Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71

Help: Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling?
Okay so I've been expanding the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship in my sandbox here. But I've come across a problem. While the original Jim Crockett Promotions (which was also known as Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling) was bought by Ted Turner in 1988 and converted into WCW, the NWA allowed a group of promoters to make a promotion called Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling around the last 1990s early 2000s. Now they operate a title called the Mid-Atlantic Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship, and some sites claim its the same as the NWA Mid-Atlantic title, but no reliable sources can verify this. I need help verifying whether this new promotion has any ties to the original one, and if their titles have any ties to the original championships. I say no because they don't claim they have the same roots and clearly JCP was bought out by Turner and their assets were then bought by McMahon. How should I go about this?-- T ru  c o   503 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do what we do for Superstars Live. Dale Gagner claimed his title was the same as the AWA World Heavyweight Championship (despite no legal right to do so, and the courts ruled against him when WWE sued). Note that they claim to have ties to the original one. They are not the first promotion to use the same name as another (there have been 3 promotions called "Universal Wrestling Federation" for example).  TJ   Spyke   16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So I should just add a note saying that the new MACW has no connections to the original JCP-MACW and neither do their titles or title histories?-- T ru  c o   503 16:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on what I can see, that's what I think. Maybe others have more info though.  TJ   Spyke   17:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense actually. I will wait to see what others think, or I'll do just that, seems logical.-- T ru  c o   503 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Innovation
Perhaps this has already been said, but whatev, I need....consistency. I need to know, when it comes to professional wrestling moves, what accounts for "innovation"? Jake "The Snake" Roberts innovated the DDT, right? And not just because he was the first person to utilize it, he created it. OK, but what about move variations? For example, did Super Dragon "innovate" the "gory special flipped into piledriver", a move variation? He did use it first, but does that qualify as innovation enough to be credited on his moveset?--Oxico (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if maybe this should also be taken out of the In wrestling section as innovation does leave a lot of interpretation open. With people like Jake Roberts it could be included in the prose as it is such a definite part but I agree any variation could be argued to be innovated. Tony2Times (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Book ref
Does anyone from the project have Mick Foley's books? I'm looking for anything regarding the Hardcore title.-- Will C  02:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have his first 2 ("Have a Nice Day!" and "Foley is Good"). There is some mentions of the Hardcore Title. I can't check right now though, I will tomorrow (unless someone else does it first).  TJ   Spyke   02:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you need, though, Will about it?-- T ru  c o   503 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking for an extra ref to show Foley was awarded the title on Raw and that he revived it in 06. Best to get a wide range of refs.-- Will C  03:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just source it with cite video?-- T ru  c o   503 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be considered primary still.-- Will C  04:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have the paperback copy of the book. On page 680, Foley writes:

In the office, he bestowed upon me a sacred gift, which in actuality was a broken, glued-together old belt. "Mick, this is yours." He smiled. "You've earned it; this is the new hardcore championship belt."

Earlier in the paragraph he mentions it being November 1 in Houston.  TJ   Spyke   03:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now the only problem is Raw was on November 2.-- Will C  04:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that is when they taped the segment? Segments like this usually are not done live.  TJ   Spyke   06:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Possibly.-- Will C  15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you not cite Mick's book for the event happening and then cite a championship history page for the date of it being seen? Tony2Times (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Zack Ryder
So why does Abraham Washington have a wikipedia page of his own when he hasn't done much of anything. While Zack Ryder doesn't, when he defeated Christian a couple weeks ago. Also he had a awesome main event match with him this past week? Chris2038win (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Ryder is most notable for his work as a tag team with Curt Hawkins. They also came into prominence together, if you read their history, so if separate articles were created, both would list exact-like information. Once they are successful in solo careers, then separate articles can be created.-- T ru  c o   503 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Washington has never been in a prominent tag team, so all of his info about his time as a single wrestler. Be patient....if Ryder continues to have a singles career, he probably will eventually get his own page. In any event, it isn't like we aren't allowing any info about him at all on Wikipedia...he just has to share a page for now. Nikki  ♥  311   01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Deuce and Domino have their own pages yet they have done even less than Ryder. Zack Ryder! WooWooWoo! (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Both have left WWE, are no longer teaming, one is the son of a WWE Hall of Famer, who also went to begin a high-mid-card career for a few months on Raw and was almost apart of Legacy. Ryder has done nothing than play with his hair for three months.-- Will C  07:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget his fancy new music Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL Also Deuce has won two notable singles championships in his career: IWA Hardcore Championship and the OVW Television Championship. While the same can be said for Domino since he has won two singles titles but are not notable enough for their own article. Now Ryder nor Hawkins have not won any singles titles.-- Will C  07:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I still agree with your point Will, Deuce/Sim Snuka was never a member of The Legacy. He was only a potential member.  TJ   Spyke   16:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The keywords about in my statement were "almost apart of Legacy".-- Will C  22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, could people actually put the redirect Zack Ryder on their watchlists please? People insist on turning it into an article, and myself and User:Oakster appear to be the only ones actually enforcing the consensus that it stay as a redirect. On my part at least, it's getting quite annoying. Help would be appreciated. Thanks, ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 19:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask for it to be semi-protected, that should stem some activity. Or if it persists full-protect. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

About champions
Why don't you put in the championship the tallest and the smallest champions? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is trivia, at best. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * .And the oldest champion, the youngest champion, the heavyest champion...? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Really the Oldest, Youngest, Heaviest, and Lightest champion parameters are not even notable in Title templates. They are near OR. They are hard to source and rarely are ever mentioned. In special cases they are sourcable, but in most they are not.-- Will C  17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe for indy promotions. They almost always announce the weight in WWE and TNA. Most wrestlers also have their birthdays sourced.  TJ   Spyke   20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the weights always change and there is no written material stating these stats avaliable. Cite video or Cite episode almost always have to be used to source them and the only current way to make that information is to search for yourself to determine these stats.-- Will C  22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's trivial and probably doesn't need to be included (compounded by the fact that it's difficult to verify). If the tallest, shortest, heaviest, or lightest wrestler to win the title is significant (e.g. Rey Mysterio being the lightest and probably shortest person to win the World Heavyweight Championship) then that can be mentioned in the article's body. Jeff Silvers (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WWE Bragging Rights reference.
I'm going to leave it up to you guys. I added a reference to the WWE Bragging Rights page that shows that there will still be voting for this years event. The reference is here: http://www.wwekids.com/calendar/ If you go to October and hover over the 25th, a thing pops up that says "Have your say online!  It's WWE Bragging Rights tonight!" To me, the "have your say" part is an obvious reference to voting. Some of you may not agree so now I guess we discuss. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it here before a massive edit war started. I actually agree that it may be that, but I think its best that we wait to see a more direct confirmation, like "Vote for your stipulations, etc."-- T ru  c o   503 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could quote that line and say it's indicative of it being a voting based event but it hasn't been confirmed? Tony2Times (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling
THIS WAS EXTREMELY OUT OF LINE!

I created this table in my userspace and I was told this article was not notable. I see that my hard work goes uncredited as someone else COPIES the information in my userspace into an article (that is supposed to be non-notable) in the mainspace. This is really out of line. I try to better articles here and create some useful ones, but when someone just copies my userspace into articles for no good reason and without even mentioning where they got the contents from, this becomes anti-productive. I would like for someone to give me an explanation on why it was not prodded due to lack of notability or at least why someone copied it without mentioning it to me? Thank you.  Raaggio  03:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember a discussion on an article of this sort, could you link it? Also subpages directing to your account are not your's. I don't really think it is notable. It is near impossible to make an actual list which lists every world championship and all multiple time world champions. Borderline list cruft IMO.-- Will C  03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that article, it should be deleted (although only because it doesn't really add anything and seems pointless. On your comment though, what makes you think someone copied you (which IS allowed under GDFL)? I remember seeing a similar table in another article at least 2 years ago.  TJ   Spyke   03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * TJ, it is the same exact table. The notes are even the same, man.  Raaggio  04:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But that type of table is not new: . While I agree the article is deleted, I don't agree with your reason (which appears to just be that someone copied a table from your userspace and didn't give you credit, even though giving you credit would itself be OR).  TJ   Spyke   04:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's important to remember that, right under the "Save page" button, it states, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." It might also be worth pointing out that in your sandbox, you have done the same thing, as it contains a list of people who have vandalized D.M.N.'s user page and a list of articles that D.M.N. has helped promote. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Define anti-productive? Tony2Times (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The opposite of productive"? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks for that :) I meant define anti-productive as it pertains to creating an article. Tony2Times (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this seems like it would be better as a one-on-one conversation with whoever did it in the first place (on user talk pages) instead of here. Nikki ♥  311   19:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of that, but it's an IP. I prefer for the article to just be prodded and like that, the copier doesn't get the satisfaction of creating a new article based around a table without writing a bit in it.  Raaggio  21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think the article should be prodded, then prod it. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Someone got credit for a table I made" is not a valid prod reason and smacks of WP:OWN. I suggest calming teas and meditation before realizing that this is just tha Interwebs so don't let it get you bent out of shape.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Another pay-per-view related thread
Matt you fail to see my idea's purpose. You are breathing too much into the idea. Let me show a rough draft of what the idea will come out as. After I am finished I will present a link. Now as for your idea, I see it being interesting but could be a problem also. I would like to see what it would look like as well before making a decision. Ignore All Rules is not an excuse. It is your opinion that it is a hindrance. We are still in the early stages of the change and not everything has been fixed. To be blunt and do put it the way most people in my state would put it, Don't puss out on me now!!. Going back to fanish, unprofessional way of writing where we would state Triple H hit a pedigree on Cena to win the WWE Championship spinner belt when we could just write professionally IMO by writing Triple H executed his signiture maneuver the pedigree by forcing Cena's head into the mat to become the new WWE Champion. By just cutting down on descriptions we can make everyone happy. The move name is there, the ring names are there, and the descriptions are there for non-fans. There will still be non-fans reading these articles. This again is an encyclopedia. You will not see articles in a printed encyclopedia cater to one group. I Don't Like It is not an excuse either. Plus I am not using I like it. I feel it has bettered our articles and countless times I've been told it has helped. The Turning Point (2004) and TNA X Division Championship GA reviewers both said they liked the addition of the descriptions. The reviewer for the X Title is a school teacher and she (I believe) did not know wrestling was scripted before reading the article.-- Will C  01:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * At least you are now willing to admit that we should use the move names Will. Just the other day you were trying to tell me that you think it's fine for a article to have the description of a move but not the actual move name (which would be like describing a movie without stating the name of the movie).  TJ   Spyke   02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, you're making it hard to have a discussion. You're throwing in "I don't like it" in there, when it doesn't apply here. I've given plenty of reasons for what I've suggested. We need to get rid of the descriptions of the moves. That's it. You need to remember that wiki-links exist for those who don't know what something is, to click the link and find out. We don't need to explain everything and link to the page that explains it.  iMatthew  talk   at 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Ignore All Rules is not an "excuse." It's a perfectly accurate reason. Lets consider WP:JARGON and WP:OOU the rules. These rules make our articles suffer. However, WP:IAR allows us to ignore these rules for the benefit of improving the article. Get it, now?  iMatthew  talk   at 10:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You say they are suffering, that is your opinion but like I showed above it is helping readers understand. Also we have had multiple FAs, FLs, and GAs pass with the format, something we did not have before. Please show how they are suffering, because I remember when I started a few discussions to have change you were all against even a little discussion. The only problems I see is going too in depth, not enough reception, the ring names and real names, and no production section.-- Will C  11:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrestlinglover, your comments are really getting hard to reply to. You're making some unnecessary digs, so please comment on the issue, nothing else. Most of us liked the format when it was introduced because it got us FAs and GAs. Now we're looking back on it, and it seems like everyone else agrees that we're dealing with JARGON the wrong way. We did have multiple FAs/GAs/FLs promoted with it, but something being promoted doesn't imply that it can't be improved. If an issue comes up, it should be fixed. The articles are suffering from the amount of explanations in them. It's making them non-readable to wrestling fans! Oh, and the "because I remember when I started a few discussions to have change you were all against even a little discussion." Please stop bringing your dislike of me into discussions at completely random spots. It's obvious you have something against me, but if you have a personal comment for me, please bring them to my talk page instead of dragging them into discussions.  iMatthew  talk   at 21:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have yet to show how they are suffering. I've agreed the explanations are too in depth but for no reason should we get rid of them entirely. I don't have anything against you pre-say, I'm just tired of your whining and bitching to be honest. Also, this is not the wrestlingwiki, so we should not go by what wrestling fans want. The next thing is we will be ignoring spoliers, etc to add rumors, spoliers, etc because little old wrestling fans want to get their news from wikipedia.-- Will C  00:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, no where did I just say that we must have the move names. I told you they aren't needed everytime but they can be added. Pedigree is not the actual move's name, double-underhook facebuster is, so I'm guessing you wish we should add that into the article?-- Will C  03:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one that said articles are fine if the move names are not used. I told you that that is moronic. As for the Pedigree, even if you ignore that this has become the common name for the move (I have seen announcers in other organizations use that as the name when a wrestler does it), it IS the name when Triple H uses it. Same with Jeff Hardy and his finisher, he was the first person to call it a Swanton Bomb and that has become the common name for the move for anybody who uses it.  TJ   Spyke   14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And they are, but not once did I ever say they must not be used. They aren't needed is what I said, because it becomes clutered. They can be used. Now pedigree is not the common name of the move. Not once when Punk was wrestling on the indies did they ever call the Pepsi Plunge a pedigree from the top rope. The Swanton is not the common name either because countless times today they still call it a Senton.-- Will C  00:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright guys, have fun with the articles. I thought I could come back and help out by cleaning these articles up a bit. Most of you seems to agree with me, but I'm not going to waste my time helping when I'm accused of "whining and bitching" when I'm only trying to discuss positive changes to our articles.  iMatthew  talk   at 01:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I'm talking about, you take things too seriously. I can see you are clearly trying to help, we all are. But I have yet to see a reason they are suffering, will you please answer this for me?-- Will C  01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take things too seriously? Getting upset because I was accused of whining and bitching when I'm only trying to help out is not "taking something too seriously." I have a right to be pissed off that you're claiming that I'm complaining when I've not done that once. To tell you the truth, I would edit wrestling articles a lot more often, and be much more willing to help (probably not just me) if you weren't around to make it so damn unpleasant for all of us. I'm not answering your question. I don't care anymore.  iMatthew  talk   at 01:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Come one now, we don't need to get this heated. Will--take a breather, Matt--take a breather. Please leave your personal differences somewhere else, because Matt actually has a great idea, and if we can all collaborate we can actually make better articles and improve the ones we have already. Lets just restart.-- T ru  c o   503 01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read The Great American Bash (2005) and Lockdown (2008) this weekend. Right now, I'm in complete shock that we actually wrote those. They sound terrible. Explaining what every single move is, and every single television show, and every single everything else makes the article sound like it should be moved to "Wikipedia for Dummies" (which doesn't really exist). I'm sure most of you are familiar with Wikipedia's Ignore All Rules policy. If you're not, the policy says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'd connect that perfectly with these pay-per-view articles (well, not just these two—most of our FA/GA PPVs). We need to come up with a way to fix these articles. It can be done, but a calm discussion without sniping needs to take place. My only suggestion that would make sense, is to focus more on making it seem like a television episode (e.g. I Married Marge) instead of a sports event (e.g. Super Bowl XLII). Basically removing the play-by-play from the event and background, and summarizing the plot of each match/feud (some background, summary of the match, some of the aftermath) all in one section. Expect an example of this coming soon.

