Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 57. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Attires

I just got an idea, how about in each's wrestler article we can put an "Attires" section (in the "In Wrestling" section) listing the attires that he has had through his career--Brothers of destruction (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be very hard to cite references for that. Also some wrestlers have had a plethora of gimmicks and it would become a huge section, further the attempt to describe it while keeping the word limit down would be very difficult - I think the In Wrestling sections should be bullet point style, not prose. Also some wrestlers change their attire every week. I'm against it, I think it's better suited to the rest of the article if a wrestler changes gimmick. Tony2Times (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That is redundant, serves no relevant information and is listcruft. I.E. The Divas, who where many different attires.--S_RX 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's bad enough we list music. --Endlessdan and his problem 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this perhaps turn into a discussion about eliminating wrestler's "in wrestling" sections. I find them pointless. iMatthew (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they are useful, but I think that it should only list the championships/accomplishments and "real finishers" and not every move they perform.S_RX 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But the attire thing for Divas they can wear like in every match like different colors and logos and symbols but for example instead of this

• Blue shirt with a black W, Black tights with red and orange fire like design, black boots with tribal symbol on it

like this

• Blue shirt, Black tights, and black boots

(Well not exactly like that) look in Talk:Glen Jacobs (Archive 1) Attires that's what I mean--Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Still no, they alter their design too much, that's like listing all the different designs for celebrities, or other people. It's redundant and cruft.--S_RX 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think at most you could say something in the prose if it is notable. Examples: Jericho wearing long tights his whole career until his recent gimmick shift, Michelle McCool's crosses on her clothes due to her Christian faith (in the personal life section), or if it is something very identifiable (like a mask) Nikki311 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@ IMatthew and SRX: Why would you want to eliminate the In wrestling section? If cited properly, it can be very informative. It's hardly pointless. As long as having the section there is not a MOS violation (with three FAs, I doubt it), why remove it? And removing it would also cause more IP complaints and vandalism. Honestly, I've always thought that the In wrestling and Championships and Accomplishments section are among the most important sections in wrestler bios. Rarely do I evern want to read their full career. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no on the attire section, for the fact that it does change often and really, a simple in ring picture is better than a description. But, the in wrestling and championships and accomplishments sections? I don't see how you could even consider removing them. They're a quick facts sheet that often suffices to give the desired information someone is looking for. Think about a new wrestling fan who didn't catch the name of CM Punk's finisher, or wants to look up the band that plays his entrance music, or wonders what titles he might have held in the past. Should we make it hard on them, and make them read the whole career article and maybe still not get the answers? Or make it easy with a quick section that hits the facts and bullet points, with a main career section for people who want to get more in depth? We should write articles that appeal to both those who want an in depth look at the wrestler's career, and the ones looking for a quick fact. DoomsDay349 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we definitly should keep the In Wrestling section. I agrre with Gavyn in that tt's one of the most important parts of the page. It should stay. Thanks, Genius101 _{T. C.} 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Doomsday. No to the attire section, and keep the In wrestling section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Things

1. Why is Nigel McGuinness' name withheld from his article? Isn't his ring named patented, so his real name is publicly known?

2. Why does WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown have a list of episodes article, or an individual article for episodes? Other television shows have them, so why not?

Kris (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Looking at the logs, it appears McGuinness does not want his real name mentioned from the OTRS request, which only a certain group of people can see I think.
2. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

D.M.N. (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we aren't adding that in because the webmaster of his website request we take it down. Isn't that censorship?

Also, for the second question, it doesn't really explain why television sitcoms and dramas have lists of individual episodes, but not wrestling. Kris (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt at working this out

Maybe we can try this again. The new way of writing article has been working alright, as we have two new FA's. But there are still some things that we need to pan out. Lets start out by listing some pro's and con's about the new OOU writing, and such. I suggest that anybody who is dealing with complaints about the new system on any article's talk page, send those users here so that we can work with them as well to fix any problems. iMatthew (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pros - has gotten us two FA's, is more comprehensible for all readers, and at the end of the day you are proud of what you have written (I know I am).

Cons - takes too long, too many people complain (mostly those who don't write PPVs).

