Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 25

Notability guideline
If you've been following along with AFDs lately there seems to be a lot of hub-bub about notability guidelines with some taking the "Notability for Athletes" guideline of "Working in a professional league" as a blanket approval of everything pro wrestling related because it's called Professional wrestling. Generally it's a problem where wrestling really falls somewhere between a sport and entertainment - so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one.

It's been tried before but maybe, just maybe if this project (and those of us with an interest in pro wrestling) got together, took suggestions for a guideline and then tried to establish a consensus we could avoid lengthy AFD debates like the one going on for Chuck Taylor right now (it'll probably be "No consensus" due to flawed arguments from multiple voters). I think it's time for WP:PW to do more than argue over match tag lines etc and really DO something to improve the standard of pro wrestling on Wikipedia MPJ-DK 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean try to establish a general WP guideline (meaning it would be official)? It's been brought up before, but people didn't really do anything. I think we should do it. For it to be official though, I think it needs to be approved (see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines for the ones already in place). Even porn has a notability guideline, so should we. We should try and set up some of the standards here though before setting up the official proposal. TJ Spyke 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be great if we can get a proposal together for a guideline and then make it official, like you said even porn stars have a guideline. MPJ-DK 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know what is notable at first glance, and most editors know a bad article when then see it, and this latest bunch of PRODs and AfDs have removed a lot of clutter so we can concentrate on making the current set of articles (mainly bios) Burntsauce proof. And as I have been responsible for the AfDs I think I should say what I'm doing. If I see an article and it does not establish the notability of the wrestler or fed then I will PROD, but if there seems to be a small group of editors maintaining one article, and they are likely to have only that article on their watchlist and remove the PROD straight away then I'll AfD. Sometimes there is one editor with who really wants the article to stay and will post endlessly, other times the article will be re-written and I will withdraw the nom. I'm not sure a guide at this point would do anything different that WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS don't do. Of course re-writing and referencing the articles will nearly always save them and will improve the article which, in the end, is the point of an AfD, becuase if an article being deleted can't motivate editors to improve and article then nothing will. Darrenhusted 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a HUUUUUUUUGE difference between a "bad article" and a "non-notable article", don't make the assumption that bad=Non-notable and well written=Notable because that's simply not true. And considering that not all your AFDs are clear cut "keeps" from the majority I'd suggest that maybe we all need a guideline to make the process easier and also more obvious and easily explainable to new people as well. If there is clear cut official guideline then it's a lot easier to figure out of certain articles should even be created. MPJ-DK 09:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying bad and non notable are the same, just that there are few well written articles for non notable wrestlers. The Stan Stasiak article is pretty dire, but I know he's a WWWF champion, the Chuck Taylor article listed 36 entrance songs, not the kind of thing notable wrestlers need. If an indy wrestling article is relying on myspace as their main reference then they probably aren't notable. In the end this is an encyclopedia and not a directory for indy wrestlers (or any wrestlers), sometimes some editors forget that. Darrenhusted 09:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly why it'd be better with an official guideline, it's a good way to remind editors that think that it's an indiscriminant directory for Indy wrestlers that it's actually not. MPJ-DK 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the major things we need to tackle is the difference in notability between a tag team and a singles wrestler. Any team that's made up of two mostly singles wrestlers and together for 4 months to be involved in one or two angles (Rated-RKO, Two Dudes with Attitude, The Two-Man Power Trip) probably doesn't need an article, that information can easily be placed on the singles wrestler pages and probably won't take a paragraph.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ANother thing to ponder - in the territory days which promotions were deemed "the top"? can't just say "NWA" because it was a bunch of promotions - back in the day there were promotions where they're deemed so notable that working for them in a non-jobber, non-one shot manner makes you notable since they were the top promotions of the time (like WWE today) MPJ-DK 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While I once was in favor of such an idea, I am not sold on this idea anymore. Any notability guidelines are just that...guidelines...guidelines are NOT policy and should NEVER determine what stays or goes. If fact, WP:N is NOT even a criteria for deletion in the deletion policy...likely because it is not a policy and only a guideline.  WP:V and WP:RS are what is supposed to determine whether or not something or someone is "notable" enough to justify an article.  If we just went by those two policies then people can argue the WP:N guideline all they want, but they will still lose if WP:V and WP:RS are on your side. - T-75| talk | contribs  16:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They would still just be guidelines, simply written down so everyone has an idea what everyone else is talking about when they revert something and simply put "NN" in the edit summary. I, for one, am sick of people taking things that I think should be in articles out without bothering to discuss it.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Quote fom start:"so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one." My Words: Actually they are athletes cause you havge to be in grat shape to do this work!--  Hornetman16   22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I do agree they are athletes, but I think the point being made is that they aren't "professional athletes". Also, they don't necessarily have to be in the best shape. Mick Foley, The Big Show, The Blue Meanie, Viscera come to mind. Sometimes, they just have to be large. Nikki311 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Viscera is a finely tuned (love) machine.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well, I guess you got me there. Nikki311 01:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright my mistake to think this would actually get the project to do something other than argue over minor edits and list of announced matches on a PPV, I give up on this project completly MPJ-DK 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability guideline part two
Okay...let's get serious people. How about we do it like this. Add * Your suggestion here. ~ to the list below and then people can comment on the different points for establishing notability. Sign your comments and points. I'll start. If I missed a category, feel free to add that, too. Remember, not every point has to be met to be considered notable, but if a wrestler/promotion/stable/whatever meets a couple or more, then they are notable. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Singles Wrestlers
 * Has won a major title in World Wrestling Entertainment, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, World Championship Wrestling, or Extreme Championship Wrestling Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: They don't have to have won a title in these promotions, but winning at least one makes them notable enough to have an article. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Been a member of the WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW main roster and appeared on TV for at least one year. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikki's work well. However, the ones so far are biased toward modern wrestlers. Here's a suggestion. Won a major/top title in a notable regional federation (aimed mostly at the Territories era, but I'm sure RoH etcetera qualify, as do the top UK feds and of course, Japan) SirFozzie 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, we can't forget the AWA, USWA, WCCW, PNW, NJPW, ALPW, UWA, WWC, WWA, etc, etc, etc. There is a lot out there in the history of wrestling that shouldn't be neglected. - T-75| talk | contribs  19:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it should be clear that "indy wrestler works for seven indy promotions" does not a pro wrestler make, especially if their only claims to fame are listed on their myspace page. Darrenhusted 22:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with you, but just cause they are an indy wrestler who has worked for seven indy promotions does not mean they are not notable...nor does it mean they are. Remember, these are GUIDELINES and under no circumstances ever should guidelines be used to circumvent WP:V and WP:RS in establishing whether an article should exist.  WP:N is only a guideline and does not determine whether an article should or should not exist.  We are simply talking about making our own WP:N GUIDELINES for people to use as a guide, not as the final word. - T-75| talk | contribs  22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag teams
 * Held at least one of the tag title belts in the WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW and spent more time as a tag team wrestler than a singles wrestler. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This wouldn't include articles like John Cena and Shawn Michaels, as they are better known as singles wrestlers. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag teams that won multiple titles while they were together, participated in major storylines, or were together for some significant amount of time (ex. Edge and Christian, Rated-RKO, and The Rock 'n' Sock Connection). Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This would include teams that the individuals were better known as singles wrestlers but the tag team was significant, too. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This makes me think of the Rock N Roll Express, Souther Rockers, Midnight Express, the Freebirds, the Blackbirds, the Moondogs, the Samoans, Volkoff & Shiek, Valentine & Beefcake, Piper & Orndorf, Piper and Orton, man...the list goes on...
 * Tag teams that have been together across several promotions (ex: New Age Outlaws) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Stables
 * Have been together across several promotions (ex. nWo) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Been the focus of a notable promotion (examples: NWO, Sting's Squadron, Dangerous Alliance, Four Horsemen) SirFozzie 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Had significant power (at least in storylines) for some time (ex. Evolution and D-Generation X). Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Any stable that has had a truly significant number of members at one time (The Heenan Family, Paul Jones' Army)«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Promotions
 * Had a notable television deal. Had numerous NOTABLE wrestlers wrestling full-time in them at one point or another. (people making "Special appearances" does not count) SirFozzie 16:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more sources available about the promotion than a myspace and official website. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Otherwise the promotion may be a vanity or self-promotion project by a small-time fed wanting attention. Nikki311 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Managers/valets
 * Being in oWWE/TNA/WCW/ECW and managing a team/wrestler to gold. (ex. Miss Elizabeth) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Managing a real-life spouse (who is a major player) and participating in storylines surrounding the relationship (ex. Miss Elizabeth and Tammy Lynn Sytch) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Refs
 * Participating (in a major way) in a major event in pro wrestling history. (ex. Earl Hebner in the Montreal Screwjob) Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Backstage politics/people
 * Being a major player in WWE/TNA/WCW/ECW, with documented evidence of their contributions as writer/booker/chairperson/etc (ex. The McMahons, Vince Russo, Eric Bischoff, Ric Flair, The Clique, Dusty Rhodes). Nikki311 07:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No guideline should mention the "Big 4." Wrestling goes back much further than 1995.  In the early late 80's there were the big 4, but they were WWF, NWA, AWA & PNW.  In the early eighties the big four were WWF, NWA, AWA & WCCW.  In the 70s the big four were WCCW, AWA, Mid-South & WWF.  There are promoters and bookers who played a major roll in wrestling in its early days who are notable enough to have articles, their notability should not be questioned because they were never a part of the post-1995 big 4. - T-75| talk | contribs  23:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These guidelines aren't to exclude past wrestlers. They are to include wrestlers that meet certain criteria. If I wrestler meets several of these points, then they are notable. I just don't have enough knowledge of the past promotions to include guidelines on them. That is why I'm focusing on the current and very recent past promotions. Someone else needs to write the guidelines for NWA, AWA, etc. etc. Nikki311 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicki, don't get me wrong, I know you are not proposing such a thing, but if it's not drafted right someone else will. Too many people do not realize that guidelines are not policy, they are just there to help people understand policy. - T-75| talk | contribs  00:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Event/PPV happenings
 * Wrestler debuts (This was MVPs debut after weeks of promos and contract talk on SmackDown!)«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notes when a wrestler was a "surprise opponent" up until the PPV «»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this one to be honest. TJ Spyke 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should do this one because people unconnected to this project have voiced a concern about PPV pages being nothing more than a list of results, at least this way we're putting things in some sort of context.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why someone is disqualified«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If a show has a gimmick (all hardcore matches, all cage matches, all titles), that should be mentioned in the intro.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: all the previous points in this category have to do with what should or should not be included in the pay-per-view articles. That is not what this discussion is about. We should stick to why an event should be included in wikipedia. Nikki311 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An event should be included if it aired on television. Nikki311 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling this discussion is going to get long, so I've moved some of the guidelines (as well as adding a few more) HERE. We can discuss changes on the talk page there, and then change the guidelines accordingly. That way, we won't have to worry about this very important discussion getting lost in the shuffle. Nikki311 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
That NO new wrestler pages be created by PW folks until the ones already here are sourced as well? That way we A) Have better existing articles and B) reduce the # of crufttastic ones that we have to deal with. SirFozzie 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i agree, but how do you plan to stop people doing it? Not alot of people come here before the create a page. Also, what happens if someone was to go ahead and make a page? Delete on spot? The Steelers Fan ponders...--SteelersFan UK06 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part, the non-notable indy wrestlers are created by people not within WP:PW. I had to do a lot of searching to tag the articles with the WP:PW template on the talk page. However, I agree that no new pages should be created by us, at least until we get the ones we have up to snuff. I'd suggest patrolling the newly created pages, to help weed out the pages created by other folks. Also, if anyone sees a page without the WP:PW tag on the talk page, it would be a big help to add it. Nikki311 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what do we do about the indy's? --SteelersFan UK06 21:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If members of this project want to agree to such a limitation, that is one thing, but I don't think it is right to put a blanket rule like that out there for all people. I know there are at least a handful of contributors who are out there doing a good job putting articles together who don't really work with this project because they have found it difficult to work with.  Personally, I work with the project as much as I can, but I have my own goals (not a personal agenda) when it comes to what I'd like to do here at Wikipedia (part of which does include sourcing many articles...but the ones I am interested in).  Such a rule could eventually hinder me from doing what I'd like to do here (which I would enjoy) and force me to source a ton of freekin articles that should have been sourced a long time ago (which I would not enjoy).  So, all that to say this, I'll agree to try my best not to start a new article, and if I do I promise that I will source it to the best of my ability.  I do not think we should force this on everyone though. - T-75| talk | contribs  21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Aah, I agree. So is a WP:PW-wide stoppage (however brief) on the creation of new articles agreed? You never know, this could be the start of something big. --SteelersFan UK06 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I've been doing my best to remove what looks like cruft, and others have sourced AfD articles which are not cruft, saving them from deletion. If a new article is created then it should be tagged so it can be checked and if people are adding cruft then PRODs and AfDs will always sort the wheat from the chaff, so long as there aren't editors with boy-crushes on indy wrestlers filibustering AfDs we should be fine. Darrenhusted 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WCW Cruiserweight and Light-Heavyweight titles the same? (continued from Archive 30)
Agreed. --- Silent RAGE! 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think they're the same. However, the fact is that the LHW title was very insignificant in it's own right that quite frankly it doesn't deserve it's own article (which is probably why WWE combined them together), so it's best to be just mentioned in the CW article.

