Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 4

Wrestler's birthdates
User has changed the birthdates of several wrestlers based on info which I'm not sure is reliable. Can anyone tell whether or not these are correct, as I don't want to get into any more edit wars with him. ErikNY 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He is apparently getting this information from here. I'm not convinced on the accuracy of the site, as they list Samoa Joe's birthday wrong at the very least.--Toffile 05:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

WWF to WWE Date Controversy
There's an ongoing edit controversy going on between Chadbryant and myself on the WWE Undisputed Championship page. On the Talk page I've cited archived news stories from May 5, 2002, which state that as of that night the WWF changed all mentions of WWF to WWE. His only response to that is that I'm getting my info from mark sites, yet he doesn't dispute the actual date, but only the place I got it from. I'd like for the people that contribute to this project to look this matter over and post your comments on it here. Thanks. tv316 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have disputed the actual date *and* provided proof of the change being made official on 6 May 2002. I have also generalized the date in the article to May 2002 as a compromise (since the exact date isn't really that important in the context of the article), but you felt led to change it once again and ignore the dispute entirely. If you are going to reference what I have done, please try to be honest about it, especially when anyone can check the talk page of the article and see it. Otherwise, your credibility suffers greatly. - Chadbryant 17:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you post the links you're using please, for our reference. Thanks. Essexmutant 16:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Here they are: http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/2002/articles/1020644114.php
 * http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfother.htm
 * http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/wwe.html tv316 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Chad, wrestling-titles.com is a mark site by your definition. It's copied from Gary Will's work on wrestling title histories, just like lordsofpain copied their information from people like Dave Meltzer and Wade Keller. I changed it back because you didn't explain why you changed it to the generalization and I saw it as an act of, mind my language, shit disturbing. I see now that was not the case. tv316 17:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * wrestling-titles.com is not a mark site, and regardless of its status, a quick Google search reveals that the press release announcing the change from WWF to WWE was dated May 6 2002.
 * STAMFORD, CONN., May 6, 2002 - To further capture a greater share of the global marketplace and to represent the growing diversity of its entertainment properties, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment today announced it is changing its name to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE). The company’s website, one of the most popular in the world, will now be found at WWE.com.
 * I trust that this ends any debate. - Chadbryant 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As previously mentioned, the press release went out on the Monday because Monday was the first day of business in the week. The actual change itself took place on the Sunday. tv316 18:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The press release dated 6 May clearly states that "it is changing its name", not "it has changed its name". Present tense indicates that the change is occuring or is in the process of occuring - the use of past tense would have indicated that the change had already taken place. Hence, while certain modifications in DNS records for the WWF.com domain and website graphics may have taken place on or around 5 May, the name change was not announced as effective until 6 May. Despite being vindicated in my original contention, I am still in favour of leaving the article as-is to reference a general date of May 2002 as the time of the transition from WWF to WWE. - Chadbryant 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The press release dated 6 May clearly states that "it is changing its name", not "it has changed its name". Present tense indicates that the change is occuring or is in the process of occuring - the use of past tense would have indicated that the change had already taken place. Hence, while certain modifications in DNS records for the WWF.com domain and website graphics may have taken place on or around 5 May, the name change was not announced as effective until 6 May. Despite being vindicated in my original contention, I am still in favour of leaving the article as-is to reference a general date of May 2002 as the time of the transition from WWF to WWE. - Chadbryant 18:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We can go on like this for years. You can post your proofs and I can post my proofs and we'll still think the other one's wrong. Seeing as its a minor line in a minor article, it's not worth the effort to repeat ourselves continually. Unless some other people pipe in with their opinions, the compromise should be fine. tv316 21:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we not just go with the WWE press release date, because this will go on forever, and it is right from the source. SFrank85 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. Even if it's a kayfabed date, so what? We use the kayfabe dates for title changes even if they were taped earlier and shown on TV later.  It's all about what the wrestling promotion considers official, and if WWE says it was May 6th on their own press release that's good enough for me. BronzeWarrior 10:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A heads-up for the other legitimate wrestling editors here - there is yet another user (User:LtColMüller) who has chosen to vandalize various articles with the incorrect date for the WWF-to-WWE change. He has been provided with various cites of the correct date, as well as the press release that establishes 6 May 2002 as the correct date to reference, yet insists on reverting or editing articles to reflect an incorrect date. - Chadbryant 21:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrestler article naming contrary to conventions (part 2)
While I don't think all the changes proposed by KelvSYC are necessary or desirable, some of them are good suggestions. Moving Paul Levesque to Triple H seems a sensible course of action, and I intend to request a page move (which, of course, can be opposed). I also think that Jason Reso should be moved to Christian Cage as (1) this has always been the full name of his "character", (2) he has trademarked the name "Christian Cage" and (3) it is the ring name he will use for the forseeable future, and will allow a lot of direct linking in the TNA articles. The second move does not require the assistance of an administrator, but the article is popular enough that I felt that I should consult the project before moving the page. Mark Calaway should really also be moved, but it is unclear whether the page should be moved to The Undertaker, the name I for one generally associate with him, or Undertaker (wrestler) (as WWE.com have apparently dropped the "The" from his name ). Obviously, the former name would allow much more direct linking. I would appreciate any feedback or criticisms as to these three proposals. McPhail 23:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer The Undertaker over Undertaker (wrestler). Also, It might be a little to early to move Jason Reso's page. These changes sound more legit than some proposals brought up by KelvSYC. Not to say all of his suggestions were bad though. :-p S W D 3 1 6  talk to me 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with SWD316 on this, The Undertaker would be a good name to move after going under the name for 15 years as compared to the move to Christian Cage which is tad bit too early. I would also agree with the move for Paul Levesque to Triple H as the chances of him changing his name is very unlikely. --Oakster 12:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * At least until the inevitable breakup between him and Stephanie McMahon... And that's the problem really.  Unlike actors, musicians, et. al., wrestlers don't own their names.  Their ability to continue using their stage names is entirely contingent on their continued employment with a given company.  That's the whole thing that makes this issue so thorny that we've been discussing it since before I joined the project and STILL haven't reached a clear consensus.  --HBK|Talk 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is only speculated if they do break up. However, we should keep the revert option for Triple H. If someone were to type in Paul Levesque, it would redirect to Triple H instead of it going nowhere. SFrank85 19:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) talk

Did Christian ever use the Cage surname in WWE? I don't recall it, but it could be implied. The problem that I can see is that if Cage becomes so popular so as to TNA simply referring to him as Christian. I still believe that Christian Cage would still be a viable move. We also have the issue of ring name shortenings that have arisen from de facto convention: after all, Calaway's original Undertaker was called Kane, the three Hs actually stood for something before the rise of The Game, etc.

