Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 20

Missing topics lists
I've been working on several missing topics lists based on several of the websites most often used in wrestling articles and I thought they could be useful for a "requested articles" list. Although I am hesitant in creating a Obssessed With Wrestling list, as the notability of a large secion of its independent wrestlers is questionable, although this might serve to weed out such non notable wrestlers. I've also been working on a missing topics list for Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories.


 * SLAM! Canadian Wrestling Hall of Fame missing topics list (A-1-Zvonkin)
 * Weird World of Wrestling missing topics list (Key-The Monster) - 24 articles left
 * Accelerator's Wrestling Rollercoaster missing topics list (Austin-Youngblood) - 67 articles left

Also, I've recently finished the 2003 PWI Years as well. MadMax 10:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my main reason for not creating an OWW-based list (as well the exclusion of the PWI 500 lists), however both SLAM! Wrestling and the Accelerator's Wrestling Rollercoaster are frequently used as references in Wikipedia's wrestling articles. The lists also would serve to provide a reference or external link for an otherwise unreferenced article. MadMax 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a profile on a fansite does not mean that a wrestler warrants a Wikipedia article. We cannot compete with other sites in terms of scope, only in terms of quality and verifiability. McPhail 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * MadMax, you need to go and fix the links in those PWI 500 lists you made. I noticed a ton of redirects on them, and links that go to pages unreleated to the wrestler. TJ Spyke 21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on them, however many have typos and alternate spellings which contradict with Wikipedia and other wrestling websites, although I have a great deal of help from User:Nikki311. Admittedly, I havn't given much attention to the PWI 500 lists as a wrestlers inclusion doesn't nessessarily signify its notability. MadMax 22:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Koloff
I think that Oreal Perras should be renamed to Ivan Koloff, as he is much more well know by that name. Also, his article could use a little work. Kris Classic 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for a rename, it's the name people know him by and yes it could use some TLC 80.80.7.162 06:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw the above message was from me, I forgot to log in MPJ-DK 08:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have spiffed it up some, if anybody cares. Kris Classic 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

South Cali Championship Wrestling
Anyone want to put this up for deletion?-- bullet proof  3:16 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've placed a tag on the article and notified the editor. I do follow independent wrestling to some extent, I've never heard of the promotion myself. MadMax 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "SCCW is a promotion that i created and i just wanted to make a page for it, cuz i'm bored. The only real source that i have is a notebook that's about the promotion." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlingcrazy93 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I received this message from the author on my talk page. I'm assuming this should be deleted ? MadMax 03:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe he should be told that WP is not for promoting NN indy feds or for creating stuff just because you are bored. I put a speedy tag on it for not inserting notability. TJ Spyke 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Mid-PPV Results Edits
I seem to notice that the Pay-Per-View articles are often vandalized by people mid-PPV, while results are being posted. Most of these are by unregistered people. Suggestion: Should we automatically semi-protect Pay-Per-View articles maybe an hour before the PPV starts, keep it protected during the PPV and maybe for sometime after it, then unprotect it? Might cut down on the vandalism, it's starting to get very annoying. Trivialbass619 01:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WWE PPV's get protected ahead of time because of vandalism. With TNA PPV's, people usually don't start the vandalism until the event starts. We have dicussed this before, WP policy doesn't allow protection as a pre-emptive measure. TJ Spyke 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nitro Girls
I did some revising of the Nitro Girls article and I noticed a reference "Nitro Girls" by Richards & Southern, 1999. However, I'm unable to find any book by that name (the closest reference I could find being the 2001 Swimsuit Calender Special). Should this be removed ? MadMax 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

wXw
The World Xtreme Wrestling article survived the Afd (good job), so now that it's a keeper we should get really serious about this article and add the following


 * A section on wXw's predecessor Trans World Wrestling Federation founded in the 70s.
 * A section on the Wild Samoan's school since this is the most logical place for it
 * Title history for the wXw.
 * A Roster / Alumni list.

Just cause it's not being deleted doesn't mean we shouldn't improve it, we should show that we're serious when we defend an article against deletion MPJ-DK 14:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's back
Burntsauce is not affiliated with the current JB sock farm apparently, and since unblocked has immediately started up again as you can see here. SirFozzie 17:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fatal Four Way" edit war over at WWE No Mercy
The page has officially been locked because of the continued edit war between TJ Spyke and Maestro25. Sigh. Edwardtang 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No way you have got to be kidding me, is this the purpose of WP:PW? Is this the biggest problem facing our articles right now? I'm sorry but I'm speachless and then to say "Let's go to WP:PW to see if they say "dash" or "no dash" because NEITHER of you have had the though, "You know with or without the dash it's still the same match type" and then moved the heck on to articles that need sourcing, articles that need expanding, copy editing or adding to wikipedia, I mean seriously! MPJ-DK 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I say straw poll, right here, right now on this page, both parties to agree with the result. It's bad enough Burntsauce keeps blanking Buff Bagwell, but an edit war over a dash. I vote "Fatal Four Way" as the four refers to the four people and neither the Fatal nor the Way. Darrenhusted 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fatal Four-Way" is grammatically correct, WWE has used it on more than one occasion, and third party sources use it. Seems pretty simple to me. TJ Spyke 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote then. We'll count up the project votes on this. I'm already putting out fires on Buff Bagwell page where Burntsauce seems to imply this project is a joke. Let's end that. One vote "Four Way" one vote "Four-Way". Darrenhusted 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An edit war because of a dash or no dash? Lame edit war #100000000 on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 21:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * K. We've extensively established that it's lame. I agree. There's no need for more posts saying that it's a lame argument. I'm irritated with both folks involved in the edit war. Let's vote, come to a consensus as a project, then move on with a dicision so we don't get pages unnecessarily locked again. Edwardtang 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to vote in this, it doesn't matter which it is - why don't both of you pick a random number and the one that is closest to the NASDAQ on close of buisness Wednsday April 18th is the one we pick because there is no real differences between "Fatal Four Way" and "Fatal Four-Way", might as well let randomness settle this instead of a vote with subsequent arguing. MPJ-DK 04:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't really care other than the fact that it was an unnecessary edit war between two obstinate editors and I thought it mattered. If no one cares, then I don't care either. Edwardtang 05:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems a lot like the American English vs. British English debate. Wouldn't it be simpler to keep whatever is consistant in any one specific article ? MadMax 06:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was "Four-Way", as it is in every other wrestling PPV article. Maestro just decided to start changin it in this article all of a sudden. TJ Spyke 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's indeed four-way on most (or all) other articles: then No Mercy should be the same. I haven't checked every article, so I'm not going to assume all are the same. In my opinion: either way is just fine, as it's not a big deal in the long run. The article isn't bad, by having (or not having) a dash. RobJ1981 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the BLP issues
I've brought up a discussion at the BLP Talk Page to try to get things a bit more settled. Right now, Burnt is saying that "letters from Jimbo" trump the written policy as it stands. I think we need to find out once and for all what defines contentious material, and then either apply the standard to all articles (my laugh test is what this "uber-BLP" policy would do to the Bill Clinton article, and yes, it fails that), or bring BLP back to sanity. SirFozzie 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Burntsauce seems to think that anything other than their name and birth date is contentious. I agree that I doubt what he is doing would be accepted if he did it to Bill Clinton or Queen Elizabeth II's article (removing everything that isn't sourced, regardless of whether it is contentious or not). TJ Spyke 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the admin who unblocked him told us to STFU basically, to get off our ass and ignore the policy as it was written (I've edited it per his comments). SirFozzie 22:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He only gets away with his disruputive and Pointy behavior because few people outside this project have any respect for the wrestling articles, if he did the same to mainstream articles that get a lot of views there'd be an uproar for sure. MPJ-DK 04:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like, instead of beating your head against the Burntsauce wall, it might be less painful to simply find some sources for the blasted article. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You could also make the point, considering the time he spends on specifically on wrestling articles, that he might be able to find sources himself (or at the very least place a tag). MadMax 06:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting one article really doesn't take that much time. He's acting very abrasively here, and I totally disagree with what he thinks Jimbo means by "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information", but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt due to his great vigilance in fighting vandalism throughout Wikipedia (take a look at his user contributions). He's also clearly not a specialist in this area, while we, at least in theory, are. The path of least resistance, and the one with the best final product (I think we all can agree) is to write a well-sourced article. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice Burtsause has stepped up his efforts in removing text from wrestling related articles. Has this issue been resolved ? If not, someone might want to ask Burntsause to refrain from removing content from wrestling articles until there is some resolution. MadMax 14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He blanked Chris Chetti, so all it read was "Chris Chetti was a professional wrestler", and nothing more. Politicalwatchmen 16:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