Ladder match
The page NEEDS a clean up and sources, I just removed some month old vandalism that included a statement that RVD won a match between Bret Hart and someone else. -- Scorpion0422 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * if it needs sources, add it to the pages needing sources.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions
This article is undergoing a severe edit war between those who think Christian Cage became the first champion at Sacrifice when NWA withdrew its titles, and those who think Kurt Angle became the first champion at Slammiversary by winning the King of the Mountain match. Personally I fall into the former group. Is there anything we can do to sort this out? --MarcK 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Former. NWA didn't strip the belts in parallel with Angle winning the title. Cage was still champ. Wasn't he? --SteelersFan UK06 01:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TNA considers Angle the first champion. However, they also try to claim that Angle is a former NWA Champion and is the current IWGP World Champion (neither of which are true). TJ Spyke 01:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't paint TNA as the villian in the IWGP situation. It's 100% clear what's happening there (champion leaves company with title and continues to defend it, original company refuses to recognize it). Mshake3 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. What happened was that Lesnar refused to defend the title, so NJPW stripped him of the title back in June 2006. Lesnar then started training for MMA. His match against Kurt Angle was his first wrestling match in over a YEAR. I'm not saying it's TNA's fault, but they shouldn't be reconizing the title (they only are because they have a working relationship with Antonio Inoki). Angle is not the IWGP Champion since the man he beat was not the IWGP Champion and hadn't been the champion in over a year. TJ Spyke 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "IWGP" title Angle holds is an actual title as he received it after defeating a recognized promotion's (NWA Japan/IGF) World Champion. As for who is the first world champion, I only reliable source I can find says that Angle was the first TNA World Champion, but also notes that Cage should be listed as the first champion because he was stripped of the NWA title prior to Angle's "controversial" win therefore TNA can not determine who was the NWA champion at after that time. - T-75| talk | contribs  19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it isn't a title, i'm just saying that it is not the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship (well, it is the physical title belt that NJPW used to use, but it's not the championship). TJ Spyke 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fictional categories?
Do wrestlers belong in fictional categories for gimmicks? (Fictional kings for King of the Ring winners, fictional vampires for Gangrel & the brood) They weren't really kings and vampires...but they weren't fictional either. Opinions?«»bd(talk stalk) 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the King of the Ring winners definitely should not be considered fictional kings, but maybe King Booker should(?). However, The Brood was a stable full of vampire-characters, so maybe. Actually, I'm not sure...because gimmicks are fictional, but articles are about the person and the character. Nikki311 03:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say an individuals page should not include them in those categories, and here's why. If you go to Tom Cruise's page, I bet it does not list him as a fictional vampire even though he has played one; nor does Sean Connery's page list him as a fictional king, though he has played one.  Now, if the article is an article only about the wrestlers character, then I could see including them in those categories, but only in that instance.  Wrestler's bios should be written in a way that it is perfectly clear that everything in their wrestling career was fictional/acting/staged/whatever, nothing that was scripted should be written as if it was real. - T-75| talk | contribs  19:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the category name says that it's fictional, I don't see the conflict. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk
 * The problem is that the person is not fictional, see the Cruise and Connery examples above. - T-75| talk | contribs 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that they themselves are not fictional? The King of the Ring may be a fictional king, but Ken Shamrock actually exists (unlike, say, Shakespeare's Macbeth). Kevin Thorn is not really a vampire, but he is a real person, unlike Count Chocula who has never drawn a breath. See the difference? «»bd(talk stalk) 00:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something to take a look at...
Just wondering if I could direct everyones eyes to this which has sat in place since June 28 without much involvement from anyone here - when really I would have thought it was a total no-brainer. Contribute, if you would --SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar for WP:PW

 * Haha! Look at that! well done guys =) --SteelersFan UK06 04:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm arguing :), but I wonder what in particular we did to deserve this. Nikki311 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe archiving six talk archives in June? But thanks Mr Murph. Darrenhusted 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I've been cleaning up the assessments on most of our pages. There are some truly terrible articles listed as B class, when they really are no more than stubs. Most of the current B articles, need major cleaning up or the addition of sources before they can be considered B class. I've been downgrading some B articles articles to start class, so don't get offended if I downgraded an article you've been working on. The first ones I changed to start class were the ones that I work on myself. Anyway, the point of this post is...to get the article back up to B class, add footnotes and references (make it blank proof, basically). This will also help us sort out which articles need referencing and attention, and which articles are alright for the time being. Nikki311 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For those interested, here is the list of everything (i think) that has been downgraded:

Nenog 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just after briefly scanning the list, I didn't downgrade Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch...other than that...I think everything else is more or less correct. I did upgrade some, too: Barbie Blank from stub to start, Candice Michelle from start to B, and some other ones I can't remember. Nikki311 02:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Style Guidelines - "In wrestling" section
I'm kinda new to the project, but I wanted to bring a proposal concerning the style guidelines (I'm imagine it could have been discussed before, but I think it needs brought back up). I noticed that the style guidelines there is a "Finishing and signature moves" section that has become an "In wrestling" section (so the guidelines have already been changed without being discussed it seems). This section typically contains finishing moves and managers, but is increasingly including more and more information such as quotes, catch phrases, taunts, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained, commercial endorsements, and on, and on, and on and on. I think this "In wrestling" section is getting cluttered up with too much information and is becoming nothing more than a long list of largely useless information in the middle of an article.

