Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

The above section (found here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Simply Priceless) has made me realize it's time we need to do some cleanup of the cruft and clutter for tag teams. Some that probably could go include: Vicious and Delicious (brief team that didn't do much, relevant information should be in the solo wrestler articles). It has been in AFD in the past, which I thought would've gotten people to improve the article at least..but it didn't. Another example is: Southern Boys. While they held some titles, I don't see any notability shown. Holding a tag title doesn't instantly make them notable (if that was the case, we would have articles for every team that held gold for major and indy promotions). For a full listing of teams and stables, see: Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables. I strongly feel we need to do a lot of cleanup, sourcing, as well as deleting when needed. I also think we need to discuss a tag team guideline that will be enforced, something such as what iMatthew suggested in the discussion about Simply Priceless could work. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rob that a clean up of the Tag Teams is needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just thought to add that in there. It just popped into my head. Okay, there is two teams I believe we can get rid of, one is The Flying Elvises and the other is The Elite Guard.--WillC 09:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

User:AdonisRouse has been adding multiple pictures to Angel Williams, Velvet Sky and The Beautiful People (professional wrestling). Could someone check to see if the surface somewhere else. The user claims he created said pictures himself. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

They look pretty authentic and have camera details, which is a good sign. I don't immediately recognize any from the internets, but I'll keep an eye out. Nikki311 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'm not very savvy on image policy, and they looked very professionally done to me. We'll see, I guess. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks stolen to me. Take Image:Lauren Williams.jpg. It was taken from here. You can tell it's from there because the resolution uploaded here is the same type from the detailed Flickr page. And the person who took it didn't upload it here because the file uploaded to Flickr is actually of a slightly higher resolution. Why would they upload their photo to Flickr, download a smaller version of it, and reupload it here? GUILTY! Mshake3 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And how do I know they're stolen? This is my image, stolen from Flickr! Mshake3 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image:Velvet & Angelina Entrance.jpg. Image is stolen from TNAwrestling.com. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place. WP:IFD. D.M.N. (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Had no idea that page even existed. I assumed it was the same as an AfD. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe we need to improve pro wrestling video game articles. Like the old WWF, WCW, and ECW games. Something more than just SvR series games. There is alot of stubs in those articles and most are start classes.--WillC 07:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

What sort of style should we base these on? I had WM2000 and No Mercy not to mention the mighty Super WM on the Mega Drive so I could give them a bash if I knew the style to aim for, but I fear a lot of it would be uncited information. Tony2Times (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All Star Pro-Wrestling and WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006 are GA and should give a general idea of what to include. By owning a game, I'd think at least the gameplay and mode sections could be filled out. Nikki311 00:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been noticing these games haven't got much attention and I think with the knowledge of many wrestling websites about these games it should be easy to at least get a few of these to B or C class.--WillC 03:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

aha, now its my time to shine. I've had every game since WWFSD!:JBI PXK ^T /_C 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't help on gameplay for the very old games. I only have WWF Raw Zone. I will get TNA Impact! though.--WillC 19:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I have so far for WM2000 and I feel like it's not very good, methinks someone is gonna have to go through and take my knowledge and turn it into an actual encylopedic entry. Will finish the rest in the morning but all help gratefully received. Tony2Times (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_wrestling

This article could seriously do with better monitoring and editing. It is currently full of terribly blatant bias towards independent wrestlers. Such as:

"many of the "workers" aren't as chiseled as the ones on television broadcasts. Still, many local wrestlers are extremely talented, with some grapplers' techniques and charisma surpassing some of those on broadcasts of the WWE or TNA. Independent wrestlers normally have "shoot jobs" and usually wrestle for the love of the business only, since most paydays are pretty low" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.250.122 (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be some OR in there that needs to be cleaned out.  Hazardous Matt  21:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest complete rewrite... I read this article about a year ago, and hardly anything has changed from it, and it still sucks... what do you think? Feedback ^☎ 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We can now nominate topics that are those of lesser quality than FA/FL (thus GA's).--S_RX 21:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What topic would be good to nominate? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Completed topics, which are of less quality of FA/FLs. WWE No Way Out would not be good since it's series is not complete. (GA wise)--S_RX 21:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on WWE New Year's Revolution. I will most likely nominate the article for FA status. The 2005 and 2007 events are already GA's and I plan on working on the 2006 event very soon. After this project, I'll probably try to get the The Great American Bash article, the 2005 and 2008 events to GA. iMatthew (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, Cyber Sunday might be somewhat of a good topic, somewhat. Also, Matt I think you mean the Bash '06, not '05. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Definately could be for somebody to work on. And that's what I meant, Blue. ;) iMatthew (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of The Great American Bash, wasn't The Great American Bash seperated from WWE The Great American Bash because it was becoming too long? Now that the latter article just links to events, would now be the time to consolidate both tables together? I brought this up before but only one person replied, saying they were in favour, and I didn't think that was enough of a consensus. Tony2Times (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely against that, it's two separate events (just with the same name) It's fine separated. iMatthew (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we, by that token, split up NWA's GAB from WCW's GAB? Tony2Times (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. iMatthew (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We could also promote tag teams/stables to GA. For example, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, and Lita are all GA. So maybe if we make Hardy Boyz a GA, that can be a Good Topic. It might even be a good tag team article to do as a collaboration. Nikki311 23:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose great minds think alike? ;) I was going to work on the Hardy Boyz article tomorrow. iMatthew (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another GT could be Bubba Ray, D-Von, Spike and Dudley Boyz. iMatthew (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

DX: HBK and Triple H are GA's and Chyna's is a GA candidate. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well VKM would also have to be GA then, along with B.G.'s and Kip's single articles for DX.--WillC 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't the original members work instead? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The topics have to be comprehensive, so I'd imagine all the former members would have to be GA, including Steph McMahon, Mike Tyson, and Tori. Nikki311 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, then forget my idea. How 'bout Paul London and Brian Kendrick, both their articles are GA. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Ashley also have to be a GA since she was their valet for a good while.--WillC 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also the Paul London and Brian Kendrick article would have be a GA, almost one but not quite. I don't think we have really completed topics unfortunately.--S_RX 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I had the intention of getting Hardy Boyz and Kendrick and London's article to GA, in the future, (since I got Matt Hardy, Jeff Hardy, Paul London, and Brian Kendrick all to GA). iMatthew (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A future project could also be La Familia (professional wrestling): With Adam Copeland, Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder, Bam Neely, Chavo Guerrero, and Vickie Guerrero. (But that would be a lot of work). iMatthew (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Another easy one would be to make WWE Bad Blood a GA and In Your House: Badd Blood a GA, since 2003 and 2004 are already GA's.S_RX 15:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We could also do the same for TNA Victory Road. Though none are GA, two have been expanded: 04 and 08. 08 isn't finished but it will be finished within the week and will be placed up for Peer review as well. 04 doesn't need much work to be GA. Just more sources and to be taken out of universe. 07 and 06 are already created. If we want a project that could be one.--WillC 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree on not pruning candidates for COTW until two rounds of voting have taken place, and the article hasn't been chosen either time? Because every article deserves a chance, and just because one article needs a lot of work, doesn't mean the others don't need any.

