Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 84

WWE in citations
Just realised something today - we should all use "WWE" rather than "World Wrestling Entertainment" when citing them... I know it's a minor point but we should be remembering it when creating new references. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WWE Internet Championship
User:Edshaft created a page dedicated to Zack Ryder's Internet Championship and added Ryder to the champions list on WWE's and List of current champions in WWE's pages. I tried removing it from those pages, but he keeps re-adding them. Since I don't want to violate 3RR again, can someone help me with this situation?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this version of the article should be merged with Zack Ryder's article as I think the title is notable but not notable enough for a standalone article just yet.  CRRays Head90  | Another way... 21:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Without the title changing hands or anything, that article is just a load of information for the sake of information, much like the Air Boom page which could simply be reduced to one sentence. The belt exists and he owns it, that's the end of that one. On a slight tangent, can anyone fix that photo on Ryder's infobox so it's not skewed and strangely stretched? Tony2Times (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not notable enough to have an article but I think the info about it on Zack Ryder should be amplified. Deely  1  06:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really object to there being an article about the title, as long as long as it can be sourced and provide enough information. Think we need to give this a chance. I don't know much about the title, there may be some notability here.-- Will C  11:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not notable enough for it's own article. Should be merged into and stay within Zack Ryder's article. Unlike previous personally created championships (such as Taz's FTW Championship, or Ted DiBiase's Million Dollar Championship), this belt holds no historical weight and is not notable enough to warrant its own article at this time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  14:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If Ryder is defeated and the title changes hands I think it would be the time to start thinking about writing the belt. But up until then merge it with Ryder's article. Deely  1  15:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Historical significance only plays part in notability, but is not everything. It could have little importance but still be notable. The question is can it be sourced and provide enough information. I think the fact it has house show defenses could make this tip either way.-- Will C  16:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * House show appearances are usually not seen as notable (see: Juan Cena). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  20:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case it would be significant, as it is a rare appearance.-- Will C  08:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How many defenses does Ryder have? I only know of one against Primo in Australia. Starship.paint (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to the point, how many defenses does Ryder have that can be reliably sourced? As an aside, I should point out that the above version of the article that CR90 linked to only contains one single source for one piece of information. All other information in that article is unsourced. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  15:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he only defended it once. Deely  1  18:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And in his "defence" the ring announcer didn't declare him still Internet Champion, he had to do it himself. Maybe because it was just Ryder joking around? Tony2Times (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright guys you'll need to take a look on this. source:wwe.com / source:pwtorch.com WWE is considering officially recognizing the Internet title, and Ryder (in-character) says: "They should be bribing me to defend my title on the internet, on television, wherever" and "“I’m never going to defend this title. I’ve earned this championship. I won it fair and square... I’m the first champion, I’m the last champion, I’m the only champion” Starship.paint (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read it. So does that mean we have to re-add the Internet Championship to the current champions list now?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't see the harm in doing so. The categories in the article are "Raw" "Smackdown" and "Dual branded", can't we just create a category called "unsanctioned" for now? Not sure what to add it to if it's sactioned. Starship.paint (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! I'll go work on it.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't think about unsanctioned. Great idea. -- Deely 1  02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. What are we going to do if it is sanctioned and he never defends it? Raw or dual-branded? ._. Starship.paint (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How can anything be unsanctioned in wrestling? Its bullshit. Wrestling is not legit. It is all scripted. If its used by WWE then its sanctioned. Its that simple.-- Will C  15:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's information - the article concerned has been nominated for deletion (Articles for deletion/Internet Championship) ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd understand if you wish to support a deletion of "Internet Championship" because it's vague, but no one except Suriel has talked about "WWE Internet Championship". I firmly support a redirect to Zack Ryder for the latter. The vagueness is certainly not a problem for the latter. Starship.paint (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WWE end the aforementioned article by asking its fans whether the title should be sanctioned or not. That's not them saying it is. It's not real. He doesn't carry it on TV. He isn't billed as it by the ring announcer. As I linked previously the supposed time he defended it at a house show, the ring announcer made no mention of it, he added it on himself. It is a toy and it shouldn't be listed anywhere but the other media section of Ryder's article. He is not a current champion in WWE, sanctioned or otherwise because unlike DiBiase or Taz he doesn't even wear it on TV and it's not part of a storyline. It's something from a home made YouTube series watched by a 1-2 hundred thousand people. Tony2Times (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. There almost might as well be an article entitled WWE Broomstick detailing the number of comments people have made about Ric Flair wrestling it to a 5-star match. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Rock/Cena at Survivor Series
The announcement has made some users add fantasy matches to the 2011 main event on the Survivor Series page. I've changed it three times already, so I'm holding off to stay on the safe side of WP:3RR, is there anyone who can temporarily lock the page until it has died down a bit? BulbaThor (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm.... Rock and Cena offically announced already. "WWE sources have confirmed that The Rock and John Cena will be a part of a Traditional 5-on-5 Survivor Series Tag Team Match."

http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/2011/the-rock-to-appear-at-survivor-series Starship.paint (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, but people keep adding stuff like this, which is fanboy fantasy, and needs reverting again. I've reverted a few times already. BulbaThor (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some other information on that page that surely is vandalism. In what way is the Mankind vs Steve Austin semi-final at SS '98 a main event? If it is, surely so is the other semi-final? In 2000 is Undertaker v Kurt Angle the main event if it was the third last match? And again with the 1989 event, is the third match a main event? I don't wanna tread on toes and delete stuff if there's a reason for them being there, but it doesn't seem like there is. Tony2Times (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rough guide to semi-protection <--- Those are the guidelines admins have to go by when assessing semiprotects. The trouble it is, that kind of bullcrap  I RED IT ON A FOURUM SO IT MSUT B TRU LOLZ PS CEENA RULZ  happens so frequently (and much of it is shitty editing rather than clear and deliberate vandalism) that it's difficult to prove that direct admin intervention is needed. Personally, I'd love to see semiprotects for a month in advance of every minor PPV, 3 months in advance of Survivors/Summerslam/Rumble and 6 months for Wrestlemania. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 16:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been similarly pushing for the mandatory indefinite semi-protection of ALL WP:BLP articles for this very reason. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  17:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all we have confirmed, is that Rock and Cena are involved. I subscribe to a wrestling news site (Prowrestling.net if you're curious), in addition to following the official WWE channels) and not once has anything been mentioned, by either party as confirmed news re: a Degenerate NWO or whatever. As a new editor to the Wiki Pro Wrestling project (but not Wikipedia in general as I can't remember the account name I used last), I may not be qualified to comment on whether the Survivor Series page should be protected, however it would seem prudent as the event is still almost 2 months away. Protection would be prudent up to the day after the show. JMos26 (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on previous events, I'd take it a step further for up to a week after the show. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  01:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I took care of it already. Sent a Full Protection Request for the page.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no reason it needs to be full protected, semi protection will do just fine. I have advised the admins to semi protect instead of full protection.-- Dch eagle  02:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Flickr
If anyone has a Flickr account, they might be able to persuade this guy to release the rights to this DDT KO Tag Team belt picture and other people in that stream. Tony2Times (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent him a message. Hopefully, he responds soon. Feed  back  ☎ 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For anyone who's familiar with wrestlers in Japan and how they look, there's quite a few pictures in that album if anyone can identify them. Tony2Times (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Er.. There are captions with English names there Starship.paint (talk) 03:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He told me to tell him which pictures we need and he'll change the license. Feed  back  ☎ 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded his pics of the Bloody Sunday, Gedo, Hirooki Goto, Jado, Ryusuke Taguchi, Taichi, TJP and the KO-D Tag Team Championship.TheFBH (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

