Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Based on the suggestion of MrMurph101, maybe we should finally come up with a guideline for notability. A set of criteria that wrestlers/promotions/bookers/etc. have to pass in order to have articles. A few quick ones I think most people would agree with:

1. Anybody who has won the WWE Championship/World Heavyweight Championship (for wrestlers)
2. Anybody in the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame (for wrestlers)
3. Winning King of the Ring or the Royal Rumble (for wrestlers)
4. Winning the WWE Women's Championship (for females and Hervina :) )

My possible additions:

1. "Wrestled in 3 or more pay per view events" (main card only, not dark matches) (modern workers)
2. "Held multiple top belts in regional promotions" (Mostly aimed at pre-WWF takeover era wrestlers, but maybe can apply to more recent folks too, in areas like Australia, Puerto Rico and the like, where our knowledge might be more lacking) SirFozzie 17:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can be of help when information about Puerto Rico is needed, just leave me a message on my talk page if you need to find info about a certain Puerto Rican wrestler and I will find it. -凶 17:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with us discussing what we think is notable is that we, as a project, don't get to decide what is notable, Wikipedia does. The problem with notability is that some people want wrestlers to go by WP:BIO for atheletes while others want to go by WP:BIO for entertainers while yet others want to go by WP:FICT. If we are truly going to discuss the notability of pro wrestlers it should be done on the talk page at WP:BIO. Now, we could talk about it here to get consensus amongst ourselves, but that is not going to change the problems we are already experiencing. Theophilus75 19:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I know a project does not unilaterally decide what is notable but it still would be good to come up with notablity guidelines that deal with wrestling topics. The notability, of course, would have to conform to wikipedia standards. Editors on the project may intuitively know what is notable but reaching a consensus on written guidelines would help your case when it comes to those overzealous in deleting wrestling content. Once a consensus is reached you can take this topic to WP:Bio and other relevant places and make your case there.

The other issue you mention is the debate between whether a wrestler should be considered an athlete or entertainer. Well, they're both. I would suggest to consider the model of an actor and a fictional character. The wrestler would be treated like an actor and their gimmick the fictional character. Sometimes the wrestler is more notable, sometimes the gimmick is which sometimes is potrayed by different wrestlers(see Doink the Clown). Treat the wrestler him/herself like an actor and provide a bio of the person. If they portrayed a gimmick that was not very notable, (ie jobber, or below midcard) it can be mentioned in briefly in the bio. If the gimmick is quite notable, like the Undertaker for instance, it can have it's own article presented in a more kayfabe form. I know the lines between a wrestler and his/her gimmick is quite blurry sometimes but this seems a way to start. MrMurph101 23:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me link you are proposing two different articles (or sometimes several different articles) for each wrestler. One for the individual and one for each character they play. The problems with notability isn't just the WP:BIO, athlete or actor, but also WP:FICT (fictional character).

Notability isn't the only issue, there is also the issue of how the article should be written. Some people propose writing the career part of the article in kayfabe (so to speak) with the reader supposedly understanding it is in such. Others propose that the article should be written and detailed from a behind the scenes point of view (like Montreal Screwjob. Theophilus75 01:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Has there been a discussion about how to present an article(kaybfabe vs. real life) in the past? There may have been but maybe there should be another one, probably put on a project subpage, inviting editors on both sides of the issue to come to a consensus. I am not saying that there should always be two or more different articles. I would propose, start out with a wrestler, include him/her if they're considered notable first. The article can go over what gimmicks/personas he/she portrayed whether or not they're notable enough for an article. The Tom Hanks article probably mentions his character on Bosom Buddies but it is probably not a notable enough ficitonal character to have its own article but his Forrest Gump character might. If a gimmick becomes notable, it could break off into it's own article. Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character) could be an example of how this is applied. Although more rare, we could start with a gimmick and go in the reverse order. MrMurph101 01:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion of kayfabe description in biographical articles before, and, as far as I remember, we generally concluded that storyline descriptions in wrestler's articles are governed by the Writing about fiction guideline, which states that in Wikipedia we do not write from an "in-universe" perspective.

As for the notability guidelines, whether we're governed by the athlete criteria or the entertainer criteria, some are the same. For example, I think the rule about people making a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" covers members of widely recognized halls of fame, such as the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame. I think a significant presence on WWE television, and WCW in the '90s, counts as both the entertainer criterion "played a significant role in television" and the athlete criterion "played in a fully professional league, or equivalent competition". Personally, I think the athlete criteria are more of a stretch for wrestlers, and I think the WP:FICT guidelines don't really apply. Grey areas for me include "which indy promotions count as 'the highest level in amateur sports'?" and "Which 'world' titles count as 'significant recognized awards'?". - Geoffg 06:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to sockpuppet extraordinaire JB196's vandalisms, the following wrestling pages are locked until June 14:

Batista Bobby Lashley Booker T Edge Jeff Jarrett Konnan

Kurt Angle Randy Orton Rena Mero Rey Mysterio Rob Van Dam Shawn Michaels

Sting Tommy Dreamer Triple H The Undertaker Vince McMahon Xtreme Pro Wrestling

Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. Nenog 05:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a few of them, it's because he's registered several new sockpoppets (he even gave several people "smiley" barnstars and said they were from him (JB196). The thing is, I think he only vandalized the pages to get them locked on purpose. Geez, I wish Wikipedia could contact this guys ISP since he has had over a hundred accounts/IP's perma-banned. TJ Spyke 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles are currently unlocked. And he's using open proxies, so there's not much we can do with that (since we don't have his IP address). BTW, the account count is now up to 350 Sockpuppets. (rolls eyes) SirFozzie 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Possibly worth reading. Barber has begun referring to himself as "legendary", and boasts of possessing large numbers of IP addresses. McPhail 16:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A legend in his own mind, indeed. SirFozzie 16:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems proud that it took 30 minutes to block him this time. I replied to that thread on the other messageboard. Even the regular users there seem to think he is pathetic for being proud of being a troll. TJ Spyke 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great news everyone!! I've been working on Nora Greenwald's article for a couple of weeks now (adding sources and cleaning it up), and it just passed its Good Article review. We have a new Good Article! This just proves that it is possible, and I hope it gives everyone some hope. Now, hopefully it doesn't get delisted in a few days like The Undertaker did. Nikki311 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Nikki. You've done a lot of good work for the project. TJ Spyke 01:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He's listed as having held them 3 times, with the numbers after each of his partners actually adding to 4. I've posted on his talk page, but nothing's been done about it. Which is correct? 3 or 4? Koberulz 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

