Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

While I was working on the SummerSlam project (see above) it occurred to me that the format of the results is different to others I've seen (noticeably the difference between WWE Vengeance and SummerSlam (1990)). Is there some kind of policy in place about how to do these and if not, should there be one? Normy132 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of, though coming up with a common format sounds like a good idea. --JFred 07:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one on the project page now but it is pretty shotty. At least there something to work around. Normy132 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about this user - he makes constant edits to female wrestlers that are usually just wrong. They're not vandalism, and I can't comment on the edits because they seem like honest mistakes but just about every edit has to be reverted as they're just plain wrong. The most recent example of this being replacing Megumi Kudo's Kudo Valentine changing it from a Vertebreaker to a Tiger Driver, when Kudo invented the vertebreaker. Looking at the contributions I have to keep running back through and reverting the edits. Anyone got any ideas? --- Lid 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave him a message asking him why he's making those changes. --JFred 19:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a disagreement between me and another user here, is there a policy on what date to use when a title changes hands at a TV taping? On the WWE and TNA pages do we list the date they won the title or the date it aired on TV? This came up due to Senshi winning the X Division Title, he's technically been champion since June 19th when they taped iMPACT!. TJ Spyke 00:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's covered by our spoiler policy or not. I know that we can't post it until it's aired, but I'm not sure about the date either. I've kept it at the taping date, but I've added the airing date in brackets as well. --JFred 00:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

As a part of this what about something like OVW which is seen by roughly 1% of people on its televised shows? The actual date or the televised date? --- Lid 00:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll put my vote in for "live show" date. Since RAW, ECW and all PPV events will have no difference, I think the basis for length of reign, etc. should be on the date of the taping, not the air date. That said, I would post the air date, and hold release of information until the air date. For instance:

---

• WWE United States Championship

Defeated Big Show on March 14, 2004 (aired on Smackdown! March 17, 2004) in New York City, New York, USA.

Stripped of title on July 6, 2004

---

Does this make sense? --EazieCheeze 03:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote for live show dates as well(Halbared 10:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

Perhaps we should add both, as in EazieCheeze's example. McPhail 14:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Are going to do this for EVERY title that has ever existed? It's pretty easy for current title but this could be a pain if we decide to do this for all titles. I say the taping date. Take CMLL for example, their TV show airs the day following their tapings but everyone refers to it by the day it was taped in discussions and histories. It wouldn't be good use of time to go back and add air dates when no one really cares about them. Also, such records are very hard to find. Of course, that's a more lucha-centric concern.--Darren Jowalsen 16:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's more than a Lucha concern, it's a small time promotion concern i.e. the previously mentioned Ohio Valley Wrestling. --- Lid 16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think both the Title History and Championship Change sould go by the Title's main promotions or if thats not availble then go by credible site. BionicWilliam 00:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Where it becomes especially thorny is that WWE usually uses air dates, except when it explicitly acknowledges that a switch took place earlier (such as Kurt Angle's world title in January; that was reported on wwe.com the night it happened and their title history still uses that date). I'd go for tape dates, myself. Tromboneguy0186 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There are an astronomical number of them. Maybe somebody make a bot to fix them? Tromboneguy0186 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey all,

I'd just like to bring up something that has undoubtedly been brought up before (though I couldn't quite find a place where this has been discussed explicitly, only in passing mentions). Even though much improvement has been made, right now, it seems to me that a lot of the wrestling articles still don't make it blatantly clear which parts of a wrestler's career are about actual events and which parts are merely ongoing storylines. I'm not a wrestling fan myself, so I don't really have the necessary background information myself to tell the difference -- so when I end up reading the articles on wrestlers Wikipedia, it's often very hard for me to figure out if someone actually got fired or was merely "fired", for example.

I find this not only pretty annoying but also kind of alarming, since it doesn't seem very compatible with Wikipedia's goals. I realize that coming up with hard data may be kind of difficult here, particularly as WWE tends to maintain the stance that what you see is real, especially for ongoing events, but just the same, I think it's a problem. For example, let me quote the Hulk Hogan article:

Vince tried desperately to prove that Mr. America was indeed Hulk Hogan but failed on all accounts. Mr. America even passed a lie detector test.

Mr. America's last WWE appearance was on the June 26, 2003 edition of SmackDown!, where The Big Show, Shelton Benjamin, and Charlie Haas defeated Mr. America, Brock Lesnar, and Kurt Angle in a six-man tag team match when Show pinned Mr. America. After the show ended, Mr. America unmasked to show the fans that he was indeed Hulk Hogan. The next week, Hogan quit the WWE due to frustration with the creative team.

Now, obviously, I can figure out that the first part about McMahon trying to desperately prove that Mr. America was Hulk Hogan is a part of an ongoing storyline, because, well, duh, anyone can tell it's Hogan under that getup. But for a random reader, especially one who is not familiar with the, ahh, intricacies of wrestling storylines, it may be very difficult to figure out that all this unmasking stuff is a part of the storyline, but Hogan being frustrated with the creative team is not. (Or is it? I don't know, I don't follow wrestling -- I'm just guessing here. You see the problem...)

I'd really love to see you guys come up with some kind of a solution for this problem -- having two separate sections for the actual person and the fictional persona would probably be terribly unwieldy (particularly as the two are often closely tied together), but perhaps some kind of standardized terminology would be of help here, along with some kind of a neat disclaimer that make the nature of the performer/persona split clear for the uninitiated?

Maybe I'm overstating the problem, I don't know, and obviously I don't mean to put down the hard work you guys have been doing on these articles -- but just the same, I must say that personally, I find it a very difficult and kind of worrisome that the situation persists like this. I realize that I'm pretty much saying "this is broken, you should fix it" instead of actually contributing myself, but unfortunately I'm just not an expert on the topic and don't really know how to go about this -- but precisely because I'm not well-versed enough in it, I find it hard to follow these articles and to differentiate between fact and fiction unless a fact is explicitly spelled out as either. (To be fair, many articles already do this -- but not all of them.) Just knowing which should be the default assumption would be very helpful.

If you guys feel that I'm really making a mountain out of a molehill, feel free to tell me to piss off -- I'm just thinking out loud here; just because I can't keep up here doesn't necessarily mean that the average reader is similarly handicapped... =) -- Captain Disdain 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a big issue with all professional wrestling articles and I don't think it's been adequately addressed. I think that detailed recaps of wrestling storylines generally shouldn't be in professional wrestler bios. They should instead summarize some accomplishments they've had while making a clear distinction between the real person and the character. Usage of words like "character" and "persona" help to accomplish this. As it is though, most wrestler bios don't do a good job of maintaining a real-world tone and focus. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey O. Gustafson's comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mick Foley/archive1 pretty much some up the general state of a lot of professional wrestler bios. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that having entries for the characters seperate from the performers/actors is not only consistent, but much simpler to deal with. --Davetron5000 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd support something like that. It does create more pages, but it allows for a compromise allowing for the detailed info about wrestling storylines to be kept in, while focusing the pro wrestler bios on real world stuff. The biggest problem is when wrestlers change gimmicks. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't much like the idea of creating "character" articles. It seems like they would inevitably duplicate some information. McPhail 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what is being proposed here. Are you suggesting we have two articles, one kayfabe and one not? Are the two going to mirror each other except in wording and view? Like Eddie Guerrero for example, would his kayfabe article be talking about his feud with Kurt Angle and his not kayfabe article would be talking about his fisticuffs with Angle backstage during the feud? Seems highly ineffecient and creates two things for the casual reader to have to go through if they are looking for something. Plus, sometimes real life seeps into wrestling storylines and things that happen in real life occur because of things from wrestling so you would have to describe it within the article anyway. Something should be done but two articles is overkill. Also, with a wrestler like Rey Bucanero, outside of his wrestling career, I don't know anything about him, other than he is married and has two daughters. Is that really worthy of an article?--Darren Jowalsen 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, my point was pretty much that it's detrimental to say that, oh, Wrestler X broke his arm when he didn't really break his arm -- you might as well say that Keanu Reeves saved the world because he did it in a movie. The big difference here is that WWE deliberately represents these things as real (and that the wrestlers' names and their characters' names tend to be interchangeable). That's a somewhat unique situation to have, since it's hard to find another example where real life and fiction are so widely and popularly intertwined. For Wikipedia's purposes, that presents a fairly unique challenge, and I think that's all the more reason to be worried about this.

