Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Prodded. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Prodded these as well - Brian Myers, Shawn Murphy (wrestler), Muhammad the Butcher, Mister Zero, Anthony Michaels, Dan McGuire, Danny DeManto, Truth Martini. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the prod on the BCW page because it's been prodded before - if if needs to go then it needs to be an AfD according to Wikipedia guidelines. And for the record it's not because I disagree with you, heck I think all of these outside Anthony Michaels aren't even borderline notable and could easily be deleted. MPJ-DK 03:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't check the BCW history oops. Michaels is borderline notable in my opinion, but I really struggled to find any information on him, other than a couple of match results. Bearing that in mind I'm in no immediate rush to AfD him, but I will at some point unless there's improvement sourcing wise. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't unprod him yet, once I find a source to establish notability in some way I will (and fully source the page) but I got a few days to dig it out anyways before the prod deadline runs out. MPJ-DK 04:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

TJ did, but as I say there's no immediate rush for that one, he's not a minor indy guy I'd instantly AfD if the prod was removed. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Michaels is only somewhat notable because he was Snot Dudley in ECW, and was one of the major Dudleys in the early years. TJ Spyke 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to edit in this source for Chris Benoit (as when I click edit for the sources section a template comes out), but I would appreciate if somebody could help me out with that.

Also, here is a source stating that Benoit idolized the Dynamite Kid: [1]

Also, I think the Chris Benoit should be moved to "Mid-Importance", as it is insulting to such a famous worker, to be "Low-Importance". Kris Classic 02:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the source it. As for importance, check out WP:BOLD. TJ Spyke 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we as a project need to figure out how to handle wrestling DVDs on Wikipedia - have one approach and stick to it because right now there is no clear policy, it's a case by case thing, leading to AfDs and discussions and on and on. I think we should have one unified way of handling DVDs and not clutter up Wikipedia with stuff that's suitable for a subsection but not an entire page.

My proposal

• Show DVDs (PPVs etc) - No articles on Wiki
• Profile DVDs (like Andre The Giant, etc) - Redirect the DVD title to the subject page and add a "DVD" sub section to the page with the name, date & quick outline.
• Documentaries (Rise & Fall of ECW, Monday Night Wars, AWA etc.) Should be incorporated into the article for the subject it covers and listed in a "DVD" section

Pros? Cons?? Voice your opinion please MPJ-DK 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel we should just do cite dvd, but there is not cite dvd like cite video... :/ So if we can get a new {{cite dvd}} to use it maybe a list, or at the end of wrestler bio's. ect. something like that anyway. Govvy 12:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest many of us should put him on our watchlists, I asked an admin to take his article off the fully protected list. I'm regretting that now as many websites are reporting he's out for eight months with a torn bicep. Just thought I'd pass it along for anyone attempting to add stuff into the article.Neldav 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I change your link, his article has been at "The Undertaker" for many months now and some people still use the wrong link. It's about time the article was unprotected. It was fully protected for almost a month becuase of User:Verdict and coat of many sockpuppets. TJ Spyke 20:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this the other day, and put the unsourced tag on it. Today I did a google search on his real name and wrestling name: I found no decent sources. Should I prod it? He worked for NWA Wildside, a notable indy group...but that's about all he has done worth noting. RobJ1981 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would give the go ahead and prod it, he wrestled for only five years before going into semi-retirement, and not doing anything notable during those years. Kris 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

List of ECW pay-per-view events shows that all the ECW PPV articles still use the ECW initials. I'm pretty sure that some of them don't need the initials for ambig. reasons. Were these just overlooked when the ruiling over other wrestling PPV articles was made, or did I miss another ruiling for these articles? Mshake3 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, looks like we're keeping the initials in the article title. Hmmm, I thought it was ruled the other way. Mshake3 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just in case some are unaware, this page is an FLC and it would be nice if some WP:PW could leave some comments here. So far, it has no supports or opposes and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Either way, some comments from some other project members would be nice. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nuko The Russian (total hoax as far as I can see), Joey Nelson, Kim Neilson, Derrick Neikirk, Charlie Cook, Nate Hatred and Prince Nana.

Kevin Northcutt has been tagged for expansion as well, needs some work doing on it. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd pass along this comment made on Undertaker's talkpage:

• While citations are good, and I think most information should be cited, it is unneccessary to cite every single match win or loss. Citations should be limited to information such as quotes, images, or information that could be challenged. Wins and losses won't be challenged because they are "common knowledge"....millions of people saw them on TV. Maybe if a match is from a house show or some other non-televised event or information from their personal lives, then it should be cited. The guide for citing sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources, clearly states that information that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. For example, who's going to challenge that The Undertaker won the Championship at WrestleMania 23, when they either saw it then or heard about it the next day on RAW? Thoughts? Nikki311 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the person who literally sourced everything, and I was wondering whether we needed every single little thing sourced. I've also sourced Ric Flair and Carly Colon and literally sourced everything. I've always thought it's better to over-ref than under-ref, isn't it? Does this user actually have a point? And after what Burntsauce has been doing lately, I didn't want to take any chances. Neldav 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that certain users go above and beyond the guidelines you list in their "pointy" crusade against pro wrestling articles, just look at the riduculous level of "Citation needed" tags on Scott Norton and I've even cleaned some of them up already. MPJ-DK 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, who was it that said the {{moresources}} tag wasn't enough and insisted on reverting to the version with all the "citation neededs" instead? That would be you wouldn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, I reverted to the version that exposes how far you'll go in your little campaign against pro wrestling and just how thin the straws you clutch at to take shots at the articles. I reverted to the version that showed that you went above and beyond both the written word and the spirit of Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources instead of just the generic tag that erroniously indicated that the general article was unsourced. It's always better to be specific don't you think? ;) MPJ-DK 07:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I've been tolerant of your trolling up to now but no more. For your information I've saved plenty of wrestling articles from being massacred by one of Wikipedia's most notorious vandals and sockpuppeteers JB196, still it's not your fault you're ignorant of the facts. But thanks to you, I'll be happy to give wrestling articles more time now making sure anything that needs a citation is appropriately tagged. Or you could apologise for being completely incorrect, and we'll say no more about it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Having worked with ONiH from the start dealing with JB (Back even before he was banned for the first time, (that's what, 150 SockPuppets ago?), he's done a good job with regards to wrestling articles here. MPJ-DK, I'd hope you'd work WITH ONiH, and not against. The projects got enough to do already without members working actively against each other. SirFozzie 18:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I call them like I see them, I see a man who "Citation needed" tagged Fire & Ice's Finishing move, is that incorrect? I'm not apologizing for saying that such an act is going above and beyond the written word and the spirit of the policy. But don't worry this won't turn into two memebers of wp:pw fighting with each other, I'm sick of being a "content defender", I came here to make positive contributions so I'm just going to do my own thing and not give a crap about groups and projects and what not. Laters MPJ-DK 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of wankers out there who think pro-wrestling is "beneath" Wikipedia (completely ignoring the fact that the reason there are so many wrestling articles is due to a considerable number of Wikipedia users being wrestling fans). It's been noted by several WP:PW members that non-wrestling articles are just plain ignored when it comes to "enforcing the citation rules". But hey, that's life. I know for a fact that every WP:PW member has had to put up with people telling them wrestling is fake, gay, childish, fake, homoerotic, fake, fake, etc. It's a pity that numerous Wikipedians also have little respect for the interests of others. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No one, whatever their views of WP:PW, can blank, PROD or AFD an article because it has too many citations. Darrenhusted 00:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I wasn't able to locate a peer section of this project I decided to post this here, the page seems to be in good shape and free of POV, not to mention the fact that it's more than well referenced (even all of the titles listed have refs), it seems to be at GA level or near it, do you think it should be up for GAC as it is or is there something else needed? any suggestions? -凶 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is nearly long enough. Having a lot of sources doesn't make it a "Good Article".

