Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 62

5 star matches
I assumed this issues was settled when no one objected to the suggestion of removing Meltzers ratings in the title sections, but RandysavageFTW insists on keeping them in. No matter how respected Meltzer is (and that's debatable), is it really notable what matches he gives 5 stars too? Even if it mattered (which I don't think it does), it is not a title or accomplishment and shouldn't be mentioned in that section. Can we get this settled once and for all so he stops trying to get a edit war going.  TJ   Spyke   21:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I really find it as a miscellaneous honor that has no widerange recognition, i find the honor WP:TRIVIAL and WP:NN.--SRX 21:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Match "ratings" are simply opinions. Meltzer's ratings are not anything prestigious. I've never even heard of this guy. His "ratings" are his opinions. Therefore, it is definitely not that notable. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. 5 star match ratings have been thought to be very prestigious in professional wrestling for a while now. The companies sure do think they are something aswell. When they hold a match that gets a 5 star rating they usually go out of their way to promote it as such. It is worth at least mentioning in accomplishments since they are rare in the United States, though very common in Japan because they think of it more as sport and care more about their matches.-- Will C  02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You might not have, but ask any professional wrestler, promoter or booker who Dave Meltzer is, and they will tell you. Oh, and the people at CNN, because they interviewed him in the aftermath of the Benoit murder/suicide. Nenog (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's no different then mentioning what movies got two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert. Meltzer's 5 star rating are all listed on the WON article, I don't see the need to include it in other articles (one Japanese wrestler had 17, more than all of his other titles combined).  TJ   Spyke   03:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm torn. On one hand, if we are listing Slammys (which are practically meaningless), we might as well list these, too. On the other hand, I kind of agree with TJ Spyke. Firstly, can anybody show an instance of when a wrestler or company acknowledged the ratings? Secondly, does Meltzer assign the WON awards, too, or are those voted on by the readers? Nikki ♥  311  21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind on the second question...I've got an answer to that. Nikki  ♥  311  22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe TNA said something about it after Unbreakable. I'll have to look it up, but I believe they said something about it.-- Will C  08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They should be there. Dave doesn't throw them out like candy... only 4 WWE matches have got them. They're a special award and are pretty rare. They don't "mean nothing." RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meltzer is not really a fan of WWE in general, and has made it clear he prefers Japanese wrestling.  TJ   Spyke   17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Meltzer loves Japanese wrestling over American wrestling. Just considering how many he has given five stars to in Japan.-- Will C  18:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And how many has he given out since 2000? Nenog (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6.  TJ   Spyke   04:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? One went to the 3-Way Dance between Samoa Joe, A.J. Styles, and Christopher Daniels for the TNA X Division Championship at TNA Unbreakable in 2005. Two went to ROH in a span of a year. With Samoa Joe and Kenta getting one and Samoa Joe and CM Punk's second 60 minute time limit draw getting the other. I believe he has given out more than six since 2000.-- Will C  04:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just going by Meltzers article: Samoa Joe vs. CM Punk - October 16, 2004 (ROH), Samoa Joe vs. Kenta Kobashi - October 1, 2005 (ROH), Dragon Kid, Genki Horiguchi, & Ryo Saito vs. CIMA, Naruki Doi, & Masato Yoshino - March 31, 2006 (ROH/Dragon Gate),    * A.J. Styles vs. Samoa Joe vs. Christopher Daniels – September 11, 2005 (TNA), Kenta Kobashi vs. Mitsuharu Misawa - March 1, 2003 (NOAH), Kenta Kobashi vs. Jun Akiyama - July 10, 2004 (NOAH). The last WWE match he gave his meaningless rating to was the Michaels/Undertaker HIAC match in October 1997.   TJ   Spyke   05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do believe he gave that rating to Taker/Mankind HIAC. Not sure though.-- Will C  05:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, he gave it ****1/2. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

pwwew.net as a source?
There's nothing on this one in the style guide, so I wanted to check out how it is as a source. It has a good log of Raw and SmackDown, especially SmackDown ones. PWTorch and WrestleView only go back to about 2003 for SmackDown, so this would be a helpful one for pre 2003 SmackDowns. How reliable is it, do we know? It seems about as reliable as WrestleView, and could be used in the same capacity, I think. Cheers,  Dooms Day  17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not reliable because the site does not give the wherabouts of where they get their information from. They do not have an established staff of writers or history, and it was found unreliable by the source checker User:Ealdgyth per these reasons.--SRX 18:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Has it come to this? Are we so paranoid that we have to question whether a frickin show report is accurate or not? Mshake3 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, indeed it has.  aye matthew  ✡ 19:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder, could we actually just source the very show itself? We can cite video games for their articles - why not just cite the actual episodes of Raw, SmackDown, etc., etc., that we want?  Doesn't get much more factual than that.  Show reports can be used when available, but if not, why not just source the show? Cheers,  Dooms  Day  19:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We can, you are right -- I've thought about it, but never have applied it to an article. :-)  aye matthew  ✡ 19:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, I think I've just found my source for episodes that aren't covered in a WrestleView or PWTorch results guide. Cheers,  Dooms Day  19:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just use cite episode.--SRX 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

TNA Epix
Well considering the discussion on WWE Superstars above it got me thinking and remembered that TNA is making a new show called TNA Epix. Here is the article from WrestleView because I can't find the one from TNA: here Should we should make an article for it or not?-- Will C  23:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess so but all we know is that it's a highlights show from the early years. Won't be that long of an article. Tony2Times (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned in the TNA article. Considering that it will be nothing more than a clip show, I don't see the need for its own article as it would never be more than a stub. A paragraph in the TNA article can cover it well enough.  TJ   Spyke   23:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could mention it in a TNA programing article. They, including this show, have had three or four shows over the years. I don't believe this is a clip show. It is more of a show that will show full matches and segemnts from Impact, ppvs, and weekly ppvs.-- Will C  00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant, clips of shows. There won't be any original content on the show.  TJ   Spyke   00:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

