Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 82

Kelly Kelly
http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/kellykelly/ - and...... discuss! Mshake3 (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss what? She's just as fired as John Cena was a few months ago. Feed  back  ☎ 21:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What he said. Tony2Times (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this section?
Seeing as how the belt design has taken a life of its own outside of wrestling over the years, while it may seem trivial, I think this section could be expanded. Any thoughts?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if it can be made to read like its not just random trivia then let put it in there.-- Steam Iron  04:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Change on List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel
I was thinking of changing the WWE NXT section to have all who appeared on NXT, yet haven't been promoted to the main roster. I was of thinking about this:

Rookies
I would'nt cos u know they are'nt techinically on the wwe roster just fcw

Rookie Divas
What do you think?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well they're not currently on NXT so it's a bit pointless. We don't have Edge on the Raw roster on account of him being on Raw for the first half of this year. Tony2Times (talk) 08:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For the love of god no its pointless crap that does not need to be there.-- Steam Iron  11:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTCRUFT   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a good idea. Didn't think I was giving cruft.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dividing by shows seems ridiculous to me anyway... its a list of roster/personnel/employees/performers/on-air personalities, show division seems irrelevant. WWE finds the brand extension irrelevant anyway... Maybe to make this more encyclopedic, we should have numerous roster articles based on the year. 2009 World Wrestling Entertainment roster, etc. Feed  back  ☎ 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That maybe a good idea Feedback, but I don't know if it could work.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that would work. Could we really source year roster lists? Not against it, but not for it either. Wrestling is different than most sports, so it would be a bit more complicated and I'm not sure if it is allowed.-- Will C  04:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk's first title reign was vacated
WWE doesn't show when a title is vacated in their title histories. They just skip to the next champion. CM Punk said on Raw that after Orton punted him, he had to forfeit the title. Doesn't that mean it was vacated immediately before Jericho won? Feed back  ☎ 15:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "forfeited" would be more appropriate than vacated. Punk was deemed unable to compete and was forced to forfeit the title.  Unless there was an announcement specifically saying it was vacated.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't we always write "vacated" when the title is forfeited? Feed  back  ☎ 17:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the MOS is for that. I'm just offering my opinion.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the proximity of time and the lack of a formal stripping/holding up/vacating of the title, is this not more akin to one wrestler substituting for an injured one such as Bulldog subbing for Owen and Coach subbing for Regal. Tony2Times (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say Punk forfeited by not being able to compete in the chamber match which to me means he still had the title till Jericho won the match. But that just me so.-- Steam Iron  19:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Championship scramble. Tony2Times (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Crap your right my bad I cant remember that far back for some reason, ether way still seeing as he couldn't compete he forfeited by not being able to compete in the match.-- Steam Iron  20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Championships have changed hands without the champion being involved in the match in the past. This seems to be the case with Punk. This is also supported by the title history on WWE.com.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WWE.com's title histories never have rows for vacancies (vacations?). They just skip to the next champion unlike our tables which divide them. They don't have a row for the period of time after Shawn Michaels lost his smile or when Batista got beat up by Legacy or when Cena got injured or when Undertaker got injured. They just skip to the next guy. The reason there wasn't a formal announcement was because it was literally less than an hour after the title was vacated when Jericho won the match. Also, to answer Tony, if it were a substitution, when Jericho won the match, Punk would have retained the title. Feed  back  ☎ 00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm then you might as well note the vacancy on the list of champions article. I never noticed that on the WWE.com title history page.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 00:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really are personnel opinion. Bottomline is, there is need of a source that says it was vacated. As to just simply it, Punk got attacked. Couldn't compete and gave Jericho his spot. Jericho won the match and the title. No announcement of vacancy. Punk just couldn't compete in the match so there would be a new champion. We need a source that says it was vacated. As them announcing now he may have vacated the title, is revisionist.-- Will C  04:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FAs

 * 1) 2009 WWE Draft - 2 broken links.
 * 2) Bobby Eaton - 2 broken links. (Both are Observer articles. The links redirect to the main site.)
 * 3) CM Punk - 17 broken links.
 * 4) December to Dismember (2006) - 1 broken link. (This is a video of a WWE shareholders meeting that has since been removed).
 * 5) Insane Clown Posse - 14 broken links.
 * 6) List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania - 8 broken links. (Most are from WWE.com)
 * 7) Montreal Screwjob - 2 broken links. (One is a LordsofPain.net news article and the other is a Calgary Herald article; the links are dead now)
 * 8) No Way Out (2004) - 2 broken links. (The second is in fact not broken, but the link CONTAINS ABSOLUTELY NO INFORMATION so it might as well be)
 * 9) Over the Edge (1999) - 1 broken link. (News article on CANOE that has been removed).
 * 10) Shelton Benjamin - 6 broken links.
 * 11) SummerSlam (2003) - 2 broken links. (Both links are the same dead link from billboard.com)
 * 12) The Great American Bash (2005) - 2 broken links. (Two billboard.com links representing the same dead article. Same situation as above.)

... unless some people help me fix the broken links here. I posted this section before, but it was ignored. I don't know if I have to spell it out to the people, but FEATURED ARTICLES WITH BROKEN LINKS ARE NOT FEATURED ARTICLES. Hopefully, they all get fixed in due time. Feed back  ☎ 13:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on most of these nominations, really the PPVs and bios, however the lists not so. Most of these would fail FA on sourcing and prose, but all this is really fixable without need of FAR. I hope it won't come to that. Alot of these problems are simple.-- Will C  14:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted this section before and no one answered which apparently means no one cared. If no one keeps caring, there are consequences. That's basically the point I'm trying to make across. I have no intentions of FAR. Its merely an attention-grabbing title so people could know the gravity of the situation. Feed  back  ☎ 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't most of these be fixed with a trip over to archive.org? Crisis  .  E  X  E  19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'll see if I could fix a couple of these at least. --  Θaks ter  19:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One or two broken links and you want to take it to FAR? So I am thinking 1) overreacting and 2) It bothers you enough to want to go through the whole rigamarole of several FAR's but not enough to spend a fraction of that time actually trying to fix it?  MPJ  -US 00:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It took me longer to type out the above than it took to hop on Google and find the replacement links for the Bobby Eaton article.  MPJ  -US 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Either you don't read or you like to act as if you don't. I'll copy/paste for your convenience: I have no intentions of FAR. Its merely an attention-grabbing title so people could know the gravity of the situation. Feed  back  ☎ 02:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Feedback instead of spending so much damn time on a talk page pointing out these problems, do something about it! Some of us actually have a DAMN life.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  01:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The gravity is well underscored by the fact that the most you want to do about this "huge problem" is to come on here and moan. Yes that really makes it look like it is such a big deal.  MPJ  -US 04:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well maybe we have lives, and we're hoping that the people who have some free time will actually attempt to do something Crisis  .  E  X  E  16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Feedback has been bitching about this for 2 days. He knows what's wrong why doesn't he fix it. Before you say I should be helping too I would but I'm kind of busy right know cause I'm down in Daytona for the Rolex 24 at Daytona.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  16:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're talking featured content we might as well bring up that the FLs need a lot of work and would fail current standards. Afro  ( Talk ) 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all our featured articles need a lot of work. Not only has criteria changed, but the articles changed as well. I believe we should have a month-long project-based FAR every year to make sure they are up to standards. Some of these articles were promoted to FA in 2007 (including Shelton Benjamin's which is 1 that I nominated). It's been 4 years, I'm sure the articles are drastically different. Feed  back  ☎ 21:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The same is true of our Good Articles. There are a lot of them that have unsourced statements or sections. Nikki  ♥  311   03:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it has been established. Alot of our FAs, GAs, and FLs fail. The old lists fail on sourcing, format, prose, etc. The GAs are the same, but also fiction, jargon, in-u, etc. The FAs though I think fail all the criteria, mainly the prose. I say we bring up a joint program. Where we nominate an article for clean up and all the issues. And if it isn't cleaned up in a set amount of time, say a week or two, then it is nominated for delist.-- Will C  04:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As a project member, FAR should be the last resort. I understand that you have tried to find sources but just giving up isn't an option. You know how much we will get laughed at if you FAR articles due to broken links. Some of the prose do suck, but at least some did pass within the past 2 years.-- T ru  c o  503 18:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, next time read the articles. The NWO source for IGN was clearly stated in the prose about why its even in there -__- -- T ru  c o  503 19:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