It is very impressive, but not G-A material, not yet at least. Kris 04:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Length isn't taken under consideration when reviewing GAs, I have managed to get nominations about 1/5 the size of this one passed without any problem. I will try my luck and nominate it, Peace. -凶 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here. Please look at the nomination carefully, and consider what content needs to be saved from the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be nominated for deletion. There is no real proof of notability. Kris 17:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article needs fixing not deletion; before the days of TNA and ROH Reckless Youth, along with Christopher Daniels, were the kings of the independents. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Any proof to that statement? Just because he was popular on some small indy cards, doesn't mean he was notable. You can't just fix non-notability. Kris 17:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me Youth is also known for the fact he doesn't talk much, which extends to interviews, so direct quotes from him is near impossible to find however searching for Reckless Youth and "king of the independents" tends to bring up other wrestlers supporting it. Homicide interview referring to the duo of Daniels and Youth as the kings of the indies, King Kong Bundy interview in which Bundy pretty much states Youth being rated lower than Hogan is an abomination, Jeremy Lopez commentary referencing Youth as the king of the independents, press release making another reference to status as king of the indies. Not to mention being the co-founder of CHIKARA. There are many not notable indy wrestlers with articles on wikipedia that have too much information adding up to nothing, this is a case of the opposite of an actually notable indy wrestler whose information availability is limited. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because people think he is the King of the Indies, and think he is a good wrestler, doesn't mean notability. I can say that a local wrestler is King of the Indies, does that make him notable? Just because there are a lot of other wiki profiles about workers who are less notable, doesn't mean he is notable enough. The biggest promotion he has worked for was ROH and a few small NWA Territories. I say not notable. Lets put it up for deletion, and see what everybody else has to say? Kris 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact I began my reply with BEFORE ROH and TNA. His notable time was the past, comparing him to the notability of current indie wrestlers is invalid. Part of his story is that he was one of the only wrestlers who built a name for themselves as an indy wrestler, alongside Daniels, without the aid of WCW, WWF or ECW. The founding of CHIKARA notwithstanding. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had recently nominated him as a candidate for a future collaberation of the week. I do think it's unfortunate that a growing trend on Wikipedia, in terms of independent and regional (pre 1980s) wrestlers and promotions, tend to be nominated for deletion because their either poorly written, have little content or are poorly sourced. I have provided reliable independent references cited his numerous title reigns in several notable independent promotions. Personaly, I would suggest holding off nominating it for deletion for a few days until other project members have a chance to contribute to this discussion. In addition, I believe Reckless Youth has competed for virtualy every major independent promotion in North America including Combat Zone Wrestling, the Heartland Wrestling Association, Memphis Championship Wrestling as well appearances at the ECWA Super 8 Tournament and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show. According the the official website of The Blue Meanie, he was trained by Al Snow along with fellow students The Blue Meanie and Dan Severn. MadMax 19:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Being in a lot of major indy promotions and being trained by Snow still doesn't make him notable. What big impacts has he made on the wrestling world? Kris 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say the fact he has won championship titles, backed up by cited sources, in these and other promotions make him notable. The fact that he was ranked in the PWI Years doesn't hurt either. MadMax 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people have won titles on the indys, that doesn't make them notable though. Kris 23:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then essentially a wrestlers accomplishments in the professional wrestling industry are irrelevent to their notability ? MadMax 00:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It plays a part, but having a lot of minor title wins alone doesn't make a person notable. Kris 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

According to that rational, wouldn't that eliminate a good chunk of wrestlers existing from Wikipedia ? Take an article like La Parka, for instance. The only reference is a fan site (a trivial and unreliable source) and an editor could certainly make the claim that his career added up to a minor stint as a "jobber" in a defuct wrestling promotion (in this case WCW and disregarding Mexican and international promotions). There really should be some clear cut concensus on this issue if the only things making a wrestler notable is having an interview or profile in a non-wrestling source (a non independent source such as WWE.com for example is used as a sole reference for much of the former WWF and present WWE roster). MadMax 03:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

La Parka is a notable worker who has had nation wide exposor on wrestling television shows. This guy has worked on a lot of small time indy promotions. Would this be notable for a wrestling wiki? Certainly. Would it be notable for this main wiki? No. Someone nominate it for deletion, so we can hear other's opinions. Kris 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If we wanted to be tightwads, we could say anybody who wrestled for WWE/WCW/ECW is notable (the same way that anybody who competes in the NFL/NBA/NHL/other top level organizations are considered automatically "notabe"). I acutally have heard of Reckless Youth and I rarely pay attention to indy wrestling, bu I have no opinion on him. TJ Spyke 03:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is only that, based on typical afd debates, only a handful of professional wrestlers even in WWE/WCW/ECW (or even NWA/AWA/WWF) meet the same criteria as those recently deleted. I wouldn't even begin to know where to find non-wrestling bios/interviews on international wrestlers. MadMax 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, not my problem. This article in unencyclopediac, and should be put up for deletion. Then it will be up to the admin to decide if the article stays, not us. Kris 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was your problem, nor was I even refering to Reckless Youth in general. I was commenting on the fact that the majority of wrestling articles are not supported not what would normally be considered independent, non trival, reliable sources. MadMax 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this subject warrant an entry on wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlockbusterTA (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

• I've cleaned it up, mostly copyediting and formatting, although the article does appear to meet WP:BIO and WP:A (his appearances on the Joan Rivers and Sally Jesse Raphael Shows). MadMax 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any sort of notability. I say speedy delete. Kris 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well if Heath Miller (wrestler) was kept because he appeared on Blue Collar TV, then it would be fair to assume that his appearances on two popular daytime talk shows would probably merit his notability. It might be worth mentioning, there's been an edit war going on between User:Suplex66 and User:Funksterjig prior to its nomination for deletion. MadMax 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Heath Miller was incorrectly kept due to block voting by wrestling fans, and I'll get that deleted later. Also an unsourced (and unsourceable) claim of notability is no claim of notability. Shall I write an article on me claiming I've won a Nobel prize, Grammy, Emmy, Oscar and been interviewed by every single important talk-show host, and laugh as you say I'm notable? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hackney, that is your main complaint in every wrestling related afd debate. Assuming the subject has only one claim to notability to begin with, you can't actually claim that these facts cannot be sourced unless you happen own every episode of the Joan Rivers and Sally Jesse Raphael Shows. Why not use any number of templates to see if anyone can find a source, and if not, then nominate for deletion ?

