Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

I see smark (professional wrestling) was deleted last month but there are still many links goin to that page along with one suggestion to merge Smart (professional wrestling) into smark.. so i was just thinking maybe we should redirect smark into smart and add a brief definition of the term. To save us from removing the links -- Paulley

Lol their goes Smart aswell --- Paulley

At least we still have Mark? Information on all three can go there with redirects.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been deleted? Anyone know why? Given that it's part of a AfD, I feel such action shouldn't have been done until the AfD is settled.Vladamire Steelwolf 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No dont worry, someone just changed the link... its ok i changed it back-- Paulley

I made a plea at WP:AN about the AfD, and an administrator closed it, and stated WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. So I guess we won the battle! To top it all off, due to the policy that WP:IAR states, those articles should never be put up for deletion again! --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that big to call it a battle. Nice to see it gone though. Thanks. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone pointed this out to me (After the AFD closure) so I thought I would chime in to clarifiy... I am not an admin, that is the WP:IAR portion. I was ignoring the fact that I was not an admin to move wikipedia forward. Normally, admins do speedy close, however, WP:IAR allowed me to close it as a non-admin. My opinion on that afd remains Neutral.

I have no control if it is nominated again. Just insure proper sourcing and references and all should be well. The closure itself was a WP:SNOW due to the fact that it had been four days of debate with apparant no chance of a deletion consensus. It just did not look like a delete consensus would develope in one more day of debate. (The time alloted for debate is normally five days). Happy editing! Navou ^banter 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point in this field? Nobody really knows where a wrestler lives, most additions are clearly un-referenced, and if it differs to from where they're billed it's largely irrelevant anyway. BertieBasset 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking about this. Maybe we should leave it there, and if during a TV broadcast the announcer says "now residing in..." (i.e. Chris Benoit 2004) we put it in the article with kayfabe in brackets next to it. Just an idea. Normy132 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a fairly minor point, but it may as well stay. Where a wrestlers current residence is unknown it doesn't show up in the infobox, and for where it does (and where it differs from "Billed from") it can be informative. It cuts down on "Personal information" sections having sentence fragments like "[wrestler x] lives in [city y]".«»bd(^talk _stalk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the OP; I've just looked and couldn't find one article using the field that provided a reference. SteveLamacq43 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just part of the bigger problem of wrestling articles in general lacking sources. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you wouldn't object to its removal? BertieBasset 16:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be helpful information, and being in the infobox keeps it out of sections like "personal information" where it's usually part of a sentence fragment or an orphaned paragraph or the the intro paragraph next to the date of birth where it doesn't belong. I'm more for forcing people to try to cite it than doing away with it altogether.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that makes it alright. Besides, I don't really see the point of the field; it's not something that's easily found out and most wrestlers are on the road for the best part of the year anyway. BertieBasset 18:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that makes it alright.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a great point about the problem with verification for shows which don't air reruns. Basically, he noted that for a normal show, you can verify what happened on a particular episode by watching a rerun of the show either in syndication or on DVD. However, professional wrestling (and soap operas and game shows), don't air regular reruns except for DVDs of pay-per-views. So if I tell you that "such and such happened" on a particular episode of Smackdown, the only way to verify it is if I also point you to a news story about the episode. You won't be able to watch the episode yourself.

On WikiProject Television, I suggested possibly looking at this for purposes of including it as a guideline for television article creation and deletion. Basically it sets a standard that an article about an episode or storyline for a show that doesn't have reruns needs to be verifiable by something else editors can reliably find, like a published article or "best of" DVD collection, etc. This would effectively prohibit most episode-by-episode articles about wrestling shows, but would allow for articles about their pay-per-views (which have DVDs) and articles about particular items which appear in "best of" wrestling collections. For instance, you couldn't write articles about most RAW episodes, but you could feasibly do an article about the famous "The Rock: This Is Your Life" episode since it is (I think) discussed on a couple of different DVD collections about RAW, Mick Foley and/or The Rock.

Rather than reply here, I'd suggest heading to WikiProject Television and leaving comments there. That way everybody on the TV project can see them, and the discussion can also cover game shows and soap operas. This might be a good start at resolving some of the questions I posted about earlier this month. Dugwiki 20:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys needs some help again another verdict sockpuppet has decided that Lesnars article doesnt need references and should not include his "In wrestling" section.. i have been trying to talk nicly with him and even made some head way but now hes gone back to to ignoring messages and repeated reverting the page -- Paulley

I had him blocked but he will be back to tomorrow to continue on.. he now believes he owns he page and that it does not need references or the other section because thats not how he wrote it.. or something like that -- Paulley

Just had a though, are the Velocity and Heat archeive still avaliable to you guy's in the USA.. and if so can you still watch the match by match. If you can, cant we reference those and link to the actual televised matches? --- Paulley

I have crossed referenced those via tv.com listing before, I have helped do a tv.com out, done a complete list for Velocity. Heat needs work on but it's not to bad either, it's not straight from the horses mouth, but they are pretty good for referencing. Govvy 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up about a month ago, about blocking PPV's to hide spoilers, however even though WrestleMania 23 is two months away, can't we block it from now till April 1st? It would be much simpler. Davnel03 12:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An article can not be protected as a preemptive measure.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the support or oppose sections. This idea is blatantly against policy, so voting on it would be pointless. Please don't bring this up again, as anything that blatantly violates a Wikipedia policy will be shot down every time. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 07:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see a new user DogJesterExtra has removed all links to deathvalleydriver.com due to it being a fansite. Though i agree there is some cause to remove it as a true source, but i dont think it should be removed as an external link esspecially just because its a fansite... we allow a fansite in wrestler articles. On that note y is it an invalid source i mean anything written about wrestling is written by a fan of some kind..isnt it!??? -- Paulley