The wrestling pay-per-views are more of a television show, or movie instead of a sporting event. Lets focus on treating it like that.  iMatthew  talk   at 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on Lockdown, and I have some ideas on improving it though. But since I can see the future (joke), I can already see the reason people will want this changed is they just don't like it. So I don't see the point in starting this section.-- Will C  22:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Many people have expressed that they don't like it. That's the point in starting this section is to get their opinions. We need to look at every side of the dice, and take all points into consideration.  iMatthew  talk   at 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets see an example of combining the three sections into a one-paragraph summary of the feud.
 * Current Background: The main event at The Great American Bash was a standard wrestling match for the World Heavyweight Championship, in which Batista (Dave Batista) defended the championship against John "Bradshaw" Layfield or "JBL" (John Layfield). The buildup to the match began when WWE Champion John Cena was drafted to the Raw brand, taking the title with him and leaving SmackDown! without a top-tier championship for the heavyweight division. General Manager Theodore Long, a portrayed match maker and rules enforcer, announced a match between six wrestlers for a new top-tier SmackDown! championship. On the June 30 episode of the SmackDown! television program, the match took place between JBL, Chris Benoit, Christian (Jason Reso), Booker T (Booker Huffman), Muhammad Hasasan (Mark Copani), and The Undertaker (Mark Calaway). JBL was victorious in the match, but Long announced that he was still not the champion. Instead he had won the right to a match against the World Heavyweight Champion, Batista, who was SmackDown!'s final 2005 draft pick, making the World Heavyweight Championship exclusive to SmackDown!. 
 * Current Event: The main event was between JBL (managed by Orlando Jordan) and Batista for the World Heavyweight Championship. Jordan interfered by attempting to hit Batista with a folding chair, but Batista grabbed the chair from him. Batista then used the chair to hit Jordan and JBL, and JBL was declared the winner, via disqualification. In WWE, a title cannot be won by disqualification, but only by pinfall or submission (the normal scoring conditions in professional wrestling matches). As a result, Batista retained the title. 
 * Current Aftermath: The feud between Batista and JBL continued after the Bash. On the July 28 edition of SmackDown!, JBL defeated The Undertaker to become the number-one contender for the World Heavyweight Championship at SummerSlam. The following week on SmackDown!, Batista and JBL held a scripted official contract signing, where it was announced that their match at SummerSlam would be a No Holds Barred match that allowed for no disqualification. At SummerSlam, Batista defeated JBL to retain the World Heavyweight Championship. The feud between the two ended when Batista defeated JBL in a Texas Bullrope match on the September 9 edition of SmackDown!, a match where the objective is to touch all four ring corners while tied to your opponent with a bullrope. 
 * Combined summary: The main event at The Great American Bash was a standard wrestling match for the World Heavyweight Championship, in which Batista (Dave Batista) defended the championship against John "Bradshaw" Layfield or "JBL" (John Layfield). The buildup to the match began when WWE Champion John Cena was drafted to the Raw brand, taking the title with him and leaving SmackDown! without a top-tier championship for the heavyweight division. General Manager Theodore Long, announced a match between six SmackDown! wrestlers. JBL was victorious in the match, but instead won the right to a match against the World Heavyweight Champion, Batista, who was SmackDown!'s final 2005 draft pick, making the World Heavyweight Championship exclusive to SmackDown!. During the match at The Great American Bash, JBL was declared the winner via disqualification after Batista hit Jordan and JBL with a steel chair. In WWE, a title cannot be won by disqualification, but only by pinfall or submission (the normal scoring conditions in professional wrestling matches). As a result, Batista retained the title.   The feud between Batista and JBL continued after the Bash. On the July 28 edition of SmackDown!, JBL defeated The Undertaker to become the number-one contender for the World Heavyweight Championship. JBL was awarded a match at SummerSlam, later revealed to be a No Holds Barred match that allowed for no disqualification. At SummerSlam, Batista defeated JBL to retain the World Heavyweight Championship. The feud between the two ended when Batista defeated JBL in a Texas Bullrope match on the September 9 edition of SmackDown!. 


 * This could be trimmed even further to only the main points, most likely. But my point is that every detail of the match and background/aftermath of the feud isn't all necessary to mention.  iMatthew  talk   at 22:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well my plans are very different. First I'm for removing the names in parenthesis. They are in the way and no longer helping, so remove them and just state a note in the opening paragraph the wrestlers play characters like actors do in films. Now, I was thinking of adding making the articles longer rather than shorter. Add a History section to the top, to tell what, in my example, TNA Bound for Glory is. To tell how long it has been running, etc. Explain what a PPV means to the company, why it is notable, etc. Something I feel is being left out and could be very useful. The background I feel should be a bit more storyline and instead of being called background be renamed to Storylines. It be a level three header in the Production section which we should include in all events if possible, not just WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Lockdown, Slammiversary, Bound for Glory, etc. The Event section I don't have a problem with. Just cut down on move descriptions. Instead of going on a long explanation of what a powerbomb is, just state he lifted him up and dropped him down, though in a more professional way. The Aftermath I'm fine with, though more description would be useful. The Reception section should be a level two and go way way way more in depth. Add tables, more commentary, ratings, etc. Be like Video games and movie reception sections. Results I feel should be cut into different columns like here. The rest of the article I'm fine with. Though I feel the lead could use a small paragraph explaining future events like we use to do. It would tell what the article is about, what happened at the event, what the reception was, and what the repercussions of the event were. Final comment: In no way should we remove the out of universe style, just improve it.-- Will C  22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When we have an article about X (2009), we should not be talking about X in it, neither what a PPV is or what it means to the company. It's all irrelevant to the article. If an article is on Monkey's, should we talk about what an animal is, in it? No, of course not. We need to keep the topic of an article centered on the event we're writing about. Also, we need to cut out a lot of OOU, not add more. Like I said, WP:IAR. Ignore the OOU/Jargon policies, they're getting in the way of improving our PPV articles. They're making our PPV articles sounds ridiculous. We can't keep trying to appeal to a handful of article reviewers instead of those who are actually reading the articles.  iMatthew  talk   at 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to see a full mock up of how an article would look arranged match by match full story rather than background, event and aftermath. Certainly I agree with the notion of it being described more as a television show than a sports event as I often read articles which don't explain the stories between two feuding wrestlers so much as say A beat B, C & D in a tourney to face X for the Championship. It's very clinical. This system of match by match full story could cater to my personal opinion more, but more importantly I think it would help promote all matches on the card having their background's discussed, if there are any, rather than just the main two or three which I don't find encyclopedic. Tony2Times (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like Matt's idea, the only thing is. If we are to do it like that, we may as well do all the feuds. My only concerns is for PPV's like Over the Edge (1999), which had a bit more into it than just matches. In addition, for a combined summary, will that just be one section for all the matches?-- T ru  c o   503 23:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do, however, feel that linking everything is a pain. Some readers can't bear with trying to find what everything means link after link. I think Over the Edge (1999) is the PPV that has the least pain-staking explanations, of course after many copyedits during the FAC. Why not just handle it like it is there? Its similar to what IMatt is planning, in a way, sorta.-- T ru  c o   503 15:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts: (1) Many of the articles that went overboard with descriptions last year have been improved considerably through discussions here. The flow has improved, and the unnecessarily long descriptions of setups to moves are gone, references in every sentence of "scripted", "in storyline", "according to the narrative", etc. are reduced so that they're at a more helpful level. This seems to be good evidene that productive discussions here can help move articles forward. (2) I strongly believe that the move names should be included. This means the name used by the wrestler who is using it. If it can be explained easily with a short, grammatically correct description without disrupting the flow of the prose, that's great. (3) The wrestling project would benefit from taking a look at how other projects deal with guidelines like WP:JARGON. As I pointed out over a year ago, "(eg. the article on Art Houtteman, promoted on June 22, 2008, simply wikilinks terms like shutout, earned run average, sandlot, pennant, scout, runs, optioned, extra innings, bullpen, no-hitter, relief pitcher, spot starter, World Series, etc. Likewise, J. R. Richard, promoted May 11, 2008, wikilinks fastball, doubleheader, wild pitch, walks per nine innings ratio, ace, fielding percentage, slider, etc.)". (4) I don't think it reflects well when I see message board threads elsewhere on the internet with a group of wrestling fans criticizing the writing style in a particular Wikpedia wrestling article. The articles need to be accesible for a wide audience, but removing jargon altogether or describing it in far too much detail makes it inaccesible for wrestling fans. (5) I'm not sold on combining the background, match description, and aftermath for each individual match. It is the nature of wrestling that storylines overlap, so it could lead to a lot of redundancy in the background and aftermath descriptions. The current format allows overlapping storylines to be discussed once. (6) I think that "Storylines" could be a better section header than "Background". It makes the point that everything in the prose should be taken as fiction unless otherwise noted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Gary. Not all jargon needs to be explained. Though some needs to be. I actually agree with everything you just said.-- Will C  00:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with iMatthew, those 2 articles are pathetic with the amount of explanation put in. For some reason there are editors in this project who think wrestling articles have to be more filled with more descriptions than any other articles (and cite JARGON as their justification). JARGON doesn't say every term has to be described, that is exactly what pipelinks are for.  TJ   Spyke   14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there anymore ideas and opinions out there?-- Will C  23:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I'm happy to discuss this further if anyone else is willing. I'm interested in Matt's idea and would be interested in anyone's elses.-- Will C  06:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Real names
Since no one raised any objections to the issue, I think it's safe to say that consensus is that real names do NOT need to be in PPV articles (except in cases like SummerSlam 1994 when it was Paul Bearer's Undertaker vs. Ted DiBiase's Undertaker). Anybody want to go ahead and change the MOS now? If not, I will do it in a few hours when I get home from college. This means we can start removing real names from PPV articles (although I will generally do it only when I have to edit a article for another reason).  TJ   Spyke   15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just remove them. I'm for it.-- Will C  01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it, we don't have them on the Tables for Title Histories so I didn't see the point in it anyway. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 11:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to remove them if people don't go on a removal frenzy: if you are going to remove them, make sure to note that the wrestlers are in character and sometimes perform under ring names.-- T ru  c o   503 15:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as a consensus, does anyone object to that?-- Will C  06:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Improve articles
Hi. I think that you must to improve a lot of articles about TNA PPVs. For example, in BFG 2008 only put the results, nos aftermatch, or reception. It's similar to another PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * there is a well known wikipedian saying, it goes something along the lines of this "so fix it" or Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and also if you don't understand why someone has changed your edit, look in the page history section - they might detail the reason. Tony2Times (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was set to expand the BFG 08 page, but the project has been put on the back burner. PPVs are pretty hard to expand, and the plans I hard for BFG 08 would need alot of focus. So that is one reason there isn't alot of TNA PPV events being expanded today.-- Will C  23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mi problema es que no tengo suficiente dominio del inglés. I only want to help with minor editions and put photos in the protected articles. I can't write about the PPV. But is very sad to see some PPVs only with the results and other with the old format. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion takes time. Eventually they will all be done.-- Will C  23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Championships
i have no idea where to put this so i'll just post here. I was thinking that a page with all pro wrestling championships on would be a good idea. Sorry for posting it here but i really have no idea where to post. We have a page dedecated to pro wrestling promotions, move & matchs why not one including all the wrestling championships. If there is already 1 could someone put the link her please, thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Championship (professional wrestling)? -- Unquestionable Truth -- 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

