![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Orange Country Wrestling Federation, The Avalanche (wrestler), Zodiac (Wrestler), Eddie Suzuki, Night Stalker (wrestler). All of these appear to be non-notable: I googled the promotion and found no decent results, so I'm assuming the wrestlers aren't notable either. I prodded them, hopefully it lasts and they just go. RobJ1981 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Moe Epsilon has been removing them from pages. Unless I missed it, I don't remember the project agreeing to this at all. A big decision like that, shouldn't just be decided by one person. RobJ1981 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Archived discussion here: [2] I believe we agreed they they took up too much space and conveyed too little information. I support their removal. -- James Duggan 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of complaining, and since there is no consensus from everyone, lets just do a straw poll for each discussion. If you're for or against boxes, please list yourself below. Likewise for the format of the articles. Please only place a support once for both topics :) Wikipedia is not a democracy, but with this straw poll, this might better understand where we stand on this situation to build a strong consensus one way or the other. Let this straw poll hold out until 00:00 September 26, 2006, then we can can evaluate the results from there.
Does it make more sense for this article to be title Eric Kulas and have all links redirect to this page. It makes more sense? Kyros 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion: more use of animated gifs for mid-maneuver images. Often single images make it unclear as to what is going on. While animated gifs are larger, the point of images in not just to entertain, but to inform, so making the action that they are portraying clearer would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.180 ( talk • contribs) .
Since the Women's Championsip is now defunct, it really shouldn't be listed under "RAW championships". Also, I think it would be nice if we added "Former championships" to the template, and added the Woman's championship to that section. I just wanted to know all of your opinions on this, and get some consensus on the matter. --- Silent RAGE! 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster need locks on them. Anons have been sticking Kurt Angle in heavyweight division, yet Angle hasn't wrestled for TNA once. One recent promo isn't active. This seems to be an ongoing trend that should be stopped. WWE roster had a lock at one point, but was removed. WWE roster has constant reverts as well. Anytime someone new has a promo, they are put in an active section. Same goes for anytime a rumor pops up, anons usually stick it on the roster page. All these edits need to be stopped. Posting things on the talk page isn't helping alot. Locking seems like the best solution. RobJ1981 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sirelda (Jaime Dauncey) is still on the TNA roster page under he inactive section. I'm pretty sure TNA said they were finished with her just after her match with Gail Kim. Can someone follow this up please. Normy 132 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's apparent from the above straw polls, that the succession boxes are not wanted. But there appears to be no consensus about the Championships and accomplishments formatting. I think it might be better to list some positives and negatives about these two formats. Anybody wanna start? — Moe Epsilon 19:58 September 26 '06
The second choice is more organized and cleaner. The belts will have a link to their respective lineage page. The first choice will get messy. Imagine listing everyone of Brian Christopher beat when they won a combined 25 USWA Southern Titles ..... So were going to have list everyone he beat for the belts and the locations .... come on ... let's get serious (in kayfabe) :-) Kyros 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I started the article on WWE Xperience (some time ago, even) for the new Canadian WWE recap show, it should be merged with The WWE Experience as this is the correct title and has a similar format. However, it is presented in a substantially different manner (having Score anchor Ryan Paton host it rather than, say, Steve Romero or Todd Grisham), and would require massive structural changes to the article in question. Your thoughts? kelvSYC 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What's deal with adding gimmick names to some people's moves when WWE has never named them as such? This should be undone.
I think I have a solution, replace (in kayfabe) with fictional or storyline.
I don't know why, but users keep adding him to the TNA roster. I have heard nothing on him signing with TNA. -- James Duggan 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft and fancruft, I put a PROD on it but someone might have to nominate it for deletion if that gets removed. TJ Spyke 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this WikiProject still working? I was just wondering as it might be a good idea to merge this back to WP:PW if there's a lack of activity. -- Oakster (Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably best - or we could make a Media of Sport in general project. King fish erswift 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Namely Image:Marufuji as GHC Heavyweight Champion.jpg and Image:Johnny Nitro2.jpg. These are both marked as "I am the creator" but they both look like promo images, though I can not find the source. If anyone can find the source of these please tell me? –– Lid( Talk) 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Something odd is up with the template, several of the lines are highlighted, and any PPV where these are not filled in show up as highlighted as well (see Fall Brawl for example). Does anybody know what is going on? TJ Spyke 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am just going to throw this out here as a possible solution to the formatting so let me know what you think:
The debate was whether to include it as Format 1:
or as Format 2:
So why not have the best qualities of both formats with a more different direction. The extra information that comes afterwards in the two extra lines are space consuming (but at the same time helpful), and the information is made elseware, but not directly. So how about this for a Proposed Format 3:
The part that says 2 Reigns is a direct link to the champions list (with the benefit of not changing readding the information to the wrestlers article. For the non-notable championships that don't have articles, we just don't add a link since theres nothing to link to. This has the simplicity of the first format and the extra information directly linked to format. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 23:49 October 01 '06
Ok, it's that time again :) But seriously, we must reach a consensus on which formatting we are going to use. Let's let this one end on October 5, 2006 00:00:
Just before we go around altering every article can i just ask how you want tag title reigns to look? including incidences of multiple partners and such.