I had the same problem with someone removing OwW links. It's not a fansite, it meets all the WP:EL criteria of what should be linked and what shouldn't be linked except for "symmetrical", which I personally think is a tad ridiculous. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a theory as to why this is happening. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am removing them is because Deathvalleydriver.com does not meet WP:RS.DogJesterExtra 18:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DogJesterExtra and numerous other accounts have been indef blocked as puppets of JB196. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a first pass at cleaning up the "PPV Wars" section of pay-per-view. The second half (or so) remains intact and still needs pairing down. --Geoff K. 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

May I also suggest merging this section into another article? Even with my substantial, incomplete edit, it's still larger than the main body of the article on PPV itself. It does contain relevant, encyclopedic info, but perhaps it would be more useful somewhere like Monday Night Wars?--Geoff K. 23:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Just wanted to get a few people's opinions on possibly creating WWA pay-per-view articles, or rather one large article if they're not notable enough. Are they notable enough? The promotion was internationally reknowned and did shows in numerous countries so I'll let you guys be the judges. Normy132 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

They are all articles in this category: Category:World Wrestling All-Stars shows. The shows weren't too big, I wouldn't be against all of them merged into one article. In my opinion: one list page would be better than several small articles that can't be expanded much more. RobJ1981 07:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I might merge them together tomorrow unless anybody is against it. Normy132 11:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job, the list article looks good. The WWA shows category should be put in CFD, since it's not likely to grow past the one article. WWA is defunct, and probably never coming back. RobJ1981 00:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one opposed^, we should now select the guidelines for information that could be in the info lines.

My first suggestions are:

• Time and possibly a notable reason when the person began (and stopped) using significant finishing or signature moves, also when something stopped being a finishing move. For example this information should be for Chris Benoit Crippler Crossface and Sharpshooter, but not for backhand chop. Also for him we should note that he stopped using the bridging dragon suplex after his neck surgery. I'm not sure if we should list that Dynamite Kid inspired him to start using the diving headbutt.
• Tributes. Using Benoit as an example again we could list "A tribute to Eddy Guerrero" for the Three Amigos.
• Innovation of moves. If he invented it, that should be noted. I don't think we should list moves people popularized in the US (or elsewhere). So The Undertaker shouldn't have "Popularized the move".

What else should be in? Do you disagree with something? ↪Lakes (Talk) 09:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Moves that are so identified with a wrestler that their name for it has taken over the call for that move throughout wrestling (Sharpshooter, Stinger Splash, Frankensteiner). Special cases when a wrestler named a move for a specific reason Perry Saturn's Moss Covered 3 Handled Family Gredunza' (not credunza, but thats a whole other discussion). Specifics of the same move being renamed, say for a gimmick change or promotion jump. That'll keep the -in OVW -in WCW stuff the lists. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What about move information which is already written in pros but in the career text. For example Samoa Joes ole kick innovation as referenced in his ROH section as

“

It was also at this event that Joe developed his infamous "Olé Olé Kick" move; an idea which got after watching a commercial during the English FA Cup (football/soccer) final. Low Ki challenged Joe to "get the crowd to chant Ole Ole Ole," which Joe accepted, and during his match with Zebra Kid he positioned the Kid on a chair, and performed the move thus the Ole Kick was born.

”

would we be moving that out of the career section outting it under the new format. --- Paulley

That's way too long. Maybe still keep that in the base text, but have a shorter one in the move list? Like "Named in reference to football fans chanting Olé." or something?

↪Lakes (Talk) 20:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I added him to the list of articles to be created. He is the only non-functional link at WrestleMania III. Govvy 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some research on him needs to be done first, being at one WrestleMania isn't enough notability in my opinion. If he did other notable things: he should have an article. But in either case: one redlink won't harm the article. RobJ1981 07:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, info on midget wrestlers is not always easy to get. I would support him (and Christopher DeJoseph getting articles. TJ Spyke 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll go on the maybe side for Little Tokyo, depending on what his career was beforehand if that info can be found easily. I go on the no side for Big Dick Johnson getting an article. He's not notable, even in the scope of WWE. His appearances are basically cameos, he hasn't wrestled any matches, hasn't been intregal in any angles or such. Giving him an article is the equivalent to that guy with the hat who's always drinking at Moe's on the simpsons getting his own. It's not like there's articles on Cheetum or Rocko the dummy. We should not cave into recentism and just focus on making the important articles better. Booshakla 03:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did one google search found very little information, The other midgets in that match have very small articles. Do you not think that even a small article will help? Govvy 10:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just notifying recent changes and discussion at Anoa'i family, Reno Anoa'i and Jimmy Snuka. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as a wrestling fan I've just paid a visit to the WrestleMania 23 article and it is occurring to me that somebody is about to drop a bomb and start an edit war any time soon. So, as far as matches are concerned (and this applies to all PPVs, not just WM) if a wrestler wins a #1 contender's match and the championship and opponent are unknown but the match is certainly confirmed, what do we do? We can't not list it, it's a confirmed match. But we can't list an opponent and title because we don't know who and what it is. So this is what I propose. The match does get listed and it gets listed as it stands. So in the case of the WM main event it would be Undertaker vs. Batista for the WHC simply because that what the match is at the current time until WWE can prove us otherwise. Feel free to bring up any other ideas about this. Normy132 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The match should be listed as Undertaker vs TBA with a note about his #1 contendership status. In fact, I just checked the page and that's what it is.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"World Title Match (main World title link as it is unknown as of yet which world title): Champion TBA vs #1 contender (currently The Undertaker)" sounds good to me... -- Paulley