Still, the main point is that the placement of articles under obscure real names, IMO, are contrary to WP:NC (P), in which we should instead place them under more recognizable ring names. Until we see something like "Joseph Bonsignore as Joey Styles" at the end of Raw and "Sean Coulthard as Michael Cole, Peter Senerca as Tazz" at the end of every SmackDown! that is what we have to do to follow conventions. kelvSYC 06:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jay Reso's original ring name in WWF/E was "Christian Cage". He held the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship under this name briefly. - Chadbryant 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It surprises me WWE hasn't challenged his ownership of the trademark then, since they could claim he used it while working under contract for the E, and those contracts (read a generic one at one of the free law websites) are pretty brutal when it comes to saying Vince et al WWE own everything about you up to (possibly including) your first born. But maybe Reso trademarked it first when he was working the indies in Canada and there wasn't scat WWE could do about it when he renewed under his original name. BronzeWarrior 10:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Problem
The article "List of WWE World Tag Team Champions" and "List of WWE World Tag team Champions by length" have been deleted or somethin? Can anyone confirm this? Edraf 07:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I searched them up and they were missing the dash in the links between Tag-Team. I fixed them and they work fine now. tv316 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Pay-per-view event infobox
I've been working on an infobox for individual pay-per-view event articles, which might also be useful for other non-PPV event articles as well. Here is the template along with an example of it in action: User:Oakster/PPV Template. Any chance we could use it? --Oakster 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I'd support its use.  --HBK|Talk 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work making it. I'd definately support its use. tv316 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Attendance and buyrate should probably be optional fields as this information isn't always readily available. McPhail 18:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support using this infobox. Good job. As for the buyrates, they should be more easy to find now that WWE has to release its buyrates because they are a publicly traded company. Attendence could be a hard find for other PPV's besides Wrestlemania. SFrank85 18:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They are optional fields along with pay-per-view succession if you can see the top table. --Oakster 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it but I think the succession part should be more like the album template.--Darren Jowalsen 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I've changed the pay-per-view chronology section now to fit around your idea. --Oakster 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking good! SFrank85 22:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments so far, I appreciate it. --Oakster 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Its nice, I'll try to put it in the PPV's as soon as I can. Good work by the way. Edraf 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I've finished placing them in most of the individual pay-per-view articles (along with other non-PPV events) with the help of tv316. tv316 has also suggested about how to deal with the pay-per-view articles that have results for many years in one page. How do you guys feel about the setup on User:Tv316/Sandbox? --Oakster 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. But you dont have to put the same picture in the infobox everytime. Edraf 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to use that template box like it has been used on User:Tv316/Sandbox for all the major pay-per-views. I was just about to ask about putting them on all of the articles until I found this. Good job on the template as well by the way. I can get a hold of the WWE and TNA pay-per-view attendances almost immedietely after the events (ROH among others could be a problem though, estimates for ROH events say 550 but that is for the start of 2006 events, don't know where to find attendances from years like 2002 from) and would gladly add it to all the other pay-per-views. Normy132, 04:15 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Lenghts / Week By Week Breakdowns
Some articles are getting just incredibly unnecessarily long. There's no reason to give a week by week of Chris Masters' career is there?Bdve 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Week by week breakdowns is cruft. Wrestlers' storyline progressions should be based on more logical units such as angle-by-angle. If a storyline is significant, we would have a separate page for it, and it might have a week-by-week breakdon (depending on length and other factors). kelvSYC 06:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wwe.jpg
I suggest that Image:Wwe.jpg should be up for deletion becuase we already have a better wwe logo. Let's talk about it. SFrank85 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that way, put it up on IFD. kelvSYC 06:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it links to nowhere so tag it with the appropriate template from WP:CSD and it'll be gone in a week.--Toffile 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, will do! SFrank85 06:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You forgot to tag it with a reason. I added one though.--Toffile 07:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. SFrank85 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of professional wrestling match types
This page has gotten insane. There's a reogrinization tag on it but few seem to check it when they edit. People are continually re-adding the same match with a different name (You Can't See Me = Blindfold rebranded).

I don't think we have to go as far as to make seperate pages for every kind of variation (Singles variations / Containter variations etc) but there has to be a way to slim it down.

I just wanted to draw some attention to it.


 * I will help reogrinize it. It has gotten way out of hand. SFrank85 18:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated on the page in a comment, the standard is that two match types differing only in non-wrestling aspects are considered identical, so someone adding "You Can't See Me" over and over again would count as vandalism. We should have a blurb on how bookers can come up with new stuff all the time, and have notability criterion, which I have proposed on Talk:Professional wrestling match types. kelvSYC 22:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I just proposed what matches I think should be eliminated from the article. See for more details.--Toffile 03:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some the Urban Legends & Myth section from the Eddie Guerrero & WWE articles
The reason I did is it is just pure disrespectful to Eddie to have these paragraphs saying he faked his death and still alive. I wish he was still alive but I do not vandalize articles proclaiming he is still alive because it morally wrong and distasteful to his legend. BionicWilliam 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Quick two cents on the naming issue
I think redirects or disambiguation from a wrestler's gimmick name to their real (non kayfabe) name is probably the most sensible solution. This issue came up for me when writing William Welch's entry, since in the ring he's known as Messiah. Now clearly if I had tried to surplant the messiah entry on Wiki with one for a pro wrestler, all hell (no pun intended) would have broken loose. The only sensible thing to do in that case was to write the page under his real name and provide the appropriate links to it using the link renaming | convention where appropriate. Now clearly not every wrestler is going to have a religious word as a gimmick name, but we all know wrestlers whose gimmick names are ridiculously entangled in pop culture. Think of how many different references there are to Raven (Teen Titans is the first of many that come to mind) and as a result it makes more sense to file him under Scott Levy. Further we all loved the double entendre of the gimmick but doesn't a Mick Foley page make more sense than unduly confusing all of mankind? I rest my case. BronzeWarrior 10:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The page could have been created at Messiah (wrestler). This is the naming convention used with Sting (wrestler) and The Rock (entertainer). McPhail 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize it +could+ have been, but since most of the bios I had already read on Wiki used the wrestler's real name (Jay Reso, Scott Levy, and so on) it just seemed to make more sense. I suppose on a self-edited site like Wiki there doesn't need to be a consensus on the right way to do bio pages, but I'll stick with using real names since I prefer that to "gimmick name" (wrestler). BronzeWarrior 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the real names should be used simply because real names never change.--Anthony 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless, of course, you are Warrior... - Chadbryant 05:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Awards
I was thinking of adding templates for some of the Wrestling Observer awards, similar to the title history templates to show the Wrestler of the Year awards, etc. Any objections? Essexmutant 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for a template. They can be listed in the Championships and accomplishments section the same way as PWI awards and Tokyo Sports Grand Prix awards.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 11:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made a start, see Kenta Kobashi for an example. So far I've done Wrestler of the Year, Most Outstanding Wrestler, Best Box Office Draw, Best Babyface and Best Heel. I'll carry on later. Along the way I have created a stub for Koji Kanemoto - expansion welcome. Essexmutant 15:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tag Team or Tag-Team
Recently, while making edits to WWE Tag Team Championship, I reverted edits by a user who removed the dashes in any mentions of 'Tag-Team' on that page. Just now, I looked at the page and, although it was in plain site, I noticed for the first time that the page itself had no dash. Then I looked to the bottom of the page and it linked out to List of WWE Tag Team Champions and List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length. Also, half the mentions of 'Tag Team' on that page have dashes in them and the other have doesn't. I don't particularly care which one it is, but I think we in the project need to choose which one we stick with, make the necessary page moves and edits, and continue to use only it and not the other one. tv316 02:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe without a dash is the correct one. That is the format WWE.com is also using. Same for noah.co.jp. I'm all for changing all occurrences of Tag-Team to Tag Team.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the de facto correct usage is that "tag team" is a noun, while "tag-team" is a verb. (eg. "The two tag teams tag-teamed to form a fearsome foursome."). That's why Wikipedia's article is at tag team. On this topic, in professional wrestling usage the ampersand is to separate members of one tag team, while "and" is used to separate teams themselves. kelvSYC 07:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Redundant WWE articles
Some random articles i found... i will admit some are just in need of a clean up while others are quite pointless:
 * Deluxe Triple Crown Champion
 * WWE PPV Statistics
 * List of WWE world champions by age
 * Power 25
 * History of the "You Suck!" Chant
 * Crowd chants