3. He only held the belt once with Kidman, i've fixed it. Maybe someone got it mixed up with Mysterio and Kidman's reign as the Cruiserweight Tag Team Champions. TJ Spyke 06:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this or not, but I just discovered that the page had been stubbed by our old friend Burntsauce a week ago. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to his old MO, delete all the content from an article because there are no sources, then go and stub the article. Once it's been stubbed a while he will go and prod it. - Theophilus75 20:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have restored some for now, the more difficult part is the have citation for the rest. Govvy 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the statments about his wrestling career are sourced in his OWW external source, and his personal life is sourced on his Myspace page. If anybody removes anything else contact an admin, because everything is source, nothing states you need several sources for each statement. Kris 23:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many ways to write TNA's NWA name (use of spacing/punctuation and writing the acronyms in full), many of these demonstrated in Wikipedia articles. Should we use just one or is it okay to keep all these variations? --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Official Press Releases for each 2002 PPV as posted on PWTorch list the company as either "NWA TNA" or "NWA Total Nonstop Action". Mshake3 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition, other NWA affiliated indys are listed the same way (NWA Midwest, etc) on nwawrestling.com. I guess we can agree that the two company names were NWA TNA and TNA Wrestling. Mshake3 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the Nitro/Dykstra tag team page for deletion [[1]]. First time I ever did the nomination, so tell me if I did it right or not. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  03:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to list it on the AFD page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 3, but otherwise you did it right. TJ Spyke 03:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While going through all my merchandise, I found two interesting books: WWE Preview 2003 and the 2003 Yearbook. What's funny is that in the first one, it states that the World Heavyweight Title was a brand new title, while in the Yearbook, it states that it split off from the Undisputed title. Gotta love it. Mshake3 16:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• The pages in question would make great references in the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) article. McPhail 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Sometimes, I think we become too reliant on internet sources, as it's the only thing we can instantly check for accuracy. Also, while reading the Hulkmania magazine from 02 or 03, there's a photo of him with a "Big Gold Belt", and it still has Jeff Jarrett's nameplate on it. This answers a question in the belt's trivia section. Mshake3 19:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I recently posted about Nora Greenwald becoming a Good Article. Well, now I'm having some issues that I need some help with. User:Summers95926, her self-proclaimed biggest fan, has been vandalizing the article by removing large chunks of it, saying that "Nora requests for it to be deleted." Whether or not she really does is not the issue. All the information is from interviews and articles, and if she wanted to keep her "private life private" like he claims, then she shouldn't have said mentioned it in the first place. Anyway, he also keeps adding tags to the article, claiming it needs clean-up, it is unencyclopedic, and he also tagged the entire article as unreferenced. Clearly it is not, or it would not have been made a good article. Is there anything that can be done about this. Can I report him for vandalism somewhere? Thanks for your help. Nikki311 23:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read some of the conversation with him, it is here. He also threatened me here (Read the edit at the top of the screen) Nikki311 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't, put a note on the talk page that consensus among the editors of this article is, at this time, to discuss all changes on the talk page before making them on the article itself. I'll mark the article on my watchlist, and if I see any unhelpful edits I'll help reverse them. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I reported him to the incidents notice board just now, so maybe that will help. Nikki311 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if he is telling the truth about Ms. Greenwald contacting him/her, it doesn't matter. There are other people who have said they don't want an article on them on Wikipedia (Stacy Carter doesn't want anything on her anymore and even convinced OWW to remove her profile from their site). TJ Spyke 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Nikki311 01:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in this AFD to see another example of User:Summers95926 at work. S/he clearly has little knowledge/respect for Wikipedia policy and I would advise slapping a warning on the user if s/he continues in the current manner with Molly's article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Sandy Barr article is up for deletion. You can comment on the article's Afd Discussion Page. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the Professional wrestling aerial techniques article that just survived an AFD is up for a deletion review. The discussion can be found here. Nikki311 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week has not been updated in almost a month, maybe it should be? Kris 02:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Seems that once I left this project the collaboration idea went south, even the Harlem Heat collaboration hardly did anything and a lot of people seem to misunderstand what the point of the collaboration was, I'd say you guys can probably chalk this up as a failed experiment in WP:PW cooperation. MPJ-DK 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who actually saw the PPV, would you agree with me that the tagline for the event is "Extreme Rules?" And if not, please explain why. Mshake3 04:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because WWE never said that? Take a look at TNA PPV's, you can see the tagline just by looking at the poster. Same thing with WrestleMania PPV's. You can't just come up with a tagline from nowhere, that is OR. TJ Spyke 05:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I sure hope you watched the PPV, where the opening said, and I quote, "WWE presents One Night Stand: Extreme Rules." Or perhaps the poster itself, which says Extreme Rules on it. Or how about all the sponsor spots leading up to the PPV, with the Extreme Rules tagline at the bottom of the screen? I better hear a better excuse than "well all the matches are extreme rules, which is why it says that, which means it's not a tagline." Mshake3 05:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember that some third party citation might be helpful. I did add TV.com listing for the event, but it was removed. I feel at least some third party source should be on the page and it's a pretty good link to help confirm what you have on the page. Govvy 11:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it, but only because it didn't add anything the other source didn't. All the TV.com article did was list the matches (not even the results), and WP:EL says "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." TJ Spyke 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Should this be split into other categories: Category:Xtreme Pro Wrestling. As of now: it's a place for XPW staff, wrestlers and championships. The category seems to be just a dumping ground for anything XPW related, which is bad and too broad, as most promotions have split off categories for the correct content. A championship category, and an alumni category should be used for most of the content, in my opinion. What does everyone else think about this? RobJ1981 04:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I say do it. Nenog 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're making new categories for Xtreme Pro Wrestling remember to add Category:Xtreme Pro Wrestling in the new category page so they become a sub of it. Govvy 11:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MOST importantly...remember to source it good or someone will come along and Afd it. - T-75|talk|contribs 14:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't source categories! :/ Govvy 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was half asleep earlier, I didn't pay close enough attention. - T-75|talk|contribs 16:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put all the championships into their own category. Nenog 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, just because a wrestler accompanies another wrestler to ringside one time, that doesn't make him a manager! Can we please set some standards over this? Mshake3 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Who specifically are you talking about? Nenog 04:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess it was the A.J. Styles article that angered me. Christian Cage is not a manager. Mshake3 05:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't even tell you how many times I've removed Super Crazy and Candice Michelle from Mickie James' article and vice versa. It really is annoying that people don't realize tagging together one or two times doesn't equal being someone's manger. Nikki311 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that just being allies doesn't make them a manager. For example, Vince and Shane McMahon should not be considered Umaga's managers because they are nothing more than allies (with the McMahon's getting Umaga to help them). TJ Spyke 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Following some recent precedents of deleting and/or redirecting articles, I propose the following should be redirected to List of professional wrestling slang:

1. Angle (professional wrestling)
2. Card (professional wrestling)
3. Dark match
4. Over (professional wrestling)
5. Spot (professional wrestling)
6. Stable (professional wrestling)
7. Swerve (professional wrestling)
8. Vignette (professional wrestling)

The above articles are mostly mere stubs that lack sources. Almost all of them consist of only a definition with lists of examples. In my opinion, they should all be redirected to List of professional wrestling slang, where a couple of sentences defining the meaning of the word would suffice. Long lists of examples of wrestlers who have made "vignettes" or who have "swerved" is really not needed. What does everyone else think? Should these articles be cut down and redirected? Nikki311 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, most (maybe all) should be in 1 article. If they do get merged, I will try to fix as many redirects on PPV articles (when it comes to dark match) as I can. TJ Spyke 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm all for it...the sooner the better. Maybe if we police ourselves better and get rid of stuff like this (and of course source articles), maybe we'll get the likes of Burntsauce and others off our back....or is that just wishfull thinking? - T-75|talk|contribs 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Or in the very least, by cleaning up our articles, WP:PW might finally begin earning some respect. Nikki311 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling that no matter what we do there will be some people that look down on us just because it's professional wrestling. TJ Spyke 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, but I think it is still worth the effort. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikki311 and Theophilus75 are absolutely right. This is the reason certain well-respected editors are not members of this project. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to strike them off of the list as I get around to merging them. Nikki311 16:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

that a wrestler's dead wife is fair game for inclusion in his article, but the simple birth name is not in another's? Because one threw a bitchfit? Nosleep1234 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically. The webmaster of Nigel McGuineess's website basically complained to Wikipedia and filed an official request to have it removed. So the admin deleted the edits that put his name in the article, even though his real name is PUBLIC info. He made his name publically available when he trademarked his ring name (all you have to do is search for "Nigel McGuiness" at the USPTO). I disagree with the decision and feel that the information is fair-game because he willingly let his real name become public info. TJ Spyke 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

McGuinness filed an OTRS ticket complaint. I have e-mailed the wikimedia foundation a few times since then on this topic and the decision is based on that there are pretty much no reliable secondary sources for his name. The only source is a primary source which also lists other personal details. If his name is ever consistently listed over many wrestling web pages then its free for inclusion as its no longer an issue for us specifically. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A government website (which is PUBLIC information) is not a primary source. A primary source would be Nigel's website. TJ Spyke 00:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The USPTO is a primary source, Primary source#Types of primary sources under social documents. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All we need then is for something like Pro Wrestling Torch or Wrestling Observer to include the trademark filing, and then use that as a secondary source. Maybe I will e-mail some sites asking them to publish the info, it's BS that we can't include his publicly available real name just because the web-mistress of his site complained to Wikipedia. He shouldn't have trademarked his ring name name if he didn't want anybody to know his real name. TJ Spyke 00:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked this before, I think, but I'll ask it again. Doesn't being respectful of his obvious wishes, fall under WP:BLP, in particular the Presumption in favor of privacy section? - Geoffg 07:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. He has willingly let his name be made available in public records (Trademark filings are freely available, the same way celebrity arrest records are). WP wouldn't be a news source or tabloid either since it is not the first site to use it. There are many famous people who have said they don't want personal info in WP, but it doesn't matter if the material is from a reliable secondary source. How many celebs would prefer not to have their embarrassments on here (like being admitted into a drug rehab program)? So the info is fair game if one of the more well-known wrestling sites posts his name. What I really hate is that the admins won't even let us put on his talk page how people can find out his real name. TJ Spyke 08:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

To me this article keeps getting abused, it's suppost to be a biography of the Iron Sheik, yet for some reason there are IPs continuely putting what I would call non-biographical content in the article. My first suggestion is, shall we put this article on sprotect, my second query, content like this Brian Blair Conflict is not needed. I am maybe suggestion a consensus on the talk page to remove certain peices of content which you are more to see in some low life magazine. Govvy 09:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

My take is that the Brian Blair situation is the most interesting thing that Sheiky has been involved with since losing to Hulk Hogan in '83. However there aren't any decent sources for the issue. The YouTube videos are copyright violations and shouldn't be mentioned. If some newspaper articles were to come up mentioning the debacle then the whole BRRRREAK his back and THEN fuck his ass to make heeem HUMBLE would be a great addition. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, because the Youtube video is a copyright violation, means it can't be a source? Why not? Because it is a copyright violation, it is not correct? 69.249.168.9 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is a copyright violation it puts the wikipedia in legal jeopardy, and it's not worth being sued over. Bmg916^Speak 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys seem to be misinterpreting copyright; the youtube videos can be used as sources but not as if it was hosted on youtube but as videos itself. We are not in any legal jeopardy making reference to the videos as the copyright applies to the hosting of the videos, not the fact they exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So you don't think it should be removed? Because it portrays a bad image, it's not exactly neutral content either!? Govvy 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Just because it portrays a bad image does not mean it is not neutral content. Having it on there with proper sources is just saying, "This is what happened, come to your own conclusions." Now, if someone were to put in the article that, "John Doe is a flaming asshole who hates Americans and wants to kill babies as can be seen by this video found on YouTube.com." Then that would not be neutral content. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Youtube videos which are copyright violations cannot be used as sources. Check your policies. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the videos themselves (not hosted anywhere but the videos) are sources. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't use them from YouTube. I can't find it at the moment, but WP says you can't use videos from YouTube if they violate copyright (which all WWE/WCW/ECW/pre-1990 AWA/WCCW footage does). Lrrr IV 05:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Konan Big article should be put up for deletion. He is non-notable, and the article is plagued with grammar errors. 69.249.168.9 01:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should perhaps create an infobox for wrestling championships. And if so, what info should be included. I was thinking things like: first champion, current champion, date first issued, number of recognized champions, number of recognized reigns, which promotion its affiliated with, etc, etc. Thoughts? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really necessary. Most of our championship articles aren't so long that they need a quick reference. — Gwalla | Talk 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea as Wikipedia seems to prefer that articles have infoboxes, and I'm in favor of infoboxes as well...but hey...that's just me. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