King Sheamus
Someone's moved Sheamus' page to King Sheamus, I presume without consensus. Is there someone on WPPW who has moving rights seeing as the old page is taken with a redirect now? Tony2Times (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been moved back, with King Sheamus now as a redirect. I warned the editor that did that to not move pages about based on what they saw on television, and advised as to how to properly move a page in the future with a link to the relevant guideline.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, good to know that there's someone here to cover my failings. Tony2Times (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, someone else moved the page back, all I did was warn the user it's bad form to do that. :)     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 20:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem. I edited over the redirect, added revisions to it, which means no one without admin rights can move the page to that target. Problem solved. Feed  back  ☎ 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys
Hey! To those who were around when I was active a couple of years ago... nice to see you again! And to those who joined after that... Hi, I used to go by the name of Kalajan, now I'm Deely, and I'm coming back. I was unblocked about three months ago now, and have logged on once or twice, but I've decided I miss Wikipedia, and I'd like to be active once again. Thanks guys, see you around! Deely 1  16:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's hope this goes well. Feed  back  ☎ 20:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it will. Deely  1  13:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem.... urrrrrhhhh..... Whoooooooo ahem.... Whoooo In the Bluuuuuuuuueesst of Bluuuuueeee Hellll...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 11:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry? :) Deely  1  14:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem?
(Smackdown spoiler here) Ziggler is crowned champion, and we agreed a while ago that this makes him a triple crown champion, but what do we list him as? Dolph Ziggler was never a tag team champion just as Nicky from spirit squad was never a WHC, so do we list him as a triple crown champ under Nick Nemeth or what?90.198.213.169 (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Under kayfabe, Dolph Ziggler and Nicky aren't the same person, so I don't think we should list him as a triple crown champion. Deely  1  14:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In an effort to nip this in the bud before it mutates into some inconsequental, time-consuming beast, I think the reasonable thing to do is list Ziggler with an asterisk, stating that he has in fact held the necessary titles but not under the same identity. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is a Triple Crown Champion. Period. Feed  back  ☎ 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Matt. Deely  1  16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did he even win the title? Spoliers show he wasn't awarded the title. That Long made the match to determine who the champion really was, like a do-over. I don't think he ever was the champion. Perhaps we should wait till WWE change their title history.-- Will C  17:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The report I read had Ziggler awarded the championship and recognized as such, and Edge defeated him for an 11th title win.
 * So, how about we just wait until Friday to see what happens regarding the Championship? Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this question a lot of times. One of you tell me that you will put as a triple crown champion (nic nemeth won the titles), but with a note, saying that WWE doesn't recognoiced as TCC.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second sentence, I'm not sure if you're asking or telling. And I wasn't aware there were conflicting spoilers circulating, so its best to wait until Friday to see the broadcast and reference WWE's title history so we can confirm whether or not he's being recognized as a World Champion. If so, I'm in favor of my asterisk suggestion above. Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "WWE doesn't recognize him as a TCC"? How do you know that? WWE doesn't keep any record of Triple Crown Champs aside from a WWE Magazine Feature! Everyone on that list is a Triple Crown Champion because we say they are. Generally, I consider the whole list non-notable for its own article, but yeah, if we're going to keep it, Dolph doesn't need any note. If he does, then all the other ones need a note saying WWE has never called them Triple Crowns. Benoit also needs a note saying he isn't on WWE's Magazine Feature. Feed  back  ☎ 21:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the entire list is cruft and should be done away with. However, I don't see why everyone would need a note by their name, or for what reason.  The only complication is that, if Dolph is recognized as the Heavyweight Champion on Friday, Nick Nemeth has qualified for the Triple Crown, but under a single identity.  The WWE's championship history wouldn't reflect the Triple Crown qualificiations. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Helms was referenced as a multiple-time Cruiserweight champion even though EVERY SINGLE one of those reigns were in different characters. Recently, Stone Cold was referenced as a former Million Dollar Champion even though he was "The Ringmaster" at the time. How is this any different? Feed back  ☎ 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The lineages are acknowledged. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And who says WWE doesn't ackwnoledge Ziggler as a former Tag Champ? Feed  back  ☎ 22:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he? I can't check the WWE Title History here, but if someone could, does it have Dolph Ziggler listed as a champion, or Nicky from the Spirit Squad? Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we please talk about people posting GODDAMN spoilers like the one above, it's plain annoying and it just ruins the point of surprise. Like I'm pretty sure everyone knew Edge was gonna win the match last week had they been watching SportsCenter last Wednesday cause they gave it away. Now I can't do anything about them but we can do something about people like the guy above giving away the damn result 2 days before it airs.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  22:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can Will you please remain WP:CIVIL when making a point? Also, read WP:SPOILERS.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Question, why do we have to continue with spoilers, I'm pretty sure I'm not the...ugh here we go again, deja vu again.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  23:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the policy. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, regardless of the name or character the wrestler performed as when he or she won a title, we recognized the reign. Period. That's the way we've always handled that situation. Now as to whether or not Mr. Ziggles was awarded the heavyweight title and the reign is officially recognized by WWE or Teddy Bear simply made a match to determine the true champion later that night, well none of that really matters. Seeing as how these events have only been cited by on hand reports of Tuesday's tapings, the text is subject to anyone's interpretation. Until SmackDown airs or until any mention of Mr. Ziggles' reign is made in the title history section on WWE.com, nothing is going to go down here. Ahem... know your role jabronies...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually did have a reply to this, but I don't think anyone wants this topic to continue on further than I do. I agree that we need to wait (primarily because WillC mentioned a conflicting spoiler).  As to the Triple Crown issue, I'll just accept consensus.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I read a very decent report about a guy really paying attention to know if Ziggler was given the title. He said Teddy forced him in a title DEFENSE and Edge was announced as the NEW World Champion and Edge then talked about becoming an 11-time world champion here in San Diego... so yeah, I'm sure Ziggler had the title, just like he had the Intercontinental AND the tag team titles. Feed  back  ☎ 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are spoilers, can't trust them in most cases as we don't know if the writer is trustworthy. No crediblity. Lets wait till it airs and WWE update their site. When we know for certain that Ziggler had a reign for the 15 minutes he held the belt, then we'll add it. The spoilers from WV I read stated he was to be awarded the title, but Long came out to do it and instead announced a match for the title between the two. So it doesn't seem Ziggler held the belt or was stated as the champion. Could be wrong, idk. Best to be accurate. Also, I'm nominating the list for protection until then as well.-- Will C  07:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to protect it? In about 12 hours, it will be aired in Australia. Feed  back  ☎ 08:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because WWE's website won't be updated until Friday night or early Saturday morning to know for sure. That is what we need, WWE crediting Ziggler with a reign.-- Will C  09:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think him appearing on national television and being declared champion is enough. Feed  back  ☎ 15:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How are we going to verfy he was declared the champion if we don't have a source? We need something to show the reign was recognized.-- Will C  01:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, it airs tonight in Australia. That's enough. Cite episode. Feed  back  ☎ 02:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you live there so you'll be able to know exactly that they declare him as champion? Otherwise, using cite episode is OR and hope. You don't see the point you are only going by what the spoiler said. They can say oh he is the champion, but over-rule that and say it was a reversal and we won't know until afterwards.-- Will C  03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I say it because I watch Smackdown every Friday morning on sports2watch.com which posts the Australian showing. Feed  back  ☎ 03:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Kilq (WWF/WWE)
on the kliq page i edited it to say according to bret harts autobiography: hitman bret was asked to join the group but refused. and guess what they took off my edit saying it was unproven r u kidding me it was in bret hart hitman u know the autobiography released around 07 well tell that to those clue bot jerks come on has anyone read bret hart hitman if so tell them that. i was'nt saying that it was nessisarly proven or true i was saying it as in harts auto biography come on wikipedia get actual people to check our edits!!!!
 * Get a clue about citing sources dude. Further, your edit was not undone by a bot .   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 05:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