In theory, this gives a lot of free reign to vandals to partially blank pages. MadMax 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Attention: your award proposal has passed.
Hello. Your recent proposal for a new award for your WikiProject has passed. The discussion has been archived and the award added to the awards page here. Congratulations!

Things you can do:
 * 1) Create a template for the award to make it easier to use. Please see other templates for a style guide.
 * 2) Tag any images used in the award with Category:Wikipedia awards.
 * 3) Tag any templates used in the award with Category:Award templates
 * 4) Place the award on your project page so people know you have an award.
 * 5) Start giving it out to users!

Regards, Smomo 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Created the template: Template:The Wrestling Star and tagged it under wrestling. TJ Spyke 00:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also just added it to the project page. TJ Spyke 01:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Image tagged now as well. So everything is set up and it can be given out now. TJ Spyke 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you change the template to accurately reflect the title of the award, please? Smomo 11:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To what, The Professional Wrestling Star? TJ Spyke 19:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * swwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet, I decided to give it to Bmg916 hehe. :) Govvy 19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To Snomo. I posted this on your talk page as well: See the awards page. Barnstars don't have those really long names. They are supposed to be short, simple, and easy to understand. "The Wrestling Star" fits that, and is similar to other project barnstars. TJ Spyke 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anybody besides Smomo have any objections to the name and look of the barnstar? TJ Spyke 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like it should be The Wrestling Barnstar. Peace, The Hybrid 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first one without the "barn" part. There is "The Automotive Star" and "The California Star", for example. So it wouldn't be the first project barnstar to just say Star. TJ Spyke 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on this at first since I thought you'd see your error right away. We're not the Wrestling Wikiproject. We don't include amateur wrestling, submission wrestling, or anything else but professional wrestling. The name is wrong, now please fix it. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "The Professional Wrestling Star". TJ Spyke 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wrestlers who won a title in their debut match
Anyone want to put this up for deletion?-- bullet proof  3:16 04:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maryland Championship Wrestling
The article Maryland Championship Wrestling was deleted yesterday under G1 as patant nonsence. while in my opinion this is certainly a notable regional promotion, does anyone know if there was a prod tag listed or if it had recently been nominated for deletion ? It should be taken into consideration that the article may have been blanked or vandalized with al the recent trouble lately. MadMax 06:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked the admin who deleted it for the details, why it was deleted and if I could get a copy of the version he deleted. It's a notable indy fed, and it would be a shame to have to start over from scratch. TJ Spyke 06:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Presenting: The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week section
I've taken the suggestion of several project members and made a sub page Professional Wrestling Collaboration of the week which is where we can nominate and determine which wrestling related article should be our next "Collaboration of the Week". Yes I was inspired by WP:VG version of it. It's just a first draft so if something on the page needs fixing either fix it or leave a note here.

I also got the ball rolling with a nomination, hopefully others will follow suitMPJ-DK 19:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

USWA Results
I am working on sourcing Dennis Knight, Mark Canterbury and The Godwinns – I got their WCW days and their WWF days pretty well covered with the reliable sources I know off. But I can’t find any reliable, usable sources that can tell me anything about their days in the USWA as ”Tex Sallinger” (Knight) and ”The Master Blaster” (Canterbury) I only get stuff on forums that’s not really usable.