An infobox could also eliminate the need for the statistics sections as you could easily have "Longest reign" and "heaviest champion" be columns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody keeps removing the image on the Rodney Begnaud article, saying it is unneeded. So according to him all pictures from all biographies should be removed? Guys, just keep an eye out on this one, if he keeps removing it I will contact an admin. Kris 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is not what he is saying, what he is saying is that the picture you put up violates WP:FU #8. - T-75|talk|contribs 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What Theophilus75 said. Unless it's a free image, images dipicting living people aren't allowed. -- Oakster  Talk   21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAIRUSE. If you keep adding the image you're likely to find yourself with a ban. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think WP:PW should have a Board of Directors of some sort, which all are an authority above the rest of the newbies. Where people who actually can make a mature decision can actually do what's right. Instead of having an 8-yearold computer geek signing in, and ruining the WWE Roster page or the Triple Crown page, or writing in the WWE SD vs Raw 2008 page that he would like to see Christian Cage. We should give titles to the contributors. Lex94 04:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Wrestling Cabal? ;^) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... no. Completely undermines wikipedia as a whole, see also Wikipedia:Esperanza. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Figure that I should inform you guys at WP:PW that I’ve been prod’ing some articles that in my eyes do not warrant an article on Wikipedia. If you disagree you’ve got five days to address it and establish notability for the articles. Note If the prod is just removed without any attempt at establishing notability then I will put them up for AFD, so do everyone a favor – if you want to keep the article show notability please.

Big Mouth Loud, Blood Sweat and Ears, The Viet Cong Express, UWA Tag Team Championship, UWA Hardcore Wrestling, UWA Canadian Championship, UWA Light Heavyweight Championship, Al DeRusha, Al Diamond, Andrew Thomas (referee), Andrew brannan

I’m looking at the pro-wrestling stub lists so there will probably be more prods to come, I will be sure to inform the project when I prod a wrestling articleMPJ-DK 15:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know...that is much appreciated. I think, as of right now, all of those articles were rightfully prod'ed. Nikki311 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all, just cause I left WP:PW doesn't mean I want to work against the project in any way. MPJ-DK 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I had to add this article The Party Crashers - it's either a hoax or a couple of backyarders MPJ-DK 17:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Should the Oldest Champion list the age at the end of the champion's reign or the beginning? --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Are we going by the oldest person to win the title or the oldest to hold the title? If it's win, we list how old they were when the won the title. If it's oldest to hold the belt, we go by how old they were when they lost the title. Lrrr IV 00:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

For the youngest, the day he won it. For the oldest, the day he lost it. And I say that it's "oldest to be champion", since that's how the articles are worded.

Is it necessary to have fictional categories in wrestling articles? I know that the wrestler is fictional if they are playing a character e.g. Kane, The Undertaker, The Boogeyman etc. but the article is actually about the person. Glen Jacobs' article has categories of fictional fire victims and fictional arsonists, which is saying that Glen Jacobs is fictional. - Deep Shadow 03:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is necessary, because there is not a seperate article for the character that Glen Jacobs plays, and the character's information is all included in his article. Since the two are one, the categories should probably stay.--76.104.252.229 04:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Accidentally didnt log in before signing my comment.--ProtoWolf 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I remember a couple of editors at one point (can't remember who or when) suggesting different pages for wrestler and gimmick. I do not support this really but the gimmick vs reality issue is problematic. Wrestlers don't fit into actor or sports categories and there doesn't seem to be any other profession from which to draw parallels. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb should be that when a wrestler and character are one, such as Y2J and HBK, then there is no problem, but when you consider Glen Jacobs, he was Isaac Yankem, then Fake Diesel, then Kane, so a distinction needs to be drawn. The same for Undertaker, and later Kane, when they has been portrayed by two wrestlers a separate page about the gimmick may be needed. Doink being the easiest example as he has been played by about eight different wrestlers it's a no brainer to have his page be just abour the gimmick, and not really about the wrestler behind the gimmick. But I wouldn't say that Dean Malenko needs two pages because Dean Simon is a different person to the gimmick. But the category would only include a few gimmicks, UT, Kane and Doink being the most obvious, and maybe the Boogeyman. I would have included the (Ultimate) Warrior but he is his gimmick now. Darrenhusted 12:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Mask is another one. There's quite a few people though like Vince McMahon, the Iron Sheik and Hulk Hogan who are indistinguishable from their gimmick, therefore no problems. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Since when was Kane/Undertaker played by more than one person? Koberulz 07:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The fake Undertaker played by Brian Lee in 1994, the Imposter Kane played by Drew Hankinson last year. Lrrr IV 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So they weren't, in other words. Fake Kane is a different character to Kane, Fake Undertaker is a different character to Undertaker. They wouldn't be on the same character page, as would be the case with Tiger Mask, Black Tiger, Doink the Clown, etc. Koberulz 15:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Essentially Kane and Undertaker have a kayfabe history and back story which does not acknowledge the fact that Glen Jacobs was Isaac Yankem DDS, nor that Mark Calaway was "Punisher" Dice Morgan, and I think that could be on a separate page, unlike say The Rock which is merely a nickname and a persona, as opposed to a separate character. Darrenhusted 17:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I prod’ed the following non-notable wrestling referees – I think it’s been discussed here plenty of times that a referee needs to do more than just his job to warrant an individual entry on Wikipedia, at best on a ”List of referees” article or something.

Basil DeVito, Dewey Larson, John Finnegan, Gary DeRusha, Marty Rubalcaba, Robert Briskoe, Todd Sinclair

Feel free to show me that these people are notable enough for Wikipedia, I just don’t see it MPJ-DK 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If any of the prods are contested I will be more than happy to go for an AFD to give editors a chance to demonstrate their notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good to know, I figure that the only way for people to start to take wrestling articles in general serious is to weed out most of the cruft-y ones, slowly but surely one by one MPJ-DK 17:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rubalcaba is more notable since he is a referee in WWE and has been there for awhile. Lrrr IV 03:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking notable referees you're talking the Hebner brothers, "Dangerous" Danny Davis, Bill Alfonso and maybe Marc Curtis/Brian Hildebrandt. I can't (offhand) think of any others worth a page. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick Patrick and Charles Robinson are easily notable. Patrick was the nWo referee and involved in several angles. Robinson was also involved in several angles, including one where he starting teaming up with Ric Flair (even wearing Flair's robes and being called Little Naitch). Also, Mark "Slick" Johnson. Lrrr IV 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not notable by WP:BIO standards. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not by the WP:BIO guideline, but I'm sure it would be notable based the the policy of WP:V. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the book Slaphappy: pride, prejudice, and professional wrestling and I wrote an article about it. I wrote it pretty quick, so I'll have to add and make changes to it over time. Please read it, and contribute what you can as you are wrestling fans. I don't think it will link to any specific article, but I think it definitely ties into the WikiProject.

If you have any questions or comments, let me know.--Screwball23 ^talk 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a nicely written article. Can't comment on whether the book is notable or not, and it does need to be sourced like you admitted, but at least it's well written. Lrrr IV 22:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A relatively new user move the page to Latin American X-change without any prior discussion, now the name of the stable is Latin American Exchange the LAX initials are to make a pun on LAX, so can a admin move it back where it should be? at the moment that location is blocked by a redirect. -凶 23:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

According to TNA's website the name is Latin American X-Change. Stephen Day 00:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I see they changed it, it was labeled as "Exchange" until about a month or so and they were labeled as such when they were tag champions, they probably realized that the initials didn't match the name. I should really visit official sites more, no problem then. -凶 00:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, TNA uses both. For example, Konnan's profile uses "Latin American Exchange": http://www.tnawrestling.com/roster/konnan/index.html. I have changed it back since they have used this name far longer and still do. I also removed an edit where someone said that "Latin American Exchange" is the incorrect spelling (which I laughed at since TNA are the only ones who decide how to spell it). Abbreviations don't mean much, "Los Angeles International Airport" is abbreviated LAX as well. Lrrr IV 00:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is why I wanted an admin to move it instead of me doing so over redirect, that way we could avoid a conflictive discussion.-凶 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If a company names their championship in a certain way, and this naming is used on the chryon graphics, PPV promos, wrestler entrances (both verbally and visually), DVD box art, and on their website (with the incorrect naming appearing much less often), shouldn't the former be the official name of the article, or at the very least be allowed to have ONE FREAKIN MENTION? Mshake3 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And where have they used "Undisputed WWF Championship" on graphics, PPV promos, or wrestler entrances? Because here's where they've used "WWF Undisputed Championship" or just plain and simply "Undisputed Championship" (both verbally and visually): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the same way the WCW World Heavyweight Championship was often called the "WCW Heavyweight Championship of the World" and the NWA World Heavyweight Championship the "NWA World's Heavyweight Championship". Even the WWE Intercontinental Championship used to be sometimes called the "Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship". Also, if you change the names to "WWE" (since the company changed names during the titles "existence"), the results show them about equal. There are not really 2 names since they are describing the same thing. Lrrr IV 03:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the Undisputed Championship initially didn't even have an official name. It was just referred to as the Undisputed World Championship because the holder of the belts was referred to an/the "undisputed" world champion since technically he held two World titles simultaneously. It wasn't until the WWF decided to move and stop making references to WCW and the Invasion storyline that it "officially" became the WWF Undisputed Championship. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it looks like I finally got my one freaking mention. And then some. Sigh. Mshake3 02:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'll respond to the YouTube clips later since the site is blocked here. I hope they're more than clips from the unification match, which doesn't really dispute my claims for the title name from the period after that through May 2002. Second, the belts weren't "unified", and named, until after the invasion angle, and after WCW was dropped from it's title name. Again, doesn't really dispute the era I'm referring to. Royal Rumble 02, No Way Out 02, WrestleMania X8, and Backlash 02 all show the correct title name in the ways I've mentioned above. In addition, why would there be an Undisputed WWF Championship and Undisputed WWE Championship redirect (not created by me) if that was never an official name? Mshake3 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would assume the redirects are the for those who search for it in the wrong order. Darrenhusted 19:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

