Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Just a quick note to inform project members that this article passed its GA review today, bringing our total to 43. Thanks to everyone who helped. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Great stuff! I think I should note that it's probably best to resist nominating any GAN's for the next week or so. There's 24 noms in the Sport section, 10 alone are from this project. Yet again, to help the list decrease, I suggest reviewing another article on the list. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's also best to focus on completing PPV articles instead of improving completed ones to GA. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the Aftermath guidlines on the PPV Guidelines page. The addition is in bold:

The aftermath section should contain details of feuds that occurred after the event, whether feuds just completely stopped, or whether they continued for several months afterwards. It may also contain details of any backstage disagreements that occurred or if anyone legitimately quit the company immediately after the event. It should also contain the details about the buyrate for the event, in contrast to previous years. It should also show whether the event was (dis)liked as a whole, giving sources to three/four different websites.

IMO, this needs to be in the aftermath, it's buyrate in contrast to previous years, and whether people liked the PPV as a whole. If you are (or have) been working on a PPV, I strongly suggest adding a bit on the buyrate or stuff. For examples of how this can be worked into articles, please look at the December to Dismember 2006 aftermath, the SummerSlam 2007 aftermath and the IYH1 aftermath. If you disagree with the above, please leave a comment underneath so it can be discussed. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be placed after the results section?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean this? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 44#PPV Article Layouts Results and Aftermath --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the aftermath doesn't really seem like the appropriate section for it. Although I don't have a problem with the concept. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 04:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has gone and created the article for this team (Lance Hoyt and Jimmy Rave w/ Christy Hemme. They've been teaming together for around six months, but haven't really done anything too noteworthy besides destroy our eardrums and develop a disorder where they think Orlando is a different city every week. I really don't think the team is notable. Should we AfD it? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they are kinda like the Highlanders of the WWE, if you deleted it in my oppinion you can go ahead and delete most tag teams. CrymeTyme-94 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else think the page could be deleted? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article might fail WP:N, but I don't see that as a reason to can it at this time. He's a wrestler, so he still falls within the scope of the project I would think, despite the fact he hasn't done anything up to this point. ArcAngel (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It has some notability, and he has just reported to FCW I believe so we may hear his name quite a bit in the next few months. D.M.N. (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It definately can be expanded. If I am not mistaken, he did have a match against Bischoff during the horrible heart attack storyline in WCW. LessThanClippers 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. The article says he was born in 1988, which makes him twenty. The article says he wrestled in WCW in the late 1990's. Bascially, it's trying to say he wrestled at the age of ten. I'm pretty sure the age is badly wrong. D.M.N. (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right. Or at least close. This recap and this recap both note that he was 12 years old at the time.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 21:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He was indeed ridiculously young when WCW used him in an angle so that date could be about right. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone, Its me Truco, I am still here until two of my GANS are reviewed, so I noticed on WWE.com's live event schedule, that they have replaced the name of WWE Vengeance to WWE Night of Champions, should I go ahead and make the move? Source--3L VaK3r0 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still Vengeance on the main page, I'd hold off.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to add this, but Matt Striker needs to be added to Category:Professional wrestling managers and valets, as he's been managing Big Daddy V for a good while now, plus he managed Mark Henry for a bit. People who have managed less are in that category, so Striker should be added. You can't say that people who are wrestlers first don't belong, because people like Curt Hennig and Ted DiBiase are there. So yeah. Tvp119 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Were do you want to do this at? SexySeaSquid 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

He's already there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Professional_wrestling_managers_and_valets Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Money Inc. should be renamed Money Incorporated. Money Incorporated was their full name and what they were usually called back in 1992-1993. Inc. is an abbreviation. It's like titling the New Age Outlaws page NAO. Tvp119 (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I checked through some of the references listed on the page, and Online World of Wrestling, SLAM! Wrestling, and WWE all refer to it as Money, Inc. What's your source that they were ever called Money Incorporated? Nikki311 19:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And the ignorance of those who never watched something reigns over those who actually know the topic once again. I never watched Pokemon, but you don't see me trying to patrol a Pokemon site and call everything a lie. Oh well, no sense trying to talk to idiots. http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/Antiwikipedia/awp_index.html Tell me, why would I lie about what a pro wrestling team from 15 years ago was called? Calm the fuck down. Tvp119 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We refer to things by their common name per WP:COMMONNAME. D.M.N. (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Tvp119, no personal attacks. Don't call people idiots, especially if you're trying to persuade them to see things your way. It's not going to help. And D.M.N.'s right anyway. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvp119, I have to know...if you hate Wikipedia so much, why do you stick around? Nikki311 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a public apology to user Scorpion, I was wrong to say what I did and I am sorry I hope you forgive me :) SexySeaSquid 20:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not related to this discussion. If you want to speak to Scorpion, contact him via his talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my holy deity! they were called both interchangably - their full and proper name was "Money Incorporated" or abbriviated "Money Inc." I can cite 200 shows if you'd like, or just use common sense here. I mean what else did people think "inc" stood for? they're not dyslexic tattoo artists after all. Is this really something to get all bent out of shape over? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this continues, I've always wanted to post something onto WP:LAMELessThanClippers 23:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search for "'Money Incorporated' DiBiase" comes up with 349 hits. A search for "'Money Inc.' DiBiase" comes up with 15,900. That, plus the fact that WWE's list of tag team champions refers to them as "Money Inc." leads me to think the page should stay where it is. Obviously I agree that "Inc." stood for "Incorporated", but I think their more common name is simply "Money Inc." GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it have a chance for FL? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be nominated. You may run into opposition because of the sources, though (although they are about as good as we can get). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I'll see if I can find more refs. and stuff. How 'bout List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of ECW Tag Team Champions: You should add a couple of sentences onto the lead (yes, I realize most of the WWE title histories have short leads, but they passed a half a year ago when lead length wasn't as big of an issue), you'll probably have to make the table sortable (that's been the recent trend) and you may run into trouble with your sources, but I'd say its worth a shot.