Anyone got a decent source for USWA results round 91-93?? MPJ-DK 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's about Memphis wrestling in general, but there are USWA results here: . TJ Spyke 19:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally forgot to look there, unfortunately no hits :( MPJ-DK 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

To my recollection it was Tex Slazenger (Dennis Knight). Darrenhusted 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While these pages (see: and  ) may not be considered reliable sources, someone could talk to the original authors to see what their sources are for these results. Additionally could the televised events as indicated at this page be usable if the actual tv episode they appeared was used as a reference ? MadMax 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Tag Team Championship
Since We're placing NWA championships into world, national, and regional subcategories, I'm curious as to what we should do regarding the NWA World Tag Team Titles. In the articles, the Mid-Atlantic version of the titles is basically represented as THE NWA World Tag Team Titles. However, the NWA Board didn't have or recognize any "world" tag titles until 1992. So, if that's the case, then shouldn't all of the reigns of this particular championship be subcategorized as regional rather than world? Just curious to know where everyone stands on that.Odin&#39;s Beard 00:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All versions of the tag titles before the 1992 tournament are just regional belts. So, yes, they should be subcategorized as regional belts. TJ Spyke 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. If the title wasn't of World title status (by it's owner no less) then it should be noted as such. Mshake3 00:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Listing that title as "Regional" during the JCP expansion and buy out by Turner is dismissing it's importance IMO - when all other regional tag titles were deactivated this became the main tag title for the National Wrestling Alliance who was a national/international promotion. MPJ-DK 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The NWA never reckonized a set of world tag team titles until 1992, prior to that they let each regional organization call their own titles "world" titles (though they technically weren't tag titles). The version in Jim Crocket Promotions may have been the most well known, but it was not the only set of tag team titles in NWA. TJ Spyke 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check the title history then you'll see that from 1982 as far as i can tell and know it was indeed the only "World Tag-Team Title" promoted by the NWA MPJ-DK 10:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA Championships
From my observations of recent articles from TNAWrestling.com, it appears that TNA is phasing out the NWA name from their championships. This could mean the change in championships that was announced a while back. Just keep an eye out. Mshake3 00:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The rumors are that TNA will be dropping the belts, so the titles themselves will be the same (just like when TNA started up and started using them). We just nned to make sure no one starts the TNA World Title and TNA Tag Team Title articles unless TNA or NWA announces the titles. TJ Spyke 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA let the licence for the use of the words "NWA" about a month ago, they are slowly phasing them out. Politicalwatchmen 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The NWA have touted American Dragon and Psicosis (wtf????) as title challengers (and that aint gonna happen in TNA!) so it's going to happen fairly soon. Here come the fanboys ;^) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dwayne Bruce
There isnt really much information about him on this page, like where he wrestled (im guessing WCW because of what it says about him on Batista's page). If there isnt any more information that can be added i dont see a need for the acrticle. Don.-.J 20:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because people who for some reason are only targeting wrestling articles when it comes to this sort of thing are proclaiming violations of WP:BLP and WP:A on any unsourced material, and blanking it. We need to go through the edit history, source what we can so people wont blank it anymore. Bmg 916 SpeakSign 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It was yet another article ruined by Burntsauce, misinterpeting BLP (he removes ALL material, even though BLP specifically says to only remove contentious material). He had been blocked, but an admin who also doesn't understand the policy unblocked him. TJ Spyke 21:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only has he been unblocked, I was blocked for reverting his edits and had several admins comment that they support the blanking of unsourced data even if that's NOT what WP:BLP nor WP:A says MPJ-DK 10:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the info back if someone can find sources, the Louis Theroux program may be a good place to start, and the BBC website. Darrenhusted 22:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris Chetti
Burntsauce, again. The prize blanker is getting rid of everything on Chris Chetti so it read, dob, and he was a wrestler. We need sources to put a halt, luckily BS seems to have moved on to other groups of articles rather than just reverting PW articles. Darrenhusted 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

John Cena
Regardling this recent edit towards John Cena, does the actual name of a wrestler have to be sourced as well ? MadMax 03:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That references his middle names as well. I can't understand User:DXRAW's lack of judgement in removing the reference. Adding legitimate references = good. Deleting legitimate references = bad. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glace, it does seem at least somewhat odd although I do understand the reasoning. Should this be standard for wrestling articles, such as referencing height, weight, birthday, hometown, etc., or is this an exception ? MadMax 08:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to be standard. The current stance on BLP enforcement seems to be (1) unsourced controversial/negative stuff is deleted (2) general unsourced stuff is tagged and then removed if not referenced. If we can source something then we have to. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP and references
In regards to the current discussion at WP:BLP, I notice one major issue is the large number of articles which have had requests for references for at least several months. Perhaps some sort of alternate reference template to sort wrestling articles from the huge backlog at Category:Articles lacking sources and its subcategories might be helpful ? MadMax 08:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DSW Done!
wwe.com news on DSW, Deep South Wrestling has just been cut! Govvy 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a message board. ↪Lakes (Talk) 13:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Like daaa! That was a note for you all so you can monitor DSW. :/ Govvy 13:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That comment of "like daa" wasn't needed. If you wanted it us to monitor the page: you should've stated that in the first place. By just posting news, it's a message board post. How are we supposed to know? We shouldn't have to assume. RobJ1981 23:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would Govvy suddenly start using this page as a news forum? It was a fairly watertight assumption that it was a "heads-up", for me at least. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Will this effect the promotion's notability now that the WWE has sevcered ties with the promotion ? I assume its roster is no longer under WWE developpmemntal contracts. MadMax 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:N, notability is usually permanent. That means if DSW was notable before (whether it was or not, i'm not sure), then it still is now. It may not be as important, but notability doesn't decrease. TJ Spyke 05:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

