Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 43

Gulf of Mexico match
So will we have to add this match type (like a throw your opponent in ...) or is there a match type that already fit's this match description in the List of professional wrestling match types?-- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What the hell is a Gulf of Mexico match? I don't have cable at the moment, so if this was announced on ECW I don't know. Anyways, maybe in the container-based variations section? 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's basically an extreme rules match that starts in the ring. The only way to win is to throw the opponent into the Gulf of Mexico (No Joke).-- bullet proof  3:16 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it took place on ECW tonight between Chavo and Punk. Who won? Let's just say Chavo needs swimming lessons.-- bullet proof  3:16 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we don't include it on the grounds that it's a one-time, non notable match. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add a small note in Hardcore wrestling? Just a suggestion. Either way I don't care. -- bullet proof  3:16 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be included either. What are the chances they'll have another one? Nikki  311  04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they could just buy themselves a kiddie pool and call it the Gulf of Mexico next time... -- bullet proof  3:16 04:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the Arkansaw Hog Pen match between Hunter Hearst Helmsley and Duke Drose at In Your House: Season's Beatings. They had an actual hog pen in the arena (filled with mud), and you won by throwing your opponent in it. We have that linked to the container based variations, so we don't need a new entry. Maybe add a sentence or two about this type of thing (throwing your opponenent in something) though.  TJ   Spyke   04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhh, I was just kidding...-- bullet proof  3:16 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So will it be added? T r U  C o 9 31 1 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't. Mshake3 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, fine by me.  T r U C o 9 31 1 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if there's some other place I should post this
New proposed deletion. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rick Achberger aka Sign Guy
I was thinking of creating a page for him with reliable third-party sources. That was until I saw that his page was protected. So, would anyone be against me creating a version in my sandbox, and then possibly taking the protection to WP:DR? D.M.N. (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He's a fan who goes to a bunch of WWE shows and holds up signs, big freaking deal. He's no more notable than Hat Guy, Faith No More Guy, Green Lantern Fan, etc, and none of them have articles. Nenog (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see you use that reason about articles during the first year of wikipedia. As for this guy, while he's more notable than the average fan, due to being interviewed by WW on numerous occasions and even being part of a WWE edition of Deal or No Deal, it's not really enough. Mshake3 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here. Don't think he's notable enough for an article. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an article, it was deleted as non notable.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Steph
It might be a good idea to watch the Stephanie McMahon article for a bit. There's a rumor going around now that Triple H has knocked her up again. Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Order of PPV matches
What a lame rule to say that announced matches for a PPV must be in announced order, especially when the only reason I recall being given was that it was original research to pick your own order. Weak.

Now, I doubt anyone will be able to find the discussion where this so-called "rule" was established, so I say we use one that makes more sense: match order on WWE.com.

