Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 15

now World Wrestling Entertainment
Is this really necessary in articles? I just don't see the point in it. When you click on World Wrestling Federation, obviously it'll take you to the WWE article. If the person is searching for World Wrestling Entertainment, the article should show up in a search because of the link. We're encouraged to refer to WWFE articles from before May 2002 as WWF. While it's only four words, I just don't think they're necessary. 67.175.74.87 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ring of Honor shows
As a heads up: many of the shows have no sources. I'm no Ring of Honor expert, so I'm posting this here. If some of the shows aren't very notable, then a prod or AFD should be on them. RobJ1981 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments
I have noticed a lot of wrestlers awards are kind of scattered around a bit. I think to be more organized we need to start having WWF/WWE at the top. WCW, NWA-TNA, ect. the major's and the minor's more organized. We should note this more clearly on the project page also. Govvy 02:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay alphabetical. «»bd(talk stalk) 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I still like the alphabetical too. While we're on the subject, however, I would like to discuss the best way to order the various NWA belts that people have won.  I like the World/National/Regional scheme that has been going around (eg. Harley Race), but we should be clear on what those levels mean.  I mean, is the NWA Florida World Tag Team Championship a Regional Championship, since it was only contested in Championship Wrestling from Florida, or is it a World belt, since it is called a "World Championship" (I would argue it is a regional belt)?  An alternative would be to subdivide a wrestler's championships by territory (as I've done for Gene Kiniski), with a special category for interpromotional titles, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship.  Any thoughts? Geoffg 04:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the title spec all alphabetical, it seems the most logical. For the others, like the NWA and all its sub-..."promotions", the Harley Race Method you showed should be used.--SteelersFan UK06 06:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about for the current active promotion? Say if they are either contracted to WWE or TNA. Should the active promotion not be the top of the list? Because I think it looks better with those at the top. Alphabetical is okay, but it doesn't show the hierarchical order of wrestling. I think it's important to display the hierarchical order somehow. Govvy 12:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There could be no consensus on the order if it was based on opinions. They should stay alphabetical.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 12:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen the Race method of doing the NWA before, I think we should adopt it project wide and put it on the main page. It's very clean.«»bd(talk stalk) 13:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. So, what are the criteria for being a "World", "National", or "Regional" title?  In my view, the "World" and "National" titles are titles, like the NWA World Heavyweight Championship that are held by champions that visit different promotions, while "Regional" titles are titles that are only contested in one promotion.  So, for example, the NWA Florida World Tag Team Championship would be a "Regional" championship, even though its name sounds international.  Does this sit well with people? I would also propose that it would be easier to keep any titles won in WWWF or New Japan or All Japan (eg. NWA International Heavyweight Championship) while they were NWA affiliates listed under those separate promotions, even though technically they would have been "Regional" NWA titles. - Geoffg 17:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone has noticed, but in the National Wrestling Alliance article, it actually lists all the titles and divides them up by World, National and Regional. Although you'll have to be careful looking at the World section and read the paragraphs, as the World section lists titles that had "world" in their name, but were actually regional titles and those paragraphs are basically disclaimer stating that.  -- James   Duggan  04:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Importance assessment of biographies
I've been being bold and assessing various articles for quality and importance, and I wanted to run my importance criteria for biographic articles by everyone, to make sure we're on the same page. In my opinion, most biographical articles are Low importance (no matter how much we love the individual in question); Mid importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for individuals who've made a special contribution to professional wrestling, either as a superstar of special reknown or as a promoter/booker of special influence (eg. Paul Heyman, Bruno Sammartino, Vincent J. McMahon, etc.); High importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for only those very few individuals who had a formative influence on professional wrestling, without which it would not be what it is today (eg. Vince McMahon, Lou Thesz, Antonio Inoki, Ric Flair, etc.); in my opinion, no biographies can be Top importance, since this is the Pro Wrestling project, and not the Person X project. Does that scheme fit with everybody else's expectations? - Geoffg 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Professional Wrestling, not who people think is important or the people we love.--SteelersFan UK06 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with that. If there's a positive consensus over this, I wouldn't mind this being put up on our assessment page. --  oakster    TALK   16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Andre: Heart of the Giant
Who's with me on getting this deleted? It looks like the "producers" are slapping ads for this every where from myspace to youtube. Here's a sample clip from the movie Youtube.com Promo Clip and Promo Clip 2 and even better the trailer Trailer Kyros 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, it makes me laugh a little, the guy is pretty tall. But it doesn't look like any real movie to me and I am all for deleting that page. Govvy 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like an actual movie, so why delete it? -- James   Duggan  04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're joking right? Hell I reckon I could create clips like that with a video cam and a PC. Shouldn't be that hard. Still looks like an armatures joke to me. Govvy 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * it looks like a z grade movie, by someone who is trying to get a movie off a small amount of scenes he shot. it's not worthy enough to be on wikipedia, especially since it doesn't have major distro. Kyros 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475218/ Like I said, it looks like an actual movie, or did y'all not bother looking at the article, as the IMDb link is in the article. -- James   Duggan  00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually found the link on IMDB before I even came across the wikipedia article. It's not difficult to add a listing to imdb, I know I've done it. Kyros 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a real movie, so I don't see any reason it should be deleted. The article does need to be cleaned up though. TJ Spyke 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As others mentioned, it's a real movie. Heck, just from what was said in the discription in the trailer link above: "Here is the trailer that helped get funding for the film Andre Heart of the Giant. The commercial trailers wont be ready until late summer of 2007." explains away the quality of the work in question, as does another of the links that mentions that the actor playing Andre isn't in the heavy makeup he will actually be wearing when they shoot the movie. The clips and trailer were done to provide potintial investors an idea of what the movie might be like, the quality of the writing, the skill of the actors, etc. and to drum up interest before big money is spent on it. The article does need cleaned up and expanded, though. Vladamire Steelwolf 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand where yoru coming from. From my personal experience, i've seen individuals try to promote a movie without there being a complete movie or no movie at all. Imdb is a good site, but at times it's like Wikipedia and you can easily add a listing. Kyros 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CelticJobber
The guy keeps adding the link to the nude modeling Mickie James. Can we do something about him? Govvy 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, your edit summary was wrong. Wikipedida DOES allow links to content that contains nudity, and Wikipedia is not censored. TJ Spyke 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Should be a bit more censored if you ask me! Govvy 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see anything wrong with the links. He's not posting the pictures, so what's wrong Kyros 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang WCW Pay Per View
Should a pay per view that never happened be included on a list of pay-per-views. It was located here List of WCW pay-per-view events. I've removed it, but I have a feeling that it's going to be reverted back. Kyros 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? It's been confirmed that was a planned WCW event, Time Warner (who owned WCW before selling it to McMahon) even had a poster of it in a booklet they sent out to some customers about upcoming events. TJ Spyke 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The pay per view never happened ..... if the pay per view happened than that's different, but it never happened. That's like making a listing for a film project that never panned out Kyros 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are. Big movies that were canceled are mentioned in the correct articles (like the various Superman movies started before Superman Returns). TJ Spyke 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The movie you mentioned was eventually made, so it makes sense in to mention the other attempted. What I do not get is why a payperview that never occurred is listed.  Kyros 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since it was scheduled and promoted, it is worthy of a mention with an explaination of sorts as to why it was cancelled. I'd say mention it after the list instead of in the list as kind of a side note.   James   Duggan  04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-title matches on pay per view articles
My opinion is: even if the title isn't on the line, champions should still be listed. At the PPV itself: the wrestlers are announced as champions during the match. A Wikipedia article shouldn't be ignoring who the champions are, just because the title isn't on the line. Non-title or not: champions should be listed on PPV articles, period. They are champions no matter if the title is on the line. There was a discussion on this before, but no consensus was made. RobJ1981 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We had this deabte last month and it was decided they didn't belong in there. You can argue it again but a result is a result. Normy  132  06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know a debate happened, and there was no official decision or anything. If I remember right: some wanted it, and some didn't. That's certainly not a decent result. RobJ1981 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble debuts
Include or not include: what does everyone think? Royal Rumble is one of the "big 4" WWE pay per views of the year: WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series are the other three. On articles for the other 3 events: there isn't mass debut lists (and there never should be). Royal Rumble is an ever changing battle royal each year, so obviously new people will be in it from year to year. It's cruft listing every new RR wrestler on the articles, since the other event articles don't do that. The only debuts that should be listed on PPV (or other notable events) articles: on-screen debuts, or in-ring debuts... such as Undertaker's 1990 Survivor Series debut. Useless trivia such as "these 11 wrestlers were in their first ever Royal Rumble" belongs on a wrestling wiki, not here.RobJ1981 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they should be included, but it's not that big of a deal to me. This is one of WWE's trademark events, and the list of wrestlers making their debut in the match will never be that big. TJ Spyke 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't a big deal: you would NOT have went to every article and reverted them as vandalism (and clearly ignored my edit summary of why I did it). Others have the right to edit, but how can they, when you just revert it... and ignore the edit summary that clearly explains the change? Obsessive controlling needs to stop. Re-adding the cruft isn't helping the articles that everyone can edit. RobJ1981 17:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just didn't think that you should unilaterally be removing something like this from every RR article. TJ Spyke 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was their debut in WWE, I can see including it, but if it's just their first time in the Rumble match, it's pointless, considering there are first timers every year.  James   Duggan  01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but, just to play devil's advocate, I would point out that this statistic is one that WWE makes a big deal about, in as much as the commentators (Jim Ross, etc.) always bring it up. Does that make it more notable? - Geoffg 03:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Geoffg's comment: Jim Ross mentions many facts and statistics, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should list them all. We have no "first appearance" list for Wrestlemania or the other big PPVs (like I mentioned above). Royal Rumble being a battle royal shouldn't be the exception, period. TJ said himself it wasn't a big deal, yet reverts it when the information is removed. It's cruft and the pro wrestling project shouldn't have to discuss every minor edit that TJ doesn't agree with. One line of trivia being removed, certainly isn't vandalism as TJ called it (when he first reverted it). If I need to bring an admin into this, I guess I will. As you can see, this section isn't getting many replies (and I doubt it will, since the PW project talk page isn't that active all the time). His opinion shouldn't be dominating all the articles he has in his watch list and/or articles he "monitors" regularly for edits he disagrees with. RobJ1981 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would remove those listings, we don't need to give trivia on every little thing, and if someone wants to know that, they can research it themselves. Let's assume that the readers are a little more intelligent. Booshakla 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Best Damn Wrestling Event Period
What exactly is this? -- Aaru Bui  DII 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A promotion to help promote TNA's first PPV, back when it was still on FSN. I would prod it since it wasn't very notable IMO. TJ Spyke 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling executives
Does this category need to include people who are only "on-air" authority figures (eg. Teddy Long)? I feel like it blurs the line between kayfabe and reality when we mix things up like this. Maybe those kayfabe "executives" need their own category. - Geoffg 08:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ring of Honor
Should we delete the whole lot?? Because this is the first result Articles_for_deletion/Death_Before_Dishonor_%28ROH%29 and I am not impressed. You say you want evidence it was on TV and I gave it. Here it is again and no one seems to care. Everyone thought they where just DVDs, but a list has even been compiled on TV.com. So it's either one or the other in my view, they all need to go back or you should remove the whole lot. Every reference about Ring of Honor. Govvy 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That "keep these articles or delete everything related to them" thing doesn't work at WP. TV.com also allows people to contribute articles and they are not always checked (like IMDb). I also notice that YOU are just about the only contributor there. TJ Spyke 23:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Alumni list on OVW page
Do we really need to list the OVW alumni in WWE on the OVW page? I think it's completely useless. -- James  Duggan  03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that subset of OVW alumni is the subset of most interest to the casual reader, so I wouldn't call it useless. I think that list just needs its own page, with a link from the OVW page. If no one likes that idea we could start a category.  "Category:OVW alumni who made it to the WWE roster" might be too narrow, though.  It could be time for "Category:OVW alumni" (or did we decide on 'roster'?). The advantage to a list is that we can keep it sorted by brand, and include "red links" for people who are on the list, but don't have articles. - Geoffg 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, it had been agreed to switch them back to alumni, although an admin hasn't actually changed ECW back from roster to alumni (I left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the vote). TJ Spyke 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would revamp it and redo it for something more stable. They won't be on those shows forever, but being promoted alumni will always remain.Booshakla 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling_%28second_nomination%29
This article has once again been listed for deletion. The Mob Rules 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just had a look and voted my opinion, to me it looks like channel/newsgroup advertising! Govvy 12:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if anyone has noticed but this is getting abused again. Govvy 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Madusa and Tammy Lynn Sytch pages need trimming
On these pages, there are some serious issues with these long, crufty sections. If someone could check it out and trim it considerably, that would be very helpful. Booshakla 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Result pages
I see these two have appeared (i think we best remove them quick)
 * 2007 Monday Night Raw results
 * 2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results
 * --- Paulley
 * AFD is the best idea, since I doubt prod would work... people remove those too often from what I've seen. RobJ1981 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put AFD's on both of them, so feel free to comment there. If possible, someone could put them on a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 18:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is there a wrestling wiki? -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe one has been listed on here in the past. Look at the archives. RobJ1981 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Davey Andrews
I would really appreciate if somebody could help clean up the Davey Andrews page, or at least post other info on him they know of. Thanks! Kris Classic 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

