Well there is a discussion taking place. Would be best to just wait. The group is almost certainly notable.--WillC06:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay come on now, it should NOT be redirected - the World Elite has won both TNA & NJPW titles, time to stop holding on to this silly "they're not notable" notion and create the article. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 06:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
As we've discussed before, I'm working on revamping this page. I'm about to finish the revamp and make those changes in the article itself. No one seemed to object to this when I brought it up before, but I want to make sure I'm not going to have any problems after I do the rest of the work and make the changes. Also, if you have any suggestions for things that needed to be added or removed, feel free to chime in. The work I've done so far can be found here: [1]. Please take note that no information from the current version of the page has been removed although it may look like it has since I have organized it better. I just need to know if you guys are behind this in case there are any problems from IPs or other users who may see the change and freak out and start reverting everything. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
personally I would remove anyone who isn't exclusive to a particular brand such as Vince McMahon who is listed on the raw brand list (wwe.com has him listed on the smackdown brand). Either direction you look at it he is still the WWE chairman. those with sporadic appearances who aren't superstars that are listed else were can be just listed once (such as Big Dick Johnson) Since everything is very detailed. I think you could also lose the instructions on how to read the charts in the third paragraph and you could remove most if all of the third paragraph if you desired.
And if you wanted to You could mention that Vickie is now the Smackdown consultant [2]Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Vince McMahon especially should not be listed on the Raw brand as he as been appearing almost exclusively on SmackDown in the last few months. Big Dick Johnson appears on TV about once a year, so he should not be listed either (in the talent section, he should b mentioned in the section with other behind the scenes employees since he is a writer for WWE). I don't see the problem with keeping the current format TBH. I won't get into specifics (like The Big Show being just listed as "Big Show"). It's not that I think your format is bad, I just don't think it's really that different from the current one. TJSpyke17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
About Vince McMahon and Big Dick Johnson, when I started the update, both were listed on wwe.com's Raw roster. Since that was the source I was using, I figured the information should match. If you guys don't think they should be there, I have no issue with that. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Since both of those are on the page once it's not needed. It's Kind of redundant but there isn't anything wrong with the way your doing it. I am just offering up my opinion sir.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Keeps being recreated, so just to make sure, is this really needed? We have two lists already and it is just a term, not a new title. I could understand if there was some big controversy over the title, alot like the TNA and NWA situation a while back when I was about to make a list of all TNA champions, but this is just a renaming and unification of two titles.--WillC07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be a unification but the titles now are something of their own. When people talk about unifications they normally mean something like what happened in 2001 when Jericho unified the WWF&WCW Championships; the WCW was deactivated and WWF one kept on. Sometimes people talk about someone unifying a championship when what they really mean is that they have both titles, once again in the Invasion when many people held two titles - taking for example X-Pac had the Light Heavyweight and Cruiserweight Championship. However, this is like neither of these cases as in the first case a title was deactivated, yet both titles are still represented here. In the latter case the titles were defended irrespective of the other, however in this case the champions always defend the Unified Tag Titles, never just the World or just the WWE. In this way I find it to be a new title, born out of two others and could at this point at least do with a list of reigns on the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship page but not a page of its own. Tony2Times (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
We shouldn't even have the lists. They are list cruft. The match has become commonplace, so keeping track of all the matches has no reason anymore. The article should be about the match rules and its history. Not a list of all ladder matches, that isn't even sourced or remotely correct. I say remove them.--WillC15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That list is not "cruft" Will, there are sources and it's an appropriate topic for a list. As to why the MITB matches aren't on there I don't know. They are on the Money in the Bank ladder match page, though, but a link between the two may be needed. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO it somewhat is. It is an unneeded, non-notable list of results that you would never find in an actual encyclopedia. Besides that fact, the format is terrible, poorly sourced, etc. No need for a list, actually expand the article. So much info can be placed in inplace of a list. Legacy, variations, etc. What reason is there to list 300 different matches?--WillC23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This is all I will say on the subject: the list seems far too long, could never be comprehensive because ladder matches from house shows could be skipped easily (how many have there been? 0? 48? 173? nobody could possibly know), and is not particularly encyclopedic. I can see a great argument for copying it to the Pro Wrestling Wikia, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
As for comprehensiveness, I didn't see any ladder matches from Mexico or Japan listed either. Has there never been one in either country? I think the list is un-needed, as well. I've always thought we should merge all ladder based matches into one article, all cage based matches into one article, etc. without any results listed. Nikki♥31100:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nikki on the merge idea, but yet disagree. There are some matches that have enough information on them, to be notable enough for their own pages. Like Ultimate X, Hell in a Cell, etc.--WillC14:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Dragon Gate
Does anyone know much about this company? The USA brand crowned their first champion this weekend and on their C&A section it is billed as the DUGSA Open The Freedom Gate while the Japanese branch lists the full name, ie Dragon Gate Open The Brave Gate. Certainly on the DGUSA website it is listed as the Open The Freedom Gate Championship, not DGUSA Open... and at most Dragon Gate's Open... Is it just in WWE that we omit the abbreviation to distinguish between the former two old sets of tag titles or should we also do it here if the company don't bill it as DGUSA...? It's a small detail I know but Dragon Gate Open The Brave Gate Championship is both long and sounds tautological, so if it could be truncated that'd be good but if it's correct I don't wanna change it. Tony2Times (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The promotion's website seems to refer to it as just "Open the Freedom Gate Championship", no mention of the promotions name (check the News Alert section). TJSpyke02:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to say on the champion's article, their C&A section includes the DGUSA bit. I can't find anything on the website that has it though, I was also wondering how the original Japanese brand dealt with it. Tony2Times (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If the promotion itself doesn't include their name in the title, then neither should we. BxB Hulk should just have "Open the Freedom Gate Championship" in the C&A section, not "DGUSA Open the Freedom Gate Championship" or "Dragon Gate USA Open the Freedom Gate Championship" or any other variant. That's my opinion, but I don't see why we would invent our own name for it. Maybe DGUSA somewhere uses their initials in the title name. TJSpyke03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that is why I brung it up here. I think it should be deleted or merged with another article. If it was atleast a very special event I would understand. But I doubt there was much build to it, or if there is enough sources for it to be at least give some useful information. Hell, there is even enough information and sources avaliable for the TNA weekly PPVs to be notable. We don't have those honestly, I don't know why we have this. Just thought to present it here and get some opinions on what we should do with this article.--WillC22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest getting it proded. And while we're on the matter of international PPVs, I've noticed the list of WWE pay-per-view events has Global Warning listed again. I still can't find any credible source that proves that it was ever on pay-per-view, and it looks like it most certainly was not featured on Australian pay-per-view as Main Event has a list of their previous shows with Global Warning missing from it. Permission to remove? --Θakster10:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Remember that the notability guideline for shows is not whether or not people paid to watch it on television but rather whether or not is has been discussed in reliable second-party sources. If Mayhem in Manchester fits that guideline, it should stay. If not, it shouldn't. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. But I haven't seen any refs but two or three that cover it. Plus since the event was held in 98, I doubt there is much information covering it anyway. Just decided to bring it up here, and see if anyone had any info on it.--WillC01:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
As long as people keep in mind that the standard for inclusion is whether sufficient coverage exists, not whether it is currently included in the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This ROH event is getting considerable coverage by reliable third party sites. Would making an article be out of the question?--WillC01:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Well PWTorch, Wrestling Observer, WrestleView, etc all have articles up on the event. It is going to be avaliable through GoFights.com. From what it seems, this is ROH's main event of the year.--WillC04:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
They always give coverage to Final Battle, as well as the Anniversary shows, Wrestlemania weekend shows, Death before Dishonor and Glory by Honor (which is their main show of the year). 76.28.242.117 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it is a technical PPV, but that shouldn't be the deciding reason. This event has gotten a bit more coverage than most.--WillC19:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless she gets resigned to TNA (*fingers crossed*) then she may go back to using her indie name which she already so I'm not sure. Tony2Times (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought giving the links and allowing editors to look would be enough. Not sure where to start. She worked in TNA for two years under the Angelina Love name where she won the women's title twice and led The Beautiful People. She was under contract to WWE, but never appeared on the main roster. Seeing as she has had more exposure in TNA under this one name, it would suggest that is her common name. She has worked as Angel Williams, but only on the indy circuit and in a few dark matches for WWE. I do believe she is still using the Love ring name even after her TNA release. I don't see how her working on the indy circuit under Williams, would change her global exposure as Love. A quick google search of "Angel Williams wrestling" and "Angelina Love wrestling" turns up 1,440,000 for the later and 250,000 for the first.--WillC07:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
just make a redirect and put the page as her real name and make reference to the aka. Steve Bordens page says steve borden and goes to mention he has an aka. Sting is also used as a redirect. This isn't a situation like The ultimate warrior. Even hulk hogan signs his checks under his legal name.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
First off, her legal name is Lauren Williams. Second, speak english please. I only understood one thing out of all that. Per WP:COMMONNAME it should actually be Angelina Love. I just need a consensus so I can get an admin to delete Angelina Love and then move the article there.--WillC13:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I've already proposed it on the Shawn Michaels talk page, but I don't think we'll go anwhere with only 3 users. I would like to add in a new section named Return of D-Generation-X. The Various feuds section is way too long and I'm not the only one complaining, also, I don't think DX reuniting is a feud, it's a storyline--The Celtic Cross(talk)16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been doing a little bit of research in terms of city bids for WrestleMania (and in a sense forward as well with XXVII) and I've been searching for the original article in which Vince McMahon mentioned Las Vegas and Paris as rival front-runners against Orlando for WrestleMania XXIV. Sadly, the original article is now a dead link. It took me a while to find the original article but the problem is that the copy I've found is from a message board post. I think it would be an interesting addition to the article but I'm not exactly sure how to handle the sourcing of this. Any suggestions? --Θakster00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I think its time to go ahead and move this, there is no indication that TNA in any way does not recognize the name change. They are announcing him as the global champion, its on the website, and they have not forced him to defend it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
They're like Cryme Tyme and The Edgeheads: Barely any unique info of either member that's enough to warrant them each a seprate article. Can anyone merge them into Phi Delta Slam? PCE (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
For those who aren't aware (I assume most members are, but just in case), there was a consensus on the wording of the opening paragraph of this article, but some users are refused to acknowledge. So I suggested a vote purely to show consensus in an easy to see format, and this is now in progress. Could as many members as possible come on over and voice their view? Thanks. !!JustaPunk!!06:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Book-class
Since a couple of Wikipedia-Books are wrestling-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Pro Wrestling people can oversee books like Hardy Boyz much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.