The issue of name changes, i know you guys were not keen on adding seperate ones for title that were under a different name i.e. WWF Championship - WWE Championship... but then you would have to be just as discrimitive toward incidences with the WCW cruiserweight title in WWE. At the moment we say Billy Kidman won two WCW CW reigns in WWE and has two reigns as WWE CW champion, surely if we dont seperate cus of name changes then he is a 4 time WWE CW champion.
Also if its tournament/other would it look like this:
And i was wondering about renaming the "Championships and accomplishments" section to simply "Achievements"--- Paulley
You're just full of questions Paulley :) I was thinking about it some of things like above and have given it a rough draft so please comment/correct me if it is too hard or complicated etc.
This format should first be Alphabetical order, then in chronological order for accomplishments that they have achieved twice, like my above example with the Royal Rumble.
Any comments or concerns? — Moe Epsilon 20:47 October 02 '06
Wrestling being what wrestilng is there's no shortage of "fair use" promo images of (current, at least) stars around. Can we, as a project, set a policy on the amount of images we use and when? It's understandble, say, when a gimmick changes and there's a notable difference, but do we really need a post match picture every time Edge wins the title?
I'm aware this is picking nits, but it can be annoying to see some articles turned into almost image galleries.-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll concede the Cena album cover, but the images are supposed to be allowed when showing the difference between eras of someones career, no? And Edge looks different enough when he was with Christian compared to now to warrant it's inclusion.-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
One more nitpicky thing, this one about a whole article. There's an ECW chants article. I've maintained it for a while and linked it from a few others, but it feels like cruft. I'm not sure if it should be deleted outright or maybe expanded to a more generic Wrestling chants and include TNA chants and the like. Suggestions?-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've marked several for too much trivia. What are people thinking? This isn't an all wrestling wiki. Not every little note or fact is notable or needed. Either put the information in the article somewhere else, or remove. Don't just simply rename trivia as facts (or other similar names), because it's still trivia that way. An enyclopedia isn't about every little non-notable detail or fact, it's about important things. I don't think it matters that X # people won the hardcore title and also won the I.C title, or whatever the case might be. RobJ1981 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. There is simply too many wrestling promotions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about notable things, not just every promotion ever. There is many England promotions: all of them simply can't be notable. Someone that knows wrestling and lives in (or around) England needs to go through them, and either prod or afd them. Wrestling in England is no different than wrestling in North America: there is some top feds, some top indy feds, then there is lesser feds that aren't that known. Lesser feds simply shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise a promotion. Here is where you can find the promotions: Category:Professional wrestling promotions. I think Canada promotions should be gone through as well. I'm simply sick of people just adding their personal favorite promotions. Put that type of thing on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that everyone (or everyone how decided to comment) here has given thier input, I will put an example format for everyone to follow, so we can a set format to go by. I urge anyone who sees succession boxes or the original formatting to change it to the new revised formatting I am placing on the main page. If you have any concerns, questions or comments please let me know on my talk page or drop a note here for me. — Moe 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have an infobox for singles wrestlers and tag teams should we make one for stables?-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've finished the infobox changes now. The infobox will now show whether the article refers to a tag team or a stable through an indicator in the type field. If you type in "T", "Tag team" will show up on the grey bar while "S" gives out "Stable", otherwise it'll show "Statistics" as it did before (compare Latin American Exchange with Hardy Boyz). A caption section has also been added now. The only thing that needs doing is a rename for the template as Template:Infobox Tag Team is inappropiate now. -- Oakster (Talk) 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Category:Professional wrestling stubs, there is currently 645 stubs. I've improved some with bits and pieces, but certainly not enough to remove the stub tag. If others can help me out, this category will be alot smaller in a matter of months. Many of the articles (such as the old WWF tv shows on the last page) could easily be merged together. The old WWF shows aren't always notable, so a page of just minor or lesser WWF shows should be made. I don't see much point to an article on a show that just aired recaps. I believe someone was going to do this before, but forgot? Also, it should be noted... many of the stubs could easily be non-notable things. I've found several things that I put prods on. So it's just a matter of going through them. RobJ1981 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a