It's a correct and proper one. Wrestling fans do not follow guidelines and policies when !voting on AfDs, you only have to look at your attempts to defend every crappy stub (speaking of which, more AfDs coming real soon rest assured) you've created to see you're oblivious to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, despite me giving you a link to them in each and every AfD. If you think the Rivers and Raphael claims can be sourced, feel free to source them now. But you won't, because you can't, and it wouldn't matter even if you could. Look at the article. He started wrestling in 1995, he allegedly appeared on TV in 1992 and 1993. Spot the problem? Spot the further problem, he fails WP:BIO. Stop making up your own guidelines and use the ones at WP:BIO, because if you don't you're going to create more articles that I'll be nominating for deletion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't say "wrestling fans", I have voted to delete a lot of wrestling related article on stuff I thought didn't need articles. I suppose Alaimo could have appeared before he started wrestling, but I don't think a couple of appearences on a talk show is that notable (or these sluts who appear on Maury and have 15+ men tested to see who the father is would have articles). TJ Spyke 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the article, nor did I contribute additional information. Personally, I've only vaguly heard of Lucifer and being an extra in a low buget film probably isn't notable. However, appearing three times on Sally Jesse Raphael is notable and can be confirmed or disproved. All I'm saying is, given the author is a new editor, you might want to give him more then a few hours to prove him claims before nominating it for deletion. MadMax 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsisancies with the external links provided by the author. The Yahoo link goes nowhere and the MySpace page appears to belong to someone else as his age is stated as 26 as opposed to the 1966 birthdate. I've left a note on Suplex66's talk page, although I haven't gotten a responce yet. MadMax 04:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• The issue has been resolved as per discussion on user's talk page. MadMax 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• It might be worth mentioning, there's been an edit war going on between User:Suplex66 and User:Funksterjig prior to its nomination for deletion. MadMax 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MaxMax has participated in this "edit war" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funksterjig (talk • contribs)

• I restored deleted text and added a fact tag for a frequently removed claim (his alledged match with Lo-Ki). If there was a problem with this, either editor could have informed me through the article's talk page or my own. MadMax 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As i said, u participated in the edit war. And u didnt even use a edit summary when participating. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Alaimo&diff=128288062&oldid=128287908 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funksterjig (talk • contribs)

• If you'll notice the edit history between 20:31 and 20:38, you yourself made 4 edits to the article removing much of the former text without reason other then "cleanup". At the time, I was unaware of your edits as I was continuing to revise the article between 20:29 and 20:38 (notice the edit you provided above are at 20:38). After reverting my edits at 20:40, User:Soumyasch reverted your edits as well. After reverting back to your version, you and Suplex66 began reverting and restoring information between 20:44 until 21:19 when One Night In Hackney nominated your version for deletion. I should note that after 20:38, I did not edit the article until 00:02 when I reverted back to the previous version by User:Soumyasch after it had been nominated for deletion. MadMax 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be four articles - Brian Myers, Matt Cardona, The Major Brothers and The Majors Brothers. Would suggest merging them? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All should be in one for now at least. I don't think Brian or Matt have done any singles (if they have, very little). So redirecting all articles to one article is a good idea in this case. I'm not sure if the official team name is Major or Majors Brothers though. RobJ1981 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's "Major Brothers" according to WWE: [2]. I have combined the two tag team articles into Major Brothers. TJ Spyke 00:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to bring this here, but this user (User:TheTruth2) keeps removing the word "the" from PPV articles at the Kemper Arena (so the say event X took place on date Y from Kemper Arena) saying this is right because the name of the arena is "Kemper Arena" and not "The Kemper Arena". I tried explaining why this is not how we do it, and how what he is doing is grammatically incorrect. I also told him to bring it up here if he really objected. He seemed to stop for a few days, but is starting it again. TJ Spyke 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems up your street. --Fredrick day 23:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious, what is the official way to write OWW in on articles?

Is it:

• (Name) at OWW
• (Name) at Obsessed with Wrestling
• (Name) at onlineworldofwrestling.com
• Profile at OWW
• Profile at Obsessed with Wrestling
• Profile at onlineworldofwrestling.com
• Etc.

Which is the right way? Kris 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any one correct way, but I think (Name) at Obesses with Wrestling sounds best. TJ Spyke 23:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shall we make it official, and put it on the to-do list, to correct all links to that? Kris 23:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, put on the to do list. Maybe we could get a bot to help change the links? TJ Spyke 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like onlineworldofwrestling.com changed their name to OnlineWorldofWrestling.com, so we will have to change all OWW links in profiles, as well as changing all references. This should be fun. Kris 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This will be annoying considering how many articles use them. I will fix them when I see them, but I don't really feel like searching out for them (since their old domain name still goes to their website). TJ Spyke 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not all of the links still go to the old website. Most of the links are dead. Such as a reference in CM Punk's profile to OWW, that happens to be a link to an image, is dead. Kris 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A robot has done it, though I don't know if it was just the trial run or not (bots sometimes do a trial run before doing a big job like this, the operator said their were 513 links to OWW). TJ Spyke 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i have proved that I am right in this case. Tj just does not want to admit that he is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs)

Dude, sign your posts and then we'll consider keeping them, but bare in mind no one likes reading 25,000k of press release for an argument over the word "the", especially when you're in wrong, oops, I meant "the" wrong. Darrenhusted 00:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I be wrong wehn I have posted those articles showing that I am right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs)

Bro, it is not proper grammar, now please stop making such a big deal out of such a small thing before something bad happens, like you getting banned. Kris 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not proven me wrong TheTruth2. You posted a few press releases (in their entirety, WTF with trying to add 25K of data for no reason?) where they don't use "the". There are many that do. Also, don't sign out and pretend you IP is someone else to try and act like you have more support, that kind of thing is frowned upon and can get you in trouble. TJ Spyke 00:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How can I be wrong wehn I have posted those articles showing that I am right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruth2 (talk • contribs)

It is not proper grammar, now please stop making such a big deal out of such a small thing before something bad happens, like you getting banned. Also, please start signing your posts. Kris 00:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That IP is not me. So what you are saying is all the editors and media are wrong as wll?TheTruth2 00:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"all the editors"? I am just seeing you and an IP you claim is not yours (but who only started editing when you reached the 3RR and is making the exact same types of edits). TJ Spyke 00:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)# Quick grammar question if you (and I quote) "Don't give a shit about wrestling", why are you causing so much trouble here? Kris 00:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I first commented on the situation, as can be seen from the affected talk page[3], because of TJ Spyke's incredibly patronizing edit summaries. Forget that for now though Kris, you've read what was posted on the Village Pump, do you really consider the edits made "vandalism" as bulletproof suggests, or according to TJ Spyke did I "stop taking English classes in elementary school". How do you expect to gather users to help you at PW if this is the attitude of your editors here. I might not give a shit about Wrestling, but I do about Wikipedia. 64.38.51.106 00:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your "first" edit was to remove the word "the" from every PPV at the New Year's Revolution page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_New_Year%27s_Revolution&oldid=128403587). Unhelpful edits are not benefiting us here. I am not convinced you are not TheTruth2 either. TJ Spyke 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I say 24 hour block on TheTruth2, if he persist making these edits, and ask for a lock on the pages the IP is editing. Darrenhusted 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling for blocks may be good and all, but you still haven't addressed the point at hand. A search for "at kemper arena" pulls back 19,000 hits compared to 5,000 hits for "at the kemper arena". It's true that they might not be from reliable sources or are in the wrong context, but what happens when you search the News Archives? It shows 11,000 news stories using the phrase "at kemper arena" vs 400 stories for "at the kemper arena". Not only have I shown that the phrasing I have used is not incorrect (as TJ and Darren have erroneously claimed), but that my phrasing is the common standard used. Still, maybe I'd just have to get a username and join your club, it seems the strength of argument here is judged purely by buddy back-patting and not for themselves. 64.38.51.106 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User 64.38.51.106, it's Mr Husted to you, and I'm not going to get in to an edit war over the use of the definite article. But posting 25K of crap on a talk page is not good etiquette, so yes, maybe you should get a user name and try to follow the rules because at the moment this argument is helping no one. Darrenhusted 19:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You still seem to have me confused with TheTruth. I was the first editor to take the thing to a talk page, I immediately removed the ridiculous copyvios from the page (something which no one else had noticed until then). Sure, maybe this could be a bad hand/good hand sockpuppet, but do you really think a user such as TheTruth, given his edit history could pull himself off with such eloquent and succinct arguments as those I have presented above? If you could enlighten me, Mr Husted, on which rules I have broken, I will gladly take those on board. I have made a strong point, it is being ignored, not because it is invalid or incorrect, but because I have not chummed it up in WP:PW long enough. 64.38.51.106 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCW-Zero_Heavyweight_Championship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCW-Zero_Tag_Team_Championship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCW-Zero_Mexico_Championship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCW-Zero_Ultra-X_Championship —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spot Monkey Hall (talk • contribs) 01:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC). Speedy tags have been removed

