Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 2

Dick the Bruiser
Will somebody please clean-up the Dick the Bruiser article, It actually hurt my eyes trying to read it. But seriously, I'm really busy so if someone else could do it, that would be great. — M o e   ε  19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I edited it somewhat but I don't know enough about him to delete lines and add anything. I added his championships and a profile and categorized him too. It is still kinda hard on the eyes though due to the actual article about him. I did remove the first sentence and replace it. It is a little better. -- phatcat68 20:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User: JustAskMe J
Is it just me or should JustAskMe J be blocked or banned from Wikipedia for what he did to the Lauren Jones article. He did add more info but took off a photo, and a profile for just plain info. If you go threw the history, you can see it was much better than what he did. — M o e   ε  04:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Or you could just fix the article. Banning should come into play only if they're persistant. And stop inflating your edit count artificially! It's getting very annoying. Think before you edit. I've just had three edit conflicts trying to reply to you.
 * ↪Lakes 04:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry trying to fix his user name, not trying to inflate anything. Didn't think anyone was on the talk page right then. — M o e   ε  04:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I reverted it back to the old version. — M o e   ε  05:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Scott Hall
I must say, Scott Hall is one of the most well known wrestling personalities from the last 15 years, and this article doesn't do any justice. It has too many headings, gives very little info, and really needs a clean up. If you have nothing to do, I would work on this. Mcfly85 03:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I had nothing better to do, so I cleaned it up a little, looks a little better. — M o e   ε  16:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is much better, I think there still should be some more details added to the career section, IMO. Mcfly85 03:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

RAW and SmackDown! rosters
I think the RAW and SmackDown! pages rosters are so unnecessary since we have the WWE roster list. I put a link to big roster and took off the little unnecessary rosters. It's to much trouble trying to match up both roster lists so they are the same. What do you guys think? — M o e   ε  23:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good job! It's not like they don't all work for the same company anyway. One roster for them is good!
 * -- phatcat68 02:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right; there's no need to duplicate the information. Still, I can't help but be a little sad, since I kinda whipped the Smackdown page's roster section into shape as one of my first edits on Wikipedia.  Ah, well.  At any rate, I edited the links on the pages to link to the appropriate subsections of the page.  --HBK 05:05, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan?
Seems like I've had this conversation before. This time it's a little different though. Seems on WWE.com they have put the profile for Hulk Hogan on there. I added Hogan to the roster list only because of that, I dont know if he signed a contract though. Although I speculate that WWE will take it off after SummerSlam. I still wouldn't trust Dave Meltzer if my life depended on it. I don't think he has strong enough inside information as others might think he does. Despit this, I added his name, then we will see after SummerSlam if he will stay on the main roster or the "sporadic" list. This also brings up the question of should, Austin, The Rock and Mick Foley be added back to our roster too?

PS. Will someone for gosh sakes archive this page already!! — M o e   ε  01:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"Most Memorable Matches"
I'm a little concerned with wrestler bios that contain these sections. Aren't a wrestler's best matches mainly a matter of opinion? For instance, while the section in this area for Triple H makes the disclaimer "generally regarded as," I know for a fact that Triple H's HIAC match with Shawn Michaels (included on the list) is far from considered one of his best matches by a lot of people, or even his best Hell In A Cell, of which he has fought many. The general accusation against the Michaels HIAC is that the pacing is extremely slow, and by the time that HIAC rolled around, they had already fought each-other about a hundred times already--making it less than one of his "best" or "most memorable" matches.

As far as I can see, there are no set qualifications for a match to appear on the list. It seems completely arbitrary, determined only by the writer. For that matter, unless I'm again mistaken, there are no set guidelines as to how many matches should be included on this list for each wrestler. One might as well be writing an opinion column, rather than a piece of factual information. --Pathogen 15:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * They are based on opinion yes, but most of those matches are considered by the WWE (as heard on RAW and other programmings) as one of the greatest matches. The example with the HIAC match is good. Most people actually think that was one of Triple H's and Shawn Michaels's best matches to date. I think it should just be left alone for now. —  M o e   ε  23:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The WWE thinks every match is great. You don't hear JR yell "My god, what a shit match." My point is that there is no real objectivity here at all. It may be one of his best matches with Shawn Michaels, but that doesn't make it one of his best matches ever. What exactly qualifies as "most people?" --Pathogen 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Most people is refering to the people who attended the match, and people who watched the match on pay-per-view. Anyways, I think they should be taken off, but I ain't going to be the one that checks every pro wrestlers bio and removing them. That would probably take a while to remove. We should put this task under the To Do list at the top of the page. I hardly think the "memorable matches" sections should be in Wikipedia, they are not at all factual information. Bottomline, they should be removed. — M o e   ε  02:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is yet another example of listomania. Any matches that matter belong in the career section; there's no need to list them separately.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

