Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 79

New WWE Logo?
Did anybody see that "new" WWE logo going around? Is it fake or legit? Has the WWE confirm or dimiss it?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to WWE.com, see the logo that's there and then you'll know if that one is fake or legit. Feed  back  ☎ 17:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fake in my opinion. If they did make a change, there would have been an entry by now in the TESS section of the US Patent and Trademark Office website at USPTO.gov (which was the case in 2002). --  Θak 5 ter  19:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the current one; its my favorite of them all. They shouldn't change it. Oh, and the one on the internet looks REALLY fake. Just look at the W. It looks as if it were drawn on Paint. Feed  back  ☎ 02:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen this "fake" one, but if it hasn't been trademarked (WWE are meticulous with that) that is pretty much the end of the debate. It's fake! (Oh did I just say that?)  !! Just a Punk !!  08:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A Smackdown *Spoiler*
This section contains a spoiler.

Ziggler won the Intercontinental title at a Smackdown taping, but I can't find a reliable source. We could just keep him off the list, but, the Intercontinental title reigns article is going to keep adding days to Kofi's reign. I don't think that would be correct either. What do we do? Feed back  ☎ 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. All these articles would need updating for the consensus; the proper Smackdown episode that will show this title change does not air in 8 days. Feed back  ☎ 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick Nemeth
 * Kofi Kingston
 * WWE Intercontinental Championship
 * List of WWE Intercontinental Champions
 * I think taht a soucre confused the info. It's like Superluchas, that said that teh Guns won the Tag Team title, but really, they lost the match. Also, I have a question about Angelina Love regin. I read that she has 4 regins, but i think that is similar to RVD or Chris Jericho WWE regins, the decision was reverted, so the regin never exist.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a though, but does this make Ziggler 1 title off a Triple Crown? I mean, Dolph Ziggler was never a tag champion, but Nick Nemeth was. Crisis  .  E  X  E  18:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He is a world title away from being a triple crown champion, regardless of ring name. — ℳℴℯ   ε  20:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I made this question in the article of TCC, Nick Nemeth and this page. You tell me that depends if WWE considers he a TCC, but if not, we will put him as a TCC with a note that says "WWE don't consider he a TCC".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's regardless of the character they portray, such as Booker T and King Booker (Although they are more closely related characters than Nicky of Spirit Squad and Dolph Ziggler), he won the title. If WWE doesn't acknowledge it (they hardly recognize them winning that accomplishment as it is), then you should make a note that they have won it as two different characters. The only argument the Triple Crown Championship article and Grand Slam article has really is which titles are recognized, and he has won 2/3 of the recognized titles. — ℳℴℯ   ε  00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course he's one off from being a triple crown champion, it was the same guy after all - like Pedigree says, if he ever wins a world title it will probably not be officially recognized, but it will be a fact, so note it as such.  MPJ  -US 08:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Use spoilers carefully, http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1280413812. Remember, title reigns begin the date that the title exchange occurred not the day it aired.-- T ru  c o  503 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Spoilers are controversial and must have a reliable independent source attached. Mind you - a primary source would work in this case as well, but in the case of WWE you're not going to get that with tapings! I'll always revert on sight a spoiler that isn't sourced properly and I hope I'm not the only one. Just on that, I'm grabbing that source (Wrestleview is MOS approved) and adding it to this title change before someone takes me literally on that point!  !! Just a Punk !!  08:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WrestleView is MOS approved? How is that possible? Feed  back  ☎ 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Through discussion with Ealdgyth a couple of years ago during an FAC. I was able to prove that it was a respected site by members of the industry and has a fact checking policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So what credentials make Adam Martin and Steve Gerweck reliable for reporting WWE news? Feed  back  ☎ 23:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, what is this "proven fact-checking policy"? I'd like to take a look at it, because I'm very curious how their obtainment of insider-information is policed. Feed  back  ☎ 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WrestleView has been around for over 10 years, and they have an established staff of writers who report news based on facts and from other reliable sources of information (like Dave Meltzer). Unlike, WrestleZone.com or LordofPain, WrestleView.com and PWTorch.com have been around for a long time and are highly respected sources one having a newsletter and the other having its own radio show. If you want more about how these two became accepted, see Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004) and Featured article candidates/Over the Edge (1999).-- T ru  c o  503 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, great story, but there is absolutely no way they could ever tell us where they got their information so we can only consider anything they say as rumors. WP:POORSRC pretty much says that websites that rely heavily on rumors can't be used to source third parties. The big picture here is that because we don't know where the story emerged from so we'll never know if the story is reliable or not. Per WP:RS, we should cite the information DIRECTLY and WrestleView does not do that. Feed  back  ☎ 03:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant, I was just showing that website as a source, not one that has to be used. But by tomorrow the show will air in Australia, not needing a web site source just an television episode source. WrestleView.com is reliable for facts and results only, not speculation or rumors. As agreed previously. Same with PW Torch. Slow your horses down sir, no need for cap lock. Once it airs, you can source it with WrestleView and PW Torch.-- T ru  c o  503 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Prince Iaukea
I put this on his page but wanted to make sure it was seen. If you look at Prince Iaukea's page, it gives an IMDB link as a source and uses it to attribute movie stunt work to him. The Michael Haynes (III) in that entry, however, does not appear to actually be the same one; the man in that entry started his work in television and movies in the late 1960's, and most of Iaukea's wrestling work is in the entry for a different Michael Haynes (VIII). On which end is the error, Wikipedia or IMDB? BatlinVII (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its obviously an error by the editor who added the link. I've fixed it. Feed  back  ☎ 04:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also moved the page to the correct name "Michael Haynes VIII" (although I suggest a move to "Prince Iaukea" per WP:COMMONNAME) and created a The Tongan Prince redirect per one of his ringnames. Feed  back  ☎ 04:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure that it should be under VIII (or even previously III) here? The numerals in IMdb is automatically used for disambiguation purposes and is not a generational suffix. --  Θaks ter  08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when are names arbitrarily given a number to differentiate between them? It's not his name, nor anything relevant for him - that IMDB lists him as Michael Haynes (VIII) just means he's the seventh listed with that name, not that it's officially part of his name.  MPJ  -US 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is now listed at Michael Haynes (wrestler)  MPJ  -US 08:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about IMDB's disambiguation formats; I ignorantly thought he was in fact the 8th generation of a long family line of "Michael Haynes". Well, thanks for clearing this up for the future, but wouldn't "Prince Iaukea" be the correct place? Surely, he's more notable for his time under that ringname than anything else, right? Feed  back  ☎ 09:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I initially dismissed the name cause I thought he was "Haynes the third" ;) and I could not move it to Prince Iaukea since it's a redirect so I opted to put it under a name that was actually correct. Feel free to suggest a move if you want.  MPJ  -US 10:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

4 regin
Why you say that Rayne is 2 times champion and Love, 4 times champion? the decision was reversed, like the RVD WWE Championship and Jericho WWE championship, are unnoficial regins. --217.125.241.191 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.38.136 (talk)

Newsletter spamming
Since Nici haven't replied, I'll bring it up here for action. --Kslotte (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the Newsletter?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is wrong with it. Kslotte wants people who aren't active to stop receiving the newsletter. Be them active or not, they are members of the WikiProject and whenever they come back, they are entitled to see all the newsletters delivered on their talk page. If you subscribe to a newspaper and just came back from vacation, you'd like to see all the newspapers in your home; its the same principle. If someone is an active member of Wikipedia, but an inactive member of the project and does not want to see the newsletter anymore, they can either add themselves to the "No spam" list, or remove themselves from the members list. Feed  back  ☎ 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit about the background, I took a look at long pages and see several user pages being over-full (more then 500kB) with your newsletter. And in most of the cases the user doesn't seem to be active at Wikipedia anymore. In my eyes filling up inactive talk pages with your newsletter isn't a good idea. --Kslotte (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and create an archive for said users' talk pages. I'm sure the inactive users will be very thankful. Feed  back  ☎ 01:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Black to WWE?!
I still can't believe Tyler Black jump ship to WWE. What's gonna happen to the ROH World Championship, since Tyler's the current champion?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What will happen? Loads of speculation, rampant well-intentioned, but misguided and unconfirmed edits to Tyler Black's, ROH's and the WWE's pages until everything settles down.  MPJ  -US 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reliable source for the signing? I can't seem to find one. Feed  back  ☎ 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about these?:

--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to only use WrestleView for results and not for news reports or rumors. I don't know what the rules are with PWTorch though. Personally, I would go ahead and say no to PWTorch too. The link says "PWTorch has confirmed with WWE sources that current Ring of Honor champion Tyler Black has signed with WWE." which is damn skippy, but they don't mention who they confirmed it with, how they confirmed it and don't express any details for that matter. Its hardly a news report. I remember reading a PWTorch news report that Nigel McGuinness had indeed signed a developmental contract. Then they posted a new one saying he didn't, but he was close to. They're a bunch of dweebs, I take their words with a grain of salt. Feed  back  ☎ 17:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They reported he agreed to a WWE deal in principle, which is not the same as signing formally. He then failed a medical and so couldn't sign it, but the principle was there pending arrangements. You have to read more than the headline. Like here, as you pointed out they ambiguously point to a source not a specific person, so I'd say either take it out or stress that it's a rumour in the article. Although I think I remember someone saying Wiki shouldn't report rumours, even if they're acknowledged as such. Tony2Times (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? Where did you read or heard that from, Tony?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Which bit? Tony2Times (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The part where he failed a drug test. I thought he was going to FCW in September.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was too ambiguous. I meant Nigel McGuinness failed a health/fitness examination. Tony2Times (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is still consensus regarding WrestleView? Mostly it is just a few editors who believe that. It is split 50/50, with no agreement made. In fact several WV sources have been used in GAs and FAs without problem. All sites screw up at times, even most newspapers.-- Will C  22:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the FAC's of our PPV FA's, those sources can only be used in terms of Results and Facts that are credible to their original sources, not like signings other related information.-- T ru  c o  503 23:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WrestleView has posted results where they screw up; for example, they once posted a completely false Smackdown tapings spoilers (someone sent them a fake report obviously). They also said Michelle McCool had become Women's Champion when in fact Layla was the one who won it. They have screwed up. But you know who has NEVER screwed up with results recaps: the primary sources. And per WP:PRIMARY, A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. I think that pretty much applies to results so I don't think third-party results sources are needed at all (especially from rumor sites like WrestleView). Those are my two cents. Feed  back  ☎ 00:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I said, results and recap not spoilers. PW Torch and WV are secondary sources, and articles should have Primary sources but as well as secondary sources that stem from those primary ones. If you really have such an issue with this, go ahead and request to delist all our FA's and ask User:Ealdgyth to re comment the status of the sources if it is such a bother to you. But they became accepted for a reason in the past. -- T ru  c o  503 01:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, a few editors have stated that WV should be used for results, but an agreement was never made. Back then we were so worried about just getting an FA, that we weren't trying to standup for sources or for what was exactly right. When it comes down to it, WV has been right more times than they have been wrong. All sources, including primary have incorrections. Take WWE, half the time they try to rewrite history every few seconds. Take TNA, who try to also rewrite history. Secondary sources establish notability and also what is factual. We should use what is correct and what can be proven. Not everything is going to be 100% correct.-- Will C  03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that you could trust them with your information, but we're building an encyclopedia here. "Who the sources are" is actually very important to building an encyclopedia and WrestleView does not report ANY information that comes from them. All of their news, rumors and yes, even results, come from a tertiary party which is almost never specified. I don't know if I'm making myself clear or not, but it is impossible to trust a source when we don't know who he or she is. Feed  back  ☎ 16:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sugi photo
Can someone add photos in Takuya Sugi? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone can. Especially you. Feed  back  ☎ 09:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images
To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of professional wrestling performers if it contains the templates pro-wrestling, WikiProject Professional wrestling. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2011 needs help cleaning up!
Looks like somebody destroyed the wikipage for SmackDown vs. Raw 2011. I need help cleaning the page.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a revert for you. There shouldn't be two infoboxes anyway, let alone two boxarts. --  Θaks ter  21:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship situation
Oh boy, oh boy. Why can't we all wait for WWE to officially move their history pages and we can reflect that. We don't know whether this new 'WWE Tag Team Championship' stems from the unification of both titles and is a new history for the title, or if it stems from either the SmackDown tag titles or the original WWE and Raw tag titles. Obviously, the names that they are under now isn't as proper as it can be IMO. Watch these pages, including the title histories closely for spamming, reverts, and changes that can be controversial. -- T ru  c o  503 02:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heads up! Not quite sure what to do with this as wrestling isn't my forte --> Tag team Championships Whose Your Guy (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I renamed them to a date disambiguation, is because someone moved the Unified Tag Team Championships to "The WWE Tag Team Championship" and left the other at "WWE Tag Team Championship". That was by far, a lot worse. Once WWE decides to move the histories around and explain things, then we can fix it. — Moe   ε  02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (Whose Your Guy) I fixed that. (Moe), yeah for now its okay but the disambiguation page is very tacky. I hope WWE fixes this situation as soon as possible.-- T ru  c o  503 02:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WWE.com has apparently fixed this whole situation... According to WWE.com this supposedly new WWE Tag Team Championship is simply the World Tag Team Championship renamed. Clicking on the "WWE Tag Team Championship" at WWE.com's title history page redirects the visitor to the history page of the World Tag Team Championship. Its pretty safe to assume the World Tag Team Championship that once formed part of the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship has simply been renamed to the WWE Tag Team Championship, while the former WWE Tag Team Championship that was established on SmackDown in 2002 has been retired. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it still links to both. It's just that you can't link a picture to 2 pages. It links to both titles beneath. Also, surely we can photoshop the background out of the picture currently on the page. Crisis  .  E  X  E  17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about that image with the belt bag, I've taken it off as it's a clear copyvio. --  Θaks ter  18:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship (2010–present) needs to be merged into World Tag Team Championship (WWE) and World Tag Team Championship (WWE) needs to be renamed to WWE Tag Team Championship (with whatever dab you want to create for this to represent the change between the old titles and the new one). There shouldn't be three title pages for two titles. — Moe   ε  22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we really doing this? Come on!


 * Simply move WWE Tag Team Championship (2002–2010) to WWE Tag Team Championship (2002).
 * Delete WWE Tag Team Championship and move World Tag Team Championship (WWE) in its place.
 * Finally, redirect WWE Tag Team Championship (2010–present) to WWE Tag Team Championship.
 * EFF YOU SEE KAY...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could name it WWE Tag Team Championship (SmackDown version) in the style of the territorial belts :D, part of me thinks we should wait till the website clarifies what's gone on. If they lose the tag belts to someone new, we should see the lineage reflected in the histories as pertains to how the two lines are updated. For all we know, they could still be foolishly keeping two histories alive, just with a new physical belt&briefer name. Tony2Times (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please click this link to find out what I think of renaming ANY of the pages from what they are right now. Crisis  .  E  X  E  01:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From WWE's title history, the SmackDown WWE Tag Team Championship is not listed under "retired titles" neither is the Raw Tag Team Championship, as I see it, and as WWE has the history written on http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/, the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship is simply now the Tag Team Championship, although it still is the unification of both territorial tag team championships as seen on that page since they have both title histories linked under it. To be honest, this situation won't be fixed until new champions are crowned to see whether the new champions go under the SmackDown and/or Raw Tag Team title history. For now, WWE Tag Team Championship should be redirected to WWE Tag Team Championship (SmackDown) while WWE Tag Team Championship should be the new target for Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, and finally World Tag Team Championship (WWE) should just stay as is. T ru  c o  503 01:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Afd nomintations
I have nominated the following articles for Afd: WWE Bragging Rights (2010) and WWE TLC: Tables, Ladders, & Chairs (2010). Armbrust Talk  Contribs  11:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