 * Most of those articles should be proposed for deletion, but crowd chants could actually be developed into a good article, although it would have very little to do with pro wrestling if it were written correctly. - Chadbryant 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've AFD'd WWE PPV Statistics, as it is deletion worthy.
 * DTCC (or even TCC) is not a term used by WWE (Grand Slam, however, is). It might just be for the benefit of smarks (after all, we all know that smarks have a big affinity for Chris Benoit, and wishes he would win the WWE Championship to complete his set of six...)
 * The history of the "You Suck" chant should be part of the main chronological proper, yet it is too poorly written to be of any value (encyclopedia writers, after all, should be able to write good prose, not crude 1337...). It also misses out on a lot of details (such as the Angle face turn that pretty much separated him from WGTT when he stated that the "you suck" chants were there as a symbol of overcoming adversity)
 * Power 25 is merge worthy, but to where I am not sure - it certainly does not deserve its own article.
 * As for world champions by age, it could be deletion worthy as it is right now - if the Wikidata project is a success, we'd have this computed for us anyways. kelvSYC 07:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I've just noticed an article for WWE.com which I think is pretty pointless and more or less an advert for their site. --Oakster 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Somebody already did an edit/re-direct, because I'm not seeing it now. Either way I'm sure it was redundant. BronzeWarrior 03:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Smackdown Vs. RAW Storyline
I think there should be an article about the Smackdown vs. RAW Storyline. It has been a major storyline in 2005. Can anybody follow-up on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edraf (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know if it's enough for a full article. I don't think we have any single article about any single wrestling storyline. Also, you can sign your comments with a ~ . Welcome to the project.--Toffile 01:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We have separate articles on The Invasion, Katie Vick, etc. ie. the ones that go on WrestleCrap. For good storylines, we don't have much in that department. kelvSYC 03:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic isn't it that good storylines don't need entries, but bad ones do? I'm not complaining I'm just amused. :) BronzeWarrior 03:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So true. So very very true. =P--Toffile 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles that need help
Is there a place to list articles that you know need editing and need to be updated/expanded but you yourself don't have the information to do it? It makes me sad to see Crusher & Dick The Bruiser nearly empty but I wasn't even born when they were on the scene. -Bdve 02:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at the articles later tonight and try to update them a bit if someone else from the Project didn't beat me to the punch. I don't know that I ever saw much of their work growing up (until the late 20th century WWWF/WWF was all I knew or saw) and I'm only 31 so I probably missed "their era" but there are plenty of good resources you can use to expand someone's wrestling bio.  I personally recommend OWW and CAC among others. You can also learn more about old school legends by using tape traders. BronzeWarrior 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten to Dick the Bruiser's page yet, but I will probably revise it tonight. I encourage you to check out my rewrite of Crusher's page if you haven't already. BronzeWarrior 17:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I want to thank you for tackling that Crusher article as quickly and thoroughly as you did, but those two were just examples. What I really want to know is, is it cool for just anybody to edit the box on top of the talk page for articles to cleanup/expand/recreate etcetera. I don't know wikipedia protocol -Bdve 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I've been here long enough myself to qualify as an expert, but I don't think editing in a suggestion for articles to clean up or expand is something +I+ would grouse about. It's good to know what needs work. BronzeWarrior 07:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Gregory Helms, RR 2006
I've noted this on the talk:Royal Rumble (2006) discussion, but in case anyone misses that post, I'm not sure Helms can be considered a two-time WWE cruiserweight champion since the previous title he held during the invasion was actually the WCW cruiserweight title. BronzeWarrior 08:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He's held the belt itself 3 times, once when it was the WCW Cruiserweight Championship and twice when it was the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. McPhail 09:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify when? I don't remember him ever having the belt as Hurricane. I know he had the Hardcore Title a few times and Tag Team Titles with both Kane and Rosey, but I'm completely drawing a blank on him ever having had the WWE CW title before last night. BronzeWarrior 09:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He defeated Yoshihiro Tajiri on May 14 2002, and lost to Jamie Noble on June 23 2002. See List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions. Essexmutant 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'll be damned. That reign went so quick I missed it completely. I remember Noble and Tajiri from that year but I had completely forgotten Helms. In fact I seem to remember Tajiri had an angle where Torrie Wilson was his geisha. BronzeWarrior 06:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Length
I'm noticing that some of the individual wrestler entries are becoming quite long (long enough that when you edit them, you're given a warning about article size). I'm not really sure that huge articles detailing every single storyline a wrestler has ever been involved in is really necessary in most cases - just imagine how big Ric Flair would be if someone did for his article what has been done for Kurt Angle. I do think that more emphasis on the wrestler as a biographical subject, and less emphasis on the stories he or she has been a part of would go a long way in making the wrestling biographies more manageable and co-existent with Wikipedia as a whole. - Chadbryant 20:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been an issue I've been thinking about for some time now. I think we probably should start summarizing any events that occurred in the past 6-12 months. Cut out all the minor angles and results, and mention any significant events that occured. Sound fair?--Toffile 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would trim down most (if not all) of the individual wrestler articles to only include notable facts & events - the infobox, titles won, the title lineages where applicable, and any notable non-ring events. - Chadbryant 22:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a happy medium between a comprehensive biography and an exhaustive recap of weekly events. I think a decent sized paragraph for a period of 6-12 months is usually quite enough. Obviously some events need somewhat more detail, but there's no excuse for writing a six paragraph account of a wrestler's throwaway match on Heat. McPhail 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Category reorganization
The Professional wrestling categories (root Category:Professional wrestling) is a real big mess right now, and I'd like people in this project to help in its organization.

First, a couple changes I made:
 * In keeping with Wikipedia's categorization patterns, I've made Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality and Category:Professional wrestling championships by promotion. I'd also like to move Category:Professional wrestling rosters to the more appropriate Category:Professional wrestlers by promotion.
 * I have made Category:Heavyweight wrestling championships, Category:Tag team wrestling championships, Category:Cruiserweight wrestling championships, Category:Women's wrestling championships, and Category:Hardcore wrestling championships to group titles by their general category. Since there are a lot of titles, I'd like all to help with the categorization. A page on a championship should be grouped in the category of their promotion and the general type (eg. the World Tag Team Championship is a WWE title and a tag team title).

