. Just because a match had an added stipulation doesn't mean it effected the title history which is what those lists are about. The history of the champions, not the history of the title matches. To be honest, all the current WWE Title lists would fail FARs because of format, sourcing, etc problems. Excuse me for trying to fix that problem with the WHC and trying to prepare the Divas Title list for a future FLC when there are 10 champions.--WillC 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All of those things (event, location, etc.) were already in the tables longer than 6 months ago. The tables were already sorted, the change you made did not do anything to improve it. Check all of the other title lists, they all sort the same way as the 2 lists you changed. So you did not make them sortable, they already were. You are still obsessed with the match stipulation, the type of match someone won the title in is part of the title history and is notable. You claim the title lists would fail FAR, I don't think they would. The changes you made to the table did not make any positive changes for readers of the article, and just made an added annoyance for editors. To me, something that does not improve anything and just adds unneeded difficulty is not a change that improves the article. TJ Spyke 16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks better, but occupies too much space. I think maybe we could keep the tables but in a different way, to make it shorter--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On the example page, the third table is produced by me btw, and I've just added something which might be on the way to solving the spacing problem. Afro Gold - Afkatk 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that table format. TJ, if you can't figure out how to work through code, that is your problem. Countless others and myself have done just fine with the templates involved. You can't edit it, then don't edit to begin with.--WillC 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I know how to edit to ridiculous table format you prefer to use. I just said it's more difficult to edit then it needs to be. The other table format does the EXACT same thing, but is easier to edit and looks nicer. There doesn't seem to be any point to using the table that you like. TJ Spyke 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I still like it. The templates exist for a reason, I say use them. Many FLs have passed with that format, I just update articles to match the recently passed one.--WillC 19:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And lists have passed (even recently) with the other format. There is no reason to change to a worse format for no reason. TJ Spyke 19:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This section is not to discuss coding on Championship pages, if you have anything to say on the subject create a new section discuss this, this is about the idea for the Accomplishments Section. Afro Gold - Afkatk 19:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% Afro.--WillC 19:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it might help improve the idea if we actually started discussing our own thoughts on how to improve the table, as an example this is what would be my idea for the table:

Championship	Promotion	Date won	Date lost	Partner	Notes	Ref
TNA World Heavyweight Championship	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling	September 20, 2009	Current Champion	–
TNA World Tag Team Championship	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling	October 14, 2007	April 15, 2008	Tomko	This is an example note as to what it would look like after the space was taken up	^[1]

obviously its the same one from the Sandbox, what do you guys think though if you have any improvements or your own ideas how to arrange the table. Afro Gold - Afkatk 20:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks nice, but it may get huge for people with lots of tile reigns, i.e. Triple H, Angle, Flair. Also, it may be confusing for people to edit, If this is adopted, I would like a note added in the section visible on the edit screen with a link to somewhere that explains how to edit them. If not, I forsee IP editors, and editors such as myself messing them up. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe a note can be discussed at a later date as we need to first figure out whether the table can actually work. Afro Gold - Afkatk 20:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

For people who have won a massive amount of titles like Flair, etc the section can be broken off into a list. The Films and Bio projects do it, so this wouldn't be much of a problem. But to see what it would look like fully, I'll take an existing GA or FA like CM Punk, HHH, Angle, Flair, etc and convert it to table. Maybe then we'll get an idea of what it will look like, in subpage of course.--WillC 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the bullet points are a lot easier to read than the table. They also keep the section from getting cluttered with information that belongs in the prose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I find it to be content forking whereas the C&A section is meant to be condensed, concise information. Tony2Times (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can work something out for the massive Title histories. Afro Gold - Afkatk 21:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

An advatage of the bullet form is that it summarizes the reigns - it says "7 reigns" instead of listing all seven by date, the details of the reigns (dates etc.) are best restricted to the prose and the "C & A" section sums it up briefly. But the last table has potential. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can remove the date won and date lost sections. Then just replace them with a reigns section only. Like so:

Championship	Promotion	Reigns	Partner(s)	Notes	Ref
TNA World Heavyweight Championship	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling	1	–
TNA World Tag Team Championship	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling	1	Tomko	This is an example note as to what it would look like after the space was taken up	^[1]

--WillC 22:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still against tables for this, but I think it would look better if partners went in the notes section. The partners column is only useful for tag titles, and would also be crowded for someone like Rey Mysterio or Edge (who held tag belts with many a bunch of wrestlers). TJ Spyke 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It still looks better as a bullet list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you all would take a look at User:Wrestlinglover/TNA Bound for Glory, I have placed Booker Huffman's article inside and converted the section to table. That is how it would look like in the actual article. Not that bad imo. Of course work will need to be done to perfect the format, but we shouldn't be afraid of that.--WillC 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't me being against change, this is me wanting what looks best and the bullet point system is efficient and brief. This is just loads of white space and spreads the information out so that I have to scroll down to see it all whereas before I can see it all on one page. Tony2Times (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think tables would work only if there were wrestlers who hadn't won so many championships. So I don't think its the best resort; however, I do recommend that the format be revamped in someway because it is just messy in some articles (categorization of titles, names of titles, number of reigns, order the titles are listed in).--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I thought to change to tables. With all the various names, and problems that have occured with titles and wrestlers. We got the World Tag in WWE problems. Where guys like Edge have won the title under the WWF World Tag Team Championship, WWF Tag Team Championship, WWE Tag Team Championship, World Tag Team Championship, and Unified Tag Team Championship. This way we would just list World Tag Team Championship and in the notes section say the number of names he has won the title under. It would get rid of all the WWF/E World Tag Team crap. I somewhat like the way the bullets are now because it is easy to edit, but is just sloppy to me. There are far better ways we can present the information than the way it is now. At the moment, I have multiple ways to present the info in my head and to show those, I'm going to clear out the above subpage and present them using A.J. Styles section.--WillC 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In the bullet point lists the sort order is 1) Alphabetically by promotion, then 2) ALphabeticaly by title name in each promotion. If the table starts with title name then the natural inclination would be to have that sort alphabetically which would be wrong IMO. If this is ever going to replace the current version there needs to be a way to split it into sections pr. promotion and not just have promotion be the first column and then repeat it. Btw can you sort the table with that colspan for promotion? MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 05:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

IDK, still in early stages of ideas and change. I do have an idea which will by-pass the problem you just mentioned. Like above, I'll present it in the subpage. Although, it is late where I am at so I'm heading to bed. I'll present it in the morning.--WillC 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I converted Styles' section to a new format idea in my subpage (User:Wrestlinglover/TNA Bound for Glory). I feel it is the best so far. What does everyone think?--WillC 02:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the version at the top absolutely impossible to read and the one at the bottom fairly difficult to read. I still find the bullet list much easier. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The top verison is the one I'm pitching now. I changed the front size a little so it was easier to read. Any change? Easier, how?--WillC 02:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Man that's fugly and really hard to read. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How?--WillC 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You really don't see it? the alternating centered and left aligned text, the fact that little information is spread out across the entire page leaving huge gaps in the text. The bullet points work a lot better, it's easier to get an overview per federation and it doesn't look like a giant gray wall on the article. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 02:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we should stop discussing this and go back to the drawing board and then comeback here at a later date when we've got a better idea for a table. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Championship Brand History

I was thinking for the more detailed histories of championships such as the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), would it be a good idea to add a Brand History section along the lines of the format for the List of WWE Champions#Names section, its just a thought. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 06:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be useful, if it is just showing the duration.--WillC 07:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So is this somewhat of a good idea or should this be disregarded. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This Statement might need to be removed:

"It will feature talent from the Raw, SmackDown, and ECW brands.[3]"

I feel that maybe we should remove this statement from articles dealing with upcoming pay per views. After last night's show, we now know that not every ppv will have all three brands. This statement now becomes speculation. What do you guys think? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the merger of the PPVs there has been 1 (one) PPV where no ECW talent have featured, so let's not get ahead of ourselves, as so far most have featured all 3. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WWE themselves said their PPV's will feature talent from all 3 brands. Yes last night didn't, but that was the first one since the brand-exclusive PPV's ended to not feature all 3 brands. That, to me, makes it an exception. I would only agree if this happened on a regular basis. TJ Spyke 22:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree but as last night was the only time this has happened since brand exclusive ppv ended. I way we wait and see only time will tell if it happens again.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

After last night's pay per view, having that sentence in the articles for future pay per views is stating speculation as fact. That isn't allowed on Wikipedia. It would be no different than adding "Randy Orton will defend the WWE Championship" to the Bragging Rights page. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right but as this happened once. If it happens more then just at Hell In a Cell Then we'll fix it but till then Just wait.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That one time was enough to discredit that statement and turn it into nothing more than speculation. That's what I'm trying to say. While it may only be the only time, we don't know that for sure anymore and thus shouldn't state speculation as fact. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that one time is enough but as this next ppv could have matches from all brands we just need to wait and see. If it happens at the next PPV then we'll change it but for now it should stay the way it is.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if the next pay per view has matches from all three brands, that does not change the fact that, until matches are announced, that sentence is pure speculation. Especially since the next pay per view is centered completely around Smackdown vs. Raw. I think we should remove that sentence from upcoming pay per view articles until at least one match is announced from each brand. That way, we are not passing off assumptions and speculation as fact. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It simply cannot be stated as a definitive fact if there is uncertainty as to whether or not it is true. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The PPV cycle is so quick that any statement is essentially incorrect for around tow weeks before the event, then corrected, is it really a massive issue? Seriously, one PPV doesn't feature an ECW match and a bland statement which is basically the same as saying "wrestlers will wrestle at this event" is the issue? "That one time was enough to discredit that statement"? Discredit? It's a placeholder to try and stop IPs from speculating, and once the even is over it is a statement of fact, can we not move on to more important things? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So... we stop IPs from speculating by adding our own speculation? This is a matter of stating something as fact that can not be backed up, something Wikipedia and this project in particular frowns upon. I've seen members of this project defend the "no speculation" rule many times. I'm trying to continue that standard that you yourselves set. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides, I never said it was a massive issue, but if I was to be WP:Bold and remove the sentence myself, I know it would BECOME a massive issue. Even if you can say that "once the event is over it is a statement of fact," that not only makes the sentence speculation, but crystal balling as well. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Any time a PPV name change is announced by a reliable newsletter, Ticketmaster, or indicated but not stated directly on the WWE site, countless people lead the "No changes until it's confirmed by a WWE press release." They claim that, until someone is absolutely definite, it shouldn't be added to an article. I don't see how this is any different. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say something like "it will feature wrestlers from the WWE roster"? TJ Spyke 01:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Perhaps link it to the list of WWE employees. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. All pay per views will definitely feature WWE wrestlers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This WWE PPV will feature wrestlers from thte WWE roster. Fastinating. If that's the statment, it's better off not even being written at all. Mshake3 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mshake3 on this, it's a bit of a pointless statement. If you want to change the status quo on future events, I say let the matches speak for itself. If only Raw and SmackDown matches are currently confirmed say "Currently, it has been confirmed that it will feature talent from the Raw and SmackDown brands." -- Θaks ter 07:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I'm changing my opinion to this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Oakster's wording choice. This idea seems practical, and eliminates the speculation and pointlessness of the previous suggestion. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Obviously there's a lot of controversy surrounding this article (removal of title wins from the lead, should "murderer" or "professional wrestler" be written first, etc). I feel it really needs A LOT of cleanup, far too much for one person to handle. Aside from the issues regarding the murder-suicide, the In wrestling section is ridiculously long and largely uncited. If we still had the CotW going, I'd recommend this article. That beings said, I think some sort of consensus needs to be reached about the article's lead, since it's changed drastically every few weeks for different reasons. Any opinions or help would be appreciated. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The COTW died long ago. We started a new format I thought would work but went no where. I'm all for bringing it back though. Benoit's article is pretty important.--WillC 21:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it did, Oh wait, "have" should have been "had." Edited. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I was thinking of working on Benoit one day in the future. After I get a few other things done, I'll take a look at it.--WillC 23:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Input needed here. More info on the conflict is in the page history Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of wallpapers in place of Indemand posters.

I am bringing this to the group because each month there is an endless cycle of edit warring over which picture is used in the articles for pay-per-views. Currently, the only images that seem to be "allowed" are the posters put up on Indemand's website. These images usually end up being out-of-date for various reasons and sometimes do not match the final promotional material. Sometimes the difference is major such as this months Bragging Rights event. Many editors try each month to add different, more up-to-date images, usually the event wallpaper found on WWE.com. Someone usually immediately reverts the edit back to the Indemand poster and the cycle just goes on and on and on. I've asked in the past why it is the wallpapers aren't allowed since 1.) They look almost identical to the event posters only with different dimensions, 2.)They are FAR more up-to-date than the posters found on Indemand, and 3.)WWE is the most reliable source we have for WWE events since they are the company so what they have as the promotional image should be what we use. The answer I got was basically, "There's no reason we can't use the wallpapers, we just don't do it." I am proposing that, as a group, we reconsider this policy and allow for the use of the wwe.com wallpapers as the image for WWE pay-per-view events. There are pluses to this change.

1: There will not be a problem with consistency between articles as every pay-per-view has one of these.
2: Our articles will have the most up-to-date images to represent the events which is important since the purpose of having the images in the first place is help the reader understand the article better. The current image on WWE Bragging Rights gives you literally no idea as to the theme of that event. Indemand posters that are out dated with pictures of wrestlers that won't appear for various reasons (see The Bash 2009 with Batista or Vengeance 2001 with Triple H for example) are misleading.
3: We will be using the OFFICIAL image of the event from the company itself. While the Indemand images do come from WWE, they are obviously not the final material plus Indemand is not an official source for WWE information as the information they have (event descriptions, etc) is months old and WWE's plans often change.
4: Most importantly, it will stop the constant and needless edit warring over the images. This one is the biggest. People are going to try and add the wallpapers anyway so why not just let them stay and save yourselves the trouble of having to revert the article 900 times in a day. You could spend the time you normally spend doing that by doing something more constructive.

