Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 77

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 75

Newsletter

Heads up that a message will be sent to everybody in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants today. Long story short, if you wish to keep reciving the full newsletter, add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16. This is due to concerns over the length of the talk pages of some members who are no longer active, but still receive the newsletter - resulting in accessibility problems due to the sheer length of their talk pages.
Just to note that if you no longer want the full newsletter delivered, and just want a notification, you can add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Notification list. If you no longer want any notification of the newsletter, you can add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam. Apologies for any incovenience caused, and thanks for the co-operation. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revert to redirect or disambiguation page

I propose we split Unified WWE Tag Team Championship page up again, I opposed it once and then supported it due to other reasons. However, I am now seeing that this "title" is just that, a "title (or name)" for the two championships being together, and it is not a legitimate championship that WWE endorses as one that will have its own history. The Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is more like an "era" for both titles. Just as the "Undisputed Championship" was an era for the WWE Championship (and momentarily for the WCW Championship). I propose that in each article, it be noted that between certain dates, the tag team championship was a part of the "Unified era". Since both titles kept their history, and both pages are doing exactly the same as the other which in turn counts as "content forking." Whats in the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is just what is in the List and main pages of the WWE and World Tag Team Championships. "As a Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, this title was unified with its counterpart, the World Tag Team Championship, but both retained their respective identities and histories. What made the unification unique was that the champions won both of the WWE's tag team championships, and not just one title; they were recorded as champions under each title's history. Both champions also wore both belts, as opposed to just one. Since its start in 2009, there have been (insert #) champions under this era." <- add something like that to the prose in the main page and the list (but do not separate the list into sections like that, keep it all continuous. If WWE wanted to have a separate title, they would have made a separate championship for such unification.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What to do about the move requests?

Almost all the requests haven't been edited in a week what should we do about this? Close them upon Neutral or keep them open and wait for a real consensus to come?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep them open. Miszabot won't archive them and we gain nothing by closing them when we can gain by leaving them open. Consensus will eventually appear, lets be patient. Feedback 23:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few requests I think we can close as a no move or a move. The one I think we can move: Rodney Anoa'i → Yokozuna (wrestler). No move: Amy Dumas → Lita (wrestler), and TJ Wilson → Tyson Kidd and Harry Smith (wrestler) → David Hart Smith. Is that ok?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Have there been comments in the past week? If not, it might be time to close them. If there have been comments in the past week, the discussion is obviously still ongoing. Since the most recent comments in some of these discussions were yesterday (or even today), we should never assume that it is best to cut off discussion. People might be out of town for the weekend, having temporary computer trouble, or even enjoying real life. Since it's a discussion, not a vote, give them a chance to respond. Looking over some of the recent discussions, there's a good chance that some people will end up changing their minds anyway. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Moves (Dragon Gate Titles)

I didn't wanna reopen the Proposed Moves section, so I thought I'd start a new one. I don't think I've ever seen anywhere refer to DG's titles as "Dragon Gate Open The Dream Gate Championship" or any of the other titles in the same way. With WWE's WHC we have it as World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), with the brackets as a qualifer but I don't think anything exists anywhere in the world called Open The Dream Gate Championship &c. Hence I think all of the DG titles should be moved. Tony2Times (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me.--WillC 06:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE Fatal 4 Way poster fake

A guy named, or who referred to himself as Alexander Cage from another website had this to say:

Actually, that poster it's my creation. I made the poster look almost real, then I put him on specialized sites. He appeared on wiki page and wrestling sites and it’s presented as real…

The image he refers to is File:A3zhu9-1-.jpg which is on the WWE Fatal 4 Way article. He also posted this, how he photoshopped it: http://i43.tinypic.com/2quooaq.jpg . The uploader is User:JJJJ101, who I suspect Alexander Cage to be, since this user has uploaded various WWE themed styled posters for pay-per-views in the past and were all deleted. An administrator needs to do away with the fake image and block the user for introducing copyright violations and general misinformation to the encyclopedia. — ℳℴℯ ε 00:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we start bringing in some blocks here, JJJJ101 did cite gerweck.net as the source so the fault here possibly lies on the reporting from that website. As for the rest of his uploads, they look to be mostly copyvio photos and not posters. From that I don't really think they are the same person. -- Θaks ter 09:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions page?

I've been working on a subpage for sometime now and I think it's time we have the page. User:Curtis23/List of Unified WWE Tag Team Champions check out and tell me what you think.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, these reigns are pretty much covered in List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) and List of WWE Tag Team Champions. In fact, I don't see the need for the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship article altogether. Feedback 18:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, content forking. -- Θaks ter 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So do we nominate WWE Unified Tag Team Championship at AFD? Feedback 20:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Washington Show

Redirect Abraham Washington Show to Brian Jossie? ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Support--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Support Not notable for its own page.--Steam Iron 06:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Done ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

7 1/2 hours to declare consensus. That's just not how Wikipedia works. If you want to be bold and redirect it, then be bold and redirect it. If you want to start a discussion, allow a discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GFC it's obvious this doesn't warrant a page.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Chill, he's just making his daily rounds.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He has a point. If it was obvious, there was no reason to bring it up at WT:PW. People should fix the obvious edits themselves, while the doubtful edits should be brought up for discussion. If it was as obvious as Curtis says, there was no reason to bring it up here. And you can't just redirect an article like that, the page history should be removed and therefore the article should be deleted. AFD is the way to go. Feedback 02:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to say but I believe that our pretty project has no guideline to dictate what can and cannot be brought up on our talk page. You also shouldn't fall flat to assume what the actual situation was with redirecting this page. I kept an eye on the user who created the page in the first place and based on the behavior of his contributions, I figured that it would be best to bring this to the project and avoid any potential conflict later on. Now if your response was only made simply because GFC was the dude who made the comment above... well then I can totally understand that too. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL. so you're saying he goes around saying "this hasn't reached consensus yet".--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 02:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was the original joke. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No bullteproof, I'm saying it because I disagree/oppose and wasn't given the proper time to post it here. Why do I oppose? Because the page history shouldn't be maintained and the proper way to get rid of a page is to take it to AFD not manually redirect it. I believed the article should have been taken to AFD instead, but two users supported your decision and you decided to go ahead with it. I don't care if GCF was the one who said it or not, I personally would have liked to contribute to discussion so the proper solution should have been held. Nevertheless, I suggest discussion be reopened or at least continued so we can talk about reverting the redirect and nominating it at AFD. Feedback 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the page history be maintained? I've never read anything about that, and I've certainly manually redirected articles in the past. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Eve Torres

We seem to have a conflict issue over Eve's ring name. On the one hand, WWE.com promotes her as just "Eve". However, Justin Roberts has been consistenty calling her by her full name on TV - both on Raw and on pay per view. Someone noted a secondary source which backs the website and admittedly I haven't checked it yet to see if it's truly independent in this case, or if it's just following the primary source like a sheep (as some even reliable sources can do sometimes). Personally I believe that actual use of the ring name relies heavily on the TV presentation and not the website. The two clash as a result because usually we prefer websites as sources if they are reliable (and WWE.com is usually good for this). We need to sort this out and if needed perhaps a review of certain rule applications should be done. !! Justa Punk !! 00:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow WWE.com... simple as that. –Turian (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever she was billed as when she won the title is what we should list her as.--WillC 01:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

And how do you plan on citing that? –Turian (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fairly certain that when she won the title she was indeed called "Eve Torres". Citing it? I can't see it because it's US only, but the clip is available on hula.com. If I'm right - cite the video. Oh and Turian - TV is a better source than WWE.com. !! Justa Punk !! 02:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd just say make them both ring names like Eve and Eve Torres--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 02:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of sourcing, Hulu.com is a bad source per #7 in WP:ELNO. I'm not exactly sure if this is totally suitable, but {{Cite episode}} might work. -- Θaks ter 09:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Cite episode, clear, cut, and easy. We just have to know what was stated beforehand. Source should be taken under good faith, and we can cross reference it with either a video on WWE.com or hulu. We just don't cite hulu as the source, the broadcast would be the source.--WillC 10:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Will. Thanks. !! Justa Punk !! 11:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's no video on dotcom but the official results write-up for the evening lists her sans surname. Tony2Times (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is why no one should be avoiding the glaringly obvious (something members of this project have issues with). –Turian (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Justa Punk and 2 other users believe her ring name is Eve Torres. The majority knows her ring name is simply Eve. Look on WWE.com, and all the wiki sites Eve Torres, List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, WWE Divas Championship, List of WWE Divas Champions and finally List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment. Everywhere there is simply Eve. --Hixteilchen (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

There is video here. The commentators refer to her as Eve throughout, but the ringside announcer uses the name "Eve Torres" when she wins, plus the caption that appears is "New Divas Champion Eve Torres" (watch from about 1:30). Make of that what you will. 89.168.86.16 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously who gives a damn? Next, someone is going to propose a move to "Eve (wrestler)" Sigh... Feedback 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the people who continue to change 'give a damn'... –Turian (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So polease take WWE.com as a reliable source and wiki. Thank you! --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No I won't and under WP rules I have a right to - because she was announced by her full name when she won the title (TY IP 89). WP can not be used as evidence. The commentators constantly call all Divas by their first name no matter what (that included Beth Phoenix and it included Mickie James as well before her release). It's just like them constantly referring to the male wrestlers by their surname (where there is one). The video shows a primary source clash, so both apply. It then becomes an internal Wikipedia situation with her article - which is why it should be Eve Torres. The only way it could become Eve (wrestler) is if all reference to her surname disappears completely from WWE programming. At this point it has not. !! Justa Punk !! 04:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. Notability on TV production can very much contradict website content. If there's a video source, use it. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Really I don't care which one it is. I just want things correct.--WillC 06:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They're both correct. My God, its the same name. Seriously, people think they are so cool because they get to freely edit articles and can add whatever they want. Its the only reason why such a stupid discussion ever even happens. People should care more about improving the encyclopedia instead of being able to get their way when it comes to trivial matters such as this. Feedback 06:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. When one assists an encyclopedia to be accurate and correct - there is no such thing as trivial. Anyway, it looks like the issue has been resolved now. !! Justa Punk !! 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Split "The Hart Dynasty" from The Hart Foundation

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

Looks like the Hart Dynasty will have their own page.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Hart Dynasty are notable enough in their own right and don't need to be in the Hart Foundation article. They have been tag teaming since 2002 and have been in WWE since 2007. They have appeared on the main roster since 2009 and in WWE, they have won the FCW tag titles and most recently the WWE Unified Tag Titles. Feedback 04:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree.--WillC 05:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support--07:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Support: because The Hart Dynasty has created their own history together.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

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

"Money in the Bank"

"Money in the Bank" This page has been created way two early.--Steam Iron 10:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirected to Money in the Bank ladder match^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 10:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why does it have the quotes ("") No one will be searching for the quotes. I'd nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Feedback 16:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah. The redirection was right. When the article is created, there won't be quotation marks. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How is the redirection right? No one will ever be searching for this term. Feedback 22:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected it to the more generic Money in the Bank, seems a better page to link to. -- Θaks ter 15:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be taken to RFD. The redirect shouldn't exist- no one will search for it with the quotes. Feedback 17:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm spend time on deleting a redirect that's harmless ... or improve existing articles.... yeah I know what I'd spend time on. MPJ -DK 19:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Send out this

I've made a Template to send out to everyone here to see if they're active. ~~and if they don't put there name in 2 weeks from the time of send out they get removed from the members list~~. Good idea?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proofread, Proofread, Proofread. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And not a good idea because it smacks of a dictatorship. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proofread is right, that is horribly written. On another note, there is no need to remove anyone from the overall members list. We can just keep a "members list" and an "Active members list". They both serve different purposes. Feedback 05:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. You guys misunderstood my comment. First of all, how is it horribly written? Secondly how about an Active members section of the members list and an inactive section?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence doesn't make any sense because you didn't read what you wrote. It also doesn't end with punctuation. The third sentence is completely redundant and is a sentence fragment anyway. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we did not misunderstand. You literally said: if they don't put there name in 2 weeks from the time of send out they get removed from the members list.. Then you asked: Good idea? Well, no its a bad idea. And the grammar is really off. Any of us would edit it if it were not in your userspace. By the way, would it kill you to use proper indentation (":") when you post? I'm sure I'm not the first to mention it to you as someone in ANI mentioned it to you earlier. Feedback 22:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the last part of the last comment. Ok I'm going to edit it. Now ignore my first comment and look at my second comment.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited and proofread. Is it ok now?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it... why don't you use proper indentation? You don't have to, but could you at least explain it to me? Feedback 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forget sometimes but this isn't about me, did you re-read the template?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I read it. "to see" is slang. The correct term would be "to verify". Also, the structure of the sentence is way off. Altogether, why not write: "This is a message from the Professional wrestling WikiProject to verify your status as a member. If you are indeed actively editing as a member of the project, it is imperative you add your name here. Thank you."? Feedback 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to edit it again ok.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edited once again.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is out of topic, but the indentation thing is really annoying. How hard is it to find out how many ":" you have to add before a sentence? Regardless, I fixed them all for you. Now, about the template, you obviously don't know how to utilize the "," (comma). When you have two different sentences, they are seperated by either a ";" (semi-colon) or a "." (period). Feedback 23:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I know how to use a comma and if there are commas instead of periods it's a typo.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you placed a comma directly before "if" when you started a new sentence. You are trying to create a compound sentence by solely using a comma. If you want a compound sentence, you use conjunctions or semi-colons. Feedback 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How is this out of topic?!--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... Just read WP:INDENT. Please. Feedback 23:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, This isn't about indenting this is about my template.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 23:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

When it's done, can we have a conversation about your signature, Curtis23 Curtis23 Curtis23? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll change my signature if that makes you all happy.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've changed my signature let's get back to the template.--Curtis23's Us al ions 00:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a member of the project, so I don't want to comment on the template's usefulness. Rather than just point out punctuation issues, though, would it be okay with you if I just make a few tweaks with the commas? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you post here regularly since 2008, the year you decided to take your name off the list. You're a member of the project, wether you like to be addressed as one or not. Feedback 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

People my template is the discussion here not if GFC a member of the project, and you say i'm off-topic.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20

32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have edited it again, look at it now.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were off topic, I said I was, but remember, the title of a threat doesn't limit what can be discussed. As for the template, do you always spell "proffesional" like that? Feedback 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry when I type too fast I do that in professional.--Curtis23's Us al ions 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Now take a look.--Curtis23's Us al ions 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to send this out or not?--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've lost faith it will ever be well-written. Feedback 02:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with it!!!!!!!???????--Curtis23's Us al ions 02:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"to verify to", "if" instead of "that", the Hello seems generic, plus you use the word "active" three times. Lets just have someone else write it... Feedback 04:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you edit it to your liking.--Curtis23's Us al ions 15:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in this. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I finished rephrasing it, however, I think a "Thank you" would be suitable at the bottom and maybe an explanation on why we are doing this would be beneficial. I didn't add that though until we gain a consensus here first. Feedback 17:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the point in this considering the active members list was mentioned in both the previous newsletter and the one being sent out today. Why does it require a separate message and to what purpose do we have an active members list anyway? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Nici, we have other important matters to do, such as actually improving the Professional wrestling articles that this project was intended to do. Does it matter if 5, 10, 20, or even 1 member is active? In the end we are all members. If lets say my old friend User:Zenlax or User:LAX decided to actively comeback, and they were unaware of the active members list? They would feel like outsiders. Or if someone that edits articles or used to wasn't aware, what difference would it make that they were active or not? Some people may still be active but they may editing else where nowadays versus just pro wrestling articles. I see no need to waste time or effort on something unnecessary.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The active members list is basically a census movement to diagnose which editors are not only editing professional wrestling articles, but participating in discussions here on WP:PW. Those who are active editing elsewhere are not active members of WP:PW. I find it mightily helpful to know who is editing and discussing because those people would be the first I'd go to for ideas, opinions, help and doubts. Feedback 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you just get that info from THIS page? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers AGAIN!