X Wrestling Federation → Xcitement Wrestling Federation
I don't know if there's really any need for a consensus, but X Wrestling Federation is not the official name. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 07:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that even notable? It lasted from "late 2001 to early 2002". It needs some third party reliable sources to prove notability. Nikki  ♥  311  18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is what even notable? It even states the name of the company in the article. It should be moved as X Wrestling Federation is not the appropriate name. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * She means the company itself.--SRX 03:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I honestly believe it should be merged with Jimmy Hart since it didn't even last a year. Al that I know is the name is "Xcitement" not "X." But, IMO, this should probably be merged with Jimmy Hart. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 05:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the name of the company, then that should be the name of the article. I moved it for now. We can worry about whether it should be merged or not some other time. Nikki  ♥  311  00:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Marty Jannetty question
I asked this a while ago, but the question was marked as resolved and archived despite the fact that I hadn't received a reply. Does anyone know of a reliable source that discusses Marty Jannetty's issues with drugs (particularly a suspension in 1991 or 1992)? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that Shawn Michaels' autobiography skirts the issue, but that's about it. Thanks,  Genius  101 Guestbook  20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They slightly touch on it in the description of his RF Shoot video here. That's the only thing I've found after looking through the net. Nikki  ♥  311  23:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Vince Verhei
Anyone have any thoughts on Vince Verhei? Most of the article is POV and should be removed, but I wanted to know if I should bother cleaning it up. Is the article worth keeping around or taken to AfD? Nikki ♥  311  00:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally non-notable career as a wrestler. Nothing to indicate that he is a notable columnist either or that his podcast is notable. I would nominate it for deletion.  TJ   Spyke   01:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete it but first let's find out about this Total Non-Stop Wrestling. I wonder if it's anything like Total Non-Stop Action. Tony2Times (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it talks about the program Impact, so I'd say they are one in the same. Nikki  ♥  311  04:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vince Verhei (2nd nomination). Nikki ♥  311  22:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on archiving resolved sections?
I think the bot should automatically archive these sections because lets say someone was involved and it was resolved before he could get back to see the progress, but he can't find it because it was archived. If it had been archived 7 days after by the bot, he could have found it. I think its best IMO to leave the bot to archive it versus manual archives.--SRX 01:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot can't do this yet. And as I watch conversations on IRC, I hear people talk about how bad this project can be, and the only way to avoid some of the extremely childish drama that goes on here is to get rid of a section as soon as it's resolved. Otherwise people get childish and try to prove a point.  aye matthew  ✡ 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot can do it, it automatically archives sections that haven't had any edits for 7 days. As for what others think, my personal experience is that a lot of people just don't like wrestling in general and have little respect for the articles. It's one of the reasons by wrestling articles are scrutinized more and held to stricter standards than other articles.  TJ   Spyke   02:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but it's comments like that one that spark drama and debates that are just un-necessary for the well being of whatever is left of this project.  aye matthew  ✡ 02:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really Matt, TJ has the right to speak his mind. That isn't drama, drama is like the things that came up during the "OOU War." If you leave the resolved tags on the discussion, then no one will edit it, better yet, use polltop and pollbottom. Then let the bot archive it 7 days later.--SRX 02:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "The right to speak one's mind" is what has stuffed this project in the deep hole it's in.  aye matthew  ✡ 02:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being able to state your opinion does not (and never has) hurt this or any project. If anything, being stifled and not allowed to say what you think would hurt a project. What kind of hole do you think the project is in? That's a really negative attitude.  TJ   Spyke   02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You must have been gone for too long, but this project has become filled with drama. Why bother?  aye matthew  ✡ 03:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was rarely editing from late March until earlier this month since I had no home Internet access. That's what I was annoyed that one of the things this project agreed to do was the specifics of the OOU. I'm not a huge fan of the idea to begin with, and I don't like removing mentions of a move name (writing something like "lifted his opponent onto his shoulders and slammed him down onto the mat" instead of "he executed a Last Ride" with a link to the move's description) or listing a wrestlers real name in PPV articles. I have to be honest that I don't like them. I don't understand how the project could get so much drama over this short time period.  TJ   Spyke   03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with TJ, but Would the "resolved" template like they use on 'ANI work? I'm not one to delete comments on a talk page unless it's vandalism, an attack, or something of that nature.  SteelersFan- 9  4  03:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Matt that this project is indeed in a hole, although it doesn't have to do with the subject at hand. Although it's still popping out GA's FL's and every now and then FA's, the chemistry is not there. It's going down hill. Members of this project really need to come together and "bury the hatchet" if you will.  SteelersFan- 9  4  03:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem with this project, after asking users on IRC -- is that it's filled with to much Myspace. Too many members are myspacey and look for things to talk about. Too many will disagree for the sake of disagreement.  aye matthew  ✡ 03:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to admit that I've done that, hell....we've probably all done that on at least one occasion. Wrestling fans (in general) are nice working class people, in other words social IMO. Look at all the archives we have, I'm sure a lot of that is forum type material.  SteelersFan- 9  4  03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem with this project is that people hijack discussions and turn them into commentaries about how bad and drama-filled the project is. -- Scorpion 0422  03:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments like that don't help discussion even if there are to in one thread.  SteelersFan- 9  4  03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Scorpion somewhat, how did a simple question and suggestion turn into a lengthy "commentary?" I think if this project can not co-op, it shouldn't exist. Projects are intended for members with similar interests to "work together" to improve the articles in that topic. All I asked was couldn't we wait 7 days for the Misza bot to archive it and possibly use polltop and pollbottom.--SRX 03:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Scorpion (and in a related news story, pigs have recently been spotted flying...). If people feel that there is too much drama, they don't have to visit this page. If people have nothing better to do than complain about the project, perhaps his or her time is better spent doing something offline. As for the matter at hand, I strongly disagree with both marking discussions as "resolved" and archiving them. If they are resolved, they'll go away within 7 days. If anyone else wants to contribute before then (perhaps he or she was away for a couple of days and wants to add something to a discussion), that editor should feel free to do so. Not all policies can or should be settled within 2-3 days for that very reason. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--SRX 13:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Employees
I have had it unprotected now that Suicide's identity has a source. Please monitor it for changes and if need be I will have it reprotected. Cheers, JakeDHS07  16:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Was anyone aware of Mickie henson?
I'm not sure what to do, since for one, its not sourced. But it has a good amount of information, and seems to meet WP:N, so I don' think AFD works. I tagged it, but I don't know what the project wants to do with it.--SRX 18:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Mickie Henson has been a pretty notable ref, the article is just so bad. Since August 2007, Mickie Henson has been deleted 5 times (the most recent being in October 2008). It could be tagged for speedy deletion unless someone is willing to take a shot at the article.  TJ   Spyke   18:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would, but I'm not sure where the original creator got his info from and whether it is accurate.--SRX 18:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Since SRX Pointed it out a few hours ago I've been adding to it and putting sources beside it. The stuff the original user added was from Henson's WWE Profile. Adster95 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reign lists
Whatever happened with the championship reign lists? They do not seem to be merged? Did anybody ever figure out how to get that template to work? Nikki ♥  311  00:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody else seemed willing to help. I did 2 of them (WWE Intercontinental and ECW Championship). I ran into a problem though since entries where there is nothing to enter (like getting vacated) is messing up the autosort (I tried setting them to "0", but that didn't help).  TJ   Spyke   00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we just merge the lists to the articles for now (below the existing lists). Then we can figure out how to do the template... Nikki  ♥  311  01:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on all the TNA list. Been slow at it though.-- Will C  01:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What template are guys referring to?--SRX 01:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the Intercontinental or ECW Champ reign lists. Basically, it automatically counts the days between when the championship was won and when it was lost...so it shows how many days the reign was. Nikki  ♥  311  01:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From my guess, this one: -- Will  C  01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the template. I tried using the same day for those entries (so it would show up as 0), but that hasn't helped. I think all of WWE's titles have been vacant at least once, so that is a problem (4 of TNA's 5 titles are still pretty new and haven't had this problem yet).  TJ   Spyke   01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah they're still new but then I have to make the list that was determined at Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship. One that will mention all world champions in TNA to deal with TNA's revisionism; also because they call everyone a TNA Champion. ips and users both believe it should be mentioned. That goes against the official history since even TNA says the title began with Angle. I also have to make one for the World Tag Team Championship history. Only the Legends Championship and the Women's title has never been vacant or striped. By the time I'm done there will be either five or four lists.-- Will C  01:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

