Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration

Current Collaborations[edit]

The nominations section hasn't been updated since May. We need to get on with it. Mr. C.C. 06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyone else up for getting this re-started and spreading the word? --Naha|^(talk) 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so, before I try to get this rolling again, I'd like to see 3 or 4 other people sign up and "commit" to doing weekly collaborations. Anyone? --Naha|^(talk) 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COTW notice templates[edit]

When I was active in the Scouting and Video Games Wikiprojects (at least if I remember correctly and I think I do), we placed the notification templates for the COTW on the top of the article's main page, not its talk page. I believe this may have helped us to get more participation from people who would have otherwise not known the article was a COTW. Thoughts? --Naha|^(talk) 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought[edit]

Here is a thought, maybe when an article is created a "To do" list is created on the article's talk page? where people can list the problems they see with the article, it's often faster to find issues than it is to fix them and at times someone may not know how to fix them or find the info or whatever, but they can see a potential problem. Just a suggestion to help streamline this collaboration. People may also find stuff on the list they can do but may not realize it if they just read the article, making it easier for people to contribute.

Case in point - I've got a good printed source on WM III, but I'm not sure how much more improving the article really needs so I'm not sure if it's worth it to dig it out from the box it's in and look at it. MPJ-DK 10:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent idea. I urge people to create these to-do lists and use the "check off" system when you have completed a task on the list. Its very easy for me to read over an article and come up with a list of things that need to be done, but not as easy to fix them, especially when there are time constraints. Great idea! --Naha|^(talk) 12:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a wonderful idea. Gavyn Sykes 16:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need a to do list, because I just created Austin Creed with what little information I know about him, including that he appeared on TNA's BFG '07 as Rasheed Lucius Consequences Creed and the article itself needs work. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 02:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I like it. Davnel03 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past COTW Nominees[edit]

2 Questions:

1. How much time does a past COTW nominee have, until it can be readded on the nominations page?

2. Can a past COTW, be COTW again?

Cheers, Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^Signatures 19:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Two months. 2) I don't see why not, if it didn't make GA the first time. I would apply the two month waiting rule to it as well, however. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think this should also be added to the section where it says PRUNING. If not people would just keep adding their failed articles. Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^Signatures 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant information added. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got another question. When does voting end for the FACOTW and is there a specific week of the month where this occurs? --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea was for the voting to last for one week only, an I don't think we have a standard for which week it is yet. This first one isn't going to work out that way. The voting is going to last for two weeks, and it will be held on a week that is partially October and November, due to human error. The Hybrid T/C 23:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping out the COTW banner[edit]

How do you guy's ship out the banner to members talk pages? Is it done manually or by bot? It's something I think might be useful for a project I am working with but I wasn't sure how the 'mailings' were handled. Not even sure if the group will collaborate on it yet but just wanted to ask so I can have all the information in case they do like the idea. Thanks --DP67 ^talk/_contribs 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that MiszaBot sends out the notice. --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked User:Misza13 if she would let us use her spambot, and she agreed. Every week after the template is updated I send her a message, and she fires up the bot to deliver the message. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request limit[edit]

There should be a limit on the number of requests one user can make at a time, especially if there is a limit of 10. People should only be able to request one article at a time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That would be fair. Nikki311 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. - DrWarpMind 22:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - apologises for nominating two at once! At least I know for the future! :/ Davnel03 09:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Naha|^(talk) 14:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The Hybrid T/C 18:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, definitely. Gavyn Sykes 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone's missed it, the article's already been changed to include a request limit. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unaminous agree I see! :) Davnel03 19:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should just call it the Davnel03 rule. --EndlessDan 14:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the rule to say "If you have already nominated an article, all your existing nominations require at least two votes each for you to nominate a new article." Although I agree with Endlessdan that you do not grant yourself exceptions without discussion. --Aaru Bui ^DII 07:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I never had beef with the Fingerpoke article being nominated. My problem was that half of the people who supported this rule, turned around and justified breaking the rule, almost in the same breath. What was the point of this discussion? With that said, I agree with the amendment made by Aaru Bui. --EndlessDan 13:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like a said under The Fingerpoke of Doom candidate, I believe AFD should be an exception. And no, EndlessDan, it shouldn't be the Davnel03 rule. Davnel03 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Endlessdan would be fine with this if you had discussed it before nominating the article. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endlessdan, perhaps it would be best if threw this thought out there. WP:PW is entirely informal. Most of us here know each other well, and we all trust each other's discretion. If Davnel goes outside of a guideline that he helped come up with, then we will assume that he has a good reason, and trust him. This is not a double standard, as we would do the same for anyone, including you. We aren't prosecutors; we're a bunch of friends who hang out on Wikipedia like we would at a bar. The rules we set up are entirely informal, and exist only to keep problems from getting out of control. If they need to be bypassed for some reason, then it's no big deal. I repeat, it's no big deal. Of course, if someone's just ignoring it, then we would do something, but if there's a legitimate reason, then we'll allow it without any trouble. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Should a article be nominated if it is a GA or FA candidate? I have just removed Shelton Benjamin as it is a FA candidate. Its pointless having Benjamin in the FACOTW section, when the article could pass FAC. Davnel03 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you have December to Dismember (2006) on this list when it was an FAC? Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^{Guest Book} 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a first but removed it. I just see it pointless, especially if it gets promoted, hence why I removed D2D. Davnel03 20:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, understood. Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^{Guest Book} 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW newsletter[edit]

As some people know, I proposed the idea for a WP:PW newsletter. Currently, the newsletter is under development. This is an issue regarding the current COTW notice. I proposed that the newsletter would include the COTW announcement. That would render the current notice obsolete. I just need to get the opinions of people on this. Thank you. The Chronic 06:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that the set deadline for the newsletter to be released is on November 11; the day that the next COTW is announced. The Chronic 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm all for the newsletter replacing the current COTW notice template since the newsletter, in addition to many other things, will include the COTW information. We don't need the same info delivered twice a week ;) --Naha|^(talk) 06:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Davnel03 10:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is the most logical way to do it. - DrWarpMind 12:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Makes sense to me. Gavyn Sykes 14:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very good idea. FamicomJL 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If the newsletter replaces the COTW notice, you must realize you'd have to be making weekly newsletters, which I can find tiresom. But anyway, it's your choice and a great idea. Cheers, Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^{Guest Book} 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have almost nothing to do on mainspace Wikipedia right now, so I don't mind making a weekly newsletter. The Chronic 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait... when exactly is the COTW announced? (time and everything) The Chronic 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Every sunday. Last week it was 2 days late; but that was because of human error. And the time isn't really exact, as the notice is delivered at the time of when Hybrid sends Misza the message, and she fires up her bot to deliever it. Lex⁹⁴ ^Talk ^{Contributions} ^{Guest Book} 23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and what's the normal time that the Hybrid does that? The Chronic 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LAX 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Hybrid T/C 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Should this mean that Template:Pwcotw notice would offer no use anymore? The Chronic 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one nom per person rule[edit]

The rule seems to have been changed (without discussion) to "If you have already nominated an article, all your existing nominations require at least two votes each for you to nominate a new article"

It was agreed that there was a nomination limit, and people shouldn't be able to change it when they are inconvenienced. The point of the rule is so that there will always be space for anyone new who would like to nominate an article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I dislike this rule to begin with. Rather than "X noms per person" why not "X noms total at any given time." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of this 1 nom-per-person rule, as noted in the discussions above. But I don't think the my IV Horsemen nom should have been eliminated (Scorpion) without a discussion here as my nom fell within the set guidelines. --EndlessDan 13:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]