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 58. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

User on a category addition spree

[1]

User in question is Dm23avg307 (talk · contribs). Suggest edits may need to be mass reverted. D.M.N. (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would help but I fear I'm being watched since I just got reported for removing unsourced and following guidelines. I'll try to get it protected though or deleted. I'll leave a comment on the user's talk page; all referring to the categories.--WillC 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, if you mean this, I never reported you. I reinstate it with a source. D.M.N. (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I was reported for capitalizing Special Referee and Special Enforcer and changing the links to the correct ones, as well as removing unsourced matches that have not been announced and linking TBA on Bound for Glory IV. The user that reported me did not want TBA linked and did not understand I was following WP:SOURCE for the matches. Not you. Check it out at the 3RR report page. Also I do not believe I removed that from Armageddon. I think I was removing unsourced matches.--WillC 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the consistently recreated Category:World Champion professional wrestlers here? DoomsDay 18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the cat that keeps getting created.--WillC 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble winners category should be gone as well. Winning the event is notable: but I don't see it being a useful category. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I did go through the other day and reverted all the edits i could see, but then he went a re-added them, I'll take another sweep. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to voice your opinion for this category. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday results

I was wondering if you guys are opposed to me placing tables like the following in the Cyber Sunday articles. I feel that for shows based around the votes, some of the poll results are glossed over in the articles and sometimes ignored.

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%) Batista (20.11%) Jonathan Coachman (7.01%) Christian (6.69%) Rhyno (5.77%)	Maven (4.23%) William Regal (3.81%) The Hurricane (3.77%) Tyson Tomko (2.49%) Tajiri (2.36%)	Steven Richards (2.24%) Val Venis (1.69%) Rosey (1.10%) Chuck Palumbo (0.68%) Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%) French maid (30.03%) Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%) Steel chair (29.93%) Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%) Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%) Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%) Evening Gown match (33.22%) Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%) Edge (33.42%) Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%) Falls Count Anywhere (20%) Submission match (12%)

I'd appreciate it if you guys give me some tips for improving this. Thanks in advance. -- Oakster  Talk  15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think the results need to be included for encyclopedic interest, and it seems best to have a seperate table to keep it from making the match results look untidy. I wonder if the table is a little bit on the large side, could it be scaled down any way? Tony2Times (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could look like this:

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%), Batista (20.11%), Jonathan Coachman (7.01%), Christian (6.69%), Rhyno (5.77%), Maven (4.23%), William Regal (3.81%), The Hurricane (3.77%), Tyson Tomko (2.49%), Tajiri (2.36%), Steven Richards (2.24%), Val Venis (1.69%), Rosey (1.10%), Chuck Palumbo (0.68%), Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%), French maid (30.03%), Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%), Steel chair (29.93%), Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%), Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%), Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%), Evening Gown match (33.22%), Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%), Edge (33.42%), Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%), Falls Count Anywhere (20%), Submission match (12%)

Looks a little less organised though. That being said, it's not as if the first table is any bigger than let's say a Royal Rumble table. -- Oakster  Talk  15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, it's a lot less organised and harder to skim read. What would it look like with smaller text on the right hand column in the first style? Tony2Times (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

can we make it collapsible? PXK ^T /_C 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it's going underneath the match results table so would there be much point in it being collapsable? Tony2Times (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What Tony said. Anyway, the font size is currently 85% and I personally wouldn't make it any smaller than 80% for readability's sake, which means making it smaller would hardly make a difference. -- Oakster  Talk  08:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose most years won't have that first vote with 10odd possibilities in it so it won't always be so big. I reckon put them in, I can't see anyone taking them out. Tony2Times (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's useful. Put it in! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put them all in now. Thanks. -- Oakster  Talk  18:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dumpster Lid 79‎

This has been adding his backyard crap to some articles. Also looks like he is using his userpage to promote his little yardy stuff. Might want to keep and eye on him. --DanteAgusta (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I caught him adding his 'World' title to the list of recognised World Championships but didn't realise he was doing it across the board. Tony2Times (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