So should they just be listed at the bottom of the respective articles for now until we can get the template to work? Nikki ♥  311  01:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about trying to place "0" in the sort template?--SRX 01:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen one of the indie belt histories have their vacant list numbered; this would both make it easier to make the tables sortable and gives an extra bit of info for readers. I've always found it interesting that the WHC has been vacated so many times in its short history. Tony2Times (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started merging the info for now. All the reigns lists are located at Category:Professional wrestling championship reign longevity lists if anybody wants to help. Nikki ♥  311  09:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm working on merging and readying all I can for FLC on the TNA side: TNA Title, TNA tag title, World champions in TNA, world Tag champions in TNA, and X Division champions go to Fl. Other I'm working on the articles. I got that side fixed just for you to know Nikki.-- Will C  09:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost done (close to 3/4 probably)...it isn't taking that long...it is just tedious. I imagine that adding in the template is even more tedious. Nikki ♥  311  02:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, it is. I completed merging the WWE Title page (meaning adding the templates in), and that took a long time. The WWE Hardcore Title page is gonna be freaking annoying as hell since the title basically became a joke during the 24/7 period (234 reigns in a 4 year period). Much appreciation goes out to User:Secretaria, who helped fix a problem that vacated slots were causing with the autosort. List of WWE Champions, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions, and List of ECW Champions are done.  TJ   Spyke   03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've finished merging every list from that category. Maybe we can split up the Hardcore Championship list between three or four people, so it won't be quite as annoying. I'd certainly be willing to do part of it. Those finished lists look really great, btw. Nikki  ♥  311  01:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Date the show took place or the date it aired?
On the WCW PPV articles like Fall Brawl 1995 that took place before and after Kollision in Korea, on the "next/previous event" thing, should it be the event that aired before or the event that took place before? Kinda hard to explain and properly word this... Note KiK took place in 5/95 but didn't air till 8/96. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, this is a uniques situation that we don't have with other PPVs. It didn't air until over a year after it had been taped. I will be honest and say I am involved in this. What should we do, go by when the PPV was taped or by when it aired.  TJ   Spyke   02:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it should go by storyline events and air date.-- Will C  02:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine if it aired a year later, it didn't affect storylines, right? In that case, my gut feeling would be to put it in the order that it was filmed. If it did affect storylines (I don't see how it could), then it should be in the order aired. Nikki  ♥  311  03:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, a whole year? I think go by date of airing because of storyline purposes but really it could go either way. Obviously a disclaimer should be written into the article highlighting this, rather than just the infobox pointing it out. Tony2Times (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is noted in the top paragraph. I am surprised the event didn't get more attention from WWE or others. Not only is it the only wrestling PPV to have happened in North Korea, but the combined attendance (it was held over a 2 day period) was over 300K.  TJ   Spyke   16:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then again, this could be like one of those International PPV's like WWE used to do, that had no affect on storylines and it was just produced for touring purposes. I say the date it aired because my guess is that if it aired a year later, storylines would not have been affected and they would have just been continued or it could be like one of those WWE International PPVs.--SRX 03:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but KIK aired in the United States (unlike the EU PPV's WWE has done).  TJ   Spyke   03:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen it myself but I'm pretty sure it had no effect on any storylines. RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

SmackDown Spoilers - *NOTE* - section contains spoilers
Just a heads up, Maryse won the Divas Championship last night at the tapings, as reported by Wrestling Observer, but some watchful eyes on Maryse Ouellet, WWE Divas Championship, and List of WWE Divas Champions wouldn't go astray. I've added in the info, but watch out for anons trying to take it out, etc. Remember we list the championship by date won (i.e. December 22), not date aired. And if someone who understands the template used in the "List of individual reigns and combined reigns" section of List of WWE Divas Champions, could they make sure I ddin't screw it up? Thanks, ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the heading "SmackDown Spoilers" not imply that there are spoilers in the section D.M.N.? ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was guessing it was a question regarding "SmackDown spoilers" - i.e. should they be inserted, but I didn't expect to see actual spoilers there. D.M.N. (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, right. Sorry, I'll make it clearer next time (if there is a next time). Apologies for that. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried avoiding looking at this but invariably when I scrolled I saw the word Maryse and guessed the rest. It might seem a bit hassly but is there any way we can have spoilers put in blacked out text so you have to highlight it to see? Just for SD and I guess Impact too, that kinda thing.Tony2Times (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do that, but if you can feel free to. I do apologise to everyone for spoiling this, but I felt that these articles are going to need a little more watching than perhaps is usual. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a "show/hide" thing, hopefully that'll help. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Add TNA World Tag Team Championship to the list, Lethal and Creed won the titles after cashing in their briefcase

--Numyht (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sick of this. I mean, sure I read spoilers when they come out. But just use some common sense here folks. When you talk about "spoilers", you're basically telling the world that there's going to be a title change on said show. So how about in the future, we simply do not mention things like this? Mshake3 (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's my opinion too. At the very least we should wait for the first airing of the show (which for SmackDown is Thursday night in some countries).  TJ   Spyke   17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But then Nici has a point; people are going to edit this and we need to watch it. I think the best comprimise you can go for is that show/hide drop down. It's better than nothing and at least it leaves some mystery as to what belt or perhaps injuries &c. I'm an advocate of not putting the info on here until it airs but we all know everyone just ignores that anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need to watch it. You don't need everyone in this project to gang up on a page anytime something notable happens. Mshake3 (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Championship article for GA?
I expanded World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) with intentions for GAN, but I was thinking that the article was too short, what does the project think?--SRX 17:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Length isn't part of the GA criteria. If it is comprehensive, it should be fine. See Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy, which I reviewed and promoted as a GA. If anything, I think the WHC article could use a description of the belt designs, as the article is about the championship, which is both a title (a concept) and a belt (a tangible object). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I added a description of the design. I nominated it for GAN, hopefully it passes and this way we have an article to follow for other championships.--SRX 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Slammys
Hey was looking at the slammys page and was thinking it might look alot more proffessional if it was tablised so i did the first two of slammys from 96 i think so take a look here Adster95 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but the formatting of the table is not up too standards and it could use tweaking. In addition, other award articles are in list format and not tables. I see adding tables to all the slammys as tablecruft.--SRX 20:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/TNA Weekly PPV.
Take a look. With work it can become alot better. It is an important page for TNA's history.-- Will C  21:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The TNA Frontline
Merry christmas. As a present, more crap we have to clean up. But who do we redirect it to? (My guess, AJ Styles) PXK    T  /C  16:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirected to AJ Styles.--SRX 16:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration Historical
User:IMatthew tagged it as historical. I'm guessing this is due to the lack of project participation and members, so I agree with tagging it. Although, if this is so, shouldn't we clear the content in the page and remove the link from the navbar?--SRX 16:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean blank the page, I meant clear the nominations for collaboration that are on that page and just leave the regulations and instructions on there. In addition, I meant remove the link to the collaboration from the WP:PW navbar since we aren't going to use the collaboration anymore, so there is no need to have it up there.--SRX 17:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should leave it...it can always be started back up again. Nikki  ♥  311  20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WWF Superstars of Wrestling / WWE Superstars
Apparantly WWE are reviving "WWE Superstars" in April 2009, see here. My question is whether we either:


 * 1) Cover it within WWF Superstars of Wrestling
 * 2) Create a new article called WWE Superstars - note: It currently redirects to List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees.