PPV Main Events
I propose that in the PPV articles such as WWE Vengeance, we list only the last match in the main event column. Yes, I know there are several matches which are promoted as co-main events, but there is no need to clutter the column with the rest of the card. If a reader wants to know the rest of the card, they will open the link to the specific PPV. The point is that it looks very cluttered to have several matches listed, having only one match would look much nicer. Feed back  ☎ 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can imagine I've said this exact same thing before if not on here somewhere on this giant encyclopedia.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  18:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good God, yes! Tony2Times (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Endorsed whole-heartedly. (cf. Card_(sports): "A main event takes place as the final match of a title-match-system sporting event."). PPV articles often get anon editors inserting their personal interpretation of a "main event" match. Adoption of the suggested policy would remove any potential legitimacy of POV/OR edits and ensure the lists do not become indiscriminate. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can so get behind this lets do it and be done with it for once and for all.-- Dch eagle  03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the way its supposed to have been all along, but some made an exception for WrestleMania, and thus that has caused all the little ips and new users to think that was the way things should be. I've been removing them from TNA's events this whole time.-- Will C  19:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay then, let's go ahead and massively edit all the PPV articles to reflect this new consensus. Main event = Last match. Feed  back  ☎ 03:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this idea. This is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The promotion determines the main event(s). Our job is to report that. This idea would mean such things as identifying The Undertaker vs. The Undertaker as the only main event of SummerSlam 1994, discounting the fact that Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart in a Steel Cage Match for the WWF Championship was promoted as the main event. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand how you can find that annoying but GaryColemanFan does have a point there.-- Deely 1  17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I firmly agree with GaryColemanFan. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ  ②  17:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. I take the point. this page confirms WWE considers Summerslam 94 to have had two main events. Howabout Wrestlemania 18 though? this page shows WWE currently consider Jericho/HHH the only main event but I know a bunch of people will want to add Hogan/Rock. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well this is a simple issue to fix, as that rarely happens. We can make exceptions in those cases, after a consensus is established on them. All we have to discuss whether or not we need to make an exception, then place a note in besides those exceptions. It would be the best solution. Its called a compromise, not everything has to be cut and dry. Take BFG 07, Cage vs Joe and Angle vs Sting, BFG IV, Joe vs Sting and Jarrett vs Angle, etc. We can just discuss those issues here, possibly right now. Lets change the way this project is, instead of it being I disagree, conversation ends and everyone gets a stick up their ass, how about we just find a compromise and work to better and fix issues.-- Will C  19:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your proposal? I am understanding it as follows: the final match is the main event, but more than one match can be listed if it can be demonstrated that multiple matches were promoted as main events? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I'm proposing. It doesn't matter what was promoted as the main event or not. Each individual PPV article will expand on what were promoted as main events. Why is there a need to list the two/three final matches in each PPV list? Seems like a small but evident case of content forking. If we want to keep the "Main Event" column in PPV lists like WWE Vengeance then let's just list the last match. If people want to see the "other main events" and the rest of the card then they'll click on the individual PPV's article. I don't see why formatting it in this way would be an issue. Feed  back  ☎ 22:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with GaryColemanFan's interpretation on this and have struck out my earlier comment accordingly. No disrespect intended to you, Feedback, I share your opinion of clutter. But I really think GCF's application of WP:SYNTHESIS is correct. If WWE (for example) categorically state there was more than one main event, it should be reflected on the PPV list. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 23:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is we list the last match to take place at the event. If it is argued there is another as high promoted match or more promoted, then we discuss whether it should be listed. If it is agreed that match is higher then we list both. Its rather simple then. The main event on the card is the final match simple as that. However, there are cases where there is the featured match that is not the last one.-- Will C  03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Then let's remove that column from the PPV lists. The purpose of those articles are to list each individual PPV and link the reader towards them, like a disambiguation page. Cluttering it with the main events adds nothing to the article. I thought that if instead of using main events, we kept the last matches, it would at least look presentable, but if the consensus is that we can't do that, then we have no other choice than to remove the column altogether. The clutter adds nothing to the table and should outright be removed. Feed back  ☎ 05:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because WWE say something is a main event, does it make it so? This isn't like a World Title where there's no governing body in wrestling so we have to take it as red. In other sports like boxing and MMA, there is only ever one main event no matter how important other matches are on the card. WWE listing multiple main events is just their PR. Having the final match of the card will help readers looking at lists distinguish which event was which - "I want to find out about that Survivor Series where Big Show beat Brock but I can't remember if it was '02 or '03, all I know is the E-Chamber ended it". It's just WWE balderdash implying there's more than one main event, I have never heard anyone say about a card "there's some cracking main events", it's not a plural. Or we could change the column to read "final event/match". Tony2Times (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually the Feedback's last point makes a lot of sense, not in regard to clutter, but the mere redundancy of having that particular column on each PPV list. Clearly GCF's viewpoint on WP:SYNTH makes a strong argument as well, but again I question the necessity of using the main event column on each PPV main page. Note that all matches are already detailed in event articles. It seems to me the simple solution would be to just get rid of the column and avoid, like Will added, the slew of IPs constantly crufting it up. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration
I have updated the Active Members' list to feature 28 different people who have recently edited and participated in our project page. When I checked their collaborations and noticed we have around 20 editors who are editing articles consistently, I thought this is the perfect time to bring back the project's Collaboration of the Week.

For the new users who don't know, and the old ones who don't remember, the Collaboration of the Week was a simple idea. We would nominate stubs, start or C articles and the one with the most votes would be deemed the COTW which basically meant that all the editors would focus on trying to expand the article to a B-class or even GA. Also, once a month, we would choose a Good Article to expand upon so it can reach Featured Article status. This project brought us lots of Good Articles and Featured articles which you can see here.