And perhaps there's a reason people search for the name in that order? You don't see this rearrangment with other titles. Mshake3 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects are for people who might type those in. "WWECW" redirects to "Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)", even though it's usually just people bitter that the old ECW is dead who call it "WWECW". Also, WWE continued to use the WCW name for the title until the title unification match, the Armageddon 2001 match was even announced as for the "WCW World Championship". Lrrr IV 20:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You people have no memory. The night after SS01, Vince rechristened the WCW Title as the "World Championship", and that's how it remained until the unification at Vengeance. Where does it say otherwise? Mshake3 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE themselves call it the WCW World Championship in their Vengeance 2001 results page: [20]. I am looking for the YouTube video. Lrrr IV 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Box Art for Vengeance 2001, renaming of the title, Rock vs. Jericho at Vengeance]. It's the "World Championship" folks. Don't dispute it. Mshake3 22:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

They still called it both, and even today they call it the WCW Title. Don't dispute it. Lrrr IV 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So how many times are you going to post the unification match, or the Hardy/Taker ladder match, two matches that, as I've said many times, fall outside of the date range that this paticular naming applies too? Jericho vs. HHH at WMX8, HHH vs. Hogan at Backlash 2001. So what do you have to say against this? Mshake3 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you arguing about such a silly issue? The name was "WWF/WWE Undisputed Championship". We should be improving wrestling articles, not arguing about the name of a temporary belt that existed for 9 months. Lrrr IV 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I don't want articles to be inaccurate? Maybe I'm sick of users who control articles and refuse change? Especially those who are 100% wrong and refuse to admit it? Now, you can refute your side of the argument, or step aside. Mshake3 00:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't wrong though. I'm sure many people are sick of users who want their opinion to take precedent of accuracy. I am not wrong (unless you are saying WWE/WO/PWI/Wrestling-Titles/etc. are wrong too). Lrrr IV 00:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer me this: If I put Undisputed WWF Championship in the article when refering to 12/01-05/02, are you going to take it out? Mshake3 00:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. [21] [22] [23] [24] -- bulletproof ^3:16 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I AfD'ed the minor European stable Swiss Money Holding because it fails WP:N and WP:V etc. Feel free to voice your opinion here: Swiss Money Holding AFD MPJ-DK 07:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In my quest to clean up the wrestling content on Wikipedia I’ve prodded the following articles today.

Francisco Ciatso, Thomas Farra, Jeff Velocci, Chris Rombola, Russell Simpson (wrestler), Trenesha Biggers, Keith Walker

All for the same reason –Having signed a developmental deal with the WWE is in itself not enough to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. None are notable and in my view none of them would survive an AFD, but then again I could be wrong. MPJ-DK 08:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently added a few articles dealing with joshi puroresu and I've had second thoughts about a few of them in terms of notability. In particular, I may have been premature in creating an article on the recently formed SENDAI Girls' Pro Wrestling promotion. Do any of the more experienced members of the community have any advice on judging whether a particular wrestler or promotion from this area of pro wrestling has achieved sufficient notability to be included? I'm eager to help out, but I don't want to waste time writing stuff that will end up getting deleted-maybe my time would be better spent improving existing articles? Pure Josh 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's commonly agreed that hall of famers deserve articles. If you wanted to write an article on Devil Masami or Dump Matsumoto (both members of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame), that would be great. - Geoffg 06:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm that experienced of an editor, but I'll give you my advice anyway. It takes a few months to get used to all the different rules of wikipedia; and more than that, it takes at least that long to adjust to the added expectations placed upon the Pro-Wrestling project by certain editors outside of the project. If you can find enough reliable secondary sources to support a new article, then you shouldn't have to worry about the notability. If you don't have enough reliable secondary sources then it is going to get challenged for WP:N and likely be put up for Afd. As far as working on existing articles, I think that is a great idea. There are hundreds of wrestling articles out there that don't have any adequate sources (yes, I said any), and these articles really need to be improved upon. Working on existing articles will help you figure out how to properly source and footnote an article, as well as copyedit, wikify and properly write an article (especially if you have people review your improvements). - T-75|talk|contribs 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Today I added sources and slightly expanded the Akira Hokuto article and also sourced the articles on the WCW Women's Championship and WCW Women's Cruiserweight Championship. There are plenty of joshi pages that need help with being sourced, expanded, and generally improved. I'm going to work on some more of them as I have time. I know pages on Mayumi Ozaki, Dynamite Kansai, Aja Kong, Chigusa Nagayo, Manami Toyota etc. could all use work and at some point pages should be created for Devil Masami and Dump Matsumoto (both WON Hall of Famers). Pure Josh 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I’ve been looking through the stubs sections and I see a bunch of WWF/WWE Shows that just seem to me like they’re not that notable for anything other than it being “A WWE Show”. I’d suggest merging a lot of these shows into one page like say “Minor WWF Television Shows”.

I’m not talking about Superstars of Wrestling or WWF Challenge, I’m suggesting that the following be put into one page.

• WWF Saturday Night
• WWE Fanatic Series
• WWE Xperience
• WWF Action Zone
• WWF Excess
• WWF Friday Night's Main Event
• WWF Sunday Night Slam
• WWF Wrestling Spotlight

I could do it myself but it’s a wrestling related move and it involves a bunch of pages so I figured I’d suggest it here rather than just doing it MPJ-DK 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like FNME was basically just RAW that aired on Friday night due to being pre-empted thhose 2 weeks. Action Zone could probably stay if improved since that lasted for several years, WWE Experience was little more than a recap show and can be merged, Excess can probably be merged since it didn't last long, Fanatic Series is just the name of what they use to air various specials and can be merged, no opinion on the others. Lrrr IV 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Xperience was deleted, or at least redirected to The WWE Experience, as it was an early name for the show that airs on Sunday nights on The Score Television Network in Canada (this according to WON). It's moot because both articles are out of date (Ryan Paton is no longer with The Score, and it's hosted by either Sid Seixero, Derek Snider, or Glen Schiller, and in the international Experience, Romero is no longer with WWE). Anyways... kelvSYC 04:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The undisputed title was nothing but the WWE Title with an "undisputed" claim due to the demise of WCW. For all intents, they are the same championship and should be in the same article. Mshake3 20:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For

1. Lrrr IV 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
2. 凶 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
3. T-75|talk|contribs 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
4. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Nikki311 22:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Odin's Beard 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
7. bulletproof ^3:16 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Hornetman16 20:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Against

Comments

• I think the only reason it has an article is because it has a different name. We don't have an article for the IC/US unified title, the WCW/WCW International unified title, or other unified titles. Lrrr IV 21:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also supporting this merge is that at the time early on, it was known as the Undisputed WWF Championship, when indicates that it's the same title, with an extra qualifier. Mshake3 21:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• I think a section detailing how and when the championships were unified can do, maybe you can add the table with the undisputed champions on the page as well. -凶 21:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Basically the same info is already in the WWE Championship article.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And yet, when I posted a template proposing the merge, you quickly removed it with "merge discussion ended with oppose", despite it being a discussion from a year ago with no decision reached as the topic switched to the whole WHC/WCW title thing. LameMshake3 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Just following the consensus. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus. No agreement was reached in either discussion, which was nearly a year ago. Therefore, it would make sense that the discussion be brought up again a year later, now that we've formed new opinions. And as you can see, public opinion has certinally changed on this issue. So I don't see why you were so quick to reject this discussion when a)no decision was originally reached and b)you yourself agreed to the merger (and you sure merged those articles in a hurry). Even if a "no merge" decision was reached last year, why would you, someone who doesn't agree with it, be so quick to uphold it? Mshake3 01:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Just upholding Wikipedia policy my friend. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
            • So why did you erase my first proposal, but allowed this one? Mshake3 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Oh my bad I was looking at the request move proposal you made before. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
                • Oh that. Yeah, I realized that the title's final name in 8/02 was what the article is called now, so my bad there. And here I am thinking you were just being a jerk. Mshake3 01:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • There you go, problem solved.-- bulletproof ^3:16 01:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the following for deletion:

• X-Treme Wrestling Federation
• United Championship Wrestling
• The Wrestling Federation
• Paulding County Alliance Wrestling
• Championship Wrestling League
• Lethal Wrestling Alliance,
• Incredibly strange wrestling

Nenog 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot of questions as to some regulations on Pro Wrestling on Wikipedia.

1. Why can't matches announced on tv, for ppv or tv, be added to wrestlers articles?

2. Why are pages like John Cena and recently Vince McMahon always locked for some reason?

3. Why are all additions to pages removed by the likes of The Hybrid or BMG? They are not the bosses of Wikipedia. I thought that wikipedia was avalible for anyone to edit.