Personally, I think it should be whatever order anyone wants it to be, but this is still better than the current set up. Mshake3 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first time ever, I agree with Mshake. Because usually the order of the match on WWE.com, is usually the order they schedule their matches during the PPV events.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus came in late 2006 after a dispute over how matches should be listed caused an article to be fully protected. Some wanted it in the order wwe.com listed them, some wanted it in order of importance (which is a matter of opinion). It was eventually agreed that the most neutral action was to just list them in the order they are announced. I still think that is the best coarse of action.  TJ   Spyke   01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for a neutral point of view, yes that is the best choice, but I think that we should follow WWE's scheduled matches order.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the NEUTRAL point of view, as in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline called "Neutral Point of View" why change it to something that's not a neutral point of view? what's the point? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
I think that we should change the rule to, "Nominations will be removed if they do not have 4 votes every seven days." Does anyone agree? Or disagree? iMat thew   20  08  21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions needed
I would really like the opinions of those who frequent here for their opinions. I thought about this a long time ago but never went through with it. See User:Save Us 229/sandbox. For those who don't know what it is, it is the beginning portion of an article titled "List of WWE Raw episodes". For the sake of this discussion and simplicity, I stopped at the first two episodes to give you an idea of what I was thinking about for an episode guide. As a longest running U.S. television series', now entering it's 16th season, I feel a brief episode guide would be very encyclopedic here. Included on this is the number of the episode, the air date, the venue, and match results. I haven't added all of the notes, references, categories, templates and normal things that would go on an articles yet as it is in my sandbox. Things I didn't mention was interviews, storylines and the such, as I'm trying to keep it simple. Let me know if it is worth the time to create the article in full. — Save_Us   †  19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like the very definition of WP:LC. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? Does that mean List of Gunsmoke episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes and featured list List of South Park episodes are list cruft as well? — Save_Us   †  20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are so many episodes, instead of bullet lists, I think the matches should be listed in one line. I'll have to think about how the other things could be listed. Mshake3 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make your test edits to User:Save Us 229/sandbox for new suggestions. I would like to see what others feel would be the best formatting. — Save_Us   †  20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the way the South Park list is done. Headers of Episode #, Date, and for this list, the arena and city. Below all those is the matches. Mshake3 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but there seems to be a problem. That require Template:Episode list to be added everytime a new episode is made. Currently there is about 750+ episodes. Wikipedia templates cannot be added that many times to a single article. Once it gets passed a certain number of times, the template tends to stop transcluding. To add Template:Episode list this many times, that would require the article to be divided. Would you like seeing the article split for example: "List of WWE Raw episodes (season 1)" or "List of WWE Raw episodes (seasons 1-3)", or something like that, or would you prefer that it stays on one article? — Save_Us   †  20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no doubt it should be split up. Since it started in January, it would be convient to do it by year, especially since they don't really specify seasons, at least until recently. Mshake3 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more along television seasons, not what WWE considers seasons, but I get the idea ;) — Save_Us   †  21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be an extra column, for the date the actual episode was taped, maybe? Kris (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about that briefly, almost all the Monday Night RAW's were produced and shot in the same day (earlier prior to that WCW incident of the audience getting the results, but even then it was just tape delay from earlier in on the same Monday). Unless we actually get specific times that could be difficult. :) — Save_Us   †  21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current TNA Impact taping schedule is similar to what the WWF did with Raw in 1999, and perhaps a few years earlier. One taping (in this case, live) on Monday, and one taping on Tuesday, then tape TV again in two weeks. As for episode dates, it's a TV show, so I think it should be the airdates. If someone brings up title history, I use taping dates there because WWE acknowledges title changes every now and then right after then happen regardless of air date, plus you have evidence of new champions defending their title at live events prior to the episode airing. Mshake3 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Mshake on this. The list will definetly need to be split up, otherwise it'll be way too long, and therefore, a pain to both edit and read. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears everything is running smoothly :) After a headache, I have had a successful attempt at scripting a new template specifically for these episodes (normal television episode templates had titles and other things WWE doesn't use). I've redone what the episodes will look like to make it resemble the normal templates. Regards, — Save_Us   †  22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly is the point of having a list of Raw episodes? Nenog (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What an odd question. I can say that to half the articles covered in this project. Mshake3 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I hit the 'random page button' three times and I don't see the point of these articles as well. :) — Save_Us   †  22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are comparing list of Raw results to a specific type of tree and author and saying it has the same encyclopedic merit (the high school one can go, since most of them are deleted anyways)? Nenog (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two things, 1, how are most high schools deleted again? and 2, I was joking, and no, I'm not comparing an article named List of WWE Raw episodes to that, I'll compare it to Featured content, featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer, List of The Simpsons episodes and List of South Park episodes. Care to tell me what the 'point' of those articles are Nenog? —  Save_Us   †  23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't compare this to those shows. A more accurate comparisons would be having a "List of 60 Minutes" episodes or another show that is non-stop year-round. I doubt any such article would survive since every similar page has been deleted (I know there was a list of ECW episodes and a list of iMACT episodes, and I think even a list of RAW episodes).  TJ   Spyke   01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't even compare it to 60 Minutes. That is a news and investigative journalism show, and making a episode guide of the news is rather silly. If what you're saying is that we don't make episode guides of long-running series, then I believe you are wrong. Gunsmoke had 630+ episodes or so and there is a episode guide for it. Also I would like to see the content of the other Raw episodes articles that was created because I highly doubt that when I'm finished it will resemble it. —  Save_Us   †  01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The better comparison is soap operas. Is there a "List of Days of Our Lives episodes?" Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a fair comparison either. Raw has somewhere around 730 episodes. Days of Our Lives has 10,700+. Raw is only had 16 seasons, compared to Days of Our Lives which has had 42. — Save_Us   †  19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All right then, a more recent soap opera. Is there "List of Passions episodes" (roughly three times as many as Raw)? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While still incredibly different as these soaps are mostly made daily, not weekly like Raw, no there isn't an episode guide on Wikipedia. Could one be made? Probably, yes. Would it be encyclopedic? Depends on how it is written. Your series of questions are starting to reek of bad faith now. — Save_Us   †  21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I compared it to another weekly series and a list of 60 minutes episodes would have the same type of info as your test article (a list of of the news stories and the date it aired). Based on the version in your sandbox, I can not see how an article would possibly even survive an AFD, yet alone ever become a Good Article or Featured List. Similar articles that were more detailed have gotten deleted. I will reserve final judgment until you finish the sandbox version, but right now I see it either being nothing more than a list of match results or a hugely bloated mess (since they do about 52 episodes a year). As for the other episodess article that were deleted, only admins can see pages that were deleted.  TJ   Spyke   01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not finished with it. Did you think it was going to be the list and nothing more? Like I said above, I haven't added categories, templates, references, notes and the like and I won't do so until I'm sure it is about ready to be moved to the main namespace (oh, and not to mention any content I might actually add to the article, I know that might shock you :o) I brought it here so people could see that I was working on it, see the formatting I was using so they could see what it would look like, and so they could make suggestions on how to improve it, not because I was nearing a completion of it. I'm far from done. — Save_Us   †  01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just my brief opinion - I like the list, looks neat so far, but I'd suggest splitting it up (don't know how you'd do it) but it works for me. Looks encycolpaedic enough. Ada Maniac  14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this user personally dislikes me, but I actually like the idea. It matches the many list of episodes of TV shows out there. I'm just worried whether it will make the WWE TV show pages longer? and whether it falls under WP:LC. T r U C o 9 31 1 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which WWE TV show page are you worried about getting longer specifically? WWE Raw? — Save_Us   †  02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, because right now the special episodes section is long but this might make it longer, which is kinda like WP:LC. But I like the idea because it is neat and organized and should be a way most listings of episodes should be listed as. T r U C o 9 31 1 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't plan on making the WWE Raw article any longer than it already is (although I plan to link the new article from from), in fact, by the time it is done, you could probably merge that special episodes section into the new article and it will be slightly shorter. As I said before, these articles are not going to merely be lists of episodes, but full articles (per season) and the results of the show on the tail end showing the results in a table formatting. To give you an idea of that, you could probably see December to Dismember (2006) to get a general idea (i.e. beginning intro, body text segmented into multiple headings, the results, etc.). — Save_Us   †  02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference blacklisted
I'm very sorry to it have it happen like this, but please see this thread, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. It is regarding a site that we used for professional wrestling articles, www.100megsfree4.com, a.k.a. The Wrestling Information Archive. In the past it contained very valuable information that was considered verifiable for references in our articles, but the domain had to be blacklisted. I use the avast! anti-virus program to moniter my internet for potential malware and the 100megsfree4 website was caught by my anti-virus program. It was sending a computer worm called VBS:Malware-gen, a malicious visual basic script file. As such, it was blacklisted from use here and I suggest no one visit the site for reasons of security on your computer. Right now a lot of professional wrestling articles are protected from editing due to the spam protection fliter caused by the recent blacklisting of this site. Once the site is removed it will be free to edit again. For now, I will replace the old reference with a fact tag and try and find references after I am finished with that. Regards, — Save_Us   †  21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it alright to remove the refs. from the articles or... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, right now removing the references should be done and replaced with fact tags. If a spam protection filter pops-up, that means there are more than one of the links in the article. After all the links are removed, the effort to readd references from a different site should begin. — Save_Us   †  22:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start on that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh
Turns out to be a false positive, if anyone removed them, please readd them once it off of the blacklist. Sorry :( — Save_Us   †  23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Working on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A.J. Styles and Tomko
Can we AfD it, I mean yes they are notable and are current tag champs but to have an article for only being together for less than a year? We should just make one for Miz and Morrison. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been a team for almost a year (very rarely competing in singles matches since forming a team) and tag team champions since October. Morrison and Miz may eventually become notable as a team, not yet though (Styles and Tomko didn't get a seperate article until they split from Christian's Coalition).  TJ   Spyke   03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think Morrison and Miz are notable, as they are the first ECW tag team to win WWE gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are the first ECW superstars to win Smackdown! gold, tag team gold, the first champions on Smackdown! to belong to another show, and the first ECW superstars to win WWE gold in general. Feed  back  ☎  03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, when Kurt Angle won SmackDown's world title, he still "belonged" to another show for about a week thereafter. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So we are keeping the Styles and Tomko article right? And are we to create one for Miz and Morrison or add them to like a section in the MNM article, or do nothing? T r U C o 9 31 1 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Morrison and Miz should get an article. Morrison and Miz has nothing to do with MNM. Morrison was part of it, but so what? Many wrestlers from teams get new partners, the information doesn't get jammed into a new section on their previous team article. They started as a random pairing, but were made into a regular team. They are usually in tag action (or in singles, with the partner in the corner). Also, Styles and Tomko seems fine as an article. They've teamed for a while, and until recently (to my knowledge at least) only wrestled in tag matches. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW Alumni
Is that really needed in the article? I mean FCW and DSW didn't have it. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. — Save_Us   †  21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't need an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
I posted this a bunch of threads up, but nobody has responded to it. Please provide your opinion:
 * I think that we should change the rule to, "Nominations will be removed if they do not have 4 votes every seven days." iMat  thew   20  08  23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz moved to Team 3D (wrestling) with no consensus
User:Altenhofen has moved the Dudley Boyz article to Team 3D (wrestling). I attempted to revert it, and it didn't work. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lena Yada
Why has Lena Yada not got her own article yet? She is a WWE Diva. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted multiple times. If we want to avoid what happened with Talia Madison's article (where it became fully protected from being created), no one should re-create it until they create it on a test page first and fill it with reliable sources.  TJ   Spyke   03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it being deleted? She is a WWE superstar. What sources do you need? Don't all WWE superstars get their own article? This struck me as strange. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, not all superstars deserve pages. They need alot of sourcing and information. Lena Yada doesn't have that much background information and she hasn't been with WWE that long. Give here a few months, and we'll see from there.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how come Eve Torres has her own article? She has been with the WWE for an even shorter period. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * She has more sources available to cover her information, and she has a relevant amount of info. T r U  C o 9 31 1 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No vote stacking here
Despite the claim that no Featured List candidates have failed because of a lack of votes, AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship has failed its Featured List candidacy due to a lack of votes. The nomination was open for 18 days. Aside from me (as nominator), it received one support and one oppose. The oppose (which came 12 days after the list was nominated) was based on two unsourced statements in the lead, which I was searching for references to support (although the article wouldn't have been hurt if the two statements had simply been removed).

I appreciate people from this project abstaining from voting. I think, however, that this shows that the system isn't as perfect as some people have claimed. If people from our project can't vote and people from other projects don't vote (and we now have this nomination to support our earlier concerns), then how can our work be promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for proving my point Gary! New Year's Revolution (2007) failed because of the same thing. Lack of opinions. Feed  back  ☎  23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue was established numerous times, most recently during the 2007 WWE Draft FL candidacy, I "asked" members to voice their opinion on the article, then I was bashed by another user for doing so, and then it was basically embraced not to have project members vote on their project's articles. If this continues, we will never see future FL/FA's T r U C o 9 31 1 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Go Gary! lol iMat  thew  23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? T he   C hronic  08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I admit it, I was wrong. While I can't speak for Scorpion and Lid, I'll go ahead and say I'm no longer opposed to project members voting in FXCs, so long as they don't just vote support without question. Basically, follow GCF's example, and everything should work out fine in the long run. I apologize for it taking a number of failed candidacies to prove what you were saying all along. Cheers,  Sexy Sea  Bass  06:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It failed because it had unstruck opposition. I said that a list has never failed because of a lack of support, meaning if it only has two support votes (but no opposition), it will remain open until it has enough. People like you prefer to blame the closer and say you weren't given enough time, even though you had six days between the time the concern was left and the closing of the FLC and you didn't leave a single sign that you were addressing concerns. The closer assumed this meant you weren't doing anything about it and thus it was closed.