Now, I leave it up to discussion. Hopefully I've made it clear why this would be advantageous to the project and many of you will hopefully agree.

Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If the reason for using non-WWE images is down to (C) issues then no bullet pointed list will change that. I don't know what the current issue is, but if it is down to the diff between fair use/free use then they cannot be changed, do you know the (C) status? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think the fair use/free use status of the wallpapers would be exactly the same as the Indemand posters. They are both copyrighted material from the same company. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it's not that posters from In Demand are the only ones allowed. We also use the poster from WWEShop.com. It's just that they tend to get the official poster first. They don't "usually end up being out-of-date", they are rarely ever different from the final one. You claim "many" editors try to change, from what I have seen it is usually 1 editor who tends to change it. You ask why we don't use wallpapers. One reason is that they tend to look ugly in the infobox because wallpapers are horizontally based and infoboxes vertically bases, so the wallpaper image gets squished. Your examples are also in error. Besides the fact that WWE did not offer PPV wallpapers in 2001, that was not the last times a superstar was on the poster and not on the PPV. Take Rey Mysterio when he was on the GAB poster or when Kane was on the Judgment Day poster when he was only on a dark match. They are promotional posters. There is a overwhelming consensus to use posters (or VHS/DVD covers if a poster can't be found), 1 editor and a couple of IP's does not make up edit warring (especially since only 1 or 2 edits are made on this issue). There is nothing wrong with the current consensus. TJ Spyke 22:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My examples weren't "in error" they were just a couple of examples. You provided more examples to support my argument. Also, on the first page of the history for WWE Bragging Rights alone there are 15 edits involving the poster/wallpaper/logo. It's more than just one or two edits. There is plenty wrong with the current consensus as I stated above. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And I rebutted all of your points. Again:

1)Every event has a poster and we currently use the poster. So there already IS consistency. Also, WWE only started using wallpapers a couple of years ago, they have used posters since 1985. 2)The promotional posters are up to date, they may not be the same image as the wallpaper (in fact, they usually are different in some way) but they are still up to date. It's the same way movie articles use the poster instead of the DVD cover even though the DVD cover is the "most up-to-date" image. 3)The promotional poster ARE the official image from the company. While the wallpapers are made as a gift to fans, the posters are still official and never more than 6 weeks old and continue to be used after the event (go and check wweshop.com and you will see posters from PPV's from 2008 and earlier, and they use the same images as the posters here). 4)It is rare to have anyone arguing about the image. Bragging Rights was the first time in several months that it was any kind of problem, and even if we used the wallpaper there would still be people arguing over it. The current consensus works and I think we should stick with it. TJ Spyke 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My point wasn't that there isn't consistency now. It was that this would cause any inconsistencies in future articles. You're example of movie posters vs. dvd covers doesn't make sense as movie posters don't normally prominently feature stars that aren't in the movie. THAT'S what my point is about being "up-to-date," not to mention the fact that between the time the Bragging Rights poster was released and now, the plans have obviously changed and that Indemand poster does nothing to represent what the event is about. I seem to remember there being a big issue with the Bash this year. The Indemand poster had Batista on it, but WWE.com's image had Jeff Hardy since Batista was injured and wasn't going to be at the event. Several people tried to change the article with the updated image and there were several edits over this. That's just one example. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is directed at the Hurricane dude, and I'm not sure whether this has been said yet but the "pluses" number 2 and 4 aren't enough to justify using event posters, I'm pretty sure at least as far as "plus" number 4 is concerned the edit warring would still continue either way based on the fact that many editors would feel the Promotional Poster is the correct image to be displayed. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 01:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that warring would continue as it is now. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Either way you look at it there are people who would war over the fact that the Promotional Posters aren't there, plus the currently uploaded image of the poster [2] can't be used as of now due to the Rationale (or lack of) provided. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think many people see the wallpaper AS the promotional poster. The currently uploaded image of the Bragging Rights poster maybe, but that can be fixed. Also, if we act now, there are images available all the way back to last year's Unforgiven. Wwehurricane1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

"If we act now", that is another reason not to use the wallpaper. They are only available until the next edition of the PPV, posters can be found anytime. Some people may mistakenly think the wallpapers are the posters, but they aren't. TJ Spyke 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Once uploaded onto Wikipedia, they are available forever just like any other image. As far as them not being the posters, please explain how they could not be considered the same thing. They have the same basic information (Name, date, and time of the event, company logo, PG Rating logo, copyright info). The ONLY difference is the dimensions. You can't say they aren't the same thing when they are. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are the same thing as you've explained then there is no reason why we should change. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The reasons are stated above. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok based on reason 1 given, as you've already previously stated "if we act now, there are images available all the way back to last year's Unforgiven", which I could guess somewhat means there would be some type of consistency issue, on Reason number 2, as you can see from previous PPV Articles we already have images laid out through out the article giving the reader a proper understand of who competed within the event, and lets not forget the fact that the most important things within the articles are the text, the text should pretty much give the reader a good idea of the theme of the event, number 3 we are already using an official image it's not our fault that WWE's plans have changed and I would think that iN DEMAND can be considered somewhat "an official source for WWE information as the information" as they are a PPV Provider which WWE has a contract with, and reason number 4 edit warring would still continue as this discussion has proven there are backers on both sides which would mean one way or another Edit warring would continue no matter what. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

To counter that: 1. If you want to get technical, there is already a consistency issue as older events don't have posters available and use home video covers. 2. I see what you are saying here, but part of the "rational" behind using these copyrighted images is "To illustrate the event in question: this image helps readers quickly identify the subject of the article, providing easily recognizeable elements of the event (snapshots of the participating wrestlers, the brand and the title), and the tangible form the program was marketed as." If the other images in the article do the same thing, you have no reason to use the poster anyway. 3. I can't argue with that, but I can say that WWE is more reliable than Indemand. That was part of what I said above. 4. I still don't think this would be as much of a problem if we allowed the wallpaper version of the poster. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since I can't be bothered to be involved with this we can always take a vote and get a consensus on this rather than a discussion which seems to be getting us no where. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, even with older WWE PPV's we have the posters for. The only WWE PPV's we use video covers for are early In Your House events, but even those we can get posters for (the problem is that for like the first 10 IYH events, they all used the same generic poster, File:IYH 5.jpg , and all they changed was the date). As for number 2, the poster is what people visiting their cable or satellite provider's site see and what is sent out to places that air the event, so more people would see that. Um, the poster IS from WWE, In Demand (please stop typing "Indemand", it's 2 words) is not creating the poster; they are just displaying what WWE sent them. TJ Spyke 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily true as evidenced most recently by WWE Bragging Rights. iN DEMAND (my bad on the spelling) uses the image that is on the article now, but there are others that use the updated logo. I also realize that, yes, WWE made the poster found on iN DEMAND, but part of my argument above (and the reason people keep trying to change it) is the fact that the poster is obviously out of date. People aren't changing the image because they don't think it's the right one, they change it because it's out of date (again, See: The Bash as another example). The wallpapers are the most updated version of the poster and THAT'S why I think it would cut down on the edit warring. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets end the talk and get to the vote. Should we use wallpapers in place of posters for the ppv.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well on second thought maybe not per Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I fill that if we continue the discussion we'll will only go back and forth and get nothing done were as if we vote we can get this done and move on and work on the articles not just the picture that we put on it.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So far, only 3 or 4 of the MANY editors of this project have spoken on the discussion. I'm fine with a vote, but maybe we should give the others a chance to come around before deeming the conversation a "dead end." They may have more to contribute. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine but a vote of some kind needs to take place at somepoint as you guys are not bringing any thing new to the table--Dcheagle (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is for and why I said we should give the others a chance to give their opinion. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well to be fair on us you aren't exactly contributing anything to the discussion Dch, you're only enforcing the idea of a vote which on second thought is a bad idea as it does violate a guideline. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 04:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I know im not contributing for a reason im trying to stay neutral.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we wont be able to reach a consensus on the subject if people like you just decide to stay neutral on the subject. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 04:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care really what is used. But the in demand poster is now out of date. A wall paper, logo, etc would be better since they are up to date, rather than an old poster. Like having a poster for a future event featuring a just released wrestler. Flase advertising then.--WillC 04:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

hurricane, you keep touting The Bash. What about it? Yeah, they kept Batista on it after he got injured. That doesn't change anything, WWE still said it was the official poster. In fact, that is the exact poster they are selling on their official website WWEShop.com: [3]. WWE has been known to change their posters before (like when they changed the Night of Champions poster from Edge to CM Punk), and I think they will change the Bragging Rights one too. The wallpapers and posters are NOT the same thing, so please don't say that the wallpaper is an updated version of the poster, because it is not. They are 2 separate things, even when they have a similar image they will have some differences. Anyways, I think I have made it clear I support our current system. I also don't see how Will can claim it's false advertising (unless you mean on WWE's part). This IS the official poster they have provided to cable and satellite providers (although not as bad as a European promoter for TNA that is using last years poster, featuring Gail Kim, for the next TNA tour). Yes it will probably change, but right now it is official. Besides, the logo for the poster doesn't always match the actual event (take a look at Hell in a Cell for an example). TJ Spyke 04:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was using an inailigy. At the moment, a more up to date logo is better than an old one. As simple as that. This isn't about TNA either, so stay on subject. This is about WWE. We've come to know that the in demand posters are temporary, WWE release the official ones later.--WillC 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ, the reason I kept bringing that up was because their changing of Batista to Hardy (and your example from Nigh of Champions) caused several people to try and change the image on the article due to it being out of date. That's the entire point I'm making as far as edit warring. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I'm fine with either one, as both are "promotional materials" provided by the company. But I prefer the page is represented by the one with an up to date logo, so either the Wallpaper, or the logo on it's own. Mshake3 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep track, there is currently 2 people completely opposed (TJ, Afro), 1 who is "neutral" (Dcheagle), and 4 who, for various reasons would be okay with using the wallpaper version of the poster (Me, Will, Mshake, and Oakster who gave input on my talk page). Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update- The wallpaper versions of the posters are available on WWE.com all the way back to Armageddon 2006. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to give every one some idea as to what the info boxes would look like with ether option take a look here. User:Dcheagle/Del City High Sports

Again, both look good, but when it comes to a tiebreaker, I can't accept "we've used inDemand exclusivly" or "portrait shaped images ONLY" as reasons to not use something from the most recently released promotional material. Mshake3 (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Is this all about Bragging Rights? You know there already is a new poster in the new WWE Magazine... I'll scan and upload it right now... Jeez...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

hahahaha, I find it funny everyone was whining about the wallpaper being different than the poster. Well it seems the poster in WWE magizine is no different than the damn wallpaper. Just a size difference and a few logos, if anything.--WillC 09:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth, it isn't JUST about Bragging Rights, it's about all pay-per-views. So far, the majority seems to be okay with the idea. Anyone else have anything to add? I think I've already covered all of the concerns that have been voiced up to this point. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What majority? Most people in this discussion either support using the official poster or are fine with either option. So basically the consensus is to stay with the status quo. I hope you don't think anyone is saying it's OK for you to go around changing any of the posters. TJ Spyke 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Only two people have said iN DEMAND version only. EVERYONE else has said they would be okay with using the wallpaper version. Either way, you are in no position to tell me what I can and can't edit. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ooooooh!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, i'm not wrong hurricane. You seem to be the only want wanting to use the wallpaper only. Everyone else either wants the poster or is OK with either. Yes you can edit, but that doesn't mean they won't be reverted. There is zero reason to go and replace one fair use image for another just because you like that one more. TJ Spyke 01:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong because you're taking "okay with either" to mean "against." You and Afro are the ONLY two people who have come out against the idea. EVERY SINGLE OTHER PERSON has said it would be okay. Another thing you're wrong about: Not once in this article have I said "wallpaper only." Also, there may not be a reason to change the images, but there's also no reason to revert it back to the old one if someone did just because you like that one more. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not wrong, and you have a warped sense of logic. You are the only person who wants to change, everyone else would be OK with keeping the current format. You have been making it sound like you want the wallpaper to always be used. As for your last point, there is no reason to change just because you like one fair use image more than another. TJ Spyke 02:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is like Jr. High... Both of you let it go... (get 'em Hurricane!)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ, you say I have a warped sense of logic yet you are the one who has somehow read "would be okay with either" as "must use iN DEMAND images only." And you're right, there is no reason to change just because you like one fair use image more than another. So... what you're saying is, if some one changes the image on an article to the wallpaper, you'll leave it alone? Since... you know, there is no reason to change just because you like one fair use image more than another. Truth is right though. I'm through arguing with you. Does anyone else have anything to say on this? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More like elementry school and two kids arguing over a game of tag (I tagged you, no you didn't, I tagged you).--WillC 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A.J. Styles to AJ Styles

I was just wondering why we have his article named A.J. Styles instead of just AJ Styles, after all we don't have CM Punk under C.M. Punk Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 07:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AJ is an initial for Allen Jones. I believe there is a guideline somewhere for it as well.--WillC 08:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well AJ has never been referred to as Allen Jones Styles in the past, and doesn't the CM in CM Punk stand for Chick Magnet as stated in his Wikipedia article, if this was the case why not have CM Punk changed to C.M. Punk? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 08:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something to do with WP:COMMONAME? ArcAngel (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[4] well TNA does refer to him as AJ Styles not A.J. Styles is why I'm mainly bringing this up. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If only we did things according to the great and bountiful language of (British) English. Anyways, another thing I'd like to point out is that with AJ, Punk and TJ Wilson for example it says "sometimes written T.J. Wilson". Is that really necessary? I think a reader can imagine what a full stop looks like. I watch TNA on fast forward mostly so I don't know how AJ Styles is billed but I always think of AJ sans full stops. Tony2Times (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I provided a link to the TNA Roster page, if you care to look it's spelled AJ Styles. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, I meant on TV in the lower third graphic. Tony2Times (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vince McMahon

