Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

I suggest all wrestling title page's should should have a image of the title belt just the belt not somebody holding it and a image of the current champion so please could somebody just do it please if so thanksKTsuka (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Not all titles have fair use images, so we get images of people holding that title belt, as it is the closest thing we have. Unless you have a fair use image of the belt upload it if not then it will remain as it is.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is free use images. If an image exists that can be used without infringing on copyright, Wikipedia rules say that it must be used instead of a copyrighted picture. In many cases, a picture of someone holding the belt (or even a current or foreign champion without the belt) is the best that can be done with a free use image. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

With WWE belts, somebody could buy one of the replica belts WWE sells and take a picture of it. It should be a picture of one of the real replicas, not one of those cheap $30 toy ones like the one at WWE Championship. The problem is that the replica belts are pretty expensive, the deluxes ones (the ones that are the same size as the real belts and made with real leather) are $300+. TJ Spyke 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The one at WWE Championship isn't the $30 toy version though. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure looks like the toy versions. It's not the real belt, that's for sure. TJ Spyke 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a $300 replica! Guess the way the picture was taken makes it look like a toy... Still, it is better than most belt images in other articles.-- bulletproof ^3:16 07:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the all of the TNA references are failing, see this section for example, I suspect that the first ones became disabled when TNA changed his website but the newer ones are giving me "You are not authorized to view this resource. You need to login." now if login is required that means that reviewers at GAC will not consider this a relible source since it requires the creation of a account, this is bound to affect all of out TNA articles, has some alternate source already been established? if not, are there any suggestions? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're pretty screwed on that one. TNA seem determined to shift their site around every other week and now appear to be hosting some material on outside sites. I suppose we could try to wait it out, TNA have been known to have parts of their site vanish or simply go down, only to reappear after several days. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I reckon we're screwed. There's a load of references from TNA's PPV writeups that I put on Samoa Joe months ago and all of them now redirect to the TNAwrestling.com main page. "Annoying" is putting it very mildly. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org? D.M.N. (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! It works! Cheers DMN! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just read that there is allegedly some kind of campaign to prevent WP:PW members from commenting on FAC debates. As I have been on a lengthy hiatus from Wikipedia I was not aware of this (and possibly other issues). Is this the case? Have there been any similar anti-WP:PW political developments? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is the case because if only WP:PW members voted in FAC's then articles would easily be passed as FA, so it is encourage that WP:PW members dont vote in FAC's so other non-WP:PW members vote in them as to a different point of view on the article. This is also true for Feature List candidates, as you see in the 2007 WWE Draft, I got bashed for asking WP:PW members to vote in it and that was a wrong choice so the issue was brought up that WP:PW members shouldnt vote in FLC's either.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. So the Wikipedia "community" do not trust WP:PW to take an objective stance in such matters. Ah well, I guess independent review is always good for maintaining standards, particularly given that high-quality articles must be fully comprehensible to some with no knowledge on the subject matter. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever came up with the idea that WP:PW members voting in FACS stops other non-project members from voting, is really irrational. I find that we should always assume the members are not trying to violate WP:COI. We should alway (like Suriel states above) trust WP:PW to take an objective stance in such matters. Feedback ^☎ 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason this project only recognises Pro Wrestling Illustrated's World Title criteria? PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns states "There is no ultimate source that declares which of the various wrestling promotions top championships have that status and views differ from promotion to promotion. The same happens with PWI. Hence this page is not supposed to represent the official view on which titles have world title status, it just represents PWI's point of view.". Prior to my 6-month hiatus I remember putting forward a viewpoint that it was inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to solely recognise one organisation's definition of what consitutes a "World Title" and suggesting that we either include every belt that carries such a name or none of them (and so delete all catagories/lists relating to "World Champions"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Because certain members of this project have a stiffy for PWI and the specific titles it recognizes. If I had my way, we'd delete that article and its tag team equivalent. I see no value in them. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PWI is generally accepted (in the wrestling world too) as the definitive source of wrestling. Also, most indy belts call their main title a world title, that doesn't make it so. TJ Spyke 23:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You've never provided any proof that the majority of the wrestling industry holds PWI's opinion over those of any other magazine and/or "dirt sheet". PWI has recognized the WWE Championship as a world championship since the 70s, but when was the last time WWE referred to the WWE Championship as the WWE World Championship because PWI said it’s a world championship? Nenog (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it violates WP:NPOV and WP:LISTCRUFT. I'd say AFD. Feedback ^☎ 10:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow will be time for the next newsletter, and it would be nice to provide an update on the focus on stub articles. The article statistics haven't updated again, though. Does anyone know if there's something wrong with the bot? If so, would it be possibly to update them manually (the way that D.M.N. did last week). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done it. There's no problem with the bot - its been decided here that the bot should be run differently. However, I'll run it every week for this project. :) D.M.N. (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