I agree with Paulley here. Please make it stays that way. --Maestro25 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the current format is better, one reason is it follows the correct format and is more accurate. TJ Spyke 03:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oakster brought up a question in Archive 6 that I never really saw answered. What is the basis for posted match times? Is it bell-to-bell, or first interaction to decision, or does it start at the ring entrances? Some clarity on this could aid in standardizing match times. (Yes, I am a stat nerd.) --EazieCheeze 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally it's bell to bell.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm inclined to say bell-to-bell. Normy132 23:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody created an article for this obviously temporary team. I prodded it, but somebody might want to keep an eye on it. TJ Spyke 00:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The prod was already removed by the person that made the article. AFD is the only way to go with these tag team cruft articles. RobJ1981 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above post jogged my memory: to restate a point frrom the Big Dick Johnson thread, I think we could do without this and similar pages that amount to a directory of WWE staff. Simply saying he's a booker and he's responsible for pushing The Great Khali is hardly notable on its own and amounts to cruft biography. Unless somebody objects (and until he becomes a major behind-the-scenes player), I'd like to move ahead with the nom for deletion. --Geoff K. 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What we could do is make an all encompassing WWE creative team article. It could detail the likes of DeJoseph, and Lagana's (verifiable) contributions to creative until they warrant their own articles.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea. I think the collective actions of the creative team are notable enough for their own article - Geoffg 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I also like that idea. Normy132 04:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a good idea to give the creative team their own page. Not every aspect of the WWE needs their own page, and this would be a bad idea. Television writers are generally not notable, and the fact is, it's very hard to find verifiable info about what the WWE writers have done, it's mainly found in dirtsheets, which could be dead wrong. I think the Lagana page should be deleted (as I believe that the Brian Gewirtz page was deleted at some point), and the writing staff should just be kept on the main roster's page. Booshakla 11:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The only WWE writer who deserves an article is Christopher DeJoseph, who has appeared on TV many times (plus a PPV) and even mocked in TNA a few times. He is the most notable WWE writer. TJ Spyke 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is DeJoseph the most notable writer that isn't a former wrestler, probably. Is he notable for this own article? No way. He was only on shows a handful of times, didn't wrestle or do anything intregal in the storylines. 5 years from now, is anyone going to know who he is? We need to not write articles on every aspect of wrestling/WWE, and keep a historical context to them. Let's clean up the articles on the wrestling figures that are certainly the most important and not make a billion articles on indy guys. Booshakla 17:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Did a lot of work cutting down the post-WCW part of this article as there was tons and tons and tons of unneeded cruft and play-by-play. 192.204.106.2 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job, great start. Hopefully someone will trim the "health issues" section some too. Booshakla 17:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One issue that the project has to take a stance on is the definition of tagcruft - articles on arbitrary groups of wrestlers. The general idea which is captured by this spirit is that ad-hoc groupings are not particularly worthy, and the only "reasonable" article on groups of wrestlers is if they form a well-known stable, team, or even feud. Having said that, I think it might be time to get a group policy on this.

The pairing of two wrestlers at random should not, under any normal circumstance, constitute an article. On the other hand, certain groups of wrestlers do have meaning - that's why they form teams, stables, or feud with each other. Where do we draw this line?

• Tag teams may be formed by an ad-hoc grouping of wrestlers. For example, Cena and HBK are two singles that happen to team together that happen to win the WTTC on their first try. That doesn't mean that it's worth an article, because they haven't done much teaming together (nor does it seem that they will do much teaming together in the future). So a definite no on this.
• On the other hand, something like Gibson and Morton would qualify, because they have done a lot together as a team.
• As an extreme, we've also decided that if they haven't had much experience as singles (eg. career tag team specialists), they really shouldn't have a singles article - such as the case with Robbie and Rory.

Yet, we have a lot of articles on arbitrary groupings that have little value. One can argue that the team of Austin and Hunter doesn't really belong, as they were ad-hoc and didn't do much together for too long, except that one would back the other up. Yet, we don't have an article on ECW Originals, as it's not formally a stable or a team, yet is a well-recognized arbitrary grouping (ie. a group of wrestlers who are in the new ECW, having been an alumnus of the old ECW).

What are your thoughts on this matter?

kelvSYC 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all three points made but I think that the Austin/HHH team was a bad example. They served the same purpose as Rated RKO and that was to take out their rivals (Taker and Kane). But it is a very thin line between what's notable and what's not but I think it's reasonably easy to tell as a wrestling fan (particularly smarks) if a tag team is an established one or not. Normy132 03:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

May be pedantic, but shouldn't the venues read as:

(Event) took place on (date) at (venue); or (Event) was broadcast from (venue) on (date) rather than (Event) took place on (date) from (venue)

since events don't take place "from" somewhere ?

