Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwefan980 (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 1 June 2007 (→Just to let you guys know something). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

Archive
Archives

TannerD

This user keeps uploading images which are against copyright policy, think we might need to take action against him/her. I have warned before, it kind of has a sockpuppet feel to it also! I don't think him/her is taking any notice of what is on the talk page! Govvy 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabian (wrestler)

I just noticed Sabian in the prod list, anyway, I am pretty sure he is a fairly notable wrestler on the indy circuit. I don't know how many of you know of him, but I have seen him wrestler a few times, just thought I would let those know so you can help get a decent article here. Govvy 13:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those that wanted to know, One Night In Hackney upgraded the deletion process for Sabian. Govvy 11:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPV Infobox--Brand(s) Now Redundant?

Is it still necessary to list the brands in the infoboxes for PPVs, since they are all tri-branded? Koberulz 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be there now. Neldav 17:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I initiated a similar discussion not too long ago (it should be in the archives); the general consensus seemed to be that we should keep them, anyway. Jeff Silvers 17:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should be kept for historical reasons, plus the WWE could easily revert to brand specific PPVs. Darrenhusted 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2002 PPVs listed both brands, and that was before the change this year. Mshake3 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

The Backseat Boyz, Christopher Street Connection, Azriael and Quiet Storm have all been proposed for deletion. I think was very nice of the nominator to not inform the project. Nenog 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creation log says he only registered on May 3, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I informed him on his talk page that it is common courtesy to inform the article's creator and/or the correct WikiProject when you PROD an article. TJ Spyke 21:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Wrestling

Is this really that notable for an entry? It was a flop and I see no sources that prove it's very notable. A "reunion" wrestling show of sorts being on PPV isn't that notable in my opinion. Lots of things go on pay-per-vew: that's not enough to prove it's worth an article here. The only sources the article has (from what I see): is wrestling fansites, and nothing else. RobJ1981 22:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just taking a look at the external links alone shows that it passes WP:N, by being covered by multiple non-trivial sources. TJ Spyke 23:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fansites might be "non-trivial", but they are still fansites. When people create articles for indy (non-PPV) shows: they usually get deleted. I see Heroes of Wrestling as the same as that, except it made it to PPV. The article needs better sourcing, otherwise it should go. Wikipedia shouldn't be home to every wrestling event just solely on the fact it made it to PPV. RobJ1981 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slam! Sports ([1]) is a fansite? 411wrestling isn't a fansite either. Lords of Pain isn't either. Yes the PPV was a flop, but does that mean WP shouldn't have articles on movies and TV shows that flopped either? All the sources are in the external links, but I can put them in the article itself too. TJ Spyke 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's worth anything HOW is referred to in Power Slam extensively, not only did they cover it in 1999 but they have listed it on several occasions as one of the worst wrestling PPVs ever. Darrenhusted 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this PPV makes the cut for having achieved notability for being extremely bad. Strange to say that, but this show has achieved cult status. Most of the show used to be on YouTube for anyone who hasn't seen it, but be prepared, it is DREADFUL. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA-TNA split official

http://www.nwawrestling.com/PHP-Nuke/index.php

http://one.revver.com/watch/267425/flv/affiliate/87879

Time to make the necessary changes.

Mshake3 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably hold off on creating a new article (presumably TNA World Heavyweight Championship, currently a redirect to NWA World Heavyweight Championship) until we have more information about the new TNA title. Same goes for the World Tag Team Championship. Hopefully we'll get more information by the end of tonight's pay-per-view. Jeff Silvers 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about a pain in the ass. Now we have to watch a lot of different articles. Angle is a world champion, but not the NWA champ (since NWA stripped Cage and Team 3D earlier today) and not the TNA Champion (since TNA hasn't announced their titles yet). I will watch Angle and the TNA World Title page, can others watch articles like Team 3D and the NWA Tag Titles? It's safe to assume TNA will announce the new belts on iMPACT, but it will be annoying until then. For now, I have just listed Angle as the World Heavyweight Champion )with it linking to the basic World Title article), same with Team 3D. TJ Spyke 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I was actually about to suggest the same thing (i.e., just describing them generically as the "World Heavyweight Champion" and "World Tag Team Champions," respectively). That's actually how I edited Cage's article before he lost the title tonight. Jeff Silvers 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to determine exactly when the reign begin. When WCW created their own championship, they claimed the reign began when the champion won the NWA title, as opposed when the switch began. We should know more by Tuesday. Mshake3 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it would seem the new TNA titles began today, with Christian and Team 3D as the first champions. The logic behind this is that TNA recognized them as their champions during the show tonight while they weren't recognized by the NWA; when TNA does officially announce their new titles, it would stand to reason that those titles share lineage with the "World Heavyweight Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship" defended tonight on the TNA show. Jeff Silvers 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but WCW did things differently. Then again, we're talking about WCW. Your situation is more likely. But we'll see. Just remember that both options are possible.Mshake3 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, and if TNA decides Kurt Angle is the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion, I guess he is. Still, it brings up an interesting point: if Angle IS the first TNA Champion, what was the title defended tonight? It can't be the NWA World Heavyweight Title, and if it was the TNA Title, that'd make Christian the first champion. Jeff Silvers 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens, TNA needs to do it quickly. I've already had to revert several articles because people keep adding NWA or TNA to the titles. Someone also insists on creating articles for the TNA belts even though officially they don't exist yet. TJ Spyke 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeff. The NWA stripped Christian Cage and Team 3D of the belts earlier today, so IMO they will be the first TNA champions. Hoepfully TNA does announce something on their website rather than wait for the iMPACT tapings and announce whether they consider Cage the first champion or Angle. BTW, I have put warnings on several pages telling editors not to change it to "NWA" or "TNA" for the titles. TJ Spyke 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really hope TNA doesn't decide to recognize all TNA-era NWA World Heavyweight Champions as TNA Champions. The can of worms that would open would be ridiculous. Jeff Silvers 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer is reporting that Angle's going to be stripped of the title on Impact, leading into the KOTM match at Slammiversary to decide the first "TNA Champion". Obviously we shouldn't add anything to that effect until it's official, but just clarifying. MarcK 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, I guess we'd just recognize Angle as an "unofficial" NWA World Heavyweight Champion, the same way we do with Flair's "unofficial" reigns? That's sorta how List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions is set up now. Jeff Silvers 16:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The titles have been officially announced, and wil be unveiled tomorrow (World Title) and Wednesday (Tag Titles) on TNA Today [2]. I think TNA will consider Christian Cage the first champ because on their history page of the NWA World Title, the last champ they have listed is Abyss. TJ Spyke 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:SpoilersThey debuted the new World Heavyweight and X belts at the Impact! tapings tonight, and Kurt Angle was stripped of the title, as was expected. This is the reason we shouldn't wait until TV tapings air to post events--the current policy basically forces us to give an inaccurate description of what's going on until Thursday. As it stands right now, the TNA World Heavyweight Championship will be decided in a King of the Mountain Match (as was predicted); there's no indication as to whether Angle is recognized as the first TNA Champion. Jeff Silvers 00:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Template:Endspoilers[reply]

Looks like TNA's official position, at least as of now, is that the TNA World Heavyweight Championship is, in fact, a direct continuation of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship http://www.tnawrestling.com/info/history/tnaworldtitle.html . List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions has been edited to reflect this new viewpoint, but I don't think we should indulge TNA's revisionism like that. Even though they controlled the titles at the time, they don't control the NWA World Heavyweight Title's lineage; they can crown their own champion, sure, but they can't say that former champions of another promotion--even if they were defending that title within TNA--are suddenly former holders of a new title. In addition, the NWA is still recognizing the TNA-era champions--does this make Abyss a two-time world champion? He is, after all, recognized by the NWA as a former champion AND by TNA as having held an apparently different championship. Jeff Silvers 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says the NWA Title was replaced by the TNA Title, not that they are the same title. They even list Cage's reigns separately. TJ Spyke 08:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason to just follow TNA in saying the TNA Belt was just created on Sunday. TNA also lists EVERY NWA Title reign (just click "A More Comprehensive Look At The NWA World Title") , does that mean we should consider all of them TNA Champions? I think TNA is just listing Shamrock and the others so that they don't ignore how important it was for them. This may be similar to WWE and SmackDown's title, they say it has the same history and the WCW Title but not the same lineage (and thus Triple H is considered the first champion). The same situation appears to be happening here, the TNA Title has the same history as the NWA Title but not the same lineage since the TNA Title didn't officially exist until May 13. TJ Spyke 08:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing accomplished tasks

I recently cleaned up and wikified both Shawn Michaels: From The Vault and Jimmy Snuka. Also, Maryland Championship Wrestling has been recreated (by a different user), so I'm removing all of those from the list of things to do. Nikki311 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rizzono problem

This article recently survived an AfD however something that wasn't brought up in the AfD, and is pretty important, is that this article has been the pet project of banned editor JB196. The article was created by a JB196 puppet (Bearhug Lewis), edited by another (Shavenhead2), then when those were blocked a new one showed up that was hit when it was blocked as an open proxy (Pharoahski) and now has been followed up by another SPA (Eightball440).

