Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:PW Talk • COTW • PPV expansion • Members • Style guide • Templates • Assessment • Newsletter • Stub articles
WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Shortcut:
WT:PW
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 51. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51


Contents

[edit] Article Name Changes

I'm thinking that discussions with no consensus reached and no comments in the last 15 days should be closed as "No consensus for move". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leon White

Move to Vader (wrestler)?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose he actually spent most of his career as Big Van Vader, but I wouldn't support a move to that. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support a move to Big Van Vader per comments made by Darrenhusted & since Vader is just a shortened version of Big Van Vader, there would be less confusion to a potential reader if reading that article name instead of Leon White. --Endless Dan 12:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support to Big Van Vader Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose He has used numerous wrestling names and you guys are forgetting he has done a number of TV work, few films where he is credited under his real name. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Percy Pringle

Move to William Moody (real name) or Paul Bearer (most famous name)? --Endless Dan 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Support a move to William Moody. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose a move to either name. The Percy Pringle moniker is well known and was used in well known promotions like Championship Wrestling from Florida, World Class Championship Wrestling (also when the promotion became the WCWA) and the United States Wrestling Association. Odin's Beard (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, but he gained world wide noteriety for his tenure in the WWF as Paul Bearer. So should the page be moved to his real name? --Endless Dan 12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
He was known for 6 years as Percy Pringle and 15 as Paul Bearer, at the very least he should not be listed as Percy Pringle as it is the lesser known of his two stage names. Darrenhusted (talk)
Precisely.--Endless Dan 12:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So do you support a move to Paul Bearer or William Moody? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the fence to be honest with you. He did achieve noteriety as Percy Pringle and I don't think that should be swept under the rug. On his official website, he calls himself Percy Pringle... but that could be because he cannot legally use the name Paul Bearer (it's owned by the WWF). However, without a doubt, his most famous moniker is Paul Bearer. So I'm gonna sit back and read some more comments before making a decision. --Endless Dan 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that would be too much of a problem. The Earky Career section mentions when he went by the name Percy Pringle and that section comes before the section that mentions his role as Paul Bearer. Also you or someone else could also suggest putting a small mention in the introduction paragraph if deemed necessary. In short, I don't think opsoition is necessay for those reasons. --76.69.170.226 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Support a move to William Moody. per Darrenhusted Govvy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Also on TV.com He is credited as William Moody. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose moving article. He refers to himself as Percy Pringle (see his website at http://www.percypringle.com. He has been using the name Percy Pringle from 1977-1990, 2002-2003, and 2005-present. He also published a book under the name Percy Pringle (I don't remember the exact title, but it was something along the lines of Inside Secrets on How You can Enter the Exciting World of Professional Wrestling). I see no need for a move. If it's not broken, don't fix it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Road Warriors

Animal is listed as Joseph Laurinaitis, Hawk is listed as Road Warrior Hawk. I believe Animal should be moved to Road Warrior Animal. --Endless Dan 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support moving to Road Warrior Animal. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeJoseph Laurinaitis should be kept as the article's name because alot of people know him as Jame's Laurinaitis' dad. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And again, his most notable name is Road Warrior Animal, which he has been known as for 20 years which caused him to become a recognizable figure in professional wrestling. How is being a dad compare to the notablity of that? Naming conventions wants the most commonly used name, and I don't believe him being a father garnered him the same amount of attention. — Κaiba 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Per the naming of Road Warrior Hawk and naming conventions. — Κaiba 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support iMatthew T.C. 14:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments I see no problem with this proposal. I think it's also worth noting that LAX moved the article to Road Warrior Animal four days ago. It's probably safe to wrap this one up. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Gruner

Who supports a move to Billy Kidman? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. No brainer. --Endless Dan 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Didn't even know his real name until this. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. D.M.N. (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since he is carrying the name Peter Gruner "Kidman" or Peter Kidman of late down in Florida Championship Wrestling as a trainer/wrestler. Govvy (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose he has also wrestled a lot as just "Kidman". Darrenhusted (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Anoa'i

Move to Yokozuna? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Yokozuna is a disambiguation page because the word refers to a rank for sumo wrestlers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Yokozuna (wrestler)? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because then it would be a redundancy with the Yokozuna disambiguation page. ArcAngel (talk) (Review) 14:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

? RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Don't read my second comment. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yokozuna is a sumo wrestling term, this is why Yokozuna (wrestler) won't work. — Κaiba 21:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Rock (entertainer)

Move to Dwayne Johnson. He's no longer just, "The Rock". In his last several films, he was billed as only Dwayne Johnson. I can't believe the article title is actually The Rock (entertainer). This has been discussed before here, but closed with no apparent conclusion. I make a better case on there, but please read all opinions. WP:COMMONNAME isn't an acceptable rebuttal as I can and did made a strong case that Dwayne Johnson would fit that bill.

  • Oppose MATTtalk 14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He is best known as The Rock. King iMatthew 2008 19:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Same as above. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support he is being advertised in Get Smart as DJ. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Rather than allowing this to come up time and time again, I vote that we just get rid of the article. If we must keep it, the debate over the article title should not take place here. It should take place on the article talk page, and WikiProject:Films should be informed about the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support- He even said in a recent interview that his is no longer the Rock.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If Booker T's article can be named Booker Huffman, the Rock's can be named Dwayne Johnson.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Booker Huffman's article is so named to avoid the Booker T disambiguation page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Naming conventions go by the most commonly used term/name the thing/person is recognized by. His recent 'change' isn't as recognizable as his tenure as The Rock in wrestling or while he was The Rock in the movie industry. — Κaiba 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I still think that he is best known as "The Rock". His wrestling tenure garnered him a lot more fame than his movie career so far. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Very, Very, Very, Strong Support as per above supporters and most of the opposers aren't giving any reason. His legal name is Dwayne Johnson, so the article should be named Dwayne Johnson. If not moved to Dwayne Johnson, then article should be moved to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, because that basically has both titles, so everyone can be happy. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not about making people happy or about legal names, its about naming the articles by which the object or person is most recognized by, which follows with Wikipedia's naming conventions on subjects like this. He is not as notable as Dwayne Johnson as he is the The Rock in wrestling and The Rock who starred in movies, unless you can refute that he is somehow. — Κaiba 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Since i doubt anyone will prove beyond doubt which name is more known, i think it should be named to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Because outside of the Wrestling world he's known as Dwayne "The Rock" johnson. Not just Dwayne Johnson as much. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Kaiba.. His latest movies do not advertise him as The Rock; Here and here.--Endless Dan 13:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed the point, his name 'The Rock' is more notable and the most recognizable out of the two, we do not change article names on Wikipedia on the basis of a minor thing like what he was advertised most currently as. — Κaiba 15:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't miss the point. He was the Rock in the WWF. His movie career provides him much greater exposure then his wrestling career. --Endless Dan 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrestling gave him the acting career and I highly doubt you could have any credibility to back up the claim of him being 'more popular' or having 'more exposure' during either stint. And BTW, he wasn't called Dwayne Johnson all during his acting career either, he was credited as being The Rock for some of the films or his name with the The Rock somewhere in the name. — Κaiba 19:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, what documentation do you have that supports your claim that "The Rock" best satisfies WP:COMMONNAME? Have you supplied any supporting evidence that WP:COMMONNAME applies to your arguement? Google searches are rendered invalid because searching for the term "rock" will result in millions of pages for actual stones. Now, movies and Hollywood (and college football) is infinitely more popular then wrestling. This is indisputable. Wrestling may be popular within this circle, but doesn't even get a whiff of the pop culture relevance that movies and movies stars have. Also, re: your last point - he hasn't been called Dwayne Johnson all during his acting career. No one has made that claim. But, he has been using his real name for over 3 years and has dropped "the Rock" from his stage name in the last 2 years. Also, here is your documentation you requested. This a comment I made from the name change discussion on his talk page:

I disagree with your pov that none of his movies have been blockbusters. The Game Plan (film) made over $100 million dollars just in the theatres. This does not include DVD sales (which was the #1 DVD for 2 weeks upon release). But that's just one movie. In comparison, as far I know no WWE event (with or without the Rock) has ever banked $100 mill (including gate & tv revenue). If you review the WrestleMania X-Seven article, which had one of the Rock's biggest matches ever, the gate at the event was meerly $3.5 million... for "a record-breaking event".

This would support the notion that he is best known as Dwayne Johnson or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson over simply "The Rock" as this shows movies reach a far greater audience. I'm not trying to discredit all notability of the stand-alone name "The Rock", but Dwayne Johnson seems far more applicable at this time. Also, as noted below, I think the best article name would be Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson --Endless Dan 20:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have conclusively proven that movies reach a greater audience. For example, what would the response be if you asked 10 people on the street about Hulk Hogan's profession? I'm sure the vast majority would identify him as a wrestler. Likewise for countless others...Roddy Piper and Andre The Giant, for example. This is also the case for more recent wrestlers--Steve Austin or John Cena, for example. The Marine did $18 million at the box office, which is over 5 times what WrestleMania X-Seven did. Does that mean that John Cena is primarily an actor? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's retarded. No conclusive evidence that movies are bigger then wrestling?? C'mon. It's common sense. If Hulk Hogan is wrestling's biggest star, I'm sure we can make a laundry list of much more famous actors. There is a reason why Tom Cruise gets paid 30 million dollars a film and Hogan is doing a reality show on CMT.--Endless Dan 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm sure we could also come up with a list of actors who make more money than Hulk Hogan these days despite having less name recognition (and yes, the list would include many "A-list" stars). GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. So let's make sure we're on the same page - you are contending wrestling is of equal relevance to Hollywood in terms of popular culture? --Endless Dan 14:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I hadn't realized that I had signed a contract for a Dutchess of Queensbury Rules match. I am contending that some people are better known as wrestlers than as actors. You are using irrelevant statistics to prove something almost completely unrelated. I am stating that those statistics are irrelevant and prove something almost completely unrelated. He is well-known by both names, but neither side has been proven conclusively. I believe that, in order to move a page, there has to be a valid reason and consensus for the move. Since no valid reason has been proven and consensus does not seem to exist, I believe the page should remain where it is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. But before you twisted my words, the reason I was pointing out Dwayne Johnson's movie success was to show that Hollywood movies are of more importance and influence then wrestling. Ie, they reach a bigger audience. So more people are now exposed to the name he uses for his films - Dwayne Johnson. And there is a valid reason to move his page, ya chuckle head. It's so we can avoid a ambiguous article title such as "The Rock (wrestler)". Because being such a high ranking member of the omnipotent WP:PW, you probably already know there have been at least two other wrestlers who have used the name "The Rock", right? And given that Johnson has reached notoriety using both names, wouldn't Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson make the most sense? It's absolutely ridiculous that he gets no credit from you for being in a movies that have grossed over a 100 mill using only his legal name. --Endless Dan 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons I have mentioned above. It hasn't been proven that he is better known by a different name, so there is no reason to move it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I got a poll of 100 random people surveyed over what is the most widely known name. Can you reach into my ass and get it for me? Thanks! --Endless Dan 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
“ After proving he could carry a movie to No. 1 with last fall's surprise hit The Game Plan, he's positioning himself as Hollywood's go-to family comedy hitman. It's all part of the latest reinvention of The Rock — which starts with not referring to himself as The Rock. "I'm aware of everything that comes with that nickname, and I just think there's a lot more you can do without it," he says. "But I wanted it to happen naturally, from 'The Rock' to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson to 'Dwayne Johnson. He doesn't do the thing with the eyebrow anymore, either, and he's trimmed pounds of meathead muscle off his still handsomely chiseled 6'4" self. The purpose of this massive rebranding effort: to cast himself in the image of his four-quadrant matinee idols Will Smith and Tom Hanks. "They embrace being a movie star from beginning to end," says the 36-year-old actor. "From preproduction through the all-important marketing, they work hard and enjoy it."[1] ”
EndlessDan, I suggest you not have any more outbursts of incivility and/or personal attacks like that again, or I will report it to the appropriate noticeboard. Your comment above is highly inappropriate and does not contribute anything to this discussion. — Moe ε 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Not only because he hasn't been going by The Rock for a while, but also because it does away with parenthetical disambiguation in the title, which we should avoid as much as reasonably possible. — Gwalla | Talk 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support He is not using the name "The Rock" anymore. Not that he's not ashamed with his wrestling past, but wrestling does have a negative stigma in the media (see Chris Benoit), and wanting to use his real name in movies makes perfect sense. Of course, when he does appear on WWE television for special events like WrestleMania, he'll still be the Rock. He will always be The Rock as far as wrestling fans are concerned. He's using his real name more-or-less to appeal to non-wrestling fans who hate wrestling due to the negative stigma.Jgera5 (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support His current 'stage name' is Dwayne Johnson. The title of the current article is quite demeaning and patronizing of the man. Wikipedia archives facts, not popular opinion. If Hulk Hogan was known unofficially as The Yellow Moustache, Wikipedia would still call him Hulk Hogan. Dwayne Johnson's professional name is Dwayne Johnson, no matter how many wrestling fans persist in calling him The Rock. 86.152.175.230 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. At this point, Dwayne Johnson's article probably shouldn't even come under the jurisdiction of the Wrestling Project. The man is more than just a wrestler, these days. To say he's gained his most noteriety as a wrestler probably isn't even correct anymore, as he's now - among other things - a Disney movie star. As mentioned, Booker T's page is listed at another name to avoid a disambiguation. As a quick search would show, "The Rock" is a far more commonly used title. Obligatoryhandle (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose He is still not best known by that and it will take some time and more proof until he is. --Maestro25 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per ip address 86.152.175.230. Wweisreal (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I support the change, though if a solution cannot be reached, I support the suggested Compromise seen below. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Added notes to consider
**I've also noticed that his imdB profile notes him under his given name.
**"The Rock" is a character promoted by the World Wrestling Federation, and subsequently, World Wrestling Entertainment. Dwayne Johnson is a person whom we are noting. I suppose the question one must ask themselves is are we doing a biography for a character or a person.
**His movies have begun crediting him as Dwayne Johnson.
**As per the cover of this magazine and this article, in which he is cited as "Dwayne Johnson", not "The Rock".
**Per his own wishes in which he clearly states he wants to move away from being known as The Rock. And quote, "I'm aware of everything that comes with that nickname, and I just think there's a lot more you can do without it...But I wanted it to happen naturally, from 'The Rock' to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson to 'Dwayne Johnson'" (See Above Cited Article For The Source of this quote)[1].
That's it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Compromise

