Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 51
| Archive 52 →


Contents

Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes

I started to try working on creating their article here, but I haven't really had time to work on it. If anybody is willing to help write the article, please let me know. King iMatthew 2008 11:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikieditor222

Has continued on, and added World Wrestling Entertainment to the waiting list. King iMatthew 2008 17:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No way is the article ready. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Nikki311 01:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe we should remove this and Glen Jacobs from the waiting list. King iMatthew 2008 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You can if you want to, I guess, but leave him a note telling him why. Also, point out a few really good examples of what a Good Article looks like, so he can better judge. Nikki311 01:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, they're removed, but "they're not ready yet" was the only explanation given, and no specific examples of high-quality Good Articles were given. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Nikki told him what examples there are to get the article to GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A few days ago I left a list of things to do to fix Glen Jacobs to help get it ready for GA (User talk:Wikieditor222#Good Article nominations). Nikki311 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't listen and continues with adding articles that are not ready for GA, then I guess I can probably help with getting what Nikki said. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

Just to notify all, this article has been semi-protected for one whole month. ;) King iMatthew 2008 12:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think this should be semi-protected indefinitely, but for now, let's enjoy the month. King iMatthew 2008 13:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll drink to that! ZACH 17:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Newsletter

Can we have like a "This Month in History" section, th reason I bring this up is because today marks the ninth anniversary of Owen Harts Death, and It would be nice to see that in the newsletter as a tribute, and then we can have major important events in other editions, ex. creation of WWE Championship, the Brand Extension, etc. Thoughts?--SRX 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good, only where to find the facts.. King iMatthew 2008 11:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, occassionally, WrestlingNewsWorld does "Today In Wrestling History", like for May 22, [1], where they list relevant info, like title changes, etc. Porblem is, they do it kind of randomly, I mean they did one on May 19, but before that it was March 20. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't for Hart's death we can easily source it with his Biography.com page, or SLAM Wrestling.SRX 14:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WrestleView has a feature on Hart. They reproduce it every year. D.M.N. (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I found a site that looks promising. Check out Today in Wrestling History. At the bottom, you can choose the month and leave it set to "all days" and "all years". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's great. We should add it to the newsletter!!--SRX 18:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

New Collaborations of the Week

The new collaborations for the project are Rick Rude, which is currently a Start-class article, and Carly Colón, a Good Article that is our Featured Article Collaboration of the Week. It would be great if everyone could help out a bit, especially those who voted to make these the collaborations. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed Rick Rude to B-Class as it has recieved substancial improvements. This could make it's way to FA-Class easier than some of the rest as it won't have daily edits/edit wars made to the page. D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do FLC's have to be put on the waiting list?