You ask "how can our work be promoted?" Well, be patient and believe it or not, FLCs can pass without asking people to come support it. Besides, project members CAN review a list without supporting it. There is no policy that says "You can not review a list without voting". And by the way, hundreds of FLCs manage to pass without any project support. -- Scorpion0422 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the fact that the nomination was open for 18 days and only one person from outside of the project voted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Some nominations are open for 20 days before they even get a single comment. Be patient. If nobody opposes, it will be given the time. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A.J. Styles and Tomko
Can we AfD it, I mean yes they are notable and are current tag champs but to have an article for only being together for less than a year? We should just make one for Miz and Morrison. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been a team for almost a year (very rarely competing in singles matches since forming a team) and tag team champions since October. Morrison and Miz may eventually become notable as a team, not yet though (Styles and Tomko didn't get a seperate article until they split from Christian's Coalition).  TJ   Spyke   03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think Morrison and Miz are notable, as they are the first ECW tag team to win WWE gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are the first ECW superstars to win Smackdown! gold, tag team gold, the first champions on Smackdown! to belong to another show, and the first ECW superstars to win WWE gold in general. Feed  back  ☎  03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, when Kurt Angle won SmackDown's world title, he still "belonged" to another show for about a week thereafter. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So we are keeping the Styles and Tomko article right? And are we to create one for Miz and Morrison or add them to like a section in the MNM article, or do nothing? T r U C o 9 31 1 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Morrison and Miz should get an article. Morrison and Miz has nothing to do with MNM. Morrison was part of it, but so what? Many wrestlers from teams get new partners, the information doesn't get jammed into a new section on their previous team article. They started as a random pairing, but were made into a regular team. They are usually in tag action (or in singles, with the partner in the corner). Also, Styles and Tomko seems fine as an article. They've teamed for a while, and until recently (to my knowledge at least) only wrestled in tag matches. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW Alumni
Is that really needed in the article? I mean FCW and DSW didn't have it. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. — Save_Us   †  21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't need an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TNA Alumni
im starting to make a table for it in my Sandbox so it can be like the WWE one. S-PAC54 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think that the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article should look like the TNA alumni article. The WWE Alumni article has too many tables, and appears to be too long. The reason for the person's release would be on the person's article. The page is full of citation needed tags, most of the list doesn't even state the reasons for being released. iMat  thew   20  08  22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true im cool with whatever S-PAC54 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to do the same thing yesterday, but many of the superstars from TNA have no real reason for departure. Actually Matt, the WWE one is good because it is neat and organized and the TNA one should follow, but I think the TNA one should just remain as is because of the much information missing. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The the WWE one is missing too much information. Half of the superstars also have no real reasons for departure. I agree that it is neat and organized, but if most of the information is missing, it should not remain in that format. iMat  thew   20  08  23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IDK, do what you want. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make any changes until I get some more opinions. iMat  thew   20  08  23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we get a poll going about changing the format of either article. S-PAC54 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
I posted this a bunch of threads up, but nobody has responded to it. Please provide your opinion:
 * I think that we should change the rule to, "Nominations will be removed if they do not have 4 votes every seven days." iMat  thew   20  08  23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz moved to Team 3D (wrestling) with no consensus
User:Altenhofen has moved the Dudley Boyz article to Team 3D (wrestling). I attempted to revert it, and it didn't work. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lena Yada
Why has Lena Yada not got her own article yet? She is a WWE Diva. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted multiple times. If we want to avoid what happened with Talia Madison's article (where it became fully protected from being created), no one should re-create it until they create it on a test page first and fill it with reliable sources.  TJ   Spyke   03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it being deleted? She is a WWE superstar. What sources do you need? Don't all WWE superstars get their own article? This struck me as strange. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, not all superstars deserve pages. They need alot of sourcing and information. Lena Yada doesn't have that much background information and she hasn't been with WWE that long. Give here a few months, and we'll see from there.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how come Eve Torres has her own article? She has been with the WWE for an even shorter period. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * She has more sources available to cover her information, and she has a relevant amount of info. T r U  C o 9 31 1 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New GA
No Way Out (2004) has been passed as a GA, finally. Thank you TJ Spyke, iMatthew, and any other user who contributed to helping this article pass.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Another GA! Awesome work to everyone who contributed to the article! ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great stuff (I've just made a few changes to the article)! I could bet right now that we have msot of the PPVs expanded by the end of the year! :D D.M.N. (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help too D.M.N, you deserve alot of credit. And yeah, we might have all PPVs expanded by the end of the year.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets hope so! iMat  thew   20  08  15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - TFA on March 30 2008?
I was wondering if anybody was against me requesting December to Dismember (2006) being on the Main Page as "Today's Featured Article" on March 30, 2008, of course the date of WrestleMania XXIV. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope that sounds like a perfect day S-PAC54 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. DMN, have you seen the recent Paul Heyman interview? He talks about how he would have booked D2D. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave a message on my talkpage, with a link, and I'll need to add it to the article. D.M.N. (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A.J. Styles and Tomko
Can we AfD it, I mean yes they are notable and are current tag champs but to have an article for only being together for less than a year? We should just make one for Miz and Morrison. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They've been a team for almost a year (very rarely competing in singles matches since forming a team) and tag team champions since October. Morrison and Miz may eventually become notable as a team, not yet though (Styles and Tomko didn't get a seperate article until they split from Christian's Coalition).  TJ   Spyke   03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think Morrison and Miz are notable, as they are the first ECW tag team to win WWE gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are the first ECW superstars to win Smackdown! gold, tag team gold, the first champions on Smackdown! to belong to another show, and the first ECW superstars to win WWE gold in general. Feed  back  ☎  03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, when Kurt Angle won SmackDown's world title, he still "belonged" to another show for about a week thereafter. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So we are keeping the Styles and Tomko article right? And are we to create one for Miz and Morrison or add them to like a section in the MNM article, or do nothing? T r U C o 9 31 1 20:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Morrison and Miz should get an article. Morrison and Miz has nothing to do with MNM. Morrison was part of it, but so what? Many wrestlers from teams get new partners, the information doesn't get jammed into a new section on their previous team article. They started as a random pairing, but were made into a regular team. They are usually in tag action (or in singles, with the partner in the corner). Also, Styles and Tomko seems fine as an article. They've teamed for a while, and until recently (to my knowledge at least) only wrestled in tag matches. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW Alumni
Is that really needed in the article? I mean FCW and DSW didn't have it. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. — Save_Us   †  21:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, it doesn't need an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