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson seems like the best compromise and the most acceptable fit as it would encompass both names. He hasn't been billed as simply The Rock in his movies in quite some time, but he has used and has been refered to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson for media appearances and some of his movies (although, his latest movies he has dropped "The Rock" name). For everyone who voted above or who has not yet cast vote, would this satisfactory? This would also eliminate the (entertainer) tag and should end this seemingly never-ending arguement. --Endless Dan 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose This appears to be a compromise that would please nobody. I can see this title leading to a discussion about 3 weeks down the road about changing it again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per EndlessDan--ProtoWolf (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Endlessdan. --UnquestionableTruth-- 06:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Endlessdan's laid out descriptors ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So what's it gonna be? This is why this fucking name change comes up so oftehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&action=edit&section=8

Editing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedian. Everyone gets lost in crunch time. The majority of people feel a name change is in store, but to what - Dwayne Johnson or Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson? --Endless Dan 00:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

    • This isn't about a majority. We don't vote on Wikipedia. 11-8 doesn't seem like a consensus to move anything, especially when you consider that at least two of the editors supporting a move gave reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia's naming conventions. At any rate, if it is to be moved, we should keep in mind that we have been moving away from adding nicknames to article titles: Superstar Billy Graham was recently moved to Billy Graham (wrestler) and "Hot Stuff" Eddie Gilbert was just moved to Eddie Gilbert (wrestler). Moving the article to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (or is it Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson?...yet another debate that would have to be resolved) obviously wouldn't make either side happy. And it certainly wouldn't make the other projects (who should be involved in this discussion, which is why I mentioned early on that it should be on the article's talk page rather than here) happy. And if he's making a transition to his real name, why would we move the article to the transitional name? That's the only possible way of guaranteeing that a future move will be necessary (assuming we're going to follow the non-reason that "we should name it whatever he wants us to name it for him because he owns the article and so Wikipedia policy means nothing compared to the possibility of offending him by naming his article with the name that made him a millionaire"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Lmao! Well, since the last time the other WP:PW jakes voted, the discussion has progressed. So I wouldn't mind having some of those other said members contributing to the discussion and, hopefully, its conclusion. I just really hope their responses won't be as amusingly weak as your last one, Coleman. --Endless Dan 03:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dionicio Castellanos

Move to Psicosis. Psicosis currently redirects to Dionoco Castellanos.

Although he has competed under various spellings of his name as well as the Nicho El Millionario gimmick, Psicosis is far better known under this performance name than by his real one. I think it should be moved per naming conventions. McJeff (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources?

Is anyone keeping a list of what sources we have proven reliable? Especially since we keep having debates (see #Warning for Future PPV Talk Pages above), I think if we don't already have one, we should start one. Once we have proven a site reliable (and I would use Ealdgyth's judgment in the various FAC reviews), we can add it to the list with a link to the appropriate discussion proving it so. So far, I would list the obvious ones (DVDs, WWE publications, books, SLAM! Wrestling) and add websites as we prove them (ex. WrestleView with a link to the SummerSlam 2007 FAC). Nikki311 02:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Other then what you mentioned, we also consider WON reliable last time I checked.But I do think a discussion like this is definitely a needed one. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
WON definitely. Meltzer has books published by Winding Stair Press and Sports Publishing LLC. He also has several mentions on legitimate news sites (Baltimore Sun, Albany Times, SLAM Sports, Mourning Journal) just in the last month. [2]. Nikki311 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well some of those are at here, but we may need further discussion to establish which sources are reliable, should we start a discussion for each one like we did with the name changes? --SRX 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we should divide that list into subsections, ones that have 100% been proven reliable and ones that have yet to be proven. Nikki311 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well are we going to discuss those that have not been proven here?SRX 02:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
We can. I don't object to discussing it like we did the article name changes. Nikki311 03:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok but when the list get's to big, what should we do with the resolved ones?
We can move it to a subpage somewhere or something. Nikki311 04:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about this section on the talk page getting too big, we'll start a new section and let this be archived automatically. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Wrestling History

Is the above article reliable, per the discussions at the FAC of SummerSlam, it appears sketchy. The owner of the site states that he gets info from Dave Meltzer, tapings, and magazines. Reliable or Unreliable?SRX 03:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

50-50 with it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well this is what the site states.--SRX 03:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it can stand up to a GA review, but it will never be considered a reliable source for a Featured Article candidacy. While he gets some results from Dave Meltzer, the site also invites any reader to submit results. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IGN Sports