An ip has removed reigns from the article. I can not revert again and he is challenging consensus so it isn't vandalism. Can someone please undo his edits.--WillC 03:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC

PPV names

It has come up in Lockdown (2008)'s FAC and Armageddon (2006)'s FAC that we might need a better way to have the PPVs named. In Armageddon the thought was maybe naming them Lockdown (2008) (TNA) or something like that. I thought to come here and discuss like I said I would in the FAC. See if we need to change them or not.--WillC 16:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would be inclined to use something like TNA Lockdown (2008) or WWE No Mercy (2007).  Hazardous Matt  16:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was also thinking we should do if we change at all.--WillC 16:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Although that would leave is with a great number of redirects when we get into article titles like WCW Great American Bash vs WWE Great American Bash. Sigh. Arguing against my own point.  Hazardous Matt  16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no ready to change the names of all WP:PW pay-per-view articles because of one reviewer. If WWE Armageddon (2006) redirects to Armageddon (2006), nobody will have trouble finding the article. Do the promotions use the company names when referring to them? "Hello fans, and welcome to WWE Armageddon 2006!"? I doubt it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If the promotions referred to their Pay Per Views using the company names, it'd be redundant and sound stupid. When Bound for Glory is referenced on TNA programming, we automatically know they're talking about their flagship show because we're watching TNA programming. Seeing as how this is an online encyclopedia and not TNA/WWE/etc. programming, it should be a little more specific, right? Ma-Mutt (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What was FAC's problem with the current naming system? Isn't Wiki's naming policy to use the most frequently used name? That would be the name without the promotion's initials beforehand and it's not like there's an ambiguation problem going on for most of them, even ones like Armageddon that have meaning outside of wrestling have their years on there, and the central page saying WWE Armageddon so I don't see what the problem is. Putting two things in brackets afterwards looks rather sloppy especially when there's no real reason to. The first line of the article tells you that it's wrestling and what promotion it is. Are gonna have to start putting (professional wrestling pay-per-view) in all titles too? The FA on Gwen Stefani's song 'What You Waiting For?' doesn't have her name in brackets afterwards, why should PPVs need the company name in brackets afterwards? Tony2Times (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the reviewer at FAC who brought up the issue. The whole point is the article names fail at disambiguation. If I were to look at the title, I learn nothing about what the article is about. Read WP:NCDAB: Among the options for disambig, for titles "the word or phrase in parentheses should be the generic class that includes the topic, as in Mercury (element), Seal (mammal); the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (economics)." None of these apply here, ergo the suggestion for a name change. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So what about something like Lockdown (2008, professional wrestling)?  Hazardous Matt  19:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lockdown 2008" or "Lockdown (2008 event)" is what I'm thinking. Mshake3 (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like "Lockdown (2008 event)", actually.  Hazardous Matt  19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that the parent article that lists all the events being named WWE Armageddon or TNA Lockdown, etc., etc., is enough. Individual articles being named by their company creates a cumbersome linking problem and unnecessarily complicates the title. Having the parent list to certify what they all are is fine. DoomsDay 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

But not everyone is going to come from the lists. When someone searches for 'Armageddon', they're going to want some indication that this is what they are looking for; that's why something like Armageddon (wrestling event) would be ideal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If someone searches for "Armageddon", they get the Armageddon article. If they follow the disambiguation link at the top, they arrive at Armageddon (disambiguation). This lists WWE Armageddon and provides a description (an annual World Wrestling Entertainment event). This would help them understand if this is what they're looking for, would it not? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Armageddon (disambiguation) has the following under the "Other" section. "WWE Armageddon, an annual World Wrestling Entertainment event." If someone searches Armageddon, they hit Armageddon (disambiguation) at the top of the page, and then finds that. Alternatively if they go for typing in Armageddon and then hitting "Search" rather than "Go", you get WWE Armageddon as the first wrestling result. The same goes for No Way Out, Backlash, Judgment Day, and more than likely every other WWE event. I image TNA is the same as well. So either way; if I hit "Go", I find a disambiguation page that sends me to the list, which establishes the necessary information clearly, and if I search the first relevant result I get is the list. DoomsDay 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can put it in plainer terms; Armageddon (2008) violates the disambig guidelines, which in turn violates the naming conventions which means the article violates the Manual of Style, which means that reviewers at FAC can oppose the article based on this reason. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

