This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I admit I haven't been watching WWE recently, but are Rochelle Loewen and Candace Michelle really wrestlers now? Last time I saw them was in Playboy (I, uh, read it for the articles...) — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Today i stumbled across this article ( Thomas Sanchez) at first i was gonna wikify and stub it, but then i started to read it and (please feel free to prove me wrong) its just doesnt seem true what so ever... i just cant believe someone wrote all that, considering its all false, it just seems really, really wierd. Anyway i just ask for one of you to read it and decide wether or not it should be put up for deletion --- Paulley
Do people really think it's necessary to include profile stats in metric units? Just wondering. -- Chrysaor 01:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Edit war forthcoming? Anyone want to intercede? Talk:Adam Copeland -- Jtalledo (talk) 12:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should we vfd Internet Wrestling Syndicate? The page seems like advertising and the promotion doesn't seem notable. -- Jtalledo (talk) 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The page does sound like advertising but the fed is somewhat notable. I believe Sid Vicious made his return match there and several Canadian indy wrestlers work out of there. Personally, I find some of their gimmicks disgusting (Damian the Aryan for example) but just as note worthy as some of the Indy feds that have articles-- Darren Jowalsen 03:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recently an anonymous editor changed Shane McMahon's name in in Vince's page to Andrew Shane McMahon. I didn't notice until Dale Arnett changed Shane's page to match. The IMDb and several other sources give Shane's full name as "Shane Brandon McMahon"; only a few pages from a Google search said Andrew Shane. I personally have never heard that his real first name is Andrew, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Does anyone know one way or the other which name is correct? -- Chrysaor 04:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a thought I had about cleaning up pro wrestling articles...right now there's no standard for wrestler bios. A lot of them have a set of statistics like height and weight, like the Marty Jannetty page (I believe you added stats to that one, Paulley), but a lot of them don't, especially the more popular wrestlers like Triple H and Shawn Michaels. I think all wrestlers should have them, or at least the active ones. Maybe we should set a standard for which statistics to have, and where in the article they should go? -- Chrysaor 20:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Another thought: it might help raise awareness if we add the project template to the talk pages of some of the more popular pro wrestling articles, like Hulk Hogan, World Wrestling Entertainment, RAW, SmackDown!, Triple H, etc. These are articles we're watching for vandalism all the time anyway, so they might as well be part of the project. -- Chrysaor 21:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The bios format is availible on my user page and talk page if anyone needs it. As for the other bios, i would say i like the Chris Benoit article, but for most active lower card, and indy wrestlers it wouldn't work, thats why i think my stardard for profiles is a good basis on which to built wrestler articles. Paulley 21:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[newly added] Can I just say something? The pro wrestling profile template is great, but I think you need to outline that if there are..
it would be better if they were taken out of the profile and put in a sub-heading – like Triple H. Opinion?
Edit: I also noticed
Stone Cold Steve Austin doesn't have a profile at all!
—
Mattrobs 03:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please can you guys overlook the contributions of User:Kks862003 he is adding badly formatted articles and adding many un tagged pictures... I have been spending much of my time recently recreating his articles to an acceptable standard, hence why we have the rookie diva article disscssion (which have cleaned up quite nicely). I just dont understand why he has not taken any notice that each article he has written is rewrote, and changed his contribs accordingly --- Paulley 16:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please can you guys overlook the contributions of User:Kks862003 AGAIN as he is adding stub articles under gimmick names with no stub or categry and is again adding many wrongly-tagged pictures... I have been spending much of my time recently recreating his articles to an acceptable standard... and has not responded to msgs left on his talk page--- Paulley 12:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
someone has recently changed the World Heavyweight Championship article regarding its links to it liniage. I know there are disputes to the claims of its WCW/NWA liniage but they shouldnt have put it one way or the other... esspecially as there are flaws to his argument.. some of which i have placed in the articles talk page. he seems to have this articles saying it has no claim and is a completely new belt while the NWA World Heavyweight Championship and WCW World Heavyweight Championship articles state its cliams to the titles history. Anyway i thought i would bring this to your attention, and see what your oppinions are -- Paulley 12:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may have been noted somewhere else, but I've noticed in the last week that more templates for Championships are popping up in articles (eg, Intercont. Champ.)
I think there has to be a more user-friendly way to do this. Just make a list and seperating them with | is not a solution.
A complex table may be the solution, but may not. Any alternatives?
— mattrobs 03:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should try to avoid using the WWE's (and other promotions') promotional terms unquestioningly, in the interest of NPOV. For example, the WWE refers to all of its wrestlers as "superstars", but if you asked the average person on the street who Heidenreich was, they wouldn't have a clue—hardly superstardom in the usual sense. Major figures like Hulk Hogan and The Rock can legitimately be called superstars, since they are or were household names, but even Mick Foley would probably be pushing it. The same with "divas" (a mostly WWE-only coinage for "female wrestlers and valets"). We should refer to them by their actual roles: wrestler, manager, valet, etc. Likewise, phrases like "the most hated man in the business" are POV (not to mention unclear: hated by who? Fans? Other wrestlers?). Promotions use terms like these to make things seem more dynamic, important, and exciting, but that's not our job.
We should also try to clearly distinguish between kayfabe and real-life events in bios (although this can be pretty hard to do). — Gwalla | Talk 06:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think there are too many pro wrestling articles marked with a the pro wrestling stub note and/or too many pro wrestling articles in general? I don't believe that there should be articles for every single wrestler or team that has performed or is performing in WWE or TNA. Perhaps we should only create ones of particular significance for primary wrestling stars. I still don't know why the heck Lauren Jones has an article here (with a picture no less). It seems that articles have been hastily created for wrestling items that are way too new to be significant (i.e. MNM). Heck, someone created an article for Carlito's Cabana after its first airing! I think we should probably concentrate on expanding article for obvious pro wrestling legends - Jimmy Snuka's article is way too small, considering how many wrestlers he has influenced.
And if we're going to make new articles, we might as well put enough content in there instead of just creating a new article quickly and sticking a stub note on there and leaving the note there for several months. Also, there are a lot of articles that are marked with the stub note (particularly those about pro wrestling slang terms) that probably don't even need more information. -- Jtalledo (talk) 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I was thinking we should use an infobox for the Profile info. Not that Paulley's profile isn't a good thing, but I think that many articles would flow better with the profile info off to one side, and more information about the wrestler's career, who he/she is, etc. as the main focus of the article.
Here's what I'm thinking about. I pasted in Paulley's profile model alongside for easy comparing and contrasting. I think using an Infobox presents a more attractive presentation, while keeping the stats aside and keeping the focus on the meat of the article--i.e. the description of the wrestler's life and career.