Other than that, I think the OOU is a great thing.--S_RX 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cons - I feel like quality and readability is being sacrificed in favor of Featured Articles.

1. Wrestling fans find the long-winded explanations and disclaimers patronizing.
2. I already felt proud of what I have written.
3. Many descriptions are confusing (why say "hit him with his foot" [or was it "boot"?] instead of "kicked him"?) or too complex for the average reader to follow.
4. The attempts to explain moves has led to numerous grammatical errors and abrupt changes in verb tense.
5. The project is taking the "jargon" guideline way too literally, as articles on other sports are promoted to FA even if they include jargon (eg. a baseball article doesn't say "hit a fair ball out of the playing field while teammates were occupying every base"--it says "hit a grand slam"; perhaps a more direct comparison would be that the names of pitches are used rather than explaining how the pitcher holds the ball, the pitcher's movements as the ball is thrown, and the effect on the ball in mid-flight).
6. The artificial, point of view distinction between "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" often disrupts the chronological order of the "Event" section, which makes it hard to follow.
7. This main event vs. preliminary distinction also leads to one of my least favorite phrases on Wikipedia: "featured preliminary match". If it must be referred to as a preliminary match, don't put it in the "Main event matches" section. That's like making a distinction between "apples" and "oranges" but including "small apples" in the "oranges" section. Please, please, please...just say "a featured match" and drop the "preliminary". GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something that came to me last night while trying to sleep, I hope I can get it out here so that it makes sense. I think there may be some confusion over what counts as "in universe" and "out of universe". Take a look at the page for The Sopranos, for example. When it describes the characters, it talks about their "scripted" history, if you will, but I don't feel that is considered as writing "in universe". It's the same with the synopses of episodes. Think of it as you are reporting what you saw on TV and describing it for someone who hasn't seen it. When you watch TV, you see Shawn Michaels superkick Razor Ramon, you are not seeing Michael Hickenbottom, who, as part of a character named Shawn Michaels that was created by WWE's writers, appearing to use his foot to pretend to attack Scott Hall, who was portraying a character named Razor Ramon, whom the WWE's writers created as a persona based on a Cuban gangster. Well, you ARE seeing that second thing too, but I think you get my drift. Going back to The Sopranos reference for a moment, you'll notice the first line in the synopsis for Season 1 says "The series begins with Tony Soprano collapsing after suffering a panic attack.", not "James Gandolfini, portraying the character of Tony Soprano, using his acting skills to pretend having a panic attack".

Somewhere above, someone said that pro wrestling doesn't follow the same rules as other fictional TV shows because "wrestling presents itself as legitimate competition". I think we can all agree that this is not true. Maybe 20 years ago you could still make that argument, but not now. Essentially, RAW is no different than any other two hour TV show. Just because some of the "characters" are really just extensions of the "actor's" normal self, writing a synopsis of an "episode" (or PPV) shouldn't have to follow rules any different than writing a recap of an episode of The Sopranos or House.

Man, I hope that made as much sense typed out as it did in my mind. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I propose, revert back to the original style guide, in that way having it in in-universe format, and Users who work on expanding articles can have the option of doing what they want. Though if they want GA/FA's they might have to use the OOU format, but in this way the IP's and new users can stop complaining, i.e. on every future PPV. That's just my last proposal for this format, which was agreed upon almost three months ago, why can't we just move on.S_RX 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That won't work at all. If people want to do different things (i.e. one wants OOU + other wants old format) it'll lead to an edit war. And also, I believe that would violate WP:OWN (i.e. I expanded the article, so I get to chose what format its in). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it probably will, but I don't see what we can do. We use the OOU format, we get more Featured content and Good content. But then Ips and New Users and others who aren't as active on the project page don't understand the format to a full extent, leading to threads and threads on complaints. I think we should tidy up our Style Guide so they can understand it as well. In other words, we should reformat our style guide so it can be accepted as a "Wikipedia Policy," like the style guide for Video Games is.--S_RX 18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That still ignores the problems that currently exist. I listed seven of them in this thread. I don't consider myself to be an IP editor or a new user, but I do think we should strive to improve articles rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say, "Everything is already perfect." The fact that so many people are upset or concerned should be an indication that everything is not perfect (and please remember than length of time on Wikipedia has absolutely no effect on how seriously an editors concerns should be taken). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing my point, the style guide is what should the project should basically adhere to, just as other projects do and every user (well most) do to the MOS. Which is why we should compromise to improve it and have a say to what include and what to not include.S_RX 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind that the main reason someone would look up Summerslam '91, for example, to find out who beat who, not got a lesson in how pro wrestling works. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that members of the project have imposed the current style guide (while falsely claiming that it came as the result of discussion and consensus). The same members are unwilling to compromise and instead point to a couple of Featured Articles. This ignores the fact that the writing style should be a work in progress rather than set in stone, as there are significant problems that are being ignored because people don't care about what IPs and new editors think (once again, ignoring the fact that longtime editors have the same problems). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific problems in the articles need to be pointed out. For example, I'd say that for pay-per-views, the OOU needs to take a step back, as GCF suggested.