IGN Sports does a lot of wrestler interviews (which are obviously reliable), but they also recap what happened in wrestling during the week and on pay-per-views, and they have articles. IGN is used a lot in video game articles, so I was just wondering what everyone thought. Nikki311 04:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think about this one. I'm leaning toward reliable. It's owned by Fox Interactive Media, which I believe counts in its favor (which is more a belief in the reliability of a site operated by an established news corporation than an endorsement of Fox). Perhaps Ealdgyth would be the best person to ask. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well im not sure, for video games its a great reliable source, but for other uses like PPVs, I'm not to sure, but like GCF said, it is operated by Fox, so it could be used for GAN's, but im not sure about FAC's--SRX 14:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Arena

This really gives detailed results from the Attitude Era of the WWF, detailed results, title histories, PPV results, etc. Reliable?--SRX 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it will stand up to a GA review, but it will never be considered sufficiently reliable for a Featured Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't use it for a GA either. What's the point in adding/using sources we'd have to replace in order to be an FA? Nikki311 05:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As a placeholder more than anything. I don't honestly know that we'll ever have enough reliable sources to get some articles to FA level. When trying to writing a GA in the absences of sources that will stand up to the Ealdgyth test, I often find that I have to use (quality) sources that probably aren't good enough to get articles to FA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I agree with both you Nikki and GCF, it can stand up for GAN, but I doubt for FAC. So should we make a list which to use for GAN, and which to use for FAC? (I think that will be redundant, but thats how it looks like it will end up).SRX 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As those that are acceptable for FAC will be acceptable for GAN, have a list of GAN-acceptable sources and tag with {{FA-icon}} for FAC-acceptable. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PWInsider.com

Considered one of the top sites for insider infomation, and for the doubters, some of us are still waiting for someone to give an instance of the site being unreliable. Despite the negative conatation that the site has here, it's exclusive stories have been credited (aka, copy and paste) on other websites which have been considered acceptable, such as this story, which is currently being cited on SummerSlam (2007). Mshake3 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a chance and say it is reliable. The only thing I hate about that website is annoying popups and it's general layout. D.M.N. (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
PWInsider is one of the best news sites out there. Dave Scherer (sp?) and the rest of the old 1Wrestling.com crew are wonderful journalists and well respected in the business. I hate the popups myself but the incredible amount of bandwidth and writer's salaries aren't free.SChaos1701 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Has Dave S. published any books or is he mentioned in any news articles? That will also help prove reliability. Nikki311 17:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised as a wrestling fan that you don't know of him. He's pretty respected in the business. In 1999, he was approached to take over RAW magazine but turned it down. He's written for the New York Daily News and WOW Magazine. Like me, he's also worked for Bill Apter. His site has reliability hands down.SChaos1701 (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think she's just asking if there is anything we can use to assert reliability if the website is challenged. For example, if he has written a couple of books, that helps to prove that he is an expert in the field. I realize that he is, but we need concrete proof to give to reviewers—they will demand more than one of us saying that he is respected in the business.

[edit] Online World Of Wrestling

I'm aware we don't consider this reliable for anything but match results, correct? If so, then it appears to be used in articles to source championships such as here. So what is the deal here? Is it reliable for that as well, or is that as a ref considered "better than nothing?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to here, it was asked on its "verifiability", so... IDK. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's "better than nothing", as it can be hard to find reliable sources for some championships. If a reliable source can be found, though, it should be used instead (perhaps "Wrestling Title Histories" or PWI's "2007 Wrestling Almanac & Book of Facts", both of which are owned by project members -- see the library). As for match results, I believe it's the same story. It's better than nothing, but a more reliable source would be required for promotion to FA status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I see. I'll get to work filling in those gaps when I have the energy too later (heat is killing me). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about match results

Someone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988) suggested that the match results would be better formatted as a table. I made up an example at User:Nikki311/sandbox (in the middle). Any thoughts? I think I like it. Nikki311 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's to confusing, no offense. I think our current format works just fine. King iMatthew 2008 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
What makes it confusing? Nikki311 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Just having to follow it, makes it more complicated than it is now. I agree with D.M.N. and Alex. King iMatthew 2008 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. No offense or anything, but, I seriously prefer it much better in the current format. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken. If it is shot down, then it is shot down. Nikki311 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the current format also. It is more direct, much more simple, and occupies less space. Alex T/C Guest Book 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the current format, but if the format change happened, I'm sure we'd all get used to the tables eventually. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would we change it? wouldn't we have to do the same to Every Pay-Per-View? No-way, to difficult.Altenhofen (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem for me would be the notes. I think they should not be in a table because it's prose and because of its length. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some more options

I made two more options in my sandbox. Option 2 removes the bullets and uses numbering instead. Option 3 removes all the match notes and just has the bare bone results. (If someone wants to know the finishing move in the match they can go up to the text). Anyone like either of these? Nikki311 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like Option 2. Perhaps the comments about the match might be easier to read with bullet points, though (number the matches and use bullet points for the comments). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This is what it would look like with the bullet points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I like that. Any other opinions? Nikki311 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nikki, I edited User:Nikki311/sandbox and made a third option. While I like the idea of the results being easier to read than the plain text, the bulky formatting of option one leaved more to be desired. I made the third option on the page with the box formatting borrowed from the MMA articles, which are slimmer, with sortable columns and nicer headers. — Κaiba 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I like your version better, but nobody else seemed to like the idea of a table. Nikki311 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Something we can do, which I did to resolve the issue of the many formats of the 'championship and other accomplishments' sections a couple years ago, is conduct a straw poll for about a week with all the formats voted on. Yes I know, we don't do votes, we do discussions on Wikipedia and all that, but we can ignore that.. — Κaiba 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Putting it to a vote sounds good to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
We can definitely ignore in this situation. A vote sounds good. iMatthew T.C. 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll (2 weeks or so)

OK, seems like you agreed that a straw poll can be used here, so here it is, please see User:Nikki311/sandbox for the various options:

I will also decline to place a support for any option so I can close it fairly. — Moe ε 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Extending it to another week so more people can comment. — Moe ε 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Option 1

  • ~~~~

[edit] For Option 2

[edit] For Option 3

  • I have added Option 5 to the sandbox (a slight variation of this one with bullet points). Option 5 is my preference, but I think Option 3 is the best of those originally presented. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Option 4

  • Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • iMatthew T.C. 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • But, instead of bullet points, it might be better with numbers. I was going to be bold and create Option 5, but didn't. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ugh, the numbers look ugly. Then again it may just be lack of being used to them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current Format

