Talk:Hawai'i Championship Wrestling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Hawai'i Championship Wrestling 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. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Article tags
There is some disagreement over whether these tags should still apply to the article: {{wikify}}{{cleanup}}{{unreferenced|date=May 2007}} I tend to think that they do, though the problems seem relatively minor. 'Unreferenced' means that there are no reliable third-party sources to back up statements made in the article--so links to the HCW wrestling site are not sufficient, for the same reason linking only to a persons website in their bio article is not enough. Antonrojo 21:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- We can probably lose the cleanup, but the other two need to stay. I'll add them back now. One Night In Hackney303 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
How much are you idiots getting paid to allow such lies and propaganda to remain on this HCW page. They claim to have had 1,000 people at the event. Buy the DVD and you see they barely cracked 100. Wikipedia like the HCW organization and it's page is a sham.
Well, I was there, and it was actually over 1,000. If they really barely cracked 100, they couldn't have had a decent TV taping from the Blaisdell Center Arena, that aired on Samurai TV in Japan. I saw the DVD too, and that's about right. Why do you keep harrassing these people? They were also aired in Japan and it looked pretty much the same, like over 1,000. If you don't believe the 2 Japanese articles, just buy the DVDs and see for yourself. Anyway, this debate is petty and minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.155.1 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the tags can also go too, because I happen to think Bill Apter's articles are reliable amonst a few others. Apter's been in the business for 35 years. The other articles are also solid, although foreign,(and not US.) The "tone" sounds ok, to me...Even the ones that links to their site has articles by a 3rd party source, so I think it's ok. I've been trying to work at keeping things less chit-chatty and taken out a lot of unecessary information that was subjective and didn't fit in according to the "tone" we needed this article to have. Maybe we should get rid of some reference links. They sure have a lot there. 66.8.155.1 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