Do they?--SRX 00:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever discussed it. I suppose it would be best if you let the project know which list(s) you plan to nominate so that people can look them over. I don't think it would take a full week, though, as there is considerably less text. Maybe a shorter waiting period (2-3 days?)... GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There aren't any PW FLCs right now, so why should there be a waiting period? Before you nominate it, please be aware that there is an enormous backlog at WP:FLC and some have been there 20 days and have gotten a sum total of 1 comment. So, if you do nominate it and nobody comments, please do not assume that it is because everyone is biased against wrestling (and then ask every member to come and support). -- Scorpion0422 16:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If many FLCs are kept for 20 days with one comment, I'm sure that project members would simply expect the same (that is, that lists nominated by this project not be closed after 10 days [or less, as the case has been] because of lack of comments). As for asking members to come and support, you know very well that it has never happened. People have requested that others look and comment (and the occasional request has gone a little far and included a mention that more support votes are needed if it is to pass, but I don't recall any incidents in which a support vote has been specifically requested (and certainly not asking "every member" to come and support"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just saying that I'm sick of members blaming failed FLC/FACs on a supposed anti-PW bias and pointing out that a lack of reviews is a process-wide problem right now. I'm also sick of having this vote stacking discussion every time as well, and I seem to remember one member demanding that at least two project members support one FLC. -- Scorpion0422 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. It's become clear that we disagree, but I believe that your pre-emptive comments don't do much toward assuming good faith and remaining civil. Like I said, if everyone else is given 20 days and so are we, we would clearly have nothing to complain about. However, as in the case of recent nominees, the problems have been (1) that the discussions have been closed early [~ seven days], (2) the concerns were actively being dealt with, and (3) opposed voters had been contacted to revisit the article to examine the changes, but they weren't given a chance because of the early close. As for canvassing, it's true that one member did "insist" that two project members vote, but the editor also made it clear that the votes did not have to be support votes. I do agree, however, that the demand went too far. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
As for the question about why there should be a waiting period, it would simply give another editor or two another chance to look it over in advance. There may be minor prose fixes necessary, or the other editor might know about a more reliable source for the information. I don't know if there's a need for a specific waiting period, but advance notice (eg. I plan to nominate Article X soon) would be nice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And that member being me, but back then I was unaware of all these policies, but now I know that what I did was wrong. I plan on nominating List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, once its complete. Also after the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2005 WWE Draft's peer reviews are over, I plan on nominating them, that's if no one disagrees with it. I think the FLC's should be put like GCF said, 2-3 days. As for Scorpion, I've learned from the past, and what you pointed out above about me, will not happen again. But if I do nominated the above articles, I would understand why it would fail/pass, due to the backlog.--SRX 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Steel Cage capitalized?

Is it? Talk:Starrcade (1987)

RandySavageFTW (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I remember per one of my previous Peer Reviews that matches without a gimmick name should not be capitalized all the way, it should be Steel cage match. Unlike TNA, where they call it Six Sides of Steel, which should be capitalized all the way, since its a different name, but still a steel cage.--SRX 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I always thought it was "Steel Cage match." –Cheers, LAX 13:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I always thought so too.SimonKSK 13:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Or I may be wrong, but I think it has to be Steel Cage match because that's the way they spell it hereSRX 13:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
On that page, "Match" is also title case. Note that they have "Superstar" in title case. Having "Steel cage match" (and that's not at the start of a sentence) just wouldn't make sense. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it: Common terms in professional wrestling would not be considered proper nouns but would rather be considered as jargon (or slang) and left uncapitalized. This is seen with other professional wrestling slang and move names. An example would be how "Stone Cold Stunner" is a proper noun but "stunner" has been adopted as a common term and left uncapitalized. As steel cage matches are common, it should be left uncapitalized while Elimination Chamber matches are exclusive to WWE and left a a proper noun (capitalized). --13 of Diamonds (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this makes the most sense. I've had reviewers question why I capitalized so many words. I have stopped capitalizing move names altogether (with exceptions, as 13 of Diamonds mentioned, like Irish whip) and match names that do not include proper nouns (eg. Province of Quebec rules, Hell in a Cell, etc.), as I agree that there is no need to capitalize something like "splash" or "handicap match". GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft Help

Okay, Matt gave me a good idea, to place the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2005 WWE Draft for peer review, found here and here, so they can pass the next time they go to FLC. Plus, so it can become a featured topic, as every draft has an article now, as the 2004 WWE Draft is currently being constructed. The thing is, from the original FLC for the 2007 WWE Draft, the article failed because it received few media attention, which I find redundant, its entertainment for goodness sake. But aside from that, I know that WWE uses the Draft to increase ratings, but I cant find a reliable source, that states that, or that states reasons for the draft? Any one know where I can find this?--SRX 18:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad I noticed this, because your draft articles need a lot of work. The 02 extension had the list out of order. The 05 trade was listed as five individual trades, when it was just one. A lot of work is required. Mshake3 (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok man I am tired of you always ranting about my work, as if I don't do a good job around here. If you are Mr. Know it all, go ahead and do the work on your own, because I wrote those articles a long time ago, and I followed what sources said. --SRX--LatinoHeat 20:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no doubt you followed the sources. But you didn't read them correctly. Some how, in your previous setup, Raw got two straight picks! This made the rest of the list out-of-sync, as evidenced by the part where Bubba Ray and D-Von were three selections apart, when they were actually picked one after the other in a span of 30 seconds! Then there's the trades. Your setup makes it seem like they were all one-on-one, when that's obviously not what happened. It seems like you're taking the format of the 07 draft, and applying that format exactly to the previous ones, when they were vastly different! You're doing a good job with table formatting, but when it comes to knowledge of the storylines, you, or whoever, are way off. Mshake3 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:72.179.128.217