  • Now that I think about it, I actually like the current format better. It's easy to read, and I don't see any problems with it. iMatthew T.C. 10:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the current format is option 3, if I am not mistaken. — Moe ε 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The current format is using bullets. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I dont think the current format should be available to choose from, because the format is inevitably flawed since a GA/FA nominators disliked it, and since they disliked it, it means we have to change something, otherwise our articles will remain low quality. — Moe ε 01:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spoken Articles

There exists a project for doing this, and given that this, this and this have spoken articles I think that we should try and get some of our articles spoken. I like to think I have a good speaking voice, if anyone would like ot suggest some articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you did one about a deceased wrestler or a tag team that is not around a lot. You could do Bobby Eaton as he's not really active anymore. I don't think you should do present wrestlers as they are subject to changes every day. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with DMN. Nikki311 18:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
How about The Rock, or Stone Cold, or even Hogan? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done defunct championships as a starting point, see WWE Cruiserweight Championship, WWE European Championship and Million Dollar Championship for details. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That kinda go's back to what DMN siad thoes wrestler's article's change just as much as active one's IMO. ZACH 15:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Deceased wrestlers might be a good place to start. What about Rick Rude, the current COTW? Nikki311 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look at it today. But some articles will have to be edited before being turned in to spoken article because some of them (such as the Hardcore title) are almost unreadable. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick Rude is done, 9m 14s. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Employees templates

I think the design of the "current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees" and "current World Wrestling Entertainment employees" templates is presently lacking. The templates would be much more accessible to casual readers (which is who all articles, etc, should be written for, not people with an existing knowledge of the subject matter) if every member of the roster was listed by the surname of their ring name. The current design is confusing and makes it harder to quickly locate a particular article. Any thoughts? McPhail (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

v • d • e
Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees
A.J. Styles • Abyss • Alex Shelley • Angelina Love • Awesome Kong • B.G. James • Black Reign/Dustin Rhodes • Booker T • Brother Devon • Brother Ray • Chris Sabin • Christian Cage • Christy Hemme • Consequences Creed • Crystal Louthan • Curry Man • David Penzer • Don West • Eric Young/Super Eric • Frank Trigg • Gail Kim • Hernandez • Homicide • Jacqueline • James Mitchell • James Storm • Jay Lethal • Jeremy Borash • Jim Cornette • Jimmy Rave • Johnny Devine • Karen Angle • Kaz • Kevin Nash • Kip James • Kurt Angle • Lance Hoyt • Lauren Thompson • Matt Morgan • Mike Tenay • Moose • ODB • Petey Williams • Raisha Saeed • Rellik • Rhaka Khan • Rhino • Robert Roode • Roxxi • Salinas • Samoa Joe • Scott Steiner • Shantelle Taylor • Shark Boy • Sharmell • SoCal Val • Sonjay Dutt • Sting • Tomko • Traci Brooks • Velvet Sky
Stage names do not have a surname they do not have a first name, they are mearly nicknames when they appear in the ring. That is why the current order is as: real name = alphabetical by surname and Stage name = alphabetical by first letter. — Moe ε 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
But a casual reader would not know whether the wrestler performed under their real name or ring name. It isn't immediately obvious whether "John Morrison" and "Eric Young" are ring names or not. The current template design only makes sense if the reader has a pre-existing knowledge of wrestling, which is against Wikipedia policy. The articles should be ordered in a consistent fashion. McPhail (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well technically, all of them are stage names, it just so happens that their stage name may also be their real name. — Moe ε 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In that case, all articles should be sorted alphabetically, irrespective of whether they relate to real names or ring names. The current format is decidedly user unfriendly. McPhail (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, alphabetical by first letter is the correct way for stage names. If it is a list of wrestlers by their real names, it would be by their surname. I'll start moving lists like those templates around if there is no problem from anyone with that. — Moe ε 21:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically, wrestlers are not employees of the promotion but independent contractors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pfft, lets not get into the technical terms, eh? They are contracted to WWE, lets leave it at that. — Moe ε 18:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Why go "pfft" at the FACTS. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA after all. I think we should put a note saying that the wrestlers are not employees of the company but independent contractors.SChaos1701 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
...find some reliable sources, then we'll talk. — Moe ε 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing, this is supposed to be a group of wrestling fans and people who are supposed to know about the business because, you know their writing articles in an ENCYCLOPEDIA about it, and some of you don't even know the basics of the business. It's a commonly known thing that professional wrestlers are independent contractors.
Here is Kurt Angle even saying that they are.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:WXLy_Di__q4J:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070731/ai_n19438642+professional+wrestler+independent+contractors&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Here is a sample WWE contract referring to them as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
http://contracts.onecle.com/wwe/communications.consult.2003.05.01.shtml
Here is a book that talks about trying to change wrestlers' status from being independent contractors.
CHOKEHOLD: Pro Wrestling's Real Mayhem Outside the Ring
http://www.amazon.com/CHOKEHOLD-Wrestlings-Real-Mayhem-Outside/dp/1401072178
Here is another article explaining how a pro wrestling contract is written and they are referred to as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCO/is_2_2/ai_64061218 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Wikipedia article even listing Professional wrestlers as independent contractors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_contractor
You go on any wrestling news site and ask them and they will tell that they DO NOT work for their promotion but are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS. Hell ask a wrestler, he'll tell you too.
This is really starting to get to me. There are people here writing for an encyclopedia who don't seem to grasp or know some of the basics of business. This isn't the only example. There's the thing with the IC Title and WWE Championship article that come to mind.SChaos1701 (talk)
Do you have a better name for this article? — Moe ε 22:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
How bout putting a note in or mentioning that professional wrestlers are not employees of the company and they are independent contractors. Along with that rename the article something like "WWE Employees and Talent Roster" and "TNA Employees and Talent Roster." I know it can sound anal but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and we're supposed to write FACT no matter how anal or tedious it may be. SChaos1701 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
1) You don't need to shout using caps, I can read just as well without it, and it doesn't make your argument stronger, it just makes you look more anal.
2) Your suggested title of "WWE Employees and Talent Roster" would be actually be renamed to "World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent roster" because of naming conventions to not use abbreviations and to avoid all first letter caps.
If this were true, I guess all the title pages are screwed. Instead of TNA Championship, it will be Total Nonstop Action Wrestling championship, and instead of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), it will be World Heavyweight Championship (World Wrestling Entertainment). Wow. Alex T/C Guest Book 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't go putting words in my mouth, I said naming conventions prefer lowered caps even if their official names (like Mobscene over mOBSCENE) and to not use abbreviations. Although that is a guidelines there is also WP:COMMONNAME, which says to use the most common name, which things like 'Total Nonstop Action Wrestling championship' wouldnt fit under, as TNA championship is more often used. — Moe ε 01:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
3) That title is unrealistic, because the name of the article needs to remain as a list, the current title is "List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees", because it is a list, and a renamed article will remain as such, a new title other than what you suggested needs to be chosen.
— Moe ε 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to net shout. I was just emphasizing what I was writing. It's something I had to start doing on a political forum because people wouldn't read posts fully before they responded and it's sort of become second nature (lol) so don't take it as if shouting. How bout. "List of World Wrestling Entertainment Wrestlers and Employees" and still add the section in the article about them being independent contractors. The same should be done with the other promotions. I can make the appropriate changes if need be.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wrestlers is a rather awkward word to include in it, how about List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent? — Moe ε 22:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That could work. Now how would we go about making these changes.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Being bold and doing it? lol — Moe ε 22:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can make the text changes but how do you change the url?SChaos1701 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Already done. — Moe ε 22:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa, that title List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees and talent is non encyclopedic. It was changed in the first place from Superstars because not all are superstars, but the employer being WWE hired employees, who are made up of the roster. That contract you pointed out above was made five years ago, since then contracts have changed due to the many scandals and drug issues. If you have a contract from this year it would help, but do not move a page until several members have agreed upon it. That is not being bold Kaiba, just moving it w/o a clear consensus.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There are a bunch of sources there showing that they are independent contractors. They have always been independent contractors and they still are. Something needs to be said showing that. Wrestlers are not employees of the promotion. They are talent that are paid a fee for a service. Like say for instance, Microsoft pays let's say Smith Construction to do some remodeling. That does not mean that Smith is an employee of Microsoft. It's the same thing. I've shown several sources that show that professional wrestlers are independent contractors so the change should be made. Fact is fact.SChaos1701 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Really? But according to the IRS [3] An Independent contractor is whom has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not the means and methods of accomplishing the result. The "talent" does not control the result of the matches/bookings/promos/. Plus, WWE bookers just book matches and results, where the "talent" figure out the rest of the moves. So not fit to be called "independent contractors". According to the IRS, [4] an employer is one who can control what will be done and how it will be done. Which is what exactly WWE does to their "talent".SRX--LatinoHeat 23:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Read the second paragraph third line. "Our Superstars are highly trained and motivated independent contractors." The WWE states themselves that they are independent contractors. So there you go. The change needs to be made. I have more than proved I'm right.SChaos1701 (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp
Well Im not sure whether even WWE's corporate is kayfabe or not, but WWE is incorrect when they say that per the definitions given by the IRS. But if this is so, the article needs a better name than "talent".SRX--LatinoHeat 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A Corporate website cannot be fictitious. That is misleading the shareholders. All wrestling contracts that wrestlers sign (that includes WWE and TNA) acknowledge that they are independent contractors. If you read one of the articles it says that though they are independent contractors that if a wrestler decided to sue the company over it has a chance of not standing up in court. But as I've stated, I've shown many instances of proof that wrestlers are independent contractors so unless someone shows me other wise, I think I should note that in the employee articles.SChaos1701 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PPV Chronology