History of professional wrestling
For such an important, and big article, History of professional wrestling has zero sources. Just letting y'all know. Kris Classic 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking about going for an AFD on that one. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article could potentially become a good article with some sources.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a very important article to our project, I think all it needs is a few sources. Kris Classic 23:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What about The Untrue Story of Pro Wrestling which once aired on A&E? That could be a good source and starting point to base that article from. MrMurph101 23:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But it will need a source for every single claim made on the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet ?
I noticed some questionable edits by User:Ancient Rocker (see: ). I note that the editor is newly registered fromm the time range of the last group of created sock puppets (April 11-12) and has removed content under claim of BLP. MadMax 05:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Jon Diveley
This seems to be a non notable backyard wrestler, although I don't follow backyard wrestling. I can't find any reliable sources (with the exception of a MySpace page), however, does anyone want to take a look at this article or should it be nominated for deletion ? MadMax 06:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have prodded his article. His music "career" seems to be a band that he and his friends had when he was 11 (according to his profile, a Google search shows nothing). Backyard wrestlers are like backyard feds, almost never notable. He is not an exception as a Google search brings up only WP and it's mirrors and the MySpace pages of him and his friends. TJ Spyke 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I assumed as much, unfortunatly. Wouldn't this constitute a speedy deletion, then ? MadMax 08:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've flagged the article for speedy deletion. The edit summary shows the creator shares the nickname of the subject. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
This is just a minor issue, but we might as well settle in once and for all since one user keeps changing it. Should we use the format we have always used for height and weight, or a height/weight template ? If so, one or both. My main objection is that altering a longstanding template like that should be discussed with the appropriate project. This has been brought up twice, but nobody actually decided anything. TJ Spyke 00:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Height/weight template. There's no point in calculating it and writing it out separately. I don't really see that this is an issue for debate though. As long as the calculation is correct, who gives a shhhhhhh how the person puts it in the infobox? ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I always make sure they are correct (using ), but I have had this user replace that anyways. I don't know why Bdve is making this an issue since the info is still there. TJ Spyke 01:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! Pointless crap that won't die for no reason! We've done this before and no one minds the change but TJ Spyke. The last time here. There's no reason not to use the template, especially since it makes things standard -- instead of some wrestlers being listed in meters and others in centimeters, some reading pounds and others "lb" and other random differences -- it also automatically adds links to the necessary articles as far as what the measurements mean. The only reason the templates weren't on the tag team infobox, which I helped create, is because they didn't exist yet.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Template:Infobox Wrestler said exactly what to use (centimeters, not meters. lb., not pound), using the templates won't change that since people will still use the wrong info. In the last discussion, there was nobody supporting either side (using or not using the templates). TJ Spyke 01:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It said use, people don't. That was kind of my point.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, even if we agreed to use the templates there would still be people who do it however they want. If people don't follow the template now, why would they all of a sudden do it with new templates? As long as the correct info is there, why does it matter anyways? TJ Spyke 01:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're taking note of the fact that again no one cares but the two of us. The template currently forces the conversion to meters when starting with feet and inches and makes every articles information look the same. Almost like they're goverened under one project.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship
User:HBK4250 continues to add that Deuce 'N Domino won the Tag title today instead of 3 days ago on WWE Tag Team Championship and List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length.-- bullet proof  3:16 02:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have told him about WP:PW policy. If he keeps ignoring him, I suggest reporting him to an admin. Maybe he will listen to an admin. TJ Spyke 02:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Title histories and Featured topics
I was looking over the title histories for the current belts and I think several of them are close to being of FL status. That got me to thinking that perhaps if we could get the title histories of all 9 current titles to FL status, then we could submit them to be a featured topic under the topic of "Active WWE championship histories". It would involve some work, but in the end would have 8 more FLs than we previously had. -- Scorpion 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The WWE Title one is already a FL, right? So that gives us a template to work with. The trouble might be with the ECW Title (since WWE doesn't list the champions befor Shane Douglas in 1994) and maybe the US Title/Cruiserwight Titles. TJ Spyke 02:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Could Gary Will or perhap a website such as the Puroresu Dojo be used as a cited source (or even perhaps an archived verion of the original ECW website) ? MadMax 02:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of good sources (especially Puroresu), I just mean it won't be the same as the WWE Title. Actually, Puroresu is better (ESPECIALLY for SmackDown's titles) since wwe.com usually uses the day the title change aired rather than when it happened. TJ Spyke 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Should we not go by the official date? Otherwise we end up getting some confusing shit like when WCW was doing block syndication tapings and wrestlers would lose belts before they'd won them. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of Mankind's first title victory on the WWE title page, we had the date that he actually won in the "won" column and noted that the match aired on a different date in the "Notes" section. Perhaps we could do that with the other titles. -- Scorpion 17:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I got a couple of books that's good printed sources for the title pages. I also think that we could resolve the "Official date" Vs "Actual date" issue that plagues especially the WCW history by listing the official date on the "Date won" and in the notes say what day it was taped - with an explanatory text preceeding the actual list MPJ-DK 13:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on people. Just use the date that it actually happened. Why should a television airdate be given any kind of preference just because wrestling companies are too cheap to do a majority of their TV shows live?Mshake3 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the Freebird's infamous "negative title reign"? This was back when WCW would tape matches sometimes weeks or months in advance. They had The Fabulous Freebirds lost the WCW Tag Titles to the Steiner Brothers on February 18, 1991 even though the Freebirds didn't win the titles from Doom until February 24, 1991. So they had a title reign of -6 days (they lost the titles before they even won them). How do we deal with that if we tackle that title? TJ Spyke 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an exception. That shouldn't be the only reason to even consider airdates. If that's how the title changes were done at that time, then as far as I' am concerned, their reign lasted -6 days. Mshake3 00:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking over the FT criteria and I think our main problem is: "The topic should have a lead article, which introduces and summarises the topic." I think a category can be used (one is used for the Star Wars movies) but there isn't one. Any ideas? -- Scorpion 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is Category:World Wrestling Entertainment championships. TJ Spyke 23:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It has to be a specific category. If we used that one then EVERY article in it would have to be used. -- Scorpion 23:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about a category called "Active World Wrestling Entertainment championships"? That would just be the current 9 titles used in WWE. TJ Spyke 23:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But then it would also include the general title pages. It does say SHOULD have a lead article, so maybe we could get away with it. -- Scorpion 23:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions

 * 1) Is there some sort of reference point for using information from Pro Wrestling Illustrated or any of the Apter magazines ? I notice that PWI Awards and PWI Years rankings are included in most wrestling articles, however PWI 500 rankings aren't. Would information from any editions of the PWI Almanacs be usable ?
 * 2) Several independent wrestlers, specifically wrestlers under WWE developmental contract for Ohio Valley Wrestling and Deep South Wrestling, and while I've provided citations from WWE supporting these points it dosen't seem to have changed anyone's opinion. Does the fact that these wrestlers have held titles in these promotions or their WWE developmental contracts have any effect on their notability or is it just a waste of time ?
 * 3) Would a list of recently created articles, possibly by members of the WikiProject, be helpful at all (similarly a list of deleted articles to be reviewd by the project for their notability as well as keeping on eye out for recreated articles).
 * 4) Regarding online sources, are there any reliable (non-fansite) websites which can be used as references? What exactly consitutes a reliable (as well as unreliable) online source ?
 * 5) I did have several suggestions as an alternative solution for the referencing and BLP issues regarding wrestling related articles.
 * Articles with reference/notability issues could be moved (or simply listed) to a WP:PW subpage, similar to Articles for creation, so that they can be reviewed by project members instead of having content removed (again this could be this used for recently deleted articles).
 * Possibly moving certain articles to the Wrestling Wikipedia (assuming its relativly active) to see if they can be salvaged and, after proper referencing, moved back onto Wikipedia. These may of course be impractical however I think a resonable compromise can always be found in these situations. MadMax 02:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)The standard seems to be to list their highest PWI ranking (for example, Eddie Guerrero's highest ranking was in 2004 when he was #2, so you would only list that one). 2)OVW and DSW are more important than other indy feds (well, OVW. DSW is back to being just another indy fed since WWE dumped them), that does help their notability but they still need reliable sources. 4)OWW is a reliable site (and not just a fan site like some claim), prowrestlinghistory.com is good for PPV results, ddtdigest.com is a excellent source for WCW from 1997-2001 (and they are constantly improving their reports for 1995 and 1996), slam.canoe.ca is good (especially for WWF PPV's from 1997-2003, although they still do PPV's). Your suggestion for BLP issues is actually one that is recommended for articles in general. TJ Spyke 02:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I used WWE.com for both articles, WWA4.com (Curtis Hughes training school) for Heath Miller and an archived OVW profile for Mike Sharrer. I would have sourced their title reigns, specifically Sharrer who was the first DSW tag team champion, however I'm not sure this has made a difference in the discussions.