If you want to write more books, simply start the book creator (click "Create a book", in the print/export toolbox on the left of your screen), and follow instructions. The easiest/fastest way to create a book is to go to a category, add all the pages in that category ("Add this category to your book"), and review the book ("Show book") to create chapters and whatnot. See Help:Books for details. It's pretty easy to use, just toy around with it and you'll figure it out in no time. If something's unclear or confusing, just drop me a line and I'll help as best I can. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the how-to guide and help. I don't really know what I'm doing when it comes to this sort of thing so if that eventuality arises, it should be easier now. Tony2Times (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering if it is possible (read:notable) for WWE DVDS Ex: Tombstone: History of the Undertaker to get their own articles. If they are allowed I will create some articles, if not I won't bother. Thanks Tech43 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Depends on the title. If you can show that it passes the general notability guidelines from Wikipedia, sure. I would suggest working on them in a sandbox first though. TJSpyke02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia:Notability (films). Personally, I would be against separate articles for the majority of them. I feel a single article would be sufficient, to provide information, and to create a nice record, anything beyond that is just promotion, IMO, and will create a bunch more small articles under our purview. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Bullet do you just have shit watchlisted in case it gets created? Surprising catch, we may want to watch all articles related to that subject.--WillC14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I think he was remarking how well Bullet is at finding pages one wouldn't normally search for (and thus likely aren't notable enough to have their own article). Tony2Times (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Second stub drive
The number of stub-class articles has been falling, but the bot that tagged wrestling articles has picked up a few more. We are within striking distance of meeting the New Year's Resolution of getting the percentage of stubs below 10% by the end of 2009. To help with this goal, I am announcing the second Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive, which will last until the end of the year. Please see details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive 2. To see how the last one went, you can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive. Thanks in advance (and barnstars in January) to anyone who can make a significant contribution toward achieving the resolution. (P.S. - If someone can add this to the newsletter, that would be greatly appreciated.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Excellent idea Gary. We jumped back up to 12.63% this week with the new taggings - we were down at 11.68%. I only wish I had more time to help out. :( I've added it to this week's newsletter, but I wouldn't expect it to be delivered until tomorrow - I was a little late with the message today, and I don't think Misza is online after a certain point. Hope nobody minds too much. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree, excellent idea to close out the year, it's not an impossible task at all. Has anyone figured out approximately how many stubs articles need to be expanded to reach the goal? And I'm definitly in. MPJ-DK (40,4% Done) Talk 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm in, too. In hindsight, I probably should have waited to do the bot thing until the year was over...but I'm always up for a challenge. Nikki♥31100:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking through the stubs, it seems like a lot of the ones that have been added are songs that happened to be used as WrestleMania themes or arenas that were the site of wrestling matches. Some arenas are definitely important enough to the sport to be under the project's scope, but I'm not convinced about all of them. Perhaps a discussion is needed to determine whether or not these should be considered professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think arenas that have hosted wrestling events (with the rare exception like the Impact Zone) or songs should be included in the project. Should "Live and Let Die" be covered by WikiProject NFL just because it was peformed at the Super Bowl a few years ago? What about songs used in movies? Unless something has significant connection to wrestling, I don't see why it should be covered by us. TJSpyke01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, MSG has a very strong connection to wrestling (hell, Vince McMahon is in the MSG Hall of Fame and WWF used to do a weekly show there). TJSpyke04:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm making a list of articles for various reasons. As I look through the project's accessment cats, I'll check and remove any that don't seem to have a reason to be tagged.--WillC16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on whether this IWA-MS manager is sufficiently notable for inclusion? He apparently thought he was worth including, so he wrote the article himself. I know very little about the promotion, but I'm always more open to deletion when the article is an unsourced vanity article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Survival of the Fittest, but ROH TV no. That show is covered by numerous sites, we have enough info to expand the article to a decent length if someone is willing to.--WillC16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Paul Burchill
Sorry to bring this up here, but I'm getting at this is the most active page of the pages that cover the matter. Anyway, I read a section here, and I was wondering has anyone got a source that says that the wrestler that ambushed The Hurricane last thursday, is Paul Burchill? Because he is currently listed in unassigned talent, which would be proven wrong if we had a reliable source saying it's Burchill.--The Celtic Cross(talk)17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The ongoing report on PWTorch points out that his moveset gave away it was Burchill. Slam! Sports' column also pointed it out. Do these count? Arguably these are just reporters make the same assumption we are but then again Wiki guidelines also state to use common sense and he's quite obviously Burchill so I think it should be safe. Tony2Times (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Try merging pop and heat into one article about general crowd reactions, seeing as they are really the same thing. 92.1.179.166 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
@ Celtic: That's why I'm proposing a merge and redirect as opposed to a deleton. It is important in the wrestling world, but it doesn't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia. Nikki♥31100:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for the hard work. The number of stubs dropped by a quarter of a percent today, which is amazing for a single day of editing. Seven days like today, and we'd meet the goal. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I was reading the article and noticed it's a start class, in my opinion it is something higher than that (I'm not very familiar with rating articles) but I found out everything I was looking for--The Celtic Cross(talk)14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention Matt, but was opening a section really needed? Just asking, it seems like a waste.--WillC14:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Very true, Matt don't you know the price of sections these days? I mean honestly this fit perfectly into the "Stub drive" section or the "1 vs. everyone else about Zack Ryder" section. MPJ-DK (50% Done) Talk 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
In what way is telling us we're going to be sorry asking for an explanation? If you mean iMatthew, he's a seasoned vet on here. I saw we put Curtis in a big hat and make him our mascot. Tony2Times (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Curtis, without getting into who's wrong and who's right about -- whatever -- it's best to just bow out, gracefully, before this discussion escalates. Friendly advice, please consider it. HAZardousMATTtoxic22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
FBH and I are both pushing for two different methods of presentation on the In Wrestling section for Drew Galloway at the moment because his finishing move in FCW and WWE have the same name but are completely different moves. Should it be listed twice as two separate moves or as one move with different ways of performing it both can be seen here. Tony2Times (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I would just like to say, maybe turning it into a prose section would be better. Explain his move history wider. If two moves have the same name, I would think listing them both, adding a footnote section, and leaving a note at each would be best.--WillC00:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What would the prose say that the section doesn't already? He used the STO while he was in FCW and the snap double-underhook DDT while in WWE. Some things are fine just as lists and easier to read. Tony2Times (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is more complicated than it appears. Eventually I plan to make a subpage just full of format ideas. Just threw that idea out there. For now just listing both with notes should do just fine.--WillC03:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Both ways show both moves/names but just in different ways. Obviously I prefer my method but I wanted to get consensus from the group rather than just revert war it 'cause I think it's a matter of simple aesthetics rather than any reason. Tony2Times (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Bret Hart
Predictably, IPs have been going insane because it's been reported that Bret Hart has signed a contract with the WWE. I don't know what the policy is on stuff reported by the WON is (because it seems that every member will tell you something different), so I've just been limiting mention of it to a single sentense. I'd appreciate some help in trying to control the article. -- Scorpion042204:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the project's style guide, we don't have alot of reliable refs mentioned. There are surely more than just WON, WV, PWTorch, etc. I was looking at High Beam Research a minute ago and their About Me section has convinced me they are a reliable source. Thought to bring it up here and see if everyone agrees before I add it to the style guide. Would be nice if we could update that list a bit more from time to time.--WillC05:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Nope, not allowed. Even if you ignore the fact that they don't actually do anything but compile articles from other sites (which anyone of us can do with Google), they require a subscription to actually read any of them. Sites that require a subscription are not allowed (which is why sites like PWTorch and WON can only be used for their free articles, the articles that are for members only can't be used as a source). TJSpyke22:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The "free preview" consists of the first paragraph of a article, hardly useful. Besides, it tells you the source of the article (so you should just use the original source). I see no point in trying to use this site and articles using it would encounter problems trying to get GA and FA status because it fails WP:EL (or at BEST is borderline). TJSpyke23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a good site for a reference and should be used if the original source can't be found (which pretty much is why the High Beam its there), pretty much the site should only be used as a reference if the information is contained within the Preview of the article, I see no reason why this site can't be used. AfroTalkie Talk - Afkatk12:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've already explained why, and any reference to this site would get removed if the article was ever nominated for FA because it fails WP:EL. TJSpyke00:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any information regarding the real life information on this situation in any of the three article, was some decision made regarding this? Do we not have reliable sources? The Jeff Jarret Article states that "During his hiatus it was reported that Jarrett had lost all of his backstage power in TNA and would return only as a wrestler." but it doesn't explain why. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
See if I can find some reliable sources tomorrow. TNA has pretty much confirmed it at this point. You don't get fired for "talking" about someones wife in a storyline. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we need some sort of discussion on this as there has been a little bit of bickering as of late over the Notes on the lists most notably on the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) which did involve TJ getting blocked for 24 hours, one of the many issues with the Notes section is the Gimmick matches and there's also the little detail of the {{small|}} template as well, anyway just thought we could have a small discussion on this. AfroTalkie Talk - Afkatk15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
That I would have to agree on. But attempting another discussion doesn't hurt. I've tried numerous times to get that article and others up to date (to match the other recently passed articles). At times match types are notable, but just having a match be a TLC or cage match is no more important than a normal match. Wrestling is scripted so either way the title would've changed hands. Now if it was to determine a new champion after the title was vacant or something very important happened in the match, which played with the gimmick, I would say that is important as well.--WillC19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I think match types are notable if they deviate from the standard of which that title is normally contested under - if the WWF Hardcore Title changed hands in a non-hardcore match that is of note, if the ROH Pure Wrestling Title changed hands in a non-pure match that would be of note, if a standard singles title changes hands because someone was put through a table or someone climbed a ladder rather than pinning the opponent, that is notable in my book. If it didn't change hands through the conventional method then there's likely a reason for it, if there's a reason there's a cause and if there's a cause it's noteworthy. Tony2Times (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Now I could understand that if such facts were mentioned. But just saying this was a ladder match doesn't help show reason. Three Way matches should only be mentioned if the champion wasnt pinned. Noting the champion wasn't pinned would be important.--WillC20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Even if the champion is still pinned it being a multiple person match changes the dynamic of the match. Styles pinning Angle at No Surrender doesn't factor in the fact that Sting and Matt Morgn were also beating up Angle. I don't think we should go crazy with notes but there is a notes section there and especially if we utilise {small| - which I think looks neater in a grid anyway - it doesn't clutter it up. Tony2Times (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well the small template has begun to be removed because it makes it harder to read. I don't see why listing it was a 5 man match if it didn't effect the title's history anymore than a singles match.--WillC03:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well that's a drag but I guess I can't argue with that. And I just explained why it being a five man match effects the title history. AJ didn't beat Kurt one on one, two other people (because it was essentially a four way) were wrestling Kurt and tiring him out too and Sting had a major influence in the match. If it's not a singles match then the champion was up against extra odds than normal seeing as the third wrestler doesn't just sit at ringside grateful for just being in the match. In a tables, ladder or TLC match it's notable because the champion wasn't pinned to lose the title which is what you'd assume if you weren't otherwise noted. Being as the list says what the previous champion is and then the next champion, that tacitly presents the reader with the two men involved in a singles match but in a multi-person match the match dynamics change, even more so if it's a corners match.
Also saying that some things are notable and others aren't is opening the flood gates. Who says what stipulations outside the normal parameters are notable and what aren't, this could start massive edit warring. Furthermore, having some match stipulations/details noted and others not tacitly implies that the ones not mentioned didn't have any stipulation or anything of note outside a regular singles match. Tony2Times (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some are notable and some aren't. Wrestling is scripted. The 5 man idea can only work in a real situation. Angle was going to be pinned by AJ with it being a 2 man, 3 man, 4 man, 5 man, or 50 man match. The situation of others involved isn't a problem because AJ pinned the champ. In a TLC I could understand, but no one ever states that the titles were removed. It is just stated that it was a TLC match. That doesn't show why it is significant.--WillC01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because wrestling is a work doesn't mean AJ would have won the match regardless of competitors. If he would have, why did they make it a five man match? Because that's part of the story and we recount the story of wrestling on here. Ric Flair was never going to lose his Career Threatening Match against MVP during the 2008 Rumble but we still mention it because that's part of the story. AJ had assistance in beating the champion. In a TLC match you win by removing the belts, not pinning the opponent; noting that it's a TLC match tacitly states that's how the belts were won. If we don't assume that part of common sense then we must list every way the championship was lost, be it pin or submission. Tony2Times (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
When did and encylopedia ever become about the story? It has always been about the facts. AJ pinned Angle, why is noting there were 3 others in the match important? That can be noted in the PPV article and the bios. If he didn't pin one of them to become champion, then it doesn't matter to the title history. The lists should be about the champions and championship, not who had a chance to become champion in the storyline. Just saying "This was a TLC match" still doesn't show significance. It doesn't show why that should be noted. It is trivia almost. Now saying "This was a TLC match in which Michaels removed the belts that hung above the ring" I would understand. But that is never noted. The lists are quick references.--WillC02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well as a for instance on our CM Punk FA it says in ROH Punk began a storyline where he teased the fans that he'd take the belt to WWE. He was never going to, it was a story, a story reported on an encyclopedia about the subject of a story just like any pro-wrestling championship belt is the subject of a story and thus is on an encyclopedia as a story. Later it says he relinquished his title when he was unable to compete due to an Orton punt. He wasn't, it was a story. These are the facts of the story just like the fact that most singles titles are contested for in standard rules singles matches and if it isn't that's of note because the subject of the storyline, which is also the subject of the article list, changed hands in an unusual manner and unusuality is notable. As I said before if it's a TLC match then of course the winner won it by retrieving the belt that hung above the ring. Why would we bother to put "This was a Table Match in which Sheamus put John Cena through a table", that's just a tautology seeing as it says to the left that Sheamus is the champion after the match, Cena is the champion before the match and it's a Table Match. Although I do think if it's a multiple person match and a non-champion is defeated for the title then it should be noted who was pinned. Tony2Times (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the inclusion of gimmick match types. I think it's definitely relevant, and leaving it out gives readers an incomplete summary of the facts. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Merger proposal
Would anyone object to the contents of Powerteam USA being merged into the Blade Runners article? It seems to me that taking the relevant paragraph from the Powerteam article and putting it in the History section of the Blade Runners article would keep all of the information and avoid an unnecessary split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
For the first time since the project decided to focus on reducing the number of stub articles in 2007, the percentage has fallen below 11%. It's currently at 10.95%, which is down more than a full percentage point in the past 10 days. There are still 8 days left to meet the project's goal of ending the year below 10%. Any help is appreciated—even one or two articles would be wonderful. Thanks to everyone who has been helping out. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's still 2009, and will be for 26 hours (in the the Eastern US)/21 hours (GMT). I [personally think the 26 hours one applies because Wikipedia is based in Florida. TJSpyke02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, i'm not sure if you are really helping. Technically you are reducing the number of stubs, but only because you are going around and redirecting articles (like redirecting 3 different Fire Pro Wrestling articles into the main article, or redirecting Earl McCready to Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame#1996 inductees). The goal is to reduce the number of stubs by expanding improving the articles and expanding them, not just redirecting them. TJSpyke21:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The movie should have plot and reception information added, McCready has several reliable sources ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc.), and Kimura has a biography at [9] and has won multiple titles: [10], [11], and [12] (the last one being a title in the men's division). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't looked into the 11 Fire Pro Wrestling articles that were redirected, but the ones I saw all had at least a paragraph and infobox that could have been merged rather than deleted in a redirect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dustin Runnels birthday
His lead section says "April 11, 1969", his infobox says "April 11, 1961", but the source that cites both of these statements says "April 11, 1966"... what the hell happened here? Raaggio18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal for Big Gold Belt and all mentions of it to be redirected to World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling championship belt)
The "Big Gold Belt" is merely a nickname among fans. There's no such thing. WWE, who OWNS the belt, refers to it as the "World Heavyweight Championship". Now don't jump the gun, people... yes, this is the name of the championship title, but THE BELT ITSELF is also known as such by WWE. The WWE recently released "The History of the World Heavyweight Championship" (with the "Big Gold Belt" used as the sole cover image), which traces its NWA, WCW and WWE history and features "World Heavyweight Championship" matches in all three promotions. This is cemented by WWE.com: "The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002... for years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion."[13] I propose an immediate move, as a fan given nickname will not do when the organisation who owns the physical belt refers to the belt, throughout its entire history, as the "World Heavyweight Championship". KorjokManno (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose this move is not needed or warranted IMHO, and there are enough Ghits on it that it simply cannot be allowed to vanish from Wikipedia. See also this entry on one of the many Wikipedia mirrors. ArcAngel (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose The belt has a notable tradition under the name of Big Gold Belt and therefore must be recorded here. The physical belt and the championship is not the same thing, as the NWA championship belt underwent several changes. So has the WWE title belt. Note that the proposing user has already begun changing the link before making this proposal. !!JustaPunk!!23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No real points have been made. The belt was NEVER officially known as "Big Gold Belt". This IS an encyclopedia, right? WWE has 100% ownership of the physical belt design, and it is known as the World Heavyweight Championship (again, not the title - as previously stated, WWE refers to the NWA, WCW and WWE "Big Gold Belts" as the "World Heavyweight Championship" both in the recent DVD and on wwe.com). That simple. Sure, "Big Gold Belt" can be mentioned as a fan nickname on the renamed page. But the belt is the World Heavyweight Championship. There shouldn't even be a discussion. Rather than referring to a belt by the name officially designated by the organisation who owns it, we are using a fan-given nickname.