• Animal and Heidenreich then performed the doomsday device, executed by one wrestler lifting his opponent atop of his shoulders thus allowing his partner knock him down by jumping off the top rope, on Nitro and got the pin to win the match and capture the title. - I feel like this writing style interrupts the sentence. Maybe we should re-write it for example like - Animal and Heidenreich won the match via pinfall after they performed the doomsday device, where Nitro sat on Animal's shoulders as Heidenreich jumped from the top rope to knock Nitro down.

iMatthew (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Animal & Heidenreich won the match after performing the Doomsday Device."? If you want to know more about the move, that's what the link is for. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to iMatthew, I don't write my articles like that I intergrate the explanation. Re to Mark, for the final time clicking on the link will not suffice, it disrupts the flow of the article, if you don't know, you want to read a small explanation and if you want to know more you click the link. Also, people constantly refer to other sport jargon, pro wrestling for one is much more different and complicated than real sports since it is 'scripted.S_RX 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sport jargon is sport jargon. Whether it's scripted or not doesn't have and effect on that. People aren't more likely to understand all the important concepts of a "knuckleball" than a "clothesline" just because one is scripted. You will never find a baseball article, however, that says, "He struck out the final batter with a knuckleball, a pitch gripped with the knuckles bent and the back of the fingertips against the ball, which leads to the ball having little or no rotation and thus creates a more erratic trajectory as the ball approaches home plate." As for disrupting the flow of the article, the long explanations (particularly in the middle of a sentence) are much more disruptive than clicking on a link. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for everyone, but most of my sentences aren't like that. I thought this was fixed at the SummerSlam FAC, since it was agreed that they also disrupted flow, I though it was already taken care of?S_RX 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It still appears in several articles. In addition, it should be noted that this is only one of the seven concerns I listed above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well 3,4, and 5 all tie in, as do 6 and 7. 6 and 7 can easily be fixed, 3,4, and 5 will be based on the User and the way the write explanations. 1 and 2, well that is preference in my opinion.S_RX 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be another matter altogether, but the word "scripted" isn't exactly accurate. Scripted means that they know everything they're going to do, in order. With very few exceptions, matches are not laid out like that.

And something else. Two of the articles I just looked at on GCF's page, The Mega Bucks and Over the Edge (1999) are GAs, but don't contain any of the stuff we've been complaining about.--Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You can get GA articles without the out of universe but you can't get an FA witout it.--WillC 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, if not having the disclaimer, explanation of moves, real names, etc. violated Wikipedia policy, articles wouldn't be passing GA reviews without them. They are passing, however, which should lead us to wonder how much of the new additions are actually necessary and whether we interpreting policies and guidelines too literally. I also think it's extremely important to ask ourselves if our goal is to get Featured Articles or to write articles well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We should just try to write articles well. People who care about FAs will do anything to get it FA'd. If an FA reviewer told them to link every word, they'd do it. We might as well write them like this:

No Mercy (2008) (meaning the name of the professional wrestling pay-per-view event was that the wrestlers [real people with real names having stage names that aren't their birth names] weren't going to show mercy against each other on October 5). The 2008 in brackets means that the professional wrestling pay-per-view event (which features WWE's creative staff writing matches for guys with stage names that pretend to hit each other) took place in the year 2008. Lots of people with birth names wrestled (pretended to hit each other) at the event. The main event was decided after x took x's arm and buckle it under his knee, fold it in half, cut it off, and slammed it down towards the mat (the professional wrestling [mock combat with fake characters] ring).