An umbrella category and two subcategories based entirely on unofficial, unrecognised opinions of a magazine. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_January_12#Professional_wrestling_champions - you can read my reasons for nomination there. I've decided to go for deletion as unfortunately I don't believe discussion here would have any fruitful results (I share Tromboneguy0186's opinion on this). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-arranged the look of the newsletter, as well as adding the Article Stats box, where we can also mention the focus on stub articles. Check it out and please provide some feedback. If there is something wrong, I can put it back to the way it was. Also, I hadn't realized until I was done, that I was not logged in, so the changes were made while under my IP. I do that often =] iMatthew (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else feel like this article should be deleted? Cheers, LAX 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It's up for AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It was already deleted once before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cena and Shawn Michaels). Nenog (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then in that case: SPEEDDDDDYYYY DELETE. Feedback ^☎ 10:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please look at Archive.org to see if you can fix the links.

has 4 broken links

2 broken links

I've had to remove the two broken links - luckily there were two references next to the broken one, so nothing is unsourced. Don't archive anything from this website because the new link will still not work. D.M.N. (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm not looking forward to when WWE remove their D2D sub-section from WWE.com..... D.M.N. (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

2 broken links

2 broken links

4 broken links

3 broken links

9 broken links

2 broken links

11 broken links

1 broken links

These articles do not have broken links; however, there are 2 links in Kurt Angle and 2 links in Trish Stratus that redirect to the homepage of their respective site, because the articles don't exist.

6 broken links

3 broken links

2 broken links

---

I just thought that I would update everyone because the previous one is about to be archived. iMatthew 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think when this one gets to the very top of the page, it should always be reposted. Some projects never check up on dead links, but I think we should. D.M.N. (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed iMatthew 23:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've setup the automatic link checking. It checks all the articles linked from the project's front page. They are reported here. I get next to no feedback on the tool so basically its designed whatever way I'm using it. You'll be able to search archive.org by just clicking the row, it'll also give you some rather pointless details about the server and how the links are redirecting. It is typically more preferable to use links that are still alive, those usually can be found by searching for the link title on the website, which is the default search setup BTW. Finally, the interface includes buttons to merge the changes back to Wikipedia. —Dispenser (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete? Cheers, LAX 23:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Nenog (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. Its been deleted before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE vs. ECW Head to Head-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Speeeeeeedy Delete. Wat a waste of space... —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Could this article be given a "B" rating due to its sources?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it deserves a "B" (that accidentally rhymed) =] iMatthew 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This image of Bret Hart has been tagged as a candidate for speedy deletion. It's the only free use picture we have of Bret Hart from this time period (1994). I'm assuming that the only way it would be allowed to stay is if the uploader specified the source, but would it be reasonable to place the {{hangon}} tag to give the uploader a chance to respond? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, give the uploader a chance to provide the source. TJ Spyke 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with the speedy deletion process. Does it give the uploader more than a day or two to provide the source? Thanks,GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you can't for images, you can only switch it to a regular deletion nomination. I went to do that, but an admin deleted it between the time I went to the image's article and when I clicked "Edit". TJ Spyke 03:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for filling up the talk page so much, but I've had more time than usual over the past week, so I've been busy. I'd like to add a free use picture to the KOTR 1994 article per the GA reviewer's request. The best candidate I can find would be Img:Roddy_Piper.jpg. However, I'm having trouble placing it in the article. Would someone be able to help? No matter where I put it, it either seems awkward, splits up paragraphs or creates too much white space. It would work well in either the Background section (near the end) or the Event section (near the end). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I put Kafu up for and AFD, click here for reasons.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey folks, can someone look at Edgar Hugo? It smells hoaxy to me, (I can't find any hits for "Edgar Hugo" Wrestling in Google.SirFozzie (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say delete it.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to this, apparently heading back to WWE. Yeah... this might be a good time to add Paul Wight to your watchlists if you haven't already. -- bulletproof ^3:16 08:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL states Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. At the moment the Observer (though I cannot find their original article online) are only saying that he may have signed or will probably do soon. No doubt we will have some decent sources available when it is confirmed (and probably not WWE, I'd expect them to try and keep it "hush-hush", Jericho-stylee). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read it on several websites. Added to watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be speculation that Chris Harris (wrestler), James Storm and Ron Killings have all signed with WWE (even though a couple of the fanboy/blog sites have admitted they've incorrectly reported Harris signing!). Would anyone mind keeping an eye on them? I'm perilously close to 3RR on Paul Wight and Ron Killings! (edit: limit reached on Paul Wight) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harris' article is Semi-protected, but the others are not. If the speculation continues, it might be worth putting in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. D.M.N. (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where was did you read about James Storm signing with the WWE? I've heard of the others, but not James Storm. iMatthew 16:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

James Storm is under contract to TNA and scheduled to face Eric Young at Against All Odds 2008. Any reports of a wrestler signing with WWE or TNA have to have a reliable source, otherwise it should be removed (per WP:V). TJ Spyke 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lee Stone (his article is worth a look, if only for a laugh) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted iMatthew 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CWF Heavyweight Champonship (and no, that isn't a typo! Well, not by me!) (article speedied ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted iMatthew 15:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domino (wrestler) another one. iMatthew 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure everyone has noticed, a bunch of articles have been deleted and/or nominated for deletion over the past week. My concern is that no effort is being put into expanding the articles before deletion. Most of the time, the rationale given is "non-notable". But rather than shooting first and asking questions later, how about either trying to expand them or listing them on the stub article subpage with a notice that they will be nominated if they're not expanded with a given number of days? I've been doing a lot of work on stub articles because I'd rather give articles a chance than just delete them without putting in an effort.