So on that level, I don't really care all that much whether there are two articles (say, Hulk Hogan (performer) and Hulk Hogan (character), to pick fairly badly named examples) for every werstler or just two clearly labeled sections in each article, as long as readers can tell kayfabe from real life -- but, yeah, any solution should be one that not only delivers the goods for the readers but also keeps editors from going nuts in the process. You're also correct that since WWE constantly incorporates real world events into their storylines, a clean split into two articles (or even two separate sections) would be hard to do well. I do think that when it comes to Wikipedia's mission to have well-written, sourced and verifiable articles, it's very problematic when readers can't tell whether they're reading a description of a real event or fiction without already being familiar with the subject. It's okay for hardcore wrestling fans who already know what's what (or, as I guess is more often the case, don't really care), but for the rest of humanity or anyone doing actual research on the subject and using Wikipedia as a source, it's a real drag. It doesn't do wonders for Wikipedia's credibility, either -- not that it hinges on this, but just the same.

As for your Rey Bucanero example, well... it's comparatively easy to write about things that happen on a TV screen, because the references are right there. (That ease is evidenced by the huge masses of information that are available on most big-name wrestlers on Wikipedia; I'm not quite sure that this level of detail is quite required or useful... but that's another thing.) When it comes to things other than that, research is required. That can be difficult, sure, but that's not exactly an unusual situation on Wikipedia, is it? -- Captain Disdain 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Better writing is the solution in my mind, not a radical (and rather unclear) overhaul. The purpose of the Rey Bucanero example was not that I don't want to do research (only three sentences from that article are from things I knew off hand from watching television, the rest was research), but that when you strip the wrestling career from many wrestlers, you are going to end up with pointless stubs that don't do anybody any good. There are occasions when there is suffecient material for this, The Rock for example with his football and acting career but not all wrestlers are as diverse. In some cases this is appropriate but as a hard rule for all, it is not neccesary. The kayfabe notice should be good for those wrestlers.--Darren Jowalsen 19:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Better writing is definitely a solution to make the distinction - but in some cases where the career section has gotten too long, a rewrite is necessary. The creation of a new article would only be necessary if the career section is way too big and you want the information to be retained (which more favorable than wholesale deletion). Face it, if Wikipedia articles on professional wrestlers primarily focusing on their storyline exploits are longer than quality articles on historical figures, then there's definitely a big problem with balance there. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

is it Ulf Hermann, or Ulf Herman. the article is under "mann" but in it he is called Herman. i made lots of the links which i all mad to go to Herman as thats what i always found him under... anyway if anyone could clear this up for me it would be great. --- Paulley 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

on OWW he is listed as Herman -- Lid 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

yea thought it was. im gonna move it and change thge article abit now then --- Paulley 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

A particular user (User:82.35.114.39/User:Rory Carrol) has been continually adding stuff about a fictitious band called "Cole" to the Michael Cole, Tazz and Perry Saturn articles claiming they're members of the band. The guy needs to be watched carefully. --Oakster ^(Talk) 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to renominate Mass Transit incident (ECW) for deletion. There is no need for a separate article when the incident is mentioned in the lawsuit section. The article is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Kyros 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you'll find a lot of people saying it's a significant incident in wrestling in general as it highlights many many problems. --- Lid 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's covered in the ECW lawsuit section, so it's just redundant information. Kyros 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that some wrestlers, mostly WWE workers, have just incredibly long pages. The likes of John Cena, Trish Stratus, Randy Orton and Kurt Angle have literally year by year breakdowns of every single thing they've ever done.

Do we have, or can we start, some kind of policy to cut some of these things down? Maybe an "Articles to shorten" section in the to-do box? I can't imagine anyone want to read the amount of information on these pages.Bdve 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The wrestler profiles should be similar to profiles of athletes or actors ...Kyros 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what that means. A year for other athletes can usually be summed up in a paragraph or two but for an active wrestler it can be much longer. Bdve 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus athletes don't use kayfabe. Though Athlete pages are a good start. --Dubhagan 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't need every kayfabe detail, you just don't need them. Do you need all the details that are laid out in the Stratus and Cena bios ... no . Kyros 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with dedicating a few paragraphs to the events of a calendar year. What is problematic is when an article literally gives week by week coverage of relatively unimportant events. McPhail 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree a few details is okay. Kyros 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So it sounds like we're in agreement that some of these pages need shortening? Can we add that section to the "to-do list"?Bdve 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. We should reach a consensus on how to shorten these articles too. In other words, what stuff to keep in and what stuff to keep out of these articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we should summarize key years in a wrestler's performance history if it is of note. A lot of storyline information is very confusing to the casual observer. I would prefer we avoid it all together except for things that are integral to the character (Stone Cold Steve Austin's metamorphasis into stone cold, or the Rock's change from rocky) Or were angles that transended the genre (Celebrity appearences, Feuds with nationwide recognition) We shouldn't be giving plot summary. But that is just my $0.02 NegroSuave 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep - that sounds about right. Summary style should help keep articles looking trim. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone tidy this up please, I don't seem to be able to move him back. A vandal moved him.(Halbared 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

Got an admin to fix everything --- Lid 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've began an article for the 1990s wrestling boom. I don't have time to do the whole thing, but started it by talking about the state of wrestling before the boom and the beggining of the Monday Night Wars. ANyone who would like to add more can, as of now I think it would be considered a stub.

Anyone want to help edit it?

The WCW page needs MAJOR cleanup. It has a ton of P.O.V and weasel words. I fixed it a little bit, but it definatly needs to be fixed.--Unopeneddoor 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just went through and made some changes, but I think it can still be fixed some more. TJ Spyke 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recently my A2NWO article has become a candidate for deletion... I'd like to get some of the team's opinions since I don't know if anyone that has been voting has any basis for judgement. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2NWO. I'm not saying that I want the page to be kept, I just want to be sure that it is judged fairly... My personal opinion is to merge the article with All-Star Championship Wrestling, Jason Jerry, and NWA Wisconsin.

Thanks for your input, - NickSentowski 05:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to those that voted!

-NickSentowski 17:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you (see here) to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality (we have 6 so far). If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

We should probably add Mick Foley, Frank Gotch, The Rock, Gorgeous George and Georg Hackenschmidt. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Ric Flair, Vince McMahon and André the Giant would be worthwhile additions as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Professional wrestling article would probably be a good start, no? After some clean up Eddie Guerrero. Dusty Rhodes is a hell of an important man in the history of wrestling as are Paul Heyman, Eric Bischoff and Verne Gagne. And lets not forget ECW in general.-Bdve 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the list! I'll try to add these into the table in the next week or so, please continue to update/edit. Are there any organizations like the WWF that need to be included? Thanks, Walkerma 07:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The National Wrestling Alliance and some of the Japanese promotions like All Japan Pro Wrestling come to mind. Some of the notable Mexican promotions might be worth mentioning as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Lucha Libre article? It does need work though.--Darren Jowalsen 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I put professional wrestling as top-importance (as it's the title of your project!) and put the rest as high-importance. If this is wrong please amend the wrestling table accordingly. Cheers, Walkerma 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro and linked all the wrestlers listed on the WWE Legends page. I was about to alphabetize it when I noticed the list has got to be incompete. Sabu is a "legend" as is Bruiser Brody. Does anyone know where we can find a complete list of "legends"? Bdve 18:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the WWE roster has them listed, though there are others like Sabu and Jim Duggan that are listed elsewhere on the roster. --Dubhagan 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

is there a category? there should be if not. WillC 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it me or is there a lot of insignificant E-Fed stuff on this site? Just look at Category:Fantasy wrestling for an example. A few E-Feds in there as well as an E-wrestler. Obviously the ones that are insignificant should be going to AfD but what are we going to do to keep randoms from making insignificant E-Fed articles on Wikipedia in the future? Normy132 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No E-wrestler should be in Wikipedia because they are not real and none of them will ever reach notability status. As for E-Feds, I wouldn't think any of them are notable enough for Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with any myself, but there could be one or two that might be big enough to be mentioned, though I doubt it. --Dubhagan 06:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Are individual e-feds really notable for an encyclopaedia?(Halbared 07:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC))

I think that all free efeds should be noted in the Internet Wrestling Community section, as well as any wrestling newsgroups with high activity. I think they both played a role in wrestling's increased popularity in the late 1990s; I would even be open to listing, but not having entries for individual "famous" efedders and usenet posters. WillC 11:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with WillC, but not at the point of mentioning fedders. We could make a list of feds with no description, otherwise those feds are going to expand themselves into an entire section or sub-page. The problem with e-feds is that everyone who participates wants to be the main event... Nobody's content with being a jobber or midcarder... Anyone who sees a list of "Notable EWrestlers" is going to add themselves because that type of hype is what e-feds are built on.

-NickSentowski 16:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should list particular E-feds, there are way too many and they really are no that notable on their own. We should just provide a link to this site and leave it at that. --Darren Jowalsen 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point... I didn't know that that site existed.