WWF Kuwaiti Cup, Emil Sitoci, IwW Zero-Gravity, IwW Gym War 18, Shane Shamrock Memorial Cup, ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament, ECCW Pacific Cup (Tag), NWA Shockwave, Westside Xtreme wrestling, NWA: Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling and ECCW Hardcore Title Tournament (Nov. 1999). One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit's article is very good, long, and sourced. Anybody think it should be a GA? Kris 03:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, sourced? Are you kidding? 95% are from the same website, which in turn is not considered an WP:RS. Maybe if you found some real articles from real books and magazines and sourced them, and dumped all the website refs (results generally don't need references unless there is dispute), I'd put it up. When/if you go to college, you need to realize that this is not how people source things, they don't use the same website and copy it over 70 times. Biggspowd 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Biggs, OWW is a reliable source. Also, website references are just as valid as any book reference. TJ Spyke 22:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to go after GA status I would recommend greatly expanding the lead in, adding at least an overview of the article and probably expanding it to two or three paragraphs. (See: Konnan, CM Punk Why John Cena failed). On that note the lead to The Undertaker needs great expansion as well before someone de-lists it. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reckless Youth has been nominated for deletion. Share your opinions about it here. Kris 04:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what Delirious' The Edge of Sanity move is? Kris 05:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, try e-mailing the webmaster at OWW (where the moveset seems to have come from). He should know (if no one here does). TJ Spyke 05:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a day or two, and if no answers show up here, I will do that. Thanks for suggesting that! Kris 06:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Edge of Sanity is, as near as I know, not a move of Delirious'. It's his billed hometown. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is his "hometown", but he also has a move of the same name. I have read that it is some sort move which involves a combination of strike attacks. Kris 06:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, does anybody know what his "Stem Cell Research" move is? Kris 06:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This if a little off topic, but Lakes, stop removing the Diving hurricanrana. Just because you never saw a match in which Delirious does it doesn't mean he never has used it as a signature move. Please stop removing it or I will be forced to contact an admin. Kris 08:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Why do you feel the need to ridiculously threaten people? You need to show me a valid source that it's a signature move of his. To be a signature move he needs to to it atleast somewhat frequently. OWW is not a valid source by itself. ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you making such a problem out of this? Is it really that big of a deal? I can't find any website links stating this, but you will see it on his matches. Again, you can't just blank out part of the moveset just because it doesn't have a source. Sources are mainly required for controversial things, not if a worker has a move in his set or not. You can't say that it isn't a signature move of his if you have seen most of his matches. How many have you seen? 30? 40? 50? How many matches has he had? Hundreds. Just because it is a signature move doesn't mean he uses it currently either. He could have used that for just the first year of his career for all you know.

Kris 09:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that the only source for this is OWW, which has been incorrect too many times. "but you will see it on his matches" - What matches? So I guess haven't seen him do the move yourself either? If there were match results where it's stated that he has used the move (more than once) it would indicate it's a signature move of his. ↪Lakes (Talk) 10:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure I will note I have never seen Delirious perform a diving hurricanrana in ROH, IWA:MS or FIP but beyond that I do not know: I have been searching the web for match results in which Delirious is said to have even performed a diving hurricanrana and have been unable to find any match report listing Delirious as performing one. I can find reports stating Delirious performing the generic hurricanrana, however these may be frankensteiners due to the name being used interchangeably. As far as I can tell there is no actual listing except for OWW's movelist that he has ever used a diving hurricanrana. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact matches he has done it in. Do you know every match that Samoa Joe used a Chimer-plex in? Again, just because it sometimes has small mistakes doesn't mean he can't be used as a source. All websites have some mistakes, nothing is changing that. Kris 16:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, i (User:Paulley) just popped back for a quick visit.. mainly to edit the King Of Europe tournament page (as the event has now past). Anyway i still got alot of work to do on that page and i was hoping one of you could help me get the tournament brackets working properly.. seem it doesnt want to work right for me atm. Anyway hope you guys are doing well and if u could sort out the brackets for me it would be alot of help. Thanxs --- Paulley 11:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There you go. ↪Lakes (Talk) 11:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I have been doing a lot of work on the Steve Rizzono article and am wondering if it has any chance of getting up to "featured" or "good" article status. Feedback is appreciated. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shavenhead2 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The article contents are fine, but I prodded the for possible deletion because this person does not appear to be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. ↪Lakes (Talk) 12:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has been put up for AFD, feel free to give your thoughts. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shavenhead2 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Shane Hagadorn is starting to get important in Ring of Honor, does anybody else think he now deserves an article? Kris 17:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

J.C. Bailey, Kid Omega, Ryan O'Reilly (wrestler), Scott Orlinger, Rob Page (wrestler), Dean Peters, Matt Prince, Tony Puccio, Dan Quirk, Crazy Train (wrestler), NWA Shockwave Cruiser X Championship, NWA Shockwave Tag Team Championship, NWA Shockwave Women's Championship, NWA Shockwave Internet Championship, NWA Shockwave Heavyweight Championship, Natural Heavyweight Championship, Ballpark Brawl, MCW Tag Team Championship, MCW Rage Television Championship, MCW Light Heavyweight Championship, MCW Heavyweight Championship, MCW Cruiserweight Championship, XCW Pro Wrestling, Hillbilly Matt Darlin. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was updating the Julius Smokes page (it was quite outdated), and I noticed someone removed OWW links citing a bunch of policy that they were spam.