The problem here is we have an article that is well sourced however it also is bringing validation to a banned editor whose contributions are decreed to be deleted. What should happen? –– Lid(Talk) 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it's sourced and seems notable, it should stay. I would assume, vandals and/or blocked users in the past have created articles: and people at Wikipedia don't go "oh that was created by this vandal, so let's remove it". I certainly don't agree with the actions of JB (and his puppets), but the article appears to be fine and should stay. RobJ1981 06:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly very surprised at that. If JB is using his love of wrestling positively to create and source legitimate articles then long may it continue. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One good act can not justify "long may he continue", he is not just one of the most loathed banned users here, he's managed to piss off most of wikipedia with his antics and then managed to piss off meta.wikimedia. Even right now while doing this article he is using other socks on other wrestling articles to blank information and continuing his MO, he's using one account for this and about nine others for vandalism. –– Lid(Talk) 21:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has had close to 100 sockpuppet accounts banned and is basically on a "ban at sight" list, meaning that any accounts and IP's used by him are to be banned immediately. Whether this guy is notable or not and whether the article stays or not, JB and all of his sockpuppets will not be allowed on WP. TJ Spyke 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument there, my only question is whether the article should stay. –– Lid(Talk) 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am admittedly only somewhat familiar with JB and his sockpuppetry, but if there's nothing wrong with the article itself, it should certainly stay. Jeff Silvers 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is his long term abuse report: Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/JB196. Instructions to admins are to revert his edits and ban him on sight. TJ Spyke 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is TNA

Does this really need its own article? Koberulz 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, which why it has a proposed merger. Nikki311 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing there... might as well do a quick delete on it. Govvy 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Is there any reason we don't have a wrestling portal? It seems like every other project has one. MarcK 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced list

I believe there was one before, let's start a new list for sourcing so certain editors don't just blank content off and ruin articles. Adrian Adonis is in need of sources. It just came off protection for an edit war due to sources I believe. I know this is listed in misc. projects above already: but Burntsauce doesn't just edit wrestling articles, so just finding what he has blanked isn't that simple (unless people have a ton of free time). RobJ1981 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not revert to the previous unsourced version until it is sourced despite Burntsauce's reasons for removing it the artile still needs to be sourced before re-insertion. –– Lid(Talk) 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recognise a wrestler's real name then I check out the page, occasionally BS hasn't blanked everything, but as BS goes through 200 edits a day it can be hard to spot anything without trawling through pages. Darrenhusted 15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list here. This user (User:Neldav) references pages and has a list of ones that need to be referenced. You can add to the list at the bottom of the page. Nikki311 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Neldav is blocked now for apparently being a sockpuppet, so now we need a new plan for sourcing. Here is some articles that need sourcing/better sourcing: Triple Crown Championship and List of TNA tournaments. RobJ1981 19:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, a copy and paste move of the subpage of Neldav plus any other pages that need to be added. Perhaps sorted by promotion? WWE, TNA and other (for every other wrestling company). RobJ1981 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do wrestling articles have too many blue links? For most articles, it appears that a term should only be linked to once. For wrestling articles, we seem to highlight a term on almost every occasion. I understand that this is partially due to new users adding week-by-week updates, and in an attempt to make it look good, add the links. I can also see the benefit to having multiple links to the same article for those really long articles. But I still think we need to cut it back.

Opinions? Mshake3 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any overlinking in the Backlash article. Each PPV is a seperate section, and WP does say terms should be linked the first time they appear in a section. TJ Spyke 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally I just picked an article at random without looking. A better choice would be King of the Ring and the tournament matches. Also, what qualifies as "section?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is a section, the topic below is a section. Each PPV on those pages are their own section. NWA World Tag Team Championship has 6 sections for example. I can understand where you are coming from (for tournaments), but I don't see it as a big deal. TJ Spyke 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't think the names should be relinked for each PPV in the same article. Mshake3 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense for separate pay per views on the same page because articles often link to a specific section. «»bd(talk stalk) 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most bio article don't have repeated blue links, and the same is true for Championships which only link for the first reign of each wrestler but for PPV I don't see the harm in 1998 KOTR having Billy Gunn linked and then 1999 KOTR doing the same, after all if you are looking for a specific year then you can click on a section link and could end up at a 2007 PPV with no blue links if each wrestler were linked only once. Maybe the regular monthly smaller PPV (No Way Out, Backlash, Judgement Day, Armageddon) need to have separate pages put up like Royal Rumble and WrestleMania.Darrenhusted 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well what about the KOTR PPVs, where some wrestlers are having more than one match in the same show? What about the Lockdown PPVs where every match is in the Six Sides of Steel? Do we really need eight links to the Steel Cage article in each PPV section? Mshake3 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, multiple links to the same wrestler of type of match on one PPV are not needed, by all means go ahead and remove them, but on most of the KOTR PPVs I only saw each wrestler have one link on the tournament tree. Sometimes Mshake3 you need to be bold. Darrenhusted 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think I'll just start changing articles in an attempt to be bold. Can't hurt. Mshake3 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, my fixing of the article with the biggest problem, TNA Lockdown, was reverted. Why anyone think that 24+ links to a steel article is necessary, I'm not sure. Mshake3 01:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

There is a section in Vince McMahon's articles on the McMahon DVD located here. It also has it's own page, located here. These should probably be merged, as it is pretty redundant. Thoughts? Nikki311 23:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Championship listings

I'm curious about the policy of listing championships under the promotion they're won in rather than the governing body that owns them. For instance, there are numerous NWA championships that are defended in Japanese promotions and it looks scattered and disorganized to have NWA championships listed under a National Wrestling Alliance subsection and in the subsection of a Japanese promotion, such as New Japan Pro Wrestling. If the NWA, or any other promotion, owns a championship or championships that are defended in other promotions through some sort of arrangement, shouldn't the title reign be listed under the governing body or promotion that ultimately owns the title or titles in question? ThanksOdin's Beard 23:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever owns the rights should have it listed. TNA, for example, owned the rights to the NWA World and NWA Tag Team Titles from 2002 until this past Sunday. Otherwise the title should be listed under its governing body. This is just my opinion of coase. TJ Spyke 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TJ. While the NWA may still be alive, it wouldn't make sense to list the ECW World Title under Extreme Championship Wrestling, because when won now, it's won in WWE. Similar but different, I know, but almost close enough. Bmg916SpeakSign 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, titles should be listed under the promotion that owned them. While the WCW World Heavyweight Championship in WCW and WWF were the same title, there's an important distinction that should be made between those who won it in WCW and those who won it in the WWF. Jeff Silvers 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the majority of people above. There is an important piece of historical information captured by listing belts under the promotions they were owned by. It can get thorny with the NWA, of course, since they have always been more of a governing body than a promotion. I would list the interpromotional titles, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship, under an NWA heading, but I wonder about belts that were owned and only contested by promotions that were members of the NWA? Should the names of those promotions be subheadings? What if they broke away, but kept the belt's name? - Geoffg 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well see, that's really part of the confusion that I have. Take the Continental Wrestling Association for instance. They used both AWA and NWA championships in their promotions, so where should they be listed? It's sounding to me like there's a bit of a contradiction of policies. As to the various WCW and ECW championships that were won after their purchases by the WWE, I'd have no problem listing those under the WWE because they were bought outright by the WWE. If that's what the situation is with other promotions, like New Japan Pro Wrestling for instance, then I can understand. However, it still creates a bit of a problem I think. If the purpose is to list the titles under the promotion s where they're defended, then I see little point in listing all of the various NWA championships under one subsection and listing them under world, national, and regional headings in the C&A section of wrestlers' articles. For instance, if a wrestler has a reign with the NWA Florida Heavyweight Championship, shouldn't it be listed under Florida Championship Wrestling rather than categorized under the NWA subsection as a regional championship?Odin's Beard 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution might be to eliminate the "Regional" subheading. We could have a "World" subheading for the few interpromotional belts that are actually defended intercontinentally, a "National" subheading for the interpromotional belts that are actually defended in various promotions throughout a country (or continent, in the case of the current NWA North American Heavyweight Championship, for example), and then member promotions' names as subheading or main heading for those belts that are only defended in one promotion, even if they are called "United States Champion" or "World Champion". Needless to say, this only applies to governing bodies that have interpromotional belts. As far as I know, that basically means the NWA and the AWA. In the thorny case of the Continental Wrestling Association giving them their own main heading seems best, because it can get pretty complicated. - Geoffg 01:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's the solution, it might just be simpler to do away with the subhedings altogether. Aside from the various regional championships, look at all of the different versions of NWA Canadian, North American, United States, and World Tag Team titles. It doesn't make much sense to list all of the various Florida regional NWA titles under a Florida Championship Wrestling main heading without also adding the various "National" titles defended in that region as well. I dunno, it all strikes me as a bit of a mess as far as NWA titles are concerned.Odin's Beard 23:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminating subheadings for the NWA and AWA may be the best solution. If we list all belts under the promotions where they were resident at the time, then the only belts we need to list under NWA, for example, are the interpromotional ones, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. This would mean, for example, that the NWA World Tag Team Championship (Central States version) would be listed under Central States Wrestling, while the NWA World Tag Team Championship would be listed under National Wrestling Alliance. What does everyone else think? - Geoffg 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. If the consensus is to list titles under the main headings of promotions they're used in, then it makes using the world, national, and regional subheadings unecessary anyhow.Odin's Beard 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining kayfabe (in regards to spoilers)