Seems that the WWE IC title was vacated at the Smackdown taping and some users are trying to pre-empt transmission yet again. Watch the articles concerned. As before we don't know if it'll be correct until Smackdown is transmitted in Australia in a little over 27 hours time. !! Justa Punk !! 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

A show doesn't have to be transmitted to be verifiable. There were thousands in attendance... When those thousand log in to Wikipedia and see inaccurate information like Drew McIntyre having the title and still counting days on his reign, that just makes Wikipedia look bad. They saw it, it happened, end of story. Feedback 03:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPOILERS "It is not acceptable to delete information". Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pro wrestling does not fit the rules of WP:SPOILER. What counts is what is shown on TV - not what is created (and may end up hitting the cutting room floor for all we know). !! Justa Punk !! 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Who cares if it hit the cutting room floor? It happened. No amount of editing will change that. Feedback 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

We have several reliable sources reporting this information. That is enough justification.--WillC 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course wrestling fits the rules of WP:SPOILER, we're nothing special or unique - it HAS happened, whether it's shown is another thing but it has happened and we can't just sit there like three monkeys and go "If Vince says it hasn't happened we've heard nothing, seen nothing and said nothing". What matters is Reliable sources, that's what matters - I can't believe we're having this conversation every single time something happens on Smackdown that someone wants to put in an article. Get over it, if there is a reliable source it's against policy to delete it. MPJ -DK 04:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it's NOT official until it's transmitted, MPJ. Remember the Rockers winning the tag titles? That "never happened". The issue with Smackdown before now has been it's transmission in the United States - because it is pre-empted by transmission in Australia, and US users don't like it. You talk like everything that happens at a live event is official, when it isn't until it's recognised by the promotion itself. That's the difference between not just WWE but TNA as well and the rest of those affected by WP:SPOILER. We don't know for sure until the show is transmitted. Bottom line. It's all speculation until then. !! Justa Punk !! 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If its not recognised at a later date we can always change the information, its not stuck in stone, the fact that US users don't like spoilers isn't our problem. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 22:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many times has a title change been filmed by WWE and not aired? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you guys can add it tomorrow morning, it airs in Australia on Thursday evenings. Move on to better things than a discussion that has been talked about more than hundreds of times.Truco ₅₀₃ 02:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Small correction, Truco. It's seen here on Friday afternoon, not Thursday night. Unless you mean US time, in which case you'd be right. As I post this, it starts in 2 hours time. Hurricane, it's happened once (Rockers/Harts) that I'm aware of and that's one too many times. !! Justa Punk !! 03:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if it's "official" or not, it has happened, it is a fact, if it's later changed then that's a a fact as well. And Wikipedia deals in facts, not "Has Vince said it's alright to mentione it". Every single time this happens someone always wants to make it Vinceapedia, even he cannot change the fact that they did announce it at the taping, he can just change his mind and PRETEND it did not happen. So can we PLEASE stop having this conversation again and again and again? Just a Punk and others, just go read the 7000 other identital discussions on the matter. MPJ -DK 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If it has been filmed and reported on many sites it'll it is almost certain that it'll be aired.--Curtis23's Us al ions 02:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It has now aired in Australia - it was first up. !! Justa Punk !! 05:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and MPJ - if you were right, the Rockers did win the WWF tag team titles. It happened. but guess what? It didn't. So it is NOT fact - until it airs. Wrestling promotions have changed and ignored history before and they'll do it again. There's a fact for you. I suggest that it's you who needs to go read another discussion, because this is unique in wrestling. The end. !! Justa Punk !! 05:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Justa, you're acting like its all set in stone and can't possibly be changed in future to fix different facts, I don't see why you have such a problem with displaying "spoilers", personally if we're gonna have a stupid argument like this I'd prefer if we got an outside opinion on this and settled it on the outside opinion, and Wrestling is not unique to WP:Spoiler if it was I'm sure wrestling would somehow be mentioned in it. Afro (Blah Blah Here) ^{- Afkatk} 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What's set in stone, Afro, is prohibition of speculation. I go back again to the Rockers and the Hart Foundation as the perfect example. The match (to my knowledge) was never transmitted - even though it was a title change. There are examples of situations which have occurred at a taping, and have not been transmitted. It's all very well to say "it happened", when wrestling (unlike any other subject covered by WP:SPOILER) can kill something with a simple decision by the promotion. Knowledge of this makes it clear as glass that as long as there is a chance - even a remote one - that the title change would be pulled from transmission, it doesn't matter how many reliable sources report it. It can't be confirmed 100 percent until the show is transmitted - so it qualifies as speculation. It may end up being true speculation, but it's still speculation. The final call is the promotion's and we won't see the result until TV transmission. Of interest in this latest episode - did any spoilers advise of McIntyre's kayfabe firing? I didn't see any, although I probably didn't see all of them. !! Justa Punk !! 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2], both Reliable Sources, like I said its not set in stone (link if you need an explanation) and can be changed at a later date if need be, if you want to go back to the Rockers/Hart Foundation tag team I could easily argue that if Wikipedia was round at this current state at the time no doubt would the changed be added to the history and then changed at a later date when the WWE didn't recognise it, and hell maybe you're right, maybe it can't be 100% confirmed till the actual transmission of the show but WP:VERIFY states in the opening sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so as far as I'm concerned the 2 sources I provided just now would attribute that the content could be included beforehand, Wrestling is NOT exempt from WP:Spoiler I'll repeat that, like I said we can get an outsiders opinion on this if you like I'm sure they'd the exact same thing. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It is also important to note that the issue with the Rockers happened almost twenty years ago and as far as I know there has not been a similar case for the WWE since. I think we can safely say if the porblems of this nature are this rare we can rely on the live events.--76.71.208.250 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 77 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The issue on which an opinion was requested was "whether Professional wrestling is exempt from WP:Spoiler," and this opinion is limited only to that issue. WP:Spoiler only specifically addresses "narrative work[s]," "plot[s]," and "work[s] of fiction." I'm sure that we could get into a lively debate here over the issue of whether professional wrestling may or may not fall into those categories, but that debate is unneeded. The logic on which that guideline is built clearly says that Wikipedia's goal to be complete and comprehensive overrides any concern that someone's enjoyment of an event or other thing might be spoiled and that, "Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality..." (Emphasis added.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Response - Having read through the thread, I believe that the Third Opinion (which, it should be noted, is not an approved method of dispute resolution in this case because there are more than two individuals involved) does not address the key point, and I find myself agreeing with JustaPunk. This thread has gotten way off track because people are trying to portray this as a dispute over "spoilers", when it actually has nothing to do with "spoiling" the show for readers. Many matches are taped, some are reported on by reliable sources, and a few are televised (with others simply not acknowledged or considered to have never happened). This seems like a direct parallel to shooting a movie. If a reporter is on the set and sees a movie company shooting a scene for the next Harry Potter movie in which Ron kills Harry, the reporter might leak that information. The scene might be cut from the final version of the movie. When the movie is released and someone writes about the plot, would the article have to state that Ron kills Harry in the movie simply because it is covered by a reliable source? What would that look like? "During the final battle, Ron attacks Harry and kills him. Ron also does not attack Harry, so Harry, both dead and alive, continues to fight." Are all alternative endings and deleted scenes considered canonical if, and only if a reliable source was present on that day of shooting (or, perhaps a better parallel, if some guy with no credentials claims to have been there and e-mails a reliable source with the information)? WWE is a work of fiction in this sense, so when something hits the cutting room floor, it didn't happen. This doesn't make it Vinceipedia any more than not adding incorrect information into movie articles makes it PeterJacksonipedia or JKRowlingipedia. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has to make a decision--do we report potentially incorrect information just because we can, or do we do the responsible thing and wait 2 days for official confirmation? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's an awful analogy. Movies are private endeavors which are meant to be seen on film. WWE's events are meant to be seen live and their tapings later be distributed. The thousands in attendance at the live event saw the changes happen. Regardless of anything being dropped on the cutting room floor doesn't change that fact. If WWE decides to revert the decision or make up some explanation that nullifies the change then that will also be noted just as it happened with Kurt Angle's first TNA title reign or with The Rockers/Harts. Feedback 15:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  - You seem to imply that nobody watches a movie being filmed. I don't think I can agree with you on that. Some people see events happen that are later cut from the finished product. It is a direct parallel. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    - That isn't a worthwhile argument. You know that movies are meant to be seen after they are filmed and edited. The people watching the movie being taped are irrelevant. The taped scenes are not the product that is going to be marketed and sold; only the final edited version will be. In WWE's case, they sell tickets for the taping and what is marketed and sold is the live event itself with the taped event being distributed afterwards just like a football or baseball game. Feedback 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Further response - I think it is also important to investigate how reliable the "reliable sources" are for this information. Yes, PWTorch tends to be reliable. Let's take a look at the article, though. It credits the information to ProWrestling.net (not a reliable source), who in turn credits it to some guy off the street with the screen name "JaySin" (not even close to a reliable source). WrestleView also reports the information but credits it to the Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Since WON is subscription-only, I can't verify the original source of information, but I do remember seeing match results in some WON back issues that were mailed in by the JaySins of the world (not even close to reliable sources). The information doesn't seem verifiable, and even if it is, it doesn't make is accurate. As always, waiting 2 days can overcome both concerns. So, is Wikipedia a dirtsheet newz report, or is it an encyclopedia with some sort of meaningful editorial policies? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Here, I agree with you. Although some 3rd-parties are reliable, most of them tend to get their information from another 3rd-party (4-th party if I may). And because these 3rd-party sites do not have guidelines like WP:RL, they tend to accept any fan report which may or not be true, and regardless, are indeed unverifiable. Feedback 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Re Third Opinion: Let me acknowledge that GaryColemanFan is correct that the third opinion project designates its use for conflicts involving two editors. Whether it should be limited to that is a debate which goes back to the very beginning of the project and the 3O FAQ indeed recognizes that it is acceptable to give opinions on disputes involving more than one user if the dispute can be broken down into two fairly distinct sides. On the question of whether WP:Spoiler applies, there can only be two positions: it does or it doesn't, so my opinion was properly given in this case. In any event, however, even if you don't consider my opinion to properly come within the purview of the 3O project, Third Opinions are not binding in any event, I am a neutral on the matter, and you can take it for what it's worth. As for whether the spoiler issue misses the point, whether it does or doesn't (about which I express no opinion), my opinion only addresses the spoiler question that was posted at the 3O site. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- You sound like a bot, relax and take a breath, no one is fighting with you. We're just having a healthy debate on a Wikipedia talk page. Chill. Feedback 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, the analogy GCF gave is perfect. The only events that WWE put on that don't fit the bill are the pay per views, and Raw (except when it's taped in England for instance). Any taping (like a movie) CAN be edited to leave out information. Smackdown has been known to over run before so something has to hit the cutting room floor (I know a few times it over ran prior to ECW going out live on Tuesday nights when they did that). TV shows are the same in general.

On the third opinion, reference is made to "neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality" with the emphasis on completeness. This is spot on, because this is the key to what I've said from the beginning about speculation. Speculation is inherently incomplete, unencyclopaedic and very suspect under NPOV (and I mean the sources - not the users adding them). The bias that exists is that people love to read spoilers so it wouldn't be above a dirtsheet to exaggerate just for a few extra website hits. Especially when it comes to title changes.

I think the key here is article quality. It's best to avoid speculation in order to achieve article quality - and anything added about any non live presentation upon it's "creation" is speculation. WP:SPOILER (as I recall) was written to stop complaints about spoilers after an actual transmission in one location. For example, British SciFi show Doctor Who is shown in the UK first, but later in the US and Australia. Once it is shown in the UK - that's it (which was previously seen as an issue but it's not). The same applies for Raw in Australia (the US sees it before everyone else) and Smackdown in the US (Australia sees it before everyone else. I originally put pro wrestling as a unique issue. GCF's contribution has actually caused me to change that because what he said is absolutely correct. !! Justa Punk !! 10:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it. A wrestling event doesn't need to be "presented" on TV as you say. The event itself is the presentation (its in front of thousands od paying clients). If something is removed for the TV broadcast, like dark matches, it doesn't change that they happen. Every PPV article that had a dark match lists it in their match listing. With your philosophy, we should remove the dark matches because they "weren't presented". Well, they were, and it was in front of a live crowd of thousands of people who were witnesses to it and paid to see it. Any argument you say to disprove that is null, because this isn't an opinion, its a fact. Whatever happens at a wrestling event happens. No one can change that. You can choose what is broadcasted, but you can't change what happened. And no, this isn't a movie, there are no such things as outtakes when you're a live performer (a better comparison would be wrestling and broadway, not movie industry). Feedback 15:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it has aired in all parts of the world now, put it to rest fellow members. Spoilers are acceptable as long as a reputable source has reported it or if it has aired else where in the world (ie. [in US Time] on Thursdays in Australia).--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem. Why does it have to air to become reportable? Thousands of people see it in the arena. Each one of those people are as important as the ones watching at home. Feedback 20:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the intent of tapings is to transmit. That doesn't apply to dark matches or other tour events. It's no different to live audiences for Home Improvement or Friends etc etc. So no - they are NOT as important as those at home. In fact they (the live audience) are hindrances due to speculation - which is inherent on such a scenario. And I'll say this again - a wrestling promotion CAN make things not happen. Just like a movie or TV producer. It doesn't matter how many people report it - if the promotion says "No it didn't happen" that's what counts because they control the publicity side of things. So until a decision is made by transmission - it is all speculation. Either way. And on that note - I'm done with this section because I've said all that needs to be said and I'll just be repeating myself if I comment again. !! Justa Punk !! 00:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, you have said all what you could say. The problem is that what you've said is wrong. Promotions cannot reverse anything that has happened. In fact, that's literally impossible. All they can choose to do is choose to ignore or acknowledge it. Regardless which one they choose, the encyclopedia will still report it. If they decide to ignore it, we will add that too (like The Rockers/Harts), but it doesn't change that it happened and that it does have a place in the encyclopedia. Therefore, it should be reported immediately after it happened. Feedback 01:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

And that's the bottom line, 'cause some schmoe off the street with the message board screen name "JaySin" said so. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the report came from a random fan. If it is run on a website we deem reliable, then the report is considered reliable because the website is giving it's blessing by allowing it on there. I don't think anyone is considering this viewpoint. Mshake3 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

For those of you saying the thousands of fans in attendance who witnessed something happening are not good enough, why do we list dark matches on the cards for pay-per-view articles? How do we know those matches really happened if we don't take the word of those in attendance? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Improve Alumnis

Hi. I think that we can improve the Alumnis articles. We can write the date when the wrestler was fired (for example, Gregory Helms was fired 26 February, but in the alumni only is 2010. Also, we can write the position of the people, for example, Wrestler, Trainer, Road Agent, WWE Owner... For example, I see Jim Korderas in the ALumni, but i don't know that is a Referee and i Think that he is a Wrestler. Also, we can write why was the wrestler, referee, trainer... fired--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If we're gonna put in referees and road agents then I definitely think there's room for listing that, I didn't realise we did. Putting an exact date will be harder the further we go back, but then aren't there plenty of lists which are still of a high quality even when only some of them have exact dates, some have months? I think it's doable even if it's not uniform. The reason why they were fired would be very, very hard to source. WWE are the only people who explicitly say when they've fired someone (except for TNA with Bubba because he was that contemptable) and even then they normally go the route of "creative had nothing" to avoid legal wrangling. Basically it would be impossible to list a reason for a high majority of wrestlers being released.Tony2Times (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The type of information you wish to add would be extremely difficult to collect as not all exact dates of termination are known, and as to the reason why they were released that is purely speculation and would add absolutely nothing to the article. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people served as various descriptions (some are Trainers, Road Agents and wrestlers), the reasons are disclosed by the company and not all release dates are verifiable/sourceable. Its a good idea, but only in a world where all knowledge is easily obtainable and in that case, Wikipedia would be unnecessary. Feedback 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling terms

I've just posting here to tell you that I've added some new coding into List of professional wrestling terms, making it easier to link to specific terms within the list (as opposed to before when you could only link to the first letter). For instance, instead of typing [[List of professional wrestling terms#D|Dark]], you can type [[List of professional wrestling terms#Dark match|Dark]] and it will link to the term itself. Hope this helps. -- Θaks ter 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, much needed. Tony2Times (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Kaz and Super Eric's Tag Title Reign

Alright, so I understand it wasn't "officially recognized" which makes the Wikipedia community want to recognize it even more. As I understand it, it was very similar to Jericho's win over Triple H: On the April 17 edition of Raw, Jericho upset Triple H in a WWF Championship match. Referee Earl Hebner made a fast count when Jericho pinned Triple H, causing Jericho to win the title.[29] After previous weeks of assault on referee Earl Hebner, Triple H told him that if Hebner reversed the decision, he would never touch Hebner while he was under contract. Hebner reversed the decision, and Triple H fired Hebner and assaulted him. Despite Jericho's pinfall win over Triple H, WWE does not recognize Jericho's reign as champion.

On wikipedia's WWE belt's list this reign is not recognized either. So, I do not think we should count Kaz and Super Eric as champions either. Their reign is listed as >1 day. I can not see a difference between these two examples. Who agrees with me? 71.185.250.142 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Disagree, the title reign was recognized by TNA and Kaz and Young were stripped of the titles. Afterwards, TNA chose to not recognize the reign. Thus it officially happened, but is not apart of today's TNA company view.--WillC 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Will Cornette stripped them of the title, can't strip someone of a title if they're not the champs MPJ -DK 04:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense.71.185.250.142 (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

But TNA's page don't say that this regin are official.Also, TNA.com saids "AJ Styles & Tomko October 14, 2007 Atlanta, GA

(Styles & Tomko are stripped of the title on April 15, 2008 after a controversial loss to Kaz & Super Eric) The Latin American Xchange May 11, 2008 Orlando, Florida" nor Kaz & Super Eric are stripped of the titles...--83.49.58.43 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you not read the above posts, I said that they no longer recognize it today. The reign still occurred, you can't rewrite history.--WillC 05:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why we can't rewrite the history? If Kaz win the TNA World title, TNA never will say that he is a Triple Crown champion, because TNA doesn't recogniced the Tag team regin, but we will say that he is a Triple Crown Champion. Also, if he win the Global title, we will say that he is a Grand Slam champion, but TNA never will say it because his regin as Tag Team Champion never ocurred. What is a worst fact, rewrite the history according a soucre or invent the history without soucres?--80.39.21.27 (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't list him as winning either. Just leave a note saying TNA does not recognize his tag reign, however he would be considered a triple crown or grand slam with that reign. No additions since there would be no source. Just the simple truth that would be covered by commonsense.--WillC 05:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revert to redirect or disambiguation page (2nd attempt)

2nd try to get some response...