So what do you guys say? Want to revive the COTW? Feed back  ☎ 06:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't be at my full activity level until December, so I can't really give my full commitment to the project until then. If you guys are going ahead it with it, I'd help when I can, but I doubt I would do much. Once December comes around I'd definitely contribute. Starship.paint (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with that was no one worked on the articles. Everyone would nominate and vote, but no one would work on them. Usually it ends up being one person working. If we are going to do this, we'll have to set it up just right. Like the article chosen has to get to a certain agreed level before we decide a new one. Also everyone who votes must work on a certain amount of the article. As well as the nominator must work on the article if it is chosen. If they don't meet it, they don't get to vote or nominate for a while or something, idk.-- Will C  19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've previously explained on here, The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody. Not to name any names, but someone gave me the impression of being very offended at the mention of that particular reference.  Anyway, from my perspective, this would only serve the purpose of allowing me to dredge up my laundry list of articles which are slanted towards recent events and/or slanted towards WWF/E (and to a lesser extent, TNA).  If you wish, you can peruse my Wikipedia oeuvre and see that for the most part, I have bigger problems to deal with, not to mention barely enough time to do it all.  Since the aforementioned unnamed individual has tended to followup to just about every concern I've brought up on this page with a response along the lines of "That's your problem, not mine," and obviously, getting Bottomfeeders Brigade up to GA status is far more important than any trivial matter such as maintaining proper historical perspective, it would preclude my active participation.
 * BTW, if you think I'm being unneccessarily harsh, the last time I found myself having this discussion with y'all, I quit posting and spent some time looking for websites and web pages which may happen to discuss pre-1984 professional wrestling in considerable detail. Hate to have to break it to you, but guess what, they're quite abundant.  I shouldn't have to point out that at least 75 to 80 percent of the timeline of professional wrestling in the United States has occurred outside of any entity enjoying a national television presence.  I could probably state that I've been researching the history of professional wrestling longer than most of you have been alive (if I recall, I began in earnest ca. 1985/6), but in the legitimate interest of assuming good faith, I'll leave that alone.  At the risk of revealing my real-life identity (though I kinda wonder why I make a big deal of that, considering I've used this nickname on the Internet since 1990), you can thank me for the evolution of Wrestling Title Histories, which has provided for AT LEAST SOME historical content, though by and large, over-reliance on that and ignoring other sources produces an odd disconnect in far too many articles.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if what you posted has anything to do with the COTW, but if you think you won't have time for it, then just don't participate in it. No one obligates you to do anything. Go use your time and effort however you want it, no one is stopping you. Feed  back  ☎ 02:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing he posts has anything to do with anything other than his ego. He feels that people shouldn't be allowed to write about their areas of expertise. He wants them to be forced to write about time periods in which they didn't watch wresting (and quite possibly hadn't even been born) so that nothing can be accused of focusing unduly on a certain time period. The best thing to do is pat him on the head, say "Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting!" Then he goes away for a few months, happy that he impressed someone. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's a hobby, not a job. I don't see the need for me to edit or work on pages that I am not interested in. It's pretty simple. Starship.paint (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how he brags about having spent time researching the history of pro wrestling for longer than most of us have been alive. It's just funny how someone would find that impressive in any way. BTW Feedback, I think we should go ahead with your idea. Sounds good to me.-- Deely 1  13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree plenty of articles are slanted too much towards recent events but it's a question of reliable sources and I doubt there's a lot of web pages discussing wrestling history that would count as reliable. If there are then please list them. I know I'd be happy to use them to expand some articles as I personally feel a titanic Budokan Hall showdown between Antonio Inoki and Dory Funk, Jr. to be infinitely more notable than Slutty McFaketits's Divas division match from last week's episode of Raw is Yawn. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And so this discussion has just become irreverent and off topic.-- Will C  19:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah... By the way, who's Slutty McFaketits? LMAO.-- Deely 1  19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LIBEL forbids me from expanding on my irreverence. WillC, it actually went off-topic after your previous post so WP:ARBCOM probably wouldn't be interested. COTW though... If it's resurrected and I feel like contributing then I will. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how, I was talking about the subject of COTW, and ideas to improve it. If we don't change the way it is done, then it is pointless and will fail again. If you build a tower with the same flaw it had that caused it to fall to begin with, then it will fall again. Then this all became about articles revolving around WCW, World Class, etc.-- Will C  03:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As I said, it was after your post that things started going downhill (which, I admit, I didn't help). I wasn't trying to state or imply that was in any way your fault. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You can count me in (User:Crisis) 90.204.167.254 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

300+ redlinks now thanks to Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination)
The deletionists recently snuck Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination) through by people that don't even know what The Wrestling Observer is, and now we have more than 300 pages with redlinks. Hooray  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DRV'ed it. Stupid decision  Crisis  .  E  X  E   21:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So it existed for years without source and no-one had a problem? Then this year the WON published a list of every previous winner to adequately source the page and it gets deleted. Yaldi. Tony2Times (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Blaming it on "deletionists" is a crock. I voted for deletion because I'm a precisionist and the subject didn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As far as people "not even knowing what the Wrestling Observer is", you hit the nail right on the head - NON-NOTABILITY! It doesn't matter if a small group of wrestling fans consider it hugely important - its awards fail WP:GNG which is why the article was deleted. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about if not only a group of wrestling fans consider it important, but people in the wrestling business themselves? Foley's first memoirs certifies that the opinion of the WON has altered several bookers' approaches, including Vince McMahon. Tony2Times (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards article, previously deleted, up for deletion review at Deletion_Review
For those that wish to participate in the discussion, please proceed to Deletion_Review. Thank you.  Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources you provided have to be enough. I've thrown in three wrestling sources as well, SLAM! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Torch and Wrestleview Starship.paint (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd Nomination)
List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards has been re-listed for deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ②  00:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Professional Wrestling to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Rearrangement of listing of Template:WWE personnel
I want to rearrange the listing of the template from Raw / SmackDown / WWE Legends / NXT / Commentators / Tough Enough / FCW / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / Stables and Tag teams.

to Raw / Smackdown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams / Tough Enough / Commentators / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / FCW.

Here's my rationale: There are three main categories: WWE "cast", WWE "crew" and FCW. FCW should be last. FCW is the developmental territory for WWE and nobody in that category appears on WWE programming at all, therefore it should be last. Now, regarding "cast" and "crew". "Cast", the wrestlers, go first. "Crew", go second. Who are the wrestlers, the cast? Raw / SmackDown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams. Arrange them however you want, but these five cagetories have to be first. Who's the crew? Tough Enough hosts / Commentators / Referees / Unassigned employees. Tough Enough participants though, seem to be "cast", but they're in a separate universe anyway from Raw / SmackDown, so Tough Enough just becomes the first category after the first five. Therefore I propose to rearrange the listing to reflect "cast", then "crew", then "FCW".

I also propose renaming Broadcast team to Commentators and adding "developmentals" below FCW for clarification. Starship.paint (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a few comments about the list. (1) All signs point to Averno not being signed by WWE. There are as much reliable sources saying he wasn't signed as there are those that said he was signed. He should be removed. (2) The Chickbusters? I didn't even know that article existed. It should be deleted. How are they notable? Those two are barely notable individually. (3) Matt Striker doesn't commentate anymore, he just interviews, that's why it should stay as BROADCAST TEAM and not COMMENTATORS. (4) Tough Enough shouldn't be included considered there is no reliable source saying Austin and Stratus are even signed on for more seasons. And (5), the Otunga/McGillibuddy tag team is over so they should be removed as well. Feed  back  ☎ 22:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Striker commentates on the SmackDown portion of Superstars. And Superstars isn't cancelled (internationally). Eh, I think you should wait a week before deciding that OtungaCutty is over. How about the order I proposed? Starship.paint (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the order's a really good idea.-- Deely  talk  12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you agree with me? Starship.paint (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, although as Feedback said, we don't have a source saying Austin and Stratus are coming back for season 2 of Tough Enough.-- Deely  talk  12:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, I'm giving this one more day before changing it since no one has any objections to the order. I'd be removing Tough Enough as well. Starship.paint (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Upon further pondering, I think I made a small mistake, WWE Legends (who appear part time) should be below Tag Teams and Stables (who appear all the time). Anyone against? Starship.paint (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up...
Me and the graphics lab worked together and now the WWE logo on their article is now a SVG file.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 20:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what is the advantage of that? Tony2Times (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