current champions
A little matter has occurred on the TNA page in which an editor would like to remove the current champions and championships section from the article because List of current champions in TNA Wrestling already exists. Current champions are still mentioned on the WWE articles as well as the current champions list. Since this would cause one article to not match the general format as others I thought to get an idea of what people think should happen. Also, I'm not sure if it is just me but I feel the current champions lists are list cruft. Their information can easily fit in another article. Also, I've learned only the pasted two years that generally lists must have at least 10 items to qualify to become an FL (at least this occurs with championship articles). The WWE list, which is an FL, is only a list of 7 items.-- Will C  03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The WWE list had 10 items when it ran for FL. You could call for a recall, but I don't see the problem. Anyway, just say no to the editor and you're ✅. Feed  back  ☎ 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the talk page of the TNA article. Also, I don't think it had 10 items. 2007 the only belts were the WWE, WHC, ECW, IC, US, WWE Tag, World Tag, Cruiserweight, and the women's. That makes only 9.-- Will C  03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha you forgot to mention that "an editor" was Screwball. I'll leave someone else to deal with this. Feed  back  ☎ 02:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is that supposed to mean? You're gonna bring in your goons to do some dirty work?-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What he means is seeing as you yourself will not see reason when I myself and many others disagree with what you want to happen and continue to go against consensuses, he wants to stay out of it.-- Steam   Iron  18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance requested
I took this photo at WrestleMania in 2008. I am trying to figure out if this is the AWA world title or the AWA Women's World Title. Thanks. http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/15/l_bce585194f36a91794fe7b8f56fdd7e2.jpg Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Its the AWA World Heavyweight title... I think some women would find it insulting to have to wear a belt that says "heavyweight somethin"-- Unquestionable Truth -- 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might think, but I for one am still waiting for a woman to win the WWE Championship. Personally I feel that if a title has the word "heavyweight" in the name then it should be weight restricted (I do not recognize Rey as a World champion.) but I am biased, I would have no problem with Daffney winning the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. Which begs the question, what happens if Awesome Kong wins the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

....Ahem... I was alluding to women and weight issues... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Why would a female win that title? There's a division for them. Eh, whatever. The case is closed. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @QT- I know. @ DLoW- Why would a woman win the WWE Intercontinental Championship or the WWE Cruiserweight Championship, or why would a man win the WWE Womens Championship or the TNA Women's Knockout Championship. These things have been known to happen. But my point is I would enjoy seeing it. Imagine playing Smackdown vs Raw and having a womens career mode that didn't consist of 12 matches till you're done compared to at least 36 on the mens storyline. Divisions mean nothing in WWE. But enough ranting I suppose. Sephiroth storm (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

...It was a joke... let it gooooooooooo............-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah this isn't exactly a forum. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Very aware of it. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move: Yokozuna (wrestler) → Yokozuna (professional wrestler)
The article at its present title implies that a yokozuna in sumo is not a wrestler. Recommend moving the article on Rodney Anoa'i to a better disambiguation. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, Rodney Anoa'i is a better place for it? Crisis  .  E  X  E  17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It had been at that title for a long time but was moved in May 2010 after this discussion. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. Surely a hatnote addresses your issue, no? Feed  back  ☎ 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe we should rename the article his actual name to avoid having any confusion whatsoever. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:HATNOTE, a hatnote is sufficient to avoid confusion. Feed  back  ☎ 14:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is Ricardo Rodriguez?
Last night on SmackDown, a ring announcer by the name 'Ricardo Rodriguez' debuted, claiming to be Alberto Del Rio's personal ring announcer. Should he be added to the SmackDown roster on List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees or wait until more info comes out?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If he makes more of a recurring appearance (probabily give or take a couple of weeks from now seeing as last week had a double taping) and no more information is given about him, list him with Unknown under his real name. --  Θaks ter  11:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bound for Glory?
The commercials for Bound for Glory are stating that it only takes place once a century, which does not appear to be the case, according to the article, can anyone provide any insight? Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What? -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 03:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What TNA means is the event will take place on the tenth day of the tenth month of the tenth year of this century... ahem... (October 10, 2010) Its in various promos... And if anyone needed to know if the date itself actually only happens once a century....well yes it does.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, no, no I'm sure we'll need a source for that statement or it's OR ;)  MPJ  -US 05:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't the century start with 2000? So wasn't 2009 the tenth year? I'm actually pretty sure of this. Feed  back  ☎ 08:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The turn of the century was actually 2001, but most people assume it was 2000 since the number changed from 19** to 20**. — Moe   ε  17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, poor advertising in my mind... Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's debateable, most people technically say you start counting at 1, so the century started in 2001. It's not that poor advertising, they put up the date 10/10/10 and say it only happens once a century, it Bound For Glory isn't alluded to till way later in the trailer, I don't know how there could be any ambiguity. Tony2Times (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it common knowledge that this BFG will take place "on the tenth day of the tenth month of the tenth year of this century"? Again, I assumed they were inferring that BFG only happens once a century. I'l see if I can find a video on YT, maybe I misunderstood. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Video states: "An event so big it only happens once a century". Take from that what you will. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)r
 * Wow, so it does not literaly mean that it happens once a century (although it might). It's just promoting that it will be big. Simple as that. Case closed. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 19:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... the second coming of the "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" debate...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would figure that to be a little different, as it was true that it was the twenty-fifth Wrestlemania. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 20:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it was the 25th, but not the 25th anniversary. It was the 24th anniversary (24 years after the first one). Feed  back  ☎ 22:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * DLOW, whats up with your "Case closed"? Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(You're all idiots for even wasting time debating this) The'yre actually right, 10/10/10 only comes once every 100 years, and the 25th annual show isn't the 25th anniversary. The 1st wrestlemania was in 1985, 25 years before 2010, which was the year of WM 26. NOW it's case closed. Crisis. E X  E  04:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem.... Er Er Er Rrrwho in the blueeeesssttt of blue hell are you?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 11:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's with me and "Case closed"? What's with you and and a storm of Sephiroth. That's not physically possible, Sephiroth is not something that would be classified as a variation of a storm of any kind! -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!   (Your Ruler) 14:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why yes, you are correct, but I wouldn't want to call myself Sephiroth God, would I? Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just go with "God", personally. But Ricky Gervais has the rights to God's likenesses. -- The Dark Lord of Wiki!  (Your Ruler) 23:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just getting silly now, stop that. Tony2Times (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