I propose we split Unified WWE Tag Team Championship page up again, I opposed it once and then supported it due to other reasons. However, I am now seeing that this "title" is just that, a "title (or name)" for the two championships being together, and it is not a legitimate championship that WWE endorses as one that will have its own history. The Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is more like an "era" for both titles. Just as the "Undisputed Championship" was an era for the WWE Championship (and momentarily for the WCW Championship). I propose that in each article, it be noted that between certain dates, the tag team championship was a part of the "Unified era". Since both titles kept their history, and both pages are doing exactly the same as the other which in turn counts as "content forking." Whats in the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is just what is in the List and main pages of the WWE and World Tag Team Championships. "As a Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, this title was unified with its counterpart, the World Tag Team Championship, but both retained their respective identities and histories. What made the unification unique was that the champions won both of the WWE's tag team championships, and not just one title; they were recorded as champions under each title's history. Both champions also wore both belts, as opposed to just one. Since its start in 2009, there have been (insert #) champions under this era." <- add something like that to the prose in the main page and the list (but do not separate the list into sections like that, keep it all continuous. If WWE wanted to have a separate title, they would have made a separate championship for such unification.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can split up J-Crown, then you can split up this one. Mshake3 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Mshake3. Feedback 07:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

@Mshake, you can't compare the J-Crown to the Unified WWE Tag Titles. The J-Crown was an eight-title unification through various promotions and internationally. The WWE Tag Titles are two belts within one company that have remained active with the same history and retained their identity. When X-Pac won both the WCW Cruiserweight Championship and WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, the titles were unified but each retained their identity and history. If WWE were to abolish references to the old WWE/World Tag Team title histories and consider the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship" reigns distinct from them, then would it be okay since the title would have a separate identity. Basically right now, the articles WWE Tag Team Championship, World Tag Team Championship (WWE), Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, List of WWE Tag Team Champions, and List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) are all content forking of each other. The Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is just an era for both titles. The J-Crown only lived for about one year, which makes it unique. The Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is now over a year old.Truco ₅₀₃ 15:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Welcome back Mshake) It's not the same as the Cruiser/Light Titles because X-Pac didn't unify them. A title unification match was scheduled but never happened, consequently the Light Heavyweight Title (held by X-Pac) was quietly retired while the Cruiser title (held by Tajiri) was renamed. However there was a point when X-Pac held both titles, that's not the same as unifying them. Miz didn't unify the US Title with the Tag Titles, he just held them at the same time. D'Lo Brown, Jeff Jarrett and Kurt Angle didn't unify the Euro&IC Titles, they were just held at the same time.

The difference being that when the Tag Titles were unified, when the WWE&WCW Titles were unified the contests afterwards were announced as being for the "Unified WWE Tag Team Championship" or the "Undisputed World Championship" whereas X-Pac fought in matches "for the WCW Cruiserweight and WWF Light Heavyweight Championship" and D'Lo defended his titles against Jarrett in a match for "the WWF European and Intercontinental Championship". The titles were also defended independently of one another (which is how X-Pac managed to lose one and not the other) during this period, whereas no-one has defended the 'Raw' or 'SmackDown' Tag Titles independently of the other in the last year and a half. There's a difference between unifying two/multiple titles and holding two/multiple titles. Tony2Times (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

But you do understand the WP:FORK guideline right? That's what all the articles I listed above are doing to each other.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who Dat?, Junkyard Dog, and Dave Meltzer---request for assistance

If anyone has a copy of the book Tributes: Remembering Some of the World's Greatest Wrestlers by Dave Meltzer [3], I would appreciate a little bit of assistance in verifying a fact about the history of the Who Dat? chant. This chant is now closely associated with the New Orleans Saints, but it has a long history, including use by fans of Sylvester Ritter, aka Junkyard Dog, in the early 1980s. This has been raised at Talk:Who Dat?, but hasn't been verified in a reliable source and therefore hasn't been added to the article. However, a search at Google Books indicates that Meltzer's book includes text that would back up the fact.[4] Unfortunately, the Google Books search provides only a bare snippet of the text (without even a page number) so I have been unable to verify this completely. If anyone here could provide the relevant text and cite, it would be very helpful to the article. Thanks very much.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:World Wrestling Entertainment employees Redesign Question

I think the Template for WWE's Employees should look like this:

Does anyone agree with my redesign?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely fixed on the idea at the moment, but if you really want to go into splitting the groups up by gender, I'd recommend you implement {{Navbox subgroup}} to make things easier to read. -- Θaks ter 12:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we please not use the term "superstar", it's markish and loaded. MPJ -DK 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this improves it whatsoever. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've redesigned my redesign. How about this one?:

--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Superstar or Diva adds anything really. In most cases I can stand jargon, but I'll never like superstar or diva.--WillC 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, having seen it in subgroup form it actually does a little too cluttered for my liking. Probabily best to keep it as it is. Sorry. -- Θaks ter 16:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed moves

Shawn Hernandez → Hernandez (wrestler)

Not done The result of this discussion was No Consensus. Feedback 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Held the TNA Tag and NWA Tag under Hernandez. Competed for the TNA Title as Hernandez. Working in other promotions as Hernandez. Simple common name move.--WillC 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment- Like Dave Finlay and Gene Snitsky, when the ring name is the last name, we usually tend to keep the first name in the article name. If we move this one, we have to move both Snitsky and Finlay. Feedback 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Common name is common name. I would say Finlay though is up in the air though. WCW and some of WWE as Fit Finlay, while just Finlay recently in WWE.--WillC 17:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mild Support Even though this is his Common Name I see Raggio's point so my support is mild.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- mainly due to it being a very common last name in Latin American culture and history; but also due to the argument above of first names.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Gabe Tuft → Tyler Reks

Not done The result of this discussion was Oppose. -- Θaks ter 09:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry but I must add one more move requests. He has used Tyler Reks for the time he's been wrestling and he has won the FCW Tag Team Title and the FCW Championship under this name. Simple common name move.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Support He has been known as Tyler Reks in FCW and WWE.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose He hasn't been used much even when he was in ECW. He has done nothing of notability outside FCW under that name and probably won't either as it seems he'll be future-endeavored soon. Feedback 21:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - he hasn't been known under the alias long enough to be known as Tyler Reks. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 09:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Primo Colón → Eddie Colón

Not done The result of this discussion was Oppose. -- Θaks ter 09:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

He wrestled for a liong time in Puerto rico as Eddie Colón (since 1999 until 2007, 9 years), Won a lot of WWC titles. Also, in FCW won the FCW Tag Team title under the name of Eddie Colón. --80.39.21.27 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- He's the first ever Unified Tag Team Champion and overall 2-time tag team champion. He never gained international exposure as Eddie, so he's much better known as Primo. Feedback 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Support plus Feedback is sounds like you are supporting not opposing.Curtis23's Us al ions 20:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

~~Tell me how the fuck that sounds like I'm supporting? Feedback 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)~~

Change to Oppose. I thought it was the other way around.Curtis23's Us al ions 20:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thats what I imagined. You should read the proposal before commenting and preferably review the page throughly before making a decision on what it should be titled; that goes with all discussions. Feedback 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@Raggio, no need to get hot and swear, Oppose He's had more recognition by an International Organisation as Primo. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support -- he has won and gained more popularity as Eddie; he recently just came to WWE and should not be the basis for his common popularity.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So you mean "Support" right? Feedback 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant lol.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Marvin Lambert → Brain Damage (wrestler)

Not done The result of this discussion was Oppose. -- Θaks ter 09:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Best know by his ONLY ring name, Brian Damage83.36.39.104 (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I reopened and added the qualifier (wrestler). I Support this move.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You do know that his ringname was Brain Damage right?--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, that would entail Curtis actually VIEWING the freaking article before commenting on the move let alone reopening the nomination. Feedback 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets just be bold.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Curtis is always commenting, closing, proposing and reopening moves without ever even glancing on the article page. Assuming good faith can only take you too far. He does this while being conscious that he hasn't read the article, knows nothing about the subject and hasn't read reviewed the past discussions. Its couter-productive behavior. Feedback 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'll be the first to oppose he hasn't had any real significant coverage under the name from what I can see. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a small note also it might be worth checking the Talk Page of the article for the original move of the article. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per an argument given in the previous discussion. Given the media coverage of brain damage in wrestlers after the Chris Benoit incident, "Brain Damage (wrestler)" could be too confusing because people might actually be searching for information about damage to wrestlers' brains. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Gary. Lets just close it by WP:SNOW. Feedback 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

The IC title

I understand that it is vacated, but Drew McIntyre is still carrying it around and even defended it at the Mexico tour. Surely that merits a mention in the article doesn't it? Feedback 02:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't the Mexico tour matches take place before Smackdown aired in the states and thus, before WWE considered the title vacant? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

On Tuesday he vacated the title. He still had the title for the next days so unless you think an anomaly like that is unnotable, I think it should be in the article. Feedback 03:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

He had the belt until Friday, and then the episode in which he vacated the belt aired? I fail to see the anomaly. This is why it is so important to remember that television tapings are primarily focused on television. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, he physically gave up the title on Tuesday, but it aired on Friday. However, it is irrelevant, because the Smackdown tour continued until Sunday and he defended the title on both Saturday and Sunday house shows. Yes this is an "anomaly" because WWE has declared the title vacant, yet keep McIntyre defending the title on house shows. Feedback 05:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It should definitely be noted in the reigns note section. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

See, this is what I'm talking about. The title was NOT vacated on Tuesday. It was vacated on Friday when Smackdown was transmitted. Therefore - because they toured Mexico BEFORE Smackdown was transmitted in Mexico, McIntyre still had to have the title for consistency in the WWE Universe. That's the way a promotion works when it comes to delayed TV presentation. There is no anomaly - unless you lot want to recognise the vacancy on Tuesday. YOU create the anomaly. There isn't one in WWE - on either the website or TV. I'm willing to bet this has happened before and it will happen in the future as well. !! Justa Punk !! 02:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I know for a fact that WWE and TNA has recognized new champions on house shows that occur after TV tapings, but before airings. This was quite common in the 90s when Raw was taped six days in advance every now and then. So all this proves is that WWE is, well, inconsistant with it. Mshake3 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, where's the proof of this being the case on the tour? Are we using those same "unreliable" reports from joe schmo? Mshake3 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation is irrelevant now. The vacating and the firing was reversed by Mr. McMahon tonight. Now how do we write that down in the list (this has never happened before)? Feedback 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

New champ, strip, new champ. Mshake3 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

^Agreed with Mshake. It should be three separate entries.Truco ₅₀₃ 03:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nooo, the vacating was reversed, its still the same reign. Its like when Jericho won the WWE title from Triple H; the decision was reversed. Drew McIntyre never lost the title. Feedback 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Note in his reign that it was vacated but then reversed.--WillC 04:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Very true, I misread the reports online.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The report I read send the events occured in the way I described it. But whatever. Mshake3 (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(follow-up) Ha. I told you so. Feedback 03:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
[5] WWE lists the title as Vacant on their title history still. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 01:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- point? Feedback 01:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahem... actually, this will all get cleared up as soon as it airs in Canada...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)/
- I don't get the "ahem". And what will get cleared up? I think it seems pretty clear. Feedback 02:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the title has been vacated before (and those aren't listed on the WWE.com title history page), I think its just WWE's way of selling the storyline. Unless WWE legit says its a new reign, then hell its a new reign, but for now all we know is that its the same reign.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to read too much to avoid spoilers but .com title histories never list vacancies normally, they just list the next champion eg Cena vacating the WWE Title in October 2007 or Austin vacating the IC Title following his neck injury in August 1997. Best to wait and see how the storyline plays out, this is why spoilers can easily lead to inaccuracies in articles and why live reports aren't valid & verifiable. Tony2Times (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder Split (2nd try to get some real feedback from the last one)

I've kind of gone away from Curt and Zack but I just thought last time I put up something on them I didn't get a lot of editors saying what they think since December so I thought I'll put it up again. So, what do you guys think and why?Curtis23's Us al ions 22:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No because I said so (I joke :P): No because the once again creating articles for both of these men will be content forking of each other because the start of both their careers were exactly the same. They were profiled by WWE [in one of the references on their page] on how they came to know each other how they have been working together ever since before they got to WWE's development territories. So by splitting them up, they will have the same exact content from since they began their careers in professional wrestling which was before 2007 up till 2008-09. Hawkins has done nothing with career but some minor matches and back to development (if that), while Ryder has gone up to the main roster and is trying to do something with his career. But, that alone doesn't constitute a split. Now, say if Ryder were to win a major championship? And he would continue that success, then yes maybe then a split could be argued, but right now, its not workable. Another example would be The APA, whom began with different careers and eventually tag teamed for a majority of their WWF days, but after that they split up and had their separate "successful" careers (WCW/WWE Champs).--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but for me its still a no for all the same reasons listed by Truco.--Steam Iron 00:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Still a no from me, but if this current attempt at a storyline on Raw goes somewhere I might change my mind. Tony2Times (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins is returning to the main roster tomorrow on Superstars does this make him more notable.Curtis23's Us al ions 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No simply being on the main roster doesn't make someone notable or more notable as noted by Chelsea and Santana G in TNA. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because Hawkins and Ryder started their career "together" doesn't mean that a separate article is content forking. Then the same would be true for Edge and Christian, right? Separate articles could exist as "related topics" and be fully within Wikipedia guidelines. However, the current "Ryder and Hawkins" page reads like a disjointed mess, and is off topic - the article on the tag team should be on topic i.e. actually be about the tag team. The real "content forking" is on the Ryder and Hawkins page. There is significant information on both wrestlers after the split, and both wrestlers have had significant solo achievements in the past year.

Truco - you argument that Hawkins has done "nothing with his career" is subjective and IMO, simply does not hold water. We have pages on Wikipedia for wrestlers like Joey Ryan and unknown women wrestlers like Sara Del Ray - people who haven't wrestled in front of 1/10th of the audience Ryder and Hawkins have. Hawkins FCW tag championship this year (with someone that is NOT Zack Ryder) is a more significant achievement than anything most of the ROH roster who have their own pages has done. Same for Zack Ryder - I'd say his retirement match win vs Tommy Dreamer or his brief Rumble appearance is a more significant achievement than many of the wrestlers who have solo pages.

And of course Team 3D/Dudleys have their own page, but also solo pages that read nearly verbatim to the tag team page. And neither have significant solo wrestling achievements. There are no hard and fast rules here - all of this is subjective. To my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia criteria for when a tag-team partner earns his "split" into a solo page. (I've asked for benchmarking criteria but no one is willing to commit :-)

Ask yourself this ... do you think that, the way both of their careers are going, that eventually there will be cause for a split here? If so, then what is the point of preventing a split now? Especially when it is obvious that Wikipedia readers are expecting that each have their own page, and keeping the pages divided causes a constant source for controversy.--Goosedoggy (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I repeat - if they're both Notable and have Reliable sources then they should have seperate articles, and they do so they should have seperate articles. Just take care to not just have them be verbatim copies of the joint one, summarize their tag career more and refer to the tag article for more details.

They've been separated for 2 years but the content which is sets them apart is only 2 paragraphs, you can't honestly think this fills the need for 2 separate articles. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs? Size? I'm sorry but did I quote WP:NEED or WP:SIZEMATTERS?? No, I quoted two of the most basic principles of Wikipedia, notability and verifiability through reliable sources. They fullfil those principle, so any opposistion to the article creation is out of stubborness or whatever, not out of policy. I cannot possibly see what harm it does to give two wrestlers who are obviously not about to team up any time soon their own articles - are people emotionally scarred if they're split? does it really matter so much that we spend hours and hours and hours discussing it instead of clearning up articles that need it? Just let whoever wants to split the articles do it and focus on improving instead of beating this zombie horse over and over. MPJ -DK 07:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My point was why is there a need to create 2 completely new articles when the only real separation is 2 paragraphs, plus Zombie Horse like it. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 09:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hawkins and Ryder are much different than Edge and Christian. How so? Because they both haven't teamed in 9 years with both having significant success compared to Ryder and Hawkins being near after thoughts. The Tommy Dreamer retirement was nothing but a storyline that was only talked about for roughly 3 weeks at most. Dreamer has since wrestled several matches on the indies and on PPV for Dragon Gate USA. Reliable sources sustain notability and wrestlers in ROH and PWG have plenty of reliable sources to grant their notability. Hawkins and Ryder have a page. Their solo careers have about two paragraphs at most if week by week events were added. As for Team 3D, that is a different discussion. You've said Ryder and Hawkins have significant singles careers but only mentioned extremely minor material. There are less sources covering FCW available than most non-notable promotions. So saying the FCW Tag reign was a big deal is a farce. Just by being in WWE doesn't exactly make someone more important than someone on the indies. An example is Bryan Danielson; even with his exposure in WWE, he is still known more for his work on the indies. A page like Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder is a system used in several articles just like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. It isn't just about their partnership but also about the two wrestlers. A rumble appearance is a common occurrence, it isn't exactly significant since 30 other wrestlers share that spotlight. Still not enough to justify an article. Being an ROH World Tag Team Champion would justify more notability than a rumble appearance.--WillC 10:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Will - I was simply making a point that just because two wrestlers start their career together as a tag team doesn't mean that splitting their info into two separate pages. That was Truco's insinuation. Of course I know Edge and Christian are different and of course I know their history. I've been watching wrestling since before you were born, I don't need a lesson on who they are.

But it seems you need a lesson in what the term "subjective" means. "Reliable sources sustain notability"? So because some internet rags report on indy show results make them "notable"? And furthermore, makes them more notable than a nationally televised WWE Show? That's a subjective opinion held by you that is not "fact" or "evidence". But things like ratings and attendance are NOT subjective. Ryder wrestles in front of larger audiences on a weekly basis than anyone in ROH. That is a FACT. What makes something or someone notable isn't the number of "reliable resources" that report on it. It's all about exposure, the size of the audience. I guarantee you the readership of the internet rags that provide "sustainable coverage" on ROH, PWG, etc. is smaller than the audience of WWE Superstars. You are using a very convoluted definition of "notable".

And FCW IS covered notably and consistently on sites like PW Torch and other "reliable" wrestling sources, and is backed by the largest promotion there is. So you saying that the FCW reign is insignificant while trying to defend the "notoriety" of indy wrestlers that virtually no wrestling fans outside of the internet community have ever heard of is comical. Being a consistently-used wrestler on the WWE roster DOES make someone more notable than being a ROH Chanpion. Just ask Bryan Danielson or Nigel/Desmond. You think Colt Cabana would have gone back to ROH if the WWE didn't release him. Please. Just because you have the convoluted opinion that someone wrestling for peanuts in an indy league in front of a couple of hundred people is more notable than someone who wrestles on national television just about every week doesn't make it so. So what if someone wins a title in front of 200 people? A title is no different than the "retirement" of Tommy Dreamer. It's nothing more than another storyline.

Stop speaking like this argument is a matter of arguing facts. The only facts in this whole discussion is that Ryder wrestles in front of tens of thousands of people weekly, and you seem to thin that is less notable than people who wrestle in front of 1/10th the audience size. Get real.

