Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

So, it seems like everybody's had their shout on whether non-kayfabe stuff should be inserted into articles (by the way I've started a new section, as no one will probably look at the argument again!!). The result is 4 (For Non-Kayfabe) : 0 (Against Non-Kayfabe) : 6 (Neutral). Right, so no one disagrees, therefore, can we start inserting non-kayfabe things into articles. Also, I was thinking of starting up a type of guideline page on this, maybe under this heading. Should we start inserting some things into articles. I really think we should. Davnel03 12:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• There has never been a caveat against adding "non-kayfabe" material to articles. The only requirement is that controversial additions be adequately referenced and that rumours be withheld, per Wikipedia policy on biographies. McPhail 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated John Cena as a good article after adding at least 60 more citations to it. It took me forever and a day, but honestly, I believe it should be the new standard for us as far as citing our articles, and also so the BLP police will leave us alone. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can use OwW as a cite (last I checked it was still blacklisted) then there's no reason that anything that's happened since the 90s can be cited from there. If they stand I'll personally start updating articles. Awesome work, man.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. OWW stands, as I used it heavily in John Cena's page, and it's back being used in others, and it let me save, so it's off the blacklist, but gerweck.net is on it and we should that off. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also used OWW several times on Shelton Benjamin's page. It's great since they have detailed results of RAW and SmackDown (although their results for early years like 1993 are bare-bones). There is a similar site called DDT Digest for WCW, for 1998-2001 they have reports for EVERY WCW show (even the little 1 hour weekend shows like WCW Pro). TJ Spyke 21:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Bmg, you've done a hell of a good job and are a credit to this Project. The standard for our bios has been set. There's only one obstacle I see to FA status - article stability (well, people adding shit to it after every episode of RAW). But given how good the article is now, there's every reason to aggressively target anything and everything that compromises its integrity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just put the OWW link for 100 REFERENCES on Shawn Michaels article if you want to take a look. Could I consider it for possible GA-candidate? Davnel03 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I placed a "Speedy" delete template on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWF_European_Rampage but it was contested. I am not sure if the topic deserves an article and it's pretty badly written, although I'm leaning towards maybe that it should be there for a little while longer because it was just created today. But anyway wanted to make users aware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.138.41.54 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

It looks like a NN show, so I agree with it's deletion. TJ Spyke 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the outcome is obvious, but somebody has nominate Tuesday in Texas for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuesday in Texas. TJ Spyke 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For some retarted reason, the official website of TNA Wrestling (tnawrestling.com) has been blacklisted. Am I the only one that realizes how f*cked up it is to have the website of the second largest wrestling organization in North America blacklisted? That means we can't use their site for any article. TJ Spyke 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

And they wonder why wrestling articles don't have any on-line sources.Nenog 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere we can publicly appeal this? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here: [[1]]. TJ Spyke 03:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I always wondered where the Lords of Destiny (admins) discussed stuff like that. Looks like the right result. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's been whitelisted on the English Wikipedia (meaning we can use it here, but it's still blocked on the other WP's like the French Wikipedia/Spanish Wikipedia/etc.) TJ Spyke 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that the ObsessedWithWrestling website is blacklisted too. Davnel03 08:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I posted my comment there, I feel as if the whole WP:Wrestling project is being attack at times!! Govvy 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blame User:JB196 and his various sockpuppets spamming them to hell and back on unrelated articles.. We're trying real hard to get rid of him, though. SirFozzie 19:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys, I'm sorta caught in between sides, I know that the sites that I have blacklisted are good sources, when they are not spammed. Right now because of crosswiki spam by barber I have been forced to blacklist some sites, including tnawrestling. Right now though all sites that have been blacklisted as a result of barber's Joe job have been removed, as we caught him socking. (this includes gerweck.net onlineworldofwrestling.com tnawrestling.com and accelerator3359.com. I'm not too happy about how I've been forced to walk on a tightrope here... but please do realize that I do have wikipedia's and the wikimedia foundations interests in mind when I do things like this. The sites often get blacklisted when a mass group of socks add the sites to a crapload of other language wikipedias. (en, fr, it, it goes on and on), and the only way to effectively stop the attacks are to add these sites to the spam blacklist. I cannot guarantee that I won't be forced to blacklist more wrestling sites, but if any of them do cause this project problems, let me know kindly on my talk page.

Also as a side note, when I did the whitelisting of tnawrestling.com we took a huge, and I mean huge number of barber socks, who went and added that site all in an attempt to get me to remove the site from the whitelist... I did not remove it. (see the meta page for more details). Those in the meta page were not the only socks WP:WPSPAM had to deal with. I am letting you guys know about this sock attack to let you guys know that I'm not only blacklisting links in response to this issue, I'm trying to use all tools at my disposal. You guys might want to drop en:User:Shadowbot and the members of WP:WPSPAM a thank you note for the tremendous job that they did in undoing the bad links, and allowing the good links to get through. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my side note, we have now received over 70 socks. Some are still acive as of 30 minutes ago. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/JB196. All this for whitelisting tnawrestling :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This article, for lack of a better term, sucks. It either needs to be AfD or get a complete overhaul. Thoughts? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD should never be used for an article that simply sucks, however it does indeed need an overhaul. –– Lid^(Talk) 15:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed a little bit above, someone keeps deleting information on the career of Bryan Danielson. I have added it back. Just because there aren't any sources doesn't mean it never happened. See: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Kris Classic 01:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