Notice the errors in the deciding move, too. People can't write it without making those mistakes. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is that people want the article more directed to a "wrestling fanbase" than every reader. Do you think Barack Obama, John McCain and George W. Bush would know what is meant by John Cena executed an FU on Marella to win the match by pinfall? or John Cena lifted Marella onto his shoulders and threw him down, which he followed by covering Marella for a pinfall. Which would Obama, McCain, and Bush understand? (Speak hypothetically if they didn't know)--S_RX 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's how you've chosen to interpret it. I would like to see something in the middle that can be accessed by both wrestling fans and presidential candidates: "John Cena picked Santino Marella up and threw him to the ground with an FU." There is no need to remove the move names altogether, and this is one of the big criticisms I have seen on other sites about Wikipedia wrestling articles. Incidentally, please give us enough respect to assume that we are familiar with who George W. Bush is. There is no need to wikilink the name in a discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That works even better! See Gary all you had to do was give an example, that works perfectly IMO. As a response to the linking, I just linked them for no reason really, no disrespect intended :)S_RX 23:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Those guys are too busy with an "orgy of spending" to read wikipedia. and anyway, Who would honestly read a PPV article if they weren't a wrestling fan?PXK ^T /_C 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PXK you and your sarcasm, it's called writing articles for all to understand, no matter who reads it.S_RX 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly SrX, I can't understand the log winded explanations without reading through twice. PXK ^T /_C 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I am getting used to the new style and don't mind it all that much anymore. But I agree with pretty much everything that GCF has pointed out. This does still need tweaking. We need to change it so that IPs and new editors will stop bitching about it on every talk page. That's the worst part of all of it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, one tweaking is his suggestion for explanations, and the other is about the featured preliminary matches.--S_RX 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Im confused, did we come to some sort of agreement? Also, SRX, if John McCain doesnt know how to check his email, he doesn't know how to access wikipedia! --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for moves

how about for moves we have something like one of the following:-

• Brooks then won the match by forcing (kayfabe) Hennigan to submit to the Anaconda Vise (Armtrap headlock)
• Brooks then won the match by forcing (kayfabe) Hennigan to submit with an Armtrap headlock (Anaconda Vise)

I'd say this makes it easy to understand for both markets PXK ^T /_C 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about you read the archives and read the discussion above fully. 1)We do not explain submission moves since they are to complicated to explain. 2)GCF has pointed out a new format to explain moves which I agree.S_RX 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bull. If we need to explain throws and attacks, we need to explain holds. Or we need to not explain any of them. Consistency is needed. If "click the link" suffices for a hold it suffices for other moves. And vice-versa. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with using kayfabe. I was told by an FA review that they read the article kayfabe and it made no sense to them. If we want to use the word kayfabe then I suggest we improve that article.--WillC 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Gavyn, it's not bull because I took SummerSlam '03 to FAC with explaining submission moves, they said that disrupted the flow and made huge grammatical errors, which I agreed. Throws and slams are less complicated to explain versus submission moves which have sequences of moves to explain.S_RX 00:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. They ARE tough to explain. But I'd think that consistency would be pretty important. Or don't FA reviewers care? It makes no sense to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't care because it makes mechanical and grammatical errors, and it's not only their views that counts, our does to, and I say it makes mechanical and grammatical errors as well.S_RX 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Im confused, did we come to some sort of agreement? Also, SRX, if John McCain doesnt know how to check his email, he doesn't know how to access wikipedia! --98.26.33.108 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry this comment on on here twice, but apparently there's no way to remove the above one. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like GCF's idea of naming the move with an explanation. Still makes our articles horrible, but nowhere near as horrible as they are without the name of the move. Also, how does one explain a 619? Mysterio won the match by watching his opponent walk into the ropes, running from the other side, holding onto the rope, spinning around, and kicking x in the face... RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Randy you're not funny..Anyways, it would be like Mysterio then hit Chavo, who was positioned on the second rope, with his legs while using the ropes for leverage to perform a 619 or something similar.S_RX 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't really trying to be. Just wanted to make fun of WWE insulting our intelligence and the bad format at the same time. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming Convention for Pay-Per-Views