I prefer the 2nd option myself. D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What is it? Is this like a new television show?  aye matthew  ✡ 16:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it going to be a new brand, Old classic show like vintage collection or a heat? Adster95 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that it'll be what Heat and Velocity used to be like. D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like its already covered in the WWF Superstars of Wrestling article (someone couldn't wait), I say if this is so, rename the article or move it to WWE Superstars and place a see also at the top of the article if they are looking for the WWE roster. Currently we can't speculate what it will be about, as it could be a show profiling WWE superstars, or a show like SNME/Heat/Velocity, or it could be like WWE Experience.--SRX 17:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All we know for sure is that it will be a weekly primetime series on WGN (ugh, WGN costs extra on DirecTV). Not enough info for a new article. Hell, we don't know if it has anything to do with Superstars of Wrestling other than a similar name, so even putting it there is a stretch.  TJ   Spyke   18:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bonez. The original article shouldn't be moved because according to the link D.M.N. posted, it is a NEW series, not a revival like Sat. Night's Main Event was. But, I also think an article about it shouldn't be made until there's an official announcement of it on WWE.com. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 03:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential Source?
Does anyone on the project speak German? Could they verify how reliable [www.cagematch.net] is? It has not only TV show cards but also house shows and not just for the big American companies but for a heavy amount of promotions from around the world and of differing sizes. It also has title histories and a sparse amount of interviews for biographies. And although it's in German it's pretty obvious what's what for match cards. Tony2Times (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Shameful Bump. Tony2Times (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"In Wrestling" section
Am I the only one who thinks that listing the themes of the wrestler is kinda pointless? $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The name of the wrestler's theme is one of the things I look up here the most. By the way, there used to be a wonderful list of themes in the Music of Professional Wrestling article and it is now gone. I think it was a great addition to the article. I have just spent about an hour trying to find it or anything similar and have not been successful. Is it archived somewhere by chance? Thank you! Sianni (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I hate having it. Other people love it, though. Since it's not hurting anything, I figure it's best to leave it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see is people adding fake names for songs just because WWE or TNA haven't released the name of it.  TJ   Spyke   18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Music in professional wrestling? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooo, just noticed the list was deleted. You can still see it, though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation advice
When providing a citation for SHIMMER results, do I put the publisher as SHIMMER as it is from their official website or do I put the URL name of the website Visuex, of which SHIMMER appears to be a subsidary? Tony2Times (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Viseux is the publisher, but the work is from SHIMMER, see cite web for more info on how to place the work parameter into the template.--SRX 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * :s where? Tony2Times (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, some general advice. If the author is unknown, don't put anything in. People tend to put in stuff like "WWE staff" or the website name itself. The cite template itself, and confirmed on the talk page of the template, says the author space is only used if the actual author is known.  TJ   Spyke   17:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Buyrates
I have found a source for estimated PPV buyrates for 2008 TNA PPV events. It is from WrestleView and TNA has released nothing to my knowledge. It is taken from the Wrestling Observer newsletter though. I want to get some opinions on it, if we can trust it to be used in the event articles. Here is the source: -- Will C  05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its reliable because WON is reliable since its written by Dave Meltzer and WrestleView is an established news site, so for this instance its okay to write in articles "an estimated...buys"[ref].--SRX 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the main reason I'm afraid to use it is because TNA has said nothing. I don't know how WrestleView or the Observer got that information.-- Will C  05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The same place WWE gets their info, an agency that counts them, similar to counting the TV ratings.--SRX 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which agency is that? All the WWE ratings come from their corporate website. TNA has no such thing that I'm award of. I'm not sure if FA Reviewers will accept this source.-- Will C  06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, NBC counts the ratings for RAW and ECW. Spike probably counts the ratings for TNA. But, I really don't know much about ratings. That's just my guess. $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{a}\mathfrak{v}\mathfrak{i}\mathfrak{o}\mathfrak{r}$ $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{e}\mathfrak{l}\mathfrak{f}$$\mathfrak{.}$$\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}\mathfrak{7}$ 07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is for Impact!, this is about PPV Buyrates for TNA events. TNA is a privately owned company who rarely release buyrates, unlike WWE, who are publicly owned and must release that type of information. TV ratings are released by the network. So you are correct there. Though this has nothing to do with the Nelson ratings.-- Will C  07:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * mathfreak, NBC does not count ratings and neither do any other network. The "ratings" are just sampling from Nielson (I won't get into full detail of why I think they are BS, basically they take a few thousand samples and use those to estimate what millions and millions of others are watching). Nielson then gives the ratings to relevant organizations (i.e. the networks and studios) and releases some data to the public. They wouldn't give the data to wrestling news sites though. As Will said, PPV buyrates are different though. Either way, I would be wary of any site saying they have TNA PPV buyrates since that is not public info.  TJ   Spyke   22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Search archive function
I added the function to search the archives in the box above, which I got the code from WT:VG, I hope it will be easier to search the archives like this. Happy 2K9!--SRX 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone agree on this new format?
For the championship articles..(new format) World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) versus (old format) World Tag Team Championship (WWE)?--SRX 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with it, but considering the problems we had with the Out of Universe format change. We really should discuss this. I changed to the old format in the tag team championship as a result. I'm for the change, just thought to explain my reasons first.-- Will C  04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at it there now and the reigns bit is all mixed in with the current champion! I think it might look better if you spaced the current champion bit from the reigns bit or at least take a new paragraph! Because that paragraph looks a bit messy but apart from that its really good. Adster 95  16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Year in review
I would just like to thank the project for a great year, although it had its ups and downs, we have accomplished a lot. We earned our first PPV FA since 2007 this year, and three additional FA's, with one currently at FAC. Over 50 Good articles have been promoted from this project. Good topics have also been promoted from this project. Although some of us are divided, a new year awaits and possibly the project can reunited as one. Happy New Year, and await new accomplishments.--SRX 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the table comparisons were helpful last year as a gauge for the project's progress. For 2006, 2007, and 2008, the end-of year statistics are as follows:


 * In 2008, the number of featured articles/lists increased by 10, and there were 86 new GAs promoted. As SRX mentioned, the project also got two Good Topics and increased its number of Did You Knows from 5 to 35. There was also a huge drop in the number of stub-class articles despite an overall increase of over 600 articles. Overall, I'd say those statistics show a ton of success for the project. Great job to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll add the PPV differences tomorrow night after I update it on the expansion list.-- Will C  06:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Professional wrestling promotion is one article that we definitely need to work on. High importance stub? PXK    T  /C  15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the differences of one year accoring to the PPV expansion tables in the list subpage.-- Will C  04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Melissa Anderson → Cheerleader Melissa
Per common name, she is widely known across the world as Cheerleader Melissa.-- Will C  09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, I only knew her as CM until recently. Also this would allow Melissa Anderson (fiction) to have that silly paranthesis taken away. Tony2Times (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because she has had a career in the indy under other names, one year in TNA does not establish notability for a common name for a wrestler.--SRX 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * She hasn't competed in TNA as Cheerleader Melissa, only in ROH and other indy feds. She is competing in TNA as Raisha Saed (the "Muslim" woman that comes out with Awesome Kong).  TJ   Spyke   17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct she has never wrestled in TNA as Cheerleader Melissa. She did have one match as Cheerleader Mechelle back in July or June. But she is widely known more around the world as Cheerleader Melissa since that is the main ring name she uses.-- Will C  22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is used in ROH, then I support that change because she gained more recognition under that name, like Matt Sydal did under that name, even though he is Evan Bourne in WWE right now.--SRX 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per using the name Raisha Saed in TNA. A large segment of the wrestling fan population only watches TNA/WWE on TV. To them, she is Saed. To the indy fans, she is Cheerleader Melissa. She has no common ringname, so her real name is most logical. Nikki ♥  311  01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a vague statistical update: I'm currently sandboxing Melissa's bio page and I can't find any time she was used the name Miss Spartan, only that she did according to Cage Match so presumably it was for barely any matches, maybe only one. She has used the name Melissa Anderson once for a WWE Heat exhibition match broadcast online. She has used the name Raesha Saeed as a manager for the past year making sporadic wrestling appearances. She has used Cheerleader Melissa as her name for the past 10 years (including her tenure as a manager) in all 22 SHIMMER volumes, 10 ChickFight appearances, 3 or so years in APW and outside her own country for her appearances in RQW, ARSION, UK ChickFight events, New Japan Dojo, Celtic Wrestling, ECCW &c Tony2Times (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried moving the page but because there's a Cheerleader Melissa redirect it won't allow me, a moderator will have to do it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Title lists
OK, I have finished merging List of WWE Champions, List of ECW Champions (with some generous help), List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE Women's Champions, List of WWE European Champions and List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). I am starting on others. I have run into a little snag though, SRX has unilaterally decided to remove Maria's guest referee role at List of WWE Divas Champions. He said it was per a discussion here, the only consensus though was 1 editor saying they didn't think who the ref was is important. The context of the statement makes it clear to me that they meant who the normal referee is, not on the rare occasion when there is a guest referee. In my opinion, this is as relevant as the match type or event that a title change happened at. Thoughts so we can settle this?  TJ   Spyke   01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That editor was the FL director. In addition to the special ref, match types were to be removed because they are non-notable to the reigns or title itself because they did not affect the title or reign, it was just the place where the title was won. I wanted to add a match column, but it was WP:LISTCRUFT because of WP:NOT. The matches and special refs are non-notable because they are trivial information that does not affect the title history, see List of ECW Television Champions, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, and List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions for examples of FLs recently promoted after the enhancement of the FLC criteria, as to why these changes were made.--SRX 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded on SRX's title page. In short though, the guest ref is relevant and on many occasions has been an influence on the title change (like Shawn Michael's role as guest ref for Bret Hart vs. The Undertaker at SummerSlam 1997). Also, the commenter just said "referee", to me that means normal ref and not guest ref.  TJ   Spyke   01:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The FL director replied on my talkpage for those interested.  TJ   Spyke   01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You can not apply site-wide changes to articles based on the opinions of one editor. Mshake3 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not site-wide changes. These are things that were already in the title pages before. I was just pointing out that the director of WP:FL supports them. Removing that info is would be applying site wide changes without consensus.  TJ   Spyke   23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm refering to in general. It seems that everytime an article goes for GA or FA, and one reviewer has an opinion on how the article structure should be, someone here goes apeshit, and applies similar changes to every article they can find, with the excuse of "per this article." Mshake3 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Restart discussion
Lets restart this for a consensus made by the WP:PW project. I believe that adding the matches in which the title was won is unnecessary in the notes section, if matches want to be added for all reigns, then a column should be incorporated, but here's my 2 cents, what effect does the match have on the title reign or the title itself. Exceptions could be the 1997 Survivor Series when Shawn Michaels cost Undertaker the title, but things like minor interference are not notable. That's my opinion.--SRX 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, I think you mixed up several things (Michaels cost Undertaker at SummerSlam and that was a regular match). The match type is usually a factor in how the title changed hands, as is the special referee usually. I don't see how they are any less relevant than where the title change happened or the event it happened at.  TJ   Spyke   23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, my bad. Anyways, so lets say the WWE Hardcore Championship, every match took place in a Hardcore match or variations of it, so IMO i think it would be redundant to keep adding Hardcore match in the notes section over and over and over and over again, now if its decided that it should be noted, then a column should be incorporated in the table and the notes should be left for other relevant notes regarding the reign.--SRX 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For the Hardcore title, just note at the top of the page or something that every match was under hardcore rules. It's like how every match in ECW was under hardcore rules, but we don't note it in every title change. Obviously we would still note variations (like "Hardcore battle royal").  TJ   Spyke   00:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would work, how about singles titles? Which most of which are defended in Singles matches..--SRX 00:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Same in my opinion. Something like "Unless otherwise noted, all title changes happened in singles matches" (or "tag team matches" for tag titles).  TJ   Spyke   00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm alright with that because I thought it would have been otherwise, which would have made it look redundant, but like your way it seems better.--SRX 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Any further comments?--Truco 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Music in professional wrestling. Listcruft?
Nikki311 deleted the list as listcruft. I'm not biased to either side here, I'm just seeing what everyone's opinion is (Read: Inb4 flaming) PXK    T  /C  21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well seeing that it is incomplete and WP:TRIVIAL, and not adhering to WP:NOT, its WP:LISTCRUFT.--SRX 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Cruft.  Hazardous   Matt   21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw this thread. If this discussion keeps going, can we move opinions to Talk:Music in professional wrestling? IPs keep reverting my removal of the list. We need to have a centralized discussion so that consensus can be formed either way. Nikki  ♥  311  21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Images
I was looking at the Spanish wikipedia and noticed they have a few images we don't of Kurt Angle. Now I believe from looking at them they are all apart of commons. I don't get on commons or know really anything about it, but someone who does know how to maneuver around over there, could you try an upload these three images:  and ?-- Will  C  11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second one is already uploaded to Wikipedia, if I'm correct. To upload them to Wikipedia, go back to the Spanish Wikipedia and click on the images and click on the commons link, each picture has a link to commons. At commons, every Wikipedia has access to the free images, so copy the image name and integrate it into an article.--Truco 14:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of pictures from a WWE live event.
User:Straight_Edge_PXK/Pictures. Use them if you want. PXK   T  /C  17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are these yours? or did you get them from that forum?--Truco 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From that forum. Saliou took them himself. PXK    T  /C  17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Permission was given for this picture. None of the others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just PM'ed him. I might have the permission soon. PXK    T  /C  18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time gain permission from the author for all the pictures before uploading them, for future references.--Truco 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK...
Listen, I am trying to get the Undertaker to GA status. User:Cheers dude wrote a section about his gimmick. It was all unsourced, trivial, non nuetral info. So I deleted. He complain to me asking why I did and how he worked so hard on it. So I took it to my sandbox and he and I worked on it. But, he keeps reverting my edits and he does not want to change anything. I need you to offer a 3rd opinion. I'm not even sure if this even belongs in the ariticle. Here. User:SimonKSK/Sandbox/Undertaker/CD!  S imon K S K   23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion simply is that I don't see what's wrong with the article as is and why SimonSKS is behaving like he is despite my trying to be reasonable and literally begging this user to compromise instead of engaging in a revert war; despite coming to a consensus in regards to one of the edits (in which he was even involved in the consensus making on the article talk page), he's now completely wants the edit removed from the article; he's complaining about edits within the section that I haven't even made that have been there for over a year; despite the fact that he has been active on wikipedia as far the entire month goes in which I have been slaving over these edits this article, he's only now come to me with complaints about the whole article being in a mess? His immediate edit was 'Holy crap! what a mess' before going to what seems to be a close friend of his on wiki and complained about it so they would agree with him in having all my edits reverted. Many other editors have made tweaks to the article and have found nothing wrong with it. Cheers_Dude (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not gone to anyone to complain so they would agree.  S imon K S K   23:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well let me correct myself, he seems to be friendly with this user and went directly to him after I reverted his removal of a huge section of The Undertaker article without attempting to discuss this at all. I just have no idea why this user is being so difficult after a month of my slaving over this article only now complaining about every edit I've made. Cheers_Dude (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's my 3up: Holy Crap! What a mess! It's unsourced, WP:POV and WP:OPINION. DO NOT WANT PXK    T  /C  23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the information that Cheers added, it is WP:TRIVIA (trivial), WP:POV (not adhering to a neutral point-of-view), WP:UNSOURCED (unsourced), it is not adding to the content that is in the article already. What Cheers wrote is slowly explained throughout the prose of the article, so no separate section is needed for it. (My 2 cents).--Truco 23:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally! I got something fucking right for once! *brass band parade marches around computer* PXK    T  /C  23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

<>_<> Hooray?  S imon K S K   23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed good faith, man. Don't hate.  S imon K S K   23:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And there's the friend. You know what, I will just copy and paste my good article information to my blog. Enjoy fixing this article yourselves. I won't be helping tho. I'm done! Cheers_Dude (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dan Marsh (aka heel referee Danny Davis)
I started working on this article yesterday. It had been expanded a bit by Kris Classic, and I added some more. I submitted it for a Did You Know because I think it has been expanded fivefold (from about 1600 to 8200 characters, not counting infobox, references, etc.). The reviewer might think it's a little shorter than fivefold, so any information that people can find and add would help. And yes, I will be sourcing everything I added. Today was the fifth day of the expansion period, so I was trying to expand the article quickly. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jason Reso
People will want to watch this article. His profile is still on TNA Wrestling.com and people are adding information that is unsourced or unreliable source.-- Will C  02:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it continues, it may need full protection, like we did with Chris Jericho's article during his weeks leading to his return to WWE.--Truco 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to get it Fully Protected once before but it was declined. Maybe now it will get accepted. It has been semi-protected on and off for four months now.-- Will C  03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins are very reluctant to fully protect a page since it means only admins will be able to edit it. It has to be really bad (like more than 3 full editors fighting back and forth).  TJ   Spyke   03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now, admins will probably still say no, maybe in a few weeks it can be requested, right now we will have to make do with semi-protection, and if we all get past our 3RR's we are going to need Full-Protection.--Truco 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