Also, would anybody oppose renaming the page to Professional Wrestling Collaboration, as it is no longer a Collaboration of the Week? (Taken from discussion above with no comments to it). iMatthew (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, though on the naming. I think it should just be called Collaboration. No reason for the pro wrestling since this is Wikiproject Professional wrestling.--WillC 01:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I just coming to ask the same thing about the pruning. It seemed a little strange to me to prune every article after the first round. Anyway, I updated it - we now have six collaborations!! Get to work people! LOL. I don't reallt care what its called, btw. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should prune anything, honestly. As soon as one passes GA, we can pick the next highest from the list. As long as there aren't a million pages nominated (which I doubt there would be), it shouldn't be a problem. Then, all the articles will have a chance. Nikki311 17:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just thought to tell everyone, that since I've been starting to expand the TNA ppvs and no one actually helps besides small changes I'm going to expand Bound for Glory IV in a sandbox, because I would like to make it an FA and I do not want to deal with IPs and other users removing the Out of Universe content like in No Surrender 08 with the Olympic Slam. Plus I would like to add a production section and make it perfect. I just feel like I should inform everyone that I'm not doing it out in the open, so that no one starts to expand it for no reason because whatever is written will be removed when I'm done with it after Bound for Glory.--WillC 07:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

When you say "whatever is written will he removed when I'm done with it" it sounds like you're trying to WP:OWN the article. Instead of removing it, merge the information on the page with the information you've written. iMatthew (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be there that weekend, so I'll see what I can do for photos. Mshake3 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking like in universe writing. I'll place photos and references, while keeping it out of universe in my sandbox. I'm not saying it is my article and no one can touch it, I'm just saying that I believe what I write will be better. See understand, lets say an IP starts the report out of fun. He'll write it in universe. Like the main feud heading into Bound for Glory is between Sting and Samoa Joe. Sting believes that no one respects the legends in the business while Joe says that he has no reason too since they just stay around to take the spotlight from the new guys. Mine would be different.--WillC 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Before stating that "no one" helps, please keep in mind that I spent a few hours working on Lockdown (2008). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about who helps and who doesn't. Before I started on Lockdown I didn't see anyone starting to expand the TNA ppvs. I accept any help, however, I'm picky and hard to work with at times.--WillC 21:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of articles from our project have been selected to appear on the Version 0.7 DVD. The deadline for improving them is October 20th. The list of articles appearing on the DVD from our project is here. Most of them are FA's, GA's and B's, which are fine, however, the Professional wrestling, WWE Raw, Stone Cold Steve Austin, World Championship Wrestling and Bret Hart articles are marked as Start-Class. As they are marked as Start-Class, I urge that those articles are given TLC to raise it to B-level, also to get a good impression over for our project. I could drop it over at COTW, but not many people may vote for them. So, on the whole, those articles need urgent improvement. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. Few of those articles are listed here so could someone explain this to me? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That page (the articles listed) I think were in the 0.5 CD edition, and now a new one is being release the 0.7 DVD edition in a few months, with 30,506 articles being included. D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is this DVD? What is it all about? iMatthew (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of this. But did the criteria for inclusion exclude PPVs. We have two (or is it three now?) PPV FAs that are not being included. Also, Rob Van Dam needs significant work as well, despite it's B class status (which might be misplaced). I believe Punk and Benjamin's articles still need to be transitioned to OOU as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite a few of those B articles were rated awhile ago before the criteria was strengthened. Also, some of the articles seem to have depreciated over time. They could all use a general cleanup. Nikki311 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

So everyone, if you decide to clean-up an article, after you are done, put the revision on the page mentioned above, so that any other edits to the article that may be missed and nonconstructive will not be on the DVD. iMatthew (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Question: How are we cleaning these up? With general copy-edits and clean-up? Or are we fixing refs? Everything? iMatthew (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anybody know? iMatthew (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why not to try to improve them as much as possible. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well this needs to be an effort put forth by as many project members as possible. Can we hold off on our COTW's until all of the chosen articles have been cleaned-up? iMatthew (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to all contributors on successfully helping pass The Great American Bash (2005) to FA status.--S_RX 03:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats. PWWEW is a reliable source? Wowzer. Tony2Times (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't all of those supposed to be removed? I just remember seeing IMatthew removing them but a bot adding them back in.--WillC 05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, but a bot added it back in, I believe. Yes, finally it's an FA!!! iMatthew (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Since when has TV.com been a reliable source? --LAX 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask our source checker about it, but he is on vacation. iMatthew (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to ask. Anyone can edit that site, so it's obviously unreliable. --LAX 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because I seem to want to be a prick I'm just going to ask to hear the answer, anyone can edit Wikipedia, does that mean an article from this project isn't reliable? Even though The Geat American Bash 2005 made it to FA does that mean it isn't reliable since anyone can edit that article?--WillC 10:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, yes. That's why references to other Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A bot added back in removed unreliable sources? That seems odd. Nikki311 18:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. iMatthew never removed all the links for that particular source (see here) and the bot readded it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. Let me go ahead and remove those refs. Regardless, we have a new FA! iMatthew (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What that bot does is fix broken references. So if you remove the main reference but leave a <ref name=mainref> tag, the bot will go into the history of the page, find the full reference and add it to the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just anybody can edit TV.com. you have to become established on there by going thruogh the level system. SteelersFan94 21:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't considered reliable because there is no "fact checking" process. Nikki311 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