"Note that the proposing user has already begun changing the link before making this proposal". No - as there was no need for discussion, I redirected. I was told that I couldn't do this, so I then raised the issue here. Let's get that straight. Let us now continue with this unnecessary discussion. KorjokManno (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
KM, please note that it doesn't matter what the official name is, WP:COMMONNAME will likely come into play here. Any reason why we cant merge? That will retain the information, therefore retaining its history and legacy. No need to actually change the links, just merge and create the redirect. Either way, the article needs some references. Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment, the belt is referred to as the "Big Gold Belt" in at least five books [14], so it isn't just a fan name. It is also mentioned in some reliable sources as such [15]. Nikki♥31101:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment It seems that your desire to move the page to World Heavyweight Championship belt was influenced mainly by the release of the History of the World Heavyweight Championship DVD, which documents the history of the actual physical belt. While you can argue that the belt was never "officially" known as the Big Gold Belt, it can certainly argued that it is by far the most commonly used name for it. Now as for WWE having 100% ownership of the physical belt design, that is something that doesn't seem entirely 100% factual. Allow me to explain... Professional belt makers such as Reggie Parks, Dave Millican, and others ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) receive orders from a wide variety of clients. The galleries from the links provided show images of completed works with many featuring design elements from the Big Gold Belt, WCW Television Championship, WCW United States Championship, the Classic WWF Intercontinental Championship, and former versions of the WWF Championship such as the "Winged Eagle", though all of course lacking the various WWE Trademarks. However, nowhere will you find belts with even the slightest similarity to the belts currently used by WWE such as the WWE spinner, ECW, US, and Divas. A recent issue of WWE magazine claimed that these belts were designed by WWE's art department and made by Joe Marshall, WWE's exclusive belt maker. The other belts including the current Intercontinental, Women's, and Tag Team were designed and made solely by Marshall. According to the available information on the matter, these designs are "owned" by WWE. The Big Gold Belt however was originally produced well over two decades ago and the limited information that is available on the belt doesn’t assert anything regarding WWE's complete and total ownership of the designs. From what I understand, WWE added its logo to the belt in 2003 for only branding purposes.--UnquestionableTruth--02:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
As I stated in the edit summary, WWE is also very loose in using the term "world heavyweight championship". For example, on SmackDown this week The Undertaker was called a 7-time World Heavyweight Champion (or them calling Triple H a 13-time WWE Champion). bullet, you think this user is the same guy we had to deal with a couple of years ago (the one who went to a messageboard to complain about us and get his friends to come here and help him?). For the record, I oppose it and think the article should be at Big Gold Belt. TJSpyke05:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Lets move the sock investigation elsewhere please? What about a merger? I know it is popular for having its own article, but I don't see a need for it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't going to report him anyway. He hasn't done anything to cause disruption on a grand scale since the ECW world title thing that went on for months... Even though he is banned... meh... You're all free to do what you want with the situation. --UnquestionableTruth--07:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't done anything to vandalise the last time either... your masturbatory pedantry and baseless accusations simply made it clear to me that there was no point in editing constructively. Anyway, that's in the past, and has NOTHING to do with this discussion. And I am not banned at all... I received a 24 hour ban which las long expired. Get a grip. KorjokManno (talk) 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
You still refuse to admit you did anything wrong? And for the record, you received an indef block (not 24 hours like you claim) and that block is still in effect for sockpuppeting. That means you can (and probably) should be blocked just for evading it. You have admitted to being a sockpuppet, so this is open and shut. TJSpyke16:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I did wrong, oh yes. But then I started editing constructively and was banned again for nothing. What's this "indefinite ban" garbage? My previous username was banned indefinitely, and my IP for 24 hours. After that I was free to set up new usernames. If people want to dish out bans, why not give them to vandals. I vandalized WIkipedia before... so what. Its a national hobby. KorjokManno (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
No I wasn't, not really. It was a Meatpuppet (I was having my brother help me out on some issues and it was from the same house, so I couldn't prove it wasn't me). Plus, it was only temp. Wiki Troll has a history of trying to avoid blocks with sockpuppets and has just openly admitted to doing it again. TJSpyke17:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
As for the article itself... I think it certainly is notable enough to have its own article. It just needs to be cleaned up, rewritten and sourced. --UnquestionableTruth--07:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment- KorjoManno, although a douchebag sockpuppeteer, has a point about his discussion not being taken seriously. Guys like Darren and Steam simply opposed without expressing any reason of why they did so. All they stated was he should be blocked. Its a sad problem, but Korjo stated it correctly "Then again, this is Wikipedia." I really believe we should give Wikipedia a better name and stop this nonsense. Raaggio18:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I agreed with the point made above on the oppose arguments, my comment on the block evasion was a reply to the separate discussion. Maybe I should have formatted it as Oppose for the reasons stated above, and Comment block evasion (for any reason) is a block-able offence. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The reason that i oppose this is the fact that The Big Gold Belt it self has a long extensive history wither the title was owned by WWE, WCW, or the NWA. And for this reason it would not do the big gold belt justice by listing it just as a World Heavyweight Championship. So it should stay the way it is and we should improve the article.--SteamIron04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well it needs to be done quickly. Article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2007. As for the replies above, I actually that it could be notable enough to have its own article, but only because the same belt was used in the various promotions. I still think that this establishes a dangerous precedent. We could theoretically have separate articles for WWE, WWF, any titles that transferred, etc. Each is notable, and technically rate their own articles, but we don't do it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTIMELIMIT says otherwise on the timeframe. As for the slippery slope, I strongly doubt that anyone would see this as a precedent to split any title articles, much less WWE titles from WWF, so I don't think that straw man argument works. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about straw man? And as for NOTIMELIMIT, I am indeed bringing this to the attention of the project, as was also noted in the previous redirect proposal. However it should be noted that for an article to be included in wikipedia it should be referenced. There is no reason the article can't be referenced except for lack of interest, which is strange considering the amount of support for the article. In any case, like I said above, I Oppose merging the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Awkward phrasing in some articles
I was reading through some old PPV articles and found some sections that were just really oddly written. I've changed them to make more sense, but they've been returned to what they were. This is an example from the Survivor Series 2007 article.
The fourth match was the 5-on-5 Survivor Series Elimination Tag team match between Team Triple H and Team Umaga. Before the event, it was announced that Matt Hardy would be unable to compete in the match due to a scripted injury. Kane was the first wrestler eliminated off of Team Triple H, after Big Daddy V dropped his elbow across his chest. Umaga then pinned and eliminated Team Triple H's Rey Mysterio, after he struck his throat with his thumb to execute the "Samoan Spike". Only Jeff and Triple H remained for their team, while MVP was Team Umaga's first elimination; Jeff Hardy pinned and eliminated him after pulling his head over his shoulders down to the mat to perform a "Twist of Fate". Team Umaga's second elimination occurred after Big Daddy V accidentally dropped his elbow on Mr. Kennedy, which led to a pinfall by Triple H. Big Daddy V was Team Umaga's third elimination, which occurred after Hardy and Triple H drove his head to the mat to perform a Double DDT. Finlay and Umaga were then eliminated via pinfall, after Triple H drove Finlay's head to the mat through a "Pedigree", and after Jeff flipped on top of Umaga to perform a "Swanton Bomb". As a result, Team Triple H won.[8][33]
I've bolded the parts that really stick out as awkward to me. Wouldn't it be better to just say "Hit a Twist of Fate" and have it link to the actual move in the list of wrestling maneuvers article? Or do we really need to say "pulled his head over his shoulders down to the mat", which really doesn't make much sense at all?
Also, should there really be references to wrestling being scripted throughout the entire article? The standard paragraph at the top of each PPV page does a good enough job on its own. Everything that is written afterwards is assumed to be scripted, since things being "legit" are the outlier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capcaisin (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
We no longer need to go in depth on the moves. Just give a simple showing of what is going on. Like he performed a Twist of Fate by forcing his head into the mat. Not a step by step detail, just enough a reader knows what is going on and can move onward.--WillC09:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's that time of year again. Looking over the progress made by this project over the years, it looks like this was another good year. The number of articles increased even more than it did in 2008, which could show that the project (or, at least, editors writing about wrestling) is picking up in activity. Another Featured Article was added, along with 32 Featured Lists. 63 more articles were elevated to GA status. The focus on expanding stub-class articles has continued to pay off, with an even bigger drop in numbers this year than in 2008. For those of you who are intersted in tracking the progess over the years, the end-of-year statistics for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (in that order) are:
I haven't taken a look at the New Year's Resolutions yet, but I know they led to a lot of great progress as well. Once again, great job to everyone involved, and thanks for the great effort you put into the articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Good, I would like to say good work to all those who helped raise content to GA, FL, etc. Hopefully 2010 will be a even better year. Speaking of the NYRs, I was wondering if anyone would object to doing them again? I think they helped the project overall. Gaves us some goals and we met a few of them.--WillC07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest doing them again. We can even put it on a project subpage like the stub drive, so it looks more "official" ;). I was thinking about a "start class" reduction drive (which is something GCF mentioned to me a long time ago) and , maybe reducing the percentage of articles with a cleanup tag in them. Nikki♥31121:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of reducing the number of Start-class articles. Many of the ones tagged as Start-class should actually be C-class, so sweeping through them would be a great idea. If we could identify a couple of articles that are clearly C-class as examples, that would help a lot. As for other resolutions, I think it's a great idea. I know we tried a couple of years ago to get a SummerSlam featured topic, and I really like the idea of getting a featured or good topic for a specific pay-per-view. I'd also like to see GA articles for more retired wrestlers—perhaps a goal of getting the articles at least 10 members of the WWE Hall of Fame to GA-class? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Great job on the stub reduction drive, sorry I couldn't help more but I was visiting the inlaws for the two weeks around christmas and new years. I think it was cool to have both project wide resolutions and personal resolutions, I think it helped people focus on a common goal. I'm definitly up for setting both a personal resolution and helping in project wide resolutions. MPJ-DK (50% Done) Talk 02:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Resolutions 2010 for people to add their contributions at. Project pages are not my forte, though, so I will not be offended if someone has a better setup in mind and wants to change it around. I've added a couple of the ideas mentioned here and some we didn't accomplish from last year. Anyone can add some more if they want or if they have a project they would like some help on. Nikki♥31104:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gary on the idea of a topic on a PPV. If you check here, I have a list of topics ranging from PPVs, to titles, etc. The page was going to become a project guide for topics when it was finished but might as well show it now. Another idea would be year PPV topics. Like 2009 Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view events, with that being the main article, alot like a season, and all the events it includes. Then there is getting a topic on champions, a personnel resolution of mine that others may enjoy accomplishing as well.--WillC18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
"After Tommy's departure from ECW, rumors sparked that Tommy had signed a contract with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. A Twitter from TNA'sDixie Carter had the statement of "Proud to report TNA has signed the Young Bucks. Thanks to all of you for the input on them. They show great potential.""
Now tell me, what the hell does the signing of the Young Bucks have to do with Tommy Dreamer? Raaggio19:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
What has Hawkins done? His whole singles career has been in FCW, he hasn't even appeared in WWE on his own yet. TJSpyke23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
What has Ryder done? He's had matches here and there, almost never with the same person twice to make any kind of storyline and now he has a girlfriend. Tony2Times (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
To play devil's advocate, Ryder has been getting a push in ECW. He had a feud with Christian where he looked pretty strong, he's feuding with Shelton Benjamin right now. He has a stronger case for getting his own article than Hawkins (I am not saying I support or oppose, just pointing out that he has a better shot at getting one than his former partner). TJSpyke23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Ryder the number one contender to the ECW Championship for a minute? Hasn't he wrestled in the main event match on ECW at least a couple of times? I think the case for Ryder having his own article has vastly improved, so I'd give my weak support to creating a separate article for him. Hawkins, however, really hasn't done much, so he should probably stay a redirect for the time being. Nikki♥31100:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it still be considered content forking then? We would have to delete Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder to give even one their own page. Defacto, they would both have to get pages. Outside of a few months of singles matches in ECW, I don't see how Ryder is notable on his own. Getting a title shot on tv on the C show isn't that big of a deal. Hell, Funaki got a title shot on SD in 2007/8. Never knew a few matches on tv and a title shot made someone notable enough for their own page.--WillC00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ryder getting a article doesn't mean Hawkins would. The Hawkin and Ryder article will never be deleted as they were a notable tag team, so the article on them will continue to exist and Hawkins could continue to be written about there. TJSpyke00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
@ Will: Being the number one contender to the top title on a brand of WWE and appearing in main event matches on its weekly TV show is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, IMO. I'm confused as to why you don't believe that warrants an article for him, when in the past you've insinuated that merely appearing once or twice in WWE is enough to have an article ([22]). In any event, the team article wouldn't be deleted...it would be as TJ said. Nikki♥31101:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you all forgetting we have an article for him? It is just in the format as the same as the Briscoe Brothers. I feel this is more along the lines of content forking. You are going to be giving the same info on two seperate articles.--WillC01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing of his singles career that isn't already on the current tag team page and it amounts to a very brief paragraph. He was number 1 contender one week and lost the match the following week, it's not much of a notable storyline if you can even call it a storyline. His current story of having fantasies of Rosa Mendez is still ongoing and may amount to nothing. Tony2Times (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Curtis, of course he meets the notability guidelines. He has a page, which is shared with the history of Hawkins. Nothing has been shown as to why there should be a split. He got a title shot. Well countless others have had title shots that have their history joined with their tag team partner. That doesn't change the fact most of their history was apart of a tag team. Crap, The Briscoes should be split if this is split. I believe it is Jay who has had title shot after title shot.--WillC02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Curtis is now disrupting this page? Give it a rest already. I'm not sure why you think coming here will help your effort out. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep them together, neither deserves a separate article at this point. And Curtis, throttle it back, you're becoming an irritant. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
No you just want your way in all honesty. There has been discussion after discussion on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder, with them all ending up on not seperating. You continue to bring it up because you want your way. We have had a consensus on the matter, just one you do not agree with.--WillC22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Since September you've been making the same lack of a point, much to the degree of "goooooo ooooon, make a page" with no support aside from when you started faking signatures of frequent editors to fabricate support. That's three months you've been going on when everyone else has said the same thing about his page not being worthy of a profile. You do just want your way regardless and it's just by luck that some people here are considering it, I'm fairly certain if no-one agreed you'd continue to bug this page on a daily basis anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He meets notability guidelines and he doesn't have a page his team has a page bu he doesn't have a page give his one.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The article follows the same format as Briscoe Brothers. If that can reach GA, then there is nothing wrong with the format imo. Please Curtis, show why having them merged is a bad thing? The information regarding Ryder is all there. No rule around here that I am aware of that says a wrestler must have a single page.--WillC01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Why should we give him his own page why you wont state any reasons why we should instead all you do is tell us we should give us something to back up you clame.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone who knows how to do these things prod Zack Ryder (WWE) for speedy deletion and notify that the pictures provided aren't copyright free. Even if we do give him a page, we surely won't even need this as a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I had already redirected it since it IS a plausible search target. Doesn't matter if it's deleted now, but there was no point. TJSpyke15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
No there isn't a consensus I don't agree Ryder meets notability guidelines has been #1 contender to a world championship has had a very noteable storyline and is now in another storyline with Rosa Mendes that's why he deserves a page.--Zack RyderGive me a page17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
While I once agreed with the argument for creating invdiviual articles, the behavior of Curtis23 has made me reconsider my position. I no longer feel like I can support any position that is backed up by frequent name changes (which, depending on the way you look at it, is either annoying, deceptive, or both) and a simple repetition of "they are notable" without supporting evidence. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
By my count the consensus is 8:2 to not split the pages for either wrestler. And Curtis's last statement makes no sense because there is no punctuation. Can we top and tail this, as the ever-changing signatures are not making any policy points anymore. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Dude "consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, just that the vast majority of the people agree on it - so yes there can be consensus even if you don't agree with it, I think you might benefit from taking a deep breath, step back and calm down. MPJ-DK (48,07% Done) Talk 18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You people just don't understand i'm doing this because i'm the only one who's right you people are just rebelious and don't stand for what's right once you change your mind you know where to find me.--Zack RyderGive me a page23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying my hardest to not feed any trolling here, but seriously, you're calling us rebelious? Please Curtis, take a modesty pill. Your recent comments have already turned people against your cause, pretty much the opposite of what you wanted. --Θakster00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
People agree with arguments that are well-presented and give sufficient supporting information. Repeating a non-argument + Annoying signatures + Canvassing = Lack of support. I think it's time to archive this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think that vandalizing my talk page will help your cause, I urge you to read up on Wikipedia policy before you make any further edits. As things stand now, you have 11 warnings on your talk page for vandalism and adding unsourced content. Any more will get you blocked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not supporting Curtis, but he didn't vandalize your talkpage. Looking at the history of your page, his only comment was asking you to support him. TJSpyke01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything about quotes (or whatever you call them) being changed constantly? Curtis has done it how many times now and it's getting to be annoying/disruptive. Plus some people could argue he is pretending to be other people, which is just sneaky and not needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me that a pretty strong consensus has been met and along with the fact that Curtis seems to be disruptive with the constant signature change which i believe is against policy i'm not sure ill have to check on that. Plus with the fact that this same subject has be talk about many times on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder and in all that talking the out come is still against the split.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Frequently changing signatures is NOT forbidden. However, having messages like "Zack Ryder Give Me A Page" can be considered disruptive per WP:SIGNATURES. Pretending to be another user is also banned and can lead to a user being blocked. Curtis, I do think Ryder is almost notable enough to get a page; your actions are not helping thoughTJSpyke02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't have anything to do with signing comments. As for the problem you speak of, that is a simple mistake that happens to all of us from time to time.--WillC06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The action that was done seems too exact to be an accident. Most times I would prefer no block, but at the moment, I'm not sure.--WillC00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Do to the fact that this isn't the first time that he's been busted for changing comments i think its time that a temporary block be issued.--SteamIron00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok people stop discussing a block, this isn't the correct place for it. Bring this matter up at an admin's talk page or an admin notice board if you strongly feel Curtis deserves it. I personally think he needs to just stop obsessing over Zack Ryder and edit elsewhere. This has gotten out of hand, and just needs to stop. Ryder will get his page whenever he does. Complaining at numerous talk pages will NOT change things. Changing your signature or whatever else numerous times will also not change things, so just knock it off. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Neither should get the page split. They have a section in the team's article to talk about their accomplishments, neither of them have done enough to deserve separate pages. If either of them needed a split right now, if you just forgot all about rules, it'd have to go to Hawkins since he's won a title with someone OTHER THAN RYDER plus he's started a stable in FCW with people other than Ryder. Also he's had a shot at the top title in FCW. But anyway, I'm not saying they should get an article split, just saying that Hawkins is actually more notable than Ryder.TheRealEeL (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not donating to Wikipedia until Zack Ryder gets his own page, and I implore everybody else to do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.10.147 (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
You're immature. Just because you can't get your way you refuse to help a worthy cause. If you don't donate to Wikipedia there could be no Wikipedia to have a Zack Ryder page on...190.59.13.81 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah well, it's my money and if I donate to Wikipedia, there will continue to be no Zack Ryder page. I don't think it's too much to ask to make a separate page for Ryder who is becoming a star while Hawkins rots in FCW. If/when Hawkins gets released, is the page really going to remain like this? It's ridiculous. They're most certainly no longer a tag team, and might not be ever again. I think it's safe to create two articles now, but the sperge lords that be will continue to ignore it.