An article improvement drive idea: tag team vs stable
Now, for the casual fan reading either article, there is little difference between a tag team and a stable. Where is the distinction between the two? Clearly, we know what a tag team is and what a stable is conceptually, but do you consider, say, the Spirit Squad a tag team or a stable? Can a group be both? Are there groupings of wrestlers that are considered neither? Clearly there is a blurriness in the distinction: we have a category for both tag teams and stables without referring to which is which.

I for one like to consider that the difference is as follows: anything referred to as a single entity are considered to be stables. So Rated-RKO is a stable despite (currently) consisting of two members. So is The Hardy Boyz, Voodoo Kin Mafia, the Spirit Squad, the Latin American Exchange. Stables may contain other stables (nWo is a good example, so is DX and NAO). Stables are typically such that they either stand alone or are entirely contained within one stable (so you can't have a group in one stable be part of another without also including the rest of the group). Those who are continually referred to as separate entities are tag teams, so Edge and Christian is a tag team, or Paul London and Brian Kendrick, William Regal and Dave Taylor, and so on. Stables may contain tag teams (The Brood), and/or take a stable name sometime down the road (from which they are known as a stable). Tag teams may be formed between a stable-affiliated wrestler and a non-affiliated one (X-Pac and Kane) or between two stables (although this is rare as the two stables are likely to merge as a result...). In essence, tag teams are more ad-hoc compared to the more established stable, although a tag team may remain together for a long term and become near-stable (E&C, although E&C is technically part of Team RECK...).

Your thoughts?

kelvSYC 05:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a little confused IMO. Rated-RKO, The Hardy Boyz, Voodoo Kin Mafia are tag teams. LAX and the Spirit Squad are stables though. An easy way to remember: tag teams consists of 2 wrestlers (valets don't make it a stable), 3 and more is a stable. You are right about how there can be tag teams within a stable. TJ Spyke 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with TJ Spyke. 3 or more makes a stable. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  07:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree too. That (2 vs. more) is my rule of thumb.  Technically, I would say that any two people that get together to compete in a tag match are a "tag team", but we all know that some teams are temporary, and some stick around and choose a catchy team name.  A stable, as I understand it, is a group of primarily singles wrestlers who are either a) agreeing to support each other and work together as a "gang" (eg. Evolution), or b) have the same manager (eg. the Heenan family). - Geoffg 07:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that "two-versus-more" doesn't work. From the articles themselves:
 * From tag team: "a tag team consists of two or more wrestlers who are working together as a team"
 * From stable: "a stable is a group of wrestlers within a promotion who have a common element"

From these articles, a tag team does not imply exactly two, while a stable does not imply strictly greater than two. The two are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, the two articles imply that the two are euphemisms for the same thing - an arbitrary grouping of wrestlers.