Whaddaya think?-- HBK 21:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The info box would work well with easily quantifiable data - birthday, hometown, height, weight - as these are universally short entries. However, entries such as "previous names" and "signature moves" can be anywhere from one to a dozen lines. I would suggest using the info box for the the former, and perhaps calling it "vital statistics" or something like that. McPhail 18:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Went ahead and made the statbox into a live template. Proper usage is as follows:
{{pwstatbox
|name={{{wrestler's name}}}
image={{{filename of pic, including extension}}}
|names={{{stage names, past and present, use <BR> tags to separate}}}
|height={{height, including units}}}
|weight={{{weight, including units}}}
|birthdate={{{birthdate}}}
|hometown={{{hometown}}}
|trainer={{{person or organization that trained wrestler}}}
|debut={{{date of professional debut}}}
|}}
There is also a pictureless version, usage is as follows:
{{pwstatbox/nopic
|name={{{wrestler's name}}}
|names={{{stage names, past and present, use <BR> tags to separate}}}
|height={{height, including units}}}
|weight={{{weight, including units}}}
|birthdate={{{birthdate}}}
|hometown={{{hometown}}}
|trainer={{{person or organization that trained wrestler}}}
|debut={{{date of professional debut}}}
|}}
I've taken the liberty of editing
Stephanie McMahon-Levesque to use the new statbox, as a demonstration. --
HBK 04:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Please vote for or against the infobox here and add your comments.
Consensus seems to be pretty thoroughly in favor of the infoboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A user has been adding "Canada" to the hometowns of Canadian wrestlers. However, most American wrestlers are simply described as being from "town, state", not "town, state, USA". Since pro-wrestling is not purely an America phenomenon (there are dozens of wrestling promotions in Mexico and Canada), I think it's unfair to impose this standard. It assumes that a wrestler is American unless stated otherwise, which borders on ethnocentrism. I think that hometowns should be left in the form "town, state/region", or unanimously changed to "home, state/region, country". Any thoughts? McPhail 13:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a huge problem, it's just that some people might be offended if the US is used as a "default" country of origin and therefore Canadian, Japanese, Mexican, etc. wrestlers are "anomalies". It would be ideal to have a uniform standard. McPhail 16:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should put home country in the home town field at all. Just wikilink it. It's not like anybody is going to think Wakayama Prefecture or Quebec is just a US state they haven't heard of before, after all. — Gwalla | Talk 03:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Have we reached a decision on the image tags of Image:ReyMysterioSpringboardDudley.jpg, Image:ReyMysterioCrossbody.jpg, and Image:EdgeDropKick.jpg yet
User:HeartBurn Kid Took the liberty of retagging all three photos with the {{promophoto}} tag, which stipulates that it may be used under fair use. Did this solve the problem? especially as all the other photos that are used of the same sort are placed under this and are not up for deletion. --- Paulley 16:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel like we're at a point where we could fix up an article well enough to make it a featured article candidate? Or is it too soon yet? — Gwalla | Talk 02:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering how specific the biographies are intended to be. For instance, many biographies contain information on recent storyline happenings in the wrestler's career, which over the long-run may end up being completely insignificant on the whole, compared with the rest of the wrestler's career. For instance, will anyone really care five years from now that William Regal issued an invitational for a team to challenge against his tag belt during an episode of Sunday Night Heat (one of the least-watched or cared about programs)? I severely doubt it. This problem becomes larger when people go into this sort of tedious detail for wrestlers who haven't even had significant public careers, let alone significant roles in current events. It has to be kept in mind that the wiki is not a news site, and it also has to be kept in mind that many wrestling websites already go into extremely fine detail on these sorts of things, and it would be a mammoth effort to even rival them on this basis. -- Pathogen 05:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Many articles are very short right now. As Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to limit articles to "really important things". Of course, I'm not suggesting that every minor fact should be reported in excruciating detail, but the "bias towards current events" is a problem that should be solved by researching and writing more about the past, not less about the present. McPhail 12:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user added "Include pronounciations ( sic) for most names for non-English speaking readers" to the to-do list. I removed it, since we haven't discussed it here, but let's discuss it. Is this necessary? I would guess that most people who read the English Wiki speak English, so it isn't necessary, but I wonder if anyone thinks it might be useful on most names rather than just the ambiguous ones. -- Chrysaor 21:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion: when a term used in pro wrestling has another meaning used more often outside of pro wrestling, append "(professional wrestling)" (without the quotes). When a name or stage name of a professional wrestler has another meaning or can refer to another person, append "(professional wrestler)". This should make things a bit more clear. However, if the term or name only has meaning in professional wrestling (as in kayfabe), do not append anything.
I'd also like to point out that this goes for when you add a link in an article, not just when you start a new article. Just today somebody added a finishing move for "Halo" to the list of finishers, and linked to Halo, which is of course about the ring of light in Christian religious art.
Wrestlers' bios should be under their real names when those are known, but their best known gimmicks should be redirects. If a gimmick has been portrayed by more than one wrestler, it should either be a disambig to the wrestlers or a more comprehensive article on the history of the gimmick (such as Tiger Mask). Don't refrain from writing a bio on a wrestler just because you don't know their real name, though—the article can always be moved when that information is known. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point in moving established wrestlers like The Rock, Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, etc. Entertainers such as Cher and Madonna (entertainer) are listed under their professional / stage names, not their real names. Fair enough if it's an anonymous indy wrestler who changes their name every week, but Stratus, Hogan, etc. are marketed under their ring names outwith wrestling, and so should be listed by their professional names. McPhail 23:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what should our policy on wrestler article titles be? The most popular stage name, or their real name if they've had multiple popular stage names? How does that sound? Let's come up with a standard so we can be consistent. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've said my piece about this earlier but I'd just like to say that we should think about what people are going to put in the search and what they are going to type in articles. For example, it is unnecessary to put Shane Douglas' article under "Troy Martin" because no one is going to type that into the search and having to type [Troy Martin| Shane Douglas] when he is always refered as "Shane Douglas" is wasted effort. So, I like Gwalla's proposal, gimmick names are what people are going to type up, so unless the name would need to be disambiguated, the person has had success under different names or other people have used the name (La Parka, Tiger Mask, Psicosis, etc.), use the gimmick name. Seems consistent with people like Butch Cassidy, Bono and Woody Allen, who have articles under the names they were famous as.-- Darren Jowalsen 20:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Right now a lot of moves in Professional wrestling throws, Professional wrestling holds, etc. have inconsistent capialization. This is partly my fault: when I started the throws article I capitalized all moves, unaware of the general policy of capitalizing only proper names in headings, and when I started the holds article I didn't. So it was an inconsistent mess from the start. We should work towards getting these in line with the Manual of Style.
But this isn't just about headings in those articles. It's capitalization of moves in general. Part of the problem is that people who write about wrestling (for fansites and the like) have a tendency to Capitalize Practically Everything, in ways That make No Sense, and it's bled over into our articles. I propose a general style rule for wrestling articles: moves under generic names (450 splash, hurricanrana, suplex, etc.) are uncapitalized, while the names of explicitly named signature moves and finishers are considered proper nouns and capitalized. So the crossface is uncapitalized, but the Crippler Crossface, Chris Benoit's finisher, is. There's a grey area for moves that were once named signature moves but are now generic (like the sharpshooter): the rule should be that when one is referred to in the context of its original namer or preceding its adoption as a generic term, it should be capitalized, but outside that context it should not.
Proper names for signature moves should be used only in the context of the wrestler who uses them under those names, and avoided outside of that context, unless there is no other generic way of referring to those moves (which should be rare—you can almost always construct a generic name like "tilt-a-whirl sit-out powerslam" or something unless it's totally unprecedented). — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that some of the the signature move lists are getting too big? I mean, some of them are approaching 10 moves, some of which the wrestler don't even perform in every match. If the move is a wrestler's unique variation of a common move, then that would obviously merit entry to the list, but a wrestler can only have so many "signature" moves and some moves like a generic spinebuster don't seem to be unique to a particular wrestler. Then there's the "Signature illegal weapon" information – it's not like every wrestler has a signature weapon. These weapons may be mentioned in the description of the wrestler, but I think that putting them in a list seems odd.