William Regal
Does anyone know the official names for the last two themes regal has used; The royalty theme and his current heel theme. I have had problems finding sources that give any definate answers. Thanks Eddie6705 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They are probably generic themes produce by WWE with unknown names that Jim Johnston doesn't release. Try searching it in the track listings for WWE's studio albums.--Truco 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last WWE music release to include Regal's theme was WWE Anthology in 2002, which had his "Real Man's Man" music (remember that crappy gimmick? He was dressed up like a construction worker).  TJ   Spyke   04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, then it must be an independent theme produced by Johnston and it hasn't been released yet on an album, for now, all I can say is probably write "generic theme."--Truco 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much, i'll list it as generic theme. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well i tried that but User:Maxwell7985 has once agan just deleted it for not having any reference. Does anybody have any suggestions. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Marc fusion
User:Toxscreen has created this article (which is basically the Honky Tonk Man's bio applied to an imaginary wrestler) and added him to random articles. I have reverted the additions to other articles but could somebody with the authority mark this for deletion? Cheers --Apsouthern (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone has authority to tag an article for deletion. I Prodded it as a WP:HOAX and under WP:CSD.--Truco 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it's blatant misinformation, I added a speedy deletion template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and the article is gone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I wasn't sure how it worked but at least I know now for future reference. --Apsouthern (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Toxscreen also continued to vandalize articles, so he has been blocked indefinitely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI
For anyone that's interested: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Calendar. D.M.N. (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2004
I notice the '04 Rumble is rather devoid of citations, specifically having none from the official website. I presume this is because the E deleted pages following Benoit's death. Well in a turn up for the books, history has been restored and lots of lovely sources are now available. Tony2Times (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Another pay-per-view GA
Survivor Series (1992) passed its review today. This means that every WWF pay-per-view from SummerSlam 1992 (August 1992) to In Your House 1 (May 1995) is now a Good Article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's awesome news, we could possibly get Good topics out of that by creating a main series page for that year, like WWF's 1993 PPV's, in that article we can elaborate the production for the event.--Truco 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is great.) 09 is starting off very good. A new FA and a few new GAs.-- Will C  02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown_(2008)
Just wondering... am I the only one that thinks that Results layout looks messy and needs to go back to what it was before... same format but original colours? D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks a little bit messy. S imon K S K   21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I tried doing it, but was reverted and told that was recommended in a FAC. I couldn't find the suggestion and we have had other PPV articles promoted using normal tables.  TJ   Spyke   21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it should but iMatthew told me in its second FAC before it was restarted to remove the sortable link and that is the result when I did. I'm all for changing back.-- Will C  21:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is what was said that led to it being removed.-- Will C  21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

iMatthew: The sortable function is broken, and I'm pretty sure it's because the "(c) is the champion" thing. Take that out of the table and put it right under the table. Don't make the text small.

SRX: I disagree with this as well because in other FA's, the table is just made non-sortable, because there is no point of its sortability. In this way, the (c) statement can stay in the table.

iMatthew: Removing the sortable function works as well.