So, I will refuse to give a penny to Wikipedia until the separate articles are created. Then I will "help a worthy cause".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.10.147 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Remain civil and stay on the subject. If the articles were really needed to be split, then give a logical and guideline correct reason. Not, "he is a star". That doesn't matter. Anyone who shows up on TV is automaticly a star. You must present sources and enough information to establish the separate article.--WillC06:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, add it to the article (and source it), but that's still not enough to warrant two different articles. Just maintain the article as it is any maybe in a few months something might happen with both guys to warrant a split. HAZardousMATTtoxic02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Sting
Sting (wrestler) Currently redirects to the wrestler's name. There is a very small discussion on the talk page from 2006 but I think this should be reviewed, He is almost singularly known as Sting, I never knew his real name, and I have never heard of him referred to by another name, and if he retires, he will likely forever be known as Sting. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you actually proposing a move here, or asking about the move that was made in 2008, because if you are suggesting a move to Sting (wrestler) then I would be opposed to that move. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
As in "why do I think you are proposing a move"? The phrase "in case there are any dissenters before making the move" suggest you are thinking of moving the page over the redirect, which would have to be a requested move, and would have to be proposed. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought the whole point in having wrestlers pointed to their real names as opposed to their common name was some sort of out-of-universe deal where the articles would be written so that a wrestling outsider could follow the article better? Either way, I also oppose the move. ArcAngel(talk) (review) 07:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The guideline about using qualifiers in parentheses is a little unclear; it states "try to avoid this type of disambiguation where possible (use disambiguation techniques listed above if these apply more "naturally")". Is using a name that is clearly not the common name more natural? I would suggest that someone from the project requests opinions at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) to hopefully put this debate to rest for good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Tagged with the pro-wrestling template
I've just noticed that the articles in the Category:Fictional professional wrestlers have all been tagged with the pro-wrestling ratings tag. Is that really a good idea? yes technically there has at some point in their fictional life been a wrestling connection, but is it so important that this project will ever really do something about it? I think they could more or less all be "untagged". MPJ-DK (53,7% Done) Talk 06:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I really dont think they should be tagged. The only way i could see the need to be a tag is if the article is of a fictional wrestler character was in a movie about wrestling other then that they should be untagged.--SteamIron06:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason to delete the category. It doesn't seem any more trivial to me than Former Jehovah's Witnesses or People from Norman, Oklahoma. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gary in that it doesn't seem too trivial, especially since we also have categories like "Fictional kings". However, I don't think any of those fall within the scope of this project. The only fictional wrestler that would is Suicide (yes I known Suicide was turned into a real gimmick, but I think it still counts as a fictional wrestler too). TJSpyke22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that most of the tagging comes from KingpinBot, which if I recall tags anything that is featured in Category:Professional wrestling and its vast number of subcategories. I was wondering if there's anyway we can ask Kingpin13 for a way to refine this (maybe making certain categories exempt from tagging). --Θakster09:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how to rename an image. And this picture obviously needs renaming. Can anybody help? Raaggio19:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Images don't usually get re-named. The name of the image has no bearing on anything. An admin will usually recommend just re-uploading the pic to the new name and then requesting the old one be deleted. TJSpyke22:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't upload very wll, because I confudes the f of my keyboard with the e. But I don't know why the imagen need to be upload again with photos like this --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Years in WWF/WWE topics
I was looking at one of Will's subpages, which keeps track of pay-per-view expansions (User:Wrestlinglover/Turning Point (2008))—great job on that page, incidentally, Will— and saw the pay-per-views broken down by year. This left me wondering if people thought there was a need for articles such as "1993 World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view events". All of the 1993 and 1994 WWF pay-per-views are GA-class, but I've never really been sure if a year article to link them would be considered useful or notable. It would discuss the main feuds and give an overview of the pay-per-views, and I'm sure it could be reliably sourced. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that I want to go back and make the summary articles. If people like the idea and anyone wants to make them, please feel free to go ahead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but technically, Bischoff didn't give Kristal the release she asked for. Kristal said she was going to seek a meeting with Hogan, so in reality, he never quit. Raaggio21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's just a storyline anyways. I checked and saw that a IP removed him on Monday night (and didn't even type a reason in the edit summary). I put him back in. That page is a mess though with people adding everyone who appeared on Monday night despite no sources for any of them (except Jeff Hardy) being under contract. TNA has used big names before without signing them (like when Jay Lethal faced Jim Neidhart and Tatanka, or when Balls Mahoney and Spike Dudley appeared on Impact). TJSpyke21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of rosters, I was thinking of getting our first roster FL with either the ROH or PWG rosters. Does anyone have any new format ideas?--WillC02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed all the unsourced roster additions, especially those who made "appearances" only and stated the reason in my edit summary. ArcAngel(talk) (review) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
My question is, why roster like WWE, TNA or ROH, the structure are Male wrestler and female wrestlers and, others rosters like CHIKARA, the structure is Tecnicos & Rudos (faces & heels). Also, you can put in the rosters if the wrestler is face, heel or tweener. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Chikara likes to pretend it is a Mexican wrestling promotion, so like Mexican promotions they lists their roster as either faces or heels[23]. WWE and TNA (and basically every non-Mexican promotion) do not. It would be original research for us to decided if a wrestler is heel or face (is Vladimir Kozlov a face because he is feuding with Ezekiel Jackson and William Regal, even though the fans aren't cheering for him and he hasn't done anything face-like? What about Shelton Benjamin and how a few months ago he seemed to be flip-flopping between face and heel every week?). TJSpyke22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
In light of recent events, I tried to clean this article up, but apparently there's one editor who has an ownage complex, and reverted most of my changes, citing a link to a "preview" on Wrestleview.com as gospel, so I give up trying to keep everything straight with that. The main issue is that I wasn't aware that "making an appearance" was the same as having a contract signed. ArcAngel(talk) (review) 05:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Zack Ryder Again
I don't want to bring this up again, but take a look at this and tell me if the Zach RIder entry doesn't seem familiar. 99.241.68.194 (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to attack him, I just wondered what he meant by raising the point. And yeah, it definitely was Curtis who logged the request as it's been there for a while and thankfully has fallen on deaf ears. Tony2Times (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
here's the original request, placed waaaaaaaay back on July 3 of 2009 by an IP and the Curtis23 account didn't make any edits from July 2nd through July 8th, so it's a bad-faith assumption (without a CHU request) that it was him, is it not? ArcAngel(talk) (review) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I do think we should give him and Hawkins pages, but I don't care enough to do battle with half the project. -- Scorpion042222:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I don't know why I said "definitely", I'm normally more accurate with my language than that. It was mere assumption as when I first noticed it on that list way back when I was dealing with Curtis' regular requests on the talk page. It was, indeed, a bad-faith and inaccurate assumption. As Scott Steiner said when you infer something you make an arse out of yourself. Tony2Times (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ryder should have his own page. There is no logical argument against this. None. He is a single wrestler now and have been for some time. For his only article to be the article about the Hawkins and Ryder tag team makes no sense whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.192.28 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I object to there being a Zack Ryder section but no it makes sense to move it up now that it won't be archived again for another fortnight. Tony2Times (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Damn my eyes. First I read that as a "yes", then re-read it as a "no" after the edit and un-did it. I'm too tired. I'll let some other people chime in and let someone else make the move. HAZardousMATTtoxic21:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the IPs last comment from the 7th, the section would have died on the 27th but for Curtis adding to it five days after it was dead. Any further contributions should be done here, that one section strayed off topic very quickly. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Two questions
Hi. I had working in Val Venis article, when i had seen that he have 3 wwc world tag team championships, 2 with shane sewell and 1 with Rex King. But, in the article of the championship, never said that Morley & Rex have a regin together. Also, Shane Sewell have 3 regins with venis, no 2. What's happend? Also, I have see that the FIP Tag TeamChampions are Chris Gray & Tommy Taylor, but the article of Gray is about a football guard. The article are talking about Chris Gray, aka Cody Deaner in TNA? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well if false information is within the article feel free to remove it or if missing information is missed from the Title Articles feel free to add it if it can be found. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk20:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, Thanks for your answer. In the article sais that the glamour canadian boys (shane & sean) win te title 3 times, but the reference sais that, the second time, the glamour canadian boys are Sean & Rex King. Also, in FIP.com, I have seen that isn't the same Chris Gray. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
To get the link to point to the correct Chris Gray, format the link like this: [[Cody Deaner|Chris Gray]]. Nikki♥31122:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bullett and TJ are already aware of this IP, who is trying to push a trivial note about the attendance at Mania 23 in Yahoo Sports as a major controversy - when all David Meltzer did was mention in attendance (incorrectly) in passing in an article about Bobby Lashley's move into the UFC. I put a general warning on his page, but he's ignored it and done the revert again. I've restored it and labelled it vandalism and given him a Level 3 warning because I think this is now bad faith. He was invited here by Bullett, and then by me in the general warning - but he is yet to show up here. Would appreciate some help as Bullett isn't always around and I don't know what TJ is doing now. !!JustaPunk!!10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Justa Punk is aware that WikProject Pro Wrestling has already come to a consensus on Meltzer as a source (he is included as "reliable" under Sources on WP:PW/SG. The source in question is Yahoo Sports; I'm unaware of any debate regarding its reliability as a citable Wikipedia reference.
Twice, Justa Punk deleted comments from my talk page and replaced them with warnings. The second deletion was in response to being warned about doing so, and included the incorrect summary "rules do not apply to IP talk pages."
Despite the tone above ("push a...major controversy"), the material in question is handled in the same bland manner as the intro for Wrestlemania 3, which includes a quick mention of that event's attendance discrepancy. Incidentally, the WM3 section also links back to a Meltzer-related reference.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Justa Punk calls my edit "vandalism," and hopes 3bulletproof16 will turn up. He may not know that 3bulletproof16 already asked User:Wrestlinglover to "keep an eye on WrestleMania 23." But Wrestlinglover responded on 3b16's talk page, "As for the Mania 23 thing, I actually agree with the ip, sorry. That is why I haven't involved myself."[1] I posted a note on Wrestlinglover's page two days ago asking him to consider mediating, but he hasn't responded-- quite sensibly, no doubt. I would appreciate any third party wisdom in this matter.208.120.152.75 (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Note - the Meltzer reference in the reliability list comes from Wrestling Newsletter, and NOT Yahoo Sports. That's a key difference because Meltzer owns Wrestling Newsletter. The reliability issue lies in Yahoo Sports and not Meltzer. A passing reference to attendance is NOT notable as a reference to be used in the manner 208 is trying to use it. The current version is more appropriate. This is what 208 doesn't get, and by wording it in his manner he is making it look like a major issue - when it's not. He speaks of the bland manner. Sorry - I disagree. The bland manner is contained in the current edit and it should stay that way.