Regarding PWI as a source, could I be able to use information from a PWI 500 listing if only to establish basic stats such as height, weight, debut, etc. or cite a biographical article (excluding interviews) ?

Also, it is conserning that there dosn't seem to be a general agreement on BLP guidelines. These recent edits have caused somewhat of a disruption, and without some attempt at a solution, the end result being a lot more work and unnessessary hostility for both sides. MadMax 03:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ROH World Titles
Near as I can tell TJ Spyke seems to have declared the ROH World Tag Team Championship no longer a world title as well as the World title a debatable world championship. Was there any discussion on this that I missed where this was decided upon? –– Lid(Talk) 10:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well that's plain wrong. Both championships have been defended in Britain and Japan (several times in each). As far as I'm aware PWI (which for some reason seems to be the marker) considers both titles to be world championships. ROH has more right to give their titles "World" status than any other promotion in the world bar the WWE. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess the question is - what's the "Official WP:PW" stand on it? if we can agree to one or the other and then be consistent that'd be the best way to go. And IF we go with ROH as world titles there has to be some sort of date from where they're considered "world" so that champions before that date aren't listed in the "World champion" categories MPJ-DK 13:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The accepted date amongst journalists for the ROH World Championship is May 17 2003 when Samoa Joe defended the title against Zebra Kid in York Hall, Bethnal Green at Frontiers of Honor. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition the Tag Titles world status was on July 9 2006 when Austin Aries and Roderick Strong defended the belts against Masato Yoshino and Naruki Doi in Dragon Gate, Japan. –– Lid(Talk) 14:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, it says the dates in the articles ROH World Tag Team Championship, ROH World Championship. I don't see there is any other reasonable stance apart from "they are legitimate world title belts" (being as no other so-called world title is defended in different countries against challengers from different promotions)/ ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me then, from those dates forward holds should be listed in "World champ" and "World tag champ" categories MPJ-DK 15:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Food for thought. The NWA World Heavyweight Title wasn't of "World title" status in PWI's view until a short time after TNA debuted on Spike TV. Mshake3 22:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on the "Number of World Titles" page. People say that ROH has world title status, but PWI never actually calls it a world title. It has been discussed about removing the ROH Title as well unless there is proof of it being a world title. The burden of proof is on those saying it is a world title. I suggest a deadline of May 1, if no proof of PWI considering it a world title can be presented it will be remove from world title pages here. TJ Spyke 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who gives a fuck about PWI? A bunch of dick-heads pretending they're insiders and making up kayfabe shit interviews to make themselves money. Though having said that, PWI do give ROH titles world status. Forgive me for editing when drunk as hell, but anyone who thinks ROH World Titles are illegitimate is an idiot who would be better suited to going on some fanforum and kissing John Cena's  ass "Hes a kool eestcost rapper and i want to suck his dick haha pwnd you n00bs LOLZ" No seriously though, I may be drunk but ROH belts have more legitimacy as "world titles" than any of those belonging to any other company in the world  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For one thing, if we don't use some source then all the "world title" articles would be original research and get deleted. PWI is a very respected magazine. ROH is still just a indy fed and will continue to be one until they at least get a national TV deal. ROH is like ECW was in 1996, on the verge of becoming more than another indy fed but not quite there. Also, are you saying that the ROH title has more legitamacy than any of WWE's titles? Hahaha. The WWE Title has been defended in the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, etc. WWE also has PPVs, multiple international TV shows, etc. ROH is like a local school paper while WWE is USA Today. Not to mention the NWA Title, less important than WWE but far more important than ROH (wrestlers say "I want to win the NWA Title", they don't say "I want the ROH title". I may give a rats ass about ROH when they mean something, but right now they are no more important then 90% of the other indy feds. TJ Spyke 00:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I am saying the ROH titles are more legitimate than WWE. What the fuck is WWE? A bunch of steroid bitches throwing fake punches at each other? WWE/F hasn't defended against a non-payroll wrestler since Bob Backlund's days (i.e. pre Vincent K.). WWE titles are a joke. They created a "world title" out of the blue just to give to the boss' son-in-law. Get with the scene (i.e. don't believe the WWE propaganda) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you are drunk I will let your comments slide. Even SD's World Title is more legitimate than ROH Title, it has been defended in more countries than ROH and has been defended on PPV and international TV (ROH hasn't even been on national TV). A piece of advice, don't edit when you are drunk because you have very little common sense and say a lot of BS (not just you, people in general when drunk). As for your fake punches comment, ALL PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING IS FAKE. ROH is not more "real" just because they have a bunch of internet fans who like them. TJ Spyke 00:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Damn, I just got a lot of aggression coz I aint got laid this week! Okay, my genuine point was that ROH titles have been defended against FWA, FIP, NOAH and Dragon Gate personnel thus making them more legitimate as genuine World Titles. WWE title matches only involves WWE personnel (I'll keep my hatred of WWE out of this one). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the ROH title is just this close to being a world title. It is an impressive title, but they need something like a national TV deal or monthly/bi-monthly PPV's. ROH doesn't want a national TV deal though since it would mean they would have to give up access to TNA wrestlers (meaning ROH would get no more Senshi/Low Ki, no more Austin Starr/Austin Aries, no more Jay Lethal, etc.). TJ Spyke 00:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Low Ki and Jay Lethal are both ex-ROH. Aries's role has been downgraded. Samoa Joe and Homicide are no longer regulars. ROH has had a television deal but cut it due to the cost. I don't see that a television deal or PPVs have relevance. ROH defends its titles against more competitors from more different companies than any other promotion in the world. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This just isn't going to work. The only official source is PWI, and of course even that is questionable. To set our own definition of world title status is OR and wouldn't be allowed. My thought is that if the company says it's a world title, then it's a world title. Mshake3 01:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't work either. Dozens of indy feds call their their a "world" title. Some people may not like PWI, but they are the most reliable one we have for this. TJ Spyke 01:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is fucking tricky mate. PWI seem to be the measuring stick. On the othe hand they don't recognise PWG as having world titles despite their Heavyweight Title being defended against Emil Sitoci and Jonny Storm (in Germany and England respecively). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 01:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