Remaining proposals:
 * In accordance to Wikipedia's categorization practices, I'd like to move Category:Professional wrestling rosters to the more appropriate Category:Professional wrestlers by promotion, and have Category:Professional wrestlers be filed under Category:Professional wrestling performers.
 * In accordance to Wikipedia's categorization practices regarding sports, I'd also like to introduce Category:Defunct professional wrestling promotions and other similar categories.
 * We may need Category:Main event wrestling championships to denote top wrestling championships, or at least something to differentiate the WWE Championship from the WWE Intercontinental Championship.
 * As Wikipedia has a category for chronological lists, we should have a separate Category:Lists of professional wrestling title histories or something to that effect.

Any comments or suggestions? kelvSYC 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't like the cruiserweight one, it's very WWE/WCW-centric. Not sure what to do instead without making a category for each different weight-class.--Darren Jowalsen 00:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think you should have the Hardcore one as that is even more WCW/WWF... but instead a Category:Gimmick wrestling championships (belts with stipulations i.e hardcore, X-div, Pure titles)... and Mid-card wrestling championships (European, intercontinetal, All-England etc etc)... i think the main problem is no one is goin through the championships and adding the categorys... i mean there are tons of light heavyweight/cruiserweight titles --- Paulley 19:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Viro Small - Asking for advice
I wrote this article and was looking for a good photo to go with it. The only photo I could find is on []. The problem is I don't know if it is in the public domain. I have tried to contact the administrators twice but my Email bounced back both times with a notice saying there was a fatal error on their side.

I'm thinking that since its such an old photogragh that its most likely in the public domain. Should I upload it and use it or not? (Stephen Day 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I think it's 99.999% likely that the photo is in public domain and copyright would have long since expired, since it has the appearance of a lithograph over 100 years old. As a last resort though, try looking up the website's domain registry through NetSol or Register.com since the owner of the site is required to keep the information current. BronzeWarrior 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for the advice. (Stephen Day 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC))

Dean Simon ---> Dean Malenko
A move has been requested for Dean Simon, to relocate the article to Dean Malenko. - Chadbryant 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed WWF(WWE)/WCW info from the List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions Page
I removed the information because it’s a Title History Page not discussion page about the rewritten history that WCW now WWE use to make one of there belts seem prestigious since the National Wrestling Alliance is a group of independent professional wrestling promotions, in operation since 1948. Prior to the 1980s, it acted as a governing body for pro wrestling, operating the 'franchise'-like "territory" system.
 * Seems like it was probably a good change, since NWA doesn't acknowledge WWE in their lineage or vice versa, but please sign your posts so we know who you are and can discuss it with you if needed. BronzeWarrior 11:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Tables
One of the suggestions made in a peer review of the "Konnan" article was that we "Convert "Finishing and signature moves" and "Managers" to tables and integrate into the text, like Saffron.". The current "In wrestling / wrestling facts" sections that are used to list finishing moves, managers, nicknames, stables and quotes are, admittedly, unwieldy, and inevitably take the form of embedded lists, which are to be avoided. I don't known a lot about the codes used for tables, templates and infoboxes, but it would be useful if we could create a table that could display this information in a compact and attractive manner. McPhail 01:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Title Matches
Even though I'll grant that Wiki page length gets too long when every single event in a wrestler's history is chronicled, and that some title matches are a foregone conclusion before they even begin, for reasons I can't even fathom myself I decided to add last night's CW title shot to the Scotty 2 Hotty bio. What I'm asking applies just as much to CW as to any other type of belt - where's the right place to draw the line? Scotty was in this match as a substitute to begin with, so maybe it wasn't relevant, but some people would argue matches where the title holder retains aren't historically important either. Watching Magnum T.A. wrestle Ric Flair for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship at the AWA SuperClash, I'd have to disagree - even though Flair retains it's a fantastic and very important match. BronzeWarrior 10:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say a title match can be included if it is the career highlight of the person in question. It's all relative. There's not that much info on Shoichi Funaki, so the threshold for information adding is pretty low. Of course if that person gets later involved in a big feud, then the less important events can be phased out.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 11:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Good answer. Seems like it basically doesn't hurt to add it if it seems newsworthy at the time, but it can always be downscaled or phased out later on.  There are other sites like OWW who will go out of their way to record every match and title shot whether a Wiki entry does or not. BronzeWarrior 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Grand Slam Champion
Hi, I just want to inquire about Chris Benoit becoming Grand Slam Champion. Benoit never won the WWE European Championship that is required to be a Grand Slam. But why is his name in the List of GSC's? Edraf 23:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reference to Benoit I can find on the GSC page is this Grand Slam Championship, where it lists him as a WCW GSC, not a WWF/WWE one.--Toffile 01:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought the Grand Slam was all major belts in a promotion - heavyweight, #2 title (IC, X Division) and the tag team belts. I was never aware minor or discontinued belts had to be counted. If that was the case WWE would have no Grand Slam winners, since Bret Hart never held the light heavyweight title, for example. BronzeWarrior 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Winning the Grand Slam Championship could only happen if you captured the WWE Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, the European Championship and the World Tag Team Championship. Since the European Championship is extinct, there will be no more Grand Slam Champions in the WWE. The X-Division title is TNA only not WWE. And the Light-Heavyweight Championship is excluded from this also. If Benoit never won the European Championship, then he is NOT a Grand Slam Champion. M o e   ε  02:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Slight Correction on what I said. I said there will be no more Grand Slam Champions in WWE, but I was wrong, these are the following people who can achieve Grand Slam Champion status if they can obtain the other championships too:

Currently employeed by WWE
 * Shane McMahon - He's not going to get anymore championship reigns
 * Mark Henry - still needs tag titles, IC title and WWE title
 * Val Venis - needs tag team and WWE title
 * Al Snow - employeed by WWE but working at OVW
 * Matt Hardy - needs WWE title but thats on RAW
 * JBL - only needs IC title; but thats on RAW
 * Gregory Helms - still needs IC and WWE title
 * William Regal - only needs WWE title but thats on the RAW brand
 * Rob Van Dam - safest bet as to the next GSC will be; only needs WWE title but I doubt WWE will hand him the strap

Not employeed by WWE but could get GSC status if they returned
 * D'Lo Brown
 * X-Pac
 * Mideon
 * Jeff Jarrett
 * Perry Saturn
 * Test
 * Christian
 * Diamond Dallas Page
 * Spike Dudley
 * Jeff Hardy