... and you have been blocked as a result. Please make an effort to cite reliable sources next time rather than violate WP:LIVING and similar core policies. RFerreira 06:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How was he violating WP:LIVING? An admin blanked basically the entire article, something which they should get warned against. I bet I would get blocked if I went to, for example, Snoop Dogg's article and removed every little detail that wasn't sourced. Blanking all these wrestling articles are hurting Wikipedia and its integrity, not helping. TJ Spyke 06:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing hurting the integrity of the project are the thousands upon thousands of unverified biographies about living people, and the abusive editors who are intentionally restoring such information after it has been identified and removed. Then again, this has already been explained to you about a dozen times in a dozen different discussion pages, so I'm not sure why I even bother responding here. RFerreira 07:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the lack of verification, and the widespread attitude of apathy towards this problem caused Jimbo Wales himself to blank Ron Jeremy's article. If information isn't sourced, then it is subject to removal. If we had enough people, and the articles didn't have any other problems such as the overwhelming mass stupidity regarding fair use images, then I would suggest having people sign up for a project drive. This drive would have users be assigned articles for them to delere all unsourced info from, and put it on a user subpage. They would then source everything that they could, and what they couldn’t source would go to the abyss. Peace, -- The Hybrid 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that while one of these pages have been crippled, another editor will come by and nominate if for deletion (or even put a Speedy Delete tag on it). I have added a ton of references for Danielson, this could be harder for other wrestlers though who aren't as well known as him. What is the point of having the {{verify}} tag if people are just gonna remove the info instead of using it?. TJ Spyke 07:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The verify tag is often used as an excuse to leave the article unsourced. If it has the tag on it, then theoretically the reader knows that they are reading information that we pulled out of our asses, so no one feels the need to source the article. AfDs are nothing to worry about. If someone copies the unsourced page, and comes along during the AfD, then I'm sure that the consensus would be to keep it and let it be improved. If not, then we can always do a deletion review, or just recreate the article by copying the subpage. Peace, -- The Hybrid 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, articles that hold any potential tend to improve while they are being discussed on AfD, not that I endorse such trial by fire methods. Bryan Danielson is somewhat of a borderline case though, and any wrestlers who aren't as well known as him might not warrant an article on Wikipedia just yet. RFerreira 08:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW has expanded beyond what it can handle. As it expands those in it are unable to handle the hundreds of articles it encompasses. Hundreds of these articles violate the fair use policies, most of them list only one source, aren't written from the NPOV, and are filled with grammar errors. This project could use a major trim, so a mass trial by fire may be needed. If we can send many of the articles to hell, then the ones that are left would probably improve drastically. Peace, -- The Hybrid 08:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we could tighten the rules on bio articles and who is considered notable. There are a lot of indy wrestlers who are not notable and could probably go. TJ Spyke 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why IAR doesn't apply. Again, it states that if anything is stopping it from maintaining an article, to ignore all rules, which should be done to add Bryan Danielson's bio information, as he is more then notable. Kris Classic 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This switched to a general discussion. I haven't looked at this particular article, and IAR may very well apply to this case, but the general application of this rule by WP:PW is far too liberal, and is damaging the project's credibility in addition to the articles it is charged with maintaining. -- The Hybrid 07:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to be separate from this project? Why can't this project govern both sets of articles? It seems to be on the brink of inactivity, only getting a comment every five days or so at the max, and those comments generally not getting a response. It doesn't even have a talk archive yet. It seems like it could easily be absorbed into this project. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been mentioned: #Wikiproject Media of Wrestling. TJ Spyke 06:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this poster was released yesterday by WWE to the media. I've uploaded it to Wikipedia - however I'm wary about putting it in the article, again because somebody is bound to take it straight out. I've tried to source it, but people may not consider them good sources. Shall I insert it into the article, or wait until it officialy released or what? Infact, surely it already has been released?! Davnel03 11:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue could be that the websites in question do not state from whence they obtained the poster. Wrestlemag (one of the sources) has jumped the gun on things a few times. It certainly looks legitimate though. Anyone else? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the beauty of wikipedia. If someone says it's not official, even though it clearly is, then you can't include it. Mshake3 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already been uploaded before (Image:Onenightstand3.jpg) and sourced from WWE.com, so it is official. It was pretty much the reason why I moved the article from ECW to WWE last night. -- Oakster  Talk  17:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Is their any major guidlines for wrestler article names, for instance, some articles use their real life names, but some articles have their wrestler name e.g.

• Carly Colón = Real Name
• Shawn Michaels = Wrestler Name

Isn't their any Wikipedia guidlines on this, and if so, doesn't it violate anything? I mean, I believe we should have their real name as the article name for one simple reason, and that is is that wrestlers can, from time to time, change gimmicks and therefore names, but you can't change your name in real life (or it's highly unlikely). Davnel03 14:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's going by a subject's best known name really. Michael Hickenbottom's notability has come about under the name Shawn Michaels. Mick Foley on the other hand has used several professional names and is best known by his real name. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's at WP:NAME "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 14:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to go with real name for me. There is a biographical standard that the naming of the biography is the real name of the person. No other profession on the planet has nicknames that titles them. I don't know why wrestling has to be different! Govvy 20:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What about authors, like George Eliot, or musicians, like Eminem? I think pen-names and stage names are the same as ring-names in this situation. We must collectively judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether a particular wrestler is better known to the casual reader by their birth name or ring-name. I would argue that it's usually their ring name. Millions of people know the names Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, and the Rock, but only a small percentage of those millions know the birth names of those people. - Geoffg 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Govvy, the standard is to use what they are most well known as, see WP:COMMONNAME. Terry Bollea is far better known as Hulk Hogan, for example. TJ Spyke 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of people who's articles are under their stage names, not real names. Nenog 00:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Now this page is being vandalized too. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. I suggest adding this to your watchlists also.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I politely draw attention to Wikipedia:Barnstar and_award proposals/New Proposals#WikiProject Professional Wrestling_Barnstar for comments/votes. Thanks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's for the rankings WWE.com does for the wrestlers. I really don't think this needs an article. Also there is Wwe power 25 which seems to be an exact copy of the article. RobJ1981 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect them. That's what happened with Power 25. TJ Spyke 22:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Done-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've requested SD for Wwe power 25, that one REALLY doesn't need to exist. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to what I stated above. TNA blacklisted :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've decided after talk about getting rid of WP:MOW from this talk page (and it's been asked since last November), to merge the two WikiProjects together. All members from WP:MOW has been added to our list and all project banners have been changed. If you want to access the old subpages for that project, you can find links to them on this project's main page. The only part of MOW that remains is the infobox which now refers to the project in the past tense.

While I'm at it, I've noticed that Wikiproject TNA exists with barely any activity. Do you want to get rid of this one too? -- Oakster  Talk  15:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

6 members, no discussion going on and the scope of the project is entirely encompassed by our own. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It had been tagged as inactive, but I guess one of the members didn't take too kindly to that. That project is unimportant. It is everything that we do. Peace, -- The Hybrid 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected Wikiproject TNA. -- The Hybrid 23:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting this page up for deletion for many reasons:

• It is constantly being vandalised by non-registered users
• It most of the time does not comply with the lists of WWE.com (Other on-air talents bit)
• The injuries sections are constantly changing
• Some OVW and DSW people aren't contracted with WWE
• Some people in the miscellous (or however you say it!!) shouldn't be in their (or don't work with them)
• The page is constantly protected

I don't really think this page is needed, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a list of superstars on a roster. I wouldn't mind if we had an alumni like page, with each individual wrestler in a table-like format and when they worked with WWE. The current page is subdue to more vandals. Opinions please:- Davnel03 21:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Being constantly vandalised is not grounds for deletion
• I'm not sure what you mean here
• Articles constantly change all the time
• I'm not sure how this is related
• Then remove them or explain why they should be removed
• Not grounds for deletion