not really what i ment, let me try again i mean a page will all Pro Wrestling championships on not one with just the major promotions, you have a page with list of pro wrestling promotions you can use that page to help you creat this page i would do it but i have no idea how lol82.21.192.131 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * An article simply listing every single known promotional championship from the major promotions internationally all the way down to tin-pot indies would be too long and unwieldy. You can however look at categories such as here and here &c. If you go to a championship page you should see the categories list at the top of the page which will take you to that type of championship. Tony2Times (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox pro wrestling championship suggestions
While expanding the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship in my sandbox, which is now done, I came across something (again) in the infobox. Why is there no parameter for the final champion, yet there is one for the first champion. In addition, I think since there is a parameter for the brand, I think one for the NWA territories should be added. Or alternatly, we should call the promotion field...Promotion(s), when more than one own the championship, like the NWA MAHC. -- T ru  c o   503 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than for WWE titles, what else would we use the Brand parameter for? The simple solution would be to rename the Brand parameter to Designation. This way for WWE Championships the Designation parameter would simply say Raw brand or ECW brand or SmackDown brand, and for other promotions like the example you provided above, the Designation parameter would simply say Mid-Atlantic or whatever you prefer. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * New Japan have brands too but yeah other than them I can't think of anything. The thing is, NWA isn't really a promotion it's a governing body. The promotion for the MAHC is Jim Crockett. I'm definitely down with the last champion parameter though. Tony2Times (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the same Designation parameter could be used for the New Japan situation. It's the same thing.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that idea of a Designation parameter and the Final champion parameter. Any other opinions?-- T ru  c o   503 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't really see the need for the Designation parameter. The belt was controlled by Jim Crocket Promotions, that's the promotion. You'd only need to put National Wrestling Alliance if it was a belt defended all over the territories such as the World title or World Women's title, in which case it's defended in all the territories and thus none of those promotions control it either. But yes, the final champion field is something sorely missing. Tony2Times (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobility of pro wrestlers
Thought i'd share this gem with you people. 138.163.106.71 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I readded the wrestler to the list. Frankly those types of edit summaries are just ignorant. We might have to keep an eye on the page. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * not relevance except to fans? C'mon, if he has a Wikipedia article, why can't he appear in deaths in 2009 article? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ergh, Jade Goody's on there *shudders*. Tony2Times (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jade Goody had a good deal of publicity behind her death so I don't see why she shouldn't be on there, and Misawa should be on Deaths in 2009 if he isn't already. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 14:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone with an article who dies is on the Deaths in list. I'm not saying Jade Goody shouldn't be on the list, I just think it's pretty distressing she's on that list with luminaries & statesmen. Tony2Times (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Talk:2009 regarding Mitsuharu's inclusion. He had been added 7 times and removed every time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jericho's tag title reign
I don't want to keep bringing the subject up, but I know there were disagreements about whether Jericho should be listed have having two seperate reigns or one continuous one. I was reading the discussions on both tag title pages and it appeared that the consensus was for him to have one reign because he never lost his share of the championship. I just wanted to ask, if we are going to use that criteria for Jericho, should we then take one title reign away from Stone Cold Steve Austin? Because Austin and Shawn Michaels won the tag championship in July 1997, then Michaels suffered an injury. Now according to WWE.com's title history section, Shawn Michaels was forced to vacate his half of the title in September of that year. Then an 8-team tourney was set up to determine the No. 1 contenders, who would then challenge Austin and a partner of his choosing. It seems to be the same thing happening in both cases: a team wins the titles, one partner gets injured, and someone is chosen to replace the injured superstar. And given how the WWE.com article states that the tournament was to determine the No. 1 contenders, that says that Austin never lost his share of the gold (there has to be champions for there to be No. 1 contenders). Just my thoughts I wanted to share. MyNameIsChaos (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, a new reign never occured. Have people forgot we are only based on facts, not what WWE or any company wants to spue? It should be done the correct way IMO and that way is listed below. The actual reign began at The Bash, Edge was just replaced. It did not start a brand new reign. Big Show is the only one that gained a reign.-- Will C  07:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, what the company that owns the title gives as the story becomes the facts. That's why The Rockers aren't recognized as WWF Tag Team Champions despite winning the belts. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No they don't. If that would be the case, then any non-recognized anything has to be removed right now. We either go entirely by what the company says, or go entirely by the facts from third party sources. That simple. WWE at the moment have contradicted themselves. They want to make it as if a new reign occurred, when that is not possible since beforehand they said Jericho would get a replacement partner, meaning there would be no new reign. A new reign can not occur unless the champions have been defeated or the titles were vacanted.-- Will C  07:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on your last post Will, we have to take away one reign from Stone Cold Steve Austin. If you want to argue that Jericho should only have one reign because WWE said he could have a replacement partner, then Austin's reign with Dude Love should be combined with his reign with Shawn Michaels, because WWE said Austin could choose a replacement partner for the injured Michaels. And "vacanted" is not a word. MyNameIsChaos (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a typo. Anyway, I'm talking about the current situation not the Austin situation, which I was only 7 at the time it occurred so I know relatively nothing about. My position is based on what I've seen. Plus the non-recognized anything statement was directed at everything. Not just WWE based, not just titles, but everything. I'm for going only by the third party sources and common sense, not primary sources mainly like TNA, WWE, etc because they have a tendency to try to revision their own history. At the moment, I believe it should be like above, and like that in any simular situation.-- Will C  08:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, Will, should what you have listed here for the Jericho and Edge/Big Show reign be applied to the Austin and Shawn Michaels/Dude Love reign? Given what WWE has published and the fact that the winners of the 8-team tournament became the No. 1 contenders to challenge for the Tag Titles, that says Austin never lost his share of the championship, just like Jericho. MyNameIsChaos (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The two situations are completely different. Whatever happened with Austin/HBK does not change the fact that Edge has not vacated his title, and the reign is continuous. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will about being based on facts and not what the company says. There are times where we must go beyond what the company says and go by straight actuality, eg. a wrestler winning a title but not being recognized as champions. I thought we resolved this issue already above? (Deja vu) Well, Jericho's reign never ended as a single's wrestler because he never lost the title himself and was recognized as 1/2 of the champions during Edge's absence, however, a new tag team reign began with Big Show after Edge's reign ended. Simple.-- T ru  c o   503 15:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Truco if every result in professional wrestling was legitimately decided and not predetermined as in a script then what you and Will are arguing would be true. Allow me to elaborate. When a wrestler is fired off-screen but say on-screen his character is killed off, what do we record in the subject's article? The events that actually "in real life" happened would be recorded, not that the wrestler was actually killed off as a primary source would say but that the wrestler was let go as a third party source would say. Now we all know that professional wrestling is scripted. In the end we are actors performing. A script dictates everything that happens. It is because of this that the situation changes from the example above when a wrestler wins or loses match or a championship, in that there is no "what happened in WWE" AND "what really happened." No, in this situation, both are one and the same. If the promotion says that the wrestler lost the championship or that he began a new reign then that is what is to be recorded. Now don't confuse this with retconning. Retconning is different. With retconning, if the promotion first says something (as in Angle being the first TNA Champion after Sacrifice 2007) and then goes back and says something completely different (as in now Ken Shamrock being the first TNA Champion way the fuck back in the day) then the ACTUAL EVENTS AS THEY HAPPENED CHRONOLOGICALLY are recorded while staying on a neutral point of view, giving the reader both sides of the information and letting them draw their own conclusions. As a result, we list Kurt Angle as being the first TNA Champion after Sacrifice 2007 (as he was originally recognized) but we also note that the company currently recognizes past NWA Champions as being former TNA Champions as well. That is how we've handled retconning. However in this Jericho Tag Team title reign situation, nothing was said by WWE regarding the reign prior to NOC 2009 only that Jericho would reveal his new partner at the event, therefore nothing was retconned, so the situation is different from retconning. WWE.com/inside/titlehistory/ notes that Jericho is under a new reign. So because this particular situation is that of "what happened in WWE and what really happened are one and the same" then what the promotion says is what is to be recorded. Why? Because again, we all know that professional wrestling is scripted. In the end we are actors performing. A script dictates everything that happens. It is because of this that the situation changes, in that there is no longer "what happened in WWE" AND "what really happened." No, in this situation, both are one and the same. If the promotion says that the wrestler lost the championship or that he began a new reign then that is what is to be recorded. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, putting it that way I guess Jericho's reign would be considered a new one. However, if I remember correctly the NOC results page for the tag title match did not state a new reign, it just said Jericho the champion picked a new partner.-- T ru  c o   503 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Concerning Austin/Michaels and Austin/Dude Love, WWE.com specifically states that the Austin/Michaels reign ended and that Austin/Dude Love was a new reign. http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldtagteam/304454132122112 Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to be a stick in the mud about this, but if you watch video of the match between Owen Hart & The British Bulldog vs. Austin and Dude Love (it can be found on the Legacy of Stone Cold Steve Austin dvd), when Austin makes his way to the ring he is still announced as being one of the WWF Tag Team Champions. MyNameIsChaos (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am slow. I did not notice that on the official title history they have the Jericho/Show reign as a new one which would have began if the title was vacant. If it were a title change that occurred because of a new partner, they would not have listed them as defeating "DiBiase and Rhodes".-- T ru  c o   503 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When Jericho and Show came out for the match at Night of Champions, did they carry the belts with them? If so, that would support the argument that Jericho's reign continued and Show just stepped in as new partner, but if they didn't, it would support the idea that this is a separate reign for Jericho than his reign with Edge.  If they carried the belts before the match, it would contradict the idea that they "won" the titles by beating Legacy (as wwe.com seems to indicate).  Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only does WWE.com list Austin/Michaels reign as ending and Austin/Dude love being a new reign, the WWE Encyclopedia says, "An injury to Shawn Michaels forced Stone Cold Steve Austin & HBK to vacate the World Tag Team Championship in July 1997," between the Austin/HBK reign and the Austin/Dude Love reign.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts not updating
The WP:PW Article alerts page (WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article alerts) hasn't updated this month. Is there anything that we can do about it, or is it just a problem with a bot? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a problem with the bot, it hasn't updated anything since July 31. It's probably due to the fact that the toolserver was down for maintenance last week, and the bot just hasn't been restarted yet. It's been noted on the operator's talk page by other projects already, so nothing to do but wait until it starts again I suppose. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 11:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees
It would be great if someone who knows a bit about TNA could look over some of today's edits. One user (Bryden12) has made quite a few edits. Based on what he's done to other articles, I'm assuming that there are some problems involved here as well (unsourced information and deletion of sourced content). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

TNA Wrestling Ownership
There's a good article about TNA's ownership here: http://www.cygy.com/2009/08/tna-wrestling-ownership-timeline.html

I think we should somehow incorporate some of this information on the main TNA Wrestling page. Canamerican (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is necesary to put the actual situation of THA in Jeff Jarrett's article, as Personal life--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps the involvement of Mick Foley's sock puppet? Also that link goes to a blog which, unless the writer of it is a respected journalist doesn't count as a verifiable source. TNA's ownership is private as it's a limited liability company so they don't have to release any details making it hard to get detailed info. Tony2Times (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Havn't read the blog, but the writer is a former staff writer for the TNA website, who's articles from the time are currently being cited. Mshake3 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but how does the blog make that person notable? ArcAngel (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm following this right, we're trying to decide if that blog and person is reliable, not notable. Thanks,  gENIUS  101  14:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * MShake knows that. He's discussing an aspect of WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If the writer used to write for TNA's website, it could be argued that he is an expert in his field and that his blog could be used, although "caution should be exercised when using such sources". GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But I think ArcAngel didn't. Thanks,  gENIUS  101  01:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think we could use it as a source providing we have extra sources to support the information within this. Afro Gold  - Afkatk 18:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source, not even close.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He was an insider with TNA for several years, so to say "not even close" is weak on all levels. Mshake3 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would first have to be proven he even worked for TNA.  TJ   Spyke   03:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, I did a quick search on here and I came up multiple mentions in two articles. I found refs in Raven and Samoa Joe that were from TNA that are now dead links with his name listed as the author. I'm looking on archive.org for an article listing him as the author for a verifiable link.-- Will C  03:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This says that Cygy at one time was TNA's PPV results writer. Mentioning him by name: "Marcus Cygy returns with live results from Detroit, Michigan".-- Will C  04:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's been wrestling sites like WrestleView.com, WrestleZone.com (where 2 other former TNA employees confirm the truth of this story written by Marcus Cygy) and NoDQ.com. Marcus Cygy also wrote today on Cygy.com about his ties to TNA Wrestling here: http://www.cygy.com/2009/08/my-ties-to-tna-wrestling.html Canamerican (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say this is reliable, now that he is backed up by WrestleView a reliable third party site and has ties with TNA. This will help my quest in getting TNA to FA.-- Will C  03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be rather good to see some promotions get FA status. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is what has fueled by quest to get it to FA, then follow with other promotions.-- Will C  23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus Cygy makes it clear that he doesn't work in the wrestling business anymore: http://www.cygy.com/2009/08/i-dont-work-in-wrestling-business.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.139.248 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But that he did makes him reliable, at least in reference to the era he worked within, surely? Good luck with your quest Will, I have a magical sword sitting in the black of my wardrobe I can dust off to help you. Tony2Times (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for all the evil doers out there, here comes Wrestlinglover and his sidekick Tony, though Tony is the one with the freaking sword. Oh who am I kidding, I'm the freaking sidekick. Thanks.-- Will C  00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a source?
If anyone is looking for an official source for any specific WWE information, I have the WWE Encyclopedia and will search it to try and find any information you may be looking for. Just tell me what specifically you need, and I'll tell you if it's in here or not. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Triple H's theme before "My Time" was an instrumental version of it called "Higher Brain Pattern". Does it have any mention of that or any theme music related stuff? Jordan Payne    T  /C  15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lol NO! -- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering
I edited the ECW page a few minutes ago, and I noticed it had been tagged as needing cites. Is anyone involved in the project looking into this? Podgy Stuffn (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No.-- Will C  01:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it still need that banner? Most of the page is cited. Tony2Times (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. If no one objects, I think I'll remove it. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LInk to a policy
Does anyone know where policy talks about sources that require a subscription or payment? I'm looking for it right now, but can't seem to find it. Nikki ♥  311   20:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO. It says to avoid links that require registration or subscriptions to view.  TJ   Spyke   20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