Wrestlinglover: Removed.
 * When you removed it, here, you removed the " after "sortable", see in the diff. This caused the table malfunction. I've fixed it now. D.M.N. (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrestlinglover, you need to stop putting the blame on me whenever someone brings it up. You messed up, not me.  iMatthew //  talk  // 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets not get out of hand here. The tables are now fixed, lets get on with our editing ;)--Truco 21:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to put the blame on you, maybe you should have fixed the small probelm and check the fixes I made that you wanted in the first place. You asked for it, you should have made sure it was fine. Just be glad I even took your comments into consideration in the first place.-- Will C  22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on now Will, assume good faith here.--Truco 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to assume good faith here for someone who wants to act as if they didn't ask for something to get removed and say I'm blaming them for it. I did remove the link but he told me too. I didn't like the way the table looked anyway. I was just following the FAC reviewers request. Why should I assume good faith when he is going to think I'm trying to push the blame.-- Will C  22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should take a Wikibreak. You seem to stressed right now. This is a volunteer project. I have no obligations to fix "your" article. If you believed it should be different (as I never suggested the tables get screwed up), you should have been bold and changed it yourself.  iMatthew //  talk  // 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ladies......;)  § imon KSK  22:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And then you would of had a fit just like when I added more than four matches to the background. Also lol to Simon. Plus it isn't my article.-- Will C  22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Professional wrestling match types
This needs to be watchlisted by many because IPs continuously add unsourced information on matches and speculative information.--Truco 21:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever went through and removed match types needs to either put them back or go through all the PPV articles and fix the links. I've seen multiple links to the page but saw that the match type was removed.  TJ   Spyke   21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Like what?--Truco 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like the Chamber of Horrors match used at Halloween Havoc 1991. If someone is gonna remove a match type, they should be prepared to fix and articles that link to it. There are others, but that was the first one I could find.  TJ   Spyke   21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I see Chamber of Horrors match still in the article. But like I said, the IPs are vandalizing and adding nonsense to the article, so I wouldn't be surprised if content is missing, which is why it needs to be watchlisted.--Truco 22:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of those match types could get their own pages is a start. Lethal Lockdown is a start. Perhaps Last Man Standing match could have its own page, added with the Texas Death match. To make the article a little smaller and better to keep up with. I'm just throwing that out there.-- Will C  22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that. If we are going to split up the page, I'd make a Professional wrestling match types (cage variations) (for cage matches, hell in a cell, elimination chamber, etc) and Professional wrestling match types (ladder variations) (for ladder matches, TLC, king of the mountain, etc etc). Very few match types deserve a separate article. It only takes so much space to describe a match, then the rest is listcruft like a list of every time the match has ever been performed. Nikki  ♥  311  00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you said, though I believe a cage article should just be made considering how many variations there are. Most matches like a Last Man Standing or other common matches wouldn't be long enough but matches with different variations or don't fall under a specific type could have their own articles, like Steel Cage match and Ultimate X.-- Will C  01:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the names, I think Ladder match and Cage match might work better, but I think both are worthwhile. This could also be a couple of DYKs for the project. One match that I wouldn't mind seeing expanded to a separate article is Casket match, since it seems ridiculous to have it mentioned only briefly under Professional wrestling match types. I'm not sure if there's enough for a long article, but I think it could make for a decent and fully sourceable article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there is already a Ladder match article. I have a hard time believing that the lists it gives are comprehensive, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first comment. There is no length probelms at GA. As long as it is sourced and gives enough information that it is not an article that is one paragraph long it is fine. I have the Ultimate matches DVD by TNA and they have a few videos on their Youtube account that can be used to source a few of their gimmick matches. Such as Ultimate X and Six Sides of Steel, which could have its own section in the steel cage article, Monsters Ball, Ladder match, and Full Metal Mayhem. King of the Mountain can be sourced very well and expanded to a good length. The only articles that would be of no use to have their own articles is the small ones, such as Doomsday Chamber of Blood which can be mentioned in Steel cage and barb-wired match.-- Will C  05:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CM Punk and Kofi Kingston
Non-notable. Speedy delete.  § imon KSK  23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a speedy deletion criteria. You can PROD it or take it to AFD though.  TJ   Spyke   23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean delete. whatever. I'l' take it to AFD.  § imon KSK  23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/CM Punk and Kofi Kingston--Truco 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Teams and Stables
Redirect--Truco 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC) A discussion is undergo on the talk page if Santino and Beth should be added to the list, again. Two ips are having a fit over it not being added and are stating because WWE says they are they should be added. I want to get the project's attention to this because I can't revert their adding of the team anymore. Though I agree they should be added, it must be discussed first, or again.-- Will C  02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa, when did this list even come about? What is this adding that isn't in the Roster page already?--Truco 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That exact information is on the roster list, so it should be a redirect. Plus, it was already decided on the WWE roster talk page awhile back that Marella and Phoenix shouldn't be added. They rarely ever team together, and two people doesn't equal a stable. Nikki  ♥  311  02:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing that me and a few others agreed not to make one for the TNA Roster.-- Will C  02:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just took a look at the roster list, and the tag team and stables were removed. When was that decided? Nikki  ♥  311  02:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well from the date the list was created I'm guessing about three days ago.-- Will C  02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely this page should just be deleted and reintroduced back into the main roster. What purpose does it serve? There is no extra information given here and it means one more place for people who watch for vandalism to watch. Can't we nominate it for speedy deletion? Tony2Times (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest the page be deleted. The WWE roster page already has sections for tag teams.  TJ   Spyke   02:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So who is going to nominate it for deletion?-- Will C  03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked the main WWE roster article, and it looks like the info was split off. Seems like it should be merged back.  TJ   Spyke   03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no discussion about this on either talk page, I say readd this content into the main roster page and redirect this list to the roster list, simply.--Truco 03:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, do we all have an agreement to make it a redirect and merge the content back with the roster?-- Will C  03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * God yes. I just have no idea how to nominate for deletion hence me asking you sages to do it. Do we even need a redirect? Who would search for that. Just delete it and forget it ever existed. *runs for mind bleach* Tony2Times (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not allowed with merges. It's required to be kept as a redirect to save the edit history of the page.  TJ   Spyke   05:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well seeing no one has a problem with it and it seems everyone is fine with a merger, I'll go ahead and merge it.-- Will C  06:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who the hell got clearence to unmerge it in the first place? I dont remember there being a vote. Cheers, JakeDHS07  06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you mean create the article. We don't know. Someone just created it and everyone followed.-- Will C  06:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was create by User:Adster95 on January 2: .  TJ   Spyke   07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was suggested by User:IMatthew though, Adster started doing it once the decision was made. Kala jan  €  ₣  11:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well its been redirected to the main roster page.Truco 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards
I don't think it should be deleted, I think it needs to be improved. Plus what is the point of it I ask? There is one source for the entire article. Any ideas on how to improve it?-- Will C  14:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said it should be deleted? Nenog (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No one, just I would expect someone to think that it is list cruft.-- Will C  15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this because there isn't a formal ceremony for them, although they are published in writing, it seems like its one of those type of awards that doesn't need a page. IMO it may be listing listcruft, but it is by an established editor, though I'm skeptical.--Truco 21:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, this kinda is listcruff. It just hands out awards created by the magazine writers that aren't even acknowledged by anybody (That I know of). So, I think it is listcruff. SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been discussions regarding the WON awards in the past and these same points have been made. You always hear about the Undertaker, for example, being 16-0 at WrestleMania and a multi time world champion and all but commentators have never mentioned his "5 star" WON match with Shawn Michaels in the first Hell in a Cell or his "Best Gimmick" WON awards from 1990-1994. It's pretty much the same thing with the PWI 500 rankings and PWI awards. It's not just WWE either, it's the entire professional wrestling industry as far as I know. Now, maybe 20 or 25 years ago, there would be a very rare mention of these types of awards on television. I can vaguely recall Ric Flair being presented with PWI's Wrestler of the Decade award back in 1989 being televised, but that seems to be the exception to the rule. It just seems so odd that pro wrestling, WWE especially, hasn't at least attempted to exploit these so called "important" industry acheivements for its own benefit somehow. I've always thought of it as listcruft and have never heard a really persuasive reason to even include them to begin with.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there have been discussions in the past. The consensus was to list only a wrestler's top PWI 500 rating (and position in the top 500 of the PWI years as well as ranking in PWI's top 100 tag teams of the PWI years). As for the awards themselves, the project chose to keep them (although the Wrestling Observer awards had a stronger push for keeping in articles than the PWI awards). Removing them will not help anything, and any push to remove them is simply cruftcruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am surprised too that they don't mention PWI, especially since it is a kayfabe magazine. They (PWI) have taken plenty of pictures though of WWE and WCW wrestlers accepting their PWI awards. PWI is more notable than WON awards though, I have never seen any evidence that wrestlers give a crap about those.  TJ   Spyke   23:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I agree with TJ, seems like PWI is more notable than WON. IMO, a prose should be in Meltzer's article about his awards and the above should be redirected there, because they seem not to meet WP:N.--Truco 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, for all you people who say that Dave Meltzer, the Wrestling Observer and the Wrestling Observer's awards don't mean anything and the Pro Wrestling Illustrated does, maybe you should read the last two magazines put out by PWI. In the latest issue of PWI in an article about Bryan Danielson, PWI mentioned that the Wrestling Observer named him the most outstanding wrestler in 2006 and 2007. And in some special magazine they just released on Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Samoa Joe and two others, the section about Joe has a part with them quoting Meltzer on his views on Samoa Joe. So for the record, PWI follows and reports what Meltzer and the Observer says, the Observer (or pretty much anyone or anything connected with wrestling) doesn't follow what PWI says. Thank you and good night. Nenog (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with it. User:Crippler4 expanded the explanations for the awards, and every link/promotion/etc. is right. There isn't really much else to do. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did not open up this section to see if the page is notable or not. I opened it up to see if it is possible to improve it to either FL or maybe, with work, GA standards. I don't think it needs to be deleted or redirected.-- Will C  01:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Work cannot be promoted if it does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. These awards are not recognized by other reliable third party sources, that I know of, thus not meeting WP's notability guideline.--Truco 01:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And what constitutes the awards being "recognized by other reliable third party sources"? If a wrestling promotion reports on the awards (because its been done)? If a kayfabe wrestling magazine mentions who won what awards (because its been done)? Nenog (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent)Well, ROH is just one company, in addition to being a independent promotion that is yet to achieve prominent media attention. If it were the NWA, WWE, or TNA then probably. Third party sources like the media (NBC, CNN, etc.) or the companies (TNA, WWE, ROH, etc.) or possibly other newsletters like PW Torch. One promotion doesn't constitute notability for the awards.--Truco 22:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and yet again, the goalposts have moved. Not because of Wikipedia policy, but because some editors make their decisions and then stick to them, regardless of the facts presented to the contrary. What is there to be gained by deleting the information (or even continuing this discussion)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Newsletter design change
So I thought the newsletter could use a new design and new ways to show the content, so I made a new design here in my sandbox. Before implementing it in the mainspace, I would like to get the project's though about it: comments and suggestions are welcome. Also, this is a general design used by many other WP's.--Truco 00:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Tony2Times (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  01:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it okay to make it official then?--Truco 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, go ahead.  § imon KSK  02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy
I've been working on an article about the WWE Stable The Legacy, and I think it's ready for mainspace, shall I put it in? User:Kalajan/(The Legacy). Kala jan  €  ₣  14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The team is not notable as of yet. Three to five weeks does not meet the notability factor. Plus they've done nothing. They haven't won a championship yet. Plus Priceless and The Legacy don't go together. They are two teams that merged.-- Will C  15:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact The Legacy doesn't technically exist yet. They've never been introduced as such and Randy has been saying the past two weeks that they are still undergoing phases and tests to see if they're part of it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * About the Legacy-Priceless thing, User:Nikki311 told me to, and they were introduced as that when they debuted, and on on the results they say it all the time, also, although you're not going to care, in Spain they say El Legado, (The Legacy.  Kala  jan  €  ₣  16:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By all the time, do you in fact mean just twice and always with quotation marks around them as if to suggest a soubriquet rather than an official name such as Cryme Tyme. They've never entered the ring to Legacy music, Lilian has never called them Legacy as they come to the ring. They are currently trying out to contend for their spot in the group and thus far Sim and Manu have already failed. If you fail a try out you're not in a team, not a former member. As for Ted being a former member well he hasn't even been on screen since the potential group has been alluded to. Sim wasn't there the week when Randy called them The Legacy. Once the article is made this should all be noted in the prose, but until the group is official I don't see how there can be an article on them. Tony2Times (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To add to that, on Monday Orton didn't even say "the Legacy". When he was speaking to Manu he said "My Group". Who knows. Maybe WWE hasn't sold themselves on the name just yet.  Hazardous   Matt   18:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they clearly had intentions to make a group but either it was always planned, or by the looks of it at the last minute, they've decided to change the dynamics of the stable. Judging by WWE.com having a Legacy Moment page they'll still call it that but Matt's right, Orton avoided using the name which is just one of many examples of things that are up in the air with them. Besides which we've only just made a Main Event Mafia page and they've been around since late October. I think The Legacy will have to do more than just exist before they have a page. Tony2Times (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