TNA Alumni
im starting to make a table for it in my Sandbox so it can be like the WWE one. <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 21:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think that the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article should look like the TNA alumni article. The WWE Alumni article has too many tables, and appears to be too long. The reason for the person's release would be on the person's article. The page is full of citation needed tags, most of the list doesn't even state the reasons for being released. iMat  thew   20  08  22:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true im cool with whatever <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 22:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to do the same thing yesterday, but many of the superstars from TNA have no real reason for departure. Actually Matt, the WWE one is good because it is neat and organized and the TNA one should follow, but I think the TNA one should just remain as is because of the much information missing. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The the WWE one is missing too much information. Half of the superstars also have no real reasons for departure. I agree that it is neat and organized, but if most of the information is missing, it should not remain in that format. iMat  thew   20  08  23:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * IDK, do what you want. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to make any changes until I get some more opinions. iMat  thew   20  08  23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we get a poll going about changing the format of either article. <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 22:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
I posted this a bunch of threads up, but nobody has responded to it. Please provide your opinion:
 * I think that we should change the rule to, "Nominations will be removed if they do not have 4 votes every seven days." iMat  thew   20  08  23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudley Boyz moved to Team 3D (wrestling) with no consensus
User:Altenhofen has moved the Dudley Boyz article to Team 3D (wrestling). I attempted to revert it, and it didn't work. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Lena Yada
Why has Lena Yada not got her own article yet? She is a WWE Diva. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been deleted multiple times. If we want to avoid what happened with Talia Madison's article (where it became fully protected from being created), no one should re-create it until they create it on a test page first and fill it with reliable sources.  TJ   Spyke   03:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it being deleted? She is a WWE superstar. What sources do you need? Don't all WWE superstars get their own article? This struck me as strange. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, not all superstars deserve pages. They need alot of sourcing and information. Lena Yada doesn't have that much background information and she hasn't been with WWE that long. Give here a few months, and we'll see from there.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how come Eve Torres has her own article? She has been with the WWE for an even shorter period. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * She has more sources available to cover her information, and she has a relevant amount of info. T r U  C o 9 31 1 03:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New GA
No Way Out (2004) has been passed as a GA, finally. Thank you TJ Spyke, iMatthew, and any other user who contributed to helping this article pass.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 14:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Another GA! Awesome work to everyone who contributed to the article! ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 14:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great stuff (I've just made a few changes to the article)! I could bet right now that we have msot of the PPVs expanded by the end of the year! :D D.M.N. (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help too D.M.N, you deserve alot of credit. And yeah, we might have all PPVs expanded by the end of the year.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 15:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets hope so! iMat  thew   20  08  15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brand Extension Expansion
Ok, Is it ok if I create a article in my sandbox for the brand extension of WWE. Like I did to the 2007 WWE Draft, and in this article, I will add the ECW brand extension. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * i dont see why not <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 05:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006) - TFA on March 30 2008?
I was wondering if anybody was against me requesting December to Dismember (2006) being on the Main Page as "Today's Featured Article" on March 30, 2008, of course the date of WrestleMania XXIV. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope that sounds like a perfect day <b style="background:Navy;color:lime">S-PAC</b><b style="color:green">54</b> 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. DMN, have you seen the recent Paul Heyman interview? He talks about how he would have booked D2D. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Leave a message on my talkpage, with a link, and I'll need to add it to the article. D.M.N. (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (1991)
I'd like to opinion of someone not involved in this situation. Should or shouldn't "the" be used before arena names? Saying "from/at Joe Louis Arena" rather than "from/at the Joe Louis Arena" does sound right grammatically and just sounds all wonky. The other editor hasn't given a reason right and has just chose to revert with no explanation. I would like several peoples opinions on this.  TJ   Spyke   05:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As far I know, there isn't a grammatical rule regarding this. In the example you gave, I think it sounds correct either way. Although, if you say, for example, "he was from Pontiac Silverdome" as opposed to "he was from the Pontiac Silverdome", I think that reads oddly. So...I guess my opinion is that the "the" should be included, as some arenas have to include it to sound correct grammatically, and it is best to stay consistent. Nikki  311  00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually it depends on the arena/stadium. many stadiums use "the" in the name, like "The Spectrum, The Wachovia Center, Etc."  but some, like L.A.'s "Staple Center" and "Joe Louis Arena" have no the in the name, and here in L.A. they make a big deal about not using the when refering to Staples Center. LessThanClippers (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then I retract my previous statement. Does anyone live near Detroit and know which way the arena should be referred to? Nikki  311  02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Jos LeDuc
I re-created this article last week, and I think it could pass a Good Article review. I have a few paragraphs to take out-of-universe (the five paragraphs from New Zealand in 1981 to the final stint in Southeastern Championship Wrestling). I was wondering if a few people could look it over and let me know what they think. I imagine that splitting the career section would help, but I'm not really sure where to do that, since he switched promotions so many times and I want more than one paragraph per section. If people could post their thoughts here, I would really appreciate it. If there are no objections that can't be resolved, I'd like to nominate it in one week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The career section definitely needs to get split up. Maybe by decades or 5 year intervals. The sourcing looks good, and as soon as it is out of universe, I'd feel comfortable with it being nominated. Nikki  311  22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I've made a few changes. Is it looking better? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is looking much better. Headers aren't supposed to have links in them, so I took those out. Other than that, you did a great job splitting up the text. Nikki  311  00:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Tables
All sorted tables are done. I still am planning a few changes, like fixing some extra reference to explain non-reporting, etc, but all is done. Finally!!!! LessThanClippers (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible merger: Texas Wrestling Academy into Shawn Michaels
The Texas Wrestling Academy article is a three-line stub. I think it should be merged into Michaels' article, as he is the operator most closely associated with it. This merger would be similar to the merger of the Monster Factory article into Larry Sharpe's article. Any opinions? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. D.M.N. (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree, and that's coming from a known mergist. The page use to be more than a stub, but it is a known target of some pretty infamous vandals. Most of the information got removed and the page fully protected. Michaels' page is long enough as it is, and merging the information might result in Michaels' page being fully protected. Nikki  311  14:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont want to disagree with Nikki, but I think one paragraph merged into like "trained wrestlers" section won't do that much harm.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 14:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it did get merged, it woild have to be fully sourced. D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, in second thoughts, I think we should keep it as a seperate article but expand it as part of our Stub-Article expansion. Although I shouldn't go fully by Google hits, over 1 million results come up when searching it, therefore possibly meaning that it is notable enough for its own article. D.M.N. (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I didn't know the history of this article, but I can see why it would make sense to keep them separate (especially with talk about nominating Michaels' article for FA status). I'll add the academy to the list of stubs needing expansion. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Referees on brand pages?
Why were they removed? The refs are a vital part of any match, acting as match coordinators and authority figures in and out of kayfabe. I see no reason why they shouldn't be listed. Argubably, refs get little recongnition. Without them, the wrestling business would not be the same, and could not really survive. It could survive without commentators though, and we list them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's why they are listed on the WWE Roster page, they aren't notable to be included on the brand pages in my view due to their lack of recognition. If they want to see the refs that appear on each show, then check the WWE Roster page.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 15:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Power 25
I think we should begin to make articles on the WWE Power 25. Any objections? GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Object-I created this article before and it was agreed that it does not deserve an article because they are just simple rankings done by the WWE and are not all that important or show any significance.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Object per Truco. There is really no notability attached to the rankings. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not usre on this one. While it is a kayfabe ranking on how someone is performing, so is a championship, isnt it?LessThanClippers (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True but the rankings have no overall bearing on how a wrestler is assessed throughout and after their career. A world championship means something and has significance at the end of a career, while saying that someone achieved number one on the power 25 doesn't. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nici, if the Power 25 were all that important, then we would have to add it to the wrestler's accomplishments...also if this were an article it would be an AfD quick because there are very few sources available for it. T r U C o 9 31 1 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean very few sources? Dirtsheets report them all the time, and the site has i bet already more than a hundred archives. Feed  back  ☎  00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok but dirtsheet websites just repost the Power 25, and they just inform ppl of who is has made it, etc. Really the Power 25 is not notable enough to have an article, I realized that when It go deleted. T r U C o 9 31 1 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe "WWE.COM" as a whole can have it's own article, and explain all the different things on the site in different sections (WWE Games, HEAT, List This!, Splinters, Power 25, WTF, Around the Ring, What if...., Weekly Diva, WWE 24/7, ECW X-Tream, Superstar Blogs, Where are they now?, Live PPVs, Title Histories, Corporate WWE.COM, WWE Shop, Superstar Ink, WWE Mobile, Over the Ropes, Silverlight and the almost daily WWE Polls (which currently is about Brock Lesnar in MMA). Feed  back  ☎  12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Before this section gets pruned... does anyone agree with this? Feed  back  ☎  10:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. Most of that stuff isn't notable. Power 25 is definitely not notable. They don't ever mention it on air or anywhere other than WWE.com. WWE.com doesn't have any third party references reporting on it to make an article out of it. Nikki  311  15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, yeah I understand. It's just that the WWE article hardly mentions the website which is arguably a very important part of the WWE today. Feed  back  ☎  02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels
I think that once this is finished being the COTW, it can be nominated for FA-Class. What else needs to be worked on? iMat thew   20  08  13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Shawn Michaels article could use some more references in the first sections. I have his autobiography, so I'll see what I can do woth that. It might a little while though ;) ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 14:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some more references, so my personal feelings are once it's finished as COTW it can be nominated. It looks good to me. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I went through the article the other day. As far as I know, I've purged it of all redirects, as well as added some more wikilinks. In addition, I made some minor spelling/grammar fixes. So the article should be fine in that regard. I'm thinking that the In wrestling section needs to be cut down a bit though. A few too many moves are listed, I think. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead definitely needs to be fixed first. It doesn't summarize all the major points of the article. Nikki  311  19:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on "A message from Hornetman..."
I just wanted to clarify a few things from the section I added a few hours ago. I wasn't able to reply since I was away while the section was being commented on and I was being accused of Wikistalking. Hornetman contacted me via email and requested that I refer WP:PW to the video. [personal attack removed Nick (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)] -- bullet proof  3:16 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mshake3 (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely brilliant. Bulletproof is now blocked for 24 hours. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Now I feel bad, if HM did indeed tell him to mention this. Although I stand by my comments regarding archiving my talk page. Mshake3 (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Posting a public (although copyrighted) video isn't a strong stalking instance but it is completely pointless, by posting that here Bullet fell right into his game, I repeat it again, until this project stops caring about anything he does block evasion will prevail, lets just block, revert and ignore, muerto el perro y se acaba la rabia. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Catch me up to speed: what's happened? T he  C hronic  05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hornemtan posted a WWE copyrighted video on YouTube and added a message to the English Wikipedia at the end (something like how he doesn't always agree with the site, but that it's a good reference tool) and apparently asked bulletproof to tell the rest of us. Bulletproof saif it was a lame gesture and an attempt by Hornet so sho how mature he is. Apparently and admin thought that was a personal attack (how is calling someone lame a personal attack?) and blocked him for 24 hours. After bulletproof explained about the situation, the admin still denied the block request and cited this as the reason: . I disagree with block either way.  TJ   Spyke   05:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lame! :) T he   C hronic  06:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I am taking sides or anything, but Bulletproof was just trying to stand up for me and to clarify things with Mshake. How can you not unblock him for that reason..He was simply trying to step in and sort things out between me and Mshake. Although, Mshake a simple No, I have a bot to do that, would have been more appreciated and part of this issue would have been avoided. P.S. Carribean HQ, if only people knew what you said (I know what that means) XD. T r U C o 9 31 1 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking to archive one's talk page, when an archive is clearly visible, is simply asking for trouble. Had you paid the slightest bit of attention, this issue would have been avoided. Mshake3 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I obviously saw that, but most ppl have their talk pages archived and dont have month/over a week old discussions. So I was being generous, as you may have not felt like archiving so I thought I would just do u the favor. Also most people have a note that says that they have a bot that archives their page, so I was unaware of that.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mshake, you told him off over what amounts to nothing. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. I honestly can't understand why you don't see what's wrong with your actions. You've always been like this, which is why you aren't taken seriously. You lash out over stupid little things, you are acting like a child. I of all people understand having a bad day, but this has been a pattern with you from the start. You need to shape up, or ship out.  Sexy Sea  Bass  04:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense. That's all I ask for. There's been a severe lack of it lately. Mshake3 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of this is my fault. I'm the one who originally started posting messages I received in email from Hornetman on this talk page, so how was bulletproof to know any better. He was blocked for outing a user's youtube account, which is very against the rules, and calling someone lame is an attack against them, benign as it may be. I understand where the block came from, and I feel no malice towards Nick for it. The only one to blame is myself for beginning this whole flood of stupidity. Please, no more messages relating to Hornetman on this talk page. It causes too much conflict, and there is too much resultant damage. It is time to let it die; I am making this one attempt to kill my own creation. We must let it go.  Sexy Sea  Bass  21:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to that and I know what Caribbean said. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. =] iMat  thew   20  08  12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my view, people need to mind their own business more. All this fighting, stalking (and anything else related to it) isn't helpful to the encyclopedia. The false retirements goes along with this as well. Also, Wikipedia wont explode if one (or a few users) retire. Stop taking everything on Wikipedia so seriously, and perhaps fighting would be a lot less. Edit articles, report the vandals, don't argue about petty things a blocked user does on another site, etc. If editing is just a big dispute, what's the point? Take a WikiBreak and relax or something. Editing here shouldn't a stressful thing. I'm in my fair share of disputes at times, but I take breaks and I ignore talk pages altogether at times, I suggest other editors do the same. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know damn well I wasn't lying; you know I was actually trying to retire. I have never had a problem speaking what I honestly feel, you know that better than most. I see dishonesty as unnecessary. And frankly, who are you to call anyone a stalker. You know what I'm talking about; no point posting it here. No one staked him; he stalked us Rob. Anyway, I agree with a lot of your post, but I'll defend myself, and viciously if I deem it necessary. Don't attack my honesty, ever.  Sexy Sea  Bass  06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No one stopped you from retiring, except yourself. The project has had numerous problems, it wont just instantly change if you decide to stay or retire. As for hornetman: a post of a YouTube link from him here seems to be a sign of stalking in my view. This project needs to stop obsessing over him, and move on already. The same goes with other blocked users of the past. It seems like just about anytime constant vandalism happens, it's pointed to a blocked user (many cases have been proven true, while others have not). If you see vandalism: warn the user, then report it to a Wikipedia page for dealing with it (if the person hasn't stopped). I view other project talk pages, and I don't see this much tattling on vandals. I highly doubt wrestling articles get the most vandalism overall on Wikipedia. The purpose of this talk page shouldn't be to tattle on users. I can understand some of the "keep an eye on this IP editor" sections, but ones where people accuse them instantly of being a sock seems to be paranoid at times. Fact: not every vandal is a sock, and not every vandal knows each other. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hornetman sent him the youtube link Rob. How is it stalking if you go out of your way to avoid them as bulletproof did, but they send you information anyway? I've addressed the retirement comments below in Lex's section, and other users have addressed your vandal concerns much more eloquently than I can.  Sexy Sea  Bass  16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I shall finnally join this conversation after keeping a close eye on it for the past three days. 1. To RobJ1981:
 * Hornetman is a constant vandal on this project, has been banned by the community, and returns with sockpuppets every 2 or 3 weeks. We know how he acts, we know which articles he edits, and he always tries to start a dispute between editors [like this one]. We aren't "going paranoid" because of him, we are actually clueless to what we're supposed to do with him. I do undertand that we don't need to post what Hornetman has to say on other sites, but he addressed the project and many of us take this project and the community all together seriously.