This IP is claiming here that he is Lance Cade. How do we go about this? iMatthew T.C. 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt it, why would Lance Cade be on Wiki on the first place (IMO), this is just an IP claiming to be Cade.--SRX 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You never know, I doubt it as well though. iMatthew T.C. 21:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would he waste his time explaining on the talk page, instead of doing it himself?--SRX 21:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if he was Cade, he probably wouldn't have the time, nor the knowledge on how to edit a page correctly, as that was the first edit to the IP address. Although the location given here suggests that it is not Cade. iMatthew T.C. 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't impossible. We once had a user claiming to be Shad Gaspard. He actually proved it by taking a picture of himself holding DMN's username on a piece of paper. It was him. Oddly enough, he vandalized my userpage. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking of/about. We'll see if he returns and makes more edits. iMatthew T.C. 21:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and if it is him, and we need proof, I call having him hold my username up on a piece of paper! ;) iMatthew T.C. 21:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, is there a link to that discussion?SRX 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Only record I have is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AGavyn_Sykes&diff=169440216&oldid=169439830 - which shows him vandalizing my page. Ask DMN about the rest, see if he still has the pic. His talk page archives might have a conversation or two as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) I'm surprised you've never heard about that. Anyway, I believe it is still up at User:Bmg916;s talk page. iMatthew T.C. 22:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have one single picture whatsoever to do with Shad. D.M.N. (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was actually Bmg916 that Shad send the picture to. iMatthew T.C. 19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I remember DMN being the one that told me about it, and I guess I misremembered that as it was his picture. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wade Keller

An interesting note, we now have somebody claiming to be Wade Keller (editor of the PWTorch newsletter) has edited wikipedia. [2] I reverted an editor attempting to add week by week results to Deuce 'n Domino and an hour later a user named WadeKellerTourch08 showed up and said "Un-Did revision by Scorpion. Noteable as I included it my Torch Newsletter recapping the events". Something tells that the real Wade Keller would spell Torch in his name the correct way. -- Scorpion0422 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But then again, they could be intelligent, and just use that as a way to make it out of the obvious, its all possible, it could be and it cant be.--SRX 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It`s just gotten more interesting. Now another user, WadeKeller2008, has shown up and claims the other one is fake and that he is the REAL Keller. [3]. They both keep readding stuff first added by EverythingDies (talk · contribs) so I think it is safe to say they are all socks of eachother. Is it worth reporting this, or should we just wait until tomorrow and hope the user has lost interest by then? -- Scorpion0422 23:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I say wait till tomorrow, stuff like this usually lasts for a day, but just to be sure, if not, we can report it.SRX 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found another one, also claiming to be Wade Keller here, User:WadeKeller2012. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I think it's safe to say it's a "sock puppet", and it might nott be of the same person it could be someone that saw it and is starting to do it as well. ZACH 18:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Intercontinental Title Article