For anyone interested, there is a move request on Vince McMahon's talkpage. I oppose the move, but I thought others here would be interested in posting their opinions. TJ Spyke 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

His father's page was moved three days ago, from his actual name to Vince McMahon, Sr. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jr and Sr should be redirects as it's not actually their names. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 06:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he's just not Vince McMahon, Sr. It's foolish to call him that because it's simply not his name. Likewise, Vincent K. McMahon isn't Vince McMahon, Jr. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the VJM need to be a requested move cause it's in the wrong place. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

New Years Resolution: 150 DYKs

As of the 2nd of October WP:PW managed to get one of their New Years Resolutions come true as they hit 150 successful "Did you know" nominations. Considering the original number was 100 it's pretty cool. Well done. Does anyone have a fresh number of the percentage of stubs or any of the other resolutions?? MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to say congratulations to everybody who got a DYK, but especially to MPJ-DK and GaryColemanFan, who, by my reckoning, between them accounted for about 2/3 of that total. The most recent stub article percentage is 12.08% from September 27 (I update it every 2 weeks to get a fresh number for the newsletter), but it has been as low as 11.96%. We currently have 6 Good topics, with another 2 nominated, so we're doing pretty good there too. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratz. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

12,08% is not bad - Just over 520 or so stubs. Hopefully I can reduce the Lucha stubs, I'm working on eliminating ALL lucha stubs but that's quite a job for just one guy. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Crap, I forgot about my 55 TNA GA PPVs resolution. Looks like I better get started if I want to accomplish that. Though there is a brightside, looking at the list, the 100 and 150 DYKs were by me so I guess things happen for a reason. Good job everyone. 152 DYKs and 4 more Good Topics.--WillC 22:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering there are only about 60 TNA PPVs in total (if my count is right) 55 is a pretty ambitious number. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 18:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BFG 09 is number 60, but by the end of the year there should be 62. I have made a list of TNA monthly events, to keep track and maybe one day expand and create. I was aiming high when I made that resolution, back before I started working in different TNA areas. If I had stayed on the subject of PPVs, then looking by the current number of GAs and FLs I've gotten this year, I would have 23 done.--WillC 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambition is a good thing, just like it's my ambition to get the remaining 49 Lucha related stubs eliminated - I may not get there any time soon but it's good to have a goal ;) MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. The idea of two TNA championship topics and a multiple TNA PPV topics have kept me going. Well good luck with that. Anyone who works as hard as you do on a non-WWE topic has my respect. There are few who work on the unrelated WWE articles, or the old WWE articles. Most are about the current WWE stuff. I see all articles level in importance. I'm just glad somebody is working on the other stuff.--WillC 19:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one hits the dust ... kinda?

It's goodbye WWE No Way Out and hello WWE Elimination Chamber, bah. Anyway, unlike the previous renamings by poll, this actually had No Way Out as an option. So I was wondering if it would be an idea to move the article right now to its new place, seeing as the WWE.com side calendar is the only source of its existence, or to wait? -- Θaks ter 07:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

F**K! And people wonder why I like TNA, with WWE screwing with us all the time. Hell, Chamber of Conflict was better than that name title. WWE Now Way Out was perfectly fine you f'n idiots. I would say keep it as is. This may be a one time only name change. We can create the WWE Elimination Chamber PPV article because now we have enough info to justify a production section, etc.--WillC 08:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Soon in Extreme Rules fashion this will become Chamber of Elimination. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if it's the same event, so no I don't think we should rename it. Not to mention that we don't know if it will be the final name or not. TJ Spyke 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is still hope, little but some. It's pretty likely it's the same event though, but I suppose we should wait for official confirmation. Tony2Times (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use some common sense once in a while. The NWO name was in the poll, so it would be safe to say it was the same event.--WillC 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation and you know it. We don't know if it will share the history of NWO or not, so no such move should take place. TJ Spyke 16:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at this current time, I think we should hold the right to assume that it's sharing No Way Out's History until we are told otherwise. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 16:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but that doesn't mean we should re-name the article. TJ Spyke 16:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A move can be discussed at a later date if applicable. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How much time Should we Wait to create Pay Per View Articles.

I have noticed that on a few of the PPV talk pages there have been some questions as to when we should create the pages for the upcoming PPV. And from what i understand the common time to do that is set at about two months before the PPV. Its not my plan to start a big change over how we do things but for everyone to discuss this as some of us and i wont say any names are beginning to fight with one another over this so lets discuss this like adults And come to a common ground on this.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is enough valid, sourced information, there is no valid reason to delete an article should someone create it, no matter when it was made. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Im with you on that its just some user believe that even when we have that we should still wait hence this discussion. --Dcheagle (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is what is "enough" information. Just the date and location is not enough IMO (and that is what some users think is enough to warrant a article). TJ Spyke 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by this article: Survivor Series (2009), date and location IS enough. The rest of the information is the same copy and past info used for every show. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As soon as it's mentioned by a third neutral source (such as a non-wrestling news source) is good enough for me! ...like that time various news organizations announced that WrestleMania XXVI would be in Glendale three days before WWE made the official announcement... ...and TJ still didn't think it was good enough... [5] [6] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we have Articles on Wikipedia all the way to the year 2100s, so I don't see why we can't make PPVs based on just the date as long as they are confirmed to be happening. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The promotion has announced it and we have third party sources. That is all that is needed. We can start a production section, a decent lead, etc with just that info. The date, the location, etc can make up three paragrpahs on its own. We really should have production sections for all events and not just the main ones.--WillC 04:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If we have the information then why should we wait to start the page if the information is reliable then whats stopping us.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point of having a load of articles set up way in advance. WP:MERGE says

Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic.

So say for instance WWE or TNA announce their 2010 calendar of events this very week. You would have an article for an event in December 2010 there that would potentially remain dormant for over a year as a stub with only a date and possibly a venue given. My only exception to any merger would be if there is enough production information for that particular event (which is why I would certainly not ask for WrestleMania XXVI to be merged). -- Θaks ter 07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of WrestleMania XXVI ...real quickly.... ahem... WWE has started airing ads promoting the event (ticket sales) in some local markets. I should also note that "Welcome to the World" by Kevin Rudolf is being used on these new ads. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What'd I Say?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Curtis23

We might want to keep an eye on this chap, he's new, but he's already been involved in numerous incidents and has already been blocked in the past for edit warring [7], little to no surprise I would think to him edit warring with TJ on TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs [8], and also for some reason today decided to undo TJ's edit on the Miss WrestleMania [9] article, which I undid, I've already left comments on his talk page pertaining to the TLC and Miss WrestleMania edits, but I think he's someone who we should watch out for as he seems like a user looking to make trouble. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, starting a thread about him here won't do any good. If he's problematic, ask him to tone it down and discuss his actions before he makes them. If he continues, get an administrator involved. But hopefully he'll listen to your advice and calm down. A thread like this generally serves no purpose besides making the editor in question angrier and more aggressive. iMatthew ^talk at 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He's also been edit warring on Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder among others (even lying and claiming an experienced user agreed with him, until that editor left a message on his talk page calling him out on it and saying not to do that again. I am not sure if he is trying to be constructive or not, but most of his edits have not been constructive. I sorta agree with iMatthew though. TJ Spyke 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That edit would be located here.--WillC 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:ANI have been a more appropriate place for this issue? ArcAngel (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT a page to tattle on users that edit wrestling articles. Use ANI or contact an admin next time. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is true, though I consider a post like this to me more of a "help me keep on eye on him" than a "tattle post." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And he may have just been asking what to do about it, I didn't know about ANI. Curtis added some strange thing to my talk page which tells me whenever someone has put a message on an article's talk page. Odd thing. Tony2Times (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean Template:Talk back? Lot of people use that for messages on user's talk page. He uses mainly for article talk pages.--WillC 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not using this page to "tattle" on users, I was using it to tell the project you might need to keep an eye on this editor as he could be more problematic in the future. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 09:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was that this doesn't belong here. You could have approached him yourself. Having everyone watch him isn't the solution. If you don't think you can handle him on your own, get an administrator to help out. There's plenty of them around willing to lend a hand. But like I said, if he happens to see this thread, it may push him to be more disruptive. iMatthew ^talk at 16:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames of pro wrestlers

Hey fellow WP:PW members. Your valued input is needed in this AFD, if you please. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I get some opinions please?

As a brief overview, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_71#Cite_Episode.3F it was discussed whether or not Template:Cite episode could be used to cite moves. Out of the discussion, I got people saying it shouldn't be used, nobody saying it should be used and a lot of off-topic discussion. Earlier today, I made this change to the style guide to reflect what I saw as being the consensus as not using Template:Cite episode. This was promptly reverted by an ip. As a result, I would like to get a firm consensus on this matter if you don't mind. I personally am opposed to the use of Template:Cite episode for the sourcing of moves, as commentators rarely if ever use the full technical move name, or call it wrong (let's be honest, we've all laughed at Mike Adamle for this), and this leads to a lot of speculation and original research on the part of editors. Other opinions? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I reverted the IP's edit earlier. Maybe that was a bit premature though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well the ip just promptly reverted you back Gavyn. I think this should be discussed here to get a firm consensus before it turns into yet another edit war... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am against cite episode both because of inaccurate calling and also because episodes are infrequently repeated, so checking them would be difficult. I'd be less averse to cite video for moves though obviously inaccuraracy is still a problem there. Tony2Times (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't establish "Signature" or Finishing move status by ONE episode, it's next to impossible to check and frankly would probably fail any GA/FA/FL review if it came to it. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP seems to be a wrestling move addict, as they rarely edit anything else and are using cite episode as their crutch. I am in agreement that cite episode is the worst way to name or confirm names for a move. Of course if this is the agreed consensus then almost every edit by that one IP will be reverted. Cite episode is fine for results, or events that lead to PPV matches, but not moves. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! First of all Darrenhusted you don't have to attack people personally.

Then about the cite episode template, if wikipedia allow people to use it why do you want to prevent people to use it? A classic arguement is : what a better source than the show itself. Professional wrestling is a show, and for most of them TV shows. Appearently, for the movelist, you want wikipidians to only use write source, but there isn't that much kind of source for wrestling (like said before its a show, not literature). Even sources like OWOW arn't that reliable about the subject, but if you see a guy performs a move you can't tell he didn't perform it. Alright, comentators didn't always name the moves correctly. But OWOW either, the differens is that with the cite episode source you have the possibility to discriminate that error 82.224.118.7 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing someone perform a move once, which is what the "cite episode" template is used to show, does not prove that he uses the move regularly or even enough to be considered noteworthy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then each move should have multiple sources when using that template. Jeangabin (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First off to the ip, I'm not really seeing where Darren attacked you personally. Saying you're a "wrestling move addict" doesn't count as a personal attack in my opinion.

Secondly, if a move is used regularly (i.e. is a finisher or signature moves) then it should be mentioned on a reliable source. Sites like Figure 4 Online, PW Torch, and Slam! Wrestling all have weekly recaps of shows, so if a move is used regularly it should be mentioned on one of them. Thirdly, the problem with Template:Cite episode, as agreed by most editors here, it that it leads to original research on the part of editors over what the move is. Some moves look very similar to each other, and it could be hard to distinguish between them. The best way to solve this problem to have a reliable and verifiable source stating what the move actually is. In this case, the only really plauible way for that to happen is to produce a written source.

Fourthly, at Jeangabin, your comment is pretty much ignoring the fact that using Template:Cite episode requires the user to interpret the move themselves. This is the very defition of original research. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted is doing threaten on people about the 3RR. About the original research, the cite episode template is not an issue when unsing it for movies or television sitcoms. Why should it be one for wrestling? 82.224.118.7 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not "doing threaten" on anyone. You reverted twice, in my edit summary and boilerplate warning I warned you about a third revert. I also did not attack you, but rather found shorthand to characterise your interest in the use of the cite episode for the purpose of naming moves. You seem to be (wilfully?) misunderstanding the use of cite episode templates. To report an event, yes. To interpret wrestling moves, no. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That wasn't a threat and it wasn't him "attack[ing] people personally" like you originally said. It was him reminding you of the WP:3RR policy, which he was quite right to do.

As I have explained before, the problem with Template:Cite episode for wrestling moves it that it leads to original research on the part of editors over what the move is. Some moves will look very similar to each other, and it could be hard to distinguish between them. What makes yhour interpretation of the move more correct than another editors? It is too subjective. The editor has to interpret the source to decide what the move is, and this is ORiginal research. The best way to solve this problem to have a reliable and verifiable source stating what the move actually is. In this case, the only really plausible way for that to happen is to produce a written source.