article assessment and importance rating to the Pro-wrestling template. If you don't like it or don't want it, you can revert it, but I really think it'll help identify what articles are in good condition and what articles need attention. -- Targetter (Lock On) 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The article should have a "Return to WWE" section, not having both of Jeff's runs merged into one. As it is right now it's hard to read if you want to read about Jeff's career from start to present. Paulley said in one of his edit summaries that we don't make a section for each show Christopher Daniels does in ROH. While this is true, these are hardly parallel cases, Daniels is working for TNA and ROH at the same time...thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? Bananas? Anything? If we impliment this as a project-wide policy, then many, many articles are going to be affected and would have to be cleaned up, i.e Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, etc. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
I believe I have completely cleaned up the article. It now reads a lot better than it used to, so I removed it from the to-do list. Shot and Botched 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was cleaning up the Lex Luger page and trying to link to StarrCade '97 only to find that the main Starrcade page links to a lot of (redirects) to seperate StarrCade pages. Is the article being split and who's working on it if it is? -- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not especially happy with having two values for height and two values for weight. This is leading to many articles having two sets of statistics, which can only cause confusion. In my opinion, the "real" height and weight values, which are virtually always unsourced, fields should be removed and the infobox should contain only the billed statistics. Where the wrestler in question is irrefutably known to be drastically different in height and/or weight from their billed statistics, e.g. Andre the Giant this could be mentioned in the personal life section. Having both fields, however, detracts from the article, particularly when the two figures are both unsourced. McPhail 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I recently noticed this. This was deleted before, so I added a speedy to it. Wikipedia isn't a wrestling guide to every special edtion/season premiere of Raw. Keep an eye on it. This Raw special is still going on, but I doubt an article for it is needed. RobJ1981 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Homecoming. Also, check out the one for RAW's Family Reunion -- James Duggan 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone reverted an edit of mine with the edit summary WP:PW, so I guess I should have to explain it here:
I hope that statisfies the need for explanation. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Our immature/inexperienced editors are once again disrupting the editing process by insisting on including an image taken from a marksite that does not fall under fair-use criteria, while improperly tagging the image taken directly from WWE.com (and properly tagged & cited) that was uploaded to replace it. The same users have also instigated a campaign on Adam Copeland that blatantly violates WP:OWN as well. Other editors (and possibly an admin) need to get involved to deal with this strongarming & vandalism based on pure ignorance. - Chadbryant 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had enough of you actting like what you say goes. The picture currently on the randy orton page was ok'ed by an admin he said it was fine. You keep removing templates from your picture and not even doing what the template has asked and because it does not contain the info it doesnt go on the page, your picture was not correctly tagged. The picture currently on there is better and his appearence hasnt changed at all so it isn't need so understand that. Understand this you do not overall an admin and you can't expect everyone to accept your edits. Also for your information i dont edit the edge page so you cant use that one, my edits will show that. Lil crazy thing 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
His look hasn't changed so why change it? It seems pointless to me. -- James Duggan 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
is it me or did this page get really long... either someone knows alot about Molly Holly or they copied her book into the article? --- Paulley
Is this article necessary? It doesn't look like there's any assertion of importance here. -- Jtalledo (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE RAW X Anniversary Show and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen. -- James Duggan 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to keep watch on Botch (professional wrestling), since the anons keep on adding "weekly botch reports", as well as adding some non-notable ones. I've added a warning to let the editors know. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has been changing the heights and weights on many articles without providing a source, when I reverted the change on Jeff Hardy he/she just changed it back later and still didn't provide a source. I will put a warning on his talk page, if he keeps it up though someone will have to report him. TJ Spyke 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the nominations of deletion of articles on supercards, anyways? A lot of WWE's supercards, including tribute shows ( Raw is Owen, Tributes to Eddie Guerrero) have been nominated for deletion, as are one-time specials ( WWE Homecoming). Next thing you know articles on PPVs will be nominated for deletion. I have not seen this trend for any other wrestling promotion, even though they might go into even greater excesses (TNA PPVs have a separate article for every year, WWE does so only on the four major PPVs, for example). Can someone fill me in to what's going on? kelvSYC 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Homecoming and Family Reunion were season premieres, you don't see seperate articles for the CSI season premieres, do you? James Duggan 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW is just one of many many unnotable american independents that needs to be removed. we have gone through the UK's ones and they have nearly been removed so its time for others to follow suit --- Paulley