Mentioning other users doesn't help, because there are many more users than just the ones he mentioned. I also call on more opinions - after all that's why I started this thread. The article concerned should stay as is until this is sorted out once and for all by a proper consensus on which version is appropriate and accurate. My view is that the current version is correct and of course 208 does not. !!JustaPunk!!11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is about the attendance number. The issue was discussed more than two years ago when Dave Meltzer first disputed the 80,103 number recorded by Ford Field and WWE. [25] That same discussion then spilled over to the WrestleMania III talk page over the same issue. [26] In the discussion over the WrestleMania 23 attendance number, it was concluded that Dave Meltzer's work failed to meet WP:RS due to falling under what would be classified as "dirtsheet" or rumor reporting material. The discussion was closed after noting the amount of Third Party sources (that's non-WWE and non-Wrestling News Sites) that reported the 80,103 attendance number. --UnquestionableTruth--12:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Meltzer is reliable in his own right. In fact, WP:MMA considers anything published by Meltzer as reliable. There is too much trying to determine what is fact instead of just writting what is held up by sources. I would say in the reception section just talk about the attendance problem. Don't list an attendance in the infobox or the lead. Explain WWE states this is their reported attendance on the event, while journalist Dave Meltzer published through Yahoo Sports that ??? was the attendance.--WillC23:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Bulletproof, thanks for the two discussion links, which I've just read. However, neither ended in a vote, ruling, policy statement, etc. Could you point us to where the consensus conclusion is that declares Meltzer's work invalid under WP:RS? And in light of such a conclusion, why does WP:PW currently list Meltzer as a reliable source? Also, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for WrestleMania 23?
Justa Punk, the Yahoo Sports ref was chosen because it's a prominent, reliable online news source. There are a huge amount of other "passing reference" mentions being used and accepted as sources on Wikipedia. (You won't find many full articles about the year someone was born, for instance.) As a compromise, I would be happy to use text from the Wrestling Observer newsletter as the source rather than Yahoo Sports, since that is what you say meets the RS standard. Incidentally, while we're discussing this, it's hard to read good faith into your December 20 post on 3bulletproof16's talk page ("whoever catches him first"), or your post on my talk page that the "official" warning "stands."
BTW, I wasn't citing Wrestlinglover's talk page comment as the one-man end word on the subject-- it was merely to illustrate that the edit was patently not "vandalism," and that I hadn't been ignoring the dispute or rejecting consensus. I hope that uninvolved editors will review both the content of the edit, and the tone of the reaction.208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussions aren't ended with votes (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) to come to a close. The discussion ended when the opposition to the 80,103 number was referred to the Third Party sources that recorded 80,103. Will, as for your views on Meltzer, that is subject for another discussion. For now, per WP:RS (3rd party sources) and consequently WP:NPOV, and until the consensus changes, 80,103 will be recorded in the article. --UnquestionableTruth--00:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
3bullet: No, in light of your previously posted comments on WrestleMania 23 ("not necessary TJ. written by Meltzer and that alone fails WP:V"; "this says bye bye to Dave Meltzer"; "Its not about Yahoo. its about Meltzer")[2][3], it's very much a subject for THIS discussion.
Despite the certainty of your reply, you did not address the direct questions posed to you:
If, as you claim, Meltzer fails to satisfy WP:RS and WP:NPOV, why does this talk page's project, WP:PW, currently list Meltzer as a reliable source?
And again, why is the Wrestlemania 3 approach unsuitable for use for Wrestlemania 23?
The WM23 discussion you linked to doesn't appear to have the clearcut outcome you describe. But even if we accept your interpretation of that debate, a project guideline offered in December 2009 carries more community weight than an equivocal talk page discussion from April 2007. And so, I intend to replace the Yahoo Sports source with a direct Wrestling Observer Newsletter ref, as per current WP:PW guidelies, as well as the preference Justa Punk expressed with his previous comment.208.120.152.75 (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Question: WrestleMania III had different attendance numbers reported by multiple sources, many of which note that the figures are debatable...which is why I believe it is safe to note the different figures in the article. Can this be said for WrestleMania 23? If multiple sources give the different number, then it would be okay to mention it IMO, otherwise it just looks like Meltzer reported wrong information (which happens to even the most credible sources sometimes), and it shouldn't be mentioned. Nikki♥31121:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
208, unless you can prove that there is a major issue with the attendance, you can't change a thing. Consensus supercedes project policy, and besides - the policy you are claiming assumes that a noted "reliable source" is always right, and as Nikki rightly said this is not the case. Multiple sources (as indicated in the discussion Bullet linked) agreed with the WWE figure AND the Ford Field figure. That alone destroys your claim no matter what policies you quote.
Reality check - Meltzer got this wrong, so it should not be added. For the record, I think his scoop about Bret Hart is BS (as an example) but that's just my opinion based on his refusal to appear at Wrestlemania when he went into the Hall of Fame because of the presence of Shawn Michaels. Just because someone is listed as an RS doesn't mean every word they utter is gospel. !!JustaPunk!!22:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Nikki-- Meltzer didn't make an inadvertant reporting error in this case. He published analysis of WWE's figures that indicated the publicized attendance total was inflated, and has since returned to it. This isn't to say that his data is right or wrong, but it's not a mistake. It's worth repeating that the 'lower attendance' sourcing currently being used on Wrestlemania 3 goes back to Meltzer's claim for that event.
Justa-- So, Meltzer is a reliable source only until he publishes something you disagree with? Interesting argument. You are incorrect on a significant point. The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy. Again, here's the first sentence of WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." What about this core content policy is unclear to you?208.120.152.75 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the fact that he IS wrong in this case - as proven in the April 2007 discussion that Bullet pointed to - is unclear to YOU? The verifiability battle is won by WWE and Ford Field because that figure has WAY more support that Meltzer's. Through reliable sources as well. !!JustaPunk!!07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Justa is right since Wrestlemania 23 was a WWE event what WWE states as the attendance is probably right I mean what reason do they have to lie? Also since it was a WWE event exactly as Justa says WWE is more reliable in THIS case (i'm not saying all cases) than Meltzer.--Curtis23(talk)15:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In the case of reporting attendance, WWE has it in their own self-interest to inflate their numbers. However, as their numbers have been corroborated by another source there is no reason to doubt them for this instance. HAZardousMATTtoxic15:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Can't we just put in something about Dave Meltzer disputing the figure? it can't be that hard can it to just slot in something so simple, Meltzer is somewhat a reputable source and if he is disputing it we don't necessarily have to say its wrong or right just that he disputes it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk15:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What if we compromise by writing the WWE/Ford Field figure in the prose and infobox, but adding a footnote that says something along the lines of "Dave Meltzer, however, disputes this claim, reporting that the attendance was actually blah blah etc etc."? Nikki♥31121:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sentences 3 and 4 from the Wikipedia intro to Wrestlemania 3: "The event is particularly notable for the reported attendance of 93,173, the largest recorded attendance for a live indoor sporting event in North America.[1][2][7] Though the attendance number is subject to dispute, the event is considered to be the pinnacle of the 1980s wrestling boom."[1][8][9] 208.120.152.75 (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I know, but that's because other sources have reported that there was a dispute for WM3 (even if that can be traced back to Meltzer). The reason it shouldn't be added to the prose of WM23 article is because Meltzer is currently the ONLY one reporting a dispute. If you can show me some links that prove differently, my mind can be changed. Nikki♥31121:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes he is, Curtis - and for everyone's benefit, the dispute is already mentioned in the Mania 23 article. 208 is trying to expand upon it, when there's no need. !!JustaPunk!!21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem I have with even just mentioning Meltzer's number is that he is the only source that disputes the 80,103 number. The biggest difference between the WrestleMania III dispute and this particular one is that there were multiple sources that cited conflicting numbers for WrestleMania III, which resulted in a compromise on the event's Wiki article noting that in fact, the number is disputed. Here (WrestleMania 23) its just one guy disputing millions of other sources... Noting it just doesn't seem warranted.--UnquestionableTruth--02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:VERIFY is an absolute principle, but a simple one. Has the material already been published? Yes. Is Meltzer accepted as a reliable source? Yes. Does the edit assert that Meltzer is correct, or that WWE is wrong? No.
The dispute is not already mentioned in the Mania 23 article.
Nikki-- some other sources claim the lower attendance figure. Here are a few of them, and the relevant text within.
"Wrestling Crowds of 25,000 and Greater -- #8 WWE; Ford Field; 04/01/07; 74,687; $5,380,000; Detroit, MI USA; HBK vs. Cena; Batista vs. Undertaker; Trump vs. Vince hair"
"Following the excellent Royal Rumble and decent No Way Out, WWE presented WrestleMania XXIII, their biggest show of 2007 in front of a billed attendance of 80,103 (although apparently the real figure was 74,687… impressive enough in it’s own right) at Detroit’s Ford Field."
The print version of the Wrestling Observer published an analysis in June 2007, using WWE's public business finances for April 2007. A shorter account of the same discrepancy was published in the Observer two weeks ago.
Those, and the additional sources that cite the smaller number are no doubt getting their information from the Observer, perhaps indirectly. But all of the sources that cite the larger number have gotten it from WWE's WM23 press release-- again, sometimes indirectly. There is no direct "all-time Ford Field record" citation from Ford Field itself. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Its no longer mentioned in the article because I removed the note. The two main problems with your argument...
all of the links you provided aren't reliable sources for the matter.
your entire argument is based around your opinion that Meltzer is right and that WWE and the thousands of other news orgs are wrong...
To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected?
The two main problems with your rebuttal are...
All of the links provided were for this discussion only, as a response to Nikki's direct request. They needn't be used at all in the WM23 article. A single ref verifying Meltzer's alternate claim will more than satisfy Wikipedia's RS standard.
Second, in mischaracterizing what you say is my "entire argument," you didn't address a central issue: "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Wikipedia policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct. But I do know that Meltzer has been deemed a credible analyst by consensus, and I do know that Meltzer's earlier views on the WM3 attendance are considered notable.
I understand that you are unhappy with using the Wrestling Observer as a reliable source, but that ship has sailed. This site's policy and guidelines carry slightly more weight than either of our personal opinions. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you realize that a half dozen of your links are the same AP wire service article? Or that others include phraseology from WWE's press release?
The WM3 dispute has gained more traction for several reasons, with the 20 years' headstart being just one of them. For one, the discrepancy between the two claims is much larger for Wrestlemania 3: approximately 18% of the announced total, as compared to less than 7%. Also, the Wrestlemania 3 claim is historically significant ("the largest indoor attendance in North American sports history") as opposed to negligible {"the all-time attendance for a particular arena that opened 5 years beforehand"). And most obviously, the attendance dispute did not exist at the time of WM23, and those publications have had little reason to write about WM23 since. It would have required a time machine to mention the dispute in the links you provided.208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Pressing the last point, the dates for those articles are, in order, April 5, April 1, April 23, April 1, April 4, April 2, April 2, April 2, April 3, April 2, April 23, April 2, April 3, April 2, and April 2 (all 2007). Meltzer first wrote about the attendance dispute that June. 208.120.152.75 (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed IMO, Bullet. Suggest we watch WrestleMania 23 and revert on sight any further attempts by 208 to violate WP:NPOV by pushing that view of Meltzer's that is outnumbered by miles. I call that tetentious (sp?) editing as well. IMO if 208 does it again in the face of this evidence, he is editing in bad faith and has to be considered a vandal. !!JustaPunk!!01:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need to go that far. It's not a string of IPs constantly adding the text. We just need to keep an eye on it. If the situation escalates, additional measures will be taken. For now, the discussion is closed. --UnquestionableTruth--03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It's lovely that you've reached consensus with yourselves. Since you've repeatedly refused to address "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true", sure, why not skip WP:CONSENSUS as well?
"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right."
"Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
"An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus."
"A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors."
"When in doubt, defer to WP:policies and guidelines. These reflect the consensus of a wide range of editors."
And a freebie from WP:VAN: "edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see WP:EW"
*shakes head* Your italicised quote has been addressed. It has been verified by multiple reliable sources that the 80K crowd figure is correct. That is verifiability at work. And if anyone is preferring a narrow option, it's you - relying wholly on Meltzer's opinion and ignoring the multiple contrary sources. That's it. Case closed. !!JustaPunk!!07:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The IP user makes a good case. The question is whether or not it is verifiable that there is a dispute over the attendance figure. The dispute is verified by Meltzer's statement, which means that Wikipedia policy supports the addition of the material. It doesn't matter which attendance figure is correct, since Wikipedia is about a balanced presentation of information supported by reliable sources. I see no problem with a statement like "Most sources give the attendance fugure as (whatever WWE's number is); Dave Meltzer, editor of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter disputes this number, however, stating that the true attendance was (whatever Meltzer's number is)." Stick with WWE's number in the infobox, but include all reliably sourced information (both sides) in the prose. Problem solved, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number). TJSpyke22:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Stating that Meltzer's number is correct would go against the verifiability policy. There are two versions. Both can be attributed to reliable sources, but it seems clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE is wrong. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
So GFC what your saying is any source the reliable that says something about a certain things has to be in an article. So if Dave Meltzer said that the attendance number is 24 would we have to put that in the article?--Curtis23(talk)22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
lol. I think GCF's wording in neutral enough to work, and since there really is no way to verify a correct number...that might be the solution to end this argument. Nikki♥31101:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Regardless of whether or not Meltzer's number is accurate, he is a reliable source. As such, including information from his in a neutral manner meets Wikipedia's standard for verifiability. It is not Wikipedia's place to determine the correct figure any more than it is Wikipedia's place to solve the JFK assassination. We just report which reliable sources said what and leave the decision making up to the reader. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of reliable sources agree with the figure given by WWE and Ford Field. This is the reason why Meltzer's figure isn't being used. Just because he is also regarded as a reliable source as well does not mean he should be noticed in the face of the number of other reliable sources. Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal. Because Meltzer is the ONLY person to claim that the figure is incorrect and without verifiable back up, his figure in this instance alone has to be considered unreliable. It's the weight of verifiable evidence against him that kills this whole discussion outright. It's not a slight on Meltzer's reliability in general. Usually he's pretty good. He just blew it this time. Nobody's perfect. !!JustaPunk!!12:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You're still trying to solve the JFK assassination. Wikipedia reports what is verifiable. In this case, that would be the fact that there are two different attendance numbers stated by reliable sources. It doesn't matter if the IP editor wanted to give preference to Meltzer's number. That's just not going to happen. Forget about that suggestion. Remember, however, that ignoring Meltzer's number altogether is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Meltzer's claim is NOT verifiable. There is a difference. Just because he's listed as a reliable source doesn't mean he passes WP:V in this instance. Show me a reliable source that backs Meltzer up. Until then - the claim fails WP:V purely because of the sheer number of reliable sources that agree with WWE and Ford Field. And the lack of coverage of the "controversy" (which as I understand it is what the difference is between this and Wrestlemania 3). So - ergo - it gets ignored, and rightly so under WP policy. !!JustaPunk!!21:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You clearly don't understand WP:V. Meltzer's statement is verified by Meltzer's statement. It cannot be denied that a reliable source states that the attendance figure is different from the one given by WWE. That is all that should be stated—that a reliable source reports a different attendance figure. Not that Meltzer is correct, because this has absolutely nothing to do with truth. You have verifiability and truth mixed up, which is a serious misreading of Wikipedia policy. Perhaps the phrasing taken directly from the policy page will help clear things up: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
YOU don't understand WP:V from the point of view of number of reliable sources. Ever heard of 1 against 100 proverbially speaking? When 100 reliable sources say one thing, only a fool would add the 1 that goes against it. This is to do with a controversy over the figure - which there isn't. THAT is what is not verifiable. If you don't get that..... !!JustaPunk!!10:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be at an impasse. Policy supports my position, but JustaPunk is apparently unwilling to even read the policy before claiming that it supports his. For some reason, he believes that the number of sources is relevant to inclusion or exclusion. Since the number of sources (many of which are the same source, but that's another issue altogether) shows that the majority is on the side of the higher number, it should be indicated in the article that the majority of the sources support the higher number. Since a reliable source gives a different number, though, it should also be indicated that a different figure exists. JustaPunk is unwilling or unable to understand this, so we apparently need to waste time by seeking some sort of dispute resolution. Suggestions for how to proceed? RfC? Personally, I think RfC is also a waste of time, because it ends up with the same people arguing the same points, with only one or two other editors giving opinions but getting lost in the shuffle. Something needs to be done, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Remember my question about if a "reliable source" gives a number that couldn't be right at all would we have to put it in the article. You didn't give an answer because it would prove mine and punk's side is correct.--Curtis23(talk)22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Your question was ridiculous. A reliable source wouldn't give a stupid attendance figure. People would stop reading Meltzer's work if he made up stuff that was obviously incorrect. He is considered a reliable source because of a long track record of investigating information before reporting it. The only possible way that you and JustaPunk could be considered correct is if Wikipedia suddenly did away with WP:V, WP:AGF, WP:VANDAL, WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Almost all websites that reported the attendance as 80,103. Meltzer is the only big (and probably the only) source to report the lower figure.--Curtis23(talk)00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
For those people with an interest in Wikipedia policy, WP:TPG says "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context." WP:TPG calls such misrepresentation "unacceptable," and says that repeated violations can lead to sanction.