Template:Cite episode can be used in wrestling articles, but not have things like wrestling moves which can be subjective. It can be used to say that for example "Randy Orton had a match against John Cena", the source will verify that. It can't be used to say, for example, "Randy Orton performed a reverse mule kick/enzuiguir/insert random move here", as that is your interpration of the move the wrestler is performing. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Where did you see that a description of a published fact with the corresponding source is an original research? example : if you see Barack Obama wearing a blue tie on TV and you write that his tie was blue that day with the cite episode template, this is what you call an original research? But if you wait until a random journalist write somewhere that his tie was blue, this isn't? 82.224.118.7 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion : only someone that doesn't know the coulours' name could have write the wrong name. Same thing with wrestling : only someone that doesn't have the basic skills in wrestling to name the moves can name it wrong. You have to trust in wikipedians edits, it is one of wikipedia policies : this a collaborative encyclopedia project. You can't challenge everyones edits only because you doubt others intellectual abilities. 82.224.118.7 (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But you are not seeing him wear a blue tie and saying that he wore a blue tie one day. You are seeing him wear a blue tie and saying that he frequently or always wears blue ties. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But what about the random journalist? So sites like Figure 4 Online, PW Torch, and Slam! Wrestling recaps of shows shouldn't be used as source as well... 82.224.118.7 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then, the only "reliable" source left here is the inaccurate OWOW 82.224.118.7 (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the rule is that Wikpedia editors cannot interpret things, since it's OR. We CAN cite the research of others - in this case recap sites like the above listed. The threshold for inclusion on Wikpedia is verifiablity, not truth. Even if an above source gets a move wrong, it's irrelevant - those sources pass WP:V and WP:RS and thus will be used. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The OR seems to have been made to prevent that kind of dispute, where in most of them there is a "synthesis of published material that advances a position". Here is what you can read about that on Wikipedia:No original research : "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". There isn't any OR when citing a sport event. Here an example of the cite episode template in the case of a sport event. 82.224.118.7 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent: You are missing the point. Move names come from approved sources, not TV episodes. TV episodes and PPVs can be use to cite match fixtures and results. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent: this is a postulate you've decided yourself but it isn't write anywhere 82.224.118.7 (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear against using "cite episode" for move names, and the discussion is not going anywhere. I would support archiving the discussion at this point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to be sarcastic, but you can't achieve a discussion because you think its getting borring and say it is a consensus, it's indeed because it bother us that we're here to discuss. 82.224.118.7 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not against using the cite episode template, and I think we can find a solution that satisfy everyone. Why not decide have multiple sources when using the cite episode? Jeangabin (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no middle ground. Commentators are prone to errors, and editors would be required to use OR, so the cite episode template is a poor substitute for reliable sources. One last time, fine for events and results, not for move names. I suggest 82.224.118.7 faces up to this fact and begins going through their edits and removing any uses of the cite episode for move names. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't list anything other than finishing moves. What relevance does the fact that Randy Orton uses a dropkick or a European uppercut have? So does a million other people. Chris Jericho uses a backhand chop. OMG, and an ARMBAR!! And did you guys know that John Cena uses a SPINEBUSTER?! All of these moves are listed on people's articles and none of them, in my opinion, are relevant to anything and should be taken off. This also solves the "cite episode" problem. :) Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted where have you read that a postulate expressed by a random user is part of wikipedia policy? This is your own point of view, not a wikipedia general rule. Consult Wikipedia:Consensus. Here is what you can read on WP:OR : "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia". An original research is also explained to be that way : "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C". About the "Commentators are prone to errors", here is what you can read on WP:V : "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". If it's the accessibility that bother you, here is what you can also read there : "Verifiability implies that any one can check the cited sources to verify the information stated in a Wikipedia article. This does not, however, mean that any one can do so instantaneously, without any cost or effort. For example, some on-line sources may require payment to view; and some print sources may only be accessible in specific university libraries. The ease of access does not affect the verifiability of the information taken from such sources". 82.224.118.7 (talk) 07:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

IP, Darren is right here. You can't use yourself as the source (which is what you are trying to do) as you are not a reliable source. The Cite Episode also should not be used to cite the move being a regular move for a wrestler since all it is doing is citing that they used it in that match. You need a source that states it is a finishing move/regular move of that person. As it was pointed out earlier, you comment about Obama's tie shows this. You can cite that he word a blue tie for that appearence, but you could not use that source to state he usually wears blue ties. TJ Spyke 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Then would that not mean that every signature moves needs multiple sources from those at WP:PW/Style guide#Sources? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Only if you are using Cite Episode. There are plenty of reliable sources that list the move a wrestler usually does. If a reliable source says that John Cena frequently uses the Five-Knuckle Shuffle (which is not a finishing move), than just that is needed. TJ Spyke 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But the sourced DON'T usually mention that they frequently use a given move, that's exactly my point. I have yet to see a PWTorch, WrestleView or 411Mania article that states something along the lines of "MVP used a facebreaker knee smash, something he does often." You may find something (but worded better) in a CANOE article, perhaps, but that's about it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So in summation, against using cite episode for naming moves, me, Nici, Gavyn Sykes, Tony2Times, MPJ-DK, GaryColemanFan, Wwehurricane1 and TJ Spkye (8) and for Jeangabin and the IP (2). Is 80% the consensus for this to be considered part of the style guide? If so then I would advise the IP to start removing cite episode templates from move names, unless they can replace the source with an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the identical editing patterns of the IP and Jeangabin, I'm not even convinced that it is two different people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeangabin. -- Atama頭 00:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan, Atama, what are you playing at?? 82.224.118.7 (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I had suspected the same thing myself given that they both add moves using the cite episode, but AGF. But in the SPI the IP admits that Jeangabin is their brother, so more a case of meat puppets than socks. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And on Wikipedia, Meat puppets and sock puppets are treated the same (both result in a block). TJ Spyke 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning Nici. It shouldn't be that way, and the only way that moves should be sourced is through reliable sources. The only exception is cite video for when its a DVD, lets say a biography of a wrestler and the mention their best move (i.e The Rock and his Rock Bottom, People's Elbow, Spinebuster, etc.).--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

War Games to possibly replace Judment Day (aka ANOTHER WWE Poll)

Another survey was sent out to WWE Universe subscribers, this time concerning Judgment Day. The options for the name of the event are:

Judgment Day
Riot Control
Multimania
WWE War Games

Be on the look out and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD if you get this survey, vote for WAR GAMES!! Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Telling people how to vote: NOT needed one bit. This talk page is for discussing articles, not encouraging people how to vote. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of what this talk page is for. The post was intended to keep people extra vigilant as I can see that people have already started trying to change the upcoming pay per view list. EVERYONE tends to add their own opinion to things from time to time as we are all wrestling fans here. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't turn into a forum, I don't mind a bit of banter like this if it keeps some good humour on the page in the midst of passionate debates and arguments. Tony2Times (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was going for there, humor. I realize that this isn't a forum, but... did you SEE those choices! :) Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing this reported on any reliable site (other than the quasi-reliable WrestleView), nor have I personally gotten this e-mail. Assuming this is real, any except Multimania would be good. TJ Spyke 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[10] Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that mentions nothing about it (unless you are a subscriber, in which case it still can't be used since sources that require a fee to access are not allowed). TJ Spyke 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That link DOES mention it and I wasn't posting that to be used as a source for anything other than you to see a reliable site reporting on it. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well thank fuck they can do SOMETHING right... anyway, I'll look out for it. Jordan Payne ^T /_C 08:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

These PPV name changes are becoming a problem, sigh. Breaking Point (Unforgiven), Hell in A Cell (No Mercy), Bragging Rights (Cyber Sunday), TLC (Armageddon), Elimination Chamber (No Way Out), and now War Games (Judgment Day). Geez. That just brings hell to Wikipedia.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is that a problem again? Mshake3 (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't get that either - it's a new event replacing the old... and?? MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 13:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of IPs/newer editors changing PPV names in various articles before it's confirmed that one name is replacing another. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

and it's a major problem because SO many articles refer to the 2010 No Way Out PPV already. You guys probably spend more time talking about it than actually reverting it right now. All I'm saying is don't make a mountain out of a molehill. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder needs protection

It keeps getting vanadlized. For some reason someone finds it amusing to say Zack's Rough Ryder is called The Condom and that his theme is called "Soul Radio" and Hawkins uses a Lady GaGa song. This is of course all bull. 69.23.156.97 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You want WP:RFPP, though it needs to be a large amount of vandalism (say 50 edits in 24hrs) for it to gain protection. If it is one IP then the IP needs to be warned, until they reach 3RR or a fourth warning, then they may be blocked. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the IP of the most recent repeat offender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.59.15.203 69.23.156.97 (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

5 stars match

Hi. I have seen that Dave Meltzer, from WON, has given five stars to a lot of wrestling matches. But you only put the 5 stars to matches that Meltzer sais that are 5 stars. Where are the 5 stars matches of others wrestling writers, like Pro Wrestling Torch or CANOE Slam. For example, Undertaker vs HBK in Wrestlemania 25. Meltzer says that is a 4**** 3/4 match, but Wade Kellen from PWTorch says that is a ***** match and Dale Plummer, from CANOE Slam, says that is a 10 over 10 match. I don0t know if Meltzer have a special preference, but Plummer and Keller also give five stars to matches and we only put the Meltzer five stars matches.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Meltzer stars should be used either, they are nothin more than his personal opinion. That is why they are not supposed to be listed in the Championships and Accomphisments section (since it is neither, it is just his personal review of the match). TJ Spyke 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The 5 star rating is held at high regard in the wrestling community. Even ROH recognizes it as an accomplishment.--WillC 01:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoopee, an indy fed recognizes it. It's beside the point, still just 1 man's opinion. 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One man's opinion held in high regard by many, including WCW. ROH isn't an indy fed anymore. Even if it was, still recognized. You can't change that. I don't care about Meltzer, but still notable.--WillC 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

ROH is still an indy fed. Anyways, as long as it doesn't get put in the CAA section, I don't care. TJ Spyke 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In your bias opinion. But still it is an accomplishment.--WillC 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a rating from 1 person. It's not an "Accomplishment". A reviewer's rating is NOT an Award or an Accomplishment. That's why it was agreed that it doesn't belong in the CAA section. It was agreed to keep it out of the CAA section and just mention it in prose in the article. You may respect Meltzer's bias opinion, but that doesn't change the facts. TJ Spyke 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how his opinion can be bias. Where is this "agreement" or is this agreement just like all the others. There was no discussion, we are just going to say there was an agreement.--WillC 02:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed this before (you and I), he has a bias against WWE and in general prefers Japanese wrestling. Anyways, here are a couple of occasions this have been discussed and each time the majority opinion was to remove the ratings: here and here. TJ Spyke 04:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't consider a discussion that never came to a full agreement on the action a consensus, so there has been no agreement. Just because he likes Japan wrestling, which actually care more about the performance art and not about being sports entertainment, does not mean he is bias. WWE haven't had many incredible matches in the last 12 years.--WillC 04:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't get into how boring most Japanese matches are (and the fact that Japanese crowds don't make much noise doesn't help). People discuss the situation and the majority agreed they don't need to be in (at least the CAA). It doesn't matter if 3 people or 300 people discuss it. No one stopped others from joining in. It's like an election, you can't complain when your side loses and say it was because of low voter turnout. Same thing with consensus, it's based on those that choose to get involved in the discussion. TJ Spyke 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've wondered about this subject a few times in the past. Not seriously mind you since I'd forgotten about it. But, I do find it odd that this one man's opinion seems to hold such sway over the wrestling world, supposedly anyway. If his opinion is held in such high regard, then why do you never hear anyone from TNA or WWE giving praise to the guy? I keep hearing about how these publications like the WON or PWI, or people like Dave Meltzer, are important and influential in wrestling, yet I've never really seen anyone provide any proof of it. Even so, I have to agree on the point that one man's opinion doesn't qualify as some sort of accomplishment in pro wrestling. If Roger Ebert gives a movie a four star review, it's never counted among any awards and honors a film might receive so far as I'm aware of.

Well most famously, Mick Foley's first book cites Meltzer's opinion not only as being valuable but causing bookers to change their direction. However, while it's important enough to be in prose, especially for matches outside of Japan where it's less common, I don't think it's worth putting in the C&A section. It's just a rating, not an award. I know it's a bit facetious to say, but if you put in a 5 star rating there's an argument to be made that all ratings should go in there. Tony2Times (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about instead of being in the C&A section, they are just mentioned in the prose of a person's bio? Like with Styles': "On September 11, 2005 at TNA's Unbreakable PPV event, Styles defeated Christopher Daniels and Samoa Joe in a three way match to regain the TNA X Division Championship. This match was later given a 5 star rating, the highest a match can be given, by the man who created the star rating system Dave Meltzer."--WillC 04:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the sycophantic ending, that's pretty much how I'd expect it to be as it is worth noting, it's just not a C&A. No-one rated things by five stars before Meltzer? Tony2Times (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't give Meltzer credit for using a rating system that was around long before him. Will, that is the compromise that has been in place for awhile, although the wording (at least that i've used when doing this) is more like "This match was later given a 5-star rating by Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer Newsletter". It avoids the unsourced claim that he invented it, and avoids bias (who says his 5-star rating is the highest honor a match could get? I would say getting a "Match of the Year" award is a bigger honor than a rating from critic.) TJ Spyke 15:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I've got no problem with mentioning it in a wrestler's bio. Ultimately, it's just his personal opinion on the quality of a match and a wrestling C&A should be a little more than that.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

The next South Park episode is called Wrestling is Awesome and will focus on the WWE. A clip on the website [11] features two wrestlers that look like Edge & Cena and two divas (I'm not sure who they are, although one is likely Lita). As such, we should keep an eye on the pages for Edge and Cena (and Lita) because things like being charicatured in South Park tend to find their way into bios pretty quickly. [12] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Scorpion! XD Why'd you have to tattle on South Park? :p ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm familiar with the type of editors that like to add such important things as being mentioned in a TV episode to bios, and they aren't fun to deal with. On a side note, I'll be really interested to see how/if the WWE reacts (interesting note: SP is set in Colorado, and often scenes are set in the Pepsi Center in Denver... I wonder if they'll reference the Denver Debacle?). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah probably not, but it looks to be a great episode! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Aww, I woulda marked out so much if I'd have seen this without realising it was wrestling related. My flatmates will surely cheer/groan when they find out I can further relate wrestling to them. Tony2Times (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling is Awesome and I'm glad South Park have finally come round to the idea, anyway I wouldn't expect much more vandalism than usual. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 13:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a pretty good idea what we need

We need a subpage called "Basic Fact" or something, so we can link people there and it has things like "ECW Championship is not a world title, get over it" and "Angle's first reign as TNA champion counts." or something, you get the idea. Jordan Payne ^T /_C 11:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much my thoughts on this are summed up in one word, no, and I say no because the pages in question which would be included should already have these "basic facts" already listed on their pages, so this page would be deemed quite unnecessary, and I would think this would count towards Content Forking. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 13:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean the "ECW Championship is a world championship get over it" right? Because it has been proven as such. I like the idea. Content forking applys only to actual articles. This would be a project page.--WillC 13:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL so the first "fact" that you want to put on there is in dispute - this will end well. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As is the second. I can see the appeal of making a page, but I don't know what would stop folk from disputing it there as well as in main articles tbh, unless maybe you could cite these facts. Tony2Times (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Sock puppetry case at Talk: ECW Championship