Happy editing. :) -- Jtalledo (talk) 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Events (pay per views, etc) comprise about half of all the entries on the category:professional wrestling page ( here), and are likely to consume more space as time passes. I think a subcategory along the lines of "Professional wrestling events" would help to organise the page. Any thoughts? McPhail 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Today, i found this article Spanish announcers' table... i cleaned it up a little, but there is something i just dont like about it... anyway i was wondering if someone had enough info to write an article on the tables used in professional wrestling ( Table (professional wrestling)) and have a sub section on that article about annoucer's tables in general and then merge Spanish announcers' table in with that. Your thoughts? --- Paulley 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed the article up a small bit. I am fine with the way it is, also. -- Pathogen 19:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These links may prove helpful, particularly as references for old-time wrestling:
McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can it. No one here even knows what it actually is, and the article has no subtance whatsoever. -- Pathogen 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
[[Image:{{{image}}}|200px]] | |
Statistics | |
Stage names | {{{names}}} |
Height | {{{height}}} |
Weight | {{{weight}}} |
Birthdate | {{{birthdate}}} |
Hometown | {{{hometown}}} |
Trained by | {{{trainer}}} |
Professional Debut | {{{debut}}} |
The current pwstatbox template has some bad points, which I suggest we correct.
The biggest problem is the fact that values are centered. I changed the alignment to "left".I moved the name inside the box. I also changed the statistics title background color and changed "Vital Statistics" to "Statistics". I also added some padding between the content and the border.
Some typography experts suggest that the item names should be right-aligned (Eg. Height, Weight here). However I don't see other stats boxes using this in Wikipedia, so I decided not to change it. I also tried giving the {{{name}}} the same background color as Statistics, but this doesn't really work for the imageless version.
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
Statistics | |
Stage names | {{{names}}} |
Height | {{{height}}} |
Weight | {{{weight}}} |
Birthdate | {{{birthdate}}} |
Hometown | {{{hometown}}} |
Trained by | {{{trainer}}} |
Professional Debut | {{{debut}}} |
--
Lakes 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a way to make parameters optional using {{ if defined call1}} amd {{ if defined call2}}, but it's sort of odd. I tried applying it to a temporary copy of the pwstatbox in my userpage, but couldn't get it to work. If somebody could figure it out, though, it'd be nice to make the image optional so we don't have to have two different templates. — Gwalla | Talk 04:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It might be my browser settings, but the
Randy Orton article seems to have PWstatbox problems. Right now there's a block of gibberish at the top of the page related to the stat box.
McPhail 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I added the died and retired parameters and it seems to be okay.
McPhail 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Given that a lot of wrestlers now use songs played by actual bands rather than in-house stuff, should there be a list of wrestling entrance themes, like List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers but with song names and band names? McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to say, I don't like the titleholders navboxes very much. Each one basically duplicates the contents of a ...Championship or List of ... champions article, and for any wrestler who has held more than one title (which is practically any wrestler who deserves an article) they quickly pile up at the bottom of the article in an ugly mess. Navboxes should be small and unobtrusive; the current situation is just clutter. They're particularly pointless given that we also have the "championships and titles" section in bios and in many cases use small tables that show the preceding and succeeding titleholders and link to the titles' articles. I think we could safely do away with the navboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like there's a mini edit-war going on involving myself and McPhail on the Jason Reso article. I should explain my recent edits. The thing is, the page seems to violate the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Embedded list, which states, in part:
"As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."
"Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better.".
My primary issue with this in this article and other wrestler is that a lot of this information can be included in the article as prose and some information such as managers and birthdate is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article. -- Jtalledo (talk) 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should we rethink the "no spoilers" policy? Wikipedia is primarily an information repository, and I don't see why we have an obligation to suppress information for two days after it becomes available. McPhail 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)
Isnt the list we have already good enough? i dont think we need these:
Paulley 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
Hi, Im Moe Epsilon and I would like to be a part of your professional wrestling WikiProject, is there something special I have to do to join you guys? I have made numerous edits on professional wrestling articles and I think it would give me something better to do with my time if I could to join. Moe Epsilon 9 July 2005 1:19 (UTC)
I keep reading List of professional wrestlers and RAW an seeing Hulk Hogan's name added to the roster. I posted a message in between the space you would put his name, to not add his name, but someone keeps on adding Hogan's name regardless. If its someone on this project please stop adding his name. — Moe ε 9 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
Who was it? — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Dont know who it was. — Moe ε 10 July 2005 2:43 (UTC)
The page history should say. — Gwalla | Talk 04:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I added Hogan. He appeared on RAW for two straight weeks and appears to be beginning a programme with Shawn Michaels. There's more logic to including Hogan than to including The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin. Your only explanation for removing him was that he "hasn't signed any contract" which is pure speculation. I imagine he's on a per-appearance basis. McPhail 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Dont add Hogan's name, he's only appearing until SummerSlam to promote his new reality show, Hogan knows best. He is NOT going to be a full time wrestler. — Moe ε 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Then keep him on there until SummerSlam. McPhail 20:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the list is for the actual roster, not for wrestlers who appear sporadically. — Moe ε 20:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the list is of "Current RAW wrestlers". Hogan is a current RAW wrestler. Whether or not he has signed a contract is irrelevant. The Rock has no contract and hasn't been on RAW for half a year and he is still listed. Austin appears "sporadically" and he is listed. Hogan stays until you can provide a convincing reason for his removal. McPhail 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Youre right Austin, Rock and Mick Foley are on there but they shouldn't be. Thats why all four Austin, Rock, Foley and Hogan should be removed. Hogan, Foley and Rock aren't contracted but only make appearances and Austin is contracted but only under WWE films, not a wrestling contract. — Moe ε 22:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Just as long as it's consistent. Also, when you remove people from one section of the list of professional wrestlers, please make sure to reinsert them in Unaffiliated/Retired. McPhail 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll make sure and do that and I agree to consistancy. — Moe ε 22:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
PWInsider.com has reported that the Dudley Boyz will have full use of their stage names when they leave WWE. [2] Should we change Mark Lamonica and Devon Hughes to Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley now. I believe if this development is true, we ought to. If this isn't an outright case about when to use the stage name as the article name for a wrestler, then there aren't any outright cases about this issue. -- Jtalledo (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There are some OVW stars that were recently moved from OVW to the main rosters of RAW and SmackDown! namely, The Boogey Man (Marty Wright) went to RAW, and Frankie Kazarian, and Vito (Vito LaGrasso) went to SmackDown! as they will appear regulary for WWE now. — Moe ε 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I created new sections under List of professional wrestlers where it includes the independant circuit and the wrestlers that are included in an attempt at expanding on just the unaffilated/retired section. — Moe ε 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to end all professional wrestling related red links. If you see a red link I don't have listed on my user page thats pro wrestling related type it on my discussion page here and I will create an article for it. — Moe ε 06:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Watch out for people vandalizing the Jackie Gayda article. Over the past two days, I had to revert the article from a few IP blocks and User:Y2Arthur. These guys are mostly restoring or editing the section called "Rumors", which reads "It is rumored that Jackie Gayda gave her fiance, Charlie Haas, handjobs before his matches to relive tension. Also she used the seman and lotion before any match." -- LBMixPro (Speak on it!) 07:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
User Lakes has made several unnecessary changes to the 'Profile' portion of the Darren Matthews page. My attempts to revert have been ignored and themselves reverted. I was directed to present this argument on this projects page.