Why do the TNA PPV's all have a seperate article for every years edition? It's quite annoying. -- Mikedk9109 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix one of these two as the current descriptions seem to be the same move. –– Lid( Talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why, but for some reason a user nominated this for deletion. I hope that the people in this WikiProject help make sure it stays. TJ Spyke 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats wierd. -- Mikedk9109 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is probably in response to all the RAW specials that have been nominated for deletion. James Duggan 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, the listing of results in articles is useless and not important. That sort of info is basically fan/markcruft. It's something I think we need to talk about, possible putting up to a vote. -- James Duggan 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gotten Glen Jacobs and Chris Benoit semi-protected because of all the vandalism in the past days. (Spoilers, results, wins etc.) It had gotten to a point where no one could handle it. It was quite annoying also. -- Mikedk9109 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Also the 1PW page keeps getting vandalised by someone adding The Ryans as a stable and adding bogus quotes to the page.
Oh, also I belive The Ryans have a page on Wiki that is full of bogus stuff as well. Id deal with it, but i dont know how. :(
darkie
Tag teams are more common, that's the majority of the page right now. A rename to just stables would be helpful I suppose, or just a split into 2 pages. But then we need to have a good definition of stable, so every tag team with manager doesn't show up on the page all the time. In my opinion, a stable includes at least 3 people and they all wrestle on a regular basis. So for WWE, Spirit Squad is the only official stable, and possibly the alliance that includes Heyman's security and Holly and Test. Or I wouldn't mind just deleting it altogether, since it's technically original research. This isn't an all wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Should the Mr. Money in the Bank really be included in the championships and accomplishments section? -- Mikedk9109 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, until they make it an annual thing, it shouldn't be listed. -- Mikedk9109 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, might as well. -- Mikedk9109 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Keep it. Just as everyone else said. Plus, they are announced as such, when then come to the ring. --- Silent RAGE! 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me)
Somebody needs to fix the Infobox for that article, because I have no idea how to do so. And about the infoboxes, why do all of them look so bad now? Shot and Botched 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I can try. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Orange Country Wrestling Federation, The Avalanche (wrestler), Zodiac (Wrestler), Eddie Suzuki, Night Stalker (wrestler). All of these appear to be non-notable: I googled the promotion and found no decent results, so I'm assuming the wrestlers aren't notable either. I prodded them, hopefully it lasts and they just go. RobJ1981 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Moe Epsilon has been removing them from pages. Unless I missed it, I don't remember the project agreeing to this at all. A big decision like that, shouldn't just be decided by one person. RobJ1981 20:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Archived discussion here: [2] I believe we agreed they they took up too much space and conveyed too little information. I support their removal. -- James Duggan 20:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Instead of complaining, and since there is no consensus from everyone, lets just do a straw poll for each discussion. If you're for or against boxes, please list yourself below. Likewise for the format of the articles. Please only place a support once for both topics :) Wikipedia is not a democracy, but with this straw poll, this might better understand where we stand on this situation to build a strong consensus one way or the other. Let this straw poll hold out until 00:00 September 26, 2006, then we can can evaluate the results from there.
Does it make more sense for this article to be title Eric Kulas and have all links redirect to this page. It makes more sense? Kyros 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A suggestion: more use of animated gifs for mid-maneuver images. Often single images make it unclear as to what is going on. While animated gifs are larger, the point of images in not just to entertain, but to inform, so making the action that they are portraying clearer would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.180 ( talk • contribs) .