I have made numerous edit listing as a name for the IC Title, the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship. It was been edited out numerous times by Darrenhusted. I have provided indisputable video proof of the old name through a video I put up from WrestleMania 1. His rationale is that it's a "bootleg" and it shouldn't count as a reliable source even though it's in there in both spoken and graphic form. My notes on it are in the articles discussion page. This needs to be discussed because ignoring indisputable video evidence because of it's source is still ignoring indisputable video evidence. When indisputable proof is shown and and someone edits it away, it's just plain ignorance of the truth and putting up false information. Something needs to be done about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Twice is not numerous [4] [5]. And all I'm asking for are some reliable sources. Daily motion and a title histories site with hundreds of pop-ups are not RS and I am not the only one.Darrenhusted (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If a video is your evidence, then cite the actual broadcast, or even the VHS/DVD. Mshake3 (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The belt certainly used to say Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship [6] [7], but I don't know if that means it was the official name or not--Apsouthern (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
While you can't put too much emphasis on the text on the belt, if the video shows that name in other means, then that's good enough. "Bootleg?" Pathetic excuse. Mshake3 (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You have no problem with illegally uploaded copyrighted material? And you feel that this would be a good enough source? Darrenhusted (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the championship was refered to that in WWF broadcasts in the 80s, and the video evidence was there, then yes, that would be good enough for me. The only reason this user and myself are forced to use illegal videos is because people like you are stubbornly obsessed with internet written sources being the only allowable source. There's really no debate here. If that's what the video shows, then that's what it was. Mshake3 (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I just saw the video, and he's 100% right. It's an alternate name. I added it to the infobox with a reliable source, the DVD release. Removing reliably sourced content will be considered vandalism. Mshake3 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad we got this taken care of. Like I said, it doesn't matter where the video came from. It's a WWF broadcast and the evidence is right there. And to think this article got me so riled up last night.SChaos1701 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)SChaos1701
Here we go again - "Bootleg" makes the point invalid? that's retarded. it's not a valid reference in itself but then you can easily site the video - it's not like someone went in and edited it before they "bootlegged it". Maybe you need a better, more intelligent argument? Maybe to say "It's not a valid reference" not the "It's not reliable", it works better if the argument makes sense. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing an illegal video is illegal because citing it violates the copyright as much as the video does. Besides, it as a source is unreliable because it can disappear at any time. Is the point valad, yes, but it breaks the law to cite that video. I've been through this before with at least one of you. You may not like this fact, it may not be all cute and cuddly and convenient, but it is a fact. -The Hybrid- 03:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 43#A new ruling has been established. -The Hybrid- 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works - "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." -The Hybrid- 03:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The video itself can not be used as a source, that is true, but it is reliable. Omitting information that is factual because of a lack of a "correct" source is however not the correct action to take. If the information is valid, it can be added with a source pending that can be linked to (or simply the broadcast itself). There is a big difference between being unreliable and being unusable. –– Lid(Talk) 03:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been a long time since I read that old archive, and I must say there was a ridiculous amount of policy wonkery being thrown around. –– Lid(Talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec x2) Mshake ended up finding the solution to this whole debacle (that he also applied here) in that dispute, so the issue of not being able to use the correct information isn't a problem. However, like you said, the usable sources be proven wrong is a case where WP:IAR is satisfied, though the information would have to be left unsourced. And for the record, WONKery is almost unavoidable in that kind of situation. -The Hybrid- 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's just a little ridiculous that because it comes from YouTube that we have to pretend that what happened didn't actually happen. The point of this site is to provide FACT.SChaos1701 (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just do what Mshake does; cite the actual episode instead of the video. -The Hybrid- 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is what {{cite episode}} is for, you can make a citation of the episode and you don't need to link to the website hosting the actual video. Shame on those who think remove facts from articles on the basis of the video being copyrighted; WP:IAR for the sake of accuracy. — Κaiba 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use Images

Hi, I have spent some time over the last week adding infoboxes to Tag Team/Stable articles that were missing them, and noticed that a lot of the articles don't have images. I am confused about the whole "fair use" rationale for images and was hoping someone could clarify something for me.

For example, The Rockers article has no image, and the Tag Team are disbanded. Would I be able to take an image from WWE.com (in low resolution as per above) like image 45 here [8] and upload it for the article? If so, would the rationale from [[9]] be acceptable?