MPJ-DK - thank you for being sensible. You hit the nail right on the head. The individuals meet the two cornerstone requirements for separate entries - notability and reliable sources. The fight to not split the pages may have made sense in the first couple of months after the split, but now the fight is just nothing more but a stubborn power play. Splitting the articles is clearly NOT content forking. And the current article on "Ryder and Hawkins", which should focus on the topic of them as a tag team, gets further and further off-topic as Ryder and Hawkins have careers that take them down separate paths. I find it hard to believe the Wikipedia admins believe the "Ryder and Hawkins" tag team page reads well and stays on topic in its current state.

However, I did notice that a solo page for Zack Ryder is up this evening. This page is clean, succinct, and on topic. So I expect one of the admins here to take it down any second and revert back to the horrible tag team page. --Goosedoggy (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone did split them, but in exactly the way that WOULD be content forking - by just copying their tag team history word for word. I went in and reduced the amount of details on their tag career and referred to the tag team article for those details (as done with Team 3D, Bushwhackers, Road Warriors or any other team of a similar nature you may pull out) so that it is not IDENTICAL to each other. MPJ -DK 13:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Country

I was just wondering why is it that we don't state the country after Locations for the United States? like Los Angeles, California, United States, I've looked around and it seems we're the only subject on Wikipedia which doesn't put United States after something like Los Angeles, California. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the article. If the article revolves around a subject based in the United States, its inferred that the locations are based there unless otherwise noted. For example, the majority of our lists for title histories are based and revolve around the organization's base. Ie. WWE, based in the US has entries with Los Angeles, California because it is noted that title changes occurred in the US unless otherwise noted. Articles on bios, if that person works for North American organizations, it is not noted unless its another country. If its a British or Mexican organization, its the other way around and then the US would be noted.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

We kind of need to change that to be universal. Kind of weird how alot of our titles will say Dallas, Texas then jump to Toronto, Canada. Think we need to change to either Dallas, Texas, United States or Dallas, United States.--WillC 04:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then so basically you are saying all the Japanese Championships should not have Japan included in them, you can't just pick and choose with this stuff Truco. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 10:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you note that "All reigns occurred in arenas located in Japan unless otherwise noted." Then I find it redundant, but if the project agrees to a universal change for consistency then by all means I am not against it. I'm just explaining what the basis was originally, no need to call me out.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just responding to your comment if I wanted to call you out I could but it'd be pointless and would get us nowhere, I just feel its either listing Countries after region/city or not. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I think its redundant if you state the country that the title changes occurred in in the prose. If you don't, then the Country should also be noted.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs Raw 2011 made too soon?

If you look, there is unannounced info on the page. I say delete it until info on the game comes out of E3 in June.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been deleted 4 times in the past 3 months.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? If it's been deleted already, who's been re-adding it?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I say redirect it to the main WWE SmackDown vs. Raw (video game series) page, since the game has in fact been announced by THQ, just not enough info has been released to warrant a full article at the moment. Since it will be recreated later, you may as well save the admins the hassle of deleting the page if its going to be recreated a month from now.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Done--Steam Iron 02:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If enough info is known I don't see why the article shouldn't be available. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

MVP ring name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

Consensus that M.V.P. is an acronym not ring name.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a disagreement about if Alvin Burke Jr.'s ring name is Montel Vontavious Porter with the nickname of MVP or if it is just simply MVP. The ring announcers always announce him as Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP) so that's why I think his ring name is Montel.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war on this page because of MVP. I just wanna take the facts. His ring name is simply MVP. Just go with WWE.com, Matt Striker, Todd Grisham AND the ring announcers. On http://www.wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/mvp/bio/ you don't find Montel Vontavious Porter, only MVP! Matt Striker and Todd Grisham always call him MVP. I think it is ok if there is MVP (Montel Vontavious Porter) but NOT Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP)! On Youtube you can see it that I am right http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OviupR2DlvU (Time: 6:37) Plus he had MVP'S VIP Lounge NOT Montel Vontavious Porter's VIP Lounge. Look at the results of the latest SmackDown: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/results/ : MVP! When MVP comes to the ring the optical font is MVP, too. So please stop editing it into Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP)! @ Curtis23 and Yugiohmike2001 --Hixteilchen (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, "Mr. Perfectionist", Montel Vontavious Porter is his full ring name. MVP is a shorten version of his name. If you don't like it, sorry.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't push this into a yelling match between editors.--Steam Iron 02:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy is really annoying (especially for the fact that he can't write correctly if his life depended on it). Feedback 02:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We are here to discuss How MVP's ring name should be listed not another's editors way of doing things.--Steam Iron 02:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This project needs to really tone down on the edit warring and heated disagreements. MVP is just the acronym for his full name. Would you rather say 'World Wrestling Entertainment' every time the company had an acronym there instead "World Wrestling Entertainment Championship between all these World Wrestling Entertainment Superstars" or "WWE Championship between all these World Wrestling Entertainment Superstars". It can be used interchangibly. But not as so often. Which is why MVP qualifies as the acronym to Montel Vontavious Porter ring name, MVP stands for something. Its just not a ring name.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but one Editor(Hixteilchen) Wants it listed as MVP(Montel Vontavious Porter) where as other editor's want it listed as Montel Vontavious Porter (MVP). I on the other hand want this childish crap to stop.--Steam Iron 02:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what one editor wants? I think we have a clear consensus that MVP is an acronym, not a ring-name. Its not like if he is going to revert the edits. If he does it 3 times, boom, we ask for a block and problem is solved. Feedback 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just glad to see that we're discussing something truly important. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should bring up how to spell Kane's last name again so we can have more meaningful discussions.--WillC 06:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maturity - it only works when you participate. MPJ -DK 15:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As Cartman would say "Whats the big fucking deal bitch", I think this falls along the same lines as a Promotions Initials, its really not something we should be having an extensive discussion over. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 16:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So when do we move World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE? Tony2Times (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When you stop using rhetorical questions. Feedback 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I used Promotions Initials as an example, since I feel it fits along the same lines as you wouldn't call the WWE Championship the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, or the IC belt the World Wrestling Entertainment Intercontinental Championship and the company is often referred to in the same sentence as "The WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment" or the other way round just like the announcing of MVP entering the ring, if you really want me to go into the example more, it basically falls along the same lines of use. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 21:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 73 articles to be referenced, a 2.7% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Vector

Have you guys stayed in Vector or switched back to monobook? Feedback 03:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know you could switch back. -- Jordan Payne ^T /_C 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a tab on the left of your user name that says "Take me Back". Plus, you can do so from your preferences. Am I right to think MonoBook is better or am I wrong by not sticking with the status quo and switching back? Feedback 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Though this really has nothing to do with the WikiProject, I have switched back to the old Skin, I think the old skin is better because you're most used to it, I think Vector is good for newer editors as they might not be warmed up to any of the code I think the both have pluses. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I took myself back. Why is this here?--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to know if there is a common consensus among project members to use MonoBook, but why do you even ask? Is little Curtis offended about the question? Here's an article on WikiHow that might help you hold back the tears. Feedback 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys relax, I kinda like Vector... Looks sexy!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

@Raggio, no need to get snipey about this non-issue I don't even see why you'd need a common consensus over just your personal dislike for the skin. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, because I wanted to go along with the status quo and do what most here were doing. What better way to decide which one is better than receiving input from your peers? Feedback 23:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Damien Kane

An editor claiming to be his son (see the discussion page) has been editing the page. There are a lot of information that is arguably in-neutral. Please review. --Endless dan and his problem 18:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this Notable at all, he had 16 years in the business with what looks to be like under a year in ECW. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 21:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well no offense to his "son" but Kane hasn't really done much IMO to even have warranted an article; most of the sources are Trivia sites and non reliable ones. --Truco ₅₀₃ 02:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He passed a nom for deletion and quite frankly I don't see how removing this article would improve Wikipedia.--Endless dan and his problem 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

he competed in ECW, so what? what else has he done, Rasche Brown has arguably done more than Damian Kane and he hasn't got his own article because he doesn't pass notability guidelines. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 15:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you arguing with? Read my comment again - how does removing his article improve Wikipedia? Wikipedia is filled with indy wrestling nobodies. No sense in removing one with actual sources. Just needs to be cleaned up.--Endless dan and his problem 20:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do apologize, accidentally read it wrong. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So will the article be deleted or will it stay?--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep it. Its passed an AFD nom and there are sources on the net for this guy.--Endless dan and his problem 13:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There are countless articles which have had multiple AFD nominations, and considering the AFD nomination was in 06 it means standards have changed. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Kane (2nd nomination) Just to notify that the AfD has been set up. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondary belts go above Tag Team belts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WWE_Championships

I do not understand this. To me, the Tag titles have always been below the World Heavyweight titles, but not by much. They were still World Champions, just a shared one. And at some points in the WWE recently (like Rated RKO), the Tag Titles were the more heavily pushed ones. There is no way, and no reason, they should be below the "Secondary" Belts like Intercontinental. Same goes for the TNA Template. Anyone disagree to this proposed change?71.185.250.142 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Any World Championship (ie. WWE Championship) is the top-tier championship of the company, if the company states so. The secondary titles are ranked as the mid-tier title (ie. US or IC Championship), and the lower tier tag team championships are the tag team championships. So thus they fall below the single tier titles.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag-team champions are "World Champions." Why are they below Intercontinental?71.185.250.142 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Because they are a different classification of championships. Single tier and tag team tier. See Championship (professional wrestling).--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Then shouldn't there be two categories, Singles and Tag Team, with the "secondary" belts going under singles? I mean, there are no levels present. Just an order, and that order goes "World, Secondary, Tag Team". To me, that means the Intercontinental belt is MORE IMPORTANT than the Tag Team belts. And that's never been true. What is wrong with my re-ordering, where they go "World, Tag Team, Secondary"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:TNA_Wrestling

You see the same issue here, clouded a bit because the "Global" belt on paper sounds rather important, but the Tag Team titles should be ABOVE the secondary ones. I don't even see where there is room for discussion on the matter honestly.71.185.250.142 (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

The titles are props, saying one is higher than the other is mater of opinion and promotion. Some would say the tag titles are the top prize is some promotions due to the way they are promoted, but then some would say a the heavyweight title was for the same reasons. Arguing which is higher is just a mater of opinion and we are not here to publish our own opinions, just the facts. I say redo the templates to list championships and then place them in alphabetically.--WillC 04:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I second it Wrestlinglover.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the promotion, if the promotion promotes its tag team titles as the most prestigious championship, then so be it. I think creating just an alphabetical order for the titles wouldn't do much since promotions do indeed consider certain championships their prime ones, so what would we do based on that?--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just focus on the main thing here - the Tag Team titles are often held by important and well-known wrestlers. The Intercontinental one is not. Move Tag Team belts below the major singles belts and call it a night.71.185.250.142 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

LOL, sorry that was just a funny argument. Certain wrestlers holding a title doesn't classify a title as a top tier title; the promotion considers their tiers for championships. You also contradicted yourself "move the tag team belts below the major singles one" "tag team titles are often held by important wrestlers, Intercontinental one is not." Once again, "single tier" and "tag team tier" are two different classifications, almost like weight classifications in boxing (ie. welterweight, heavyweight, cruiserweight, lightweight).--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That comparison is terrible. If there were Tag Team Cruiserweights, then it'd be more valid, but there is no boxing system in wrestling. I am going off the belt themselves - TAG TEAM CHAMPIONS OF THE WORLD. Like - Heavyweight Champion of the World. Intercontinental Champion is NOT "of the world". Neither is Cruiserweight. Look at the name themselves, they are below the other two belts. Look at PPV order, look at who holds them, look at everything. Don't suddenly forget everything wrestling has taught us just to disagree - I am 100% right.71.185.250.142 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Oh the "world" discussion again eh? This was discussed numerous times in the past, it was agreed that "World" in a name is just a name. It depends on the company as to how they want to rank their titles based on that name. Their can be Tag Team Champs of the world, but be ranked last in terms of prestige by WWE. WWE ranks the Unified Tag Titles below their other titles. We don't make the decisions as to what is prestige, the companies do. If there is no consensus on prestige for the company, then a neutral solution will be sought.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Who says they rank them below their other titles? Because I say they rank them rather high.71.185.250.142 (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)belthistoryguy

Does it really matter? I mean really its one of the biggest non-issues of em all. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Shit, would you all look at WWE's title history. The tag teams are ranked below the US and IC and above the women's titles.--WillC 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

[6] exactly....^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that just because the tag titles are positioned under the IC and US titles doesn't mean they are "ranked lower". I don't believe they are ordered by prestige, I think they are separated by division. (Singles division titles, Tag Team Division titles snd then Women's Division titles). Its OR to say that the order in the column is ordered by prestige. Feedback 22:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as prestige.... but thats a topic for another discussion. Anyway what I was trying to show was exactly what you stated. They are seperated by division or class - as shown in Championship (professional wrestling)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Related Point

In the Promotional navboxes at the bottom of TNA&WWE's company pages there's a list of titles most of which say "World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional". I think it'd make more sense to change Divisional to Women's or Female or Ladies seeing as the Tag Team is a division and for both companies that Divisional section only has women's titles in it anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason it says "divisional" is because the Cruiser used to be there. It doesn't exist anymore, so it doesn't matter. Feedback 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

WWE Change in Programming

User:Screwball23 won't stop making a new section for the change in programming on the World Wrestling Entertainment page until he sees that consensus is reached that it should stay with the WWE Universe section. I think it is obvious that this isn't notable enough to warrant a new section just for it.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Change in Programming, that is, WWE's change to a PG rating, is very notable. I have established a new subsection entitled Change in Programming, which Curtis23 and 3Bullet16 have repeatedly removed and criticized because they do not believe the change to PG is "notable enough". Then again, I do not see why they believe it should be lumped together in a subsection on the founding of the WWE Universe, but then again, I don't see why they have taken the time to make this such an issue or revert my edits without reason.

I ask any readers of this page to post their thoughts on this issue so we can build a fair consensus and remove the edit-warring that my colleagues have resorted to.

In your opinion, is the WWE's Change to PG a subsection that should be placed on World Wrestling Entertainment or should it be lumped together (as it is now) with a section on the WWE Universe?

Place your views below. Thank you.-- Screwball23 talk 22:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If its well sourced I see no problem in having it in there, the only problem with the input is the second reference, if that gets fixed with something reliable I'm sure it'll be fine to keep in. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason for it not to be there in its own section. It certainly doesn't belong in the WWE Universe section. Considering the heights the company reached catering to older viewers during the Attitude Era, a shift away from that demographic and that type programming is also definitely notable. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well leaving the WWE Universe section with two sentences doesn't do much either. Who changed the format of the history? Its very misleading, because some of those sections need to be subsections.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well actually that was the main concern I had. If anything the history section needs to be reformatted. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you repeatedly revert my edits? You never mentioned this concern when you reverted my edits without rationale. The only rationale I got was that I should go and look at the WT:PW talk page to see the "consensus" on this article. You also had the audacity to say that the Change in programming was not notable enough for mention on World Wrestling Entertainment. Later you changed you story and saying it was not notable enough for a section. You repeatedly changed your story and have proven yourself to be an outright dishonest Wikipedian. I know that the Change in programming is notable and is more than worthy of its own section. I'm reverting it now. -- Screwball23 talk 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Until Screwball provides reliable evidence of the notability of the "PG era", I'll keep the section as it - unless of course someone else reformats it as suggested by Bullet. !! Justa Punk !! 02:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Savannah Creation?