In addition to all of that it would be one of the few pages without a roster as well as noting that the page is a lynch pin of WWE articles as well as nearly all wrestling companies possessing a roster to keep track of who is who. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that's why it should stay. (This also does not have a snowball chances in hell of being successfully deleted. It is one of the top ten most editted pages on all of wikipedia and the votes will simplyoverwhelm). –– Lid^(Talk) 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not especially bothered either way but I agree, it would have very little chance of passing an AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the wwe roster article is like a primary article for the wrestling and WWE section. I personally don't feel there is grounds for deletion, know I can understand your points. Really, I would much prefer if they added another level to the article protection, something like, members of the wiki wrestling project are the only members that can edit it! Just my thoughts Govvy 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would sort of corrupt the point of wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It would be a form of elitism that made even less sense as anyone can join WP:PW. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but at least it would make it that little more annoying for anyone interesting in spamming!! Govvy 20:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the categories for wrestling families is up for deletion. The nomination does mention though for large families, an article might be useful instead (for example, we already have Hart wrestling family and Anoa'i family, while one for the Guerreros could be done). -- Oakster  Talk  22:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A Guerrero one might work if there was enough information to make it more of a clone of existing prose. I don't know if a stub would be worthwhile. An Anderson one could be interesting, being as most of them aren't related and only two are actually named Anderson. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just finished up Shelton Benjamin and wanted to say thanks to everyone who is helping step-up in one way or another to help make the drastic improvements WP:PW needs. I realize there are only so many of us compared to hundreds of articles, but thank you to everyone, we're off to an amazing start. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 13:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Add Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Mickie James, Randy Orton and Triple H (partially for HHH and Orton) to that list. WCW has also been sourced heavily too. By the way, Bmg916^Speak_Sign, have you nominated Benjamin's article for GA status? Davnel03 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, feel free though if you want. I've actually kind of been turned off by the GA process as almost no one seems to review the articles and they take forever to pass or fail. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of you guys might be over doing it. As for results, I prefer it if you used tv.com over OWW. But seriously, you shouldn't need to add that many citation results pages. I feel as long as we just do the PPVs that should be fine. Govvy 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Every result in the article needs a citation, as every result needs to be verifiable to be in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on biographies for living persons and OwW is more reliable than tv.com as anyone can edit tv.com Bmg916^Speak_Sign 20:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. TV.com is a good website, but a lot of their stuff is sent in by users and the staff their can't check every possible thing (especially when it comes to things like wrestling). TJ Spyke 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Better to oversource than undersource.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. It sends out a message that pro-wrestling articles aren't a fancruft-ridden, low-class joke but are notable and in the media and public eye. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

o well, but from my experience, tv.com is more accurate than oww. Govvy 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well OWW is blocked again (or remained blocked, I'm not sure), and I'm not attempting to do much sourcing until this is sorted out. Mshake3 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you must be mistaken. I just edited a page with a OWW link, and I didn't get the blocked message I did when it was blacklisted before. TJ Spyke 21:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's working now, so either you're right or they've been going back and forth with it. Mshake3 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Might anyone be able to find some refs from Eric Bischoff's book or Alvarez/Reynolds' "The Death of WCW"? I've stuck over 60 references in the article but there are a couple of sections that could use more. I'm concerned that using any more from "Sex, Lies and Headlocks" or "WrestleCrap" would make the prose look like it was ripped-off (which it aint). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I killed WCW. And that's the bottom line, 'cause I said so. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have both of those books. If you put on the talk page specifically what you're looking for sources for I can go through them and get some page numbers.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get page numbers to reference any of the following?

• date/location of first Monday Nitro

• fans viewing Bischoff's signing of former WWF talent as an attempt to copy its success

• NWO formation at Bash of the Beach

• Hall/Nash's debut

ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is pretty much exactly what WCW Monday Nitro did when it debuted on Turner Network Television the night of September 4, 1995 - a week in which Raw was not-so-coincidentally preempted. (Death of WCW, p 63 - the location isn't named in this book)

All the information on the forming of the nWo at the Bash from the Death of WCW is between pages 69 and 73. It goes pretty in depth on the match; the missing third man and Schiavone DEMANDING to know the third man, the start of the match, the Luger bump, Hogan's coming out, the turn, the promo after, Schiaone screaming after that.

But nothing Bischoff did during the first six months of the battle meant nearly as much as what happened on the May 27, 1996 edition of Nitro. That's when Scott Hall, formerly known as Razor Ramon in the WWF, took the stage and proclaimed war on WCW. (p 64)

«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You can always use DDT Digest for the location of Nitro (Bloomington, Minnesota at the Mall of America). TJ Spyke 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks a lot for helping me on that one. I appreciate you taking the time to check the book for that info. I'll stick in a few more refs, edit the info and WCW should stand an excellent shot at GA-status (or hopefully better) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• WCW on hold to give admins time to wake up and see my complaints about random blacklisting of links. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see posts by user:Eagle_101 on this talkpage. The 'random blacklisting' may very well be after another Joe Job by user:JB196 and his many sockpuppets. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, were doing a great job with several articles on the GA-candidate list. I think with quite a few of the articles, it just needs references to pass through the GA-barrier (then onto FA-status if possible)!!! Davnel03 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