New archive done (I hope)
I went ahead and archived the most recent discussions... it *was* getting to be a little too much. So, there we are! ekedolphin 03:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article candidate?
I know, I know, good luck getting a pro wrestling-related article to become a featured article. But I just read through the Stone Cold Steve Austin article and I think it's one of the finest pro wrestling articles we've got. Anyone think we should nominate it? ekedolphin 03:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think getting one of these articles into the "Featured Article" level is a worthy cause. Stone Cold Steve Austin, Chris Benoit, or Hulk Hogan all seem like perfect candidates to me. I performed some recent touch-ups on the Austin article, which in my opinion still may have a few too many run-on sentences. The main thing that seems to be getting in the way of a featured article nomination is that the grammar really isn't up to snuff in a lot of cases; people need to know how to construct a sentence so that it reads well. Most of my work here in the wrestling project has been grammar-related (which in my opinion is just as important as the details of the article), and there seems to be an abundance of it left to do.
 * I am going to do a little work on Chris Benoit now, as the underdog is always in need of some love. . . --Pathogen 17:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrestler Names on Articles
Hello everybody! I have been finding that we cannot agree on what names to use on wrestler articles. Some users feel that we should use the best known name for them (Brutus Beefcake, Tony Atlas) and some feel that all but the mega-stars (The Rock, Ric Flair, Sting, Hulk Hogan, etc.) should be under their real names. I think we need to come up with a consensus and stick with it or our articles are not consistent. I think all of the users on here should say their piece on this and we should come up with a consensus from that. I vote that we go by the best known name. For example, I would never look up The Great Kabuki in a google search as Akihisa Mera. Therefore, I created the article as The Great Kabuki. If we don't, I see article names being changed constantly by users because there are no set guidelines...and somebody usually gets angry when that happens repeatedly (I personally don't care as long as we have consistency). Anyway, I think the best known name should be used for them. Other fields of entertainment have their articles under their best known name (which is usually their stage name), so why can't we do it for wrestling too? Thanks! Please add comments! --phatcat68 11:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I can understand using real names for current wrestlers like Mark Copani or John Hennigan but for retired and deceased wrestlers like Ron Garvin, Fred Blassie and Bobo Brazil, using their real name serves no logical purpose whatsoever.--Darren Jowalsen 18:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a rather extensive discussion of this in the archives. I don't think we ever reached a consensus on it.  The copyright status of most wrestlers' stage names in the modern era does complicate things.  --HBK 04:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Chris Jericho
I'm surprised at the lack of information in the career section for the article for Chris Jericho. This is especially true in the WWF/E section, where there is a total bias towards listing events in his career over the past couple of months. Someone who has an extensive knowledge of his career should fix this. ErikNY 04:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bias toward current events is a common occurrence in the articles of current wrestlers. This is also something we have discussed before. --Chrysaor 02:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Now it is almost getting ridiculous. Rey Mysterio's entire career in Mexico is summed up in two sentences while his feud with Guerrero gets 8 paragraphs.  As soon as that program is over, I'm going try and trim it down since it is almost a week by week breakdown of a long program.--Darren Jowalsen 00:31, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I say that the sooner we start cracking down on this behavior, the better. Just delete it and write in to-the-point summaries. I get really pissed off when I see stuff on the Chris Benoit profile like "Benoit and Angle faced off for the WWE Title at Royal Rumble 2003 in what many called the match of the year;however, the remainder of 2003 was fairly uneventful."

Translation: I haven't done my homework on what Benoit was doing for the greater part of an entire year, so I'll just gloss it over with a sentence. As it stands, he was actually feuding with Guerrero, Rhyno, and A-Train for the U.S. Title, and to my knowledge had at least one excellent match with Guerrero in Colorado for it. Not to mention he challenged Brock Lesnar for the championship. Fairly uneventful, right. Luckily, I fixed it to actually respect the fact that Benoit was actually wrestling in 2003. --Pathogen 23:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sid Vicious
The article on Sid Vicious, listed under his real name of Sid Eudy, doesn't mention anything from the time he left the WWF until the time he broke his leg at WCW Sin 2001. No mention of his time in ECW, or the events of his second run in WCW, including as its world champion. Would someone with a more extensive knowledge of Sid than I have be willing to fill in the gaps? ekedolphin 23:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

King of Wrestling?
I'd like to start an article on the "King of Wrestling" "title" whose lineage ran: Harley Race-->Haku-->"Hacksaw" Jim Duggan-->Randy Savage. I believe it started when Harley Race won the King of the Ring tournament. However, it took on a separate lineage of its own, separate from the actual KOTR tourney. I want to start it mainly because I noticed that Randy Poffo's article mentioned that he became known as the "Macho King" after he won the KOTR tournament. He did win the tourney in 1987, but he only took the "Macho King" nickname after feuding with Duggan over the title. Anyway, can someone suggest a good name for the article? Was it actually known as the "King of Wrestling" crown, or what?
 * SHODAN 19:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it was simply known as the "King's Crown"; it didn't really have an official name, as it was not an official championship. Anyway, fantastic idea! --HBK 13:46, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Deceased professional wrestlers
I created a new sub-category under the category of Professional wrestlers called the Deceased professional wrestlers. I found, hopefully, all the deceased wrestlers and put them under that sub-category to thin the big list out a little. It currently has 104 wrestlers, so that should help. PS: Also, I spotted still a bunch of wrestlers that could be put under sub-categories like American professional wrestlers. — M o e   ε  04:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Big Guido
I just saw a website that said there is a wrestler named Big Guido contracted to WWE. Who I thought Big Guido was, Val Puccio, is in fact wrong. There are 2 wrestlers that go by Big Guido, the other is Michael Fury. Michael Fury is actually the one who is contracted to WWE, not Val Puccio. Sorry for the mix-up. — M o e   ε  17:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ring of Honor
I just looked at the Ring of Honor page and there really isn't much information there, considering that it's arguably the #3 promotion in the U.S. Would someone with knowledge of ROH care to add to the article? ekedolphin 05:15, August 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave it a little clean up and added the "code of honor" and about #1 Contendership, but i dont know a great deal about ROH, all i know is from watching ROH shows (The Wrestling Channel is only up to January 2005) --- Paulley 15:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did notice wikipedia is mentioned in the ROH forums so if someone would like to join it and ask the fans to help that might be a good idea --- Paulley
 * Not bad for someone who doesn't know much about ROH. I think the article was significantly improved by your contributions, so good job!  ekedolphin 00:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's ok, it's what im here for --- Paulley 11:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gimmick professional wrestlers
I agree with Moe Epsilon that this category is needed, but the name doesn't quite work right for me. I'm thinking it needs to be changed to Professional wrestling gimmicks. --HBK 14:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, Tonga professional wrestlers should probably be Tongan professional wrestlers. McPhail 18:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed it liked you wanted it. I put Tonga professional wrestlers because some of them, for example, New Zealand professional wrestlers, was named by the country. I didn't known they were called "Tongan", if we want them all by what there called example, american, canadian; then what are people from New Zealand called. That needs to be fixed. — M o e   ε
 * I don't think there is an adjective form of "New Zealand". McPhail 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "New Zealander". -HX 22:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Three-quarter facelock bulldog
Three-quarter facelock bulldog is a really ankward name. I suggest we replace it as a general name we use for the move. To me there are two choices. Ace crusher or Cutter. Ace crusher seems to be the name for the move used by many people, most notably commentators. Cutter seems to be a commonly known name, especially considering that many wrestlers use the Cutter name in their variants, for example Bubba Ray Dudley (Buh-buh Cutter) and Gran Hamada (Hama-chan Cutter). I feel that Cutter has become as generally known as bulldog, DDT, etc. More people will most likely know Cutter than Ace crusher.