From the original post by me on the WM23 talk page two weeks ago: "...as there are generally accepted sources for both numbers, they should both be included in a NPOV way (e.g. WWE claims the higher number, other sources cite the lower)."
Me again, from this discussion we're reading right now: "The edit does not assume or assert that Meltzer is right, let alone "always right." Nor does the policy."
Me yet again, from this discussion page: "To repeat (and repeat), the edit absolutely does NOT claim that Meltzer is right, and that WWE is wrong. How many more times will that misrepresentation need to be corrected? ...Whether Meltzer's analysis is correct is not the criteria, according to immutable Wikipedia policy. I have no idea, none at all, whether Meltzer's numbers are correct."
Subsequent responses, from TJ Spyke and Justa Punk:
TJ Spyke: "When I tried suggesting something similar to the IP, they seemed opposed to any wording that made it clear that Meltzer is claiming that WWE and Ford Field are wrong (the IP basically wants the article to say that Meltzer's number is the correct number).
Justa Punk: "Remember that 208 wanted to put Meltzer's number on a pedastal."
Finally, here's the wording of the edit: "However, other sources including Yahoo Sports claimed the attendance figure was 74,687." 208.120.153.110 (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
WHAT other sources? This is the point. Meltzer is the ONLY reliable source giving this number. Who else is doing it? Every other reliable source says that WWE and Ford Field'd figure is right. This comes to a blatant number situation. When you have one source ONLY claiming a number - without back up - the remaining sources take precedence. Especially in such numbers (I think Bullet gave something like 20 sources that all fulfilled WP:RS - and I don't even include WWE and Ford Field in that count). I note that GCF is calling on me to read policy. I think he's the one who needs to read it, but then that goes back to him being his usual stubborn self. We've clashed before, and this is no different.
They suggested seeking help elsewhere, so I've posted a question at WT:V, since the big problem is different interpretations of the policy on verifiability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
My 2 cents - the problem isn't different interpretations of WP:V, it's not seeing WP:V alongside WP:NPOV. That numerous sources say the attendance was 80,103 is verifiable. That Meltzer lists a different figure is also verifiable. WP:V does not allow for one statement to be more verifiale than another. You now have to decide if Meltzer's view is significant enough to include. WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) says -
"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority."
I don't know how many sources claim 80,103 as the crowd figure, or if that number is significant enough to exclude Meltzer's claim. Personally, I don't see any harm in including Meltzer's figure as long as it is given appropriate weight. Given that the attendance figure is a fairly trivial detail anyway, I would probably only include Meltzer's number in a footnote.
I read what was at WP:RSN, and actually I like the idea of a footnote. As was said, this is about weight - which was my point as well. The difference was I was wiping it out altogether, because I disagree that Meltzer's figure is verified (WP:RS notwithstanding) because he has no verifiable sources to back him up. So..... !!JustaPunk!!11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose that we agree to edit WrestleMania 23 to add a footnote noting Meltzer's figure dispute. That way the balance of reliable sources is held to. What say we all? !!JustaPunk!!11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As I stated above, I can live with that (I don't like including the claim at all, but as long as it is made clear that it is just Meltzer's claim and not factual I can accept it). TJSpyke16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the footnote without specifying the claim as non-factual. How about instead of saying it's not factual we say it's an unsubstantiated claim? HAZardousMATTtoxic17:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The two sides can be given appropriate weight by including WWE's number in the prose and Meltzer's in a footnote. Using words like "not factual" or "unsubstantiated" would violate WP:NPOV, however. What about stating in the prose that "The majority of sources give the event's attendance as xx,xxx" with a footnote stating "Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reports the figure as xx,xxx."? That way, the number found in the majority of sources is given more weight in the article, and Meltzer's in relegated to a footnote but presented in a neutral manner. Of course, the phrasing for the 80,103 number can be different from how I presented it above (the footnote could simply be placed at the end of the sentence that is currently in the article ("The all-time attendance record at Ford Field of 80,103..."). GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggested "unsubstantiated" 1) because I personally don't view it as a non-neutral word, and 2) because I found it to be an accurate description of Meltzer's claim as no other source has confirmed it. However if many are satisfied with GCF's above suggestion I won't argue for the inclusion of "unsubstantiated". HAZardousMATTtoxic17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Matt about "unsubstantiated". That word basically just means "without evidence". Melzter offers no proof of his claim, so his number is unsubstantiated. TJSpyke18:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
In order for it to be considered "with evidence", according to the project's guidelines, it would have to be claimed by at least one reliable source. That source is Meltzer. Let's just add a footnote without any of these point-of-view words and move on with our lives. This time would be much better spent contributing to the project's stub reduction drive (only 3 days left to expand 21 more stub-class articles!). GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm willing to go with just the footnote. Now that I think about it "unsubstantiated" may have been suited for a less-reliable source in general. HAZardousMATTtoxic19:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Should this article also be used? [34] The Detroit Free Press reported 75,736 already sold days before the event took place. The number is greater than the final number tallied by Meltzer of 74,687. --UnquestionableTruth--01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As it stands now, I don't love it, and I don't hate it. Let's leave it alone and get back to the final two days of the stub reduction drive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Good edit, Bullet, and well placed as well. Looks like we are all in agreement - so we have a consensus to point to if 208 wants to try and push his line again. !!JustaPunk!!03:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
As always, Justa's posts define the concept of good faith. It's amazing how far this discussion has come since "case closed."
I've deleted the MLB ref in the infobox-- because that article never cites an exact number, it can't be used for that purpose. I replaced the Seattle Times link with the NBC Sports one, because the wire service text is identical for both links and NBC is presumably higher-profile. I replaced the Yahoo Sports link with the more direct Observer link, which also eliminates the "in an unrelated..." commentary. For the Meltzer sentence, I put the majority of the sources and their refs ahead of Meltzer, since they came first chronologically. I included a brief NPOV description of his methodology, since that was a concern in the above discussion, while making it clear that his version remains outnumbered. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I also got rid of the ugly run-on sentence in the intro, which had nothing to do with any of this but kept getting reverted anyway. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures" That statement alone is an unverifiable claim. The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer.--UnquestionableTruth--04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The Seattle Times article and NBC Sports article may contain similar text but it is clear that one is written by the Seattle Times reporter while the other is taken from the Associated Press, thus making the two sources unique and perfectly acceptable. The Yahoo! Sports article written by Meltzer was about Bobby Lashley's move to MMA and not about the subject that is being cited (the attendance number), thus making "in an unrelated article" entirely accurate. The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article. --UnquestionableTruth--05:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You want a direct quote? Here's the June 2007 text from the Observer:
"WWE publicly claims that 80,103 fans were in attendance at WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. They claimed this number so that they could claim it as being a Ford Field record. As it turns out, 80,103 isn't the real figure. The show actually drew 74,687 total fans. And the real paid attendance was 66,670 fans. WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
Would you like a December 2009 quote instead?
"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use."
Do you really want Meltzer's direct quotes in the article text, or footnoted, or as reference text, or anywhere else? Doesn't "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures..." summarize it in a MUCH less provocative way, while making it clear that it's just one person's analysis?
Meanwhile, the "despite the majority of sources.." phraseology creates a new POV problem, because it implies a nonexistent "X vs. Y" faceoff. Meltzer was NOT reacting to the immediate coverage of WM23, which merely repeated WWE's press release information. Meltzer didn't dispute the WWE claim until subsequent data emerged and he got out his calculator.
The revised text explains where Meltzer's alternate total came from, without making the smallest suggestion that it's correct. In fact, it directly addresses the concerns and skepticism that you (and other editors) have previously expressed about the sources of Meltzer's information-- both in the discussion on this page, as well as the 2007 one you linked above.
Here's the full text: "However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures, the Wrestling Observer'sDave Meltzer has reported a lesser attendance figure of 74,687." Could you please quote the biased part? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"WWE made up a number for WrestleMania 23 at Ford Field. As to why they did so, it was to be able to claim a building attendance record so they find the old record, and give a number that is several thousand above that and that nobody could actually get into the stadium, and that way they can claim the all-time record that isn't going to be broken. Since that time, in Ford Field newspaper stories, the Detroit media has pretty much accepted the Mania 80,000 figure as a work and when stories list the biggest crowd in the arena, it's a college basketball crowd that they use." ... Now you're just being a troll...--UnquestionableTruth--05:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The entire dispute is so trivial it deserves no more than a simple mention. "Dave Meltzer noted in an unrelated Yahoo! Sports article an attendance figure of 74,687 despite the majority of sources reporting the 80,103 attendance record at Ford Field." This note establishes two things. 1) Dave Meltzer reports a different number than other sources. 2) His number was reported After the other sources reported their number. Isn't that what you've been fighting about this entire time? We'll do this... I'll split it into two sentences.--UnquestionableTruth--05:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3bulletproof wrote:
"The source you provided directly from the Meltzer's Newsletter wasn't a link at all and didn't even contain a direct quote from the supposed article."
This is absurd. YOU want direct quotes from the Observer, I give them to you, and then you call me a "troll"? You guys need to knock this name-calling off.
The 2007 Observer quote explains the methodology behind Meltzer's claim. That's how he calculated it. That's what he published. HOW is that unverifiable?
Whenever you're done fake-sighing, I'd still like to see you follow up "The way you've worded the note clearly shows the author's (Your) point of view, a bias for Meltzer" by citing the precise wording that shows the bias. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
(1) This has gotten really stupid. (2) 208 is correct. The quotations have been given as evidence. (3) The phrasing that was added (after people had pretty much agreed to a neutral footnote) was definitely not neutral. (4) That run-on sentence is terrible. (5) End this dispute and expand stub-class articles instead. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
With what? Expanding articles instead of spending time bickering over phrasing issues? I would hope that would be self-explanatory. Add to that the fact that the project set a goal of getting the percentage of stub-class articles below 10% by December 31 and that there are still 16 or 17 articles to go, and you should be able to see what would be of greater benefit to the project and the encyclopedia. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
"Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687."
I like the phrasing. I think it would be important to include multiple references for the 80,103 figure to demonstrate that the number has been reported by several reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I just re-worked what was already in the article. I didn't have time to edit or re-arrange any of the sources. I felt once we had decided on the copy the sources would be easy to tack on. Hopefully we can all agree on this and we can leave this issue in 2009. HAZardousMATTtoxic18:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Not so. Calling it "opinion" is as accurate as your previous estimations of "consensus" and "vandalism." Here's the relevant excerpt from the Observer: "WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April [2007] and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. You're the second person to call it "opinion," so it must be a very simple matter to explain precisely where and how the description fails the NPOV standard.
The wording should satisfy both sides. It makes it clear that he didn't just pull a randomly lower number out of the clouds-- but just as importantly, it verifies that it's Meltzer's personal research, rather than an official audit. Also, the edit acknowledges the preceding suspicions about Meltzer's methods and/or sources; most recently, Curtis just speculated about whether Meltzer might have "had help."
You can't say "The number's unverifiable, how do we know where the heck Meltzer got his cockamamie math?" and then say that addressing the existence of the full explanation of Meltzer's cockamamie math equals bias. We can and will work over the phraseology to everyone's satisfaction, of course. But the context of the dispute needs to be referred to, in as few words as possible. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"Based on his own independent analysis" is an objective, concise summary of the above process. By who? That's the point. No one has said that - except YOU. That's an instant opinion right there. Do we have to go to the dictionary to explain the definition? The context of the dispute is covered to the satisfaction of WP:RSN. To add more detail would be to give it too much weight. !!JustaPunk!!13:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a serious reply? "By who?" Only by Dave Meltzer himself. Meltzer's blow by blow description of his own arithmetic is part of the very Observer text that's being mentioned and cited. It's already been posted twice on this talk page.