what do u mean?
 * I looked everywhere I could for that in the book and didn't find it. Unless its total bullshit, can you tell me where I can find it? Feed  back  ☎ 08:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tough Enough contestants on List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel
I got a question, should we add the Tough Enough contestants on List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel since they're going to be on "WWE TV"? Are they even classified as employees during their involvement with Tough Enough?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The wrestlers aren't employees. They're independent workers just like the Tough Enough contestants so yeah, I think we should add them. It should be "List of World Wrestling Entertainment performers" anyway. Like that we can get rid of the backstage agents from the list... (we don't even know if they all still work for WWE). Feed  back  ☎ 21:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WHC Mess explained, with spoilers.
Just to clear this thing up from watching the broadcast online, basically, Vickie fired Edge, then gave Ziggler the WHC, then Theodore Long came back, and reinstated Edge, and put him in a title match which he won, and edge was announced as the NEW champion, so I think that makes Edge an 11 time champ, and Dolph a 1 time champion. Crisis. E X  E  13:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I keep telling you guys to wait till the dang episode airs before we post anything. And before anyone tags me with the SPOILERS policy AGAIN I'll tell you right now I've read it AGAIN. And we shouldn't use the policy every week to ruin the episode because we end up with a mess like this. Why can't we make it a policy here to not add spoilers and ruin it for everyone.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Tell me this Nascar King, Do you read the Edge article every week? Most people don't. Therefore its not ruining anything for most people. If the policy allows spoilers, then they are allowed. There should not on the other hand be week by week updates, that is not allowed. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I watched the show. Edge is an 11-time champion. Ziggler is a 1-time Champion. End of discussion. Hope everyone's happy. Feed  back  ☎ 21:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Feedback, that's basically what I was trying to say, anyway Crisis  .  E  X  E  22:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it about time...
To change Bryan Danielson into Daniel Bryan?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, as many still know him as Danielson. Wrestled in the US, Japan, etc. Won countless titles around the world as well.-- Will C  23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, today is his anniversary on making it to the WWE, so yeah, go a head. I think 1 whole year is enough Will, especially with all of his accomplishments in WWE during that year. Feed  back  ☎ 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, can someone change it? I don't know how to/can't do it.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To have it moved a full discussion is needed. This is not a consensus just because Feedback feels differently. Danielson has only won the US title in WWE and done much of nothing else. Now he is involved in a WWE Divas feud. If he were to be released tomorrow, no one would really remember him. Looking at the years as Danielson going around the world, being ROH World Champion, PWG World Champion, etc to him in WWE for a year.-- Will C  07:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the way most civilized discussions go to determine an article name based on notability is through the use of a search engine result count... such as google or bing or whatever. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Tests aren't final, but they do help. "Bryan Danielson" has 279,000 results while "Daniel Bryan" has 868,000 results. I agree with Will that a discussion is needed, albeit a short one. There's really no denying that Daniel Bryan is more known by his newer name. Of course, indie wrestling fans will know him under his other name, but the number of indie wrestling fans is very minimal compared to WWE's outreach. 367 days since debuting on WWE television under Daniel Bryan is enough to warrant article placement. Feed  back  ☎ 12:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A Google test is completely useless for something like this. Things that are more recent have more hits. Thus, "Barack Obama" comes up with more hits than "George Washington", "Thomas Jefferson", "Abraham Lincoln", and "Theodore Roosevelt" combined. Does this mean that he's better known or more significant than all of the presidents on Mount Rushmore put together? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, yes he is. The most recent president will be more known than the others. There are a lot of stupid people in the United States who can't name their presidents, but even they know Obama is the current one so yeah, the current one is definitely more known. Feed  back  ☎ 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes he can. Tony2Times (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he should be moved. 1 year is quite enough. Deely  1  15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets see 1 year in WWE compared to several years elsewhere. Lets not forget WWE pushing his indy days as well. Him being released by WWE at one point and returning to the indies. Or we could do a test and see if he is more known in Japan as Bryan or Daniel. Just being in WWE does not make that the most common name. Look at Low Ki for instance.-- Will C  21:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Will most people these days like me had never heard of Bryan Danielson because we don't pay an extra $20 Bucks a month for SHOWTIME. So many Americans (and I'm pretty sure it's mainly Americans who use English Wikipedia) don't know what ROH is because we've never seen it on TV. I also come from the South so I knew about the WWE. Anyone from the US will tell you Daniel Bryan is more well known.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  00:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would've said this was more accurate 10+ years ago, but the Internet has given many smaller promotions significant media outlets. (Also... Showtime? What?)  Plenty of American wrestling fans know Ring of Honor exists, and the episode of NXT in which Danielson was eliminated, Danielson himself references the lack of notability of Daniel Bryan.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of American wrestling fans"? We aren't supposed to appeal to the wrestling fans, we're supposed to appeal to the average person who visits Wikipedia. The average person isn't a wrestling fan, but the average person does know at least wrestling exists and if they are told to mention a wrestling company, they'll say WWF/E because they probably think its the only one. Feed  back  ☎ 02:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just a broad generalization there. Anyway, I say give it some more time before switching to the ring name.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course its a generalization! We can't appeal to specific people, we have to appeal to the general Wikipedia reader. This isn't a rocket science, Matt. We know you're a wrestling fan just as we all are, but the common reader isn't. Feed  back  ☎ 02:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet if you said Bryan Danielson or Daniel Bryan the average person wouldn't know who they were like many WWE wrestlers except the larger ones. So thus just being in WWE doesn't make him any more known by Daniel Bryan.-- Will C  07:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we post his picture on the front page and tell the readers to identify if they know who this is, you're right that the top answer will be "I don't know". But the 2nd top answer will be "Daniel Bryan". Why? Because he's in WWE and the millions of people that watch WWE and not Ring of Honor know about him. Ring of Honor has thousands of fans yes, but WWE has MILLIONS around the world. It's not that hard to understand that if you don't work in WWE, you don't have that type of exposure. Feed  back  ☎ 12:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You confuse WWE crowds with rememberence. Yeah, WWE reaches millions. Around 5 Million in the US alone today it seems, which is less than 2% of the overall population. Then add in the other 5 million from around the world. You also forget that Danielson is known in Canada, Mexico, Japan, etc prior to even being in WWE. He has received really no promotion in WWE, so the 5 million still don't really know him. There is simply no way to determine which he is more known as. Because just saying WWE reaches more is not a default yes. Your front page thing might come up as that, but it might not. As you only see WWE, but forget ROH did shows in Japan, etc. And Danielson wrestled in Japan where it gets more exposure. Being in WWE is not the final answer, we must show which he is more known as. Can't quote common name without showing it is his common name.-- Will C  21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This conversation is coming up very ridiculous as you're refusing to see the point. WWE has done shows in EVERY SINGLE country Ring of Honor has done shows plus more. And guess what? The WWE shows in those countries draw more than 10x what those Ring of Honor shows draw. Ring of Honor's audience is a couple hundred [maybe less] and WWE's is a couple thousand [maybe more]. You're refusing to see the point, but you know its there. Feed  back  ☎ 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, stating the obvious. WWE a billion-dollar company holds shows more than a small indy company, wow. Oh, wait that still doesn't mean a wrestler who is NOT known by the general population is known by a name he got there. There is a difference between a company being big and whether a wrestler is known by something. Give an example not related to wrestling, got the Democratic Party known by many in the US and around the world, but some don't know who Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Weiner is. Just because you belong to something large doesn't mean you are known.-- Will C  05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But it is more LIKELY that someone knows Kucinich than the Democratic representative in some small district in Omaha, likewise it is more LIKELY that someone knows a wrestler from their time in the WWE than ROH, they have a larger pool of POTENTIAL people that will even know him. But really spending all this time on which name he is listed under and which is the redirect?  MPJ  -US 06:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure I'd agree with that, but take that same small representive and have them hold multiple offices and they'd be better known. Same as Danielson who not only was in ROH, but Dragon Gate, NJPW, etc and it is moreso even. As the majority of hype around Danielson is from his time before WWE.-- Will C  07:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes several small COULD add up to more than one large, the leap from the small to the large is so vast here. Also a one off or short tours with DG or NJPW doesn't really make that much of a difference, now if he had worked regularly and achieved something significant in these promotions then yeah they may add up, but "2 matches for DragonGate here", "4 shows in Canada there" etc that still means he was seen by a lot less people than in the WWE where they reach more people by TV and generally have more fans at their shows. Will, I'm just going to stop discussing this, people have spoken their minds, so have you (repeatedly) and frankly I know your position is not likely to change any time soon, so WP:PW may gain a consensus, but not a unanimous voice for or against. My 2 cents have been given.  MPJ  -US 08:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Winning the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship in NJPW I think would be significant enough over there. However, no one has yet to show any credible and hard evidence that Danielson is more known as Daniel Bryan. So how can anyone quote that guideline if they can't prove it? That is what it all comes down to. You can say anything about crowd sizes, etc of companies. They are not the subject matter. It is the person and what their common name is. That is one problem around here, we think company and not wrestler. Because the general population has heard of WWE they think the general population knows of all the wrestlers. That is a bad misconception. I'm trying to get a clear reason to move the article. Because alot of the time the only idea is "Oh, been in WWE a while so lets move it." or "They went to WWE, move the article now."-- Will C  11:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in on this. I'm a casual wrestling fan and don't follow any one promotion more than any other. I couldn't tell you who Daniel Bryan is, but calling him Bryan Danielson tells me exactly who it is. I would say that this would be like putting the Kevin Nash page as Diesel simply because that is his most recent name in the WWE and he had used it before. I vote leave this as Bryan Danielson. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris Jericho
Hey, folks. I've just semiprotected this article through Wrestlemania (and a bit further) because I've gotten tired of the dimwits new contributors posting rumours, speculation, and generally pissing around with it lately. However, it's a real hash as it stands - lots of in-universe stuff and running commentary on storylines, etc. It could really do with some knowledgeable folks with more time than I've got to go through and give it a polish, cut down some of the cruft and generally pretty it up... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that, not many work on bios anymore around here. Though I'll work on it eventually. Been planning to get both of Jericho's books to help source and add information.-- Will C  09:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I try and keep it in check from time to time but his career's so expansive I wouldn't know where to begin. Source material aside, I found Jericho's first memoirs highly entertaining and engaging, far better written than Foley's and funnier. Haven't read the second yet but I'd recommend reading the first ASAP, I wolfed through it in a fortnight and have re-read it thrice even though I loathe non-fiction for the most part. Tony2Times (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on it... Do we still frown upon week by weeks?  SteelersFan- 9] ][[Special:Contributions/Steelerfan-94| 4  03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well at the minute that's kinda irrelevent for Jericho as he's not doing anything week to week :( Tony2Times (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Protect WWE Velocity
Some IPs think Velocity's coming back on the air on MyNetworkTV, which I've checked and proven that it's not true. I think the page should be protected from these vandals.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Novak problem
WWEJobber thinks Jacob Novak's real name is his ring-name. He made a reference to this site, but I don't see anything relavent to Novak nor prove his real name. I think he placed a real "Jacob Novak" profile to say it's his real name. Can someone help me on this?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really much here to do except to advise the editor of the reliable sources policy, as the site he referenced is definitely considered unreliable.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment/archive1
To whom it may concern. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive
Shouldn't have the top conversations been archived by now? I think someone needs to fix that. Feed back  ☎ 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough Enough contestants on List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel
I've brought this back from the archive section. Since USA has revealed the Tough Enough cast on USA.com, should we add them to the List of World Wrestling Entertainment personnel?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. USA has contracted them, not WWE. In fact, WWE had to release several of the two contestants that were in FCW from their developmental contracts so they could appear on the show. Feed  back  ☎ 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Complaint
I haven't spent a whole lot of time lately with PW articles. After looking over a few pages in my watchlist, it's easy to understand why. It appears that the issue of sourcing is being used as an excuse to delete valid information, and also to include dubious information. I've brought this up previously and was likely ignored, but here we go again...

Basically, I went through all the pages, and some talk pages, for this project and related articles on sourcing issues. All I can see is arguments about whether one web site or another is reliable or not. Let me explain briefly explain where I'm coming from. rec.sport.pro-wrestling was in its infancy when I started using the Internet in 1989. In other words, I've been here before the web, much less wrestling websites. When I started reading these websites, I picked up right away on the historical revisionism bent of these sites. Thankfully, there are other sites devoted to accurately chronicling wrestling history. If all you knew about pro wrestling was from reading mainstream wrestling websites, you would believe that pro wrestling was invented by McMahon, Jr. in 1984. That is, unless you're from the Northeast United States, in which case obviously you know that pro wrestling was invented by McMahon, Sr. in 1963.

I hope you realize that I'm being highly facetious, and that you otherwise get my point. Why should I go to the trouble of seeking sources more legitimate than web-based (which tends to approach real work), when apparently, everyone else I see out there is content to take the easy route?

This issue started with me largely over the issue of "billed from" with various wrestlers, and upon digging deeper, graduated to where I notice WWE centrism and American centrism in far too many pages, especially where such a thing doesn't belong. Back to the issue of where a wrestler is billed from, these appear to have been systematically edited to reflect a WWF/E-centric perspective. In other words, if someone was billed from one place in a territory, and another place in the WWF, you're just dismissing the former out of hand. If I were to dig up my stash of 25-30 year old PWIs and start adding information based upon that, would it all be quickly deleted by someone who is of the belief that it's not "reliable" because it isn't a website? I take it most of the people who are reading this work on little else than PW articles. Here's some advice. The best pages on Wikipedia are the best pages for two simple reasons. Their contributors recognize that information exists out there which cannot be accessed by Google, and that there is more to the world out there than just the subject matter being written about. It appears that valid information is also being deleted from wrestling pages because the information is not strictly about pro wrestling, but would otherwise be fine in any other similar page on another subject matter. That's really a whole other issue I don't have the time to go into right now.