If someone can clear this up for me then I am probably going to go through as many of the articles with missing images and see what I can fill in, but obviously I don't want to go through all that only for them to be deleted.--Apsouthern (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A non-free use image can be used in articles if it meets these requirements: Non-free content policy. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The one big rule is that you can't use a fair-use image just to show who a person is, which is why you won't see those types in the infobox. Mshake3 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I see, that would make sense as to why there are so many without images. OK, I'll leave it for now and work on something else - thanks for the clarification--Apsouthern (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair use images can be tricky and the policy page can be confusing to someone new to the policy, let me know and I'll help you with fair use images. — Κaiba 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Ohio

Pro Wrestling Ohio is a Wrestling company in... you guest it Ohio, they have had wrestlers on such as Colin Delaney, and Mdogg20 I think he wrestled in Ring of Honor for a while under a different name. I think it need's a article. I would love to create the article, if somebody would like to help co write it with me or what ever that would be great, just somebody let me know if it deserves one. ZACH 15:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It has three hundred thousand google hits. ZACH 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Dunno what your talking about. It has 2 million Google hits. D.M.N. (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I count 360,000.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

An exact search gives only 892 on page 1, with 146 once you take out duplicates. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
O, O.k. Any way is it notable enough for a article? ZACH 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I find it notable, you can create it in your sandbox as long as you source everything, and adhere to a Neutral Point of View in your text. After your done, you can present it here and we will see how it looks.--SRX--LatinoHeat 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Image questions

Now there is a comment on SummerSlam (1988)'s FAC about both images not meeting all the criteria. I can fix most of it, but I was wondering about low resolution. If I made the images smaller would that help? What is the acceptable size or pixel x pixel for an image to be considered low resolution. I looked through a bunch of Wikipedia guidelines, but I must have missed it. Nikki311 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Might this help? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find the page, but I remember reading about it when I was working on SummerSlam (1993). To get the image within the limitations, it had to be less than 100,000 pixels. I went with 270x360, as that came to 97,200. The rules may have changed since then, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I've updated the images, so I think I have it all taken care of. Thanks for the replies. Nikki311 05:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the low resolution criteria is quite subjective. Basically, the resolution should be just high enough to convey its information. Here's an inactive Wikipedia page on this: Wikipedia:Fair use/Definition of "low resolution". For SummerSlam (1988), I suggest cropping the second image. By the way, why was the second image chosen to be included? I don't quite see the significance of the image to the article, at least relative to the other subjects that could be featured. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The climax/turning point of the main event was when Miss Elizabeth removed her skirt to distract the ref, so Hogan and Savage could execute their finishing moves and win. Images from the event are minimal, and I didn't have much choice, but I thought the one I chose at least had to do with that pivotal moment. If anyone can find a better image, I'm willing to switch it out....I'm not attached to it or anything. :) Nikki311 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't you take something from here: WWE's SummerSlam 1988 Photos page --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this...I can't believe I missed those pictures in my quest to find images. I like the first one, so maybe I'll put that one in the article. Nikki311 19:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Member lists.

I've been thinking about a comment GCF made about the Active members list, and I'm beginning to agree with him. My opinion is that maybe we should delete the active members list, and keep the members list, but reduce that list only to active-semi active users; and remove users from that list that have been inactive for at least over a year, like some of them have. iMatthew T.C. 10:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not an exclusive club, so I don't think we should remove people. Remember, the only requirement for belonging to this project is adding your name to the member's list. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but why list users as members of this project that never come to Wikipedia anymore. iMatthew T.C. 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a sort list which lists members who have been inactive over a year? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing users as the same problem would start affecting the active members list in a year or so. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the list to avoid things like this happening by blocked socks. D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New Template

I created a new template, Template:Infobox wrestling draft. This is how it would it look, Template:Infobox wrestling draft

Does it look good, any comments?