Another option is to include the verbatim Observer text, but as part of the ref instead of the article itself. The quote would appear in the smaller font at the bottom of the page, down in what's currently Reference #41. That approach has been used in many other Wikipedia articles. Will that put an end to this? I've made the edit to demonstrate what it looks like. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.153.110 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see what's wrong with saying: "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim, reporting an attendance figure of 74,687." It's simple, it's effective, and it's accurate. HAZardousMATTtoxic22:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If we're keeping the Observer text in the -ref- at the bottom of the page, I agree. MATT's suggested wording works. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, why is it so important to have the text listed in the reference? The link is there, can't the reader click on the reference and access the material just like they would on any other reference? HAZardousMATTtoxic01:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not, Matt, and Bullet removed it. If he hadn't I would have. If people want more information, they just go to the source and read for themselves. Adding it here - even within the reference - is actually too close to WP:COPYVIO for my liking. The quote that 208 wanted to add stays off. Under WP:RSN the current situation as I type this is right. It's balanced and gives appropriate weight to the sources. !!JustaPunk!!03:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Another day, another pretext. Meltzer's methodology needs to be addressed, either by the wording or by the reference. Although there are a ton of Wikipedia articles that use text-in-ref-- e.g. Abraham Lincoln; Philosophy; The Godfather; and many many more-- I would also prefer to keep it in the article. But wiping out the fundamental basis of the claim is not an option. Omission can also go against WP:NPOV.
MATT-- the reader can't access the bare reference with a click because it's a print source. The edit now relies heavily on your wording, with an added mention of WWE's monthly data. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. A source is a source. Adding stuff like that adds weight against WP:RSN. The current edit per my last edit is the correct weight and makes appropriate mention of the claim per WP:NPOV. To add to it goes against both these policies. The article is balanced on this issue, and should be left alone. !!JustaPunk!!03:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Quoting Wikipedia on "other aspects of reliable sources and undue weight":
"Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text."
"Declaration of sources — A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not, ideally a source should describe the collection process and analysis method."
The "collection process and analysis method" has to be acknowledged in the article, either by summary, by direct quotation, or excerpted within the reference. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It is obvious that neither side, that is you and everyone else, will come to an agreement, even on something as simple as wording. A result of your stubbornness and refusing to be flexible. This has dragged on longer than it needed to. You will not push this project any further. That is all. --UnquestionableTruth--05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Let me make some quotes 1 vs. 100 and consensus is the answer (my quote). Exactly as the point Bullet is trying to make. We've made a consensus just leave it as it is this discussion is over. P.S. if 208 talks on here again just ignore it.--Curtis23(talk)23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing needs to change. The consensus is clear, and the fact that 208 does not appear to accept it is his problem not ours. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yah it's not worth it all of his statements there are unreal he's calling Bullet's last comment abusive which is obviously fake.--Curtis23(talk)00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
As I've mentioned before, I agree that 208 is correct in citing policy in the face of moving goalposts, bad faith assumptions, and a non-existant consensus (in reality, a majority opinion, which means nothing in a discussion intended to build consensus) that is, for some reason, believed to trump policy despite the fact that Wikipedia is clear that consensus simply cannot take precedence over policy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Curtis, you didn't help with the way you expressed yourself.
Will, consensus is that policy is being followed correctly. That's the key here - 208 is not being flexible with the issue at all. The underlying imputation is clearly that 208 considers the attendance to be a major controversy and should be included according to that. All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result (WP:RSN, WP:V, WP:RS and any others that I might have missed). That's where the consensus is. Consensus isn't over riding policy here. Policy is supporting the consensus that the article stays as it is per Bullet's last undo.
The question now is - will 208 let it go and move on? The latest report the Wikiquette suggests otherwise, and frankly I call that a frivilous report by a tetentious editor. I think any admin who sees that report and then sees this will see that we (with the exception of Curtis) have been 100 percent civil and flexible. Which is the reason for my opening remark. !!JustaPunk!!05:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Hold your tongue, GaryColemanFan. Hush up, Wrestlinglover. You're spoiling the "clear consensus of like 10-1."
Just remember, disagreements aside, these editors understand consensus. For example, the consensus which previously proved that Meltzer's claim could never be mentioned at all, even in passing, discussion over, that's it, case closed.
Also, how can GCF possibly talk about "moving goalposts"? As Justa Punk wisely notes, "Suggest we revert on sight any further attempts by 208 to violate WP:NPOV by pushing that view of Meltzer's that is outnumbered by miles... So - ergo - it gets ignored, and rightly so under WP policy." Ahem, wrong quotes, totally my mistake. As Justa Punk wisely notes, "The current edit per my last edit is the correct weight and makes appropriate mention of the claim per WP:NPOV... All policy references point to the footnote being the best balanced result." It's that kind of consistency that makes the process rewarding for everyone. Anyone who disagrees is merely being disruptive and tendentious. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I am uninvolved to my knowledge on this issue. From what I see here, I see a clear attempt to build consensus. Above we had a clear discussion of the issue and compromises suggested and a gradual view was established, indicating that a consensus has been reached. There is no defining line in the consensus policy that determines exactly when a consensus has been reached, therefore it is for the editors involved to decide. WL is incorrect, Consensus may override policy, per WP:CONLIMITED. I am not seeing any arguments that policy does not apply to us, but if so please provide diffs, and I will look at the issue. At this time, I have no comment on the issue, only the discussion of policy interpretation. Sephiroth storm (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
GFC your saying the agreement I have of 8-3 is not a consensus would please explain to me what a consensus is because i'm pretty sure a consensus is a general agreement.--C23C23's talk03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I would define consensus as an agreement (often an agreement to disagree) achieved by taking all well-supported sides seriously, entertaining all reasonable suggestions, discussing in a neutral manner rather than beginning with accusations of "opinion pushing", not discriminating against editors for trivial reason such as editing with an IP address rather than a named account, observing policy, not claiming ownership of articles, recognizing that people who are not project members may have valuable insights, being open to discussion rather than trying to stifle it from the outset, and ultimately acting based on that agreement (in this case, everyone agreed on a footnote, so naturally, the information was added to the prose without a footnote). Short quotations are completely acceptable in footnotes. This argument could be ended with a ten-word quotation in the footnote. For a quick reminder of how ridiculous this argument has become, take a few seconds to read Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#WrestleMania III. Then add the ten words and move on with your lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
We won't because the claim by Meltzer is unverified. We've been over that, and WP:RSN effectively renders the current edit correctly balanced.
You seriously can't understand that Meltzer's statement is verification of the fact that Meltzer reported a different attendance number? You seriously still haven't figured out the difference between truth and verifiability? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
What part of "Meltzer's claim can not be verified by other independentreliablesources" don't you understand? If it wasn't for the fact that he was a reliable source himself the note wouldn't be there at all. It's all about correct balance - which is what we have. That's it - I'm done with this section.!!JustaPunk!!01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my previous statement, but I'm just not sure if you're trying to change the subject or are serious about not understanding what the word "verifiable" means in this context. Based on the definition given at WP:V, the question to ask is: "Does the claim exist in a reliable source?" If so, the claim is verified. That does not mean that it is accurate. It simply means that a reader would be able to find a source for the statement. If something is verifiable, it should be included. In this case, both attendance figures (80,103 and 74,687) are verifiable. Obviously, both are not true, but that has absolutely no bearing on the situation. Again, I repeat: I strongly believe that this can be settled with a 10-word footnote. Why is this so objectionable? GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Can we just end this it's been going on for about 20 days obviously no one can agree on anything so there are 2 choices: 1. Drop this completely or 2. Just to leave it as it is. (Footnote sounds good though)--C23C23's talk03:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Just for laughs, I'll ask the same question that's already been ignored before. Will Justa Punk, or any editor, ever go beyond the WP blue links, and cite specific, relevant policy text from within those pages that prohibits the addition of the kind of contextual info being disputed? (That is, Meltzer's not disputing the attendance until months later, and the data or methodology he used to come up with his claim.) After all, if such a prohibition actually exists, it should be so much quicker and simpler to find and quote it than to continue this lengthy chat.
Justa invokes WP policy to claim that the addition of that context is inappropriate. But Justa was appealing to the very same policies two weeks ago in this discussion-- WP:V! WP:RSN! WP:NPOV! -- claiming that they forbade ANY Meltzer mention at all. Now, he claims just as emphatically that those links support a footnote, but only in the sparsest, most truncated form possible. As he was mistaken before, it's incumbent upon Justa (or someone in agreement) to demonstrate that his new reading of policy is correct this time. An appropriate excerpt or quotation of policy would be a good way to genuinely engage in "100 percent civil and flexible" discussion.
The version that's on WM23 now is the result of inflexible editing. Supplementary details contained in the claim have been removed as "opinion," despite the fact that they come from the claim itself. Conversely, eight references were added in support of the officlal attendance total (which is not under dispute), presumably to promote the false April 2007 "Meltzer vs. the world" faceoff that never occurred. The context-free edit is currently attached to the bottom of an unrelated paragraph about in-ring match ratings.
Journalism uses the "Five W's" of information to establish credibility: who, what, where, when, why. After trying unsuccessfully to keep the Who and What out of the article, some editors are now pushing to block When and Why. If their response is honestly mandated by adherence to Wikipedia policy and not personal feelings, I ask yet again: show us exactly where the policy says that. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be support for adding a footnote (including several statements that a footnote currently exists in the article, which doesn't seem to be accurate). Although there have been concerns that an extended quotation from Meltzer would constitue a copyright violation, a short summary seems reasonable. I propose: "Two months after the event, Meltzer examined WWE's monthly attendance figures and concluded that they pointed to an attendance of 74,687."). Objections? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
From WP:RSN Noticeboard; In this instance the singular source clearly has no detailed personal knowledge of the attendance figure, but is instead suspicious about the official figures supplies by the promoter. The official figure should be given, and then it should be considered whether this wrestling commentator's personal opinion about the reliability of the figure is notable enough to be mentioned in the article.
That's the objection. Meltzer is giving an opinion - an opinion that has not been verified as accurate. The current state of the article reflects this to an appropriate balance. There is no need for the suggested footnote by GCF because it unbalances the issue against the plethora of reliable sources that agree with the official figure.
This isn't about being accurate. We have a reliable source which states something. We aren't the ones who determine what is correct and what isn't. We publish what reliable sources say, that is all.--WillC06:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And it has. Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687. (quoted from the current version of the article). !!JustaPunk!!07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The Wrestling Observer source text from June 2007 addresses the RSN comment by one editor. Not only was Meltzer NOT "suspicious about the official figures supplied by the promoter" in the immediate aftermath of the event, but the April 2007 Observer could be used as another reliable source in support of the WWE total. The June text is what's relevant to the footnote:
""As it turns out, 80,103 isn't the real figure. The show actually drew 74,687 total fans. And the real paid attendance was 66,670 fans. WWE's corporate website released business figures for the month of April and listed seven domestic shows for the month, averaging 16,900 per event as paid attendance. The same chart notes that if you take away WrestleMania from skewing the average, you have 8,605 fans as the average for the other six shows. Doing the simple math, you come up with 66,670 fans in attendance at WrestleMania. The 74,687 figure comes from WWE releasing the record merchandise numbers along with the per caps (how much the average fan spent on merch at Mania). That number comes out to be 74,687 real people who were able to buy merchandise."
WP:OPINIONcontains no policy or guideline that applies to this dispute, or to Meltzer's report. None. Can we please have a moratorium on indiscriminate blue links as a response? We're still waiting for a direct quotation that defines the policy violation. Why is that so difficult? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My five bits. 208, I strongly recommend that you refer to essays in Wikipedia as it relates to your own conduct. You've been accused of not being flexible. You should review all user conduct policies and you may or may not realise that you are being somewhat fanatical over this issue. Your flexibility appears to be at absolute zero and that only leads to trouble. Justa Punk did not link WP:OPINION. Punk linked WP:NOTOPINION. Two different policies. The quote you placed above has been disputed for it's accuracy and I can see that point. There's an old adage in statistics; You can make statistics prove anything you like. That's why Mr Meltzer's opinion is not notable whether he is reliable or not. Speaking personally, that quote is full of mathematical holes so I would question it's reliability as well. The biggest one is the assumption that every fan in attendance purchased merchandise. That is a fatally flawed assumption by Mr Meltzer, and I would have thought assumptions would play no part in an encyclopedia. I wonder what 208's purpose is here. Is it to contribute in a positive manner as part of a team? Or is it to push his or her own agenda? I'm seeing no team work here on 208's part. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I honestly think the IP won't be happy unless the article says something like "WWE claims the attendance was 80, 103, but Dave Meltzer has revealed that the REAL attendance was 66,670". As Podgy stated, Melzter's sole argument seems to rely on the assumption that every fan bought something at the show (which anyone who has been to a wrestling event can confirm that is NOT true. A lot of fans don't buy anything at show). The IP also refuses to compromise anyways (I think that the most the note should say is the Meltzer doesn't agree with the number that is supported by every other reliable source, including the only ones who would actually have access to the numbers). TJSpyke01:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The quotation certainly does not imply that every fan bought merchandise. If, to make the numbers a little smaller, three fans spent an average of $50, that could mean that they all bought something. Or, it could just as easily mean that two bought nothing and one spent $150. How much the "average fan" spent obviously includes zeroes. Not spending money doesn't mean they aren't counted in the average. Three people jumping on a non-issue stemming from a simple misreading added to TJ Spyke intentionally misrepresenting 208's viewpoint doesn't do much toward making your side look good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Meltzer is basing his number of fans on the merchandise total, that much is fact. He may not be saying every fan bought something, but his method his faulty because he is using the amount of merchandise sold to determine his guess. TJSpyke04:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read what he wrote? If you have the average amount spent and the total amount spent, simple math gives you the number of people. To simplify things by making the numbers smaller once again, let's say $45 was spent on souvenirs and the average fan spent $5. It's fairly simple to figure out that there were 9 fans. Once again, that could mean that one spent $10, one spent $35, and the rest spent $0, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the math, and it is certainly not a "guess" when you are given two of the three parts in an equation. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's okay to dispute it, but Meltzer's math is more basic than that. Two months after the event, WWE Corporate released both per-person merchandise sales numbers for Wrestlemania 23, and the total amount (which set a company record). Dividing the overall total by the per-person number comes out to 74,687. As GCF notes, the math comes out the same if one person bought everything, or if each fan in the building bought a single inexpensive item. The rest of the math was to determine paid attendance vs. full attendance, which doesn't matter for our purposes.
Curtis-- as noted, the quote comes directly from the Wrestling Observer.
Podgy-- I mistyped the link and left out "NOT," although I'd read the page that Justa invoked. So let me now say that WP:NOTOPINION contains no policy or guideline that applies to this dispute, or to Meltzer's report. None.