However, the Manual of Style clearly states that common sense and the occasional exception applies under the basis that it is a guideline; therefore, one could hope that an FAC reviewer would understand that this is really a matter of common sense. If the only reason why we're changing it is to blindly meet a guideline, it seems to me that common sense and IAR applies. Cheers, DoomsDay 23:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see common sense; I see editors too lazy to type out a few more characters in titles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If the names are truly against a Wikipedia policy - I'd support a move to WWE Armageddon (2006), or TNA Lockdown (2008). iMatthew (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with iMatthew on this one. It doesn't matter to me anyway, there is no problem with typing in TNA and WWE with the titles.--WillC 23:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how it's being lazy to not approve of work that serves no purpose other than meeting guidelines for the sheer sake of meeting guidelines. We should meet guidelines to improve something, not just because the guidelines say to. I fail to see how the article is not distinguished sufficiently from any other article titled Armageddon, in every medium one reaches the article by. The names are not against policy anyway, they're only technically against a guideline which explicitly states common sense and exceptions may come into play. Cheers, DoomsDay 23:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling should not be an exception to the commonly used disambig conventions everywhere else: this is why we have The Mummy (1999 film) instead of The Mummy (1999), Star Trek: The Original Series instead of Star Trek (1966), and Pilot (House) and Pilot (30 Rock) instead of Pilot (2004) and Pilot (2006). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So do you suggest WWE Armageddon (2006) or WWE Armageddon (2006 event) or Armageddon (2006 event)? iMatthew (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just throw it to a general vote and see what the consensus is. Cheers, DoomsDay 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation only needs to be in place when there is ambiguity. What else could somebody be searching for when looking up Armageddon (2005)? Surely not the actual Armageddon that happened in 2005, after all we're still here. The FAC reviewer said that the title Armageddon (2006) tells them nothing about the title, but nor does any of the numerous song titles that are FAs that don't have "(song)" written in their article titles. I feel it would look better to have WWE Armageddon (2006) than Armageddon (2006) (WWE), though. As for event or professional wrestling event or pay-per-view event or professional wrestling pay-per-view event, I don't really know. Tony2Times (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If we must do something, it should be either x-promotion x-event (x-year) format or x event (x-year event). Thus, WWE Armageddon (2006) or Armageddon (2006 event). I suppose the latter would be acceptable. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we must do anything. Common sense has prevailed in the project's previous 3 pay-per-view FAs and 46 pay-per-view GAs, none of which have had an unnecessarily clunky name. Since the criteria for passing an FA nomination is based on the quality of responses rather than the number of supports and opposes, I recommend leaving things as they are. If the reviewer actually finds this to be a big enough problem on which to base an oppose, discussing the issue (or non-issue, as the case seems to be) with SandyGeorgia would probably be sufficient to ensure that this doesn't prevent the articles from reaching FA status. Even without getting in touch with SandyGeorgia, I can't imagine that an oppose based on wanting to add excessive quantifiers to an article would hold much weight. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

SRX pointed out a naming guideline once that specifically used wrestling PPVs as an example. I just trying looking for it, but no luck. Anyone remember the link? It might be helpful in this case. Nikki311 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...if (and I'm not convinced we need to) we rename the PPVs, the video games would also need to be renamed. For example, WWE WrestleMania X8 is a videogame, while WrestleMania X8 is the PPV. Nikki311 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an inkling the PPV may have been SummerSlam (2002) because of The Rock poster but I don't know on what guideline it was listed. Tony2Times (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