P.S. I took the templates of the PPVs and the SuperBowl as examples.--SRX 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, as evidenced by the fact that it was removed, you can't use the show logos in the infobox. I would just stick with the current picture of a wrestler in the articles and add a line in the template for a caption (and stick with the same caption as already in the articles). Didn't one of the drafts happen over several episodes? What are you going to do for the venue, attendance, and city in those instances? I really don't think those are important to the draft anyway, so you might want to leave them out altogether (depending on others' comments of course). Other than that, I like it. Nikki311 05:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no benefit to a infobox for the draft pages. Mshake3 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
In response to Nikki, I have added the caption parameter (though you can't see it because no image can be posted here, but I have tested it and it works). For the 2005 Draft, I will redirect it to the table for the locations, venues, dates. In response to Mshake3, why has it no benefit sir?SRX 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's see. For starters, WWE is the only wrestling promotion do these drafts, so there's no point to that. Listing the brands is like listing every team in the NFL or MLB (ie, a waste). Half the drafts take place over several days, so it would be a date range, which probably means you'll have a bunch of "see belows". Commentators? These shows feature all four or six of them. Most importantly, the draft is not an "event" like the professional drafts, or the PPVs. There are simply segments on Raw. Just a giant waste of space. Mshake3 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Dude you need to chilax, it was just a suggestion by an automated peer review to add an infobox, and Nikki and I thought it would have been a good idea. But it is an important event in the history of WWE, and the article looks better with an infobox, though the 2007 WWE Draft and the 2008 Drafts could be the only ones that will fit the infobox, because the 2007 one consisted only of Draft related matches, and segments, so the infobox could be needed there.23:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)SRX
The automated peer reviews ALWAYS suggest adding an infobox if there isn't already one. It's not like the bot thought it would be a good idea. -- Scorpion0422 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just thought it would be a nice suggestion, gee.SRX 23:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary. The draft in recent years is nothing more than a segment, and 90% of it is filler. The rest of it is relegated to WWE.com. Giving it its own infobox treats it like it is an actual event that draws people solely for it. -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mshake & Scorpion. WP:PW seems fixated on creating as many new articles as possible (under the guise of WP:N) but don't take enough time to repair or improve existing articles. --Endless Dan 18:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok since there was a majority of opposition, and since it is not in use in any article I will request its deletion, though everyone's comments were appreciated.SRX--LatinoHeat 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Events list in PPV articles with notes

In some of our PPV pages (eg. WWE One Night Stand, WWF Over the Edge), there is a notes column in the list of events table. In these examples, the notes are rather long and the format did not seem fitting for this. I'm suggesting a format like {{Episode list}}, where there is a row after every episode for a short summary. Any ideas? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll test it out, and see what it would look like. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think the notes section is needed. I can see why it was added for the first two years, what with it being a nostalgia show and then a launching platform for the new ECW but why detail every main event afterwards? You can just read the specific article for that info. I suggest either leaving the more recent years blank or taking out the notes column and incorporating the information into the article. Tony2Times (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UT

Last night's match with Edge has resulted in a number of edits today proclaiming him to be retired. So far as I know the whole thing is kayfabe but can somebody else keep an eye on the page. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, keep an eye on List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Also keep an eye on the {{WWE roster}} template, where Undertaker's name may be removed. — Κaiba 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Now watching move pages, thanks for the heads-ups, guys. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker's been removed from the SmackDown roster on WWE.com. In my view he should be removed from the {{WWE roster}} template, as he is currently on none of the three brands, his status is unknown. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com is a kayfabe website and should be treated as such.SChaos1701 (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct but Undertaker is still with the company, though his role is unknown within the company. All matches in WWE are kayfabe, take a look at Ric Flair his last match was at WMXXIV, many of us thought he would be gone from WWE because he "retired" from professional wrestling, but now he does promo work for WWE, so The Undertaker could end up doing the same or a different path. The Undertaker could also be at draft night, I say we wait for more info on this. for now, remove from WWE template.SRX--LatinoHeat 21:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As with Ric Flair, it was uncertain that he would remain part of the Raw roster of go to something else before he started doing PR work, Undertaker should remain on the SmackDown inactive until it is confirmed, like Flair, what his role or status is. Quite honestly, you do remember how many times he comes and 'disappears' again, right? — Κaiba 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Everyone remembers how he seemingly disappears and returns seemingly even more "powerful" than before. It's part of the current storyline he's working with Edge. They do this every couple of years. However, what's different is the stipulation of him being forced to leave the WWE if he were to lose at One Night Stand. His profile's removal from the SmackDown section of WWE.com and it's placement in the Alumni section is just an extension of the current work. The WWE will have Edge out on SmackDown gloating and celebrating his victory, but it could be weeks or even months before anything is heard from the Undertaker. I agree that, for now, he should be removed from the WWE template.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well in reality he is still signed with WWE, but kayfabe wise, he is out of the company because now they moved his SD! profile page to the Alumni section. [10]--SRX--LatinoHeat 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
They are just selling the angle. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely.SRX--LatinoHeat 00:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Independent Contractors