I never really understood or thought about this until it came up at ANC. Why is it that only main Pay-Per-Views don't have the promotion's acronym in front of it? Like SummerSlam. Is it because there is no such other topic? If so, then we can do the same for WWE Cyber Sunday, there is no such other thing name like that. What's the consensus on this?--S_RX 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-gree. ;) iMatthew (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So some example would be..

• WWE Cyber Sunday → Cyber Sunday
• WWE New Year's Revolution → New Year's Revolution
• WWF Invasion → Invasion
• TNA Hard Justice → Hard Justice
• ECW Anarchy Rulz → Anarchy RulzS_RX 14:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those seem fine except Invasion, which is a common word and already has an article (similar to the discussion the project had about WCW Sin). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty stupid and yeah it should be changed. Almost every ECW PPV should be changed, I think the only ones that can't be are Barely Legal and Heat Wave. Also, I've always wondered but have never asked - why do we name PPV articles with the year in brackets? Like why isn't No Mercy (2008) named No Mercy 2008? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question it's because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)S_RX 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Another question... why do we have an article for SNME results? Why aren't the results just put onto the SNME article? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well because people "like it." I don't think we should have it, but other people disagree.--S_RX 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We gonna do this or are we just gonna forgot about it and let this go into the archive? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oleg Prudius needs watching and possibly protection

Someone continues to insist putting non-notable week-by-week results, and in poor format to boot. I cleaned it up, but it needs an eye kept on it and possibly editing protection.

On an unrelated note, I still believe theme song listings are not needed, and they just beg for incorrect/fake information. Maxwell7985 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Saturday Night's Main Event results → Saturday Night's Main Event

No need for both articles. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It would really help if you told us what you want to do with both articles.--S_RX 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is already 73K, which is probably why it is separate in the first place. Adding it to the article would be too long. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I proposed deleting the results before, but people wanted to keep it because it is more special than Raw/ECW/SmackDown.--S_RX 01:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, there have been far more than 36 episodes of Raw. SNME is much more of a special occasion than a weekly show. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but still, the show is a TV program and I feel people just want to keep it because the results extend to it's debut and they don't want to lose that information already there, that's the main reason I see. But if people want to keep it, I propose an new format because that list of tables is insane.--S_RX 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows I wanna merge. I'd say 90% of people search "Saturday Night's Main Event" when looking for results. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the result, the consistency should be applied to Clash of the Champions, another syndicated supercard show. Tony2Times (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow it just feels, I don't know, messy to merge them. A bit like keeping a page for the WWE Championship, and a seperate one for the list of champions. That's how it feels to me anyhow. It's already a rather long article anyhow, no need to make it any bigger with merging. I would say keep them both seperate, and retain the SNME show; it is a big show shown only occassionally; it's in between regular TV and a PPV. Obviously week by week Raw results or something would be out of the question, but I think that generally an archive of SNME results is adherent to the general encyclopedic goal. I think a bigger question is the format of the page; tables vs lists? If you look at lists of PPVs, those without articles are organized in lists, but tables are so much neater. Then again, since there are mixed lists and tables in some sections, one wonders whether consistent lists would be a better alternative. I think a general cleanup of the results page, much sourcing, transferring results into lists, would be the best idea. DoomsDay349 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to search for SNME unless they're looking for results. And yeah, if we're gonna leave it like it is, like Tony said, COTC needs an article for its results. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling results website. It makes sense to have an article about the history of SNME. And if people are looking for results, the "See also" section has a very convenient link. As I mentioned before, adding the poorly-sourced results list to the unsourced event article means that the article would become well over 100K when someone gets around to sourcing it. According to Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb, that would mean that it "almost certainly should be divided". I do support removing "WWE" from both the article title and the list title, however, as most of the events took place when the promotion was the WWF. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one agrees then Clash should definitely be moved. Leaving both in different ways is just stupid. And yeah, WWE should definitely be took off. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When someone gets around to expanding the prose section of Clash of the Champions, they will probably move the results. Until then, it's just moving for the sake of moving. Expanding and sourcing articles is more important. Otherwise, it's just a parallel to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. If you're willing to put in the work to significantly expand the history section in the Clash of the Champions article, feel free to split off the results section and form a new page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The opener and history section for Clash is enough, I think. RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Nash vandalism