I had an article go through GAR, and I received comments (among others) that the "In wrestling" section was too big and seemed like a lot of junk (and I couldn't disagree with them, I had just left that section as it was). I looked through the existing wrestling GA and above articles to see what they looked like. I liked how the Konnan article had the managers and moves listed in a table, it makes the article look a lot cleaner, so I decided to go with that pattern, making tables for moves and manager. The rest of the info in the "In wrestling" area I merged into the article (where it really should be) or deleted it. I was complimented for doing this (thanks for the idea whoever it was I copied) and was told it made the article look much better.

I think we should change the style guidelines to using the tables as they are in the Konnan article. I believe this will help the project in a couple of ways. It makes the article look cleaner and thereby presents this project as being interested in making our articles look the best they possibly can. By doing this I believe it will also eliminate a lot of the junk that is collecting up in these "In wrestling" sections since the section will not be there. This will also present the project as caring what kind of content is in the wrestling articles (right now we allow a lot of junk). These would both be positive things for this project. - T-75| talk | contribs 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more about the tables, and especially their placement on the Konnan article. They seem really random, especially if you don't already know anything about his career. It seems to imply that he used the Tequila Sunrise or the K-Factor if not in AAA, at least starting with his time there. That might be fixable by adding dates, but that might make the table even bigger than it is. On top of that, if we used those kind of tables on an article that has good era-specific pictures (John Cena) where would we put the them?


 * I agree that some of the stuff in the "in wrestling sections" is unnecessary. "Quotes" and "taunts" should probably be excised, and any truly notable nicknames should be moved to the lead or mentioned, where appropriate, in the body of the article. Theme music is tough. It can be important, especially in companies that used popular music (ECW, CZW) or sound-alikes of popular music (WCW, TNA). Especially in those cases it tends/tended to be important to the character, but not so much that it would always be mentioned in the body. Mentioning it, especially in list format, gets that information out there.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the way it is predominantly being done now is already contrary to the established PW Style Guidelines. Second, the Konnan article seems to be the earliest and longest lasting GA bio that the PW project has.  Third, using the boxes is no more random than making a giant list of mostly useless information in the middle of an article.  People are not idiots and understand that tables of information is just that, tables of information.  You can't tell me that when there is a picture of a person at the top left corner of the article that they think that is a birth picture because of it's placement.  Fourth, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a wrestling digest.  We should be putting information in the articles in a way it can best be read and understood, I believe tables is a lot easier (especially on the eyes) to read, particularly to the uniformed.  Fifth, placement of the tables doesn't have to be in any specific spot, it can be anywhere they fit best in the article.  If you have a good era specific picture, put it where you think it belongs and place the table somewhere else where it best fits.  Sixth, even if you excised quotes and taunts, you still have (at a minimum) catch phrases, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained and commercial endorsements (YES, I've seen all of those in wrestler's bios).  Seventh, the information may be "important to the character" but we are not writing about the character, we are writing about the performer.  Eighth, most information getting shoved into this non Style Guideline "In wrestling" sections should be easily included into the article if it is truly notable or worthy of mention.  Ninth, placing it in tables not only makes the article look cleaner, but it als "gets that information out there."  Tenth, and final point, I suggested this as a way of improving the way the articles look and hopefully in turn improving the reputation of this project. - T-75| talk | contribs  21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The "In wrestling" / "Wrestling facts" sections should eventually be replaced by tables. This is one of the points that was raised during the peer review of the Konnan article. At present, however, the tables used in the Konnan article are somewhat awkward. If tables are to replaces the "In wrestling" / "Wrestling facts" sections, then the tables in question must first be retailored. McPhail 23:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we just turn the In Wrestling/Wrestling Facts section into a series of tables perhaps with some next to each other to conserve vertical space (not sure how good/bad that'd look)? The Konnan tables seem to be in there almost randomly and it does look awkward.  Also, I think we can definitely start condensing those huge lists down by either eliminating altogether for the really crufty parts or integrating into the article for the really important.  The move lists especially are out of control. DrWarpMind 02:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the tables in the Konnan article are placed in there the same way non-era-specific photos are placed into an article (which is what I did when working on the Brian Adams (wrestler) article). I'm not particular about how or where the tables were placed in the article, but right now the way it is done breeds cruft and doesn't look help the look of the article. - T-75| talk | contribs  06:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So do I understand that the pro-wrestling project requested that the Konnan article go through peer review to see how they could improve articles, and the result of the review was a recommendation (long before I made it) to put the "in wrestling" info into tables. So the project took that recommendation and did nothing with it?  Do we want to improve our articles or not? - T-75| talk | contribs  06:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree that most things like nicknames, taunts, foreign objects, etc. should be cut out of the articles. Also, the signature and finishing moves on some articles are ridiculously long because IPs or random fanboys/girls come in and add every move a wrestler has ever used to the list. There definitely is room for improvement. Nikki311 03:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you eliminate the section then you won't get people popping garbage into it. If you have the finishing moves in tables then you will probably have less people adding to it because not as many are familiar how to work with tables.  Kills two birds with one stone...well actually three...cause it also makes the article look better. - T-75| talk | contribs  06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm reading all this stuff about the tables, which I'm really not against in theory (really just the random placement), but in trying to place a table in an unrelated article it seems this kind is actually frowned upon by wikipedia per When to use tables. Since they're mostly short lists, and at most two or three items wide (name, description, maybe dates) they should be formatted as lists. Maybe someone can come up with one table that will hold all the information? Or a way to display it with CSS?«»bd(talk stalk) 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Style Guidelines - Format
While the style guidelines don't say so, it seems to me that there is an "unofficial" style guidline that in wrestling bios all non-wrestling info should be at the end of the article underneath the "In wrestling" and "Championships & accomplishments" section (see the John Cena or CM Punk articles for an example). This, to me, really breaks up the continuity of the article and makes the non-wrestling stuff seem less important (being burried beneath a list of stuff). Personally, when I come to lists like that, I don't read anything beyond them (even in wrestler's bios) unless I am reviewing them for a GAC or GAR, so everything else underneath get's overlooked (and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this). It makes a lot more sense to have the body of the article (including the non-wrestling stuff) all together instead of broke up by a couple lists (see Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura articles for examples of this), it allows the article to flow through to the finish and then the reader can see a list of all the other stuff and/or read them in tables (as I proposed above). Again, this would be positive to the project as it wouldn't make it seem that we think the wrestling info in an article is more important than the non-wrestling stuff, plus it would allow the articles to take the form of a more all inclusive biography (which they are supposed to be like already) instead of a play-by-play of a wrestlers career. - T-75| talk | contribs 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Nikki311 said on the Cena talk page, doing it this way groups all the wrestling stuff together instead of making people read wrestling-acting-politics-personal issues-wrestling again.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't make sense, and it doesn't conform to the style guidelines of any other type of bio within wikipedia, nor does it conform with the style guidelines of this project. The wrestling part of the body of the article should be a part of the rest of the body of the article, it shouldn't be a sub-article within the article that takes prescedence over the rest of the article (which is what is being done) by segregating itself at the top of the page and pushing all other info to the bottom.  If you look at the Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura pages they flow much better and look A LOT cleaner.  But hey, what do I know, I'm just a new guy to wikipedia who noticed something looked strange and didn't conform to established patterns of wikipedia. - T-75| talk | contribs  20:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with this theory in articles in which wrestlers competed in two separate yet notable wrestling promotions at the same time (see Samoa Joe). Mshake3 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand what you are saying. A wrestler competing in two different promotions at the same time doesn't have anything to do with how non-wrestling related info is formatted into the article. - T-75| talk | contribs  16:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You want the entire article to be in chronological order, right? That will be a problem with Joe's article as he's had extended simultanious stints in TNA and ROH. Basically, we'd be forced to fill the article with "In January, Joe did this in TNA, while doing this in ROH". That part wouldn't flow that well. Mshake3 16:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, didn't say that. I said keep the body of the article together with the body of the article and don't divide the body up into two different bodies with the non-wrestling half-body being placed in a position of less importance under a bunch of lists.  Since you bring up the issue of chronology, yes, articles should be in chronology as best as possible, but that isn't always possible, and you work around those issues.  Sometimes simultaneous happenings flow well together, other times they don't.  Look at the examples cited above, see how the first two mentioned are broken up by three pages of lists and how the second two include the lists at the bottom. - T-75| talk | contribs  17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? - Part Deux
A modified version of my suggestion from The Machines (professional wrestling) article that I expanded from a stub to a full article on July 1.