--Dave. 14:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. "From" doesn't sound right since events don't take place "from" somewhere. -- bulletproof ^3:16 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone have any objections before I start changing all the articles? --Dave. 09:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the 'from' convention derives from the fact that a PPV or televised event is said to be "coming to you (live) from" the location in question by the announce team. I don't know how widespread a convention this is. Has anyone checked the terminology for any other sports? - Geoffg 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably does, but there's a difference in grammar between "coming from" and "took place from". The last is wrong, surely? I don't have any objection to "was broadcast from", but given that there is also a live audience at the event, I would have thought that descricing the event as having taken place "at" a venue would be grammatically correct. For example, you would say "I saw Chicago play AT Minnesota", not "I saw Chicago play FROM Minnesota"... thoughts? --Dave. 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking, you are very correct. I was just wondering if there was some conventional colloquialism being used. An event surely took place 'at' a certain place, although you might want to consider 'in' for arenas or cities. I might say "Wrestlemania was held in MSG," for example, or "I saw Chicago play IN Minnesota." - Geoffg 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PW format instructions, HERE, the date is stated first followed by the venue and then the location. So the case here would only be changing "No Way Out took place on February 18, 2007 from the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California" to "No Way Out took place on February 18, 2007 at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, California". -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. Just change the "from"s in every event articles to "at"s. Cheers! -- bulletproof ^3:16 13:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I've done the vast majority of WWF/E events... on to WCW next! --Dave. 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just add the word "emanated" in front of "from", it sounds better than "at" (and is what we have done with many WrestleMania articles). TJ Spyke 21:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Since no one objected, I started changing it. "Emanated from" sounds a lot better than "at". TJ Spyke 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it sounds better. And nobody objected because you started reverting everything before you claimed it sounds better. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "emanated from" is that it has the same connotation as "from"; in other words it might be true for the PPV broadcast but not for the event, which is held at the arena. --Dave. 10:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When someone says, "It took place... (on).... (at)...(in)..." what more do you need to say? If you say "It took place... (on)... AND EMMANATED FROM ... (in)..." it sounds like you are repeating the same thing. It’s like saying "Something took place here... ...and here again". It just doesn't sound right. The other way is better because it’s simple and gets straight to the point. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually say (because it sounds better) "It took place on ... from the .... in ....", emanated means the same thing. TJ Spyke 05:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking a few days ago about the state of the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article and was thinking about a re-write. Currently it is in a weak state with the current alphabetical order by most notable ring name and it looks horrible now that I think about it. Plus, there has been confusion all over the page about the alphabetical order of the article, which name it should be listed by, etc. and the article itself had no sources.

Over the last couple of days I have re-written the article and for a chronological order instead of the past format. But instead of revertingback to the past (a plain link and date) I kept the table format and added a reference section so we can cite our work. It appears that most didn't find the current format appealing anyways. The new one is located at User:Moe Epsilon/WWE alumni. I am going to move it to the main article namespace to see how it goes from thereon.

What I need help with is more references. I added the Citation needed next to the ones I didn't find sources for. You guys can help by adding more sources to the References section. I will find more as the week progresses, but your help is wanted. semper fi — Moe 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I created an article on the Monster Factory, any help with it would be appreciated! Kris Classic 02:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I added another sentence, but I noticed there is no article about Larry Sharpe. Should one of them be made part of the other's article? - Geoffg 03:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• I just created an article on Larry Sharpe as well, so the Monster Factory may want to be merged with him. Kris Classic 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should delete the Akram-Inoki wrestling match, does anybody else agree? Kris Classic 17:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted (with the relevant information put in Inoki and Akram articles, if it isn't listed already) RobJ1981 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you get a chance, check out the AFD for this page. The author of the page made this overly long argument about keeping it, which is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read here. Feel free to give your take on this. But personally, the topic is way too crufty and specific to deserve a page, and comes off as OR and NPOV. Booshakla 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you get a chance, check out the AFD for this page. It is bordering on comical about how badly the author wants to keep it, with long diatribes to match. I'm sure most of you would like to page deleted/slightly merged, so voice up. Booshakla 23:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But personally, the topic is way too crufty and specific to deserve a page That same argument was basically used in an AfD for most of the wrestling move articles on Wikipedia. Both "Cruftiness" and specificity are not reasons for deletion from Wikipedia. Poorly formatted as it might be, John Dalton's comment cleanly dissects your AfD proposal and refutes your claims. In fact, WP:NOT#PAPER suggests that such an article is well within the scope of Wikipedia, namely splitting an article into separate articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. Personally, I would've expected the use of Tables, Ladders, or especially Chairs to have gained there own article by now rather than Thumbtacks, given the wide verity of ways those three items have been used before. Also, is there some sort of disagreement between yourself and John Dalton, as it seems like there is some underlying tensions in your second response to the AfD? --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

