Talk:Continental Wrestling Association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Professional wrestling
Professional wrestling
Portal
Continental Wrestling Association is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Brought it back

I managed to bring this article back from deletion thanks to Mailer diablo's help and I've also expanded the story of the CWA from 4 lines of text to something that is a start to telling the story of this legenday company. I hope I can encourage others to pitch in and update with the alumi lists and various historical highlights. MPJ-DK 10:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

I got to ask, is your native language English? because "Legitimately hurt" means that he was actually hurt, not a storyline, not faked. Furthermore "legit" is nothing but SLANG for legitimate, you're saying the EXACT SAME THING! except with slag and slang should be avoided when possible at wikipedia. Furthermore the other edits you make to the article make it seem like wrestling his real and not staged, it's important to make that distinction, it's also important to explain wrestling terms such as "worked" since not everyone is a wrestling fan and know what it means. Finally - who makes you the arbiter of what pictures will and will not show up? Maybe something appropriate will show up, what's the point of removing the "Picture needed" logo when a picture is needed. Please don't just mindlessly revert stuff because your interpretation of the word "Legitimate" is off base here. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • No, MPJ, if you want to say "actually hurt" then say "actually hurt" ... "legitimately hurt" means or at least in part that the injury was legitimate, just and proper.
  • has nothing to do with "just and proper" but if it was a faked injury or not and the next point below. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Legit" is a slang word but a) what you call slang is a specific wrestling lingo - "work" or "kayfabe" are just as "slang" as "legit", b) "legit" is derived from "legitimate" but does not (as evidenced here) mean the same thing.
  • Didn't see no "evidence", you saying so doesn't make it so. Besides we should actually strive to use as little wrestling specific lingo here, it's an encylopedia for everyone, it's part of improving the generally atrocious state of wrestling articles here. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We need not really explain work as we can link to it. We are doing it all the time.
  • Then we're doing it wrong all the time, articles that have been made GA or FA have all had these things I talk about implemented. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Removing the quotes from "injury" does not suddenly turn this article into one claiming that wrestling is "real" (not delving into a discussion about using a term such as "real" ... of course it's real for what it is).
  • the simple matter of fact was that he was NOT injured, therefor it's in no way "real" - it's all storyline and thus if possible should be presented in a way where no one doubts this. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • When a picture shows up, I have no objection against including it of course. But the current "picture" is just silly. And yes, I think it is a greater problem when there is no person involved but a long defunct organisation. If a picture shows up, it can be included then without that silly place holder.
  • "Silly" isn't an argument I can take seriously, but I really don't care one way or the other about the picture it's just not worth it. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Using an actual footnote is much better than the "dagger" nonsense.
  • I don't mind a footnote, but you've used the system that's generally used for sources and references and used it wrong. If this article is ever sourced then a "note" is mixed in with the sources and they shouldn't be. There is a different way to make a linked index like you intended to but I just can't remember how right now. Since it's NOT a reference it's the wrong way of doing it though. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)