-NickSentowski 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I started this rather stubby article a few weeks ago and...well, pure and simple, I'm asking for some help. Tromboneguy0186 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the 2006 winner, but haven't gotten around to listing the other winners yet. RobJ1981 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I request merging the Undisputed Title Page with WWE Championship Page since the WWE Undisputed is just a small part of the WWWF/WWF/WWE Championship history. BionicWilliam 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. You could always do it yourself. --Dubhagan 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've put up the appropriate templates on the pages. --Dubhagan 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since no one here seems to have a consensus on this issue, I've put it out for the at-large Wikipedia community: should professional wrestlers be put under their real names or their ring names? The debate is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and may have a lot of impact, as it may reflect on other industries where pseudonyms are frequently used. kelvSYC 06:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• UPDATE: Link to the discussion on Village Pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Need_help_on_founding_a_policy. I have an admittedly long-winded "official" policy proposal there, which I will not reproduce here in the interests of not spamming up the place any more than I already have. Comments, praises, flames, death threats, etc. would be appreciated. Tuckdogg 05:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The tricky thing is that with kayfabe not being protected as vehemently as it was in the past, some fans have taken to referring to wrestlers by their actual names. However, it should be noted that this is NOT a practice within the industry itself, and in lockerrooms the workers more often than not refer to each other by their pseudonyms/"gimmicked" names, or close approximations (i.e. "Taker" for The Undertaker). Since the pseudonyms are the names the public at large knows them by, and the fact that the vast majority of wrestlers would prefer to be referred to by their pseudonyms (C.M. Punk and Raven are two in particular who have put forward great points in explaining how irritating it is for wrestlers to be approached by fans and called by their real names), I think that articles should be put under their ring names.--Deputy Marshall 06:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't state an opinion on this because it's a case by case basis. Compare Oscar Gutierrez to Rey Misterio, Sr. or "Stone Cold" Steve Austin to Steve Williams (wrestler) or Adolfo Tapia to the redirect La Parka. It can't be an all or nothing policy in this case. --- Lid 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's case by case. No blanket policy.(Halbared 09:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, it should be on a case by case basis rather than a cover-all policy. TJ Spyke 22:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Case by case for sure. If they've only been known by one ring name, or even best known by one ring name as in Triple H and Undertaker, then the ring name should be used, but if they're well known by several ring names, then the real name should be used. --Dubhagan 22:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It actually isn't even that simple. You have wrestlers who are best known under ring names currently unavailable to them and their real names are relatively obscure (e.g. Mark LoMonaco, Devon Hughes, and Matt Hyson ), wrestlers equally known for real and gimmick names (although Mick Foley is really the only example I can think of), wrestlers whose gimmick names are very similar to their real names (e.g. Ric Flair, Dave Batista), wrestlers best known for ring names but whose real names are also known to some degree (e.g. Amy Dumas, Adam Copeland), wrestlers known for several different ring names but their real name is extremely obscure (the best example is Monty Sopp, and, potentially, Brandon Silvestry), wrestlers whose gimmick names sound like they are real names (e.g. Jimmy Jacobs, Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin), wrestlers obviously using a gimmick name but not known in any context as anything else (e.g. The Rock, Hulk Hogan), and the ocassional wrestler who actually does use his birth name! Tromboneguy0186 04:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is SO confusing. I say we put the article as real name with the ring name in brackets, so that both will lead to the page when searched for Kingfisherswift 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what re-directs are for. "Bubba Ray Dudley" redirects to Mark LoMonaco, the man who used to wrestle as Bubba Ray Dudley and currently wrestles as "Brother Ray". TJ Spyke 21:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Figure I should chime in here, since I've been involved on the discussion pages of several wrestlers' pages currently being proposed for moves. I also don't think a completely blanket policy is necessarily correct, but I think in almost every circumstance it makes far more sense to index the wrestler under their real name. The character and the wrestler portraying that character are not the same person. The wrestler is no different from an actor on a television show; the character behaves however the script writers say he/she will. The articles here are not actually about the characters; they're about the wrestler (e.g. talk about the families, other characters they've played, various titles held under different names, other endeavors, etc.). This is an encyclopedia first. Other reference sites (see IMDB.com) index wrestlers under their real names and list the characters as "roles" they've played on TV shows. We should follow that trend. Tuckdogg 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (cont.): My proposal is that, by default, all individual wrestling personalities should be indexed according to their real names. Character names should redirect to the page of the wrestler who portrayed that character. In the event that a disambiguation page is necessary (say, for something like Kane), just put a note on the disambiguation page that says something like: "Kane, the professional wrestling character portrayed by Glen Jacobs." Exceptions to this general rule should only be made in extremely limited circumstances, and then only for people who: 1.) own the name themselves; and 2.) have used the name in a variety of contexts outside the wrestling industry. Chris Jericho, for example, does not go by Chris Irvine...well, really ever. He acts as "Chris Jericho", and he's credited as Fozzy's lead singer as "Chris Jericho." For him, "Chris Jericho" is far more akin to a stage name for him personally and not simply a character, so his page should be indexed at "Chris Jericho." For someone like The Undertaker, it's pretty clear that Mark Calaway is not, in fact, The Undertaker. It's a WWE owned character, Calaway is not really an animated corpse, he does not sing or perform as The Undertaker outside of wrestling, and he's done acting and been credited as The Undertaker in TV shows that were doing a crossover with WWE (a few shows on USA before they moved to Spike). The two are completely different people. The article is about one of them (Calaway), so it should be indexed that way. Other possible exceptions include people like Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, etc., who started out years ago and continued to use their wrestling names in other contexts, likely originally as a continuation of kayfabe. The list of modern wrestlers who should be indexed under their character names, however, will likely be EXTREMELY short. Tuckdogg 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (cont.): Another thing I forgot to mention: this will also keep us from having to repeatedly move wrestlers' articles around. If we index under their character names, what happens if they change gimmicks? C.M. Punk, for example, is currently indexed under his real name. But he's also under contract to WWE, and Vince has a habit of changing peoples' gimmicks when they debut. If he's indexed as "Phil Brooks", there's no impact and nothing to move around. If we index him as "C.M. Punk" and Vince changes his gimmick, before long we're gonna have to move him again. Real names = less work and less maintenance needed. Tuckdogg 12:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is that if Taker should be at his real name because Undertaker is a character and it is a WWE owned name, then Triple H should be at his real name as well then, since his character name is WWE owned. --Dubhagan 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Tuckdogg 02:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with Tuckdogg that wrestling gimmicks are the same as television characters, but I do agree with Tuckdogg's proposed policy regarding the naming convention. There's too many wrestlers to do this on a case-by-case basis and keeping wrestlers at their real names provides stability and puts the focus on the actual person, as opposed to the wrestling persona. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disgree with Tuckdogg completely. The television character analogy is not valid. When somebody asks Shane Douglas for an autograph, he doesn't sign it "Troy Martin," he signs is "Shane Douglas." When Abismo Negro makes television appearences, he is not introduced as the man who plays a character named Abismo Negro on AAA, he is introduced as Abismo Negro. When Atlantis does charity work for children, he doesn't do it as an actor who plays Atlantis for TV, he does it as Atlantis. It becomes a public persona and often inseperable from the original person. Are there complications? Yes, which is why the case by case method is best. And I fail to see what is so exhausting and stress inducing about going through maybe 8 or so articles a week and saying "Support" or "Oppose." Also, if it bothers you so much, you don't have to do it.--Darren Jowalsen 16:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying it was exhausting. It's not exhausting, it's just largely a waste of time. We need to get down a specific policy. Moving Lita to Amy Dumas, then back, then back again, then back again, then back again, is just pointless. And that's exactly what's going to continue to happen if we just say "Eh, whatever, case by case", as several of those pages mentioned at the top are on their third or forth "Real Name v. Ring Name" debate in the last year alone. If we have a policy in place, then people can look at the policy, apply it to the specific wrestler, and then figure out how to appropriately index them and leave it alone. Under my proposed policy, they'd all be real names by default. Then we could look at a few special cases and move them to their ring names if need be. I'm certainly not saying that everyone will agree completely with the policy (since we can't even seem to agree on how closely they resemble TV characters), but if there's at least a clear guideline then we can stop these pointless revert wars and neverending arguments over how to index each one individually. Tuckdogg 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, when some person is running around in a Mickey Mouse costume in Disney World, they don't sign autographs using their real name either. With professional wresters, it's sort of like wearing the costume all the time. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, Shane Douglas is probably one of the few who SHOULD be indexed under his ring name, because he owns the name and uses it regularly outside of wrestling. Lita doesn't, Kane doesn't, Undertaker doesn't, Sting owns but doesn't use, Scott Levy owns but doesn't use, etc. In most situations, they're just characters, and in an encyclopedia they should be indexed accordingly. Tuckdogg 17:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling and Kayfabe is unique in which wrestlers are considered in character all the time. I dont think there is another medium that a person remains in chracter all the time. And famous persons in general are known to change their names to make them sound better or ot protect their families should their career flop. However if we were to look at this from a journalistic standpoint they will refer to persons by their natural name and an alias. I believe we should list the real names of the wrestlers if we are goign to do any biographical information on the person. Otherwise we would be restriting ourselves to kayfabed wrestlers and each gimmick would be a seperate entity. Everything should go under the real name with redirects from their gimmick names. It makes the most sense.