A look at the history of the article will indicate that changes made by User Lakes are totally unnecessary to the page and also go against typical methods of creation for 'Signature Moves' sections. The capitalization of this moves falls in line with grammatical standards. With respect to the height and weight measurements, the previous measurements are accurate and should stand. There is no need to convert to centimeters. I will, however, concede to dropping the .03 on weight, even though I feel that, too, to be unwarranted. - Soltak 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
For the various lists of championship titles that a wrestler has won, the listing for most of the pages seem to have a little too much white space on them which makes it quite distracting and are inconsistent with the remaining sections. Look at Rick Martel for instance, that is an example, as most of the pages have this. Would it be agreed upon that a project is needed to tighten up the text in these areas? Mcfly85 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should come up with a common formatting for wrestler profiles that would go to the project page, both for articles that use the statbox and those who don't need it.
== Career == Yaddayaddayadda == Profile == *Height: X ft Y in (XYZ cm) *Weight: XYZ lb (XYZ kg) *Born: *Died: *Hometown: *Billed from: *Stage names: *Factions: *Debut: *Retired: === Quotes === * Yadda yadda === Finishers and signature moves === * Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case) * Signature == Championships and accomplishments == ====Organisation 1==== *X-Time Yadda yadda champion == External links ==
Is my suggestion for the statboxless version. The imperial/metric height/weight take preference from the persons nationality. Basically metric units would be first for Japanese, German, etc wrestlers. Comments? (This is of course based on Paulley's format.) Lakes 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Finishing move(s) === * Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case) ==== Signature move(s) ==== * Signature ====with Bob==== * Double Team ("Simple" name in lower case)
Now im all for creating new articles and converting all red links into something... but like i have said before "Quality, not Quantity". why are you trying to spread out little amounts of info when you could be writing a cereer section; note the Wagner Brown page, of which i added the small bit of info the replace your below average stub. if it was just one article i would say fair enough and just recreate it with out saying anything but i have been goin through many of these stubs of yours correcting and recreating.... also why is everyone Mike Modest to you?????????????? if your gonna copy and paste at least change the links and categorys --- Paulley 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) --- dont take any of this personally, as i am only looking out for the quality of are articles.... i dont want to be having to follow you around like i did User:Kks862003 'til he began to see reason
Hello! I am going to put my username on the Participants list and help out with the wrestling articles. I have been doing alot of edits on them recently and have noticed alot of names for titles are incorrect. One of the biggest examples is the "Mid-Southern" area titles. They were called Mid-Southern titles until 1987, when they became "AWA" titles (AWA Southern Heavyweight Title, etc.). I named the title history as the AWA Southern Title because it was the best known name for it, but the fact is that somebody who held the title in 1977 held it as the Mid-Southern Title instead of the AWA Southern Title and in my humble opinion, needs to be listed as the Mid-Southern Title on their page. Another huge mess (in my opinion) is saying that for example, Tully Blanchard was a WWE World Tag Team Champion, when he was a WWF World Tag Team Champion. There have been tons of these and I have been changing them all.
What do you guys think about this? I am just trying to keep the titles under the names that they were known by when the wrestler held them.
Please let me know what you think about this! I know it is kinda late, I have changed so many of them, but your opinions are very much valued since you guys do alot of work on here! Thanks in advance!
Also, what is UTC?!? I always put US ET for United States Eastern Time Zone because I have no idea what UTC is! --- Phatcat68 22:14, 20 July 2005 (US ET)
I think we need to really rethink how we're organizing articles. We're depending way too heavily on lists.
Take the moves articles. They're essentially just lists at the moment. It would be more encyclopedic to discuss the various moves and their distinctions in flowing prose, rather than short descriptions chopped into chunks. For example, rather than having a subsection for each leg lock (and these sections are usually on the order of one or two paragraphs long—not good), have a single section on them that describes the various kinds of leg locks and how to identify them (such as how to tell a toe hold from an ankle lock). This would also avoid the formatting problems regarding images overlapping multiple sections. We wouldn't be able to link directly to specific moves anymore, but we probably shouldn't be doing that anyway.
Similarly, we should be working towards championship articles that actually discuss their histories, rather than simply dumping a list of champs in chronological order. Basically, telling the story of the title: not just who won it when, but the major feuds and angles surrounding those title changes; even particularly famous or important defenses when applicable. That's not to say that we shouldn't have the lists of champions at all, but just that they should be subordinate to the prose rather than dominating it. Right now in many cases the title article is more or less a stubby introduction to the list of champions (whether it's in the same article or a separate one), which is where the actual information is (in some cases it's bulked up slightly by a trivia section: yet another list-of-facts). — Gwalla | Talk 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to let you all know that I added two sub-categories to the Professional wrestling performers category to try to decrease the amount of entries in it. I added Professional wrestling referees and Professional wrestling announcers. Those two sub-categories took it down from 210 entries to 175.
I was wondering if you all thought we should make another sub-category for Professional wrestling managers and valets to distinguish them from the others or if the articles themselves would do that for us.
Thanks! -- Phatcat68 | Talk 12:48, 26 July 2005 (US ET)
I saw no other alternative with the List of professional wrestlers and because of it's enormous number of wrestlers, I decided to divide it up into the promotion they were under. It's size I belive when I was going to add another set of wrestlers was at 43 kilobytes. Wikipedia says start dividing it up at 32 so Im sure you understand why I did this. — Moe ε 01:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, just joined the project, though I've been working on professional wrestling pages sporadically since I got here. A question-- when is it appropriate to use "WWF" in an article, and when's it appropriate to use "WWE"? For example, I saw in Kurt Angle's biography that Team WWE defeated Team Alliance at Survivor Series '01, which needless to say isn't right. Should we be making references to WWE only after the name change, or use WWE throughout?