Why do PPV boxes now have links to the previous year's and next year's PPV of the same name? There's a link at the bottom in the box. It's a bit unnecessary. Tony2Times (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the discussion above? It makes it easier for readers to navigate through articles, especially for outside users. Instead of scrolling all the way to the bottom of the page, it will be in the infobox, which is where it should belong because thats what the infobox is for, to present needed information.

[edit] Additional PPV Chronology template

Now that this has been added to infoboxes, do we really need separate templates to be embedded in the WWE PPV template to show the chronology?--SRX--LatinoHeat 23:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, one of them should go. The one with links to ALL occurrances of an event, or the one that just has the preceding and following ones. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better to transfer the separate templates into the infobox. Like how they have a list of episodes in {{Infobox Television episode}} --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what has been done. Im just suggesting we remove and delete the embedded templates, because its already in the infobox.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more links in the navbox. If the navbox template is helpful, then it should not be removed and your new addition should be removed as it would be redundant. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering most PPVs have over 10 events, I think the navbox is much more helpful so you can click any year at will rather than having to cycle maybe from Royal Rumble 2008 all the way back to Royal Rumble 1990 through each individual year. You could keep both or remove the part of infobox, but I don't think it would be wise to move it from the navbox. Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And SRX, I think you may have misunderstood my previous suggestion. I suggested to have the navbox template (ALL links) in the infobox. Like how episode articles list the entire season episode list. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That would take up too much infobox space, and it would look messy, that would be like placing the chronological ppv's in that way. Events like WM, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and the Royal Rumble would take up too much space.SRX--LatinoHeat 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see your point, But that will take forever to include in every infobox, typing every event, redirect, wikilinks, unless we get a bot to automatically add the dates for each event, but that will take up too much time IMO.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, forget my suggestion. If you could reduce your new addition to something less obtrusive (e.g. 2008 NBA Finals), I would be OK with it. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it obtrusive, if I based on original the original WP:PW template? If you have a problem with the entire template, you should have stated that before.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You have the name of the event repeated three times in your recent addition. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I see, so you would like it to appear like < (2006) (2007) (2008) >?SRX--LatinoHeat 18:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting this. Actually, it doesn't look that good when the names go to the next line. And I'd like to apologize for the way I handled the situation. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's ok. Though I think the current format should remain.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I added an example and a comparison to the current format to the sandbox. Is there really no chance? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm against adding that bit anyway, but if it is gonna be added I think it looks better just saying the years rather than the names seeing as it's always gonna be the same three titles side by side, there's no point as it's titled 'SummerSlam chronology' so people know what it is and it saves the box getting too cluttered. It might as well just be the year number (or in WM's case, the event number). I'm not too keen on the arrows though. Tony2Times (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I got the design from {{Infobox sports season}} and some other ones use it as well. Although they incorporated the arrow into the link. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with both of you Tony and 13, but take WWE Night of Champions for example, that event changed its name from Vengeance to Night of Champions, as well did WWE Cyber Sunday from Taboo Tuesday.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We can still have the full name for those cases. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you should just list the whole name. The NFL is a different case as they never change their names, but WWE is fictional and they are unpredictable.--SRX--LatinoHeat 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Professional wrestling