However that would ripple throughout the wiki because doing some quick research it would appear that most actors are listed by thier pseudonym as opposed to their actual name. But the difference is that there are some SAG rules requiring seperate names especially if the name is similar to someone else who has already achieved fame. John Wayne, Angelina Jolie, and Jon Stewart are all listed under their stage names. But the one big difference is that unlike wrestler these stars will use these names for their entire career. Only a very select few in wrestling will ever keep the same name consistently. We need to take that into account as well as wikipedia is not a newspaper. We should stick to what we know will follow that person around for their entire career and that woudl be their real name. NegroSuave 17:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess if the wrestler owns their ring name then we can list them under the ring name, similar to actors, which we pretty much do anyway. I see the reasoning behind listing wrestlers under their real name if they don't own their ring name a good one. I think if we impose a policy, that should be one of the rules we follow, if they don't own the gimmick/ring name, then they shouldn't be listed under that name. --Dubhagan 05:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how does one determine who owns the name? Dudley Boyz right now is the best example of this. --- Lid 05:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Check here. WWE owns Triple H, Undertaker, Billy Gunn and the different Dudley names, to name a few. As an example, Chris Jericho. Even though WWE currently owns the name for merchandising purposes, Jericho himself owns the name for performance purposes. Also, to use a current request for name change example, Jimmy Jacobs is currently not owned by ANYONE (i.e. a wrestling company), which means that it's basically his name to use however he wants. --Dubhagan 05:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the Dudleyz because they're challenging the WWE's ownership in court, even though currently the WWE "owns" the name there is a strong legal argument against it. --- Lid 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All I will say is this, If the Dudley's win and they become owners of the Dudley gimmicks, and they go back to those gimmick names, then I'd have no problem with moving their profiles to those names. But, if someone (i.e. a company) owns the name instead of the wrestler using it, then the wrestler should be listed under their real name. --Dubhagan 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok this was an unintentional side effect but I was looking for the trademark of Samoa Joe and it's owned by Joe Seanoa but his name is listed as Nuufolau Joel Seanoa. Now everyone knows he uses the name Joe Seanoa outside of wrestling, and owns the name Samoa Joe, but does that make his real name Joe Seanoa or Nuufolau Joel Seanoa? --- Lid 06:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting find. I have emailed him asking him about that (got the email address from his LJ page). I'll let you know when he responds. --Dubhagan 07:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dudleys: strong legal argument...perhaps. Truth be told, I'd have to see the court documents myself to see exactly what's being argued to know for sure (I'm a lawyer, BTW...). But whether they have an argument for ownership isn't really the issue. As things stand right now, WWE owns the gimmick and character names. If Team 3D used it, they'd be committing trademark infringement. Even if a court would eventually invalidate WWE's trademark, they'd still hammer Team 3D for knowingly and willfully using the name before the trademark had been invalidated. If they ultimately win (I hope they do), then they'd own the name, and that could affect application of my proposed policy to them (possibly move Lamonica to Bubba Ray Dudley and Hughes to D-Von Dudley, depending on whether they use outside of wrestling). Better to address that if/when it happens and just understand that, right or wrong, WWE owns the gimmick right now.

It's also (usually) pretty easy to tell who owns a name without having to search at the USPTO. Older wrestlers (80's and sooner) generally own their names/gimmicks, because nobody bothered to trademark anything back then and the wrestlers usually came up with their own names. For pretty much anything later than that, just look at when they first used the name and whether they've kept it across multiple promotions. If they got the name in WWE or WCW, I can pretty much guarantee they don't own it, since Vince and Ted trademarked EVERYTHING. If they started it on their own in the indies (CM Punk, Samoa Joe, Cactus Jack, Chris Jericho, Lance Storm, etc.), the wrestler will have common law trademark rights in the name that would invalidate anyone else's attempt to trademark the name out from under them. That, and use across multiple major promotions (Raven, Shane Douglas, Sabu, etc.) is pretty much a dead give-away that the wrestler owns it, because you all know how much of an ass Vince can be about that kind of stuff. Tuckdogg 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In the case of some indy wrestlers, real or full names are unknown, e.g. B.J. Whitmer and Prince Nana. I'm also unsure as to whether Nelson Erazo is correct, given that Homicide has referred to Nelson as his "government name". Moving these pages to the real names of the wrestlers is both disprespectful and invites error. Moreover, for most wrestlers, a ring name is simply a stage name, not a consistent character. McPhail 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be "arguing in passionate agreement", as one of my professors called it. Apply the policy I proposed to your examples. We don't know their real names? Well, that kinda defeats any possibility of indexing them under another name, doesn't it? Guys like Homicide & CM Punk own the name, prefer it to their real name, and regularly use it outside of wrestling? Policy says they'd be indexed under their ring names, meaning I'm withdrawing my objection to the move of CM Punk. And a ring name is only a "stage name" in any sense if they: 1.) own the name, and 2.) use it regularly outside of wrestling. Punk, Homicide, and other indy wrestlers and older wrestlers probably fit that description, and so would be indexed by their character names. Lita, Undertaker, Kane, etc.? They don't own their names, and don't have the right to use them outside of wrestling anyway. If they can't use it, have no control over it, and don't own it, they shouldn't be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. If they don't own it, then we use real name. That is why I changed my vote for the Undertaker. --Dubhagan 00:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Undertaker's real name is not known for certain. The current page title has arisen through a shaky compromise based on the evidence available. McPhail 01:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. I still don't think that means we should move the article to Undertaker, though. It's fine where it is. If we get more definitive information on his real name, then we can act on that as necessary. Has anyone tracked down a copy of Suburban Commando? I know he was in that (albeit briefly). How is his name spelled in the credits? Tuckdogg 01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Found info on that movie here and here. Both spell it Calaway. --Dubhagan 02:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Anywho, my main concern is wrestlers who are well established under a name for 10 or so years like Héctor Garza or just out of the business altogether. Someone like Tim Woods should not be under "George Woodin" especially considering that he almost never went by "George" since his childhood. That brings up another issue I have with real names, while they might be legally accurate, are not always what the wrestlers actually go by. I have never heard Meltzer refer to Road Warrior Animal as "Joseph," it's always "Joe," everyone calls Brutus Beefcake "Ed Leslie," not "Edward," and Billy Graham goes by his middlename instead of Eldridge. I'm not saying this means we have to switch everything to ring names, just a concern I have. --Darren Jowalsen 22:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If they're established under the name, own it, and use it outside of wrestling, then it's not a problem to index them under their ring names. As far as the "Joe" <-> "Joseph" thing goes, how is that usually handled elsewhere? I mean, that's not really a wrestling specific problem, since anyone could be named "William" and go by "Jack" or something like that. If they're usually indexed under the shorter name they go by, then we'd just do that. If people are usually indexed by the full name regardless of what abbreviated form they typically use, then we'll do that. Tuckdogg 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

One last point I want to mention. Many actors don't use their real/birth name when acting (Tom Cruise, Nicolas Cage...). Many of the ring names are more of a performer name (Tom Cruise) than a character name (Jerry McGuire). If the name is owned by WWE, then it can be considered a character name (Kane, Lita...) and index them under their real name. But if they own it (Samoa Joe), or have used it their whole career across promotions (Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes...), then we could consider it a performer name and index them under that name. --Dubhagan 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We've got the one about adding week-by-week things and rumors:
<!-- DO NOT ADD WEEK BY WEEK EVENTS, RUMOURS OR SPECULATION. THIS INCLUDES ANNOUNCED MATCHES THAT HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWS SITE BUT AN ONLINE ENCYCLOPAEDIA. Please see the articles "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" and "Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles" for more information. -->

How about an official one for changing wrestlers weights by a pound or two up or down (not notable) and, especially for women wrestlers, changing the main image for seemingly no reason? Not that people don't just ignore them as is, but it makes reverting things that much easier in the end. -Bdve 01:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea. I suggested something like that before but didn't get around to making one. For the infobox something like:

<!-- Please don't change the height or weight. These are the measures as officially stated and they should not be changed. -->

I made a note for the article on Trish Stratus a while back that looks like this:

<!--Please DO NOT change the picture. Unless there's a significant appearance change or you find a free use photo to put here, there's no reason to change the picture so frequently. -->

--Jtalledo (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need another consensus. An edit war has started on RVDs page about where to place his ECW world title reign, under ECW or WWE. Both editors have a point, it is ECW but it's an ECW brand and not ECW proper.