4. Trivia that is very important to articles is always removed but useless information is added in by the bucket load. ie. John Cena's crowd reactions at WM 22 and 23, ONS 2 and during his feuds with Y2J Angle Edge HHH HBK and many others, yet the color of his shoes is added on a regular basis. Cena's audience backlash and the 5-6 moves of doom are allways deleted but they are both very important and are mentioned on tv nonstop whenever he is on tv.

Something has to be done about these problems or a lot of people looking for information are gonna be left in the dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.121 (talk • contribs)

In order of your questions

• Long standing policy from this wikiproject, it was enacted before I registerd so I don't know,
• Various reasons. McMahon's article is locked because a bunch of editors and IPs were addin/removing/changing stuff so rapidy after WWE decided to "kill" the Mr. McMahon character and the article was no longer considered stable. An edit war was occuring and full protection (where no one can edit) is used to enforce a cool down period (see WP:PROTECT). John Cena is only semi-protected, which means that IP's and accounts less than 4 days old are the only ones who can't edit it. Semi-protection is usually done when an article is getting vandalized from multiple different IPs or newly registered accounts. Some articles which get lots of attention are sometimes put on long term semi-protection because they usually get vandalized within minutes of being unprotected.
• I would have to see examples, but both of those are good editors and I doubt either would remove an addition unless they had a good reason (like they were removing something that violated policy or guidelines).
• Usess stuff like crowd reastions are not notable in PPV articles and are removed. They have nothing to do with the PPV itself. Lrrr IV 08:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
2. Already been answered.
3. There is a project membership list, most members have pages on watchlists to keep an eye on pages that get vandalised, or which have anon accounts add nonsense to, reverts by WP:PW members or editors of longstanding are treated better than those of IP editors or vandals, applies to all pages.
4. Your last paragraph seems garbled, Trivia that is very important to articles is always removed but useless information is added in by the bucket load. ie. John Cena's crowd reactions at WM 22 and 23, ONS 2 and during his feuds with Y2J Angle Edge HHH HBK and many others, yet the color of his shoes is added on a regular basis. Cena's audience backlash and the 5-6 moves of doom are allways deleted but they are both very important and are mentioned on tv nonstop whenever he is on tv.

The reactions at WM22 and WM23 were important as the crowd doesn't normally boo the top babyface, especially when he is WWE Champion, I have no idea about "the bucket load.", nor "the color of his shoes", from your questions it seems you want to edit the Cena pages, but can't because you are not registered. As for the "5-6 moves of doom" and them being "allways" deleted, I can't say I have ever heard JR or the King mention the "5-6 moves of doom", so they must be OR or NN. Darrenhusted 23:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Since a few of us have ideas on how we should display the draft results, I'd figure this would be a good place to show them off. Then we can vote. Mshake3 18:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1:

Match and Draft Results
Edge beat John Cena via countout	The Great Khali and Runjin Singh to Smackdown!
CM Punk beat Carlito	The Boogeyman to ECW
Umaga beat Balls Mahoney	King Booker and Queen Sharmell to RAW
Bobby Lashley beat Chris Benoit	Chris Benoit to ECW
MVP beat Santino Marella	Torrie Wilson to Smackdown!
The Miz beat Snitsky via decision reversal	Chris Masters to Smackdown!
Candice Michelle beat Kristal	Bobby Lashley to RAW
Batista beat Jeff Hardy and Elijah Burke in a triple threat match	Ric Flair to Smackdown!
Randy Orton won a Battle Royal to win 2 draft picks	Snitsky and Mr. Kennedy to RAW

2:

RAW	SmackDown!	ECW
King Booker and Queen Sharmell	The Great Khali and Runjin Singh	The Boogeyman
Bobby Lashley	Torrie Wilson	Chris Benoit
Snitsky	Chris Masters	N/A
Mr. Kennedy	Ric Flair	N/A

I don't see why the matches should be listed, the tables on the brand extension page are about the draft picks themselves. I see no reason to change the current table. That is my opinion anyways. TJ Spyke 23:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The match results can go, but the table MUST be in pick order. There's no reason to completely ignore the order. You can't worry about consistancy when dealing with two different types of drafts. Mshake3 01:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Runjin Singh?----La Parka Your Car 02:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Khali's translator. He said his name the week he made his debut (or the next week, I forget which one). TJ Spyke 02:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And his article has been deleted and blocked so no one can recreate it. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because some idiots kept creating bad articles for him. If someone can create a GOOD page for him on a subpage (like "Lrrr IV/Dave Kapoor" and then showed it to an admin, they would unblock the article. That is how it has happened before. Lrrr IV 04:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original purpose in this topic: I think the matches should be listed because it was how it was decided who got the next pick!!-- Hornetman16 20:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the way it works with the match results, and since the matches determined which brand got the pick, I think it's a good idea to include the info. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Check these out:

• Owen Hart and Yokozuna
• Owen Hart and British Bulldog
• Diesel and Shawn Michaels
• Chris Benoit and Chris Jericho
• Chris Benoit and Dean Malenko
• Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero

Should we AFD them? I think there are preceedents. Biggspowd 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Owen & Yoko are more notable than Rated-RKO.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Diesel and Michaels might be notable enough to keep, as well. I'm really not too sure about the rest of them. Nikki311 20:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. A lot of that info could be covered in their respective articles. Nikki311 20:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find any reliable secondary sources for any of the teams so that they will pass WP:V? If the sources can be found, then by all means keep the articles, if not, then Afd them....or better yet, tag them as missing sources and leave it so Burntsauce and the like have something to do (just kidding). - T-75|talk|contribs 21:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Without a doubt the Benoit and Guerrero article can be deleted, as it has a "Match history" section showing they had a grand total of four matches. The Benoit and Malenko article can also be deleted as the ECW stuff (aside from the win/loss date for the tag titles) is covered in Triple Threat, the WCW section is covered in Four Horsemen, and the WWF stuff is covered in The Radicalz. Nenog 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The first 3 are notable, as they were regular tag teams who were together for quite some time. The last 3 could be deleted, Benoit/Jericho were not even a regular team, Benoit/Malenko really only teamed on a regular basis when they were in The Four Horsemen, Benoit/Guerrero can be more than covered in The Radicalz article. TJ Spyke 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If the first 3 are notable then reliable secondary sources need to be found for them. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Owen and Bulldog ended up joining Bret during the Austin feud then they split after the montreal screwjob, Owen and Yoko are notable as are HBK and Nash, the other three could go. Darrenhusted 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the first three are notable enough, considering the obscurity of some of the other tag teams that have articles. The other three can go. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked, Michaels/Diesel already have a article: Two Dudes with Attitude (which was their team name). Maybe the new one should be merged into the old one. TJ Spyke 01:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think if someone thinks we should keep them then they need to look for reliable secondary sources or we will be looking at an Afd anyway. I'm in favor of keeping articles, but I think this project spends too much time either fighting Afd's or working on articles that end up deleted through the Afd process because articles are not properly sourced. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the bottom three for deletion. Nenog 07:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like TJ Spyke (and a few of his friends) are the only ones strongly against them. Recent example: SummerSlam (2005). Legend vs Icon was the tagline for the Hogan/Michaels match. It was mentioned alot before the event, and is even mentioned on the DVD case. Considering event taglines are always listed, why is there such a need by a select few to remove match taglines? Match taglines are mentioned just as much (if not more in some cases) as event taglines. I think this should be an all or nothing case, being picky about keeping one and then always removing the other is a bit hypocritical and point of view. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 04:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the only person I see adding the SS one if you Rob. I don't see why match taglines matter at all. Why do you think it's an all or nothing situation? TJ Spyke 05:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And the only ones I've seen remove the taglines is you (once in a great while: one of your friends). If you don't think match taglines matter, why do event taglines matter then? Taglines are taglines, both are equally important (and advertised about the same as I stated before). If one stays, the other should be there too. One extra line to several matches isn't harmful to the article. Overall: only a few big matches have had taglines, so it's not like we are talking about adding 100s of notes just to one article itself. One note to several event articles isn't harmful in my opinion. Just because you seem to hate them: isn't a good enough reason to leave match taglines out. RobJ1981 05:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, if a tag line was used to hype a match there is no problem with it being included in the article. The Hogan/Michaels match is a good example, as well as the recent Lashley/Umaga match-up (Battle of the Billionaires). - T-75|talk|contribs 06:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Taglines hype matches and events, so both should be included with no problem. But a select few revert just about any match tagline additions. RobJ1981 19:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Select few", you and I both know who you are referring to. So why not just say it? I don't use "one person is the only one adding it", I specifically say it's you. TJ Spyke 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE has published a championship magazine which traces the history of all nine active championships. It is on newsstands now price £4.50 (in the UK), ISSN 1057-4476. The question would be why is this important, and the answer is simple, within its 102 pages it sorts out a few issues.

1. The World Championship is the same belt as the WCW Championship which Chris Jericho won to unify the titles.
2. The current ECW Championship does have the same title history as the one which expired in 2001 with Rhino and the old ECW.
3. The Light Heavyweight title was merged with the Cruiserweight championship in 2001.
4. The current US title is the same one created in 1975 under the NWA.