Since the Women's Championsip is now defunct, it really shouldn't be listed under "RAW championships". Also, I think it would be nice if we added "Former championships" to the template, and added the Woman's championship to that section. I just wanted to know all of your opinions on this, and get some consensus on the matter. --- Silent RAGE! 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster need locks on them. Anons have been sticking Kurt Angle in heavyweight division, yet Angle hasn't wrestled for TNA once. One recent promo isn't active. This seems to be an ongoing trend that should be stopped. WWE roster had a lock at one point, but was removed. WWE roster has constant reverts as well. Anytime someone new has a promo, they are put in an active section. Same goes for anytime a rumor pops up, anons usually stick it on the roster page. All these edits need to be stopped. Posting things on the talk page isn't helping alot. Locking seems like the best solution. RobJ1981 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Sirelda (Jaime Dauncey) is still on the TNA roster page under he inactive section. I'm pretty sure TNA said they were finished with her just after her match with Gail Kim. Can someone follow this up please. Normy 132 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It's apparent from the above straw polls, that the succession boxes are not wanted. But there appears to be no consensus about the Championships and accomplishments formatting. I think it might be better to list some positives and negatives about these two formats. Anybody wanna start? — Moe Epsilon 19:58 September 26 '06
The second choice is more organized and cleaner. The belts will have a link to their respective lineage page. The first choice will get messy. Imagine listing everyone of Brian Christopher beat when they won a combined 25 USWA Southern Titles ..... So were going to have list everyone he beat for the belts and the locations .... come on ... let's get serious (in kayfabe) :-) Kyros 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Although I started the article on WWE Xperience (some time ago, even) for the new Canadian WWE recap show, it should be merged with The WWE Experience as this is the correct title and has a similar format. However, it is presented in a substantially different manner (having Score anchor Ryan Paton host it rather than, say, Steve Romero or Todd Grisham), and would require massive structural changes to the article in question. Your thoughts? kelvSYC 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
What's deal with adding gimmick names to some people's moves when WWE has never named them as such? This should be undone.
I think I have a solution, replace (in kayfabe) with fictional or storyline.
I don't know why, but users keep adding him to the TNA roster. I have heard nothing on him signing with TNA. -- James Duggan 05:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Listcruft and fancruft, I put a PROD on it but someone might have to nominate it for deletion if that gets removed. TJ Spyke 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this WikiProject still working? I was just wondering as it might be a good idea to merge this back to WP:PW if there's a lack of activity. -- Oakster (Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably best - or we could make a Media of Sport in general project. King fish erswift 18:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Namely Image:Marufuji as GHC Heavyweight Champion.jpg and Image:Johnny Nitro2.jpg. These are both marked as "I am the creator" but they both look like promo images, though I can not find the source. If anyone can find the source of these please tell me? –– Lid( Talk) 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Something odd is up with the template, several of the lines are highlighted, and any PPV where these are not filled in show up as highlighted as well (see Fall Brawl for example). Does anybody know what is going on? TJ Spyke 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I am just going to throw this out here as a possible solution to the formatting so let me know what you think:
The debate was whether to include it as Format 1:
or as Format 2:
So why not have the best qualities of both formats with a more different direction. The extra information that comes afterwards in the two extra lines are space consuming (but at the same time helpful), and the information is made elseware, but not directly. So how about this for a Proposed Format 3:
The part that says 2 Reigns is a direct link to the champions list (with the benefit of not changing readding the information to the wrestlers article. For the non-notable championships that don't have articles, we just don't add a link since theres nothing to link to. This has the simplicity of the first format and the extra information directly linked to format. Any thoughts? — Moe Epsilon 23:49 October 01 '06
Ok, it's that time again :) But seriously, we must reach a consensus on which formatting we are going to use. Let's let this one end on October 5, 2006 00:00:
Just before we go around altering every article can i just ask how you want tag title reigns to look? including incidences of multiple partners and such.
The issue of name changes, i know you guys were not keen on adding seperate ones for title that were under a different name i.e. WWF Championship - WWE Championship... but then you would have to be just as discrimitive toward incidences with the WCW cruiserweight title in WWE. At the moment we say Billy Kidman won two WCW CW reigns in WWE and has two reigns as WWE CW champion, surely if we dont seperate cus of name changes then he is a 4 time WWE CW champion.
Also if its tournament/other would it look like this:
And i was wondering about renaming the "Championships and accomplishments" section to simply "Achievements"--- Paulley
You're just full of questions Paulley :) I was thinking about it some of things like above and have given it a rough draft so please comment/correct me if it is too hard or complicated etc.
This format should first be Alphabetical order, then in chronological order for accomplishments that they have achieved twice, like my above example with the Royal Rumble.