I know this has been brought up before, but never quite in-depth enough to really get a good discussion going. I know it's current WP:PW policy to maintain kayfabe by never reporting match or event results until the promotion officially announces or airs them, but is this really necessary? I think, in the end, the answer should be dependent on what's best for Wikipedia: not spoiling events for readers, or keeping our articles as accurate as possible? For instance, let's say Wrestler Q wins the ABC World Championship, but the match doesn't air for several days. During those several days, by our current policy, we're pretty much forced into keeping Wrestler Q's article (not to mention the ABC World Championship article, the article for the ABC promotion, and the article for the former champion) inaccurate for what amounts to maintaining kayfabe. I know this has been justified in the past by stating that Wikipedia isn't a rumors or results website, and this is true, but allowing our articles to stay up-to-date wouldn't suddenly cause more people to post day-by-day results than already are. There's really no valid reason for keeping this outdated policy, and it's hindering our efforts to make Wikipedia a reputable and accurate resource for professional wrestling information. Jeff Silvers 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it didn't officially happen until the company recognises it as having happened. Thus, the page is not out of date. Koberulz 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...Except that it did, in fact, happen, even if the company decides not to announce it for a few days. I mean, if we're going to go by what the company says "officially" happened, we're basically just following kayfabe, and how does that help Wikipedia? Jeff Silvers 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title changes on Smackdown are rare, and so the specific problem of acknowledging a title change is not a problem, and when Edge won the title both WWE.com and ECW on the Tuesday actually spoiled the change. The policy is not just for SD or ECW results that have been recorded (which are more likely than RAW or PPV spoilers), it is the policy of week by week reporting. And all talk pages for wrestlers state that week by week results should not be added. For comparison take an actor, if they have two films out in a year and get married or divorced then the information being added is minimal. A wrestler (such as John Cena) has new information every week, but that information is not notable every single week, and other than injuries, title changes or a heel or face turn very little weekly wrestling will be notable. The week by week policy then overlaps with spoilers for title changes, however that is rare and can confuse the matter. WP:PW is not a fan forum, and that is where weekly results belong. Darrenhusted 13:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your could always use spoiler tabs. McPhail 20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC) - Template:SpoilerTemplate:Spoilerends[reply]

The only reason to put spoilers in articles is if week by week information is being added, and week by week is against policy. Darrenhusted 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. For instance, the TNA World Heavyweight Championship was stripped of Kurt Angle on Monday, but Impact doesn't air until Thursday. As a result, Kurt Angle, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, TNA World Heavyweight Championship, and List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions are all out-dated and inaccurate until Thursday due to a policy that's intended either to protect readers against spoilers (which is why we have spoiler tags) or to maintain kayfabe (which isn't necessary or beneficial in an encyclopedia). Jeff Silvers 23:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the spoiler tag to be useless. If there's a spoiler tag in an article, then that means something huge has happened, and 99% of the time it's a title change. Perhaps we can establish that ALL wrestling articles MIGHT contain information about events THAT HAVE OCCURED but havn't aired yet. In addition, what does week-by-week have to do with anything? Why does that keep getting brought up? Why the hell is that an excuse for not allowing spoilers to be added? Mshake3 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't quite get that, either. The suggestion isn't that editors be allowed to add in the results of every pre-taped show, just events that are noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in the article (title changes being the most prominent example). Jeff Silvers 02:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what I'm saying is that it is the thin end of the wedge, title changes that are taped are infrequent, in the past couple of months we had Deuce and Domino, then Edge and now TNA stripping titles. In a year's time it will not matter when those changes were added, so what is the harm in waiting a couple of days, why put the title change then sit it in spoiler tags? Why not wait a few days? The problem comes when fanboy editors decide that every result needs to be added and that by putting spoiler tags in that they can get around week by week rules. A title change that will not be recognised for a few days can wait, but to add spoiler tags in gives those who want to flood articles with week by week results the excuse to do just that, and justify it by sticking a spoiler tag on. After all we are only talking a couple of days, by the time this exchange has reached its conclusion the results will have aired and the point will be moot. Darrenhusted 12:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. How about we just include the results (if they are deemed important) right after they happen, and ignore the spoiler tags. Sounds good? Mshake3 20:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those would be spoilers. I agree with Darren on this issues. Besides, the policy has been working just fine and see no reason to change it. TJ Spyke 23:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How well it has been working is a matter of debate. Personally, even though most title changes that are taped on WWE air only a few days later, I still think this policy hurts Wikipedia. For one thing, it seems to center around a very WWE-centric view, resting largely on the fact that most taped WWE shows air only a couple days after the taping. That's not always the case, however. For instance, the articles on Wrestling Society X, WSX Championship, and Vampiro were forced into inaccuracy for months based on this policy. In addition, ROH is taping shows now for pay-per-view that won't air until several months later. Are we just supposed to pretend the event didn't happen for a few months? And to anybody who says that the current policy is "working fine" and shouldn't be changed, what's the worst thing that would happen from changing it? It's not like people are suddenly going to start posting week-by-week results more than they are just because we're making an effort to provide more timely information. People won't suddenly start ignoring the "no weekly results" rule more often just because they see spoiler tags. Jeff Silvers 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far the pages which have been edited then reverted over title results have been WWE or TNA pages and these have been when the result is happening in a matter of days, and in terms of policy fits with the week by week model. If a result is taped months in advance then by definition it is not weekly, and so week by week can be ignored for monthly results. But so far this discussion has centred on WWE and TNA because the most edited pages are WWE and TNA pages. Darrenhusted 23:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But even within the context of WWE and TNA, this policy fails. I know it's only "a few days," but it's a few days in which we're purposely keeping articles inaccurate out of fear that if we don't, somebody will, for some reason, take that as a reason for turning Wikipedia into a week-by-week results website. And for the record, even results which have been known for months are still subject to being edited out of Wikipedia as per the current policy, as evidenced by the WSX articles I referenced earlier. Jeff Silvers 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeff, especially as policy supports the position. Week by week was created to prevent people from simply adding weekly match reports to pages, it was NOT created to prevent people from adding X won a championship or company changing facts. –– Lid(Talk) 09:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, imagine Wikipedia existed in October 1990, for the sake of accuracy would you have reported that the Hart Foundation had lost to the Rockers? For the sake of kayfabe no title change in WWE or most wrestling federations (but WWE is the biggest) is official until acknowledged by that organisation, there are very few times when this is even an issued but it falls under week by week, and for the sake of waiting a couple of days I don't know why this is such a big issue. And to keep stating that "Wikipedia will not be accurate" is a smoke screen. It will be for a few days. If there is a title change in a smaller organisation which will not be screened for months then spoilers may be appropriate, after all a monthly event is not weekly. Darrenhusted 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just can't imagine why you'd want to be wrong on purpose for even several days when we're supposed to be a reputable encyclopedia. And since when did the promotions get to rewrite history to say that certain events happened on certain days? This is the only policy which allows promotions to do that. If we allow the promotions to dictate what actually happened based on what they "officially" recognize, shouldn't Buddy Rogers and WWE Championship be edited so that we recognize that Rogers won a tournament in Brazil to become the first champion? And just to preemptively counter any argument that this is a totally different situation, think about: the only key difference between acknowledging that Rogers was awarded the title and acknowledging that a title change took place at an earlier date is that the former doesn't involve a time dispute. By the way, you can call this argument a "smoke screen" if you like, but the argument that "reporting information in a timely manner will result in massive posts of week-by-week results" sounds an awful more like a smoke screen to me. Jeff Silvers 16:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Michael - "A" Article?