Should we create a page for Savannah (Angela Fong) because she has become pretty notable as a ring announcer.--Curtis23's Us al ions 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

She really hasn't done much but be an interviewer and announcer, "She was born here and there..she did this before WWE and in WWE she interviewed people on the ECW brand and later replaced Roberts as the announcer when Lillian left. Therefore, she became the sole female ring announcer." The end. Not too much of an article if you ask me.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

She was also the first Queen of FCW, eliminating Trent Barreta among others in the tourney before losing the crown to Serena Deeb. Tony2Times (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you say she has become notable Curtis, the ball is back in your court as to demonstrate HOW she is notable at this point in time? ArcAngel (talk) ) 17:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I know she's done some modelling which I shall look into. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

New Template:World Wrestling Entertainment employees Redesign Question

I'm sorry for bringing this up again. But I still think the template needs a little redesign. So after thinking about the new design, I went with this:

So, what do you think of the latest redesign?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Um... two things. 1. Stables and Tag Teams do not belong on a list of employees. 2. Why is "Smack" and "Down" on two different lines and why is "N," "X," and "T" all on different lines? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

1. You're right, they will be removed once concensus is complete. 2. I was going by logo, so they will be edited.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Makes it too big and unorganized. Fine the way it currently is.--WillC 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how this is an improvement. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 13:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- leave original. Now focus on better things to do for the project. Remember WP:PW, appearance isn't everything, the content is the importance.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Finishing move

Hello! When a wrestler wins one match with a move, can we say it is his finishing move? I think using a report to source and add finishing move isn't accurate, because it only means that the wrestler used this move only that time to win, and doesn't proof that he use it regularly. Jeangabin (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that before we list a move as a finishing move it has to be use more then once to end a match.--Steam Iron 08:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be a whelming collection of evidence/unquestionable evidence to suggest that its a finisher before addition. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we add this to the Style guide? Jeangabin (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Lawler

This article was a former collaboration of the week and is very close to being ready for a GA nomination. If anyone is able to help out over the next week or two, it would be greatly appreciated. A few things still need to be sourced, and there are some references that should be replaced with more reliable ones. I would like to be able to nominate it sometime in June to help move toward that goal of 10 WWE Hall of Famers to GA status in 2010. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Stables/Tag Teams on List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees

Having wrestlers listed multiple times on a list of employees is redundant. I suggest it be removed to make the article truly what it is said to be: A list of employees. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Stables and Tag Teams should be listed.--Curtis23's Us al ions 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to give me a WHY. This isn't a list of stables and tag teams. It's a list of employees. The employees are already listed and do not need to be listed again. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Well to mention that they are in a team or if they're the tag championship together plus some teams have names.--Curtis23's Us al ions 00:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Plus, they also show the current unions and/or relationships the wrestlers are currently in-storyline with.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Championships are already listed by the individual's name on the main list. Listing them AGAIN is just as redundant as listing the employee twice. 2. Team names, championships, and storyline partnerships or relationships are irrelevant to a LIST OF EMPLOYEES. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

They're notes.--Curtis23's Us al ions 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Then put them in the "NOTES" section where notes belong. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

About we leave them as is. END OF DISCUSSION.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't declare a discussion over. Especially when you've made no valid points. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they should be there ether so here's what I say we do 1.)remove the Tag teams from the list. 2.) Create page that list the Current and/or Past tag teams.--Steam Iron 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WWEhurricane1 is right, it is a list of employees. Stables are kayfabe, it has nothing to do with their employment. "List of WWE characters" would be different, but instead, this is a list of employees (which will always be incomplete due to WWE having thousands of employees). Feedback 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, he's right. How about we separate the stables and tag-teams and call the new page List of Stables and Tag-teams in World Wrestling Entertainment? There will be a list of current stables and tag-teams and a list of past stables and tag-teams. Also, how about we make one for Total Nonstop Action Wrestling?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Feedback 02:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes to remove from list of employees, but make a note in their columns that they are part of a tag team. No to the creating a list of stables and tag teams, mainly because there have been over 1000 tag teams in just WWE alone. Why such a big number you may ask? Well think about all the tag teams that lasted about a month, if that. Or the tag teams of FCW, or the jobbers. From 1984-2010 will be almost a list the size of the alumni page.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're opposing a list because of the size of the topic? Tell me, how many "World Wrestling Entertainment employees" do you think there are? Feedback 02:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to do the honor of making the page, Feedback?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Only when consensus is achieved, Mr. Muto. Feedback 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not a helpful page if its incomplete. What is the page going to be about any how? Just a list of stables and teams? For what purpose?--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I call that list cruft, and we already have a cat in tag team and stable articles for notable groups. That is all that is needed. Remove the tag team tables.--WillC 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the category page will suffice for that. See WP:LISTCRUFT.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove the tag teams until there is a new wiki site with all the WWE stables and tag teams! --Hixteilchen (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Such a page would be WP:LISTCRUFT--Steam Iron 05:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I created a List of current stables and tag teams in WWE. I would like that all tag teams and stables of Raw, SmackDown and FCW are listed there. Please help improving it. --Hixteilchen (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Its WP:LISTCRUFT and if some one hadn't beat me to it I would have prod it.--Steam Iron 07:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We actually already have a consensus on not having a list like that since the last one was redirected or deleted, I forget.--WillC 10:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If my List of current stables and tag teams in WWE AND the stables and tag teams in WWE on the employees site are deleted it would be a shame for Wikipedia! These information need to be found on ONE site in Wikipedia! If everything is deleted you steal information! For most of the wrestling fans AND Casual users it is important which tag teams exist! So please let the tag teams on the site or start improving List of current stables and tag teams in WWE! Second, on List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees there are also listed the Stables and tag teams! What's wrong with that? So on the WWE employees site it is wrong but on the TNA employees site it is right?! That is ridiculous! --Hixteilchen (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You talk like a troll. Its Wikipedia dude, not life. Feedback 19:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a section on List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Employees, then it should be removed from there, too. (BTW, this is wwehurricane1. I'm on a different computer than normal and can't log in.)67.142.162.25 (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So you have no arguments! Hixteilchen (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No... it was a polite way of saying "Just shut the fuck up weirdo". By the way, it is not your article- you do not own anything here. Feedback 19:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

OMG you should be banned from wikipedia! This is not my style. How ridiculous you are! You have a Guest book in Wikipedia (LOL) and say to me that wiki is not life! I know that wiki is not life. I just say ERASING important information is WRONG! So keep the information on Wikipedia! And I don't understand why it is right on the TNA employees site, but wrong on the WWE employees site. So using four-letter words makes you the Loser! --Hixteilchen (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I would love to rebuttal, but I have absolutely no idea what you said. I googled and found this for you. You should sign up so in the future other people can have the chance to actually understand what you write. Feedback 22:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Then learn Englisch, dude. Everything I write is understandable. You are the wiki nerd, not me! I am sick and tired of chatting with a loser like you. A curse upon you! --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I got one word for both of ya - WP:CIVIL!! A little maturity goes a long way. MPJ -DK 00:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Maturity on wikipedia is rare and even rarer for this project.--WillC 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If I can exert it there is still hope ;) MPJ -DK 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul?

The more I look at the page List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees, the more it bugs me. For one thing, the ring names are listed before the real names. On a list of employees, shouldn't the real names be listed before their character names? This is basically a cast list for Raw, Smackdown, NXT, and FCW. On any other cast list, the real name would be first, followed by the character's name. Next, it is my opinion that the championships should be removed as, again, this is storyline information and isn't really relevant to a list of employees. There are some other minor tweaks I'd like to see and I'm willing to work on it and present some examples for the group's approval, but I want to make sure you all are even willing to consider the changes before I waste my time working on it. So my questions to you are this: 1. Should this page even exist at all since there is already an info box at the bottom of every WWE related article with a full list of employees and 2. If it is decided that the page should exist, are you willing to hear me out and consider my proposed overhaul of the page? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time to discuss changes in format. I say remove all storylines from the list. It isn't significant that people are kayfabe anything. I also believe we should have two tables instead of several in different sections. The notes section is there for a reason. One table for on air and the other for corporate. Everyone listed by the last word in their real name in alphabetical order.--WillC 05:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something similar. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Feedback 23:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We also got to think about the legit name of it, 'employees.' Well I don't see the names of the camera or ring crew on there, I think the title is misleading as well.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What if we eliminate the corporate employees or move them to World Wrestling Entertainment and change the name of the article to List World Wrestling Entertainment Cast Members or something similar like they have for the Simpsons, Chronicles of Narnia, All That and other shows? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cast members are so wrong, how about List of World Wrestling Entertainment personalities?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We should go with the typical WP:TV format with list names like List of Grey's Anatomy characters, List of Heroes characters, etc. Basically, I think List of WWE Raw characters, List of WWE Smackdown characters and List of WWE NXT characters is the way to go. However, I doubt we'll gain consensus on different articles so what about List of World Wrestling Entertainment characters? Feedback 03:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's even better, I like it Feedback.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the name at the moment? It has worked fine so far and works.--WillC 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No it does not. The title is not descriptive of the content. The title implies we will see a list of employees, when in reality we are looking at a list of on-air performers. For it to be a comprehensive list of WWE employees, we'd have to include every person on the WWE payroll which is indeed not possible. Feedback 07:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, it lists all known employees. We will never be able to list all employees, including wrestlers, because WWE signs new wrestlers all the time. Thus, the list either way will be incorrect at several points. The introduction can explain that it is a list of all known notable employees.--WillC 11:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it does not list all known employees. There are various sources to source some Sound guys, part of the crew; even secretaries. Hell, the guy who cleans Stanford's Headquarters basement is also an employee. If a source is provided for him, should he be added? I don't think him or any of the other employees outside the on-air people and high-ranked officials are notable enough while Feedback 19:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, if there are sources for them then we can add them as well. Problem sloved. One opinion against another.--WillC 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't let you. They wouldn't be notable enough. Actually the backstage guys, "road agents", aren't notable either. Their wrestling career was notable, but as an agent, they're not. There is no other article on Wikipedia that lists "all known employees" of a company. This isn't an exception. By keeping this list as it is, it is a violation of WP:CRUFT. Feedback 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will.--Curtis23's Us al ions 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Florida Championship Wrestling Champions not listed on List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment

I posted this on Talk:List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment since FCW is the developmental territory of WWE. I think the list needs the current champions of Florida Championship Wrestling since it's a list of current champions in WWE. Does anybody agree?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No. WWE doesn't own the FCW Championship or FCW territory. They just have a contract with FCW so they can house and train their new acquisitions. In no way are they "governed" or "owned" by WWE. Feedback 19:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know that, I thought they did.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Steve Keirn owns the promotion. WWE just contracts the use of his facility to train new comers, like WWE did with OVW and DSW. Those championships weren't owned by WWE, they were owned by those organizations.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for FCW but in the Kayfabe Commentaries' Booking The Invasion with Jim Cornette, he does emphatically state that WWE never owned OVW (after all it did exist before and after it was a developmental), specifically that WWE have no booking power, don't decide champions or anything creatively for it, but they did financially lend a hand with some of the production values (ropes instead of cables, which for some reason Cornette opposed, and cameras). Essentially it's little more than a talent exchange. That's why I've never thought that Developmental Territories should be used as a subheader under WWE. Tony2Times (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Michelle McCool and Layla Co-Women's Champions?

A certain user continues to say that McCool and Layla are co-champions. This is kinda a Spoiler problem again. Every spoiler web site gets their spoilers from one site and just like last week when there was a disagreement about whether Layla or McCool was the champion I'm just not sure I should follow this certain spoiler until it really airs. What do you guys think?--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you google Michelle McCool all spoilers are saying they are co-champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelleforever (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) :

Is there such a thing as "co-champion" for a singles title. I think its called a "singles title" for a reason, no? Feedback 22:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

KNow your history before you talk - Jericho/Chyna co-IC champions ring a bell? MPJ -DK 05:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

-_-... Know your history. They weren't ever officially recognized as co-champions. We have them placed in the table, but WWE doesn't recognize that as a reign. And they sure as hell shouldn't, because its a singles title. Feedback 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They did at the time, both had title defenses. X title - Sabin and Michael Shane, same thing. come back when you have a case. MPJ -DK 17:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I bet Raggio would also make a case if there can be a singles champion for Tag Titles. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you're wrong. WWE DOES recognize that Chyna and Jericho were co-champions. "Both Chyna and Chris Jericho entered the 2000 Royal Rumble as Co-Intercontinental Champions." Source: [7]

TNA's treatment of their titles with the co-X Division Champions and the lone tag team champion is completely irrelevant to WWE's. TNA frankly is stupid and those terms just don't make sense just like when Helm's stable (forgot the name) were all co-champions of a title in WCW. WWE never has had "co-champions" of a singles title or "lone champions" of a tag team title. And so what if Jericho and Chyna were announced as co-champions? They were as official as Kofi Kingston being announced as "the next Intercontinental Champion" last week. Feedback 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It was more than just being announced as co-champions. Chyna and Jericho took turns defending the title. They were both recognized as champion (TOGETHER) until the the triple threat match with Holly determined the undisputed champion. So WWE HAS had "co-champions" for a singles title. You can't really argue that. I mean... you CAN, but you'd be wrong. Kofi's win on Smackdown is a completely different situation. Not even comparable. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What I'm asking is should we put it in the article now or wait?--Curtis23's Us al ions 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait till Friday morning when the broadcast is available from the AUS edition, then you can watch what is stated and verified. --Truco ₅₀₃ 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Jericho was lone tag champion not too long ago. So, Feedback, you are wrong about both.--WillC 22:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The examples you guys are bringing up aren't examples at all. Chris Jericho & Chyna were billed as co-champions, but WWE didn't recognize it as an official reign. Just like Kofi being billed as IC or Ted DiBiase billed as WWE Champ or The Rockers being billed as tag champs. Of course, the situation is different because there are two people involved in a singles title, but WWE's title history makes it pretty clear that they don't believe it to b an official reign. Jericho was never a "lone" tag team champion, I don't see what you are talking about. If you are talking about his first Unified tag reign, he was with Edge and his reign with Edge continued beyond the injury as he replaced Edge on Night of Champions and not a day before. Basically, Edge continued being one half of the tag team champions until Big Show replaced him. No such thing as co-singles champions or lone-tag champion in the WWE; they know it completely defeats the purpose of their respective divisions. Feedback 23:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong. Check the link above. Check this link: [8]. Check the first two minutes of this video: [9]. They were both recognized as champion. They both took turns defending the title. It doesn't get anymore "co" than that. How do you explain two different people defending the same championship otherwise? You can't. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I am clearly mistaken Volde-Vince waved his magic wand and *Harkus Markus* Jericho and Chyna never took turns defending the title, nope never. And naturally any other examples of the same are dismissed because "It's TNA" and we all know TNA is the dream of an autistic child playing with action figures and not wrestling. MPJ -DK 05:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's the best definition of TNA I've ever heard. But seriously though, anything TNA does is completely irrelevant to WWE. They could even have Angeline Love with the TNA Heavyweight title, and if they do, it doesn't mean WWE's world title is officially winnable by the divas. Anything TNA and WWE ever do has nothing to do with the other product; they manage it as they see fit. And its not that Vince "waved his magic wand", the thing is that just because they were billed as champions for a time doesn't mean they were. Hell, Antonio Inoki won and defended the WWE title, doesn't mean its an official reign. Feedback 05:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"just because they were billed as champions for a time doesn't mean they were" - Can't argue with that unlogic, I will just accept that we live in two different words. Dang mine is the one without the choccolate river and the purple unicors :( MPJ -DK 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break discussion here, but MPJ, do you mind NOT using autism as an insult? it offends certain members *cough* Jordan Payne ^T /_C 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you should be sorry, it was NOT an insult - it was a reference to the last episode of St. Elsewhere where it turns out that none of it ever happened but was all the imagination of an autistic child. In other words making the joke that VInce is a wizard and TNA is all fictional. MPJ -DK 00:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the match the match on youtube and the annoucment is that they are Self professed Co-Women's Champions.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So... what does that mean? Feedback 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Link please. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. Curtis is right. Link: [10] Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Is an "I told you so" in order? Nah, screw it, there was no way of knowing. Feedback 03:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Without having looked at the links, and noting the treatment of the Jericho/Chyna situation - perhaps we should see what the WWE website says about it? Who is officially listed as the women's champion? Speaking personally it's Layla because she pinned the champion and that's happened before in a handicap match (Vince as ECW champion springs to mind). But my opinion counts for nought under WP rules. What we need is a reliable source, and in this case a primary source is critical to the issue. Otherwise all we have (dare I use the word again) is speculation. !! Justa Punk !! 02:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a little late, don't u think? We already have the reliable source and consensus that says Layla is the women's champion. Feedback 04:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fact that McCool was announced as "Self Proclaimed co-champion" is what says Layla is the official champion - there was no consensus. Only general consensus was that there HAS been co-champions for singles titles, with one obvious exception. MPJ -DK 05:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Layla is the sole champion; McCool is just a jealous mess who self proclaims herself as co-champion. Lay it to rest now.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should Layla it to rest, eh? EH?! Tony2Times (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on a dead discussion four days later doesn't seem like laying it to rest, does it? Feedback 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the comment was clearly meant in earnest(!) Tony2Times (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to wwe.com: use us.wwe instead of www.wwe

The link http://us.wwe.com/ should be used instead of http://www.wwe.com/ because the last one redirect user living in a country where there is wwe.com in their language to the country's version of the site web. Jeangabin (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So surely www.wwe.com should be used instead of us.wwe.com, so that the person can read the source in their native language? Tony2Times (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't always do that but www.wwe often redirect us to a page where we have to choose between english or our native laguage. When the choice is made, it automatically redirect us to the homepage, not where the source is. Jeangabin (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And the country's version isn't the same as the American version, articles aren't the same for example (they aren't translation of American article, but totally different article written by local journalist). Jeangabin (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the USPedia. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but nearly all the sources here come from the US version. Using us. instead of www. allow us to avoid the redirection and access directly to the source instead of WWE main page. Jeangabin (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If there is a problem down to the redirection on the WWE.com site then its more to do with the user than the source, in my opinion it should be the users problem to fix the link if he wishes to access the content, I'd assume the vast majority of users who wish to access these links have no such problem, I don't think we should change the links for the minority. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing the link to us. when the info comes from the US version won't cause any problem for people who can already access it and it will help people who can't access to the source directly. Jeangabin (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It also depends because not all articles WWE writes in English are written in other languages, but the "us.wwe.com" name doesn't work if you add it to the articles URL. From my past experiences, unless they recently changed that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the french version: http://www.wwe.fr/ , if some of you want to check differences and similarities with the english version. And here is the page where foreign contries with a WWE siteweb are redirected by using the www. links: http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/ (tell me if you can access to this last page because I don't know if it will work for you). Jeangabin (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Create page for the Uso Brothers?