Just to back this up, here are a couple of real-world examples of where "two-versus-more" fail miserably in describing such a grouping:
 * Road Warriors: Best remembered for Animal and Hawk, maybe Animal and Droz, maybe Animal and Heidenreich, but the fact remains that there were more than two members (although you can argue that there were two at any given point - but given Hawk's "permanent" place as a member during the Heidenreich era, you could say that there were technically three at that time). They are described in their article as a tag team despite their membership.
 * Fabulous Freebirds: The leading section states it loud and clear: they were a three-person tag team, not a stable. They invented the Freebird rule, where any two may defend the belts - a rule that has seen regular exposure.
 * Team Xtreme: Here's a counterargument to "valets don't count". Lita may have been the valet to Matt and Jeff as The Hardy Boyz, but as Team Xtreme she was a full member.  That's a three-member tag team.
 * D-Generation X: Some say that it's a "stable that degenerated into a tag team". Others claim "once a stable, always a stable".  The point is that a tag team does not have to be a proper subset of a stable - it can be the whole stable.  Other evidence of this being a two-man stable: it was hinted that if Sean Waltman was ever back in WWE, he'd be a full member.
 * Los Guerreros: A "stable when two or more members of the Guerrero family becoming a tag team", right in the first part. By "two-versus-more", Eddie, Mando, and Chavo Sr are not considered a tag team, and it's only considered a stable because of the fact that there has been one notable occasion in which three family members (the aforementioned Eddie, Mando, and Chavo Sr) teamed up together in a Trios match.

Clearly, the division between a stable and a tag team needs to be better defined, as the project members' assertion of what it is fail the face of real-world counterexamples. I suggest that the ad-hoc vs. single entity divide in order to address this - clearly it may fail (Edge and Christian, but still they had a stable name prior to WWE), but it should work better than "two-or-more"... unless someone else has more convincing counterexamples...

kelvSYC 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that a tag team at it's most basic is two people that fight on the same side in a tag match. The Freebirds and the Spirit Squad are exceptions that prove the rule, in this case. The point is, the tag team can be temporary or permanent, but it is defined by the necessity to form a two-person team to participate in that type of match.  A stable, on the other hand, has nothing to do with any match type.  It is defined by being a storyline, in effect.  Whether the members of a stable fight in singles matches or tag matches makes no difference.  What keeps them together is unrelated to that.  So, yes, sometimes stables can have two members, and sometimes tag teams featuring members of one stable will use that stable's name for their tag team, but I think the two terms are not mutually exclusive.


 * To use the examples above
 * DX certainly was a stable (formed for storyline purposes of rebellion and mutual support), and when two members participated in a tag match, the tag team that was formed was also called DX.
 * Los Guerreros are a stable united by their family membership, but when any two participate in a tag match they form a tag team that is also called Los Guerreros (but doesn't have to be).
 * In the case of the Road Warriors, I believe the original stable was called the Legion of Doom, and the tag team of the Road Warriors were members of that stable (along with Paul Ellering, and Jake the Snake, etc.). As for Droz and Heidenreich, etc. I think they were just replacing or subbing for a member of that tag team.
 * I would argue that Team Extreme was a stable, united by storyline considerations of extremeness and friendship and common state of origin. In that sense, Lita was a member of that stable.  But the Hardy Boys were a tag team, not because they were brothers, but because they participated as a team in tag matches.


 * Geoffg 07:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, remember that this is Wikipedia. The wording in those articles may have been messed up. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  22:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the "wording in those articles may have been messed up" is incentive to correct it and change it if necessary, and that's why we have this debate in the first place. kelvSYC 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. I was pointing out that you were saying that there can be two member stables and multi member tag teams based off of what Wikipedia says. I was just saying that it isn't reliable as a source to support our opinions since we wrote it. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  11:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree on the assertions. Tag teams may be formed ad-hoc, and stables may have long-term storyline purposes, and that the two terms are not mutually exclusive. However, we have, from D-Generation X: "DX is a tag team (formerly a stable)", which implies that they are. Not to mention that neither article mentions the difference between a stable or a tag team. As a matter of fact, one could argue that the two terms are synonymous. After all, an ad-hoc tag team could well be a stable that forms and breaks itself up in a single night, and a long-term tag-team can be considered as a two-member stable. The point remains that the differences between a tag team and a stable must be made clear to those unfamiliar to professional wrestling, which is where I suggested the "single entity criteria". kelvSYC 07:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Smackdown Sprint
This SmackDown! Sprint thing has gained its own page and appeared on Professional wrestling tournament... but isnt it just an SD version of the beat the clock matches which were on RAw a while back... i just dont think it warrants a page but thats my oppinion what do you guys think? --- Paulley 11:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --  The  Hyb  rid  11:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is beat the clock, but I think it has never been done on Raw, I have seen it performed on Smackdown at the beginning of last year know.! Also I don't think we need that Smackdown Sprint page, shall we have it deleted? Govvy 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Raw did the beat the clock thing in order to determine who would be the last to enter an upcoming Elimination Chamber match for John Cena's WWE Title. Kane won at 24 seconds after a double chokeslam to the heart throbs. And yeah, have it deleted, as that appears to be the consensus. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  11:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is on AfD here. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  13:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * hey i was wondering if we should have a policy of when we find articles like this and the result pages which are suitable for a wrestling wiki we should send a msg to said editors to show them where to move the info... leaving it up to them whether or not the content is moved... it would be a benifit to us stopping these editor readding this type of article and i would help wrestling wikis with an increse of content --- Paulley


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Should we hold a formalized vote and see if it becomes project policy? --  The  Hyb  rid  18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Brands vs TV shows
It's amazing where we have WWE Raw, WWE Friday Night SmackDown, but not ECW on Sci-Fi, or WWE Raw, Extreme Championship Wrestling, but not WWE SmackDown!. So we can't even name WWE's three brands consistently - two are the brand names and the third isn't, and two are the brand shows and the third isn't (and two are performed on the same day and the third isn't, but that isn't the point). Maybe we should be a little more consistent in this regard. kelvSYC 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an ECW on Sci Fi, but it's a redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). The problem is, as far as I can tell, that the first two started as shows and then became brands which were named after the show it was represented on, whereas ECW started as a brand and the name of the show is, more or less, just ECW. The "on Sci Fi" is just an afterthought. I don't see any reason to change that one, if any of them is changed it should probably be the SmackDown! one to just SmackDown! or WWE SmackDown!.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think "ECW on Sci Fi" is the name of the show, WWE always just calls it ECW (Styles sometimes calls it ECW on Sci Fi, but I think that's just the same way JR sometimes says WWE RAW on USA or Michael Cole sometimes says Friday Night SmackDown! on The CW). TJ Spyke 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall that The Score still (up to today) continually refers to SmackDown! without "Friday Night" even after it moved to Fridays, while during its tenure on TSN Raw was referred to from time to time under its original name (both Raw is War and Monday Night Raw). What's more confusing is that the program guide uses Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown!, while The Score's website uses simply Raw and SmackDown!. I haven't checked the Global affiliate to see if ECW is listed any differently, although I've heard that it's Extreme Championship Wrestling with Joey Styles and Tazz. kelvSYC 14:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the pages are basically at the brand name. Raw and ECW are definitely under the brand name, but SD seems a different story. The thing with SD is that the SD logo, which is both the brand and show logo, has "Friday Night" in it, where as the Raw and ECW logo doesn't have anything like that in it to reflect night of week, or even network. I'm not sure whether the brand name is just SmackDown, or if it includes "Friday Night" like the logo and show does. James  Duggan  04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Paparazzi Championship Series and other tournaments
In my opinion, this should be deleted. Just because it's on Impact each week, doesn't make it notable. Category:Professional wrestling tournaments needs to be gone through and the cruft needs to go. I've started on it, but there is still alot to go. Even if a tournament is held more than once, it doesn't necessarily means it's notable either. RobJ1981 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea i found that page today also.. still think we need to find a wrestling wiki to send these articles and editors too --- Paulley
 * Here is a list of some wrestling wikis (not sure which ones work or not, since I found these in the archive, and haven't checked them.):

  . Whichever has the best and/or most content, should be the place to move many things that get deleted from Wikipedia. RobJ1981 03:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind the article. I think we should wait until the PCS ends before deciding what to do with it (like what if the finals is at Final Resolution and the winner gets a title shot?). I do agree some of those other ones need to go though. TJ Spyke 04:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A competition that has involved limbo and other non-wrestling things, doesn't seem notable at all. It's rumored to end at Final Resolution: even if a title shot is given, that doesn't add much to it. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every #1 contender tournament and similar things. Smackdown Sprint is a recent example of that. RobJ1981 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The SmackDown Sprint is different in that it's just a "Beat the Clock" match, which has an entry at List of professional wrestling match types. There isn't really anything similar to the PCS, and TNA has been featuring it for several weeks now. TJ Spyke 07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well two Wrestling wikis work.. www.smashmania.com is the best looking, while the other is too much of a wikipedia rip off for my liking --- Paulley

Hmm, I'd argue that appearing on Impact each week for a couple of months is pretty notable. After all, that means it was seen by about one or two million people, and it appears that it was well known enough that the nominator and others here immediately recognized what it was. "Cruft" isn't actually a reason for deletion. Note that many television series, for example, have in depth articles about each specific episode. I don't see a huge difference between an article about a specific single television series episode and an article about a continuing story line over five or six episodes from a television series.