The item in the Throws page would be renamed Cutter or Ace crusher, and the first line would start with "Also known as Three-quarter facelock bulldog", etc.

With this we could shorten crucifix rotated into three-quarter facelock bulldog to crucifix rotated into cutter or crucifix rotated into ace crusher, making it a much better read. (Chris Lindsey for this example)

↪Lakes 20:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well personally i would go with Cutter its suits the move more but the "name" Three-quarter facelock bulldog isnt a name what-so-ever it is a description, the move is in essence a running headlock takedown (bulldog) using a Three-quarter facelock... thus we get Three-quarter facelock bulldog. So the opening line should read "The Cutter is a Three-quarter facelock bulldog" (with bulldog linking to bulldog description) --- Paulley 17:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would go with Ace Crusher or Diamond Cutter because every wrestling fan knows what those are, allowing for easy comprehension. I doubt most wrestlers would even know what you were talking about if you referred to a "three-quarter facelock bulldog." The point of any encyclopedia is to inform, not to dazzle the reader with "scientific" terminology. I feel you defeat that purpose by referring to the move, and editing articles to make them less helpful and informative.Liamharvester 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it seems we've reached a consensus, and no one else has commented in the past days, we'll go with "Cutter". I'll make the changes.
 * ↪Lakes 06:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Changes done. If you notice something I missed please fix it.
 * ↪Lakes 06:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Cno Evil (As well as other Users who post copyvio images)
This user has put about 40-55 new pro-wrestling related images on Wikipedia that I belive are in copyright violation according to Wikipedia standards. Am I right about his images? If so, will you all help by putting his images under Images for deletion for me, there is a lot of them. — M o e   ε
 * i think if we can get him to correctly cite the image sources and and put correct tags on them maybe we can save a couple of images but you are right some do need deleating and the edits where he replaces good pictures with fuzzy ones is just silly... also if someone does talk to him can we get him not to just replace images but move the older image somewhere down the article. Paulley 08:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing is happening with User:Gian89. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Criteria for Notability?
Is there a criteria for notability amongst wrestlers? I put up some suggestions here. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? -HX 23:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We discussed a similar topic on this page before when I made a post labeled "Too Much?" (see the archives). There's no criteria, but there should be. A look at Criteria for Inclusion of Biographies would be a good idea, particularly the criterion "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport" . Importance seems to help. There's way too many wrestlers listed as it is and it seems that articles seem to be added just because wrestlers are in or have been in WWE, ECW, WCW or one of the other major wrestling promotions which isn't at all in line with the above criterion for inclusion. If you look at how many Professional Wrestling stubs there are, there's just way too many and a lot of these articles aren't even necessary - some of these articles don't have enough information behind them to expand them further. I wouldn't say I'm deletionist, but I don't think a wrestler or group of wrestlers should have their own article just because they appeared in WWE. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, to an extent, but I would suggest that having appeared in WWE or a similarly large fed is a good starting point. Perhaps having appeared in a PPV for a major federation?  -HX 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I think that title reigns and popularity are more important in coming up with criteria. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, any wrestler who ever held a major title in a major fed is automatically notable, that includes most of the most "popular" wrestlers in one fell swoop, at least during the 80's, 90's, and the current decade. Offhand, I can't think of any super-popular wrestlers that never held a major title.  (Magnum T.A., maybe?)  -HX 00:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can think of two without even trying: Magnum T.A., as you mentioned, and Jake "The Snake" Roberts.  Titles are not necessarily a criteria for notability.  --HBK 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Magnum TA held the NWA US title. Plus Jake Roberts held the NWA Television Title (later WCW TV title) - see http://www.wrestling-titles.com/nwa/world/nwa-tv.html. Essexmutant
 * I don't see the point in having a lot of wrestlers from independent promotions and minor indy promotions being added though. Most of them don't seem notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. :/--Jtalledo (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC
 * Care to give examples on who you think are not notable enough? For me the line would go between indy promotions and minor indy promotions. Then again, how do you define minor?
 * ↪Lakes 18:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Some articles like Mike Brenley. Apart from WWE, WCW, ECW, ROH wrestlers, I don't see how you can put any other grapplers in any other American promotion. If you look to see all the articles listed as pro wrestling stubs, there's a whole lot of them that are suspect in their inclusion. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think if you have a decent amount of information, you should create an article, even non-major wrestlers from indy promotions and other various places should get their own article. — M o e   ε  12:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that. There's criteria for what should be included in Wikipedia and what shouldn't. Wikipedia shouldn't be home to a directory for every single professional wrestler that comes down the pipeline, regardless of notability. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This might be a silly suggestion, but why not use the Pro Wrestling Illustrated top 500... supposedly holding the names of the the top 500 best wrestlers from around the world... if we made sure everyone on that list is in wikipedia each year you could limit your new enteries. But then again its really should be done by anyone that has made a name for themselfs in wrestling (by either good publicity, or not so good ones). Basically wrestlers that make an impact are the ones that should be on wikipedia.
 * True, thats a good idea, but everyone in the PWI 500 list probably has an article, and if they dont someone will create an article for them soon probably. Then again, what about all the past wrestlers of the PWI 500? Dont they get articles too? — M o e   ε  01:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea that's the idea, each year we take the list and make sure each wrestler has an article... including all the past PWIs.... i really think we need to put up this new list first and check each wrestler has a page --- Paulley 09:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea. What we do then about biographies that are added for people that aren't on the PWI 500? --Jtalledo (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head i'd say we would take each new article as it comes... We could put new articles up for deletion and see what the responce is... if the responce is a constructive keep and if it is written well with useful informative information showing that the person entered is notable, then we might aswell keep the article. --- Paulley 19:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Let's do that... Also, would it reply retroactively to biographies already added? --Jtalledo (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to add that the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame could be considered criteria too. There's certainly a lot of entries that could be created from there. Essexmutant 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Carly McCall
This page is a pretty clear cut case of pure fiction. Please vote to delete this as soon as possible. McPhail 15:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * i have placed a "Articles to delete" section in the To Do list if anymore of these fake articles come up please add them there so we can go through and delete them... also add pointless non needed articles like Moppy --- Paulley 13:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Authority figures
I've just started an article on authority figures along with a short list of recent authority figure in WWE and TNA (mostly cut and paste). I don't really have much knowledge on authority figures of other promotions (e.g. WCW commissioners) along with the origins of the position and I was wondering if someone could help me by covering that area for me? -- Oakster 20:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we need this article. I don't even think I've ever heard the term used in a professional wrestling sense either. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article should be a redirect page for search results such as WWF Commissioner and so forth. I added the "Presidents" of the WWF, but the WCW authority figures would take considerable research, given how often it changed in 1999-2000. Off the top of my head, there was Eric Bischoff, then Ric Flair and Roddy Piper, then Lance Storm, Mike Sanders and The Cat all had turns at some point. Dusty Rhodes too, I think. McPhail 17:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, it sounds like a good idea. We can wikilink it from some articles like WWE RAW as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