Just asking...the Shawn Michaels article looks great, but I noticed that there is no sourcing for it prior to 1992. Does this really qualify as an "A" quality article with no sourcing prior to 1992? I'd love to see it become an FA, but it needs to be an "A" first, and I wanted to make sure it wasn't rated too high too soon. Theophilus75 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will soon be up for GA review there is this group claiming we need to get better sources for the references, something we know it's impossible because of WWE's ridiculous copyright policies. -凶 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement from the Wrestling Project

As of right now, I am officially retiring from the wrestling project. I have been trying to save all the old and known wrestlers from deletion, have added various citations across a number of wrestlers and other articles that come under the Wrestling project. But I am now fed up, One Night in Hackney, Burntsauce and others to me it seems they are waging a wiki war. Removing all off the information that truely needs help. Sadly this is the wrong way to go about the whole project, not once have they stopped to add any form of citation, nor have helped to really raised the problems in any form of etiquette. This wiki war as I call it is just silly and stupid, there seems to be a clash of the "wiki-politics" going on. Which is worse than watching Parliamentary Question Time on Wednesdays! Best of luck to the rest of you, regards Govvy 12:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm kind of new here and trying to do what I can, but is there anything we can do about One Night In Hackney and Burntsauce? Hackney goes through and Afd's whatever he can (he even incinuated on another user's talk page that there are about 200 on his list to eventually get to Afding). Burntsauce, as I think everyone knows, blanks pages out completely, then comes back and Afd's them for lack of content. I'm pretty sure this is NOT how wikipedia is supposed to work. Theophilus75 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing you can do about ONiH (who I honestly think is right on this one) and Burntsauce (who is in the wrong, agreed) is source the damn articles, and provide proof of notability. SirFozzie 18:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Govvy and Theophilis are trying to point out is that neither Hackney or Burntsauce seem to be willing to work with WP:PW, even if only to notify the project of the daily wrestling articles they are listing for deletion. An alternative to proposing and nominating wrestling articles piecemeal could be to provide a simple list of articles to give the project a chance to go over them. The one major problem, from what I've seen in afd debates, little of a professional wrestler's accomplishments are acknowledged as points of nobility weither wrestling for a major promotion, title wins, feuds, etc. Neither notability guidelines under athletes nor actors seem apply to them and any reference provided, regardless of its reliability, is regarded as non trivial or dismissed as "wrestlecruft". The fact that three active members have left the project during the past two weeks shows that some editors may be a little frustrated with the situation. MadMax 04:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said MadMax! I think we can do ourselves a lot of good by also realizing that most indy wrestlers are not notable, and that we really need to better source articles. I've been working on Brian Adams lately, and it's hard to source. There is some good info in there, but it is next to impossible to source it from the internet...so...unfortunately I've been taking out the unsourced info cause if we don't, Burntsauce will. Theophilus75 19:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you retiring Govvy. I too am sick of self-righteous pricks (not mentioning any names) destroying other people's work because...well I'm not sure why. I somehow doubt 'the sanctity of Wikipedia' plays a part as much as overblown egos that certain types of people get when they go online (i.e. when they aren't directly interacting with people). I've cut down my Wikipedia time dramatically this month for these reasons. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You took the words straight from my mouth Suriel. Bmg916SpeakSign 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeppers, it hard for me to do anything considering I made a number of good articles, which pass WP:BIO. But for some reason, I saw them all get delete by One Night in Hackney. What's even more insulting is this Jimbo Wells guy who seems to not read his own rules. That to me suggests that somewhere these wrestlers that put there life into the wrestling business are not being recognised by the wikipedia and that is a massive insult to the business. Govvy 12:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

The page recently failed its FLC only because one guy felt that the wrestlers real names should be added and the page should be made to look like this. I am completely opposed to the idea, because the WWE pretty much only recognizes real names and most are known by their ring names in real life (with several even making them their legal names). Few other lists also include a section of birth names. I was just wondering what some others felt about this. -- Scorpion0422 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not adamantly against including their real names, though I think it's certainly irrelevant. Judging by the FLC discussion page, I'd venture to guess the person who made the suggestion isn't too familiar with professional wrestling and doesn't understand that a birth name in the industry usually doesn't mean anything; a professional wrestler's relationship with his character isn't the same as an actor's relationship with his, and they often identify by (and even sometimes change their name to) the name of their character. In any event, I'm surprised this actually managed to keep the article from receiving featured status, but what can you do? Jeff Silvers 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how to go about things now? Should I submit the article for a second FLC or ask for a review? Because I doubt the guy who opposed will have changed his mind and could make things complicated. His objection has nothing to do with the FL criteria - except maybe Wikipedia's Finest Work - so I'm not sure why it was failed because of it. -- Scorpion0422 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I personally don't think that the "Real Names" need to be there, I don't feel that it hurts the list, I just think it adds info that isn't necessary. My thought is that if adding it will get it to FL status, then do it! We've only got 3 articles at featured status, and I for one would like to see a lot more there. I would like to recommend a change to one of your sentences that kept getting scrutinized by the featured list review. You have, Inductees are officially inducted by a high profile inducter who is highly promoted. I'd recommend changing it to something like, Usually inductees are officially inducted at the ceremony by a high profile wrestling personality whose participation is the ceremony is highly publicised. I think a similar change would remove the confusion, plus not all the inducters are "highly promoted" nor are all of them "high profile" (such as Cody Runnells); nor is their participation always highly promoted (such as Cody & Dustin Runnells).
I've got a bigger problem with the way the notes column looks, holding simply the reference footnote. That seems odd to me. In addition, how would people feel about listing names, whichever they may be, in a "last, first" style for the sorting?«»bd(talk stalk) 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Candido

This article definitely needs an upgrade, even before it was unsourced. Can someone aid me in this? Part of re-building the article will need a look at his legacy, as evidenced by the fact he has three separate tournaments named after him among other things. –– Lid(Talk) 04:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just blanked by Burntsauce. I've reverted it. Can't we do something about the guy? Koberulz 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And someone calling them self Haitian11 has just joined up to alert Burntsauce about the Candido revert, so I wouldn't be surprised if it is blanked and locked soon. Darrenhusted 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a JB196 sock (check his contributions), list it at the open Check at wp:rfcu (Foz on break) 24.62.82.234 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blanked version is now locked. Brilliant. Koberulz 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just find sources, then the page will be unlocked. RobJ1981 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, of the articles he blanked that are listed, is anybody going to unblank them? Kris 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you're going to "upgrade" the article, please do not just put a bunch of links to match results from some website. That is not a reliable source and match results rarely need citations. There should be plenty of books and print articles available about Chris to help make it a good article. Biggspowd 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you care to explain why match results mentioned in the article tend to keep getting deleted? Mshake3 22:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afa Anoa'i. –– Lid(Talk) 11:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship

NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship Discuss... ---SilentRAGE! 08:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling aerial techniques

Just an FYI...Hack's got it up for Afd. Theophilus75 20:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if we all work to source the content, it won't be deleted. I have to go to work right now, but I can try to source some stuff when I get home tonight. Anyone want to help? Nikki311 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sheik

Iron Sheik's article was messed up, just letting you all know. Kris 22:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked again, there was more vandalism since I last reverted it. I think it probably will need protection if people are continue to put rude things in the article. Govvy 09:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I just had a quick look, this article could do with a lot of citation, as there is non "references" section at present. Govvy 14:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to clean this up a bit. removed a chuck that I didn't think was appropriate and left it in the talk page. It still could do with more citation. Govvy 10:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Van Dam's release

If y'all are waiting for an "official" word from WWE.com, you're gonna be waiting until his TNA debut. Unless the wire reports are 100% wrong (and they very, very rarely are - usually just a minor detail or two, if that, is wrong from such reports) and he continues to wrestle for WWE until the end of his contract, this was specifically done quietly and without official mention. So it's silly to wait for such a thing when it will probably result in his article listing him as contracted to WWE months after he wrestled his last match for them. Nosleep1234 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't list rumors. There have been reports before of a wrestler being released that turned out to be BS. TJ Spyke 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it should be mentioned that technically, when a release is announced, they are technically still under contract for 90 days. This is how Rhyno was able to appear at the first One Night Stand. Mshake3 01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to the PWI Audio report I'm listening to now, RVD has not been released, and will be working a program with Snitsky up to One Night Stand. Obviously these audio reports are still officially rumors, so we can't report it. But still, there ya go. Mshake3 01:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I (obviously) stand corrected, and my point would have been withdrawn as soon as conflicting reports surfaced. Nosleep1234 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rumour could be added if it had a decent source that was citeable. Of course we're dealing with Vince McMahon here (that fierce proponent of free speech who hates his employees giving unofficial interviews) so the chances are very small. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling

There are major floors in this article. Professional wrestling is a sport, the definition of a sport is competitive match of winning or loosing. This needs to be seriously addressed. Govvy 12:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hah, mad you look, anywayz, I was just feeling at the top, the first line. "Professional wrestling is the performance, management, and marketing of a form of entertainment based on simulated elements of catch wrestling and theater."
That is the principle of the WWE, not professional wrestling as a whole. The first principle is the professionalism of wrestling sport, to pursue the gains and rewards of the belts in professional wrestling promotions. The sport side of the business, although floored per say, is still there, the article isn't covering the sport aspect in the top part of this article. This top part is to much on the WWE. Although theatrical, the business is becoming less and less rigged. Hence why this needs to be modified. The rise of TNA and other promotions that can get a cut of what the WWE has promoted is sure to effect this whole article. I think it needs to be updated.
Also, the article needs more citations, this is after all suppost to be the project's top article. Govvy 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although it requires a great deal of athleticism, far more than most forms of performance art, it isn't a true sport as it doesn't involve any actual competition. I guess it could be said that the wrestlers are competing to prove themselves as the best performers, but if you used that justification, you'd also have to consider writing, painting, and really every other form of art as a sport, which is a little ridiculous. You are right, though, that the article could use some more sourcing. Jeff Silvers 16:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro wrestling hasn't really been true competition since long before Vince MacMahon, and even at the earliest it was regularly rigged.
Also, I think you mean "flawed" rather than "floored" (how could wrestling be shocked? It's not sentient) and "per se" rather than "per say" (it's from Latin, and has nothing to do with saying anything. Common misspelling). — Gwalla | Talk 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Lloyd Youngblood: AfD?

Dr. Lloyd Youngblood performed career-saving neck fusion surgeries on Steve Austin, Chris Benoit, Edge, Lita, Bob Holly, Test, Rhyno, and in the near future, Gregory Helms. I have created a short article on him. The article was promptly tagged for speedy deletion. I explained why it should not be speedily deleted. The article has now been tagged for deletion. Please provide your input on whether Dr. Youngblood is worthy of an article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Youngblood. Thanks. Patiwat 21:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Pacific Northwest Heavyweight Championship

  • I've worked on this article to the point that I'm not sure it's going to get any better. I'd like to nominate it for either FL, but I'm not sure if it would pass since there is some info that is unknown and probably can never be figured out for certain. If that's the case I'd like to see if it can get through the GA criteria. I just wanted you guys opinion on which one you think it should go through? Also, if you have any ideas or comments on how to improve it that is welcome as well. Theophilus75 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article was nominated and had a look at that citation list. I really don't like the look of it at all. The list is the same citation over and over again. There are no notes for any of the wins, changes. You should really have a different citation for every new belt holder. Govvy 09:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be possible since only WWE really has a seperate page for every title reign. I do agree more sources should be used (instead of the exact same link for 95%). Here is another page for the history of the title: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/us/pnw/nwa/pnw-h.html . TJ Spyke 09:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that alternative link, is that the information there is taken from the source that Theophilus has already cited. In fact, I would bet that any title history you'll find, on the 'net or elsewhere, is taken from that book. As I understand it Wrestling Title Histories is the official "bible" of such things. The only exception would be a source like WWE.com (which obviously doesn't apply in this case), or the website of any other promotion, which really doesn't count as a "third-party" source. - Geoffg 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm totally open for ideas on improving this, but I'm not sure what else to do. I thought about double sourcing each change with the site TJ Spyke mentioned, but as Geoffg said, it sources it's information from the same book. Any ideas to make it better I'm game for. Theophilus75 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does each different change really need to be sourced? Can't a blanket "information sourced from X and Y" be put on the page, top or bottom, and take care of it? It would make it look better and accomplish the same thing.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think so, but reviewing some FL nominations I noticed that some of the reviewers were very picky about having a note in each note space, even if it was just a reference (then others thought like you and I). I was just trying to anticipate any possible complaints. Theophilus75 17:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was brought to my attention that this article could not pass GA review since it would be considered a list. Does anyone think this has a chance of passing an FL review? Theophilus75 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Piscura

A new version of Josh Piscura has recently been created and, interestlingly enough, contains additional references whuich might prove his notability. Its also been nominated for speedy deletion under "recreation of deleted material" despite it being totally rewritten. MadMax 06:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The creator and only editor is a sock of JB196. –– Lid(Talk) 06:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia

The recently deleted article NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia has been listed for undeletion if anyone wants to contribte to the discussion. MadMax 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagicons revisited

I'm all for getting rid of these flags on the WWE roster page. There is really no use for them, especially if it is going to represent what country they were born in. Putting the flag of Spain next to Kane's name is extremely misleading. In what way do they reveal any vital information to the roster of the WWE? A more useful thing to add would be finishing maneuvers or previous aliases. Not that I am actually suggesting that, as I feel it would make the page cluttered, but they are certainly more useful than flags of where people are born. Who cares? These flags truly have no place on this page. We may as well tack on the state flags and childhood pet if they're gonna stick around. --DaHumorist 18:48, 21 May 2007

It's no different than listing flags on pages like the current NBA rosters. Maybe they could be changed to their nationality. This could present some problems with certain wrestlers though, mainly those born in Canada who are now living in the US and are US citizens, although in those cases we could use both. TJ Spyke 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What policy?

It seems that the "policy" is to include this in all TNA PPV articles:

from the iMPACT! Zone (Soundstage 21 at Universal Orlando Resort) in Orlando, Florida.

First of all, where can I read up about this policy? Second, is the Soundstage information really necessary? Doesn't the Impact Zone have enough of a reputation that we can just say it's in Florida? It's a waste of space to put that extra information in every article. Mshake3 22:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is an official policy on listing all that in every TNA PPV article. I agree: it's a waste of space. RobJ1981 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy, it's just what we have been doing for a long time now. TJ Spyke 23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's time to change it. Mshake3 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, it's totally redundant. Jeff Silvers 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WON award

May I ask, why do we count Wrestling Observer awards in championships and accomplishments sections? Have they ever reached the notability level of the PWI awards? Recognizing the awards seems to legitimize WON as a news source, when it's really nothing more than a rumor mongering dirt sheet (this is the same publication that "reported" that Joey Mercury attacked Stephanie McMahon) and leads to edit and revert wars (see: Montel Vontavious Porter). Plus, I don't think any of them are cited because they don't keep archives on the website.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those awards mean anything, and would mind if we removed them (talking about WO, PWI should stay). TJ Spyke 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was either Pro Wrestling Torch or Pro Wresting Insider that reported Mercury hit Stephanie, wrong "dirt sheets". As I've stated before WON is sometimes wrong and other times announces facts long before they actually occur, we are not here to also attempt to discredit them by such phrases as "rumor mongering dirt sheet". –– Lid(Talk) 02:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it's correct though. It's full of rumors and is a dirt sheet. WO did mention the Mercury/Stephanie, although I don't remember if they were saying that story was true or if they were just saying it was a rumor. TJ Spyke 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason we have the WON awards (and hall of fame in the championships sections is that unlike the PWI awards, or other pro wrestling halls of fame, those from the WO are determined through a voting process that is somewhat transparent and unbiased, the idea being that they are a higher honour, because they represent an achievement of greater insider consensus. On the other hand, much of what is written in the WO comes from the pen of one man, who edits his own work. Though he is well-connected, it is questionable how reliable his newletter is. - Geoffg 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the WO Hall of Fame, even PWI say they consider it the "official" hall of fame for pro wrestling (not the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame). TJ Spyke 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania 23 Streaker

Can anybody confirm this "At WrestleMania 23 a streaker climbed over the fan barricade and climbed on the ring apron right at the start of the main event match between John Cena and Shawn Michaels. The fan was promptly removed by security while Michaels sat on the turnbuckle and mockingly waved good-bye to the crazed fan." Taken from Streaking DXRAW 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was visible on screen for about one second before the match started, tey switch the camera to Michaels staring at him and then waving him goodbye. –– Lid(Talk)
I have it recorded. The fan jumped the barricade and got in the ring, he then took over his clothes (so he was just in his boxers). The camera quickly cut away to Michaels, who was sitting on a turnbuckle and waved goodbye. JR even made a comment about some fans being really into it. TJ Spyke 11:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a photo of the incident. [3] -- Oakster  Talk   13:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye, I remember watching that, but it doesn't need to be mentioned at all on the wrestlemania article. Govvy 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, who are you to say that? Wwefan980 02:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling aerial techniques