He needs to get a life. The main thing is that the topic isn't notable, the references have nothing to do with the topic on hand, a vast majority of editors want the page deleted, there is no reason for it to be kept. WP is not a junkyard. His extremely long explanations were hurting the AFD process more than helping. I hope that this page will be deleted soon, it has no place here, and most of my fellow editors agree. Booshakla 14:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The subject is notible, especialy as it's a singnature weapon employed by Abyss in TNA, not to mention the number of matches they've appeared in. If they were used as a one time thing and never used again you'd have a point, but Thumbtacks are regularly seen in hardcore wrestling now. John Dalton made a very good point in regard to scources which I'll quote "A source does not have to be specifically about a topic. For example, many species of plants or animals only get a passing mention in publications, but would rate a mention in Wikipedia." An afD isn't a popularity contest, but a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors based on Wikipedia policy. I agree that wiki is not a junkyard, but I have difficulty trusting the opinion of someone who has been repeatedly blocked from articles and repeatedly warned for Vandalism in regards to policy. If anything, you may be the one who needs to "get a life". --Vladamire Steelwolf 23:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the barrage of insults. There is no way that the article will be kept. And yes, AFD isn't a popularity contest, but the arguments are far stronger for a delete/merge than keep, and 12 vs. 2 isn't helping the keep case either. I don't appreciate being told that I need to "get a life", I have a great life and this occupies very little of my time. And for the record, I've only been blocked once, which is quite common among established users. Booshakla 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I allowed your own uncivil comments above and in the AfD to color my response. I suggest that if you're bothered by the use of terms like "Get a life" you don't bring them into the conversation to begin with. --Vladamire Steelwolf 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had the page on watch for some time and I've been defending it against people who add some names and remove others. But, this page is unsourced, and there are some that I have a hard time believing would sign a contract (ie. Owen Hart, because from what I've heard, Martha Hart wants nothing to do with the WWE). So, I think that unless somebody can find a source saying specifically who has signed a Legends contract, we should nominate this page for deletion. -- Scorpion 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would probably delete it, there really aren't too many reliable sources to find if they have signed legends contracts, and to what extent. A lot of those wrestlers signed contracts to do Jakks figures and the like. I would suggest maybe putting a paragraph about the program on a corresponding WWE page. Booshakla 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe also create a section on the Jakks page... -- Scorpion 23:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD is the best way to go with the article. RobJ1981 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll wait a day, then nominate it. Nobody knows of any sources? -- Scorpion 16:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The WWE Legends page has been nominated for deletion. Its afd can be found here. -- Scorpion 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The guy ran for Congress, got national media attention, he was mistaken for Comedy Central's Jon Stewart, got international media attention, I saw him many, many times on ESPN as a top heel for Verne Gagne's AWA. What are we arguing about? The article celarly states that he had no career in the mid-nineties and has never claimed anything then he does own a part of the AWA and he has wrestled in the main event for them since '96. I think that the AWA now has over 20 affliates around the country. This isn't a notable wrestler? User:Figurefour1900

Before I nominate it for deletion, can anybody provide a reason he should have an article? He doesn't seem too notable to me. TJ Spyke 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Check this link 1, this is certainly a vanity article. Booshakla 00:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as vanity articles go, that's certainly one of the best. AFD it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, he has some notability, quoted from the article: In 2000, Jonnie Stewart received national headlines when he ran unsuccessfully for the United States Congress, in the affluent Illinois' 10th Congressional District, losing to current Illinois Congressman, Mark Steven Kirk. Feature stories about Stewart's campaign ran in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Congressional Quarterly and the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. Stewart also appeared on CNN, the O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes and NBC's Today Show to discuss his candidacy for U.S. Congress. I think alot of cleanup would do the article good. Not a big deal though if it does get deleted through AFD. RobJ1981 06:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• He's also one of the people who relicensed the AWA name in the state of Minnesota and helped to create the AWA territories and is a former holder of the AWA World Heavyweight Championship. He's very notible. That said, the piece might be vanity, in which case it might need a rewrite/sourced. --Vladamire Steelwolf 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • He held the AWA Heavyweight Championship. From when the title was revived (in 1996) until about 2003 it was'n worth squat and was just another indy title. I hadn't even heard of him until I was cleaning out the category for world champions and saw him. I will give a day or two for sources to be added and then will consider nominating it. TJ Spyke 23:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article is very clearly a vanity project, but I don't think it would be deleted. I've recently learned that people who do several small things are considered notable. He apparantly ran for congress, he was a champion on the indy circuit and he appeared on several TV shows, so many will likely say that puts him above the notability line. However, the fact that it's a vanity article may count against it. If it is nominated, I'd vote delete. -- Scorpion 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• The article should be trimmed, no matter what. Running for congress isn't notable in itself, usually, and the article is not in NPOV, and the quotes part should be removed. Based on the standards of wrestling notability here, it might stay, but it's borderline. Booshakla 20:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Is anything going on with this page? The guy keeps adding stuff and continually removes the notability concern tags. Are we going to nom it for afd, or are we going to leave it alone? And, I love some of the sources that have been used, such as "Official bio at the AWA headquarters."-- Scorpion 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I've done a search for information relating to our man Mr Stewart allegedly defecating on Rikidozan's grave in revenge for a game of ludo and can sadly find nothing. But seriously, the article constantly refers to Stewart's "huge success", "great success", him being a "top star" and provides no real evidence of it to anyone who has never heart of the man.Suriel1981 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have set up a requested move over on Edge's talk page to move the page. Express your opinion on the talk page if you want to. —mikedk9109^SIGN 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the move since his real name is very well known to the public. TJ Spyke 04:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Added it to the "to do" box to hopefully get some attention.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It already failed once, what makes you think it will pass a second time around? --James Duggan 03:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this page deserve to exist? I know she was on TV, but she was a less than notable valet. Any thoughts? Peace -- The Hybrid 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should go, she was only on TV for 3-4 weeks, didn't do anything intregal. I believe that being an on-screen part of WWE Programming does not automatically entitle you to an article. I would vote delete on an AFD. Booshakla 02:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted as well. She didn't do much, and seems to have done nothing notable prior to/after WWE. RobJ1981 06:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say I agree, but it's already been deleted. Bmg916 22:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not yet deleted. It's in articles for deletion: which determines if it will be deleted or not. RobJ1981 06:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also try to delete Camille Anderson. Booshakla 07:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Camille Anderson is now up for deletion. This page needs to go, she had a bit part in a movie, and is far less notable than the other Diva Search rejects. There is no need whatsoever for this article to exsist when 10 other rejects got deleted as well. Booshakla 06:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What to do about this? I assume merge it into Cage matches? 209.184.165.20 06:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a merger template to it. Discussion is available at the talk page. Normy132 07:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm like brand new at this Wiki project so my question may be totally stupid. I've seen a lot of articles that are tagged with "Needs sources" or "Needs references". But what exactly needs some kind of source? That "Wrestler X" joined "Federation Y" in 2004? Do we need a source for title reigns? Is there some kind of guideline for wrestling articlles and references/sources? MPJ-DK 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which articles are you in reference to? If I knew some, I can look at it and figure out what needs the source. But in general: all articles on Wikipedia need sources. If you see a wrestling article (or any Wikipedia article) with no external links and/or references section, it needs sources to be verified. RobJ1981 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I should have thrown in a few examples - some quick ones, not a full list: The Orient Express, Los Capos, La Furia del Norte, Blue World Order, Brothers of Destruction - hope that helps? MPJ-DK 04:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