He took the time and liberty to make our second FA PPV, SummerSlam (2003), a spoken article. This in hopes proves that the new style is not rubbish. Thanks again Darrenhusted.--S_RX 10:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much SRX. It was my pleasure. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Very good effort, gives more and more legitimacy to the project even if...well, ya know. Out of interest the paragraph on success &c begins with "including its scripted build up" but then goes on to list ticket revenue, attendance and PPV buy all of which come from the one evening. Including its scripted build up sounds like it's talking about figures cumulatively gained from the Raws and SmackDowns leading up to it. Also, are all PPVs a supercard, or is it only that way now the brands are split and there are always two main events, or do other title matches/gimmick matches count as main events too? Speaking of which, both the page on card and supercard are small, would it be worth merging them? Tony2Times (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I came across Northern Championship Wrestling while brosing, and noticed that all of the images, (Image:Bobby roode ncw.jpg, Image:Sly ncw 2002.jpg, and Image:Lance storm ncw.jpg) have logos on them. However, the uploader is claiming that they are "self-made". What do I do about it as it seems fairly obvious that they're copyrighted? Is there someplace I can take them? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can IfD it or tag it for speedy deletion.--S_RX 20:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done - All three now up for IFD. D.M.N. (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time, could they take a look at List of WWA pay-per-view events? Someone took it from the simplified (but functional) page I made and turned it into basically a fan review of each event. It literally sounds like something you would see written by customers at Amazon and is just a mess. TJ Spyke 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...Wow. That's a lot of OR.  Hazardous Matt  16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What's not to love about the new format? The discussion of WCW announcer "Zarry Zabiskco"? The point of view "stupdily", "unsurprisingly", "questionable", "horrific", "a wasted opportunity", "too short", etc. (I could go on, but there are probably another hundred or so that stand out)? Armchair quarterback talk like "Quite why they decided on this match rather than an interesting Road Dogg and Guerrera encounter is one of the many questionable decision that befell the WWA", "The length of this show at 2 hours 50 minutes was also something they needed to maintain going forward, not slip back into 2 hour shows", and "The fact that the hardcore midget match that followed took longer than these two matches combined showed that the WWA still had a long way to go in its booking", etc. (I could go on, but there are probably another couple dozen that stand out)? Blatant exaggeration: "The immortal words of Jemery Borash", "trademark suicidal leaps", "beat him to a pulp", etc. (I could go on, but there are probably another couple dozen that stand out)? Countless misspellings (eg. turnbuckel, sied, WWA'a, trademake, etc.)? The insistence on referring to Bananas in Pyjamas as "Fruits in Suits" at every possible opportunity? Sentence fragments? Comma splices? Multiple paragraphs ending without punctuation? Sentences that make you shake your head and say, "HUH?!?" (eg. "Next up was a non-tornament hardcore match between WCW hardcore starts, Norman Smiley and Devon Storm.")? Original research accounting for more than 95% of the prose? You're being far too picky. On a serious note, though, should it just be reverted back to the version before the IP edits? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what it looked like before the IP. There's a series of additional edits by the same editor before that.  Hazardous Matt  16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, settle down GaryColemanFan. Not everyone knows how to write articles, and I don't think it's fair at all to rant about them here. Revert the IP edits and move on. Perhaps this is why new people to this project are hard to get: people bite the newcomers too much. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...or it could be that we're so focused on our "duty to The Party The Encyclopedia" that we forget how to have fun. I view my comments as more of a chuckle than a rant, although I can see how they could be misunderstood. Seriously, though, I mean nothing seriously. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go over it, dig around the net for some sources and try to make it look better. I don't know that I can promise anything FA level, but I can try and make it acceptable for Wikipedia. Not a bad project to take on. See what I can do. (Edit) Wow, this is a tough one to approach. Is there any other article like this one? Do each of the events deserve their own articles, or brief summaries inside this one article? Not sure exactly what to do for it. I think cleaning up this list is best first (following a format like WWE Judgment Day, for instance, is a good idea, and then addressing the need for individual articles. DoomsDay349 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up and put it into regular format, put in about 10 references, I'm gonna go ahead and take the tags off; it could probably use a look over, so feel free to do that. DoomsDay349 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than it did. Take a bow, DoomsDay.  Hazardous Matt  16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I try. *bows* :) DoomsDay349 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Need a lot of eyes on Jeff Hardy, with a lot of internet sites reporting an incident on Wednesday which could lead to third-strike, which could set a lot of IP alarm bells towards the page. Just a word to put it on watchlists. D.M.N. (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been insane in the last 24 hours. We almost need a rollback, anyway. I've already used 2 reverts today to undue vandalism to the page, and I'm catching what I can, manually. I have a request at RPP for semi. Update: It got declined, so I guess we have to do it the old fashioned way.  Hazardous Matt  14:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've added the info, as I think its notable, and The Sun is a reliable source as far as I'm aware. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are openly reporting it as a second hand story from PWInsider so I guess the question is, are they a reliable source? The Sun very rarely goes with these rumour stories though, I can't think of a time they have when it's not been true. Tony2Times (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thing is as well, though, The Sun has a quote from a WWE Spokesperson about "an incident involving Jeff Hardy." - so something obviously happened. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one month. iMatthew (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks.  Hazardous Matt  19:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought Nation of Domination could use a good re-write. I've put it up in my sandbox. If anyone has the time, can they run through and copy-edit or check for anything that's too much in-u?  Hazardous Matt  19:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is familiar with Siaki, could they please take a look at the retirement section in this article? I'm not sure what the important points are, but I think summarizing the statement rather than posting the entire thing would be better. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. I don't think his entire retirement letter has to be in there, especially without line breaks. It can be boiled down a lot more. Siaki's brother was in need of a kidney transplant and Siaki volunteered to be the donor and will no longer be able to perform as a professional wrestler as a result. That's about it.  Hazardous Matt  23:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as pro wrestling articles have recently updated - though of course not TOO recently - to having a "Reception" section, does having a "Professional Reviews" section, similar to that of what's seen on articles regarding music albums, sound like a good idea? The idea itself most likely wouldn't pass, but I'm just "throwing" it out there for the purpose of having different reviews from professional sources (according to what I've seen, Canadian Online Explorer, and Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, just to name a few) listed on PPV events. Superslammin (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea, IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's sounds like an OK idea.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean like having the stars in the infobox like albums? I've never really liked that personally. Unless you have the same reviewers in every infobox it ruins the uniformity and I don't think the colouring of the stars stands out enough. Tony2Times (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the stars placed in the infobox serve the purpose of being "eye candy"; they're simply there to give the reader an idea of how an event did, quality wise. And speaking of "same reviewers", a couple of suggestions regarding the idea would be J.D. Dunn and/or Larry Czonka from 411mania (experienced writers that had reviewed tons of WWE PPVs), Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, Canadian Online Explorer itself (given that it's already on several PPV articles) and perhaps DaveyBoy from LordsofPain, each of whom give a thorough insight of what occurred during a certain PPV event. Superslammin (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my earlier suggestion, and only Wrestlinglover to IMatthew's, I'm just going to be bold and move the page from Collaboration of the Week to just Collaboration. Thanks, 99.240.224.232 (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign in! Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think anyone mind anyway. I don't think many people even remember the collaboration. Crap I forgot about it for a few minutes. That reminds me, I need to work on Team 3D, WrestleMania, and Samoa Joe.--WillC 03:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that this is as minor of an issue as it can possibly get, but are period marks necessary at the end of matches under results? I bring this up since there are several articles that either have a period at the end of a match result, or do not. Again, I know that this really isn't anything to worry about, but there's really no harm in having a customary, traditional format for all professional wrestling PPV articles regarding the matter. Superslammin (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It was something I was going to bring up but never bothered to. I don't think full stops are necessary in the results tables because it's not a sentence, it's more akin to a bullet point. I've been taking them out of as I go through '98 and '99 but if we're gonna set a precedent, I'd vote for without. Tony2Times (can't find tildes on this keyboard)