PWInsider and PW Dot net added as sources. How about CageMatch?
Could we add PWInsider as a reliable source for TV/PPV results (not rumours)? They've been around since 2004, and they seem to have an established staff. Main purpose is that their reports seem quite detailed and can be used to back up in-ring storylines / contribute to wrestlers' movesets. Might I add that it's a for-profit organization as well... Starship.paint (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always considered them to be reliable.-- Deely  talk  13:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I think we'd be opening ourselves to criticism (and removal of citations) if we use PWInsider as a source. The same information can be obtained elsewhere if it's of any use. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this here though: "You, at PWInsider.com, break wrestling news as quickly as anyone and as accurately as the other 3 major sites (F4WOnline/WrestlingObserver.com, PWTorch, and ProWrestling.net)".-- Deely  talk  19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they used to be pretty good and I personally consider them more reliable than the Torch. I'm just wary of a website which has had a dodgy rep for site safety in the past. Meh, I'm probably worried about nothing. Reliable for TV/PPV results? Yeah, I reckon so. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 20:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I searched the online MacAfee/Norton/Google Safe Browsing scanners and they said there's nothing wrong with the site. Perhaps the spyware is a thing of the past? Oh yeah, what about prowrestling.net? Reliable for TV/PPV results? I think Dot Net's head, Jason Powell was at PWTorch last time? It's another for-profit org as well, but it's newer, I think it was started in 2008. Starship.paint (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK guys what do you think about CageMatch.de? It's a German wrestling database, the largest I've come across, it has international coverage, an established staff of about 20, website started in 2004. Starship.paint (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a really good resource as a starting point, but there's some misinformation on there such as |%20/%20|^Dark%20)(SHIMMER%20Title)#search these title matches in nCw that didn't take place, and a few ring names which I've come across on this website but nowhere else. Tony2Times (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would still consider PWInsider questionable (perhaps asking someone who reviews FACs to look at it would be a good idea), but I don't think that ProWrestling.net or CageMatch.de would be considered reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony how did you know the matches didn't take place? Gary could you explain your rationale? Starship.paint (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Shimmer lists their title matches of which the ones in nCw are not. The matches took place but they weren't for the title. Tony2Times (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Turning Point 2008
Okay, we haven't had an FA since Lockdown (2008) I do believe. I've nominated Turning Point (2008) twice already. Its gotten close, but hasn't had many reviews, resulting in fewer supports and/or opposes. Someone mentioned informing the project when I nominated it again so people more familiar with the topic could comment. So if anyone wants to give a review, here is the subpage: Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3.-- Will C  01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is called canvassing and I'm pretty sure it's frowned upon on Wikipedia. Feed  back  ☎ 11:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you just be a bit more positive and help our project out in this?-- Deely  talk  19:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * He said "review it", not "please recommend it". I'm pretty sure no-one else would notice it was taking place if he didn't mention it. Tony2Times (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not canvassing when the person who recommended I inform the project like so of the new nomination was the same person who closed the second nomination. Like Tony said, most wouldn't even know of its nomination. I left it and list of TV champions on the main page for a month while they haven't been reviewed and I have 3 TNA 2005 PPVs at GAN and most don't know. Also that Elimination Chamber is at GAN as well. Thought I'd inform the ones familiar with the topic, who can leave comments if they want too, not to canvass or anything.-- Will C  22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was me who nominated it (again). I think this time it'll pass (again) but'll stay one.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused on this one. It was delisted because it didn't have a Reception section. Why renominate it without a Reception section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe Gary is talking about Elimination Chamber.-- Will C  08:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, on a side note regrading Elimination Chamber, besides the issue of no reception there is an over abundance of WWE sources. There is certainly plenty of sources covering the matches on third party sites. Probably better info too.-- Will C  08:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Soliciting PW project members to comment in the FAC is canvassing. Canvassing doesn't mean to recruit Yes Men, it means to advertise a discussion to a sole group of people which Will has effectively done by asking the members to participate. And the "We haven't had an FA since Lockdown" comment doesn't help matters. If I were the closing admin, I'd take at ALL supports from WP:PW members with a grain of salt due to their participation being a product of canvassing. Feed back  ☎ 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone clearly doesn't read what is said, instead makes up their own ideas. Lets review, look at my first comment. I said "we haven't had an FA since Lockdown (2008)", an article I wrote. "I've nominated Turning Point (2008) twice already", its part of the reason I nominated the article. "if anyone wants to give a review", I did not ask anyone to review the article, nor to participate, I simply informed the project of an article within the interest of the project it was under review and I'd like to see where you can show in the above where I did the following: "by asking the members to participate". Who better to inform??? The film project because it used HD film cameras??? Afterall it was a "WRESTLING" PPV event, and this is the "WRESTLING PROJECT". I don't want wrestling fans to comment normally, thats why I never inform the project of any articles I nominate for GAN or FAC. Afterall, I never informed of the last two reviews I do believe until now or that I have Destination X (2005), Lockdown (2005), and Hard Justice (2005) at GAN.-- Will C  08:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment about the sources on Elimination Chamber. They're exactly 40 references on the article and only 22 of them are from WWE.com. The other 18 are from third party sources.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats more than half of the article. A reception section would be easy when including PWTorch and Slam reviews of the event. That would set off the article a bit more.-- Will C  21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect from WON awards discussion
I'll have other comments on the WON awards debate which are relevant to that discussion. A remark made in response to my comments is more appropriate here. I don't feel like getting blue in the face from having to repeatedly point out that proper historical perspective and proper worldwide perspective are important considerations for every Wikipedia editor. Dismissing those as "someone else's responsibility," while editing article after article to match the WWE historical revisionist version of pro wrestling, is beyond bogus. An old friend who has been a sportswriter for decades, and in fact remained a WON subscriber long after I quit subscribing, made a very poignant comment to me last week. He observed that once the WWE was successful in snapping up the video footage of its former major competitors, it was far too easy for them to portray wrestling's history in any light they so chose. I've bought many of the WWE DVD releases which contain historical content and/or context, and that's exactly what I see in most of them.

I believe the word "cabal" was tossed around (not by myself, however) to describe my attitude towards most of the contributors to this page. Speaking as someone who began watching pro wrestling as a teenager fascinated with Killer Karl Kox and Harley Race, I suppose that just might set me apart from someone who began watching this as a teenager fascinated with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Dwayne Johnson. I was a wrestling fan when it wasn't cool? Ahem, anyway. My real issue is one which is hardly exclusive to this project. I see lots of Wikipedia editors whose efforts amount to attempting to maintain the primacy of their favored sources. Never mind that even with a subject matter like pro wrestling, reliable sources of pre-Internet happenings and occurrences are everywhere. If you haven't already, take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the decades-long body of work of J. Michael Kenyon, published as Wrestling As We Liked It. Numerous other websites exist which chronicle historical affairs in sufficient or substantial detail. That is, unless you want to believe that the present-day wrestling website culture (or the so-called "IWC") is all that matters.

Parroting some web page without further discernment is another problem which is hardly exclusive to this project. As it concerns pro wrestling, my latest poster child for this is Larry Latham. The article notes his role in the Tupelo concession stand brawl, which happened in 1978. Obviously, this is in conflict with his OWW profile, which says that he debuted in 1979. That OWW source was parroted in the article without regard for that important fact. As I've mentioned multiple times in their respective talk pages to this effect, birth information for Bobby Heenan and Sgt. Slaughter as presented in their articles is dubious, regardless of it being sourced. I could go on and on, but I really must go to bed so that I'm not dragging my ass when I'm supposed to be out earning my living today. Good day/night.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I've saved my stock response to all of your lectures (now with assigned readings!) as a Notepad file. CTRL-V: Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not really interested in working on older wrestlers, I haven't even watched them before. You can't force me to work on them, hmm? Starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty long for someone who has to be out earning their living today.-- Deely  talk  16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think Starship is right, I mean, if you're so willing to write us a 521 character message about all this stuff, how about you don't, because quite frankly no one is interested, and spend your free time either working on those articles, or do something productive?-- Deely  talk  16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amid that, there was a valid point - is OWW a reliable source? This is a question that has already been asked and answered: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_88. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 04:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help in expanding the lead for Jeri-Show and Big Show and Kane
Could any of you help me expand the lead for Jeri-Show and Big Show and Kane? Evilgohan2 feels that the lead's too short, but I'm not sure how to expand it. Any help would be deeply appreciated. If you think the lead is adequate, please voice out as well. Thank you.Starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I expanded it a bit.-- Will C  09:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much WillC! Starship.paint (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How about this: "Because Big Show is a very tall man, the team is occasionally referred to as Jeri-Tall. This is not to be confused with Geritol, which Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan both consume in massive quantities as they continue their ongoing feud. The Flair-Hogan feud is scheduled to conclude in a WCW (not World Championship Wrestling, but rather Walkers, Canes and Wheelchairs) match at WrestleMania 50." BTW, the redlink was intentional. You'd better start that article now, so you don't miss any important developments.RadioKAOS (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my, WillC, your introduction totally pales in the face of RadioKAOS' one! You won't be needed any more WillC! Oh KAOS almighty, how may I learn to write prose of such esteemed quality, relevance and comic effect? Starship.paint (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I've essentially released my contribution into the public domain, I'm afraid I've given Stephanie McMahon another idea she can legally steal. I'll be anxiously awaiting the announcement of the WCW match between Sheiky Baby and Jimmy "Superfried" Snuka at an upcoming PPV.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha?-- Deely  talk  12:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Help uploading an image
Hello. I need some assistance uploading a "free use" image for Bob Starr (wrestler) which I'm hoping to nominate for DYK. I think this would be an ideal image. It's from his official website but it hasn't been updated since 1999 and has (presumably) outdated contact information.