There also seems to be a belief in this project that notability should be equated with long-term employment with Vince McMahon. Please keep in mind that many wrestlers who have not signed with WWE or TNA (or have only recently signed) may still be notable because of their accomplishments in various independent promotions.

Of course, some articles should be deleted. But, unless it's a hoax, giving project members a chance to improve the articles would be nice. And please avoid speedy deletions unless it's a hoax. If an article is nominated and deleted within a span of 6 hours, there's no way anyone would have a chance to fix it up. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but the thing is some of them dont have sources, so where are we to get information from? I engine searched most of the previous AFD's and could barely find 1 source for them. --TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Colin Delaney, Domino and Kafu all have multiple hits on search engines. And remember, many of these wrestlers may have used different ring names, so a meaningful search would have to look at any ring names used (eg. Colin Delaney has few hits, but Colin Olsen has many). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if that was so, you should had informed us all that that was the case. Now its too late. =(, well now we know that some may have different names.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the nominator should have read the article. I think the statement "He has worked for the CHIKARA promotion as Colin Olsen" makes this quite clear. Discussing the article here before nominating it for deletion would have avoided the problem. Nominating it and giving a one-sided explanation designed to convince other people to take your side doesn't help anything, as it leads to a bunch of people supporting the deletion before anyone has a chance to expand it. It's pretty hard to save an article if it has 6-8 deletion votes before anyone has an opportunity to work on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea well we should save some of the current ones who are under AFD...TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if you make a committment on an AFD to expand/tidy the article then the closing administrator will allow extra time for this to happen (and if they don't then one can request undeletion). Truco's absolutely right about the general lack of sources for such articles. Taking Kafu as an example, I Googled the guy but found nearly all the links were from fanzine/blog/fanpage/forum type websites. The few serious links I found just referenced him signing a contract with WWE. A combination of those and a citations from his personal website are not really enough to prove his notability. AFD's being closed with delete within 6 hours is something I am rather new to and reflects a new admin strategy called WP:SNOW (if an admin thinks an AFD is certain to be decided a certain way they will close it early - VERY early!) and there is little we, as non-admins, can do about that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

SNOWed after 6 hours, and you think that you can expand it? That is probably the single greatest rational to have an article undeleted I've ever seen, seriously. If you think that you can expand it, file a deletion review. SNOWed articles are notoriously vulnerable to being undeleted upon a good rational being presented, and this is probably the most vulnerable given how quickly it was SNOWed. Peace, SexySeaBass 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that I'll never know if I could have expanded some of these. For example, CWF Heavyweight Championship was nominated for deletion because it didn't have sources. It was speedy deleted in 53 minutes. But, at this point, the article history is gone and I don't even know which CWF this was. If the article had stayed up, I probably could have seen who the champions were, found some sources, and fixed up the article. I definitely don't want to blame the nominator for this, as I think the administrator erred in giving the article less than an hour for improvements. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gary, if you want to, you can ask Rudget - the admin who deleted the CWF Heavyweight Championship article to undelete it so that you can work on it. I'm sure they won't mind. D.M.N. (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting your time on that CWF Heavyweight Championship. It was the main title of a small Welsh promotion (allegedly, I can't find it on Google) and the article was created by a now-banned user who stated he was the reigning champion. This hoaxer has also claimed in previous edits to work for the WWE, to be related to Rob Van Dam, and to be the 12 yr old lovechild of Gail Kim and Sheamus O'Shaunassey. Yep. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I started to wonder about that when I saw that the article's title said "Champonship" instead of "Championship". Now that I know the story, speedy deletion sounds like it was the right way to go. In fact, giving it 53 minutes was probably too much. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on Colin Delaney right now. D.M.N. (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the article on Kafu. There is still a little more to be added, but I need to get back to the real world for a while. Thank you to everyone for your understanding and assistance with my comments about AFDs. It was not my intention to criticize anyone for nominating articles, and I appreciate the fact that you have responded so well. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have finished expanding Kafu's article. It's looking quite a bit better and might actually qualify as a Start-class article now. Any opinions on the rating? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Last post was on January 5. It would be great if more project members can address their concerns. Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 18:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It was brought up in the 2007 WWE Draft FL nomination that project members should not vote in FA/FL nominations. And you will be attacked by other non-project users about asking members of WP:PW to vote.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to force them to support the nomination. I am asking the members if they have a problem with the article, that I will address them.