It also confirms that the IC title goes back to 1979, the World Tag titles started in 1971 and the WWE title started in 1963. In terms of title histories this is the published source we have needed, and it clears up two major controversies. Darrenhusted 17:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We already kbew about numbers 2 and 4, but for the other two, we've been going by the WWE website title history, which has the belts seperate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been debate over point 2, and websites can change. Of course this could be just a load of retconning by WWE, but its better than nothing. Darrenhusted 17:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we should continue to go by the WWE website history, which recognizes the WCW and World Heavyweight titles as being seperate and also traces the current Cruiseweight titles lineage back to the WCW cruiserweight as opposed to the Light Heavyweight. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The Light Heavyweight Title was merged with the Cruserweight title, so yes, the linage should follow the Cruiserweight title with a notation that the Light Heavyweight Title was merged into it. As far as the WCW Championship and the World Championship, I think it would be better to go off of a published (in print) piece of material rather than the website. WWE.com (in my experience on Wikipedia) is not considered a reliable source (and I'm sure it doesn't help now that they are reporting on it that Vince McMahon is dead). - T-75|talk|contribs 17:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is any reason to merge the two pages. Simply add a note to the Heavyweight title that it may trace its lineage back to the WCW title and a link to that belts history. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: is Kurt Angle listed as a two time "World Heavyweight Champion?" Mshake3 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Might I add that I noted above that WWE already has two printed pieces of material that state both sitatuations as being correct. Mshake3 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The bulk of the pages cover the title changes for the main two titles, when a champion wins the title for the first time a legend is listed, for the win on the 13/1/06 there are two legends, one listing the title as vacant and the other listing is as a gimmick match (the gimmick being the battle royale), no where does it list this victory as being Kurt Angle's first with that title. (I do also own the 2003 preview, in it it also doesn't state the LHW and CW merged.) Darrenhusted 17:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the plan was for the titles to merge (as announced on air by Foley), but X-Pac's injury prevented the match from occuring. So does it say anything regarding Angle's WCW title victory in 01? Mshake3 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No. It covers the World title from when HHH won it, but states "...GM Eric Bischoff resurrected the WCW Championship, renaming it the World Heavyweight Championship and simply handed it to Triple H." It doesn't cover any defunct titles, just the current active ones. Darrenhusted 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they belt resurrected the physical belt itself and not the championship. WWE didn't replace the belt design right away (the original one he gave Triple H didn't have the WWE logo). TJ Spyke 22:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It also confirms that the Grand Slam is made up of WWE/Tag/IC/Euro titles and states that "Randy Orton was the most recent WWE Triple Crown winner, when he and Edge took the World Tag Team title in 2006", thus confirming the Triple Crown's existence. And as for the Big Gold Belt, on the same page where Bischoff's title resurrection is mentioned it states "Ric Flair was the first individual to hold the belt when it was the NWA title." tying the lineage of the World Heavyweight Championship back to the NWA, as well as WCW. Darrenhusted 00:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really. IMO, it just ties the Big Gold Belt itself and not the championships themselves. TJ Spyke 01:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of articles lack sources with this project, this is the best thing the WWE could have published from the point of view of Championships and champions as it ties all the loose ends up, right here in black and white the World Championship is the same as the WCW and was held by Ric Flair as the NWA title. The Grand Slam is what we have said it is, only this is not OR this is a WWE sanctioned publication, Randy Orton is the latest Triple Crown champion, so the TCC is not OR. There are acres of talk pages and arguments which are ended by this magazine, the ECW title is the same as the one Shane Douglas held in 1994, that is not longer and opinion it is a WWE fact. The match is Fatal Four-Way, so that is that edit war finished. This is a huge help for the project, articles can be sourced using fact not OR or opinions. Darrenhusted 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is the most recent publication from the WWE and states what their view on the subject is, which I believe should indicate what we should also have here on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what we think or what we have previously had here on wiki. The book/mag is the most up to date source and we should go by it. - T-75|talk|contribs 07:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My thought exactly, for want of a better word, this is the WWE titles bible, and it will help solve so very long running debates, and it was only published 3rd June. Darrenhusted 11:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity since I haven't seen the book yet, does the ECW World Title history start at Shane Douglas or Jimmy Snuka? The List of ECW World Champions list is now the only one of the current title histories without sources and the recent stance in WWE.com has me in circles. -- Oakster  21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The title starts with Shane Douglas throwing the NWA title down. I'll go to ECW title page and check the list against what is in the book.

I was looking at World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) and viewed the source at wwe.com, and the source says the title traces its lineages back to the WCW and NWA World titles. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed at Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). See [25] Triple H is listed as the first champion. There is no question that the WHC is related to the WCW and NWA titles before it. That has already been established. However, it doesn't share their title history.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a point where it doesn't matter what concensus was, the source listed (wwe.com) states that the title shares its lineage with the WCW and NWA World Titles. Just as Ric Flair was the first "WCW World Champion," Triple H is the first "World Heavyweight Chamption." The name of the title was changed, but as wwe.com says, the title lineage traces itself back to the WCW and NWA World Titles. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Before you misinterpret things any further let me just make this clear, lineage and title history, are two very different things. Lineage is ancestry, confirming that the title is the successor to both the WCW and NWA championships. Title history specifically refers to the champions who have held the title (not belt). Because the WHC's title history and the WCW WHC's title history is clearly not the same, the World Heavyweight Championship is a new belt created from the legacy of the previous two titles. This has already been made clear in the article.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But this confirms that the title HHH was given is the WCW/NWA title, just with a new name. Darrenhusted 12:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the reason why WWE doesn't list former WCW/NWA Champions in the World Heavyweight Title's history page is because the title was renamed, then why would WWE list former WCW Light Heavyweight and WCW Cruiserweight champions in the history page of the WWE Cruiserweight title if the championship has been renamed multiple times throughout it’s history?-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that Category:French professional wrestling promotions, Category:Irish professional wrestling promotions, Category:Italian professional wrestling promotions, and Category:German professional wrestling promotions should be combined into Category:European professional wrestling promotions? Each of those four categories only has one promotion listed under them. Nenog 01:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason to keep them seperate, I don't see why not. - T-75|talk|contribs 15:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Nikki311 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, if a match is announced on a PPV commercial, you can't add that to the article. In fact, doing this is apparently considered "vandalism" around here.

Who writes these stupid rules anyway? Mshake3 02:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read it? If it's one from the company itself, it's OK. It's these local commercials (like the one from the cable company) that aren't allowed. Also, it's not BS since it's meant so that others can verify it. People can't verify "I saw it on a commercial", but they CAN verify if it was announced on TV or WWE/TNA's website. TJ Spyke 02:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying is that on occasion, a cable company will create a commercial, and pull a match out of their ass, and say it'll happen. Now as far as verifying, didn't you once revert an edit to Lockdown because "I didn't see the PPV." Mshake3 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember (not saying I didn't, just that I don't remember doing it). Yes, sometimes cable companies do advertise stuff that isn't official in any way, it's meant to get people to buy the PPV. Companies have been doing it for decades. TJ Spyke 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

BS. I'd like to see proof of that. No way a local market announces matches to a PPV without being told the information from WWE. Just stop controlling articles and consider all information in the future. Mshake3 02:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE probably gives them the information yes, but they may give it months ahead of time, and as we know in a matter of days, storylines can change, and therefore upcoming PPV matches, so sometimes it's best to wait until WWE makes an official match announcement. Also, saying I heard it or saw on my local tv or radio station fails WP:V. Bmg916^Speak 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So..... because the card is subject to change, we're not suppost to include it? Lame. I thought it was called "Announced Matches". And if proof is shown, like say a video of the local ad, then that should be enough. Mshake3 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems like another clash between WP:CRYSTAL and our project kayfabe policies to me (the kayfabe policy prevents announcing SD title changes as though it was "future event" even though it's taped in the past deal). People have been taking up issue between how the two apparently clash. I'd stay out of the argument, though. kelvSYC 04:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, Vengeance is advertised as "night of the champions" and even features Bobby Lashley on the poster holding the ECW title, next to Edge and John Cena, now, Mshake3, what is wrong with the poster as of today? Bobby Lashley isn't ECW champion, so it's not possible to include an ECW title match even though most cable companies will have Bobby Lashley ECW champion in their press releases from WWE, and even though any house shows advertised for the day before or after will be listing Bobby Lashley ECW champion on their advertising. Even though WWE or TNA (or even UFC) have announced a match doesn't mean it will happen. Darrenhusted 11:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, did the local adverising say that "Bobby Lashley will defend the ECW title?" Look it up. The only thing announced thus far is that every title will be defended. Before Monday, that would have been Lashley defending. So before Monday, the article should have said "ECW Title: lashley vs. tbd". Because that is what had been announced. Mshake3 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been announced that every title will be on the line at Vengeance, I do agree with part of Mshake3's logic here. We should put, for example, as of right now, "Intercontinental Title: Santino Marella vs. TBA". As for the above, Mshake, if a local ad is shown and can be verified, sure, I don't see why couldn't include that then. Unless of course it said something to the effect of "Chrisitian Cage vs. Kurt Angle", then we would definitely know the ad was outdated. Other than that, if the ad is verifiable, I don't see why we couldn't add what it says to the article. Bmg916^Speak 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me state my opinion on a couple other things. Last year, the early PPV ads said that DX would be reunited at Vengeance. However, they didn't say they'd be wrestling, and a regular appearence isn't notable, so a match couldn't be listed in the article. Bad Blood 03. The PPV ad said it would be Goldberg vs. HHH. Obviously, that never happened. However, until it was said otherwise on cable TV, that was the announced main event, and it should have been in the article at the time. No Way Out 2004 said it would be Brock vs. Eddie. Under these current rules, despite being an official commercial, we couldn't add it to the article because no contender had yet to be determined in the on air storyline. Remember, it's not a spoiler if WWE is showing commercials promoting the match. So what I'm saying is that if they announce match early, then until said otherwise, it's going to happen, and should be noted as such. Mshake3 17:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with the man.If it's announced by WWE EARLY, even though it's subject to change it should be there despite what the policy says!-- Hornetman16 21:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is that if someone can't verify the source immediatly, then they simply assume that it's false (and vandalism). Mshake3 21:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Like so... [26] -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted a goddamn video of the event. If that's not proof, I don't know what is. Mshake3 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You posted a video yet for some reason you managed to miss this? [27] [28] -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why people don't take this project seriously!«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, we're all stubborn. We'll cut our noses off to spite our faces (or however it goes). As for those images, it's graphical placement. I'm not going to get into a screencap war. All this shows is an alternative naming to the official term, mine. And yes, ring announcers and box art graphics released that year count. Mshake3 21:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So just because an announcer would say Heavyweight Championship of the World does that make it the official name for the World Heavyweight title? Just because Michael Buffer calls Bret "Hitman" Hart, Bret "Hitman" Clarke does that make it his official name? [29]-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, no. However, when the ring announcer says it, combined with when that wrestler's entrance graphic says it, when the promo screen says it, and when the box art says it, and ALL of them say the exact same thing, then yeah, I count it. What Howard Finkel says is not a personalized way of announcing if it stays consistant with everything else.Mshake3 21:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say that all WWE/WWF titles are referred to with the Company Name then Title Name, I've never known it be the other way round, and I wouldn't rely on box art as box art can quite easily be changed to retcon something. In this case the policy being followed is accurately reporting what happened, I don't know why that is a big problem, let's not end up with another entry on here [30]. Darrenhusted 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