Could someone with more patience than I've got please finish removing the vandalism from this edit? There were a few edits after that, so I've been trying to restore the unvandalized version without losing the edits in between. The MSG Incident picture's caption definitely needs to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your notice is my command. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ted Petty Invitational

Someone has deleted all the content from the Ted Petty Invitational page, but it has been done in a number of edits so I'm not sure how to revert them all - could someone with more knowledge/authority than me revert back to the edit done at 04:49 on 29 September 2008 please?--Apsouthern (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. It's on my watchlist in case it happens again. DoomsDay349 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers--Apsouthern (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Injuries

Could we put a section stating all of the Wrestler's injuries, and with the Divas (and Knockouts) putting if they have like breast implants or something. I'm just throwing it out there. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Implants wtf? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. I think it would be hard to dig up a concrete "source" that they have implants in the first place, but I mean, you could just look at them and figure that one out. Really not necessary, I think. As for a list of injuries, I don't see a real reason for it; the career section would handle that pretty well and it doesn't seem like something that needs listing, as opposed to, say, theme music or finishing moves. DoomsDay349 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually be quite interested in a list of injuries, it would be a lot more citable than breast implants (I love the inference that female cosmetic surgery somehow equates to male body injury) but I don't know where it would fit in the article as it would look place in the In Wrestling section, certainly isn't an accomplishment but is already in the career section so would have to be apart from that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Samoa Joe

Okay, it has come to my attention that other user and myself have two different sources which both are reliable to Samoa Joe's name. One says Joe Seanoa by IGN.com and the other is by the LA Times.com and it says Nuufolau Joel Seanoa. I know IGN.com is reliable since it is used in other wrestler articles and FA articles and I assume the same for a news paper but which one would be the official name. I've never heard him referred to as Nuufolau in any interview or anything like that. I thought to bring it here to get a project opinion.--WillC 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nuufolau is his real samoan name. His ring name just takes his middle name removes the l and moves Samoa (where he is from) in front of it. I dont think IGN is a reliable source for wrestler names though. Video game info yes. But actually wrestling info no. I think the LA Times would be more reliable in this respect. JakeDHS07 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should not certain matches have their own article?