I find it a little absurd to be accused of inflexibility when I've offered a variety of ways to address the missing context, while also soliciting and endorsing other wording suggestions. It's doubly odd when those making the "inflexible" accusation keep leaving comments like "There's no point continuing this. It's not going to change anything. The end." and "there are 2 choices: 1. Drop this completely or 2. Just to leave it as it is." This dispute could be simply and fairly handled in a half dozen ways, with everyone's input, but some editors' response from the beginning has been "absolutely not."
And believe it or not, we're still waiting for a policy/guideline quote that explains how the context behind Meltzer's claim, which is contained within the claim itself, is invalid. Some folks keep getting stuck on accuracy/verifiability, but they need to familiarize themselves with the difference, because it's one of the three core Wikipedia policies. As I noted above, based on WP:V, two separate issues of the Wrestling Observer could be properly used as reliable sources: one for the lower attendance claim, and another for the higher official total.
TJ Spyke-- your characterization of my motives continues to be false. It's past time for you to stop it. I've already offered several wordings which plainly DON'T say what you "honestly think" I'm trying to get the article to say. Heck, I'd be happy to entertain your last edit to Wrestlemania 23, which included "...with Melzter claiming an attendance figure of 74,687 based on his personal analysis." It's fairer than the current version. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the current version. It states The attendance was reported to be 80,103 by numerous sources, a Ford Field record.[39][40][41][42] Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.[43]. This is perfectly fair. It presents both figures, equally, without any preference to either one. There is no reason to add that it was due to Meltzer's personal analysis, as that is self-evident by his arrival of a different figure. Additionally, anyone interested on how Meltzer got to that figure can click the link to the source and read Metlzer's analysis. HAZardousMATTtoxic21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I still question Melter's "methods" of determining attendance since he seems intent on just refusing to accept the number given by everyone who would actually know the attendance number (and this time he can't claim the arena operator told him a different number). TJSpyke20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Meltzer's questionable "method" is commonly known as "division." You are entitled to your skepticism, but it does not override Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
The Meltzer link is to a print source, not an online one, so there's nothing to "click to." That's why the context for the claim needs to be alluded to or quoted, in the article text or in the ref, using mutually agreed-upon wording. It's hardly an unusual solution. Shall I provide a variety of Wikipedia pages which include a textual quotation in the reference when citing a print source? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The Questions of the Year
(of course to 208) Why is his claim so notable even though he is the only one reporting it? Why do you think everyone bought merchandise? Why can't you be flexible? Why can't you stop arguing? Do you think everything a reliable source says in an article? Why do you attack others when you want your way? Please tell me.--C23C23's talk01:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
1. Because Meltzer is a reliable source and the preeminent wrestling reporter. His analyses are taken seriously and are sometimes the only ones extant. The New York Times does not investigate 7% data discrepancies in two-month-old wrestling events. 2. I don't. Meltzer doesn't. Why do you think that's what the excerpt says? 3. You're the person who thinks "drop this" and "leave it as is" are two distinct options. I'm not the one saying "no" to every suggestion, "no" to every approach, "no" to every compromise. 4. Because Wikipedia policy is being miscited as a pretext for blocking unwanted context, occasionally in an abusive manner. I've defended my position with specific policy quotes. Arguing upsets you? A direct quote from Wikipedia policy supporting your side would go a long way towards ending further argument. Why can't/won't anyone do this? 5. Assuming you meant to type "...is true," an aspiring admin might want to acquaint himself with the fundamental premise of WP:V. It's one of the three core Wikipedia policies. 6. Hmm, I didn't realize that asking people to abide by rules and guidelines was an "attack." We can all agree that attacks are always bad, even if we're a "stubborn" "tendentious" "opinion pushing" "bad faith" "troll" and "vandal" who "won't be happy" until we've "put Meltzer's number on a pedestal." I'll definitely strive to be as "100% civil" as the shining example set here. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Close this
I think it's clear that this will never end if we don't choose it to end. I suggest to all contributors that no more edits be made to this section. 208, if you are unhappy with this please take it to dispute resolution and refer to here in that location. Curtis, don't bait. Hazardous Matt is right. Bulletproof might be right; there may be a COI issue with 208 but the place to bring that out is in formal process. This whole thing is wrecking this talk page IMHO. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Unclosed. When people have 15 arguments against including a footnote, and they're all shown to be unfounded, cutting off discussion through archiving isn't an acceptable alternative. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if no consensus is reached in two or three days this should end which is why I named in the end of this.Ok, here we go the idea of a footnote sounds good (I really don't want it in the article but if it ends this i'm fine) I think the way it's written now is fine. Any disagreements?--C23C23's talk02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The current text reads... "The attendance was reported to be 80,103 by numerous sources, a Ford Field record.(source, source, source) Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter reported an attendance figure of 74,687.(source)" No "while" No "but" No "however" Nothing that even remotely suggests an author's view on the thing... Just two simple sentences that note the two sides and nothing else... problems?--UnquestionableTruth--05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
For it to be 100% true it actually should read "Meltzer believes" because he has no proof, he has a piece of math with assumptions in it. I cannot believe this has gone on for so long, my god. MPJ-DK (59,25% Done) Talk 06:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Meltzer doing a math problem deserves any weight, all WWE figures are massaged (at the very least they curtain off empty seats, or paper over with free tickets on the night); and this discussion should be on the WM23 talk page. It was posted here to get the attention of the project, it has it. In fact it s a drain on the project, so archive it here and keep it open at the WM23 page. It's not as if concerned parties would not be aware of it. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
2 more days. I think that consensus won't come now i'm not asking for a vote but I just want to know what side your it's not a vote.--C23C23's talk13:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
2 days, 3 days, four weeks, eight years; any time period is arbitrary so why 2 days? Consensus does not need to be 100%, but that is not my concern. This section is well over 100k and was opened to point up a problem on an article, and now it would be better moved to the talk page of that article, where it can be kept open until time runs out, but it being here is not useful, just obstructive. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This is what it's come down to? "However" or "but" is evidence of bias?
Here are four of the rejected wordings:
1. "Live attendance was widely reported to be 80,103. However, based on his own independent analysis of official WWE business figures, the Wrestling Observer'sDave Meltzer has reported a lesser attendance figure of 74,687."
2. "Live attendance was announced as 80,103, setting the all-time record for Ford Field. However, the Wrestling Observer's Dave Meltzer has claimed a lesser attendance figure of 74,687." (A text excerpt from the Wrestling Observer was then included in the reference.)
3. "Though the attendance was reported to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the claim following the release of monthly WWE business figures, retroactively reporting an attendance figure of 74,687."
4. "Though the attendance was announced to be 80,103, a Ford Field record, Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter contested the number following the release of monthly WWE business figures, with Meltzer claiming an attendance figure of 74,687 based on his personal analysis." (A later edit by User TJ Spyke deleted the opening "Though.")
Some editors say those wordings (or any possible others) introduce imbalance and "opinion," and violate a series of Wikipedia policies. But they are unwilling or unable to cite specific Wikipedia policy text that would explain why that is so. This discussion would have been a whole lot shorter than 100K if somebody could just do that one simple thing. Will anyone ever provide a relevant policy quote here? Anyone? Bueller?
There are two contextual issues. The first is the timeline of Meltzer's counterclaim. Despite the abundance of references meant to depict Meltzer as a lone consensus-buster, Meltzer originally reported the same 80,000+ attendance figure announced by WWE. His retroactive claim did not occur until WWE subsequently released business data on its corporate website. The second issue is the existence of the WWE data and Meltzer's basic analysis of it, without which no alternate attendance claim would exist. The same editors rejecting the inclusion of any and all context have also scoffed about "how" Meltzer came up with his "false" number. True or false, the answer is contained in the claim itself-- but they don't want that central context included, or even alluded to. And as Wikipedia policy states, omission can be a POV violation. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does this have to drag on? Can we end this? I think that this is now just an argument over how we should write the footnote because almost all of say that we can live with a footnote why do we have to argue over the pharasing I think how it is written now is fine. But I do think the others violated WP:NPOV.--C23C23's talk20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Curtis, a more helpful answer would be "But I do think the others violated WP:NPOVbecause NPOV says "____________"."
For example, WP:NPOV includes the following text: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view... An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. The principles upon which [this policy is] based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
Any of the four wordings listed above accomplish the quoted guidelines. Perhaps as I have done, you could quote the specific Wikipedia policy language that explains where the phrasing of those four wordings falls short? After that, maybe you could even give us new suggested wording that you think meets the criteria for inclusion. That would be great. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
You have just supported the current version of the Wrestlemania 23 article via WP policy. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Thank you for finally seeing reason. !!JustaPunk!!03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Say, are you any relation to the Justa Punk who previously said WP:NPOV banned the material altogether as bad faith vandalism?[35] Is this what you mean by flexible?
The WWE attendance figure is detailed in the article intro, is mentioned again in the infobox, and then appears again at the end of the article. It has a total of nine references. Even after the proper context of Meltzer's claim is added, as in the examples above, it takes up the back end of the last sentence of the article (assuming it isn't relegated to a small print excerpt within a reference). I look forward to hearing how that won't qualify as "roughly proportionate."
And how about the bolded text above? The policy guidelines that state that disputes should be clearly characterized including an explanation for why they are believed, that they can contain text explaining any criticisms, and that they cannot be superseded by editors' consensus... any thoughts on those? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The dispute is characterised appropriately per policy in the current version. I was able to be flexible and alter my view from the edit you noted. You are unable to show the same flexibility. The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned because I personally consider you to be a Dave Meltzer meat puppet at worst. At best a Meltzer fanatic. !!JustaPunk!!06:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In other words, no-- you have no thoughts on those. Nice to see you're staying civil, too. Incidentally, being wrong about the rules and getting corrected isn't a sign of "flexibility," it's adherence to obligatory policy. Speaking of which, not only does WP:MEAT say "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care," but you don't even appear to understand the meaning of the term. And as for flexibility...
"Closed IMO, Bullet."
"That's it. Case closed."
"So - ergo - it gets ignored"
"this discussion is clearly over per WP policy."
"Looks like we are all in agreement"
"That's it - I'm done with this section."
"There's no point continuing this. It's not going to change anything. The end."
"The matter is closed as far as I'm concerned"
As the matter is "closed" for the 20th time, I suppose it isn't worth the trouble of asking you to cite an actual guideline excerpt for the 10th time, am I right? 208.120.153.110 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Not just the links, Guy, the text within. From WP:UNDUE:
An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic
When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.
Signs of disruptive editing: This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.
Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.
A disruptive editor is an editor who: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
In addition, such editors may: Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles,..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.153.110 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I've copied this entire discussion, excluding this comment, to the WM23 talk page; for 2 reasons, because the discussion will need to be copied there at some point because if this ever dies and gets archived then it is difficult to find in the 74 talk archives here, and because that is the real place where this one nit should be picked, for those unaware of this page the discussion stopped a month ago, clearly that is not the case. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
My opinion Based purely on my reading of this section, I do see that the information is covered in the article. While I would prefer the information in its own section, this is not required and if there are no reliable sources that claim a dispute, then there doesn't need to be a separate section. The current version does not violate any policies. The reason that 208 thinks there is undue weight is that according to what i've seen, Dave M is the only one reporting a different number. That is not UNDUE WEIGHT, its just one guy with a different number. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I ran across this article today: Appollo Starr. Can one or more of you folks clean it up? It needs wikification and a combing through of the references that are given. tedder (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
An important part of the PROD process is notifying the author. It would be great if you could inform the author when you have a chance (you can just copy and paste the "author notification template" from the PROD template on the Appollo Starr article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
SPS states that self-published information can be used if the publisher is an established expert on the subject with work previously published by other sources. Meltzer fits all of the criteria and should not be removed by 3bulletproof16. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
It's an unfortunate offshoot. 3bulletproof16 doesn't want the information included, so he removed Meltzer from the Style Guide altogether. He has at least six books published by other publishers: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], and [41]. He is acknowledged as an expert on professional wrestling: "Dave Meltzer has built a publication with a readership of thousands. He is one of the most-quoted people in the wrestling business" - page 122 of Theater in a squared circle: the mystique of professional wrestling by Jeff Archer, Rick Boucke, and Linda Carlson. "The Wrestling Observer was blunt, opinionated, and accurate." - page 200 of Wrestling at the Chase: The Inside Story of Sam Muchnick and the Legends of Professional Wrestling by Larry Matysik. Vince Russo refers to Meltzer as "the wrestling authority" on page 90 of his autobiography, Forgiven: One Man's Journey from Self-Glorification to Sanctification. In WrestleCrap and Figure Four Weekly Present the Death of WCW, R.D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez write: "a huge thank you to Dave Meltzer, without whom there would be no book. Well, there would be a book, just one filled with countless errors." GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Metzler is accurate when he quotes winners and losers, title holders, house show results, the length of matches, the heights and weights of wrestlers, the birth names of wrestlers, the real birth towns, whose contract has just expired, who has just been fired/hired, and a host of other trivia. He is not a reliable source when he guesses at an attendance figure, or guesses at how much a wrestler was paid for a certain match, or even who hates who backstage, or who HHH shouted at this week because they didn't give the Undertaker the proper respect. The distinction needs to be drawn. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that should be specified in the Style Guide then? I tend to agree with Gary's concern, but then again I also understand the other side of the argument. It creates something of a quandary. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Drew Galloway
Various people keep adding that Drew is engaged to Tiffany, if someone could keep an eye on it (especially after I go to sleep) it would be a help. Tony2Times (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed it the from both articls and warned the IP's I saw, I will try (I don't have either on my watchlist). TJSpyke23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
PWInsider isn't deemeed reliable as far as I know, right? Can you link me to Wrestling Observer though? I don't wanna go on in case I see a spoiler headline. Tony2Times (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well Gallows, not Galloway. While in the subject of McGallowtyre should he be listed as Scottish or British, I don't know where Wikipedia stands on this issue and there's recurring periodical incidences of people changing it to and fro but I know not which to revert. Tony2Times (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Both are acceptable according to all of the guidelines and essays on Wikipedia I have read, although preference is given to how the person identifies themselves (i.e. if someone calls themselves Welsh instead of British, you should call them Welsh too). I personally prefer British due to the fact that that is their nationality. Everyone who is Scottish is also British, while not everyone who is British is Scottish (it's like Purto Rico. People from Puerto Rico frequently call themselves Puerto Ricans, though their nationality is American since Puerto Rico is part of the United States and its inhabitants are automatically American citizens). TJSpyke02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, I am just saying that it's not wrong to call them Americans because they are Americans. Calling someone Puerto Rican is like calling them a Texan, a New Yorker, an Alaskan, etc. Go by what the person prefers, but either is fine. So it doesn't matter if you call McIntyre Scottish or British since both are correct. TJSpyke19:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
FA
A
GA
Resolved