TNA Sold
Jeff Jarrett has sold his TNA shares to Bob Carter: http://www.cygy.com/2009/08/bob-carter-purchases-jeff-jarretts-tna.html 70.68.139.248 (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mitsuharu Misawa and Andrew Martin
The discussion ground to a halt at Talk:2009, so it has been replaced with a vote. If you have feelings either way about these wrestlers' inclusion or exclusion from the 2009 article, feel free to look over the criteria (Recent years) and have your say at Talk:2009. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Jacobs
This article seems to have become a magnet for week-by-week updates. If anyone doesn't have it on their watchlist, please add it. It seems every time I check the article lately, I have to revert 10 edits back to a good revision. In addition, a citation was added for him being trained by Jeff Bradley, but it's incomplete. If someone more familiar with cite restoration could check it out, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had it on my 'list. I got sick of seeing it, so I removed it. 50 edits in two weeks seems high, maybe Nikki could semi-lock it for six months. It's easier to get semi-protection re-applied, that is to say have it on, then when it comes off it baits IP vandals, meaning it gets re-applied quicker. Convincing an admin at RFPP is the first step. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and requested semi-protection. I'm so used to what essentially amounts to all WWE articles having semi-protection, I assumed it was already applied and didn't actually bother to check. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cryme Tyme
I raised this before and no-one replied so rather than assume that it was a tacit no, I'm gonna assume it was indifference so if people are against this idea then saying no would be preferable to nothing. Basically, I don't see how either member of Cryme Tyme deserve their own article as they are career tag teamers, even on the indie circuit. There's some personal life stuff about Shad but couldn't that be incorporated? Aside from that it's essentially the same content doubled as they've wrestled together in OVW, WWE and NJPW. Tony2Times (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, I never did think they needed seperate articles.-- Will C  00:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This seems to be similar to the Zack Ryder/Curt Hawkins (or whatever) situation. It is essentially the same article three times. We wouldn't lose any info by merging them together, as long as the Shad/personal life stuff was left in. Nikki  ♥  311   02:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Angle warning
Kurt Angle has been arrested. I advise all to keep the page on your watchlists. See here -- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But even more importantly, Wikipedia should report on the facts. How about: On August 19, 2009, Pittsburgh-based NBC affiliate WPXI reported that Angle had been arrested. His girlfriend stated that she had filed a protection from abuse order and that he was stalking her. Angle was charged with "driving while operating privilege is suspended, prohibited acts-possession, harrassment and prohibited acts". Hygetropin, a human growth hormone, was found in his car; Angle states that he has a prescription for the drug." ? This would be a neutral addition that avoids censoring facts reported by reliable sources and should keep IPs at bay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask why this hadn't been included in the article. I think it should be mentioned that he had syringes in the car too. Also you used states twice and the latter is in the present tense rather than past participle, how about "...was found in his car which Angle maintained were given to him on prescription." Tony2Times (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good note. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shimmer
Can some people keep an eye out on the Shimmer Women Athletes and Shimmer Championship pages as an IP keeps changing the championship details to say Don West, Test and someone called Billy Mays won the belts on the 11th September attacks day and 1984. I have no idea who Billy Mays is so I don't really see the humour and they're taking about 6 edits just to change basic info so it's annoying to undo as I'm bad at wiki tables. Tony2Times (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know who Billy Mays is? Since you don't live in the US I ues you may not have seen the hundreds of commercials he's done for products like OxyClean.  TJ   Spyke   20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, never heard of him over here in Britain. I recognise his face so I presumably have seen some sort of allusion or pastiche in an American comedy but aside from that nada. Is that the joke then, he does commercials and Don West was on the shopping network? Any idea who J Bog and Keef are? Also while I brought Shimmer up, someone recently went and pipelinked every instance of someone's name occuring in the tournament brackets for the championship. I didn't know for sure so didn't revert it, but I assume this is overlinking and it's fine just to link them in the first round brackets and leave it at that? Tony2Times (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite Episode?
User:Jeangabin has been going around to various pro wrestler articles and citing moves using the cite episode template. Is this an acceptable source? And if it is, why do we never use it? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its used in Over the Edge (1999); it can be used in some cases, I think citing moves is not a valid one for cite episode because its a small thing that could easily be missed or mere speculated unlike storylines.-- T ru  c o   503 15:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And "siguature" is not established by using it in one match  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it's described as VINTAGE!? Tony2Times (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then shouldn't each move have multiple sources? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the source just states "El Jobber his used a Jobberrana" then you'd need more to actually show "signature" status and not just "He used it in at least one match" which would lead to 7 foot long move lists for some wrestlers (and a half inch one for Hulk Hogan ;) )  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 09:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's truly the case, it would seem that citing PWTorch, WrestleView, Slam, WWE.com, 411Mania or WON for move lists is utterly useless without multiple occurences. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of listing all these moves. Why don't we just convert the section to prose and only mention his most popular and occasional ones? This may improve that section a bit and rid ourselves of so many lists.-- Will C  20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because moves don't need prose, they are what they are. Making a prose form out of them removes the quick reference nature of the In Wrestling section and will just lead to a lot of waffle and repeated sentences. "He often uses German suplexes. As well as this he uses a figure four leg lock. He also uses a spear. As well as this he uses a fireman's carry slam." Other than if there's a reason behind the move, which should be explained in their bio at the relevent point of their career, I can't see a need for prose moves aside from pointless verbage. Not to mention we'd still have to decide whether one citation for a move, along with reliable editors keeping a watcheye, is sufficient to make it into the move list/paragraph. Tony2Times (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tony but you fail to see the good this can bring. Lets take A.J. Styles' In wrestling section. I'll make a rough draft of my idea without references. And we'll see what people think. I feel this could be more helpful than having a giant list of moves that is nothing more than cruft to begin with.-- Will C  21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense, Will, but I think that's one of the single worst ideas I've ever heard. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't think cite episode can be used in this case, as it doesn't make the info any more verifiable. Commentators don't always give the full technical move name when every move is performed (or they call it the wrong thing...Mike Adamle and Jim Ross I'm looking at you). The fact that the move is performed doesn't cite anything because it is WP:OR to make up a technical move name for it when one isn't given. Nikki ♥  311   20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then. Can't wait to start removing them and have the adders say "but what's better than citing the episode itself!?" My only other issue is with MPJ's comment. Anyone have anything to say about that? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I am sorry it's an issue - let's start adding the clothesline to 90% of the articles, or how about the left handed Plum Driver that Chris Jericho applied once in a match in 1992 in Japan, that's a signature move. Having a problem with there being some sort of standard for what constitutes a "signature move" is not making me lose sleep.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all what I meant. Clothesline is generic. Generally, when I'm citing an article for signature moves, I skip over any generic moves and DON'T insert them into the Wikipedia article. The standard isn't the problem. It's that it's almost always OR without a multitude of sources. This is what makes me wish there a site that lists moves like OWOW does out there - but one that actually checks facts. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of indie feds do for their rosters, unfortunately the bigger companies don't. In a few instances looking for profiles in indie feds that people have come from can provide a source. Tony2Times (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lita's photos
Look the Lita's article, somebody has put photos and I think that all of them have copyright. Can Somebody do anything?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone have an account at the commons do they can tag these as copyright? Several of them definitely appear to be. Nikki  ♥  311   19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I got one. I'll get on it.-- Will C  20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done.-- Will C  20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

One Centralized Discussion: World Heavyweight Championship
I think its time we settle this once in for all because I see on my watchlist many discussions going on about whether the ECW Championship is a World Heavyweight Championship or not. But the real question is, what makes a championship a "World Heavyweight Championship"? Then maybe we can determine if the ECW Championship is one or not. We had this discussion before but it went no where, and I see different consensus' throughout articles. I believe that it is up to the promotion to decide whether their top-tier titles are a "World Heavyweight Championship" or not, its not like other sports which have a governing body to tell them yes or no (or like the NWA classifying titles as "World Championships"). I also believe this will come up: making the WHC article a term in the list of terms article. <-I'm not so sure about this because the WHC is something that just can't be put into one sentence/paragraph IMO.-- T ru  c o   503 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's the promotion's opinion that matters. PWI is irrelevant, as is personal opinion on the matter. Going by that definition (which I thought were already) the ECW title is a world title, as is the ROH World Championship and numerous other titles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That too, what makes PWI the "governing authority" of pro-wrestling to say what is and what is not a World Heavyweight Championship? Its personal opinion, and that should be avoided.-- T ru  c o   503 16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is NO governing authority for pro wrestling at all. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I love PWI, but I agree that they are not the deciding factor in a title being a world title. The ECW Championship is considered a world title by its promotion, it's defended worldwide, and any other test for what makes a world title applies to it.  TJ   Spyke   16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all about the promotion's point of view. When you strip a championship down to bare basics, it's a piece of property. The best example of what makes a "world championship" I think can be found in boxing. There are all sorts of different governing bodies and organizations in boxing like the WBA, IBF, WBC, etc. and each of them have declared titles under their control to be "world" titles. No big meeting of boxing promoters got together to vote on who could do it and who couldn't. Those in control of each organization just up and declared all their straps to be "world titles". Nobody magazine can legally contradict them, no publication can say "No, you can't do that". I don't see why wrestling is any different. Each company is just a different governing body all its own.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- T ru  c o   503 17:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a lot of us agree. The problem I'm seeing here is IPs and new users disagreeing as they always do. There's already a debate going on at Talk:Jake Hager involving some that have no idea what consensus is. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well first and foremost we must understand exactly just the type of people we are dealing with here. The majority of these people bringing up World Status and citing PWI haven't even picked up a copy of the magazine recently. Most have never even actually picked up a copy at all! For the longest time "smart" wrestling fans have just been under the impression that PWI is this all powerful entity in the business when not even PWI have ever set themselves up to be that. They say they're just a magazine because that's simple what they are. I guess with the complexity of the business, smart fans have just always wanted a guide to it all. So PWI is what they found, something as simple as a magazine, but in the end PWI is just what it is, a simple magazine. Plain and simply, it’s just this old generation of smart fans. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A world Heavyweight Championship is determined by the promotion entirely. There is no such thing as a world heavyweight championship in this sport. No governing body, they are not defended world-wide and by world-wide I mean defended each week in a new country and has been defended in every country known to man. It is entirely just a term. A world heavyweight championship is used only for marketing. It makes the prize seem evermore special. A title never has to be defended outside of the country of origin to be a world title. As long as the promotion calls it a world title, it is a world title.-- Will C  17:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree on your last point. A title is not a world title if it has never even been defended outside of it's home country. At most it is a national title.  TJ   Spyke   17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is still just a term. You can't gain anything by it being defended outside the country besides more marketbility. World Championships do not exist. That are fake. A world championship is made by the promotion. They say "hey lets market this belt the best we can. Oh lets call it a world title. But Jim it has never been defended outside the country. To bad, we will just say it has. Well where Jim? Canada and Brazil in tournaments." That simple.-- Will C  17:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is never going to accomplish anything as long as people refuse to acknowledge that Wikipedia is designed to report facts, not original research. Any judgement call made here is an interpretation of facts and therefore inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. For far too long, people have ignored the fact that there is no need to make a judgement call. Take Jake Hager's article, for example. It currently reads: "In WWE, he is a one-time world heavyweight champion having won the ECW Championship in January 2009." It could quite easily be rewritten as "In WWE, he won the ECW Championship in January 2009." The rewritten version reports just the facts. As such, readers can interpret it as they wish, but the authors remain neutral. Wikipedia's place is not to write a definition of "world heavyweight champion", nor is it to determine which wrestling championships are more important than others. If someone wins a title, he or she wins a title. That's it. There is no need to launch a search for the higher meaning. Let's stick to the facts and put this issue to rest forever. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't read PWI but someone brought it before and if it can be confirmed then the following fact should deter IPs and non-members editing things based on PWI recognition: doesn't the PWI currently only recognise one of the three WWE World Championships as a world title? I'm sure they decided one had lost its credibility. If we can find proof of this, surely people will see that PWI shouldn't be used as a bearer because few would dispute WWE's (two at least) world titles.