All of those (with the except of Brothers), have no links in them at all. Articles need links of some sort to provide references and sources. Official sites, fan sites (which is the case alot of the time, since there isn't always official sites) and so on, should be used. RobJ1981 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright external links should be added, I can definitly try and do that. Should a specific references be used if a statement or quote is made to sustantiate the claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

I think that someone needs to take a look at the article, since I tagged it with the NPOV tag, due to the way the current article is written. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• UPDATE: I removed the NPOV tag and replaced the tags with the "OR" and the "weasel words" tag a few weeks ago. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 00:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated this page for deletion.PepsiPlunge 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated this page for deletion.PepsiPlunge 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for something to add to profiles of people/teams/stables who may not have a long and glorious career but still deserves more than just three lines of "Consisted of A, B, & C in the XYZFed in 1990 and 1991". We could add a "Notable Apperance" section (after Finishing Moves/Signature Moves and Championships) which would list the PPV / "Big Show" apperances of the person/team/stable in chronological order.

Big Shows = Clash of Champions, Saturday Night's Main Event shows of that nature and not regular television shows.

This should only be for those that really don't have that many apperances otherwise it becomes a HUGE list of Shawn Michaels' PPV apperances, which is nothing short of listcruft. But in cases where there are limited things to write maybe an apperance list could round out the information nicely?

I've even created an example of what I'm talking about in The Orient Express Article, it's always better to illustrate it with an example IMO. So what do you guys think? "Notable Apperances" for people/teams/stables with a limited pro-wrestling lifetime?? Yes? No? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't think the idea will work. In their career information/history: the main things are usually already listed. If it's on some wrestling articles, and not all... that's not consistent. All wrestling articles should have the same type of things: infobox, history, titles, etc. Just because the team (or wrestler) were around for a short time, doesn't mean a notable appearances section should be made. I think a section like that should be on a wrestling wiki or fan site, but not Wikipedia itself.. it falls under listcruft in my opinion. RobJ1981 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else think we should change Karl Istaz to Karl Gotch? Kris Classic 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, per WP:COMMONNAME. Go ahead and move the article, or start a thread on his talk page. - Geoffg 01:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think should be the best way to list when a championship is held up? In the notes section, or in one big row? I think it should be in the notes section, with the long rows kept for more important things. Mshake3 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I always liked the idea of having a seperate line for title vacancies. Possibly having them in a different coloured line to normal so that they are distinguishable and then we can fill in the notes section as to why it was vacated. Normy132 05:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would just list them in a row like a regular champ. TJ Spyke 22:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But if it is a "List of Champions", why should title vacancies be listed as on par with actual champions? Mshake3 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there really much of a need for any of these? They seem to fail a lot of points of WP:NOT, and there really aren't any other shows with ratings pages. I put up 2007 Wrestling Television Ratings up for AFD, as it's redundant and not needed. I encourage all of you to vote delete on the AFD. Booshakla 06:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this is how to tell others, but I just visited Koko's page and it looks like it could use a tune-up!--Smart Mark Greene 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added it to the "to do" box.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it, in fact I an hoping to sit down and expand on the article today. MPJ-DK 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am about to remove it again rom the "To Do" box because I've given it a major update & format editing. Sure the pre-WWF days could be expanded by someone who has a detailed knowledge of it but I'd say it's been brought up to date MPJ-DK 09:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There's an article, The New Breed (professional wrestling), that I think something needs to be done about. I don't have any issues with the JCP tag team having an article, or even the ECW stable having an article, though I doubt the UK teams notability, but I think we need to split the articles since they're all so unrelated.