*…that in 1986 André the Giant’s back was so injured that the WWF invented The Machines storyline to keep the popular Andre on television without having to get in the ring that often?

Is currently displayed on the Main Page's "Did you know?". My second DKY in less than 2 weeks MPJ-DK 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice, although I wish they had made sure the links were correct (since André's article uses an accented "e"). Nice job. TJ Spyke 06:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Promotional posters
Now, it seems pretty obvious that stating who is on the promotion poster (when the poster is right there in the article) is not OR, right? Well, this new user named (User:BlueShrek) keeps removing the note about Cor Von and Lashley being on the ONS 2007 poster by claiming it's OR, and even removing a compromise that just says it's Lashley (which even wwe.com says). The noob even tried to intimidate me by claiming he would report me (even though I hadn't broken any guidelines or policies). Anybody care to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're performing your own research by trying to deduct who's face(s) is/are on the poster when it's not entirely clear. Sounds like OR to me. Of course, another compromise is to not even include who's on it. Mshake3 22:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have provided him proof that at least Lashley is on it, and he hasn't reverted yet (although I think that's more because he has violated 3RR or is close and doesn't want to risk reverting). 23:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Lashley. Darrenhusted 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Id like to comment on this situation. First off, TJ has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule SEVERAL times and his claims that Im a "newb" are offensive. Second off, I dont see the point in putting the line about the promo posters bc #1 some form of the poster is there and #2 Its not significant to the article. I request we remove all the promo poster lines from the article only to help better them. Thank you for your time.BlueShrek 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to say I diagree. For one thing, most PPV's here use the DVD cover. Second, the promotional poster and DVD cover are usually vastly different. Three, they actually help the article since it gives an insight into what companies were pushing (or planned too). Unless there is a consensus to remove them, they should stay in. Lrrr IV 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No offence intended: I think BlueShrek is (offensive comment removed) and the articles are perfectly fine the way they are.-- Hornet man  16  04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Austin's Real Name
Steve Austin's article says his real name is Steve Williams, yet Debra said on FOX News a couple of weeks ago that he legally changed it to Steve Austin. Should something be done? Koberulz 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Something like that would have to be proven (and I don't think her word is enough since they divorced after he abused her and she might be bitter). TJ Spyke 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Steve Williams (Dr Death Steve Williams), this being the exact reason Austin changed to Steve Austin. As far as I know Austin may have changed his name to get around copyright issues for when he wanted to wrestle outside of WWE (like The Rock paid for the use of his name), but there has never been any evidence provided and I wouldn't trust Debra Marshall-McMichael-Williams-Austin as a WP:RS. Darrenhusted 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD Covers as opposed to Promotional Posters?
I know there are more important things to worry about. But this is still bugging me. It seems that the promotional poster images are being removed in favor for DVD covers. Check out the edit history of WWE Backlash as an example. Is there a valid reason for this? Mshake3 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I know. When I said something before (on one of the PPV articles), another user said we should be consistan and use either all DVD posters or promo posters on a page (since the other events on that page used DVD covers). I think we should use the promotional poster if it is available. TJ Spyke 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3bulletproof16 leaves the project
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A3bulletproof16&diff=143195320&oldid=134011085 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.225.167 (talk • contribs)
 * That's a shame, he was a good contributor. I think he is right about who hacked his account. He showed me a messageboard that JB hangs out at, where JB bitches about Wikipedia in general and me/bulletproof specifically. TJ Spyke 04:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User.E2.80.99s_account_was_hacked. An interesting hypothesis was brought up that this may be a "joe job."
 * It's a possibility. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Style guide update
I was just browsing through the Pro Wrestling style guide. Maybe you guys should like update the WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide section to reflect the use of infoboxes, the height, weight and birthdate/age templates etc because as it stands now the section does not reflect how it's actually done in articles.

Just an idea MPJ-DK 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rico Constantino
I noticed Rico's article was in the need of references, as stated on WP:PW's references page. I've referenced the wrestlnig part, but am finding it really difficult to find sources that are not on Online World of Wrestlnig.com. Anyone know any good places to get the other info? Thanks in advance. Davnel03 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, another user has removed the parts I can't find sources for. Davnel03 15:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang on, that was the users first edit..... Please don't tell me Burntsauce has created a new account... Davnel03 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. Burntsauce would never suggest IMDb as a reliable source. -- Oakster  Talk 17:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After a discussion with MPJ-DK, he suggested that checuser could be done. I have filed a request for checkuser. If it's not Burntsauce, we might have another user blanking articles on our hands. :( Davnel03 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * could be another JB account SirFozzie 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever he is, he's been blocked indefinitely. Davnel03 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CheckUser said it waas likely JB (open proxies and sleeper accounts blocked) SirFozzie 15:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rrrr.... JB....-- bullet proof  3:16 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week
I've just noticed this one at the header at the top of the page, expect it's been inactive for several weeks. Just thought I'd let you know. Is it going to get back up and running, or not? Davnel03 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

New article to look at
On May 18, a new article was created called Corkscrew wrestling moves. Most of these moves are already are could be covered in the existing moves articles. What should we do? Merge the moves not already in other articles and prod it? Clean it up, wikify it, and keep it? Nikki311 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If all of it is already coverd in the article listed on the bottom then PROD it, and if that fails AfD. Darrenhusted 20:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You could just merge the information, then do a redirect from Corkscrew wrestling moves to the other article. Davnel03 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and prod'ed it. All the info that already isn't in Professional wrestling aerial techniques can be added there if sources can be found for the moves. Nikki311 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be merged to the aerial techniques page. Corkscrew moves are in general just variants of other aerial moves. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New possible JB sock - Mouse Pad of Doom
He made a new account and less than a minute later he made this fishy edit. As you can see, he's asked for CZW World Heavyweight Championship to be delisted from it's FA status. His edit is being discussed here. Davnel03 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alarming research
I've been researching professional wrestling history for a time now, and I have seen a plethora of websites that are far from good sources. What alarms me is that many wrestling sites are text dumps loaded with info that was not published or researched. Worse still, I can see that, in the case of Pro-Wrestling Illustrated, for example, a good site, the bios and info on wrestling is dependent on wikipedia! see: http://www.pwi-online.com/pages/hallofame.html

I hate to say this, but wikipedia is already the dominant source for wrestling information. you can interpret that as you wish, but I find it a little alarming. I mean, that means that info that was left on wikipedia for a few months could have "looked good" to a programmer, made into a site, or worse yet, a fansite that holds poor info, and then could be referenced into wikipedia as fact!

The WikiProject for Pro-Wrestling should get much tougher on references.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're driving at. A vast majority of the internet sucks, this is shocking?«»bd(talk stalk) 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to bitch about that, couldn't you come up with a better example than this? A website doesn't want to write a bio. Alert the authorities! The non-wrestling fan media fails once again. Mshake3 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate gimmick change day
I'm just sayin'. The one day I watch ECW live something happens and I decide to change it. What was I thinking.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The bad thing is what it causes some editors to do. How is he well known as Big Daddy V when he just started using that name less than 1 hour ago? Lrrr IV 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence said he's better known by his ring names than his real name. The sentence was correct. «»bd(talk stalk) 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions
Things were so peaceful the last few weeks. Anyway, here's the dispute. Bullet is saying that at the end of its existance, the WCW Championship, at that point known as the World Championship, was retired (and renamed) AS the WCW Championship. The reasoning? This page, which refers to the title as the WCW title.

Here's my beef (thanks Murph): 1. You're saying that the title was renamed as a WCW championship on December 9, three weeks after WCW was put out of business. 2. You're saying that a title can be refered to as ANYTHING new going forward after it is deactivated. 3. You're saying that WWE.com is the above all, end all source. Shouldn't we start removing ALL references to the letters WWF from all articles, since that's how WWE sees it? 4. WWE.com skipped over the name change from WCW to World, mainly because it was a minor thing. So, does that mean it never happened?