2. To Hybrid:


 * No offense, but the retirement [like Rob said] is pretty false. It is true that "no one stopped you from retiring except yourself". If you retired, why do you keep looking at the talk pages? why do you keep readin the arguments? If you really want to retire, then just let it go. I for one think you should stay, and most of us agree on that, but you really aren't doing us any favor by keep retiring every day or so. The comment you left on Truco's page really is kind of ridiculous: "I'm not retiring...When things calm down I'll try again." Stop looking for excuses to stay and then to retire, and just do everyone a favor and stay because you want to. Keep in mind: We want you to stay!
 * Check my contributions; when I announced it I hadn't edited for 6 days, and my edits before that were sporadic. It was logical to assume that I could pull it off this time. Note also, I told Truco I would check my talk page to keep up with the project newsletter and the signpost. I announced that I was still interested in Wikipedia; I just didn't want involved anymore. However, one of my best friends got blocked and then retired, and on the side hell was breaking loose everywhere; what kind of asshole would I be to not get involved if I think I can help? It means a lot that people want me to stay, but I have wanted to leave for a while, and still do. I just want everything to be put in order first so I can have a clear conscience. I'd appreciate not having my credibility attacked for putting my wants aside for the good of my friends. If that is too much to ask, then expect me to lash out.  Sexy Sea  Bass  16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And no, you wouldn't be an asshole. If it were that you could stop a dispute between the Russian and Italian Madia, or you can end the Iraq-US war, then yeah, you could've been addressed as an asshole, but you wouldn't. The dispute began after you retired, so you shouldn't have known about it. However, you decided to daily visit WT:PW. I don't think that checking WT:PW every day without posting is called retirement, because I sometimes do that on a regular basis. I am not telling you to "retire and just leave", because I want you to stay. But just don't say that you're staying because "everything is out of control without you" because that just indirectly tells the community that the project is dependant on one sole user, which is not true, and many would agree.
 * Did I ever even try to imply this community was reliant on me? No, I never did. I have seen users much more prominent than myself retire, and everything has always been fine. Get that out of your head right now; I never even implied that. Anyway, I said before I left I was still interested in Wikipedia, ie I'll be checking my watchlist. We may have two different definitions of retirement, but that means I wasn't being dishonest, which is why I took issue with all of this. I won't stand for my credibility being attacked over something unrelated to the overall issue such as this.  Sexy Sea  Bass  04:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against you Hybrid, cuz I actually think you're one of the best here (or was since you decided to "retire"). I accept that we have different versions of "retirement". Yours apparently means not editing in mainspace, but editing in Wikipedia space. You know that some users don't do much mainspace edits and just edit on Wikipedia space, right? Does that mean they have retired [by your definition]? Rob, I, and the community in general define retirement as a permanent leave from Wikipedia, and they retire with templates that say: This user has decided to leave Wikipedia. Also, you did imply that you are the only one that can solve the issues. Not that you can't help, but stating that you wanted to leave, but had to stay is implying that the issue couldn't be resolved without you. Not that you, as a leader like you've always been, couldn't have helped, but you really can't change the opinions people have and most of their hard-headedness. Hornetman won't change, Mshake3 wont change, Rob wont change, and I wont change. Feed  back  ☎  05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My version of retirement means not editing at all, which is what I was attempting to and failed to do. If it meant editing in WP space, but not article space, then I retired months ago. Also, I never said I had to stay, I said I wanted to leave with a clear conscience and couldn't if I didn't chime in on this issue. Keep in mind the reason I feel this way is I blame myself for the block, since I started all of this. It is a feeling of responsibility due to guilt, not due to arrogance and a feeling of "I'm the only one". I don't feel like I ever implied I felt like only I could solve it; I only ever wanted to help. I'm confident in my ability to be helpful, but I've never thought of myself as a one-man army. I think you misunderstood me.  Sexy Sea  Bass  05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't call it retirement, when that's not what it is. Posting on talk anytime you see a problem isn't a retirement. Mainspace or not: posting comments is still a part of editing on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3. To Truco9311 and Mshake3:


 * If I understood correctly, Truco wanted to archive Msake3's talk page, and Mshake3 whipped out on him in an uncordially manner. My question is: "Why in Jimbo's name were you stalking his page, Truco?!" It's something I can't get clear. For some reason, you were reading the whole page and checking out the dates. WikiStalking is a very appropiate word for this. The userspace is private, especially the talk space, and you could have instead asked him: "Why do you keep your weeks-old conversations on the page?" There could have been many different answers, but you went ahead and assumed he didn't have an ArchiveBot. I am with you Truco, about Mshake3's lack of respect when he answered you, but you shouldn't have been stalking his page in the first place.
 * I didn't want to get involved, but Truco was not stalking. He asked a handful of users if they needed their talk pages archived, and Mshake was one of them. iMat  thew   20  08  11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, one I wasn't stalking him, If you clearly go to my contributions, I asked many other random users if they wanted me to archive their talk page. I also did not read every thread in his talk page, i just simply noticed a date that said jan 28... T r U C o 9 31 1 14:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lex, its called being nice and helpful. All Mshake3 needed to do was give a nice calm response back to Trucco instead of literally lashing out at him. D.M.N. (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that Mshake3 was rude and I completely 100% agree with you that it was not professional and very unappreciative, but I don't understand why Truco was asking people if they want him to archive their pages. They can do it themselves, and there al also bots. What is he trying to prove? That he is nice? Actually, that won't fit the description, because I believe what Mshake3 said and I quote: Asking to archive one's talk page, when an archive is clearly visible, is simply asking for trouble. Feed  back  ☎  03:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really get how asking to archive one's talk page is considered trouble. Truco just simply saw that Mshake's talk page had a lot of unarchived dead conversations. He didn't notice that the page already had an archiving bot (which could've been solved beforehand by having some sort of notice that said "this talk page is automatically archived by bot, etc."). Seeing this, he asked Mshake if he could place the old discussions into the archives. And of course, a courteous "no thank you" would have been more appropriate. That couldn't possibly be considered trouble. And I also don't think he was out to prove anything; to prove that he is "nice". I think he naturally wanted to be helpful by asking to archive, to keep the talk page clean and free of no-longer-userful cluster. And the asking to archive... when an archive is clearly visible: I believe that Truco did see the archive box. He was just asking if he could move the old discussions to the archives. That's what stumps me about this conversation. T he   C hronic  16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 20 discussions is hardly "a lot". And I see he asked someone with about 15 discussions as well. And he's archiving regular article talk pages that are older than EIGHT DAYS!?!??! Mshake3 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Look, I understand Truco was trying to be helpful, but this is not normal. Being helpful is when you see a problem, you go and try to fix it. Truco was looking for everyone's talk page and looking for the pages with old discussions so he can archive them. Maybe he was bored and had this need to edit, or maybe he just learned how to archive and wanted to keep trying it. But seriously, looking through everyone's talk page and reading all discussions to find which one has passed his 8-day limit so he can fulfill his need to archive is just not normal! And a guy like Mshake3 who is very straight-forward and has been stubborn with Truco in the past, realized about this anormality and answered him with a straight-forward and stubborn attitude like the one Truco should have been awaiting. "Don't mess with the bull, when you've seen the horns". Feed  back  ☎  05:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have had to expect it. Wikipedia wants people, not bulls. If Mshake can't calm down, then he should be turned into steak. Rewarding kindness, not matter how weird it may be, with rudeness is unacceptable.  Sexy Sea  Bass  05:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Can I be well done? Seriously though, I have more to say, but this is getting old. Let's just delete the whole section, as recommended earlier. Mshake3 (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

4. To Bulletproof and Nick:


 * Nick had all the right to block you. However, he should understand that Hornetman is not a member of the project, or a member of the community, and not even respected by any of the admins or the ArbCom. Maybe Nick didn't know about Hornetman, but I think that after learning about him, he can come to understand that Hornetman is, in fact, lame.
 * Strangely enough, banned users are technically considered members of the community who have had certain privileges taken from them. That means they are to be treated with the same respect as any other user, but they've been formally censured. They're punishment ends there; attacks against them are not allowed. However, we agree that Nick had every right to block him, which is good.  Sexy Sea  Bass  16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Cheers, Feed  back  ☎  11:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is strange, but it does make some sense. Then I am sorry, and I retract my previous comment. I still however think that Hornetman does qualify for WP:LAME. Feed  back  ☎  03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So... why not just simply delete this entire post and let bygones be bygones? T he   C hronic  00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant delete this section and let bygones by bygones. T he   C hronic  03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

'Guys, can we STOP'' this stupid and pathetic drama. Some of you have taken it a little too far, personal attacks, insults, stalking, both of which violate Wikipedia's policy. Can we stop, please. We're here, yes to have a bit of fun, but to improve the edit the encyclopedia, not to whine, moan and insult others. Some people need to get a grip. Just forget about it and move on. D.M.N. (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)'''
 * Agreed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania III --> FA?
Id like to have everyone's feedback on the article. Please! Really needed! I want to know if it is good enough for FAC, so I can nominate it soon. Thoughts? Feed back  ☎  15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It definitely has the potentional for FA (as does No Way Out (2004)), but it needs a bit more of an aftermath in my view, possibly what was the next step in the feud between The Hart Foundation and The British Bulldogs. Although our current PPV FA, December to Dismember (2006) doesn't have a lot of the "next step" in feud type thing, thats because most of the reaction from that event was about the dismal showing. In fact, I might actually add a little bit to D2D now I think about it. D.M.N. (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but No Way Out (2004) has many typos, is written badly and suffers from "info cruft". I think the article needs to be edited with AWB and then taken to the League of Copyeditors. If WrestleMania III has some similar problems, please address them, as I have tried to perfect the article since I began editing it.   Feed  back  ☎  23:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be very surprised if anyone could point out two typos in No Way Out 2004, let alone many. As for WrestleMania III, the entire article is written in-universe. That would need to be fixed before nominating it for Featured Article status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, No Way Out (2004) is written entirely in-universe also, so you can't argue there. Also, I have corrected those 2 typos you said would make you "very surprised". December to Dismember (2006) also is in-universe, and it is our first FA-PPV. Also, these are articles on scripted events just like any TV Show or Movie. We are not going to start saying:


 * "Spiderman, the fictitious alter-ego of the ficticious Peter Parker, defeated the Sinister Six, a fictitious team created by the fictitious Kingpin, in a fictitious battle, because of the fictitious tension between the ficticious villains".