I did find alternative images from his Facebook fan club and on Flickr. I would have uploaded the latter image through WP:IFU, as it allows the image to be used for noncommercial purposes and provides attribution to the author, but according to the IFU wizard a BY-NC-ND license can't be used on Wikipedia. Since I'm not able to do it myself, I thought maybe a member of this project who has an account to either of these websites could contact the authors for permission to use a photo for his article? 72.74.206.211 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a Flickr account, which I've set up specifically to allow selected content to be cross-published to Commons. Nothing pertaining to wrestling, unfortunately.  Some people do want to maintain a degree of control over their stuff, and Commons diminishes that.  I did leave her a message, though from the looks of it, that account hasn't been updated in several years.  It's anyone's guess as to whether she'll respond right away or ever.
 * I came across a recent photo on Flickr of Lance Russell, Jerry Lawler and Dave Brown together that I'd love to see on here. Russell and Brown's articles are in need of photos, and Lawler's article is badly in need of content related to something other than WWE (yeah, I know, an all too common complaint in general).  I'm still waiting for a response to my request to re-license the photo.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Our best hope is that people take digital cameras with them to WrestleReunion, etc. and are generous enough to make the photos freely available. Photos from the pre-digital age are now in demand for books and magazines (never-before-seen photos was one of the selling points for Jim Cornettes' TME 25 Anniv. Scrapbook) so I wouldn't expect we'll get our hands on much that's even remotely old-school. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well I appreciate the quick response. I don't know if this has been brought up before but this photographer seems to have released his images in the public domain ("Feel Free To Use These Pics (Except Direct-Linking to Message Boards, etc.) Please Just Put A Link to My Site From Yours!!! Thanks."). I hope this helps. 72.74.206.211 (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship for Females
Is this a real thing? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD that, i've never heard of it and a search turned up nothing-- Dch eagle  05:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its fan cruft, delete it quickly.-- Will C  10:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up for extermination --> Articles for deletion/Triple Crown Championship for Females. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 15:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Vengenace/ Night of Champions article
With this being the first year that WWE has held both Vengeance and Night of Champions, there has been confusion on whether the WWE Vengeance article should be separated. With Vengeance 2011 being the next PPV, the WWE has again put up a page for the event.

The history section in WWE's Vengeance page (http://www.wwe.com/shows/vengeance/) shows that they only consider Vengeance 2001-2006 (along with the 2011 event) under the Vengeance chronology. Night of Champions has it's own page (http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions), with Vengeance: Night of Champions and Night of Champions 2008-2011.

Since the WWE has now made its stance about this event, should the Vengeance article be separated and a new one made for Night of Champions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.224.120 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's follow WWE's direction for this one. 2007-2011 NOC, 2001-2006 and 2011 Vengeance. Starship.paint (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * List the 2007 event in both articles. Factually its in both lines. Two articles should be made. Vengeance: Night of Champions needs to be listed and explained in both, as its the event which gave birth to Night of Champions and was also a Vengeance event.-- Will C  09:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/history108.38.207.149 (talk) 11:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't we just use one table for all of them? I mean, there's a column for "Event" which contains the title. Why don't we use it to highlight the name of the event even when it changes but is part of the same chronology? Tony2Times (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm for that proposal I guess.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 08:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermore Championship Wrestling
I just made this edit to Bret Hart removing an uncited series of reigns as champion of Nevermore Championship Wrestling, a company I've never heard of which turns up nothing but mirror sites, forums/sites copying Wikipedia and a useless Yahoo Answer... And a bunch of Wikipedia articles listing wrestlers as having won the same title. Can anyone confirm if this title/company even exists? At the moment I'm assuming it's a hoax, possible an e-Fed. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 13:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked around on probably the most popular wrestling forum on the internet, my thread got 71 views but nobody heard of it. Starship.paint (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Triple Crown Championship
There was a past consensus to keep the WCW and ECW Triple Crowns off the page because they are completely fan-fabricated terms and were never created by the respective promotions. I can't find the original consensus, so let's make a new one. Feed back  ☎ 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ECW Triple Crown was referred to a bunch of times on commentary in relation to Mikey Whipwreck. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem with WIA website
It looks like the Wrestling Information Archive is down or at least its PWI 500 listings. I've already had to replace the 1996 and 1998 issues with archived versions on one article. I've checked with other articles, Bobby Eaton and Bob Holly, and got the same results. Just thought I'd give the project a heads up. 72.74.209.96 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't even supposed to use that site. All links to it should be removed. It uses Wikipedia as a source, we are not allowed to use sites who do that.-- Will C  00:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't pass the test for a reliable source, but I think it's better than nothing until a better source can be found. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The rankings come from wikipedia. Wikipedia can't source itself. No source, just remove them as they are OR from the very beginning.-- Will C  05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the rest of the website but the archived versions I used to replace the broken links were on the web as far back as 2001.  72.74.225.189 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a PWI Almanac that gives the PWI 500 listings from the beginning to 2007. If there is a specific wrestler or several wrestlers, let me know the name(s) and I can work on the sourcing this weekend. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quite a few articles use WIA to source PWI entries. I have a few PWI Almanacs lying around if you need some help. 72.74.225.189 (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Help with DYK
Hello again. I'm trying to nominate Mad Dog O'Malley for DYK. Specifically, I'm using his 1996 PWI 500 entry for the following hook, "...that professional wrestler Mad Dog O'Malley, a 500 lbs. Irish brawler, was billed 'from the dog pounds of Dublin, Ireland'?". The problem is that the reviewer won't accept it because its not an online source. Does anyone here have a copy of the 1996 PWI 500 issue so they can verify it? I've typed out his profile at the nomination page and highlighted the relevant text. Just to clarify, his PWI entry lists his weight in 1996 as 430 lbs. but a 1999 newspaper article further down the states he is "an estimated 500 pounds". I'd appreciate any assistance the project can give, thanks. 72.74.225.189 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I might. I'll check tomorrow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I found my copy. The notes on O'Malley are: Ranked #421; 6'4", 430 lbs.; Rulebreaker "from the dog pounds of Dublin, Ireland"...Big man who uses his bulk to wear down opponents...Surprisingly agile for his size...Has an effective powerslam...Defeated Morgus the Maniac in several recent matches. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with Flickr...
To anyone with a Flickr account... could you get this photographer, Julian Holtom to reupload his picture of Evan Bourne? Otherwise, the picture will probably be deleted from Wikipedia. Yeah, it would be a shame if Bourne didn't have that nice picture of him as his main picture. Thanks! Starship.paint (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Once it's been uploaded and released, s/he can't rescind the sharing license, I thought? Tony2Times (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Would that require a screenshot of the original license? The link was www.flickr.com/photos/53293222@N00/4091973799. Starship.paint (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I asked for the original photo. S/he told me that i could choose one of his/her photos and I choosed the Evan Bourne photo over Triple H and HBK photos. Here is his/her message "I'd be prepared to allow one to be used, so choose wisely! I'll change the license on that image only." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Er.. to update.. Someone from Commons has found an old review of the picture that does not require the actual picture any more. Nevertheless, the file being reuploaded is a good thing as well, so thank you HHH Pedrigree! Starship.paint (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Interview relevance?
Hey guys, hope you could help me out with a case I'm following. 65.24.40.18 recently changed  some articles to fix the hosting address of some interviews he conducted with the article subjects. Though there is a COI, I'm not going to throw this one out of the window yet because I'm not sure if the interviews actually hold merit. Since I don't follow wrestling, I was wondering if you guys could give one or two of the interviews a listen and let me know what you think about their inclusion on the pages. Do they merit their place as external links?