There was a short time when they were on the spam blacklist because of JB196, however this has since been lifted. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added Judgement Day, btw not sure on all of the PPVs, but I thought it would be a good idea to add them all to help keep track on the calender. Govvy 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Was he Maxx Muscle or not? I removed a prod from the article, due to the mistaken identity (which was the reason for the prod). In either case, Jeff Warner was known by other names that were notable. The article is need of decent sources though.RobJ1981 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Jeff Warner was not the same guy as Maxx Muscle. Warner is notable though, he was the nWo Sting for example. TJ Spyke 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there currently a Maxx Muscle article? I would imagine he would be notable enough, as he was a bodyguard for Dallas Page for a while, and wrestler for a bit too. Well I found the NWO Sting article: Jeff Farmer (wrestler). If it's accurate, he is not the same person as Warner. RobJ1981 23:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I got Warner and Farmer mixed up. Warner isn't Maxx Muscle though. There is an article for Maxx Muscle, at Maxx Muscle. TJ Spyke 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce has blanked Bob Backlund and Alkivar has locked it up for a month, I've nominated it for a COTW in an attempt to get it up to scratch. Darrenhusted 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that pages can't be blanked just because they weren't well sourced. Could somebody contact an admin about this? Kris 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar is an admin, and one who sides with Burntsauce in his BLP crusade. Burntsauce spends all day reverting and blanking without adding to anything. I hoped he had left WP:PW alone after his rampage through the PW pages a fortnight ago. Darrenhusted 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what is annoying. Alkivar is also not following the BLP policy since BLP says to remove contentious material. Burntsauce is removing almost all material from an article instead of just contentious material. When Burnt was asked to discuss the issues here, he refuses and he also refused to actually try and help articles instead of wrecking them. TJ Spyke 21:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

And on top of that he keeps adding a "Welcome, you've violated BLP" notice to talkpages of those who revert his reverts. And if you post on Burntsauce's talkpage he simply erases it, then when I erased his sarky welcome message he had the cojones to challenge me for blanking a talk message. He is all that is bad with Wikipedians. Darrenhusted 21:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Look here. You know who I'm thinking. -- Oakster  Talk   22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Already covered: 04:46, 7 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) blocked "Funksterjig (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (one-shot account created on open proxy). –– Lid^(Talk) 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should contact an admin about him? Kris 22:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rouge admins stick together. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BS has blanked his talkpage again, does this guy do anything else except blank? Darrenhusted 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Any higher up admins we could report him to? Kris 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He got reported to WP:ANI if memory serves and all that happened was he received congratulation messages and support from the Rouge/deletionist admins. As far as him blanking legit comments, as with everything, he knows enough about policy that he can act in bad faith and get away with with it. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

BS has a har-on for Jimmy Wales, but I don't think Mr Wales could help us. Best thing to do would to be to find an admin who has not met BS and submit a complaint listing all his destructive edits, at the moment on BS's talk page an editor called SpyMagician is talking with him about his methods, it may be worth archiving before BS wipes it out. Darrenhusted 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of funny. He'll blank a wrestler's bio that hasn't been sourced for less than week, but he won't to anything to a baseball player's bio that has gone unscourced for seven months. Nenog 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

He has something against wrestling articles. He obviously doesn't want to make articles better. I wonder why he doesn't go round sourcing the 1,000+ wrestling articles instead of us.... Neldav 16:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because he is incapable of sourcing, but it takes no effort to blank and complain about a lack of sources. What's worse is on his userpage he has some random quotes from Jimbo and uses them to back up any argument, his reply to any question being "take it up with Jimmy Wales". Darrenhusted 17:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Burntsauce's little admin friend, Bob Backlund's article is fully protected till June. And 5 minutes before he fully protected it, Burntsauce did this.... Neldav 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BS has just blanked Stacy Carter, and as to Bob Backlund, I know, I had reverted the info back then when the blanking appeared on my watchlist I checked and Alkivar had locked it. Darrenhusted 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC) I did try to post on BS's talkpage with the following "As you may or may not be aware the WP:PW has instated a weekly collaboration project to help get articles up to scratch, as there are thousands of articles and a handful of editors it is taking time to get through all the articles. If you want to blank articles then how about Chris Godfrey, Fortismere School or Rudolf Marloth. Those were the first three articles I clicked on for the random page link, and they don't see that well sourced. Or August Hanning, Princess Anna Amalia of Prussia, Maurice Allais, or any number of thousands of biographies. Is your aim to blank every biography in Wikipedia? If so then start with articles that have no project trying to make them better, or at least talk to those in this project.", it lasted about sixty seconds before it was wiped from the page. Darrenhusted 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Now he has caused Stacy Carter to be locked as a stub too. He is obviously targeting wrestling articles since he never blanks the thousands and thousands of other bio articles with poor sourcing. It doesn't help that BS refuses to actually have a conversation with anyone. At least it is comforting to know that he will never be admin (although another admin appears to be his lackey and supporting him). TJ Spyke 23:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reposted the Stacy Carter page (which I took the precaution of copying, knowing how admins back BS up) on the talk page, so it can be edited with references. Darrenhusted 00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, that has been blanked, as well. Nikki311 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried the same on Bob Backlund's talk page. Darrenhusted 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC) And BS blanked that, he's now mis-applying BLP to talk pages! Darrenhusted 20:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Using this video as a source, I think we should add something about Jack Evan's backyard wrestling background. Kris 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually someone needs to contact the producers of that show and ask for the air date so we can use the broadcast as a source. Youtube links are not sources. ↪Lakes (Talk) 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually used a Youtube link once but that was legitimately added by an employee of a film distribution company as part of official promotion (and only broadcast on YouTube) so I felt it was fair to use it as a source. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I should have been more clear. We can't use the youtube link for the Evans story since it wasn't published by the authors. So we need to go to the source. Of course we can use youtube videos as source in case the youtube video was the original source (or published by the authors). ↪Lakes (Talk)

Just warning that there are several rumours going around that Edge could cash in his MITB briefcase at the SmackDown TV tapings tonight. If he does, the page will very likely have to be protected. Neldav 16:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that since the page notes more than just the ladder matches, it also has defenses, cash-in matches, and a holders list, maybe the name should be changed. I was thinking maybe just plain ol' Money in the Bank or maybe "Money in the Bank contract". Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC) How about Gimmick, Money in the bank gimmick. Darrenhusted 23:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say just Money in the Bank, but that's in use, and ambig sucks. I think it's fine as it is now. Mshake3 01:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of MitB, should we list Mr. Kennedy or Edge under the accomplishments section of the WWE article? When Rey Mysterio lost his RR title shot to Randy Orton, we still kept Mysterio listed. Should we do the same thing for Kennedy and keep him listed until the next MitB match? TJ Spyke 19:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Mysterio's accomplishment is "Royal Rumble winner", and that'll never change. As for this, I think a general "Mr. Money in the Bank" title will work, obviously with Edge holding it twice. Mshake3 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reasoning: Wikipedia is uncensored. Why should we protect those who don't want to know what'll happen until later in the week? Just a thought. I'm not going to start editing articles on Tuesdays, but I think the policy should be reconsidered. Mshake3 02:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think that's a good idea. Yes Wikipedia is uncensored: but why should pages be full of spoiler warnings? Listing all the TV taping results are spoilers, and all would need those tags. There is many wrestlers and matches at Smackdown and Impact tapings, plus the sometimes Raw and SNME tapings as well. How the articles are set up now is fine, why fix something that isn't broken? People will add spoilers no matter what, and with new editors: they probably wont know how to place a spoiler tag anyway. RobJ1981 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

While not a legit sport, pro wrestling does have sport features of it, in the form of championships and whatnot. Why should there be a three day wait to announce something just because it hasn't been shown on TV? Mshake3