However, I will point out that the article as it stands currently is entirely unreferenced. Someone needs to add appropriate references to clean up the article. Dugwiki 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can some more people comment at the CFD for Paparazzi Championship Series? It ended last night: no title shot was awarded. It's a non-notable tournament, just like Smackdown Sprint is (which was deleted). As of now, many people want to keep it... but it's simply cruft. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every tournament ever. RobJ1981 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sting's Army
That page is on afd here. More tag team fancruft, yeah. --  The  Hyb  rid  06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Finishing and Signature moves
Many people, myself included, have been going around saying that WP:PW policy is to keep finishers as finishers after they aren't used as such anymore. However, I don't see where this is written, and neither does Paulley. Let's just hold a vote and move it to a subpage after a decision is reached. That way it is official project policy, and we have something to show people when they ask. So, here is my nomination.

I think that any finishing or signature move that a wrestler uses should always be listed under its respective section regardless of how it is used later on. I feel this way because the article is about the wrestler's entire career, not just their present career, and the Finishing and Signature Moves section should reflect that. --  The  Hyb  rid  13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Seven days have gone by, so I have copied this discussion and provided an explanation of the policy at WP:PW/FMP. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  01:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * Support per my nomination. --  The  Hyb  rid  13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. ---Paulley
 * Support, but mark "current" if possible I agree that old finishers should still be listed under the finishing move section of an article for historical purposes. However, as a style matter, I think it would be a good idea if possible to mark the wrestler's current finisher as "current as of (date)" to signify that it is the finisher her prefers to use, and the others are now used for other purposes (if at all). Dugwiki 21:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Im for that where move are split into finisher and signature (i.e. Gregory Helms).. i think it would be possible in that article only to bold the moves (or names) which are in current use (i.e. "Nightmare on Helms Street / Eye of the Hurricane (Spinning headlock elbow drop)") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Support per nom. And Dug, former finishing moves are currently tagged for example with (1990s). Of course the problem here is that this doesn't include previous finishing moves that are now signature moves. ↪Lakes (Talk) 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Just mark when they used it as their finisher. Not listing them would be like not listing a song just because a singer doesn't perform it anymore. TJ Spyke 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Dugwiki DXRAW 10:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. A finisher is a finisher. Normy  132  06:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Once a finisher, always a finisher. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose If the wrestler did this move as a finisher, and he no longer uses the move in any capacity, it should be known as a finisher still. However, if the person did use a move as a finisher, then for several years used the move as a non finisher, it should be downgraded in status and reflected as such in a move list. If this person begins to use the move as a finisher again, then it should be upgraded in status again. In the case of dead wrestlers, the wrestler is DEAD, and obviously cannot compete anymore, so the page should remain unedited, with all the moves that he used as a finisher at the time staying in status, and all the moves he used as signature also staying in status. In active wrestlers, it should be different, as I said above, where current finishers should be on the list. I wouldn't be against creating a new subsection to the In Wrestling section called Past moves or Past finishers, meaning moves (regardless of if they are in signature or not) that were once a finisher (which are obviously not used anymore) listed there. I feel it would take away confusion from non wiki editors. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment dating the moves achieves the same goal. --  The  Hyb  rid  10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question Why not just put it on the signature moves list (like in the case of the split legged moonsault) and put it on the top and bold it so people can know its a former finisher? -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because not everyone who reads wrestling articles will have read this discussion to know what that means. It is much clearer that - Dragon Suplex until 2002 - is a former finisher then having it in a different section entirely. It could be taken as that being the most commonly used signature move, a signature move that will occasionally get a pinfall (such as Matt Hardy's legdrop and Kane's Big Boot), ect. --  The   Hyb  rid  22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bear in mind that if you say "Dragon Suplex until 2002", people will assume that the wrestler used the move until 2002 and no longer uses it in any capacity. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "Dragon Suplex until 2002, current signature move". --  The  Hyb  rid  23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That works. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional info lines in finishing and signature moves
I've been pondering on something that the japanese wiki does on wrestler articles. They have short descriptions under the move if it needs something. Maybe we could use these too, although then we'd have to have a guideline on what could be in it. So we could have:
 * Frog splash
 * Began using after the death of Eddie Guerrero as a tribute to him.
 * Powerbomb
 * Was his primary finishing move from 1976 to 2003.
 * Shining Wizard (Jumping strike to the side of the opponent's head, with either the side of the knee or the shin, delivered to an opponent who is down on one knee, after stepping off that opponent's raised knee with the other leg)
 * Innovated this move in 2001.

Etc. This would also help with the Wikipedia guideline to prefer prose over simple lists. The problem of course is the guideline, otherwise someone would want to add something to every move on every page. I guess that would mean notability criteria to the extra info. ↪Lakes (Talk) 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * Support - I like this idea, especially if we can set some guidelines to keep the description short. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdve (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Support -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
There is some cause to infact write "Finishing and signatures moves" in pros rather than in list form.. esspecially if we begin adding more and more info regarding them (like your suggestion above). I know for current wrestlers it would be of no use (due to ever more edits and additions) but for retired and deceased wrestlers that have articles which are less frequently edited it could be used. Some examples of this are Sable, Duane Gill, and Big Daddy (which since has been merged into his career section). Writing in pros would also elimintate the problem cuased in peer reviews regarding the information meaning we wouldnt have to resort to the intext stat boxes (i.e. Konnan) --- Paulley
 * I don't think we should get rid of lists altogether since they are a good way to index stuff. I really dislike the boxes in the Konnan article. They're very hard to find because you have to scroll the article to find the boxes. Such boxes should only be used for trivial info, and I don't think finishing and signature moves are that.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oh yea i agree, thats why i suggested writing in pros instead (so we dont have to use the boxs for those articles)... but for the more current wrestlers list are the only way --- Paulley

Former WWF/WWE shows
Do all of the shows really need articles? Considering many were clip shows (with very few, if any new matches), they can't be expanded much past a stub. The template listed below, lists them all... but needs cleaning, in my opinion. Notable ones should be articles still, while the lesser ones such as Super Astros, LiveWire and Mania should only be mentioned on a list page.

--RobJ1981 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement drive idea: Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling
There's been a really big debate as to what counts as a "world title", what counts as a "world title reign", what is deemed verifiable, an independent authority, and so on, down at Talk:Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling. This should be a massive cleanup job, and I've made a few Cliff's notes on it down near the bottom. Clearly, the project should reach a consensus on this issue. kelvSYC 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Episodic style articles for wrestling shows?
The above recent afd for the Smackdown "Beat the Clock" series and my discussion over there got me thinking about wrestling shows in general and how they compare to other sorts of television series like scripted shows and reality shows.

Other non-wrestling shows on Wikipedia often have episode articles, with one article per episode. Even otherwise mediocre or shows and cancelled shows like Category:Joey (TV series) episodes have episode listings, provided there is a fan of the show dedicated enough to writing the articles.

But, possibly because wrestling shows produce SO many episodes per year (52 episodes per year for RAW and Smackdown, roughly), and the series last so long, the number of articles for episode listings could be unmanagable.

However, what if the episodic content were compacted into either monthly chunks or into main-multiweek plot lines (which often conclude at a PPV every month or two)? Then you could reduce this number of articles to only 10-20 articles per year for each series, making it much easier to maintain.

Basically what I'm thinking is that there should be a way to provide the same episodic-type information for wrestling series that other television series already allow for. It seems odd to not have any episodic information other than Pay per views when other series are able to have virtually complete detail by detail accounts of all their episodes.