People are changing box art just to list an alternative naming to a championship? **bangs head against desk**. Mshake3 01:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, example, after the whole WWF to WWE debacle, the WM18 game was released for GameCube, the box art says WWE and they use the WWE scratchy logo, however in the game (programmed months before) every title is referred to as WWF, the box was changed but the game wasn't. WWE and notorious for slight edits to PPVs and this includes changing box art to match, but they are also prone to spelling mistakes, and on some coliseum video releases whole matches have been listed wrong, and some even missed off, and in rare cases some have reported the planned card, then changes have happened on the night and the box art hasn't reflected the change. Darrenhusted 12:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Would someone like to deal with this rather large walled garden please? See Special:Contributions/Cwmoneybags for full details. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just AfD it, Hack? It looks like a simple vanity project. Darrenhusted 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted, but there's that many articles to AfD and I'm slightly busy right now. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those articles in addition to all the articles related here XCW Pro Wrestling & No Limit Pro Wrestling are part of what makes the wrestling articles seem crufty & waste of space. MPJ-DK 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've prodded the Professional Championship Wrestling article as a possible vanity article about a non-notable wrestling company that fails WP:COMPANY. Bmg916^Speak 16:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to prod everything on {{PCW Titles}} and {{PCWTX}} as well, plus the usual "title reigns by x" articles that have been created as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I've placed a prod on all related articles that did not already have one based on failing [[WP:V]. I am one who would rather keep articles around, but we need to properly source them, and if we don't police ourselves others will. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the guy removed all your prods! :/ Govvy 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked them out, and it looks like still all have their prod. - T-75|talk|contribs 23:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

PROD was removed three times, it is now AfD at this page [31]. Darrenhusted 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have also added two templates by the same guy [32] and [33], hopefully this will be the start of a clear out of these crufty pages. Darrenhusted 02:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All related articles are now grouped together. Darrenhusted 12:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE says on Raw that every championship will be defended on Vengeance. Seems like enough of a reason to list every match, no? Mshake3 20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Wait until they are either announced as being defended, or the event happens and they were defended. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Darrenhusted 22:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does absolutely no harm to list Santino Marella vs TBA, Cade+Murdoch vs TBA and so on. An official announcement on Raw backs up all the title matches, so all the "champion vs TBA" should be in the article. It's not crystal balling at all, as it was announced all titles would be on the line. RobJ1981 22:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE said Cryme Tyme would be getting a title shot at Survivor Series and we all know how that turned out. Well, we don't because no one really cares about the RAW tag titles...but that's something else entirely.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I hearing right, trying to predict the matches on a PPV which hasn't happened yet is not WP:CRYSTAL. There are two of each program before the PPV, that's a lot of time for injuries and back stage politics to decide that not every champion deserves a match. Plus the ECW title is vacant, any one of the other titles could be vacated by the time of the PPV. Can you not just wait a couple of weeks? There are hundreds of articles which need work, why waste time on trying to predict matches which haven't been announced, and in the case of the ECW title is TBA vs TBA, I'm hoping TBA wins! Darrenhusted 22:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not looking at a crystal ball when they say "Every title will be on the line." That's a fact. Mshake3 00:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE cannot be trusted for their own match announcements, even though examples have been given of cards being changed in the past you aren't accepting the consensus, which is to add matches when they are announced firmly (not a vague idea of all titles) or when they have happened (most PPVs tend to add a match on the night), making predictions or guessing at what may or may not happen on a PPV is against policy, and not just of this project. Darrenhusted 01:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You should get into politics. I'm not going to keep arguing. All I know is that you have the worst logic I've ever seen. Feh. Mshake3 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add stuff that has been announced, then Ric Flair vs MVP (US title) and Chavo vs Yang (CW) have been announced and are listed here [34], better than TBA. Darrenhusted 23:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 matches have been officially announced, the WWE Title match and the World Heavyweight Title match. Anything else is a spoiler (which isn't allowed) or rumors (also not allowed). As for listing matches, we don't list matches that have not been announced, this has always been project policy. TJ Spyke 23:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying there's a slight chance the Women's Championship, won't be defended at the PPV? Mshake3 01:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance the ECW title won't be defended, nor the Tag titles. Darrenhusted 01:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though WWE aired a commercial saying "these champions" will be defending their titles. Mshake3 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously at an advantage as here in the UK SD! has just finished and the two above matches were announced. Although I am with you on the whole spoiler and rumour thing, but here in the UK we now know four of the matches. As there are nine active titles Mshake3 is pushing to list the IC, TT (both) Women's and ECW title matches with TBA, which I am not for, and which is against policy. Darrenhusted 23:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said "2 matches in North America". That's one of the reasons we wait for the US airing, since it is also what WWE does (notice that they never add what happened on SD until it airs in the US/Canada). People need to realize we don't add unannounced matches. We know that the Royal Rumble will always have a battle royal, but we don't add it until wrestlers start getting announced for it. TJ Spyke 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I should also mention that a commercial just aired, once again saying that every title will be on the line, including showing images of every champion. So it appears that the only problem you all have is that I'm "predicting" that the other matches are one on one. And if you have a problem with that, well that's just sad. Mshake3 01:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Mshake3, add what you want, but you cannot say that you are not aware that anything that is not concrete will be reverted. Darrenhusted 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This project is officially a joke. To have WWE say every title will be on the line, and with your response of "we don't know if that's really the case" shows just how pathetic the guidlines and policies of this project are. Mshake3 02:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mshake, we should be following the Boxing and UFC card format and simply include "Card subject to change". It's not a crystal ball when the card matchings have been announced, or even partially announced, if it's through reliable non-rumour spreading sources. Kayfabe has its limits and we shouldn't be encouraging a double standard of both stating the encyclopedia doesn't adhere to kayfabe while simultaneously arguing points against upcoming matches because of kayfabe. The reason the "announced matches" policy was added was because wrestling articles were ballooning to ridiculous sizes due to week by week postings and thus the announced matches added to this. It's become outdated and the policy needs fixing, not two feet on the ground "we can't change out position." WP:CONSENSUS is important here. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This dude that commented before me had a great idea....Why not add them and put "card subject to change" and I alson agree the policy needs updating.-- Hornetman16 06:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the "card subject to change" note. I still think Women's champ Melina vs TBA, Tag champs Cade+Murdoch vs TBA (and so on) is just fine for the article. It's not crystal balling: WWE has announced several times on shows (and I'm sure the website says it as well), all titles will be on the line. Why in the hell is, vs TBA... so bad? I see no problem with it, as WWE has confirmed it and announced it. The same goes for the whole nonsense with taglines (which I don't think is in so called "offical project policies/guidelines"). Also, I think non-title matches at PPV's needs a change. Why must we ignore the fact the champions are wrestling at a PPV, because the title isn't on the line? The ring announcers and announcers don't do it, they clearly say it's a non-title match. People can look at articles to see who was the champion at the time of a PPV non-title: but that's besides the point. Wrestlers are champions, even if the title isn't on the line. Non-title should be listed, period. A few extra words in articles wont do any harm, and would help them out. But anyway..I agree as well: these policies need to change, as people take them too seriously and control articles with them. RobJ1981 06:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If we're not going to list matches because injuries, backstage politics, and changes in creative direction could result in a different card, why bother listing any matches until after the PPV? If listing every champion vs TBA is a violation of the crystal ball policy, then so is listing the WWE title open invitational, and the WHC match. Batista, Edge, Foley, Booker, Cena, Orton, and anyone else involved in either of those matches could get injured. Ergo, it's not a certainty to happen. Ergo, it's crystal-balling. IMO, neither are examples of crystal-balling, they're listing announced matches. All have been announced, and all are subject to change. Koberulz 10:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC) You know what, fine, do whatever. But with TBD listed it gives an opportunity for vandals to keep changing them to names and trying to guess the matches, or for Newbies to fill the remaining PPV pages with TBD vs TBD. So long as all those above who stated their wish to have TBD on the page have it on their watchlist so they can revert any vandalism then I ain't gonna protest. Darrenhusted 12:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