Last night on WWE Raw, Jimmy and Jules Uso of FCW debuted with Tamina (Sarona Snuka). How about starting a page for the duo since they are Florida Tag Team Champions or is it too early?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

too early. Feedback 07:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The moment they have a televised match they're notable enough though - having worked in the top promotion. So a little patience is all it takes. MPJ -DK 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not true. There have been a lot of people to have televised matches. "Aaron Bolo" had a WWE Intercontinental Championship match and Money in the Bank qualifier against Drew McIntyre in April. I don't see him having an article. Feedback 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notability for athletes says he's notable enough for one, you got sources as well and there is nothing standing in the way rule wise. So yes it is true according to the wikipedia guidelines. MPJ -DK 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE doesn't apply here. These guys don't "compete" at all, they just perform. Most may like to call this a sport, but its not. Too bad WP:NSPORT doesn't even have a section for pro wrestling though, it could have helped. Feedback 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your take on it that it does not apply. Tecnically they fall between sport and actor, working on Raw is both "top of the pro league" as well as the top program of it's genre so take your pick. Some have tried to get a notability standard defined for pro wrestling but discussions are generally derailed with other "important" discussions. MPJ -DK 20:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not just my take. WP:ATHLETE states an athlete must have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. Because these professional wrestlers haven't "competed", they obviously do not fall under this guideline. Regardless if you think pro wrestling is a "sport" or not, the wrestling matches themselves are not "competitions". The winner is scripted and there is no goal to achieve during the bout. And because WP:ATHLETE is defined for athletes who "compete" in their sport, the pro wrestlers don't qualify. WP:ATHLETE also says that further interpretation of WP:ATHLETE varies by sport, with editors discussing which fully professional leagues should qualify for inherent notability, or what should constitute the highest amateur level. which basically means that we should come up with our own consensus and not rely on the guideline. Feedback 03:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, WP:ATHLETE definitely applies. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? Because you say so? The text clearly shows that it obviously doesn't apply. Feedback 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Professional wrestling is scripted (actors/bio guidelines) and is combat at the same time (athlete guidelines). --Truco ₅₀₃ 19:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Combat? Irrelevant. WP:ATHLETE doesn't mention the word. The word it uses is "compete". Wrestlers do not compete for anything other than the writers' support. Feedback 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

But acting involves competition; combating for 60 minutes+ is not what is done in a movie or is necessarily needing training and practice and roids. Athletes do that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand its different than movie-acting, but it is still not competition, its entertainment. Feedback 23:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's entertainment, and no one is debating that. However, what makes it entertaining? The wrestlers actually putting their bodies on the line to entertain others; competing in the ring for minutes up to hours; performing high risk maneuvers. Yes the moves are scripted and some are made to look like the hurt but they actually don't, but the competition is still there, which they do on a weekly to daily basis.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And on a note on the "does not hurt" I'm sure Edge's scripted back injury did not hurt the least bit ;) MPJ -DK 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Its entertaining, the moves hurt, the wrestlers put their bodies on the line, they perform high risk maneuvers, etc. I agree with all of that, but its just not "competition". They just follow a script. Feedback 05:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

TNA World Tag Team title situation

There is no official source on tnawrestling.com stating that The Band is using the freebird rule for their tag titles, but it has been stated several times on TV that Eric Young can defend the titles along with them. It's not just Hall and Nash. The pages should be changed to reflect recognizing Young as a tag team champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.8.38 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough to source - the second he actually defends the title in a match it can be put in, until then it's not actually relevant. MPJ -DK 23:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

articles

Why don't you created individual articles for the FCW Championships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.55.148 (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At first because there weren't enough entries/information to warrant articles for the titles. However, I now believe that there is enough information to warrant articles for all those championships, reason being. What's gonna happen when there are over 20 champions for each title? Still no article? It's just gonna clutter up the main FCW page.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We have one source, maybe two at most for each title. That was the main reason, and in most cases we didn't even know who was champion for several weeks.--WillC 01:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If they can be sourced split them like it was done with the FCW Florida Tag Team Championship. MPJ -DK 03:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work MPJ, I agree. If work of that level can be done, then split the rest. That article has potential for FL.--WillC 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank ya, since Hunico won it it showed up on my "Lucha radar" and as I looked at it I realized that it had sources for more or less everything, I just found the last few sources, cleaned it up and split it out. I think the Florida singles title is close to being sourced enough for a spilt as well, but since it's not Lucha I did not look too close at it ;) MPJ -DK 13:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Table on List of WWE Pay-per-view events

What is up with this horrible, ugly table? List of WWE pay-per-view events#Timeline of all PPV events Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

My God its ugly. Delete it. I don't want to look at that thing again. Feedback 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I couldn't wait. I put the page back the way it used to be. That table was hideous. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Revamping television show articles

I've been considering for the past few months working on revamping the way wrestling television show articles and trying to adapt WP:TV's style guide into our articles. The problem I currently have with them is that near the end of most of the articles, it delves into endless listcruft, some of them aren't really necessary. I've got a few ideas, but I'd like let you guys know before trying them out.

A format section at the beginning would be quite useful, distinguishing what the show actually features. Ring of Honor Wrestling and TNA Impact! seems to be the closest in mind with regards a basic format section.
Nixing the special episodes section. I feel that some of the more notable episodes can simply be merged into the show history section while some of them are not worthy to be noted (for instance the SmackDown article has some "Best of 200X" episodes that are essentially clip shows).
With regards to on-air personalities, authority figures can simply be reduced to short prose and the list redirected to Professional wrestling authority figures as one can say it's content forking, champions could stay as it is. I'm not exactly sure should be done with the commentators/ring announcers sections though.
Quite possibily the most controversial change in my opinion (coming from a Brit), the international broadcasters section. WP:TV says that international broadcasters should be listed to make sure that Wikipedia is not seen as the American Wikipedia, but judging from their featured articles and project discussion pages they don't seem to be that keen on tables of broadcasters either. I'm not entirely sure what the ideal solution is but I do feel that the section needs to be rewritten in prose and possibly mention only the more notable countries (e.g. UK would be important for WWE Raw as it airs the show live, Australia would be important for WWE SmackDown as they show it first in the world)
According to WP:TV's guidelines, a reception section is necessary. The closest thing we have right now is the ratings table and dictionary definition for SmackDown and the similar ratings summary for Impact. These need to be written and sourced carefully as the only concern is that I don't want these to turn into "random IWC diatribe".

Any second opinions and ideas would be welcome, thanks. -- Θaks ter 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I support your idea, Oakster. It's a great idea.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with format changes.--WillC 03:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoping for a consensus: Notability guideline for Professional Wrestling

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

Apparently an earlier conversation on the Uso Brothers never actually led to someone actually trying to get a consensus going on a general notability guideline for professional wrestling. Well never let it be said I'm just a talker and not a do'er so how about we try and hammer out a notability guideline like WP:ATHLETE to complement the general Notability criteria to make it easier to discuss instead of going "they're athletes, no they're actors, no they're more like lizard people".

First of all, let me quote Wikipedia:Notability (people) so that there is no doubts here, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability" - So a guideline to help pro wrestling editors to easily determine "are they or aren't they?".

The way I see it there are two criterias we should define

Criteria 1

A wrestler is considered notable if he has worked for "Company X"...'
- We need to figure out how to word it so that jobbers aren't included under this criteria if people can agree with this criteria.
- If we can agree on the criteria we need to work on a list of which companies - Don't suggest companies just yet, we need to get consensus on the actual criteria before actually making the list

Criteria 2

A wrestles is considered notable if he has held a championship in "Company Y"
- This one would be where working for the company in general isn't enough, but winning a title would be.
- Again - Don't suggest companies just yet, we need to get consensus on the actual criteria before actually making the list. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity sake, are you suggesting a wrestler has to meet both of these criteria, or just/at least one of them or? --Naha|^(talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 1 Discussion

So this is not a vote but a drive to get a consensus, a consensus born out of discussion. So discuss "Criteria 1" in this section, including suggestions on how to word it to keep the Barry Hardy's and Dusty Wolfe's from being included. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In order for this to work, the company or promotion themselves must be notable. Then in order to make sure jobbers aren't included, there must be a win-loss scenario. Yes, I know it's scripted, but jobbers always get pinned or submit - or at least job in the vast majority of cases. It would in effect be a case of sourcing a push from a primary source. If a promotion is putting someone over and the match results are supporting it, it would push inclusion. I'm just thinking on the fly here. Some aspects of WP:ATHLETE could be used here, if not most of them. !! Justa Punk !! 02:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I know they have to be out there ...aren't there any notable wrestlers who are famous for being jobbers, or were on TV a lot/well known, maybe great on the mic or other televised segments and just not given winning scripts in the ring? I'm sorry I can't offer up an example right now, but they have to be out there. Its just a random thought I had. --Naha|^(talk) 03:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 2 Discussion

Again, consensus not vote. Please comment on the criteria that winning a title in certain companies could make you notable. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Championships shouldn't make anyone notable. Its all scripted after-all. Continuous and consistent exposure in a promotion is all that is necessary; not title reigns. Jimmy Snuka never won a title in WWE, and hell, he's in the WWE Hall of Fame. This criteria is unnecessary. Feedback 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Feedback on this one. !! Justa Punk !! 02:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been so long since I've been around here and I'm trying to get back into the wiki way of thinking. Trust me, there totally is one. If you've been away long enough you realize how much you've forgotten. Anyway, my brain is working enough to say that on this particular point I agree with Feedback and Punk! There have been lots of "famous" wrestlers who haven't won very many titles, or any at all. :) --Naha|^(talk) 02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional Criteria suggestions

While I personally don't think there is a need for any additional rules other than the general Notability rule I think we should get all suggestions on the table and see if any other rules make sense. I guess there could be a criteria for shows or championships, just not sure how to define it. MPJ -DK 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about - a wrestler is notable, if their name has appeared in certain industry specific media sources. Infact all of the above, merely working for one of the more prominent companies deserves notability (maybe appearing x amount of times) - but in the less well known companies, they should have won/challenged for a championship or appeared many more times. There must be some notable wrestlers out there, who have never won a championship. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My thought was #1 working for some companies like WWE or WCW or TNA etc. was enough and #2 winning titles in some of the smaller, but not small (if that makes sense) which kinda coveres most of what you suggest. As for notable wrestlers who have not won titles, I'm sure they're out there and in that case they just have to follow the normal Notability guideline. Do you have a specific "industry specific media source" in mind? causee I can't think of one that's reliable enough for the mere mention to be enough. MPJ -DK 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't know a source - but that's because I am not that familiar with the topic, I just watch it on TV - however if we are using sources for citations, then one of those sources might be good enough. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Care should be taken not to exclude foreign wrestlers, I'm sure there are some major names in Mexico and Japan, who have never featured on English language events. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

When we look at lists for Criteria 1 and 2 it's my intention to have a seperate discussion for North America, Japan, Mexico and Europe so that none of them are forgotten. I'm all about the Lucha Libre so trust me it won't be completly US-centric. MPJ -DK 21:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're going about this backwards. Rather than trying to come up with a list of promotions that are sufficiently notable, why don't we simply state that wrestlers are not notable if they have competed only for local promotions of limited appeal? For example, someone who competes for Pennsylvania Championship Wrestling for several years should be considered notable, since PCW is an independent promotion but has a decent following. Someone who has competed only for Albany Insanity Wrestling, however, wouldn't make the cut (I made up that name, but you get the point). I don't think it would be at all beneficial to have a rigid policy that doesn't allow for some flexibility. With a list of promotions that are notable, however, we stand to lose (and prevent) a long list of articles that should be included in the "sum of all human knowledge". To be honest, I think a career of in the independents that spans 15 years should also be grounds for inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

it's not "ridig", it's an addition to the normal Notability criteria. 15 years of wrestling and he should have enough reliable 3rd party coverage to cover WP:N or honestly he's not that notable. I'm going on the example of WP:ATHLETE that states what level you have to compete at to be considered notable. I'm not saying "If you have not worked in the WWE get off Wikipedia", I think you skipped something to come to that conclusion. MPJ -DK 23:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't say that, but I'm concerned that this is going to turn into something similar to last time. People gave the names of over 40 promotions that they felt were notable and discussion trailed off because there was just too much to discuss. What I'm saying is that, even though a list of 40 promotions would be next to impossible to discuss and agree on, that would still leave quite a few notable promotions. To be honest, I don't see how we could come up with a list anywhere close to being sufficiently comprehensive if we didn't include at least 200 promotions from around the world. I think it would be better to approach it from the other side, as in not giving a list at all but simply specifying that competing as a professional wrestler is an assertation of notability unless it is just for local independent promotions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Since every single person who has commented seems to think these guidelines exclude every single other wrestlers that does not fullfil the criteria I must obviously not have made it clear, or they are not familiar with the fact that you can have additional notability guidelines without invalidating the basic notability guideline. So I'm stopping it now, WP:N is our guide. Let's go forth and edit articles instead. MPJ -DK 03:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. When I originally opened this up to edit it, the criteria discussion had not been archived yet (I think I opened it up and walked away from the computer for awhile, sorry). So some of my comments came after it had been archived. If it needs to be reverted to fix my "after archive edits" please feel free to do so. My bad. Sorry, been away from wiki for awhile. Still trying to get my wings back. --Naha|^(talk) 03:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Famers

Don't forget about the Project goal of getting 10 WWE Hall of Famers to GA status. I made a table showing all of the HoFers' article statuses the other day (it can be found here) and sadly, most are in really poor shape. For articles assessed mostly as mid, high, and top class...there should be a lot more GAs. I'm currently working on Eddie Guerrero. Nikki♥311 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at this!

Take a look at WWE Money in the Bank, see what is wrong with this page.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to be an ass but why don't you either tell us what's wrong instead of playing a guessing game or fix whatever is wrong? MPJ -DK 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong, other than the "future event" tag isn't on it. Feedback 17:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not posting it, but I fixed the problem. The problem was somebody put TNA's PPV template in place of WWE's PP template.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Mikeymike - while I have your attention, would you mind if I asked you to start using edit summaries when reverting someone? A simple RVV will do when reverting blatant vandalism, but if it is a content dispute, please explain why you are reverting them. Thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

bullshit disclaimer

undetermined number of professional wrestling matches that will involve different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feud blah blah blah

Not required.

Video game articles do not have a disclaimer telling people that it is not real life, pro wrestling does not need one either.

Do people really consider wikipedia readers to be that ignorant and out of touch that they dont realise it is scripted?

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all please be civil, thank you. Second of all the disclaimer is one of the way we avoid wrestling articles become Wikipedia:IN-UNIVERSE as wikipedia guidelines state should be done with TV, movies, books, comics, wrestling etc. So you say it's not required, but wikipedia guidelines say that they sorta are. MPJ -DK 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for not being civil - I don't see my manners being relevant to the discussion, but if you were offended then I offer my apology. I have not seen as blatant or patronising a disclaimer on any movie, book or video game article - does it add anything to wikipedia to have the disclaimer? If there are guidelines regarding such things, they are being interpreted in a different manner on other articles. I propose removing the disclaimer from all articles and having the scripted nature of wrestling made abundantly clear on the main pro wrestling article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't appear on other articles doesn't mean it isn't appropriate on the articles its present on. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

correct, but the fact that it does not appear on other articles means that editors are able to interpret rules in a reasonable manners and that there isnt a wikipedia wide consensus on patronising disclaimers on every single fiction related article. It could be removed. Are there any reasons why it shouldnt be removed?カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll note on Star Wars it does have a disclaimer in the setting which is similar towards what we put on the Professional Wrestling articles. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 17:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Manners are always important, especially if rudeness takes away from the point you tried to make. Articles need to be clear on what's real and what's not - articles on shows describing the background of the event, the feuds and storylines need to make sure it's clear to everyone that it's not seen in the same light as a boxing event or an MMA event, two legitimate sports it closely resembles. make a blanket statement that "no such disclaimers exist" is wrong, like the example given with Star Wars. We've just tried to be consistent about it with the format of wrestling events or wrestling championships, the fact that others have not when they probably should have is not really something this project can be blamed for. the argument "other articles don't do that" is not a valid argument for why something should or should not be for these specific articles. MPJ -DK 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that guidelines are just that: guidelines. Not laws, properties, postulates or rules. They are there for us to have a general idea of how to write articles, but in no way are they there to referee article content. Feedback 23:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On the Star Wars article (are we talking about Star Wars the series or the movie ie. IV?) although the wording makes it clear that it is a work of fiction, there is no generic and clumsy worded disclaimer - wrestling articles should not try to imply that it is non-scripted, but there are much better ways to do that with a few subtle words ie. Wrestlemania 1 was a scripted event rather than the current disclaimer. I have no desire to trick anyone into thinking it is real, but at the moment the disclaimer is laughable, for want of a better word it looks stupid. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So basically what you're trying to say is "I think the disclaimer should be changed"? How about you stop moaning or complaining and actually suggest an alternative then to see if you can get a consensus? After all moaning doesn't change things, although it's definitly easier than doing something about it. MPJ -DK 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

After telling me that manners are important, I find the above comment quite strange. Was it really needed to say I was moaning? Would it not have been a little more polite (as manners are so important to you) to merely ask "what changes do you propose?" If you read my above comment, you will see what I have suggested. Remove the disclaimer, word each article so that it is not implied that wrestling is real, when given the chance use terms such as scripted, planned, unplanned etc - so that the readers can differentiate between a planned, fake injury/firing/incident and an unplanned, real injury/firing/incident. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lets all actually discuss. Quit your bickering and lets look at the situation. The disclaimer helps explain several different aspects of the event. It is an old format that hasn't been expanded much recently. Like with titles, it went from a large paragraph or two, to a simple sentence. The same can be done of PPVs. Just with time, no one has been expanding them recently though I have a few ideas on reformatting. Though, I don't have the time anymore to do it. The evolution of PPVs from 2007 has been interesting. The disclaimer could probably be redone and made smaller and probably more helpful. In fact, we doing most of the way PPVs are written can help too.--WillC 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the current phrasing that is being objected to? I have used the following phrasing in the past: "The buildup to the pay-per-view consisted of feuds scripted by the WWF's writers, and the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the WWF." That gets it all done in one sentence. It doesn't go into detail about wrestlers portraying heroes and villains, or tension-building events, or any of that stuff. That extra stuff is unnecessary. The phrasing that I have used could be shortened, though. Without cutting any information, it could be trimmed to "The feuds leading to the pay-per-view and the match results were scripted by the company's writers." GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, discussion is better than bickering. The main point I am trying to make is that a standard disclaimer is not required, the current disclaimer is overstating the obvious, simply stating "x is a scripted event" and linking to the main wrestling article is enough - same goes for the individual wrestlers "x is is professional wrestler taking part in scripted events" is about as clear as it needs to be, it leaves no doubt in the mind of the readers, there is no implication that it is real and the scripted events can be linked to somewhere with a whole wealth of information.

This particular line makes me laugh due to their over the top babying of the readers - "Wrestlers were portrayed as either 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" - firstly it is wrong - some wrestlers are neither villains or heroes - the jobbers who are there merely to be beaten, the tweeners who are by their nature somewhere in the middle. There are not always series of events to build tension - people can cash in their money in the bank clause without any tension whatsoever, some matches are designed for comedic effect or possibly in the case of some female matches for titilation - I don't watch a panties and bra match due to any tense atmosphere, I watch it to see some titties.

The current disclaimer is neither required, accurate or short enough - two or three words at most would be better.

カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Stating the event is scripted outright without anything else is wrong. Why? Because several actually moments are real. Injuries, wrestler's breaking character, etc. A disclaimer is needed, because most sporting events are concieved as real.--WillC 07:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. There is a script - therefore it is scripted. A drop in temperature is not part of the script, does that make the event any less scripted? In a movie actors may improv, but it is still a scripted movie.

Besides what do you propose? Shall we add to the current (very long) disclaimer that although the result is scripted, there are various events within the event that may be real and list all of them. "this profession wresting event consisted of pre-determined matches, dialogues and events apart from matches, dialogues and events that were not pre-determined" I hope that is not what you desire カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose actually trying to expand the format, rather than thinking one word can make up for an entire backdrop of storylines and real life situations. This isn't the first time this has been discussed, and probably won't be the last. All of 2008 several different discussions were discussed that led to consensus after consensus being established.--WillC 09:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation, The disclaimer is not needed on many articles, I would not put it on a wrestler's article however, and possibly PPV articles. The reason it is needed on an article like Star Wars, is because a good bit of the article will be written "in universe" I don't think this is the case in most wrestling articles. PPV articles are generally expanded lists, and I don't think any wrestler bios have the disclaimer. An article on moves, or titles can have the disclaimer, as it seems appropriate to mention that the title is not won as a result of a completely athletic event. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above, perhaps on titles/moves/the main professional wrestling article a disclaimer is required, but on PPVs and wrestlers' articles, a simple link will suffice. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to start removing/trimming the disclaimer on PPV articles. Hope no one minds. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We should come to a consensus before you start removing them. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing seemed to be happening here, so I thought it would be good to trim the disclaimer rather than remove it, on a few articles and see if people gave a shit. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well what you're doing is going against a previously reached consensus, which can result in blockage if its continually done. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, there seems to be no clear consensus - some editors are saying to keep it, some are saying to trim the disclaimer, some are saying only use it on certain articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the long-winded disclaimer, but I strongly oppose taking action before coming to a consensus here. That's not how discussion works. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If no new consensus is established, then the previous consensus stays in effect. As far as I see, the only reason to remove it is i don't like it like there always has been. I feel the format can be redone, but one word is not going to cover the entire situation.--WillC 03:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

With that said, the part that Sennen Goroshi was removing was "Wrestlers portrayed either a villain or a hero as they followed a series of events that built tension, and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches." I feel that the statement is unnecessary, long-winded, and demonstrably false. I don't think it adds to the reader's understanding of the article, and I think the length does come across as condescending. As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, wrestlers are not always heels and faces. Not all pay-per-view matches are the result of anything at all--some seem almost random, so the tension isn't always there. In addition, if a feud is building up to a pay-per-view, it doesn't result in a series of matches at all. It results in one match at the event (there are a few exceptions, but not enough to add irrelevant information to dozens of articles). Can we agree to start by removing that sentence? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It applies to most matches on the card and Main Events, I see no reason for a change. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for trimming the disclaimer without obtaining clear consensus - I could claim that I was merely being bold, but of course discussion is better. I obviously do not agree that the disclaimer should be there is it and I do think it needs to be shorter. We have some editors happy with the current version, and some who think it is too long - what happens next? I am not going to edit war over this, but neither am I going to stand by and let it stay as it is, if there is no clear majority. Do we need a third opinion? Can some form of compromise work? Any suggestions? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me eat my dinner and then I will try to come up with a constructive proposal. food > wikipedia カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide ideas that just might work and look reasonable and maybe we could come to a consensus on it. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose removing "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." from the current disclaimer on all PPV articles. I also propose adding cited facts to the Professional wrestling article, in order to give much more background to the scripted nature of wrestling - despite my dislike of the current disclaimer, I do find the fact that wresting is scripted to be both interesting and notable and think that this could be expanded on greatly and linked to within a new, trimmed disclaimer. I also think that the Championship (professional wrestling) article could have a little more detail regarding how and why internal decisions are made to push a certain wrestler into winning a title. One other point, if the current disclaimer is trimmed, it would be nice to have a little variety - but that is something that can be dealt with afterwards. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of these points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points, but I have some problems with them. Like how are we going to source this new information? Also, who will do this work? I barely have enough time to just write this message, no way will I be able to help redo all the PPVs, the pro wrestling article, as well as the championship article. We are shorthanded as it is.--WillC 04:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's over 200 people in this project plus a lot of IP editors. I think we can manage. Feedback 11:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points, I do feel until the points are reached though we shouldn't look to trim or remove the current disclaimer. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 12:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

We definitely should. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so there's no reason to say that two articles have to be improved before dozens of others can be improved. Worst case scenario, we should trim the disclaimer immediately. Even if the other changes never get done, the quality of Wikipedia will have greatly improved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, a work in progress but what I am saying is we should start small then grow. Not make a long list to do. Stick with one thing at the moment then grow. Yes, there is a high number belonging to the project, but how many actually edit and work on problems? I've only counted about 20. So I say sticking with removing the heels and faces stuff for the moment from the PPV disclaimers, then afterwards deciding our next move.--WillC 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay so becausee 0.1% of all wrestlers are "tweeners" it should be removed that people play face or heel characters? why not remove it all together then? or replace it with "hey you know wrestling is fake right?" and be done with it since that's where this seems to be heading. MPJ -DK 03:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we should remove that people play face or heel characters because it is covered in other articles and we don't have to baby the readers and explain every single detail that is already very obvious to everyone apart from 0.1% of the readers. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove it because it often doesn't matter to the article. If it is important for the reader to know that someone is a heel, that should be stated at a relevant point in the article (and there is no need to substitute "villain" for heel, or "hero" for face, or "rivalry" for feud, since no other WikiProject over-applies rules like this, and the Manual of Style is clear that "It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers"). For example, it might be useful to state: "Shelton Benjamin, a heel character, kidnapped Batista's daughter", "Jeff Jarrett became a face after turning on manager Johnny Polo", or "All of the heel wrestlers joined Dean Douglas in the ring to celebrate his victory". GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How is any of that notable? Benjamin kidnapping anyone in storyline is not notable to Benjamin as a wrestler and not really significant to the PPV. PPV's shouldn't be about storylines, they should be more about production since it is an event rather than a pay for television show. If that was significant to elevation in career status, it is understandable but shouldn't be written as if it has credibility since it never happened. Heel and face are still jargon and should be explained to an extent. We all need to quit using the excuse "other projects don't" or "other projects do". It is like the old saying "If Johnny jumped off a bridge would you jump as well?". Lets make up our own methods. Making assumtions that everyone know's is incorrect. I've seen several people assume all of wrestling is fake or that wrestling is real. We should still be seperating fact from fiction, storyline from reality.--WillC 06:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pay Per Views are all about the storylines leading to the match, you don't have an article on Batman Begins that just focuses on the shooting of the movie or the tecnical aspects. MPJ -DK 07:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with GaryColemanFan the ability to link to heel or face should be utilised and is far more effective than a patronising disclaimer, your statement that some people have assumed wrestling is real results in the following responses 1. I doubt it. 2. They must be living under a rock. 3. Are they all 5yr old kids? 4. There are enough links to heel,face,professional wrestling to keep them happy.

Wikipedia should be of professional quality, professional media does not normally treat the readers like idiots - it is embarrassing to see this disclaimer in its full, ignorant current state. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out the google searches for "is the Undertaker dead" after Smackdown and then tell me "everyone knows it's totally fake". There should be some sort of disclaimer on PPVs and Championships to make it 100% clear it's "out of universe", - otherwise it'll have to be written as "X was booked to defeat Y" over and over again, which I find even dumber. One-two lines at the top should solve the problem. Format-wise, I am fine with a rewording of the disclaimer, shortening it. MPJ -DK 12:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I don't know why I was arguing with you. All I am proposing to be trimmed from the disclaimer is the "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches." line, not the whole disclaimer. Would you agree with that? Or do you have another alternative wording that you would like to suggest? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have enough of a problem with that to complain about that. ;) MPJ -DK 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So, does anyone have a problem with me removing the "Wrestlers will portray a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that build tension, and culminate into a wrestling match or series of matches" line from the disclaimer? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am a wrestling fan, but more importantly, I am a frequent wikipedia user, for everything from wrestling to European history to physics. I feel the need to voice my extreme displeasure at the way the professional wrestling articles on wikipedia are written. First, and most importantly, they are extremely condescending. Readers do not need to be reminded that wrestling is scripted every six words. For terms that might be considered "in-universe" such as "face" or "heel," a link to the article for a face or a heel will suffice. I know this because that is how I learned many of these terms, and how I have learned many other terms on a wide range of subjects. Even worse, is that this ridiculous standard is only applied to pro-wrestling. As JohnDoe0007 posted:

"How else does one describe such events of a fictional world without having to say "Mark Hamill, the actor portraying the character of Luke Skywalker then pretended to fly a starship (which was actually a combination of camera techniques and production props in addition to post-production work including special effects and editing that made it look as though he was flying through space) to the fabled Dagobah system, where he made his way through a set that was designed to look like a swamp and met up with an animatronic device that filled in for a character (of a fictional species) named Yoda." Such language is just asinine and completely unecessary to fulfill WP:WAF requirements."

I'm sure we can all agree that such language is not only condescending, but makes the article much harder to read.

Secondly, I have read the talk archive, and believe that I have a feel for most of the arguments that support this sort of "out of universe" writing. They seem to be that: 1) People unfamiliar with pro-wrestling will not understand the article. To this, I would say (as many others have) that someone who is curious enough to be reading an article on wikipedia will surely click on the links for terms that they don't know, and read up on those terms before reading on.

2) "WE NEED TO HAVE FEATURED ARTICLES" - I cannot stand this argument. The goal of wikipedia is NOT to try and get as many featured articles as possible! The goal of wikipedia is to be a free, easily accessible website that people can go to for unbiased information about things. If certain qualifications for being a featured article get in the way of being able to provide information in a non-condescending manner, then we should say "screw featured articles!" The pro-wrestling articles written before this change were no less informative to anyone who wanted to learn about pro-wrestling. Now, they are just more wordy and harder to read, due to the awkward phrasing and extremely long sentences that result from this change. So what if it isn't a "featured article?" It still does its job just as well. For the record, I am only talking about this "out of universe" style of writing and eliminating wrestling "jargon" in the desire to be a featured article. Obviously, things like citation, accuracy, and objectivity are vital to fulfilling wikipedia's goal.

As an aside, I would also like to say that the header "various feuds" is used in WAY too many articles. Surely this sections can be broken up into smaller sections.

Knower of the Episodes (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves

Rey Mysterio, Jr. → Rey Mysterio and Rey Misterio, Sr. → Rey Misterio

Not done No consensus to determine a move. -- Θaks ter 14:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

They both have different names (although the difference is just the "i/y") so I believe they can be named accordingly. A hat-note to each other's article is suffice I believe. They are already placed so there is no need for the "Sr." and "Jr." Feedback 21:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support as above. I thought about Rey Mysterio but wasn't sure if I should put it up so thanks.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: To many different spellings of Jr.'s name. He at one point wrestled as Rey Misterio I do believe and won the WCW Cruiserweight Championship.--WillC 22:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I didn;t put it up.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but "Rey Mysterio" his WP:COMMONNAME. And even if it weren't, a hatnote would suffice for distinguishing the pages. Feedback 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the name is his common name. But he has several spells and gained fame under each one. If anything, I feel it should be at his actual name.--WillC 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be "Rey Mysterio". What guideline are you referencing when you think it should be at the birthname? Feedback 03:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying spellings. They are all pronounced the same way. But each spelling has its own notability.--WillC 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you object to Morrison being renamed because of his two and a bit years as Johnny Nitro but be for this when Rey spent 12 years using the Jr moniker, including five years during the wrestling boom of the late '90s on Nitro? Tony2Times (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I know he wrestled under the Jr. moniker, but how can you disagree that "Rey Mysterio" is his WP:COMMONNAME? He used the Jr. moniker in WCW and ECW, but has wrestled for the past 9 years as "Rey Mysterio" where he won the Royal Rumble and World Heavyweight Championship. Surely, it is his common name. And per WP:COMMONNAME, if a common name can be established in a consensus, then the article should be named by it. Feedback 05:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with it because he wrestled in ECW and half his time in WCW as Rey Misterio, Jr and the other half in WCW as Rey Mysterio, Jr before going to WWE and wrestling as Rey Mysterio. I don't know whether you're mistaken or you just didn't articulate it well/I'm not reading it properly, but it comes across as if you think he wrestled in ECW and WCW as Rey Mysterio by the way. Tony2Times (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reworded my last statement) Tony, I know he wrestled a lot under Rey Mysterio, Jr. and Rey Misterio, Jr., but for the past 9 years, he has been "Rey Mysterio". In those 9 years, he has gotten his career's highest accomplishments (Royal Rumble, World Heavyweight Championship, Intercontinental Championship). It is quite obvious that the most notable name is "Rey Mysterio" and it is obviously hisMost Common Name. Feedback 12:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

He debuted on SmackDown late July 2002 so he's been Rey Mysterio for only seven and a half years, but even then I don't know if recentism should effect an encyclopedia. During the wrestling boom when it was at its pinnacle in the '80s and he was one of the major stars of WCW's popular cruiserweight division he was Jr, not to mention his lasting legacy in ECW and the five years in AAA and some appearances in Japan with WAR.Tony2Times (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And you honestly believe that his stints in ECW and AAA plus his tenure in WCW's Cruiserweight division are more notable then his 7 and a half years in the globally broadcasted biggest wrestling company of the world where he won their top prize, main evented their biggest event, won one of their highest honors and won several of their prestigious titles? I feel like its pretty concrete that the most notable part of his career is in WWE plus the fact that most people know him as "Rey Mysterio" Feedback 14:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that (according to Cagematch.de) his 115 appearances on Mexican national TV with AAA, 245 internationally televised appearances in WCW during the biggest boom period and most watched era of wrestling amounting along with 9 ECW matches make him just as notable as Jr as his 356 internationally televised appearances during the industry's subsequent downturn without the Jr suffix. Tony2Times (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but it comes down to a Common Name/Notability battle between the "Undercard of WCW during the 90's" or "WWE Main Events of the New Millenium"? Feedback 03:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I believe that his common name is Rey Mysterio, Jr. The "Jr." and "Sr." in the article titles are much more helpful in distinguishing than just relying on hatnotes. It's working well now, so there is no benefit to a move. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support I maintain that Feedback is right. Everything he says make sense and obviously show Rey Mysterio is his most common name.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Support change to Rey Mysterio but keep the other at Rey Misterio, Sr. -- known more prominently as Rey Mysterio (especially achieving more success under that name); his uncle is known more as Rey Misterio, Sr. than just regular Rey Misterio.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment As stated above, I think that 13 years as "Jr." in major promotions outweighs 8 without. With Rey Mysterio as a redirect, nothing's broken and nothing needs fixing. This seems as good a place as any, though, to ask about the image in the "Unmasking" section. The image description states that it is some guy who might be Rey Mysterio, Jr. Can anyone verify that it's actually him? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw him unmask on television; that's definitely him. Apparently the guy who wrote the image description was trying to be funny- he even misspelled "maybe"; I'll change it. Back on topic though, I think 8 years that include 5 as a top guy in WWE outweigh the rest of his career. The most notable tenure of his career is the one he is in right now and his most popular (common) name is "Rey Mysterio". Feedback 16:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

He did a Shoot Interview with RF video in like 2001 without his mask so its definitely him. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

John Hennigan → John Morrison (wrestler)

Done Per WP:COMMONNAME, consensus has decided a move to John Morrison (wrestler) -- Θaks ter 14:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

He's better known under that name. --68.45.16.61 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- He is also really known under Johnny Nitro. Feedback 00:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: Same as Feedback.--WillC 01:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: given that John Hennigan is his more well known name. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is "John Hennigan" his most well-known name? No one even remembers Tough Enough. Feedback 19:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you forgotten what common name says? If a subject does not have a common name the article is to remain or be moved to the subject's real name.--WillC 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I probably have, and should have said Hennigan is the name *I* know him as. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I was talking to Feedback. Work under his real name, Morrison, and Nitro would constitute a problem. Thus, imo, common name can not be established. As a result, article is to stay at real name.--WillC 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, my bad. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Will, there is no part of WP:COMMONNAME that says if a common name can't be established, use the real name. Look it up, there is no guideline that says that. The guideline says the common name has to be established by a consensus. Feedback 05:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If a common name can't be established, then what should the article be named other than the person's real name? --Naha|^(talk) 12:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

John Hennigan is definitely not his common name. His 2 most common names are John Morrison and Johnny Nitro but which one?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 04:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

He used "John Hennigan" on Tough Enough though. I'm not saying its his common name, but if anyone brings it up, it would make sense. In other words, he has been on mainstream television and in WWE under John Hennigan, John Morrison, and Johnny Nitro. Feedback 04:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So do we keep John Hennigan or what?--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the only move where I am definitely stumped. I don't know what to say... Feedback 02:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

~~Well, I think we should keep John Hennigan since no common name can be established.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)~~