All we need is a citation for the first defense outside of the promotion's home country. That makes them world titles by definition, regardless of what anybody calls them (PWI, ROH, or anyone else). &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is OR, so no. There is no definition for a world title. "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories", that is what you are propsing Gwalla. We can't decide what makes a title a world title, that is why we use PWI. I live 2 hours from the Canadian border. if one of the local indy feds defended their belt in the first town across the border, they would be a world title by your theory no matter how small they are. TJ Spyke 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And does PWI have a set definition of what makes a championship a world title other than "because we say so"? Nenog 02:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They do have criteria, I don't remember them off the top of my head. TJ Spyke 03:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can establish the "PWI Criteria" we can get somewhere or some other credible criteria, otherwise to say that the ROH title is a world title is unfortunately "Original Research" in my mind. And consider this - "Defending it internationally" cannot be the only PWI criteria, the NWA title was defended internationally before TNA yet it wasn't listed as a "World" title. MPJ-DK 13:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And by "Defended internationally" I'm referring to the time period from WCW withdrawing from the NWA (and it losing it's "World Title" status) until the formation of NWA:TNA. MPJ-DK 13:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my repeated use of expletives above. One day I really will learn never to go on the internet when blind drunk. Scrumpy and Jail Ale don't mix. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You aren't the only one. This poster (who is a great poster when sober) on a messageboard I visit got banned when he came on drunk because he acts like an idiot when drunk. TJ Spyke 05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Formalizing language
Since this project handles a bunch of biographical articles and they all have similar introductions can we formalize some of the language used? I'm mostly talking about WWE guys and naming the brand they work for. For example, I've seen the following used:
 * [x] is currently signed to [y] where he works on the [z] brand
 * [x] currently works for [y] as a member of the [z] brand
 * [x] is currently signed to [y] and working on the [z] brand
 * [x] is currently signed to [y] working on it's [z] brand
 * [x] is currently signed to [y] working on its [z] brand
 * [x] currently performs for [y] on the [z] brand
 * [x] currently performs for [y] as a member of the [z] brand

Etcetera. I just think it would be good to decide on one way of writing it and use that throughout. «»bd(talk stalk) 15:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of manual of style and tone, wouldn't that make articles seem redundant ? MadMax 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What I think he means is, maybe we should decide how to write it since I have also seen different styles. I don't think it really matters as long as it is clear that they work for WWE and which brand they compete on. TJ Spyke 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't matter, I was simply under the impression that having things look uniform between articles would make this project look like it's accomplishing something.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm more interested in improving articles and providing sources - that looks like we're accomplishing something, forcing a "template" on articles doesn't really make that big a difference to me, in fact it'll probably just be one more thing to have an edit war over like the "Hyphen or no hypen" dealie, the "British English or US English in the warning tag" and the "How do we put the birthdate in the template" stuff that's floating about. Just my 2 cents on the matter. MPJ-DK 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't see why it has to be either/or. For active people only notable for working on the show they're on now it would be improving the article.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dawn Marie Johnston
I was just looking at this article, is the picture in it allowed? Or is it against a copyright or policy? Govvy 15:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not allowed. It is against a copyright, and a policy. Peace, The Hybrid 02:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week reminder
I just want to remind everyone to come by the Collaboration of the week page. Voting on the first ever collaborative project ends around midnight EST tonight so come by and give your support :) MPJ-DK 14:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * DING DING DING! We have a winner, the collaboration project of the week Samoa Joe, I hope as many people as possible will participate to make it a success MPJ-DK 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

NWA-TNA issue
What would we should say about the fact that the NWA are going to part ways with TNA and withdraw their World and Tag Team titles? I mean, some Internet PW are assuring that this stuff was confirmed, e.g. and even on this site  they were promoting the beginning of a tournament for the NWA World title. Invitation to all the WP:PW members to saying something about this subject. Xbox6 14:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Going by WP:CRYSTAL we can't say what may or may not happen in the future. You could put on UCW's article (if they have one) that they are claiming they will be promoting a tournament in future. I've already put (with source) on American Dragon's article that he issued a video challenge for the NWA title. As far as TNA are concerned, we need a sourced official announcement from them or the National Wrestling Alliance. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The World Title debate
Again we go at it with "what makes a title a world title" debate. This is a hard issue, but here are the facts.


 * Because we cannot define ourselves what is considered to be a world title (as it would violate WP:NOR), we have to rely on sources.
 * Primary sources are considered to be unreliable - any promotion can claim their title to be a world title.
 * Still, for the purpose of WP:V, we must rely on secondary sources to tell us what is and is not a world title.
 * Professional wrestling is closed world. Secondary sources are hardly ever reliable (note the general disdain for smarking, IWC, by industry professionals). WP:V will be hard to enforce.
 * In terms of secondary sources (PWI, Apters, etc), in general terms we have "any top belt of a leading promotion is a world title". This differs between sources (in what "leading promotion" or "top belt" means). In any case, we have to cite the criteria in these sources.
 * Problem is, the criteria may be arbitrary. WP:V will fail us as we'll be citing an unreliable and unverifiable source.
 * Thus, we can only make statements about what is considered to be a world title in "generally considered to be" phrases (eg. the WWE Championship is generally considered to be a world heavyweight wrestling championship).
 * ie. unverifiable weasel words.
 * Thus, we conclude that we cannot use any single source or combination of sources to determine what is considered to be a world title - in essence, we are making our own using weasel-word phrases
 * Which is OR.