vandalism
Has anyone noticed the recent rise in vandalism on professional wrestling pages lately? --- Paulley 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like bunch internet buddies decided to do this. It seems to be over for the most part now. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

PWI 500 lists
About the suggested idea above, I have the list to all the PWI 500 lists since it began in 1991 all the way to the PWI 500 of 2005. I just wanted to know, should I create a list here and we can start linking the names and creating articles? Or should we post something else? What is the plan to create these articles? — M o e   ε  23:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm new to the project, but a fairly regular Wikipedian. I would suggest just listing the top 100 for each year, with an (admittedly subjective) list of other notable names listed below. e.g.: Toshiaki Kawada being #262 in 1994 is notable, but Eric Angle being #253 in 2001 is not. That way the important names will have increased visibility. --Essexmutant (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2005 (GMT)
 * I agree with Essexmutant. As to where to post it, if there's a current external resource we can refer to that should suffice. However, if there are no other resources, just post it somewhere else since it's a good idea to avoid copyright violations on Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They are all listed here: http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/pwi/pwi500.htm. Essexmutant.
 * Why dont we list them here so we know which one's have articles and which one's don't? I also disagree with what Essexmutant said. I think we should have articles for every wrestler in the PWI 500 list. This refers back to the previous discussion — M o e   ε  20:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think about it, if half the list doesn't have bios on Wikipedia, that's about 200 bios to add. And most of them don't necessarily merit inclusion. The lead section of each article should give a reason why someone who knows nothing about the topic should care about the article. A lot of this articles say nothing more about the wrestler than the fact that they're a professional wrestler. While I agree that the PWI 500 is a decent reference for inclusion, it shouldn't be the main criteria for inclusion. Accomplishments in the field and uniqueness should also be considered. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A lot of people in the PWI 500 are just jobbers, which is a large amount of extra maintenance work for people. Whatever the Project decides though. Essexmutant.

Pro wrestler bios
I've noticed that with a lot of these biographies on wrestlers, they're either too darn short (which makes you wonder if the article should be included in Wikipedia) or too darn long. The Chris Jericho article is an example of this. The biographies shouldn't be a week-by-week breakdown of what happens to a wrestler. Heck, the authorized wrestler biographies aren't like that. For some of the wrestlers with a deeper life history, there should be a lot more on the wrestler's upbringing and the career section ought to summarize the wrestler's career - outlining major accomplishments chronologically like any other biography here. Some of the more minor feuds can be mentioned, but the focus should definitely be on monumental matches and major title wins. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We really need to crack down on this. At one point, there was a paragraph in the Rey Mysterio article that basically said "On the such and such edition of Smackdown, Eddie Guerrero cut a promo on Mysterio." Can you think of anyone who is looking for that information?  I don't know what the  rationale is in including something like that.  Not even articles on fictional characters from TV shows list their involvement on every single episode.  --Darren Jowalsen 02:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, i have been dealing with the same problem on Batista's article, trying my best to cut down the week by week content... if something important happens in their career i would keep it (i.e new gimmick, new feud, title oppertunities and the such) but some things that are added are just not needed. Paulley 11:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Former participants
Is a former participants section really necessary? --Jtalledo (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont know, I thought if someone left the project that contributed well, and if they ever decided they come back, thier name would already be there. — M o e   ε  03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whatever. It's no big deal. Thanks for the reply. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

WWF Roster
I just saw under the World Wrestling Entertainment roster under See Also a new article called Previous World Wrestling Federation roster. Should we keep it? — M o e   ε  03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC) I just had an idea, what about combining the Previous WWE roster list and the Previous WWF list and combine to make one list? — M o e   ε  20:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It's a useful resource for finding out when people were released, and should be quite easy to maintain. Essexmutant 12:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it needs some links and some peoples names are listed twice. — M o e   ε  01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's already a category for these wrestlers, but if you want to keep it, try converting it to a list, something like List of World Wrestling Entertainment wrestlers. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll start to correct the problem tomorrow. — M o e   ε  03:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Test Martin
User:DarknessProductionsInc has moved Andrew Martin to Andrew Test Martin as Martin has legally changed his name to Andrew Test Martin (or so he says).... But even if he has changed his name it would be considered a middle name and wouldnt be used under the article title... i tried to put it back the way it was but it has not worked. --- Paulley 11:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly, i seem to be unable to rvt the moves to these two name spaces i managed to roll back one move (from Andrew Test Martin to Andrew "Test" Martin) but i cant get it back to Andrew Martin... does anyone have any suggestions before i have to resort to "Cut and Paste" Paulley 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You should probably request a move. Cutting and pasting is frowned upon because it eliminates the edit history of the article. McPhail 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Dont worry, i had already done that.... i just got annoyed that it wouldnt let me move it back... anyway one of the admins have sorted it now --- Paulley 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