Just so everyone knows, the debate was just closed. The result was...keep! Thanks to everyone who voted and to all who made very intelligent points. However, I have a feeling that this is going to make ONIH really mad. Expect revenge. Nikki311 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than acting complacently or pettily, why don't we begin referencing the remaining articles in Category:Professional wrestling moves? McPhail 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that Burntsauce accused this project of "vote-stacking" in that AFD, a typically underhanded way of trying to force us into a Catch-22 situation (if members of this project vote he will scream bias, rigging, canvassing, etc. and if members DON'T vote then he and likeminded editors will fill an AFD with non-neutral delete votes).
As for ONIH getting mad and seeking revenge, having an attitude like that doesn't do anything for this project's image. I've had major differences with him in the past but at the end of the day he is a respected editor who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia and always has his hand on the policy book. And I'll say right here that whichever user it was tried to get their own "revenge" by vandalising articles ONIH has created was bang out of order and thoroughly deserving of a ban. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanny Kean

I recently added a section on Moondog Cujo, admittedly heavily based from the deleted Lanny Kean article, on the main Moondogs article. However, this has since been reverted by User:One Night In Hackney and the redirect has been nominated for speedy deletion. As the redirect links to several articles, I thought it might as well be redirected to the main Moondogs article or risk having it be recreated again. Anyone have any thoughts on this ? MadMax 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your biggest problem is lack of sourcing (one videotape doesn't prove notability)...that and the fact that Cujo is the only member who had a section on the Moondogs page. I would say get better sources on Cujo and get sources and info on other moondogs creating sections for them, and then be bold and put the info up there...then if Hack wants to fight you on your decision you would have some firepower to support your position. - Theophilus75 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duece and Domino

I don't know exactly what to do in this case but if you type "Duece" in Deuce and Domino you get this - Deep Shadow 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the page to Deuce 'N Domino, I suppose it's possible someone could misspell the teams name. TJ Spyke 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE brand infobox

I've been planning to work on cleaning up each of the three main WWE television shows and one of them was to clean up a bit of the clutter in the articles. One of the ideas I've got is to have a brand infobox in the middle of the article due to the TV infobox (see The Apprentice and The X Factor for examples). The box will feature the current champions, authority figures and commentators. While the current articles have lists of authorities and commentators, the former already has list of authority figures in professional wrestling to link to for history. For the latter, I'm also proposing something like a list of WWE commentators article or just scrapping it.

My design is at User:Oakster/Brand infobox if you want a glance at it and give your thoughts. -- Oakster  Talk   17:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it's needed. Govvy 18:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, think it would add a nice touch to the article. - Theophilus75 21:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's needed either. Why must articles be cluttered with infoboxes? I think the current state of the articles is just fine. RobJ1981 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the existing and current userbox for the shows is fine and lists any information that is needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic Wrestling with John Cena

Okay, this article poped up on wwe.com. Well my first thought was to look up Chaotic Wrestling. But the article is no longer there and must of been deleted. Next I decided to lookup John Cena which in his early career had no mention of him being in that promotion, so now I got a bit confused. But I am assuming that it was just to do with the location being as it was in John Cena's home town. Now, this article certainly raises the profile of Chaotic Wrestling and gives it another example of notability. Also on another note, you have the belts for this promotion, you really should have the promotion article to support the belts. So maybe we should restore that article now. Govvy 10:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A one-time charity appearence by Cena, Eugene, and Vince doesn't make it notable. Mshake3 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What belts? Those should probably be deleted too if they have articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not worth putting the time and energy into creating an article that will almost certainly get AFD'd for lack of notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba Ray Dudley/Brother Ray

If his name is "Mark Lamonica," then why is the trademark for "Brother Ray Deadly" (and "Brother Devon Deadly," for that matter) under the name "Mark LoMonaco?" Check the USPTO. Nosleep1234 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed a copy of the trademarking documentation shortly after it had been filed and don't remember any spelling mistakes in it. Lamonica is the guy's surname. Where are you finding this info from? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark LoMonaco seems to be the correct spelling, per Nosleep1234, the IMDB and this interview, which is a lot more personal than most wrestling interviews. Lamonica is presumably an anglicisation. McPhail 21:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josephgraham

This user is making very weird edits. Not really suspicious or bad, but just dumb and weird. Like here he makes a UPW Heavyweight Title page claiming that the Rock and others have been UPW Champions. OK...Here he recreates a previously deleted page. Here he makes a nonsense page. Here he subtly vandalizes a page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week

Did the Collaboration of the week idea fizzle out, or is it still going strong? I'm just curious because I added a new nomination to the page: Monday Night Wars. Nikki311 06:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sabin and Shelley

Is their team name actually: The Motor City Machine Guns? I didn't see Impact where they teamed, so I wasn't sure. They are listed as that on several TNA articles, and I wanted to make sure the team name was official. I looked on TNA's website a little: I didn't see a mention of it. I noticed on Shelley's article: they've teamed in indy promotions under that team name, so this could be original release (and people assuming they will be called that again). RobJ1981 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what their team is best known as although I don't believe they have yet used that name in TNA Wrestling. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movesets

I've noticed they are growing big for wrestlers again. Alex_Shelley#In_wrestling and Mike_Bucci#In_wrestling are two examples. Do we really need move-by-move guides of the wrestlers? I can understand their finishers, and some of their notable moves: but a massive list just isn't needed in my opinion. RobJ1981 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bucci is an anomaly in that part of the listings we have for movelists is that if it is named it should be in the list, which of course is amusing as Bucci named just about ever move he ever did. It's impossible to cut down his listing because of them being named (which in the long run is the way to go rather than outright removal of named moves because of one anomaly. Shelley on the other hand does need a trim. –– Lid(Talk) 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure experts on Mike Bucci can trim out the moves he only used a few times. Being named doesn't make it extra special: if it wasn't even used much overall. RobJ1981 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a Nova mark; One Armed Bandit, Scream Machine, Nova Missle, and Smash Mouth can probably all go. And Kryptonite Krunch and Super Kryptonite Krunch can probably go on the same line.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another wrestler that needs his move list cleaned: CM Punk. Huge move guides are very crufty, and unecyclopedic. Alot of this content belongs on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 02:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The overcitation of matches/websites

I was just wondering if there is any evidence that using websites like "obsessed with wrestling" and "the history of WWE" are considered reliable sources? I am skeptical that they are, and I haven't found any proof yet that they are. I know there has been some odd trend lately that on wrestler's articles, every match has been cited (which likely isn't necessary, since knowledge of a match is common knowledge and doesn't need a citation), and is cited with results from fan websites. I doubt these fan websites are RS, and I don't think we need to cite every match. IMO, it clutters the articles, makes them hard to edit, and in turn, makes it even harder to make them GAs or FAs.

I think you should all just look at some articles that are GAs or FAs and see how they got there. Some of them don't have many citations at all. We need to focus on quality over quantity, and just ignore that citations are needed for match results. If you have ever gone to college and written a paper, you would see that you may only need a handful of citations to write a good paper. Please consider this, I'm just trying to help and save you time. Biggspowd 18:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop talking. You're not helping anyone. We've been through this enough. Mshake3 22:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that editor didn't know. There is no reason to be rude about it. Comments such as Please, stop talking. You're not helping anyone isn't helping things out. There is no reason to be uncivil, just because it was mentioned again. Also: no one forced you to post in the section, so you didn't even have to post if you didn't want to. Ignore it, if it really bothers you that much. RobJ1981 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well how many damn times is this going to be brought up? Yes, we know articles are being oversourced. Yes, we know all those references look stupid. Yes, we know some things should just be assumed correct. But as long as the admins have a grudge against wrestling articles, we have no damn choice. Let's not forget that this is being discussed in as many as three different sections on this page alone. So forgive me if I get upset when someone tells me this is wrong after suffering through months of someone telling me (forcefully) that the other way is wrong. Mshake3 01:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, to actually answer the question posed, yes Online World of Wrestling (as Obsessed with Wrestling is now known) is considered a reliable source for match results -- though much beyond that should be verified elsewhere when possible -- DDTDigest.com and History of WWE are also considered good sources based on the amount of good (fact checked) information they have provided. As for the "overcitation", it's a direct result of a minority of editors going overboard with WP:BLP and out and out blanking every non cited sentence out of articles of any living wrestler. It was a good concern on your part.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And dead wrestlers too. –– Lid(Talk) 01:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget wwe.com that should be considered a good source also, even if it is in keyfab a lot of the time. Govvy 09:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting articles, needed or not?