Any comments or concerns? — Moe Epsilon 20:47 October 02 '06
Wrestling being what wrestilng is there's no shortage of "fair use" promo images of (current, at least) stars around. Can we, as a project, set a policy on the amount of images we use and when? It's understandble, say, when a gimmick changes and there's a notable difference, but do we really need a post match picture every time Edge wins the title?
I'm aware this is picking nits, but it can be annoying to see some articles turned into almost image galleries.-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll concede the Cena album cover, but the images are supposed to be allowed when showing the difference between eras of someones career, no? And Edge looks different enough when he was with Christian compared to now to warrant it's inclusion.-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 03:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
One more nitpicky thing, this one about a whole article. There's an ECW chants article. I've maintained it for a while and linked it from a few others, but it feels like cruft. I'm not sure if it should be deleted outright or maybe expanded to a more generic Wrestling chants and include TNA chants and the like. Suggestions?-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've marked several for too much trivia. What are people thinking? This isn't an all wrestling wiki. Not every little note or fact is notable or needed. Either put the information in the article somewhere else, or remove. Don't just simply rename trivia as facts (or other similar names), because it's still trivia that way. An enyclopedia isn't about every little non-notable detail or fact, it's about important things. I don't think it matters that X # people won the hardcore title and also won the I.C title, or whatever the case might be. RobJ1981 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned this before, and I'll mention it again. There is simply too many wrestling promotions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be about notable things, not just every promotion ever. There is many England promotions: all of them simply can't be notable. Someone that knows wrestling and lives in (or around) England needs to go through them, and either prod or afd them. Wrestling in England is no different than wrestling in North America: there is some top feds, some top indy feds, then there is lesser feds that aren't that known. Lesser feds simply shouldn't be here. Wikipedia isn't a place to advertise a promotion. Here is where you can find the promotions: Category:Professional wrestling promotions. I think Canada promotions should be gone through as well. I'm simply sick of people just adding their personal favorite promotions. Put that type of thing on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 16:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that everyone (or everyone how decided to comment) here has given thier input, I will put an example format for everyone to follow, so we can a set format to go by. I urge anyone who sees succession boxes or the original formatting to change it to the new revised formatting I am placing on the main page. If you have any concerns, questions or comments please let me know on my talk page or drop a note here for me. — Moe 02:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that we have an infobox for singles wrestlers and tag teams should we make one for stables?-- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I've finished the infobox changes now. The infobox will now show whether the article refers to a tag team or a stable through an indicator in the type field. If you type in "T", "Tag team" will show up on the grey bar while "S" gives out "Stable", otherwise it'll show "Statistics" as it did before (compare Latin American Exchange with Hardy Boyz). A caption section has also been added now. The only thing that needs doing is a rename for the template as Template:Infobox Tag Team is inappropiate now. -- Oakster (Talk) 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Category:Professional wrestling stubs, there is currently 645 stubs. I've improved some with bits and pieces, but certainly not enough to remove the stub tag. If others can help me out, this category will be alot smaller in a matter of months. Many of the articles (such as the old WWF tv shows on the last page) could easily be merged together. The old WWF shows aren't always notable, so a page of just minor or lesser WWF shows should be made. I don't see much point to an article on a show that just aired recaps. I believe someone was going to do this before, but forgot? Also, it should be noted... many of the stubs could easily be non-notable things. I've found several things that I put prods on. So it's just a matter of going through them. RobJ1981 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a article assessment and importance rating to the Pro-wrestling template. If you don't like it or don't want it, you can revert it, but I really think it'll help identify what articles are in good condition and what articles need attention. -- Targetter (Lock On) 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The article should have a "Return to WWE" section, not having both of Jeff's runs merged into one. As it is right now it's hard to read if you want to read about Jeff's career from start to present. Paulley said in one of his edit summaries that we don't make a section for each show Christopher Daniels does in ROH. While this is true, these are hardly parallel cases, Daniels is working for TNA and ROH at the same time...thoughts? Ideas? Criticism? Bananas? Anything? If we impliment this as a project-wide policy, then many, many articles are going to be affected and would have to be cleaned up, i.e Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, etc. --> So sayeth M e t h n o r Sayeth back| Other sayethings