Yes, there are holes in the logic above (if a source does publish their criteria, for example), but what else can we fall back on? Your thoughts?

kelvSYC 06:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to do away with all categories/lists relating to world titles/world champions etc. I think you've summed up the problems very well. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 12:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Instead of saying that the Universal Hardcore Super Awesomeness Championship or whatever is "a world title" or "considered a world title", we should say what we know: e.g. "the Universal Hardcore Super Awesomeness Championship is the top title in the World Of Wrestling Entertainment East (WOWEE) promotion". &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. There's no problem referring to a bio subject as a "former ROH World Champion" or a "former WWE World Champion" because it's simply referring to the title's given name. But if we eliminate World heavyweight championship,, etc. etc. then we eliminate any arguments/controversy over what constitutes a "real" World Championship. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Importance articles
Should these articles not be of top importance articles?


 * World Wrestling Entertainment
 * WWE Raw
 * WWE Friday Night SmackDown
 * Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)
 * Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
 * TNA Impact!

I would of thought they are part of the core section of articles in the wrestling section, I was just surprised they aren't Top on the importance scale. Govvy 11:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The way I look at this is more of a tree. In my opinion, only professional wrestling and history of professional wrestling are the only ones worthy of being top importance as everything else such as promotions, matches, shows and the wrestlers are branched out from these. That being said, the high-importance class is still pretty significant and shows some more important articles in the business which is where the WWE article currently is in. As for TNA's article, putting it at high-importance, never mind top, is pretty much debatable (it's currently at mid). And concerning the television programmes, they're more or less branched out from their respective promotions and hence having an article on the shows are less important than the promotion itself. --  Oakster  Talk  13:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE Women's Championship title change
For those who haven't heard, Melina and Mickie James traded the Women's Championship twice at a house show. However, WWE.com has not featured the title change at all. I'm just wondering how's the best way to approach this? Completely ignoring it (which I've seen on Mickie's article), recognising it (which I'm seeing on the List of WWE Women's Champions article) or use a similar setup to the Bob Backlund/List of WWE Champions situation? --  Oakster  Talk  14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This has happened before with other stars in house shows, but we haven't ever record it previously, I for one feel that if wwe.com and the wwe aren't promoting the change, then you shouldn't record it. Govvy 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. After all, it's only a few minutes and it IS the WWEs title so they should be able to dictate who has held it. It's different with Antonia Inoki on the WWE Championships page because that change lasted a few days. Scorpion 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it isnt recognised by WWE i think it should be added to the notes section of the table by Melinas current reign Don.-.J 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it isn't recognised by the WWE then we shouldn't add it, it is that simple. Govvy 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because WWE doesn't recognize it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If schools were to stop teaching about the holocaust, does that mean it didn't happen? The title still changed hands, and it should be recorded as such, but it should be mentioned that WWE does not recognize the switch. Kris Classic 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's different, WWE controls the belt, the schools don't control the holocaust, the WWE has every right to do what it wishes and if it isn't on the books, then it isn't classed as a record on wiki. Govvy 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The general rule with WWE is that if it didn't happen on film, it didn't happen. There are "undefeated" wrestlers who lost at house shows before having their streaks broken on TV. The only time title changes at house shows were admitted in recent years were the Hardcore title changes in 2001-2002, which were acknowledged on WWE.com, and of course the Flair-Hart title change. Otherwise the rule of thumb is to ignore house shows. Darrenhusted 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Christian's 2nd IC title victory in 2003 wasn't filmed, but it happened, and obviously it was recognized. So much for the "general rule." Besides, we don't know if it'll be ignored or not. However, the fact is that it happened, and should be documented. Mshake3 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The title changes did happen. I would also like to point out that Nunzio's Cruiserweight Title win happened at a live event in Italy a couple of years ago. When/if WWE notes the title change, that doesn't change the fact that the title changed hands twice. I suppose it's possible that the ref screwed up and Mickie wasn't supposed to win the title, and that's why they had Melina win it back and wasn't reported on wwe.com. I suppose we could wait until Monday to see if WWE mentions it at Backlash, this could end up like when The Rockers won the tag titles from The Hart Foundation and then said the title change never happened. TJ Spyke 20:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You also need to consider that the fans in attendance could be confused. perhaps her "reign" was retracted or she never officially won or something. -- Scorpion 20:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well PWInsider now has two different live reports confirming the changes. Or are you going to assume that each and every one of them are wrong? Mshake3 21:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, we don't know for sure what will happen. We know the title changes did happen but not if WWE will reckonize them. Maybe WWE will mention the title changes, maybe they won't. We should wait a week or so to see what WWE does. Alsom Wrestling Observer has a similar report. TJ Spyke 21:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem resolved. WWE has now confirmed the change. --  Oakster  Talk  23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There you go then, I got a response from wwe.com also, I did ask about it and they replied and said that a title change is a title change even at a house show. They also said, it's shouldn't be considered a reign, just a title change! Thought I let ya know. Govvy 09:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Need sources
I need some sources for the inducters at the List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame because I'm considering making a run for FL status with the page. Some of the inducters are listed at the official site and some are listed at a page at Obsessedwithwrestling, but the page still needs some sources. Also, I need some ideas for what I could put in the remarks section. -- Scorpion 15:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology
Hulk Hogan: The Ultimate Anthology needs a lot of cleaning up. A lot of typos, and difference in explanation of matches. Kris Classic 02:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerrell Clark
Jerrelle Clark has a signature move that's not listed in his article. It's called "Last Train to Clarksville," where he brings the opponent up like it's a powerbomb but then drops them head-first between his legs like a piledriver, all in one fluid motion. Sometimes it's preceded by Clark, still in power bomb position, flipping over the opponent and springboarding back against the ring ropes (for no apparent reason as far as I can tell).

I am not making this up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.7.37.69 (talk) 11:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Erm, why haven't you just added it to the article then? Just wondering MPJ-DK 11:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't know how and I don't want to do it wrong.


 * No worries, I'll put the move into the article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the move was already in Clark's article under the name Jerrelle Driver '05 but it says on his official website he uses Last Train to Clarksville as an alternative name so I've altered the article to reflect that. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

1990s wrestling boom up for deletion
I realyl feel this is an important article. Please vote to keep it. or if you feel otherwise, vote to delete it.