Things are fine the way they are. I also think a lot of people would be pissed to find 2 or 3 weeks worth of TNA spoilers put up. I assume Edge winning the world title brought this up? TJ Spyke 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Mshake, we don't adhere to kayfabe in pretty much any other aspect and this one is just bizarre considering it really is adhering to kayfabe for no real reason as we can employ spoiler tags as need be. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Well yes, the Edge thing got the wheels moving in my head, although that case is different because they're announcing it on both WWE.com and on ECW TV right now. Still, when it comes to championships, we wait three days to post it, and what date do we use? The date the match actually took place. You don't see a problem with that? Mshake3 02:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Besides, any major things (like injuries, world title changes) get officially reported ahead of the airings. TJ Spyke 03:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So if they officially report it, we change it, but if they don't, we say nothing? Mshake3 05:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's how we've been doing things, and it seems to work (and least as far as match results, title changes, etc.). Things like injuries can be added if they are sourced though. There are sites like Prowrestling.com and Wrestling Observer that post spoilers if someone really wants to know what happens days early (in the case of SmackDown) or weeks early (in the case of iMPACT). TJ Spyke 05:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Film plots and TV episodes are littered with spoiler warnings, and some of those are years old. People can wait four days to post. Darrenhusted 11:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• And when it is posted, readers will see that it happened four days ago, and they'll wonder "why wasn't this posted four days ago?" Mshake3 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That suggest that someone is reading Wikipedia to find out recent results for tapings which haven't aired, is that what Wikipedia is for? There are several tags on wrestler pages which advise against week by week updates, is that what you are asking is to violate Mshake3? This is not a wrestling results service, there is no compulsion to list results as they happen, the Tag Team change for London and Kendrick wasn't acknowledged until it aired there are no special circumstances here. Darrenhusted 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Match spoilers are unencyclopaedic. Most of the problems we have with idiot fanboys is that they cannot get it into their skull that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia NOT a forum/fansite/news page ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Posting week by week updates? What does that have to do with anything? All I want is for a title change to be listed when it happens, and not wait three days because some people don't want to be spoiled. Got it? Mshake3 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I totally support abandoning the "wait until it airs" policy. The only reason I can see for the policy to still exist is to avoid ruining an event for somebody—which is why we have spoiler tags. We don't follow kayfabe in any other capacity, so why pretend events don't happen until they air? Jeff Silvers 17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it would be cool to have nationality flagicon's next to all the wrestler names on the wwe roster article. Like we have in the football project on the team roster section, checkout Tottenham Hotspur for example and have a look at the roster. Something like that, so what do the rest of you think of this idea? Govvy 09:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and done that for just the wrestler parts, personally, I think it looks good. Neldav 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would look good, I rather like that. Guess we can keep it now it's done! heh. :) Govvy 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second, The Boogeyman is not from The Bottomless Pit? Well, that's my illusions shattered, thanks a lot Neldav. Darrenhusted 22:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce strikes again, and each time he strips further and further back. Does this editor ever do anything other than "revert edit by X identified as vandalism, please read our policies and guidleines" and never post on a talk page unless forced to? Help would be helpful, anyone. Darrenhusted 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added some sources to the article, so he can't revert it now or it will be guranteed vandalism. The worst part is that he never informs us when he blanks articles. TJ Spyke 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to check his contribs but he blanks 200 articles a day. It is almost a job in itself. Darrenhusted 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Last night I was working on the John Cena article and trying to address the reasons it was denied GA status. As I was doing it I started thinking about the sources, should we consider WWE.com as a primary source and, whenever possible, use other sources? It's certainly written by people very close to the situation being written about, no matter which random intern they have actually write up reports. «»bd(^talk _stalk) 23:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• I rarely use it, since they are heavily in kayfabe sometimes the reports there can just be an excuse to justify a change and they maybe ambiguous like Orton's suspension because of "unprofessional conduct" how unreliable is that, we should use sources that work outside of kayfabe. -凶 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • wwe.com should be treated the same as, say, Pizza Hut's website would be for info on Pizza Hut. There are other articles which also have the info. TJ Spyke 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, wwe.com will always be a primary source of information and not only that, anything coming from the wwe.com even if it is in keyfab is still going to be the best source for wwe events. Govvy 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok the thing is that User:NickSparrow keeps reverting the page posting excuses such as that by posting them we are being inaccurate and that WWE is not a sport. What I suggest is that we shape the page after List of Current NBA Team Rosters and create simmilar templates to improve the page. My point in keeping the flags is that it's helps the reader realize how broad the coverage that WWE has reached is having wrestlers from various countries trougth the world, so any oppinions? -凶 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I say keep the Flagicons, they fit in well. Also, by definition, Wrestling is a sport:

An athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.

Kris 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problems with your point are the wrestlers with two flags by their name. The Highlanders and Santino Marella, besides having the flag of their real home country also have the flag of their kayfabe home country. Melina, Jimmy Wang Yang, Little Guido Maritato and Trinity, despite all being born in the US also have the flags of their heritage. Daivari and Funaki, besides having the flag of the country they were born in, also have the US flag as that is were they currently live; yet Carlito, Kahli, Umaga, Chris Beniot, Finlay, Regal, etc. do not.Nenog 03:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see here, I only added the flag of their birth country. --凶 04:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Carlito have the US flag then since Puerto Rico is part of the United States? Same thing with Regal, Taylor and Finlay all having the UK flag since England and Northern Ireland are part of the UK? If you don't want to change them, then should all the US/Canada ones be switched to state/province flags? Doesn't seem fair to have region flags for wrestlers from the UK and Puerto Rico and national flags for everyone else. I have reduced flags down to birth country (or birth region in the case of UK and Pueto Rico wrestlers), and fixed Kane (since he was born in Spain, thus he gets Spain's flag). TJ Spyke 04:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really since he was born in the island per se, now if it was Homicide then yes, at the moment the page looks exactly as it should, I will finish the tables and then we see what you think. -凶 05:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just meant because you said their country of birth. Puerto Rico is part of the United States, Carlito's nationality in American. I don't think that Regal/Taylor having England's flag and Finlay having Northern Ireland's flag is any different than Viscera having Tennessee's flag or Deuce having Hawaii's flag. England and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and IMO should have the UK flag. Maybe have both the national flag and state/province flag? TJ Spyke 06:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I personally think it's ok the way it is at the moment basing my opinion on other simmilar pages that list the flags like they are now, there is also the thing that Puerto Rico isn't a state so it's not directly part of the USA, and believe me there will be a lot of vandalism with all this flags if we remove either one like what happened at List of current world boxing champions‎. On the other hand I followed my advice and created a version of the page based on List of Current NBA Team Rosters , see here, so how does it look? -凶 06:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I know that is how similar pages are on WP, it just bugs me. Why is the UK so special that people from it don't have to use the UK flag? That test page looks good. TJ Spyke 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss this before the can of whoopass opened up! But o well, I like the flags, As for the UK, UK is not a country, UK is the United Kingdom, domain of the Queen, made up by a few countries and islands. In America, you have regions classed as states and you don't call them countries either. So I think there is a difference when you flag there. Might be interesting to have the USA flag followed by the State flag next to it to see. Btw, the groupings in the boxes you done, I don't like the boxes, looks horrible to me, it makes the page alignment look funny/not right to me. So I really wouldn't like to see each section boxed. Govvy 15:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The UK IS a country. Saying the UK is made up of different countries is like saying the US or Canada are made up of different countries. Regal/Taylor/Lalya/Finlay are all from the same country. England/Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland are only considered seperated in sports competitions, but then so are many other territories like Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands/British Virgin Islands, etc. A good compromise is to have both the country flag (US/UK/etc.) and regional flag (New York/England/etc.). Boxes can stay or go, either way. TJ Spyke 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