Well it hasn't been updated in a while, does the selected article necessarily have to be an FA? Can it be a well written GA? --SRX--LatinoHeat 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be going in no direction. iMatthew T.C. 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If you need any help with it, try asking Cirt, he's worked on quite a few Featured Portals and might be willing to help. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Can we make this thing less WWE central please? there are other companies, ya know.
If you have a problem with it being too WWE central, be bold and fix it. The point of this thread was too see if anybody had any thoughts, not complaints. iMatthew T.C. 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and revamped the DYK section of the portal with 12 new DYKs. It was very hard finding a mix of stuff (especially from non-WWE articles since many of them don't have sources). If anyone would like to add more then go ahead, but please make sure the fact has a reliable source. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned some of it up, too. I'm not sure how the whole portal thing works, but shouldn't the DYKs be from WP:DYK? We should probably start creating some of those when we make new pay-per-view articles. Also, could someone add Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions to the Topics part of the portal? Thanks. Nikki311 02:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New catagorie

I just got a Wicked idea for a new catagorie! I think we should make Catagorie:Dead Wrestlers. Good idea? Altenhofen (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead wrestlers? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe something more specific like: Dead people who worked for the WWE at one point, nah, Former WWE Superstars who aren't currently alive, okay; I know, Dead people who worked for WWE. That is the best I got. Altenhofen (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's correctly spelled category. Alex T/C Guest Book 07:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A category was created for that a while ago, and deleted, because it was pointless. iMatthew T.C. 10:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup it was, if I'm not mistaken the primary argument was "eventually they'll all be dead wrestlers", which you can't argue with ;) MPJ-DK (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

but after the dead ones die, new ones will be wrestling, it will go on intill the impossible happens; violence is deminished. Altenhofen (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, it's been tried before, but deleted. Also instead of typing out "(sorry if I spelled stuff wrong or didn't use capitals, I was in a hurry)", may I ask why you didn't just correct the grammar instead of writing the reason you didn't. Whatever, that's not important. -- iMatthew T.C. 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Night of Champions

I wonder if it'd be of interest to show in the article the various versions of the posters that were printed. It would show the historical changes of them and brighten up the article, obviously in the info box we should leave the finalised one, but if WWE keep this Night of Champions theme over the years, most years there will probably be last minute changes (like 'Taker to Edge last year etc.) and so maybe we could always show an archive of the changing champions posters as I don't think any other PPVs have advertising posters that change in the same manner. Tony2Times (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the extra images would meet fair-use criteria. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean The Great American Bash (2008), I've already seen 2 different versions: Image:WWE The Great American Bash.jpg and Image:GAB 300x450.jpg. D.M.N. (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Divas Championship

This title (WWE Divas Championship) is a redirect to the Women's title, so User:Emmittp has created the article WWE Divas Champion, which is the wrong naming convention per all other Champiopnship pages. Can an admin move the "WWE Divas Champion" page to the "WWE Divas Championship" over the redirect? Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Diva's Championship is also floating about. What a mess. D.M.N. (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Re-direct all of them. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed. all redirect to WWE Diva's Championship as this is the correct spelling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Straight Edge PXK (talk • contribs) 13:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, redirect to WWE Women's Championship, because we don't even know if this is a new title, or Raw's title being carried over. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, its quite obviously not. she stated it was a new championship and since when did she have the kayfabe authority to steal and repackage titles from raw? Sexy Sea Bassist 13:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why argue? We don't know anything about this title, so why can't we wait to create an article, if necessary. We should wait until more information is released. -- iMatthew T.C. 13:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] possible sock?

User:Crofty 4000, User:Wwe fan 5000 notice any similarities? Sexy Sea Bassist 14:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Alison, so we'll see what happens after she runs a checkuser. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
We really do not need a checkuser here, because:
  1. Both accounts have virtually edited their userpages only.
  2. One is from October 2007; one from April 2008.
  3. It is blatantly obvious from the userpages.
D.M.N. (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
4. this is not the place to report users.--SRX--LatinoHeat 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lockdown (2008)

I've wrote the Report for Lockdown (2008). I was wondering if someone would review it please. Just for you to know I'm not that very good at writing reports.--WillC 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a good start. One thing you will need to add is reliable sources. Some of the prose needs tightening, but overall, it's a solid start. Well done! :D D.M.N. (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Really I'm the only source. TNA doesn't have any articles that I know of that are about Lockdown. I went by stuff I remember from the ppv. I don't know how I'm going to get Destination X (2008) done because I didn't watch the ppv. All I can do is the background and aftermath. Hopefully someone watched it and can do the event. But I'm the only source that has reliable info. I can't use Youtube or Dailymotion videos as Reliable info.--WillC 10:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Also thanks.--WillC 11:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
WrestleView is a reliable website, and has a lot of TNA report on it, located here. D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If all the "articles" on that site are merely reposts from other websites and newspapers, why aren't we just directly sourcing those places? Mshake3 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Also is gerweck.net a good source?--WillC 21:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tapings

SmackDown/ECW taped this weeks episodes on Saturday, and they taped the "go-home" shows for Night of Champions yesterday. So, as a reminder, if you see spoilers without a reliable source, revert on sight, citing BLP and RS. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay.--WillC 10:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
On my watchlist. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Indie wrestler

I've just finished expanding and sourcing a British indie female and was wondering if someone with a bit more Wiki credentials than I could take a quick look at it and see if there's anything I could improve in style, for future expansions. Tony2Times (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting for you. Nikki311 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Tony2Times (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting Sourcing question

So I've been trying to find sources for all of Edge and Christian's indy title reigns. Both articles say that the won the "Southern States Wrestling Tag Team Championship." I have found a source. However, this source lists them as never having won the title under any of their ring names. The source is here: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/other/sswtit.htm.