PPV setup
I've noticed the new table style for PPV results and can't find a discussion about it. Am I the only one who doesn't like it? And if there is a discussion, can someone please tell me where it is? Thank you.Freebird Jackson (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion took place back in June/July. Look around that area for archived discussions.-- Will C  19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK I will do that. Thx.Freebird Jackson (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Will said, a discussion took place to add that to the Pay-Per-View Guidelines, which the project must abide to. Use the new search box function of the archive to find it with the keywords "pay-per-view" "out of universe" etc.--Truco 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are links to two of the many discussions over it: 1 and 2-- Will C  21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate this stupid rule about using real names in PPV articles (other articles, even FA, don't require it). If we are gonna though, it has to be applied to celebs too. I fixed the WrestleMania I article by adding Liberace's real name (Ali legally changed his name, so no need there).  TJ   Spyke   22:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually FA's do require it because pro-wrestling articles are like scripted media, ie. film and television, so real names are needed to distinguish the characters. I don't see why people complain about it, its only during the first occurrence.--Truco 22:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just picked a random feature article: The Last Temptation of Krust. It does not feature this ludicrous rule that we self imposed on ourselves (also, most movie and TV show articles will just use their stage name. For example, a movie article that has Snoop Dogg in it will use "Snoop Dogg" and not "Cordozar Broadus, Jr."). It's not required to be a FA. Being out of universe does not require having to include the wrestlers real name in the article (except for their own article of coarse). I think we should re-visit this issue soon.  TJ   Spyke   23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because he has used the Snoop Dogg moniker more than 70% of his life. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we only write the real names of wrestlers who are not well known by their stage name or who have used many stage names. This rule was actually brought up at an FAC.--Truco 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why do we write Hulk Hogan's real name? Most of the world know him by Hulk Hogan and he has used that for almost 30 years (although he briefly used Hollywood Hogan). Same with Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin and several other wrestlers who are far more well known by names other than their real name. This seems like another case of something being mentioned for once case and certain editors taking that literally and applying it to all wrestlers.  TJ   Spyke   23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * TJ it depends on the editor, I don't write Hulk's real name or Michaels'. Sometimes its because of the editors choice or they do not know whether how notable they are, it just depends on each editor.--Truco 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in an edit war by going through and making the fixes, so I would like to try and settle this. The Undertaker has used that ring name for over 18 years, would we need to state his real name considering his article is even just calle The Undertaker? What about Kevin Sullivan, who has used that name for over 30 years. The Fabulous Moolah used that ring name for like 50 years. I don't really want this to be an issue brought up editor to editor and article to article.  TJ   Spyke   01:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it depends on the editor. But for The Undertaker, he used many previous names, which is why some people write his real name out, but considering how he has used it for over 10 years, its okay just to say The Undertaker. People like R-Truth will need real names however, just examples of how this OOU for names works.--Truco 01:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think people are fond of either consistency or erring on the side of caution. Tony2Times (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Better late than never
Okay, I meant to do this the day it was promoted but I must have forgot. So better late than never, I want to say thank you to everyone who put up with my whining or bothering annoying attitude I have when it came to Lockdown (2008). For all the ones who helped I couldn't do it without you. This surely was a group effort in getting the first 2008 PPV, first 2008 TNA PPV, and first TNA PPV period to FA. Thank you all.-- Will C  01:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Like really :D But it was all for the best. --Truco 01:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was all worth it.  ₰ imon KSK 02:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see WP:PW not turn into WP:PWWE. Tony2Times (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2007 awards
I recently got TNA's Best of 2007 DVD. It lists year end awards and I'm not sure if they are notable to place in the bio articles or not. I thought to get a few opinions here. The awards are listed as follows: Finisher of the Year, Knockout Woman of the Year, Tag Team of the Year, X Division Superstar of the Year, Top Feud of 2007, Most Memorable Moment of the Year, and TNA MVP of the Year. Plus there is the "Who to watch in 2008" which I don't think is even worth talking about.-- Will C  13:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have thought so but then again I didn't think we should put Slammys in and these seem somewhat analogous to them so maybe. Tony2Times (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the MVP, Tag Team, Knockout, and X Division wrestler of the year awards seem notable to me.-- Will C  17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rufus R. "Freight Train" Jones
This article was originally at Rufus R. Jones. It was then moved to Carey Lloyd, and it was moved again in November to the current page. It seems unnecessary to have the nickname in quotation marks, especially since there are no other people with this name with Wikipedia articles. If it's been moved this much, can anyone move it again, or does it need an administrator? Or, although I wouldn't agree, should it stay where it is? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs an admin because the target page is already created, so the admin has to delete the target page in order for the page to be moved. If it continues, it may need move protection. I don't agree with the current name also.--Truco 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Should I move it to his ringname? From the external links at the bottom, he seems to be better known by it. Nikki  ♥  311  23:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the best. The obituaries from his local paper refer to him as Rufus R. Jones, so it seems like that's how most people knew him. Thanks for the help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Nikki  ♥  311  00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did some expansion work today and submitted it for a Did You Know. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addition to PPVs
During Slammiversary's GA review, the reviewer asked for aftermath to be in the lead, though I told him we quit doing that and he took back his request as a result. I was thinking about it, why don't we add another paragraph to the lead just stating a few things that happened after the event? Something along these lines.

"Slammiversary (2008) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA), which took place on June 8, 2008 from the DeSoto Civic Center in Southaven, Mississippi. It was the fourth event under the Slammiversary chronology and marked the sixth anniversary of the promotion. Seven professional wrestling matches were featured on the event's card. In the tradition of Slammiversary events, a staple match in TNA—titled the King of the Mountain match (KOTM)—was featured as the main event for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. Following the conclusion of the event, and while an independent construction crew hired by TNA was dissembling the event's set, a worker (Kevin "Angus" Sinex) fell to his death. The scaffold, which he was working on, broke and collapsed; causing him to fall nearly 20 ft to the concrete floor below. Another man was also injured in this accident.

The main event featured the TNA World Heavyweight Champion Samoa Joe defeating Booker T, Robert Roode, Christian Cage, and Rhino to retain the championship in the KOTM with Kevin Nash as Special Guest Ringside Enforcer. Another featured match on the card pitted A.J. Styles against Kurt Angle in a standard wrestling match; Styles won the encounter. The event's undercard featured different varieties of matches. TNA World Tag Team Champions The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) (LAX) defeated Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) in a Tag Team match. Petey Williams retained the TNA X Division Championship against Kaz in a standard wrestling match.

Many new rivalries were built off of the events at Slammiversary. Samoa Joe and Booker T began a storyline feud and went on to fight for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship at TNA's next PPV event, Victory Road. A.J. Styles and Kurt Angle continued their rivalry at Victory Road, with Styles teaming with Christian Cage and Rhino to fight Angle and Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon) in a Six Man Tag Team Full Metal Mayhem match. The Latin American Xchange (Homicide and Hernandez) started a rivalry over the World Tag Team Championship with newly formed Beer Money (Robert Roode and James Storm), with LAX challenging Beer Money to a "Fan's Revenge" Lumberjack Strap match.

Slammiversary marked the fifth time the KOTM format was used in TNA and the first time a World Championship was retained in the match. When the event was released on DVD, it reached a peak position of number four on Billboard's DVD Sales Chart. The professional wrestling section of the Canadian Online Explorer website rated the entire event a 7 out of 10 stars, one star lower than the rating for the 2007 event."

Just a thought. It could give something extra to the articles.-- Will C  21:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No because this is exactly what led to the OOU Policy. This information clutters the lead because by basically listing the matches of the event it can be inferred that some type of background led to these matches and that some type of aftermath resulted in it. See the SummerSlam (2003) FAC.--Truco 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's bad enough we put in the results in the lead section, it just seems like repeating what is further down the article in a boring way. Putting in aftermath will make it too long and cluttered. Tony2Times (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)