Also in cases where someone has just one world title multiple times I think it's unnecessary to say it, however someone who has been world champion under multiple versions I think it is important to report it. Like The Rock is a seven time WWF Champion, whereas Hulk Hogan is a twelve time world champion having one six WWF Championships and six WCW World Championships. Tony2Times (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Tony2Times (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (Gary)-Yes that is a valid argument; however, the term "world heavyweight championship" is a term used by many promotions in the pro-wrestling industry, and when its used, editors tend to misuse the term because of conflicting sources (e.g. PWI and the promotion). This is just to put to rest that PWI does not make the call about World Heavyweight Championships, and that the promotions can decide that. WHC is just a term to describe the top-tier championship of a company mainly, and it should be treated as such. 1)Because there are no weight divisions in most promotions; those that have weight divisions are the exception; does not mean they are not world titles 2)Because not every championship that is called "World" has been defended outside the US, does not mean it cant be called a WHC. 3)Simply put: Its up to the promotion, and it is just a term nothing more.-- T ru  c o   503 18:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Gary brings up a very good point. But assuming the promotion's website can be cited as calling the title a "world title" then it wouldn't be OR, so I'd think that would be alright. In WWE's case, there are numerous articles that do just that. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of merging World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) into the terms article, maybe it would be best to make it the project's collaboration. It then could be reformatted entirely. Instead of being mainly about the status, it could be about the history. When the first world title came around, introduction of other ones. Currently it is just entirely about a status which there is no proof that even exists outside of being a term.-- Will C  05:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like the idea. We have the sources. It can be done. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Continued
So is it safe to say that nobody in the professional wrestling industry, but the promotions themselves, have the right to determine what titles are "World Heavyweight Championship" classified? But then wouldn't almost every top-tier title be a "World Heavyweight Championship"?-- T ru  c o   503 17:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems many companies do hold reverence to the status of World Title even though it's at their whim. ROH for example didn't give their title world status until it was defended in England, similarly FWA have now named their title world after it was won abroad. Many promotions in the UK call their top-tier title either a promotion title (such as the LDN Championship) or give it a national name like the British Heavyweight Championship. Tony2Times (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that can be denoted in the main WHC article, right?-- T ru  c o   503 17:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What Tony said is 100% true and yes it can be done Truco. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying mention every world championship. Just the main ones. Here is my idea, to completely and I mean completely restart that article. From "The World Heavyweight Championship is the name given to certain championships in professional wrestling." to "The World Heavyweight Championship is a professional wrestling championship. Throughout the history of professional wrestling, several championships have been known as the world heavyweight championship." Instead of being a term, it talks about the actual first world heavyweight championship and the aftermath caused by its creation. A section could be about the big titles like the NWA, AWA, WCW, IWGP, WHC (WWE), WWE/F, TNA, ROH, etc. Just the ones known world-wide. No lists, just prose. Simple easy format. With this format, we could get it to GA potentially and also restart our collaboration which I think could work.-- Will C  19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why only mention the main ones? What doesn't make the OVW Heavyweight Championship a WHC? Well the thing is there never was one "World Heavyweight Championship" so starting it off as "The World Heavyweight Championship is a professional wrestling championship" is a bit incorrect, its more of a name than an actual belt. Yes there were traces of the first WHC's in the very beginning of pro wrestling but thats what they were called. You can't say that all WHC's evolved from the first WHC's.-- T ru  c o   503 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are the most notable and there are more sources for them than the others. It would possibly make for a better article.-- Will C  23:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason not to make the OVW Heavyweight Championship a World Heavyweight Championship is the reason I just stated up there. It's not called the OVW World Heavyweight Championship, it is merely a promotion championship like the LDN Championship or the Shimmer Championship. There was at one point one World Heavyweight Championship though I see your point about starting an article like that so perhaps "was a professional wrestling championship and is now..." might be better. Tony2Times (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that would work much better, but in that case so the ECW Championship is not a WHC, right?-- T ru  c o   503 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The name is irrelevant. To my knowledge, OVW has never promoted the OVW Heavyweight Championship as a world title (if they have, enlighten me). WWE DOES promote the ECW title as a WHC, thus it's a completely different situation. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never considered it to be since they stopped referring to it as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship but WWE being the annoying sticklers for convenience they are seemed to call it a world title when they wanted to make it look as if The Hardys both won world titles. I can't remember them calling it a world title any other time since Lashley or about that era. Tony2Times (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really Tony? You haven't seen the definitive response replies on all those ECW/World title discussions? Anyway, elaborate please Truco. What exactly is the case of the ECW Championship?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw them, this is just my feelings on the matter and what I consider it in Tony's World of Wrestling. I think if you don't call it a World Championship it's not, simples. But that's just me, not Wiki policy. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So because WWE calls it a World Championship then it is. So the ECW Championship is a world title. What does that do for your opinion?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from that time in the P25 for Matt Hardy, have they consistently referred to it as a World Championship? They can't be bothered to announce it as such, that's all I know. Tony2Times (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? And you havent seen his bio page on WWE.com? Backlash results article? Royal Rumble preview article? Post NOC Mark Henry interview? all of which can be found on WWE.com TOO btw...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't make a habit of reading wwe.com articles because I watch the programmes. I find their recaps and results annoyingly propaganda like. Tony2Times (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Propaganda like? Tony you just said that you think if "[they] don't call it a World Championship it's not" when im just trying to show you that they do. Anyway as for the main World title article, we have the sources and the thing is about to get revamp.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why I said it was my own feeling and not what Wiki policy should follow. Tony2Times (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok but wouldn't that very sentiment of what you personally consider to be a world title contradict with your personal stance on the ECW Championship? This has nothing to do with the main discussion so we'll just get back to it, but before we do I just want to see if you're making any sense with yourself. You said that if "[they] don't call it a World Championship it's not"... So if they call the ECW Championship a world title why would you not consider it a world title yourself. Based on what you just said, wouldn't that be contradicting your entire argument?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is subject to policy and consensus and so it needs a hard and fast rule. My own opinion can't be vandalised by misinformed IPs and such so my own interpretation of a world title is different and has no hard and fast rules. As well as believing a world title should be defended internationally, which Wiki can't enforce because it's OR, I also believe a world title needs a high level of credability which I don't think the ECW Championship necessarily has seeing as a) Mark Henry won it marking his first championship in 9 years since he was handed the Euro belt by Double J and b) Jack Swagger won it in his debut year without winning any other second or third tier or tag team belt. That's my opinion, but Wikipedia isn't about my opinion; it's about verifiability, consensus and consistency. Tony2Times (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats not what I meant at all. I said that what I personally asked you had nothing to do with the main discussion of this section. I told you that I was just asking about your personal stance. You and I aren't discussing policy, this is just you and me right now. You said that if "[they] don't call it a World Championship it's not"... but you also don't consider the ECW Championship to be a world title, and thats you're opinion and your stance on the ECW title and I respect that. Now with that being said, allow me to restate my question. You said that if "[they] don't call it a World Championship it's not"... But WWE does call the ECW Championship a world title, SO if they call the ECW Championship a world title why would you not consider it a world title yourself. Based on what you said, wouldn't that be contradicting your own stance?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh right, for that specific quote I meant if they can't be bothered to bill it as the ECW World Championship (as in specifically say it in the title of the belt) then it's not a world title. That's not my only reason for the ECW one but that's just the most simple and obvious, if it really is a world championship then announce it as such. The WWE Championship is a little different because World is part of the WWE acronym. Tony2Times (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's just a stupid argument. "because World is part of the WWE acronym" is no excuse but thats your opinion and I respect that. That's fine. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm really starting to like Gary's idea of removing references to # of world title reigns altogether, to be honest. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like the phrasing that the pro wrestling Wikia has for the World Heavyweight Championship; its something like we are proposing (minus the PWI recognition). Mainly the part that is mainly a moniker.-- T ru  c o   503 02:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the same thing thats on the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling) article. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, don't I feel like a *tard*. Well the wording is fine then, what mainly needs to be changed is the PWI recognition, and just rewording what's there already to more elaborate prose. -- T ru  c o   503 02:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But there's no mention of PWI anywhere on the article. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, I haven't read that article in a while then. But after looking at it (finally)..I feel the list is a bit biased in terms of "prominent championships" is concerned.-- T ru  c o   503 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a decision or not?-- Will C  19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes now go do your thing ;) -- Unquestionable Truth -- 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it my job to expand the article?-- Will C  20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you proposed it =P Anyways, I think its safe to say that the WHC article needs rewording in regards with what was said above.-- T ru  c o   503 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- Will C  15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing
Just a quick reminder about our cleanup backlog located at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing. Since the last update our percentage of articles tagged for cleanup has risen (compared to the steady decline before that). If you need something to do...pick an article, take care of all the cleanup banners and citation needed tags, and then remove it from the list. There are some things listed on their that have been tagged since 2006. All help is welcome. :) Nikki  ♥  311   21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually been working on the Lucha related articles for a couple of days now, hopefully I can eliminate all the tags on the Lucha articles.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 22:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been expanding a few indy titles recently, so I'll try to focus on ones which have more clean up banners than others.-- Will C  05:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I cleaned out two subsections to help out.-- Will C  19:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll start working on the sourcing sections to help out. Afro Gold  - Afkatk 02:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bino Gambino
I removed the plagiarized content from this article. Since this left only two sentences and I have not been able to find reliable third-party sources, I have proposed deletion for the article. If anyone is able to find information to fill out the article and establish notability, please feel free to remove the prod tag and work on the article at your convenience. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2010
Apparently THQ is running countdown to the revelation of features for the game in about 16 hours (of writing this section), so expect IPs messing around with the page; we need to attempt to keep it as accurate with the news that are officially released.-- T ru  c o   503 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help, as you can probabily tell already. This weekend will also be pretty much a haven for IP edits as well. As well as SummerSlam, there will be a press conference for the media on Saturday and both IGN and GamingRing have mentioned that they will be giving some coverage. --  Θaks  ter   09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright stop, it's huggle time! Jordan Payne    T  /C  20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced moves, etc. for two articles
Although I reverted them recently, the articles of Chris Hero and Claudio Castagnoli are having unsourced moves and move names being repeatedly added to their "In wrestling" sections despite one of the rules being not to add unsourced info as well as to not add questionable sources for whatever. In addition to moves and move names, Claudio's article also has an unsourced foreign object, a few unsourced nicknames (I found a source for one, though) and unsourced entrance themes. PCE (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay I gotta say this - it's only contentious material that HAS to be sourced, WP:PW have this twisted insecure take on WP:V that every single word has to have a source before it's added.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 05:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, the unsourced moves, move names, nicknames, entrance themes and foreign objects should be taken out then. PCE (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Chris Hero does have multiple variations of the Hangman's Clutch, yes he does have the Hangman's Clutch Facebuster, yes he does use and Electric Chair Driver and in IWA: Mid-South and possible CZW its called the Rubik's Cube, yes he does do a backward roll into a corkscrew senton, yes to the Cravate Buster, Cravate Cutter and Cravate-O-Clasm (and those are the real names), and yes he did refer to himself as the Mack Daddy of the Cravate while in CZW. Hero Sandwich i've never heard of, but theres a good possibility it was called that in IWA: Mid South. Yes Claudio Castagnoli uses the European Uppercut as a finisher, both regular and throwing them up into the air then executing them, which is called a Pop-Up Eurpean Uppercut not Swiss Death or Very European Uppercut. Yes he used the cravate regularly while teaming with Chris Hero. Yes he does do a european uppercut to the back of the head of a seated opponent, and that is called the Swiss Uppercut. Yes to the UBS Neckbreaker. Yes for much of 2006 he did carry a Halliburton to the ring and use it as a weapon in ROH, CZW and PWG. Yes the "Most Money Making Man" (Swiss Money Holding), "Stalwart Swiss Powerhouse" (CHIKARA) and "Very European" (ROH) are all nicknames used by Claudio Castagnoli. Yes Claudio uses the instrumental version of "I've Got to Have It" by Jermaine Dupri (still uses it in CHIKARA, PWG, internationally, etc), used "We are the Champions" by Queen (when he teamed with Chris Hero), and yes he uses the 1812 Overture (his current music in ROH now that they've stopped using licensed music which includes I've Got to Have It). Guys like Chris Hero and Claudio Castagnoli have competed regularly for numerous opponents over the years, and just because a move is called one thing in one promotion in 2009 doesn’t mean it was called the same thing in another promotion in 2004 (i.e. Claudio’s “Ricola Bomb” was called the “Pyramid Bomb” up until 2005) 138.163.106.71 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TL;DR, but if you can find sources for your claims, then add them. PCE (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PCE are you saying that stating a signature move is "controversial"?? it's borderline trivial and definitly not something that really falls under "So contentious it should be removed on sight", please tell me you know what "contentious" and "controversial" means so that you can actually HELP articles and not hurt them.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 07:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust acceptable sources more than random wikipedia users who spout things they think is the truth. PCE (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "You trust" is not a wikipedia guideline,but lack of a reliable source for a move is not the same as it HAS to be removed from the article.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 09:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Giving names to moves or entrance themes apparently is controversial...evidenced by the never ending addition, removal, and changing of said items in the articles. Even when they have sources, people think they know better than the "experts" and change them anyway. Nikki ♥  311   03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true, but I for one don't think moves (not move names, just moves) are at all controversial. If sources can be found, that's great. But even if there's no written source to be found for a move that a wrestler uses EVERY match, I don't think it should necessarily be removed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FCW Championships
I just noticed this; all the championships from FCW and their history were crammed into the Florida Championship Wrestling article. This for one does not look good, and second, I don't see how they are not notable enough for their own articles. Yes the company is fairly knew, but they are approaching their second year in the business, and serving as the farm territory for one of the largest promotions [WWE] in the industry, the notability is there. In addition, this FCW is a reincarnation of the original Championship Wrestling from Florida, which has no notability hands down. Even if people disagree can we at least get a List of FCW Championships or something? -- T ru  c o   503 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no reliable sources for the titles. I've looked, and found only Wrestling titles, Solie, and OWOW, plus they are hardly up to date. That is why they were merged in.-- Will C  21:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense: if there are no reliable sources, then why keep 'em regardless? If its needed than weekly results is what will be needed to cover it. But merging all of them into the FCW article was not the way to go, its all crammed up.-- T ru  c o   503 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The crammed up problem can be fixed. The promotion is notable so the titles are notable, but not enough for their own articles. We have three refs to include the known information regarding the titles, but no third party reliable sources to establish notability enough for them to be forked off of the main article.-- Will C  22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Site's reliability
How reliable is or what makes sescoops.com reliable? I see it used here and there.-- Will C  01:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a News Site and is no different from a site such as LordsofPain.net. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Linda McMahon article
By chance, does anyone know where I can find more information on the Smackdown your Vote! campaign?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 22:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhere on the WWE.com or WWE Corporate's website I'd imagine. Tony2Times (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2009
Is it just me, or are there a ridiculous amount of pictures on this page? This one user (and what I suspect is his IP) keep adding them in. The article looks like a picture gallery more than a article. I have tried removing them, talking to the use, placing the tag on the article, but the user just reverts the edits and puts the pictures back in and not discussing it. Anybody want to weigh in on the situation? I don't see the need for every match to have a picture in the article, especially when it squishes everything in the article together and IMO make the article look fugly.  TJ   Spyke   01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went past that article like an hour ago and the exact same thought entered my mind. I say removed them all. Darrenhusted (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Qiz (wrestler)
Couldn't find anything on this guy. He seems to have appeared in what mostly amounts to backyard feds (or one step up). Can anyone find anything or should he be AfD'd? Nikki  ♥  311   21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say nominate it. He seems to only be a backyard wrestler (which is automatically deletion worthy as backyard wrestling feds have been agreed as not notable through dozens of AFD's).  TJ   Spyke   21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hard to judge what the UWA is. They hold some shows indoors, but a good percentage of the shows appear to be held in backyards. Their videos show that the "promotion" is full of "wrestlers" who appear to have no real training, as it seems to be little more than botched spot after botched spot with stolen copyrighted music dubbed over the "matches". GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a "lot" of "scare quotes" GCF. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I dunno about you but I'm scared. That's quite a large entry for a vanity posting. Tony2Times (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't have any tolerance for guys who put up a makeshift ring, dive off their roof, and call themselves wrestlers. I feel like it plays into their hands to refer to them with any legitimate wrestling terms. A professional wrestler is a person who has received training and been approved for competition by a competent trainer. Until that point, I believe that "scare quotes" are necessary to make the distinction clear. I "hope" that clears things "up". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say delete it.-- Will C  08:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BLADE Wrestling is backyard wrestling, if that helps. --Numyht (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Last comment was dumb, didn't read all of it. --Numyht (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TNA Bound For Glory
WrestlingLover seems to feel it neccessary to provide an indepth definition of what proffessional wrestling is. I think this is a gross undermining of the Professional Wrestling page and a waste of space on the Bound For Glory page. This explanation is not found on other TNA pay per view pages, and I don't understand its need in this particular article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.177.182 (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see any kind of definition of what professional wrestling is on any Bound For Glory article after very quickly skimming them. Can you be specific as to which one? Tony2Times (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP removed it: . I am not a fan of putting it on every PPV article, but I don't care that much either way anymore.  TJ   Spyke   02:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's particularly in depth, it's quite brief really and it doesn't undermine the pro wrestling page in any way; it may reinforce what that page says but it doesn't undermine it. It's one paragraph which is easy enough to ignore when reading any article. Tony2Times (talk) 02:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone for excluding that note on event specific articles altogether? Ok we get it Will, "wrestling's fake" jeez... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This helps explain the event and pro wrestling. Non-fans will think that the events were held with actual matches with undecided winners. No telling how many times I've had people tell me the explainations are useful. This explanation is also used on a few WWE events. I don't see a reason it is not needed.-- Will C  05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this explanation, it's not really in-depth I think it just explains better what the show taking place is about and I feel that if I showed someone I know who doesn't know really understand wrestling much this would give a good explanation as to what I watch, and I really don't see how this undermines the in-depth explanation given on the Pro Wrestling page, if anything it's at the least a shorter explanation of what's given on there, and so the IP knows its obviously a new explanation and probably will be added throughout the other Wrestling articles and an easier out of universe look at the sport will help. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 05:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok well, if the explanation is on the TNA Bound For Glory page, it needs to be on every Pay Per View, Television, Wrestler, Promotion page on wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense to include it only on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.177.182 (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said it is a new explanation and will pretty much be making the rounds. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 09:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And it it also far from on that page, look at any expanded PPV article, major wrestling championship and the like. TNA might have less because fewer people tend to their articles but it's out there and becoming more frequent so get used to doing what I do: ignoring the paragraph because I'm aware that wrestling's a work. It's very easy to do and makes no different to us who know but really benefits those who don't. Tony2Times (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary, because even this hypothetical mass of uneducated non-fans knows that professional wrestling is fake. If it is to be included, though, I really feel that it to be tweaked to fit the individual article so that it doesn't break up the flow of the prose. Copying and pasting a disclaimer just doesn't work. Something to the effect of: "Bound for Glory pay-per-views, like other professional wrestling shows, feature matches that are prearranged by the promotion's writing staff. These matches are non-competitive performances that combine elements of catch wrestling, mock combat, and theatre. Leading up to the pay-per-view, wrestlers are portrayed as either heels (villains) or faces (heroes) in the scripted events that build tension and culminate in a wrestling match at the event." GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that. I'll tweak it and trade the paragraphs.-- Will C  16:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is a more satisfactory submission. I still cling to the belief that it isn't at all needed, but settle for a personalised "tweak" for the individual articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.177.182 (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Change is done.-- Will C  17:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the removal of the words "heel" and "face"? Not including them makes the article less accessible to wrestling fans. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes it a bit cluttered. I tend to try to make it straightforward, rather then stops in the middle of it.-- Will C  18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you don't. Not only do you use parentheses frequently, but you often use them immediately after each other. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, when? I don't see how this has anything to do with the article.-- Will C  04:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Matches section in PPV articles
I always wondered why the explanation of (c) was removed from the tables; I also realized that the # column needed some type of explanation considering how there was always the argument that it was the order in which the matches are going to take place, yet its the order in which they are announced. So I was thinking why not make a little edit like below...