So my question is, does this mean we remove those titles from their articles. I could find no other source beside OWW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, since its mentioned in Edge's book. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, is it? In that, case if you give me the book info, I can cite that in both articles instead. By chance would Edge's other indy titles be mentioned in there? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and find the book. ;) Come on, its Edge, of course he's going to list every accomplishment he has done. A little sarcasm. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

To all project members, remember to keep heading over to our COTW to vote and nominate articles. It's pretty slow right now, so I encourage other users to head over there. -- iMatthew T.C. 23:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWE SmackDown (video game series) and List of WWE SmackDown video game titles

Ok, so I've decided to start work on this. I was told at WT:VG that the current series article is more like a list of game titles, and not like a series, see Harvest Moon (series) and List of Harvest Moon titles. (Well not like the Harvest moon series article, more like the Crazy Taxi (series) article.) So currently I am working on transforming the series into a more series like article, in my Sandbox. After I am done, I will move the current series article to the title's article (which has not been created yet), and publish what's in the sandbox to the series article. However, this is a big project, so I am requesting some assistance, is any user willing to assist me in this?--SRX--LatinoHeat 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would, but I don't know crap about the series. Sorry.--WillC 07:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Harvest Moon. Great Series (except for AWL), good times. On topic though, I'll help out when I get home from class today. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Gavyn. Notify me on my talkpage when you are ready to begin.SRX--LatinoHeat 13:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles finished

I have finished and published the articles, please provide feedback, as I would like to nominate them for GA/FA and FL in the future.SRX--LatinoHeat 03:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro Wrestling Guerrilla

After a recommendation from SuggestBot, I have been adding citations for the Pro Wrestling Guerrilla article; however, all the citations I have added come from the same place [5] - if anybody gets chance, could you have a look and see if that is OK, and whether it would be considered a reliable source? Cheers --Apsouthern (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's almost certainly an unreliable source. D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if it is, I'll just revert the citations, but as most of the references were PWG press releases I figured it's probably OK. If they get removed I won't be heartbroken. --Apsouthern (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Cena <3 Brooke Hogan

Could everyone keep an eye on John Cena's talk page? Apparently a bunch of tabloids are saying Cena and lil' Hoganette are dating, and many new and unregistered users are going crazy. The Hybrid 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On my watchlist. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It is already on my watchlist. I've seen them do that. I think one who is going crazy is by the name of WWEluz or something like that.--WillC 00:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposed C-Class

As we have over 200 articles at B-Class, and over 2,000 at Start-Class, just letting you know that there is a "vote" here on whether C-Class should be introduced inbetween B-Class and Start-Class. This may help a project like ours with over thousands of articles. Please comment at the above link. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think adding a new class will help that much. If anything, it will make things more confusing. -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International flag

Not sure what to do here. TNA has done something that I'm not sure how to even go about doing. The TNA 2008 World X Cup Tournament has 4 teams, Team TNA, Japan, Mexico, and International. Not sure if I sure just put the flagicon USA or the logo for TNA besides Team TNA. Also what should I place besides Team International? I decided to make a topic here instead of on the World X Cup talk page because I feel I'll get more fed back here.--WillC 03:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FLAG, and in response towards what flag should be used for TNA, it should be the United States because "if a sports person has has represented their nation or has declared for a nation then the national sport governing body's flag should be used."-Quote from WP:FLAG, since TNA stars are representing the nation of the USA, since TNA is located in the USA. For Team International, there should be no flag, as there is none to represent a stable like that, and adding all flags from nations that consist the team will be redundant and will violate regulations per the MoS of WP:FLAG's.--SRX--LatinoHeat 04:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I'll just place the USA flag next to Team TNA. Actually I should have known that since Team USA has been in the past to represent TNA and the NWA. Also good to know about the International team.--WillC 05:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this flag can be used? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel it could but to me it in turns replies Team World instead of Team International. Maybe a flag where it just has many countries flags on it, like they showed on Impact tonight with all the flags of all the countries in the world.--WillC 05:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

The account hornetchild16 was an account that i made and im sorry to aaron i had no intention on getting him in any more trouble than he already is. It was a foolish thing to do and I'm really sorry. Posting this here to ask for forgiveness and to help undo the damage 1362talk 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ... I have to say that 1362, while what he did was wrong, it took courage and honesty to come here to 'fess up. Well done, I say! Per WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I'm not seeing any reason for any punitive sanction here, given that there's no further threat of disruption to the project, and that he has done his best here to take ownership and clear User:Hornetman16 of any association with that account - Alison ❤ 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Per Alison's advocacy on behalf of 1362, and his status as a former adoptee of a very good friend of mine, I will not seek a community ban like I was planning on when the puppeteer was outed. I have much more that I could say, and that I would like to say, but I will leave it at that. The Hybrid 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ditto (in response to Hybrid). -- iMatthew T.C. 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message from User:Hornetman16 / User:ChristianMan16

(hope I'm not 'proxying for a banned editor' here :) )

First off I'd like to say "I told you so." and that's all I'll go into that I just had to get that off my chest. And I'm glad to know I'm gaining users trust over here on simpleWP and over there on enWP I look forward to being back when I've served my ban and the enWP community entrust me with another shot at it. I may even go so far as to say that simple will become my home Wikipedia as it is a little less stressed environment over here. I must really be moving up cause on my last RfA over here I actually got some supporters. It's gonna fail though. Anyway, just do me the favor from now on on if you find a sock that you think is me...double check with check user. 1362, you are forgiven as are any others that impersonated me...I just want you guys to confess to it. And BTW y'all know me good enough to know I don't talk like this. Anyway thanks for your time. And have a blessed day.

P.S.: Shouldn't this have been a hint. - AARON

Copied from here. I guess he's feeling a little vindicated - Alison ❤ 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To User:Scorpion0422 - Please do not delete the above section, as you did here and here. Given that 1) I was one of the administrators who was instrumental in seeing Hornetman16 banned from enwiki, having worked on his issues for months, I have a pretty good idea as to what's been going on, 2) as checkuser, I am already involved in this issue concerning the above editor and one other editor, and the community are due an answer to all this - check my talk page, 3) WP:BAN clearly states, "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. and "new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." - I think you see the context there, especially given that this section of policy largely applies to mainspace. Furthermore, per discussions on my talk page, the WP:PW community as a whole are interested in this whole affair and deserve a clear and honest answer to all this. Finally, editors, banned or not, are entitled to justice, fairness and due process and as admin and checkuser, it is my duty to ensure that happens. Please do not remove the above thread again. People need to see it - Alison ❤ 04:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. However, we don't really need more "I told you so"s with all the drama going around, being framed doesn't jutify socking the hell out of the patience of most users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, indeed it doesn't. I totally agree. And in doing so, I guess he sends a rather strong message, too. Were I him, I'd not have crowed so loudly - Alison ❤ 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
...Are' you him? --UnquestionableTruth-- 07:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Have I once said "y'alls"? :D - Alison ❤ 07:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Never noticed :-D --UnquestionableTruth-- 08:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)