List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions: I've always thought this would be a tough one to get to FL, and for the time being I'd say no because you should have at least one good primary source and there aren't any (The NWA website history doesn't work anymore). As well, I think that that the table looks too cluttered and sloppy with the big dark coloured headers where half of the text in those headers isn't visible on my browser, so that should be fixed. And, you don't need to use the same citation over and over again, switch it to a general ref like here.

Hope that helps. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'll work on that tomorrow. But, I just wanted to know if both lists have a chance for FL. Thanks for the feedback, though. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a project we need to decide how much information we need to include on the separate wrestler pages when there is also a tag team article (e.g. MNM, Johnny Nitro, & Joey Mercury or 3-Minute Warning, Rosey, and Jamal). Like, if there's a dedicated tag team article, do we need tag team exclusive signature moves? Managers that only managed them when they tagged? In the case of a team like 3 Minute Warning, which went through gimmick changes in a short time, do those need detailing on the individual articles or can it be left in generalities as long as there's a "see (x)" link?

If we do need all this information on the individual articles, why do we even have tag team articles for teams that have individual articles? «»bd(^talk _stalk) 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, if there is a dedicated tag team article, then all the information in the individual members' articles should be very bare minimum summary style with the "see (x)" link. Nikki311 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? Opinions? Please?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tag team finishers are still technically finishers of the individual. A manager of a tag team is still a manager of the individual. As for the main articles, yeah, most of the tag information should be in the tag team article. Mshake3 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Featured Article candidacy for Triple H was closed today. It was clear that almost all of the issues brought up had ben resolved, but the closing editor decided not to give the oppose voters a chance to change their votes. The whole FAC thing has my vote for the stupidest aspect of Wikipedia, as there doesn't seem to be any common sense behind the decisions made by closing editors. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The opposer's comments were posted this morning, and I didn't even have enough time to resolve them all. Well, at least we got some comments, unlike some previous FACs. Once we do resolve all the issues, it can always be renominated in the future. Nikki311 19:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? That is ridiculous. Only three people had even cast their opinion, and there was ONE oppose? *sighs* Oh well. Like Nikki said, there's always next time. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new topic at WT:FAC, with a link to this discussion, see here. D.M.N. (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, take a look at this and this. D.M.N. (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We really have a big problem here. Most of the sites WP:PW deems reliabe are not considered reliable otherwise. The fact is that if we can't find soucres that the rest of WP communit considers reliable (which are nonexistant, from what I can see. Even WON is disputed), I wouldn't be surprised if we get our current FAs delisted! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all of our FA's use them sources. I know for a fact December to Dismember (2006) uses none. D.M.N. (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It uses WrestleView, Hoffco Inc. (Complete WWE), Wrestling Observer, and The Wrestling Post. All of these (except The Wrestling Post, which I'm sure would fall under the same argument) have been challenged as sources. In addition, most of the references are from WWE.com, which at least one reviewer said we shouldn't be using (who was then backed up by several others at Good Article Reassessment). It seems like some reviewers want to discredit 80% of the most common wrestling sources while the rest want to discredit the other 20%, so I don't see how we can win. Even wrestling-titles.com, which appears to be one of the most reliable sources, is now challenged regularly, so I'm not sure how we can even get a Featured List. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. There may come a time when the community agrees and thinks that 100% of our sources are unreliable which could result in a consensus to de-list our FAs and GAs...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

While this may be a disappointment, I do believe it's reasonable. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed. WP policy is paramount to any article, of course. I do still think that the FAC of Triple H being close so quickly is unjust though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight. Virtually all of the primary sources that WP:PW has been using for the articles for years are being challenged and that's reasonable? It's bullshit is what it is. How can WWE.com be considered unreliable? What source is going to be more reliable regarding information presented in articles of wrestlers, championships, and pay per views that are all fall under World Wrestling Entertainment? As for wrestling-titles.com, it's another mystery to me. It's a listing of every major wrestling championship for the past 100 years with a listing of every man or woman that's ever won said championships. I'd say that solie.org is probably in the same boat as wrestling-titles.com. I can't help but wonder if it's prejudice against wrestling. A few of us have encountered it before I'm sure: editors that personally despise pro wrestling, try to claim that sources that are known to be reliable are otherwise, and wouldn't mind at all seeing it disappear from Wikipedia altogether.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the logic is that "wrestling is fake. WWE.com can change and edit results, thus they are not reliable." 404 Error: Logic not found. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If wrestling isn't good enough to be covered by reliable sources, perhaps it's not good enough for Wikipedia. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—They're not "votes", and consensus—not a raw count—is required to earn a gold star. The problem with that FAC was that the reviews were simply too thin to come to a reasonable conclusion that the article satisfied the high standards expected of WP's "best work". As for my "oppose", I provided only random samples of why the prose was problematic throughout. My feeling is that the main contributors should let it rest for a little while, locate fresh collaborators—especially copy-editors who are interested in the field—and improve the article throughout. Nothing wrong with a knock-back the first time, a period of improvement, and a resubmission. Nothing to be upset about. Best wishes for success. TONY (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is easier to say if every one of your nominations isn't closed prematurely. If the problem was this nomination, that would be one thing. When it's the last six nominations all closed prematurely, that changes things. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone with rollback rights please take this page back to my last revision? There were about 19 unconstructive edits overnight, and I don't have the patience to revert each individually. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm going to WP:RFPP about this. D.M.N. (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I do need to look into getting rollback rights. I normally just revert one-by-one, but that was too big a task for first thing in the morning. Anyhow, according to the feedback at RFPP, 19 in one night and a long history of vandalism and unconstructive edits is apparently "not enough" to justify protection. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow the one article I hound like crazy gets hit during my little break. I Have always had a problem with that article at RFPP. But I would reccomend getting rollback privilege. It has helped me majorly fight vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more than one way to revert mass edits. You can use the "compare selected versions" button and then click undo to revert the changes. You can also go to an old version of the page and then save it to overwrite back to a previous version. It is useful if the IP shifts. Woody (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this? Half the time people who are trying to look smart make up fake titles for songs, not to mention the music notes are almost always unsourced. It really all isn't needed and just makes the articles look worse. I propose a movement to remove this stuff. If someone wants to start one of those support/oppose battles, do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvp119 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think entrance themes are notable enough to be included. There are enough folks here in the know to spot a fake title fast enough to revert the change without much of an issue. Speaking of which - I see no issue here. ArcAngel (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Freebirds it's been pretty important, not that you'd know it from the music article which has devolved into a horrid list.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 02:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah and most people in the pw feild know like "The Game" by Motorhead for Triple H's theme music but I know what you mean someone might know "Sexy Boy" but would PROBABLY not know The Great Khali's theme music. -- CrymeTyme-94 16:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Khali's music was released on a WWE CD last year. Mshake3 (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know because I have almost every one of those cd's but the average wrestling fan might not know, you have to agree with me :) CrymeTyme-94 17:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is though, the way it's usually done in wrestling articles makes it nothing more than a trivia note and nothing else. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that i think about it I agree with the fisrt ip. TO many aren't sourced. SexySeaSquid 17