Since Van Dam is the first holder of the new title we should decide now where to put it for as long as thie brand lives.Bdve 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• It should be under WWE, the new ECW is part of WWE itself. We don't put Smackdown titles in a different section, ECW shouldn't be any different. Just because it used to be a promotion, doesn't mean the new ECW should be under the old ECW banner.

Old ECW = separate company

New ECW = owned by WWE/part of WWE.

Bdve, it's not a new title. They've made it clear that this is part of the original ECW Title. It should be listed in the ECW section just like we do for wrestlers who won WCW Titles after it was bought by WWE(look at Kurt Angle for example, his WCW World Title win is listed under WCW. TJ Spyke 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• The WCW title (WWE version)shouldn't be under WCW either.

One promotion = one group of titles.

WWE isn't multiple promotions, it's multiple brands. If the ECW title belongs with the other ECW information, then you might as well put Smackdown as a seperate part as well. Let's get real here people... the WWECW title is part of WWE, and no matter what WWE says: it's not part of the old ECW. This is a new WWE-run ECW, period.

One promotion = one group of titles? Three letters - NWA. --- Lid 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ECW, and thus the ECW title (although the title is arguably a continuation), are both part of WWE, not ECW (which no longer exists). Van Dam, Show, and all subsequent champions are and will be WWE champions (contracted to and working for WWE). Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know people want to believe that ECW was its own entity that is untouched by others, but the fact of the matter is that it's a company. The company and all of the parts of it are now owned by WWE company. With them go all the rights to the belts, and their histories, librbararies and titles. Pretending it's something else is simply being an old ECW fan who rejects ECW as it is now and wants to pretend it isn't ECW, ignoring the company aspect. --- Lid 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Pretending it's something else is simply being an old ECW fan who rejects ECW as it is now and wants to pretend it isn't ECW, ignoring the company aspect"

That's just wrong and didn't need to be said. I didn't like the old ECW, and I don't like the new ECW... so it has nothing to do with being an old ECW fan. It has to do with, ECW is a brand of WWE. It's not a seperate promotion, it's PART of a promotion. NWA is made up of several promotions, not brands... so that's an entirely different thing. I hate how people also think the WCW titles (after WCW was bought by WWE) actually are still WCW titles. The whole Invasion storyline was all WWE wrestlers, and a storyline involving one promotion. When a promotion is bought out, the titles belong to the new company. So WWE owns WCW and ECW belts, making them WWE versions of the titles... so any title history should be under WWE, not the previous promotion that is now gone. RobJ1981 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The page needs to be changed to Brian Knobs. When the official WWE site lists it as that, along with most others... it's certainly enough proof it's "Knobs".

I have tried to fix the Knobbs to Knobs, but it got changed back.. because someone claimed "Obsessed with Wrestling" was the expert on the matter. OWW is a great site, but it's not official and it's still a fan-made site.... you can't rely on that for everything. I don't think Knobs has an official site, so I think WWE.com should be more than enough proof to be able to change the page name to Brian Knobs.

RobJ1981 17:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Brian Knobs (wrestler), but will nee help fixing the double-redirects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Brian_Knobbs

Thanks

-NickSentowski 17:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why add (wrestler)?, Brian Knobs redirects anyway, no need to add (wrestler). Anyway, Knobs gets more that 10x the Google hits than Knobbs, so it should be Knobs. OWW has been known to have a few spelling mistakes. --Dubhagan 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've searched WWE.com for both Knobbs and Knobs, and WWE makes mention of both spellings. What someone needs to do is go through old footage of his matches (WWE, ECW, WCW...) and see how it is spelled then. --Dubhagan 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if they list Knobs on footage though. I believe most of them list Nasty Boys, and not Knobs himself (since he rarely did singles). WCW footage might, but I don't own any WCW tapes of him in hardcore matches. XWF DVD set could as well. So that's the footage people should look through for spellings.

RobJ1981 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling is Knobbs. This is per the link I cited earlier - a scan from a WWF magazine - WWE.com, Mick Foley's autobiography and a Google test, which yields considerably more results for "Brian Knobbs" than for "Brian Knobs". McPhail 20:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• The magazine has listed it as Knobs in the past as well. Typos in books are common. RobJ1981 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe then we should have the article at his real name if the spelling of his ring name is debated? --Dubhagan 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• WHat is your source for WWE.com spelling his name "Knobs"? Searching WWE.com for "Knobs" with Google returns zero results, while searching for "Knobbs" returns three results, one of them a direct quote from Jimmy Hart. McPhail 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I searched at WWE.com itself and got two results listing it as Knobs. Google is fine and all, but it's still not the official WWE site, so the search will be off (I know it might sound weird, but it's true in some cases). RobJ1981 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did a search on wwe.com, there were 6 results for "Knobbs"[1] and 2 for "Knobs"[2]. It seems like he's used both(like Rey Mysterio has used variations), but "Knobbs" seems to be the most commin one. TJ Spyke 20:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, just saw a clip of Knobs on TSN (Canada's ESPN) at a baseball game. He had a baseball jersey on with the name on the back saying Brian Knobs, with one B. --Dubhagan 03:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that should be enough proof. RobJ1981 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone. A few editors came across an issue of whether to delete Black Saturday (1984) and we ended up drawing to the conclusion that it is time to create a "History of professional wrestling" article. The article should be based on a general overview of how the PW industry progressed as a whole rather than on specific promotions. So it would include info on the foundations, the first Golden Age, Black Saturday, the second Golden Age, possibly the Monday Night Wars, certainly the WWE vs. WCW war, the rise in popularity of hardcore matches and ECW and the fall of two of the major North American promotions to the more popularized independent circuit. It may take some to sort out what exactly belongs in this article but I'd just like to get a general consensus on what we think about creating this article. Cheers. Normy132 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how hard it is to write a history of professional wrestling? Between Kayfabe, contract disputes with more than one side and outright lies things tend to get confusing. - Bdve 13:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is possible to write an article such as this without worrying about kayfabe things being an issue. However, I think the main problem would the decentralized nature of professional wrestling up until the late eighties.--Darren Jowalsen 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for this idea - most other sports have a history article, wrestling should aswell. Kingfisherswift 18:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Editor with no interest in Pro wrestling here. I suggested this idea (or actually a subsection to Professional wrestling) because Black Saturday (1984) seemed to be lacking context that made it notable, relevant and encyclopedic. I think the History of professional wrestling would be an extraordinarily interesting encyclopedic entry given all of the contraversies, changes etc. One thing I have been interested in is the conflict between the World wrestling federation and the world wildlife fund over the WWF moniker. It sounds like a fun project for you guys. You guys might consider accepting the deletion of Black Saturday (1984) in favor of this project and copying the relevant material to the new History of professional wrestling pape before it disappears.--Nick Y. 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So it's pretty obvious now we're not going to have any kayfabe junk in here. Nothing about Austin vs. McMahon or the Katie Vick storyline. Okay, maybe those can be exceptions but htey only get a brief mention. Normy132 01:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the Austin-McMahon feud, since that was important. However, that does bring up that we want to stay away from being WWE-centric with this. Anyway, how exactly will this article go? Here's a basic idea:

• Pre TV era

pre-turn of the century to 40s

• Territories

Early use of TV. Brief overview of how the territory system worked, maybe mention some of the bigger territories like L.A., Northeast, Florida, Houston, Memphis et al. Talk about the NWA & AWA World championship.

• Early 80's

Talk about World Class and the changes in production values that occurred there. The rise of National TV with Southwest wrestling, Georgia, Mid-South, Jim Crockett, WWF.

• Late 80's boom

Return to broadcast TV, WWF dominance and dying of the territory system.

• Monday Night Wars

Brief overview, link to main article.

ECW should be in here somewhere

• Indy Movement

Rise of indy wrestling promotions to fill the territory void. Influences.

• WWE Brand Extension & TNA

WWE's brand extension and what that did for the business, TNA's existence

• International Wrestling

• Lucha Libre

Brief History, link to main article

• Puroresu

Brief history, link to main article

• Wrestling in the UK

Brief history, link to main article

Canada and Australia maybe?