@Nikki, the link is here, but I think the reviewer makes a point because disam. main articles, like Armageddon should have a specified title, because Armageddon (2006) could refer to a film in 2006, but WWE Armageddon (2006) specifies that it is WWE's 2006 Armageddon event, this IMO should also be brought up to WP:NAME.S_RX 03:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this point isn't entirely moot seeing as there hasn't been a film called Armageddon since 1998, quite fortuitously for WWE. Neither has someone re-written the first book of the Old Testament in the past 3 years. Nor has there been a book called SummerSlam written in the past 20 years that I'm aware of and if it has, like potentially an independent film called Armageddon, they aren't on Wikipedia and I don't see why we need to discuss this until one of the PPV names comes into conflict with anything else. Tony2Times (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only add the additional WWE or TNA in the event there is a direct conflict. Although it is rather convenient for WWE at least, in that there does not seem to be much conflict in recent PPV names. Should a direct conflict arise, then I can see value in adding the prefix WWE or TNA, but really there's no good reason to change the names as they are. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

This article is in horrible condition - has been forever - but it gets worse by the day. I really and truly believe this article would benefit from a transfer to tabular format. The format would simple look like such:

Ring name	Real name	Notes
Batista	Dave Batista	<reference here>

The article is not exempt from being sourced - it needs to contain sources - and their' WWE.com and FCW bios are fine-fitting references. This page would never pass FLC because of the constant edit wars and vandalism - but it should at least meet the FL criteria.

Also - it's not list cruft - there are many other articles out there that are longer than this will ever become. I also may clean the list up and add some prose. iMatthew (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to do. I think a table would make a nice cleanup. Shame about that pesky edit warring business, keeping it from ever hitting FLC. But yeah, I think it'd be a good idea. WWE.com could easily reference the fact that they are a wrestler, the US Patent and Trademark Office can confirm their real name (at least, it did for CM Punk), and FCW has a roster page that could be a cover all. DoomsDay 22:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I beat you too it. Look at User:Wrestlinglover/List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees. I've been working on TNA's roster page to get it to FL. I'm almost finished. If I work hard it will take me a day to get it finish. Take a look at what it look likes so far.--WillC 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't beat anybody to it - it's been discussed dating back to October last year - if not earlier. We need a consensus to change the article - and although your table looks nice - we need to discuss it first to make sure there are no objections. Sorry to tell you, but your list will never make it to FLC unless a miracle occurs - as the employee pages are edit war targets - and that's against the FL criteria. iMatthew (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well beating by expanding it is what I mean. I know that, I was talking with SRX about this. He is the one that said to use tables. I was expanding to give a clear example to what the finished product may look like. Go to my archives in my talk page and look at the discussion me and SRX had about this. Plus if the Roster page is worked right it sometimes isn't touched for multiple days. It can also be protected.--WillC 23:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is already semi-protected. iMatthew (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how when someone uses their real name it spans the two boxes, I think it might look better repeated or maybe with the ring name section left blank. Tony2Times (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If nobody opposes - I shall go ahead and transform the page to the new format - nobody has opposed it yet. iMatthew (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal II