58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll they'll never be sourced (and by sourced, I mean written article sourced that we put too much emphasis on), because most reliable sources won't take their time to mention it. I don't see the point of the sources anyway. If a song is played, and that song is on a CD or in a music library, then that should be good enough. What would be the issue? Someone saying it's not the song? You can listen to songs of pretty much every music library now-a-days, and once again, the broadcast is a source, so that should be enough. Mshake3 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is on a CD, then the CD itself can be used as a source. Nikki311 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the production music is available on CDs through various libraries. Hopefully, we won't have to deal with the "if I can't see it, it doesn't count" crowd. Mshake3 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning the notability of this article. Other opinions... iMatthew 2008 01:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Also with that goes the template: {{TNA Tournaments}}

All of the pages in the template, and the category: Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling tournaments

-- iMatthew 2008 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A list of tournaments ran by TNA. It's kind of what they were/are known for. I don't have a problem with the article, but I don't like the idea of encorporating every tournament, such as the Turkey Bowl. And to be honest, outside of the X Cups, the rest can go. Mshake3 (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the tournaments are not notable. The template and category, IMO, are certainly not needed. iMatthew 2008 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shake. The X cups, IMO, are notable, but the others aren't. –LAX 02:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are notable, they should be put into one article, IMO. iMatthew 2008 02:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions are welcomed, or I can go to AfD? iMatthew 2008 22:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also think fight for the right is notable, as it determines a number 1 contender for the last 2 years. Beyond that, don't think anything is really notable, and i am the editor who added the turkey bowl, but that was in my very early stages of wiki-editing and didn't know anything :) LessThanClippers 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Created AfD here. iMatthew 2008 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this guy made his "debut" in ECW last night, in the contract signing, should we create an article for him yet? WWE.com hasn't confirmed who he is, but a lot of wrestling sites are quoting his name as "Justin LaRoche" who worked in OVW/FCW. D.M.N. (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would assume so, Who else of the main male wrestlers don't have one none! SexySeaSquid 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I say yes to creating an article. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I leave this project and stop receiving the newsletters? vDub (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You can take your name off of the Project page members, but we encourage you to stay, and just put your name under the opt out of the newsletter.--TrUCo-X 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently an ip user added this section about conspriacy theories. I do see that someone else cleaned it up and added a source (i can't check the source, i dont have access.) Does this section belong, do we think it is properly sourced, are we violating WP:BLP with the accusations against Kevin Sulivan? Thanks. LessThanClippers 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only source quoted in that section states: "Not only is this theory slanderous towards former wrestling star Sullivan, the scenario is absolutely preposterous." I would recommend removing it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove. Wikipedia is no place for rumors, especially libelous ones. The source reads like a blog entry. Nikki311 23:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I figured. I have removed with explanation. Thanks. LessThanClippers 23:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Should single title reigns be listed in the articles of tag teams, like it is here?--TrUCo-X 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, but only if said titles were won while they were teaming. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, why should they? it's an article about the team, their moves, finishers, and THEIR accomplishemnts as a team - it should be listed on the individual page and can be referred to in the text if it's in any way notable in relation to the team IMO. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to come to or not. I started a (admittedly very basic) article on Mickie Knuckles but it was deleted due to lack of notability. The person who deleted it suggested that I mention it here and see if you think it is worth editing and resubmitting.

The work I have done so far is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apsouthern/Sandbox - obviously I have still to fill out the main section of her career, but do you think it is worth me carrying on with the article and resubmitting it, or are you of the opinion that she isn't really worth an article?