In conclusion, like I said, there will probably be no more Grand Slam Champions. M o e  ε  03:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The WWF described Michaels as a Grand Slam Champion after he won the WWF World Heavyweight Championship, the WWF Intercontinental Championship, the WWF European Championship and the WWF World Tag Team Championship. That is canon. The current article recognises the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Team Championship as components of the Grand Slam, which is debatable. However, the US Championship is not part of the Grand Slam (and even if it was, it would presumably be interchangeable with the IC Title, not the European Title - the WCW TV Title was the third tier heavyweight singles belt in WCW, not the US Title). No-one can be a (WWF/E) Grand Slam Champion who was not a European Champion. McPhail 12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw where it said World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship, they actually link to the correct titles. The Championship actually needed to make the GSC status is the WWE Championship, which is properly linked in the article but under the wrong name. I will change it to where it cites it properly. Same with the tag championships. About that matter with the European Championship, everyone I listed above HAS hade the European championship before and the titles listed next to the name are the one's they haven't got yet. I agree that the US title would be interchangeable with the IC title, not the European. In conclusion, I don't think there will be anymore GSC unless Mark Henry, Val Venis, Matt Hardy, JBL, Gregory Helms, William Regal or RVD can get the rest of thier accomplishments filled. M o e   ε  18:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now changed the wording under the requirements of the Grand Slam Champion. Anything wrong with this version? M o e   ε  18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to beat a dead horse, but since WWE European Championship says that RVD unified it with the WWE Intercontinental Championship, couldn't one argue that anybody holding the IC belt is effectively qualified to win the Grand Slam whether they held the old Euro title or not? BronzeWarrior 07:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible but for the sake of simplicity, let's not go in that direction. If you go with that idea, than anyone who would have won the World Heavyweight Championship in early 2003 would be a World Heavyweight Champion, Intercontinental Champion, European Champion, U.S. Champion, Hardcore Champion and Maybe even an NWA National Heavyweight Champion.  Anyone who wins the WWE Championship could also be considered a WCW Champion since the new World Heavyweight is not the WCW championship.  You could make that arguement, but it's confusing and the titles aren't really considered "unified" belts like in boxing.  Basically, the other belt's guy is the number one contender for the more important title.--Darren Jowalsen 00:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll grant that simplicity is preferred to compexity but unfortunately since WWE kayfabed "unifying" the belts it's a little hard to untangle that knot. I know they freely disregard their own continuity at every opportunity and screw-up their own storylines so badly they routinely have to retcon explanations in, but when they present a unification match on TV and say "whoever wins this match combines both titles into one belt" it's hard to ignore the implication.  However for the sake of ending this debate I'll just leave it at this - when Stone Cold reintroduced the IC title during his tenure as Raw GM, it's fair to say that he broke it apart from the European title unification in the process.  As such they could reintroduce the European title seperately as well, it's just that it's such a minor title they've never bothered to.  (Which makes one question why the Euro title would be a qualification to being a Grand Slam winner, but oh well.) BronzeWarrior 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand a Grand Slam Champion as being a person who has been able to capture "every major title the WWE has to offer". As stated by Shawn Michaels in his book.  So...  With that said I would have to argue (much to my disappointment ) that it is just that - Every major title that the WWE currently has to offer.  So it does not need the European title (since it's not current).  I believe the only titles that would not be needed would be woman titles, and light weight titles.


 * Now taking a liberty for a moment I would say you only have to get every title on one of the brands. Or to take a even larger liberty - Only needing to get one of every title (mixing up between brands)...  But this paragraph is with out question my personal POV--Anthony 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Opponent or victim
We should make a decision on which to use; "wrestler and opponent" or "attacker and victim." I personally find the first preferable.

↪Lakes (Talk) 20:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My vote would be with "wrestler and opponent". M o e   ε  23:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Hey, I'm new here, do you guys know where I can get pictures of Lou Thesz or Strangler Lewis, that aren't copyrighted?
 * Welcome! You may want to consider signing up for an account, that way you can keep tracks of your edits and uploads, and sign your posts with four tilde (~) to identify yourself.  It's not easy to find non-copyrighted photos of anybody these days considering Congress keeps extending it to infinity (that's not NPOV but screw it, that's how I feel) but you could always get permission from an actual copyright owner to upload a photo for the limited purpose of improving a Wikipedia entry. BronzeWarrior 07:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If a photograph is uploaded with the proper tag, it can be used, even if the image is copyrighted. As an NPO, Wikipedia assumes "fair use" for images that are used merely to illustrate the subject of an article. - Chadbryant 00:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ECW Another One Night Stand
Hey guys,

Just thought I'd let you know that I've added an article for the upcoming ECW pay-per-view "ECW Another One Night Stand". Proof of this was given at the Raw house show on February 18, 2006. (Normy 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).

Tag team trivia
The following is taken from the trivia section of the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) article:


 * With the release of The Heart Throbs and the breakup of Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch, there are no dedicated tag teams left on Raw. This marks the first time in WWWF/WWF/WWE history where there has not been a single dedicated tag team, including the champions (who are primarily singles wrestlers), left to compete for the World Tag Team Championship. (There are still dedicated tag teams competing for the SmackDown! equivalent, the WWE Tag Team Championship.)



Surley this is POV... isnt it???... i think it should be removed esspecally as i would consider Tomko and Snitsky a tag team aswell --- Paulley 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it POV? Seems to be stating a fact, though it could probably use a rewrite.Bdve 19:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Machete
The page for Machete (Wrestler) was mostly about Joey Machete, while the TNA stuff on that page is about a different guy, also named Machete -- he used to work as "Ricky Vega.".

Pics for comparison: Joey Machete: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/pictures/b/blackmarket/01.jpg

TNA's Machete: http://www.tnapics.com/albums/ppvlive/2006/feb12/IMG_7537.jpg

Ricky Vega: http://www.whipperinterviews.coms.ph/images/dsc09845.jpg

Anyway, I created a new page for Joey Machete and split the content up between 'em. As soon as TNA updates their roster page we'll be able to fill out Machete's profile a little more. --Karlos the Jackal 03:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. McPhail 08:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. There seems to be some confusion on this point on a few message boards, too, which is where I found out that Joey Machete even existed. --Karlos the Jackal 10:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

World Tag Team Championship
Just to let you guys know, I've put up a move request for World Tag-Team Championship to be renamed to World Tag Team Championship. --Oakster 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that much like World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), the article should be moved to World Tag Team Championship (WWE). - Chadbryant 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a tad bit unsure over that. While there was the Omaha version of the World Heavyweight Championship which concluded the need for parenthesis, was there any other title just named the World Tag Team Championship? --Oakster 09:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Until the early 1980s, various NWA members promoted their own version of a "World Tag Team Championship". While they are generally redacted in current listings (i.e. NWA World Tag Team Championship [Detroit version]), they were most often promoted under the generic "World Tag Team Championship" name. - Chadbryant 13:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike the World Heavyweight Championship which was a very generic name, the term "World Tag Team Championship" is one purely in the realms of professional wrestling. Having just looked at WP:DAB, I think it's best if we make an additional disambiguation page for the NWA variations as most people looking up "World Tag Team Championship" here would tend to be looking for the WWE championship, rather than the generic term. --Oakster 19:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

LOD Vandalism
Hey guys you may or may have not noticed the persistant vandalism towards presentation in articles concerning LOD member Hawk and Droz, Christy Hemme and any articles including the Doomsday Device... from IP addresses 67.150.72.191 and 67.150.74.210 (who i guess are one and the same) there has been blatent warning given during revert edit summarys... which they must see as they constantly go and revert back... anyway can anyone else try to get through to them it would be much appriciated --- Paulley 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a stretch to call that vandalism isn't it? All I see them doing is moving the Doomsday Device to "Tag Team Moves". Bdve 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well its more of the putting all the headings in capitals and adding POV statments... like "this is a legendary move"... i wouldnt have said anything if they didnt persist in reverting everyone elses edits back to theres --- Paulley
 * Got ya. Didn't notice the POV statements.Bdve 18:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * now hes is deleting large sections of the Road Warrior Hawk article while constantly add a super chokeslam to the throws section under the new I.P.67.150.65.40 --- Paulley 14:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He's using sockpuppets now. Banning would be the next step I guess.
 * ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He is now adding threataning comments to his edits: see here --- Paulley 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked that IP address indefinetly because of the threat, however. I think his IP is shared, so it may be lifted later on. If there's any more problems, please send them to WP:AIV so they can be taken care of quickly. --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 10:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Daniels
I have changed the Christopher Daniels page. It erroneously claimed the injury he sustained on his WCW Nitro match kept him out of wrestling for a year, when in fact he wrestled both on the independent_circuit circuit and in Japan.