Why don't we remove this article, and merge all information with World Wrestling Entertainment (other personal), WWE Raw (the Raw roster), WWE Friday Night SmackDown (the SmackDown roster), Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) (the ECW roster), and Florida Championship Wrestling (the FCW roster). Why not leave the information with their articles? iMatthew (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you see the current shape of the main Roster list? Many unreliable sources, many formatting issues, and continuous speculation and vandalism to the main list, image it on four different articles?--S_RX 01:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. With the above section - we will add sources because that's what Wikipedia is all about - being reliable. We will add reliable sources and of course watch for vandalism. This shouldn't be held off "because there is a change that maybe possibly there may be" vandalism. iMatthew (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, never said anything about holding it off due to vandalism, I said that respective articles will become even harder to comprehend in the current shape of the main list, but I'm for it. Lets get rid of that speculative thing, but where will the corporate go?--S_RX 01:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cooperate can be included in the WWE article. More opinions? iMatthew (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What would be done in TNA's case or ROH's case? See TNA only has one tv show and ROH doesn't have one.--WillC 22:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA's should be kept in it's own article - because it's one company and one brand. WWE has five sections on it's employee article - which all would be short enough to stick in the main brand's articles. TNA's list is too long for the TNA Impact article, so it'll stay - as well as ROH I guess. WWE's employee article is way more of a vandal playground target than the TNA and ROH one. iMatthew (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Vandal target. TNA's roster page is edited everyday. It gets vandalized alot. Plus it would make no sense to have no roster page for the WWE. Then that argument comes up "why does WWE not have a roster page". All the ips will complain then and I don't think we need more of that right now.--WillC 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Can I remind people about the project's cleanup listing? It seems people aren't really paying attention to it. I know people are busy, but even just helping out with one would be good. Lets not forget there are GAs and FAs listed on it, which are supposed to be our best work... Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching it a little. Though I don't have much time now as usual. I think I can do a copyedit or two on a few.--WillC 03:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at it yesterday. There's quite a bit of work there. Sources are hard to find on a lot of these old school wrestlers, but I could probably do some of the smaller bits when I find myself lacking in work. Edit: Here's a question...for some of these wrestlers, good long bios are gonna be hard to find, so would sources like Online World of Wrestling be enough to provide in text citations and such? Cheers, DoomsDay 19:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As the bot has just updated the cleanup listing a few days ago after a three-month hiatus, I thought I'd extract the goods from it:

14th July, 2008

• 3693 articles assigned to project; 1464 (39.6%) flagged for cleanup.
• 5 FA's; 2 (40%) flagged for cleanup.
• 21 FL's; 0 flagged for cleanup.
• 70 GA's; 10 (14.3%) flagged for cleanup.
• 3 top-importance articles; 2 (66.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 74 high-importance articles' 41 (55.4%) flagged for cleanup.

10th October, 2008

• 3799 articles assigned to project; 1468 (38.6%) flagged for cleanup.
• 8 FA's; 1 (12.5%) flagged for cleanup.
• 23 FL's; 0 flagged for cleanup.
• 93 GA's; 9 (9.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 3 top-importance articles; 2 (66.7%) flagged for cleanup.
• 77 high-importance articles' 41 (53.2%) flagged for cleanup.

Difference

• DOWN 1%
• DOWN 27.5%
• NO CHANGE
• DOWN 4.6%
• NO CHANGE
• DOWN 2.2%

D.M.N. (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna try to do some work on it, but I just wanted to say that I've added it to the WP:PW-Nav template. That might get it some more attention. Thanks, Genius101 ^Guestbook 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

User:Dumpster Lid 79 is obviously just using Wikipedia to promote his Wrestling company. What's the difference in that and having your userpage to promote your "construction company"? SteelersFan94 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Safest thing is to userfy it to a sub page, keeping a deleted page as your userpage is frowned on. (edit) Although on second look he seems to be in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST if you look at his subpages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This guys whole point to being here is to have a website for his backyard crap. And to try and add it to articles, as he did to World heavyweight wrestling championship and others. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy could be a problem. I know hot to use Twinkle but what should I use to warn him to delete it? SteelersFan94 03:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking closely I think WP:UP#NOT covers it with your user page is not a personal website. Since we started this he has added another page. I think I will MfD all his subpages as none actually carry any WP content. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the pages to MfD here via a redirect to capture all the pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PPV Problem