Any thoughts? Dugwiki 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, everytime somebody creates one of those articles (it's been done for iMPACT, RAW, and SmackDown) it gets deleted because its cruft. It's not really useful IMO, and something that would belong on a wreslting Wiki. TJ Spyke 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can imagine a list of storylines page since we can just read about them in depth from the pages of the individual wrestlers. -- Aaru Bui  DII 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't need this type of thing. Like TJ Spyke said, it amounts to cruft. --  The  Hyb  rid  10:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This sorta cruft is saved for wrestling wiki's not wikipedia. --- Paulley


 * As TJ Spyke said, and I said in that AfD, this stuff has been deleted before, proving that the community doesn't want it. --  The  Hyb  rid  12:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To reply, "this stuff has been deleted before" means that there are members of the community creating these pages, which indicates that parts of the community do want this information. As far as "cruft", I'll point out that a) cruft isn't a valid reason for deletion; and b) calling it cruft doesn't answer the question of how it differs from articles about television episodes. After all, one could easily argue that any article detailing a specific episode of a television series is "cruft" only of interest to fans of the show.


 * So again, the fundamental question is why episodes of wrestling shows are treated differently from episodes of other shows. Keep in mind that wrestling shows are generally at least as popular as many other television series, so are therefore at least as notable in terms of public interest.  Also, there is the issue that wrestling shows do not run reruns of previous episodes in syndication, so a plot synopsis for these shows may be the only way for an interested reader to access historical information about previous storylines and episodes. Dugwiki 18:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One more point - some have argued that fan sites or fan wikis are better suited to handling this information. But that same argument applies to any television series.  A fan site devoted to a particular television show is obviously going to be well suited to handling episode articles.  But that doesn't prevent Wikipedia from including the same information in the case of other television shows.  Animated shows, reality shows and scripted shows all have both external fan sites and wikis and have episode listings here on Wikipedia.  The existence of a fan site doesn't exclude the existence of a corresponding Wiki article. Dugwiki 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because some people make cruft articles, doesn't mean the majority wants it here. As for the whole discussion of wrestling episode articles: not needed. TV show articles are bad enough, and should all be moved to other Wiki's in my opinion. Look at many of them: cluttered, unsourced too much trivia cruft for the most part. Encyclopedia: not a fan's guide to every little note. The madness of TV episode articles will never be removed from Wikipedia though, because too many people are for them. If all were removed, people would be really upset. Also: in my opinion, just about all TV episode articles violate the whole "Wikipedia isn't a collection of information" guideline. Yet they still exist, and aren't getting fixed much. When did Wikipedia became a TV show guide? There is plenty of other sites for that type of thing. If you open up a regular encyclopedia, you won't find mass episode guides for shows. Yes I realize this is the internet, so there is exceptions. But the TV episode articles are just out of hand. I admit some are written well, but overall: a mess. RobJ1981 21:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can understand from a consistency point Rob's opinion above that nearly all episode articles are of roughly equal value. Going by that reasoning, instead of looking for ways to allow more episodic information for wrestling shows, we should seek ways to eliminate most of the episodic information for other television series.  That would at least treat the two with greater consistency. Dugwiki 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This stuff being deleted before proves that a minority wants this stuff, but the majority does not. I don't even have to address the rest of what you have said. The community has already ruled, and will continue to rule in this way should these articles continue to be created. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I don't even have to address the rest of what you have said" is certainly true - nobody HAS to respond to anything I posted. On the other hand, refusing to address or point out where my lines of thought are incorrect doesn't demonstrate that anything I said is wrong, either.  I'm certainly willing to listen to rational debate on why you think I'm wrong about the points I made, but telling me "you don't have to address them" definitely doesn't convince me I'm in error. Dugwiki 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I'd like to hear is what the people over at WP:TV and WP:TVE think of all this. -- Aaru Bui  DII 01:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, their input would be helpful. I'll post a request for feedback on the TV projects talk pages. Dugwiki 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what separates professional wrestling from TV shows is it being "sports entertainment" where there is a sporting side to it, and that is what I'd say PPV (and deleted weekly) results are all about. To treat these shows as TV shows would require focusing on the entertainment aspect, just focusing on the storylines. So would it be considerable for the creation of articles, maybe yearly, that focus purely on these storylines, perhaps similar to what's written in the articles of individual wrestlers? -- Aaru Bui  DII 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it is redundant to have this information in both the wrestler's articles and in another article. As for organizing this thing, an entire year's storylines would be a huge article, though I'm certain that there is a better way to organize it if the consensus is to do so. Also, I wasn't saying that you were wrong; I was saying that the consensus is against having these articles, so nothing else matters, period. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as consensus, it can change over time, especially if there's an inconsistency. In this case, we have some television shows with show-by-show articles, and other with no such detail at all. That sounds to me like there is probably a good middle ground which would bring wrestling show Wiki content closer to how other shows present their content.


 * In fact, since you mention it, a "year in review" or "month in review" format might be a good idea. Something like "RAW 2006 in review" which present a paragraph per major storyline that took place that year, along with links to PPV articles that took place in 2006.  The idea would be to summarize and organize the information in such a way that readers looking to look at what has come and gone have a hub article they can read to present the info.  While the stories may also appear in some of the associated wrestler's articles, it's not redundant because it's essentially a different way of indexing that information.  This way readers could search for historical storyline or important match information either by wrestler article or by chronological ordering for a show. Dugwiki 16:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that I have an idea that will give both sides a fair and equal chance. Anyone and everyone who thinks that this is a good idea can get together and write the article for 2006 in user space. Figure out the best way of organizing it, and just do it. Then, move/copy it out into the main space and leave a message here. I'll nominate it for deletion, and we can see what the consensus truly is. Sound good? --  The  Hyb  rid  22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How about just a list of storylines since the information's already in the wrestlers' articles? -- Aaru Bui  DII 00:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you intend to write an article I'll let you and Dugwiki work out what will be in it. I hereby bow out, as I have already stated my POV. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, there is currently an afd for the article [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paparazzi Championship Series Paparazzi Championship Series] that is related to this topic. I put a link to this talk page in case editors in that afd would like to participate.

As far as personally writing wrestling articles, I'm afraid that's probably not going to happen as I don't have good resources for it. Besides which, there are plenty of wrestling project editors who are much better article writers than myself. What I do try and do, though, is promote consistency in how information is handled on Wikipedia, such as in this case wanting some basic consistency in between handling television episode articles that involve either wrestling shows or other types of shows. Dugwiki 23:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Christopher DeJoseph/Big Dick Johnson
I mentioned this at Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment roster, articles on him have been deleted, but maybe it's time for him to have an article. How does David Lagana deserve an article more than him? DeJoseph is also a writer for WWE, and has appeared on TV/PPV many times as "Big Dick Johnson". He was even mocked a couple of time in TNA by the Voodoo Kin Mafia. IMO, this makes him notable (far more than Lagana at least). TJ Spyke 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are his entries at TV.com: and IMDb: . TJ Spyke 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mind having an article for him, it might be a pretty thin article. But I like the idea of being extensive!! Govvy 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anybody willing to do this? He done enough to deserve an article (especially more so than Dave Lagana). TJ Spyke 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the Lagana article could be moved to afd for the time being. Extensiveness is one thing, but do individual members of a booking staff really warrant their own pages? To me, this should be reserved for those bookers who are known for their work in a particular territory (eg. Eddie Graham, Red Bastien) or have appeared in some other capacity (eg. Jim Cornette, Vince Russo ). Thoughts? Geoff K.


 * Well, most of the bookers/writers who have pages here have been prominent in other capacities. Russo was an on-screen character, is very influential, outspoken, and a former WCW world champion.  Cornette has managed and been on-screen for about 20 years.  I do have a problem with writers/creative staff from WWE getting their own pages, and some have been deleted.  Booshakla 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mickie James
Okay this is bugging me and I don't know about the rest of you but I feel we need to have a vote and a verdict. I don't mind stating that Mickie James posed nude and for what Magazine, but what I do mind is the posting of the link to unprotected page of nude pictures. I can tell you because I have looked, they aren't softcore by any means. I am also pretty sure we don't want wikipedia to be a directory for porn sites. Govvy 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now the verdict is this, should we have links to unprotected pages with nude (hardcore) photo's?