WWE Homecoming
Someone just made an article about the first RAW back on the USA Network after spending five years on TNN/Spike TV. Even though the WWE is making a big deal about this particular RAW, I was wondering if it was really necessary to have a seperate article about this show. ErikNY 16:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really necessary. I'll redirect it to the article on WWE RAW. The article on RAW ought to be updated with an overview of the "Homecoming" show after it airs though. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I know it's not needed... but if i were you, i would have left it for a bit... in the next comming weeks, with WWE hyping it so much, you can expect this article to appear and more likely reappear. If anything we should have let the article to continue for a couple of weeks until the Homecoming had blown over then merged it into the shows history.
 * Then again, it is three hours long (the same legnth as a PPV) and there could be a reason WWE is hyping it up so much (Ross' Report says to expect some suprises)... from what i saw the article was not too badly written... maybe you should rconsider the redirect and give it a couple of weeks --- Paulley 12:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Having the thing redirect to WWE RAW should be enough to tell people who want to edit the article that they can put information on the show in the article on RAW. After the show airs and it turns out to be major enough for its own article, then we can give it its own article. At this point, it's too early to tell. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Arggh... you reverted the article already? It would have nice if you said you would first. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * LOl, yea i thought you'd enjoy the surprise (plus i left notices on the edit and the tlk page for anyone to quiery it here) --- Paulley 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I take back everything you have my full support in getting rid of that page... aswell as (if i had my way) any reference of maybe the worst wrestling show i have ever seen --- Paulley 13:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC) GOD! THAT RAW SUCKED

Merged lists
I went ahead and merged the Previous World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Previous World Wrestling Federation roster's together onto WWE's previous roster. Under the first section there may be double names. (ex. Mideon and Phinies Godwinn were a double name since they were both played by Dennis Knight.) Can someone check to see if any I missed any double names? — M o e   ε  00:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC
 * Can we just make these alphabetized lists with an alphabetic TOC instead? At least it will be split between pages this way. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am currently dividing it up into what years they were released, would that make it any better? — M o e   ε  05:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hello, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I have already identified Stone Cold Steve Austin, Chris Benoit and Hulk Hogan, and perhaps Jesse Ventura. What do you think? Please post all your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 22:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd have to say World Wrestling Entertainment, World Championship Wrestling, and National Wrestling Alliance would be my picks (perhaps with some editing). --HBK 22:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also have to possibly nominate the Shawn Michaels, Triple H (Paul Levesque) and the Undertaker (Mark Calaway) articles. — M o e   ε  23:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard that articles should have good lead sections because the consensus was that the lead should be what the paper version of the article is for Wikipedia 1.0. So we'd have to find some articles with leads that can stand alone in terms of describing their subject matter. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't think any of the professional wrestling articles are anywhere near that level of quality. Even the best articles have considerable structural problems and frequently blur fact and fiction. McPhail 15:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just took a look at the criteria and I don't know of any professional wrestling articles that qualify as A or B-class. The ones mentioned do have some organization and factual issues, could use reputable citations (preferably print sources) and have some other issues as well. The Jesse Ventura one is the most promising one, but could use a citation for some of the content. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments so far! The articles aren't expected to be all perfect, and even a good B-class article (e.g. no citations, and perhaps one or two missing/weak sections) is probably worth noting. The ones I mentioned looked good to me (not an expert!), as long as there is not a blur of fact and fiction (as mentioned above). Thanks again, I'll be checking in here regularly. Walkerma 23:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Clean up stuff
I noticed that the wrestler infoboxes have use quotes for wrestler heights. If anyone sees this, convert it according to use the standard symbols "ft." and "in." according to Manual of Style (dates_and_numbers).

Could we make the titles and achievements just a list instead of breaking it up into subheaders? It seems like a good idea to avoid making too many subheaders. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was origionally in a list for but people believed it took up too much space and wanted it split into sub-sections... if i remeber rightly --- Paulley 20:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I'm saying is we could make each wrestling promotion that the title was won in into a list element, and put the titles as lists under the promotion name. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Pro Wrestling GOO
 * 1-Time PWGOO Heavyweight Champion
 * 7-Time PWGOO Tag Team Champion


 * Pro Wrestling GOO
 * 1-Time PWGOO Heavyweight Champion
 * 7-Time PWGOO Tag Team Champion


 * That doesn't look very good. I do agree that there is really no need for the subheaders, and they were added just because of aesthetic need, and people with 15 different promotions weren't considered. We need to invent something that looks better than this.
 * ↪Lakes 05:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look that bad. The only difference is the indentations. I think it looks better that having them appear as sections in the table of contents. I suppose we could use tables (or preferably succession boxes) instead, but we'd need some more data to put in there. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What about a simple two column table with promotions in one column and belts in the other? McPhail 17:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006
I have been trying my best to sift out the vandalism on this page for weeks but it is starting to get rediculous... if some more of you can pop into its history once and a while to check edits it would be much appriciated... just to let you know how bad it is, i left the article for 24hrs and there was over 100 anon edits of vandalism --- Paulley 18:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The main area effected is the game's Roster esspecially the legends section --- Paulley
 * I'll watch it for changes and rv when necessary, but it should stop as the game nears its release date. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

nothing really
This isnt anything special but i'd just thought i would metion that wikipedia wrestling articles are being used as references by some top websites (IGN wrestler bio and ASK PW second Q down)... i know thats what they are there for but it's just nice to see it in action --- Paulley 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Our WikiProject page
Hello everyone. I cleaned-up our WikiProject page by sorting some stuff out. I added a calendar on the page so we could keep track of some project dates, if we have any, and our personal dates. Personal dates such as birthdays, anniversaries, wikipedia anniversaries and things like that. Hope you all are not mad at me for this. — M o e   ε  18:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

PS. I'll update the calendar for 2006 when it occurs!. Also to add some thing to the calendar type in:

Example: In October; my birthday is on the 24th so next to the 24 you would type in

Moe Epsilon's birthday.