 * Of course, WWE is a sport, but it is also a TV Show and it's main priority is entertainment. Feed  back  ☎  01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lose the attitude. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What attitude? I did what you asked (the typos) and specified that WWE is in fact a TV Show. Are we now going to condemn WP:TV to write out-of-universe articles about their tv shows? Feed  back  ☎  04:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lex, how can you go round saying that December to Dismember (2006) is in-universe??? You were the one in the first FAC that pointed out the in-universe problems. I sorted it out, you supported it second time around. No one has brought up any issues with the article on the talkpage, so I'm suprised you're the only one to think that. I'd likke to hear the opinions of other WP:PW members on this matter. D.M.N. (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't make it less in-universe, Dav. The reason I supported you was because I agree with how the article is written and it should stay this way. My posts above obviously support in-universe prose because it is a scripted show, and it should be fairly obvious it is scripted as Everybody Loves Raymond and Grey's Anatomy. You don't see these articles being out-of-universe. My opinion Dav is that December to Dismember (2006), even though it isn't completely in-universe, it is partially, and you should be damn proud of the fact. I expect all TV shows to be done the same way. Feed  back  ☎  21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stub article update
The focus on improving stub articles has reached a milestone today. Since December 15, the number of total professional wrestling articles has increased by 71. In that same time however, the number of stubs has dropped by 100. Thank you to everyone who has helped with these articles. I'd like to see the number keep dropping, though, so there's still a lot of work to do. I'd also like to invite everyone to check out the stub article subpage (located here), where we've compiled a list of important stub articles that should be fairly easy to expand and reference. If you have a few minutes, it would be great if you could take a look at one of the stubs and see what you could add (even just some cleanup or a reference or two would really help). Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In a related note, a large number of the stub articles are about Mexican and Japanese wrestlers and promotions. If this area of wrestling interests you, it would be great if you could stop by the Stub Expansion Page and help out. I know very little about wrestling in Mexico and Japan, so I find it more difficult to expand articles relating to them. Considering the popularity of wrestling in these countries, it would be a shame for a good number of their articles to remain stubs. Thanks. Nikki  311  00:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As of Valentine's Day, our number of stub articles is 666. I can't think of anything more appropriate. :) Nikki  311  17:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spooky. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Holly Cousins
I've been expanding the article up from a stub class, and I'm almost finished, but I was wondering if anyone knew what their finisher was? Did they have a double-team one, or did they just use their singles finishing moves? Thanks in advance, ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no-one answered, so I took that as "I don't know". I added each of their finishing moves to the page, but if anyone wants to revert/change anything, I won't take it personally!!! ;) ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PW PPV Page Format
So this will be fair and everyone can have their opinions heard, this is a poll to determine what kind of format we should use for the WP:PW/PPV page.

Tell whether you want the PW PPV page to use a Table Format or Non Table Format, or if you want to Comment

P.S-Non Table Format is just the format without the table/grid lines.


 * Table Format-I like it better in table format, it is more neat, organized, and looks better. And you are able to sort the contents. T r U C o 9 31 1 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - Looks more organized. Z enlax  T C S 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - sortable, and looks organised. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - Easier to read (withouth the table, it gets confusing trying to see who is working on some of the articles). I also like being able to sort and see what a specific editor is working on or which SummerSlams have been expanded. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - per above. Nikki  311  23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - per above. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Table Format - per above. --  L A  X  10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like we have a pretty solid consensus. :D D.M.N. (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A new ruling has been established
Talk:WWE Judgment Day. Web > DVD. It does not matter what actually occured at a PPV event, even if it has been captured for DVD release. If a web source says something else, then that's what actually happened. Mshake3 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, what? Are you upset because of that fact that the only source you were willing to provide is not allowed because it is illegally hosting copyrighted material? It took another user todo what you weren't willing to do: find a reliable source to support your claim.  TJ   Spyke   02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite the maroon aren't you? There's more to citations than the web. The point of the video was to show you what actually happened, since you've clearly never seen the event. The actual source is the event in question. And as we've seen in debates about spoilers, a broadcast is indeed a reliable source. So when I list a video clip, I'm not sourced the video clip. I'm telling you that you're wrong and to stop editing things that you have no clue about whatsoever. Mshake3 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You were sourcing the site itself, why do you think we don't accept YouTube as a source? It doesn't matter if the video is accurate or not since a source that uses illegal material is not allowed, you could compare it to a criminal case and how a video taped guilty confession wouldn't be allowed if the suspect didn't have their rights read to them first. The whole point is moot because someone else actually provided a reliable source. So let's end this idiotic discussion.  TJ   Spyke   02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it . Can we stop now? :( — Save_Us   †  02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A broadcast is a reliable source. There are even citations for that. But you see, if I just put a source for the DVD in the article, it would have been reverted, no doubt because that one wrong source said otherwise. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? Mshake3 (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You did't even try to use a citation. The first thing you did was just revert, then when someone else (correctly) reverted your edit and I questioned you, you just provided a link to a illegally hosted video. Please do not ASSume to know what I would have done had you actually bothered to source it and with a reliable source.  TJ   Spyke   03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. From now on, if I see a similar error, I will simply change it, and cite the DVD. And you will not revert it. Deal? Mshake3 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Provided you vouch that you actually have the DVD (and are not just watching it on a site illegally hosting the video), fine. I can't confirm if you own a DVD or not, but I hope you will be honest enough to only cite a DVD when you actually have it.  TJ   Spyke   03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, the honor system. I'm shocked you'd agree to do that. Now maybe in the future, instead of throwing out policy left and right, you'll use some common sense, look at the damn video, and say "oh, that's what actually happened." Mshake3 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks to TheHeartbreakKid15 for noticing the error in the first place. Mshake3 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow this is AMAZING. It's a good source if he owns the DVD, but it's not a good source if he somehow obtained the broadcast in another way? Whu? Are you saying that they somehow magically alter the outcome of a match or who pinned who for the DVD? no matter HOW it was seen the broadcast (and any commercial DVD of that broadcast) is a source. I mean does citing a DVD not count if you bought the PPV and saw it? This is a new low in weird arguments, bravo. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't thank someone for changing it when he offered no source. You can point out these online videos if you want, but they can't be used as a source (except of the ones on wwe.com since all other online WWE videos are illegally hosted and thus not allowed on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kid's source was that he actually watched it. ;) Mshake3 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd thank him because he used common sense. He watched the event, noticed the error, and changed it. He's a good contributor. Mshake3 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had small disputes with both of you guys [Mshake and Spyke], but obviously one guy is wrong here. I guess for the first time, Mshake3 and I are on the same page. Spyke, I understand you are editing in good faith, but c'mon, read your comments. A DVD is reliable, but it's posting on the internet is not? The video on the net most likely came from the DVD anyway. No one can alter who pinned who, and who did what move when. Even if they violate a copyright, it can still be used as a reference. There is no better source for the event, than the event itself. Feed back  ☎  00:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:YOUTUBE (part of the WP:EL guideline) is clear that the site can not be used as a reference. Any video clips of WWE can not be used unles its from wwe.com since WWE doesn't let other sites use their info. He was not using the DVD as a source, he was using the site. All Mshake had to do was find a reliable source and we wouldn't have been having this discussion. With WWE PPV's there are lots of sites which don't violate copyright laws.  TJ   Spyke   01:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I retired yesterday, and here I am. Anyway, TJ is using common sense; he's obeying the LAW. ALL WWE material is copyrighted; this is a free use website; copyrighted material not under fair use is non-compatible with Wikipedia. Illegally posted videos are not fair use; when you buy a DVD a license is included in the transaction saying any non-profit use is permitted, ie fair use. Therefore, TJ is correct and you all are promoting illegal behavior that makes Wikipedia violate the GFDL. Cheers,  Sexy Sea  Bass  01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen to Hybrid. -- T r U C o 9 31 1 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So if a copyrighted video or image contains the best reference possible, we can't use it as a source? Feed  back  ☎  03:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, who posted a video on Wikipedia The Hybrid? He made an external link to it. Linking to a copyrighted video and posting it on Wikipedia are two completely different arguments. And linking to a copyrighted video and making it into a reference are two completely different arguments, which is what I think it was about. — Save_Us   †  02:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't completely different. If something shouldn't exist online due to an illegal upload, then it is equally illegal for a GFDL website to use it as a source. The copyrights don't mesh. Any information taken from a video that violates a copyright by costing the copyright holder money cannot be used. The information falls under the copyright as well per American copyright laws. If it is from the live broadcast or the DVD it counts as fair use, but if it is taken from an illegal copy of it then it is inadmissible in the article. The law sucks, and as a Libertarian I am opposed to a legalized embargo on non-crucial information, but the law is the law.  Sexy Sea  Bass  03:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says that the reader should check WP:COPYRIGHT. WP:COPYRIGHT says, and I quote:

''Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.''