(Yes/No) Vote


 * No. I don't want links to unprotected pages with hardcore photos! Govvy 21:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen the discussion relating to this, and other that the pictures there is no source. Pictures count as a primary source, so this stuff can't even be mentioned in the article. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hybrid is correct that photographs are a primary source. However, you can use primary sources in an article provided the article is simply collecting those sources along with secondary sources and not conducting its own analysis and creating original opinions based on those sources. To quote the policy:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

So provided you are only talking about the existence of a photograph, and you are properly citing where and when the photograph was published for verification, you could use the photograph as a source to say "this picture exists, was published here, and here it is." That's all assuming that your link to the image is allowed by copyright, etc.

Now all that being said, there is the independent question of whether posting links to explicit content like nude photos is in good taste or of encyclopedic value. Personally I don't think it is, considering Wikipedia has no parental protections allowing the filtering of this sort of information. I think a better way to go would be to simply say that, for example "so-and-so posed for this-magazine" and then include a footnote with the publication's name and date for verification. A link to the actual image isn't needed at that point. Dugwiki 00:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea i agree, if you can just infact cite the magazine like you would any other book then there is no need for a link to the actual images --- Paulley 14:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They aren't getting the pictures from a magazine. They are getting them from a forum which makes no mention of where the poster got the photos from. There isn't even any proof that it is her and not an imitator in the photos. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No i mean the photo's were made for a magazine (as i understand it) so shurly if you knew what magzine it was and found out the issue there would be no need for the link to the pictures --- Paulley


 * I don't think that these people even know what magazine it was for. I think that they are actually assuming that it was for a magazine and not some random website. If they want to prove me wrong I'm all ears. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read the sentence it always says Leg Show Magazine May 2000 issue. I have removed the link to those pictures and linked to legshow.com which I feel is more appropriate. The back issue ordering doesn't go that far back to May 2000 know. You might be able to get it from here know, May 2000 Issue but it certainly doesn't have her on the front cover, but it does say Pro Wrestler panty whipped! Govvy 12:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. Well, Wikipedia isn't censored, but we are allowed to leave a disclaimer next to the link saying that it contains adult content, as with the links to playboy.com (might not be playboy, but I know I have seen the disclaimer before. I didn't check on it before posting this.) --  The  Hyb  rid  22:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of something, those pictures have obviously been scanned in from the magazine they are possible breaking the copyright law on that website they are on. What is the rules against linking to links that are breaking copyright law? Govvy 10:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't link to it, and I'm glad that you caught that. Since we know the magazine I have no problem with linking to the actual magazine's website. Cheers, --  The  Hyb  rid  16:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Images
The Hybrid has been going around removing images from various TNA Wrestling articles, citing that they are fair use and therefore in violation of Copyright Law... He seems to be ignoring a mention on every TNA image tag I've seen so far: ''Total Nonstop Action Wrestling recognizes and accepts the use of their pictures on Wikipedia, as long as they are credited as the source of said photos. However, the terms of the permission do not include third party use.'' Clint 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy forbids using fair use images in articles on living persons. It may not violate copyright, but it is still against Wikipedia policy. I stand by my actions. --  The  Hyb  rid  23:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if TNA allows the use of them in Wikipedia? Govvy 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia policy. As long as they are active it is possible to make a free use alternative, so yes, even if TNA allows it. --  The  Hyb  rid  00:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable criteria
Due to the recent speedy/afd of various countries wrestlers, I purpose that we start a notability criteria that can be added to WP:BIO as i dont think that professional wrestlers currently fit into any of the current criteria. DXRAW 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they are covered by the rule for sportspeople (ie. have played in major league, equivalent, or highest level of amateur play), and/or the rule for television personalities (ie. have appeared on a well-known television program). (Further to that, I would say that a high-level indy, like ROH, would count for me as the "highest level of amateur play" in the case of pro wrestling, and that major leagues would be nationally televised promotions, like WWE, CMLL, New Japan, etc.)  I also think that holding a widely-recognized championship might count as making a widely-recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in their field. - Geoffg 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Spoilers
Please help protect this page from spoilers for another hour and a half. It isn't blatant vandalism, and I am so far over the 3 revert rule I'm considering reporting myself. Help, --  The  Hyb  rid  00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article improvement idea for move lists (concerning finishers)
I think on move lists, current name of moves should go before past names, and the past names shouldn't be bolded. I think by bolding it, people may assume that the move goes by two names (when I say two names, I mean has two names for the move CURRENTLY), especially if its not in parenthesis like for instance: Instead of this, I think it should look like this: Or this: I think it would help destroy confusion for non editors. Someone please sanction a vote on this. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  01:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Split-legged moonsault /  Hollywood Star Press
 * Split-legged moonsault /  Hollywood Star Press
 * Split-legged moonsault /  Hollywood Star Press
 * That is not acceptable as you're removing the finishing move status.
 * And please fix your signature, the colors are awful and distracting.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It was just an idea of mine, you don't need to shoot it down like an enemy plane. Also, not that this has anything to do with the topic I brought up, but you are the only one complaining about my signature, as I have had it for weeks now, and it is MUCH shorter than it used to be, and just because you don't like certain colors, doesn't mean others feel the same. My opinion is that your opinion of my signature was on bad faith, and I highly doubt it is a distraction, as people who have seen it have been able to continue the work they do on here. Back to the topic at hand, does anyone else have an opinion as to whether or not my opinion about the finishers (not an opinion about my sig, for if you have one, you can message me directly about it), please speak your mind. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  19:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should stay like this: *Split-legged moonsault /  Hollywood Star Press

I also think you should change your sig, as it is quite annoying when trying to read discussions. It is long, and there are ways to shorten it. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has NOTHING to do with my signature. This really shows how hard working the good folks at WP:PW really are if you rathar discuss my sig rathar than the discussion at hand... -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, did you read my opinion above. Yeah, I think thats called discussing. -- Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN  20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Full Names?
For TNA Roster lists and other things, next to a wrestler's stage name in parenthasis is their real name, I think it is not needed, and just their stage name should be listed? Does any body else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 January, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think if the real name can be provide it should for that can't be change as easily as making an in-ring alias. Also for all bio's wrestler or not, a real name should be provide, because that should also be the article name. Govvy 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is useful to give the real name in parentheses, since ring names can change over the years, but real names generally don't, but I don't agree that all articles should be named by real name. According to WP:NAMEPEOPLE (particularly the section on stage names), articles should be named after a subject's best-known name (ie. the name a casual reader would know someone by), and for most people, that is their ring name.  For example, anyone on the street has heard of Hulk Hogan, but most of those people do not know Terry Bollea, so the article is rightly named 'Hulk Hogan'. - Geoffg 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

SmackDown's exclamation mark
There has been a loose discussion on Talk:WWE Friday Night SmackDown! about whether the exclamation mark should be used throughout the article and as the name of the article itself, including a requested move that had little participation (probably due to it not being added to this project's todo list). I would like to restart that discussion and perhaps follow up with a second request to move the article. The arguments for SmackDown include its use on WWE.com and SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, and per MoS:TM. Arguments for SmackDown! are that it's used in the show itself and how that should supercede other sources of reference. -- Aaru Bui  DII 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When WWE use the name SmackDown in a sentence they remove the exclamation mark. They only add the exclamation mark in titling. Govvy 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for RAW - They call it Raw in sentences, and RAW in titling. The name of the show is WWE Friday Night SmackDown!. The page is NOT about the brand, but about the program itsself. The official brand name is SmackDown!. The official brand name of Raw is RAW. So I feel that both spellings (SmackDown and SmackDown!) are acceptable. WWE.com uses SmackDown and Raw to refer to them. They don't really use the ! anymore (except on TV advertisements), so I guess that may give an answer on what to do with the article. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  20:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How does MoS:TM come into play for you? -- Aaru Bui  DII 02:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Protection
I'm requesting protection for the Gene Snitsky page, as several people keep on adding in speculation about what the wrestling sites say concerning the possible move of Snitsky to the ECW brand. -- Jลмєs Mลxx ™ ' Msg me ' Contribs  20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You want to go here then: Requests for page protection. That is where you request protection for a page. TJ Spyke 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New wrestling AFD
I put up an AFD on a internet wrestling show that is only getting input from the people who made the article... so any way you think about the article your input would be appreciated Articles for deletion/Rocketbusta Radio 49erInOregon 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling champions
Are all the categories in that, needed? Most champions are listed already list pages for one thing. For another thing: the wrestler articles list what titles they have won as well. In my opinion, all (or most) of these cats should be deleted. Since title holders are listed numerous places already, what's the point of sticking a cat on the wrestler page? Overcategorizing is a problem at Wikipedia: Overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:
 * 'Mostly overlapping categories:Example: 1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders''
 * If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.'''