There is a Sock puppetry case on this section at Talk: ECW Championship^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the bigger problem is that Wikipedia editors continue to insist on engaging in original research and trying to decide what is and is not a "world title". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the whole debate is yet another rehashing of the "Wikipedia editors should be able to create a definition of 'world title' and decide which titles fit the description" discussion. Any attempt by Wikipedia editors to do so violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. There is no need to interpret facts when the facts can just speak for themselves. Is it a "world title"? Is it a "supplementary title"? Maybe, but for our purposes, it is a "title". GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a debate at all. The only ones interpreting facts are the socks I just uncovered... This was never a serious debate about world titles because that one puppetier was never serious. The puppetier's intent was always to get everyone else riled up knowing very well what was going on.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly was this brought up here? I would bet some of the regulars here have edited that page, but many others havent. I see no reason to drag uninvolved editors into this case. This whole discussion seems to be yet another tattling post just because people would rather use this than ANI or other proper places for it. Let the admins deal with it. Random editors of the project don't have the power to find out who is a sock of another user and so on. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Do I need a sentence to explain to you why I brought this up here? Again with one of your little "this ain't a place to tattle" rants? You just decide to come here and do that thing of yours. Let me ask you this. Why exactly did you feel the need comment? Your only edit in two days... and this is it? Now why did I do it? Because it's informing the project about a relevant issue and a potential problem. Your turn. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know people personally involved with the problem: use their talk pages, not this one. Yes it's a problem, but it should be brought up to admins. Not random project members that most likely havent even encountered the socks at all. My editing has nothing to do with it. I have the right to post where I want, and how frequently I want. I shouldn't be hassled about it. Wikipedia is about volunteering, not attacking people because they don't edit all the time. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well why don't you go volunteer somewhere else. The checkuser case has been filed and thus admin's will be involved. The obvious purpose of this section was to inform the project of the issue, requesting any input on it, a much better action than to go to multiple user talk pages - something some might view as canvassing. Now unless you have anything actually related to the subject to add...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this relevantly relates with an issue we seem to constantly be discussing, I would say it's a relevant subject to bring up in the talk page of this project. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 04:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unquestionable Truth: don't tell me what to do. I can post where I want, and you have no right to tell me to volunteer elsewhere. You don't control this page or who posts on it. I know you would love to have that feature, but it's not going to happen. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3bulletproof16 you mean. Rob, [13] [14] Don't lecture me. Now read everthing you just typed and pretend I said it to you. :)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No, so get over yourself. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Back-at-cha :) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you just drop the bickering, fact of the matter is it made complete sense to bring this to the projects attention, since I would assume this could somewhat mess with a consensus, Truth was Unquestionably (pardon the pun) right in bringing this to the projects attention. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 05:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pun (you know you meant it) :) in other -apparently now irrelevant- news, the sock case is pending confirmation. Although I must say I made a pretty good case in the report. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EdgarBacon) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not recognized by PWI, therefore not a world title. End of. Former user 7 (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

'bout to be blocked for sock use. End of "it" ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

recognition by PWI doesn't matter one way or the other, the fact that it would be recognized by a notable magazine as being a World Title, would just be a plus and contribute to its notability of being a World Title. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 06:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing changes the fact that the ECW Championship is simply not a world title. Former user 7 (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about that anymore... and never was, was it? You've been caught and now you don't care anymore ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Case Closed. All socks have now been blocked. It seems the puppetier actually goes WAY back (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll) (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll/Archive)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Who ever brought this here, thank you. RobJ1981, I think it is a good thing for us to know when there is a user causing trouble, it can let us know to watch someones edits, when we normally would have passed over it. I mostly dont give edits from registered users a second glance, but if I see a post like this, I can now watch articles for his edits. This can also help the sock investigation, if it is found the user isnt a sock, our vigilance could keep a user out of blockland. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New sock case (same puppetier)

This is a follow up to the CheckUser case. Two new socks have been discovered. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. Please use the information on the puppetier to identify any socks if you encounter one. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

It has been brought up countless times. Lets make a decision for once. We need a guideline for people involved with wrestling. What makes someone notable in wrestling? Lets make WP:WRESTLING for once. What should the guidelines be? Ideas?--WillC 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I got a few suggestions - wrestling televised matches for certain companies (in a non-squash capacity) or winning certain titles should immediately qualify you as notable. We'd just have to agree to a list of promotions and titles that would qualify. I'd say break it down into promotions for US, Mexico, Europe and Japan and name the promotions and titles so there is doubts or "interpretations". And before people start arguing - people who've never worked for any of the companies that'll be listed can still have articles if they fulfill the general notability & verifiability criterias. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for federations. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

US: WWF, WCW, TNA and AWA (Maybe ROH After they got a TV deal?)
Mexico: CMLL and AAA
Japan: NJPW, AJPW, NOAH
Europe: Erm... not sure

Suggestions for Titles won - Following promotions. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 16:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

US: ECW (Original), ROH... and??
Mexico: UWA (while it was active), IWRG
Japan: DragonGate & Dragongates predecessors... and??
EUrope: don't know

Suggestion: Jeangabin (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Europe: NWE
US: ... + CCW (SCW/CWF) and SMW ??

Just to throw in my two pence........

US: WWF, WCW, TNA, AWA, ROH
Mexico: CMLL and AAA
Japan: NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, Dragon Gate/Toryumon (DG have got a TV Deal, btw. They also have 4-5 PPVS a year)
Europe: Haven't got a clue

--Numyht (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the UK I would suggest that those who wrestled for the Crabtrees from the 60s to 80s may be notable (Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks being the biggest (in both senses) names from the era). Darrenhusted (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What I had in mind was more along the lines of career, rather than oh he has worked here and won this. Someone like Chris Hero or Super Dragon are notable because their careers have been lustrious by working in serveral promotions and gaining success. As such, they have gained considerable coverage from reliable third party sites. By promotion, I would think working in WWE, TNA, WCW, NJPW, CMLL, AAA, ROH, and ECW (as long as they have gained success in ROH and ECW with enough reliable sources) are notable right off the bat. By titles, win at least two notable titles notable in my opinion.--WillC 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your argument defeats the purpose of having a criteria, if they have "considerable coverage from reliable third party sites" then it's already covered - and the need for a notability guideline is for deletions etc. articles for deletion tend to not have "considerable coverage from reliable third party sites" or there wouldn't be a problem. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 20:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what is considerable coverage?--WillC 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For the UK I'd like to add 1PW as being notable. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 05:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Other notable UK promotions I can think of are FWA, XWA, maybe LDN and Triple X too. On the continent the only ones I can think of are German Stampede and Athletik Club. Tony2Times (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I appriciate all the federations suggestions but some perspective would be good, it's not overdo the "if he worked for them he's notable" list, CCW, SMW and most of the British feds etc. It's nice and all but they're still regional feds, with limited exposure I woudln't say you'd be notable JUST for having worked for those federations, hell I wouldn't even add CWA/USWA in Memphis or WCCW in Texas under the "Instantly notable" federations - it's a very limited group of federations that became THAT big ever. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 19:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Subsections

What's the policy (if any) on how long a section must be to be split? There's a minor revert war over at Dustin Rhodes over subsections. An IP wants Raw and ECW to be a subsection, constantly reverts any changes to that and has actually added hidden notes to not change it because he says so. Is there any consensus (or hell, policy) on this? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first problem I see is that Raw (and ECW if that stays), should be third level headers, not second level. I've changed that, so moving on... . I checked WP:Header, which didn't say anything about it, and I don't know of a specific policy about this. All I know, is that 19 headers for an article at 32,000 kilobytes is a bit ridiculous. You could start a discussion on the talk page to form a consensus about it. That would decide the fate (for at least) this article. Nikki♥311 04:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I really hate the "first run"/"second run" phrase included in headers sometimes. It is obvious that it is someone's "second run" if they have a previous section for that promotion. Just had to say it. Nikki♥311 04:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my doing. Originally, it simply had several headers that were utterly identical sans the years in parenthesis, which annoyed me. Though I'd like to think there's a better way to word it than what I changed it to as well. And yeah, the IPs editing that article have no grasp on how anything works, it seems. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

To put it simply, using Common Sense is the best way to go. --Numyht (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeri-show

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees I have provided three online sources for this team name, all from WWE.com. They have called themselves by this name as well as being referred to by it by others MULTIPLE times on air. Somehow this keeps getting removed despite ALL of the sources. [15] [16] [17] Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's never been used as anything but a nickname at most. They don't have a actual team name. TJ Spyke 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And where is your proof of that TJ? I'd say that the "Power 25" referring to them as Jeri-Show is pretty official and all. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 05:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the way they word it makes it sound like a nickname (especially since they don't list them as "Jeri-Show). This weeks entry for them makes no mention of the nickname. Where is the evidence that's it's not just a nickname? TJ Spyke 06:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like another case of TJ hating something, so he refuses to agree with it. The sources above look to be decent enough. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like another case of RobJ running his mou... keyboard, trying to remain relevant... 0.o ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Be nice people.--WillC 08:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And YOU! I want the full purchase price of the free BFG tickets I got BACK!!! GRRRRR ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's right I didn't even pay for them... and I still want my money back! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we stay on subject? I'd say it's been mentioned by the only source there is on official names - WWE themselves. I haven't seen an argument on why it's official other than a vague, interpretative "it's worded like a nickname". MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 11:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullet stay on subject.--WillC 12:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Bullet needs to stay on subject. There is no need to disrupt this discussion with nonsense about wrestling tickets. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a source that specifically states that "Jeri-Show" is the name of the tag team explicitly, then I recommend adding Jeri-Show as a nickname of the tag team, we can confirm that much, if it later becomes the name of the team, (Announced on show) then we can change it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ring names

Some random anon (currently editing from IP address 187.13.199.52), has been massively changing the order of the ring names in the infoboxes of WWE wrestlers. The ring names in these pages were in alphabetical order, like Triple H's article, but he is unilaterally moving the current ones to the top. I have reverted a few times, but he is clearly willing to edit war as made obvious by his comment to TJ, which is why establishing a consensus that we can quote on the matter is a better way to solve the issue. So, what do you guys think, which one is better, alphabetical order or this anon's order? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we please do something this guy or girl is driving me nuts. I think it should stay the way it is all names in alphabetical order.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a new user either, this same person has been IP hopping for several weeks and keeps changing The Dudebusters and D-Generation X in the WWE roster template, apparently not understanding how alphabetical sorting works (symbols come before letters, so "D-" comes before "Du") and changed it back within hours of the template being unblocked. This IP is definitely a problem. I was actually about to start a section suggesting we clarify Template:Infobox wrestler to state that ring names are to be sorted alphabetically and that current ring names stay in that order (and not be moved to the top). It's frustrating because this IP will just switch IP addresses in a day or two. TJ Spyke 02:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked a few, but the user indeed does just pop up at a different IP moments later (I assume manual reset of router or somesuch). Totally ignores attempts at engaging in discussion except to pile incivility on various others who make that attempt. So first, it's edit-warring against loose consensus based on many others reverting and trying to discuss with him. But I'll also add my voice that standard ABC-order makes most sense and that having this as an actually-discussed consensus will help support any future admin actions that might be needed to resolve this edit-war. DMacks (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a felling that this person is going to give us a lot of problems.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is going to be annoying. For the time being I have protected two articles and the template that he has been edit warring at. But rest assured that this is not over. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh its far from over its gonna be a long night.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume some/many of you have some/many of these pages watchlisted. I think all previous edits have been reverted by now. I'd be interested in hearing which ones are hit later tonight or in the future. DMacks (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have them all watchlisted im keeping my eyes out for this guy. AS to what has been done what was done to fix this problem.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to avoid discussing the method publicly. DMacks (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have several on my watchlist, that's how I saw he was back (one of the pages on my watchlist is Oleg Prudius). Getting a written consensus and have it put into the Infobox wrestler template would help a lot in fighting this vandal and others. As for this particular IP, I know that I will instantly report him/her the moment they start. I suggested a range block since resetting a router will usually only change the last few numbers and a range block would take care of other possible switches. TJ Spyke 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the currint format as its easy to read and looks better. As for a range block we can only hope.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nelson Frazier, Jr.