I have added that WWE Wrestlers are independent contractors in the WWE Employee article. I have even put up a reference from the WWE Corporate website even saying that they are. That is straight from the company's mouth. That is indisputable fact. Even after I put that indisputable fact from WWE's Corporate website. My edits get reverted with someone saying that that isn't appropriate for that article. They don't even bother to discuss it in the talk page. Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the employment status of WWE wrestlers most appropriate for the WWE employee article? Now if that isn't bad enough, I get threatened with being banned because I keep restoring my edit based on a properly referenced and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website. I thought taking down a properly referenced and indisputable fact from an article is vandalism. Why isn't the person taking down the properly referenced and indisputable fact that I put up not threatened with being banned? That's what I want to know. Why is my properly referenced and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website being ignored? Its is fact. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Isn't an encyclopedia supposed to be fact? If so, then why is my properly reference and indisputable fact from the WWE Corporate website constantly being taken down?

http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp

"Our Superstars are highly trained and motivated independent contractors whose compensation is tied to the revenue that they help generate." SChaos1701 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting

For those of you interested...in the month of May:

  • We had 12 articles promoted to GA status.
  • 11 articles went from Start to B-class.
  • Stubs decreased by 11.
  • Our overall article count increased by 29...from 3559 to 3588.

Let's try and beat those numbers in June. Nikki311 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WOOOO! Hell yeah, more GA's, FL's, and FA's!--SRX--LatinoHeat 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Great stuff. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good job, guys! Not that I was any help, lol. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats people. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for a new PW FL to work on. Any suggestions? -- Scorpion0422 01:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Me and Blue have been working on WCW lists, like List of WCW Hardcore Champions and right now, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions. All WWE lists are complete, but I think List of WCW World Television Champions is a place to start =)SRX--LatinoHeat 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant something different. Title histories are easy, I'm looking for a bit of a challenge. -- Scorpion0422 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A challenge? what about raising some of the WWC lists to FL? those are harder to source than the WWE or WCW lists. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I have never seen a WWC event and I would prefer to work on a subject I'm familiar with. On a small sidenote, I took a look at WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship and I'd say it could be split into a champions list since the article portion has enough content to sustain a page. -- Scorpion0422 02:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A real challenge would be List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. iMatthew T.C. 19:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Template:Infobox wrestling event

I always suggested this, but no one ever replied. I thought it would be easier to have the chronology of each event in the infobox. For example, lets say the article was SummerSlam (2000), we can have last year's and next year's SummerSlam's in the infobox. I created an example in my sandbox--SRX--LatinoHeat 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I like it. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Any other comments from WP:PW?--SRX--LatinoHeat 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely agreed! I think that's a great idea. iMatthew T.C. 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Matt, 2 approvals. Any further comments before I publish it to the mainspace and begin changing the templates of the PPV articles?SRX--LatinoHeat 19:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
But maybe for each individual PPV, it should say The Actual Event Name instead of "event" iMatthew T.C. 20:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Let me see what I can do.SRX--LatinoHeat 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a fine idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok majority of approval, so I published it and I added what you insisted Matt, now the infobox looks great! Now time to add the additions to the many PPV's out there.SRX--LatinoHeat 20:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Help

Now that the new additions have been published to the mainspace, I am requesting assistance on adding them to all articles in WWE/TNA for now. ROH and Japan related events can be added to later on. Thanks!SRX--LatinoHeat 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

to all the wikipedian wrestling fans out there...