At least in Puerto Rico's case I know that is the rule, the two flags are always side by side. Let's just add the two and prevent vandalism and edit wars, the tables have a lot of space after all. I don't think we should do it on states though just Puerto Rico because it isn't. BTW I will be bold and add the tables tonight. -凶 19:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was never gonna start a edit war, just stating my opinions. I didn't mean just state, but also province/mini-"country" (UK). So Regal would have both England and UK, Cena would have both Massachussets and US, Benoit would have Quebec and Canada, etc. Not sure what we ould do for Mexico since I don't think the different states of Mexico have flags here on WP. TJ Spyke 20:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you when I said edit war I meant heavy anon vandalism, perhaps we should just use them for PR and UK, I doubt anyone will revert the USA flag for the Massachussets flag, but that is sure to happen with the UK and England. -凶 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Another problem. Kane has Spain's flag next to him. Thought he was born in Spain, is was due to his father being in the military. He was more than likely born in the hospital on the Torrejon Air Force Base, and since all US military bases, embassies, etc are US territories, he should have the US flag next to him. Nenog 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source for him being born on US soil (like an embassy or military base, provide it. Otherwise it would be considered OR. All we know right now is that he was born in Spain. TJ Spyke 20:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We know he was born in Madrid, Spain. We know his father was in the military and was stationed in Madrid, Spain. We know there was an US Air Force base in Madrid, Spain that was active when he was born. And anyone in the military will tell you that he would have been born in the hospital on that base instead of one in town.Nenog 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:OR, we can't assume that he was born at a hospital on one the military bases, that has to be sourced. He probably was, but we can't assume it. TJ Spyke 20:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion that in return for Burntsauce providing PW or a PW Editor a list of wrestling articles being stubbed (so the PW folks can devote limited resources to the articles), that the folks of WP:PW not reinsert removed information until it is properly sourced. I do agree that the policy as written differs from the way it's being put into effect, but, as Dusty would say, "It is, what it is." I'm doing my best to get the policy to reflect the way it's being enforced. That may be the best we can do right now. SirFozzie 04:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How about having the policy enforced the way it's been formulated instead of changing it because of a very overzealous pointy, very small minority? MPJ-DK 16:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at AN. I don't see it as a minority, sadly. SirFozzie 18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me restate that then - the way it's being applied to a minority of articles, the pro wrestling ones - There are thousands of non-wrestling articles that are not subject to the same strict rule - no matter how many people support it it's only noticably applied to pro wrestling articles. I'd be happy to mass blank articles on say Tom Hanks whenever someone isn't sourced - but I'd probably end up blocked indefinitly MPJ-DK 07:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't these actions violate wp:point? or at least qualify him as a disruptive editor?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 18:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys should let it go. Obviously this guy is close minded and he shouldn't be blanking pages without some warning, but it has been made obvious that a lot of administrators agree with him, so nothing is going to be done. Just keep a watchful eye out and source whatever he blanks in the future. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that all of the main body has gone. You can guess who did it..... Neldav 17:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Does it start with a "B" and end with "urntsauce"?Nenog

Well, unfortunately, yes. Neldav 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to add to that, he put this on Adonis' talkpage: "Although it has only been about 2 months since this was tagged as {{unreferenced}}, this article has been lacking in the reliable sources department for over two full years, since March 2005. Unreferenced material is to be removed from biographies of living persons, do not restore it without a solid source. Copy/pasting the text wholesale to the talk page is equally unacceptable, please use this link if you wish to see the material which was removed. Thanks, Burntsauce 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)" Neldav 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we know about it, so it isn't a big deal. Just add what was taken away from the history, and add some quick references. Kris 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I undid the blanking because Burntsauce's post on the talk page stated this "Unreferenced material is to be removed from biographies of living persons" which shows he didn't even read the article as Adrian Adonis has been dead for nineteen years. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Burnt should read the rules he lives by a little bit more carefully. I think this is evidence enough to contact an admin about, him just blanking articles with out knowing the proper rules. Kris 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the living articles that need sourcing: Amazing Red, Trent Acid, Thomas Couch, Brian Adias, Toni Adams, Matthew Bloom, Art Crews, Rick Cornell, Mark Copani and Chad Collyer. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Around 6:00 today I will be free, and I will try to source all of these then if nobody else has done so already. Kris 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you see any WWE pages that aren't sourced feel free to add them to my WWE reference list, and I will try and reference it. Neldav 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added sources for Amazing Red, so his article is back to the way it use to be. Kris 20:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I also sourced Chad Collyer too, but he could use for a few more. Kris 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any sources at all for Toni Adams, any help would be highly appreciated! Kris 21:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I added sources for Trent Acid. Kris 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Recreating an article for Maryland Championship Wrestling is on the to-do list. There is a pretty good article located here. Should the user be contacted and the information transferred into an actual article? Nikki311 18:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think it is notable enough for its own article, but it is very well done. I may be wrong though, but I just have never heard of this MCW before. Kris 19:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of MCW, but it doesn't seem that notable. Decent sourcing will be needed, if it's going to be recreated. RobJ1981 19:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I sourced Chris Benoit towards the end of April, and put it in as a GA-candidate. Unfortunately it's been failed, with this left on the talkpage:

Sorry, I can't pass this as a good article - mainly because there is too much information and is badly written. The section about his early career has no structure - it looks like random facts were just strung together, with no regard to proper paragraphs. The intro needs to have more information - it should provide a quick summing-up of the article, for someone who just wants to glance through for information. The body of the article doesn't need ot include every title bout he has had, I don't think - major feuds and non-kayfabe information is much more beneficial. Sorry, I'm failing this.--Macca7174 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

Personally, I think this user is wrong in some of the things he says, for instance, the main body - surely it does need every title win, it's a wrestling article. And I've seen longer wrestling articles than Benoit's, The Undertaker's passed through GA! Should I ask for this to be re-reviewed? Neldav 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted this under the original "shopuld we nominate" post but it got ignored, I think it still applies

If you are going to go after GA status I would recommend greatly expanding the lead in, adding at least an overview of the article and probably expanding it to two or three paragraphs. (See: Konnan, CM Punk Why John Cena failed). On that note the lead to The Undertaker needs great expansion as well before someone de-lists it. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