Thanks in advance! m.o.p 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVIII
I can imagine there's been a discussion about Daniel Bryan and WrestleMania. Even though this is clearly Crystal Ball, one user ain't getting the message and says that WWE.com said it would happen. WWE.com says a lot of things because they follow storyline. But this user takes it as truth.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's an official match that is going to happen at WM28, it goes on there. But, they might do a twist in the storyline where Bryan loses the briefcase to someone else and that person goes to cash it in on the current champion (being Mark Henry), to win the title. WWE can change things up before WM, but they appear to let Bryan cash it in at Mania. So. I think it should stay off the page until we get closer to Mania to find out who's facing Bryan.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I was posting as you posted this: Yesterday, WWE officially added Daniel Bryan cashing in Money in the bank at WM28 to the website and the card, as such someone added it (I haven't seen who but whoever did, cited a reliable source). So about 30 minutes ago, Nascarking removes it as a "flagrant Crystal Ball" because "&#91;f&#93;or all we know &#91;Bryan&#93; could tear an ACL and be out for a year." I don't by this argument myself because it's based in "could happens" rather than the facts known and is speculation in it's own right. So I explained to him twice why I feel this is not CRYSTALBALL-ing because there is a reliable source proving it's not unverifiable speculation. He expressed concerns about there not being a reliable third-party source, so I humored him and provided one which can be seen here. Despite this he has continued to revert rather then bring it up for discussion here as I asked saying "I'm pretty sure there's been a discussion on this issue." In short, I'd either like to see a new consensus formed or Nascarking told he was wrong, which I'm pretty sure he is. Thanks.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Narcar is wrong. He usually is though, so this won't come as a surprise to him. He just doesn't like acknowledging it. If we end the conversation now, he'll probably move on to something else and leave it alone. So just smile and wave boys. Smile and wave. Feed  back  ☎ 23:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since WWE is actually officially advertising the match as Bryan vs World Heavyweight Champion, then I'd add it to the card. It's not that hard. It's the exact same scenario as any other match coming up at any other PPV, if the promotion promotes it, we add it to the card here. Hell, the Rock or Cena could tear an ACL, so let's remove them from the WM28 card. Seriously, what are we actually presenting on Wikipedia here? The advertised card for WM28. Obviously, the most reliable source for the WWE's advertised WM28 card is WWE. Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feedback, is being a dick and rude just come natural to you?-- Will C  09:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not natural, I usually have to be triggered by a pointless discussion where the solution is clear, yet someone like Nascar refuses to acknowledge it. I wssn't lying when I said hee does that a lot. But you're right, I shouldn't be dick-ish, its best if I just refrain from commenting. You could blame my IED. But then I'll have to DDT your wife. Feed  back  ☎ 11:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! Nice comeback, Feedback, I needed the morning laugh.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 12:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Feedback about Nascarking...-- Deely  talk  15:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its not about truth or not, its about remaining civil and respectful. Thats all this project has ever done is bicker at one another. We need to grow up and stop the childish bantering.-- Will C  20:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm almost 100% sure that grown men bash each other more than children do. Feed  back  ☎ 21:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What a surprise that Feedback would respond with a dickish comment. You say everything I do is wrong. That I can take but the dickish comments from you that bother me. Anyway, you all know very well that WWE changes more than Denver's number of QB's. Not to mention WWE.com follows storyline like there breaking news section is something that follows storyline.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WWE.com is also the most reliable source on what matches are on a card.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So...... How's the project doing?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 23:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WWE sometimes changes their minds the same day of the event. Going by your logic, we shouldn't have added any matches until the day after the event because there is no way we can be sure that a match won't be bumped off the show (like Bryan/Sheamus) or have its participants changed (like Show,Santino,Kozlov,Kane/Corre). Feed  back  ☎ 23:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously Feedback, does being a dick come natural to you?-- Voices in my Head   WWE  23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how blunt, or dickish, he's being, he's right.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 00:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Feedback might not have been very nice to you before, Nascarking, but his comment on 2nd November wasn't dickish, but a logical argument. If you cannot refute it, then I'd say the matter is settled. Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lex Luger a consultant for WWE Wellness Policy?
He is listed as such on the List of WWE personnel page, but I can't find any reliable sources to back this up. Can anyone confirm this? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's three sources I found with Google, I don't know if any would be considered reliable outside the first one but, here they are:   CRRays  Head90  | We Believe! 02:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tag team articles
I came across the AFD for Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins, one of many such recent AFDs. In this instance, I actually looked over the article and realized that aside from it being a product of misbegotten priorities, how poor of an actual job it was. I had some rather lengthy comments regarding not only the article, but this recent push to create tag team articles and how it serves as yet another example of taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction. I've copied these comments here for further dissemination and discussion:

Delete per nom. I looked through the sources and couldn't believe what a laughably poor job someone did of sourcing this article. I really wanted to piss my pants laughing when I saw that the WWE profiles on Reks and Hawkins actually point to the WWE profiles of Chris Jericho and The Big Show. Which leads me to a comment, see below: Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams: All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below: In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Larry Hennig and Harley Race
 * Dick Murdoch and Dusty Rhodes (Texas Outlaws is an article about a soccer team, I think. Since that article is just a bunch of tables and lacks prose, I really can't tell.)
 * The Funks (just Dory and Terry together would suffice, not necessarily including the 1980s WWF gimmick version with Jesse Barr)
 * The Briscos (that would be Jack and Jerry, not the Briscoe Brothers)
 * Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell (like with the previous example, High Flyers refers to something else)
 * Black Gordman and Goliath - Not only one of the top tag teams of their day, but still fondly remembered today. Neither individual has an article, let alone the tag team, as evidenced by the redlinks.
 * The Hollywood Blonds - This article does exist. However, the original, legendary and far more notable tag team of Jerry Brown and Buddy Roberts, known as the Hollywood BLONDES, are being used merely as a coatrack to refer to the short-lived and directly derivative (by virtue of Bill Watts being the booker who created both teams) latter-day incarnation of Steve Austin and Brian Pillman.  The claim to greater notability of Austin and Pillman on Wikipedia is based solely on greater television exposure, which is actually a somewhat dubious claim if you cared to dig up the respective television ratings statistics.  The problem is that that might require something approaching real work.  Obviously, parroting one's favored sources is an easier route to take.
 * Wow! Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to work on them yourself, then stop criticizing others for not doing what you think needs to be done. You show up about once a week, rant about something, talk about old-timey rasslin', and then you pop-in here when the next AFD is live.  No one here gets paid and you're not anyone's shift supervisor.  173.168.196.218 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Ten Year Test be a bit Crystal Balling? A lot of these articles ain't even relevant anymore yes, but that seems a little crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting or ignoring that the action which preceded my comment about the ten-year test, the questionable creation of these articles in the first place, constitutes a far greater example of WP:CRYSTAL. Namely, that you wish to have an article in place in the event that the team wins a championship, so that you don't wind up with a redlink in some template.  And no, the shows I made a habit of really watching were Mid-South Wrestling, WMC's Championship Wrestling, and Portland Wrestling, not necessarily in that order.  I haven't even commented on the AFD for Death Valley Driver Video Review.  Many of you appear to support an article which exists to promote a website heavily into pirating videos of those very programs.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa there has to be a barnstar we can give this guy. What can it be called? How about the Did you really watch World Class? How interesting! barnstar? Yeah, this could work. We'll add this to our list of priorities right under "utilizing our free time to edit exactly like RadioKAOS sees fit." Don't worry, I'm sure we'll be able to get around to both tasks eventually. Feed  back  ☎ 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Radio, most people would just say something like no the Ten Year Test isn't crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head   WWE  02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Maybe a better use of your time would be to convince all the fans of Citizen Kane and The Ernie Kovacs Show that they're unsophisticated hicks, because CGI is really where it's at, donchaknow.  Or maybe tell all the Phish fans that those shows they played back in the day in Vermont in front of 30 people are irrelevant.  For the sarcasm-impaired, that's exactly how you're treating pre-1996 pro wrestling.  Terribly sorry I've had to draw it out into the open like this.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh I'm busy enough as it is. Working on articles of wrestlers I've never heard about or watched before is obviously a low priority. Starship.paint (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Radio, this isn't the first time you've mentioned it, and this isn't the first time I've had to make it clear: Everyone edits whatever they want. If there's no Hollywood Blondes article, it's because no one has had the interest in editing it. Nowhere is Wikipedia advertising that it is a perfect encyclopedia. It relies on its users, their interests, their dedication and their time. The thing is, if you are so hell-bent on wanting to make Hollywood Blondes article or a Murdoch and Rhodes article, make it yourself. No one, and I repeat,  NO ONE  is stopping you. So get off your high horse and start editing instead of complaining. When you make the 6 or 7 quality articles you wanted, give us a ring and tell us "You see, meanies, I told you so!" and we'll say "Good for you". Until then, just shut up. Thank you. Feed back  ☎ 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in Feedback, but I just can't stop myself. Now tell me, Did you REALLY watch World Class? Now that is interesting!-- Deely  talk  16:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Too many external links?
I noticed this user is removing external links from various wrestling articles. Do I need to specifically cite a source with in-line citations instead of listing it under the external links section? I only ask since I just added a few to Klondike Bill. 72.74.205.113 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the external links have to be removed... One interview is better than no interview, and it's not like there are 10 interviews in external links.