I think that they aren't needed, but that we shouldn't waste our time going through all the PPV to remove them. Thanls, The Genius (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think this list might be good in table form? I've made an example with the "A"'s and I think it looks more organized. See User:IMatthew/Sandbox2. iMatthew (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah looks neater and easier to read. Just looking over that A section, considering our OOU policy and just the fact that it's for people unfamiliar with wrestling terms, it would be best to limit the wrestling slang used in descriptions such as "an angle may be retconned if it is not over with the fans", when popular would suffice. Tony2Times (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks much better and readable as a table. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah the the table is a lot better than the list. It's neater and easier on the eyes. Thanks, 99.240.224.232 (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm editing on a public computer, so I haven't set it to remember me. Thanks, Genius101 Wizard (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added B's and C's. Still ok? iMatthew (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be sortable, since it is already in alphabetical order. Nikki311 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, can I finish the list and move it into the mainspace? iMatthew (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Forget the tables, everyone! Someone helped me put the page in definition format. iMatthew (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Should there be an article about them? They've seemed to have become a major stable in TNA. SAVIOR_SELF.777 21:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at this earlier today (it's in the articles to create section). It was, however, created on August 31 and speedied. On the one hand, you think that yes, they do deserve an article as an emerging TNA stable, but then again, they haven't won a title yet nor do they seem like they're getting close...perhaps we should see what some other opinions of them are before going and recreating it. I'd personally be more in favor of Beer Money, Inc. first, since they're the tag champs and that has to be worth and article. DoomsDay349 21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They've already been tag team champs and have been used numerous times on TNA, so they should get an article. And, you also have a point on PJB. SAVIOR_SELF.777 22:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Prince Justice Brotherhood isn't notable yet. They have had one ppv match and are used for comedy segments. Not notable right now. After a year maybe. If they become multi tag team champions then yes but now, no. Beer Money, Inc can wait. Plus I asked the guy who deleted it last to re-create it and he placed it in a user subpage for me to improve so that it meets standards since that was the only real reason it was deleted is because it wasn't sourced. So give me a little while and I'll have the article ready and move it back to its original place.--WillC 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I see a link to the subpage? I'd like to check it out and help out if I can. DoomsDay349 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I haven't worked on it yet, been too bussy, but here is the link: User:Wrestlinglover/Beer Money.--WillC 01:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks like a good shell to start with. I might throw it over in my own sandbox and toy around with it some, since I don't really have anything else to do right now. See if I can't make an article out of it. Thanks. Cheers, DoomsDay349 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard on this? I ask because of these edits. I know personalised names like "Batista Bomb" are capitalised, but what about ordinary moves? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No ordinary move names (not specially named by the wrestler) are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. There are exceptions, though, like forward Russian legweep or Irish whip. Nikki311 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What happens in cases where a wrestler does not have a personalised name for their finishing maneuvre? ie Owen Hart uses a sharpshooter as a finisher, while Rock uses a sharpshooter as a normal move, but both give it the same name. Tony2Times (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be lower case unless it's in the wrestler's move listing, since in that case it's the start of a line. Ankle lock should be "ankle lock." In the above case, both versions of sharpshooter should be in lower case. On that note, when linking moves, be careful of caps, since even one wrong capitalization will break the link and cause it to direct to the top of the target article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch WWE Friday Night SmackDown#Champions, Curt Hawkins and Zach Ryder, Carly Colon, Primo Colon, WWE Tag Team Championship, and No Mercy for spoilers from the SmackDown tapings that occurred Sunday.--S_RX 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers are not against wikipedia policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but I'm sure he knows that. We need to get out of the habit of reverting due to spoilers and simply reverting to to lack of an RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added sources for the Colons thing, referencing to [1]. On Friday, we can change this to WWE.com ref. D.M.N. (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one that thinks mentioning this: "Currently, he is one-half of the WWE Tag Team Champions with his brother Primo Colón on SmackDown." in the lead is kind of stupid? I mean, it will undoubtly bring revisionism as soon as they drop the titles. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same with other champion articles (i.e. Jericho, Marella etc.), they all have it mentioned in the lead. D.M.N. (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have anything against mentioning the championships in the lead, they are notable, my concern is with the wording, there must be a way of writting it without the recentism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember this article? Remember this revision for FA and the new improved version? Remember how I nominated it twice for FA earlier this year and failed in a landslide twice. Wouldn't it be great and to prove to people outside of WP:PW that we can make quality articles. To do this, I would appreciate if project members commented on the peer review to get it ready for FAC, and hopefully it passes before November, in that way I can nominate it for featured article of the day on the anniversary of Eddie Guerrero's death :)--S_RX 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just something I came across today and wanted to clarify. Looking at the style guide for the project, it mentions Online World of Wrestling as being discussed for reliability and Lords of Pain as a dirt sheet/blacklisted website. I then noticed that featured article CM Punk references both these websites (especially Online World of Wrestling, extensively). So I'm just trying to puzzle this one out. If they can't be trusted, how can a Featured Article be allowed to have them? Or can they be trusted, and the sources page is simply outdated? If a Featured Article can have these sources, I don't see why any other article can't. (PS: Just checked out another FA, Bobby Eaton, it references three of the so called unreliable websites as well). Cheers, DoomsDay349 15:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Punk's article was promoted to FA before the FA criteria was tightened up. OWOW can be used (in my opinion) to source non-controversial things such as move lists and match results. I wouldn't every use it for something like personal life sections though. LOP should definitely be taken out of that article, though I believe OWOW can stay. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OWOW shouldn't be used period, unless its really minor. Like at SummerSlam (2003), an FA, it uses completewwe.com to source the other on air talent, and it stayed because it is sourcing non controversial items.--S_RX 15:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the to-do list also explicitly states to put OWOW references back in from the former blacklisted obsessedwithwrestling. I can understand not referencing Lords of Pain, because it's blacklisted/dirt sheet (whether that's valid is a different discussion), but Online World of Wrestling is in a seperate category...it's a bit unclear. At the top of the section it says don't use the third list, which OWOW is in, but at the end of the section it says the above are all reliable. So basically I think what we're getting here is that OWOW is okay for match results and moves and the like, but not for extensive prose? And LOP should not be used period? (Should we take out the LOP reference in Punk's article as well?). Cheers, DoomsDay349 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "period", though it definitely shouldn't ;be used for controversial BLP things like martial status and that sort of thing. If OWOW is really that bad, I question why no one has told me to cease adding it as a source for move lists to a large amount of WP:PW's articles. I would tend to think that move lists are not controversial material, but others may disagree. I've fixed the WP:PW/MOS#Sources. I had the numbering wrong and was no counting the official website list among the list numbers. Fixed for clarifiaction. If anyone disagrees with how that section reads, please discuss. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that besides the IP addition of week-by-week, editors changing the moves lists are a big chunk of the edits around here. Because a lot of the moves look alike, sometimes it is a matter of interpretation (which leads to edit warring). Isn't it better to have a source for a move, so people will stop changing it to what they think the move is? Nikki311 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. In that case, I'll continue adding OWOW as sources for that sort of thing. But would it be acceptable for FA in this case, since it's not controversial. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Did this get lost somewhere? We still have NOT come to a consensus it looks like. I seriously am still annoyed at how ugly the articles look when you go into them. It's not an improvement, it makes it cluttered and chunky? Who agreed that this was the way it needed to be done? That lead-in paragraph especially! --WestJet (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there has, its called WT:PW/S. Plus consensus was already made and two article have passed FAC per this, SummerSlam (2003) and The Great American Bash (2005), as well December to Dismember (2006).

Overall, the new style was more imposed than discussed. Most people commenting on it agree, however, that it needs some fine-tuning. In response, all the project chose to do was cut and paste all discussion to a subpage so that it was easier to ignore. A serious discussion is still needed, and I think it should take place here, where people will actually see it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Dirt Sheet, Santino's Casa and Word Up. Can't see how they're notable enough for their own articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to suggest a merge into a WWE talk show article, but that's hardly notable either.  Hazardous Matt  18:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say send Word Up! And Casa to the Raw segments section and Dirt Sheet to the ECW segments section. I can do that if we reach a general consensus for it. DoomsDay349 23:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to the above mentioned locations. Nikki311 23:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Word Up and Casa have NEVER been on Raw. They should redirect to Cryme Tyme's and Marella's articles respectively. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was gonna suggest moving them to Raw until I realised that they aren't part of the show, just the superstars are on those brands right now. They should redirect to the wrestlers' pages and maybe those articles can have some description of them. I think it warrants a section, or sub section though, rather than on Miz&Morrison's where it's a far too long bullet point. Tony2Times (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and have moved to proper place.S_RX 01:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the "taunts" section on the Glen Jacobs (Kane) article --Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. You can try looking in the page history. Thanks, Genius101 _{T. C.} 12:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. It says the source is 24wrestling.com but I doubt that very much. If anyone can find the proper source (as I'm pretty sure it's a copyvio), I'll send it off to IFD. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Found it.[2] I've put it up for speedy deletion. -- Oakster  Talk  16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

October 26th. D.M.N. (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean CM Punk is nominated to be the featured article for his 30th birthday? w00t! SAVIOR_SELF.777 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's great! The project'll get a lot of attention out of it. Wahoo! Genius101 _{T. C.} 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Expect someone to object to it being a FA since they hate wrestling on the talk page, but claim it doesn't meet FA criteria. Actually, we do need to take it OOU. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough of that thought. Nobody objects to it being FA because they dislike wrestling. If you saw the FAC for The Great American Bash (2005) an FA reviewer even states, "I've put my extreme dislike of wrestling to the side to help the article." iMatthew (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in FA reviews. When we had Montreal Screwjob as TfA, a few people complained on the talk page and attempted a de-nom, IIRC. The FA reviewers are usually quite neutral on the whole thing. this is the incident I was reffering to in my above comment. I expect there MAY be something similar on Punk's talk page when it's the TfA, but I'm speculating. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of FAs, an IP is questioning the neutrality of the Montreal Screwjob [3] but he hasn't left any constructive comments on the talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. It was placed 11 days ago and the only comment left by the tagger was that it claim that a Bret Hart fanboy wrote the article. It seems likely to be simple vandalism and even if it wasn't there has been more than enough time to come up with more specific problems than that to justify the article being POV. --70.24.176.228 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Non notable article nominated for deletion at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ranjin_Singh_(Dave_Kapoor) Feel free to state your opinion there. JakeDHS07 18:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I just created the page for the ROH Top of the Class Trophy. Frankly, I'm surprised it didn't exist yet. Anywho, there it is. I did my best for references and I think it turned out rather well. Tell me what you rhink! Dahumorist (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks good for a brand new article. Could use a history section, and also, the in line citation in the header for the title section is probably not a good idea style wise. Aside from that, nicely done. DoomsDay349 00:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul London and Brian Kendrick