With the announcement that all post-WrestleMania 24 events will be joint-branded, is it necessary to list RAW, SmackDown!, and ECW in the infoboxes for subsequent pay-per-views? This is a pretty minor point, for sure, but it seems like it would make more sense to just exclude the brand section from future pay-per-views. Jeff Silvers 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as there are seperate brands, yes. Technically WWE is doing the same thing, and it's a quick and easy way for all users to know the brands involved since most of the PPV's have existed since before the brand split and then went to one brand. TJ Spyke 07:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To me it seems like there has been an adjustment period going on with PPVs and when ECW came to being. I believe this wont always be like this. Because as ECW grows the way it should, the show should have it's own PPVs and enough roster to not need to cross brand. However there will still probably be those cross branding. But the PPVs that belong to SmackDown and belong to Raw will still belong to them. You will know this by the major roster used. If you look at Backlash you will see it is still Raw as it is dominantly the Raw roster. Govvy 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are only three matches confirmed for Backlash: two are RAW and one is cross-brand for the ECW World Title. It's a little early to start saying that Backlash will be a "predominately RAW" event. Jeff Silvers 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE have officially announced that all PPV's are now all inter-promotional, like WrestleMania, Govvy, how can you say that? Davnel03 12:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And we haven't had Smackdown this week, what if they announce three SD matches on Friday. The announcement was the end of the brand split on PPV, and so all PPV from now on need all three infoboxes. You are misinformed Govvy. Darrenhusted 13:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, let the dice roll and see what happens! Govvy 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ehhm as long as it doesn't lead to edit-warring ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One point I have to make here is that nowhere in the articles so far explains the rationale for why such-and-such event is hosted by such-and-such brand. You'd need to cross-ref a lot of articles to get to the fact that Backlash is the first "minor" cross-brand PPV in a few years (and you'd need a lot of crossrefs to get the rationales behind why a match is scheduled on a card, which I believe is the only way a PPV article can be anywhere near GA-quality). Still, without knowledge of the matches on the Backlash card, we still don't know for a single show whether the undercard (assuming the main events will involve all brands) will feature matches that are predominantly of one brand (eg. Backlash has a mainly-Raw undercard, One Night Stand with a mainly-ECW undercard, No Mercy with a mainly-SD undercard), which would imply that the "old practice" would still be in use (and the cross-brand is just for more star power). Better to leave it the way it is for now until we know of more concrete facts. (Speaking of the cross-brand, does that mean that the Hardys, or maybe just Matt Hardy, is, in kayfabe, entitled to appear on both Raw and SmackDown!?) kelvSYC 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't really matter whether the card features mostly matches from one brand or another; as long as WWE promotes it as a joint-production, it is so. It just seems redundant to me to list all three brands when, according to WWE, all future events will feature all three brands. If there's confusion, maybe it could be noted in the 2007 section of each article (2008 for New Year's Revolution and No Way Out) that it's the first time these events have been promoted as being joint-produced. Oh, and to address your last question, Jeff Hardy appeared on SmackDown! last week to face Mr. Kennedy--whether this was a one-off thing to take advantage of the Money in the Bank Ladder Match they had at WrestleMania the Sunday prior isn't clear. Jeff Silvers 12:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, that an edit-war has literally gotten out of hand, and an admin has fully protected the page. I hate to say who it is involved, but RobJ1981 and TJ Spyke are the two involved. Davnel03 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is this, Rob doesn't want the WWE legends segment mentioned while everyone else is either neutral or thinks it should be mentioned. Rob doesn't want to admit that the consenus is against him though. TJ Spyke 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a term that is used alot by the IWC, esspecially this year. I think an article could be made of this because this happens in WWE almost every week with wrestlers like John Cena and Bobby Lashley. Im pretty sure you will know what this means so i dont need to go into alot of detail now, but if your not sure about this being an article i wouldnt mind creating it so other people can decided if it should be deleted or just re-worded. Don.-.J 20:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Any article on this would be deleted under WP:NEO, however it could go under Professional wrestling slang. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a neologim. It's just a (fairly common) phrase. Nothing particularly special, or wrestling-specific, about it. It'd go on Wiktionary, if anywhere. — Gwalla | Talk 23:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Its like the word Enforcer, thats a word thats not just used in pro wrestling. But its still got its own article and i think this could do with one too, theres also alot of examples that can be used. Don.-.J 11:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A user has taken to removing all kinds of things from wrestling articles under the flag of WP:A. Technically he's correct in removing some of the stuff, but most of what he's removing is easily sourecable should someone actually try. I was going to personally put some of the stuff back, but after checking out how many he did the task suddenly became way too much. Just wanted to let people know before some information gets lost in the ether because when someone does hit an article to cite it up they skip over something not knowing it's missing.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of the edits, and posted on his talk page. Darrenhusted 23:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you can use Vandal Proof to do mass reverts of an editor. TJ Spyke 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just tried. Something has happened which is preventing me from rolling back all of his edits :^( -- The Hybrid 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, please do not perform mass reverts when there is an agreement among editors that unsourced content from wrestler's articles must be removed. I have no problem bringing such action to the attention of administrators if it is done. Kevin Green342243 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I just said that it was impossible, and you are the one in the wrong here. We are working on sourcing the material, and you are getting in the way of what this project is trying to do. -- The Hybrid 23:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced information about living people violates WP:BLP. Content must be cited by sources which meet WP:A and what I reverted did not meet WP:A. You say that mass deletion is not helpful, but unsourced content which could be libeling a living person is just as unhelpful. Please read WP:BLP closely before making any reverts. Also there is a discussion going on on one of the user talk pages about the challenges of maintaining WP:BLP in wrestler articles and in that discussion a concensus was reached that wrestling articles must abide by the same policies as other articles. Happy editing! Kevin Green342243 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

People are getting to it if you would leave it alone. Recently many editors have been going through and sourcing these articles, such as John Cena's. Just give the project time. That kind of problem is what this project exists to fix. -- The Hybrid 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He has agreed to stop, but these articles do need to be sourced soon. The claims that he makes are legitimate. -- The Hybrid 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree sourcing needs to happen. But the issue is: it's a ton of wrestler articles. For the most part (in my opinion at least), the most popular wrestlers get attention but little known wrestlers/less popular wrestlers don't get enough attention when it comes to editing. RobJ1981 23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may jump in, the BLP policy mainly says to immediately revert any unsourced negative material due to libel concerns. If what you see are negative or wording that amounts to personal attack you are completely free to remove it. However, if it is not then it would be better to put a "citation needed" tag and someone can come up with the proper source. You can also use the respective articles discussion pages to explain why something should be taken out if you feel strongly about it. MrMurph101 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This falls under Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, so mass removing things is against the rules, and will result in notification of an admin. Kris Classic 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, if you add anything back, please make sure you have it cited. :) Removal is the correct thing to do if the information is potentially controversial on a biography of a living person. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the stuff being removed is not controversial though. While I agree that something like "this person was suspended for drug use" can be removed if not sourced, BLP doesn't say every possible thing that isn't sourced should be removed. TJ Spyke 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but you guys are a wikipedia 1.0 project right? If I were you I would work on sourcing what you have, and make it standard practice in your project to do citations. As I read above it looks like this project's scope is larger then the number of members that you guys have. If I were you I would work on doing some recruiting, and getting this project on the road to writing some good well sourced articles. You don't have to source anything that is "common knowledge", but everything else you ought to cite. Without citations how do I know whats in those articles is true? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass blanking shouldn't be done like that, what you should say to anyone that has done it, is they must first inform us here on the project talk page before erasing of data from any wrestling article. That would and should be the correct etiquette, so we have a chance to deal with the problem. That is what has been failing, just the simple etiquette from these people to ask us to cite the articles that need it! Govvy 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If Kevin wants to help then he should join the project, or at the very least discuss what is being removed. EG, that Jim Neidhart has a daughter called Nattie, how is that controversial, particularly as she's a wrestler herself. If Kevin was unaware of things that are common sense to most wrestling fans (and project members) then discussion or tagging would have been a better first step, rather than going on a one day editing rampage. Darrenhusted 10:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Wrestling articles are being singled-out. There's countless articles (many involving very famous people) that aren't properly ref'd. I think these deletions are in bad-faith, using extreme interpretations of policy to back them up. Geez, we've had some guy voting in several wrestling AFD's whose only comment has been "there are too many wrestling articles". I don't find prejudice against somebody else's interests to be acceptable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've finished referencing a few articles, notably Mickie James, Shawn Michaels and Randy Orton. I've also noticed Shelton Benjamin has been references quite a bit. If you see an wrestler article unreferenced, put a few references in. Davnel03 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as JB196 sockpuppet, revert all edits as required, ideally making sure no unsourced negative information is re-added. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy days in the Big Brother house! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As ONIH said above, User:Kevin Green342243 (individual that was blanking everything) was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:JB196 aka Jonathan Barber. It might be worth keeping an eye on someone who registers a new account and immediately goes on a delete spree using a degree of policy quoting unlikely for a brand new user. I'm not suggesting biting newcomers or assuming bad faith, just keeping an eye open and bearing history (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JB196) in mind. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels Wrestling facts section is messed up, somebody should fix it. Kris Classic 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixes it, somebody opened a <ref> tag and didn't close it. TJ Spyke 03:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone in this WikiProject has edited this article, but it seemed like it was proper to place this notice here since the article is at least tangentially related to this WP....