OVW & double gimmicks
Would it bother anyone if we started noting people who are working both for WWE proper (Raw/SmackDown!) and OVW making a second section on their parallel careers & gimmicks? Paul Burchill for one would benefit from it.Bdve 18:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would probably be worthwhile if it doesn't get too excessive. For example if the Spirit Squad are on both Raw and OVW TV every week, their pages could get really long from the storyline angles for each one.  Boogeyman too, since he seems to be on both OVW and Smackdown each week. BronzeWarrior 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good point I hadn't really thought of. I'll have to figure something out. Bdve 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania 13
There seem to be a whole lot of negative comments about The Undertaker on this page which don't represent a NPOV. Perhaps this article should be cleaned up? BronzeWarrior 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think I got them all and retained the one real noteworthy piece by moving it to WMXIV page.Bdve 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * MUCH better. Kudos! BronzeWarrior 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The brand versus the show
One thing I noticed is that Raw and SmackDown! have been used interchangeably to refer to both the brand and its flagship show. However, they are, on a technicality, not quite synonymous: the flagship show for the SmackDown! brand is Friday Night SmackDown! (even though it's on Thursday where I'm from), yet Velocity is a SmackDown! brand show and not a Friday Night SmackDown! brand show. It makes me wonder if we should have separate pages for the brand and the show. kelvSYC 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's enough of a difference between the shows and the "brands" bearing their name to justify the additional articles, especially given the recent trend of inter-show angles and such. Raw & Smackdown are technically still separate brands, but are now being treated more as merely separate TV shows. - Chadbryant 05:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As for as I see, however, Wikipedia treats the shows as if they are synonymous with the brand, yet the brand is so much more than the show: after all, besides Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown!, there is still Raw magazine and SmackDown! magazine (which are not titled Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown!, last time I checked), and we still say that Heat is a Raw-brand show and Velocity is a SmackDown!-brand show, and not Heat being a Monday Night Raw-brand show and Velocity a Friday Night SmackDown!-brand show. And the announcers still say that ''Raw and SmackDown! presents WrestleMania 22 and not Monday Night Raw and Friday Night Smackdown! presents WrestleMania 22''. A lot of sites have ''SmackDown! superstars and not Friday Night SmackDown! superstars, especially those who are on Velocity every week (however, we do say superstars of Friday Night SmackDown!'' for those who are on the main show...). Most of all, there are the Raw brand of video games and the SmackDown! brand of video games... kelvSYC 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with Chadbryant that the distinction is not a particularly important one. McPhail 16:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WrestleMania cleanup
I've been reading through some of the WrestleMania pages just because they're there and I've noticed there's no real template to them. Some of them look horrible with every match subsectioned (without a ToC) making the words massive. Some have match results (x defeated y) and others have short recaps of the matches or at least a bit more information (a pinned b with a rollup). Thus I want to do some cleanup and bring these kinds of things in line with each other.

So is there a set template I should be using? I plan to drop the subsectioning, can't stand to look at that, but I welcome any other input before I actually begin. Do you like the recaps? Should those go? Things like that. Bdve 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The latter WrestleMania entries seem to have a better "template" to them than the earlier ones, which in some cases are results only. I've attempted to spruce up a few here and there by adding a few finishers and listing managers in important matches and linking their wiki entries, but I agree they could use a total overhaul.  I'm going to propose that WM matches should be listed (1.) In the order they occured (2.) With all participants including managers and valets and (3.) By finish including where appropriate the finishing move (unless of course a DQ or draw). BronzeWarrior 09:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been working on unifying the formats for the past month or two for the articles and adapting the format used in the TNA pay-per-view pages over there. While I was hoping someone could expand with the match descriptions like the later ones, I see what you mean by the earlier ones looking a bit treadful (IV comes to mind). Anyway, I suppose we could work out a better format. For those wondering here is is the current format I tried to do:


 * ===Match stip for the Championship name: Person 1 (w/Manager 1) (c) vs. Person 2===
 * Brief description of results
 * * Any intermission interview/angle


 * An alternative format I might suggest if you want to get rid of the subsections


 * *Match stip for the Championship name: Person 1 (w/Manager 1) (c) vs. Person 2
 * **Brief description of results


 * ** Any intermission interview/angle


 * Anyway, at least somebody agrees that the whole set of articles need to be in sync with each other. --Oakster 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style stipulates that section headers should not contain wikilinks, so that particular layout isn't really appropriate. McPhail 21:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That was one of my problems with the originals also. I like the second idea though. I'm thinking something along the lines of:


 * challenger 1 V person 2 (special stips) (titles)