Back to the "billed from" issue once more, my current poster child for that would be the Funks. The Double Cross Ranch was Terry's gimmick. Dory had nothing to do with it until he came to the WWF with Terry. All that is listed on Dory's page is "Billed from: The Double Cross Ranch." I hope anyone out there reading realizes that this has the effect of marginalizing his nearly two decades as a main event star, for the only apparent reason being that it didn't occur in the WWF. Similarly, the information in Jesse Barr's page is skewed towards his Jimmy Jack gimmick, nearly to the exclusion of the years and years he spent elsewhere as Jesse Barr, including in main events. There are far too many pages on here which suffer from the same syndrome - someone who was a main eventer in the territories is portrayed here strictly in terms of one promotion they may have appeared in, usually the WWF.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. In response to your complaint, we do the best we can with the source material available to us. Concerns such as time and money are obviously impediments to our ability to cover every topic comprehensively--as this is a volunteer effort, I think it's safe to assume that may people don't have hundreds of dollars to spend on back issues of magazines in the hope of finding a few facts. Personally, I have a bit of a stash of magazines in my basement, but my schedule doesn't leave me with much time to go through them very often. As you point out, reliable internet sources are obviously skewed toward the more high-profile aspects of wrestling, which often tend to be WWF-centric. This should not be seen as an endorsement of WWF-centrism by project members; it is simply all that we are able to find. With that said, I feel that it's quite admirable that this project has produced so many articles of such high quality--I certainly hope you can agree that the project members have invested a lot of time and effort into making the professional wrestling project such a productive area of Wikipedia. If you have a sizeable quantity of reliable sources (and yes, PWI would definitely constitute a reliable source for such information as wrestler's "billed from" locations), we would certainly appreciate any help you can provide with broadening the scope of the articles, provided the sourcing information is given with in-text citations. We recognize that your concern is certainly valid, and any help to overcome any current deficiencies in wrestling articles would be wonderful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WWE Hall of Fame
I think I proposed something along these lines before, but I've been looking through the page, and I think the notes section needs improvement. As it is now, most wrestler entries just include major championships. For someone like Flair or Bret Hart, this explains a lot. But, when you have a wrestler like Gorgeous George, Ted DiBiase or Abdullah the Butcher, it becomes much more difficult to explain their influence through the titles they held. So, maybe we should instead expand the notes with an explanation from WWE.com.

For example, for Bullet Bob, the description currently reads "Held several NWA regional championships. Father of four wrestlers: Scott, Brad, Steve and Brian."

But, that could be changed to something like: "In the ring, "Bullet" Bob Armstrong carved out distinction as a tough, working-class hero who would never back down from a fight. [...] The crowds who lined up to watch the grappler in arenas throughout Alabama and Georgia saw something of themselves in Armstrong. He wasn't the biggest man in the ring and he wasn't flashy, but he had tenacity. It was this “never say die” spirit that helped Armstrong persevere when a weightlifting accident nearly disfigured him. Instead of sulking on the sidelines, he pulled on a mask and became "The Bullet." His popularity only grew."

It goes a much longer way in describing why he should be considered a Hall of Famer. Titles can still be included, and could be moved to their own section. I guess the concerns are POV (ie. How do you choose which paragraphs of a page long bio to use) and length, but I think implementing this would improve the page. -- Scorpion 0422  01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Koko B. Ware, Sunny and Drew Carey are Hall of Famers. I think its safe to say there is nothing that makes people Hall of Famers and they pick random people out of a hat. Next year's class are Repo Man, The Shockmaster, Jeremy Piven, Mike Adamle, Ranjin Singh, Steve Blackman and Hilary Clinton. Feed  back  ☎ 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS - what a joke that has become now.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, you forgot to mention Randy Mulkey and Thunderbolt Patterson. Seriously though, while it's fairly common knowledge that announcers don't seem to matter to the WWE in their particular presentation of pro wrestling's history and legacy, am I going to get any disagreement when I state that they really fucked up by not inducting Lance Russell?RadioKAOS (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WWE does occasionally induct non-WWE wrestlers and non-WWE owners, but a non-WWE announcer? I doubt that's gonna happen any time soon. If anything, I felt the Hall of Fame should strictly be for people who wrestled and gained notoriety in the WWE. But they have no idea what the hell they're doing so whatever. How the hell is Bob Backlund not in? Mick Foley? Bruno Sammartino? The Fabulous Freebirds? Ron Simmons? Come on. Feed  back  ☎ 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gordon Solie? Tony2Times (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Touché. Feed  back  ☎ 04:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that I was at wikipedia asking for opinions from fellow editors. It turns out I posted my question at a wrestling forum. Next time I won't bother asking here (and then some jerk will revert me for not having "project consensus"). -- Scorpion 0422  20:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like your idea. It seems to be adding a lot of POV peacock terms. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one likes your idea and we all stated why: BECAUSE THE HALL OF FAME IS A JOKE. There is no criteria to get in and therefore nothing that "makes them a Hall of Famer". You want to fill a column with things that make people Hall of Famers, well, it's just impossible without breaking WP:NPOV. There, here's your "project consensus". I'm sure Gary, Tony, ArcAngel and KADS up there all agree. Feed  back  ☎ 23:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll disagree there as well. With that argument, listing championships is equally meaningless, as the championships aren't the actual reason that the people were inducted. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But then their induction is as arbitrary as the championships bestowed upon them. Tony2Times (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The "___, ____ and ____ were inducted" argument as to why the Hall of Fame doesn't mean anything is pretty weak. If you focus only on the worst ten inuctees, then you can make any Hall of Fame seem illegitimate. The fact is that about 80% of the current inductees are pretty deserving of the honour. As for the "___, ____ and ____ weren't inducted" argument, you have to remember that with this Hall of Fame, inductee co-operation is a requirement. I can't explain the Freebirds not being in (with WM in Atlanta, I thought this would be their year), but Bob Backlund and Bruno Sammartino have previously turned down induction. As have others like The Ultimate Warrior and Honky Tonk Man. With some, notably Randy Savage and Owen Hart, there are other issues keeping them out of the hall.

But all that is beside the point, as even if it is just a marketing ploy with no real value, that's still not a reason not to make certain changes. I agree with Gary about "POV peacock terms", which is what a lot of the WWE.com bios are. I wish they had a section where they gave very brief descriptions of their career highlights, but they don't. I guess we just have to continue addressing the descriptions on a case by case basis, and fill-in for some (like Gorgeous George) where required. -- Scorpion 0422  23:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Other halls of fame might be good sources for some. For example, Gorgeous George is described here at the PWHF. It might still be POV, but it's at least not a primary source. If need be, we could clarify with "Has been described as...". GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading all the comments this sounds more of a blog discussion now. Feedback's comment about picking someone at random seems to have made this blog like. I could be wrong but that's what it seems like.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  23:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WWE Intercontinental Championship Dual-branded now?
I was wondering, since Wade Barrett won the WWE Intercontinental Championship this week and The Corre appears on both Raw and SmackDown due to Justin Gabriel and Heath Slater holding the WWE Tag Team Championship, does holding the tag titles and winning a singles title make the singles title dual-branded as well?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that the already laughable brand split has been upheld at all over the past 18 months (conversely enough around the time when they began Bragging Rights), but Wade Barrett hasn't competed on Raw since 24th January, he appears only a in managerial role to Gabriel and Slater. He's not dual-branded by proxy, so neither is the title by proxy of being by proxy. Tony2Times (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New look WWE.com
If you haven't noticed, WWE.com has had its most drastic redesign in years. As far as I know, it looks like the majority of the pages are still around but some of them have clearly moved, so it will definetly affect our current sourcing a bit. I'll have a check and see what's been moved to let you guys know. So far:


 * Any biography links ending with "/name/bio" should now be moved simply to "/name".
 * For any results pages from February 28 and after, the links have moved to "showname/yyyy-mm-dd/results"
 * For any results pages before February 28, the links have moved from "showname/archive/number" to "showname/archive/number/mainarticle"
 * For pay-per-view sites, the most recent event pages has moved from "eventname/matches/number/results/" to "eventname/currentepisode/number/".
 * For pay-per-view sites, previous event pages have moved from "eventname/history/year/matches/number/results/" to "eventname/history/year/matches/number"
 * Title histories remain untouched. If anything, there's an additional page on retired championships.
 * News and feature pages also remain untouched.
 * Specialty matches section is completely dead.