If the source is directly linked to a statement in the article, like "Bill died on October 3, 2000 from a neuromuscular disorder, similar to Bells Palsy.", then you should source it. Otherwise, it's just a link I think. Starship.paint (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob Starr (wrestler) DYK
I nominated this for DYK but am having trouble with the nomination (Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Starr (wrestler)). The reference for the hook has stopped working, but I've been too sick to find anything else and will be out of town for a while now. If anyone can help with this, it would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Article splits
I've been working on List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions on and off for almost two years now (I know, long time but didn't care enough to stay focused). I got it located in a subpage, and after completing Turning Point (2007), Final Resolution (January 2008), Against All Odds (2008), and Destination X (2008) yesterday, I thought to finish it as it wasn't far off. Then I ran across an inconsistency I had forgotten about in the title's history. Normally I'd just go ahead and do the split and source it, etc but since the list is an FL and its honestly a bunch of bullshit which would cause 10 times the work I thought I'd get a few opinions as its WWE stuff, and I could care less other than it being an FL. The whole point I've been working on it is its an FL and it fails the criteria these days, so it would most likely be a default delist. The issue is it includes WCW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns. According to the article WCW did not recognize these reigns, however WWE does recognize them. I know WWE owns it and views it, but this is a case where they should be noted rather than included. The source information would prove the fact of the matter is they are two different titles, meaning they should be split off into a separate article and noted in the list and title article. Alot like TNA's issue with the world title, where TNA includes NWA reigns in the TNA Title history, but they are two separate titles, with those reigns noted in the list (Well they were at one point but no source to explain TNA's view anymore). Anyone got anything to say on the split, otherwise I'm just gonna go ahead and finish the article, split them up and create the other championship?-- Will C  23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive?
What's going on with the archive? In theory, everything on this page should be archived by now. Feed back  ☎ 02:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously guys, why isn't this whole page archived...? Feed  back  ☎ 06:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Not a technician >< Perhaps we could ask User:Misza13 why his bot User:MiszaBot II isn't working. By the way Feedback how is your Unholy Alliance article going? Starship.paint (talk) 07:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:MiszaBot/Archive_FAQ: by default, the bot will leave at least 5 threads on a page and will not archive less than two on a single run. You can adjust the parameters to your liking. I have adjusted the parameters, hopefully it work now. Starship.paint (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't gotten around to it. Finals are tearing me apart. Hopefully I get around to it during the holidays. Feed  back  ☎ 13:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. It works. Hmm, I wonder when are your holidays? I think I'd be off this site for a year or two by Feb 2012. Whoops. Starship.paint (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico starts Christmas festivities right about now in early December, but my break starts in December 15. I'm lucky though because Puerto Rico basically celebrates two Christmases. One in December with "Santa Claus" and another in January dedicated to honoring the Three Wise Men. I still don't get why they celebrate two, but it works for me, because the holidays extend all the way until late January. Feed  back  ☎ 22:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Hopefully I can help out then. Starship.paint (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow this WP is boring. Where's RadioKAOS?-- Deely  talk  15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