Just something to get started with. Feel free to tear to pieces, those last few especially. Hey, maybe this can be the inagural pro wrestling collaboration of the week.--Darren Jowalsen 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I like that set up. Something in there about Stampede Wrestling would be nice but apart from that there's nothing worth mentioning about wrestling in Canada. Nothing notable about Australia either. There could be some mention of UK wrestling in the indy movement because its popularity has really shot up since then. Japan should have a significant dealing with this I think. Maybe not so much with Mexico though. But what you've said there would be basically how I would see a very brief overview of professional wrestling. Normy132 07:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

For as proper history of wrestling it would have to be international as standard, not American centric with snippets of Europe and other places who all have rich heritages of wrestlign history.(Halbared 08:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

A "History of Pro Wrestling" page might get a little long, especially if you cover it in each country. Maybe "History of pro wrestling in the United States", "History of pro wrestling in Japan" and so on for Canada, Mexico, England and other notable countries. --Dubhagan 09:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, that sounds more feasible.(Halbared 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC))

So, we are going to do this? If so I'll help you set to work on anything. I think it is a brilliant idea, I must say. Kingfisherswift 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in there, around the Monday Night Wars and ECW sections there needs to be a section on the 90s Internet boom that birthed the Internet Wrestling Community and created the millions (AND MILLIONS!) of Smarks and how they effected wrestling at the time. Bdve 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What Normy132 noted about Stampede Wrestling makes sense since that promotion has a notable history - but what he added about there being nothing worth mentioning about wrestling in Canada isn't necessarily so. I searched around several Canadian-oriented pro wrestling sites to help build up some of the articles here (including Gene Kiniski and NWA All Star Wrestling), and it helps if some of the wrestlers being researched have websites that include message boards, where you can get help with your research.--Starbuck-2 01:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I've started up the article. It took me four hours to write up to around 1986. It's pretty detailed but there are big blotches missing on Stampede, Japan, Mexico and the NWA so feel free to chip in. I'll start the next part tomorrow. Oh, by the way, if you can find any good pictures that have some significance to the article feel free to put them in. At the moment I reckon we could work this up to be featured article status, I reckon it can be that good. Put this in you watchlists because I htink it's going to cop a fair bit of vanadalism for the first few days. Normy132 10:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished everything I can do for that article. It took a total of 24 hours to write and it's far from completely full of information but at least there's somethnig to work around. The under construction tag is down, so feel free to work on anything there! Normy132 12:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody tell me why the image of Edge has disappeared? I've tried to upload others and it won't let me. I'm stumped. Anyone offer an insight into why (Probably just my PC and I've just made a prat out of myself, but it annoys me) Kingfisherswift 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Image:AdamCopeland Edge.jpg" is working fine. I don't know what you uploaded or where to but none of them have worked. - Bdve 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably looking for Image:CopelandEdge.jpg and Image:Edge.jpg. You can access the images you've uploaded by clicking on "My Contributions" at the top of the screen while you're logged in. Select the "Image" namespace from the drop-down list. I still don't think OWW has any rights to these images though and the current one is working fine. At any rate, even if they did give us "permission" they would still be fair use, not free use. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Recently I found several pages that list the championship section messed up for several wrestlers. I'm in reference to very obvious copy+paste jobs (text from Obsessed with Wrestling to be exact).

The wrong way: listing the promotion/title followed by the word(s): title or titles.

The right way: listing the title followed by the word: champion.

Anyone care to help me find and fix other pages with the same problem? So far I've only seen a few, for lesser known wrestlers. RobJ1981 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

List the pages and I'm sure someone will help, I might if I have the time. --Dubhagan 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the only ones I've found so far. I was asking if people could help me look for others. RobJ1981 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to work some on the Tammy Lynn Sytch article, it is just way too detailed about the independent shows she's done in the last few years and weight gain and such. It needs to be trimmed quite a bit, it's over 30K even, which is not what her article should be. --Burgwerworldz 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, it's way too long. What should be deleted though? It seems like alot of useful information, just too long in words though. I edited some of WWF information, so that's a start I suppose. RobJ1981 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's just way too detailed and much of it doesn't mesh with NPOV. It's mainly the independent stuff post-2004 that needs to be trimmed, and the detailed parts about her weight and atire aren't necessary for the most part. --Burgwerworldz 23:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Important details can be summarized. See Wikipedia:Summary style. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to really say massive details about a woman's appearances in the independent scene are that notable, they can be trimmed or just totally clipped out. Seriously, there is an entire section about her weight, and much of it is speculative, and another section about what clothing she wears in the present. Even huge stars like Jennifer Aniston don't have sections like this. Just total cruft in the article.--Burgwerworldz 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I started working on a page for Rusty Brooks. I'm new to editing Wiki, how do I add my name to the member list for this project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Mark Greene (talk • contribs)

Hi there and welcome to our little WikiProject. You can add your name to the members list to start off. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --Jtalledo (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is in the middle of an edit wat as well as it has come into conflict its notability. As part of a mediation request and I want to recieve some feedback on this page. The main question is notability and if the Newsletter is indeed notable. Talk: Death Valley Driver Video Review Thanks NegroSuave 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you notice on the pages of WWF pre-2002 PPVs, there is a part in the intro of most if not all of them that says something like "Royal Rumble 1994 is a pay-per-view event from the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment)". I think that the "now World Wrestling Entertainment" is unnecessary and just clutters up the articles. It doesn't make any sense to me that this is included, considering the company's name change was not that cosmetically drastic (like Bellsouth becomes GTE, for a fake example), and it isn't a relevant detail for the time period or event. And if the person didn't know by now, the WWF name is linked so they can figure out the story. I suggest/propose that the phrase (now World Wrestling Entertainment) be removed from the intro paragraphs from those PPVs produced by WWF before the name changed. Thoughts? --Burgwerworldz 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It really is not relevant to the articles in question. Usage in other articles should also be deleted although there are a few certain cases where the change could be noted.--Darren Jowalsen 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear, should we add this to the to-do list then? --Burgwerworldz 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know this person... appearently they work backstage with WWE and they have had extra roles in Buffy and Angel. --- Paulley 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think i've found the problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaycey_Harper&diff=58647748&oldid=46276342 --- Lid 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While doing some updates to profiles I noticed on Cabana's website he has a finisher listed as the Lakeshore Drive [3] and a google search showed he used it to finish some matches in Japan [4]. The problem is I can not find a description of the move anywhere.

Another problem is with Austin Aries who has a move listed as the Diamond Buster [5] but no one can find a description of what the diamond buster is. Help with either of these would be appreciated. --- Lid 11:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is, but this forum refers to the "Diamond Buster" as a "Running jump over toprope diamond cutter to the outside". I can't find anything on the "Lakeshore Drive", but my advice would be to note the date of a show when Cabana is said to have performed it and then find an alternate report of that show, which might describe the move rather than simply naming it. McPhail 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as that's the only description we have to gon on I added it, but I can not find a detailed listing of the Lakeshore Drive anywhere still. --- Lid 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason there hasn't been a mass deletion of all the articles on small, unknown promotions? I put a local one from my area up, and I'm planning on doing it for a bunch of others as well.

• Does Wikipedia really need articles on every promotion? I can understand the more known independents... but really small ones don't need to be here, in my opinion. Is there just a pure wrestling wiki site out there? If there is, that would be the best place for any and every promotion ever. RobJ1981 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• • I started http://www.wrestlepedia.org a while ago, but never got to actually promoting it... Feel free to post anything you want over there. - NickSentowski 02:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Does there really need to be pages for each of the WWE 24/7 programs? 24/7 is just old wrestling content. I really don't think all of them need pages, when there isn't much to write about them. Same goes for lesser WWF/WWE television programs: LiveWire, Action Zone, etc. Shows like those were recap shows usually with very little new content. At best, they will be stubs and never improve, since the shows didn't have much to them. I really hope pages for certain WWE DVD's (Divas, Rey Mysterio, etc) don't get pages someday as well. In my opinion, if there is only a little content for it, it certainly doesn't need a Wiki page at all. RobJ1981 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the lesser television shows could be moved to one combined page since they have little content by themselves. --Electricbolt 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. It could be something like "List of minor WWE television programs". --Jtalledo (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and it should apply for most DVD's as well. I noticed today, there is way too many pages for individual wrestling DVD's. The pages are basically stubs, and just say the chapters/easter eggs of the DVD, and sometimes other minor things. That certainly shouldn't be enough for a page. Wikipedia shouldn't be about listing DVD's and their features, there is more than enough DVD websites out there for that. RobJ1981 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took a look at the WWE 24/7 pages and it seems the shows are already covered on the main page and are pretty much the same in detail as the individual pages. --Electricbolt 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Just an addition to my above post, I think the programs section of WWE 24/7 page can be expanded to include the information on the other pages. As for the other "lesser" shows, I'll see what I can do since I have some time right now. --Electricbolt 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the pages for the WWE 24/7 shows should be removed completely. What's the point in having pages for lesser things? It just seems like clutter to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... but that doesn't mean every little thing needs it's own page. RobJ1981 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That's why I'm going to work on a page to place all the lesser shows into one page so we can get rid of all the other individual pages. --Electricbolt 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Professional wrestling stubs has a lot of articles in it - well over 400. A large amount of them appear to be biographies on professional wrestlers. Should we create a new stub type, like prowrestling-bio-stub for organization purposes? This could categorize wrestlers into a "Professional wrestling bio stubs" category which would be subcategory of the "Professional wrestling stubs." --Jtalledo (talk)

well we do need to go through them abit a i have on occasion took a letter and gone through the articles in that section cus most only need a little editing to get to a position to remove the stub completally --- Paulley