 * description of finish

Bdve 23:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did WM1. Before I continue I want to make sure no one hates it. I haven't seen WM1 in a while so I had no way to put in any between match antics. Bdve 22:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned up the headings a little bit as it didn't stand out as much as it needed to be but overall it looks great now, thanks. --Oakster 08:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want everyone (who cares) to know that I haven't forgotten about this and fully intend to do it but I've been going through some life stuff that has prevented me from watching 3 hour PPVs (a lot need watching since the recaps here are bare bones). I should be able to restart next week or so. Bdve 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Number of World Title Reigns has been Vandalized
This page has been vandalized alot can some one got there and fix it (It says Hogan has been a World Heavywieght Champion (WWE) wich is not the case) plus many other mistakes I can't since I'm not good with wiki tables BionicWilliam 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more boggled by the fact it lists Chris Candido as an NWA World Heavyweight Champion. Don't get me wrong I like him a lot (R.I.P.) but that still just blows my mind. Anyway the Hogan entry didn't have any glaring errors to me so it must have been fixed.  It even correctly listed his two AWA reigns which were only recently recognized. BronzeWarrior 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Candido was crowned NWA World champion after Shane Douglas threw the belt down in the infamous "they can all kiss my ass" shoot. He held it for a few months before dropping it to Dan Severn. - Chadbryant 09:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That explains. I thought the NWA title had been vacated by his actions, I didn't realize they crowned an alternate champion or that Candido was their choice.  I'm surprised nobody made note of the fact he was a former world champion when he passed away - that's a real shame. BronzeWarrior 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kane and (The?) Undertaker
I've done some cleanup work on Glen Jacobs, and the page would no doubt benefit from the scrutiny of some other editors. I also think we need to move Mark Calaway to either Undertaker (wrestler) or The Undertaker as soon as possible, but we need to decide whether or not his name is prefixed by "The". McPhail 23:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Undertaker. According to WWE anyways - http://www.wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/undertaker/profile/ --Anthony 00:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to go for The Undertaker as it has the advantage of not having the parenthesis. Plus if you notice his WWE.com bio, the article flip-flops between "Undertaker" and "The Undertaker". --Oakster 09:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of the possibilities mentioned, I'd have to agree with Oakster on "The Undertaker". "Undertaker" just sounds awkward. tv316 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If it has to be moved, The Undertaker works best. - Chadbryant 14:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Naming conventions suggests that article names avoid using "The" whenever possible. Check out Bogeyman (not the professional wrestler), which is often prefixed by "The", but not the article name. I'd support a move to "Undertaker (wrestler)" --Jtalledo (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Check the archives, this discussion on naming conventions has been had 100 times. Bdve 19:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of convention, it's a question of which form Calaway has used more frequently. I would opt for The Undertaker as (a) this was the form used until recently; I think WWE removed the "The" from his name within the last year, and (b) it will allow far, far more direct linking. McPhail 19:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like the convention of addng "The" in front of the gimmick name simply came about as a result of the way he was always introduced by Howard Finkel. From Death Valley, weighing in at blah blah blah, THEEEEEEE UNDER-TAY-KAHHHHHHH!!!  Thus it's likely in a kayfabe sense his name has been Undertaker all along, and 'The' can be considered at worst unnecessary and at best a form of formal clarification; i.e. there are plenty of real-life undertakers/morticians in the world, but this is The Undertaker.  If it's going to be moved at all "Undertaker (wrestler)" would be the best choice.  BronzeWarrior 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this helps at all, but the video games tended to refer to him as "Undertaker" in his biker gimmick, and "The Undertaker" in his deadman gimmick. --HBK|Talk 15:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Undertaker definitely sounds better. According to Wikipedia naming conventions,
 * If a word without a definite article would have a general meaning, while the same word has a specific and identifiable meaning, understood by all, if adding the article, and if there is justification to have separate articles for both meanings, the specific meaning can be explained on a separate page, with a page title including the article.
 * This would seem to support "The Undertaker" over "Undertaker (wrestler)" as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Wagner, Jr.
I thought a page for the popular wrestler (the reactions he gets when I watch CMLL each week are HUGE) Dr. Wagner, Jr. was long overdue, so I took a stab at it. Unfortunately a lot of the available information about him in english is conflicting or confusing. I gave up trying to decide whether he actually debuted April 7 or April 27 since different websites asserted it as fact, and none had an up-to-date list of titles he held through 2006 so I can only assume he's been trios champion four times and not in fact more often than that, let alone any other belts he's held. The one thing I felt almost absolutely sure about in the whole thing was his background in relation to his father and brother, but curiously no site I could find lists his full real name. If anybody else can expand, correct, or fill in missing information I would be grateful for the assistance. BronzeWarrior 11:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the gimmick databank. It's a German website, but tends to be accurate. McPhail 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, now there's a helpful website! Muchas gracias! BronzeWarrior 20:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When in doubt, go with Luchawiki, those guys are for more reliable than anyone else when it comes to Lucha. The articles needs some work but it's a good starting point.  And remember Mexico has states.--Darren Jowalsen 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. Thanks for the tips! BronzeWarrior 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

John Zandig Bio
I've never seen such an atrociously awful article as the one I just fixed up for John Zandig, the guy who happens to own and wrestle in CZW (Combat Zone Wrestling). I'm willing to bet other biographies for these "backwater" hardcore wrestlers are of similarly poor quality.

It also becomes important at some point to measure whether or not certain wrestlers and promotions are important enough to have a bio. I'm not saying John Zandig in particular isn't a moderately important wrestling figure, as most wrestling enthusiasts are at least aware of CZW, but Wikipedia has a few wrestlers thus far that it can say virtually nothing about, because they're so small-time and undistinguished that they aren't really people meriting encyclopedic note. Most of the CZW roster fits this description.

In any event, Zandig's article needs work from someone who knows about him, as well as help from an editor who has time to relieve it of its incredible sloppiness. --Pathogen 09:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. I don't think we've come up with a decent criteria for inclusion yet. We should do that real soon, or Wikipedia will be flooded with wrestlers that really shouldn't have articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On that note i have been managing the edits of User:Samgibbs, who conciders himself the #1 fan of a small newly opened promototion in the UK called Real Quality Wrestling... i have met the 13yrold Mr Gibbs on a few forums were i informed him of wikipedia (big mistake i think sometimes) anyway i have been manging his mostly poor edits. I realised i didnt really wanna have to keep following his edits all the time so i tried contacting him in a varity of ways to help him write better articles but with little to no reponce; see Len Davies article's talk page for instance. He is mostly harmless but he has began to add lower indy wrestlers that havent even made much impact in UK wrestling. --- Paulley 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TNA Pay-Per-Views
This is something that is really starting to get on my nerves. Why is it that TNA PPV results have a section for each match while WWE PPVs only get one subheading for all results? My first proposition is to do a big cleanup of this and turn them into one simple dot-pointed section with the results. The other thing that is annoying me is the fact TNA PPVs get their own individual page each. Sure, it's reasonable to have individual pages for Bound For Glory and Slammiversary similar to that of WrestleMania and SummerSlam but PPVs like Against All Odds can be compiled into one article surely. That's my second proposition. Normy 09:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The TNA recaps tend to be very comprehensive. Your energy would be better spent expanding the WWE, WCW, ECW and AAA show articles, which in many cases have nothing more than results. Making pages shorter and less detailed is not productive. McPhail 19:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So the idea of the final product is to have an individual page for each event that has happened? Sounds reasonable enough. Normy 09:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * While some PPV's might seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of wrestling over the decades (and arguably are) the fact that promotions build up all their programming for the sole purpose of selling them to us month to month is probably enough to warrant a page for each, and the fact they put out DVD's for each one arguably says they consider them important too - at least from a profit making point of view. So I'd say a page for each event is reasonable - the level of detail necessary on those pages can of course be argued. BronzeWarrior 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

XPW European Championship/Jonny Storm
i woke up to day to find someone has put a "propose for deletion" tag on th XPW European Championship article... why is a well written article concerning a title and it use as a gimmick for Jonny Storm proposed for deletion, while pointless, unnoteworthy, badly made title articles like all of International Catch Wrestling Alliance titles are being left alone?????????? --- Paulley 11:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * oh and on the subject of Jonny Storm there has been attemps to remove all reference to his real name Jonathan Whitcombe (what the article is listed under), because thats not the name he uses in public... obviously i reverted the attempt but i understand where she is comming from so i propose that i move the article from Jonathan Whitcombe -> Jonny Storm -- Paulley

Finisher/Signature move template
i think that shomeone should make template for finishers,with a picture in it,that looks professional and visually appealing at the same time,what do you guys think?