impactwrestling.com and allwrestling.com
Those of you in this project may be very interested in the discussion at User talk:Cm3solutions. A person working on behalf of CM3 Solutions, who operates allwrestling.com, is attempting (in violation of WP:COI) to update links between these two sites. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.-- Deely  talk  19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So Deely you have replaced all the links already? Starship.paint (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep.-- Deely  talk  18:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job! Starship.paint (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Chuck Zito
Chuck Zito's talk page says his article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Is this correct, or can I remove it? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently from a google search In 1999, Zito made several appearances on the professional wrestling television show WCW Monday Nitro, portraying a supposed alliance with Hulk Hogan. I think he was more of a celebrity guest than a wrestler since I searched cagematch.de and they didn't list him participating in any matches. I think you can remove it because various Raw celebrity guests do not have this tag? Starship.paint (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan cashing in at WM28...again
This community previously established that since there is a reliable source saying Daniel Bryan's match is happening at 'Mania that it should be added to the article. Newcomer refuses to acknowledge this due to recent developments in storyline involving Daniel trying to cash it in and apparently changing his mind. Despite these developments WWE continues to list the match for WrestleMania so I have continued to impose the previous consensus til such a time that either consensus changes, Bryan cashes in successfully or WWE removes the match. Wwwewrestlingmad doesn't agree resulting in a content dispute edit war, please head over to Talk:WrestleMania XXVIII and weigh in to establish a newer consensus, thanks.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shake my head. Added my arguments. Starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because he stated he was going to cash in at WM28 he can still cash it in at any time, as seen on SmackDown two weeks ago. Besides, it isn't an official advertised match.-- Deely  talk  15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is advertised, check the website. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Advertised here and here Starship.paint (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is he can cash in at any time before hand.-- Deely  talk  20:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that at present he is advertised and promoted to wrestle that match, just like Cena was advertised and promoted to wrestle Randy Orton at No Mercy 2008 which was what our article read until Cena was injured 6 days before the event. Then we changed the article. If Bryan uses the contract beforehand, then we'll change the article. Tony2Times (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was No Mercy 2007 but yeah, exactly right, Tony. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos
Why have this photos changed? When I uploaded the Consequences Creed's photo, it was ok. Also, in Commons view history doesn't appear any change in the photo. Thanks--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some very strange things are happening here on Wikipedia...-- Deely  talk  15:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this photo has the same problem. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.255 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Amy Dumas
Lita just appeared on Raw and the IPs are going crazy adding that she's returned, I've reverted for the time being. Extra eyes needed. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Vilza Fenz
Hi! I am checking new Japan-related articles as a member of WikiProject Japan and noticed this article on Vilza Fenz. It looks very suspicious. I cannot find any reliable sources on her in English or Japanese, and it looks like not only the user who created this article, but also some IPs have been going through various related articles, especially on Hiroko Suzuki and Malia Hosaka, and adding text about this person (for a time, this person was even equated with Sumie Sakai). I know little about professional wrestling, but I have the stinking suspicion this is a hoax. Can anyone with more expertise confirm or deny this? Michitaro (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Kane
I requested semi-protection of Kane due to rampant vandalism. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been semi-protected for a week. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 04:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Epico and Primo
Are Epico and Primo a new version of The Colóns? If they are, can I edit the group page to reflect it?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so because there's been no mention of Carlito or the Colons, so I'm guessing they want to take a whole new direction here.-- Deely  talk  00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Activity
Why is wrestling activity on this project and around the wiki starting to resemble the activity at the Simple English Wikipedia? (i.e.: slim to no activity.) <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 08:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh there is activity, just all the old expanders are gone. Pretty much, it looks like I'm the only one left, besides Gary who does DYKs still I do believe. Think, Nici, Truco, etc have all been on here rarely. MPJ hasn't been on in a while to do a Mexican Title list. Nikki is here and there. We got newbies and ips today just doing the random edits. We don't have expanders anymore, who know the subject matter and how to do a proper article. The interest has died around here.-- Will C  08:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for inspiration, but I imagine I'll expand a few articles in the future. Nothing like in the past, but that's what a growing family does to a person. For the time being, I'm working toward 100 DYKs (98 and counting...). As for the lack of newer active members, that might be a result of some people taking a "Criticize and Ostracize" approach to newcomers rather than offering mentorship (although, in fairness, some of them have seemed very difficult to talk with). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gary, you ever going to do some more 90s WWE PPVs?-- Will C  00:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to do more from the 1990-1991 period, and maybe a bit from 1995. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I was wondering. You were getting them all finished pretty quickly. No one does PPVs much anymore. I'm still working on the TNA side. WWE side has dropped off. Nikki did Elimination Chamber 2010 not long ago. Before that idk when the last WWE PPV passed. I think it was Armageddon 2008. I got Bret Hart's book which gives alot of good information from that time period if you need any help.-- Will C  01:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I think the last one before that was SummerSlam (1990), which passed its GA review exactly one year ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I was wondering. All the early 90s events are almost finished. SummerSlam (1992) to In Your House 1 are all finished. Hart's book gives alot of info on these and later ones. Thought to let you know in case you do more.-- Will C  08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I was thinking, the Wikiproject I knew was massive.-- Deely  talk  16:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2011) article resembles a stub. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe we do have enough people to work on PPV articles if we all cooperate and decide on which article and we just do it one at a time. How about Money in the Bank (2011)? Starship.paint (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Y'all go ahead, I got the TNA stuff covered. Just had 6 TNA PPVs at GAN and now 4 are left. Probably will have another 5 or 6 done by the end of this month.-- Will C  09:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, one thing does anyone mind if I reformat WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs? I want to update it and tweak the table a bit. May not be done quickly, but thought to do it.-- Will C  09:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead Will. And yeah Starship although I've got a pretty tight schedule, although Christmas holidays are starting in two days so I can help out here a bit more than usual for those two or three weeks.-- Deely  talk  19:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that anybody would be upset. It will also need some updating, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

If y'all want something to do Elimination Chamber has some issues keeping it from becoming a Good Article like references missing dates. So there's something.-- Daytona   500  22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gary, yeah that is kinda what I plan to do. Update it and expand it. Maybe change it up a bit. I started at one point but never finished it.-- Will C  22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dome Show
Is it just my computer or is there no contents list on the 4th January article? Tony2Times (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing the same problem as well. Starship.paint (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange.-- Will C  11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Someone had just disabled the table.TheFBH (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Holidays
Happy holidays everyone!-- Deely  talk  17:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays indeed. HOHOHO Starship.paint (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

PWI 500
Hey everyone, hope your New Year's Day is going swimmingly. Having an issue with an over-zealous fan adding every ranking of wrestlers in the PWI 500, particularly CM Punk's. Been persistant for a while now with multiple reverts, so figured I'd take it to the project.

ex1 ex2

Looking through the archives it seems consensus was reached to list only the top performance - if any - but that was a year or so ago, and I'd like to know if the majority still favors culling these lower listings from articles outright. Papacha (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would only keep the highest ranking (and keep the rankings from the special "Top 500 Wrestlers of the PWI Years" and "Top 100 Tag Teams of the PWI Years" that they released in 2003). For example, in Jim Neidhart's article:


 * PWI ranked him # 61 of the 500 best singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 1994
 * PWI ranked him # 189 of the 500 best singles wrestlers of the PWI Years in 2003
 * PWI ranked him # 37 of the 100 best tag teams of the PWI Years with Bret Hart in 2003
 * Anything more than that would just clutter up the article, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are these PWI rankings relevant? Feed  back  ☎ 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd just be too much to have every year unless you could find a new way to present them somehow. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The French Wiki has a table in place for this that's actually implemented rather well. I can imagine it being a real headache to maintain though, plus adding it to individual pages and whether the ranks themselves are worth the effort. But still, the idea's there. Papacha (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this is notable AT ALL. Feed  back  ☎ 05:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Saleem Sadiq
I found 2 pages for this wrestling manager. From these 2 pages and what is in the article, I might be missing something important. I would like someone's expertise at Articles for deletion/Saleem Sadiq. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Promoting Zack Ryder to Good Article status
Hello all, I'm interested in promoting Zack Ryder to Good Article status, but I'm rather clueless of the process: where can I reviewers to check and pass the article? Starship.paint (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone can review a GA. You basically have to nominate it at WP:GAN and hope someone decides to review it. I prefer when a non-WP:PW member reviews a wrestling-related GAN, but the chances of that happening are very slim. Feed  back  ☎ 19:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I were you I'd work on the article alot. It has prose issues, sourcing issues, etc. I think it'd fail at its current state.-- Will C  07:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Bryan Danielson
I have requested Bryan Danielson be moved to Daniel Bryan here. Do not reply here, reply on the talk page there. <b style="font-family:sans-serif;text-shadow:2px 2px 2px #9eceee;color:#fd0;"> CRRays Head90  | We Believe!</b> 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Indy Wrestling photos
Here are some Flickr photos for indy wrestlers. I don't have the time to upload these but if you do, feel free to give it a shot. Starship.paint (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Could someone please nominate ROH's 10th Anniversary Show for speedy deletion on the basis that it's not a PPV, thanks. Tony2Times (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not eligible for speedy (see WP:CSD but can be put up for an AFD debate through the normal process if anyone wishes.  ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And that's why I thought it prudent to ask first. I'm so bad with understanding half of Wiki policy. Or maybe all of it. Tony2Times (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone's speedied it anyway as "unambigious advertising"! Seems a bit of a joke that an admin did that but then it would have gotten deleted eventually via AFD so I'm not going to complain. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 08:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is gonna be a problem. Same admin started deleting a shitload of other PPVs as advertising. So many get confused about advertising around here. This could start a big delete issue as Against All Odds (2012) in its current state got deleted for the same reason when it's obviously not an advertisement.-- Will C  08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. WP:CSD states that speedying due to advertising only applies to "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.". I believe the admin in question was incorrect to delete Against All Odds (2012) if it was in its current state. Worth keeping an eye on. Admins can have their decisions challenged, after all. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 09:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WillC PPVs from which companies were deleted? Starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That one and a few ROH events I saw of.-- Will C  06:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Justin Credible
I've requested here that Peter Polaco be moved to Justin Credible. I think this is relatively uncontroversial but any objections should be posted on the talkpage there. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)