— M o e   ε  18:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why general should have its own subpage. It's only three items so far and wouldn't make the project page too long. I personally don't see the need or use for a calendar (yet).
 * And it feels like I've said this a dozen times, but I'd really appreciate if you thinked your post through before posting so you don't need to re-edit it ten times. I hit an edit conflict twice while trying to reply now.
 * ↪Lakes 18:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a way we can work with the infobox subsection so it is more clear about what variable does what, as well as make it so it doesn't look broken, as it does now? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 04:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Promotion statbox
User:Revolt has recently made and been adding the template "Template:Pwcompanybox" to different Japanese promotion pages like All Japan Pro Wrestling. I had been kicking around this idea for a while since things like baseball teams have statboxes. Well, what do you guys think about this? There are technical problems with the template and we may need to omit or change a few fields like "Sister" to "Afiliate" and possibly taking out the Style field. --Darren Jowalsen 02:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The possible choises for style could be Lucha, Strong, Shoot, and .. American? Perhaps better to make the style item optional and only include it for those who match the first three. Sister and affiliate could go, although they are optional already.
 * ↪Lakes 08:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if you do keep the Style option you can use the List of professional wrestling styles page as reference --- Paulley 14:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I quite like the template. There's a suggestion I might make and that is is there any chance you can make it so that the promotion logo's size is not dependant on the template? The 200px width is perfectly fine with the TNA logo but makes the WWE logo look too big. --Oakster 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with taking the 200px out. But we could simply upload a larger version of the image, so WP would size it down to 200px, making it more clear. I suggest the styles field stay. All we need to do is give instructions on what to put to that field at the project and the template's talk pages. But what would be considered an "affiliate" or "sister" organization? Is it a developmental territory? Or is it part of a larger entity, such as the NWA? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say any other promotion the company has strong ties with. CMLL and New Japan are both part of the "G-1 World" alliance so I put New Japan as CMLL's affiliate.  Development territories would definitely fall under that and if the promotion is aligned with the NWA, I'd say put it in the affiliate section.--Darren Jowalsen 23:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi - You can change the script and things in the boxes to see fit, it was something I was trying after seeing the soccer club pages like Rangers F.C. and so on. Sister was for a sister promotion like Full Impact Pro Wrestling (FIP) is a sister promotion of Ring Of Honor (ROH). There isn't many though... There is more things like affiliate - AWA for ZERO1-MAX and then all the NWA things. It was more about getting a nice layout with the promotion logo and some details under it.--Revolt 18:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

User:PWI500
User:PWI500 has created multiple articles containing nothing other than a template. Suggestions? McPhail 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, he's trying to fill in every red link in the World Tag-Team Champions template. Personally I don't agree with having articles with just the template on it's own but whether somebody should write up some details on the wrestlers or just delete the articles is up to you. --Oakster 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Make sure the articles have been stubbed and have a category and then place them on the articles to recreate... then hopefully one of us will go on to make an article out of them --- Paulley 11:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

World Wide Wrestling Alliance
Please can you guys check out Talk:World Wide Wrestling Alliance and the history of the article. Anon User:24.104.5.25 keeps removing the information placed on the article and replacing it with a heavly POV article stating that 3WA are thefts of the REAL WWWA... i have asked him to create a new article about the his promotion or add the information in a section on the article but he has not listened... any ideas --- Paulley 14:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In the same vein a user known as Susqwrestling has created an article Susquehanna Wrestling Organization... the writing of the article is very reminisant to the anon user and is a link from the anon's only non WWWA edit.. Even the two website from both the links shows a resembelance, are the users the same person???, do they/he/she work on indy promtions' websites???, or are/is they/he/she just a vandal??? i will let you decide --- Paulley 15:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly. This Susquehanna promotion is in Central Pennsylvania and an Reverse DNS Lookup] of 24.104.5.25 reveals that it originates from York, Pennsylvania, which is also in Central Pennsylvania. I'm not sure this Susquehanna thing should have its own article. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Champion boxes
Okay. I haven't liked the Champion boxes - they are clunky and get really big. But Template:WorldTagTeamChampions is just too darn huge. If someone wants to look at a champion lineage, they can look on the page of that championship. Could someone delete all the duplicate entries in the existing ones and maybe delete the WorldTagTeamChampions one as well? --Jtalledo (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Template:WorldTagTeamChampions is tagged for deletion - vote for or against it at Templates for deletion --Jtalledo (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Rock moved to Dwayne Johnson
Chaosfeary moved The Rock (entertainer) to Dwayne Johnson. Anybody else think that isn't such a great move? He's still credited as "The Rock" in his latest movies, including Doom. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would just put it back to The Rock (entertainer), simply because of Naming conventions (common_names) --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How about moving it to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson? I heard someone call him that on a interview on HBO. — M o e   ε  20:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a mouthful... either leave it where it is or move it back to The Rock (entertainer). McPhail 21:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Put it back The Rock (entertainer), that's how he's billed in movies and reports say that WWE does not soley own the name anymore.--Darren Jowalsen 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Moved it back to The Rock (entertainer). --Jtalledo (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length
Do we really need to List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length, it seems a little trivial. There's already List of WWE Women's Champions and just a quick mention about the longest reigns in the right articles like WWE Women's Championship should suffice. --Jtalledo (talk)
 * There's one for all of the current WWE belts. The most neccessary set of articles to be quite honest but I don't mind them being here. --Oakster 18:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The articles are a nice idea but require daily maintenance, which means that we are reliant on the creators to continue updating the articles regularly. 88.104.30.160 21:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's part of what I don't like about them. This data is probably available elsewhere on the web, in which case we could link to that. Otherwise, you can calculate the number of days yourself or using a simple tool that's probably available on various websites. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

WWE Roster
There has been a massive number of times the WWE roster page has been vandalized and shifted everyday. I think something has to be done about that. Also I added a couple a new categories on the page. One is the juniors section. I thought it might need it. Also, I retitled Non-Wrestlers and Managers to Managers and Part-time wrestlers. How many people are just non-wrestlers? I think the category renaming was nessecary. Also, I took Stone Cold Steve Austin and Mick Foley and put them under those categories. I saw on the internet that Stone Cold's and Foley's contract was only for a max. number of 2 matches a year. The vandalism is probabaly worrying me the most right now though. — M o e   ε  00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good call on the section renaming; I don't think vandalism is that big a problem, but I'll revert it if there's anything erroneous added. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Champion tables
I'm going to remove duplicate entries from the champion tables if no one has a problem with it. I don't like them all that much because of how big they are and how big they can get; I think that succession boxes are the way to go, but at least they should be small and not unwieldy. The tables will still be organized by which wrestler got the title first, but to see details about multiple reigns, someone will take a look at the list of title holders. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather completely waste all the championship tables from articles which already have a template associated with the title. Why repeat the same thing twice, and make a template more useless? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 22:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think reducing multiple entries would more or less make the tables useless. Merely removing from articles where appropriate would get my vote. McPhail
 * I'd vote for getting rid of the boxes altogether and replace them with a standard succession box. That standard needs to be decided, though.
 * ↪Lakes 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, by "champion tables" I meant those templates at the bottom of some of the articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiling and how to counter it
Recently there has been much spoiling due to the fact that Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tapes its Impact! shows in advance. I was thinking it would be great if MediaWiki (the wiki program wikipedia runs on) would allow you to add messages to pages that people are about to edit. For example, adding a template to the bottom of a page would display a message above the edit box when you open it for editing, similar to the "You're editing an out of date page!" message you see now when you're editing a version of a page that isn't the latest one.