Okay as reported by TNAwrestlingnews.com, PWInsider, and WrestleView (see here) I guess TNA has changed three of its ppvs. Turning Point is now taking place in November, Final Resolution is now taking place in December, and Genesis is now taking place in January. The problem is TNA has already held Final Resolution once this year. Back in January. I'm working on expanding that ppv into a single article. Now Since I've been expanding the TNA ppvs, the December Final Resolution will also be in a single article. I can't have two articles by the name of Final Resolution 2008. What should I name the new article if TNA releases that they are changing the date of the event?--WillC 22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dag I was just about to post this. http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=34043&p=1. Well I don't know as far as I know this has never happened before. I knew that TNA would move their ppv cause they know they can't compete with WWE yet. I did not expect them to schedule another Final Resolution this year. This is a very difficult situation. JakeDHS07 22:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I'd use "Final Resolution (Month 2008)" and "Final Resolution (November 2008)" iMatthew (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I got it! Call the one we've already had TNA Final Resolution 2008 (January) and the december one TNA Final Resolution 2008 (December) PXK ^T /_C 22:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IMatthew, that's a perfect way to title it.S_RX 22:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree more with iMatthew's idea. Maybe switching though. To Final Resolution (2008, December). That is if TNA does change it. PWinsider hasn't been proven reliable. Hopefully TNA will announce something soon.--WillC 22:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think's Matt's idea will work best. Cheers, DoomsDay 01:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Will, PWInsider has already been proven reliable. Why? Because we've established that WrestleView is reliable, and half the time they're just sourcing PWInsider. Mshake3 (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Half the time we never use PWinsider. Plus it doesn't matter much right now. The articles are made since Viewers Choice has said they changed the events.--WillC 02:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the bottom of the majority of WrestleView's news articles once in a while (for example, the link above, and this link in Matt Sydal's article). You'll be in for a shock. Mshake3 (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pix

I know I said I was done with the project, and I am. The problem is that I will feel very guilty going to this Saturday's house show with a camera and not asking you guys first which pictures of the Raw superstars you need?

BTW... this is the card

• Shawn Michaels vs. Chris Jericho (No DQ; for the WHC)
• Batista/Rey Mysterio vs. JBL/Kane
• CM Punk vs. William Regal
• Kofi Kingston and Candice Michelle vs. Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix (For the IC and Womens)

• Also scheduled to appear:

• • Lance Cade... obviously not anymore
  • Cryme Tyme
  • Cody Rhodes
  • Ted DiBiase, Jr.
  • Manu
  • D'Lo Brown
  • Mickie James
  • Layla El
  • Jamie Noble

Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Obviously as many as you can would be good but I think Ted DiBiase needs a better profile shot, his current one is him doing a move. One of Ted&Cody would be good too as I see them being together for a while so will serve the future. Manu could also do with a better profile shot on his own. Maybe one of Chris with the belt. Personally I think Glamarella would be great as it would capture the hilarity that is Santino in photographic form, especially if he's cowering near her looking strong, but that's probably less of a vital shot as the first few I mentioned. Tony2Times (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One of Cryme Tyme will be good. Since WWE usually puts all the belts on the line. They will have Rhodes and Ted defend the belts against probably Cryme Tyme. Also get one of Afa jr since he'll probably be with them.--WillC 01:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty good line up because most of those articles need action shots, so anybody doing a signature move would be great. Also I think Mysterio/Kane, Layla/Regal, Michaels/Jericho, Glamarella, or DiBiase/Rhodes/Manu pics would be beneficial as they all seem to be pretty prominent storylines. Nikki311 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a belt, but I think particularly DiBiase would be great. In the current one you can't even see his face. Hey, by the way, thanks! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Our lists...

Just to let the project know, I will be working on the championship lists that are Featured Lists to bring them back up to FL standards before they get removed. As a FL reviewer, many of the lists fail the criteria, but I will help to get them back up to standards, any assistance would help, just state it here.--S_RX 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I might help a little if I find time. Just throwing that out there, it isn't official but just thought to let you know.--WillC 02:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for tables

I propose reformatting the tables of the championship lists to make them more organized and comprehensive to meet FL standards.

#	Wrestler (real name)	Reigns	Date	Location	Event
1	Kane (Glen Jacobs)	7	October 9, 2008	Landover, MD	Survivor Series (2006)

Explanation of fields

• # - the reign number of the title itself, will help as it gives how many reigns there were in total.
• Wrestler (with their real name [if applicable] under their ring name) - to coexist with OOU.
• Reigns - the number of times the wrestler has won the title, renamed from Times won.
• Date - self ex.
• Location - self ex.
• Event - in order to eliminate the Notes section: as a FL reviewer, the notes stating how the match was won and where in the little notes section is redundant and is cluttering the tables, should just list the key things, so in this field will go on what event it was won (i.e. Name of PPV, show, house show, etc.)
• To add to this, the references citing specific reigns should be eliminated and the main WWE title page should be used a general reference and specific ones should be used for ones not covered in the general ones, like in the 2008 WWE Draft.