--  Θaks ter  16:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the new look, but I tried getting on the NXT video site where the show airs, it looks like it's getting updated too. Am I the only one experiencing this?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks the same to me, but some of their links haven't been fixed on that site. Can't say I'm the biggest fan of the new site. Some of it is a complete mess now. --  Θaks ter  20:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through all of the featured content and fixed all of the links now. The good articles will need a going through though. --  Θaks ter  21:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * These seem to be very systematic changes. Can we get a bot to do this? WP:PW really needs its own bot. Feed  back  ☎ 22:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WCW going to be revived?
WWE.com has launched a WCW section on their website. I was wondering, by WWE doing this and putting WCW on the SmackDown vs. Raw video games mean that WWE is reviving WCW as the new third brand?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF, how are you getting that? It's just a new webpage, man, not a brand. Feed  back  ☎ 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, Feed, but with recent SDvs.R games with a WCW Brand and DVDs featuring WCW, I was thinking maybe Vince might bring back WCW as a brand, like he did with ECW, before it went bad.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No dude they're just honoring the 10th anniversary of the day WWF bought out WCW that's all.-- Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bob Holly and the Intercontinental Championship
Something needs to be done so that these two articles are in synch. Holly's page has him listed as having one reign as Intercontinental Champion, however he is not included in Wikipedia's List of WWE Intercontinental Champions. Now to me, this is a very simple issue: one of the pages needs to be fixed. So I sought to correct this in Holly's page by removing his reign, however it was reverted back to say that he was champion. So then I tried to correct the List of Intercontinental Champions so as to include Holly's reign, however this was reverted back to say he does not have a reign (and has been reverted multiple times when someone tries to add Holly in). Now call me crazy (just using it as a figure of speech, please no one post a simple 'You're crazy' response), but this seems to be a glaring contradiction that tarnishes the credability of both pages, and to an extent Wikipedia itself, to have one page say "Yes, Holly had a reign" and the other to say "No, Holly did not have a reign," and for both to be considered accurate. Granted, Holly's page does say the reign is unofficial, however every other 'List of (insert) Championship' page has unofficial reigns listed. Personally I feel his reign should not be counted, as there are numerous other instances where wrestlers have pinned champions in controversial fashion, been declared champion, and then the title was vacated as a result, and those wresltes are not listed as having reigns. But I have grown tired of trying to edit (and re-edit) the pages myself, so I'm going to appeal to those here on the project page as to what action should be taken so that those two pages are not giving contradictory informantion. 76.29.164.90 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * After doing some research ie. looking at the official list on WWE.com Holly's reign was and still is not recognized by WWE so I will remove it from his page.-- Steam Iron  05:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Third party sources don't have him listed either. Remove...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Colouring WP:PW-related navboxes
Just wondering, what's the recent colouring in of navbox templates? I'm not entirely against the use of it, as protesting against it probably goes too much into WP:DEW territory. But if we're going along with it, I would like to warn about WP:COLOR and using too much bright colours that might cause accessibility problems. The amount of bright red/black I'm seeing recently is a little too unbearable. --  Θaks ter  18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you want somebody to tone down the red and black to a light red/light black?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Undertaker
This is off topic, does anyone know how Calloway is doing after WM? Any legit injuries? If all of it was a work, they sure as hell did a good job selling it. Except for that idiot ref telling Hunter to back off after he fell outside the ring... Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully no-one'll have a go at me for breaking forum rules; aside from the usual wear and tear that most wrestlers suffer from and Calaway's own injuries, he isn't any more banged up than you would expect him to it was just terrific selling. Don't know why you think the ref is an idiot, I was expecting HHH to turn heel and attack him as the cerebral assasin. Tony2Times (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this was a brilliant way to write off The Undertaker for a whole year. Last year, he only wrestled 13 matches on television and PPV. From now on, they can make WrestleMania more special by having him wrestle once a year. I vote for Undertaker/Miz. Yeah, someone is probably going to show up and shout WP:Forum on us. Feed  back  ☎ 11:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment → WWE
Since it's starting to heat up over at the related article (albeit with bad sourcing), I might as well give a heads up here. It might very well be the case that World Wrestling Entertainment is pulling a KFC and renaming themselves simply as "WWE". A comparison of their corporate site from last May to today seems to say it all. However, with no official press statement like the WWF/WWE change in 2002, I'm not entirely sure how to approach this at the moment.

I'm also assuming if this move is official, we'll take the approach we've always done in the articles and not resort to revisionism (i.e. pre-2002 is World Wrestling Federation (WWF), 2002-2011 is World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), post-2011 is simply WWE). --  Θaks ter  22:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OR... coming to conclusions much? Unless WWE actually announces the name change its pretty much original research.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They aren't announcing it, they're just quietly dropping it. Search corporate.wwe.com. They've dropped every mention of the full name in any current sections. The only mentions of the name are in archived financial reports. Feed  back  ☎ 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." - WP:OR... Your arguments are basically based off assumptions, a no-no here. Note the "THEYRE BRINGIN BACK WCW AS A BRAND OMGZ!!!" discussion above.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No argument, no analysis, no assumptions, just a fact: They used to have the name on their website, now they don't. That simple fact is notable enough for inclusion in the article even if you don't want the name change. (Compare it to the WWE Corporate website in January 2010) Feed  back  ☎ 06:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait so you argue that simply because the corporate website no longer reads "World Wrestling Entertainment" and now only reads "WWE" then that means World Wrestling Entertainment has changed their name, and you take that as fact? See the only fact gathered from that argument is that the corporate website no longer reads "World Wrestling Entertainment" and now only reads "WWE," not that World Wrestling Entertainment has simply changed their name to WWE. Again its assumption. WP:OR-101. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just the header, but about every article and section being published. Face it, they're removing all mentions of the name, the name is gone. They don't want it, they don't need to use it, so they're not using it. Not in the header, not in the company overview, not in the press releases, not in the articles, not anywhere. Feed  back  ☎ 06:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol "Face it?" you seem to be very emotionally invested in this. I'm simply pointing out the flaws in your argument and reminding you that policy states "zero assumptions." Unfortunately, the only factual thing we can pull out from your thorough assessment is that corporate.wwe.com no longer reads "World Wrestling Entertainment."-- Unquestionable Truth -- 07:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Emotionally invested? Where are you coming up with this hooey? I'm just telling you the name change is obvious, it's not my fault you don't want to see it. Maybe you're in denial, maybe you're just oblivious, IDK, but it's happening, it's there, there's evidence, there's news reports, it's done. WWE has abandoned its long name just like KFC and MTV did before them. Feed  back  ☎ 10:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * UT, you seem to be forgetting that WWE is a primary source. We rely on Secondary sources. If you guys find reliable, secondary sources that state it, then put it in. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The beginning of the opening article in this weeks Wrestling Observer:

"There was a meeting this past week at Titan Towers where the decision was finalized by Vince McMahon, although it had been pretty much expected for some time, that World Wrestling Entertainment is no more.

''The company formerly known as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., is now WWE Inc. and the initials no longer stand for anything. It's basically a continuation of trying to eliminate the words "wrestling" and "wrestler" from the vocabulary thinking it is holding the company back.''

The company sent out its annual report this week listing its name as "The New WWE," and on the front page it says, "The launch of a WWE Network is an example of one transformative change in our sights. Further exemplifying this paradigm shift, we are changing our branding from World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE and moving beyond our wrestling heritage. We believe The New WWE will ultimately generate meaningful earnings growth and support greater returns to you, our shareholders." 75.146.53.33 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its going to take WWE themselves to officially brand themselves as "WWE Corporation" before we can ever make that change, we can't just go off what WON has stated or those other dirt sheet sites because once this name change occurs, its going to make the rounds on media outlets because its a corporate name change of a well known company. -- T ru  c o  503 00:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, I have no interest either way, but this would appear to go against all relevant policies. I suggest that at the least notate the action on the WWE article. A section detailing the reported change, not judging the validity of the change is necessary. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone talking about some pointless name change that'll probably only affect the stock market when the WrestleMania XXVII page is starting to get out of control. From people adding unnessassary info to removing references & entire sections. Voices in my Head   WrestleMania XXVII  15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)--

It's official: http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011_04_07.html 138.163.106.71 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Requested move is over at Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment.-- Tærkast  ( Discuss ) 13:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think people are going a little crazy with this whole updating for the name change thing. What's the point of moving templates and creating a bunch of redirects? -- Scorpion 0422  23:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to have World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE as headers now? Tony2Times (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship page
There are two issues I have found regarding the ECW section of the Triple Crown Championship page. The first being that the lead section states that "National promotions that officially recognize Triple Crown winners include World Wrestling Entertainment, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, Ring of Honor, and the defunct Extreme Championship Wrestling." I believe that ECW should be removed from this list, as the original company did not recognize any such accolade. It was not until years after the company shut down and filed bankruptcy, and WWE subsequently purchased all of it's assets, including the championships, that recognition came to an ECW TC (February 27, 2006 according to the source given). The ECW promotion no longer existed; WWE was the controlling promotion.

And the second issue is the source itself. The only reference to an ECW TC is from Matthew Cardona calling Mikey Whipwreck the ECW Triple Crown Champion. To me this does not seem like a very reliable source to be using as justification for creating an ECW TC. Granted WWE.com allowed the material to be published on their website, however it was not them directly saying so, they essentially just put up what Cardona stated. There have been several instances where a person saying they achieved something (Miz stating he is a Grand Slam Champion, JBL stating he was a GSC before he won the IC), and those have not been allowed into articles. So a person with no control over the matter saying that someone else is a TCC does not seem to have much credability to it. Thoughts? 76.29.164.90 (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tony2Times (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree-- Steam Iron  08:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a different issue. While person or persons certainly did a good job with the article, I have never heard the term "triple crown" used in the context of a professional wrestling title except for the AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship.  The other triple crown sounds like an invention of the blogosphere to me, and certainly nowhere near as notable as the Japanese title.  While some of you may wish to argue with me about WWE centrism, there is no doubt in my mind about American centrism, which I've tried to correct when I can on account of folks who probably have no clue of such a thing.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the page. Either WP:CRUFT or WP:OR. Take your pick. Feed  back  ☎ 20:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would appeal to those of you here to please help edit the page. Despite my clearly stated reasoning in the Edit Summary section, and also my unresponded/unrefuted comments on the Triple Crown Championship talk page, any time I try to edit the page it quickly gets reverted back, I believe by someone watching the page and usually with just a "don't there's a source" reasoning. It appears to me that the person/s does/do not want to defend the source nor refute an argument against the content. 76.29.164.90 (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(Tangent) If we're going to include ROH, then what about Samoa Joe? He was (albeit briefly) part of the Prophecy when they were tag champs, and defended it with them in a 6 man tag when they were using the freebird rule. 92.12.18.17 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like OR to me. I'm with Feedback.  I think the legitimacy of the page needs to be thoroughly evaluated. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

how about WCW i have the table and here is a link if its reliable and everyone else agrees ill add it http://www.angelfire.com/ny2/RayNRon/misc/interesting.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Diesel: WWE personnel or not?
Apparently, he signed a new Legends Contract. So is he worthy of personnel or not. Either he is not there or I didn't look very well. (UnreliableBeing (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Hello, anyone here? --UnreliableBeing (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Make separate pages for Brie and Nikki Bella?
I know that both Brie and Nikki Bella's histories in WWE are the same, but should we make separate pages for Brie and Nikki now since Brie won the WWE Divas Championship?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont think so. their history is still the same right now and probably will stay that way, too early to tell Wrestling0101 (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, two pages would read exactly the same. And they'll probably continue to do twin 'magic' into the title reign. Tony2Times (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