For the pro wrestling pages I was thinking we could really use a "No spoiling, please only include events that have aired already on tv."

I was thinking about submitting a feature request to MediaWiki, and am now asking your opinions. Would this be useful and worth the effort, do you think? ↪Lakes 10:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kitch recently made a template called Template:Kayfabe which he's used for recent TNA shows. I suppose we can slightly edit this or create ones based on this to use on belts, pay-per-view sections, etc. for now. The only downfall is that we can't use them for the actual wrestlers themselves as that would be indicating that there is a spoiler as such. As for the MediaWiki suggestion, I can see quite a lot of advantages over it and not just from professional wrestling articles. I personally would give MediaWiki the feature suggestion.--Oakster 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The HTML comments should suffice. We could make them more obtrusive, so we force them to read it before actually editing the list. The alternative would be to use a template, making it harder for new users to edit. We could put the notice before the calling of the template as well in the source of the template. That seems like overkill though. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler
This does not pertain to the discussion above. On the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster I put a spoiler message above the Inactive List section because it could possibly spoil the debut of a wrestler or reasoning behind a wrestlers absense. I dont known if I worded it correctly though. — M o e   ε  23:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PWI500 and 69.119.152.127
I noticed in a conversation I had with 69.119.152.127 that we were discussing an issue about Jim Ross and Stone Cold. He responded but under the name PWI500. PWI500 wrote on my talk page, not 5 minutes after I was talking to 69.119.152.127, about Stone Cold/JR. I'm no genius but it seems they are the same person. Isn't there some rule against this. 69.119.152.127 is a vandal and gets blocked then he creates an account as PWI500? — M o e   ε  18:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming TNA categories
I have no idea where to put this under in the To-Do list, so I'm going to post it here instead. I've just listed some of TNA's categories that are named "Total Nonstop Action" instead of "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" for renaming. You can check out the nomination here. -- Oakster 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

El Gran Luchadore
There's some argument over whether wrestlers, specifically Kurt Angle should have El Gran Luchadore listed under their in-ring names. I don't believe they should - the names part of the infobox should be relegated to nicknames they actually used regularly. People looking at it might think they actually competed regularly under the name, which in Kurt Angle's case is particularly inaccurate since he's competed under his name for the vast majority of his career. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of nicknames, it's a question of a character depicted by multiple wrestlers. El Gran Luchadore was depicted by three wrestlers, Paul London, Shannon Moore and Kurt Angle, all of whom have the name included in their respective pwstatboxes. This is the same procedure that has been used for all the articles in Category:Professional wrestling gimmicks thus far. McPhail 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the procedure relates to that category, but it doesn't seem appropriate to include the nickname in any of their stat boxes, since it's not a major part of their wrestling career at all, unlike their height, weight and other facts. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

William Welch
Hello everybody. I'm not on the members list for this WikiProject, but I'm interested in the goings-on as I have created and edited several Wiki articles on pro wrestling myself. Recently I created a page for The Messiah but I don't think I have the hang of the statbox function yet. I notice somebody fixed one of my errors, which was a link to a photo that didn't exist, and I appreciate the help. The question is - how do I upload an image of Welch to the page? There are several effective ones that could be used which appear on OWW. BronzeWarrior 08:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I hope you consider joining this WikiProject. To upload a file, use the "Upload file" link in your toolbox which is normally on the left-hand side of the page. Then use [[Image:YourImageNameHere.ext]] (placing the correct image file name inside) to display the image on the page. More detailed information can be found at Images.


 * Also, in the future while creating articles on professional wrestlers, you might want to add more information to the lead - specifically why this wrestler is important enough to be included in Wikipedia. This is an issue with a lot of professional wrestler articles - there's a ton of them on Wikipedia (over 400 people are listed in Category:American professional wrestlers), but hardly any of them have information on why that wrestler is notable (and most times, there might not be enough importance for inclusion). See Notability for more information.


 * Thanks and again, welcome! --Jtalledo (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

By all means Jtalledo, you're the one I should thank. All of the information you've provided is very useful. As for joining, do I make an application to you, or do I just edit my name onto the already available memberlist? The thought had crossed my mind before I posted, but I figured that was (A.) rude and (B.) would be poorly received since nobody knows me from Adam & Eve. If I formally join I'll do my best to help out with Wiki articles on wrestling when and where I can. Also as to your note about putting information in the lead, I appreciate the tip. I had inquired on the XPW discussion page if Welch's bio was worth adding (I realize in hindsight I should have posted it here, I doubt that discussion is viewed or read much) but eventually decided he was "an important figure" in wrestling and that I should just create the entry. I didn't want to dump all of the big news about him in the lead, since my story-writing inclination was to build up the entry until the climactic point he left for CZW and was assaulted in his home, but I do realize now the lead could have at least mentioned that he was a multi-time heavyweight champion in different major promotions who had a unique and interesting history. I'll make sure to build what makes a wrestler notable into the lead if I make a new entry from here on. One additional thought - I sometimes find the most interesting wrestling careers are the guys who are simply used as jobbers for years and go little noticed by casual marks. While a few guys like the Brooklyn Brawler transcend this status, a lot more guys like Iron Mike Sharpe are little recognized outside hardcore fans. In my roundabout way I guess I'm getting to this question - do you consider a guy who had a long career and a lot of stats but no major world titles "notable" as such? Or here's another question - we all remember wrestlers like David Sammartino and Greg Gagne just because of who their fathers were, but does that make them "notable" as such? It's a lot to ponder. BronzeWarrior 10:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

WorldTagTeamChampions Template
I was just going over some edits when I saw this rather large template. I know many of you have already noticed it. I tried to shorten it by deleting the team names. Example: LOD, Right To Censor, The Godwinns. I think PWI500 has gone a little far with his edits. Also, PWI500 has been creating articles that need some attention they are:


 * Ken Stasiowski
 * Kenny Stasiowski
 * Dwayne Bruce
 * Manabu Nakanishi
 * Rey Mendoza Jr.
 * Thomas Mendoza
 * Rafael Garcia
 * Juan Banos, Jr.