 * Matches
 * - the order in which the matches were announced; (c) - the defending champion in a championship match; D-Generation X (Triple H and Shawn Michaels) - Team name (Team member A and Team member B)

Now I know I will hear "whats the point of it, common sense and we all know what that means" - well not everybody is a WP:PW member or used to our style, so some type of key is needed. I think the tag team explanation is also needed for the same reasons, it may confuse a reader into thinking something else (I know it sounds redundant, but it would help a reader).-- T ru  c o   503 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the explanations would be better as footnotes instead of in a row span cloumn.-- Will C  17:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in my example above, its not in a rowspan, its in a key format.-- T ru  c o   503 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think teams need an explanation, that much is obvious but yeah order of matches, especially before an event, and (c) is I suppose not instantly obvious. Tony2Times (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see how teams is obvious, but it was just an example. It will still work without teams, but the others are need IMO.-- T ru  c o   503 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only one I could possibly see being needed is the (c) one (although I think even non-wrestling fans are smart enough to realize that it stands for "champion" when they see that the match is for a title). The team one is not needed, the "#" is obvious enough as well.  TJ   Spyke   18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The # is needed before the event takes place, after it can just be reworded instead of removed. The teams won't be needed probably.-- T ru  c o   503 18:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 2000 Hardcore Battle Royal
There is a debate going on in the FLC for List of WWE Hardcore Champions regarding whether or not the title changed hands multiple times during this match. The differing viewpoints are: (1) This is essentially a Championship Scramble, so only the person holding the belt at the end should be considered a champion, and (2) Title changes were announced throughout the match, so it changed hands multiple times, creating a new reign each time. I would appreciate it if we could get some members of the project to take a look at both sides of the discussion in the FLC and give some input here (WT:PW). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the event itself (DVD) the rules were that the title could change hands any number of times BUT only the holder of the title after the 15 minute time limit expired would leave as the Hardcore Champion. So yes it was essentially a Championship Scramble match. As noted by the title's reign history on WWE.com the multiple reigns within the 15 minute time limit were unofficial with the exception of the last.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then here it says the title changed hands 11 times. So we do have a big problem.-- Will C  06:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I call that misinterpreting information as the results page of the Unforgiven ECW match, the results page of the Unforgiven WWE match, the results page of the Unforgiven World Heavyweight match, and the results page of The Bash ECW match also note that the title changed hands multiple times but state who the champion was at the end of the match, as does the results page from WrestleMania 2000 you provided. It reads "At the end of the match, Hardcore Holly was the champion" but it doesn't state anything as to whether the interim reigns were "interim" or not so it cannot be assumed that those reigns were official. However, it is because the reign history page of the title only lists Hardcore's reign at WrestleMania 2000 that it can only be concluded that the interim reigns were indeed "interim" and not official. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what those links have to do with WrestleMania 2000, as they describe different matches with different rules. I agree, of course, that only the holder of the title after the time limit expires leaves as the champion, but that doesn't negate the fact that there were several other champions during the match (who would leave as former champions). I believe that, because people scoring pinfalls were announced as "the new Hardcore Champion" (I watched the match today to make sure), adding "unofficial" or "interim" constitutes original research. However, I'm not looking to argue back and forth. What about adding the champions to the list but, in the Notes section for each, state that they were announced as the new champion but that their reigns are not included in WWE's official title history (eg. "Pinned Crash Holly to be announced as new champion but not included in WWE's official title history")? That way, Wikipedia avoids making a decision regarding the true history of WWE by reporting only the facts rather than trying to come to a consensus on an interpretation. Ultimately, WWE owns the title and its history, but I think full and neutral disclosure of the facts is the best way to go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They announce the new champions during Scramble matches the same way and only the last champion is recognized, so just because they were announced as champions during the Hardcore Championship match doesn't mean that they were recognized as shown by the Reign History page on WWE.com -- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Hardcore Battle Royal predates the Championship Scramble by 8 years, so saying that they have the same rules is original research at best. I really think that Wikipedia editors need to remain neutral, so the reigns need to be included with a note that they are not listed in the official title history. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a matter of neutrality. What you are suggesting isn't even neutral. This is a matter of verifiability. If they are not included in the official title history then they simply werent recognized. What I'm trying to say is that what you are suggesting isn't verifiable because you are trying to argue that while the company does not list the reigns in the title's history and therefore does not recognize them, they still were champions. Well clearly if they are not listed then they were not, and thats straight from the company. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really, TNA no longer recognizes Angle as a the first TNA Champion after Sacrifice 07 though he was in their history and did at the time, but not now. So maybe we should remove the reign though we have sources he was recognized at the time. If a source is presented the title reigns were recognized at the time, then we can add them even though they aren't recognized now.-- Will C  07:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly! because that would indicate that the reign history was retconned, which is the only reason those types of reigns like with the TNA title situation are recorded here, which is why I again restate my point. This is a matter of verifiability. Unless an archived page of the title's history can be pulled up containing the reigns in question, the reigns should not be listed here as everything else indicates that they were not recognized. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion on the fact the Hardcore Title was under the 24/7 Rules during the match, the Title did officially change hands. Afro Gold  - Afkatk 09:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The 24/7 rules were suspended for the match, and only the last pinfall counted, as was stated at the event. I don't even know how this is up for debate, the Fink stated it clearly, the pinfalls were counted but the final pinfall was the only one which counted, and they botched that by counting too close to the end. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, though I never noticed, the reign list always recognised only one champion even as far back as 2005, way before the Championship Scramble match was invented so it's not as if they've retconned it, we just always assumed wrong. Seemingly this is just the same case as a Scramble and if Darren is right - I can't ever remember hearing Fink state that but I try to forget WM2000 at the best of times - then they should all be removed without mention other than that Hardcore Holly won it in a Battle Royal with Scramble rules. Tony2Times (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was watching WrestleMania 2000 (the non-edited WWE version) [I rather not post the video here but its on YouTube]. Anywayz, before the match began they aired a video where Tim White stated the rules and he stated that the 24/7 rule had been suspended and that there could be as many belt changes during the match as there could be, but only one would be champion at the end of the 15 minutes. So the same principals apply as the Scramble match. -- T ru  c o   503 12:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * White also botched the ending, counting a two count as a three count after Bob broke a jar over Crash's head (I am going from memory). Darrenhusted (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it matter if White botched the spot? Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 13:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just cracked out the original DVD and White is very ambiguous on the matter perhaps because he can't orate that well. "Rule number one there will be a 15 minute time limit which will be strictly adhered to. Rule number two within those 15 minutes there could be as many belt changes as there might be within that time frame, it could be one, it could be two, it could be ten times in...or maybe not at all Crash. Okay, so when the time runs out so do your chances to be Hardcore Champion. Have a good match, we'll see you out there." That's the briefing on Heat and played during the PPV. Tony2Times (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And the botching of the count should probably be mentioned in the notes because they do address it on screen it's not just ignored. I'm watching WWF 2000 at the time but I'm in February, if they address it the next night on Raw I'll be able to tell you soon. White counts three but the third count isn't a definite slap down - if anyone botched it it was Crash not getting his shoulder up. Either way Crash is down for a three count, White's third count isn't as definitive as a normal count, JR commentates fictitiously that Crash had his shoulder up but White and Fink both award the belt to Hardcore. On a side note Slam Sports also disparagingly interpreted the rule to be like a Championship Scramble although sort of go on to negate their own comment: "he match will go on for fifteen minutes and although anyone can be pinned for the title, it doesn't matter because whoever is still holding the belt at the end of time limit hangs is the official winner. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. A sloppy, uncoordinated riot. The Hardcore belt changes hands a bazillion times making it as valuable as pocket lint and creating headaches for those who maintain official championship lists." Tony2Times (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see pretty much everything I wrote here was said on the original discussion anyways, doi to me. Tony2Times (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh funnily enough Bob Holly just mentioned what was scripted in a recent interview. Tony2Times (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the match again, and Howard Finkel did not say anything about the rules. The fact remains that the belt changed hands 11 times, whether they are official reigns or not.. WWE.com supports this, as does the video of the event. I'm not asking to have the changes recognized as official, but I believe they should be included in the table. The "Reign number" column would not reflect an additional reign, and the note would state exactly what happened (as I said before, "Pinned Crash Holly to be announced as new champion but not included in WWE's official title history"). As for verifiability, this is the only 100% verifiable method. It can be sourced by the DVD of the event itself. This project needs to move away from trying to present an interpretation of the facts (always speculation and original research) and simply present the facts as they stand. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mis-spoke over the Fink thing, and I have never seen the match since 2000 so I was operating from memory. The WWF are clearly as helpful as usual. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if the facts are that it was always intended that only the final winner would be champion then the fact is that only Hardcore Holly won the belt officially or unofficially. MVP did not become even an unofficial WWE Champion at Unforgiven(?) last year. I'm not saying it's as definite for WM2000 because it's a bit ambiguous but the more I see, the more it seems it was a proto-Championship Scramble. Tony2Times (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If nobody else won the belt even unofficially, they would not have been announced as "the new Hardcore Champion". Because it is so ambiguous (Jim Ross even makes reference during the match to Tazz as "the reigning champion", but then complicates the matter by stating, "and I use the term loosely"), reporting the facts verbatim is the only 100% neutral and verifiable way to go. Perhaps an it would also be worth mentioning the match in the prose: "During a Hardcore Battle Royal at WrestleMania 2000, thirteen wrestlers competed in a match with a fifteen minute time limit. The rules stated that the belt could change hands multiple times and that the person scoring the final pinfall would leave as champion. Wrestlers scoring pinfalls during the match were announced as "the new Hardcore Champion" but are not recorded in WWE's official title history." Then their inclusion in the table ("Reign number" column blank, and "Notes" column just stating: "Pinned Crash Holly; not included in official title history". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had always remembered it as there was only one official change of championship. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They also referred to the temporary winners of the Scramble match as reigning champions but made it clear they were never champion; JR saying that he uses the term loosely is once again in keeping with Scramble rules. If the intention from the outset was that only the last pinfall dictates a champion then only Bob needs to be noted. If all of them were recognised as champion but they later revised this fact then I'd agree with listing all the unofficial wins. Tony2Times (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that they never made it clear that the winners in the Hardcore Battle Royal weren't champions. There's no was to get around the fact that saying that they did constitutes original research (and that includes drawing comparisons to unrelated matches that took place 8 years later). The facts are perfectly clear. Your interpretation of them might be correct. Then again, it might not. Wikipedia isn't a place for interpretations of facts, however. It's a place to record facts. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That JR was using the term champion "loosely" to describe Taz intimates that he wasn't an actual champion. I realise it's anachronistic to compare it to the Scramble which is 8 years later but to put it another way, when the Scramble was first announced I read lots of forums comparing it to this match; I'm just using it as short hand to mean "a match with a mandatory time limit where the last victor is champion". Tony2Times (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "intimate (verb): to indicate or make known indirectly; hint; imply; suggest", in other words, speculation, original research, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. I've offered a compromise solution that satisfies neutrality and verifiability policies. What compromise are you willing to offer? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what it means and that's why I chose it because he doesn't directly state that he's not champion but he also doesn't say that he is champion. What other meaning could be interpreted from him being a loose champion? And yes I realise you're offering a compromise and I don't mean to come across as being argumentative but what I'm offering is what I believe to be the facts. That being said I just did some more idle digging after rewatching the match and it seems we can cry shenanigans. As written on WWF.com (Download This!) after the event: "How 'bout that Hardcore title match? Officially, the title changed hands 10 times!" so I guess considering that was what it was then and now it's without them means we list them all as unofficial/unrecognised with crosses and dashes? Tony2Times (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a reliable third party source to justify the reigns inclusion? That would be better than a self-published source which we are to avoid if possible.-- Will C  00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Third-party sources don't control the history of the title. Only WWE can state what it officially recognizes as the title lineage. If there is a discrepancy between WWE and a "reliable third-party" source, WWE wins every time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why the reigns in question cannot be listed. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And especially given the confusing nature of this history, is any third party source anymore reliable than our debating here on what went down? Tony2Times (talk)
 * Yes WWE states what they recognize but a third party source can also say what WWE recognizes by passing it along.-- Will C  01:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But a third party cannot trump the WWE, if the WWE says they don't recognize it that's how it is. MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 01:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you all don't see what I'm saying, it is better to use a third party source than always using a primary.-- Will C  02:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow that's a turnaround from you considering what you've said on FLs. And yes it is better, but not if the source says something is "official" when the WWE says something else. Please don't start the whole "Official" vs. "actually happened" debate again or I shall need a refill on my medication.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 05:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you need a ride give me a call, I'm bored anyway. On the way back we can stop by the liquor store as well so we'll be prepared. I contradict myself alot, I'm a confusing person.-- Will C  05:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The "official" history is very sketchy. Take for example, the "final" 24/7 battle royal in August 2002, which is exactly the same match type as it was at WrestleMania I might ad. They have each reign seperate, but mix up the order of each new reign. But each reign is there. So two different occurances of the same match, in which one of the reigns' was recorded seperatly, and one where it wasn't. I would hope you're not going to follow that source to a T when it's clearly inaccurate somewhere. BTW, I want to point out that this wasn't a scramble match. The champion had to be pinned each and every time. And finally, there's a WWE Title History magazine out there from the last couple years that needs to be addressed as well. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That website link to the time shows that the reigns were once recognised, the current lineage shows they currently aren't considered official so it should simply be shown that they happened but no longer count. I know Will and perhaps others disagree with whether we should show revisionism or not but I think that should be a separate discussion if it needs to be had. Also I assume the wrong order for people's reigns on that last battle royal is due to the website using some form of sorting method which doesn't pan out when all the dates are the same. I'm sure I've a similar thing in other belts when they change hands mutiply on the same day. Tony2Times (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it matters to any of you or not, but I have the WWE Encyclopedia right here in front of me and the Hardcore Championship title history shows each title change during the battle royal and counts it as an actual reign. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With that being the most recent publishing, I guess that would be the official history by WWE. Can you fill out a Template:Cite book present it here or on my talk page so that I may add the reigns to the article?-- Will C  01:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, the book lists the following changes for April 2, 2000:

Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Okay, thank you very much. I will add them tomorrow morning as soon as I get up.-- Will C  04:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tazz def. Crash Holly
 * Viscera def. Tazz
 * Funaki def. Viscera
 * Rodney def. Funaki
 * Joey Abs def. Rodney
 * Thrasher def. Joey Abs
 * Pete Gas def. Thrasher
 * Tazz def. Pete Gas
 * Crash Holly def. Tazz
 * Hardcore Holly def. Crash Holly
 * There is still the concern about these reigns not being on the official title history as published by WWE on the company website.I believe the "belt changes" need to be included, but they will require a note explaining the situation objectively but asserting that they are not included on the official list of champions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering there's a full page profile on he who shall not be named does this count as a third party source, as we all know while WWE don't entirely disown him they certainly don't highlight him in such a way. Tony2Times (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first page in the book is a letter written by Vince McMahon. The first line says, "I am proud to share with you our first-ever encyclopedia detailing the complete history of World Wrestling Entertainment."  It has his signature at the bottom.  I'd say this should be considered an official WWE source as it has been endorsed by Vince McMahon himself and was advertised on their programming.  Also, Benoit's article is only a half page. :) Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I shoulda stated that I didn't have the book myself and had read these reports on reviews. Tony2Times (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't wanna stir up the argument again but I thought enquiring minds might like to know that Crash Holly announced the match on SmackDown (30/03/00) saying "at WrestleMania we're gonna have a hardcore battle royal, 15 minute time limit. Whoever gets the last pinfall before the time expires is the new Hardcore Champion now please I just gotta rest." Tony2Times (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now what is the final decision here: Add or not add?-- Will C  00:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well check this out. This seems to be the chronological order of the events brought into the discussion.


 * 1) Crash Holly specifically said on the March 30, 2000 edition of SmackDown! -- "at WrestleMania we're gonna have a hardcore battle royal, 15 minute time limit. Whoever gets the last pinfall before the time expires is the new Hardcore Champion" --


 * 2) At WrestleMania 2000 prior to the battle royal, Tim White went over the rules and said the following -- "Rule number one there will be a 15 minute time limit which will be strictly adhered to. Rule number two within those 15 minutes there could be as many belt changes as there might be within that time frame… …so when the time runs out so do your chances to be Hardcore Champion." --


 * 3) As the first participant was making his entrance, Jim Ross said the following – “The match will last 15 minutes come hell or high water. The title can change hands any number of times and whomever is the champion at the end of the 15 minutes leaves with the gold.”


 * 4) Following the results of the match, the promotion recorded Hardcore Holly’s victory as the only reign listed from April 2, 2000. The earliest list pulled from web.archive.org supports this as does the current list on WWE.com


 * 5) Now the WWE Encyclopedia apparently lists the reigns that were not previsouly listed from the hardcore battle royal at WrestleMania 2000. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. Should I add them or not?-- Will C  18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think add them, but add them as unofficial reigns because sources vastly disagree even at the time so it's simply a case of it being unclear. Though WWE Encyclopedia is the most recent publication I'd still argue that the website is the most up to date source if they wanted to change things. Tony2Times (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think adding them as unofficial reigns is the best compromise here since we have conflicting sources. Nikki  ♥  311   20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get to adding them.-- Will C  20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added.-- Will C  05:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They were to be added as unofficial though. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They have been.-- Will C  21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, how does the list indicate that?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has a note in the "Notes" section of each of the reigns in question. However, in the "Reign" category, the unofficial reigns should not be counted. They should also not be included in the "List of combined reigns" table. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well they are unofficial yet also official. The reign column counts all the reigns which have occurred not just the offical reigns, it doesn't say "Official reigns". The same goes for List of combined reigns. I somewhat feel the note does just fine for this situation.-- Will C  04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel the way it was done before was better. This way requires the reader to click up and down at each note (which will be more cumbersome in other champions list with multiple notes). It also becomes confusing in reference to wrestlers who've had multiple official/unofficial reigns and working out how many times they've been champion according to the record books. Tony2Times (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We can easily leave a note in the notes section saying the reign is unofficial. We have two histories from WWE with one saying the reigns are official and the other saying they aren't. Then we have solie which says they are official. The WM 2000 results say Hardcore Holly won the belt, but then goes on to say the belt change hands 11 times.-- Will C  01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will that format is terrible. The one we always used with the "†" note was better. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The format has changed since then. Through numerous FLCs, this way is the preferred way.-- Will C  03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There are WAY too many errors with that WWE.com history in order for it to be considered at the same level with their other sources. As another example, they had one of these Hardcore Battle Royals at Unforgiven 2000. Blackman entered as champ, and the title went Blackman-Crash-Saturn-Blackman. However, WWE.com says Blackman never regained it. So not only is a reign missing, but this is one of at least two examples where the "Hardcore Battle Royal", where the champ had to be pinned every time, had numerous title reigns. Continuing, there are numerous problems when there are two or more new reigns in one day. Bottom line, it needs to be dropped as a source at once. Mshake3 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you prove any of this? We need third party sources to say WWE did this but does not recognize it now.-- Will C  04:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point. Again, it's a shitty source. Not even counting the WrestleMania match, there are tons of mistakes!


 * Unforgiven 2000 - WWE.com doesn't have a three month reign from Steve Blackman stemming from his victory in the match, even though our Wikipedia article says he left as champion, as does this site, and this site.
 * No Way Out 2001 - WWE.com says Billy Gunn left as champion, even though all the other sites I mentioned said Big Show did.
 * Do you want me to continue? WWE.com is the only one making these obvious mistakes, and it needs to be ignored ASAP. Mshake3 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If no one argues my most recent point, I'm going to remove this "unofficial" bullcrap. Mshake3 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * WWE is the only reliable reference on title history we have. WWE make the rules when it comes to matches and what they recognize. If they recognized someone as a champion, we acknowledge it. We can't say someone is a champion unless WWE recognized them for a breif point in time.-- Will C  05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I'll reference the numerous publications of there instead. You know, the ones that aren't full of errors. Mshake3 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have references for any errors in the first place?-- Will C  01:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do I need to mention the fact that WWE chooses to ignore multiple title changes that happened in WCW? For example, WWE pretends that the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was never vacated after the double-pin between Ric Flair and Ricky Steamboat at Spring Stampede 1994.  TJ   Spyke   01:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't about WCW, this is about WWE recognizing certain WWE Hardcore reigns or not.-- Will C  01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WWE bought WCW and all its images &c thus making WCW its intellectual property so if it wants to not recognise title changes it doesn't have to just like the International Cricket Council as a governing body gets to designate which international matches have Test status and which don't. We still note what happened historically but if they chose to not recognise a title match as happening then it no longer was a title match. That being said, the Hardcore situation seems to be merely one of negligence seeing as the title history misses Blackman's reign while they list Black as winning in the results so I think they just cocked up. Tony2Times (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony in an unrelated note... the announcers called the ECW Championship a world title at SummerSlam... Ahem, just thought you should know, Ahem, carry on.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed they seem to be pushing it as a world title again. But then they gave it eight seconds on a PPV and had Swagger (a former 'world' champion) call MVP (a former second-tier US Champion) a stepping stone to better things. Wikipedia can call it a world title and I'll reinforce those edits but I still won't consider it as such. Tony2Times (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the WWE Championship's been followed up by pillow fights and depending on which day of the week it is, it can't even touch the World Heavyweight Championship... but its all good... who said professional wrestling had a rule that said everything had to be equal or follow a certain format anyway ;) or did you just assume TNA was right up there with WWE? Nonetheless, they still called it a world title at SummerSlam... specifically, "This is our first of three World's Championship matches here at SummerSlam as Captain Charisma electrifies the Staples Center..." -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which WWE Champions have been involved in a pillow fight exactly? About two and a bit years ago I assumed TNA would continue to be alternative and entertaining and challenge ECW. With what they show now, I assume nothing because assumption has some sense of logic to it. Tony2Times (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Ring of Honor Wrestling episodes
I know it's been discussed before, but I don't have time to check now. What was the consensus on list of episodes for wrestling shows? I just found List of Ring of Honor Wrestling episodes, but am unsure as what to do with it (i.e. leave it, redirect it to Ring of Honor Wrestling, prod it, etc). Thoughts? ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 08:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would personally like to have Wrestling TV episode lists and am currently working on something in my Sandbox (which is far from finished), though I think this should be redirected to the TV show. Afro  Gold  - Afkatk 09:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect it. The current consensus is that a list of wrestling show episodes are not notable. Either redirect or delete.  TJ   Spyke   15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I say with work, list of TV episodes could be useful and work. I say keep it and lets try to work on it instead of passing the idea along. I know I was against the idea the last time around, but I say lets give it a try this time.-- Will C  16:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realize that an article of RAW's episodes would be mighty huge, don't you think? ;)  ArcAngel (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but then we can cut them down into years. I say use the same format most TV ep lists have. I'm even working on a format. There are plenty of refs out there and the information is abundant.-- Will C  09:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make the WARRIORS-5 Article, but.....
User:Numyht/Sandbox I have the majority of it done, but I'm having a few problems with the article. --Numyht (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I can't find a reliable source for KAGETORA's finishing move. I have tried Gaora, but no luck.
 * 2) Were the Young Bucks' permanent memebers? Because by the way the source says, they aren't.
 * 3) Should I add the PWG Belt because it was defended against Dragon Gate wrestlers?
 * 4) Since we have hero/fan favorite and villain for face and heel, what about tweener?
 * Unless you are taking the article to GA or FA, or along those lines, reliability isn't much a problem. So even a questionable source is fine for a move. If there is no source to say the Bucks are permanent members, then they aren't. If The Bucks used it during their time in the group, then add it. Just remove tweener, since it is hard to explain, and is a rarely used term anyway. Hard to explain also. The references also need publishers, assessdates, publishing dates, etc.-- Will C  16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, MOSTM applies to the whole article. That means that if you do turn it into a article, you are gonna have to de-capitalize all those group names like "WARRIORS-5" and "WORLD-1". This is a problem with editors who don't know the rules and are intent on always writing "KENTA" and "CHIKARA" and "SHIMMER" just because those wrestlers/organizations like to write their own names like that. Basically the only time they should be capitalized is in the first sentence of their article (with something like "stylized as ....".  TJ   Spyke   18:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have decapped everything --Numyht (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, does anybody have any reasons not to make the article? --Numyht (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You have no third party reliable sources. That makes notability, all you have is primary refs.-- Will C  04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I think that I have only 1 --Numyht (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YEs primary sources only is a big problem... unless you want to make it a Featured List, in which case it's apparently totally fine.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I found 2, but it was only for DGUSA. It is REALLY HARD to find third-party sources for Dragon Gate --Numyht (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Sun have an article promoting the next UK Dragon Gate show and mentions Warriors-5 but does little more than confirm they exist. Still it is a third party source. Tony2Times (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that really helps. I've got a source for the Uk show!(Too bad it is nowhere near me)--Numyht (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