And speaking of, the only reason that page refered to the belt as WCW was because 99% of the time, that's what the belt was known as. The webmaster (the WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com webmasters are apparently WP:PWs messiahs) was simply trying to keep things simple.

ANd bullet, if for some reason you still havn't changed your mind, then I'm going to remove just about all of Benoit's WWE section from his article, as according to WWE going forward, it never happened. Mshake3 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think WWE just wants to call it the WCW World Championship (which it was known as from June 2001-November 2001) to avoid confusing it with the World Heavyweight Championship (the same way they call the current SmackDown Tag Team Titles the WWE Tag Team Championship, and call all previous champions like Bret Hart a "World Tag Team Champion"). The title was called the "World Championship" from the night after Survivor Series 2001 until it was unified with the WWF Championship at Armageddon 2001. Lrrr IV 04:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, no question. But what about this nonsense about the title retiring as a WCW championship? How can it retire as a WCW championship when WCW had been dead for three weeks? Mshake3 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Three very important articles, but no references...
I've just come across Monday Night Wars, History of World Wrestling Entertainment and History of professional wrestling, which all have literally not many references. All three have the potential to one day be a feature article, but with no references thats impossible. I would just go onto Online World of Wrestling to get info, but for an article like this, that's a little impossible. Apart from OWW, is there any other places that I can get reliable sources from? Thanks in advance. (Please provide a hyperlink to the websites listed [if any!]) Davnel03 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Online Onslaught has a writeup on the Monday Night Wars as a whole. There's also the Monday Night Wars DVD.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a book that I finished reading awhile ago that can be used to cite some of the info in the articles. Monday Night Wars has been on my list to work on for awhile now. Nikki311 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a new book out called Ringside, the History of Professional Wrestling in America. That should be comprehensive enough, but if you like, there is also Sex, Lies, and Professional Wrestling, whihc is a good read if you want to know more inside of Vince McMahon and his company, controversy creates cash by Bishoff, which I found to be very good in laying out WCW's history in a lively narrative, and Hooker, by Lou Thesz, which is probably the only source of older wrestling history (1920s-1950s).-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 22:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrestling's One Ring Circus: The Death of the World Wrestling Federation (Paperback) - Found this one a while ago, always had such an interest in the concept of this book. It talks of WWE's ... "Fall from Grace" between 2001-2003. This could possibly be used for History of World Wrestling Entertainment. --SteelersFan UK06 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Taskforce
I happened upon a random article which on the talkpage had a link to this taskforce, and looking down the list I noticed that here is no section for wrestling, would it be worth interested parties adding a section for Pro-Wrestling and then members of the project or those with an interest adding themselves to the taskforce, then PW articles could be filtered through this taskforce, and other members of the taskforce (that is to say those who are not project members) may be able to help ease the burden of tidying up some of the worse PW articles, and bring a fresh eye to some articles. Just an idea but given that there are a number of PW editors already acting in this way unilaterally this may be a way to pool resources. Darrenhusted 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You know I didn't know about this, thank you this is perfect for me - it's what I want to do on Wikipedia so I joined up. Feel free to drop by and gimme some pro wrestling related work MPJ-DK 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker - GA passed!
Just letting you know that The Undertaker's GA has passed! :) Just hope now that no one delists it like last time. Well done anyway to those who contributed! Davnel03 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What's in a debut?
Should live event (house show) debuts be included in articles, or should it solely be when they debut on television? Mshake3 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe mention the day they made their debut, but I don't think who they defeated matters (unless it's something like Hogan's first WCW match being for the WCW World Championship or Santino Marella winning the IC Title in his first WWE match). Lrrr IV 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well how about this? Basham and Damaja debuted for TNA at a house show in Louisville on April 20, as a surprise replacement for the injured Abyss. Should it be noted as their TNA debut? Mshake3 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like most things, I think it's a varying degree of importance. When Michelle McCool comes back from injury, does three house shows, then nothing for a month, it seems non notable. But when Chuck Palumbo works out his gimmick at house shows for at least a month before it's tv debut it seems (to me) like it should be mentioned alongside the TV debut (He debuted on xx with y gimmick after having used it at house shows from blah blah).«»bd(talk stalk) 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Another GA
Shelton Benjamin just passed the Good Article process, as well. Just letting everyone know. Nikki311 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations everybody on a job well done. Two articles passed in two days. We must be doing something right. -  Deep   Shadow  09:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a little skeptical. Someone needs to go through it and take it "out of universe" for sure.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done for the GA, now we've got to try and get it to FA status, which would be good. On that note, I've nominated CM Punk for FA status. Davnel03 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, today, Brian Adams failed GA for the third time. Davnel03 15:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just fixed most of the comments left in the failing review, I've done as much as I can do on my own I think but it's already improved the article. A few outstanding points left on the talk page if someone here cares to look at them, toodles MPJ-DK 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dave Bautista has also been failed, again, like Adams' article, by The Rambling Man. Davnel03 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with most of the review notes left for both Brian Adams and Batista. I feel both articles weren't ready to be nominated. - Deep   Shadow  17:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has placed Shelton Benjamin on review and made several (in my opinion) counterproductive edits that go against the WP:PW style guide. I reverted some, however I can't find anything in the guidelines that allows me to change the rest. Personally, I don't feel there is too much wrong with the article to require review. But if someone here would like to quickly go through the page and do the necessary edits that I can't see, that would be much appreciated. - Deep   Shadow  07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding week-by-week updates
When has enough time passed that you can edit a wrestler's article without violating the "no week-by-week updates" policy? Gavyn Sykes 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How long is a piece of string? No, but seriously. A match should only be listed when it is notable within the career of the wrestler. I think PPV matches are OK so long as they fit within the overall context of a feud, Batista vs Edge is a good example of a recent feud. I think we are looking towards history for a guide, The Rock vs HHH fued that started with the NOD vs DX in 1999 then ran through 2000 and finished in 2001 is a good example. But The Rock vs D'lo Brown one week on Raw, probably not worth noting. Bare in mind PPV results are easily available so it's better to leave a match off and wait to see if it was important rather than adding every match. Darrenhusted 21:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That rule has always been misleading. It should be "no week-by-week updates of every little event." If something notable happens, then it should be mentioned as soon as it's allowed (Mon, Tues, Fri, or Sun). Mshake3 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, as much it can be. Gavyn Sykes 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I always took it as. We have people going in and adding every TV match (they would do things like add Finlay defeating Ric Flair last week, even though it was just a one-off match with nothing that notable about it). Lrrr IV 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE Champ
I think the page WWE Champ should be redirected to WWE Champ (disambiguation) and the contents should be :