did there used to be a brie bella page before because she debuted a year or so before her sister did--Black60dragon (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. She debuted only about 5 weeks before and didn't get a page until a lot after her sister debuted. Feed  back  ☎ 03:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And that was in kayfabe terms as they were both appearing on TV, but only one was acknowledged before it was revealed they were twins; so encyclopedic terms it doesn't count for anything. Tony2Times (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to mention in the original storyline the sister was actually involved the whole time before here official debut. At that time Brie would go under the ring and was secretly replaced by her sister who would attack unsuspecting oppoents who did not realize that they were fighting a fresh wrestler, a plan that lasted for several weeks until finally discovered when they were both pulled out from under the ring. So even where she was not officially wrestling Niki was involved with Brie.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what Tony said except you added needless detail and wasted a few seconds of my time. Thank you. Feed  back  ☎ 19:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nav boxes
They need to be renamed from World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE Wrestling0101 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Feed  back  ☎ 06:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. why Not? Wrestling0101 (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Cole Mr Wrestltlemania
He has used that nickname before his match with the king(just before) on an interview on WWE.com Swagger called him mr wrestlemania and that was right after the match. All Raw Cole called him self mr wrestlemania and the smackdown after him and swagger reffered to cole as the new mr wrestlemania. I have tryed putting it on his nickname section because its got everythig required to be a nickname in wrestling but some ppl who are not NPOV keep reverting itin the edit summary there resions have been NO NEVER or SHAWN MICHEALS IS MR WRESTLEMANIA thats if they give reasions. The shawn micheals thing isnt a resion not to as I pointed out to that person Buddy Rodgers and Ric Flair are both the Nature Boy(WHOO!). Its obvious they take offence to wwe calling cole mr wresltemania but who the hell cares!! wiki is npov so there pov doesnt matter at all! there usless. pls would you step in and make it officeal that it should stay that way or summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to lose faith in the education system in America because of written comments like these. Feed  back  ☎ 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think it should stay, but that is just me. (UnreliableBeing (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC))
 * If this is a true nickname and not just a passing reference, we would need to wait to see if the title is used outside of this one angle. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

God I swear sometimes people on here bring up the dumbest questions. Seriously who honestly cares that a tool like Michael Cole is trying to being like Shawn Michaels (which will never happen). BTW do any of you guys even have a life off wikipedia?-- Voices in my Head   WWE  22:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nascar, you bring up a very valid question. I swear sometimes it seems people do nothing beyond Wikipedia. I'm all for treating Wikipedia like its important, but sometimes, I like to think the people behind these users aren't all chubby outcasts living in their mother's basements. I like to know if there's any doctors among us, or married people with families, college kids who actually GO OUT, you know, people with lives! Feed  back  ☎ 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So your just going to be rude then and insult me? Nice I'm beginning to lose faith in the education system in America because of manners like these.
 * Manners wouldn't be taught in the American school system. That's a job for parents, or an etiquette coach.  But I digress....
 * This site, and this project specifically, are taken far too seriously. The project is not by definition a live news source and should serve as an archive, which means not every little detail should be added as it happens.  In fact, it's that attitude that keeps me mostly on the talk pages.  Feedback is right, though horribly blunt.  As a married man who enjoys as much time away from the computer as possible (though, he did nail it with "chubby"), I find the level of "devotion" to this project unsettling at times.   Hazardous Matt (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And another thing, some people on here really are starting to take this stuff too seriously. Like a frickin religion. Last time I checked this page was to talk on improving articles not to debate on stupid dumbass questions like if a tool like Michael Cole (and FYI he was already an ass before he went heel) if he's the NEW Mr. WrestleMania. While I'd say short answer hell no just get off the computer and go to a bar or something people.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  00:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That's all I can say after reading this discussion. You talk about taking wikipedia too seriously, yet you completely jump over an unregistered user who is clearly unfamiliar with policy. Whether these users "have lives" or not has absolutely nothing to do with discussion. It's that kind of hostile attitude that has given WP:PW a bad reputation. -- Scorpion 0422  22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There does always seem to be a relentless passion by both registered and un-registered users about having the most up-to-date and NPOV, unverified information added to WP:PW articles. We had a member who took it personally when he was told his article for The Legacy wasn't ready, especially since the group hadn't even officially debuted under that name at the time.  We had another member (or possibly the same one, I forget) who went on a crusade to get the Curt Hawkins & Zack Ryder article split as soon as the team split, even though 98% of the two articles would have been identical.
 * The regulars get super-protective of article status because of issues like that, and to a degree I can understand that. You don't get articles to GA or FA status by citing "some guy" who claims to have seen something at a television taping that won't air for a few days, or by referencing "what everyone knows".  Those who are serious about the project's advancement get worn out from people like the OP who use "who the hell cares" for his reasoning.
 * I don't think anyone outside of the project takes this project seriously. I think there are a lot of reasons, but I believe a lot of it comes from the frustration of the regulars who are trying to keep articles at the best level of quality possible while trying to rationalize with fans who bring NPOV and brand loyalty to the table as their arguments.
 * I know Feedback and Nascarking addressed the OP, but he didn't respond to my comment at all. Maybe he was distracted, or maybe not.  Maybe he doesn't care about the opinions of others and wants it done because it believes it should be done.  I think that pushed a lot of buttons. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember the Hawkins/Ryder debate, I used to be quite active here. I understand that some users are overzealous when it comes to trying to maintain articles (hell, I've done that a few times myself) and its difficult given the number of vandals and policy ignorant IPs that wrestling articles attact. But it seems very unnecessary to attack a user for asking a question. Other users see that and decide not to start or participate in a discussion here because they don't want to deal with attacks. -- Scorpion 0422  23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Matt, I didn't answer your OP because I believe the original post to be a very stupid question and encouraging any discussion about it would make me feel very stupid myself. Feed  back  ☎ 00:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to you commenting on my original post, but the anonymous OP. It's very encouraging that you wouldn't answer a question because you believe it would make you feel stupid, but you would choose to insult others in the meantime.  Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you find it hard to believe I would prefer to come off as arrogant than stupid? It would have been a waste of time to answer the anon's question because it is a stupid one. Everyone has a right to bring up their concerns, as I have the right to believe it is a stupid one. I would like to remind you that competence is required to be an editor on Wikipedia. If someone isn't capable of understanding the difference between what could be an obviously stupid issue from an actual concern, than the person shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. Feed  back  ☎ 01:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is stupid. It would have been much easier to give a simple answer to the original question. This conversation should end now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it would've but I think we're all tired of people bringing up stupid questions like this. Gary do you honestly give a damn that an asshole like Michael Cole called himself Mr. WrestleMania for only 2 weeks? Even you probably have better things to do than talk about something stupid like this.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  22:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know who Michael Cole is, but I know for a fact that "his use of this nickname was insignificant and therefore not notable" is a much better answer than attacking the questioner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you watch wrestling?-- Voices in my Head   WWE  22:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sure that I don't watch wrestling. I have never claimed to watch wrestling. Why? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey if any of you guys haven't noticed by now, Over the Limit (2011) is, for some reason, up for deletion. Even though the event is a month and a half away and tickets are on sale at both Ticketmaster.com and at KeyArena's website.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:CANVAS: Inappropriate notification: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay as I said before, Over the Limit (2011) is up for deletion just throwing it out there.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  04:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:62.255.132.174
FYI, User:62.255.132.174 keeps changing mentions of the World Wrestling Federation/WWF to World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE. I've made note of it on the user's talk page, but the user blanked the page. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jtalledo, editors are allowed to blank their talk pages at will. It is a sign that they have "read" whatever messages were left.  Therefore, I have undid your edit on that IP's talk page that restored the content they blanked, and have only left your latest comments from this month.  If the IP blanks those out, please do not restore them.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 13:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Changing colors in Template:WWE Personnel and Template talk:WWE
Greetings. The project's input is needed here. An editor is trying to push a color change on this template, and I am not the only one to oppose it. However, more eyes on this would be helpful to gain a consensus as to whether to change the colors or not.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 19:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Input is also requested here from the project members, thanks.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 08:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

 * Oppose change of color. WWE and TNA aren't sports teams. Crisis  .  E  X  E  23:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To add to this, it makes the templates less readable. Red on white is a known strain on eyes, and yet it was on the ROH template AND the WWE template.  Crisis  .  E  X  E   01:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's your excuse? the TNA template was Black and White which made it easier to read Zanwifi (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support change of color. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Burger King, McDonalds...they all have templates in their respective colors. They aren't sports teams. Why all of a sudden, do we need consensus for coloring templates, when there are dozens if not hundreds of colored templates all over Wikipedia. It just dresses things up a little bit. This isn't trying to put questionable information or original resaerch in an article. Either allow all templates to be colored or none at all. This pick and choose stuff is rediculous. Vjmlhds 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a point here, but the only reason the McDonald's template is colored is because you made it that way Vjm.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BK was colored long before then...I was just giving Mickey Ds the same treatment. Still the point is a lot of non-sports templates were colored before this hub-bub started.I just don't see why NOW there's such a big stink. Vjmlhds 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but i Paragraphed your discussion for readability. Nothing key was changed. Crisis  .  E  X  E  00:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a ridiculous discussion. What bothers me most is that there are actually people that have a problem with this for no legitimate reason other than the fact that something that has been a certain way for the longest time is now being changed. How about bringing up concerns over the readability of colored text? But nooooooooooo waaaaayyyy mannnnn ur tottallyyyy changin mah page dude.... -- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that red on white, and vice versa, hurt your eyes, was one of the reasons I was campaigning for them not to be in bright colours.  Crisis  .  E  X  E   01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove the coloring per WP:Deviations. There is no reason to override the default set by MediaWiki:Common.css, and doing so violates guidelines set by WP:ACCESSIBILITY.  Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vjmlhds's choice of color and format certainly conflicts with accessibility guidelinse but the actual general use of color in templates, provided it adheres to WP policy, certainly isn't prohibited. If you could please educate the project on the issue, we would most certainly appreciate it.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 01:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Difference of opinion on color choices...I'll listen to that arguement. WWE's colors are red, white, and black, and their logo is world famous and iconic. I don't see the controversy of coloring the template to reflect the long established company logo, as has been done with other major companies. If I set it up for white on black, that should hopefully please everybody...easy on the eyes, and reflective of the company's logo. If it's good enough for Coke and Pepsi, it should be good enough for WWE. Vjmlhds 02:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rationale from WP:Deviations. Per the request above, here is the policy from the MOS.