Thanks in advance --Apsouthern (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it...if you can get about 20 refs go for it, but that is my opinion. SexySeaSquid 14:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added some more info and submitted it - lets see if it stays for more than a couple of hours this time...--Apsouthern (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on how the previous FACs have gone, it's safe to bet that SummerSlam (2007) will also fail in its current state. Since proof of research has been shown for some of the sites, would it be worth removing the other sources (Lords of Pain, WrestleView and Hoffco, Inc.)? They seem to be used as duplicate references, so removing them would still leave the article fully sourced. Of course, if the other editor still isn't willing to accept Pro Wrestling History, Online World of Wrestling and 411Mania as reliable sources, this idea wouldn't help at all. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Should we get in touch with User:Ealdgyth directly and ask if he/she would be willing to remove the objections if Lords of Pain, WrestleView and Hoffco, Inc. were removed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I say it is worth asking. Nikki311 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I present to you, Editor of the Week. (Or two weeks). I got this idea from the GA newsletter, where they have their Reviewer of the Month. We can do the same sort of thing. There would be a section in the newsletter explaining why the user is the Editor of the Week. Any opinions? iMatthew 2008 11:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sound's cool, mayby we should attach this to an interview or something, and ask the editor of the week like questions, or ask him to give advice. Cool thinking Matt.--TrUCo-X 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can combine this with the member interview. Combined, the EOTW will be interviewed (with new questions) and be asked some questions that's answers are advice to new editors. Any more thoughts/opinions? iMatthew 2008 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. I give my support to this. SexySeaShark 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By having one EOTW, it eliminates have two member interviews per week also. iMatthew 2008 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with SexySeaShark. I think it's an awesome idea. Nice thinking Matt!! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. This is very helpful to the project. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the nomination page here. iMatthew 2008 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think if we do this, we should publish all of the interviews in this week's newsletter. If an interview is currently blank, I will leave the interviewee a message asking him or her to answer the question. We can start after this newsletter with the nominations, and coming up with the new interview questions. iMatthew 2008 19:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I AfD it. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! Okay, this article needs to be expanded and kept. I've got some press clippings, so I'll work on it. I just wasn't planning on doing it right away. Oh well. Can anyone point me to a template for citing newspapers (print)? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. I had to fight with the template (it says to use "newspaper=", but that didn't show up at all, so I had to go with "publisher="). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This can also apply to the 2006 event. Basically, ECW is apart of the PPV name, since the event is being presented by WWE, since there was no ECW. Normally we have "WWE presents No Mercy" or "WWE presents Backlash", but in this case, it's "WWE presents ECW One Night Stand". Mshake3 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup! It's really an ECW PPV. It has the feel of the last original ECW Event so I say moveth Straight Edge PXK 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be moved. It's more specific, especially since "One Night Stand" has more than one meanings." :0 iMatthew 2008 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever says being bold is a bad Idea? DONEStraight Edge PXK 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

and DONE Straight Edge PXK 22:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chikara has granted me special permission to use any pics off their website under the GFDL. There many pics of current roster wrestlers and current/former WWF Superstars and TNA/ROH guys. Please check out there site and send suggestions on my talk page.--Endless Dan 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess nobody read the above thread, I have AfD it here. iMatthew 2008 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a few people making posts here just to mention an AFD. Do we really need to make announcements of AFDs here? I thought that's what the wrestling-related deletion list was for. Most active members should be watching that page. If people just stuck to putting things in the list, we could keep this page a little more clean. It's already got 47 archives, which is ridiculous. - DrWarpMind (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is important to the project, unless we can create a new sub project page for AfD's--TrUCo-X 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A subpage would be redundant to the existing list Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Wrestling. Perhaps we should just add that to the navbar so more people can find it. It's a very useful page. - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats an Idea, but the browse bar has too many functions up to date.--TrUCo-X 14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then maybe it's time to clean up the navbar a bit. The notice board has fallen out of use and the PPV expansion guidelines could be merged into the general style guide. - DrWarpMind (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been  Done iMatthew 2008 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm noticing this all over the place. Half of the pro-wrestling articles list the sources under a section named, "Notes." While the other half list the sources under, "References." This should be the same in every wrestling article, so which do we use? Notes? or References? iMatthew 2008 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends. Especially if book sources are used, Notes are for the footnotes (author, title, page number) and references is where you list all the book's info (author, title, publisher, date, isbn, etc). Nikki311 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't watch TNA, so I need some help from those who do. A dynamic IP keeps changing some of the move names. Are these fake fan names, or do they refer to the moves this way on the program? Nikki311 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is TNA doesn't really list signature moves used by TNA wrestlers, and if a commentator calls it something, that is what fans automatically think it is called, but if the commentators call it that for a while it's official, but "Love Train" sounds like a real name and at the same time a fan name, but Lights out sounds like a common wrestling move name.--TrUCo-X 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The other is, Angelina Love hasn't won that many matches that we would really know the names she is using on signature moves. LessThanClippers 19:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a page for the Chikara Tag World Grand Prix 2006, but not one for 2003 or 2005. I put together a page for 2003 and was about to start 2005 but I was wondering whether you think that all three tournaments should be merged into the one article like the Ted Petty Invitational, or have a seperate article for each like the TNA 2003 Super X Cup Tournament and TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament?--Apsouthern (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to notify the project that I would like to nominate Backlash for Good article criteria, but I just want to know if the article fits the criteria. If not, please notify me with what the article is in need. Zenlax ^{T C S} 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say this is not useful at all. I think it should be deleted or re-directed to this talk page. iMatthew 2008 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I say Re-Direct, that page hasn't been in use since last November and has gone un-used an unseen. Basically just lists discussions going on here, and most project members just come here to see what's going on, so a redirect would be the way to go here, IMO.--TrUCo-X 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. What about the library? Is it necessary to have it in the nav bar? Or can it just be listed on the main page? I'm trying to clean-up the nav bar and shrink it to one line, instead of two. iMatthew 2008 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I say the main page.--TrUCo-X 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken external links to the main page as well? iMatthew 2008 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That, and the stub articles to the main page, the nav bar should only have things that are really important, technical stuff like stub articles/broken external links should be on the main page.TrUCo-X 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The stub articles is like the PPV expansion though, they are both expansions. iMatthew 2008 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, you gonna have to leave it in the second line. --TrUCo-X 00:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we create another sub-page called "PW Expansions" and give a link to the PPV and stub expansion? That way we can take PPV and Stub expansions off of the navbar and replace it with expansions. iMatthew 2008 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