At No Way Out 2006, it was MNM vs. Matt Hardy and a mystery partner (aka TBA). By your logic, you couldn't list that match because vandals would attempt to guess who the partner was. The point is, screw the vandals. It's going to happen no matter what. We should just be concerned with keeping the articles as accurate as possible. Mshake3 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracias for the permission!-- Hornetman16 17:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've course, I didn't know we needed 100% approval from everyone. The more you know. Mshake3 17:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I added Card subject to change to the Future PW template. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It also has to do with the fact that we don't know what type of matches they will be. If they say "Santino Marella will defend the title in a ladder match", then adding Santino vs. TBA wouldn't be a problem. TJ Spyke 19:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Good excuse, but the TBA is still fine. The match stipulations are announced right away at times, and then other times: it's not. Who is to say Ric Flair vs MVP will get a stipulation or not? We can't just crystal ball and say "Flair vs MVP might get a stipulation". As stated before: all titles on the line has been announced, so that much at least should be in the article, with no excuses. RobJ1981 19:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes all the titles will be on the line, but the actual matches have not been announced yet. Fine, just add in the header that all titles will be on the line, it can be removed later (after the PPV). TJ Spyke 20:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

From the general future sports event template "This article or section contains information about a future sporting event or team. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the event approaches and more information becomes available." The sports project allows speculative information while we are debating whether to allow information that has been repeatedly announced as fact. It is irrelevant if they have no opponent's because that means every Mystery Opponent match ever would need to be removed from PPVs. Adding the matches isn't in violation of any policy and is supported by the claims by the WWE itself. For all intents and purposes the "TBA" matches are announced matches. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter if the sports wikiproject don't care about their articles by allowing rumors (which are NOT encyclopedic) to go in articles? TJ Spyke 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Speculative in this context means announced fights that have yet to occur such as the way as a "card subject to change". WWE has announced currently that every championship will be defended and that's the facts as we know it right now. Whether they change this in the future is not upto us to decide if we should or should not include it, the WWE says every championship is being defended thus that's what the article should be reflecting. –– Lid^(Talk) 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You don't want us adding rumors to articles. WWE says every championship will be defended, but you remove the listing of every match, because they're rumors? Mshake3 21:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Who said that? No, I liken this situation to the Royal Rumble. We don't add the rumble match until wrestlers have been confirmed, just like we shouldn't add any matches here until they are confirmed. Take a look at WWE's website, do you see a bunch of TBA matches? No, they also only list the 4 announced matches. TJ Spyke 21:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is NOT WWE.com. This is Wikipedia. If we followed the model of WWE.com, we'd be reporting on the death of Vince McMahon. Second, "we don't add the rumble until wrestlers have been confirmed?" Another lame ass "unwritten rule" where nobody knows the origin, and the vets don't want to change it. That's another "rule" that needs to be redone. Now, if WWE.com don't want to list four TBA matches, that's their problem. Nine championship matches are confirmed for the PPV. End of story. Mshake3 21:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So you choose to vandalize the page over and over? There have been 4 confirmed matches and adding anything else violates WP:V (so adding them could be reverted for that reason too). It's not a "lameass rule", it's a good rule that has helped the project out and no reason to change it just because someone starts bitching about not getting their way. Also, stop saying that BS on the Vengeance page about their being a consensus here to add them when it's obvious there is no consensus to add unverified matches. Since you know adding those violate WP:V, it can and will be considered vandalism to add them back in. TJ Spyke 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

How the heck is it vandalizing the page when there is a reliable source, the most reliable source possible, stating that there will be those matches? For crying out loud this is the dumbest freakin' discussion I've seen on this page. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're the only one disagreeing, as the only one who agrees with you has said to go ahead and change it. Decisions might not be determined by a democracy, but when it's one against the rest, then the majority is the way to go. Mshake3 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are 2 people thinking they should be listed (Rob and shake) and 2 people who think they shouldn't be (Darren and TJ). Lid just thinks they should be mentioned (which the article does in the header), and Kobe doesn't say one way or another. I don't see any consensus. I don't really care, but I am leaning on the side of verifiability (which means waiting until a match is announced and thus can be verified). Lrrr IV 23:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say, this conversation has made more turns to the ridiculous than I've seen anywhere in a long time. WWE is a reliable source on reporting what is going to happen at any WWE event. It is a well known fact (and almost always in the small print) that any WWE card is subject to change. If the WWE says "All titles will be defended" then there is no reason why we can't have the article show that all titles will be defended...as long as we have a source that says so. I don't see why some are so concerned about this. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently there has been a discussion at WP:FLC as to whether List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame should be promoted as a Featured List. Currently, there is one objection that has not been dealt with. That is, should the inductors' names be included on this list, or should they be omiited. One user, Shudda.nz, does not believe so and has not withdrawn his/her objection from the subpage, while all other editors in the discussion believe that Shudda's objection is unwarrented, as they believe the inductors' names should be included. I request further comments from WP:PW in order to try to reach a consensus on this list.--十八 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[35]----La Parka Your Car 03:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We need some comments.----La Parka Your Car 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed content from these unsourced articles. If someone would like to prod them, feel free. [36]----La Parka Your Car 04:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• All have been prodded, I'll AFD them if the prod is removed without sources being provided MPJ-DK 07:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TV2007 is trying to separate Mark Calaway from The Undertaker by changing the article to be just about the gimmick. I have already made 3 reverts and stated why the article is titled The Undertaker but they won't listen. Apparently I own the article. They're also saying they cleaned the article but even afterwards it was still a mess. Got to love newbies! :P - Deep Shadow 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The user above has shown that he wants ownership over articles and incivility. His edit summary has been "leave the article alone". He's also referring to me as a "newbie" which isn't very civil. The article was called Undertaker and I have a right to make the changes to be about the Undertaker and not about EVERY SINGLE match the guy has had and not so much about Mark Calaway. That needs to be on a separate article. TV2007 11:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You must seek consensus before doing so. There have been many talks about separating gimmicks from wrestlers and the answer has always been to keep them merged. - Deep Shadow 11:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you want an article that's just about The Undertaker, go to Personas of The Undertaker. - Deep Shadow 11:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deep Shadow admitted even admits himself that he's acting defensive with me and is using bad faith (referring to my corrections as antics), right here [[37]]. As for your comment, anyone can change the article now but you can't. That's what wikipedia is. If you see a change you don't like and it's not vandalism and something that you think is accurate, you can add it or change, but you really can't tell me, 'leave it alone', call my edits antics, refer to me as a newbie, threaten to report me. It was all uncivil. You can't even accuse me of being a vandal either really. Article says Undertaker so I changed it. Someone else may change it back and they have a right to do that, but I am not going to tell them to leave it alone and threaten to report them and everything you did. [You got defensive and it may hurt sometimes to see your hard edits removed, but that can sometimes happen on wikipedia TV2007 11:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Newbie is not a derogatory term. It only is if it's spelled incorrectly. I called your edits "antics" for lack of a better word. I already explained the "leave it alone" summary. The report is because of you are acting against consensus. Also, I explained to you why the article is titled that way. - Deep Shadow 11:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things 1. Such a bold change requires discussion on the talk page first, especially as the topic has been discusses before and consensus has been to leave the articles of the wrestlers and the individuals as a single entity (both discussions have taken place on The Undertaker specifically and all wrestling articles). 2. TV2007 you are one revert away from WP:3RR and should cease reverting the article for now. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I am not going to revert the page again. Thank you Lid :) More than anything, it was Deep Shadow's behavior that was my problem TV2007 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I said exactly the same thing as Lid did in point 1 but you didn't listen. Whether someone says it politely or someone says it differently, it's still the same thing.

As for "my behaviour", I did try to explain myself but to no avail. Saying you have a "problem" with me is a personal attack, more so than anything I was claimed to have done to you. - Deep Shadow 12:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in DS's behaviour, however I do see a problem with a Newbie who cuts huge chunks out of a page and calls it "cleaning up" and then tries to get in to an edit war with a respected and established editor, and then acts civil to other editors and makes remarks about "behaviour" by the editor who was reverting vandalism. Darrenhusted 12:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

guys, enough. It's done! TV2007 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone needs to just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass in situations like this one... Bmg916^Speak 17:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

lmao! :D I agree with Bmg916. Loved that drop the stick article by the way TV2007 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be at Deuce and Domino? The on screen graphic for the team is Deuce & Domino or Deuce and Domino I believe. I don't think I've ever seen Deuce 'N Domino used. The & symbol certainly doesn't mean 'N (if that's the case of why the team is at that article). RobJ1981 12:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the spelling on the titan tron and probably the entrance graphics. Mshake3

14:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deuce 'N Domino is how it's spelled in their entrance graphic, and how Tony Chimel pronounces it. Yes, their titantron says Deuce & Domino, but Stevie's titantron still says Steven Richards. BBoy

Yeah, Richards is odd. Both his TitanTron video and the entrance screen graphic still have his old ring name "Steven Richards", even though the ring announcer and commentators use his current ring name "Stevie Richards". WWE uses "Deuce 'N Domino", "Deuce & Domino" and "Deuce and Domino". A search of wwe.com shows the latter two are far more common though. Lrrr IV 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The wording in tonight's TNA Road to Slammiversary special would indicate that the TNA Champion crowned this Sunday would be the title's first champion, as opposed to the third, with Cage and Angle coming before. At the same time, however, the final video package will show every former World Champion of the TNA era, and that included Angle.

Just something to think about. Mshake3 04:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that TNA itself doesn't know what they will do regarding the title. Also, TNA said on the Road to Slammiversary that Rhino will team up with Senshi, while on iMPACT (and on TNA's website) they say he will team up with Chris Harris. TJ Spyke 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)