Oh, ok. But you never know how users may interpret things.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Instead of a cluttered long list, a prose should be done for all wrestling video game articles. See WWE_SmackDown_vs._Raw_2008#Roster for a good example. Also: arena lists should be put in prose (or described in gameplay), as they are technically level lists, which typically aren't in list form on a game articles. Plus, the non-playable sections should just go. Many video games have these types of characters, and a majority of game articles don't just list them for "completeness" sake. Anyone care to help out? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not interested in getting involved with a dispute between you and several other editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What is up with the archiving of this talk page, there are a couple of discussions here older than 7 days. The links update is good to have but I feel it should be somewhere else because it is taking up a rack of space. Suggestions?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

None is older than 7 days. (It is archived by the date of the last post, not the first) Feedback ^☎ 21:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That makes more sense. iMatthew 21:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was the first post. But still this a bit too long. Can't we have the broken links thing updated somewhere else?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have them here since I first posted it (User:Feedback/WP:PW External Links) Feedback ^☎ 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Should I move it to a WP:PW page? Feedback ^☎ 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea mayby something called "updates" or something like that.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Broken external links

It's incomplete though. D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys do realize that this is probably the most active WikiProject on Wikipedia? D.M.N. (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the GA WikiProject, I think it is. Feedback ^☎ 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow really, we should be awarded..=D, now that is much better (the new page).--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened with it? Feedback ^☎ 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still here. I haven't had a lot of time to expand it. I will get to that in the near-future (or whenever I feel like doing so, unless somebody else does it for me). The Chronic 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the exact reason people objected the creation of the portal; that people would just leave it there and not update and construct it; and this is exactly what's happening. Feedback ^☎ 22:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It'll be built up. WP:DEADLINE. Of course, I can't take thetask of building it up alone. The Chronic 23:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I say if it isn't being actively maintained within two months, have it deleted. While there aren't actual deadlines, there comes a time when something is clearly a mistake, and should be abandoned and attempted again at a later date. IMO, two months is really generous. Peace, SexySeaBass 23:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to give everyone a heads-up that Unforgiven is done and to check if everything is in place. Also wanted say that I will start expanding Unforgiven (2004) in my Sandbox. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing that stands out is that you go very in depth about the matches, that's good but try to avoid that.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I really summarize the "big" thing that happens in the match. I'll try not to do that with Unforgiven '04. Thanks for the comment Truco. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, check December to Dismember (2006) as an example, reached FA status and just summarizes the big matches and the undercard matches by saying how one superstar won. Try following that and Over the Edge (1999), which is still under cons.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well looks like someone has created the article using a non-free image. The article looks like crap and I dont think there is enough info for here to have an article. Should we PROD it?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it's total crap. I say we PROD it. iMatthew 01:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done-mayby it can be created after a year.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The newsletter is supposed to go out today, so I updated the COTW based on the votes received. This week's collaboration is Ricky Banderas.

One other thing that I wanted to mention is that I think that the nominations that were pruned last week should have their waiting period waived because there was a lull in activity for the COTW and Dusty Rhodes was used for two weeks. If anyone wants to nominate Shane McMahon, Rikidōzan, D-Generation X, Eddie Guerrero, Sting (wrestler), Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, Professional wrestling, André the Giant or Booker Huffman sooner than the normal two month waiting period, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Of course, if anyone objects, I can go with that as well. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and there are currently only two nominations for next week. Be sure to stop by and vote and/or nominate an article that needs some improvement. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added one: Jim Ross. Nikki311 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to iMatthew about the article and then It reminded me about someone mentioning in the past that we should remove the Corporate people and create a separate article for them. Should it be done, because it literally is called "roster" not employees/management?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was that "someone". And I really believe now that they should be ridden of completely from the article. And it's all practically unsourceable anyway, because WWE does not announce backstage hirings, firings and replacements. Feedback ^☎ 03:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I am proposing this poll. But I feel we should just do it, or we should move the developmental rosters somewhere else because this article is huge and messy.