WWE Champ could refer to :
 * The current WWE Champion, John Cena

or


 * The championship itself, the WWE Championship

Vote shall we??-- Hornet man  16  02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we really need a disambig page, as both of those should redirect to WWE Championsip (which does have a link to the current champion). What is next, wanting to created a disambiguation page for "WWE Intercontinental Champ", "WWE Women's Champ", etc.? Lrrr IV 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People don't look at those championships like they do the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships. How many Intercontinental Championship belt replicas do you see at a live airing of WWE Raw? None. But the WWE CHampionship, God...you see 25 to 200 of them. Just goes to show that the WWE Championship is the most popular World title there is (disputed).-- Hornet man  16  03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have seen some (although not a lot of them). I've seen replicas of all the belts on RAW at some point. Lrrr IV 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The point it you see more WWE Championship replicas then any others.-- Hornet man  16  03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Lrr IV on this one. Also, the fact that there are a lot of replica belts doesn't do anything for your argument. Gavyn Sykes 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said before:"Some people type in WWE Champ wanting the champ, John, others type it in wanting the championship it's self." I'm just wanting to make it easier for both.-- Hornet man  16  03:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from with this, but I think that it should stay the way it is, because when directed to the championships page, it is not hard to find your way to the current champion's article. --ProtoWolf 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not really much point of a disambig. page because there's not going to be much on the disambig. page, there will only be, what, two items? Davnel03 10:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When someone says "Champ", it's always in reference to the person holding the title. So it should direct to Cena. Mshake3 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd take this even further. Create similar redirects for all the titles and redirect them to the champions. Mshake3 13:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No. What are we doing? Putting in redirects for people who can't figure out what they're looking for, am I looking for the belt or the person?, this makes no sense. If you want WWE Champ then put in WWE and click on links, wrestling wikis have hundreds of wikilinks, sometimes too many, we cannot be creating redirects and disambigs for every possible variation of every search. Darrenhusted 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mshake3. Most likely when people type in Champ they want the current title holder. Like, right now, when people type in WWE Champ, they want John Cena. You get where I'm coming from?-- Hornet man  16  18:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your view, I simply don't agree with it. It would require massive redirecting and pointless page creation. It's more trouble than it's worth. Besides, why would someone type "WWE Champ" when they could just type "John Cena." Gavyn Sykes 18:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they don't know who the champ is.-- Hornet man  16  18:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why we include it in the championship articles. - Deep   Shadow  18:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If that were the case with me, I would simply look up "WWE Championship" and scroll down to the "Current Champion" section at the bottom and click the link to his/her article. Gavyn Sykes 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then ya'll obviously don't go to a Polk County, Florida school. There something we call a time limit at Polk County schools. Every shortcut possible is appreciated. Think about it.-- Hornet man  16  18:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's highly unnecessary. Anyone looking for the current champ can easily type in "John Cena". What's next, creating a "Current WWE Champion" redirect? -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The time limit situation is not our problem. - Deep   Shadow  19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know it's not you problem. But trust me it would be something we Polk County, Floridians call common courtisey if your did it. And it world be appreciated. If don't want to do it for that reason that's fine.-- Hornet man  16  20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Someone who is interested enough in wrestling to want to look up WWE champ but too lazy or time restricted to scroll down and click on a link? I don't see a reason for adding it. Darrenhusted 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * you said the reason..TIME RESTRICTED.-- Hornet man  16  20:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, cool your jets. Time restricted how? If you run out of time look it up another day. No reason to add. Darrenhusted 20:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Think of it this way. If you waited to do you report on that subject till the last day and you ran out of time, You have no more days. Happens to me alot...too much actually. Anyway, you get my point?-- Hornet man  16  20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Organise your time better... and exactly who is writing reports on the WWE Champ? Darrenhusted 20:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It like a standard 5th Grade report to write a report on your favorite athlete. Mine's just hypothetical cause I just finished 9th Grade and I'm going for my GED.-- Hornet man  16  20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In case I'm misunderstanding the situation: the main reason to do this is under the theoretical situation that somebody would run out of time and not be able to type in "John Cena" or and thus would type in "WWE Champ" and then still not have enough time to find a link to the Cena page? It seems to me that anyone looking for Cena would type in John Cena and not WWE Champ (which both have the exact same number of characters). -- Scorpion0422 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want a count it looks like 7 against, 2 for. I'm not sure what the point would be Hornetman16 for redirecting a redirect which already does its job correctly. Darrenhusted 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You know what? SCREW IT!!! I still thing the Disambig page is better but, whatever.-- Hornet man  16  21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't bother getting stressed about it. You proposed a disambig. page. We didn't like it. You get stressed. Pointless. Try to fulfill your time editing articles instead of caring about a disambig link, please Hornetman16. End of conversation. :) Davnel03 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That was knd-of snotty!- Hornet man  16  21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I didn't agree with the idea, I still like that it was proposed. That is what these talk pages are for, discussion. - Deep   Shadow  21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see somebody thank me for proposing the Idea.-- Hornet man  16  08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Flair's NWA World Title Reigns
Since all of the various title reigns are now bein' listed under the promotion in which a champion wins a title, I've hit a little bit of a snag. Flair won it for the third time by defeating Harley Race in Kallang, Singapore and his the fourth by defeating Kerry Von Erich in Yokosuka, Japan. My problem is that I don't know what promotions to list them under. I figure that the title win in Japan was during a match promoted by AJPW or New Japan, but I don't know which one. Anybody got any ideas?Odin&#39;s Beard 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With the exception of when the WCW and TNA controlled the NWA World Title (and even when it was was controlled by WCW for that matter), the title changes were sanctioned and approved by the NWA World Title Committee or NWA Executive Board. I would say that some titles should remain listed under "National Wrestling Alliance" when they were sanctioned by the national body (and I believe that is what the idea was when this was discussed a while back). - T-75| talk | contribs  02:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Big 4 PPV different from the others in WWE
Mean I know they are the big 4 but still I would like to see history and fact and stuff like that for the other PPV. supermike
 * The current four, along with the King of the Ring, were the only 3-hour PPVs of the year, at a time when the WWF also ran several two-hour In Your House PPVs. I think they were also the first five annual PPV events. In addition, when the brand-exclusive PPVs began in 2003, those four were the only ones that were joint-branded. Basically, these events have the history, and are considered the biggest shows of the year. Mshake3 23:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They also tend to have the four highest PPV buyrates each year (usually WM, SummerSlam, RR, Survivor Series). Darrenhusted 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's more of a byproduct of the big4 having name value, and the rest hardly being worth 40 each. Mshake3 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

but History is also behiden the other PPV like No way out and Blacklash Supermike

I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you click on NYR and work your way through some pages. Darrenhusted 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

take a look at last year summerslam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SummerSlam_%282006%29 and his last year great american bash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_American_Bash#2006 I just want all the WWE ppv to look like the Big four PPV wikipedia pages supermike
 * Okay I think I get it now, you want seperate pages for each PPV with list of commentators & notes etc? MPJ-DK 06:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound like too much of a bad idea to me.-- Hornet man  16  08:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a thing that's more worrying than the PPVs being on the same page - most of the PPV results don't have direct inline references and could for 99% of the cases be slapped with an tag. MPJ-DK 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that all of the PPV's should be on different pages, with a paragraph or two on the preview of the event, and how the matches came together. Davnel03 10:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they were at one point. Not sure why they were merged together. Mshake3 15:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at other PPVs for other companies you'll find that all PPVs are grouped. From what I can figure out they were grouped because the In Your House articles were grouped and then from there as the WWE came up with names that stuck the articles were kept together in keeping with the IYH article. And of course the GAB was a WCW PPV to start with and Vengeance moved from December to July and now June. It's a lot of work, plus the ECW and WCW PPV need to be considered, plus each IYH and then the defunct PPVs would need to be seperated. And then all of them watched for vandals, at the moment there are fourteen PPV pages, this would jump it to over two hundred. Darrenhusted 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it's enough work as it is keeping watch on these PPV articles. If we split them up further, the reverts of vandalism would never end. Gavyn Sykes 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Counting just WWE PPV, including all UK only PPV and The Wrestling Classic, the No Way Out 2007 was number 200. At the moment we have the 4 big PPV plus ten smaller on grouped pages to watch. Plus can anyone even remember the build up to half of the PPVs in the last three years when there have been, at times, four PPVs in eight weeks. The WWE always take time to build the big four, they don't always do that for the others (starting in 1985 the amount of PPVs is 2, 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 13, 14, 15, 16 and this year 15 totalling 213!). We just don't have the resources to watch 213 articles, and that is before you count WCW and ECW PPVs. Darrenhusted 17:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have a point! Davnel03 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got apoint. but just as a proposal...why not just split up the current PPVs?-- Hornet man  16  23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to throw it out there...I'm dead set against separating all the pay-per-views to be like the "Big 4". They are just so much easier to watch and manage merged together (which has already been mentioned). Nikki311 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would leave us with 8xNWO, 9xBacklash, 8xJudgment Day, 7xVengeance, 3xONS, 3xGAB (WWE), 10xNo Mercy, 10xUnforgiven, 2xCyber Sunday and 8xArmageddon. 68 articles to replace 10, plus another 10 each year. For the sake of adding a paragraph and telling us who the commentators were it seems like a lot of effort and maintainence, if the GAB article is vandalised now was can revert one article, rather than three. There may be some justification in seperating No Mercy or Unforgiven, as ten PPVs on one page may be a lot, but the main problem on PPV articles is vandalism, then the fact that we have few refs. Considering the amount of articles needing to be brought up to standard it seems like a lot of effort for little reward. Darrenhusted 23:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok ok. You didn't have to get angry.-- Hornet man  16  23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comeon folks! Can't we come up with a better reason than "we're too lazy to monitor 200 articles?" Mshake3 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not laziness! It's that we are volunteering our time, and there is a better use of our time than creating 10 new additional PPV articles each year rather than simply expanding the existing articles. Look at the edit histories for high profile pages like John Cena, Edge and The Undertaker and see how much vandalism is already being revrted, then multiply that by 200. A lot of effort for little reward, the current structure is fine, and mirrors the fact that the big 4 are considered more important to the WWE, and among wrestling fans. And with all due respect to supermike there is very little build up to any of the small 10 PPVs (think back to December to Dismember) and other than the matches and a theme song there is not really much else could be said about them. Darrenhusted 00:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we COULD be a little consistant and include that information in the joint articles. There's also things such as match buildups, among other things that could be added. The joint articles, in their current format, are nothing more but match listings and are barely worth having articles. Also, I'm pretty sure these articles WERE separate at one point. I want to know why they were merged together. And it better be a good reason. Mshake3 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They obviously followed the formatting for In Your House, and although WWE PPVs are 23 years old Wikipedia is not. Check out the edits starting from here. Darrenhusted 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then let's start adding more information to the minor PPVs. Just because they aren't the "big" PPVs, doesn't mean we can't include them. And if that makes the articles all too long, well then they should be split up anyway. Mshake3 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All im saying is that these small PPV like backlash do have a History like how HHH has been in ever Main event of Blacklash escape one Supermike