IDK, i find it easier to have the PPV link on the browse bar, if we can't get it all in one line, shrink the nav bar, or creat a new one. I think the project page needs to be PIMPEDTrUCo-X 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anybody else think that the project should get new colors. The yellow is gettin' to me. I think a light blue, or green, or maybe red would be nice. iMatthew 2008 00:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If we do, we should stretch it all the way around the talk page, like on my talk page.TrUCo-X 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeahh! I vote for light blue! iMatthew 2008 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin it should strech like our talk page's. DX green would look kinda cool but that would get old quick. SexySeaSquid 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And who the hell came up with that horrible yellow lol. SexySeaSquid 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

i vote light blue MATT 01:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on something here. iMatthew 2008 01:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In second thought, that doesn't look to good. (No offense), too dark, and distracting.TrUCo-X 01:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. –LAX 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more as well. Considering I said I'm working on it. I'm playing around with colors, looking for different color combinations, not just blue. I'll play with it more tomorrow. But right now it looks horrible. iMatthew 2008 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The teal in my siggy looks nice. The brown could even be put to use. Of course, this is all up to you guys. I'm apathetic to the colors of the project, just so long as there is a project. It could be lime green with bright orange polka dots that smell like rotten jalapeños for all I care ($10,000 to the person who figures out how to code that). Peace, SexySeaBass 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