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they are two separate things. The WWE Roster page should be for talent that is under wrestling contracts for the WWE. They should be separated from the management staff. iMatthew 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Except how many articles on Wikipedia are list of people who are part of a corporation? FedEx for example doesn't have a list of executives, much less have everyone who does every little thing. Same with Microsoft, Coca Cola and Wal-Mart. You make a separate list for people who have office jobs with WWE you might as already go ahead and AFD it as not notable. I say keep in on the WWE roster of just get rid of it all together. Nenog (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the case we should rename both the TNA and WWE roster pages to something else because when I hear "roster" I expect to see people who are doing something in that particular field. Like in Wrestling I expect someone to be wrestling, who is listed under the "roster".TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we should compare this to other corporations. FedEx, Microsoft, Coca Cola, and Wal-Mart all have employees, but they don't have another group of people doing a completely different thing. We do, as there are wrestling employees and there are wrestlers, who are in another department. iMatthew 01:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The roster page is headed by This is a list of people employed by and/or contracted to World Wrestling Entertainment, which is correct for content. Maybe the article title should be changed to World Wrestling Entertainment employees? Maybe not, I don't like the way it sounds. I don't think we could get away with a seperate page for the producers/execs though. iMatthew is right, we can't really compare WWE to those companies - they're product-driven and WWE is employee-driven. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this article and was thinking of PRODing it. Any thoughts?-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was pretty noteworthy when it was taking place (mostly due to its piss poor planning). I say turn into an article on the whole fan fest, not just the ppv part. Nenog (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was also considering that option.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Was it even a PPV? This is the first i've heard of the event, and neither of the third party sources mention it being a PPV. TJ Spyke 05:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here is some stuff courtesy of the Wrestling Observer: 1) "The three-day fan fest that starts tomorrow at the San Francisco Cow Palace which includes a nostalgia show Friday, an MMA show Saturday and ROH on Sunday, has this update...There is an Eric Bischoff dinner at 6 p.m. and a wrestling show at 7:30 p.m. taped for PPV and DVD." 2) Latest insanity from San Francisco. 3) “The San Francisco convention continued to be a disaster as wrestlers leaving without being paid had to be driven to flights to San Jose and Sacramento's airport because so many weren't even booked to leave out of San Francisco.” Nenog (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable if there was more than 1 source to back up the claim (so far that means there is only 1 link saying it was a PPV, and it was from before the event was supposed to take place). TJ Spyke 06:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind that source comes from promotional material. I have never read anything about the wrestling event actually being taped for PPV although ROH's event at the Fan Fest was taped for DVD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright. As much as I tried, I haven't been able to get any time to properly dedicate to the creation of the article. Therefore I'm going to have to put it in the open and give someone else a chance to create it so we can make the WWE New Year's Revolution page a lot cleaner. Some of it has already been done and I can still attempt to contribute to it if I can snatch some time: The work in progress is here. Sorry again and hopefully I can still get around to actually contributing to this project. AdaManiac 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And actually do something instead of simply kvetching about it. The three articles relating to PWI and their titles have been AFD'd here. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment model to appear in Playboy. Yes indeedy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So I didnt really follow this well when it occurred but Wikipedia reported the Benoit death before police found it. So did any actions take place, or they know who did it? (I know this really isnt a question of improving WP:PW articles, but really curious:And I know this question is late).TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP who did it admitted that it was just a joke (this type of vandalism happens a lot, an IP will add that a wrestler was killed when they weren't). It was just a said coincidence that it actually happened. TJ Spyke 03:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that is horrible. Did the IP get arrested or had legal action against them?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That i'm not sure of. I don't know if any legal action could be done though. TJ Spyke 03:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was detained and his computer was seized. However, he was released after it was all found out to be a huge and unfortunate coincidence. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, this person must live with this his whole life. Reporting a death before anyone knew about it..WOW!. Thanks BulletproofTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I know, it must be a difficult thing to go through. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does achieving GA status for some articles take so long? I have posted No Way Out (2004) for GA nomination over half a month ago. How long does it take?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no set time. Any user (admin or not) can review a GA candidate, so it depends on who decides to review an article. It shouldn't take 2 weeks though, that seems a little too long. TJ Spyke 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge backlog over at WP:GAC thats why its taking so lnoger for someone to review it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cuz its taken a while now.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It took two months for someone to get to "my" article Briscoe Brothers, but it eventually was reviewed, and passed! Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this should just be scrapped from articles, because people have no clue what they're talking about. Aside from countless fake titles to make themselves feel smart, idiots are calling WWE-made tracks "production themes." Do you know what production music is? Going by this, you don't. Production music is music created by companies to be used by whoever wants to pay to license it. So stop calling WWE-made tracks production, and quit giving them fake titles that look like a 6 year old made them up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.140.20 (talk • contribs)