First off Ken Stasiowski and Kenny Stasiowski need to be merged together. I think all of these articles are stubbed but need to be wiki-fied. — M o e   ε  00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The template was put up on Templates for deletion a while ago. The consensus was to delete - I recently took out references to it on all the professional wrestler and tag team articles it was used on. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Argh. That's a bunch of new wrestler articles that might not be notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

OVWSouthernTagChampions Template
Do we really need an OVW SouthernTag Team Champions template? It doesn't seem very useful and the titles themselves aren't very notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think PWI500 made a championship template for the OVW titles, WCW titles, KOTR winners & Royal Rumble winners. Do we really need them? — M o e   ε  19:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, we should do away with using all of these templates in the first place. They chronicle the lineage and title holders of a title, which are already covered in the articles of those titles. Templates are just fine if we're talking about data that has a reasonably defined upper bound on how many items are in the template, but with something like championships, they could theoretically go on forever. They should be substituted with succession boxes. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * All the belt boxes should be erased, however KOTR or Royal Rumble winners could stay in that format since they probably never will become too long. G1 Climax winners could be another one that could use a template in that format.
 * Lakes 21:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure how the Royal Rumble box would stay small, considering that it's an ongoing event. Maybe the KOTR one could be stay small since the title is no longer given, but it seems more apt for a succession box as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should limit the templates to inactive titles since we know how long they are going to be. Except when it comes to the Tag Titles because those are exteremly long. — M o e   ε  01:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea, but I still think succession boxes are far more appropriate. The tag team ones would be too big though. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could have the templates for the inactive titles and succession boxes for the active titles. Also for the inactive tag titles, instead of the template, we could do the succesion boxes so the there are no huge templates. The other inactive templates shouldn't be that big. — M o e   ε  01:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I went to go find all the championship templates there were and this is what I found. If I missed any, Im sure I did, list them here. So, are we going to go with my idea above or are we going to do another plan? — M o e   ε  02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

WWE: Active:
 * Template:WWEchampions - WWE Championship
 * Template:WWEICchampions - Intercontinental Championship
 * Template:WWEWomenschampions - WWE Womens Championship
 * Template:WorldTagTeamChampions - World Tag Team Championship This one is up for deletion
 * Template:WWEHeavyweight - World Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:WWEUSchampions - United States Championship
 * Template:CruiserweightChampions - Cruiserweight Championship
 * Template:WWETagchampions - WWE Tag Team Championship
 * Template:RoyalRumbleWinners - Royal Rumble Winners
 * Template:WWEEurochampions - European Championship
 * Template:WWELWChampions - Light Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:KOTRWinners - King of the Ring Winners

OVW:
 * Template:OVWHeavyweightChampionship - OVW Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:OVWTVChampionship - Television Championship
 * Template:OVWSouthernTagChampions - Southern Tag Team Championship
 * Template:OVWHardcoreChampionship - OVW Hardcore Championship

WCW, ECW, TNA, Others
 * Template:WCWchampions - WCW Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:WCWWorldTelevisionChampionship - WCW Television Championship
 * Template:WCWHardcoreTitle - WCW Hardcore Championship
 * Template:ECWChampions - ECW Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:ECWTVchampions- ECW Television CHampionship
 * Template:NWATNAChampions - TNA Heavyweight Championship
 * Template:NWATNATagTeamChampions - TNA Tag Team Championship
 * Template:XDivisionChampions - TNA X-Division Championship
 * Template:ROHChampions - Ring Of Honor Heavyweight CHampionship
 * Template:ROHPureChampions - Ring Of Honor Pure Championship
 * Template:IWGPchampions - IWGP Heavyweight championship


 * We should do away with all of those. No matter if they are inactive or not. Just replace all with succession boxes.
 * On the Rumble bit, yes it's ongoing, but it's a yearly event, so the list will get too long in 30 years or so.
 * Lakes 09:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah we really dont need them as long as we have the List of Champions of the Championship's page itself. I just got 3 questions.


 * 1) Are there anymore championship templates that are not listed here?
 * 2) How do we get rid of these templates once we are not using them anymore?
 * 3) When should I start getting rid of the templates and replacing them with succession boxes?
 * — M o e   ε  13:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the templates for the WWE Champions and the Royal Rumble Winners, I put succession boxes there instead. Any Comments? — M o e   ε  16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to removing the live templates from articles, but I think they should be retained in the championship articles. Arguing that "they could theoretically go on forever" is not a convincing argument; virtually any template that deals with an ongoing situation will inevitably become very large at some point in the future. This argument could be used against any article without a set time frame McPhail 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a valid argument because unlike articles, which could have sections summarized or split off into main articles (History of Foo, Arguments against Foo) etc., templates like these can't be split or summarized easily. In any case, the other arguments hold - this is redundant information that's already in wikilinked articles in greater detail and the templates aren't very useful as navigation if they get too big. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So why dont we keep the template on the page of the championship or title and take the template off the actual wrestlers page. I think what he was trying to say when he said "it could theoretically go on forever", I think he was trying to say that the championships that are active are going to continue to grow for a unset amount of time and make that template grow on the wrestlers page. It couldn't "theoretically go on forever" if the title was inactive, but I still think we should do away with the championship templates on the wrestlers page. So there is no objections to me taking the templates off the wrestlers pages as I have already for the WWE Championship and Royal Rumble winners? — M o e   ε  00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I recently found an incomplete Template:WWE Hardcore Champions and put it up for deletion. While I do agree that inactive templates shouldn't really be removed as their title histories are finished, but if this template was completed, it would be as long if not longer than the Tag Team title templates. You can check out the nomination here. -- Oakster 13:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)