lol @ HYbrid, but i think Lime would look good, or lime and black or something like that.TrUCo-X 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You like lime? But then the project would taste weird, and burn if you got it in your eyes... It would be good in beer though. Hmm, maybe lime isn't so bad, SexySeaBass 02:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or how about silver?--TrUCo-X 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked having the link to the stub articles on the navigation bar. I used it several times every day, so it was nice to have it easily accessible. I think it's also just as important to the project as the pay per views, so I'd like to see it back. Removing content for the sake of removing content doesn't make sense to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I told Matt to leave it. So Idk.--TrUCo-X 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)--TrUCo-X 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Truco, looking above I don't see where you said to leave it. I put it back, and moved the to-do list to the main page, since it is barely used. iMatthew 2008 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've read over comments above about the colors, and I've tried two different colors out. I'm not sure about this one? Suggestions or comments are welcomes...or should I try different colors. iMatthew 2008 11:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Look's better, but is there a lighter silver/gray available?--TrUCo-X 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)--TrUCo-X 13:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I made it lighter. Are there any other color combinations you'd like to try out? iMatthew 2008 14:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NiciVampireHeart and I have gotten the EOTW up and started. I will publish all of the interviews on the waiting list this week. If an interview is blank, I'll leave the interviewee a message giving them a week to answer. The newsletter will be a week late. Any suggestings on how to improve the EOTW are welcome. Otherwise, go check it out. iMatthew 2008 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "This user is the current WikiProject Professional Wrestling editor of the week" to clarify. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done iMatthew 2008 17:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated List of WCW Hardcore Champions for the featured list of the day in June.--TrUCo-X 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another one for cleanup, and his real name is? Anyway, Not sure if I will add him to this ep of Velocity on TV.com Govvy (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Wrestling Professionals was a mess. It was agreed that it should be broken into separate AfD's. This AfD is for the wrestlers mentioned, except the ones that were said to be notable. iMatthew 2008 16:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page about it awhile ago, but I believe the bottom of the page was vandalised or something happened to the article. There are no references and one external link I put back. A little cleanup might help!! Govvy (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to become more of a wikipedian and less of just a copy editor/vandal hunter, I have been reading a lot of Wiki policies. When I read WP:Notability it said that everything in the article does not have to be notable, just the subject matter itself, and that the information in the article add to the overall article, be sourced, and not be considered trivia. Well I have often seen things removed from wrestling articles, and the editors arguement is that the information is not-notable. Am I reading a policy wrong, or is there still more of a larger issue I am still not understanding. This is just a friendly request to help me become a better member of the project. I'd like to start expanding and working on articles, and not just hunt for problems. LessThanClippers 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes two of us On the hunting for problems part :). SexySeaSquid 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone's head in this project is about to expload. And for a good reason as well. Good find, and I'll be more careful in my removings in the future. Mshake3 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the non-notable argument is used to prevent week-by-week results being addded to articles. If not, for example, Kofi Kingston, would list every result he's had so far on ECW. We don't allow week-by-week because it clutters up the article and makes it way too long, but also, because the information isn't notable to their overall career. I understand where LessThanClippers is coming from, and I will try to think of a better way to phrase this when removing trivia/information in the future, but it's just something to bear in mind. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My question still remains then, if something is sourced, and correct, what ground sdo we have to remove it? Thsi project may not want, week by week, but often times i see the edits being overboard. Someone lists "since this, HHH has had feuds with Umaga, Randy Orton, and JBl" for example,and seven people say they cant add that because the feuds were not notable. So where does this policy come from? LessThanClippers 18:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself that the information in the article has to add to the overall article, be sourced, and not be considered trivia. So what if Triple H had minor feuds with Umaga, Orton, and JBL? What does that sentence add to the article? It adds nothing to the reader's insight of his career, it just adds length to an article way past Wikipedia's desired length requirements. Nikki311 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess there is the point, and it just seems to be a subjective issue. In the case of HHH's article where there was no update for a 6 month period of time, giving a brief synopsis of the fueds he has been involved in recently (until soemthing more major happens) seems to be adding to the article. I have seen editors remove information about "currently involved in a feud with X", saying that we dont add information to a feud until it is over. I feel knowing what someone is working on right now is adding to the article, similar to an actor's page saying something like "currently shooting film x". If the feud ends up being not worth mentioning in future revisions of the article, then remove it, but I don't see how keeping current on articles that honestly deal with current events is improper. Just my thoughts, I am just trying to learn, and understand more, and if I am missing a point, let me know. LessThanClippers 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is subjective, and sometimes there is a fine line. If someone has been feuding for multiple weeks over a title belt or something, then that should included whether or not the feud is over. Like you said, it always be edited out later. As for notability of the info in an article, I'd also like to point out WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, if you look under Plot Summary (which let's face it, all the actions in wrestling are part of a larger plot/storyline), it states A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. In other words, not every little detail, match, or storyline should be included. Sometimes it is better to wait it out for a little while before adding the info to see if it is a few-week long feud the abruptly ends and is never mentioned again, or a longer/more complex feud worthy of mentioning. It really just depends. Nikki311 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are all the matches for ppvs unbolded? for me at least, it is easier to read if it is bolded. why the change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTUnick (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Per here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on this talk page about this topic. Please see #Bolding in PPV articles. Nikki311 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this.http://www.fightingspiritmagazine.co.uk/article.asp?IntID=100 I just know that someone is going to try and put this before long.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Its just a column, not official, nothing to really worry about. But there are editors out there who might, but lets just see..--~SRS~ 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's mostly what I meant. I ran across it and just figured I'd bring it to everyone's attention just in case:)Odin's Beard (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the first EOTW, go cast your vote! iMatthew 2008 23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen arguements for and against this and still dont understand what can be put in. The big one I see this with is John Cena. PW is in many ways similar to a tv show or a movie, and many of those articles have mention of the overwhelmind public criticsm, see Ishtar (movie) or Leonard Part 6. In Cena's case, there have been numerous articles written by third party sources on criticism of his actual technique as a wrestler. What would the proper way to add htis to an article be? or does this not belong, and if so, why not? LessThanClippers 19:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fans booing Cena is mentioned in the article. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is fine if it is sourced by multiple third party reliable sources. However, most of the time when these sorts of sections are added, they aren't sourced, so they seem more like personal opinion. Especially for Cena, I think you are right in that there are multiple sources available. If this is the case, the information should be added, as it is relevant and makes the article more well-rounded. Nikki311 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: Would DVD refs. be a good source? For Cena's case. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends. What would you be citing? If it is another wrestler legitimately (not in kayfabe) criticizing his in-ring ability, then use it. Otherwise, I'm not sure what it would be good for. Nikki311 19:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know there's sources for the fact that Cena gets booed for his in-ring ability. But, wouldn't it help to add DVD refs. too, when it comes to the PPV events, where he does get booed, to the statements and stuff? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I understand what you mean now. If it is stated elsewhere and that ref is provided, then citing a DVD probably isn't necessary, but it wouldn't hurt anything. Nikki311 19:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Just wanted to check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it say why the fans boo Cena? I still don't know why maybe someone can clue me in lol. SexySeaSquid 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we still have a "main" page for the Vengeance titled events located at WWE Vengeance, then have a new "main" page for WWE Night of Champions linking to this year's event and any future events? Vengeance titled events shouldn't be on the Night of Champions main page IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Normaly I would agree since it is a new PPV. But in this case, with 2007 being WWE Vengeance:Night of Champions, and wsubsequent years just being Night of Champions, i think it is more of a repackage of the PPV then it is a completely new PPV. I think that explaining it in the main part of the article and listing both suffices, with a redirect from the no longer current vengeance name. LessThanClippers 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other side of the fence, I disagree. Judgement Day, Backlash, and Unforgiven can all be derived from In Your House roots. Then they took out the In Your House thing, and we've given them their own section and article. If they take Vengeance out of it, then we should give Night of Champions it's own article, separate from Vengeance, and include Vengeance: Night of Champions in its list like Backlash: In Your House is included in Backlash's page. Just my opinion.--ProtoWolf (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with ProtoWolf. iMatthew 2008 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you then Say Vengeance:Night of Champions belongs in both lists? LessThanClippers 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If my opinion were upheld, then yes, I would put it in both lists.--ProtoWolf (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Less than Clippers, the lineage is the same. Since its introduction, the event was known as Vengeance, but in 2007, it was called VengeanceNight of Champions, this year it was just named Night of Champions, to reflect the name of the 2007 event and continue its lineage with the Vengeance title.~SRS~ 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if this were a championship we were talking about, bit its not. We're talking about a specific line of PPV names. If the PPV no longer carries the Vengeance name, its not Vengeance. Its night of champions. We don't keep all of the Backlash's in the In Your House list, because they arn't.--ProtoWolf (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also mention that this year's PPV was originally scheduled to be "Vengeance", supporting this as a simple renaming or rebranding. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This problem has been going on for a while. Let's try to reach some sort of consensus on them. As of now: many people seem to be just hypocritical when it comes to them. Things such as money in the bank (which is just a special name for a ladder match that features a title shot as the prize) are kept, while things such as career threatening (which is a special name for a retirement match) are removed from the article. On the subject of money in the bank: I think a merge into ladder should happen. A list of qualifying matches, and a list of matches/results of every MITB to happen is listcruft/clutter in my view. WCW had World War 3: and it was just a special name for a battle royal that they did yearly. TNA does the same thing with matches: slaps a name on it, and puts it on pay-per-views each year. Then there is taglines. Some of these could be argued that they are match names, and should be listed in the results section. The problem with both names and taglines is: several editors control the articles and just jam everything they personally love into the report and remove it from the results section. My view on this is, that all special match names and taglines should be either listed in the results or the report ONLY... it shouldn't be some of this and some of that. That just makes it sloppy. Can we try to come up with a solution, instead of ignoring this problem (which has been ignored for quite a while). RobJ1981 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of the things you're saying, except the Money in the Bank merger, which I do not think should happen. This is because the match itself, sure, is just a glorified ladder match, but it happens annually at WrestleMania, which awards some merit of its own list, in my humble opinion. I also thought the fact that we wern't referring to Ric Flair's "Career Threatening" Matches as such was kinda stupid, when WWE Broadcasts referred to them as such. Again, this is my humble opinion.--ProtoWolf (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If WWE mentions the tagline and/or match name regularly on televison, the pay-per-view event, it's listed on the DVD back (and so on), that certainly shows it's an important thing to list. Why even have a results section in the first place if it's just sloppy and doesn't list important details? Many people read the event section, but many people don't. People shouldn't be forced to read one section to find every special tagline and match name. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not have problem with using tag lines because I feel we should display it just as WWE promotes it. The reason we have not reached a consensus is because people are very hypocritical and cannot decide whether they want taglines or don't want them, so they are happy with some and not for others. Also, I do not think MITB should be merged either. It's like having the Royal Rumble merged with a Battle Royal article. Just doesn't happen because that it is an annual event etc. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to achieve a consensus is to start off by calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a hypocrite. From there, continue repeating the accusation. There's no better way to start a discussion and it's always sure to make people want to engage in a civil debate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, there is a lot of hypocriticy on this issue, and it must be resolved. Mshake3 (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly can say: this problem does involve hyprocites in action. Why leave that note out? Many of the people against certain names and taglines, are just fine with certain ones as well. There's no reason to have it both ways. WWE (as well as other promotions) heavily promote matches as something, so it shouldn't just be ignored in articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree.--ProtoWolf (talk) 05:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because WWE gives it a special name doesn't mean it's necessarily note worthy, it could be a lame attempt at making a match appear more important than it is. I'd argue career threatening (or rather retirematch match) tags are important as it's a stipulation, Money In The Bank should be listed because it's effectively a championship, the winner is called Mr MiTB and they carry the briefcase round like a title belt. I think if the match results in some sort of change (#1 contender status, retirement, moving brands, shaving their hair) then it should be noted whereas if it's something like brand superiority but the losing brand doesn't change in any way then it isn't noteable. Tony2Times (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See the recent edits of WrestleMania XXIV. I try to put in a few words, and it gets reverted off by the usual match name removers. Is a request for comment needed for this, to solve the problem? Frankly, people need to stop making a big deal about a FEW WORDS that are factual and important to the section. Why even have a results section if people are so nitpicky about what goes there? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm with RobJ1981 on this one. That's all I'm going to say. SexySeaBass 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just amazed at how often that article has been reverted by the same editors for both sides of the argument. Once was an accident, twice is unlikely, but this has been like six times now. We need another vote on this. Mshake3 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was reverted six times, yes, but by the same editor for no real reason. The editor said he was doing it "per consensus", only problem is that his version of consensus on the matter has since changed. At this stage, I think its worthy to note that one of the users in the dispute, RobJ1981, currently has a RFC going on about his edits. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Look it was put to a vote on the mania talk page. There was two votes for it. TWO. There was seven or eight against it. Now we will put it to another vote right now and let this be the end of it.