Title histories are a different matter, of course. I figure Hulk Hogan should be listed as a six-time WWE Champion since he held one of those titles during the name transition, but someone like Bob Backlund, for example, would only have held the WWF Championship. ekedolphin 02:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed a few days ago that there's an article entitled Christian & Tyson Tomko which talks a little bit about that team. I think it ought to be deleted. This pairing's already mentioned in both Christian and Tomko's biographies, and it's not as if they actually accomplished much as a team. Thoughts? ekedolphin 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Just so everyone understands, there are two promotions called Deep South Wrestling. I created both Deep South Wrestling and Deep South Wrestling, LLC. Deep South Wrestling, LLC is the secondary developmental territory for the WWE. Deep South Wrestling is a promotion that features wrestlers from the 80's, 90's and present. Put it simply, one's the developmental territory for WWE and one's a indy circuit promotion. — Moe ε 22:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to know what the general consensus is on the headers for championships held. I got a message saying that I should not capitalize all words, but I know a majority of the pages have all words capitalized anyway. I think the words should be (except for and/or) all starting with caps. I have seen so many variations on these headers, I'd like to know what's up. Mcfly85 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I admit I haven't been watching WWE recently, but are Rochelle Loewen and Candace Michelle really wrestlers now? Last time I saw them was in Playboy (I, uh, read it for the articles...) — Gwalla | Talk 04:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Today i stumbled across this article ( Thomas Sanchez) at first i was gonna wikify and stub it, but then i started to read it and (please feel free to prove me wrong) its just doesnt seem true what so ever... i just cant believe someone wrote all that, considering its all false, it just seems really, really wierd. Anyway i just ask for one of you to read it and decide wether or not it should be put up for deletion --- Paulley
Do people really think it's necessary to include profile stats in metric units? Just wondering. -- Chrysaor 01:12, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Edit war forthcoming? Anyone want to intercede? Talk:Adam Copeland -- Jtalledo (talk) 12:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Should we vfd Internet Wrestling Syndicate? The page seems like advertising and the promotion doesn't seem notable. -- Jtalledo (talk) 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The page does sound like advertising but the fed is somewhat notable. I believe Sid Vicious made his return match there and several Canadian indy wrestlers work out of there. Personally, I find some of their gimmicks disgusting (Damian the Aryan for example) but just as note worthy as some of the Indy feds that have articles-- Darren Jowalsen 03:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Recently an anonymous editor changed Shane McMahon's name in in Vince's page to Andrew Shane McMahon. I didn't notice until Dale Arnett changed Shane's page to match. The IMDb and several other sources give Shane's full name as "Shane Brandon McMahon"; only a few pages from a Google search said Andrew Shane. I personally have never heard that his real first name is Andrew, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Does anyone know one way or the other which name is correct? -- Chrysaor 04:22, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Here's a thought I had about cleaning up pro wrestling articles...right now there's no standard for wrestler bios. A lot of them have a set of statistics like height and weight, like the Marty Jannetty page (I believe you added stats to that one, Paulley), but a lot of them don't, especially the more popular wrestlers like Triple H and Shawn Michaels. I think all wrestlers should have them, or at least the active ones. Maybe we should set a standard for which statistics to have, and where in the article they should go? -- Chrysaor 20:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Another thought: it might help raise awareness if we add the project template to the talk pages of some of the more popular pro wrestling articles, like Hulk Hogan, World Wrestling Entertainment, RAW, SmackDown!, Triple H, etc. These are articles we're watching for vandalism all the time anyway, so they might as well be part of the project. -- Chrysaor 21:02, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The bios format is availible on my user page and talk page if anyone needs it. As for the other bios, i would say i like the Chris Benoit article, but for most active lower card, and indy wrestlers it wouldn't work, thats why i think my stardard for profiles is a good basis on which to built wrestler articles. Paulley 21:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[newly added] Can I just say something? The pro wrestling profile template is great, but I think you need to outline that if there are..
it would be better if they were taken out of the profile and put in a sub-heading – like Triple H. Opinion?
Edit: I also noticed
Stone Cold Steve Austin doesn't have a profile at all!
—
Mattrobs 03:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please can you guys overlook the contributions of User:Kks862003 he is adding badly formatted articles and adding many un tagged pictures... I have been spending much of my time recently recreating his articles to an acceptable standard, hence why we have the rookie diva article disscssion (which have cleaned up quite nicely). I just dont understand why he has not taken any notice that each article he has written is rewrote, and changed his contribs accordingly --- Paulley 16:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please can you guys overlook the contributions of User:Kks862003 AGAIN as he is adding stub articles under gimmick names with no stub or categry and is again adding many wrongly-tagged pictures... I have been spending much of my time recently recreating his articles to an acceptable standard... and has not responded to msgs left on his talk page--- Paulley 12:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
someone has recently changed the World Heavyweight Championship article regarding its links to it liniage. I know there are disputes to the claims of its WCW/NWA liniage but they shouldnt have put it one way or the other... esspecially as there are flaws to his argument.. some of which i have placed in the articles talk page. he seems to have this articles saying it has no claim and is a completely new belt while the NWA World Heavyweight Championship and WCW World Heavyweight Championship articles state its cliams to the titles history. Anyway i thought i would bring this to your attention, and see what your oppinions are -- Paulley 12:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It may have been noted somewhere else, but I've noticed in the last week that more templates for Championships are popping up in articles (eg, Intercont. Champ.)
I think there has to be a more user-friendly way to do this. Just make a list and seperating them with | is not a solution.
A complex table may be the solution, but may not. Any alternatives?
— mattrobs 03:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should try to avoid using the WWE's (and other promotions') promotional terms unquestioningly, in the interest of NPOV. For example, the WWE refers to all of its wrestlers as "superstars", but if you asked the average person on the street who Heidenreich was, they wouldn't have a clue—hardly superstardom in the usual sense. Major figures like Hulk Hogan and The Rock can legitimately be called superstars, since they are or were household names, but even Mick Foley would probably be pushing it. The same with "divas" (a mostly WWE-only coinage for "female wrestlers and valets"). We should refer to them by their actual roles: wrestler, manager, valet, etc. Likewise, phrases like "the most hated man in the business" are POV (not to mention unclear: hated by who? Fans? Other wrestlers?). Promotions use terms like these to make things seem more dynamic, important, and exciting, but that's not our job.
We should also try to clearly distinguish between kayfabe and real-life events in bios (although this can be pretty hard to do). — Gwalla | Talk 06:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think there are too many pro wrestling articles marked with a the pro wrestling stub note and/or too many pro wrestling articles in general? I don't believe that there should be articles for every single wrestler or team that has performed or is performing in WWE or TNA. Perhaps we should only create ones of particular significance for primary wrestling stars. I still don't know why the heck Lauren Jones has an article here (with a picture no less). It seems that articles have been hastily created for wrestling items that are way too new to be significant (i.e. MNM). Heck, someone created an article for Carlito's Cabana after its first airing! I think we should probably concentrate on expanding article for obvious pro wrestling legends - Jimmy Snuka's article is way too small, considering how many wrestlers he has influenced.
And if we're going to make new articles, we might as well put enough content in there instead of just creating a new article quickly and sticking a stub note on there and leaving the note there for several months. Also, there are a lot of articles that are marked with the stub note (particularly those about pro wrestling slang terms) that probably don't even need more information. -- Jtalledo (talk) 22:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I was thinking we should use an infobox for the Profile info. Not that Paulley's profile isn't a good thing, but I think that many articles would flow better with the profile info off to one side, and more information about the wrestler's career, who he/she is, etc. as the main focus of the article.
Here's what I'm thinking about. I pasted in Paulley's profile model alongside for easy comparing and contrasting. I think using an Infobox presents a more attractive presentation, while keeping the stats aside and keeping the focus on the meat of the article--i.e. the description of the wrestler's life and career.
Whaddaya think?-- HBK 21:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The info box would work well with easily quantifiable data - birthday, hometown, height, weight - as these are universally short entries. However, entries such as "previous names" and "signature moves" can be anywhere from one to a dozen lines. I would suggest using the info box for the the former, and perhaps calling it "vital statistics" or something like that. McPhail 18:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Went ahead and made the statbox into a live template. Proper usage is as follows:
{{pwstatbox
|name={{{wrestler's name}}}
image={{{filename of pic, including extension}}}
|names={{{stage names, past and present, use <BR> tags to separate}}}
|height={{height, including units}}}
|weight={{{weight, including units}}}
|birthdate={{{birthdate}}}
|hometown={{{hometown}}}
|trainer={{{person or organization that trained wrestler}}}
|debut={{{date of professional debut}}}
|}}
There is also a pictureless version, usage is as follows:
{{pwstatbox/nopic
|name={{{wrestler's name}}}
|names={{{stage names, past and present, use <BR> tags to separate}}}
|height={{height, including units}}}
|weight={{{weight, including units}}}
|birthdate={{{birthdate}}}
|hometown={{{hometown}}}
|trainer={{{person or organization that trained wrestler}}}
|debut={{{date of professional debut}}}
|}}
I've taken the liberty of editing
Stephanie McMahon-Levesque to use the new statbox, as a demonstration. --
HBK 04:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Please vote for or against the infobox here and add your comments.