Hogan vs. Andre, Undertaker vs. Mankind Hell in a Cell, Austin vs. Bret, HBK vs. Ramon—these matches and others should have their own article. They pass for notability. I'm surprised that there is no article for Hogan vs. Andre—it is "worthy of notice."Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is already in the articles for the participants and the events. It would be redundant (and unnecessary) to provide them with their own article.  Hazardous Matt  15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I looked at the WrestleMania III article and it does not cover nearly enough Hogan vs. Andre. That match is perhaps the most historic and influential match in pro wrestling. To relegate it to a measly paragraph is unacceptable. There is much more to be said about Hogan vs. Andre: It made the WWE, solidified WrestleMania as pro wrestling's Super Bowl, changed pro wrestling, influenced today's wrestlers, it is the reason why Hulk Hogan is one of the few pro wrestlers to be a household name today, if I'm not mistaken, 3/10 of the then-available universe watched that match. How can you say that that match does not deserve its own article? If there is one pro wrestling match that should have its own article, it's that one. It would be a great disservice to Wikipedia to not give this match (and some others as well) their own article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating articles for these matches would be pointless to do and would be considered not notable. That's why you have the PPV articles instead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Hulk and Andre, it took much more than that one single match to make the WWE. One could just as easily argue that the WWE was already a huge success by the time WrestleMania III came around. One could also just as easily argue the first WrestleMania is what kickstarted the WWE to national prominence. To create seperate articles for these matches would require a lot of POV and probably even some Original Research. What makes a match more prominent than others is something that can be easily and hotly debated. Your opinion that Hulk vs. Andre at WM III is the most historic match in wrestling his tory is just that, your opinion. I could make the same claim with a dozen other matches, but it'd just be opinion. There is no one single, ultra-source that states "A vs. B is the greatest match in wrestling history" or "So-and-so is the greatest World Champion in wrestling history".Odin's Beard (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also what exactly do you want to be in this article? The background (done), a blow by blow account of the match (done) and the aftermatch and reception (done). Okay it's not in a huge amount of detail now but that's because we've only been expanding PPVs in such a way for the past few months and there's a shit tonne of PPVs out there. It's quite zealous of you to think WWE deserves even more of Wikipedia's time and space when smaller, harder to find information could be being chronicled. If you think matches deserve more attention, expand their information on the PPV page, beyond the categories on there I don't know what would be on the page. It was 12 minutes of (mostly bad) wrestling and a scoop slam. What's more to say? Tony2Times (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA Problems huh

Okay gerweck.net has reported that TNA has cancelled Genesis (2008) which is a month away and replaced in with Turning Point (2008) which takes place in December. No word on what takes its place in December. Now TNA has not acknowledged this one bit. They have nothing on their website about Turning Point or Genesis. In Demand has the Turning Point poster up and it says November 9 on it. I do not know what to do here. Should I go with the unknown reliable source or the somewhat reliable source, or maybe just wait till TNA says something.--WillC 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say wait until an official announcement with something like that. EDIT: Actually, there's a poster, so I'd be tempted to go with the unknown RS. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm just going to wait. TNA still has said nothing and to change stuff a month away would be considered stupid by TNA. Until further info comes along by Wrestling Observer, TNA, or WrestleView I'm going to leave it like it is.--WillC 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion/merge

Monster's Ball match - is there really any need? It's just a hardcore/street fight match, especially now they've taken out the locked away element. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said they took away the locked away part? Actually I was thinking about working on that article. It is one of TNA's main matches. It is only seen once a year. I feel it reaches notability.--WillC 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I was going by the article alone, so maybe you're right in that it just needs work. I don't really pay attention to TNA other than the main event and the Knockouts so I'm no authority which is why I asked before nominating. It says in the intro they've de-emphasised the locked away part. Needs a lot of sourcing too. Tony2Times (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a simple fix. It might, with work, fall under FL. It needs a copyedit and sources for matches. It wouldn't be that hard to work on. The background to the match can be taken care of by sources by WrestleView when they talked about it.--WillC 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If anybody can help out....

On the Simple English Wikipedia there is a WP:PW, however there is hardly no one working on wrestling article's, me and User: ChristianMan16 are both over there and if anybody could help out a little bit it would be really appreciated. If anybody is interested please contact me on my talk page. We need your help!!!. SteelersFan94 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the point of a Simple English encyclopedia anyway... do you see "Simple Spanish", "Simple Italian", "Simple German", "Simple Russian", "Simple Portugese"?? No! Why? Because its unnecessary. English isnt that hard to understand... and if it isn't your language, you shouldn't be reading an english encyclopedia... Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a hell of a-lot easier than this. and less stressful. SteelersFan94 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Too right, if it isn't your language bugger off to your own encyclopedia. How dare you try and learn something and expand your mind in a step-by-step process. Tony2Times (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What Im trying to say is that consistency is an important part of Wikipedia, and unless there is a Simple version for each language, there shouldn't be one for English. What makes English so special? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I really don't want to get into that but from what I've heard English is one of the hardest languages to learn =. And it's a lot less drama than this project! SteelersFan94 18:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of WCW pay-per-view events

Can someone please help? Table is fucked and I don't know how to fix it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Who took off Lance Cade and Chris Jericho as a tag team?

Man, they have competed in tag matches together

---