An editor has nominated Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I nominated and noted it in our to-do list under articles for deletion (at the top of the page). Thanks for bringing it up though. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, sorry. I was at work and didn't look through your portal well enough to see that in the to-do list, nor did I realize that someone in the project had nominated it. Much ado about nothing, I guess. Had I known that you were part of the project when you PROD'ed it, I would probbaly never have requested that you move it from PROD to AFD. Thanks for your conduct through this. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • She seems somewhat notable, not sure if her article should be deleted. TJ Spyke 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

She seems to have done pretty much diddly apart from dance, refuse to wrestle and train cheerleaders. A merger to Nitro Girls has been suggested on the AFD however. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's in the "to do" box, but is this something we really want to do? «»bd(^talk _stalk) 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

When putting together the history portion of the article, if the events are in order, you don't have to mention the year (and link it) every time a date is mentioned. For example:

On January 1st, 2007, John Cena lost to Kevin Federline due to interference from Umaga. On January 7th, 2007, Cena defeated Umaga to retain the WWE Championship. On January 8th, 2007 (etc)

I believe this is a result of "weekly play by play" that we're trying to avoid, but it's just one thing we need to avoid and watch out for. Mshake3 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the profile for Barry Buchanan. Can anybody post sources so people will stop doing this? Kris Classic 00:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's admin-locked until May by the looks of things ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if anyone can add information to the Talk page, with sources, it will be added in.--ProtoWolf 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources? Done and pasted on the talk page. All this fuss I tell yas MPJ-DK 13:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: Where are we getting the length of matches for the PPVs? It seems like something that needs to be sourced as you can't get it from simply watching without conducting some original research. Mshake3 00:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

~95% of the times I get from [2], there are only some they don't have (like WM I). TJ Spyke 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. Then we need to start adding them to the article. Mshake3 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this article worth keeping? She was a Nitro Girl for a bit, and is currently a country singer (according to the article at least). Is she actually a notable singer worth mentioning here? Some of the other Nitro Girl articles probably should be gone through. Being a dancer for WCW doesn't assert a lot of notability, if that's all they did. Obviously there is exceptions: like Kimberly Page and so on. RobJ1981 01:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you could redirect her info to the Nitro Girls page.(MgTurtle 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)).

I've noticed over the past several days of several new editors removing "unsourced" text from wrestling-related biographies under similar reasoning by User:Burntsauce and User:Kevin Green342243. These editors in particular User:Mack Genius (see [3]), User:Tiger White (see [4]), User:Beeseech (see [5]), User:OwnershipTrachea (see [6]), User:FozzyEnemy (see [7]), User:XWC Rasslin (see [8]), User:HojoElite (see [9]), User:Wikido23 (see [10]), User:Last Go Home Pop (see [11]), User:PiratesFanExtreme (see [12]), User:Hawk Lover (see [13]), User:Stellar Accounting (see [14]) and User:Mattiasfool (see [15]), have all made similar edits between April 11-12 shortly after creating their accounts. Should any of these editors be notified of using the {{references}} or {{fact}} templates as an alternative to removing whole content from articles ? From what I've seen, the majority of the unsourced information could easily be verified with a basic search. MadMax 02:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so, especially since BLP only really says to remove stuff that could be considered libel (like Scott Steiner being arrested after assaulting someone backstage at a WCW event). TJ Spyke 02:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:FozzieEnemy sticks out a lot, as it matches the named JB196 uses to harrass User:SirFozzie. I think we have a sock farm. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, its him. So he's back for more, eh?-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that guy already has over 70 banned sockpuppet accounts. What kind of a loser does something like that? TJ Spyke 03:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense as all of these User's edits take place after the time of User:Kevin Green's last edit (14:54, 11 April 2007). I would assume these changes should be reverted ? Given the number of sockpuppets, I wonder how many changes were missed ? MadMax 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

He has a RfCU pending, hopefully sooner or later we can shut the farm down. If you see any more of those with similar outputs, let me know. I'll also check in here when I can. You could revert the changes under WP:RBI (please make sure not to trip the 3RR electric fence, send a ping my way or over at WP:ANI if you get close to it) SirFozzie 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple more I was keeping my eye on. User:TheMackSter, User:Automobile Buyer. Both created within 2 hours of the Kevin Green block being placed. Is it classed as WP:ATTACK if I call a serial vandal with numerous sockpuppets "a first-class dickhead"? If it is, then I won't. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Damn! they just keep on coming!-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing I noticed was as Kevin Green, he claimed he was the biggest Mikey Whipwreck fan ever. I'm going to monitor changes there for a while. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Got them. If you see some more and just want to add them on your own, here's the checkuser request SirFozzie 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, several articles have been nominated for deletion and speedy deletion by recently registered editors including Ernest Roeber‎ by User:PennyforaDayMakestheCowsCoo) (see [16]) , Bob Dhue ‎by User:Peas on a Podster (see [17]) and Brady Boone‎ by User:Ken Griffey Fan1351 (see [18]). However, I only mention these editors as the fit the general profile of those already mentioned. Also, this page, specifially this discussion, has been twice vandalized by User:Homeboy Tame ([19]/[20]). MadMax 04:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, well, well! Jonathan Barber seems to be a little...cross! 3 vandalisms of WP:PW, including trying to blank out his sockpuppets and inserting a picture of a penis (why he has that on his computer, I don't want to know!) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Got the latest ones, MadMax. Thanks. SirFozzie 05:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Barber is pretty crazy. He amounted a defence of sorts on the SoCal forums. McPhail 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a lot of the Kevin blanks, including Buff Bagwell, the blank pretty much turned the article in to a stub, but now a revert war has left the page locked, but locked in a blanked state. Not that I am a massive Marcus Bagwell fan but how can sources be found for information not there. I don't know how to get the lock off so we can source. Darrenhusted 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned about Barry Buchanan has been fully-protected till May. Burntsauce seemed to be in an edit war on this page, therefore it's been protected. His edits are [21] pretty interesting, espcially on April 10th. Davnel03 11:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Man, this is seriously getting out of hand fast, is Burntsauce blocked or something to stop him doing this? I'm gonna leave a note on his talkpage.