I would really appreciate it if a couple more people could add this page (about Mabel/King Mabel/Viscera/Big Daddy V/King V) to their watchlists. It is a frequent target for vandalism, including accusations of bizarre sexual conduct, attacks regarding his weight, and fake death announcements. If anyone can help watch it, revert the vandalism, and make sure that they warn the vandals, that would be great. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New Format Idea #2

At the start of the month Will came to the project with an idea for a new Format idea for the Championship and Accomplishments section, One of the main points I believe which was brought up is the fact that the Spacing was an issue and it looked too "Dominant" in an article, I have since thought about this and have come up with a possibility here: User:Afkatk/SandboxP7, keep in mind this is only an idea and can be toyed about with in hopes to come to a final design, but I think I've come up with a solution to try and solve the "dominance issue", I must point out though that the colouring within the article shouldn't be the main point of discussion as that can always be tinkered with till there is something which looks better. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks good. My only concern is how it would look for wrestlers with multiple reigns with a specific championship. Seeing the WWE Championship listed multiple times for Orton made the table seem longer than it really should. Other than that I think its a pretty good concept. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about grouping them into one column then? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Try it out?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a sec. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell are magazine and newsletter awards notable again? Cue TJ... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's for another section. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've applied it and formatted the idea into its own section, though I'm not sure you meant, I've included it using the Rowspan code, but I can always adjust it, if it's not what you originally meant. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think what he meant (and what I agree with) is that for people like Stevie Richards, who won the Hardcore title 22 times + a bunch of other titles....the table is going to be really long if each individual reign is listed out (with date won, lost, etc) instead of grouped together. Nikki♥311 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well with the more detailed Championship and Accomplishments could possibly be given their own Articles, but if giving them there own Articles is out of the question, I'm sure I'll think up something.. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are we still trying to fix something that isn't broken? This new proposed format is much harder to read, gives unnecessary information that should be in the prose rather than crammed into a summary section, and is difficult to look at with all of the colors. The section is supposed to be a quick easy-to-read summary. If it requires a show/hide button, that's a good indication that it is no longer a quick summary. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Given it's own page? I'm not sure I get what you're saying but if you're suggesting "Edge Professional Wrestling Championships" or something like that, that would be Content forking. It seems to make something that's rather simple, easy to use and easy to read very complicated, crayon-ized and hard to use. Like Gary says "If it ain't broken"... and it ain't. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

^This. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is very nice looking but I still have reservations about what it would look like for someone who has won a number of titles in a number of promotions. Randy Orton isn't a good test case as he has come merely through WWE developmental. Imagine what it'd look like for CM Punk, AJ Styles &c I don't wanna sound like a naysayer but I sit with Gavin and MPJ in liking how it currently is for the most part. Tony2Times (talk) 11:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll think up something and come back with another idea then. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New Format Idea #3

User:Afkatk/SandboxP7, rowspans can be discussed somewhat at a later date. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 01:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I like that. It seems like the format we've been needing. Good job sport.--WillC 03:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Woh dude I'm like totally fascinated by that... no really it looks great. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it takes four clicks just to show his Hardcore Championship wins is sufficient proof that this format does not provide a concise, easy-to-read summary. There is absolutely no need to provide so much detail. Leave it in the prose, and let the C&A section just state how many times a wrestler has held a title. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I was forced at gunpoint to comment... I didn't even look at it... :(^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Gary this is when the prose effect can help. Writing a simple summary above the template will fix that issue.--WillC 05:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an improvement? Will you're seriously liking this? The simplicity and easy overview of the original format is totally lost here and definitly not easier to edit. I'm sorry but this is a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 07:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Simple, this can be improved with prose. Just hoping for someway to improve that section. It looks so akward in a bio. Just prose then all of a sudden two lists that really would be better off just as prose. Like with AJ Styles:

"Styles has won numerous championships in several promotions throughout his career. His greatest achievements have been in the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling promotion. There he has won every male championship controlled by TNA. His first championship was the TNA X Division Championship, known as the NWA-TNA X Championship or simply the TNA X Championship. He was crowned the first champion on June 19, 2002. He eventually lost it on ???. Etc."

See? Instead of a bullet point list, just a template that has all the titles included, with prose about them above. A short summary will be fine, or a more in depth section. The later may be better.--WillC 09:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating in the prose is generally encouraged no matter what format the title list has, that's used as a quick overview of titles etc. One does not exclude the other, so that's not an argument to add a confusing and dificult section when a simple, easy to use as a reference list already exists. That does not make sense, it's not like all articles rely only on the list of titles after all. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 12:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing awkward about it going from prose to a list. You can see it in FA bios of other sportsmen like rugby players, cricketers, footballers where it jumps between prose and lists (albeit in tables, only because there's more than two values to list) &c &c. The main article is for detailing the who, what, when, where and how, the C&A section is a quick reference point and putting in prose to wade through, most of which is superfluous as it's already been detailed in the main body article. Tony2Times (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG, are these really needed?? This adds a shitload of size to an article. If this were gonna be done for someone like Hulk Hogan (a massive page as it is right now), we are gonna need like separate articles. The mass use of the templates and tables adds a lot of coding, is there no alternative?--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there is always the option of leaving it the way it is now, crazy as it may seem ;) MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PPV progress chart

I was almost able to convince myself to start a new pay-per-view expansion yesterday, but I wasn't sure what event I would work on. This led me to create a progress chart for the WWF pay-per-views from 1985 to 1999. If it would be useful to the project, the chart is here. It might be useful to add in the actual event dates to help with sorting, but I haven't gotten there. I don't know if it would be useful on the project's PPV page or if anyone wants to add it to their userspace, feel free to do what you want with it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I've been keeping track of the chart we already have, just haven't updated it in a while since the PPV expansion seems to have died down a bit. Your chart looks nice. I'm actually working on 3 events right now I hope to have done today. Maybe we can restart that expansion.--WillC 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The older chart is very useful for keeping track of which articles are being (or have been) expanded. I developed the new chart to help show which articles still need work as well as how many articles have not yet been created. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been meaning to redo the chart we already have to show that as well, but never done it yet. The code is causing the page to get too big.--WillC 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What to do?

This may seem like I'm being dumb by asking a rather dumb question, but it seems TNA are going to do something that hasn't been done in a while out right with no questions to be asked. According to the spoilers for Impact! next week, Eric Young, reigning champ, is going to rename the TNA Legends Championship the TNA International Championship, I rather love this idea to be honest. Now, should we go ahead and move the article as soon as it happens, or wait for a few months so that the new title will be the common name?--WillC 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

While it seems that they're being a bit clever in rebranding the title to something that makes sense, I'm a bit wary from the spoilers of changing the article just yet as it may be akin to a personalised belt, or like when Lance Storm renamed the WCW US Title the WCW Canadian Title. It could be that as soon as he loses the belt, it will go back to its old name, especially if they don't reveal a new design. My own inclination would be to wait a fortnight for the next batch of spoilers to come through and see what the reaction is, maybe wait till the next PPV to see if he succesfully defends it before we change anything. Tony2Times (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well he has a title defense next week. Plus, this week Young said he had "an announced that would rock TNA to its very foundation". So TNA are building to this.--WillC 13:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As Tony said, there have been multiple occasions where a wrestler changed the name of the belt on their own. I would wait until Young loses the title and see if TNA continues calling it that. The page will need to be watched though since I have no doubt somebody would try and move the page. TJ Spyke 14:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno how detailed you read the spoilers Will so I don't wanna ruin anything for you but in the order it was recorded at least, Young makes the name change after the title match. Also, if you believe wrestling hyperbole like that, then Bubba Ray "killed" Booker T in that awesome brawl from weeks back so I wouldn't take much notice. I'm mainly interested to see what they do with the physical belt, as it does say Legends on it. If they don't change that then I'd have no confidence that it's a long term name change but even if they do, it could be akin to a personalised belt. I think we're gonna have to wait until he's disassociated from the title (even if he loses it, if he carries on feuding for it, they might keep the name change until the feud is over) before we know, which could be a while unfortunately. A redirect should be made, however I'm reading mixed reports of whether it's to be called the International or Global Championship. Tony2Times (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ there was no reason to manually make a redirect at this point, that just causes future problems. With it now having to be deleted then moved later on. At the moment, I think we should wait a while, but was getting a few ideas first.--WillC 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would wait as the title is likely to change hands once or twice within the next few months, so it'll be worth waiting one or two reigns to see if its not just a gimmick rename. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead it was actually renamed the TNA Global Championship.--WillC 02:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC) To add a little input here I need to see if anyone recalls a wrestler named Lance Storm. He held and changed the name of a few belts back in 2000 Changed the name of the US tile to Canadian Heavyweight Championship, The cruiser weight title to 100 kg and Under Championship, and the wcw hardcore title to Saskatchewan Hardcore International Title (S.H.I.T.). These title name changes were never officially sanctioned or recognized by wcw except when the announcers retold the audience the names of the belts. TNA Global championship seems like the same situation. Currently on TNA's website refers to the belt currently as The Legends title. Until such time that TNA changes the name it should be considered that it is still called the tna legends championship.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I've never heard of that(!) Tony2Times (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees

This page in its current state seems very clunky and messy to me. I've done some work in my sandbox to try and streamline it and make it look less cluttered. Please tell me what you think.User:Wwehurricane1/sandbox Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So all you did was remove information? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually like it. My only requests would be to remove the stables and tag teams—because after all, this is a list of people employed by the company, and a list of tag teams in it seems irrelevant to me. Including tag teams seems no more relevant than a list of rivalries, for example. I just think it should be removed. Also, a) if the real name is the same as the ring name, it should be listed in both slots, b) I'm aware I supported it earlier, but I think general refs should cover the roster's just fine, and we can remove the refs from the individual rows, c) If we use this, we should have a "role" column in the table. iMatthew ^talk at 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Afro, I didn't remove ANY information. That just goes to show you how messy the current version of the page is. Matthew, when you say a "role" column, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean having it there for everyone, but only putting information in it for people like JR (ie, "Color-Commentary") and Lauren Mayhew (ie, "Ring Announcer")? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Wrestler, Ring announcer, Color commentator, Backstage interviewer, etc. iMatthew ^talk at 23:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just a subpage and that means you can write what you want, but why do you insist on using Chris Jericho and The Big Show's nickname? Jeri-Show is NOT their ring name. I have no problem with the current page as it doesn't seem cluttered to me, but I am not that committed either way. TJ Spyke 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I put the real names back in the ring name column and added the "role" column on the Raw roster. I also took your idea of just having one source for the whole thing. Check out the Raw section for how it will look. I will work on the rest of it tomorrow. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please checkout the Raw and Smackdown sections and tell me what you think. I don't want to finish the whole thing and post it without having you guys' input. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers

There is a lot of edit warring over spoilers each month on pay per view articles, usually about matches that are announced during tv tapings. This also happens when a title changes hands at a tv taping. Some users say that there is a consensus to not use spoilers in articles. I've asked to be shown where this consensus was made, but thus far nothing has been presented. Either way, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia policies state that project cosensus can not override the policies of Wikipedia as a whole.

From WP:Consensus - "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."

That means that, per WP:Spoiler, users ARE allowed to add matches that are announced and title changes that happen during tv tapings before they air. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."

If a user adds information from a reliable source (those listed here: [[18]]) you can not remove it, even if it is a spoiler. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR can be applied in these cases, along with WP:RS, as tv tapings cannot e reliably sourced, IMHO. ArcAngel (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR says ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged." I challenge you to justify how removing reliably sourced information improves the encyclopedia. TV taping results are easy to reliably source. When websites such as PW Insider and 411mania consistantly have tapings results that are accurate, those sites become reliable sources for that type of information. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just last week I read a TV report, though I forget on which website I'm tempted to say WrestleView but I definitely can't say for sure, that said that Beer Money Inc won the TNA Tag Team Championships via DQ during their cage match with the British Invasion. Tony2Times (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

EVERY website is going to make a mistake now and then. That's the nature of third party sources. That being said, if a website has a proven track record for providing accurate results (PW Insider and 411mania for example) then they can be considered reliable. I have never read taping results from either of those sites that ended up being inaccurate. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers can be added if they have reliable sources, period. There's no real need for discussion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, spoilers can be added as long as we have a reliable source. This project must quit worrying about spoilers. Just remain accurate.--WillC 03:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hurricane I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and figure out that IAR is not just something you can pull if you don't like something. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 14:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

MPJ-DK, I'm not the one who pulled out IAR because I didn't like something. That was actually brought up by Archangel. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said IAR could be applied. The consensus seems to be on WP:RS anyway, so the focus should be on that. ArcAngel (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, ArcAngel, I knew what you meant. I didn't mean to imply that you brought it up because you didn't like the policy. I was simply pointing out that you were the one who brought it up and not me. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

its ok now to add the match smackdown aired in Australia already.--Dcheagle (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the things that is listed under the article on spoilers is:"When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." What Encyclopedic purpose is being served here in posting these spoilers? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What ever process there is to making rules governing certain things. A talk a vote or what ever else then I think it needs to be done in this situation. The rules to spoilers are important but in this situation it leaves abit to question in this situation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 09:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i didn't to do a poll. I said to do a poll, talk, or what ever it is that that leads to a rule For PW or that fails to materialize in doing so. If this discussion is it the great and let me go back to: One of the things that is listed under the article on spoilers is:"When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not understand the first half of what you said, but updating using spoilers I can only see being useful is when we're taking this information from Reliable Sources, we can always correct any information based on the programme aired if need be. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 14:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Spoiler says, "When including spoilers, editors should make sure that an encyclopedic purpose is being served." What Encyclopedic purpose is being served here in posting these spoilers? The guy that fought tooth and nail to have this info posted before it appeared on air I'm sure had a encyclopedic interest in posting it and largely supported it through wp:spoilers. Is one being served here early or is this an attempt to make wikipedia a news source or spoiler site with the limited information that comes out early from a site that can't be verified until after the fact. Another question is was that rule made to allow for this or was it intended to allow for the writing of spoilers (a detailed description of a old episode of a show is still a spoiler as is that of a old book) or does it imply that news spoilers are or can be credible sources? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I tell you...

that Wrestleview says that PWInsider said that the WWE Magazine has a schedule of future pay-per-views. I presume that it's from the Novemeber edition. 1 --Numyht (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just been updating numerous articles concerning the 2010 events and I've come upon a problem. Would it be right to move WWE Hell in a Cell and WWE Bragging Rights immediately to Hell in a Cell (2009) and Bragging Rights (2009) respectively and create new main articles for the events or to just add the 2010 dates in the current articles? I'm asking this as it seems a little redundant to create a new article that would only link to one event and link to the second event in August next year. -- Θaks ter 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait until it's time to actually create articles for the 2010 events (so around August of next year). For now it would be useless to have 2 articles when the only info known about the second events is the date. TJ Spyke 20:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else find the first sentence here funny? This site said that this site said that. Mshake3 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in a playground :D Tony2Times (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very subjective article

Hello. I have never posted on this project before, so excuse me if I phrase this awkwardly.

I have noticed the article List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling, and have some issues with it.

First the rather well-worn "What is a World Title" debate. Apparently this one recognizes NINE separate Titles as such. Bizarrely the external link in the article shows a list of more World Titles, including at least half a dozen "World Titles" not listed in the article, while at the same time omitting one title that IS included (WCW International) in the article.