I've started to go through some. From the looks of it (so far at least), some can be deleted or merged with other articles. RobJ1981 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Doctat3 just signed up today and decided to seperate all Survivor Series article into individual articles. Since he's new, I don't exactly know how far he's going to go with this but I had to cleanup a few templates that he just cut and pasted from. I would help him myself further but I've got Royal Rumble to finish off along with the remaining SummerSlam articles now under my hands. I was wondering if I could get a little help with this situation. --Oakster ^(Talk) 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• They shouldn't be seperate, in my opinion. One page for all of them is just fine. RobJ1981 19:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Each WrestleMania and SummerSlam have their own page, and now so does the Royal Rumble PPV's. I see no reason for each Survivor Series to have their own page. TJ Spyke 04:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The old Survivor Series article was in desperate need of seperation as the article size was getting huge due to elimination tables, 1998's tournament, etc. As for help, it's alright as I can now be able to sort these articles out. --Oakster ^(Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We currently have too many pages for Saturday Night's Main Event. We have a results page chronicling the entire history, the Main page about what the show is and a page just for 2006, which is only about the upcoming one. I've already nominated the 2006 one for deletion and it looks like it's on it's way out, but that leaves the results page and the main page, both of which (now) have the results on them.

This begs the question, should we keep the results on their seperate article or leave them on the main page and trash the results page? I am torn. By torn, I of course mean I mean don't care either way. Bdve 14:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing debate about spoiler warnings at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. This could affect the way we treat spoilers and kayfabe in professional wrestling articles, so if anyone is interested, please contribute to the discussion there. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spirit Squad page needs some clean up... i have gone through the move list and standardised them and cleaned but their history section needs to be trimmed most of it concerns the last month on raw... i did go through before so most of the pre DX is tidy also the title accomplishment needs to be under the new format and i think we need to remove all references to "The Spirit Squad" becuse they are just "Spirit Squad" (ala "the WWE" -> "WWE") --- Paulley

According to the official WWE site: it is The Spirit Squad: [6]. So that should be left alone in my opinion. Also, it doesn't really sound correct by saying "Spirit Squad are the tag champions for Raw" for example. The page name is fine, there is no reason to add a "the" to it, but other references to them should be The Spirit Squad. In some sentences, just Spirit Squad is fine. Example of that (straight from the Spirit Squad page): "Even though Kenny and Mikey were the ones who won the tag titles, any two Spirit Squad members can defend them." Hope all that made sense. RobJ1981 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WWE tends to play hard and fast when it comes to definite articles, e.g. (The) Undertaker, (The) Big Show. McPhail 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can I be bold and suggest that we just link the results from a website, than create and endless amount of results pages like the ones we have? If we create a massive amount of results pages, were going to end up with a massive amount of unneeded templates, vandalism and pro wrestling cruft on these pages. — The King of Kings 16:38 July 14 '06

Sounds like a good idea to me. --Dubhagan 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose this. Virtually ever major television series has a Wikipedia article for every episode filmed. Having an article for each month Impact runs is not all that arduous; if the series lasts a decade, we'll have 120 articles. That's not a huge quantity when the number of Simpsons episodes and so forth are considered. Moreover, the results are far more comprehensive than most archives. McPhail 22:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering TNA is the second most popular promotion, and thier TV shows, according to you, we can have monthly results, why don't we do WWE? I would like to see how long it would take us to do a show like Monday Night RAW's history. — The King of Kings 23:00 July 14 '06

And on another note, I think I'm going to do some major cleanup on some of these results pages, some of the TOC's on the pages are extremely, how should I say this, suckish. Also, I created {{TNAresults}} so we don't have a template by year thing going on the results pages. I redirected the other TNA results templates to it. — The King of Kings 23:35 July 14 '06

While I've been doing the Royal Rumble articles, I've just noticed the SummerSlam articles and how they are categorised under (year) in sports. I was wondering if it's a good idea to start (year) in professional wrestling categories and placing them as subcategories of (year) in sports (or even just the (year) categories if professional wrestling as a sport is questionable)? This wouldn't just be used for individual event articles but also major storylines such as Montreal Screwjob (1997), Fingerpoke of Doom (1999) and The Invasion (2001). --Oakster ^(Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, that seems to be putting a bit too much "importance" on the world of pro-wrestling. I don't think you'd ever see that kind of info in Britannica... If you'd like to do it on wrestlepedia, go ahead, but I just think it's a bit much for Wikipedia. - NickSentowski 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[7]: Somehow a user name got a wrestling bio?

[8]: The regular Los Guerreros link. From the looks of it, it's the same as the user Tigermave version.

I wasn't sure how to clean it up, so I didn't edit. RobJ1981 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no issue really... it looks like he just copied and pasted the content to a subpage, maybe to work on it a little. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that I've contributed to alot more Wrestling articles than anything else, so I thought that I might as well sign-up. So can I please join? SilentRage 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just add your name to our members list. Feel free to ask any questions you have here. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have any questions. SilentRage 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This user repeatedly, without explanation, adds POV to Dave Meltzer and whenever I revert it back with a link to WP:NPOV he just ignores me and adds different variations of insults to it. What should be done? --- Lid 01:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Report it to Wiki. I don't know where to do that, since I'm newer... try posting that help me text in your talk about it. I believe it's {{ }} with the words help me in it. I would post it, but it would contact someone here.

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 88.107.146.152 02:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV isn't vandalism, as defined by the rules of vandalism. I thought about Administrator intervention but the problem is he doesn't even write a reason so it's evident he has no real interest in disussing his positong. --- Lid 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV can become vandalism if it's persistantly pushed onto editors, I sent him a warning. — The King of Kings 07:56 July 15 '06

Does anybody know who portrayed La Parkita, Mini Mankind, and Mini Vader at the 1997 Royal Rumble? I've looked and haven't been able to find out. TJ Spyke 06:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mini Vader- [9]

La Parkita- [10] (Note, second Octagoncito, not original)

Mini Mankind- Guerrerito Del Futuro, doesn't have a bio...

Not sure if that really helped you but there they are.--Darren Jowalsen 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we're trying to find more free alternatives to copyrighted photos, I've noticed quite a lot of WWE images over at flickr.com under Creative Commons Licenses. I'm not fully sure on how far we can use them but I thought I might post this as it might be a great contribution for images, even more than the current military-based photos we currently use. WWE search (commercial use allowed) WWE search (non-commercial use) --Oakster ^(Talk) 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally we should use the commercial use allowed photos. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

onlineworldofwrestling.com gave us fair use permission, and their images are the best, but I´m not sure they have the licences anyway. Any thoughts? Kingfisherswift 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OWW doesn't actually own most of the images they've "given permission" for.Bdve 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly.. OWW is just a glorified fan site if you ask me. I actually helped with the site at one time, and got little credit for all the things I helped research. The main person in charge of the site lets just about anyone help him add things, but doesn't give decent credit. What a joke. The site has good reliable information most of the time, but there is still plenty of information that is wrong as well. But anyway, I'm sure there is other photo sites that would let us use photos here on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I truly think that Wrestlemania X8 should be considered the end and not Wrestlemania X7, because remind you that Wrestlemania X8 was the first and only time that huge stars from the Federation Era, New Generation Era, and Attitude Era were all on there. Add to the fact that ratings started declining and business started going down after X8, not X7. X8 was considered the peak IMO because Wrestlemania X8 was the last time that all of the A.E. stars were the main focus on storylines and such before new stars started coming in.