WWE Considering more new Pay Per View themes
WWE is polling fans again, this time asking their opinions on pay per view themes. The themes are a Street Fight theme with all main events being street fights, a Tournament event where superstars will compete in a single elimination tournament (like King of the Ring), and a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs event where all main events will be TLC matches. Be on the lookout for edits for such events. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * God they make it so hard not to hate them sometimes. Just bloody bring back King of The Ring. Tony2Times (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with it Tony. He posted that so people could watch those pages, not comment about how they want WWE to bring back a PPV. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just for subscribers this time: http://www.wweresearch.com/se.ashx?s=0B8801407D491DC5. Thanks,  gENIUS 101  14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

PWI
As we've previously discussed, PWI's opinion on what constitutes a world title is just opinion and can't be cited, however seperate from that is it a reliable source? I've just gone on their website and noticed they have a history section which seems fairly detailed and might be usable as a source to help improve the pro wrestling and history of sections. Tony2Times (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The history section on Pro Wrestling Illustrated is a great source for information, and it would definitely be considered a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Very VERY useful for sourcing. --Numyht (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the most reliable, as long as it sticks to facts. PWI can be opinionated as well. Just a matter of telling what's a factual report and what's an editorial. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"fan" at SummerSlam
The fan at SummerSlam last night has turned out to be Brett DiBiase. This could be a sign to him debuting on the main roster and aligning with The Legacy, though that is totally speculation, we should at least discuss that possibility. Does anyone wish to work together to create an article for him, since he could be notable seeing as he is under contract to WWE and is a DiBiase? I'll help out as much as I can. The link for proof it was him see here.-- Will C  08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because he's a DiBiase doesn't automatically make him notable, IMHO. Articles should be constructed on what the person himself did while in the federation, and not on - pardon the pun - any legacy of a surname.  ArcAngel (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with that. I do not know Brett's accomplishments in wrestling, but this event may trigger some editors finding enough information and reliable sources to establish his notability. So far we got his name and his SummerSlam appearence covered, so at least we are somewhere.-- Will C  09:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CageMatch.de - which can often have omissions in its federations - lists him as having wrestled only 23 matches, all for FCW, with only 5 of them making it to TV. Unless he takes part in a storyline on Raw I don't see much notability for a while yet. Tony2Times (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Guys, just wanted let you know the article has been created. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  14:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since he's not notable yet, I have nominated for deletion. ArcAngel (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

IWGP Tag problems
MPJ-DK and I are having a disagreement at Featured list candidates/IWGP Tag Team Championship/archive1 about whether a reign should begin on the day New Japan recognized them as champions or the day they won an Interim title. I feel it should be the day they won the Interim title because that is the day they actually began their reign as champions. Just half way through they went from Interim to IWGP Tag Champs and were given different belts. MPJ feels differently. Any opinions?-- Will C  05:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Other problems are: Should we use italics for wrestling event titles and PPVs, and should we place (1) next to each person's name to show this is their first reign and instead of just hoping the reader understands that is their first reign. These problems are also being discussed. As well as should the creation of the IWGP Provisional Tag Team Championship be noted for reign 48, the one which was taking place at the time the title was created?-- Will C  08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the day the won the "IWGP Interim Tag Team Championship", On that day the official tag champs were still the official tag champs. They did not become the "IWGP World Tag Team Champion" until the day the previous team was stripped of the title and these guys were recognized as the World and not interim champions. Like you said they were even given different belts.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 06:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The belts only represent the title, they aren't the actual title.-- Will C  06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence why that wasn't my argument in it's entirety.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 06:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add my arguments instead of relying on people trawling through a lot of comments to find them.
 * 1) Manual of Style (titles) on Italics - for certain categories of titles. I'm sure you'll argue that it doesn't say "wrestling events" but it does say the following "Feature-length films and documentaries / Multi-episode television serials" which is where wrestling PPVs falls IMO.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  09:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) It says "1" in the reigns column, it's not like we expect them to figure it out - I object to it going "Dude (1) and Doofus (1)" and then under reigns it also says "1".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 09:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Should we list when the WCW US Tag Team title was created in the WCW World tag team title list? No
 * You fail to see what the IWGP Provisional Tag Team Championship was. It technically was the official tag team championship of New Japan while the IWGP Tag Team Championship was inactive. So when a replacement championship is made, the replacement should be mentioned in the article about the title which is being replaced for the time being.-- Will C  11:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it for what it was - a different title, a note when the "Interrim" become actual would suffice.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 12:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with ECW photos
Hi.I have uploaded some ECW photos. I need that you put correct the photos, px, tags & sites. The pages are Sabu (X2), RVD, Justin Credible, Bam Bam Bigelow, List of ECW Tag Team Champions, New Jack & Paul heyamn. Also, I don't know who in the photo is heyman. i think that the other eprson in Tony Atlas, because in the Sith put Atlas. Hi--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why you added a caption to the Bam Bam Bigelow picture that was already in the article stating that it was taken at an ECW event. I took the picture, and it was definitely WWF (taken in 1995). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yes. Ok. I have been writing "wrestler in an ECW event in 1998". I put automaticly in Bam Bam photo. Yes, i't from WWF and my error.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He wore his "Triple Threat" T-Shirt in the WWF before he became a part of the Triple Threat? Somehow I doubt he had a time machine.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the other picture in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

lame intros
It seems that for some stupid reason, every article has to have a "wrestling is fake blah blah scripted blah" on the intro.

While wrestling is obviously fake, does this need to be on every article? surely just having it on the main wrestling article is enough?

It looks shitty.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know it's scripted and we know it's scripted but a lot of people don't. It's the same blurb written in every article in the same space, can't you just do what we all do and skip over it when reading. I know that chips are thick cuts of potatoes deep fried but an American will think of them as thin slices of potatoes shallow fried. This is an encyclopedia for everyone to read and thus it must state the obvious because there are many people in the world who believe pro-wrestling is a sport in the sense of boxing and MMA. Tony2Times (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If people really need everything made that clear for them, then I despair. I understand your point and the fact that wrestling is scripted should be made clear, however I just feel that it should be made clear once, one the main wrestling article - which is obviously linked to on each sub-article. I think it looks like some crappy disclaimer given at the beginning of a TV show. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto on that "crappy disclaimer given at the beginning of a TV show" comparison...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 17:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of an article that starts with "wrestling is fake blah blah scripted blah". Eddie6705 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We all know what he means. Tony2Times (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll assume good faith here. Check History of professional wrestling or History of professional wrestling in the United States. It's factually inaccurate to explain pro wrestling as being fake in the introduction, because for a good time in history, it was not.


 * It also shuts down any open-minded study on the topic when someone says, "Hey, do you know what, wrestling is fake. That's more important to know than anything else this article says..."-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering you are mainly talking about championships. Understand that in sports, when dealing with championships the common man thinks the championship is won by actually fighting. In wrestling, it is handed to the guy who can make the crowd scream or the guy who can make them boo. There is no actual combat involved in winning it. That is a key point. That must be told otherwise we are missing a major keynote. I've had people read articles I've wrote, and come to me and say they did not know wrestling was fake. Even one who was a teacher.-- Will C  21:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that many people over the age of six are unaware that wrestling is scripted, but I do agree that it should be mentioned - however it does not need to be in the form of a disclaimer on the intro of every article. It looks awful, there are no similar disclaimers on movie articles stating that it is actually a work of fiction and stars actors who are pretending to be a character. It should be mentioned in detail on the main wrestling article and removed from all other articles. Can we get some consensus on this and get rid of it? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is you cannot assume every person reading any wrestling article will automatically know this, because there are certain things that people learn each day, and today may be the day that one reader learns that wrestling is worked. The problem is not that Wrestling IS Fake!!!!, the problem is that parts of it aren't, as Darren Drozdov would tell you. Some wrestlers don't use thier real names, some do, the outcomes of the matches are pre-determined (to an extent, as there are still some errors) but the moves are not all laid out (unless you watch WMVI Hogan vs Warrior which was rehearsed for months), the blood is real or sometimes it is fake, sometimes they bleed by accident, a lot of the time they blade. Is it a sport? They do train (and juice), but then some wrestlers do nothing in the ring other than stand still. The dirt sheets love to break kayfabe, but 99.99% of readers don't know what kayfabe is. There needs to be an explanation of what pro-wrestling is, just like TV articles tell you the names of the characters and details of plots. And this was something that non-wrestling editors asked for during GA and FA reviews, so saying "everyone knows it is fake" solves nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then lets expand the section on the main article, explaining exactly what goes on in the ring and remove the crappy disclaimer that does not really shed much light on the "fakeness" from the intros. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Darren. The problem is plain old wrestling fans can not understand and get over it that not everyone knows what wrestling is. The common man can't understand the difference between a headlock or chinlock. They get them wrong constantly. Expanding the main pro wrestling article is not going to do any good. It still doesn't change the fact that people do not understand pro wrestling. The championship's are not legit won, PPV storylines are not actually life based, etc. If we remove the disclaimers now, and only leave a link to pro wrestling, eventually we'll be discussing the link. Because pro wrestling fans will never stop until they get what they want. For articles to have spoilers, fanish comments, etc. There will be no improvement then.-- Will C  05:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I will come at this from another angle, can someone find reliable third party sources that the championships in question are always fixed? If there are not sources it should be removed. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of book sources back up the statement that these days the outcomes of matches are predetermined, thus also who wins championships.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not least of which are Mick Foley's books where he talks about losing the tag titles in WCW before he won them. And the hundreds of shoot interviews done by retired wrestlers. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, right back at you. Can you present a source which says the majority of people understand pro wrestling? This is not entirely about if the championship is booked to be lost, which all you have to do is read any wrestler bio or any wrestling book period for that to be proven, it is about educating the reader. When outside parties can tell someone like me that they did not know wrestling was fake and the explanations on pro wrestling were very helpful, then we have educated someone, which is the whole purpose of this site. Not to get your latest news or see what happened on WWE or TNA tv. Yes, in its own way it is educating a reader, but not in the way we are meant too.-- Will C  11:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am just assuming that most people have an IQ over 50, but it is about as obvious as it gets that wrestling is scripted. Should I put a disclaimer on the cat article stating "this is not a fish" ? because I have no reliable source stating that the entire population of the planet is aware that cats are not fish. I am suprised that someone with the intelligence to open a browser and read wikipedia would not be aware that it was scripted. I still fail to understand why it needs to be on every article, are we catering to the dumbest of the dumb, or should we credit readers with a bit of intelligence? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can assume what you want, but the fact is that when Trump "bought" Raw and McMahon "died" in a limo explosion, dozens of news outlets reported it as if it was real and the articles had to be protected because people were writing about it as if it were real (more so in the latter case). Wrestling fans, for the most part, understand what is real and what is fake, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. It needs to be clear for everyone. Nikki  ♥  311   19:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And my point still stands that each article does not need a disclaimer, where does it go from here? Do we put a disclaimer on every single article related to wrestling? I accept that some people are retarded enough not to realise that it is fake, and not to realise that a buried alive match did not result in the death of a wrestler. What I do not accept is that every single article needs this crap, we have links people can click on them.119.173.81.176 (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point has been answered. Constantly referring to readers as "retarded" does not help. And yes, most wrestling artcles need to make the distinction between the real (Vince McMahon is a millionaire due to his stock options) and the fake (Vince McMahon is a billionaire who wants to fight billionaire Donald Trump). The line is often blurry, and wrestlers themselves are the worst source of information, but we are the ones who bring it into sharp focus. Do not assume that everyone knows what you know. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 119, do you know what the silly mid-off position in cricket is? Do you even know how many balls there are in an over? Do you know how the winning points in the 2003 rugby world cup were scored and if so do you know the difference between a try, a conversion, a drop goal or a penalty kick and how many points each score? Yeah you could go look them up, but it would but it takes a while which removes the quick reference point that Wikipedia often is. We all know wrestling is scripted here including you because we're followers of the product but just like you maybe don't have the first idea how an off-break doosra can be subdued by damp weather, a casual passer by who doesn't want to learn about the entire history of pro-wrestling dating back to Lancastrian catch-as-can but wants to know to what level wrestling is 'fake' these disclaimers do their part. Not to mention that the professional wrestling page is very long and only has a handful of sources makes it even harder to argue that readers should just be referred to their page. Tony2Times (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's what I call a googly. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hustle
I was thinking of merging Hustle's championship histories with the main article. The two championships and the main article are all on the cleanup list under the articles in need of updating section. I was going to update the titles so I went looking for refs. Wrestling titles has articles but neither are up to date I believe. I looked on solie and the promotion's website I found no title history articles whatsoever. Considering there are no refs for the articles, I felt they should instead just be merged. Is that okay with everyone?-- Will C  03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest the same thing with Hustle's titles. But I agree with the merging. --Numyht (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well. Tony2Times (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll merge them and update them the best I can soon.-- Will C  08:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)