River City Wrestling
Hello. I noticed this article has been PRODded for deletion, but the PROD removed. It doesn't look notable to me; practically all the sources are from the organization's own websites, or blogs, or YouTube. I'm no expert, though - what do you think? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD it. Whose Your Guy (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Monty Sopp/Billy Gunn
There seems to be rumors of him having an affair with some woman on Facebook and someone has added it to the article. I don't think that it's necessary to include this in the article but every time I delete it, my edits get reverted. What does everyone else think about this? I'm going to quit deleting it until we can get it resolved.Thanks (MgTurtle (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC))
 * If there is no source, then it shouldn't be added. It is just a rumor.-- Will C  19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That definitly falls under "contentious material" so it needs a reliable source to be put in, not just some dirtsheet or whatever, but a truly reliable source to be added. So it should definitly be deleted on sight.  MPJ  -US 04:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD
I nom'd this: Create-a-wrestler. --Endlessdan (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User 76.114.240.50
This user has been warned twice about the edits that he/she has been doing to Bret Hart's page and has continued to edit the article. Is there any way to block this user? (MgTurtle (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC))
 * I've reported at AIV. S/he had a level 4 warning 2 days ago and vandalized the article again today. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Season 3 of NXT
Ok, there are sources out saying that the season 3 cast of NXT will be announced on tonight's episode. But when I put up a section of season 3 on the NXT page, Oakster removed it. I went to put it back, but AdamDeanHall removed it again. All I'm doing is just preparing the page for season 3. I know NXT is going away from Syfy on October 1 when SmackDown debut for the network. Why can't it stay up?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly because the only official source given out about it is an FCW press release stating that season 3 will happen in some form or another. Nothing in the source however states a start date, the number of rookies or when they will be announced which is what you put in. That's pretty much crystal balling. However if they do announce any of this stuff in tonight's episode, then it's your lucky day. --  Θaks ter  19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was announced. Feed  back  ☎ 15:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nexus
WWE uses the term "Nexus" a lot without the "the". Like Cena saying "We have to get rid of Nexus" instead of "the nexus". I'm just mentioning it because the prose in the Nexus (professional wrestling) article uses the article a lot. Because WWE seems to use both naming conventions for the group, should we leave it as it is or change it? Feed back  ☎ 15:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * a few points I need to make
 * 1) Really? We need to worry we consistently write "The Nexus" or "Nexus" because they at times leave "the" out?
 * 2) Change it now and change it back next week when the "the to no the" ration falls below someone's liking? Hello edit war
 * 3) It ain't broke, don't futz with it, go fix an article that actually needs fixing.
 *  MPJ  -US 16:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Nexus, also referred to as Nexus, is..." Crisis averted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, not its not. Its a redundancy. You're saying the same thing except with a different way of writing it. How about stick to one way throughout the whole article so the article can look like it was written by competent people who at least have adequate writing skills. Feed  back  ☎ 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think it is. "The Nexus" and "Nexus" are different because one has "The" and the other one doesn't. Many topics use this technique when two names are used. For example, from the Ghee article: "Ghee, also known as clarified butter in anglophone countries, is made by..." Two names. One meaning. One minor statement to note that the names are used interchangeably. Zero confused readers. One happy project. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not against using that clarification when there are two different names like the example you gave (Ghee and clarified butter), but "Nexus" and "The Nexus" aren't two different names. It is the same name, but with an article in front of it. We should just stick to writing one; CONSISTENCY. Feed  back  ☎ 04:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are two different ways of saying the same thing. The article should definitely be consistent, but the introduction including a statement that the group is referred to in two different ways doesn't hurt consistency. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple GAs
Hey guys. I see that Vince McMahon and Elimination Chamber are up at GAN. Would one of you guys be able to take a look at/review them? I would but I'm short on time these days; on a surface read neither looks like a GA just yet, though maybe I'm wrong. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Vince McMahon definitely wasn't, and I've removed it from the list. Nikki  ♥  311   05:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say Elimination Chamber is off as well. There could be more information added in my opinion and the sources certainly are limited to that article than there really is. Way too many primary references. The lead needs expansion as well. I don't think either are ready for GA.-- Will C  07:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Major vandalizer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.121.215.49 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.26.114 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV is the appropriate section for such reports, not here. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Kane infobox
is there a kane info box? 188.222.227.22 (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?-- Steam   Iron  04:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

188.222.227.22 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)26.8 apologies (and no more then that!) I ment one of these

but with Kane in it 188.222.227.22 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope sorry-- Steam   Iron  21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol wtf. yeah kanes a member of wiki. goes on when hes not the world champion for a million dollar company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.146.188 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you get it, sir. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

End of Aloisia?
Ok, is it the end of Isis the Amazon in WWE or is this a character redo? Because this has never happen before when I was watching the WWE.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's strictly kayfabe. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nexus Moves
This was brought up before but the conversation never really went anywhere. I think its time that Tyrone Evans, Ryan Reeves, Stu Bennett be moved to their current ringnames. Justin Gabriel and Heath Slater are already under their current monikers so these moves will be consistent. What do you guys think? Feed back  ☎ 03:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For me they haven't been under those ring names long enough to warrant a move to those names.-- Steam   Iron  03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I say no to all three at this time, even though I am on the edge of saying yes. They have been under those names for a short while, but have had enough expose to almost warrant a change. However, for Wade I think he should be moved after his main event appearance. That would definitely warrant a move then.-- Will C  07:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I say no to all three, but if we were to change one, I would say change Stu to Wade due to him being the most known member of Nexus and the fact that he's already challenging for the WWE Championship.--☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 15:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They all main evented SummerSlam, I think thats a big deal. But its okay, I'm sure we'll get around to moving them eventually. Feed  back  ☎ 16:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jim Neidhart's age
According to his arrest record (go to http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/Arrest/Inquiry/Search and type in Booking # 10044000) Jim Neidhart's birthday/age is incorrect on here. There isn't a direct URL to this so if anyone knows of a better way to correct it and source it feel free to.

Kris (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The page does not exsist. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 14:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here is a permanent link I found: http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/ArrestInquiry/ViewArrest?id=10044000&r1=bXVnc2hvdHMudGFtcGFiYXkuY29t&k2=LTExMDYwNDQ1NQ%3d%3d Kris (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Things like this should be brought up at the article's talk page. Not here. Feed  back  ☎ 16:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note before trying to access the permanent link above: I added nowiki tags to the url, as I tried to access it earlier and was given a message that it was not an authorized way to access the page, a record of my action had been recorded, and my attempt to access the page would be investigated by the sheriff's office. Going to the main page and searching for the number works just fine, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Danielson → Daniel Bryan and Brandon Silvestry → Kaval (wrestler)
I think these needed to be moved to their WWE names because Danielson main evented at Summerslam and managed to eliminate two Nexus members and Silvestry won the second season of NXT.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they are both certainly known by the names they are at currently. Main eventing at one PPV in WWE or winning NXT doesn't compare to the years they spent working in other notable independent promotions and winning many notable championships. Nikki  ♥  311   04:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not enough time under these ring names maybe in a year but not right now.-- Steam   Iron  07:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No on both, but definitely no on Low Ki. Low Ki's TNA career alone far out weighs his NXT win. Three NWA World Tag reigns and two TNA X Division Title reigns. Then take his ROH career, where he was the first ROH Champion. He is a world champion in PWG. He has worked in Japan several times, winning the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship, and losing it at one of New Japan's biggest shows Wrestle Kingdom III, which gained even more publicity since TNA released part of the show as Global Impact. He has three known ring name, Low Ki, Senshi, and Kaval. No where near time to move.-- Will C  07:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I say nay to both of them. Danielson's accomplishments as purely Bryan Danielson CERTAINLY overshadow the couple of months he's been called Daniel Bryan. Hell, he even called himself Bryan Danielson in an interview on NXT. And I certainly say no to Kaval, he's just won NXT. That's it. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 14:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No on Bryan, but Silvestry needs to move
Per WP:COMMONNAME, Brandon Silvestry is obviously not the name he should be under. A move to Low Ki, which is currently a redirect to Silvestry's page is the way to go. Feed back  ☎ 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless they change his name to Low Ki on WWE I think it'd be pretty silly to move him to Low Ki when he isn't even using that name. I don't think he should be moved to Kaval yet, but if he was gonna be moved to Low Ki it shoulda been done maybe 2 years ago. Tony2Times (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless if it wasn't done before, it still should be done. A common name is a common name, no matter from what time the name originated. He's most notable under Low Ki, unless someone argues his 12 weeks on national television count more. Surely though, if within the next 6 months he doesn't get future endeavored and actually appears on TV, then I would support a move to Kaval. For now, Low Ki is the best position. Feed  back  ☎ 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I say keep it where it is at, there is no way to prove which is his common name. It isn't pick and choose name, it is common name and it must be proved. His birth name will do fine now, since the ring names are only characters, not the actually man.-- Will C  02:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Will, too bad there isn't a WP:BIRTHNAME. Birth names don't have any preference for titles. It should be under the common name and common name only. If the common name is in doubt a consensus to create a common name is whats done. And I don't think anyone here will agree "Brandon Silvestry" is the cmmon name. Feed  back  ☎ 03:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with Low Ki, but after a few months, it will change into Kaval.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You do know we can ignore common name if we can't determine the common name? It is that simple. Hundreds of articles are at people's real names, not their ring name, etc. It isn't a wrong title for an article.-- Will C  04:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what the guideline says Will, WP:COMMONNAME states that when there is no obvious commonname we have to decide on one using the criteria from the page. Like I said, a birth name is not a suitable replacement for a common name. Per criteria...