Consensus seems to be pretty thoroughly in favor of the infoboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
A user has been adding "Canada" to the hometowns of Canadian wrestlers. However, most American wrestlers are simply described as being from "town, state", not "town, state, USA". Since pro-wrestling is not purely an America phenomenon (there are dozens of wrestling promotions in Mexico and Canada), I think it's unfair to impose this standard. It assumes that a wrestler is American unless stated otherwise, which borders on ethnocentrism. I think that hometowns should be left in the form "town, state/region", or unanimously changed to "home, state/region, country". Any thoughts? McPhail 13:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a huge problem, it's just that some people might be offended if the US is used as a "default" country of origin and therefore Canadian, Japanese, Mexican, etc. wrestlers are "anomalies". It would be ideal to have a uniform standard. McPhail 16:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should put home country in the home town field at all. Just wikilink it. It's not like anybody is going to think Wakayama Prefecture or Quebec is just a US state they haven't heard of before, after all. — Gwalla | Talk 03:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Have we reached a decision on the image tags of Image:ReyMysterioSpringboardDudley.jpg, Image:ReyMysterioCrossbody.jpg, and Image:EdgeDropKick.jpg yet
User:HeartBurn Kid Took the liberty of retagging all three photos with the {{promophoto}} tag, which stipulates that it may be used under fair use. Did this solve the problem? especially as all the other photos that are used of the same sort are placed under this and are not up for deletion. --- Paulley 16:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel like we're at a point where we could fix up an article well enough to make it a featured article candidate? Or is it too soon yet? — Gwalla | Talk 02:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering how specific the biographies are intended to be. For instance, many biographies contain information on recent storyline happenings in the wrestler's career, which over the long-run may end up being completely insignificant on the whole, compared with the rest of the wrestler's career. For instance, will anyone really care five years from now that William Regal issued an invitational for a team to challenge against his tag belt during an episode of Sunday Night Heat (one of the least-watched or cared about programs)? I severely doubt it. This problem becomes larger when people go into this sort of tedious detail for wrestlers who haven't even had significant public careers, let alone significant roles in current events. It has to be kept in mind that the wiki is not a news site, and it also has to be kept in mind that many wrestling websites already go into extremely fine detail on these sorts of things, and it would be a mammoth effort to even rival them on this basis. -- Pathogen 05:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Many articles are very short right now. As Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to limit articles to "really important things". Of course, I'm not suggesting that every minor fact should be reported in excruciating detail, but the "bias towards current events" is a problem that should be solved by researching and writing more about the past, not less about the present. McPhail 12:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous user added "Include pronounciations ( sic) for most names for non-English speaking readers" to the to-do list. I removed it, since we haven't discussed it here, but let's discuss it. Is this necessary? I would guess that most people who read the English Wiki speak English, so it isn't necessary, but I wonder if anyone thinks it might be useful on most names rather than just the ambiguous ones. -- Chrysaor 21:45, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion: when a term used in pro wrestling has another meaning used more often outside of pro wrestling, append "(professional wrestling)" (without the quotes). When a name or stage name of a professional wrestler has another meaning or can refer to another person, append "(professional wrestler)". This should make things a bit more clear. However, if the term or name only has meaning in professional wrestling (as in kayfabe), do not append anything.
I'd also like to point out that this goes for when you add a link in an article, not just when you start a new article. Just today somebody added a finishing move for "Halo" to the list of finishers, and linked to Halo, which is of course about the ring of light in Christian religious art.
Wrestlers' bios should be under their real names when those are known, but their best known gimmicks should be redirects. If a gimmick has been portrayed by more than one wrestler, it should either be a disambig to the wrestlers or a more comprehensive article on the history of the gimmick (such as Tiger Mask). Don't refrain from writing a bio on a wrestler just because you don't know their real name, though—the article can always be moved when that information is known. — Gwalla | Talk 21:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't see the point in moving established wrestlers like The Rock, Steve Austin, Trish Stratus, etc. Entertainers such as Cher and Madonna (entertainer) are listed under their professional / stage names, not their real names. Fair enough if it's an anonymous indy wrestler who changes their name every week, but Stratus, Hogan, etc. are marketed under their ring names outwith wrestling, and so should be listed by their professional names. McPhail 23:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
So, what should our policy on wrestler article titles be? The most popular stage name, or their real name if they've had multiple popular stage names? How does that sound? Let's come up with a standard so we can be consistent. — Gwalla | Talk 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've said my piece about this earlier but I'd just like to say that we should think about what people are going to put in the search and what they are going to type in articles. For example, it is unnecessary to put Shane Douglas' article under "Troy Martin" because no one is going to type that into the search and having to type [Troy Martin| Shane Douglas] when he is always refered as "Shane Douglas" is wasted effort. So, I like Gwalla's proposal, gimmick names are what people are going to type up, so unless the name would need to be disambiguated, the person has had success under different names or other people have used the name (La Parka, Tiger Mask, Psicosis, etc.), use the gimmick name. Seems consistent with people like Butch Cassidy, Bono and Woody Allen, who have articles under the names they were famous as.-- Darren Jowalsen 20:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Right now a lot of moves in Professional wrestling throws, Professional wrestling holds, etc. have inconsistent capialization. This is partly my fault: when I started the throws article I capitalized all moves, unaware of the general policy of capitalizing only proper names in headings, and when I started the holds article I didn't. So it was an inconsistent mess from the start. We should work towards getting these in line with the Manual of Style.
But this isn't just about headings in those articles. It's capitalization of moves in general. Part of the problem is that people who write about wrestling (for fansites and the like) have a tendency to Capitalize Practically Everything, in ways That make No Sense, and it's bled over into our articles. I propose a general style rule for wrestling articles: moves under generic names (450 splash, hurricanrana, suplex, etc.) are uncapitalized, while the names of explicitly named signature moves and finishers are considered proper nouns and capitalized. So the crossface is uncapitalized, but the Crippler Crossface, Chris Benoit's finisher, is. There's a grey area for moves that were once named signature moves but are now generic (like the sharpshooter): the rule should be that when one is referred to in the context of its original namer or preceding its adoption as a generic term, it should be capitalized, but outside that context it should not.
Proper names for signature moves should be used only in the context of the wrestler who uses them under those names, and avoided outside of that context, unless there is no other generic way of referring to those moves (which should be rare—you can almost always construct a generic name like "tilt-a-whirl sit-out powerslam" or something unless it's totally unprecedented). — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that some of the the signature move lists are getting too big? I mean, some of them are approaching 10 moves, some of which the wrestler don't even perform in every match. If the move is a wrestler's unique variation of a common move, then that would obviously merit entry to the list, but a wrestler can only have so many "signature" moves and some moves like a generic spinebuster don't seem to be unique to a particular wrestler. Then there's the "Signature illegal weapon" information – it's not like every wrestler has a signature weapon. These weapons may be mentioned in the description of the wrestler, but I think that putting them in a list seems odd.