I'm pretty sure that Hennigan is not his common name. So according to WP:COMMONNAME the users must establish consensus to what name is the best. So let's look at him as Johnny Nitro. He wrestled in MNM where he won the WWE Tag Team Championship 3 times and also having held the Intercontinental title twice. And now as Morrison he has teamed with the Miz where he won the WWE Tag Team Championship once and the World Tag Team Championship once also 2 Slammy Awards with him. Also as Morrison he has won the ECW Championship once and Intercontinental title once. These are just brief parts of his career.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well then, lets just move it to John Morrison (wrestler). Feedback 01:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with that.The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- per the Johnny Nitro argument. He has won the ECW title as Morrison, but he first won it as Nitro.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you read the discussion, you must know why we can't keep it at "John Hennigan". Don't just oppose, propose a solution. John Hennigan is obviously not the common name, what do you have in mind for the article title? Feedback 03:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  - If we can't determine a clear common name, we must ignore the rule.--WillC 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    - Really? And why in Jimbo's name would we do that? Feedback 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I support the move. Yes, he has wrestled under his real name before, but that was just mainly for his early career; especially with Tough Enough. His other names (Blaze/Spade) weren't as notable. His only other real notable name was under Johhny Nitro, which is what jump started his career. He wrestled for 3 years under Nitro, but I feel he has accomplished more as John Morrison; including setting up a tag team and popular web show under that name. As Nitro he won the WWE Tag Team Championship and IC Title, but as Morrison he did that multiple times (won a Slammy too) and held the ECW title and was even in contention for the World Championship. IMO, he has gained more notoriety as Morrison.--Truco ₅₀₃ 04:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot to make sure you all knew I Support this move but of course with the (wrestler) qualifier.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 17:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's held 4 Championships under the name, even if he won the ECW title under the Nitro name the majority of his reign he was Morrison, been featured in numerous games under the name also. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 08:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't believe Morrison is his common name; he's won more championships as Nitro (2 IC, 1 ECW, 3 WWE Tag as Nitro as opposed to 1 IC, 1 World Tag, 1 WWE Tag, and 2 Slammys as Morrison) and been featured on WWE tv as Nitro for just as long as he has as Morrison. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Support Note about his ECW title win. The video of the match was edited to remove all mention of Johnny Nitro as per a full replay of the match on ECW of SyFy (and all mention of Benoit went with it). His time as Johnny Nitro was entirely covered as a part of MNM. As a singles wrestler he is in effect known 100 percent as John Morrison so the move should be made. !! Justa Punk !! 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Support - per Truco's last comment. --Naha|^(talk) 03:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Darren Matthews → William Regal

Done Clearly it has been agreed that Darren Matthews is not the common name, and the main discussion is about "Steven Regal" vs. "William Regal". Per WP:COMMONNAME, "when there is no obvious common name for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best." So judging by that criteria and the consensus, it's a move to William Regal. -- Θaks ter 14:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

He's better known as William Regal than Darren Matthews --68.45.16.61 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Has used the name for 11 years in WWE. Other names used in un-notable promotions and for a few year in WCW used different names.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk 22:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Yeah he did use other names like "Steven Regal", but Steven is obviously not his "Most Common Name". His Common Nameis obviously "William Regal". Feedback 11:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Oppose He used Stephen Regal and Stephen William Regal in WCW, while touring the world for ten years and on ITV's World of Sport which at points was more watched the FA Cup final on UK TV. Tony2Times (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So? None of those are his "most common name". Just because he has a lot of common names, doesn't mean his "most common name" becomes less common.Feed back 13:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So appearing on British TV in all four countries despite it being on a 'regional' channel, wrestling for New Japan on five tours with&against the likes of Sting, Luger, Kensuki Sasaki, Great Muta and the even greater Buff Bagwell (ahem), two stints over 7 years with WCW on American TV&PPV, including winning four TV Titles and being paired with a young Triple H, challenging Dan Severn for the NWA World Title at their 50th Anniversary show, challenging X-Pac a number of times for the WWF European Title and appearing on Raw, Heat and the 1998 Survivor Series PPV and reappearing for a month in 2000 on WWF all as Steven Regal (or Lord Steven Regal, although I think we can all take that as a nickname) over a 20 year period count for nothing? Tony2Times (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When the average person points at Regal and says "That is ___". Fill in the blank and that is his most common name. All that time as Steven Regal and Lord Steven Regal and others do count for something; "Steven Regal" is a solid 2nd-to-most common name. We can still all agree that "Darren Matthews" is in no way in the top three common names and in no way does it have an "article title priority" just because it is his real name. PerWP:COMMONNAME, real names don't matter and article titles are solely based on the most popular name the person has gone by, which in this case is "William Regal". Feedback 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to forget, that if a common name can not clearly be establish then the article can't be moved, thus we have to ignore common name and leave it where it is.--WillC18:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the policy advocates keeping it at a "non-common name", I think everyone (well almost Will) can agree that it's definitely not at anything resembling a common name right now and should be moved one way or the other. Just a matter of establishing which is more known - Google tests and accomplishements under each name can help point the direction MPJ -DK 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No Will, MPJ-DK is right; the policy doesn't say we should ignore WP:COMMONNAME, it says a common name has to be decided by consensus. No one here will obviously agree that "Darren Matthews" is his common name, so we have to decide between his popular names "Lord Steven Regal", "Steven Regal" and "William Regal". I think the obvious most popular name of them all is "William Regal". But if you believe "Steven Regal" is morecommon, you're welcome to explain why. (regardless though, I think it would be ridiculous to name the article "Steven Regal") Feedback 13:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Tony2Times. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Support per Curtis/Feedback^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Support -- Although he has worked in WCW as Steven Regal, the company is now now longer in existence. He has gained more success and prominent exposure in the WWF/E (KoR, IC, Tag Titles, European) as William.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Support - he's had more media attention as William Regal. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 11:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Question - Are recentism and local bias valid reasons to move a page? More media attention (in North America, but certainly not in Europe), yes...but only because there is more media out there these days. He has many more years of media attention as Steven Regal, though. Worldwide, though, I still suggest that Steven Regal is more common. So do we go with the most common name while competing in Europe (population 731 million, to which we can add Japan--population 128 million) or one of his two common names in North America (population 529 million)? I think the choice should be fairly obvious. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  - No, that is besides the point. WWE does not solely operate in North America, but around the whole world. People in Europe also know him better as William Regal than Steven Regal. Yes, its because of his WWE tenure, but this WWE tenure has gained him international exposure not just American as you implied above. All these years as William are the most popular years of his career. Feedback 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Population is moot GFC I bet less than half of Europe and Japan watch wrestling as well North America.--Curtis23's Us al ions 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Response - I don't understand what you mean by "as well North America". WWE shows are televised to much of the world, but World of Sport (on which Steven Regal appeared multiple times) was huge in Europe. Steven Regal also toured Japan, where wrestling is more of a cultural phenomenon than perhaps anywhere else on the planet. I don't know how you can claim that his WWE tenure "gained him international exposure" when he clearly had tons of international exposure in the past, as Steven Regal. You claim that he is better known in Europe as William Regal, but you give nothing to back that up. I point to the fact that he wrestled for 10 years in Europe as Steven Regal before he even came to North America. Even then, he was known as Steven Regal during the most important (and, even more importantly, the most watched) period in recent wrestling history. How was he known during the nWo saga and "Attitude Era", when wrestling actually became a huge part of North American culture? As Steven Regal. Then he went off to WWE during a massive decline in wrestling's popularity, where he remained a secondary character and changed his name to William. In summary, he has 17 years as Steven versus 10 as William. In those 17 years, he toured 2 continents (as Steven) that he has barely, if at all, touched during the subsequent 10 years. During those 17 years, he also competed alongside the biggest wrestling storyline and biggest boom period of the past two decades (also as Steven). His highest PWI 500 ranking came in 1994, while he was wrestling as Steven Regal. That's a pretty solid case, especially when considering that the evidence against this consists primarly of "You're wrong because I say so". GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're out of line, no one has said "because I said so" as everyone who supports the move has provided an explanation on why. The fact is that most people know him as William and anyone who did know him as Steven, no recognizes William as his common name. That's because regardless of his past accolades as Steven, his WWE run is his most recognized. Yes, he wrested for various other promotions in the past, but his most recent one is in WWE and its his most popular one (popular = common). Feedback 06:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
  - Why? Because you say so? I've actually given evidence. You have given "most people" think this...this is "his most recognized"..."its his most popular one". If this were an article, that post would be plastered with "citation needed" tags. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
    - Well how about comparing William's 491,000 Google hits with Steven's 134,000 per WP:GOOGLETEST? Do you want a WWE-source that considers him to be "better known as William"? [11] Or how about a third-party source [12]? Maybe you'd want to see more facts yourself. Feedback 07:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
      - (1) A Google Test would just show what name he used most recently, as thee internet wasn't nearly as big for the first 15 or so years of his career (during which he wrestled as Steven). Like I said above, recentism isn't a valid argument. (2) A WWE source would obviously use his WWE name, so I'm not sure what that proves. (3) I'm not going to be convinced of anything by Wrestling101.com. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        The Google search engine is not biased to recent events. If so, Andre, who has been dead since 1993, would not have 407,000 hits. Or Yokozuna wouldn't have 403,000 hits and Randy Savage would have less than "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Randy+Savage%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 352,000]. A lot of people who competed before Steve Regal laced up his boots have more hits so you're "recentism" argument is null. Feedback 15:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
        I'm assuming that you're serious, although I'm not quite sure. Andre the Giant and Randy Savage, former WWF Champions who also had a lot of exposure outside of wrestling, obviously have a lot of hits. However, neither of them changed their name after the explosion of the internet in the late 1990s, so your comeback doesn't come close to addressing the point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is pointless, your criticism of each argument is unfounded. Google Billy Jack Haynes. I doubt he's had more exposure than Regal. See what comes up. Feedback 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain why I choose to support, he's been known as William Regal since 2000, won 13 Championships under the name and KOTR, and has also been featured in countless games under the name, he's had far more exposure under the name than any other alias he's used. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
GFC all you are saying is he is more know under Steven "because I say so" and you say that we're doing this. The internet is not biased towards recent times I mean in only a few hours the Google hit of William have gone from 491,000 to 504,000 so can you please tell me that William is not more notable in receiving 13,000 hits in a matter of hours. Also Andre has been dead for 17 years which is before "the boom of the internet" yet as Feedback says he has over 400,000 hits.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Breaking News - The United States government has announced that Mount Rushmore is to receive a major overhaul. The faces of the four presidents that have graced the mountain for decades are to be removed permanently. In their place will be the likeness of current president Barack Obama. When asked for the reason, a spokesman replied, "It's simple. We used a google test to determine the most important president in the nation's history. Since the internet obviously isn't biased toward recent years, the proof is indisputable". "Barack Obama" returns 53.4 million hits on Google. The quartet formerly found on the mountain ("George Washington", "Thomas Jefferson", "Abraham Lincoln", and "Theodore Roosevelt") returned only 38.3 million combined hits. "We figured, just to be safe, that we'd throw a few more presidential names into the mix. We added 'John Adams' (5 million), 'James Madison' (4.1 million), 'Calvin Coolidge' (.7 million), 'Warren G. Harding' (.4 million), 'Rutherford B. Hayes' (.4 million), 'James A. Garfield' (.4 million), 'Zachary Taylor' (.6 million), 'Martin Van Buren' (.6 million), 'William Henry Harrison' (.5 million), 'Millard Fillmore' (.5 million), 'William Howard Taft' (.6 million), and 'William McKinley (.8 million). Even with the 4 original Rushmore presidents combined with these other 12, Obama still has more google hits and is therefore more notable and important than all 16 of them combined." GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  - Finally! Although I'm sad to see Lincoln go, I always thought Jefferson was a fucking prick anyway. Hey, but I think this is better suited for Talk:Mount Rushmore than here. Also, there's a reliable source that implies that Obama will be placed alongside them instead of being added in their place. You should recheck your sources. Feedback 01:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    - Hey, I always liked Jefferson...the slavery and mistress things weren't all that great, but he was quite the writer. Anyhow, I'm glad to see that a little humor on both sides may have defused the situation a bit. I maintain that I'm correct on this one, but I'm willing to let it go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking News Gary Coleman has been removed from Wikipedia when the remover GaryColemanFan was asked why he did this he said "because I said so".--Curtis23's Us al ions 02:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm left without a comeback, since you have not yet contributed anything to this thread that makes even a slight bit of sense or shows that you have bothered trying to understand what I have said. Please consider this the last time that I will respond to you on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not like your breaking news contributed anything to the discussion either, though I don't condone Curtis' behaviour either. You have brought up the point that he's been known under the Steven Regal name well before his WWE days however you neglect to see the fact that WP:UCN does state "It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations" yes I will observe he used Steven Regal in WCW and WWF from 1992-2000 an 8 year period, however his success can be argued was minimal, and his tenure under the William Regal name has been that of 10 years and as I have noted he's won 13 Championships 14 if KOTR is included as well as appearing in a major video game franchise under the name which as noted by WWE's Corporate website in 2007 "WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 Sets Record Sales in UK & US" which Regal was under the very same guise in the record sales game, I do not know the sales of his book but he is also attributed by the name on many major international organisations such as Amazon and Google, this is more than enough proof that this is his Common name. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 08:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Tony and Gary. Still extremely well known as Steve(n) Regal here and wrestled under a variation of that since 1985. I don't believe that he has a definitive common name. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nikki we all know is is also known under Steven but that does not mean that is his most common name that is what makes all the difference in this move request. His success under Steven was he won the WCW Television Championship 4 times. Under William he has won the World Tag Team Championship 4 times, the Hardcore Championship 3 times, the European Championship 4 times, the Intercontinental Championship 2 times, and he was King of the Ring in 2008. As Afro said that's 4 under Steven and 13+KOTR so it is obvious he has been more successful under William.--Curtis23's Us al ions 16:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Definitely better known as William Regal than Steven Regal because WWE has had generally more exposure during the period he was on the roster than he ever got with WCW. That means that Regal got more coverage as William rather than Steven. The amount of time he was called Steven is actually not relevant in the realm of notability. How notable was he as Steven? I venture to say he has been more notable as William. The Google Test bears that out - and further it is ridiculous to compare it to US presidents because the fields are totally different and the coverage is on a totally different plain. !! Justa Punk !! 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for too long, don't you think? 6 people support stating that Matthews' "most common name" is "William Regal" while 3 people oppose stating "Steven Regal" is just as common (something which I personally disagree with). Do we have a consensus or not? Feedback 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

The Bash (2009) → The Bash or WWE The Bash

Done Unanimous approval. -- Θaks ter 13:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Seeing as WWE The Bash was moved a couple of months ago to WWE The Great American Bash, is there any possibility we can move The Bash (2009) to either The Bash or WWE The Bash, seeing as it's a one-off name? Vengeance: Night of Champions is one example of a one-off name I can give that doesn't have any parenthesis. -- Θaks ter 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I support the move to WWE The Bash. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Support WWE The Bash, doesn't need a year since it was a one off name. MPJ -DK 20:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Support Go for it. Feedback 17:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Support Go do it, Oakster.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Start WWE All-Stars wikipage?

Since Gamespot had a sneek peek of the new WWE All-Stars game, is it about time to start the wikipage for it or wait untill more info comes out?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait till more info comes along.--WillC 09:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

IF theres clear information on Publiser, Consoles, Release dates and the studio which will be producing, I see no reason not to begin the page. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody already started it up a few days ago. I've done a cleanup on it. -- Θaks ter 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE Website

Recently it seems that the Wrestling Observer has been able to get numbers on the Shop sales and Website hits, I was just wondering if we should note this type of stuff on the World Wrestling Entertainment article. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about other members, but that strikes me as trivia content. !! Justa Punk !! 08:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010

I just found out about this backlog elimination drive, scheduled for next month. I'm not sure how many of this project's articles are marked for copyediting, but this could be a great time to get them taken care of. I also know that there are some strong writers in this project, so they may want to help out with some other articles as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

v t e World Wrestling Entertainment employees
Raw Superstars	Batista · Carlito · Chris Jericho · David Hart Smith · Edge · Evan Bourne · Ezekiel Jackson · Goldust · The Great Khali · Jerry Lawler · John Cena · John Morrison · Justin Roberts · Mark Henry · Michael Cole · The Miz · Primo · R-Truth · Randy Orton · Ranjin Singh · Santino Marella · Sheamus · Ted DiBiase · Triple H · Tyson Kidd · Vladimir Kozlov · William Regal · Yoshi Tatsu · Zack Ryder
Raw Divas	Alicia Fox · Brie Bella · Eve Torres · Gail Kim · Jillian Hall · Maryse · Melina · Natalya · Nikki Bella
SmackDown Superstars	The Big Show · Caylen Croft · Chavo Guerrero · Chris Masters · Christian · CM Punk · Cody Rhodes · Curt Hawkins · Dolph Ziggler · Drew McIntyre · Finlay · Hornswoggle · Jack Swagger · JTG · Kane · Kofi Kingston · Luke Gallows · Matt Hardy · Matt Striker · Montel Vontavious Porter · Rey Mysterio · Shad Gaspard · Theodore Long · Todd Grisham · Tony Chimel · Trent Barreta · Tyler Reks · The Undertaker · Vance Archer
SmackDown Divas	Beth Phoenix · Kelly Kelly · Layla · Michelle McCool · Rosa Mendes · Serena · Tiffany · Vickie Guerrero
NXT	Darren Young · David Otunga · Heath Slater · Josh Mathews · Justin Gabriel · Savannah · Wade Barrett
FCW Superstars	Abraham Washington · Alberto Banderas · Alex Riley · Big E Langston · Bo Rotundo · Brett DiBiase · Bryan Danielson · Byron Saxton · Cable Jones · Cliff Compton · Conrad Tanner · Derrick Bateman · Devin Allen · Donny Marlow · Drake Brewer · Duke Rotundo · Dusty Rhodes · Eli Cottonwood · Howard Finkel · Hunico · Jackson Andrews · Jacob Novak · Jimmy Uso · Joe Hennig · Johnny Curtis · Johnny Prime · Jules Uso · Kaval · Leo Kruger · Mason Ryan · Matt Martlaro · Michael Tarver · Norman Smiley · Percy Watson · Portis Clay · Rhys Ali · Richie Steamboat · Rudy Parker · Skip Sheffield · Steve Keirn · Tito Colón · Titus O'Neill · Wes Brisco
FCW Divas	AJ Lee · Aksana · Jamie Keyes · Jemma Palmer · Liviana · Naomi Night · Tamina
Stables and Tag teams	The Bella Twins · The Colóns · Curt Hawkins and Vance Archer · The Dudebusters · The Fortunate Sons · The Hart Dynasty · The Rotundos · The South Beach Boys · The Straight Edge Society · Team Lay-Cool