Good grief. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Recognizability- This one goes to Kaval because he is obviously the name more people know him under. However, Low Ki would be second, albeit not close, most WWE viewers wouldn't know him from his independent days.
 * Naturalness- I feel split between this one. Anyone who's searching for him might be searching for Low Ki or Kaval.
 * Precision- They both would be correct.
 * Conciseness- They both are very short.
 * Consistency- Most articles of WWE wrestlers are under their WWE name so I guess Kaval wins out here. However, because of his short tenure, he could be compared better to others who keep their past ringnames. Still though, the answer is NEVER "Brandon Silvestry". Its either Low Ki or Kaval. Feed  back  ☎ 04:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, now it comes down to a matter of opinion, which means again you can't determine the common name so you can't cite common name. That is the whole point of that policy, a clear name that an individual is recognized by alone. Low Ki does not have one. Recognizablity, does not go to Kaval since all he has done in WWE is appear on their lowest rated show for a few weeks and won a meaningless competition. He hasn't appear on PPV, won any titles, etc. Compare that to his existence as Low Ki and Senshi in TNA, ROH, PWG, and Japan. More people will recognize him for the later in the wrestling world, and why that world since he hasn't done anything in any other realm. Consistency isn't an argument for common name. Most articles in wikipedia have a persons name as their real name. Take actor articles that are under their real name, not characters they've played.-- Will C  21:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From this point forward, you have officially upset me so I might sound hostile. Why? Because consistency is an argument and its part of the WP:COMMONNAME criteria. Per your last post, it is obvious you haven't even read the page. Therefore before you respond or continue to argument you should take a seat and read the guideline which we are discussing. I don't know every guideline, but before entering any discussion, I always revisit all the relevant pages and review them before speaking so I don't end up speaking out of my ass. This isn't a matter of opinion as you say, its a matter of what is written in black and white on the guideline's page. I already copy/pasted the criteria above with the answers to each one. The answer is NEVER Bransdon Silvestry. Ever. We should never have any article under a name that people will read and say "Who the f*** is that?" and that is exactly what happens with this page. No one outside hardcore smarks or Kaval's family are going to know his real name. We need a notable name for the article. Its either Low Ki or Kaval. Feed  back  ☎ 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many actors' articles are under their stage/screen name, than their real name if they have the former, cf Michael Caine, Cilla Black &c and the same goes for musicians and their performing names, cf Sam Duckworth (redirects to Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly), Jay-Z, Eminem &c. Ring names are analogous to stage names and all. Tony2Times (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read that guideline, but it has been a few months honestly. But again, use common sense. We can't prove which one he is more known here. That is what I am arguing. If you can't prove one, you can't use the guideline. That is what I am trying to show here. Where is the evidence for a common name? Redirects exist for a reason. If we can't prove a common name, then we ignore the guideline.-- Will C  04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a clear common name, then we must gain a consensus on one; thats what the guideline states. And you're right, there isn't a clear cut common name that we can prove. However, you know what is damn right easy to prove? That "Brandon Silvestry" is not the common name. That alone nullifies any chance for it staying as the title of the article, because an article must ALWAYS be under a recognizable name. Feed  back  ☎ 04:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Wight → Big Show (wrestler)
Its been brought up many times before and many times has been shot down for the same reason. He is equally notable as "The Giant" and even slightly notable as "Paul Wight". And as far as I am concerned, they still call him "The Giant" on TV. Feed back  ☎ 15:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I see a lot of proposed moves on wrestler's articles, but I think this one warrants it the most. Paul has ben under the ringname "(The) Big Show" for over a decade. He's won many championships under the name, and has certainly left (and is still currently leaving) a huge impression on the WWE. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 14:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah, I have to challenge this, you closed this discussion immediately, without an opportunity for discussion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WWE Womens Championship
I think it is worth noting in the article that the title is physically split in two. My personal feelings on the disgrace aside, I think it is worth noting, I have never heard of it being done before, and it is certainly the first time it has happened to this title. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the actual title, the real title was given to Teddy Long due to LayCool carrying two titles. LayCool decided to go around Teddy's ruling by creating a title that is a big BFF charm that both Layla and Michelle can hold. So is not note worthy.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say it could be notable in say a Belt design section.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 20:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * hmm. I didn't see the segment, so I am not quite sure how this worked... Layla won the title and the tag team started carrying around two belts, one was taken by Teddy, and the other was split? Is that how it worked? If so, I would say it is worth explaining more in depth on their pages, but not necessary on the title article. I do think however that it may become necessary anyway, once the unification happens. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I attended a WWE house show and I have pictures!
Here are some pictures. Use them in the articles where needed. There are 35 pictures in total and if you're wondering why there are so many Randy Orton pictures, blame Jammie, the girl I went to the show with. Anyway, I marked with a "*" the ones I think would be most useful in the articles. You're welcome, Feed  back  ☎ 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I keep adding pictures. There's 48 now. I really have a lot more, but you have no idea how tiring uploading all these are. I think these are the best of them so I'll just leave it to these. Feed  back  ☎ 23:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nicely done homie, nicely done.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nice pictures, some of these could be used as their pictures in their boxes. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice pictures, thank you very much ! Jean-Guy Badiane (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I could spend hours looking at good quality fan-taken pictures of wrestlers and belts, cheers. Tony2Times (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I just added even moooore photos. And here's a cool GIF I made for Evan Bourne's SSP. I think it could be useful in his article. Feed back  ☎ 01:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an awesome gif, but it kinda gives me a headache. Ow. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 16:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Wight → Big Show (wrestler)
I am re-opening this because I believe the previous discussion was closed before a discussion could take place. So after reviewing WP:UCN, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." Looking at the article's sources, one name pops out immediately, "Big Show". Now I am aware that sources referencing a part of a star's career will refer to him as the name used at that time, show me references referring to him as that today. Nor can we use an excuse of "The Giant" being used on television. Taz refers to Daffney in nearly every episode as "Zombie Hot", and millions know that name, but we cannot be sure that they are naming him as the Giant or simply using it as a nickname unless it is used either by reliable sources or he is announced as such, and I would even have to question that, because we know wrestlers may be introduced by a nickname for a part of their career. I also preformed a quick google search. Paul Wight comes up with 291,000 hits, most referring to him. Big Show wrestler returns 415,000 hits. The Giant wrestler comes up with 3,400,000 hits, however they include sites about Andre, and Giant wrestlers, including Mark Henry, The Great Khali, etc. So out of the three, based on that measuring stick, I would have to say that Big Show search produces the most, reliable hits. We should also consider the future. Big Show is an actor, according to his article, and however he refers to himself could be an argument for a name, but we cannot WP:CBALL. Finally I look at the difficult one, familiarity, I have to say that his career in WWE is more notable than his others. According to the article, he was known as the giant for approx 4 years. I am unaware of his career outside of WWE, and i'm sure that many of the younger audiences that WWE has are equally as unfamiliar with his WCW, or even his WWE career as anything other than Big Show. Every wrestling game that I have played has referred to him as Big Show. The lead in the article confirms COMMONNAME by stating: "better known by his ring name, (The) Big Show". Excluding one, all of the photos are listed as being of Big Show or Show. I think it is improper to continue to believe that Paul Wight is the proper name for this article. Thank You. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a quick note: Moving articles is just about as unimportant as you can get on Wikipedia. This discussion is bound to take a lot of time and effort. If that time and effort was refocused, the article could easily be made into a GA and the encyclopedia would actually benefit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gary we all know you despise "unnecessary" move discussions. Your continuous voicing of that disapproval is becoming annoying if not already. As much as I disapprove of this super-long non-concise comment on a move discussion which I closed, I'm actually going to have a constructive conversation with this bloke. If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything at all. And PS. you were wrong. Moving articles is not "as unimportant as you can get on Wikipedia". Talking about how unimportant moving articles is on a constant basis for no reason takes the crown for unimportance. Feed  back  ☎ 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about talking about talking about moving articles? Seriously, though, anything that makes no improvement to the encyclopedia, takes a ton of time, and creates hard feelings can hardly be considered productive. In fact, it's obviously harmful to the encyclopedia. My suggestion (getting it ready for GAN instead) is intended to be helpful. You may find it annoying, but I believe that's just because you haven't given sufficient consideration to my comments. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, as for the move, it isn't WP:CBALL to say he is billed as Paul Wight in his movie credits, because thats exactly how he's billed. In McCinsey's Island, The Waterboy, Jingle All the Way, Reggie's Prayer and his most recent film role, Knucklehead are all billed under his own name. The only movie that I've come by that saw him billed under "Big Show" was MacGruber where he was an extra along with other WWE guys. Anyway, he even wrestled recently as "Paul 'The Great' Wight". If his birth name was just that, a birth name that was shadowed by his promotional name then I'd understand the move. However, seeing as his birth name is notable in its own right for various reasons, and seeing that he still uses the name and seeing that it requires no disambiguation unlike both his ring names, it is the best name suited for the article. Feed  back  ☎ 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He may be credited as that in those movies, but that doesn't mean that he is more known as that. Was he the lead in any of them? Not according to the articles that exist for those movies mentioned above. Was he nominated or win a major acting award? On this I look at it this way, Dwayne Johnson was credited in many movies under his name after he left WWE, but I would say it was quite a while before people started knowing him AS Dwayne Johnson. I think most wrestling fans will always call him Big Show, and whether he will become notable for his acting career remains to be seen, IMO; that is what I meant by the CBALL statement, his acting career has not been notable enough to seriously influence his common name. And it is true, this is a gray area, but I think it best to err on the side of policy in these cases. I think that we can back up a Big Show common name, any other at this time requires us to INFER a common name based of of opinion. The references indicate that he IS the Big Show. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, if he wasn't notable under Paul Wight, he still has two prominent ringnames: The Big Show and The Giant. Both of which he used to garner two world title reigns each and numerous tag team title reigns. He also won World War 3 (WCW's version of the Royal Rumble) while he was billed as The Giant so that moniker is definitely notable enough. And you know what, he was a much bigger star in WCW than in WWF/E. In the F/E, he was mainly a tag guy, a monster midcarder or someone who they would push from time to time just so he could job to the main eventers. Case in point being, I'm not saying that Giant is more notable than Big Show, but I'm saying that they both are. And as for his real name's notability, it really depends on who your'e talking to. Most people would say he's more notable for just appearing in mainstream movies than being prominent in such a low level of entertainment such as professional wrestling. The people who've watched those movies are significantly more than the few who watch wrestling, hell, I remember 2 or 3 years ago, a friend's sister saw him on TV and said "Oh my God, that's Captain Insano!" Its a matter of perception, we just have to decide whose perception is stronger. Paul Wight goes for the casual reader, The Big Show (wrestler) is for the wrestling fan and The Giant (wrestler) is for the old-school wrestling fan. I think its obvious who outweighs the others. Feed  back  ☎ 03:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with your line of reasoning, though we disagree on the finer points. I can see two ways we can settle this. One, we attempt to move in line with the policy stating that the sources will name the article(summarized meaning), or we can open it up for community discussion, i.e. WP:RFC. Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's technically won 3 major world championships under the ring name Big Show if you were to credit his ECW reign as a World title. I would agree with a move to Big Show (wrestler) as his attributes far exceed that of his ringname The Giant. Afro  ( Say Something Funny ) - Afkatk 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Riley on Raw?
Last week, Alex Riley appeared on Raw still helping The Miz in his feud with Daniel Bryan. Does this mean he was moved up to the Raw roster or just an appearance?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone gonna answer my question? I just wanted to know if I can move Alex to the Raw roster.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a source you can. Which you don't. So you can't. Feed  back  ☎ 18:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards
This list is mostly unsourced and could be considered listcruft. Even though it was expanded, it mainly has little evidence for notability on its own. I say the awards are notable, but a list of them and the winners I'm not so sure about. I'd nominate it for AFD but it would only cause a problem. I brought it here to get a group opinion first.-- Will C  07:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Gary. Unless the article is part of a master plan to destroy Wikipedia, I suggest you just leave it alone. Its not hurting anyone. Feed  back  ☎ 17:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reasons to keep.-- Will C  02:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of yours are reasons to delete. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being vastly unsourced with no notability established is a pretty good reason to delete.-- Will C  20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There! Take the argument there please. Whose Your Guy (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What a pathetic waste of time you have created. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. AFD is the PERFECT place to end this "controversy" as consensus can be reached as to whether this article is notable or not.  Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. This is a pathetic waste of time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Gary's sentiments. There is no "controversy" anyway. Feed  back  ☎ 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg Lambert - can you help?
I notice that you had a discussion about XWA and FWA last year. The article on XWA founder and manager, Greg Lambert needs some attention from someone with knowledge of the field. It was tagged as an unreferenced biography of a living person in May 2008 (which is the current focus month for the Unreferenced BLP Rescue Project.  I've added a couple of references, which gets it off the UBLP list, but the content reads like a puff piece and needs fixing. Thought someone here might like to take an interest.--Plad2 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Roster Listings in Video Games
I think we should write the roster for all the WWE/TNA/ECW/etc. video games. It's useful, notable information, and I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated by readers of those articles. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 22:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They were taken out a while back. Read the archives. It was mainly due to WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:CRUFT.-- T ru  c o  503 00:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if that was the reason, then I'm all for bringing it back. A list of the roster isn't a "Game guide" or "how to guide". Its not like if we were listing how to get them, their attributes, their moves and whatnot. Its just a list of characters. A looot of other video games have that. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Looney Tunes Racing, X-Men: Legends, Tekken (arcade game) and many many more. Video game articles usually have the list of characters (especially fighting games(. Its ludicrous to take them out. Feed  back  ☎ 18:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, Feedback. SVR is a video game series, so a roster list is need in all SVR game pages.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Rosters seem like pretty essential information to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Me, too. They are analogous to cast lists in movies, IMO. Nikki  ♥  311   18:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There were complaints about how redundant the lists get because they aren't characters, but instead a cast from real life. If I remember correctly, roster lists didn't add anything to the article in terms of the rest of the prose, it was just a list with nothing more to it. But you guys can bring it up with WP:VG to see if they agree to reverse the consensus.-- T ru  c o  503 00:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think its clear we have a consensus here, no need to duplicate the threat at WP:VG. Unless of course, the consensus to remove the rosters was over there. So... where was it? Feed back  ☎ 04:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A wrestling game is equal to a sports game. It's annual and the roster only slightly changes each year. Listing everyone isn't needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto RobJ1981. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The wrestling project can not overturn an agreement determined by another project. That project has to be informed of this discussion before a consensus is ever established.-- Will C  20:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The wrestling project can NOT ignore polices on Wikipedia though. As I pointed out above: wrestling games are equal to any other sports series. The roster only slightly changes game to game, so there is no need to list everyone in every article. Keep that trivia to fan wikis. Also, the wrestling project doesn't own every wrestling article. Wrestling video games are a big part of the video game project as well. If a discussion happens, it shouldn't just be ignored and overturned because of petty ownership issues between projects. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Rob, I see them unnecessary to this point in time again. I used to support them but I see their non-necessity now. The only thing that I can argue, however, is that sports game that have rosters at least have a point of reference like 2009 Baltimore Ravens season will be somewhere to direct a reader to know about the rosters during that year for the Ravens, and to other teams in other sports. -- T ru  c o  503 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The only options we have are to re-add the lists, continue with there being no lists, or creating sections in the main series articles that have a prose section stating who has appeared in the series and which respective games. Like I've listed below.-- Will C  04:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"The wrestling project can not overturn an agreement determined by another project"... Wow WIll, I thought that after all this time on Wikipedia, you'd get it by now. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus can be achieved and overwritten anywhere, in any way and at any given moment. As for "The wrestling project can NOT ignore polices on Wikipedia though", there is no policy that prohibits the use of rosters in a sports game, I don't see where the hell you came up with that, Rob. This is a content dispute, and there are other sports games like Top Spin, UFC Undisputed 2010, etc. that feature rosters. Its at the discretion of the editors forming the consensus. All opinions are welcome, but citing some bullshit that we can't add them because its against the guidelines is counter-productive to discussion. Feed back  ☎ 05:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The agreement was created there. So their members need to be informed of this decision. This effects the video game project more than it does the wrestling project.-- Will C  01:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed numerous times at WP:VG . From what I've seen, the consensus at the project is that there should not be any roster lists, but important notes about the rosters can be worked into the prose. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia articles should not include "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." I think including the rosters sort of veers into that territory, and with modern wrestling games with downloadable content, I think it would be a terrible precedent to list every single wrestler in the game. Racing games like Gran Turismo 4 don't list every car, sports games like MLB 2K9 don't list every single player, so wrestling games should not list every single wrestler. Anything notable about the roster list should be included in the prose, and external links can link to a full roster of the wrestlers if necessary. Nomader  ( Talk ) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but I think this requires further discussion. Why do other fighting games like Tekken, sports games like Top Spin and a LOT of other games include the rosters? Also, although this is obviously just my opinion, but I don't believe rosters veer into that category at all. Feed  back  ☎ 03:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind it can mostly be seen here, which was the second link in the three I had above. Reasons were also given that rosters violated not only WP:NOTGUIDE but WP:NOTDIR as well. To be honest, I usually try and remove rosters when I see them... I understand that people want to see what wrestlers are in games, but I really feel video game articles should focus on encyclopedic content, not just lists of secret items and playable characters. Wikipedia merely summarizes content, it doesn't (and shouldn't) list all of it like GameFAQs might. I've run across several rosters in articles that few people watch, which accounts for why they exist– how many people visit NBA Showtime: NBA on NBC? I understand where you're coming from but I don't see rosters as necessary encyclopedic content. It's just my opinion though, and I'd have no objections if you brought this up at WT:VG again. Nomader  ( Talk ) 04:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced by that link. The people for and against it each made very worthy arguments and the thread didn't reach a proper conclusion. I have to point out though, Does listing the characters damage the article in any way? Does it make it harder to read or less convenient for the reader? Because if there's going to be a rosters section, I think that it should be our goal to make sure that it is as easy to read and as convenient for the readers as possible and having a rosters section written in prose is completely the opposite. Feed  back  ☎ 05:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see any big problems with rosters being included as sections in the respective wrestling game articles. (I tend to agree that wrestling video games are closer to fighting games than sports games as far as the number of characters to choose from are involved.) However, such roster lists should remain succinct, avoid redundancies, and maintain verifiability (especially for those buried-in-the-code "super-secret" characters that can possibly be in there). I'm perfectly fine with simple, bulleted lists of wrestlers with appropriate wikilinks, but I wouldn't be against stuff such as tables especially when multiple versions or multiple games are involved. We start getting into the WP:GAMEGUIDE territory IMO when we start including almost anything past that (such as height, weight, special moves, etc.); just keep it simple. –MuZemike 07:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hurting the article" is just an excuse. Not an actual reason. Nothing except vandalism and fake information actually "hurts" an article, but there is guidelines on Wikipedia to prevent articles from being too long, too trivia filled and so on. Rosters are trivia and fancruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Only vandalism and fake information hurts an article? What about biased opinions? Weasel words? Inconsistencies? Original research? Typos? Irrelevant information? Irrelevant pictures? Bad pictures? You're a fool if you say that none of those "hurt the articles", because they do and in a big way. Also, its not trivial to mention who is a character in the game, because without the characters, there is no game. The characters are the most important and main part of the video game and [just my opinion] I personally believe that they are necessary to the article's comprehensiveness. Also, "not hurting the article" isn't an excuse. Like I mentioned above, information that not only not hurts, but actually helps and adds to the subject, should be welcomed to the article not removed. Feed  back  ☎ 20:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feedback, if I had the opportunity, I would have a wiki where video game articles not only have rosters, but full game guides, with notes about secret characters, unlockable content, downloadable content, and all that other stuff. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it shouldn't contain all of that information– our job is to provide encyclopedic articles with general content, not detailed game guides. Listing every character in bullet points is unnecessary and really veers into WP:GAMEGUIDE, and I'm uncomfortable with including them. Now, if we were to include rosters (which I'm strongly against), I think we would have to make them as minimal and hidden as possible– maybe a collapsable template at the bottom of the gameplay section? Nomader  ( Talk ) 00:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it hard to understand what makes you uncomfortable about an article of a game where all you do is play as a variety of WWE wrestlers listing the variety of WWE wrestlers. If you want a compromise, then we should do like Street Fighter and Tekken and have a "List of WWE Smackdown! series characters" where we list everyone and their involvement in each game. Feed  back  ☎ 04:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like the List of Legends of Wrestling characters that is currently up for deletion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving the trivia/fancruft to a collapsable template or a new page isn't going to solve the problem. The information isn't suitable for Wikipedia, period. Characters listed in a prose is all that is necessary when it comes to sports games. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the period in that second sentence stand for the one you're currently having? Anyway, many video games [especially video game series] have split their list of characters into other articles. Actually, most do. A list for this one would actually be very consistent with how articles are done around here. And Gary, yeah, just like that one, except it should obviously be much more organized and better expanded than that stub. That one's easily fixable so it should be kept. Feed  back  ☎ 16:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Feedback, remain civil. That comment was not needed.-- Will C  07:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:The Cleanup Kid
This user is vandalizing wrestling articles, saying they need to be cleaned up. But the article look like a mess after he "cleans" them. I want this user banned from modifying wrestling articles with his "cleanup".--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this isn't the tattle board. Report it to the correct admin board. Members of the wrestling project have no power to ban users from editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay so I see you're back to contributing to the project, RobJ. Don't you have to count something somewhere? Feed  back  ☎ 00:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mehehe... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Grow up. I have every right to post here, get over it. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So does Mikeymike2001 whether it is to inform the project of a potential threat to the integrity of articles... as do you whether it is to act like the talk-page police and run your mouth about nonsense no one cares about... hmmm -- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nonsense. Wrestling Project members can't ban anyone from editing, that's an admin's job. So get over yourself. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem... nonsense no one cares about RobJ, now know your role and go count something-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Grow up. Next time you try to start crap with me, I'm reporting it. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be looking forward to it :) -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * RobJ, if you're dissatisfied with your role, try ALT+F4. All your worries will go away. Feed  back  ☎ 04:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Request
I'm looking for a reliable ref listing PWI's Top Female Wrestlers of 2008. Could someone help me out here? I've looked everywhere.-- Will C  03:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's in their 2008 Almanac, I've got that. Unfortunately, it would be in one of about 40 boxes of books in my basement. If I see it any time soon, I'll let you know. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can remember when it was published and stuff, that would help.-- Will C  07:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I'll wait to use it when you return so I know the information is in there. Have fun on your trip.-- Will C  12:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC) True, however it pisses me off more in the US.-- Will C  07:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the citation I have used for the Almanac Unfortunately for you the Almanac is now in the US while I'm not yet there so I can't be more helpful.  MPJ  -US  12:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more than a trip actually, I am emmigrating to the US, we're moving there permanently :)  MPJ  -US 14:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for you, get ready for some assholes, corrupt politicians, shitty healthcare, and a bad education system.-- Will C  19:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's all of that everywhere. Yes, even Canada. Feed  back  ☎ 20:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WWE Women's Championship
Michelle McCool is defending Layla's Women's title at Night of Champions (2010). Can we officially replace Layla with Team Lay-Cool?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Champions have subbed before, besides which NoC hasn't happened yet and they played up dissension so Layla may oust McCool at the event itself. Wait and see, but as I said champions have been subtituted before I'm sure although in a rush I cna't think of any. Tony2Times (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure they'll do a swerve. Either Michelle wins and is crowned the sole-WWE Unified Women's Champion or Melina wins and doesn't get the title, because Layla says Michelle had no business defending it. Something like that I guess. Feed  back  ☎ 23:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees
WWE doesn't consider the wrestlers to be employees, instead, they designate them "independent contractors". Shouldn't the title be changed? Feed back  ☎ 17:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WWE's view is WWE's view. Employees is technically the same thing.-- Will C  07:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it really isn't. There is even an impending investigation on WWE's treatment of their independent contractors to find out if they deserve employee status. And Raven and Konnan had sued WWE because of this, but the courts agreed that none of them were employees. Orient yourself [Read Independent contractor] before commenting on the topic. Feed  back  ☎ 14:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does WWE refer to its creative, non-appearing if you will, workers as employees or contractors? Tony2Times (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems as they are. At least WWE has never stated the contrary. However, they have stated on numerous occasions that the "entertainers"/talent on their show are independent contractors. Per :