Happy editing. :) -- Jtalledo (talk) 01:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Events (pay per views, etc) comprise about half of all the entries on the category:professional wrestling page ( here), and are likely to consume more space as time passes. I think a subcategory along the lines of "Professional wrestling events" would help to organise the page. Any thoughts? McPhail 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Today, i found this article Spanish announcers' table... i cleaned it up a little, but there is something i just dont like about it... anyway i was wondering if someone had enough info to write an article on the tables used in professional wrestling ( Table (professional wrestling)) and have a sub section on that article about annoucer's tables in general and then merge Spanish announcers' table in with that. Your thoughts? --- Paulley 19:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fixed the article up a small bit. I am fine with the way it is, also. -- Pathogen 19:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These links may prove helpful, particularly as references for old-time wrestling:
McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can it. No one here even knows what it actually is, and the article has no subtance whatsoever. -- Pathogen 21:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
[[Image:{{{image}}}|200px]] | |
Statistics | |
Stage names | {{{names}}} |
Height | {{{height}}} |
Weight | {{{weight}}} |
Birthdate | {{{birthdate}}} |
Hometown | {{{hometown}}} |
Trained by | {{{trainer}}} |
Professional Debut | {{{debut}}} |
The current pwstatbox template has some bad points, which I suggest we correct.
The biggest problem is the fact that values are centered. I changed the alignment to "left".I moved the name inside the box. I also changed the statistics title background color and changed "Vital Statistics" to "Statistics". I also added some padding between the content and the border.
Some typography experts suggest that the item names should be right-aligned (Eg. Height, Weight here). However I don't see other stats boxes using this in Wikipedia, so I decided not to change it. I also tried giving the {{{name}}} the same background color as Statistics, but this doesn't really work for the imageless version.
{{{name}}} | |
---|---|
Statistics | |
Stage names | {{{names}}} |
Height | {{{height}}} |
Weight | {{{weight}}} |
Birthdate | {{{birthdate}}} |
Hometown | {{{hometown}}} |
Trained by | {{{trainer}}} |
Professional Debut | {{{debut}}} |
--
Lakes 21:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a way to make parameters optional using {{ if defined call1}} amd {{ if defined call2}}, but it's sort of odd. I tried applying it to a temporary copy of the pwstatbox in my userpage, but couldn't get it to work. If somebody could figure it out, though, it'd be nice to make the image optional so we don't have to have two different templates. — Gwalla | Talk 04:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It might be my browser settings, but the
Randy Orton article seems to have PWstatbox problems. Right now there's a block of gibberish at the top of the page related to the stat box.
McPhail 13:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I added the died and retired parameters and it seems to be okay.
McPhail 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Given that a lot of wrestlers now use songs played by actual bands rather than in-house stuff, should there be a list of wrestling entrance themes, like List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers but with song names and band names? McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to say, I don't like the titleholders navboxes very much. Each one basically duplicates the contents of a ...Championship or List of ... champions article, and for any wrestler who has held more than one title (which is practically any wrestler who deserves an article) they quickly pile up at the bottom of the article in an ugly mess. Navboxes should be small and unobtrusive; the current situation is just clutter. They're particularly pointless given that we also have the "championships and titles" section in bios and in many cases use small tables that show the preceding and succeeding titleholders and link to the titles' articles. I think we could safely do away with the navboxes. — Gwalla | Talk 02:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Looks like there's a mini edit-war going on involving myself and McPhail on the Jason Reso article. I should explain my recent edits. The thing is, the page seems to violate the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Embedded list, which states, in part:
"As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."
"Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better.".
My primary issue with this in this article and other wrestler is that a lot of this information can be included in the article as prose and some information such as managers and birthdate is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article. -- Jtalledo (talk) 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Should we rethink the "no spoilers" policy? Wikipedia is primarily an information repository, and I don't see why we have an obligation to suppress information for two days after it becomes available. McPhail 28 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)
Isnt the list we have already good enough? i dont think we need these:
Paulley 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
Hi, Im Moe Epsilon and I would like to be a part of your professional wrestling WikiProject, is there something special I have to do to join you guys? I have made numerous edits on professional wrestling articles and I think it would give me something better to do with my time if I could to join. Moe Epsilon 9 July 2005 1:19 (UTC)
I keep reading List of professional wrestlers and RAW an seeing Hulk Hogan's name added to the roster. I posted a message in between the space you would put his name, to not add his name, but someone keeps on adding Hogan's name regardless. If its someone on this project please stop adding his name. — Moe ε 9 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
Who was it? — Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Dont know who it was. — Moe ε 10 July 2005 2:43 (UTC)
The page history should say. — Gwalla | Talk 04:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I added Hogan. He appeared on RAW for two straight weeks and appears to be beginning a programme with Shawn Michaels. There's more logic to including Hogan than to including The Rock or Stone Cold Steve Austin. Your only explanation for removing him was that he "hasn't signed any contract" which is pure speculation. I imagine he's on a per-appearance basis. McPhail 11:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Dont add Hogan's name, he's only appearing until SummerSlam to promote his new reality show, Hogan knows best. He is NOT going to be a full time wrestler. — Moe ε 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Then keep him on there until SummerSlam. McPhail 20:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the list is for the actual roster, not for wrestlers who appear sporadically. — Moe ε 20:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the list is of "Current RAW wrestlers". Hogan is a current RAW wrestler. Whether or not he has signed a contract is irrelevant. The Rock has no contract and hasn't been on RAW for half a year and he is still listed. Austin appears "sporadically" and he is listed. Hogan stays until you can provide a convincing reason for his removal. McPhail 20:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Youre right Austin, Rock and Mick Foley are on there but they shouldn't be. Thats why all four Austin, Rock, Foley and Hogan should be removed. Hogan, Foley and Rock aren't contracted but only make appearances and Austin is contracted but only under WWE films, not a wrestling contract. — Moe ε 22:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Just as long as it's consistent. Also, when you remove people from one section of the list of professional wrestlers, please make sure to reinsert them in Unaffiliated/Retired. McPhail 22:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll make sure and do that and I agree to consistancy. — Moe ε 22:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
PWInsider.com has reported that the Dudley Boyz will have full use of their stage names when they leave WWE. [2] Should we change Mark Lamonica and Devon Hughes to Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley now. I believe if this development is true, we ought to. If this isn't an outright case about when to use the stage name as the article name for a wrestler, then there aren't any outright cases about this issue. -- Jtalledo (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
There are some OVW stars that were recently moved from OVW to the main rosters of RAW and SmackDown! namely, The Boogey Man (Marty Wright) went to RAW, and Frankie Kazarian, and Vito (Vito LaGrasso) went to SmackDown! as they will appear regulary for WWE now. — Moe ε 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I created new sections under List of professional wrestlers where it includes the independant circuit and the wrestlers that are included in an attempt at expanding on just the unaffilated/retired section. — Moe ε 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to end all professional wrestling related red links. If you see a red link I don't have listed on my user page thats pro wrestling related type it on my discussion page here and I will create an article for it. — Moe ε 06:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Watch out for people vandalizing the Jackie Gayda article. Over the past two days, I had to revert the article from a few IP blocks and User:Y2Arthur. These guys are mostly restoring or editing the section called "Rumors", which reads "It is rumored that Jackie Gayda gave her fiance, Charlie Haas, handjobs before his matches to relive tension. Also she used the seman and lotion before any match." -- LBMixPro (Speak on it!) 07:50, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
User Lakes has made several unnecessary changes to the 'Profile' portion of the Darren Matthews page. My attempts to revert have been ignored and themselves reverted. I was directed to present this argument on this projects page.