(The note a user has left him is pretty interesting: In case you were not aware, just wanted to give you a heads up that someone keeps readding the info that you removed from the article despite the information violating WP:BLP, so you may want to revert it or something. PS Same goes for Nick Busick. I think you're doing a great job of violating WP:BLP so I wanted to let you know this. Bristine 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

By the way, there's lots more sockpuppets... Davnel03 11:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out what he says on the SoCalUncensored forum: can a "sockpuppet" can exist if the original user isn't technically banned?... This [22] is the same dude? Check out his claims to being buddies with Tommy Dreamer and Vince [23] or what he "does" on CDs [24]. At least we are not alone in having a problem! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Add User:Nailzfan to the list. -- Oakster  Talk  12:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that User:Burntsauce is another sockpuppet (and have some outside evidence). Have reported. It matches what Barber has said he does to wrestling articles. Wipes information, claims NN, goes for speedy delete. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have a feeling that Burtsauce could be a sockpuppet, however he doesn't defend his actions very well nor does he take part in the ethical procedure here. In fact right now you could consider Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Challenges_of_upholding_WP:BLP_policy is talking behind the project back! But anyway, I think if you see anyone removing any data like this, you should warn them correctly stating that if they have any wrestling related articles to bring it up on here instead of erasing data creating more problems. Govvy 12:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, check this link out [25]. Jonathan M***********g Barber giggling about Burntsauce contributing to pages getting locked and blanking articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What a f***in t****ead! Anywayz, Burntsauce isn't just going after our articles... [26]. However, what gets me is why he keeps going after wrestling articles most of the time. By pressing the random button, I got 7 out of 10 articles entirely unsourced! Here's one of them... Davnel03 15:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly suspicious of new registrations (and Burntsauce is newish) who move immediately to delete/wipe articles. It is not normal. People join WP because they want to contribute (even if it's offensive vandalism), not because they want to make sure everything is verified. I've also just discovered that an IP user who I'd had a policy chat with (and was going to invite here but kept forgetting) has been banned for 12 months for being Barber as a sockpuppet. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and when I try and speak to him, he leaves me this: You will find that this has been long discussed on the administrative noticeboard. Please refrain from personal attacks in the future or you will be blocked. Burntsauce 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC). Also, earlier today, there was only 23 suspected sockpuppets of JB196. Now theres 37... Davnel03 17:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because JB's latest set is being fed to the grinder and blocked, the tag used tags them as SSP. SirFozzie 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It's curious that since JB's socks have been going to the laundrette, User:Burntsauce has suddenly started being a vandalism correcter. Ah well, he's being looked at.ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Uuummm, also when I ask Burntsauce to say something over here he gives this response: I have no interest in joining a WikiProject which actively engages in personal attacks and blatant violations of core Wikipedia policies. Thanks but no thanks. Burntsauce 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Well, guess that's what he thinks. Davnel03 18:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've retagged Burntsauce as a Suspected Sock Puppet (I'm sure he'll remove it again), but the fact one of JB's socks went and tried to report some of the WP:PW folks for being meanies to Burntsauce, plus JB's bragging elsewhere makes me believe that he is a JB Puppet. SirFozzie 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burntsauce has been blocked indef. as a sock of Jonathan Barber. In the interest of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA, I refuse further comment on the situation. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what happens. Since his ban he's tried spam, vandalism and infiltration and failed. Hmmm... maybe his mama will kick him out of her basement and tell him to get a job. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has been unblocked by Durova. PLEASE, do not add the tag to his page for now. There's some things I don't really want to get into at the nonce, but there's at least a chance that it's not a JBSock after all. If you feel like you are getting into an edit war against him, send me a ping (I'll monitor when I can), and I'll see what I can do. SirFozzie 03:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Carried on down bottom. Davnel03 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else think This is TNA should be deleted? Kris Classic 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Joey Nelson as well. Kris Classic 04:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, "This is TNA" should either be deleted or redirected to TNA iMPACT! (or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling). It was basically just a 2 hour clip show to promote TNA since RAW wasn't on that night. Joey Nelson looks to be non-notable, so PROD the article. TJ Spyke 05:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is TNA deserves a line in the main article, no more. Davnel03 11:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Davne103 as the show had PPV matches on it. It could go under TNA iMPACT! in the main article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well with the recent “Extreme focus” on sourcing in wrestling articles I done quite a bit of work to provide sources for articles I have worked on myself. I’ve not focused on the mainstream wrestlers that tend to get most of the focus, I figured there are plenty of people who work on them.

This is the list of articles I have sourced & referenced recently: The Killer Bees, "Beautiful" Bobby Eaton, Koko B. Ware, Owen Hart, Fishman, Jim Powers, Ray "Hercules" Fernandez, Paul Roma, B. Brian Blair, Scott Norton, Butch Reed, Akio Sato, Samu, Fatu / Rikishi, Gary Albright, The Orient Express, Badd Company, The Young Stallions, Pretty Wonderful, Doom, Power and Glory and The Headshrinkers.

I wonder if there is a way to match the list of articles under WP:PW against articles tagged as unsourced, maybe even sorted by age so that we could start to tackle the articles who have been tagged the longest first?? Perhaps this project should get together a sort of "Task force" to deal with the oldest of these articles?? MPJ-DK 09:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I was thinking of adding a new field (let's call it "sourced") to Template:Pro-wrestling which will by default add the article talk page to a category (let's say Category:Unsourced professional wrestling articles). Once it's fully sourced, the editor can put "true" in that field which removes the talk page from the category. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but it can help. -- Oakster  Talk  13:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if nothing else it's a place to start - it'll probably be quite a list (and bait for a certain JB and others who target wrestling articles when there are tons of more mainstream articles who are as poorly sourced) but we've got to start somewhere after all. MPJ-DK 13:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The WM23 talk page has expanded to mammoth proportions due to a discussion about the attendance. The debate rages over whether a figure quoted by Wrestling Observer, which is lower than the WWE figure, should be used. WWE is a publicly traded company and will in about eleven weeks time release its financial data for WM, and even though they exaggerate weight/height figure, and maybe even some attendance figure (WMIII being the most well known), they are the only real reliable source for numbers on this type of thing. Whereas Metzler runs his own website which does not cite sources and on some occasions is proven to be completely wrong. So, is Metzler a source? Discuss. Darrenhusted 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying that a debate rages is an exaggeration. There is one user who refuses to stop mouthing off about how the WWE exaggerated its figures while praising Meltzer and his hidden sources. I don't see any real dispute here. If I didn't know better I would call this entire incident a straw man argument. -- The Hybrid 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, looks like my break will be a short one :) SirFozzie 03:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is very redundent as the matches for many of the shows are listed twice, in that article and in the general PPV article (Backlash 1999 for example). What's the best way to handle it? I say remove them from the Backlash and Unforgiven matches and keep them on the In Your House page. Mshake3 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