In general, styles for tables and other block-level elements should be set using CSS classes, not with inline style attributes. This is because the site-wide CSS is more carefully tested to ensure compatibility with a wide range of browsers; it also creates a greater degree of professionalism by ensuring a consistent appearance between articles. Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction ...
 * Hence, by specifying parameters such as basestyle, groupstyle, titlestyle, ... in the navigation box, we are using "inline style attributes" which are overriding the "CSS classes" set by MediaWiki:Common.css. There are exceptions for cases where deviations create a "semantic distinction".  However, in this case, there is no semantic distinction, but purely decorative.  The comments about Coke, Pepsi, ... is basically WP:OTHERSTUFF in my opinion, and not what is being discussed here.  I can certainly drop a note at WT:Accessibility to invite wider opinion.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Default colour is appropriate as Plastikspork has explained above. This issue has been discussed time and again and it's time to change a few templates (such as navbox) to not accept some of their parameters; MediaWiki should strip-out all font-elements. Sigs should not be customised and ... 125.162.150.88 (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears a more broad discussion is necessary-- Unquestionable Truth -- 04:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Who the hell cares? Colors in templates don't matter at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the WP:BIKESHED :) Thanks! Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk)  05:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Gary. Who the hell cares? This thread is way to long for such a stupid detail. Feed  back  ☎ 06:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh! What began as just a little bit of innocent and decorative sprucing up, turns into freaking WWIII! You know what...screw it, I give up! I've seen less outrage at war protests than I'm seeing here over COLORING THE HEADER ON A STUPID FREAKING TEMPLATE! Mind if I breathe, or will that somehow offend somebody as well? Vjmlhds 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gary. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with the Michael Cole discussion. People bring up the dumbest, most pointless topics on here. I'm really starting to think there aren't any people on here who have a life outside of Wikipedia.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  16:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that there should be no discussion, WP:Deviations is quite clear here. No reason to stray from policy. Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So in that case, are we all pretty much in agreement that the default should stay? Crisis. E X  E   20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets just close the conversation please. Feed  back  ☎ 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What the hell TNA have to deal with this Well I don't work on WWE pages but basiclly I fixed all TNA Templates is Color and it all looked nice and neat and no one is complaining YET For some reason another editor keeps reverting the changes over something people don't like with the WWE Templates All I got to say Who Gives a FU** it's just FU***** Colors there isn't a big deal with it further more please stop changing the TNA templates you can argue all day over the WWE stuff if you want. Zanwifi (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Learn to articulate, I have no idea what you're saying. Feed  back  ☎ 20:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Learn how to read. Zanwifi (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy Kurt Angle...-- Unquestionable Truth -- 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Over the Limit (2011)
If anyone hasn't noticed by now, Over the Limit (2011) is for some reason up for deletion even though the event is confirmed by WWE to be taking place, tickets are on sale on both Ticketmaster.com and KeyArena's web page. Has future notability ever been a reason to delete a pay-per-view article that will be happening and even if it's deleted someone will probably just start it back up?-- Voices in my Head   WWE  17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:CANVAS: Inappropriate notification: "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that applies here. He isn't inviting people to the discussion, he is simply asking a question. Feed  back  ☎ 13:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, everyone watchlist Maryse's page.
http://realwrestlecrap.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=WWE&action=display&thread=362335

my sincere apologies on behalf of my fellow forum members. Crisis. E X  E   16:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread you are trying to access does not exist., but the page could bear some watching if you attempted to post a spoiler.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every once in a while, someone on that board makes a stupid vandalism edit and then posts a link to it on the message board. A few other people will think it's hilarious and join in. Most of the board members stay away from that sort of thing, and the administrators have made it clear that any encouragement to vandalize Wikipedia will lead to the thread being locked and deleted and that the offending poster(s) will be warned or blocked from the message board. That seems to be what happened today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed people aren't over the thrill of being able to edit Wikipedia by now. Tony2Times (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Corre
An article for them has been created (again), I don't really follow wrestling week-by-week, I just have a vague idea of what's going on, so I don't know if they're notable enough now to keep. The article is blank at the moment anyway, I just thought I'd offer it to the masses since it's lasted a week or so without being deleted this time. BulbaThor (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not. And they're breaking up soon so an article isn't really needed. Feed  back  ☎ 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhh, they've had 3 reigns with various titles between them?  Crisis  .  E  X  E   17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but what's there to actually say about them? They haven't really had any storylines. They were looking to feud with Nexus at the Royal Rumble but nothing came from it, they've been attacking Big Show since they formed in January but just traded the tag titles back and forth without real incident and now there's tension with an eye to a break up. That's aboot it. Tony2Times (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Zack Ryder
We could do with another person or two watching Ryder's article. His swelling fan following is leading to lots of repetitive vandalism about him being Internet Champion (a fictional title he gave himself for being so over online), I dunno if this is enough to have him protected or not but I thought I should mention it if anyone can put him on a watch list. Tony2Times (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone? An IP is now claiming the Internet Championship is real because Ryder's YouTube series is now on WWE's Facebook page and keeps putting it on his page. Tony2Times (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * An IP's claims are one thing - it being backed up by a reliable source is another, of which we know Facebook is not. If you do a Google search, you'll see that it's a gimmick the WWE has used before, so I wouldn't put too much weight too it, myself.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At least he has a belt LOL!    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 12:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, the article is on my watch list, and if the IP edits get too disruptive over this, I may request semi-protection.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I was starting to get paranoid that I was owning the article or something. Tony2Times (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Total Nonstop Action Wrestling to "Impact Wrestling"
Jeff Jarrett's twitter page says the following: "Impact...it's now Impact Wrestling. RT @SeanWWETNAfan: @JeffJarrettTNA has TNA been renamed or only impact?". Should "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" be moved to "Impact Wrestling"? -- BOD  will be your end of days! ۞ 17:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Wait for the official announcement before moving.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's something else I found. Though not sure of the reliability of the site, it states here that only the show is changing names.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a reliable source that can be used to change the name of the show, and the show only.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone asked Jeff Jarrett if TNA or Impact has been renamed. Jarrett replies "Impact" but you want to change the TNA page's name? Huh? :s Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was bold and moved the show (and the show only) to reflect the new name per the reliable source I noted in my edit summary of the move.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 15:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * LTC. K-O Capt has gone fucking loco and moved EVERYTHING to Impact Wrestling. Some help is needed to revert all of this.TheFBH (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note: the correct Impact! Wrestling article is now at "Impact! (TV Show)" and the company's article is at "IMPACT Wrestling" and neither can be moved. Jesus christ, what a mess. This user needs to get banned...TheFBH (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a mess, that most can't be reverted, so will need an admin's help to sort things out. Here's his move log.  I have made a move request to get the promotion's article back on track.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 14:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Kamala article
On the Kamala (wrestler) article, someone added a link today to a Spanish version of the article. The Spanish version has much of the same information, but it's titled "James Simons (luchador))". Clearly, this is not the same wrestler. Does anyone here edit on the Spanish Wikipedia and have the ability to fix that? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the Spanish article and it's the same guy. It's an unsourced article, but I don't like editing much over there so I don't think I'm up to fixing it. It says that his name is Jim Simons even though most know him by Harris. IDK who to believe, but that's what the Spanish article says. Feed  back  ☎ 07:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty safe to say that Kamala has never been described as a luchador. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In Spanish doesn't luchador just mean wrestler? In English we've appropriated the word luchador to specifically mean a high-flyer, but I don't think any hispanic language adopted the English word 'wrestler' to mean heavyweight. Tony2Times (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I clearly hadn't thought my original comment through. I read through the Spanish article, but I got hung up on the connotation of luchador in English for some reason. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, luchador literally means wrestler. Anyway, it says his name is Simmons while the English article says his name is Harris. Which one is correct? Feed  back  ☎ 10:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm from Spanish Wikipedia. I don't know the Kamala's real name, I will investigate. Also, in Spanish we haven't the term "Wrestling", we use "Lucha libre profesional", so all wrestlers (mexican, american, canadian, japanese) are "luchadores".--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't lucha libre refer to actual Mexican wrestling? I didn't know professional wrestling was included. Feed  back  ☎ 21:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In Spanish, we haven't the word "Wrestling", so we use "lucha libre profesional" as "Professional Wrestling" and "lucha libre mexicana" as "lucha libre". In Spanish Wikipedia, Kamala still being a wrestler, no a luchador --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with the "Over The Limit (2011)" Wiki page?
it almost 2 weeks to it, there are 2 matches confirmed in it, but still no official page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain3333 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your angle here? Are you interested in reading such a page where you already know its sole contents? What's the point of asking? Feed  back  ☎ 18:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heavens, no. There is a web page for every PPV by WWE, and for some reason the page about "Over The Limit (2011)" has been deleted, and in the discussion it says that it should be taken with WP:PW... I understood from that that whoever is in charge of WP:PW is also in charge of creating the web page regarding this PPV as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain3333 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can help work on it at Article Incubator/Over the Limit (2011). Once the event is closer, it can be moved to Over the Limit (2011). Frietjes (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my question - how close does it need to be to the event? previous PPV Wiki pages were published over 3 weeks before the event itself, but this time the event is in less then 2 weeks yet it wasn't published... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.215.32 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP makes a good point. I've left two messages on King of Hearts (whose an Admin) talk page yet he's still not responded. We need an Admin to move the page back to live article again. If any of you guys know an admin who'll respond to a talk page message faster than 24 hours can you please contact him/her and ask that person if they can do what I'm leaving a message here about.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Length of time has nothing to do with it. It was deleted because no secondary sources established its notability. That has not changed. Once reliable sources such as SLAM! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Torch, Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Figure Four Wrestling, WrestleView, etc. are discussing the event, the sources can be added and the article will be moved back to the mainspace. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So we're just gonna keep it in incubation past the day of the event.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  02:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If sources are added before the event occurs, then it can be moved then. Nikki  ♥  311   03:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Pro Wrestling Torch discusses it here. That could be a good start. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the low quality poster this article is ready to move out of incubation. Does anyone know an admin who'll do the job and who'll respond in less than 24 hours because King of Hearts isn't responding at all.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  17:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Check for admins who have recently commented at WP:RFPP or WP:RPM. I put a "status=eval" on the page. Frietjes (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