FOR the title:

Against the title: LifeStroke420 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

LifeStroke, you are missing the point. You were for some reason removing it from the lead. That has nothing to do with the taglines in the results section of the articles. D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, if this is sutable for the lead, then what's the problem with having it in the match section? Mshake3 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No DMN YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. We are gonna vote for it. Vote or you opinion doesnt matter. Im through playing games about this this same discussion has been going on for over a month and just when its over you wanna reopen it. Vote or lose your opinion you choice.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Its the best way to solve this as its two people wanting it in and they keep vandalising the page. LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Accusing others of vandalism for what they perceive as positive contributions won't help anything. And the knee-jerk reaction about voting being the best way to solve things shows a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. I take it you haven't bothered reading the links I suggested, but I think it is important to note that a Wikipedia guideline states that "Voters often expect that a majority or supermajority will automatically win the argument, or that the result will be binding — which is not the case." GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As discussed above, I've been working on new color combinations for the main page of WP:PW.

This is what I currently have. I like this one, as does Truco-X. (here) iMatthew 2008 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new color combination.--ProtoWolf (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As do I. *round of applause for Matt* ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Takes bows..thanks! I need a few more opinions, and maybe I'll make the change. iMatthew 2008 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree I do with iMatthew,NiciVampireHeart,and protowolf, the new color is great. Question are we going to vote for the editer of the week? SexySeaSquid 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a idea that I think most will like, I think for changing the color of the project, making the editer of the week section, iMatthew should be the first editer of the week..as a reward for the great idea's who agrees? SexySeaSquid 18:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sounds kinda biased, but mayby a vote is better. (The process for the EOTW)TrUCo-X 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we even need a new look for our front page? IMO we could spend a lot more time improving articles instead of working on things in our userspace that do not improve the encyclopedia one bit. It's a front page, does it really matter what it looks like? We have much bigger things to deal with than "the look of our front page". D.M.N. (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I see your point Truco, and D.M.N. it's just nice for some change every now and then, besides your the first that does not aprove. SexySeaSquid 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

For me, the new page look makes it look neater, and more presentable. I agree that we can be spending the time to improve articles. I was going to take a short wiki-break this weekend, because I'm sick and not feeling to well, but instead I decided to stay on and work on a small project, and I chose the main page. Also, thank's Squid, for saying I should be EOTW, but as Truco said, read the EOTW subpage on the procedure to pick the EOTW. iMatthew 2008 18:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