Examples? Mshake3 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I sorta agree. I see a lot of unsourced names for theme songs in wrestlers articles (like the remixed version of Kurt Angle's TNA theme. The remixed version includes lyrics). If a source isn't provided, I say remove it. TJ Spyke 20:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some cases where it's verging on listcruft, but if a particular song or two is strongly associated with an article's subject, I don't seem the harm in including that. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Or if a song has notability as a release, e.g. Rollin and American Badass for Undertaker, Walk Idiot Walk for Christy Hemme or Genie In A Bottle for Spanky. We have to be careful about claiming a song is strongly associated with a subject (per WP:OR so TJSpyke's comment about sourcing will have to be followed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Did anybody catch RAW last night? Because, in Michael's talk page, there are some users stating that Michaels has a new finisher, the "New Inverted Figure Four Submission Finisher". Is this true? Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just using a move once doesn'tmake it a finisher. Look at Angle a few months ago when he hit a 450 splash, and hasn't done it since. TJ Spyke 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought. So, do we revert the finisher? Because it comes after Sweet Chin Music; see here. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

of course...--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did it myself (while doing a general cleanup of his page). I also left a comment on the talkpage. To say he will continue using it as a finisher violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. TJ Spyke 21:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this new finisher is going to be a problem. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE corporate announced that with the HD update, they would make new sets for RAW, SD! and ECW. Should it be added? (now or later)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think that if we can't add announced matches at upcoming PPV's, I don't see why this would be different. Wait till it actually happens. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm.. look at this year's No Way Out, sourced with a reliable source. WWE corporate is as reliable...so...y not?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. If we can pull out WP:CRYSTAL and say "They might decide not to have the match" or "Wrestler B in this scheduled match might drop dead tomorrow," surely the same logic applies to something even bigger, like changing sets? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we even have talk pages anymore for each article? Anyway, set design is mentioned in detail in these articles, so I don't see what the issue is. Mshake3 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The RAW article only mentions sets in the pictures of the different sets. SmackDown is the same, except for a small paragraph about the first set. Based on these, once someone takes a picture of the new sets that will be it. TJ Spyke 23:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Because I saw a couple of reverts on the new set info. "comment to MShake"- i guess we dont because no one really replies on those pages except IP's.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well now we know why you asked this question. Saying this information at the beginning will save us a lot of time and typing. Someone wanted a source, and it was added. Mshake3 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Might want to keep an eye out (even though i'm sure some people already do it, like me). Some people keep adding that Punk/Chavo for the ECW Championship will happen at the RR. Some "genius" tried putting it in with a source, the problem being that the source (wwe.com) says that the match will take place next week on ECW. This happens everytime WWE has a match with a title shot going to the winner, some posters will add it to the next PPV without any proof that it will happen (and most of the time the match ends up happening on TV). TJ Spyke 07:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Already on my watchlist. People assume too much...*sighs* Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RLipstock is at it again. He created Category:McMahon Stables, which is the definition of un-needed. Can somebody take care of that for me, as I've never done a CFD and don't have a lot of time right now to go learn how. Thanks. Nikki311 15:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the to the list of categories for discussion. You can go here and have it deleted. Zenlax ^{T C S} 16:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to get the mop out on this user at long last.... D.M.N. (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikki could probably do that or have someone else do it. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On a rather trivial (but interesting) note, no one should need to revert SmackDown spoilers if they don't have a source, because none of the websites have managed to get their hands on the SmackDown taping spoilers for this week! Lol! No reverting for us this week.... D.M.N. (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! A glorious week off! Lol! :] iMatthew 22:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Feedback ^☎ 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This user is insisting that DX is going to reunite on the January 21 edition of Raw and nowhere in WWE.com does it say anything about them getting together. And, he's violated the 3RR. Thought I should let you guys know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He's also causing problems in other articles, like the ECW one. He keeps saying ECW will get a new set next week. When I told him WWE did not mention ECW getting a new set, he posted a source from a messageboard. Besides the fact that messageboards are generally not considered reliable, the source is just a reposting of the WWE PR release that only mentions RAW and SmackDown getting new sets (it's always funny when someone posts a source that actually goes against their argument). TJ Spyke 01:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. I got into an altercation with him in the Shawn Michaels article. I don't know, but he's starting to resemble Hornetman. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. Not him again... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't Hornetman (I don't think). Hornetman is editing as an IP right now, but that is a side issue. I just blocked Raidcrisis for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule. If he continues to violate rules, he'll get longer blocks. Nikki311 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikki blocked him thank god, he was really annoying.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. But, its just 24hrs. So... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What usually happens is that once someone is blocked once, they realize there are consequences for their actions...and they stop. Maybe that's me just being optimistic, though. :/ Nikki311 01:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. If not, I guess you can block him, right? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:LifeStroke420 has been removing the indemand sourced Elimination chamber match from this article. Anyone else care to help me watch this? Consensus has changed, and he doesn't seem to understand that.... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So much for "Fuck it I dont care anymore add the shit." Mshake3 (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

As an advanced warning, that section will be getting shifted to No Way Out (2008) just after the Rumble. I would do it now, but don't wish to get into a edit war. As for LifeStroke, again, I think he should listen instead of being disruptive again. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We can do that or just have the article protected until the day of No Way Out. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a notice on his talk page. And I strongly oppose full protection, since that would not allow us to add matches as they are announced. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't clarify completely, until the matches are fully announced then the protection should be out. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Have it protected until the first Raw after the Rumble. Feedback ^☎ 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one sick of articles being locked down due to the stubborn actions of one person? Mshake3 (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No you're not Mshake. Though I'm more sick and tired of the actions of stubborn people.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have the user blocked, but I don't have sufficient grounds for my reasoning. There again, I'm sure others agree with me. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You know u three talk a awful lot alike not to mention the fact that i am going by policy.LifeStroke420 (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's policy? Your "made up policy" or WP:PW's consensus, established HERE. I suggest you look through our archives and actually contribute to our discussions instead of using harrasing, threating and accusing others of being sockpuppets. [1][2][3][4] D.M.N. (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty sock talk to me. I dont see how #4 is a good example i apologized for it to the user also asking somebody if they think some one else isnt a sock isnt a bad thing. Finnally My "made up policy" is/used to be something that was stood by by ALOT of users until you 3 came along so there you go.LifeStroke420 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but consensus can and has changed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am having a minor dispute with User:NickSparrow over whether Calaway's ring name is "The Undertaker" or just "Undertaker." See these recent edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster&curid=2337812&diff=184808107&oldid=184807610

How is this a reason to contact an admin, dear god... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

it's not, I left a note on his page. This is what WWE refers to him as, so that's how it will stay.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

His ring name is "The Undertaker". He is called Undertaker and even Taker, yet he still is The Undertaker. Just like The Great Khali, The Major Brothers and The Boogeyman. Feedback ^☎ 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, he actually has an argument. WWE.com's SmackDown superstars pages, lists him as "Undertaker." But that doesn't change his ring name.... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He is announced in-ring as The Undertaker. End of debate.  :) ArcAngel (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly it doesn't, "From Death Valley, CA, weighing in 300 pounds, THE Undertaker", not "Undertaker"TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my point, he is announced to the ring as "The Undertaker." But the WWE.com article could make for some confusion, so I'm willing to assume good faith here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

¤Sigh¤ MPJ-DK (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've renominated Don Kent (wrestler) for GA since it was mistakenly failed and I was on vacation so I couldn't point it out before now. The problem was supposedly sources but it's fully sourced - hopefully it'll be one of WP:PW's next GA articles. On a related note, I'm going to be working hard on The Fabulous Kangaroos article in the hopes of getting it to FA status as well as working on Roy Heffernan to improve it enough to achieve GA. Hopefully with time I can make the "Fabulous Kangaroos" a featured topic with all being GA and some being FA (Kangaroos & Costello have the best shot at making FA). So I'm asking that anyone and everyone that have a spare moment to please look over the following articles and either comment or copy edit to get them ready for FA and GA, thanks in advance.