I think this gives us a firm answer. Feed back  ☎  03:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't about the copyright; it is about the copyright being violated. Read my above comment; this doesn't fall under WP:YOUTUBE; rather, it falls under the fair use policy.  Sexy Sea  Bass  03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even under the YOUTUBE guidleine, it wouldn't be allowed. How conveniant that Alex did not post the very next paragraph in that guideline:

However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

That settles that. That site is carrying a copyrighted video illegally, and Mshake is trying to direct others to it. You can not link to any copies of copyrighted WWE material online if a site does not have WWE's permission to have them.  TJ   Spyke   03:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had just found that. Well, TJ shows me up again, which is as it should be. Now on to another attempt at a peaceful retirement after a long and controversial career on Wikipedia. Cheers,  Sexy Sea  Bass  03:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know for a fact that they do not have permission? I know it is not likely, but that paragraph can only be used as a guideline when you are 100% sure, and can provide proof that they do not have permission. The only way you can have that, is when WWE tells them to take down the video. Feed  back  ☎  15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

While I understand the concern of linking to illegal videos, no where does it say that said video must be ignored. Mshake3 (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you can't link to the videos, it pretty much does (unles you say something like "according to this video on the Internet") since it means its useless as a source. Just find a reliable text source, there are plenty available.  TJ   Spyke   05:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I waste my time sourcing a fans interptation of an event, when the actually broadcast itself is a reliable source? Mshake3 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that YouTube (and YouTube-esque sites) videos of the event are not allowed? This has been established many times already. Also, how is "wrestler A pinned wrestler B" interpeting the event? It's stating simple facts. Plenty of sites review WWE PPV's in detail, I have one i've used for past WWE PPV's (I couldn't use them for this PPV because they are a "classic" WWE PPV site and add about 1 new PPV a month, and currently have reviews of every event up to Vengeance 2002 ). Slam Sports reviews most PPV's, for example, is a reliable source.  TJ   Spyke   06:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well how the fuck am I suppost to get you to stop reverting the article then? Your text source is wrong, yet you don't believe another user, you don't believe me, and I'm unaware of any other text sources at the time. Not that the later mattered, since you'd say those could be inaccurate as well. Plus you've got you're buddies reverting for you as well. I'm actually watching the damn match, and you're telling me I"m wrong without seeing it yourself? Mshake3 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I already admitted that they made an error, it's one of the few i've seen on their site (even reliable news sites like CNN make errors sometimes).  TJ   Spyke   00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Text sources have been added. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any recap of an event could be false or they could have made one or two errors. But a recording of the event itself can't be false. Feed  back  ☎  15:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and so using a legal copy of the show to verify claims is ideal. However, nobody has shown that they own or have viewed a legal copy of the event. In the absence of such proof, it makes sense to go with the result reported by the majority of sources if we are to stay within Wikipedia guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I would show this proof how exactly? Mshake3 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently ALL sources now require a receipt before they're allowed, seems to be the new rule around here. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically that's always been the rule. It's just over the last few months we've started to enforce it in wrestling articles. And it's proven to be a good idea since we've gone from having mostly stubs, no FA and only 1 GA to havinbg multiple FA's (inlcuding a TFA), tons of GA's, and no longer being harassed by a certain editor who is obviously anti-wrestling who blanked wrestling articles. a site like Slam Sports will be reliable enough, if you have doubt you can add a second or third text source.  TJ   Spyke   00:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me the rules that says "Prove you own a source that's not an online source", I beg you to go ahead and show me where it says that there has to be some sort of proof that you own the source PLEASE prove me wrong. Don't talk to me about improving articles etc, it has NOTHING to do with this, this has to do with you being so gung ho to keep an edit out that you're now making ridiculous claims about owning the legal copy of a source. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So where should I upload my receipts? Mshake3 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

List of [Insert title] Championship reigns by length‎
Does anyone else think we should try to get rid of these pages? They are rather trivial and I think they could be merged into the main championship lists, and we include a "reign length" column. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we go merge it into the championships list. Z enlax  T C S 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, merge into main list. -- L A  X  20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggested this twice before. I am still in the process of merging List of WWE Champions and List of WWE Championship reigns by length in User:Feedback/Sandbox, but I haven't gotten the time. Feed  back  ☎ 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also in another note, I think that "List of WWE Champions", should be changed to "List of WWE Championship reigns". I think it is more appropiate. Thoughts? Feed  back  ☎ 20:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a problem with that table in the sandbox - it doesn't sort the number of days correctly, but the number of times appears to sort properly. I dunno - I like how they are separated now - makes things less cluttered - but what do I know? ArcAngel (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge, but I have a suggestion. I think that we should remove the "Location" column. I think that the location is not as notable as the date or wrestler's name. iMat  thew   20  08  21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Date and Location are importart parts of any championship list. Anyway, add the individual reign length to the main chart, and perhaps have a second list for combined reigns in the main articles. Mshake3 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You could do a great sortable table with all of it, and make it very nice to look at. Building tables is something I got good at with the Royal Rumble project, id be willing to start some talk space drafts of a few ideas, and then put them out.  I'll do the TNA x division championship to start, as that one isnt that long of a list.  I'll put up a couple of different looks and see where it goes.  LessThanClippers (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Batista
Is Batista a GA yet? iMat thew   20  08  21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Check WP:PW to see our GAs. Feed  back  ☎ 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant is it ready to be a GA yet. iMat  thew   20  08  22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. I think it can be taken to the League of Copyeditors first. Feed  back  ☎ 23:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is written in-universe, which is a major problem for wrestling articles. It would need to be taken out of universe. In addition, a few things stand out that would prevent it from passing a GA review, but they're pretty minor and could be fixed within a day or two:
 * The statement about him having surgery on his arm (January 12, 2006) is unsourced.
 * The majority of the final paragraph in the "World Champion again (2006-2007)" section is unsourced.
 * The lead needs to be quite a bit longer and should give all of the important points from the article.
 * I think it's definitely close, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Active Members List
I think that the active members list should be cleared out, and re-started. It should be updated. iMat thew   20  08  21:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, should we can do that every 2 months. How about it? Feed  back  ☎ 22:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- iMat  thew   20  08  22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why two months? Mshake3 (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you prefer? One month? Three? iMat  thew   20  08  00:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just not something that's suggesting an active monitoring. Because who cares how accurate the list is. Mshake3 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you if this were the normal "members list". But with the "active members list", it should be accurate, or it can be providing false information. iMat  thew   20  08  00:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really that serious? What is the definition of "active"?  It just seems like we have sooo much more to do than that. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we do this? Why shouldn't we do this? Meh, let's set a two month limit on how long a person should wait to clear it. Don't let it be cleared before that, but if it doesn't get cleared for a week after, a month after, a decade after, a whatever after, there's no sense crying about it. All in all, meh.  Sexy Sea  Bass  01:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's not really our "top priority", but just because of the fact, that doesn't mean we are going to not care for it. Feed  back  ☎ 02:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Got A Crazy Rumour To Share.
Check it out here. That could be interesting. If this hits mainstream news or dirtsites, we may need to keep an eye on the WWE Roster page. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, interesting. Thanks for the heads-up. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Might want to keep an eye on the Eminem and WrestleMania 24 pages too. D.M.N. (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, although these types of rumors happen a lot.  TJ   Spyke   13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Spike DDT
what it is it can anyboby please describe to me how it looks likeKTsuka (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Never heard that term used AFAIK.  TJ   Spyke   13:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)