A look at the history of the article will indicate that changes made by User Lakes are totally unnecessary to the page and also go against typical methods of creation for 'Signature Moves' sections. The capitalization of this moves falls in line with grammatical standards. With respect to the height and weight measurements, the previous measurements are accurate and should stand. There is no need to convert to centimeters. I will, however, concede to dropping the .03 on weight, even though I feel that, too, to be unwarranted. - Soltak 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
For the various lists of championship titles that a wrestler has won, the listing for most of the pages seem to have a little too much white space on them which makes it quite distracting and are inconsistent with the remaining sections. Look at Rick Martel for instance, that is an example, as most of the pages have this. Would it be agreed upon that a project is needed to tighten up the text in these areas? Mcfly85 04:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think that we should come up with a common formatting for wrestler profiles that would go to the project page, both for articles that use the statbox and those who don't need it.
== Career == Yaddayaddayadda == Profile == *Height: X ft Y in (XYZ cm) *Weight: XYZ lb (XYZ kg) *Born: *Died: *Hometown: *Billed from: *Stage names: *Factions: *Debut: *Retired: === Quotes === * Yadda yadda === Finishers and signature moves === * Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case) * Signature == Championships and accomplishments == ====Organisation 1==== *X-Time Yadda yadda champion == External links ==
Is my suggestion for the statboxless version. The imperial/metric height/weight take preference from the persons nationality. Basically metric units would be first for Japanese, German, etc wrestlers. Comments? (This is of course based on Paulley's format.) Lakes 21:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
=== Finishing move(s) === * Finisher ("Simple" name in lower case) ==== Signature move(s) ==== * Signature ====with Bob==== * Double Team ("Simple" name in lower case)
Now im all for creating new articles and converting all red links into something... but like i have said before "Quality, not Quantity". why are you trying to spread out little amounts of info when you could be writing a cereer section; note the Wagner Brown page, of which i added the small bit of info the replace your below average stub. if it was just one article i would say fair enough and just recreate it with out saying anything but i have been goin through many of these stubs of yours correcting and recreating.... also why is everyone Mike Modest to you?????????????? if your gonna copy and paste at least change the links and categorys --- Paulley 11:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC) --- dont take any of this personally, as i am only looking out for the quality of are articles.... i dont want to be having to follow you around like i did User:Kks862003 'til he began to see reason
Hello! I am going to put my username on the Participants list and help out with the wrestling articles. I have been doing alot of edits on them recently and have noticed alot of names for titles are incorrect. One of the biggest examples is the "Mid-Southern" area titles. They were called Mid-Southern titles until 1987, when they became "AWA" titles (AWA Southern Heavyweight Title, etc.). I named the title history as the AWA Southern Title because it was the best known name for it, but the fact is that somebody who held the title in 1977 held it as the Mid-Southern Title instead of the AWA Southern Title and in my humble opinion, needs to be listed as the Mid-Southern Title on their page. Another huge mess (in my opinion) is saying that for example, Tully Blanchard was a WWE World Tag Team Champion, when he was a WWF World Tag Team Champion. There have been tons of these and I have been changing them all.
What do you guys think about this? I am just trying to keep the titles under the names that they were known by when the wrestler held them.
Please let me know what you think about this! I know it is kinda late, I have changed so many of them, but your opinions are very much valued since you guys do alot of work on here! Thanks in advance!
Also, what is UTC?!? I always put US ET for United States Eastern Time Zone because I have no idea what UTC is! --- Phatcat68 22:14, 20 July 2005 (US ET)
I think we need to really rethink how we're organizing articles. We're depending way too heavily on lists.
Take the moves articles. They're essentially just lists at the moment. It would be more encyclopedic to discuss the various moves and their distinctions in flowing prose, rather than short descriptions chopped into chunks. For example, rather than having a subsection for each leg lock (and these sections are usually on the order of one or two paragraphs long—not good), have a single section on them that describes the various kinds of leg locks and how to identify them (such as how to tell a toe hold from an ankle lock). This would also avoid the formatting problems regarding images overlapping multiple sections. We wouldn't be able to link directly to specific moves anymore, but we probably shouldn't be doing that anyway.
Similarly, we should be working towards championship articles that actually discuss their histories, rather than simply dumping a list of champs in chronological order. Basically, telling the story of the title: not just who won it when, but the major feuds and angles surrounding those title changes; even particularly famous or important defenses when applicable. That's not to say that we shouldn't have the lists of champions at all, but just that they should be subordinate to the prose rather than dominating it. Right now in many cases the title article is more or less a stubby introduction to the list of champions (whether it's in the same article or a separate one), which is where the actual information is (in some cases it's bulked up slightly by a trivia section: yet another list-of-facts). — Gwalla | Talk 06:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I just wanted to let you all know that I added two sub-categories to the Professional wrestling performers category to try to decrease the amount of entries in it. I added Professional wrestling referees and Professional wrestling announcers. Those two sub-categories took it down from 210 entries to 175.
I was wondering if you all thought we should make another sub-category for Professional wrestling managers and valets to distinguish them from the others or if the articles themselves would do that for us.
Thanks! -- Phatcat68 | Talk 12:48, 26 July 2005 (US ET)
I saw no other alternative with the List of professional wrestlers and because of it's enormous number of wrestlers, I decided to divide it up into the promotion they were under. It's size I belive when I was going to add another set of wrestlers was at 43 kilobytes. Wikipedia says start dividing it up at 32 so Im sure you understand why I did this. — Moe ε 01:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey, just joined the project, though I've been working on professional wrestling pages sporadically since I got here. A question-- when is it appropriate to use "WWF" in an article, and when's it appropriate to use "WWE"? For example, I saw in Kurt Angle's biography that Team WWE defeated Team Alliance at Survivor Series '01, which needless to say isn't right. Should we be making references to WWE only after the name change, or use WWE throughout?
Title histories are a different matter, of course. I figure Hulk Hogan should be listed as a six-time WWE Champion since he held one of those titles during the name transition, but someone like Bob Backlund, for example, would only have held the WWF Championship. ekedolphin 02:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed a few days ago that there's an article entitled Christian & Tyson Tomko which talks a little bit about that team. I think it ought to be deleted. This pairing's already mentioned in both Christian and Tomko's biographies, and it's not as if they actually accomplished much as a team. Thoughts? ekedolphin 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Just so everyone understands, there are two promotions called Deep South Wrestling. I created both Deep South Wrestling and Deep South Wrestling, LLC. Deep South Wrestling, LLC is the secondary developmental territory for the WWE. Deep South Wrestling is a promotion that features wrestlers from the 80's, 90's and present. Put it simply, one's the developmental territory for WWE and one's a indy circuit promotion. — Moe ε 22:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I want to know what the general consensus is on the headers for championships held. I got a message saying that I should not capitalize all words, but I know a majority of the pages have all words capitalized anyway. I think the words should be (except for and/or) all starting with caps. I have seen so many variations on these headers, I'd like to know what's up. Mcfly85 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)