• Brian Kendrick - Good
• Paul London - Good
• Ashley Massaro - B Class
• Paul London and Brian Kendrick - B Class

Does anyone think this one is a good idea? (If it was already suggested, please punch me) PXK ^T /_C 20:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Punches PXK - It's already been talk about, and unless this is a message that you are going to work on it, I don't see the point. iMatthew (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• SRX Punch to PXK - per Matt.--S_RX 20:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we said all the GA articles and FA articles have to be taken out of Universe. Now I've heard this alot as well as the criteria for GA and FA have changed since some were promoted. I think we should do something that in my mind needs to be done. All articles that are GA and FA in out project should be placed back under review for either GA or FA and lets find out if they are really FAs or GAs. Like taking CM Punk and Shelton Benjamin back to FAC. Also SS 97 screwjob. That is an FA. Lets make sure it is since the criteria has changed since it got promoted. Over time IPs have been screwing with each of these articles and they are not at what they once were. This way we know the project really do have these accomplishments. We then see if the out of universe really does work and we are updated. When December to Dismember got listed again the project seeked a way to make it better so it would pass. If we do this then we could find a better way at doing out of universe and easier ways to make more articles FAs without just going by peer review, GA review, and another peer review just to get to FA and be told this and this is wrong with it. I know most of the project will be against this but we don't have a good article to really copy off of to make more wrestler bios FAs. I feel I'm probably going to be the only one to think we should do this but if we don't then we are just kidding ourselves by having CM Punk, Shelton Benjamin, and the Montreal screwjob FAs. The articles I believe should be taken back are articles from before June of this year. All articles that were promoted to GA and FA in that time period should be taken back by either the project as a whole or the user who expanded it. Then all of our articles are at their best.--WillC 03:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you will have a hard time finding people with time to go back and add (unpopular) content to 80+ articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. I know where your getting at, Will, but, speaking for myself, I don't really have time to go and fix all the articles I got to GA. Having the articles delisted won't be of good use. If the articles passed because they were good articles, then be it that they are good articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(re to Gary) Then it can be done as a whole. The collaboration can be used to do it instead. So far the new way collaboration is being done isn't working that greatly, though I wish I could work more on the articles I just do not have a alot of time, we could instead of nominating articles that need alot of work we can just nominate articles that are GAs and FAs. After all are completed we can go back to the old way. I'm not sure what your opinion is on this matter but seeing how hard it is said to be to get articles to FA. I think if we get at least one bio article to FA then it will be easier to get all the rest at the same standard. Lets not have another repeat of the December to Dismember thing. A article get under a review again and almost get delisted. If CM Punk gets chosen to be the featured article of the day, people are going to start questioning if the article really meets the standards.--WillC 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I just got an idea, how about in each's wrestler article we can put an "Attires" section (in the "In Wrestling" section) listing the attires that he has had through his career--Brothers of destruction (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It'd be very hard to cite references for that. Also some wrestlers have had a plethora of gimmicks and it would become a huge section, further the attempt to describe it while keeping the word limit down would be very difficult - I think the In Wrestling sections should be bullet point style, not prose. Also some wrestlers change their attire every week. I'm against it, I think it's better suited to the rest of the article if a wrestler changes gimmick. Tony2Times (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That is redundant, serves no relevant information and is listcruft. I.E. The Divas, who where many different attires.--S_RX 20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's bad enough we list music. --Endlessdan and his problem 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can this perhaps turn into a discussion about eliminating wrestler's "in wrestling" sections. I find them pointless. iMatthew (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they are useful, but I think that it should only list the championships/accomplishments and "real finishers" and not every move they perform.S_RX 20:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But the attire thing for Divas they can wear like in every match like different colors and logos and symbols but for example instead of this

• Blue shirt with a black W, Black tights with red and orange fire like design, black boots with tribal symbol on it

like this

• Blue shirt, Black tights, and black boots

(Well not exactly like that) look in Talk:Glen Jacobs (Archive 1) Attires that's what I mean--Brothers of destruction (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Still no, they alter their design too much, that's like listing all the different designs for celebrities, or other people. It's redundant and cruft.--S_RX 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think at most you could say something in the prose if it is notable. Examples: Jericho wearing long tights his whole career until his recent gimmick shift, Michelle McCool's crosses on her clothes due to her Christian faith (in the personal life section), or if it is something very identifiable (like a mask) Nikki311 22:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@ IMatthew and SRX: Why would you want to eliminate the In wrestling section? If cited properly, it can be very informative. It's hardly pointless. As long as having the section there is not a MOS violation (with three FAs, I doubt it), why remove it? And removing it would also cause more IP complaints and vandalism. Honestly, I've always thought that the In wrestling and Championships and Accomplishments section are among the most important sections in wrestler bios. Rarely do I evern want to read their full career. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say no on the attire section, for the fact that it does change often and really, a simple in ring picture is better than a description. But, the in wrestling and championships and accomplishments sections? I don't see how you could even consider removing them. They're a quick facts sheet that often suffices to give the desired information someone is looking for. Think about a new wrestling fan who didn't catch the name of CM Punk's finisher, or wants to look up the band that plays his entrance music, or wonders what titles he might have held in the past. Should we make it hard on them, and make them read the whole career article and maybe still not get the answers? Or make it easy with a quick section that hits the facts and bullet points, with a main career section for people who want to get more in depth? We should write articles that appeal to both those who want an in depth look at the wrestler's career, and the ones looking for a quick fact. DoomsDay349 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we definitly should keep the In Wrestling section. I agrre with Gavyn in that tt's one of the most important parts of the page. It should stay. Thanks, Genius101 _{T. C.} 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Doomsday. No to the attire section, and keep the In wrestling section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Why is Nigel McGuinness' name withheld from his article? Isn't his ring named patented, so his real name is publicly known?

2. Why does WWE Raw and WWE Smackdown have a list of episodes article, or an individual article for episodes? Other television shows have them, so why not?

Kris (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Looking at the logs, it appears McGuinness does not want his real name mentioned from the OTRS request, which only a certain group of people can see I think.
2. WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

D.M.N. (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

So, we aren't adding that in because the webmaster of his website request we take it down. Isn't that censorship?

Also, for the second question, it doesn't really explain why television sitcoms and dramas have lists of individual episodes, but not wrestling. Kris (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone continues to insist putting non-notable week-by-week results, and in poor format to boot. I cleaned it up, but it needs an eye kept on it and possibly editing protection.

On an unrelated note, I still believe theme song listings are not needed, and they just beg for incorrect/fake information. Maxwell7985 (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can try this again. The new way of writing article has been working alright, as we have two new FA's. But there are still some things that we need to pan out. Lets start out by listing some pro's and con's about the new OOU writing, and such. I suggest that anybody who is dealing with complaints about the new system on any article's talk page, send those users here so that we can work with them as well to fix any problems. iMatthew (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Pros - has gotten us two FA's, is more comprehensible for all readers, and at the end of the day you are proud of what you have written (I know I am).

Cons - takes too long, too many people complain (mostly those who don't write PPVs).

Other than that, I think the OOU is a great thing.--S_RX 13:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cons - I feel like quality and readability is being sacrificed in favor of Featured Articles.