• The Fabulous Kangaroos (Future Featured Article candidate)
• Roy Heffernan (Future Good Article candidate)

Any and all help is appriciated and reciprocated. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but I'll look them over later today. Nikki311 15:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

They look good, but this section in Heffernan's article is unsourced. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch on that, I'll get the books out and get the right source. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the article, I see no reason why it should be under that title. I don't see that as the name he goes by out of the ring, and is most known as Carlito. I propse changed to Carlos Colón Jr. LessThanClippers (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the article it says he's known as Carly. So... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. Speed-reading done me in :) LessThanClippers (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

King of the Ring 1994 was promoted to Good Article status today. Thank you to everyone who worked on it. I would like to nominate SummerSlam 1994 for Good Article status soon. I have request a Peer Review for this article, which can be accessed here. If anyone has some time, it would be great if you could look over the article (or even a section or two) and provide some feedback. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite some criticism with it, I will begin to try to fully expand the pro wrestling portal. We already have a sufficient amount of "selected articles" for the page (which are all FA articles). However, we will need some "selected picture" suggestions, as well as "in the news" and "did you know?". If you have any suggestions to any of these, please notify me or on the portal talk page (or here). Thank you. The Chronic 06:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm one question - in the headline it says Japanese wrestling is a legitimate sport? Seriously? It's claimed that Japanese wrestling in general, as a whole is a legitimate sport? MPJ-DK (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea (I'd doubt it). I just did the header based on the actual header in the pro wrestling article. I may have to be fixed. The Chronic 15:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: I need help with adding {{Portal|Professional wrestling|break=yes}} to the bottom of each pro wrestling article. It's just a notification of the pro wrestling portal. If everybody could help with this, it would be much appreciated (add the template to the "see also" sections. If there isn't a "see also" section, put it in "External links"). The Chronic 06:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a bot could to this, or AWB. Feedback ^☎ 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, just ask a bot to add it to every article that is listed as part of the Pro Wrestling WikiProject. Even using AWB, it would take a couple of hours (and that's working nonstop) to manually add it even with AWB. TJ Spyke 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started adding it to biographies using AWB. Cheers, LAX 03:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Im having issues with this article again. GOD I LOVE TROLLS!!! Anyways, can someone help teach me how to report Sockpuppetry. I got one name blocked and ten seconds later a very similar name is doing the same vandalism. LessThanClippers (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've requested Full-Protection on the article. D.M.N. (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for now. I am going to do some serious work on this article, don't know why, just feel like tackling it. Maybe now, with full protection, I can work on it in my sandbox and get it ready.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you'll have to do it in the sandbox and request an admin to insert the content, or just wait until the protection expires. It was the only viable option in my opinion, as the vandals were violating BLP with their edits. D.M.N. (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, Phil is supporting these edits, telling people to do them on his youtube posts.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that a problem? A vandal is a vandal, case closed. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I know he is notable but I can't find any info on him online and his article is a stub with little to no info. Can we AfD it? or does someone have sources we can add to the article?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just by saying it is notable, you are answering your own question. Feedback ^☎ 01:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn Lex, dont have to make me look stupid...=DTrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On a second note, why is the name of the article Rey Mysterio, Sr with a Y and not Rey Misterio, Sr with an I. Rey Mysterio Jr changed the spelling of his name to a englisized version after he signed with WWE, but Rey Sr. has never done so. The article title uses a spelling that the performer himself has never used. Stephen Day (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we move it?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction. Oscar Gutierrez also used the "Mysterio" spelling in WCW, not just WWE. TJ Spyke 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Your correct, I just checked. For some reason I don't recall hm ever using that spelling in WCW. Rey Sr still has never spelled his name with an Y though. :) Stephen Day (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok but should we move the Rey Mysterio Sr. to Rey Misterio, Sr.?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. The bottom line is that it's a spelling he's never used. Stephen Day (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done, comment if something is wrong.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Stephen Day (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that a good alternative to nominating an article for deletion is to list it on the stub article subpage. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Me and Lex proposed in the past to add sources to the list, and now the article "needs additional sources". And when we presented the idea people declined because it would look "ugly"..So what now?