–– Lid^(Talk) 22:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did pass Undertaker based on the content of the article not the lead, either way I know that aspect is covered with Carlito wich is also a Good Article Candidate. -凶 08:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I really hate the tabled boxes, they look horrible and make the alignment of the page look terrible! Can we get rid of them please? Govvy 10:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "tabled boxes", do you mean the flag icons? If so then most sprts pages on here have them, by random how about the NHL Columbus Blue Jackets, the NBA Washington Wizards, or the MLB San Diego Padres? If it is indeed the flag icons to which you have heretofore referred. Darrenhusted 13:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the flagicons, just the horrible tables, boxes! Govvy 14:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The index box at the side? I'm not sure I'm looking at the same page as you. Darrenhusted 14:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Govvy was refering to this, which I totally agree with him on. It was a step too far. -- Oakster  Talk   17:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I missed that revsion, Govvy's right, those don't look right. Darrenhusted 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently become involved in a debate about the ECW Triple Crown Championship. This debate centers around whether or not the current ECW World Championship counts towards the ECW TCC. I honestly don't see why there is a debate, as it is a very simple conclusion. WWE recognizes the current ECW World Championship as the same title as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship that existed from 2001 and before. Wikipedia even follows that recognition on the ECW World Championship page. So right there, the dispute on whether or not it is the same championship should end. It is the same. I just provided two sources which confirm that. If there are still people who say it isn't the same title, I ask this question: The current WWE Championship is the same title it was when it was the WWWF Championship, is it not? It is. So that throws the "it's not the same title" argument out the window. Now, the second issue is whether or not the company that owns the title matters or not. Well, on the TNA section of the the Triple Crown Championship page, it lists Shane Douglas as a potential TCC. But, he never held the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in TNA. If that's the case, then how can he be a potential TNA TCC? The argument I've had given to me is that TNA owns the rights to the NWA titles, so it still counts. Well, WWE bought ECW in its entirety back in 2001, which includes its championships. So, WWE has all the rights to the ECW Championships, as well. So if Shane Douglas can be a TNA TCC without ever having won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in TNA, then the current ECW World Championship counts towards the ECW TCC, even though it can't be won in the original ECW. Now, that debate stemmed from whether or not Rob Van Dam can be counted as an ECW Triple Crown Champion. He was an ECW Television Champion and an ECW Tag Team Champion in the original ECW (much like Shane Douglas was NWA World Heavyweight Champion in NWA, not TNA) and he was ECW World Champion in the current version of ECW. Based on the evidence that I have provided, RVD should be added as an ECW Triple Crown Champion. L2K 14:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On the page ECW world championship title there is a name change in the list of champions, from 1994 to 2001 it goes under the title "Extreme Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship", and from 2006 it is called "ECW World Championship (World Wrestling Entertainment)", so the list of champions is delineated from when ECW was re-activated by WWE, and even Wikipedia recognises the difference. Darrenhusted

The title didn't drop the "Heavyweight" until The Big Show won the title. When RVD had the title he was called the "ECW World Heavyweight Champion". TJ Spyke 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we go again. WWE is a source, only if we want it to be. Oi. Listen pal, if WWE says it's the same lineage, then it is. Mshake3 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know. Triple Crown/Grand Slam championships generally refer to all the championships available at one time. Personally, I think it counts. But I'm sure the "source police" are going to come in and say "can you prove, with a source, that RVD is an ECW triple crown champion?" just like that did with JBL and the grand slam championship. Mshake3

JBL isn't a Grand Slam Champion, he's never won, and due to retirement never will, the IC title, so he's not a Grand Slam or Triple Crown Champion. The ECW title now is not the same as the ECW title when owned by a separate company, the talk page on the Triple Crown page shows that this was the consensus reached two months ago after two months of back and forth. If you want to find proof that RVD is a Triple Crown ECW champion then add the WWE.com link, for a start, to this debate (which is what I asked Prince Patrick to do two months ago before he conceded such proof does not exist), or if you have the ECW TV shows from last year then tell me the minute of the program when Joey Styles or Tazz call RVD an ECW triple crown champion, because a if the commentators have said it then I haven't heard it and as we currently have one editor destroying articles in the name of BLP then for all wrestling just a mention on TV will make it so. Just a link from somewhere saying RVD is an ECW TCC will be enough, but as he isn't then I don't think you'll find it. Darrenhusted 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

JBL is a Grand Slam Champion, the US Title counts the same is the IC Title. TJ Spyke 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, WWE nor PWI has ever stated such, so we cannot count it. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because WWE owns the rights to the title, does not make it eligible to a part of a Triple Crown Championship that died six years ago when the company died. WWE is a different company entirely from ECW, and just because they brought the trademarked initials back does not mean that the world title automatically counts towards the old triple crown. Different company entirely, so not the same Triple Crown. As for Shane Douglas, he should be removed from potential TNA Triple Crown Champions, as the same logic should and would apply to that. He didn't win the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in TNA, therefore he hasn't completed 2 parts of the Triple Crown Championship for that organization, since he captured one of the titles outside that organization, just as RVD captured the ECW World title in an entirely different organization than the original ECW. Not to mention, the topic is still obviously debated, with both sides obviously not convincing the other, so the page should stay worded as is, that RVD's status as an ECW Triple Crown Champion is debated. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. The ECW Triple Crown is winning the ECW World/TV/Tag Team Titles. Van Dam has done that. To say he is not a Triple Crown Champion is OR. I stopped checking the page because it became frustrating and didn't want to start an edit war with those who keep saying RVD isn't a ECW Triple Crown Champion when he IS. TJ Spyke 23:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to say he is a Triple Crown Champion is OR, since no reliable source stating he is has been cited. Not to mention, this goes back to my point above stating that neither side is obviously going to budge, so the page stating his status is debated should stay because, obviously, (as you can see from this discussion) it is. I do not see why that comment cannot stand as a compromise in argument where neither side will budge. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 23:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem (and this has been stated on that talk page before) is that neither site has any sources to back it up. We don't have sources to say that RVD is a TC champ and we don't have any sources to say he isn't one either. TJ Spyke 23:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative, if there is no source saying that RVD is a TCC then you have to assume that he is not. The page at the moment reflects that there is no source saying RVD is a champion so it should be left saying that he isn't. Darrenhusted 13:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Has the ECW Triple Crown championship ever been acknowledged by the WWE? If not, then it should be removed since JBL can't be added to the Grand slam champions as he has never been acknowledged as such. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Scorpion, JBL is not listed as a Grand Slam Champion he is listed as potential should the US title ever be acknowledged as part of the Triple Crown or Grand Slam, and the page states that because a couple of editor kept adding the US title to the grids on both pages and adding wrestlers who were not TCC or GSC in to the pages. Darrenhusted 13:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. A quick search on wwe.com only brings up an interview with Matt Cardona (now known as one of the Major Brothers) from February 2006, Cardona says "I’ve been training under Mikey Whipwreck, the ECW Triple-Crown Champion." [4] TJ Spyke 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This article was nominated a long time ago by the looks of things. Unfortunately, a user has gone and outright failed the article, based on a number of things:

Unfortunately it's a fail for now.

Improvements necessary for GA:

• Article needs a re-org. Article is way too strongly weighted towards the "History" section - in fact, the whole thing is History. I would suggest creating new top-level headings on major topics of relevance to the WCW and reworking much of the existing material into those. A good deal of the history sub-section could also go into a sub-article. (See National Hockey League, a GA, for an example of a well-organized article in a similar genre). This will be a major task.
• Writing is generally very good, but there is a nasty run-on sentence with comma misuse in the lead (first paragraph).
• Per WP:LAYOUT please put "details", "main", "see also" templates after section headings but before the text.
• A good number of paragraphs do not have any citations. Some have NPOV problems; for example "Another thing Bischoff may have failed to consider..." - an opinion like this is fine only if it comes from a reliable source. The "Decline" section is also full of opinions and analyses that do not appear to be sourced.
• "Image:Original-nWo.jpg" and "Image:Fingerpoke of Doom.jpg" need detailed fair-use rationales added to their description pages.

Improvements not necessary for GA:

• Some of the pictures are pretty low-quality. If you can find better pictures that would improve the article.
• Please move all ref tag cites after punctuation.

- Merzbow 08:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neldav 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User:JKrantoski has been effecting controversial page moves for a while now, normally moving articles to the current ring name of the wrestler. He's been warned on several occasions, but no action has been taken. McPhail 14:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Contact an admin, ask for a block, his talk page is nothing but warnings, I think he/she's been tolerated long enough. Darrenhusted 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps uploading images which are against copyright policy, think we might need to take action against him/her. I have warned before, it kind of has a sockpuppet feel to it also! I don't think him/her is taking any notice of what is on the talk page! Govvy 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)