1. Wrestling fans find the long-winded explanations and disclaimers patronizing.
2. I already felt proud of what I have written.
3. Many descriptions are confusing (why say "hit him with his foot" [or was it "boot"?] instead of "kicked him"?) or too complex for the average reader to follow.
4. The attempts to explain moves has led to numerous grammatical errors and abrupt changes in verb tense.
5. The project is taking the "jargon" guideline way too literally, as articles on other sports are promoted to FA even if they include jargon (eg. a baseball article doesn't say "hit a fair ball out of the playing field while teammates were occupying every base"--it says "hit a grand slam"; perhaps a more direct comparison would be that the names of pitches are used rather than explaining how the pitcher holds the ball, the pitcher's movements as the ball is thrown, and the effect on the ball in mid-flight).
6. The artificial, point of view distinction between "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" often disrupts the chronological order of the "Event" section, which makes it hard to follow.
7. This main event vs. preliminary distinction also leads to one of my least favorite phrases on Wikipedia: "featured preliminary match". If it must be referred to as a preliminary match, don't put it in the "Main event matches" section. That's like making a distinction between "apples" and "oranges" but including "small apples" in the "oranges" section. Please, please, please...just say "a featured match" and drop the "preliminary". GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is something that came to me last night while trying to sleep, I hope I can get it out here so that it makes sense. I think there may be some confusion over what counts as "in universe" and "out of universe". Take a look at the page for The Sopranos, for example. When it describes the characters, it talks about their "scripted" history, if you will, but I don't feel that is considered as writing "in universe". It's the same with the synopses of episodes. Think of it as you are reporting what you saw on TV and describing it for someone who hasn't seen it. When you watch TV, you see Shawn Michaels superkick Razor Ramon, you are not seeing Michael Hickenbottom, who, as part of a character named Shawn Michaels that was created by WWE's writers, appearing to use his foot to pretend to attack Scott Hall, who was portraying a character named Razor Ramon, whom the WWE's writers created as a persona based on a Cuban gangster. Well, you ARE seeing that second thing too, but I think you get my drift. Going back to The Sopranos reference for a moment, you'll notice the first line in the synopsis for Season 1 says "The series begins with Tony Soprano collapsing after suffering a panic attack.", not "James Gandolfini, portraying the character of Tony Soprano, using his acting skills to pretend having a panic attack".

Somewhere above, someone said that pro wrestling doesn't follow the same rules as other fictional TV shows because "wrestling presents itself as legitimate competition". I think we can all agree that this is not true. Maybe 20 years ago you could still make that argument, but not now. Essentially, RAW is no different than any other two hour TV show. Just because some of the "characters" are really just extensions of the "actor's" normal self, writing a synopsis of an "episode" (or PPV) shouldn't have to follow rules any different than writing a recap of an episode of The Sopranos or House.

Man, I hope that made as much sense typed out as it did in my mind. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I propose, revert back to the original style guide, in that way having it in in-universe format, and Users who work on expanding articles can have the option of doing what they want. Though if they want GA/FA's they might have to use the OOU format, but in this way the IP's and new users can stop complaining, i.e. on every future PPV. That's just my last proposal for this format, which was agreed upon almost three months ago, why can't we just move on.S_RX 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That won't work at all. If people want to do different things (i.e. one wants OOU + other wants old format) it'll lead to an edit war. And also, I believe that would violate WP:OWN (i.e. I expanded the article, so I get to chose what format its in). ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it probably will, but I don't see what we can do. We use the OOU format, we get more Featured content and Good content. But then Ips and New Users and others who aren't as active on the project page don't understand the format to a full extent, leading to threads and threads on complaints. I think we should tidy up our Style Guide so they can understand it as well. In other words, we should reformat our style guide so it can be accepted as a "Wikipedia Policy," like the style guide for Video Games is.--S_RX 18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That still ignores the problems that currently exist. I listed seven of them in this thread. I don't consider myself to be an IP editor or a new user, but I do think we should strive to improve articles rather than stick our fingers in our ears and say, "Everything is already perfect." The fact that so many people are upset or concerned should be an indication that everything is not perfect (and please remember than length of time on Wikipedia has absolutely no effect on how seriously an editors concerns should be taken). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing my point, the style guide is what should the project should basically adhere to, just as other projects do and every user (well most) do to the MOS. Which is why we should compromise to improve it and have a say to what include and what to not include.S_RX 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep in mind that the main reason someone would look up Summerslam '91, for example, to find out who beat who, not got a lesson in how pro wrestling works. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that members of the project have imposed the current style guide (while falsely claiming that it came as the result of discussion and consensus). The same members are unwilling to compromise and instead point to a couple of Featured Articles. This ignores the fact that the writing style should be a work in progress rather than set in stone, as there are significant problems that are being ignored because people don't care about what IPs and new editors think (once again, ignoring the fact that longtime editors have the same problems). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The specific problems in the articles need to be pointed out. For example, I'd say that for pay-per-views, the OOU needs to take a step back, as GCF suggested.

• Animal and Heidenreich then performed the doomsday device, executed by one wrestler lifting his opponent atop of his shoulders thus allowing his partner knock him down by jumping off the top rope, on Nitro and got the pin to win the match and capture the title. - I feel like this writing style interrupts the sentence. Maybe we should re-write it for example like - Animal and Heidenreich won the match via pinfall after they performed the doomsday device, where Nitro sat on Animal's shoulders as Heidenreich jumped from the top rope to knock Nitro down.

iMatthew (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Animal & Heidenreich won the match after performing the Doomsday Device."? If you want to know more about the move, that's what the link is for. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to iMatthew, I don't write my articles like that I intergrate the explanation. Re to Mark, for the final time clicking on the link will not suffice, it disrupts the flow of the article, if you don't know, you want to read a small explanation and if you want to know more you click the link. Also, people constantly refer to other sport jargon, pro wrestling for one is much more different and complicated than real sports since it is 'scripted.S_RX 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sport jargon is sport jargon. Whether it's scripted or not doesn't have and effect on that. People aren't more likely to understand all the important concepts of a "knuckleball" than a "clothesline" just because one is scripted. You will never find a baseball article, however, that says, "He struck out the final batter with a knuckleball, a pitch gripped with the knuckles bent and the back of the fingertips against the ball, which leads to the ball having little or no rotation and thus creates a more erratic trajectory as the ball approaches home plate." As for disrupting the flow of the article, the long explanations (particularly in the middle of a sentence) are much more disruptive than clicking on a link. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for everyone, but most of my sentences aren't like that. I thought this was fixed at the SummerSlam FAC, since it was agreed that they also disrupted flow, I though it was already taken care of?S_RX 20:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It still appears in several articles. In addition, it should be noted that this is only one of the seven concerns I listed above. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well 3,4, and 5 all tie in, as do 6 and 7. 6 and 7 can easily be fixed, 3,4, and 5 will be based on the User and the way the write explanations. 1 and 2, well that is preference in my opinion.S_RX 20:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be another matter altogether, but the word "scripted" isn't exactly accurate. Scripted means that they know everything they're going to do, in order. With very few exceptions, matches are not laid out like that.

And something else. Two of the articles I just looked at on GCF's page, The Mega Bucks and Over the Edge (1999) are GAs, but don't contain any of the stuff we've been complaining about.--Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You can get GA articles without the out of universe but you can't get an FA witout it.--WillC 21:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically, if not having the disclaimer, explanation of moves, real names, etc. violated Wikipedia policy, articles wouldn't be passing GA reviews without them. They are passing, however, which should lead us to wonder how much of the new additions are actually necessary and whether we interpreting policies and guidelines too literally. I also think it's extremely important to ask ourselves if our goal is to get Featured Articles or to write articles well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We should just try to write articles well. People who care about FAs will do anything to get it FA'd. If an FA reviewer told them to link every word, they'd do it. We might as well write them like this:

No Mercy (2008) (meaning the name of the professional wrestling pay-per-view event was that the wrestlers [real people with real names having stage names that aren't their birth names] weren't going to show mercy against each other on October 5). The 2008 in brackets means that the professional wrestling pay-per-view event (which features WWE's creative staff writing matches for guys with stage names that pretend to hit each other) took place in the year 2008. Lots of people with birth names wrestled (pretended to hit each other) at the event. The main event was decided after x took x's arm and buckle it under his knee, fold it in half, cut it off, and slammed it down towards the mat (the professional wrestling [mock combat with fake characters] ring).