Comments will be appreciated.S_RX 03:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the type of match the title was won in and other wrestlers involved? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it but I agree with Sykes, what about gimmick matches and multi man matches. I think we could place "a standard match involving four wrestlers at Hard Justice.--WillC 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the link to the event is enough, but if we made it go the Results section. So that if someone saw the match and was curious as to whether it was a gimmick match, they could hit the link and get the details. It would keep clutter to a minimum. Cheers, DoomsDay 04:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about instances in which a title is vacated (possibly due to injury) and a match is held to determine the new challenger. Eliminating the "Notes" section gives nowhere to add this information. In addition, the big problem regarding the lists is the referencing. Reliable sources, not reformatting, is the main concern in FL reassessments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What about if it didn't take place at an event? "Event - January 14" sounds wrong. It should just stay the same. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the event wouldn't be "January 14" but "House Show" or "RAW". Darrenhusted (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the real name in small (this raises an interesting prospect for tag teams, how small can the text get?) and reigns but while the notes section does a get bit sloppy at time, it is handy to note when the title was won in a triangle or four way match, not to mention when it is unified or split, vacated and fought for between two people, neither of which are champion. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Small font has not gone over well at FLC. Reviewers often voiced concerns about it, as they found it too hard to read. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was for a lot of text in small, this is something minor, so it's an okay.S_RX 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To reply to everyone, yes the main concern is reliable sources, but the tables are out of date and are not FL quality. For the notes, we can either have a separate notes section or add a column but not every reign has a note so the table would look out of place, but with a separate notes section like in the 2008 WWE Draft might work better. For the matches, wrestlers involved and gimmicks, I think linking it to the results section should be enough, the list is to List WWE Champions (or w/e the title is) not who was involved what gimmick matches the title defense took place. Also, for events on a specific date and not televised can be called "Live event" or "House show." For the tag teams, I will have to come up with a way to include the real names.S_RX 13:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So does anyone oppose?S_RX 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Killings

Can someone re-word the last two sentences of this section? They sound like something written from a Smackdown preview. I don't follow wrestling any longer, so I have no idea if or what K-Kwik is up to. --Endlessdan and his problem 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

With the numerous sources available including WWE.com's industry news I have moved Genesis (2008) to Genesis (2009) as it is now taking place in January. I think I fixed all redirects but am having trouble fixing the one on the TNA PPV template at the TNA Genesis page the one at the bottom. If someone could help it would be appreciated. Cheers. JakeDHS07 18:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done You edit Template:TNA Genesis for future reference. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JakeDHS07 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It was alright to move it but I think we should wait till further notice from TNA. This is their ppv and most of the sources are just rumors. I think it is better to wait till TNA says something about moving Final Resolution and Genesis.--WillC 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm really confused and need help with this

I reordered the ppvs to their new order at Template:TNAPPV but on TNA Genesis and TNA Final Resolution and TNA Turning Point at the bottom the template is still out of order. I can't seem to find where else to change it. JakeDHS07 03:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about. Everything is correct. It begins with Genesis and ends with Final Resolution.--WillC 03:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

When I go to the Genesis , Final Resolution or any of the individual ppv articles the TNA PPV template at the bottom does not show the new edit. Its very strange cause when I click the v on the wrong order displayed template it shows the new order one. I'm so confused. JakeDHS07 03:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind cleared cookies and temporary internet files and now its fine. Good lord that was odd. JakeDHS07 03:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 03:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Something else I'm confused about and would really appreciate help with

Sadly this happens more than u'd think. I have a user page layout that I got from SRX however for some reason the formatting stretches the page across on my page and not his. I tried messing with the px numbers but nothing. Can someone fix this for me and/or tell me what I am doing wrong? JakeDHS07 13:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You should ask User:IMatthew, he created my userpage and is an expert in areas like this.--S_RX 14:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note