I personally think the Internet wrestling community is a stupid article and should be removed. The other articles are they really needed? The Hulk Hogan one is very little, and that should possibly be in his own article really, but shortened. What do the rest of you think? Govvy 11:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booker is certainly a needed article.«»bd(talk stalk) 11:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep the IWC article and merge the Workrate article into the IWC because thats one of the main topics discussed and most of the Workrate article is about the IWC. Don.-.J 15:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Booker (professional wrestling)

The booker article isn't even accurate in the least. The description given isn't what I would consider a booker. A booker is a person who "books" a wrestler to appear at a particular venue and a promoter was the person who "promoted" a wrestling event. The person who scripted a wrestling match could be the booker, it could be the promoter, or it could be a road agent, senior wrestler, the wrestlers involved in the match or someone else entirely. In today's world of WWE's predominence, a true "booker" and "promoter" doesn't really exist all that often as the WWE books and promotes all of their own matches. A promoter, booker and "wretling match scripter" (for lack of a better term) could all be the same person, or could be three or more people. - Theophilus75 16:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just an FYI, I'm tempted to list this article for speedy deletion myself (if I knew how I probably already would have) due to what I consider it's gross inaccuracies. - Theophilus75 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To nominate an article for speedy deletion put {{subst:prod|reason}} at the top of the page, explain the reason why it should be deleted, and inform the creater of the article. Nikki311 19:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the info, I'll wait a day or so and see if the article improves or if there is further comment. I've made a note on the talk page and tagged the entire article as disputed. I don't like it when people don't give me time to respond or work on article. The funny thing, the definition found on the List of professional wrestling slang page the article links to gives a clear enough and accurate description, but this article tells a whole other story. - Theophilus75 19:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proded it early this morning/late last night. Theophilus75 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workrate (professional wrestling)

I don't know what I think of this article. It's pretty much trivial smark information that isn't really crucial to the wrestling project (IMHO); but I'm not necessarily saying I think it needs to go. It does appear to be entirely WP:OR as well as have serious issues with WP:NPOV and contains what is highly likely to be disputed information. - Theophilus75 16:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Hogan's Pastamania

I think this article needs merged with the Hulk Hogan article and redirected. - Theophilus75 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ye I agree it would be better merged into Hulk Hogan. But his article is still very long, needs to be brought down to size a bit. Govvy 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we merge it with Hulk Hogan#Endorsements. Nikki311 21:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was it an endorsement or a business venture? - Theophilus75 22:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that section of Hogan's article should be changed to "Endorsements and business ventures" because the grill thing kind of belongs in both categories. Isn't an endorsement a business venture anyway? One makes money from it. Nikki311 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are sort of the same...an endorsement is where someone pays you to put their name on a product or pays you to do commercials for them (al la Michael Jordan and Nike Air). A business venture would be where you put up your own money to be a part owner in a company, and in Hogan's case your name becomes part of the company name. An endorsee will make money from an endorsement but not necessarily from business venture....all that stuff aside...I think merging it and changing the heading would be good.

Agree that it should be merged as it was one of his business ventures. --Mikecraig 23:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was WCW who put up the money, not Hogan. I would say this is more like Bruce Willis/Slyvester Stallone/other celebs and Planet Hollywood. I say merge it with Hogan, the restaurant itself was a relative failure and only notability was having Hogan's name attached. TJ Spyke 23:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that Hogan paid for it..."It was created and financed by then-World Championship Wrestling professional wrestler Terry Bollea, better known as Hulk Hogan." Even in the Planet Hollywood example, the celebs you mentioned (I believe) bought into the company, they didn't just get paid to endorse it, they became co-owners, thus incurring a potential financial liability (a business venture). - Theophilus75 23:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it more of an endorsement than a business venture, right? I guess since we are on the subject of merging small articles...what about Hulk Rules? Should that be merged to Hogan's article, too. It hardly seems deserving of its own article. Nikki311 23:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet wrestling community

After reading this article over several times, I'm still not sure what to think of it. Besides having sourcing problems (like MANY pro-wrestling related articles, it seems to be almost entirely WP:OR and may even have WP:NPOV issues. All that aside, I'm not sure what its significance is. - Theophilus75 18:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has no true encyclopaedia nature to it if you ask me, I have been through it before, and through it again. I still feel this is a waste of space on wikipedia and should be deleted. Govvy 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it, it is indeed Original Research and fails NPOV, and I don't think RS could be found that aren't self-referential. As soon as I remember how to AfD it.. SirFozzie 21:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check here WP:afd#How to list pages for deletion. Nikki311 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article up for deletion, I only bollocksed it up three times beforehand. (HOW didit survived two afd's previously?) SirFozzie 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link for AfD discussion
Instead of deleting it, how about merging to List of professional wrestling slang? It is a notable term used by internet wrestling fans and the spread of information influenced the industry. Once somebody decides to do research on it, the article would for sure warrant keeping. Until then, maybe a merge is the best idea. MrMurph101 04:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC) and Govvy, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not justification for deletion. MrMurph101 05:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just mentioned the problems I see with the article in the afd. Govvy 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

italian wikiproject

First of all, excuse me for my bad english.

Inspired by your amazing work on wrestling articles, we've started on it.wiki our own wikiproject:wrestling; we've already translated a great number of articles of yours (citing correctly the source just from some months ago... sorry about that!) and we program to do the same in the future. So, thanks for your inspirational, great articles and project, we'll feel free to contact you in case of need, just like younger-to-older brother :P. By the way, if anyone of you is it-1,2,3 and wants to help or just give us suggestions, our door is absolutely opened (of course, even non-it users' contributions/suggestions are welcome!). Thanks a lot ;)---- bs (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for complement. I wish you guys well on your project. -- Oakster  Talk   16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Adonis

Adrian Adonis' page has been unprotected. I put back all the info that was deleted, and a "new" editor (in his first post ever) reverted because Burntsauce, in the history log, said it was in violation of "Biographies of Living Persons" (despite the fact he's been dead 19 years). As such, we need to source the article before it is blanked again. Nenog 01:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few (and I mean a few) citations just now. I also did a little cleaning up. Hopefully, that might keep it from being blanked until someone can add more substantial references. Nikki311 02:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Adams (wrestler) up for Good Article Review

I had submitted Brian Adams (wrestler) for GA Review, and the reviewer quick failed it. I asked him nicely several times to explain to me what made the article quick fail so I could fix it. He continually refused to answer acting like I never asked the question. I don't disagree that the article may have problems, I just want to know what those are so I can try and fix them and move on. I've spent a lot of time on this article trying to clean it up and source it from what (I found in my research) was a cut-and-paste job. Anyway, just thought I'd give you all a heads up. - Theophilus75 02:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you guys know something

I will abide by the standards Wikipedia itself sets for me and just that. I will not follow the standards and rules you set, as they can't be enforced. I know I shouldn't vandalize, etc. but I'll let Wikipedia tell me that(which I don't anyway). Thanks! If you want to respond, please do so on my talk page. Wwefan980 03:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "rule" of WP:PW specifically are you not going to follow (i'm assuming it is a specific rule because coming in and saying "i'm not gonna list to you" for no reason would be a dick move) Nenog 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well just to let you know, one of the policies that Wikipedia likes you to abide by is do not vandalise. Its one of the more obvious ones, for the users that maybe should, so we say, have stuck to the Simple Wikipedia instead of being around here...
Remember, that's not me telling you to do anything. I know how much you hate that.
--SteelersFan UK06 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Nenog, it's obvious if you did have authority I wouldn't listen to you do to your lack of disrepect and profanity. Yeah, and I already said I knew not to vandalize which is why I was going to tell you guys that you can't enforce and control how I edit, although the purpose sure seems that way. I never said I hated anything Steelersfan, so why don't you stop being rude just because I am laying down the truth. Wwefan980 14:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right well do us all a favour and layeth down the truth elsewhere, not by making stupid edits to pages. --SteelersFan UK06 05:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are stupid by your views, I thought you would resort to personal attacks. Don't worry I would too if I was in your position. You just admitted I was laying down the truth, unless you were being sarcastic and if you were you aren't the type I need to debate with anyway. Wwefan980 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, check out these links to learn what stupid really is and what vandalism is not while you're at it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupid and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not Basically, you are in no position to say I make stupid edits or say I vandalize.[reply]

Can a wrestling article get a fair shake and an honest evaluation???????????