Well that would be just adding trivia which borders on being OR, and I don't think the articles really need to be bloated with trivia. Darrenhusted 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

you do it for the big 4 so i don't see what the problem is supermiker

Have you not just read the discussion above? I am trying to assume good faith but your contributions are few, and you have vandalised pages , and your spelling is poor. If by this point you don't understand the reasoning behind us not being willing to maintain 213 articles then there is no point continuing to discuss this matter. Darrenhusted 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand I just think its a lazy reason yoiu're just begin lazy its os easy to maintain a web site and so what my spelling not good that doesn't mean anything and so vandalised a page big deal no ones perfect Supermike
 * I do not want to be mean, but we are trying to edit an encyclopedia, if you have poor spelling and grammar skills then how do you expect to be able to improve articles? Copy editing is one of the basic tasks on this site. You did vandalise a page, with nonsense, no-one is perfect but the majority of the members of this project can at least 1. spell and 2. lay claim to the fact that they have never vandalised a page. You asked a question, it has been answered. If you have any queries then take them to the articles specific talk pages as a consensus has been reached here and the answer is we are not monitoring over two hundred pages when our current list is only 14. Darrenhusted 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe you should leave and let someone who care do the job that you're too lazy to do Supermike

Spoilers
I quit reading it after a while (tldr), but it's an interesting read on the use of spoiler tags, and thus spoilers in general. It may lead to some changes in the way things are done in this project. Mshake3 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: World Championship Wrestling Of America
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether World Championship Wrestling Of America is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not. Even. Close. The article was quickly created by one guy in September. Just about nooone here has heard of WCWA or WCWOA, and especially not the wrestlers. Put it up for speedy delete and we can get rid of it today. Mshake3 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually mentioned on the Kokomo, Indiana article (here) with a much more notable list of wrestlers that have come through the company for their annual "Wrestlefestival" show. I'll go ahead and move the pertinent information from this article to the Kokomo article, clean up the language, add some links, and prod the original article. Thanks for bringing it up.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because someone uses the word "Wrestle" in their event name, doesn't make it notable. A quick look at their site shows it's nothing more than a minor independent site. Delete! Mshake3 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fed link on that article doesn't work and "well known wrestlers" is nothing but weasle words without names. It's pretty simple - WP:V and WP:RS, fullfill those and it gets a seperate article, if not it should not exist on Wikipedia MPJ-DK 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Benoit family tragedy - survived AfD with No Consensus
Benoit family tragedy survived AFD, with no consensus. What I'm planning to do is heavily improve the article, and at the moment I'm gathering a a load of sources to insert into the article. Just thought I'd let you guyz know. Davnel03 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Brian Adams
Ladies and gentlemen Brian Adams (wrestler) is now officially a Good Article after I addressed the issues outlined in the GA feedback. Congratulations to those that did most of the work, I just got in at the end with a few specific corrections, I can't take much credit for it MPJ-DK 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great. Good job to all those involved. On the similar note, History of World Championship Wrestling was failed yesterday. :( Nikki311 19:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say to the people involved in that article as well as Batister is to do what I did, buckle down, address the issues brought up and put it up for GA again, you'll get there in the end MPJ-DK 19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great that that's been passed - we've had a few pass in the last week! :) On a similar note, I've just finishing improving and referencing several articles and I wondered if the following could be good enough for GA-status:

Some of them are probably a little far off, but I just wondered if any of them could pass GA in their current state. Personally, I think Anderson and Angle could pass. What do you think? Davnel03 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurt Angle
 * C.W. Anderson
 * Al Snow
 * Adam Birch
 * Lisa Marie Varon
 * I don't think any of them are quite ready. They need more references than just Online World of Wrestling. There should be a lot of other sources out there, especially for Kurt Angle since he was an Olympian. Nikki311 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And I was looking at the Al Snow article earlier, it is very vague about his pre-98 work. His time as Avatar and Lief Cassidy was very short but there were specific dates when he debuted as both and when he finished. Darrenhusted 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing about the Al Snow article - don't TELL us he had a notable run in Smokey Mountain Wrestling, SHOW us. In other words actually describe his run there instead of "weasle wording" it. Up until 1998 the article definitly does not meet the "GA" criterias. MPJ-DK 07:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * God sorry, all I wanted to know was whether they were near GA status, you didn't need to bite my head off! Davnel03 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Word of advice? don't ask for input from others when you apparently can't take it constructively then alright? We pointed out some legitimate issues with the Al Snow article. Did you want us to lie and say it's a great article or give you input for improvement?? MPJ-DK 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Davnel03 21:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gobbledygooker vs Hector Guerrero
Does Gobbledygooker deserve its own page or should it be merged into Hector Guerrero? Don't we normally only have "character" articles if multiple people portrayed it (like Doink)? As far as I can tell in the article, Guerrero was the only Gobbledygooker. DrWarpMind 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Hector's article. It really wasn't that notable. Mshake3 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC about two members of WP:PW
I think we should take a look at this. We'll probably have to keep a close eye on TJ for any more possible socks... Davnel03 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew it, but didn't want to bother with going through with calling him out. That made my day. Is TJ Spyke banned now? «»bd(talk stalk) 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's this community discussion about TJ you'll probably want to check out. Davnel03 15:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And to think that those two were part of the attempted heavy handed dictatorship at the PW project when they didn't like something. It's good to know that I wasn't always on what became the losing side, I just wasn't on the loaded side.  I wonder how many "concensus" decisions have been made by him popping up with a sockpuppet vote? - T-75| talk | contribs  15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Match type articles
I've been going through and citeing the List of professional wrestling match types. In the process I've come across a host of articles that just seem, to me, to be wholly unnecessary on their own. For the most part I've been prod'ing them as they come up, but I recently came across the Ladder match, and Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match articles. Personally I think the ladder match has enough history to deserve it's own article, but the TLC match is nothing but a ladder match with chairs and tables in the mix, so why not merge one in to the other, yes?

Anyway, for any match type that gets an article, can we agree that these "history" sections, which tend to either be lists/tables of match results or short recaps of the match need to go? We don't even go into that kind of detail on actual PPV articles. «»bd(talk stalk) 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hacked down the Ladder match article and the other day noticed it duplicated the TLC info and considered a PROD for TLC, if a merge and delete is possible then I think the Laddet match article is one of the few that can legitimately claim needing an article to themselves. Darrenhusted 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hell in a Cell has summaries of all matches which seems excessive. DrWarpMind 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That one will certainly be a special case, since every time the cell is trotted out something insane has to happen. Instead of recapping the entire match though, perhaps we can do a "Memorable moments" section.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Before now the suggestion has been to merge HIAC back to Cage matches but I think it needs to stay as a seperate article, just cut down a bit. Darrenhusted 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should have its own article. I do think that the "memorable" moments section would be a good thing to replace the match summaries with. Gavyn Sykes 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The TLC page is awful, I don't think we need to merge much of it, I recommend hacking it down then merging the remains and creating a redirect. Darrenhusted 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's just loaded with crufty trivia. Also, that list of match types is huge.  How notable are all of them?  DrWarpMind 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, I fully intend to cut a lot of the "extreme" stuff at the bottom and, once I finish actually putting a source on some more of them, trying to merge some more of them into more general categories.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All the TLC matches are notable, and at a push I would say most of the Ladder matches are, considering how many matches the WWE holds each year, and how few are ladder matches. Darrenhusted 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're notable for the shows they were on, maybe to be mentioned in the articles for participants, but they don't need to be mentioned in an article about the match type itself.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Christian Wrestling Federation
Is this really a notable federation? The HBK link is to a youtube video, and all the other links are to the fed page with embedded youtube videos, the main editor is also the main youtube account. Ghits for Christian Wrestling Federation do not turn much up, and half the links are to porn, if someone knows of some good third party coverage for it that can be referenced then I suggest you add it in as I'm considering a PROD or AfD at the moment. Darrenhusted 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got to appreciate the work of the main author, especially for releasing some photos to the public domain for the article, but I'd prod it. If you do you should probably drop a note on Jdblundell's talk.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to PROD it, but after looking in to the history it turns out it was PROD-ed in February, deleted, then recreated, then CSD G4, then hang on, and although Jdblundell has doen a lot of work the one thing he hasn't done is find third party sources to back up the media exposure section. I could have gone for a CSD, becuase it still violates G4, but instead I feel an AfD will settle this finally. Darrenhusted 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Article is now gone. Darrenhusted 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Adam Copeland needs watching - Edit: Spoiler
I don't know whether these reports are "true", but a article on WrestleMag.com states:


 * Edit: Spoiler. Just go to the site.

We hope to have more details on the situation later today.