List pages exist, so many of the champions categories should be removed. Many of the same people are in grand slam, triple crown, WWE champions and so on. RobJ1981 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. A category like "WWE Champions" is completely redundant.  The purpose is much better served by the List of WWE Champions for the standard reasons: it can be organized with tables and sub-headings, and can include every item that qualifies, whether there is an article for it or not. - Geoffg 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania Succesion Boxes
The Succesion box at the RCA Dome article doesn't make any sense. Right now there is "WrestleMania VIII". This doesn't make sense because there is only one WrestleMania VIII. It happened in Indianapolis at the Hosier Dome (RCA Dome now). It didn't happen in Los Angeles or at Las Vegas. It should be put as WrestleMania VIII|Wrestlemania. This way it makes sense since it will say Wrestlemania which there have been several and it's linked to that spicific Wrestlemania. Kingjeff 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs
What is the point of this article? --202.131.32.49 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much point for the article either, I think that we should incorporate some of the information into the main TNA article then delete that one. Govvy 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Music in professional wrestling
Music in professional wrestling is up for deletion. Just bringing it to everyone's attention, I don't care either way.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Lying about professional football careers
I imagine is the nature of the beast with professional wrestlers, but why must they LIE about having professional football careers or experience???? I have corrected FIVE entries who all had facts based on lies or rumor. Don't these guys know that NFL and CFL (my primary interest) teams, including the ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE now, all have detailed ALL TIME ROSTERS that allow quick checking. Jeez, if someone is signed to a training camp contract and then CUT, it doesn't mean they played pro football. KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR THIS. Mundster 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume one was Brock Lesnar? Technically he was in the NFL, even though he was cut. Also, you do realize that wrestling is ENTERTAINMENT? It's not like Kevin Gertig (Kevin Thorn) thinks he is really a vampire. TJ Spyke 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because someone isn't on an All Time roster doesn't, technically, mean they weren't part of a team for a time. Guys like Lex Luger were picked up by teams, participated in pre-season practices (and in some cases games), but were cut before the season started, and as such never played in official league games and aren't listed on all-time rosters. Those are the NFL rules, but the specific guys can still, arguably, claim NFL expeirence.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong-o, dudes. For purposes of official statistics, and I'm sure sundry things like salary and union pension, you have to PLAY IN A REGULAR SEASON game to qualify as a player and go on an all-time roster. Yes, I know wrestling in ENTERTAINMENT ... not very good, in my opinion, but I'm not interested in wrestling, I'm interested in football, especially CANADIAN (CFL) football. You see, it seems lots of people, and seemingly legitimate media sources, get playing in the CFL wrong (lots.) But they mean well, often an obit for an older player. But, it seems to me current professional wrestlers are simple LIARS, and not very good ones at that, because they often lie about the NFL, and there must be a half dozen excellent and complete online NFL all time roster sites. This can be checked in seconds by anyone with half a brain (you do the math, eh!) But my problem, also, is with wikipedia, where users can so easily catagorize lying wrestlers as real players, putting them in the same class as Hall of Famers ... hmmm (note to self: wikipedia users are liars too.) Let's just stop the LYING ... think of the kids, why don't you. Do it for them. Just say NO to lying wrestlers. Mundster 02:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, guy, relax a bit. Like I said, just because they're not on an all-time roster doesn't mean they were never a part of a team pre-season. It's arguable, and it's technical, and it's semantics, but you don't get the last say on it and there's no reason to go crazy calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not calling people who disagree with me liars, I am calling people who deliberately continue to promote lies (regarding wrestlers' fictitious pro football careers) ... liars. There is a difference you know. But you are right on one count. I am crazy. Now, what bothers me is that these lies do not stay confined to, say, a wikipedia entry on an allegded football playing wrestler. No, no, no ... people have to use wiki categories to make sure that this false information is spread to every seemingly legitimate source, sometimes even putting said wrestlers name on an entry for a pro football team, as if some palooka that played 3 days in training camp deserves such respect. And if you've done a Google search about such things recently, you'll find every two bit site and its brother rips wikipedia off big time, thus, like a military force multipler, the lie GROWS and GROWS, spreading across the world wide web like some mold in your fridge that started, oh so sublimely, in the salsa jar. Now your lactose free sour cream is ruined. Finally, NO, a guy that can't make it through a training camp with a team doesn't get to say he played for the team. Would you say its OK to boast about having a university degree if you only went to one week of class. I didn't think you think that was right. Thank you. Now, let's you and me pledge, right now, to stamp this deceitful madness out RIGHT NOW. Yes, TESTITFY. I've got your back. (Yes, if you are wondering, salsa mold is so sublime. Try it, and not accidentally.)Mundster 18:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the big deal? If a wrestler claims they play football, then it should be noticed. The Undertaker isn't really from Death Valley, but it's noted on his page. -- Scorpion 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, I don't get you guys ... so a wrestler lies, but that is OK? What if he claims to be the first true Nazi president of the USA? Is that no big deal? This has been my mistake ... you see, I approach wikipedia like its an ENCYCLOPEDIA, will all fact entries being VERIFIABLE, and, um, true. The people adding wrestling stuff are, it seems to me, a bunch of fanboys prepared to parrot whatever junk the entertainer (who has a vested interest in LYING to you!) says. My bad. I'll just edit and delete, with extreme prejudice. Mundster 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not as big a deal as you're making it out to be. I, personally, don't care about a wrestler's career in football. If they were part of a team that went all the way to the Super Bowl or made a big deal about quitting wrestling to play football, then fell on their face. It's not hard to, on a case by case basis, mark them off by that happened. "Lex Luger was selected by the Green Bay Packers, reposted to training camp, but was cut before the season started due to injury." "Ron Simmons was drafted to the Cleveland Browns, but never played a league game and thus does not appear on the all-time roster." Easy. No problem. Not worth fussing about.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You see, maybe people who like football (not wrestling) care about this issue. And people who value the truth. Mundster 23:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been watching football since I was five years old. Try again.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling editors "fanboys" isn't needed one bit. No personal attacks, and assume good faith next time. Insulting editors doesn't help things. As for this discussion: if a wrestler did a tryout for a football team... it's simply that: a tryout. If they didn't make the team, they shouldn't be considered a member of that team, period. A mention that they tried out for the team and got cut, is worth mentioning in the article. RobJ1981 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My point, exactly. Merci beaucoup, masked man. All boys who are not fans, heed these words. Mundster 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How many articles are that claim a wrestler played football when they really didn't? I don't pay attention (or really care) about that sort of thing. -- Scorpion 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets see, I have five, Lex Luger, The Rock (entertainer), John Layfield, Jon Heidenreich and Brock Lesnar. Now, to restate my concern, I'm not so super bothered by wrestlers lying about having professional football careers that they don't really have (which they may do to promote themselves, or because of some character flaw or defect, I dunno,) as long as this stay confined to, perhaps, their wiki entry. Firstly, what really steams me is when users decided to start cross category references to the untruth. Sometimes I'll open a pro football team's player page, to find a half dozen incorrect entries. Now, I fully understand errors made in the case of older or deceased players. Often the original media citation is in error, they just mean well regarding fond memories. But current wrestlers are using these lies to promote themselves, so they are a lot less sympathetic (if not totally deviod of sympathy.) Secondly, these lies here at wikipedia spread like a virus across the net. For example, in one case a user made an questionable and unsupported claim about a Canadian footballer's ethnicity in the very first line of the wiki entry. I corrected it, but out of curiosity, did a Google search on him later. As you know, wikipedia is copied big time all over the net. Well EIGHT of the first SIXTEEN Google hits for this guy showed, in the lines of the Google link entry, the exact dubious assertion that was in question. Simply, wikipedia had been used to pollute the internet with lies. This has to stop, and can be easily corrected (unlike climate change, which will kill all our children.) Users, especially those who like wrestling, have to be vigilant to ensure that true entries are being posted. Wrestling is very much a "faux" world, as I have been led to believe from the documentary exposes I have seen (the one about the dead Owen Hart ??? was excellent, and his dad was a true CFL player, Stu Hart,) and users have to seperate the fact from the clear advertising and fiction.Mundster 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All five of those guys have football experience, and before you went in and vandalized the pages by adding bold and italicized did not play to the articles every article made it clear where they had and hadn't played.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Mundster 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. I offer you this compromise, you list any and all bios you claim are "lying" about football experience and they will be taken care of with very specific, not vandalizing, language.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have had it. You are what is wrong with wikipedia. Isn't the truth good enough? I saw a TVO discussion on "why the internet sucks" some months back, and the one sterling example of the bright future was wikipedia (I would have thought it was ebay.) So I registered and had some fun adding legitimate stuff, joining the "wikonomy," so to speak. Committing unique information to the internet, adding value to wiki, freely donating my time and expertise for the psychic reward. What do I find ... yahoos, vandals, people with petty agendas. Just like you. Thanks. I'm outta here.
 * Can I have your stuff?«»bd(talk stalk) 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles to cleanup
Someone update that on the to do list. Then I can help on what new stuff you want cleaned up. :) Govvy 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is one I just found today: Tom Howard. It's just lists, and needs to be formatted. I started on it a little, but there is alot of cleanup needed still. RobJ1981 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Believe me when I say there's a ton that need it. Just follow links from any wrestler and I'd put the over/under on when you find one that needs work at three, four tops. «»bd(talk stalk) 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the Tom Howard page a fair bit. Still needs work on know. Govvy 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