Notice the errors in the deciding move, too. People can't write it without making those mistakes. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What I see here is that people want the article more directed to a "wrestling fanbase" than every reader. Do you think Barack Obama, John McCain and George W. Bush would know what is meant by John Cena executed an FU on Marella to win the match by pinfall? or John Cena lifted Marella onto his shoulders and threw him down, which he followed by covering Marella for a pinfall. Which would Obama, McCain, and Bush understand? (Speak hypothetically if they didn't know)--S_RX 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's how you've chosen to interpret it. I would like to see something in the middle that can be accessed by both wrestling fans and presidential candidates: "John Cena picked Santino Marella up and threw him to the ground with an FU." There is no need to remove the move names altogether, and this is one of the big criticisms I have seen on other sites about Wikipedia wrestling articles. Incidentally, please give us enough respect to assume that we are familiar with who George W. Bush is. There is no need to wikilink the name in a discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That works even better! See Gary all you had to do was give an example, that works perfectly IMO. As a response to the linking, I just linked them for no reason really, no disrespect intended :)S_RX 23:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Those guys are too busy with an "orgy of spending" to read wikipedia. and anyway, Who would honestly read a PPV article if they weren't a wrestling fan?PXK ^T /_C 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PXK you and your sarcasm, it's called writing articles for all to understand, no matter who reads it.S_RX 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly SrX, I can't understand the log winded explanations without reading through twice. PXK ^T /_C 00:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I am getting used to the new style and don't mind it all that much anymore. But I agree with pretty much everything that GCF has pointed out. This does still need tweaking. We need to change it so that IPs and new editors will stop bitching about it on every talk page. That's the worst part of all of it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, one tweaking is his suggestion for explanations, and the other is about the featured preliminary matches.--S_RX 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Im confused, did we come to some sort of agreement? Also, SRX, if John McCain doesnt know how to check his email, he doesn't know how to access wikipedia! --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

how about for moves we have something like one of the following:-

• Brooks then won the match by forcing (kayfabe) Hennigan to submit to the Anaconda Vise (Armtrap headlock)
• Brooks then won the match by forcing (kayfabe) Hennigan to submit with an Armtrap headlock (Anaconda Vise)

I'd say this makes it easy to understand for both markets PXK ^T /_C 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

How about you read the archives and read the discussion above fully. 1)We do not explain submission moves since they are to complicated to explain. 2)GCF has pointed out a new format to explain moves which I agree.S_RX 00:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Bull. If we need to explain throws and attacks, we need to explain holds. Or we need to not explain any of them. Consistency is needed. If "click the link" suffices for a hold it suffices for other moves. And vice-versa. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with using kayfabe. I was told by an FA review that they read the article kayfabe and it made no sense to them. If we want to use the word kayfabe then I suggest we improve that article.--WillC 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re to Gavyn, it's not bull because I took SummerSlam '03 to FAC with explaining submission moves, they said that disrupted the flow and made huge grammatical errors, which I agreed. Throws and slams are less complicated to explain versus submission moves which have sequences of moves to explain.S_RX 00:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. They ARE tough to explain. But I'd think that consistency would be pretty important. Or don't FA reviewers care? It makes no sense to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They don't care because it makes mechanical and grammatical errors, and it's not only their views that counts, our does to, and I say it makes mechanical and grammatical errors as well.S_RX 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Im confused, did we come to some sort of agreement? Also, SRX, if John McCain doesnt know how to check his email, he doesn't know how to access wikipedia! --98.26.33.108 (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry this comment on on here twice, but apparently there's no way to remove the above one. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like GCF's idea of naming the move with an explanation. Still makes our articles horrible, but nowhere near as horrible as they are without the name of the move. Also, how does one explain a 619? Mysterio won the match by watching his opponent walk into the ropes, running from the other side, holding onto the rope, spinning around, and kicking x in the face... RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Randy you're not funny..Anyways, it would be like Mysterio then hit Chavo, who was positioned on the second rope, with his legs while using the ropes for leverage to perform a 619 or something similar.S_RX 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't really trying to be. Just wanted to make fun of WWE insulting our intelligence and the bad format at the same time. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone with more patience than I've got please finish removing the vandalism from this edit? There were a few edits after that, so I've been trying to restore the unvandalized version without losing the edits in between. The MSG Incident picture's caption definitely needs to be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your notice is my command. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has deleted all the content from the Ted Petty Invitational page, but it has been done in a number of edits so I'm not sure how to revert them all - could someone with more knowledge/authority than me revert back to the edit done at 04:49 on 29 September 2008 please?--Apsouthern (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. It's on my watchlist in case it happens again. DoomsDay349 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers--Apsouthern (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it has come to my attention that other user and myself have two different sources which both are reliable to Samoa Joe's name. One says Joe Seanoa by IGN.com and the other is by the LA Times.com and it says Nuufolau Joel Seanoa. I know IGN.com is reliable since it is used in other wrestler articles and FA articles and I assume the same for a news paper but which one would be the official name. I've never heard him referred to as Nuufolau in any interview or anything like that. I thought to bring it here to get a project opinion.--WillC 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe Nuufolau is his real samoan name. His ring name just takes his middle name removes the l and moves Samoa (where he is from) in front of it. I dont think IGN is a reliable source for wrestler names though. Video game info yes. But actually wrestling info no. I think the LA Times would be more reliable in this respect. JakeDHS07 08:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I never really understood or thought about this until it came up at ANC. Why is it that only main Pay-Per-Views don't have the promotion's acronym in front of it? Like SummerSlam. Is it because there is no such other topic? If so, then we can do the same for WWE Cyber Sunday, there is no such other thing name like that. What's the consensus on this?--S_RX 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-gree. ;) iMatthew (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So some example would be..

• WWE Cyber Sunday → Cyber Sunday
• WWE New Year's Revolution → New Year's Revolution
• WWF Invasion → Invasion
• TNA Hard Justice → Hard Justice
• ECW Anarchy Rulz → Anarchy RulzS_RX 14:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