Any thoughts before I just do it?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would suggest making the JCP team be The New Breed (JCP) and the ECW stable be The New Breed (ECW). Make the current page a disambig page to them, and delete mention of the UK team since they look like just a non-notable indy team. TJ Spyke 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I second the idea to split them into JCP and ECW, they share nothing but a name so they definitly shouldn't be on the same page MPJ-DK 07:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Split em, tag team - stable, the ECW one could use some work, it reads fairly week by week in some parts. I made the (professional wrestling) one a disambig page, I'll fix redirects later.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The UK team is not unnotable... like it states they were the first FWA Tag Team Champions and well known on the UK indy scene. plus they have cosiderable amount of results on goolge and have pages within wiki linking to them. -- Paulley

Make them an article then. New Breed (UK tag team). There wasn't enough in the article for me to do it. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the ECW Originals article, then added Merge templates to both that and the ECW New Breed articles because they're essentially the same article. I figure we can do it like the New Diesel and New Razor Ramon section on The Outsiders (WCW) page, since they're so connected. Opinions?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did a major overhaul on the Bobby Eaton article, I felt that the previous version was too short and cursory considering Eaton's long and illustrious career in wrestling. If there are any copyeditors out there who'd want to give it a once over and maybe also look at it's rating that'd be great. I am currently getting information together on Stan Lane and the Midnight Express history that doesn't include Bobby Eaton so that I can update those articles as well. Thanks MPJ-DK 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed "Matches" subsections springing up on some non-wrestlers articles Jim Ross and Paul Heyman have them, for two. Do we need these? They seem kind of pointless to me.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need them. It's just cruft. If people really want to know what matches people have been in, they can check out actual wrestling sites. RobJ1981 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For something as rare as this is (wrestling matches for notable announcers and managers), yes I find it worth mentioning. Mshake3 01:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep for non wrestlers like announcers.--Anthony 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not worth keeping for announcers. It's just cruft cluttering their articles. RobJ1981 05:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say FIP is more then notable enough to have its own article, why doesn't it? Kris Classic 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there used to be one, maybe it was deleted?? MPJ-DK 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Several independent promotions just went down to deletion, it may have been one of them. I think a lot of those articles didn't have reliable, third-party sources so it was difficult to establish notability per WP:CORP. - Geoffg 17:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

01:14, 15 February 2007 Mailer diablo (Talk | contribs) deleted "Full Impact Pro" (Proposed deletion expiring after 5 days [08/02/2007] P1) - apparently someone tagged it for prop deletion and no one noticed. You could go to WP:DRV and have the page restored. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure how to restore it, so is there anybody else who could do this?Kris Classic 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the page Lid provided, it says what to do. You can also ask an admin to restore it (I suggest Nishikid64, who seems to be very wrestling friendly since he is the one who usually grants the semi-protection request for wrestling PPV articles. TJ Spyke 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I talked to Mailer diablo about restoring the Continental Wrestling Association page and he was nice enough to bring it back provided that I provide enough links and references to show that it's notable. I'm sure if you leave a message on his talk page he'll do the same for FIP, then it's up to someone to ensure that it meets the notoriety requirement.MPJ-DK 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been a bit of a move lately to delete the roster section of independent wrestling organisations pages. See NWA Shockwave, SHIMMER, EWF, SWA and IPW for example. The edits have been noted with things like "promotion articles should not contain rosters". Is this established policy for pro wrestling promotion articles? Is it a good general policy? Given that we have a whole category of pages of pro wrestling rosters the problem can't be that the rosters are in general non-notable. For feds with short articles the main page for the fed seems to be the most logical place for roster information. But I though I should throw this open to discussion rather than running around reverting in case the general feeling is that this is in fact a good policy. - Conniption 15:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if the roster is just a list of names, it's better to make it a category, whereas if you want to subdivide it, or add more information (eg. year they first worked for that promotion, etc.) then it could be its own list page, with a link from the promotion's article. It think part of the issue is that it seems inaccurate to talk about a "roster" for promotions that never have anyone under contract for more than one show at a time. - Geoffg 16:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the roster should have to be verifiable (for example, taken from the fed's webpage rather than compiled from original research) and relatively stable for it to be included in Wikipedia. I don't know if that's true for all the feds I mentioned above, though I do know that it's true for some of them. But given a fed with a stable and verifiable roster, and an article short enough that listing the roster out wouldn't make it too long, should that roster be included as a list within the promotion's article? - Conniption 18:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Worse than that, loads and loads of active links are all becoming red links, because to me it seems like everyone is getting rid of indy promotions. All that will end up left will be WWE and TNA! Govvy 00:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think rosters should be listed. Also, a roster category shouldn't exist. Look at WWE for example: there is a roster list page, and not a roster category that is home to all the articles. (If that was the case, the category would be huge and just cluttered). Overcategorization isn't the key here, listifying is. People aren't getting rid of many indy promotions: just the non-notable and really small ones. This is an encyclopedia of decent notable content: not a wrestling guide, try to keep that in mind. There is wrestling fansites and wiki's, which can be used for comprehensive promotions articles. The other issue is: should the promotion have the roster listed on the main promotion article or in a seperate list article? In alot of cases: the promotion article isn't big, and a roster listing isn't going to wreck the article. The roster just needs to be accurate and formatted correctly, so it's not just a cluttered list of current/former roster members. RobJ1981 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if the promotion isn't an A-Grade notability article such as WWE, WCW, TNA, ROH or New Japan then it should have it's roster listed on the promotion page. Normy132 00:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody find out who portrays him? People keep saying it's Short Sleeve Sampson, despite the fact that Sampson is white and Little Boogeyman is black. TJ Spyke 02:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of disputes about multiple things going on there right now. I've resigned from that article. It could really use some project love. 声援 -- The Hybrid 07:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this and the Grand Slam pages should just be deleted. It's not really a well-known term, it's not used widespread, just a few times in passing, and it causes a lot of edit wars. I think the terms have been used, but that doesn't always mean it deserves a page. Lots of OR too. Booshakla 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to AfD the pages go ahead and be bold. 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I might, I'm just going to wait some. I think the reason why there are always so many disputes on these pages is that the term is not concrete or defined. I think that WWE may have used it in passing on some of their web materials/articles, and maybe JR might have brought it up on RAW a few times, but the term has not been used widely and I'm not sure if there are enough reliable sources if any. Booshakla 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is probably going to cause a major dispute, but I've nominated the article for deletion. The page is here Davnel03 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Coolio home-slice. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the TCC goes then the Grand Slam has to as well. Darrenhusted 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll handle that nomination now. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. 声援 -- 'The Hybrid 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The dabate for that one is here. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We;re not deciding the result for a few days; but looking at it now, it might result in no consensus meaning both articles stay. Davnel03 17:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, that is what it looks like. I have to ask everyone to remember that the issue isn't the disputes that have taken place, whether or not these two things exist, or how notable they are. These things lack sources, and the needed sources do not exist. They have not been verified, and never will be verified. The issue is verifiability, and notability does not equal verifiability. 声援 -- The Hybrid 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, a no consensus is better than a keep if you want to rid of it someday. And it could go delete, cause we do have strong arguments. I wish people would understand that this is an encyclopedic, not an area to put every supposed detail about wrestling. I am avoiding looking at the AFDs for now because they anger me somewhat. Booshakla 08:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I KEPT BOTH OF THEM; HOWEVER SOMEBODY HAS REINSTATED THEM AND THEREFORE THE VOTING CONTINUES. I DON'T KNOW WHY... Davnel03 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking, whenever something major happens, especially to an individual, the related articles tend to become magnets to editors. Both vandalism and good faith edits pile up say, when someone dies, a title change happens, or someone jumps companies. I don't know if anyone remembers the week or so after Bam Bam Bigelow died, but his article went insane with edits.