First of all, I'm sorry for my rather bad english, but its not my mothers tongue. Anyway, i would like to adress you. I'm a big wrestling fan, and also a big fan of wikipedia. I think the pro wrestling project here was pretty cool, but watching it over the last year, in my oppinion, it went in the wrong direction... Rules here, guidelines there, fighting people all over the talkpages and everyone just trying to prove his power. Don't get me wrong, guidelines and rules are important, but a lot of people just take all of this too serious, losing the focus on what wikipedia really is. wikipedia should be a collection of information from all over the planet, but it appears, that all the rules and "consensus" (whats the plural here?) just work against that. i agree, that not every site is reliable and that not every anonymous contributer can be taken serious, but some things that are said here are just ridiculous! i remember a discussion, where (allthough not written) the result of the discussion was, that one australian is worth more than one american. on every ppv page, i see fights about when we add which match, in witch order we add the matches, or which other information is noteable or not. Some guys here just act like we are engraving stones here, but here is a newsflash. we are not. everything can be changed... If a match at a ppv changes, we can change it. but leaving things away from pages, because "it can still change" is just ridiculous. So please, just stop taking every rule and guideline so damn serious and just let the people contribute in the way, they want. I hope, you understand, what i am trying to say, its pretty hard for me to find the right words. thanks for your time. Diivoo (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to is on your own talk page. The reasons for not adding every rumoured match is simple, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball, and that applies to every WikiProject, not jus this one. I would be inclined to take you seriously but you have 98 Talk edits to 85 Mainspace, and it seems that every month you recycle the same arguments about adding matches to each PPV page. I don't think this project has gone in the wrong direction, on the contrary in the last year it has turned in to a more focused project, and although everyone agrees with WP:IAR on occasion, PPV match listings is not the time to ignore the rules. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know dude, you seemed to have ignored the rules and vandalized the WWE Employee article by taking down my properly referenced indisputable fact from WWE Corporate. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Now tell me, since you failed to do it in the talk page, why did you take it down? Why did you vandalize the article?SChaos1701 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously WTF? Show me an f-ing edit, [11]. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

All I saw was an edit by you on the article.SChaos1701 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you were wrong. The Hybrid 01:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For your information...

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_3#Category:Vengeance. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Active iMatthew T.C. 20:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Name Change Discussions Above

Anybody's assistance would be great, in opening discussions, or closing them. If they are closed as oppose, then mark them as resolved, add the "not done" template, and sign it. Then move it to the articles talk page. If it is supported, ask an admin to move it, and follow the same steps above, only use the "done" template. iMatthew T.C. 20:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

For the inactive talent sections of this page, should we state the "Kayfabe WWE" reason for their inactivity, or the "Real life" reason?

For example, should The Great Khali be listed with..

  • Taking a leave of absence to return to India for one month.

or

  • Injured by The Undertaker on SmackDown.

It should be kept consistent through the article, and it currently is not. iMatthew T.C. 20:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Both. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Done, should Kenny Dykstra be moved to active talent, since he is actively wrestling dark matches, right? iMatthew T.C. 20:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Previously people wrestling dark matches have been kept inactive but noted to be in dark matches. I think this system works but I can see why people wouldn't like it, it all comes down to your definition of active I suppose. I think both kayfabe and non kayfabe reasons should be listed, because as iMatthew said it needs to be consistent and when someone is injured (legit or kayfabe) and takes another on-screen role, like Gail Kim at the moment, it'd need to be noted why and it could be due to either way. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)