Austin's heel turn had nothing to do with ending the Attitude Era, because he'd become a face again later on that year anyways. I don't get why everybody says X7 ended it, when it obviously didn't.LC6 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I completely agree. Backlash 01, Summerslam 01, all of them had pretty high buyrates, they were all post mania-X7. X8 was the end, I agree. Kingfisherswift 14:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing. I mean how the hell was Wrestlemania X-7 the last PPV from WWE before business declined when 2001 was one of WWE's most profitable years?LC6 1:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed Michinoku Pro Wrestling, as influential as it was, didn't yet have an article and isn't even on the docket. Any particular reason, or can I just go ahead and get one started? --Endsmouth 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and start it if you want. I would but I know very little about Michinoku Pro Wrestling. TJ Spyke 05:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the listing of jobbers in the Job (professional wrestling) page, the listing need to be a little more concise and include just standard jobbers, not a bunch of current jobber-to-the-stars (JTTS) from Smackdown and such. If you look at sites like [11] you can get a feel to what someones win/loss record is. I have a hard time considering guys like Al Snow, Scotty 2 Hotty, Stevie Richards and such to be considered jobbers. There seems to be some comments made on the talk page, but some consensus should be made about the listing, or not have one at all. --Burgwerworldz 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Snow, the man who started the J.O.B. Squad not a jobber? I don't really think we need a list, especially one that includes "The Zombie" and "Slim the Stripper". Bdve 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Al Snow did win the Hardcore, European and Tag Team titles, and I just don't consider him a jobber, despite his classic gimmick. The ECW list should go for sure, that stripper guy didn't even have an official match, and the other one-offs are just that. --Burgwerworldz 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the jobber list should just go. Many of them listed aren't really jobbers, while others are obvious jobbers. But if you look at the indy work of WWF/E jobbers such as Barry Horowitz, Duane Gill and so on... they have won titles, and don't always lose. RobJ1981 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you and I both removed the one-off ECW guys, but they were reverted for some unvalid reason. I think we need to build some consensus as to how to have a jobber listing, if we should have one in the first place. --Burgwerworldz 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I doubt a jobber listing will work, it should just be gone. Not everyone will agree on what a jobber really is. Plus reverting back and forth will get tiresome after a while. If Will is reading this: a person that lost ONCE (or doesn't even wrestle: such as the stripper guy on ECW) isn't technically a jobber. Not to mention, they appeared once... I don't see how that is notable at all. RobJ1981 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not a jobber category then? Bdve 22:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is to say you won't see them again, or that one appearance as an obviously booked jobber is not enough? Could we at the very least make a separate paragraph for people who have been booked to job like Zombie, Slim, etc...WillC 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A jobber should be considered a relatively no-frills wrestler who has had relative longevity of basically losing every match. It is too early to tell at this point if the one-off ECW guys will return, and it should not be included at this point, if ever. And if the information is notable, then it can be put on the respective performer's pages. But calling someone like Koko B Ware a jobber is a matter of personal opinion, and we are here to provide a NPOV. --Burgwerworldz 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like a consensus decision on this before you unilaterally delete info off the page; you are no more/less of an expert than me. i call on you to restore the page. WillC 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL please, and RobJ1981 was the first one to remove the info, which I agreed with, and that's what the intent of my rvs were. --Burgwerworldz 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

CIVIL? good grief! i am being civil! i said we are on the same level! you need to read up on wiki etiquette about explaining your edits/reverts on the site when you do them, and also not removing relevant questions/comments from your talk page. WillC 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it insulting that you have attempted put myself down to your level. The message still has a hostile undertone, especially with the exclaimation points. Maybe you should stay out of this discussion for a bit and let others come up with their opinions. Just because something is valid doesn't mean it needs to be added here. --Burgwerworldz 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it insulting you think I am below you. WillC 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Legit jobbers seem to have gone the way of the buffalo recently. We're left with mostly Jobbers to the Stars and "upcoming" kids on shows like Velocity. True jobbers are guys like SD Jones and the Brooklyn Brawler who always lost, not guys who started out as losers then moved on to being somebody. If that's the qualifications we have to consider Mick Foley and HHH jobbers. - Bdve 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

which is why i support inclusion of the jobbers i keep having to restore because of burgwerworldz's unexplained reverts on the page itself....almost all wrestlers have jobbed, but it is easier to say the ones you mentioned are pure jobbers just as it is to say the recent ecw ones are. WillC 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What if we just added a sentence to the page that says something like: "Some of the most notable jobbers for major wrestling promotions include Barry Horowitz and Steve Lombardi."? --Burgwerworldz 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a compromise, but those things usually end up getting expanded back up to what has become the issue now when people stop watching them. Bdve 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The list should definitely be gone, as per Wikipedia:Embedded lists, which says lists make Wikipedia worse, not better. Not sure the sentence would keep away invalid entries from being added, but it's a thought. A category wouldn't be too good either. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Snow doesn't belong on that list at all. I think the list is a good idea as long as it doesn;t get out of hand. Honestly, when i think "jobber" I always think of the classic 80's and 70's type jobber (SD Jones, Lee Wong, Jake Milliman, Zane Hickey, Mike Davis, Rusty Brooks) than people like Al Snow or Stevie Richards. TruthCrusader 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So instead of deleting information, maybe we could attach years in which they jobbed. WillC 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, I would prefer just the list being gone. Years they jobbed isn't that easy to list, especially for guys like Duane Gill and Barry Horowitz; since they were jobbers for part of a year, and then actually won some matches later on in the year. Same goes for the basic jobbers of WWE now: Scotty Too Hotty, Val Venis, Funaki, etc: they job on the main shows... but have had wins at house shows, dark matches and the lesser shows (Heat, and the inactive Velocity). RobJ1981 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, we'll let consensus decide. Perhaps there could be some sort of disclaimer noting that they have been booked as jobbers for a large part of their career. Even if there is no list, there should be examples. WillC 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples, yes, in prose and with proper context. But a list just encourages edit wars over who is and isn't a jobber as more entries are added to the list, particularly wrestlers who have jobbing a lot recently but haven't made career out of jobbing. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

let's get started on that then....you don't like the way it is? you start. WillC 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page comments there about noting current jobbers. thoughts? WillC 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For that page, what exactly determines the year released? Is it when someone stopped wrestling or work regularly or what? I've noticed that Bruno Sammartino was listed at being released in 1981, but I know he still wrestled occasionally and commentated well into the late 1980s. Just wondering. --Burgwerworldz 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the page, and it just seems to be when the person was released (the most recent release, if the wrestler returned to WWE later on), retired or just quit. Some exceptions will happen though: Jesse Ventura for example. He has made several non-wrestling appearances since leaving WWF in 1990. As for Bruno, I have no idea why it says 1981. I think it's probably an error. If you know an exact year when he left WWF for good, fix the mistake...if not, leave it until an exact date is found. I think that list is incorrect in some spots, because it lists development wrestlers: such as the Wall, Jason Riggs, Johnny Riggs. I'm pretty sure the Wall never appeared on WWF/E television (unless it was briefly during the Invasion storyline..). The Riggs Brothers (Jason+Johnny) never appeared on WWE TV... how does that make them WWE alumni? You have to be part of WWE, to be an alumni... not just a part of WWE's development system. Same goes for all the wrestlers that weren't given contracts, when WWF/E bought WCW. I don't consider that alumni either, since they didn't appear on WWE TV either. RobJ1981 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think those developmental guys should go, I think this list is designed for more "full-time" talent. I looked up Mike Sanders, who had a similar situation, and according to this site [12] he only wrestled one dark match in 2002. Interesting that you bring up Jesse as he had retired from wrestling in the mid-80s, but is listed as when he was done as an announcer, hence "released" from the WWF. Bruno did retire from full-time wrestling in 1981, but was still in the WWF for much of the 1980s by managing, announcing and occasionally wrestling. I figure that his release date would be when he left the WWF, not when he quit wrestling full-time. This list could use some work, but I've fixed a bunch thanks to the website I just mentioned.--Burgwerworldz 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A dark match really isn't much either, so anyone on the alumni that did a dark match only..should be removed as well in my opinion. Dark matches aren't very memorable, and shouldn't consider someone an "alumni"... because if that's the case, you can include any random person that has done dark matches over the years (prior to when WWE decided to use development people alot in dark matches..). I deleted the "those whose contracts were involved in promotion merge". I'm sure it will be reverted...but it really doesn't need to be (unless by some chance, the people had ON-AIR appearances on television..which I doubt. Another note: Tony DeVito (on that section I deleted) was one of the people squashed by Sandman on the ECW show if I recall...so he basically has a contract with WWE now (even if it's verbal and/or pay-per appearance type of deal). RobJ1981 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)