"Like some professional athletes such as golfers and tennis players or entertainers such as actors and singers, WWE performers are independent contractors. As such, they are personally responsible for acquiring their own health insurance, life insurance and financial planning. To assist in this process, under WWE’s Talent Life Skills program, WWE offers mandatory workshops to its contracted performers to assist them in these matters."
 * Also, WWE has options for employment searching on their site and one of those jobs is "Creative Writer" so I think its safe to assume that writers are in face employees. Feed  back  ☎ 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this as an issue of semantics. I don't think it's a big enough issue to worry about the wording. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the WWE calls its workers, is what they should be called. --☯ The Dark Lord of Wiki ☯ ( talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gary.-- Will C  19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but disagree. An article's title is very important and I think keeping the title as employees doesn't comply with WP:NDESC or especially with WP:NPOV. There is a controversy where numerous parties have degraded WWE for misclassifying their performers as independent contractors and believe that WWE should consider them employees. By keeping the article title as it is, we are inferring an agreement with those beliefs. Also, per WP:TITLE, we should be concise with the article's name. And its not as if this issue is debatable, WWE explicitly states that they aren't employees. Keeping the title as it is just isn't right. Feed back  ☎ 20:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Billy Suede
If anyone can think of anything or find anything, this article is eligible for a DYK nomination for the next couple of days. I'm drawing a blank, but I'm sure that someone here could pull it off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Did you know Billy Suede's age? 'Cause we don't" :D Tony2Times (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Professional wrestling articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Professional wrestling articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team
WWE.com lists the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) as retired as of tonight and The WWE Tag Team Championship (2002–2010) as the continued title we need to merge pre 2010 WWE Tag Team Championship with the post 2010 WWE Tag Team Championship (2010–present).-- Steam   Iron  03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully second that. Vermon CaTaffy 8 (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They need to be merged and moved to WWE Tag Team Championship (WWE)-- Steam   Iron  04:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Although WWE made the move of pages today, when the physical belts were presented and renamed as WWE Tag Team Championship was when all of the scenarios occurred (retirement of original titles, retirement of unified title moniker, and continued lineage of 2002).-- T ru  c o  503 04:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The page still need to be merged and moved.-- Steam   Iron  04:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked a admin to do it.-- T ru  c o  503 04:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just wrong. Are you serious they have just abandoned a title that dates back to 1971? This can't be happening. Feed  back  ☎ 06:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it, since they are retiring the Woman's Championship as well in favor of the Diva's Championship. And yes, a merge of WWE Tag Team Championship (2010–present) and WWE Tag Team Championship (2002–2010) needs to be done and renamed. WWE Tag Team Championship seems to be the likely choice since it is currently a redirect. As the articles stands, (2010–present) is the old Unified Tag Team Championship and (2002–2010) is the current title and the title prior to the merger. — Moe   ε  18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But how do we explain that ShowMiz, Jeri-Show, Edgicho and The Hart Dynasty are all World Tag Team Champions while The Dashing Twins aren't? Feed  back  ☎ 19:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this: 'Before the titles was consolidated into the WWE Tag Team Championship, both title histories were active. But when "Dashing" Cody Rhodes and Drew McIntyre won the titles at Night of Champions, WWE management decided to end the World Tag Team Championship history.'--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles already reflect that "Title histories after The Hart Dynasty ceased for the World Tag Team Championship but continued with the WWE Tag Team Championship."-- T ru  c o  503 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That wording is badly done, don't you think Truco? And I hope WWE corrects this soon... I feel queezy just thinking that they actually put over the 2002 title over the classic 1971 one. Feed  back  ☎ 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a very odd choice, given that now the first reign was a solo effort by Kurt Angle but they seem to have deliberately made that choice so I don't know if they're gonna revert it. Tony2Times (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Su Yung in FCW
A user put this on the List of WWE employees talk page: http://www.lordsofpain.net/reports/fcw-live-event-results-brooksville-fl-ladder-match-no-dq-title-match-new-developmental-diva-debuts-more.html Is this site loyal, or did somebody went to this event and saw her there?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, is this site loyal? Can I move Su Yung into FCW?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey. I'm the one who posted that link. I believe the reporter ('Nuke Graham') on that site actually attends the FCW shows and has in-depth reports of the shows and sometimes even photos as well. All his reports have been accurate thus far, as far as I know. Here are his other FCW results reports from that site.http://www.lordsofpain.net/?s=FCW+Results Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lords of pain is a dirtsheet site, see the style guide.-- Will C  03:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WON and WrestleView is one too and yet we use them. I'm against using ANY of them, but hey, if we're gonna use one, might as well use them all. Feed  back  ☎ 04:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackDown's Updated Logo
Looks like the WWE updated SmackDown's logo, droping the X and giving it a 3D CGI look to it. Take a look here, http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/ Can someone update the logo on the wikipage?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nigel McGuinness/Desmond Wolfe.
I have proposed a page name change from Nigel McGuinness to Desmond Wolfe. I would appreciate your input in this matter. The Madras (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Feed  back  ☎ 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, not yet anyway.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"a 5-time what?"
I see that in divas articles such as Melina Perez, we kinda avoid saying "Melina is a 5-time women's champion" or "5-time diva's champion" or anything like that, because of the different titles those have (Unlike world titles which are all considered WORLD titles). Should we call Melina a "5 time women's champion" if we include her divas reigns or should we call her a "5-time divas"? And what about Gail Kim? Is she a "2-time women's champ"? or a "2-time Knockouts champ"? Or should we just call them "2-time champions". I want to point out that Michael Cole called Gail Kim a "2 time Women's Champion" on a recent episode of Raw, but I don't know if he was either counting the Knockouts title or if he just flubbed. Anyway, opinions would be appreciated for future editing. Feed back  ☎ 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say I don't really have an answer to your question, but I've been noticing more and more articles have this in the intro and it should be two time or five time; any single digit number should be spelt out. Also, my own personal feeling is that a number and word hyphenated looks weird. I don't even know if there's a need for two-time. Is it grammatically correct? Really? Tony2Times (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why even mention that? Just state that she has won the Women's Title 3 times, and the Divas Title 2 times. Just like I did with Gail Kim. If it had to be mentioned though, it should be 5-time Women's Champion, since they are both women's titles.-- Will C  23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Makes sense...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Numbers 1 through 9 should be spelt out. All the others should be written. Thats the style in both MLA and APA formats so I think it would be appropriate to apply it here as well. As for the hyphens, yes its correct. In fact, without the hyphen, it would be incorrect. "x-time", in the way we use it, is obviously an adjective and therefore it should be written as one word. I also agree with Will that we should call them all Women's championships... even if WWE retired it. Feed back  ☎ 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course numbers should be spelt out that are below 10.-- Will C  03:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So if we are to universally use the term Women's Championship then what do we do about indie titles? Is Mickie James a six-time Women's Champion or a 15-time Women's Champion? Or should we say she has held six national women's championships? Tony2Times (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To which one? Tony2Times (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To the national deal.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WWE NXT Question
Since NXT is no longer airing on Syfy, are the replay airings on mun2 and Universal HD also affected?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One would guess so, yes.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked their websites a couple of weeks ago and I believe it will indeed be affected. In fact, I'm quite sure one of the reputable news sites reported it as well. --  Θaks ter  09:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Spelling of The Dudebusters
Looks like a mini-edit war is going on in the Template:World Wrestling Entertainment employees. It's all over the spelling of Caylen Croft and Trent Barreta's tag team name of The Dudebusters. I want to know if they are called "The Dudebusters" or "The Dude Busters"? Also, it looks like someone made a wikipage for The Dudebusters when I thought there was concensus not to make one.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like WWEUltraFan1 created an article over a redirect, so apparently he/she missed that discussion. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are The Dude Busters. I don't know where the confusion is coming from. I don't think they have ever spelt it differently on television.  Feed  back  ☎ 21:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)