can someone
can someone help me finish my article on one of my favorite czw wrestlers Nate Webb, before it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme Enigma (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 January, 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but he's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You should add him to one of the various Pro Wrestling specific Wikis.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

When is a name change a name change
This is a weird problem, so bear with me, and it seems to mostly be a problem in WWE.

If a person drops or adds a word to their name should we consider that a name change for the purposes of the list in the infobox? For example Armando Alejandro Estrada's WWE.com profile page recently had the graphic and URL changed to simply Armando Estrada or Shad Gaspard, who started out as Shad Gaspard, then had his graphic/URL changed to just Shad. In both cases they're referred to by both named in arena just to make matters more complicated. Other examples are Gene Snitsky, who dropped the "Gene", and Dave Finlay, who seems to randomly use and not use his first name. Or, to go the other way, Kelly Kelly went a while as just "Kelly" before adding her last name. I'm fairly sure there are other examples, but none are springing to mind.

To me it seems fairly pointless to list these kind of name changes, or even go out of out way to mention them in the article text unless there's a good kayfabe reason (for example, when Estrada added on to his Osama name). «»bd(talk stalk) 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Does anyone, at all, have any thoughts on this?«»bd(talk stalk) 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling moves all up for afd...
Professional wrestling attacks - aerial techniques - double team maneuvers - holds - throws, as well as Backbreaker, Boston crab, Brainbuster, Chokeslam, Cutter, DDT, Doomsday Device, Dropkick, Facebuster, Leg drop, Moonsault, Neckbreaker, Piledriver, Pinfall, Powerbomb, Powerslam, Sharpshooter, Shootig star press, Stunner, Superkick, & Suplex were all put up for deletion because "Absurdly excessive detail. The article is unverifiable original research." There's no way these pages should go. The AFD is linked in the "to do" box«»bd(talk stalk) 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Professional wrestling attacks and express your oppinions on said subject --- Paulley

We still need references people
Sites like DDTDigest and OwW are being dismissed as fansites because they're self published, as such the entire Pro-wrestling project has been called "suspect". Because of the relative secrecy of "the business" until recently it's not like we can go pull out a wealth of old books on the subject, so what can we do? - «»bd(talk stalk) 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We are gonna have to start sourcing more than the internet.. we have to start looking into event leaflets/magazines as well as video archieves.... and anything else we can find. Though you are right it is hard to cite the actual act of professional wrestling becuase they dont freely go round and write how-to-do this (esspecially as the business repeated tell you dont-do this).. lol, anybody like a challenge -- Paulley
 * Is the torch self published?«»bd(talk stalk)
 * Official sites for WWE, TNA, etc as sources (obviously). Plus I would assume news stories from non-wrestling sites (such as press from when celebrities wrestle and appear), and so on. Other than that, I'm not sure what else could be used. RobJ1981 08:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see a reason why for example Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Figure Four Weekly wouldn't be reliable sources. Obsessed With Wrestling has never been a reliable source, too many inaccuracies.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Places like OWW and CageMatch.net are good places to start research but i would never truly trust them as sources. Though both are good places for match results and week-by-week breakdowns of wrestlers, favorite moves provides little info, and their real names and titles sections have been known to be incomplete or wrong on occasion. -- Paulley
 * I wouldn't trust them to source OwW for anything beyond results, but do think they're very good at that. With the recent rash of "unverified" tags thrown on bio articles I think we should consider doing whatever needs to be done to get them listed as a reliable source in that aspect, then we can their page once and use it repeatedly whenever we have to mention a notable win or loss. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the most significant things to come up in the big AfD on Attacks mentioned above, is that video-recordings of pro-wrestling events (TV, PPV, etc.) are primary sources. They can be used to cite examples of maneuvers, or to cite occasions on which a wrestling personality did this or that. This project could definitely make more use of citations for these. That would take care of a lot of the biographical history for wrestlers of the TV era. It's the older stuff that is more difficult to support. - Geoffg 03:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, but how exactly do we go about using those as cites?«»bd(talk stalk) 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the easiest way is to say right in the text, "on the Monday January 1, 2007 edition of RAW John Cena fought Kevin Federline" etc. For more general information one could add a footnote.  For example, if the claim is that John Cena's finisher is the FU, a footnote could read "as documented on hundreds of episodes of WWE television, eg. RAW, aired January 1, 2007."  The problem with this is that wrestling articles will soon get very cluttered with such things. - Geoffg 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a Reference section to Dropkick with a undeniable source and will be doing so to other maneuver pages later, but wanted to get the Project's opinion on the subject. I planned to source the main subject (Such as the basic dropkick) but not variations, unless the Project feels sources for those are needed (I personally don't and would mostly be beyond my source material). Vladamire Steelwolf 22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing the main is the most important, as for the variations we can look into referencing comments like [wrestler] innovated/named the move, [wrestler] popularized the move in the US etc etc --- Paulley

Snap Mare (pg 40) Leg Sweep (pg. 42) Collar-And-Elbow Lockup (pg. 43) Headlock (pg. 44) Headlock Takeover (pg. 46) Front Facelock (pg. 48) Shoulder Block (pg. 49) Hip Toss (pg. 50) Leap Frog-Fireman's Carry (pg. 52) Arm Twist (pg. 54) Arm Bar (pg. 55-56) Arm Drag (pg. 57) Top Wristlock (pg. 58) Standing Switch (pg. 60) Hammerlock (pg. 62) Bodyslam (pg. 64) Backdrop (pg. 68) Single-Leg Takedown (pg. 70) Step-Over Toe Hold (pg. 70) Figure-Four Leglock (pg. 72) Abdominal Stretch (pg 74) Pinfall (pg. 76) Side Roll (pg. 78) Atomic Drop (pg. 86) Punch (pg. 88) Kick (pg. 90) Chop (pg. 91) Forearm (pg. 92) Forearm Uppercut/European Uppercut (pg. 94) Ear Clap (pg. 95) Eye Rake Across Ropes (pg. 96) Eye Rip (pg. 97) Thumb to the Throat (pg. 98) Hair Pull (pg. 99) Standard Choke (pg. 100) Choke on the Ropes (pg. 101) In case some else wants to help me out and get this finished quicker. Vladamire Steelwolf 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm using The Professional Wrestlers' Workout & Instructional Guide by Harley Race, Ricky Steamboat, Les Thatcher, and Alex Marvez. I've added the Reference to Professional wrestling attacks and Suplex, as well as the mentioned dropkick, but they might need a glance at by a more experienced editor. It has entries for the following moves (and the page it appears on):

Deceased
Bam Bam Bigelow tragically passed away today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extreme Enigma (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
 * This is a talk page for article improvements: not general wrestling talk. Wikipedia isn't a message board or a general chat site. RobJ1981 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Normally I would agree with you, but when someone dies there is nothing wrong with notifying the people who would care. Enigma, don't worry about it. --  The  Hyb  rid  03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea its good it has been brought up because the page is getting edited all ways and we will eed to keep an eye on it... give it a week then we will have to go through and do a good clean up. Paulley 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)