Flagicons alignment
I noticed a fair number of wrestlers have the flagicon's after where they are from, born, ect. In the WP:BIO however they have been putting the flagicons before the name to do with how the information is aligned in the infobox. I feel we should be doing the same as it does look better aligned. I just thought I would bring this up for this project, so we can implement this straight away. Regards. Govvy 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Signature moves
I think I raised this issue some time ago - that of our fanboy friends perpetuating the vast accumulations of "signature" moves on bio articles. Judging by some articles it seems that various editors have decided that if a wrestler performs a move in a video game it achieves some form of inherent notability. I'd have to go with this definiton of "signature move" and would heartily like to blitz some articles, problem being that without some form of consensus or many sources my actions could be interpreted as original research. Of course the flip-side of the coin is that addition of "signature moves" without a source can equally be interpreted as original research. Any thoughts? ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lanny Kean nominated for deletion
Articles for deletion/Lanny Kean. One Night In Hackney 303 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed it was deleted. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't supposed to be merged to the main Moondogs article ? MadMax 08:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regards books and dvd's in wrestler bio's.
I don't think they are going to be huge sellers and not much information is needed for them, if you look at all the DVD articles that have been added on wiki for wrestling they really aren't that informative. I am starting to think that we need a new approach so I thought we should just keep it simple and have books and dvd's added under references like I have done for Hulk Hogan. The most popular certainly could have an article if explained right. So what do you lot think? Govvy 13:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is defining what the "most popular" is? Looking at the category for WWE videos for instance and I'd have no problem deleting most of them, they make good sources and should be listed on the individual articles and if they're something special then mention them on the main page (like the AWA DVD on the American Wrestling Association article and so forth) and that'd be fine with me. MPJ-DK 16:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just being a video or DVD put out by WWE simply isn't enough to assert notability for Wikipedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be turned into a DVD guide, period. WWE releases alot every year (and has for a while), that doesn't mean we need articles for all of them. It sickens me a bit, to see some vote keep when a DVD comes up in AFD, based solely on comments such as "WWE is well known, so their DVDs are just fine here" (not an actual AFD comment, but close enough). There is wrestling Wiki's: perhaps we should transwiki some of the DVD articles. All of this applies to wrestling books, videos and other media as well. RobJ1981 17:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How's this for a general approach - if a DVD's main subject has an article on Wiki then we could add a "Media" section to it and list the DVD there and have the title of the DVD redirect to the article, that way we also signal that "DVDs go in the main article" you know? MPJ-DK 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully support merging/redirecting the DVD pages into the main wrestlers articles. Check out the AFD for the Jake Roberts DVD and voice on that before it closes. Biggspowd 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing some cleaning up
I was going through the list and saw a bunch of articles that honestly do not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion, so I've prodded them - there are quite a few so I wanted to point out that it's not for nefarious reasons or to prove a point or be disruptive but because I believe they just don't fullfill the requirements for wikipedia inclusion.

the following articles have been prod'ed: AWA Brass Knuckles Championship, CWR Canadian Heavyweight Championship, All Star Wrestling, FMW The Legend Dawns, Far East Connection, Great Canadian Wrestling, High risk pro wrestling, International Wrestling Revolution Group, Montreal Wrestling Association, Pioneer Senshi, Professional wrestling school, Puerto Rico Wrestling Association, Pwx, Swiss Money Holding, Take home (professional wrestling), World Wrestling Association, Wrestling Organization Anti-SocietyMPJ-DK 07:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been months now and after continuous warnings on his talk page he continues to make up names to wrestler moves that don't exist, make large changes to pages without discussion and completely ignore any person trying to get in contact with him. Something needs to be done. –– Lid(Talk) 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering he's got like 5 "Final warnings" for vandalism isn't it time to try and take it beyond the warning then? MPJ-DK 08:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a number of his edits. Darrenhusted 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A number of his edits are actually helpful contributions, and I have not seen many made-up move name edits in his recent contribution history. ProtoWolf 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When the edit was helpful, then I left it, but some were not, and those were the ones that I reverted. Darrenhusted 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Overciting in articles
I was looking at some random pages (lets take Paul Diamond as an example) that just overcite every little thing. This example is pretty bad, there are like 20 references from the same website about ECW house show results. Having all these citations are not helping anything, it is just clutter and you don't have to cite every fact. Just cite quotes and parts that may be disputed or challenged, like backstage rumors and such. Results usually do not need citations. The overciting needs to be cooled down. Having more citations does not guarantee that it is a better article. If you've ever been to college, you'll understand that even a ten page report can easily get an A with only a handful of quality citations. Biggspowd 04:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem started with this user who was misinterpeting the BLP policy and removing every single little thing that wasn't sourced. I think it kind spooked some editors into citing every little thing. Admins say it is better to overcite than to undercite, but I agree that results don't need to be cited (unless something major happened in the match, like the Montreal Screwjob). TJ Spyke 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's open to interpretations about what's enough, too little or too much - when stating a fact it's always better to have a source than not having a source. And this isn't a college paper but an encylopedia where "Verifiability" is one of the corner stones. MPJ-DK 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I got no problem with overciting, the Paul Diamond article is really good, and the citations don't interfere with the reading of the article. I would much rather that all WP:PW articles looked like that than had no sources and kept being blanked. In fact I think Paul Diamond should be listed as an example of a good WP:PW article. Darrenhusted 12:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The more pro-wrestling articles are like that then the less ammunition our detractors have. If match results are considered notable enough for inclusion on the article then they really need to be cited. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering say the Scott Norton article in it's current state you also get an idea of the amount of sources it needs to satisfy those beforementioned detractors with all the "citation needed" tags that have been added. MPJ-DK 10:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Guerrero wrestling family
Anyone here thinks its necessary?-- bullet proof  3:16 15:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At first look, I'd say, yes, but, it's not really needed. On that note, are there any other categories for other wrestling families? Neldav 16:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe all other wrestling family categories were deleted recently - I'd say with a "Guerrero Family" article this category becomes redundant MPJ-DK 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vince McMahon
Should the ECW Championship in Vince's wiki be under WWE titles, or ECW titles? Also, it says under C&A that he is current owner of WWE, while in real life he handed the company over to Linda. Should that be removed? Kris Classic 01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Titles are listed under the promotion they are held in. That is why WCW Titles won during the Invasion are listed under WWE. Also, Vince is the majority owner of WWE (he owns most of the stock). Vince just handed the title of CEO to Linda. TJ Spyke 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week
With a late period support rally Chris Benoit has been selected as this weeksCollaboration of the weekI hope as many people as possible will participate to make it a success. The Benoit article was nominated for "FA" status, check out the talk page to see the objections listed. Hopefully we can renominated it next Monday and get it approved. MPJ-DK 08:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)