King of Hearts decided to leave the article in incubation till the day of the event (9 days from now). But the article itself looks like (and pardon me for saying this) a bunch of SHIT.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  01:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

More recentism problems
Specificially in regards to Dick Murdoch: are you ribbin' me that the content about his appearance at a Royal Rumble is nearly equal to the content about his tag team with Dusty Rhodes? That's just in number of bytes. The Royal Rumble mention appears to offer more details. All I can say is "Wow."RadioKAOS (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, more than welcome to add content to the article about his tag team run, providing it is properly referenced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. Unfortunately, the tone of that sounds just like the employment situation I recently extricated myself from.  Namely, look at the guy with experience and a work ethic, dump everything in his lap and tell him to his face that this is what "working together" is all about.  I'll leave that point alone because I would really rather be nice.
 * Proper references? Recently, it took me nearly two hours to find a childhood photo of myself which was published in a long-defunct newspaper (namely, the Anchorage Times) in 1980 (read: no online search engine;  Google Newspapers wasn't of much help, either), based solely upon a very dim 30-year-old-plus recollection of having seen the picture when it was originally published.  In comparison, I can't see that it would be difficult to find sources on subject matter of which far greater public knowledge exists.  Once again, how much of what I'm reading could be more easily explained as The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody?
 * My current priorities, aside from adding additional sources to Lance Russell (all web-based, so anyone else could do it), is a revision of Glossary of professional wrestling terms. If you haven't read my missive over there, I seek to improve the article by locating every wrestling book I can currently get my hands on.  However, based upon my current working copy, it's not going to take very many books in order to make the existing sources appear weak in comparison.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I can be honest, you're coming off sounding like a jerk with a persecution complex. How do you expect people to respond to "I found a problem, so I'm here to complain about the fact that nobody fixed it before I mentioned it"? There are 5,555 articles under this project's scope, and people have been working hard on them for years. To be honest, I don't really care about Dick Murdoch or Jack Veneno. I have no interest in volunteering my time to fix their articles. If you do, that's great. If you come here and complain about being the only one working on anything, you're not going to find a lot of support. Feel free to check the contributions of the project members and see how many articles they've created, expanded, sourced, cleaned up, and had promoted. Your apparent statement that you're the only one pulling their weight around here is offensive and unnecessary. Your priorities are not necessarily the priorities of everyone else. I think it would be great to have SummerSlam as a Good Topic, but I'm not about to have a hissyfit because you haven't worked on SummerSlam (2002). As for your crusade to have everyone using print sources, you just don't seem willing to understand that nobody is going to spend money to buy books about wrestlers that don't interest them just so that they can use them as a source to volunteer their time to write a Wikipedia article. If you have books, that's great. Use them. If someone else doesn't have books and therefore relies on web sources, that's great, too. If you see that somebody is working on an article and you wish to get in touch with them and offer to have some books shipped to that person so that they can have some print sources to provide a good balance, it would probably be considered odd but at least preferable to demanding that they buy the books themselves. And, seriously, you need to stop with the "f/u" edit summaries directed at anyone trying to talk sense into you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
I see Jack Veneno listed there. Once again, this must be the anti-book bias I was talking about. Do you mean to tell me that no one here besides myself has read To Be the Man? Not only will you find references, but perhaps information which is contrary to what's currently on the page. I've already made it perfectly clear that my copy is in storage, otherwise I'd be happy to help. Speaking of To Be the Man and references, I already pointed out this book as a source for Charles Robinson when it was nominated for deletion. I see no one has taken the bait there, either.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Most people have their own set of articles that they are working on or plan to work on, so not every call for action will immediately be answered. You can use the Google Books tool to find the mentions of Veneno and Robinson in To Be the Man and add the refs. Nikki  ♥  311   03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't wish to rehash that my experience dictates that Google is one of many tools to do research, not the only one. Rather, I can't help but notice that most usage of Google Books and Google Newspapers, specifically inasfar as citation formatting, is ill-preparing Wikipedia in the event that they're declared one massive copyright violation at some point in the future.  Just wanted to point that out.  I don't have a problem with citation formatting except for time constraints.RadioKAOS (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have started work on this article to try and improve it. I've added three sources, but have more work to do as the article needs a good re-write.     ArcAngel    (talk) ) 06:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

TNA Impact Wrestling → TNA Wrestling or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling
I know this is already being discussed on the article's talk page and WP:RM soon enough, but I'm just a bit bugged that the actual TNA promotion article was moved to "TNA Impact Wrestling" when only the show has been rebranded. May I please have a response to reverting the article back to its original name? I've tried moving it myself, but the article name is already taken as a redirect. Please tell me what the verdict should be. Thank you. -- SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  03:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotion = TNA

TV Show = Impact Wrestling

Vjmlhds 04:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I Neeed moderator/administrator approval of moving the article back to its original page. A regular user can't do so. -- SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  04:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vjmlhds You are correct I just spoke with a TNA executive via twitter http://twitter.com/#!/DavidSahadi/status/69137336469950464 The Promotion is TNA and the Show is Impact Wrestling Zanwifi (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Corre (again, again)
The Nexus (professional wrestling) is an article about The Corre. It's very week-by-week, and parts of it are very poorly written. Also all the references but one for the article are in the 'In wrestling' section with finishing moves and themes and so on. Last time an article was created it was deleted (like the rest of them) but there seemed to be no clear agreement on if they were/are notable enough to have their own article. I'm not sure how to nominate an article for deletion, or I would do to get a consensus, can anybody help? BulbaThor (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Randy Savage is dead
while this is sad news,just letting you know that you might all want to watchlist his article for the next week or so. Crisis. E X  E   17:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow... I was hoping one day we might see him again on WWE television. Maybe the next Old School Raw, you know. Someone like the Macho Man should have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago. Hopefully WWE does what is right and honors him this Monday on Raw. Even though the Hall of Fame doesn't amtter, I'd like to see him in it one day. It would be great to see clips of him on TV again. RIP Macho Man Feed  back  ☎ 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sad that he died, he was one of the few wrestlers to step away from the lime light and make something of a life. I do wonder if him dying will finally bring out what it was that he did with Shane or Stephanie that stopped Vince working with him for nigh 20 years. Tony2Times (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (not trying to go off-topic, but what the hey?) The supposed rumor is that he... er... well got to the bottom of Steph McMahon, but given that he loved his wife, I'm guessing that's a lie. The real reason is probably because when he left for WCW he took the Slim Jim sponsorship with him, and WWE was already desperate for money back then (losing the ratings war, steroid trial etc) without people stealing it and handing it to Ted Turner.  Crisis  .  E  X  E   13:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to post Savage's death on the in the news section, and it was posted briefly, but was soon pulled mainly for two reasons. 1) Notability (although given the amount of media coverage his death received, I'd say it was worthy) and 2) many users could not see past the fact that wrestling is "fake". So, they were quite critical of it detailing his career from a mostly "in-universe" style, with one user taking offense to calling Savage a World Champion. I don't think the quality should matter, since the ITN section has linked to stubs in the past (especially with some of the deaths). It's a shame that some users couldn't look past their own dislike for pro wrestling, especially since just about every mainstream news site deemed Savage's death as being front page material. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  00:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Hoodlum
Mike McCurley (June 12, 1984) Is A Third Generation American Professional Wrestler Both His Great Uncle And Grandfather Were Great Wrestlers In The National Wrestling Alliance. In Jan 18, 2010 He Went On To Capture The NWA Mid-South World Tag Team Championships. Following In There Footsteps He Went On To Wrestle In Over 20 Matches Throughout Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas And Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okmastaman03:06, May 27, 2011 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you asking for an article about this person to be created?--76.66.185.169 (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerted effort to make Christian WWE Champion
Several IPs and are making unsourced edits to Christian (wrestler) and articles surrounding the WWE Championship, claiming that Christian won (past tense) the championship on the June 6 episode of WWE Raw. It is currently June 3 in my time zone, so unless these people are time travelers this is a major violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I've tried requesting semi for the affected pages and rolling back the edits, but could use some help identifying anything I may have missed. Thanks. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Forget WP:CRYSTAL, this is clearly a violation of WP:CENA (Cena doesn't lose.) Feed  back  ☎ 20:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bwahah ^^ -- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * :) Tony2Times (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Chyna
Anyone want to add info on the Chyna article regarding her latest endeavor? Truthfully, I was reluctant to believe it, but several sources are claiming the movie will be released this month, and they claim she is now, no longer claiming she did not make the film, in fact at least one source is claiming she intends to so more. Not to mention that vivid has released screenshots from the film. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WWE Capitol Punishment
If any of you have been living under a rock for the last week or so WWE Capitol Punishment has been put up for AFD AGAIN by Chzz for his usual reason NO RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES even though they're all a bunch of Dirtsheet's. Y'all are more than welcome to help out with the article and the AFD.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  04:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While I do think it is silly to waste everyone's time with these AFDs, Chzz isn't wrong. They aren't notable by Wikipedia's standards until they meet WP:GNG, which usually doesn't happen until after the event occurs and it is reported on. After reading some of the comments in the AFDs (not just your's), people are taking this way too personally. So what if it is deleted? It isn't forever. Be patient. Recreate it in two weeks when the sources are available. Nikki  ♥  311   17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, a wrestling website leads me to believe TNA's PPV is on this Sunday but Slammiversary (2011) is a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Y'all can deal with Chzz and this AFD. I'm done fighting with him. Arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall there's no point.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  23:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)