One person will review notability based on WP:FICT and another on WP:BIO. One person says that all references for wrestling articles are primary source while another acknowledges otherwise. At first I was having fun working on wrestling articles here at Wikipedia, but now I'm getting tired of it. Everyone wants consensus, except when it comes to wrestling articles. Then there are the idiots that review stuff and make comments without even reviewing it. I had one person say of a decently sourced article with both primary and secondary sources that, Article referenced entirely to primary sources (no secondary sources at all; all refs are merely match results). It really does make me consider wanting to quit this project all together........... Theophilus75 06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to this project I've noticed that there is some dispute about wrestling articles between inclusionists and deletionists. I looked at the project page and noticed there is a style guideline toward how to write a wrestling article but no notability guidelines defining any thresholds to what subject is worthy of an article. That may be a discussion for a consensus to reached. Issues that could be discussed are what does a wrestler have to do to be notable enough to warrant an article. The same can be discussed for promotions, bookers, managers, etc. Defining notability for this genre I think would help a lot. MrMurph101 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of a few on the project that think we need to keep everything (including people who have wrestled for one promotion in Podunk, Arkansas), I think most of the project has a decent idea about what is notable. The problem seems to be that there are those outside the project who think hardly anything to do with wrestling is notable. Then there is the problem with sourcing, certain individuals outside of the project require about 4 times more sourcing for wrestling articles than is expected of non-wrestling articles...then once they are sourced everyone of those sources (including third party books, newspaper articles, etc) are all called "primary sources." People will make comments about an article when it is up for a review that are flat out lies! Take a look at the Brian Adams (wrestler) review going on right now. I never said the article was an absolute pass, all I want is info on how to improve it...instead I get non-answers and false comments (there are a few people who have made some valid points and I do appreciate that). Theophilus75 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thought I give you a helping hand. Well here it goes for wrestling Sourcing.
  1. Primary sourcing is the source of the wrestler, for wwe wrestlers, wwe.com, tna wrestlers tnawrestling.com (So use the promotion page first as the primary source.)
  2. Secondary sourcing, (more importantly) This is sourcing from the wrestling news sites. ewrestlingnews.com, wrestling-news.com, prowrestling.com, wrestlingnewsworld.com, pwtorch.com. ect. lots more.
  3. Third sourcing, (support citation the same information to confirm what is on the page.) obsessedwithwrestling.com
These are the type of sourcing we should be using. Maybe we need a clear citation guide, explaining why use this type of sourcing(citation) on it's own page, added to the menu bar right at the top of the project talk page. But that's how we should see it. Then we can have WP:PWCI to point to that page. :) Govvy 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help Govvy, that is what I thought it was, and that is how I'm using them. The problem is that the anti-pro wrestling crowd say that all wrestling sources are primary sources, therefor the article doesn't establish notability. There are a few here that push ridiculously higher standards on WP:PW than are put on any other project. I browsed around today and couldn't believe some of the articles I read that are not questioned at all, yet our project's articles are reviewed with more scrutiny than an IRS audit. - Theophilus75 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heel (professional wrestling)

I've been trying to cleanup and add citations to Heel (professional wrestling). Do you guys think that the lists of names in the articles should be deleted. I think they are pretty un-necessary, myself. It's more listcruft than anything else. I think the definition of terms would suffice, and then it would resemble/parallel other articles like Professional wrestling match types, Professional wrestling throws, etc. (which don't list every wrestler that applies to the move or match). Thoughts? Nikki311 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did something simmilar with Gimmick (professional wrestling) some time ago. -凶 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: WWE Brand Extension/WWE Draft

I proposed this awhile back, and someone just went ahead and merged them. Now someone is splitting them back up. I figured this is a good time to get an opinion about this. Mshake3 01:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For

  1. TJ Spyke 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nikki311 02:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. MrMurph101 02:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SteelersFan UK06 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against

Comments

Notability

Based on the suggestion of MrMurph101, maybe we should finally come up with a guideline for notability. A set of criteria that wrestlers/promotions/bookers/etc. have to pass in order to have articles. A few quick ones I think most people would agree with:

  1. Anybody who has won the WWE Championship/World Heavyweight Championship (for wrestlers)
  2. Anybody in the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame (for wrestlers)
  3. Winning King of the Ring or the Royal Rumble (for wrestlers)
  4. Winning the WWE Women's Championship (for females and Hervina :) )
My possible additions:
  1. "Wrestled in 3 or more pay per view events" (main card only, not dark matches) (modern workers)
  2. "Held multiple top belts in regional promotions" (Mostly aimed at pre-WWF takeover era wrestlers, but maybe can apply to more recent folks too, in areas like Australia, Puerto Rico and the like, where our knowledge might be more lacking) SirFozzie 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can be of help when information about Puerto Rico is needed, just leave me a message on my talk page if you need to find info about a certain Puerto Rican wrestler and I will find it. -凶 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with us discussing what we think is notable is that we, as a project, don't get to decide what is notable, Wikipedia does. The problem with notability is that some people want wrestlers to go by WP:BIO for atheletes while others want to go by WP:BIO for entertainers while yet others want to go by WP:FICT. If we are truly going to discuss the notability of pro wrestlers it should be done on the talk page at WP:BIO. Now, we could talk about it here to get consensus amongst ourselves, but that is not going to change the problems we are already experiencing. Theophilus75 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know a project does not unilaterally decide what is notable but it still would be good to come up with notablity guidelines that deal with wrestling topics. The notability, of course, would have to conform to wikipedia standards. Editors on the project may intuitively know what is notable but reaching a consensus on written guidelines would help your case when it comes to those overzealous in deleting wrestling content. Once a consensus is reached you can take this topic to WP:Bio and other relevant places and make your case there.
The other issue you mention is the debate between whether a wrestler should be considered an athlete or entertainer. Well, they're both. I would suggest to consider the model of an actor and a fictional character. The wrestler would be treated like an actor and their gimmick the fictional character. Sometimes the wrestler is more notable, sometimes the gimmick is which sometimes is potrayed by different wrestlers(see Doink the Clown). Treat the wrestler him/herself like an actor and provide a bio of the person. If they portrayed a gimmick that was not very notable, (ie jobber, or below midcard) it can be mentioned in briefly in the bio. If the gimmick is quite notable, like the Undertaker for instance, it can have it's own article presented in a more kayfabe form. I know the lines between a wrestler and his/her gimmick is quite blurry sometimes but this seems a way to start. MrMurph101 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me link you are proposing two different articles (or sometimes several different articles) for each wrestler. One for the individual and one for each character they play. The problems with notability isn't just the WP:BIO, athlete or actor, but also WP:FICT (fictional character).
Notability isn't the only issue, there is also the issue of how the article should be written. Some people propose writing the career part of the article in kayfabe (so to speak) with the reader supposedly understanding it is in such. Others propose that the article should be written and detailed from a behind the scenes point of view (like Montreal Screwjob. Theophilus75 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been a discussion about how to present an article(kaybfabe vs. real life) in the past? There may have been but maybe there should be another one, probably put on a project subpage, inviting editors on both sides of the issue to come to a consensus. I am not saying that there should always be two or more different articles. I would propose, start out with a wrestler, include him/her if they're considered notable first. The article can go over what gimmicks/personas he/she portrayed whether or not they're notable enough for an article. The Tom Hanks article probably mentions his character on Bosom Buddies but it is probably not a notable enough ficitonal character to have its own article but his Forrest Gump character might. If a gimmick becomes notable, it could break off into it's own article. Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character) could be an example of how this is applied. Although more rare, we could start with a gimmick and go in the reverse order. MrMurph101 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JB196 strikes again

Thanks to sockpuppet extraordinaire JB196's vandalisms, the following wrestling pages are locked until June 14:

Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. Nenog 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few of them, it's because he's registered several new sockpoppets (he even gave several people "smiley" barnstars and said they were from him (JB196). The thing is, I think he only vandalized the pages to get them locked on purpose. Geez, I wish Wikipedia could contact this guys ISP since he has had over a hundred accounts/IP's perma-banned. TJ Spyke 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are currently unlocked. And he's using open proxies, so there's not much we can do with that (since we don't have his IP address). BTW, the account count is now up to 350 Sockpuppets. (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A legend in his own mind, indeed. SirFozzie 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He seems proud that it took 30 minutes to block him this time. I replied to that thread on the other messageboard. Even the regular users there seem to think he is pathetic for being proud of being a troll. TJ Spyke 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Greenwald

Great news everyone!! I've been working on Nora Greenwald's article for a couple of weeks now (adding sources and cleaning it up), and it just passed its Good Article review. We have a new Good Article! This just proves that it is possible, and I hope it gives everyone some hope. Now, hopefully it doesn't get delisted in a few days like The Undertaker did. Nikki311 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Nikki. You've done a lot of good work for the project. TJ Spyke 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement from Wikipedia

[4]

I will miss you all. Thank you for your support.

Hugs and kisses...

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=134991878"