All of those seem fine except Invasion, which is a common word and already has an article (similar to the discussion the project had about WCW Sin). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty stupid and yeah it should be changed. Almost every ECW PPV should be changed, I think the only ones that can't be are Barely Legal and Heat Wave. Also, I've always wondered but have never asked - why do we name PPV articles with the year in brackets? Like why isn't No Mercy (2008) named No Mercy 2008? RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question it's because of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)S_RX 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Another question... why do we have an article for SNME results? Why aren't the results just put onto the SNME article? RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well because people "like it." I don't think we should have it, but other people disagree.--S_RX 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We gonna do this or are we just gonna forgot about it and let this go into the archive? RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for both articles. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It would really help if you told us what you want to do with both articles.--S_RX 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The list is already 73K, which is probably why it is separate in the first place. Adding it to the article would be too long. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I proposed deleting the results before, but people wanted to keep it because it is more special than Raw/ECW/SmackDown.--S_RX 01:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, there have been far more than 36 episodes of Raw. SNME is much more of a special occasion than a weekly show. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but still, the show is a TV program and I feel people just want to keep it because the results extend to it's debut and they don't want to lose that information already there, that's the main reason I see. But if people want to keep it, I propose an new format because that list of tables is insane.--S_RX 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows I wanna merge. I'd say 90% of people search "Saturday Night's Main Event" when looking for results. RandySavageFTW (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the result, the consistency should be applied to Clash of the Champions, another syndicated supercard show. Tony2Times (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Somehow it just feels, I don't know, messy to merge them. A bit like keeping a page for the WWE Championship, and a seperate one for the list of champions. That's how it feels to me anyhow. It's already a rather long article anyhow, no need to make it any bigger with merging. I would say keep them both seperate, and retain the SNME show; it is a big show shown only occassionally; it's in between regular TV and a PPV. Obviously week by week Raw results or something would be out of the question, but I think that generally an archive of SNME results is adherent to the general encyclopedic goal. I think a bigger question is the format of the page; tables vs lists? If you look at lists of PPVs, those without articles are organized in lists, but tables are so much neater. Then again, since there are mixed lists and tables in some sections, one wonders whether consistent lists would be a better alternative. I think a general cleanup of the results page, much sourcing, transferring results into lists, would be the best idea. DoomsDay349 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's going to search for SNME unless they're looking for results. And yeah, if we're gonna leave it like it is, like Tony said, COTC needs an article for its results. RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling results website. It makes sense to have an article about the history of SNME. And if people are looking for results, the "See also" section has a very convenient link. As I mentioned before, adding the poorly-sourced results list to the unsourced event article means that the article would become well over 100K when someone gets around to sourcing it. According to Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb, that would mean that it "almost certainly should be divided". I do support removing "WWE" from both the article title and the list title, however, as most of the events took place when the promotion was the WWF. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one agrees then Clash should definitely be moved. Leaving both in different ways is just stupid. And yeah, WWE should definitely be took off. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When someone gets around to expanding the prose section of Clash of the Champions, they will probably move the results. Until then, it's just moving for the sake of moving. Expanding and sourcing articles is more important. Otherwise, it's just a parallel to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. If you're willing to put in the work to significantly expand the history section in the Clash of the Champions article, feel free to split off the results section and form a new page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The opener and history section for Clash is enough, I think. RandySavageFTW (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hogan vs. Andre, Undertaker vs. Mankind Hell in a Cell, Austin vs. Bret, HBK vs. Ramon—these matches and others should have their own article. They pass for notability. I'm surprised that there is no article for Hogan vs. Andre—it is "worthy of notice."Tj terrorible1 (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The information is already in the articles for the participants and the events. It would be redundant (and unnecessary) to provide them with their own article.  Hazardous Matt  15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I looked at the WrestleMania III article and it does not cover nearly enough Hogan vs. Andre. That match is perhaps the most historic and influential match in pro wrestling. To relegate it to a measly paragraph is unacceptable. There is much more to be said about Hogan vs. Andre: It made the WWE, solidified WrestleMania as pro wrestling's Super Bowl, changed pro wrestling, influenced today's wrestlers, it is the reason why Hulk Hogan is one of the few pro wrestlers to be a household name today, if I'm not mistaken, 3/10 of the then-available universe watched that match. How can you say that that match does not deserve its own article? If there is one pro wrestling match that should have its own article, it's that one. It would be a great disservice to Wikipedia to not give this match (and some others as well) their own article.Tj terrorible1 (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Creating articles for these matches would be pointless to do and would be considered not notable. That's why you have the PPV articles instead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Hulk and Andre, it took much more than that one single match to make the WWE. One could just as easily argue that the WWE was already a huge success by the time WrestleMania III came around. One could also just as easily argue the first WrestleMania is what kickstarted the WWE to national prominence. To create seperate articles for these matches would require a lot of POV and probably even some Original Research. What makes a match more prominent than others is something that can be easily and hotly debated. Your opinion that Hulk vs. Andre at WM III is the most historic match in wrestling his tory is just that, your opinion. I could make the same claim with a dozen other matches, but it'd just be opinion. There is no one single, ultra-source that states "A vs. B is the greatest match in wrestling history" or "So-and-so is the greatest World Champion in wrestling history".Odin's Beard (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also what exactly do you want to be in this article? The background (done), a blow by blow account of the match (done) and the aftermatch and reception (done). Okay it's not in a huge amount of detail now but that's because we've only been expanding PPVs in such a way for the past few months and there's a shit tonne of PPVs out there. It's quite zealous of you to think WWE deserves even more of Wikipedia's time and space when smaller, harder to find information could be being chronicled. If you think matches deserve more attention, expand their information on the PPV page, beyond the categories on there I don't know what would be on the page. It was 12 minutes of (mostly bad) wrestling and a scoop slam. What's more to say? Tony2Times (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Monster's Ball match - is there really any need? It's just a hardcore/street fight match, especially now they've taken out the locked away element. Tony2Times (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said they took away the locked away part? Actually I was thinking about working on that article. It is one of TNA's main matches. It is only seen once a year. I feel it reaches notability.--WillC 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I was going by the article alone, so maybe you're right in that it just needs work. I don't really pay attention to TNA other than the main event and the Knockouts so I'm no authority which is why I asked before nominating. It says in the intro they've de-emphasised the locked away part. Needs a lot of sourcing too. Tony2Times (talk) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be a simple fix. It might, with work, fall under FL. It needs a copyedit and sources for matches. It wouldn't be that hard to work on. The background to the match can be taken care of by sources by WrestleView when they talked about it.--WillC 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please help? Table is fucked and I don't know how to fix it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Could we put a section stating all of the Wrestler's injuries, and with the Divas (and Knockouts) putting if they have like breast implants or something. I'm just throwing it out there. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Implants wtf? Feedback ^☎ 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um. I think it would be hard to dig up a concrete "source" that they have implants in the first place, but I mean, you could just look at them and figure that one out. Really not necessary, I think. As for a list of injuries, I don't see a real reason for it; the career section would handle that pretty well and it doesn't seem like something that needs listing, as opposed to, say, theme music or finishing moves. DoomsDay349 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually be quite interested in a list of injuries, it would be a lot more citable than breast implants (I love the inference that female cosmetic surgery somehow equates to male body injury) but I don't know where it would fit in the article as it would look place in the In Wrestling section, certainly isn't an accomplishment but is already in the career section so would have to be apart from that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That, by no means, was a misogynistic comment. I was just saying like in the info box it could say if they had implants. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 00:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, they have competed in tag matches together —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

An article never existed, plus they haven't done anything together but a couple of matches, they are still non-notable. Plus Jericho acts more of a mentor to Cade than a tag team partner.--S_RX 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I should be bold and do something about it, but I think that other project members should help out as well and improve the Professional wrestling portal if not, we should just eliminate it, it is really not representing the project well IMO.--S_RX 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do something with it. When's the last time the DYK, Selected Article, and Picture were changed? What should we put under the topics section? Stuff like links to WWE, TNA, NWA, and the like? DoomsDay349 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I updated the DYK a while ago (month or two), and I update the Current news section. I don't know how the rest of it works, or how selected articles/pictures are chosen, or I would update them as well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the DYKs are supposed to be actual WP:DYKs, not just random facts. We have a lot of those now, so I think that'll help. Also, I think selected articles are supposed to be FAs (we have 8 now!) and pictures are supposed to be FP (but since we don't have any of those, we should just use our best ones). Nikki311 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think FPs and FAs would definitely be top candidates, but top tier GAs and A class articles would probably be fine for Selected Article and since there's no FPs on the project, I'd have to agree that just good pictures (I rather like the one that's up now, the ECW set) should be cycled through. Wrestling related DYKs are plentiful, but to keep it from getting stale we could probably throw in some of our own. Keep a good mix going. DoomsDay349 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this on the requested articles page for the project and did some research, and it looks like something I could take a crack at and make a decent article out of. However, I checked AFD and deletion log and found that the article had previously been deleted (here's a link to the deletion discussion. It seems like the discussion was very brief and one of the main complaints was not enough sources. I'm fairly sure I could dig up the sources through OWOW or similiar sites, as well as CZW's website itself, although anyone with the actual DVDs would be highly appreciated. I'm just wondering whether anyone would have any complaints about recreating the article in a better referenced format. Thanks, DoomsDay349 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Cage of Death, is there anything unique about it that warrants a whole article, aside from the usual shit tonne of violence CZW offers? Tony2Times (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's basically like a Steel Cage or Hell in a Cell match loaded with weapons and occasionally an electrocuted cage. Shit ton of violence would describe it pretty well, but it is one of their biggest shows of the year. I don't think individual articles are warranted, but a list of all of them and their results might be a good idea, as well as an expansion on how the match works. DoomsDay349 02:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you do make the article, I would recommend merging and redirecting Cage of Death V into it. Nikki311 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. I really don't think the events warrant their own individual articles, just a list of all 9 of them is what I'm aiming for. DoomsDay349 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)