pretty cool, maybe someone could make a graphic on fireworks or paint shop pro to replace the text "wikiproject Professional Wrestling" to make it look better Straight Edge PXK 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please either support, oppose, or comment on these changes to the layout of the main page. Vote for either Sample 1, Sample 2, or Sample 3. (S1 is the the one at the top of the page, S2 is the middle, S3 is the bottom) iMatthew 2008 19:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sample 1 -- ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sample 1 -- as nominator. iMatthew 2008 20:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  Support Sample 2 - I like that one better. iMatthew2008 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  I've been on looking at the samples a lot, and after looking at S2 a few times, it becomes pretty distracting. I have to stick with Supporting Sample 1. iMatthew 2008 14:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sample 1 -- SexySeaSquid 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sample 1 -- Apsouthern (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Sample 1 - No offense, but that gray/silver is a really boring color, and will get old really fast. I like the idea of using a shade of light blue. It won't wear on the eyes, but it won't be boring either. SexySeaBass 22:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Poll on Hold - Tomorrow is the first change I will get, so I will try out Hybrid's idea and re-open the poll. iMatthew 2008 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  I've added another sample at the bottom of the page with light blue replacing gray. iMatthew 2008 01:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-I have to agree with Hybrid, red and that type of gray is kinda boring, is there a lighter color for the background? Also the second sample is not good, its too distracting.TrUCo-X 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  I can create another sample, what do you want changed Truco? iMatthew 2008 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the thing is, the gray is too dark, like it doesn't really match the red. I just think that the gray is a little to dark.--TrUCo-X 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the gray one shade lighter again, do you like that? IMO, it's too white right now. iMatthew 2008 02:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IMO that looks better.TrUCo-X 02:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll leave it like that. iMatthew 2008 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sample 1 - The Chronic 02:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sample 1 - MATT^talk 02:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The red doesn't feel right. Any chance we could have the silver background from Sample 1 and for the header, the blue from Sample 2? -- Oakster  Talk  09:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  I created a Sample 3. iMatthew 2008 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Current Layout - Looks better than the other three - the colours go well together. D.M.N. (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• New style - I never though I would say this buy I agree with D.M.N. (kinda), I think we should not do borders but just change the yellow up top to a different color and not so bright that it hurts your eyes. SexySeaSquid 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  Support Sample 3 - Wait I did not see Oaksters idea I like it the best, NICE vision Oakster :) SexySeaSquid 14:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment-its not official, but I kinda am bored of the new designs. Mayby the current format should stay, we are one of the only few projects that has a page like this.TrUCo-X 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true, but the current page style is getting old, and the point of this is simple to upgrade the page. I know that we are the only ones with this kind of designs, and I just think that with a new layout, we can make it better. I think that any of the new colors would make the project look more presentable than the gold does. iMatthew 2008 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Sample 1--ProtoWolf (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sample 1, it looks good and stuff. Good job, Matt. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the majority of the people support sample 1. Before I put it up, are there any additional comments, or opposes to it? iMatthew 2008 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Last call... iMatthew 2008 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it, I guess... SexySeaBass 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the problem with Sample 2 is that it is a bit dark, perhaps using a lighter tone (like the one in my user page) could make it more readable since it will reduce the contrast between the background and links. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But, we are using Sample 1, not Sample 2. iMatthew 2008 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only done the main page/talk page and COTW. I'm giving a day to see if anybody has any more comments before I finish and change the colors for everything in the project. iMatthew 2008 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You should put a border around the talk page.~SRS~ 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We did when we switched to gold, but it was removed for some reason. –LAX 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone is adding information on the Phil Theis page about his work on a website called stickman. Does anyone know anything about this site. I requested info from the IP user who adds it and he placed this on my talk page. I do not have external internet access at work, can someone look at those links, see what they are about, and let me know if it is a verifiable, and b relevant? Thanks LessThanClippers 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article it'self and you shouldn't use that Angelfire source, that's not even 3rd party! The interview is a good attachment article but sourcing from it? Govvy (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Has been going around and re-bolding the results of the PPV articles. Keep an eye out. iMatthew 2008 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on the IP's talk page asking to stop the re-bolding. ArcAngel (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In several of my local papers advertising an NWA event, they advertise Rob Conway as the NWA World Champion. I haven't seen any online reports of this, can anybody confirm/deny this? Kris (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope he isn't, see here (last updated on April 14). - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon WWE Unmatched Fury Action Figures, WCW Galoob Action Figures, WWF Hasbro Action Figures and Wrestling Superstars today. What is the guideline for notability here? Should we delete some? - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time it was discussed, it came down to whether the figures had been mentioned by an independent media source. The Jakks figures had not, so the article was deleted. I'm sure I've read about the Hasbro figures, so I think that, at the very least, that article should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have several magazines at my home which mention, specifically, JAKKS wrestling figures and have articles on their new lines of action figures and price guides and photoes. I say they are notable and just need to be sourced. These are not wrestling magazines btw. --Naha|^(talk) 18:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, with all this talk about conscious being needed to change things, how the hell did we allow the bolding of all PPV articles to be removed due to the opinions of ONE EDITOR!?!?! Mshake3 (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

100% with you. I liked the bolding better. iMatthew 2008 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was much easier to read bolded. - DrWarpMind (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was because of MoS or something like that.--TrUCo-X 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS:BOLD states: Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses:

• Table headers
• Definition lists (example: David E. Kelley)
• Volume numbers of journal articles, in some bibliographic formats

Hope that makes it clearer. Nikki311 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Nikki. Policy goes over a three/four person concensus in any sense. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well thank you for finally mentioning that. In the future, could you list the policy before you mass change dozens of articles? Mshake3 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. BTW, I was changing the articles in good faith so please don't take it the wrong way. It seems as though you have a problem with the changes despite the fact it goes against Wikipedia policy. D.M.N. (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So what's the resolution (bare with me, Im kinda slow on this)TrUCo-X 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I say we re-bold everything. It's so much easier to read. CTUnick 14 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We can't. It goes against the MoS. Nikki311 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We need to follow the MoS folks. --Naha|^(talk) 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Should this page exist? DrWarpMind (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It has already been speedily deleted a bunch of times at World Beer Drinking Championship for not indicating notability. Nikki311 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I say speedy.--~SRS~ 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deleted by the best admin in this project. :D D.M.N. (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More than 40% of the articles at GAN (under the sports section) are from this project and alot of them are not getting reviewed, ideas to clear this up?--~SRS~ 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we can do is review other articles. Keep reviewing other articles, then ask the person who nominated that article to review a wrestling article. iMatthew 2008 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets, this project, get some other reviews done. Do we have any volunteers to review 2006 ACC Championship Game, My Life With Master, Ricky Henderson, Howmet TX? iMatthew 2008 20:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of my editing lately has been GA reviews. If I get a chance over the weekend, I'll probably do Howmet TX unless someone wants to do it sooner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why people always bring this up. They'll get reviewed eventually....just be patient and review a few articles to get rid of the backlog in front of them. Nikki311 20:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And when reviewing, add a request that the nominator also review an article (just add {{subst:User:DHMO/GAP}}, and the template will take care of it for you). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just put the two oldest articles on the page on hold, so that might help somewhat. Nikki311 21:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The new COTW's should be chosen tomorrow, but there is currently a four way tie for first place. Please go vote if you have not yet, to try and break this tie. iMatthew 2008 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's only been a week, so the next COTW will be chosen next Sunday. Nikki311 23:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. iMatthew 2008 00:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And I updated the "Upcoming" table weeks ago to show the correct dates. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)