So I was thinking we can add an "articles to watch" section to the "To do" box to help project members keep their eye on some of these articles since we aren't allowed to request they be protected before anything happens.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 03:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Curt Hennig's article has been vandalized since it was announced he would be inducted into the Hall of Fame. TJ Spyke 04:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike Awesome's article has been blocked too. Davnel03 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Went ahead and added the section, put Awesome and Hennig in it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think having a watch section is just being paranoid. Articles get heavily edited and/or vandalized anytime a big thing happens to them. It's safe to say: almost all popular WWE wrestlers should be listed. The list doesn't need to exist. Experienced editors of wrestling (and wrestling articles here) know when things happen, so they can keep an eye out for vandalism and so on. RobJ1981 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See I think there's a difference between the heavy editing to active articles and articles that suddenly see an influx of edits after sitting fairly stagnant for a time.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up Rene Dupree (of all people!) who had accumulated edits alleging homosexuality. Vandalism sure isn't restricted to wrestlers in the public eye. However I agree with the watchlist as a general "heads up" to us. Mike Awesome had some fairly disgusting vandalism. Suriel1981 11:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Inviting anyone to come to Third_Anniversary_Celebration_Part_2 and give your opinions regarding proposed deletion of 3 DVD articles within our scope. Suriel1981 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There use to be a load more of Ring of Honour DVDs on wiki, but they all got delete. I have watched a few of them on TWC in England, I'd have to say the matches are cool to watch but the quality sucks big time!! Anyway they are notable enough to me to keep and I feel there is enough information there to justify them. But I am only one vote compared to the army of WWE fans. :) Govvy 10:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact is the ROH shows were deleted because they weren't notable enough. I'd love to disagree with some of them such as GBH and the anniversary shows but the project has made up its mind. And article is about the DVD by itself so it's even less notable. Normy132 04:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed EVERYTHING about the third episode. Yes, it's been rumoured by the IWC as happening on March 10th, but I've removed it as:

• WWE.com hasn't mentioned it.
• No talent on RAW, SD! OR ECW have mentioned it.
• No PROMOS have aired.
• Until the first promo airs, this is unofficial.
• The WWE.com Live Event's List fails to list it.

Until it's mentioned, sorry, but it's unofficial! Davnel03 12:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, to add to that, it is not accesible off the TV Shows area of WWE.com. Davnel03 12:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, if or when they actually mention it can be added until then it's just speculative. MPJ-DK 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job I did it, the episode has been cancelled by NBC. Davnel03 16:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on. Before he won the cruiserweight title at No Way Out he had 3 WWE championships. Now lots of people are trying to double that to 6. He now has 4 WWE Cruiserweight championships wins. But to help on this edit war that has arisen, I just requested page protection. Just thought I let everyone know about this. Govvy 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your'e right. The others are wrong. Davnel03 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're correct. he's won 4 WWE titles and 3 WCW titles, hence why people are saying he's won 6 before No Way Out. Normy132 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on the exclusive post-No Way Out footage on wwe.com that Chavo says he is now a six-time Cruiserweight champion. Perhaps that widely available piece of evidence is contributing to the confusion. - Geoffg 07:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Because they are counting the WCW cruiserweight titles. Govvy 12:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• This is how many I make it:

2 WCW c/w titles (June 8 2000, December 5 2000) 4 WWE c/w titles (Feb 15 2004, May 6 2004, Feb 20 2005, Feb 18 2007) making 6 in total. Suriel1981 12:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)