Also there is just too much activity on the article, especially speculation. I think we should fully protect the article for awhile.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the more citations tag. There are too many unsourced things that aren't covered in the few sources the page has (things like Finlay and Jamie Noble being producers on SmackDown). I ahree the article needs more sources, the problem is that some users remove those citation tags without providing proof. TJ Spyke 23:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I added citation tags the other day; we're they deleted without providing proof; because that would fall under vandalism. Feedback ^☎ 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that this page should be put into table format? iMatthew 01:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would like to see it as a tabled list but that is table cruft, table for every brand?management?developmental rosters?--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just throwing this out there, but would it be possible to rid of the WWE Roster page, and place each brand's rosters on their brand's main page. I doubt it would happen though. iMatthew 01:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The rosters are fine, it's all the extra stuff like producers and writers that are the problem. I think the page should be kept, just needs to be improved. TJ Spyke 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Wow, this is totally random, but I just realized, today is my 6 month mark as a Wikipedian! Woo! lol iMatthew 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, now back to the page. Now I strongly feel that we should either rename the article or do something about the management??--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, another section in here. Just eliminate the corporate staff. It's not important. Also, if it's a roster, why are we listing some names twice for the sake of tag teams? Mshake3 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For the first time ever, I agree with Mshake. Why do we have this stuff listed??TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and think we need to do the same with the TNA page as well. The articles are called rosters, not employee lists. LessThanClippers (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So what do we agree to do? Remove them and move them to a new article? or rename the list entirely?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote for just including the wrestlers on the roster page, since that's what the original intention was. ArcAngel (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If we do that, we have to move the management talent to somewhere else.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 20:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No...... they don't go anywhere. They are deleted. Gone. For good. Mshake3 (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Mshake3 and I agree on something. Cheers, Feedback ^☎ 03:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done-you all can revert if you don't agree with me removing the talent relations from the WWE Roster and TNA Roster.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with doing this is that a lot of the creative team, producers/trainers and people in the other roles section do appear on television frequently. Sure there are some people in the other roles list who simply sit in an office all day and yes, they aren't needed in this article. But it is important to keep a list of those old time wrestlers and other personalities that do appear on television from time to time. So I propose we bring back the entire Talent Relations section as well changing the Other Roles list to Other On-Air Talent and including those people such as superstars, commentators, announcers, hosts, the McMahons who all make appearances on TV when they are needed. They are indeed essentially part of the Roster, simply just not assigned to any brands. Doppy88 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I see your point, but they make promotional appearances. Seriously though, This page is intended to list wrestlers and on screen TV talent that work for WWE, thus being called "roster" not WWE personnel or employees" You dig?TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "promotional" appearances, this is starting to sound like the arguement from the AMPTP that TV shows are only being used on the internet for "promotional" use. A lot of the writers and producers will occassionaly get involved in a storyline (Dusty Rhodes, Micheal Hayes), tend to superstars in the back, make special appearances as their old characters or simply come out to job. Also here is my list of who from the Other Roles section I believe should remain in this article:

• Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steve Williams) - Makes occasional appearances
• Max Bretos - Part-time interviewer
• Carlos Cabrera - Spanish commentator
• Darren Drozdov - WWE.com reporter
• Howard Finkel - Part-time announcer
• Hillbilly Jim (Jim Morris) - Public Relations
• Steve Keirn - Director of Florida Championship Wrestling
• Jack Korpela - Occasional WWE Heat Color Commentator, Host of WWE Bottom Line and WWE specials
• Josh Matthews (Josh Lomberger) - Editor and host of WWE 24/7, occasional commentator
• Linda McMahon - Chief Executive Officer
• Marissa Mazzola-McMahon - Director of National Public Relations
• Shane McMahon - Executive Vice President of Global Media
• Christopher Nowinski - Public Relations
• "Mean" Gene Okerlund - Part-time interviewer
• Dr. Ferdinand Rios - Physician
• Marcelo Rodriguez - Spanish commentator
• Hugo Savinovich - Spanish commentator
• Mark Yeaton - Timekeeper
• Mae Young - Makes occasional appearances

These are all "on screen TV talent that work for WWE" as you say, so I see no reason why they should be removed. Doppy88 (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to the talk page of the WWE Roster and you will see my concern about these people. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 19:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this category existing. But, should it just be used for WWE PPV locations? Right now it seems to have just about any venue WWE has been in, maybe we should restrict it to venues that have hosted PPV's/SNME. TJ Spyke 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Then the category name needs to be more specific. Only then would I like it. Mshake3 (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think its a rediculous category either way. Should we have "venues the rolling stones have played in". When you tour, you are gonna play lots of places. If the WWE being their is notable, let them mention it in the venues article.LessThanClippers (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be deleted. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another vote for deletion. If not, then eventually it might include every city in North America. I don't think this category is relevant enough, myself.ArcAngel (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete...-- bulletproof ^3:16 18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to open up a can of worms, but what about creating a category for venues that have hosted a Wrestlemania. It wouldn't be too many considering some places have hosted multiple-Manias. --EndlessDan 19:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to close that can of worms, but that has already been done before. Unfortunately, that category was also deleted. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And I disagreed with that category being deleted (and not just because I had created it). Apparently it's OK to have a category for Super Bowl venues or arenas that host college basksetball tournaments, but not for places that have hosted WrestleMania (the biggest wrestling event in the world in terms of total viewership and notability). TJ Spyke 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not re-create it? I don't see the harm in having something like that as Wrestlemania would be pro-wrestling's equivilant to the Super Bowl. There are 3 people alone who are in favor of it. I don't understand why so many members on WP:PW have such a huge stick in there ass. --EndlessDan 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)