User watch
User:Becky-RE-fan and User:Ainsleybrooks appear to have targeted the Debra Marshall article, and are engaging in activities such as adding pictures falsely labelled as their own property to articles and adding non-factual rumours. It's a ongoing problem, so scrutiny would be appreciated. McPhail 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Jonathan Burgess has been creating a large amount of below par ROH wrestler pages (i would say article but ost of it is just one line info) these include:
 * Deranged (wrestler)
 * Adam Brower
 * Cheech (wrestler)
 * Salvatore Rinauro
 * Slugger (wrestler)
 * Da Hit Squad
 * The Carnage Crew
 * Masada (wrestler)
 * The Ring Crew Express
 * Paulley 12:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Those could all use the "this article is a stub" brackets, but I didn't opt to add it since I imagine some if not many will be deleted or heavily-rewritten in short order anyway.  If more than a few days go by and they're still in bad shape, I may stub a bunch and rewrite one or two.  I've got three new ROH DVD's coming in the mail anyway so I'm already somewhat inclined. BronzeWarrior 12:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, i would go through myself but i have been concentrating my efforts on british wrestling at the moment.. so if any british wrestler stubs pop up please inform me --- Paulley 13:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind if you guys keep a watch on 216.83.121.194. The guy tries to add stuff like fake theme songs on WWE pay-per-view pages. I also suspect he goes under the username of Krabs502 just by the similar edits the two make. --Oakster 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * has been making suspect edits to various wrestler articles. I reverted the obvious ones, but am unsure if the rest of them are full of false information, as I know nothing about the other wrestlers he edits. Can you guys please take a look through his contrib history and verify the info? Thanks. tv316 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results
I've been wondering considering the fact that it's only a week away, if it's right to restore the WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results page? While we agreed previously that we really didn't want to go into endless results pages, S.N.M.E. is more of a non-pay-per-view supercard compared to such shows as HEAT and Velocity. Plus with a card set up on the main article, I'm slightly worried over the fact somebody will add results to the article right after the show which I don't think we really want. --Oakster 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and restored the article. Hope you guys are alright with this. --Oakster 10:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, it was a good idea. I also went through and basically redid the SNME page mainly to remove all the unneeded gumf on there --- Paulley 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

We've got the Clash of the Champions results on Wikipeida which is similar to SNME in context so yeah I htink they should be restored. Normy 08:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Scott Steiner
Recent browsing of the Scott Steiner page has shown that there is no record of his history in any promotion prior to ECW, it's confounding because I remember reading not to long ago and having it noted that he was at least in the WWE prior to '95. - billz015


 * Scott and Rick Steiner had a +very+ brief WWF run as a tag team before jumping to WCW. I think they appeared at only one WrestleMania. That was Scott's only run with the company before being brought in as a Triple H opponent in the 21st century. BronzeWarrior 09:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

TNA Title History and Defense
Hi, I just signed up because I am very interested in re-working the Title History pages for TNA Wrestling, both to change the format to a more easily-readable table like the WWE title histories and I would also like to include complete information about sucessful title defenses. I already have all the information, just need to convert it to a WikiTable. However, one problem is that I can only do this for the NWA World title and the NWA World Tag Team titles for while they were under the auspices of TNA. Would I have to create a seperate entry for this information? What way should I go about doing this without stepping on the toes of those of you that already work on these pages?


 * If you are going to do a project on the TNA version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, it would need its own article, titled NWA World Tag Team Championship (TNA version). I recently added articles for the other versions of the NWA World tag title (Mid-Atlantic/WCW, San Francisco, etc.), and NWA World Tag Team Championship has thus evolved more into a disambiguation page. - Chadbryant 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually TNA has a 10 year license on both the NWA World Title and the NWA Tag Team Titles, so I don't think you need seperate entries. They may nor promote themselves as being under the NWA banner any more but the belts are exactly the same as is the lineage. BronzeWarrior 07:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been multiple versions of the NWA World Tag Team Championship - TNA uses a distinct version, thus, any additions to Wikipedia concerning the TNA version should be placed in its own article. - Chadbryant 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The National Wrestling Alliance officially sanctions TNA's usage of their belts and counts it as their own lineage. You can check out nwawrestling.com for confirmation.  If the NWA considers the WHT and WTT title histories to be the same as their own, who are we to try to separate them?  209.184.165.20 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not purposefully trying to be dense Chad, but I don't get the distinction. TNA's world tag team titles are the official NWA World Tag Team Titles.  They are licensed from NWA and therefore I'm not sure how they are a "distinct version" different from previous ones.  Whoever held NWA's official world tag titles before TNA existed is now a former TNA world tag team champion by extension and vice versa because the lineage is 100% the same even if the design has undergone minor cosmetic alteration. Cena is still the WWE Champion even though he changed the title to a spinner, and anybody who held the belt before him is a former champion of "that belt" whether they like the spinner look or not. BronzeWarrior 08:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been multiple versions of the NWA World Tag Team Championship - several of these regional versions existed at the same time (most notably the Mid Atlantic, Detroit, & San Francisco versions). They all have distinct and separate lineages. The current version used by TNA was created in 1992. - Chadbryant 13:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * TNA is currently using the OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED NWA World Tag Team Titles. Its not like in the early 90's where there was no such official belt and everyone laid claim to having the WORLD tag titles and the NWA didn't discriminate.  209.184.165.20 19:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Frequent Target" Template?
I am proposing a "frequent target" template for use on the talk pages of various PW articles that seem to increase in size on daily basis. The template would read something like this:

''This article is a frequent target for unregistered or new editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of kayfabe events, unconfirmed information, rumors, or other content irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. More experienced good-faith editors should watch for superfluous additions to this article that will only serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.''

Triple H, Kurt Angle, Mark Calaway, Randy Orton, & WrestleMania 22 would be leading candidates for such a template. Thoughts? - Chadbryant 20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is that irrelevant, revert it and call it vandalism. kelvSYC 20:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wiki editors are implored to "assume good faith" - tt's easier to assume that most of the superfluous content is from markish people editing anonymously or with newer accounts to insert non-encyclopedic content because they don't know any better, than to assume that it's flagrant vandalism. - Chadbryant 20:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I'd like there to be a corresponding category as well so all such articles could be listed in one place. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have created . If anyone feels that it can be worded better, please let me know. - Chadbryant 23:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this problem, and I'm proposing that at the end of the month (or even two, three times a month), we condense the week by week recaps left by anons, into one small paragraph for the month. Then, after enough time has passed, or the storyline ends, we condense those monthly paragraphs into one paragraph for a storylines recap. Just look at any wrestler's article and see his storyline events before 2004. It's quick and to the point and progresses the wrestler's tenure in the company.

It's not the best, but it's against Wikipedia policy to block anons from editing the page when it hasn't been vandalized. And if they can still edit, they'll continue to add it in. You can tell one of them not to, but the next one won't read the edit history or the talk page, anyways. I feel that the best way to combat this problem without clogging up the article history with revert wars, would be to do timed condensations. tv316 19:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Arenas Category
One should be made to reflect those arenas that have been sites of major wrestling events. MSG, Cricket Arena, Skydome, and so on come to mind. WillC 21:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea, but what would be considered memorable sites? Some of the sites in the Legends of Wrestling game are obvious, as well as sites like the Hammerstein Ballroom, Viking Hall, etc., but what about places like the Astrodome?  It was the home of WrestleMania X-7 and the largest-crowd for WCW Nitro ever, but would it be considered a memorable wrestling arena? 209.184.165.20 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

WWE Juniors
Is this valid or just a fake article? To my Knowlege there is no such thing as WWE Juniors. I think it should be deleted but I don't know how to request deletion. BionicWilliam 02:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing. It's bogus. I'll list it for speedy. tv316 22:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * They were the midget division.....WillC 23:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The article had nothing to do with the "midgets" on Smackdown!. - Chadbryant 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)