I'm putting Copeland's page on my watchlist - if he does drop the title, the page will almost certainly have to be locked. Davnel03 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's true... Can't we use Spoiler tags? Davnel03 17:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm watching the page now as well. Gavyn Sykes 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have the page on watch, but gee, thanks for the spoiler! -- Scorpion0422 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I decided to edit it out of here. Now I know how Harry Potter fans feel. Although if WWE mentions it tonight, via ECW or WWE.com, the debate will begin yet again, as it did in May. Mshake3 22:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Goes without saying that GAB will need watching too, and also Smackdown! Darrenhusted 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler for both articles Darrenhusted 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And WWE.com decides to do what they did in May. And the arguments begin again.Mshake3 00:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Need to stop reading these things before I watch the programmes...Same thing happened to me with Joe over on TNA...dammit, Wikipedia... --SteelersFan UK06 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the arguments will begin, because we are 72 hours from Smackdown!, last time UT's injury and KK's injury were known about for longer. Darrenhusted 12:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pic Nominated for Deletion
I've nominated a pic for Deletion at this spot: -- Hornet man  16  22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's still here and here, so it's still relevent to something. Wouldn't it be easier to take it out of those pages first, complete with a relevent reason? Mshake3 22:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that was 2005 and it no longer has a reason to be here.-- Hornet man  16  22:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for the 2005 SS page, where it's still 2005. **Bangs head against desk**.Mshake3 22:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * read the log it's been removed THREE TIMES!!!!-- Hornet  man  16  22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of debating here why don't you go vote.-- Hornet man  16  22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, it's only been removed once (and I'm not going through the history to find the other two), by you, with the reason "removing for the third time." You still havn't explained why the Survivor Series 2005 set has no place in the Survivor Series 2005 article. Mshake3 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause no other WWE article except the Weekly shows show their set.-- Hornet man  16  22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While most don't have them, it doesn't mean this one isn't notable. Your best bet is to explain why a set image shouldn't be in their associated articles. Mshake3 22:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is likely because there are no Free Use images of said sets available. Gavyn Sykes 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea what Hornetman16's reasoning is, from what I can tell it was added in here on the 4th April 2007, and  it was removed here  by orphanbot on the 8th April 2007, and hasn't been removed since, and it is a fair use image which illustrates the stage set up, which could not be done by screencap. It has only been removed once, not three times (surely the last time would need to be the fourth?) and there is no copyright issues, it may be a bir blurry but it serves its purpose. And I suggest Hornetman16 you reign in the SHOUTING! . I see no merit in this deletion, so I'm going to add it back to the page and if the image is deleted then the link can be removed then. Darrenhusted 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just voted to keep the picture, for the reasons stated by other users above. Nikki311 00:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Likeiwse. Should probably point out that the picture has recently disappeared from the Survivor Series and Survivor Series 2005 articles. --SteelersFan UK06 06:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put it back in and asked Hornetman16 to leave it where it is until a consensus has been reached to delete, or indeed keep. Darrenhusted 15:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Tag Teams
I'm not familiar with listing stuff for deletion but List of Tag Teams should definitely go. There's nothing there that's not already covered by World Wrestling Entertainment roster. Could somebody take care of this? DrWarpMind 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is already a cat to cover it then it should go, despite the "please leave this" sentence at the top. I'll stick it with a PROD. Darrenhusted 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Category right here >>> Category:World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables (much better, more complete and easier to maintain than a manually updated list that's so far from exhaustive it's not even funny) MPJ-DK 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think there may be a few more former tag teams than just the Dudley Boyz and MNM. Nenog 05:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is ...probably what MPJ-DK meant when he said the list wasn't exhaustive...--SteelersFan UK06 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, it also lists makeshift teams like Kane & Boogey Man who's teamed like 2 and a half times or something? MPJ-DK 12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I proded List of WWE Divas earlier today, but the prod has been removed. Shall it go up for deletion? Davnel03 21:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Darrenhusted 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another page to kill: List of Former WWE Divas. -- DrWarpMind 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I say, "once a diva, always a diva". PROD it. Darrenhusted 23:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another one of these pages: List of Former TNA Knockouts -- DrWarpMind 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with "List of TNA Knockouts"" - how can this be done if the page redirects to another page? --SteelersFan UK06 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If no one objects I'll tack it on to the AfD of the above lists. ps:if the prod for List of Tag Teams is removed before Shawn Micheals birthday then I'll add it to the above AfD-ed articles. Darrenhusted 07:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like most lists, you should make one comprehensive list or make one category for independents, one category for WWE, and one category for TNA. There is a category for independent stables and tag teams.  At one time there was a very good and comprehensive list for former wrestlers of various promotions and I don't know if it was given the delete because it was around when I first started on Wikipedia.  Then again, that was early 2006.  Mr. C.C. 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlers names vs. real names
There are oftentimes debates as to whether to use a performer's real name vs. their stage name. Since most performers are better known for their stage names people often use WP:NAME to justify making "Dusty Rhodes", "Hulk Hogan", or "The Great Khali" an article's title. While the debates rage on, I think we need to set a standard for when it comes to wrestling's names. What do you guys think? Romis 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is judged on a case by case basis. Darrenhusted 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, while WP:NAME favours ring names, very few actually are done actually this way as very few are exclusively known under one persona. This may be due to:
 * Having wrestled under their real name at some point (Curt Hennig, Mick Foley)
 * Having other works under their real name, or having used their real name to separate person from persona (Edge)
 * Real name usually mentioned alongside ring name (Steve Lombardi as the Brooklyn Brawler)
 * Equal notability under different names (Kip James)
 * Not having performed in a major promotion
 * "The true journeyman" (why they deserve a spot in this encyclopedia I have no idea)

Ring names are de facto exclusively preferred under the following conditions:
 * Mainstream recognition under said name (Hulk Hogan)
 * Industry recognition under said name (Shawn Michaels)
 * Long-running gimmick, or one unlikely to change (The Undertaker)
 * Personal preference (CM Punk)
 * Inseparability of person from persona (Stone Cold Steve Austin)

This is moot if the following occurs:
 * Multiple persons under the same gimmick (Doink the Clown)
 * Otherwise noteworthy storylines/events (the worst of WrestleCrap, so I like to think)

kelvSYC 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In Your House
Someones messed up the bottom of the article big time, and looking on the edit history, I can't seem to find the last clean version. Can someone try and get it back to normal? Thankz. Davnel03 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see a problem. Could you be more specific? Mshake3 21:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See here, and further down. Davnel03 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it that several of the PPVs are just short summaries? That's because they're described in the main PPV articles, and having summeries for both would be redundent. Mshake3 22:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

the 'Anonymous' User:208.53.96.27
I know he probably means well, but, he's messing up the articles 75% of the time.-- Hornet man  16  02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then give him warnings for each botched edit, don't tell him to register. Darrenhusted 12:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's continued after warnings I would like to suggest a temporary block.-- Hornet man  16  16:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me the diffs, I'm looking through his contribs and I'm seeing you reverting his edits with terse edit summaries but you have not placed warning messages on his talkpage after each breach. Show me the diffs where he has made bad faith vandal edits and I'll apply a bunch of warnings up to level 4 and then a final warning will mean a block. Warning him in edit summaries is not enough. Darrenhusted 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * here and here is only two examples.-- Hornet man  16  17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong, not him. And both The Hybrid and me have made the same edit. Darrenhusted 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * how is having a picture when you can actually see the title wrong?-- Hornet man  16  17:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on the edit I made, and your talk page. You're on thin 3RR ice, go to the talk page rather than reverting. Other than that find some other diffs which show diffs, you said s/he messes up 75% of the time. Find the diffs ans they can be warned. Darrenhusted 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * how's this and this.-- Hornet man  16  17:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit to wreckless intent could not be seen to be a bad faith edit, may be a mistake but certainly not vandalism, the Steiner Bros edit was correct, and deleted a picture put up by a sock puppet . Unless you have anything else this doesn't seem like a correct assesment of this editor's activity. Darrenhusted 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "hows this" and "this" (above) both seem like good faith edits. If the user would just get a user account...It can't be that hard! --SteelersFan UK06 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hornetman16 was in a dispute with the editor over a picture on WWE Championship, assuming all the edits are the same person I haven't been able to find any recent edits that suggest a vandal. Darrenhusted 09:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

North East Texas Wrestling
A user has decided to build a little garden and inside he has put his backyard fed and declared himself champion. He then removed the PRODs, , placed on those pages and duplicated the removal messages on the talkpages. Your thoughts on this AfD are welcomed. Darrenhusted 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha ha... Sorry, this probably isn't very funny to others, but this guy actually lists people like Abyss, RVD, and Sabu as part of the NTW Roster on the "Official Website."--ProtoWolf 19:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In his mission statement he admits to knowing the owner of PCW, and the News page was last updated on 22 May. Darrenhusted 20:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warrior (wrestler)
You may want to keep watch on the Warrior page. I've reverted to the last good version (see edit log for more info). Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)