They are technically both though. Backlash 1999 is both a Backlash PPV and a In Your House PPV. I think they should stay on both, the only issue is which one should be linked to in the "PPV Chronology" section. Maybe pages like "WWF St. Valentine's Day Massacre" should be redirected to their IYH section. TJ Spyke 23:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well duh, because that's the only time a PPV event was called that. But listing two sets of full match results for the same show is horribly redundent. Mention on both articles, but one set of matches have to go. Mshake3 16:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There's an edit war going on between Maestro25 and TJ Spyke over what to call a Fatal Four Way Match ("Fatal Four Way" vs "Fatal Four-Way"). Just FYI - I'm still new around here so I'm not quite sure what the next step is. Edwardtang 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have self reverted back to his version (even though I know my version is right) so I don't violate 3RR. "Fatal Four-Way" is more grammatically correct and even WWE uses both versions (see the No Mercy talk page for a link). It is also consistency since we have always used the dash in PPV pages here. TJ Spyke 23:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at all if the project has set up standards for match naming yet, but I would suggest that consensus be reached so that we don't have to deal with this again. BTW - I've noticed you two have been edit warring each other on other wrestling pages (like your very recent change to Professional_wrestling_match_types, which suggests to me that we don't have a standard yet.Edwardtang 23:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus, he just seems to want to be opposing the consensus without discussing it. TJ Spyke 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out when/where consensus was reached? Edwardtang 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so much of a discussion, more that this has just been the standard used here at WP for as long as I can remember (it's been this way since before I registered, which was in March 2006). No one having a problem with it until now a de facto consensus. TJ Spyke 23:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought as well. As far as I remember, "Fatal Four Way" is used far more often than "Fatal Four-Way," and just because both were used by WWE or proper grammar doesn't strike me as a good reason to change everything around. But I'd like to hear from other members of the project who are reading this. Edwardtang 23:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I said over there: the official results are "Fatal Four Way" for NM 2005 & 2006, see here and here, not to mention other PPV results like here, here, and here. WWE clearly refers to it as "Fatal Four Way" in its results so it should be kept that way. There shouldn't be a problem --Maestro25 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is similar to the iMPACT/Impact debate. Proper SPAG vs how the company puts it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That was mostly capitalization in an article name. --Maestro25 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is partially about grammer (in which case, "Fatal Four-Way" is correct). WWE uses both [27], and independent sources vary but mostly use the dash [28]. Since neither one is used exclusively by any source, I see no reason to change what has been the de facto standard used here. TJ Spyke 00:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we really fighting over this type of bullshit? Seriously? You know, when they'res bigger issues at hand? this sort of fucking crap really matters that much to get into an edit war over? Bmg916^Speak_Sign 00:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering the need for sourcing in wrestling articles is there really any point in going to war over a dang "-"? In the end WHAT DOES IT MATTER? is anyone hurt by the inclusion or exclusion of one little hyphen? Is this really the kind of obsessive detail nerding that WP:PW is all about? MPJ-DK 08:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care all that much, but TJ Spyke and Maestro25 need to stop the edit warring. Edwardtang 17:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if anybody knew of any of the early histort of East Coast Wrestling Association? Kris Classic 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I know that its been around the Mid-Atlantic region since the late 1960s, although most of my knowledge extends as far as the early 1990s. Along with Maryland Championship Wrestling and other promotions, it was the home territory for the majority of today's top independent stars including Ace Darling, Reckless Youth, Inferno Kid, Lance Diamond, Steve Corino, Devon Storm, etc. MadMax 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Before he retired, this user uploaded tons of what we thought were free use images for use in articles, saying that he took them. It has recently been discovered, by Yamla, that he committed massive copyright violations and other such crimes. I suggest that we remove any images that he uploaded from our articles until we can personally verify the copyright status of them. This is a major blow to our image repository, but I guess that this is simply the nature of human society. Peace, -- The Hybrid 01:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've marked all my Commons uploads of his photos up for deletion if anyone's concerned over them. This is quite a bummer for me. -- Oakster  Talk  11:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently removed a {{prod}} tag from Andrew Brannan, given his article claims he is a former OVW Heavyweight and Tag Team Champion under contract for WWE, however I've been unable to find any references on either he or his Future Shock tag team partner Culum Davidson. Also OVW's title history makes no mention of his tag team or heavyweight championship title reigns, as Kenny Dykstra has never held the heavyweight title and won only the TV championship from Deuce Shade. This seems to look a lot like a hoax, however is there another ringname he might have wrestled under (assuming he isn't listed by his real name) ? MadMax 05:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A search at OWW shows no one by that name having held the OVW Heavyweight Title [29] or Tag Title [30] and a Google search brings up nothing relating to wrestling. Seems like a hoax. Since he removed the PROD, nominate it for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article says he lost the title to Kenny Dykstra, who also never held the title. I vote for hoax.Nenog 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a {{hoax}} template until the author, User:Andrew2436, can provide references. MadMax 07:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating it as a Speedy, the article is about himself only. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

He was trained by Chris Benoit is another hint this article is nothing but a hoax, Chris Benoit doesn't train OVW wrestlers, nor own a wrestling school. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article has been whacked as a hoax. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was already speedied once before, see the deletion log for the page. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you already have changing "the WWE" to "WWE" on your to-do list. Quite good, since there's no "the" World Wrestling Entertainment.

Similarly, I think any use of "tag team titles" or, even worse, "tag team championships" should be changed to the singular, unless it's a sentence like "the Dudley Boyz were the first team to hold the ECW, WCW, and WWF tag team titles." A sentence like "John Cena and Shawn Michaels lost the tag team titles" is gobbledygook. There is one title in question. What are pluaral are the belts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.37.69 (talk • contribs)

Indeed, I think when people use "tag team titles" they are referring to the belts themselves. It is extremely common for people to do that. Wrestlers, promoters, announcers all do it. It'd be good for grammar to correct the articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Ladies Professional Wrestling Association is listed on the "Wanted articles" section of the to do list, however it was deleted by an expired prod on Febuary 2007. Should this article be removed from the wanted articles list or will it be recreated/undeleted at some point ? MadMax 06:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I requested it be recreated. LPWA was pretty notable for its time, and they even put out a PPV (LPWA Super Ladies Showdown). I don't know enough about them to create the article myself. TJ Spyke 07:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Was there enough information in the original article to list it on WP:DRV or would it be better to recreate it from scratch ? MadMax 07:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I neer looked at the article and didn't know it had been deleted until I had saw a red link at the PPV page. I could ask the closing admin to let me see. 08:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take a second and look at this [31]. Yes, that's right, JB192 (Jonathan Barber) has added something. Burntsauce, well if this doesn't say he's a sockpuppet what does....? People, this is getting seriously out of hand fast, Burntsauce is making malicious claims for no reason (trying to say I'm a sockpuppet). If you want to add anything, go here, oh and here. I think the total of sockpuppets (including rumoured) is nearly at the 200 mark, it's getting out of hand... Davnel03 11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has been blocked indefinitely. Davnel03 15:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