Next the actual numbers of times a wrestler has "won" any World Title. The article lists Ric Flair as a 16-time World Champion, as per official WWE policy. However, in order to reach this number, Flair is listed as having never held the aforementioned WCW International Title, as that would bump his total higher than 16, yet Flair obviously DID "win" the WCW International Title.

Third, when both myself and IP editors have asked for some actual tangible rules or guidelines as to why, for example ROH is a "World Title", but say World Class is not, the response has been silence.

In short, I sincerely feel that the article on "multiple world champions" is purely subjective and POV. Such an article is neede for wikipedia, yet this article at the present time can no in any way shape or form be deemed to be encyclopedic. It is merely one person's take on World Championships, where he/she has added his/her personal favorite organizations, while ignoring others that were, in their own times, far more prominent than some of those listed. Likewise the "WCW International" Title is not generally regarded by anyone as a World Title, which makes its inclusion that much more baffling. Is there anyone who genuinely believes that ROH today is more prominent than World Class was in 1986? Paulkearvell (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I'd say delete it, it's POV as already mentioned with no clear definition of what constitutes a "world" champion. It's basically lisft cruft MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 11:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought this was agreed to be removed ages ago. I find it interesting, but it's not objective or encyclopedic. Tony2Times (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

For comparing ROH to WCCW, look at the number of promotions then compared to now. In 1986, WCCW wasn't one of the top three promotions in the US like ROH has been for the past several years. In fact, according to the WCCW's Wikipedia article, it wasn't even the top promotion in Texas in 1986. So its WCCW circa 1986, a low level regional promotion that only holds shows in and around Texas with no national syndication proclaiming a title rarely if ever defended outside of Texas and Oklahoma as a world title, versus ROH, the third largest promotion in the US and has been for the past several years which has held shows in California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Tennessee, Wisconsin and is scheduled to hold their first shows in Arizona next year, regularly runs shows in Canada and has done multiple tours in England and Japan, and in addition to those three countries has had its title defended in Austria, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico and Switzerland. Hmmm, which is more prominent and seems more like what a true "world" championship should be? 138.163.106.71 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

ROH owes it's small success to DVD sales and the Internet, neither of which were available to WCCW. WCCW was one of the most popular promotions in the world for several years despite massive competition from WWF and AWA (ROH's only real competition is TNA, and neither of those come close to WWE). WCCW sold out the 4,500 seat Dallas Sportatorium on a weekly basis, ROH's shows are almost always in armories and other buildings that hold only a few hundred people (which are dirt cheap to rent, so it costs very little for ROH to tour. Arenas and stadiums cost a lot more to rent). As for 1986, WCCW was on its decline by that time. It would be like trying to use WCW from 2001. Anyways, the page is entirely subjective since we can't even agree on what counts as a world title. TJ Spyke 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete the article. A world title is made if the promotion says it is a world title. Even if it is only defended in one place. That list can never and will never be correct, with the fact we don't have enough reliable sources to ref every title in pro wrestling that was recognized as such. POV with the significant aspect applied as well.--WillC 02:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a delete consensus to me. Who will do the PROD honors? This way this doesn't happen again. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the tag earlier tonight. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

An IP contested the PROD, so I brought it to AFD. ArcAngel (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather word title debate has one thing to it. Most Magas never released what they decided made a title world but at one time all the listed WHT could be traced to the same lineage.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tracing lineage is OR unless sourced fyi.--WillC 05:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To those who use thehistoryofwwe.com

To all users who have in the past used thehistoryofwwe.com as a source and listed it's angelfire address as the link you need to go through them and change it to www.thehistoryofwwe.com as everything is gone from angelfire and hosted under the site name instead. the pages are there, just not at angelfire any more. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

Does anybody know of a bot we could use to help tag articles with {{Pro-wrestling}}? Basically, tag anything in (or in a subcategory of) Category:Professional wrestling? Nikki♥311 04:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. TJ Spyke 21:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said at BOTR, I'd be happy to have my bot do this. But I'd like to wait a bit for some input from other members (@tps please do comment :D), and also, would it be possible to check the subcategories out? Just to check they are all within your scope. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody thinks this is a good idea? A lot of articles are created at WP:AFC, and they aren't always tagged. Plus this will give us more accurate counts for the Stub expansion and cleanup listings. Nikki♥311 03:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea (which is why I did the request for you). I take this as indication that no on objects to it. TJ Spyke 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's a good idea (and am a little suprised it hasn't been suggested before). I personally come across quite a few newish articles that the creator hasn't tagged. I'm curious as to how this works though - is it a one-time deal, or will the bot run atspecific time-intervals, e.g. once a week, once a fortnight, etc? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I too think it's a good idea, FWIW :). Generally it would be one-off, but if you want me to run it regularly, I could do so (or you could just notify me when you want the bot to run again). If there is no opposition, I'll likely run this tomorrow (I'll check through the categories myself, but it would be nice if someone else would do so for me instead ;) ) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsanctioned championships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unsanctioned_championships

The TNA Legends title is listed as unsanctioned. Though it may have very well started that way does anyone feel it's still unsanctioned since it has become apart of what TNA considers a grandslam champion?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It was unsanctioned at one point in storyline, that is why it is apart of that category. Just because it is sanctioned now, doesn't stop the fact it wasn't at one point.--WillC 04:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

yes sir it was unsanctioned and I consider that an important fact. But I must also give my thoughts that such information should be left to the titles page . Though I don't feel that is a must but I do feel that if it remains on the unsanctioned page there should be a little not saying it's become legit. Maybe something to the effect of (later sanctioned by Tna) or anything to that effect unless of course someone sees a problem with that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it mentions that already in the history section.--WillC 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking of the page that lists unsanctioned titles.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Championship (professional wrestling)#Unsanctioned championships, it already is listed. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 14:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes sir it is as it should be but that wasn't the page I was talking about now was it?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PW 3 user template

Why a car? {{User WP PW3}} ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask Truco, he created it. As far as I knew, this template only had 2 user templates (one with the WHC belt and one with the old ECW belt). I don't think we need a 3rd template for users to say thy are a member of the project (and I agree it is an odd picture, the picture has nothing to do with wrestling). TJ Spyke 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The image was originally something else. The logs for the image show that an image was uploaded in August 08, and deleted in May 09, before the image of the car was uploaded under the same name a few hours ago. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh that explains it. Thank you both.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

lol is it Bret Harts car? :)Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Like Nici pointed out it used to be the logo of WP:PW, but it got deleted. So someone uploaded the car file under the same name. Tbh, the template can be deleted or redirected, is that okay with you TJ? =P--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding of Matches to The PAY PER VIEWS

Ok with all the things going on about the World Heavyweight Championship match at the next ppv lets gets some Consensus on this issue before an all out edit war brakes out.

So here it is should we post the match as soon as we receive a Reliable source ie. PW Torch, WrestleView, ect. This would mean putting sporles up of a Tv taping that could change at any second or should we wait till the match is posted on wwe.com which would mean the Match is official. What do you all think.

If there's a reliable source, it can be added, period. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

yes but at tv tapings things can be edited out before it airs if we have consensus on this issue we can move on to other things that need worked on.--Dcheagle (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is edited out then we can always change it, I don't see why there seems to be a wall where we can't edit or change it when the key things on Match Cards is "Subject to Change". Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 15:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The match card isn't generally subject to change. In the past 20 years how many times has that happened in a major wrestling company? They are only said to be subject to change for protection rather than as a practice.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

During the '90s? A shit tonne of times. Tony2Times (talk) 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A recent example is The Great American Bash (2006). THREE matches (Mark Henry, Khali and Lashley all were forced out due to injuries) were changed shortly before the show. Also No Mercy (2007), the main event of it was changed about a week prior to the show. -- No TV and no beer make Scorpion 0422 something something 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the card happen ALL THE TIME these days due to various reasons such as injury, illness, suspension, termination, etc. When Raw came to Little Rock in September, the advertised dark main event was John Cena and Triple H against Randy Orton and Legacy, 3-on-2. When Shawn Michaels made his return to Raw, the match was changed to DX vs. Rhodes and DiBiase. By the time the event actually made it to town, it had been changed one more time to John Cena and DX vs. Randy Orton and Legacy. Then, at the actual show, the match was changed AGAIN to John Cena and DX vs. Randy Orton, 3-on-1. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It happened alot in the 90's during pay per views? How many cards in the 90's did wcw, ecw, or wwe change for pay per views? How many of those cards were advertised (where the company actually invests money into the card by airing commercials)? Dark main event? Are you talking about a untaped live show not sold to pay per view? Infact if often the pay per view cards on wikipedia require editing to remove matches then an investigation should be undertaken to find the vandal responsible.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head without thinking too much WWF: No Way Out of Texas saw HBK replaced disappointingly with Savio Vega with Mr McMahon cutting a promo and citing the subject to change small print in the programme. ECW: A 1994 show when Foley and Funk were booked to win the Tag Titles in the main event opposite Public Enemy but Funk missed his flight and Whipwreck took his place. I didn't watch WCW but I'm sure I've heard tales of it happening. Tony2Times (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

These instances are rare. If there is a need for alot of edits for every pay per view then there is a problem.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was ever a set number of edits needed for a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would be in trouble, and anyway you don't need to go back 3-4 years to find a subject to change reference it happens on House Shows all the time and also it happened as far back as Bragging Rights when 5 of the 7 members of SD changed. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 11:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing isn't a problem. Any expansion to wikipedia Is always welcome as I understand. Having to repeatedly remove stuff from a payperview card for wrestling constantly should come in to question though. Yes the card did change at the last pay per view. But before that when was the last time? And before that? It's rare enough that that it would be rare to have to have to edit out any matches on pay per views constantly. House shows pale in comparison to Payperviews which is the topic here.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I just want to clarify here - does ANYONE disagree that stuff can be added to articles if it has a reliable source? "spoiler" or not. I guess the argument is that some people want to add spoilers to articles without reliable sources? Is that the gist of this conversation or is it just going on for the sake of going on and everyone already agrees but don't seem to realize it?? MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm against it, but I guess that's for personal reasons that I think it's unfair to those coming to Wikipedia on a regular basis but not wanting spoilers, for WWE this means that Saturday, Sunday and Monday are the only days to be able to read articles and for TNA it'll be Sat-Mon every fortnight because of their taping schedule. I don't think it really offers anything to anyone in the same way that a film article contains spoilers as that film is out there, I can't think that I've read a film article spoiler for an unreleased movie. Further, I'd contend with the idea of a reliable source for spoilers - Slam! Sports might report what the results are but unless they have a journalist at the event, do they count as the source or rather are they not merely reporting from a third party, untrustworthy source. I know most of the time it is true, but so also is a lot of backstage rumours but we don't include them unless they are verified. Tony2Times (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a spoiler to someone who hasn't seen it. But even if there was a rule with "No spoilers" you know they'd be put in there by someone - not everyone abides by the rules of Wikipedia or the consensus of WP:PW after all. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 19:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was taken as read that we here abide by and try to enforce the rules and consensus, whatever it ends up being. I don't really see what point you're making. My point was that there's a difference between a spoiler about something that's in the public realm and has been published/released and a spoiler that only those who have gone out of their way to look for it. Tony2Times (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you're in trouble if you're that sensitive to spoilers as someone is bound to add them, be they IP users or users who just don't really pay attention to what consenus WP:PW reaches. That and well it is actually allowed with proper sources. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well under the way we currently do it I've avoided spoilers for all but one match (Unforgiven 2008) since I started rewatching wrestling at the beginning of 2007 so I'm not in that much trouble aside from when I foolishly come on here after a show has aired but before I watch it. Is the source reliable if they're just basing it on what non-reporters have e-mailed in. What's to stop me e-mailing WrestleView and telling them that I saw Zack Ryder win the ECW Championship tonight for example. Tony2Times (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO No that's not a realiable source - while say WrestleView might be reliable "Joe from Montana" is just some guy. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 16:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In general, wrestling news sites such as WrestleView, 411mania, PW Insider, etc. get multiple emails from many different people who attend each event and each website gets different people. I may email one site with results while Tony may email another and MPJ emails yet another. If all of these eye witness reports collaborate with one another, that is a reliable source. If one email out of 100 says Zack Ryder wins the ECW championship, it won't get reported when the other 99 say the opposite. The taping results on PW Insider and 411mania and other similar trustworthy sites (those listed in the style guide) ARE reliable sources for taping results because of the collaborative nature of them. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that you just pulled all of that out of your ass? You don't know how those sites operate. I have also seen spoiler reports from reliable sites (like WON and PW Torch) that conflict with each other. TJ Spyke 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was watching and I'm sure he just pulled it out of his pocket. Tony2Times (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

10 bucks says you can't guess what feels like its in my pocket but isn't. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Take your smart ass attitude and negativity somewhere else. It isn't wanted here. If you want to participate in discussions, you can do it without all the bullshit. Also, do not presume to tell me what I know about how dirtsheet sites operate. I could be Wade Keller or Mark Madden himself for all you know. As for your other statement, it doesn't mean anything. NO website is 100% right 100% of the time. Reliability is based on track record. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And "Joe from Montana" who mails in a report has no track record. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"Joe from Montana" by himself may not be reliable, but when Joe's story is matched by dozens of other people across dozens of other websites, it can be considered reliable. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep if. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 06:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey! what is wrong with "Joe from Montana"? He is a good guy. Quit dogging on Joe.--WillC 06:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If Joe's page isn't a reliable source unless it's matched by a dozen other pages then it shouldn't be used with out a dozen other pages. If It's so unreliable that with out those dozen pages then all of need to be used as a source so whom ever uses wikipedia will have a trust worth source. If that makes it verifiable then that is what must be done. everything on wikipedia should be verifiable from wikipedia. People use this site to get information. We cite sources so anyone can both verify the information is correct as well as use any expandable information contained in the sources. I personally feel that any source that requires so many other sources to be verifiable shouldn't be used. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Doubling up on sources isn't necessarily a bad thing. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

And we're not talking about Joe's page. We're talking about other sites who have been found to be reliable that Joe and dozens of others email with their live reports. The sites listed on the style guide for this project have been proven reliable because they have fact checking systems in place. They're not going to just take Joe's word for it without having other sources to back up the information. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If they don't put up those sources that back up joe Then I and everyone else has to take joes word for it. I can look it up myself to verify joe but if I've come to wikipedia for information I am not looking to verify sources. If you write an article and you verify joe's source with other sources then those need to be used as well. If the source is so weak it took you multiple sources to verify it then it's to weak to stand by it's self for the rest of the world.Doubling up sources will only make the editor and joe more reliable.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling-related AFC submissions

Hi, AFC recently received a good batch of submissions (see list below) related to professional wrestling, and we are unsure whether they should be accepted. If anyone here can take a look and offer some input, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The submissions are:

Hmm, maybe some of the memorial shows as they are for big names and I think I've seen other memorial show articles kicking about; but the titles I don't think are notable enough to be included or if they are, they should be consolidated into one article or maybe even the main promotion's article. Tony2Times (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll accept the memorial shows and hold the titles. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

By just looking at the UCW-Zero Heavyweight Championship, it looks to be notable. Now maybe not in an article all by itself, but a group article for all the titles could work. Call it UCW-Zero Championships, or Championships in UCW-Zero.--WillC 20:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

TNA Global heavyweight title.