Just wanted to inform members of this project that I have a list going here of potential featured and/or good topics related to pro-wrestling. Feel free to add any of your own! Regards, iMatthew (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you gonna do when you've got a load of FT's on there? D.M.N. (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What else is there to do, work on them! iMatthew (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ANC has got to go

This is really becoming a joke now, especially for User:RandySavageFTW, he lists the proposals and moves them even where there is no consensus, and simply replies with idiotic comments like "lol." He is the main one over there and is just listing simple proposals that need no consensus. Unlike suggestions like renaming World heavyweight wrestling championship or Evolution (professional wrestling), which can just come here. He already moved TNA Destination X to simply Destination X, no consensus was ever reached. Help? Comments? What to do? Argh. --S_RX 14:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really becoming a joke now

No.

and moves them even where there is no consensus

If I'm able to move the page and no one is going to reply, I'm moving it consensus or not. I'm not just gonna let go into the archive.

simply replies with idiotic comments like "lol."

I think you meant to say, "simply replies to idiotic comments with "lol."

He already moved TNA Destination X to simply Destination X,

No one bothered to reply so I moved it.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to WP:AGF. "No one bothered to reply" is not a suitable reason to move a page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the other stuff he did on the article name changes page but moving Destination X is alright. The article was a redirect. No rule was brought up to why the TNA is needed when no other article is named Destination X. The same goes for Hard Justice and Final Resolution. Plus the so called argument that only main ppvs should be referred to in just one name without the companys name, well look up and notice that isn't possible for Lockdown and Bound for Glory.--WillC 17:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. The discussion would have just went into the archive. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WWE Magazine

Hey, does anybody have the WWE Magazine from January or February 2007? iMatthew (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject spam

I received the WikiProject's newsletter this week and have no idea why. I am not listed at the Members list, and have added my name to Newsletter/Nospam. I'm not sure if it is the bot that went wonky, or what, but the project should try not to spam non-members. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really odd. Sorry about that one, mate. The no spam should probably take care of it. Cheers, DoomsDay 17:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I also got the newsletter - and I'm not a project member anymore - which is weird as well. iMatthew (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants. The bot, as far as I can tell, sends the newsletter to everyone in this category, which includes both yuo Matt, and User:Matthewedwards. I've let a note to this effect on User:Matthewedwards's talk page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) User:NiciVampireHeart has pointed out the problem. I'm halfway through a userpage redesign by iMatthew, and I copied his WP:PW userbox! Anyway, its all sorted now, thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions to library

I finally got around to unpacking some boxes, and I found some wrestling books from the mid-1980s. I added them to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Library, but I'm not sure if anyone checks there much anymore. Since they describe so many wrestlers, I made lists at User:GaryColemanFan/Library. The books are old and from the era of kayfabe, but they have some good information. I also found WrestleMania: The Official Insider's Story, which covers every WrestleMania up to WrestleMania 2000, as well as Wrestlecrap – The Very Worst of Pro Wrestling. In addition, I found a bunch of magazines from the mid-1990s (most WWF Magazines from summer 1994 to late 1995, most Pro Wrestling Illustrateds from mid-1995 to mid-1997, and assorted copies of Inside Wrestling, Sports Review Wrestling, Wrestling World, World of Wrestling, Wrestle America, and The Wrestler. I don't have time to go through the magazines and make detailed lists of the contents, but they cover most of what was happening from 1994 to 1997 or so (pay-per-views, profiles of almost everyone, full-length articles on everyone including obscure wrestlers like Well Dunn and Tekno Team 2000, etc.). If anyone needs help finding information and thinks that these might help, get in touch and I'll see what I can do. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone's IP

24.21.172.115 (talk · contribs) - Just made a few edits to the archive and this page... D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody...

...crop the little boy out of the picture to the right?

iMatthew (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I need help editing

I need help editing List of current Pro Wrestling Unplugged employees