200? Sheesh. I can't imagine any hypothetical circumstances that would drive a person to create that many false accounts in order to damage a website. He really is peculiar and clearly with far too much time on his hands. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Same with Verdict, his man crush on Brock Lesnar is starting to worry me. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 17:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Verdict is just in love with Brock's phallic chest tattoo. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So I was blocked for a week because I reverted the edits of a sock, that's interesting MPJ-DK 18:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That really sucks. This whole sockpuppet fiasco has revealed (IMHO) that a few admins despise wrestling and will enforce policies beyond the point of being reasonable if it involves wrestling articles and WP:PW members. Check out how relatively few (considering the subject's status) inline citations there are on Henry VIII, John F. Kennedy or Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

the blank, revert & locking issues of Barry Buchanan has been resolved - how? the easiest, most logical and proper way possible: By sourcing the article in question so that the only edits to it from now on will be expanding the article :-) Happy editing & sourcing ya'll MPJ-DK 18:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user claiming to be Smith Hart's son has recently removed information from Smith Hart's article. I've moved his comments to the article's talk page and placed a {{fact}} template concerning the information in question. MadMax 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a little look into Smith Hart's career as a parent and found this Smith had a daughter many years ago that he wasn't taking care of and Badnews Allen was about to adopt her, and in the end, backed out, because as much as he wanted to raise the girl, he felt it would mean a lifetime of Smith Hart being part of his life at Wrestling Observer [32]. I can't imagine why someone would pretend to be Smith Hart's son so I've taken the step of removing Smith's children's from the profile. That is backed up by policy as the only source was a fan essay and they aren't relevant to his career anyway. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the article? Govvy 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfortibe when it comes to artices with "personal information" sections. At least with "trivia" sections it's a bit easier to work relavent information into the article. MadMax 22:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the article, it could easily go into the Hart family one. Trivia is a tough one because we're not supposed to have them as seperate sections. I guess it comes down to the thinking that if it's trivial then it's not notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They all seem as trivial as each other (except Bret and Owen), and I can understand keeping Bruce separate because he did at least work for WWF once or twice, but most of the others are not that notable, other than being the son of Stu Hart. Maybe some merging is needed. Darrenhusted 00:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting you know that several users are going around and tagging images that have come off WWE.com, but putting that they fail Wikipedia's status, even if they have WWE photo template on them. I uploaded several earlier today, only for have Yamla tag them all, and leave notes on my talkpage. I think Yamla is trying to personally threaten me. Images include:

• Image:MichelleMcCool.JPG - Michelle McCool picture
• Image:McCoolJamesStevens.JPG - Teacher's Pet's stable
• Image:MariaMattStriker.JPG - Maria + Matt Striker interview
• Image:MariaCandiceECWExtremeStripPoker.JPG - Extreme Strip Poker picture
• Image:MickieWWEWomensChamp.JPG - Mickie James as Womens champ
• Image:MickieAshley.JPG - Mickie + Ashley
• Image:WWEECWONS07.jpg - WWE One Night Stand poster
• Image:RR07.jpg - WWE Royal Rumble 07 poster
• Image:Backlash07.jpg - WWE Backlash 07 poster (the copy currently on the Backlash page

All of these (as I've said) have come off WWE.com). I'm really stuck, and have no idea of what to do, I've even put the WWE-photo template on them. He's really put me under a lot of pressure. I don't want them to get deleted.

Davnel03. 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to this user, images must adhere to WP:FU. That means only using freely-licensed images, not WWE promotional images, to depict subjects which still exist. It means including a source so we can verify the copyright status. It means including a detailed fair-use rationale for fair-use images. The WWE photo template is part of the solution but does not excuse an image from adhering to WP:FU. --Yamla 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

All those images are property of wwe.com to highlight the terms and conditions of wwe.com

OWNERSHIP AND RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MATERIALS
All materials contained on this web site are the copyrighted property of WWE and its affiliates
and/or our third party licensors. All trademarks, service marks and trade names, including but not
limited to the WWE and WWE marks, as well as the names of its superstars, are proprietary to WWE or
its affiliates and are protected by state, federal and international trademark laws.

There for, you shouldn't be copying anything off from wwe.com so you should {{db|author}} all of them. Govvy 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point we shouldn't be using any fair use images at all. McPhail

When it comes to posters, there are no free pics. They shouldn't be a problem since they are about an event, not a person. TJ Spyke 21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the large amounts of professional wrestlers and related topics frequently nominated either by afd or prod tags, perhaps somesort of <!-- --> message at the head of each article requesting the nominator to notify the PW WikiProject (or at least its author) of its deletion ? MadMax 23:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Article authors should always be notified anyway, there is a bot which usually does it. And the request to notify the author is on AFD templates, maybe not PRODs. Darrenhusted 01:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the PROD template also says that you should notify the article's creater: "Nominator: Please consider notifying the author(s) of this page using {{subst:prodwarning|articless name}} ~~~~". TJ Spyke 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guilty of forgetting to do that and I'd reckon a lot of editors are the same ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I only mention it as numerous articles, both notable and non notable, seem to be deleted most often to expired prod tags. Even articles which have been nominated on afd are rarely mentioned on the to do list unless a project member happens to notice it of the main afd page or by other means. MadMax 04:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've run across numerous articles where profiles from ObssessedWithWrestling.com have either been removed or have had the link replaced with a {{fact}} template. Is the website still blacklisted, and if so, should the latter {{fact}} entries be removed ? Either way, there seems to be a large amount of revisions needed. MadMax 07:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It was blacklisted for a while, I don't think it still is but the articles haven't been updated since that doesn't happen automatically whereas blacklisted links can in some cases be tagged automatically with bots MPJ-DK 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He's right, blacklisted links get tagged by the bots. When they get de-blacklisted though, the rest of us have to fix them. OWW is not blacklisted anymore, so feel free to fix any OWW links that were messed up by bots. TJ Spyke 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are the majority of the reverted pages, if anyone else wants a head start. MadMax 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember a user bringing up the idea for a project collaberation a few weeks ago and I was curious if that idea ever when anywhere ? It would seem like a logical idea for some sort of "project of the week" such as providing reliable citations for World Championship Wrestling as User:Suriel1981 brought up awhile ago. Another idea might be taking an averge stub article and rewriting it into at least a B-Class article or even bringing pages like Bret Hart, Ric Flair and others to GA-status ? MadMax 09:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Other Wikiprojects (like WP:VG) also pick a different article each week as one that they want the project to especially work on. TJ Spyke 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did think that User:MPJ-DK and I did a fairly decent job of rewriting IWCCW. I'd think that with several other members, almost any page could be brought up to a decent looking article. In particular, pages such as Combat Zone Wrestling or Ladies Professional Wrestling Association come to mind. MadMax 10:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, a weekly project that we could focus on, even if people don't know the actual subject that well they can always have a look at it for readability and copyediting MPJ-DK 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, will a "project of the week" section be added on the project page? Kris Classic 21:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we need to pick an actual project - it'd be cool if we could get a tag for the talk page that indicated that "This article was a WP:PW project of the week on XX - YY" MPJ-DK 16:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stick it on the front of the project page and on the to do list as the priority. Darrenhusted 16:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A prototype template shamelessly ripped off from WP:VG. MadMax 06:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)