It looks like it is an official name change. TNA Acknowledges the name change on it's website it seems. http://www.tnawrestling.com/content/blogsection/5/37/Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks to be the case does any body else think that a move is in order or should we wait and see what happens.--Dcheagle (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally I would wait and see what airs on Spike, but that's just me. ArcAngel (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I would move, I think TNA was trying to get away from the Legends title. Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well lets wait on moving the article until the phyisical belt is changed, but update the article.--WillC 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested in the previous discussion we should wait a while till we know for sure that it isn't just a gimmick title name change. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 20:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We might not have to wait for a belt update and that might not tell us anything anyway. The could be EY's smoking skull title with a smoking skull name to go with it. Tonight might bring an answer to this question. If the belts name has changed they should show something to proves name change. Though I must say I won't be shocked if the name changes again.Even if it is a gimmick name change it may very well still be legit.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it seems everyone is for the update, that the name change is official at this time. I take this as a consensus.--WillC 21:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, do you just see what you want to see? People seem to be split here. Some think it should be changed and some don't. Apparently you think that people who disagree with you don't count (either that, or you are delusional. Based on the past, either is possible). It is not known if this is a real change or just a temp. For those who used to watch WCW, even WCW would call the belt the WCW/nWo World Heavyweight Championship (when a nWo wrestler held it). TJ Spyke 21:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TJ Could you at least pretend to be civil? It's probably the only way to get anything constructive out of ... well anything. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 21:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, TJ needs to be civil. He attacks just about anyone that he doesn't agree with. Instead of a calm debate, he has to post rude remarks. This isn't anything new (as he has done this garbage for quite a while now) and it just needs to stop. Anyways, Will there is no agreement here. It's been a day, and only a few people have posted. That's not a consensus or agreement of any kind. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility is great and all but I think there is probably a wiki article somewhere to discuss that in. :) Perhaps here we can discuss this belt. With respect to those who say nay I must say that there is enough proof to show that this name change is officially recognized by TNA. They have acknowledged it on the tna website. There are no sources to show that EY's belt stipulations are recognized by TNA. It could be that this belt could be won next week by Raven and he could name it the flock world title but that is the unpredictable future and we need only concern ourself with the past and the present. At this present time TNA has shown recognition of the global championship.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no time limit on how long someting must go on or how many are involved to make an agreement. At the moment, I only see one against updating the article to reflect the name change. This isn't WCW TJ, this is TNA. Everyone needs to quit trying to interpretate the meaning, length, etc of actions of a company, and remain correct. So what Storm changed the WCW US Title. Eric Young just changed the Legends Title to the Global Title. It could be for a short time or it could be for the rest of the title's history. That is not our place to decide. It has been renamed and TNA recognize this change. That means it is official for the time period. If it changes back in the future, then the article can be changed to reflect that.--WillC 23:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that though storm renamed those titles WCW still recognized those titles under there original names they never legitimately recognized Storms name change in any serious manner. In this instance TNA has. They may rename it again or EY may lose it in Japan and it float around like the the iwgp titles are in tna. It could become apart of something like the J-Crown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-Crown. It could do a whole lot.

Yeah, you are wrong about WCW. They DID recognize the title change [19] (one quote, for those too lazy to check, is "The Canadian champion for the second night in a row prepared to speak to his home country." After Storm lost the title, they changed it back and never recognized the name change. For all we know, that is what could be happening here. TNA only calling it that because Young does and when Young loses it, they ignore the unofficial nam change. TJ Spyke 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, are you just seeing what you want to see? There are several editors who think we should wait. You think that an even split of opinion after 1 day is somehow consensus for your opinion. TJ Spyke 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We can change the article to reflect those changes. We can only concern ourself with the present. The question now is the sources that say EY changed the name along with TNA's official website that has the title listed in one word as Global Reliable enough to go ahead and change the name. If not what more do you think it would require. I personally feel we have more than enough to make the change but I could see a few arguments against it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC) TJ who other than you is saying they will change it back in the future? We got no source they will change it back. You are just pushing your own opinion that it will be changed back. It doesn't matter what WCW did. This is TNA, stay on subject.--WillC 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I will try and say this nicely, I bring up WCW because of something called precedent (if you are unfamiliar with the word, check dictionary.com or Wikitionary), I was showing how past examples of a promotion calling what a title what its current holder calls it doesn't mean the title name has actually changed. There are several editors agreeing that we should wait awhile (specifically until Young loses the title) to see if the name is permanent or just something they are using because Young uses it, including ArcAngel and sorta you. I had come up with a compromise version (where it maintains the official name, but also mentions Young's unofficial name), but you, as usual, refuse to agree to any compromise. TJ Spyke 15:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing a bit more research Lance Storms name changes where recognized by wcw.[20] I was wrong about that. Now TJ are you saying that they renamed it and never recognized the name change after that? I think they did recognize the name change and never dropped the recognition the name was changed. On the last available Turner owned wcw.com superstar archive that I have been able to access goes to show this [21] wcw under the wwe may have dropped this recognition [22] but I don't know that wcw under it's own steam did drop recognition. They very well may have. Them dropping recognition though means nothing. WCW owned those titles as well as there title history. AWA dropped recognition of Hogans title reigns didn't they? TNA has the right to change the name of this title. They have the right to recognize the titles name change and they have the right to later change their stance on that recognition. They have the right to recognize champions and later to drop the recognition of those champs. case and point the US Title retains it's title history [23] as did the cruiserweight title[24] where as the big gold belt had multiple names as well as title histories associated with it. The precedent that is set is that they can do anything they wish to the physical title that they own as well as the title histories that they own.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The AWA never recognized Hogan as champion, both times he "won" the belt, it was returned to the champ the same night. No one who ever legally owned the rights to the belt as ever considered Hogan a AWA World Heavyweight Champion (Dale Gagner was illegally using the AWA name and never had any authority over any of the AWA belts). Just wanted to point that out. TJ Spyke 18:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No one who owned awa has ever recognized Hogans victories. Neither Verne nor Vince. We know hogan won the title (even legit the second time) but how is it that he never been recognized as champ? Because the AWA owned it and they had the right to do with it as they please. Of the moment there is a global title. TNA owns it and recognizes it as such. That is the right they have. Later if they so decide they can name it something else. That is the right they have. That is the future and I can't see the future.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

TNA calls it the Global championship, so that's how we should do it here. If they change it again, you can rename is here again. Mshake3 (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that can be put into the article is information that is properly sourced. Unless you have a source saying that the title is not recognized by TNA, then we have to say it is the Global Championship. Precedent in other cases doesn't matter, we can't c-ball, or possibilities. Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown (video game series) -> WWE SmackDown vs. Raw (video game series)

Umm. User:WWE Socks moved the titles (in addition to the list of titles), however, he did this without consensus. I don't really mind the change, however, THQ officially recognized the series still as the SmackDown series. But I rather have seen a consensus formed here rather than a change without one. Thoughts? Btw, Socks cited that there have been more SvR's than the original SmackDown games, and I don't see that as a basis for a name change.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it should remain the former as I believe that is the more common term for the series. Who says "Let's play SvR" vs. "Did you get the latest Smackdown game?" ArcAngel (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see and hear a lot of people say "Let's play SmackDown vs. Raw" now since it's been the name of the series for about 4 years. Truco, do you have a link for what THQ considers the name of the series? TJ Spyke 18:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TJ. Almost everyone within my circles both in real life and online, including myself, call the game "Smackdown vs. Raw." Wwehurricane1 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never played any of these games, but looking through the article shows that it has been named "SmackDown vs. Raw" since late 2004. After 5 years, it seems like the company intends to stick with this title. The updated name should be used. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--WillC 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have to wait for a consensus when you have proof of the facts you are representing. It may be preferred but I am not aware that it is required. If it is a part of the smackdown series instead of being it's successor and you have something that proves this then it should be changed back and that source should be used to justify it being changed back.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMONNAME will help us here. WWE seems to call the series SD vs RAW, and I believe that is the most common name. Otherwise we might have to add (featuring ECW), and I don't think anyone wants that. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted

Should this page be Deleted Jeri-Show im not sure if it should or not.--Dcheagle (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think directing to Chris Jericho#SmackDown (2009-present) if anything. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 16:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete or speedy redirect, as per usual for this team (although if they continue holding the titles into 2010, I may change my opinion on their notability as a team). "Jeri-Show" is a nickname used for them, officially they have no name. TJ Spyke 17:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

Just to let the members know, Insane Clown Posse's wrestling career has been moved to Professional wrestling career of Insane Clown Posse. The article now needs to be assessed. Presumably it will still be an FA like the original since not much has been changed. Juggalobrink (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Theres no reason why it should have its own article. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 17:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, completely unneeded.--WillC 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

During the featured article nomination for Insane Clown Posse, it was mentioned that the article seemed too long and should be divided. Creating a section for their professional wrestling career is perfectly practical and acceptable. The article works in the same sense as Military career of Hugo Chávez and Early life of Keith Miller, both of which are featured articles. Juggalobrink (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

1 no such comments were made in the 3rd nomination, this really should've been discussed more before you made the actual move. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It was. See Talk:Insane Clown Posse. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

That's hardly a discussion to base a consensus off. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 11:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeri-show

I am bringing this up again because there is STILL disagreement about whether Jeri-show is an official name or not. I believe it is. Besides all of the web references I presented last time this issue was brought up AND the fact that they've called themselves and been called by this name MULTIPLE times on television, there is new evidence to support the "official name" argument. For those that missed it, this past Monday night on Raw, WWE ran a graphic MULTIPLE times during the show promoting the main event of DX vs. Jeri-show. That's right, the graphic on Raw said "Jeri-show." Why would the WWE's graphic team go through the trouble of making a graphic that says that if it wasn't an official name? We need to come to a consensus on this (again) so that people will stop changing it back and forth. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that's good proof, but I somehow doubt the more vocal members of this project will think so. Many don't like names, then claim they aren't notable or claim they are just nicknames. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Also we don't title things by what they are but by what they are commonly called and a fair few wrestling journalists that I read say JeriShow, Big Show referring to themselves as it and having them billed as it on the Raw screen (which seldom happens as WWE seem to be mostly against team names on their graphics, DX&Cryme Tyme aside) really concretes the deal for me. Tony2Times (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a nickname but seems to have been adapted as real. If we have proof it is official, then lets use it.--WillC 04:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

On this page, there is a section called "Chronological list of active events" and a section called "Upcoming pay-per-view schedule." I feel that both of these sections give pretty much the exact same information and should be consolidated into one section. Having two sections with the same basic info is redundant. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We could consolidate the two grids by adding a next date & next venue column in the first table. Tony2Times (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the first table needed at all? The date the event was first held and any previous names can be found on that event's main article. My opinion is that only the second table is needed. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the top table is a list of currently known active events, the bottom is a list of confirmed upcoming PPVs, 2 different things. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's not two different things. The known active events ARE the upcoming pay-per-views. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a list, all the information can be found elsewhere but a list collates this information like where it's first held &c. If that information isn't needed, then the information about when former PPVs were held isn't needed either so it would become a list of upcoming PPVs, which can be found on their individual pages so by that logic the whole page should be deleted. Tony2Times (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a fair point. My main issue is that those two tables are basically the same information being listed on the same page twice, not really that the info can be found elsewhere. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I say move the article to World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view event titles. Then rewrite the article from a list to an actual indepth article over each PPV chronology event. But that is just me. I plan to do that with the TNA article, and write one about the ROH events in the same manner. Of course this is before I create an article listing all PPV events. Thought to throw that out there.--WillC 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Danny Miller

Anyone have any information on a wrestler named Danny Miller? Apparently we don't have an article on him, and he was the first WCW TV Champion. He may be notable, just thought to see if anyone knew where to find some info on him.--WillC 08:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[25] pretty much the only source I can really find on the wrestler with a quick search, other than that it all seems to be about the MMA Fighter, I'll keep looking though. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 12:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

^ "Live & Televised Entertainment of World Wrestling Entertainment". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-11.
^ "WWE Launches ECW As Third Brand". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-11.
^ "WWE Pay-Per-Views To Follow WrestleMania Formula". World Wrestling Entertainment. 2007-03-14. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

[1] "Live & Televised Entertainment of World Wrestling Entertainment". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-11.

[2] "WWE Launches ECW As Third Brand". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2009-01-11.

[3] "WWE Pay-Per-Views To Follow WrestleMania Formula". World Wrestling Entertainment. 2007-03-14. Retrieved 2009-10-04.

[1]

[2]

[3]