I believe I have completely cleaned up the article. It now reads a lot better than it used to, so I removed it from the to-do list. Shot and Botched 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I was cleaning up the Lex Luger page and trying to link to StarrCade '97 only to find that the main Starrcade page links to a lot of (redirects) to seperate StarrCade pages. Is the article being split and who's working on it if it is? -- bd ( talk to me) ( watch me) 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not especially happy with having two values for height and two values for weight. This is leading to many articles having two sets of statistics, which can only cause confusion. In my opinion, the "real" height and weight values, which are virtually always unsourced, fields should be removed and the infobox should contain only the billed statistics. Where the wrestler in question is irrefutably known to be drastically different in height and/or weight from their billed statistics, e.g. Andre the Giant this could be mentioned in the personal life section. Having both fields, however, detracts from the article, particularly when the two figures are both unsourced. McPhail 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I recently noticed this. This was deleted before, so I added a speedy to it. Wikipedia isn't a wrestling guide to every special edtion/season premiere of Raw. Keep an eye on it. This Raw special is still going on, but I doubt an article for it is needed. RobJ1981 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Homecoming. Also, check out the one for RAW's Family Reunion -- James Duggan 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone reverted an edit of mine with the edit summary WP:PW, so I guess I should have to explain it here:
I hope that statisfies the need for explanation. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Our immature/inexperienced editors are once again disrupting the editing process by insisting on including an image taken from a marksite that does not fall under fair-use criteria, while improperly tagging the image taken directly from WWE.com (and properly tagged & cited) that was uploaded to replace it. The same users have also instigated a campaign on Adam Copeland that blatantly violates WP:OWN as well. Other editors (and possibly an admin) need to get involved to deal with this strongarming & vandalism based on pure ignorance. - Chadbryant 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had enough of you actting like what you say goes. The picture currently on the randy orton page was ok'ed by an admin he said it was fine. You keep removing templates from your picture and not even doing what the template has asked and because it does not contain the info it doesnt go on the page, your picture was not correctly tagged. The picture currently on there is better and his appearence hasnt changed at all so it isn't need so understand that. Understand this you do not overall an admin and you can't expect everyone to accept your edits. Also for your information i dont edit the edge page so you cant use that one, my edits will show that. Lil crazy thing 14:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
His look hasn't changed so why change it? It seems pointless to me. -- James Duggan 19:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
is it me or did this page get really long... either someone knows alot about Molly Holly or they copied her book into the article? --- Paulley
Is this article necessary? It doesn't look like there's any assertion of importance here. -- Jtalledo (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE RAW X Anniversary Show and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen. -- James Duggan 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
You may want to keep watch on Botch (professional wrestling), since the anons keep on adding "weekly botch reports", as well as adding some non-notable ones. I've added a warning to let the editors know. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This user has been changing the heights and weights on many articles without providing a source, when I reverted the change on Jeff Hardy he/she just changed it back later and still didn't provide a source. I will put a warning on his talk page, if he keeps it up though someone will have to report him. TJ Spyke 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What's with the nominations of deletion of articles on supercards, anyways? A lot of WWE's supercards, including tribute shows ( Raw is Owen, Tributes to Eddie Guerrero) have been nominated for deletion, as are one-time specials ( WWE Homecoming). Next thing you know articles on PPVs will be nominated for deletion. I have not seen this trend for any other wrestling promotion, even though they might go into even greater excesses (TNA PPVs have a separate article for every year, WWE does so only on the four major PPVs, for example). Can someone fill me in to what's going on? kelvSYC 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Homecoming and Family Reunion were season premieres, you don't see seperate articles for the CSI season premieres, do you? James Duggan 19:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Squared Circle Wrestling 2CW is just one of many many unnotable american independents that needs to be removed. we have gone through the UK's ones and they have nearly been removed so its time for others to follow suit --- Paulley
Why do the TNA PPV's all have a seperate article for every years edition? It's quite annoying. -- Mikedk9109 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix one of these two as the current descriptions seem to be the same move. –– Lid( Talk) 11:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why, but for some reason a user nominated this for deletion. I hope that the people in this WikiProject help make sure it stays. TJ Spyke 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thats wierd. -- Mikedk9109 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is probably in response to all the RAW specials that have been nominated for deletion. James Duggan 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Personally, the listing of results in articles is useless and not important. That sort of info is basically fan/markcruft. It's something I think we need to talk about, possible putting up to a vote. -- James Duggan 00:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have gotten Glen Jacobs and Chris Benoit semi-protected because of all the vandalism in the past days. (Spoilers, results, wins etc.) It had gotten to a point where no one could handle it. It was quite annoying also. -- Mikedk9109 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Also the 1PW page keeps getting vandalised by someone adding The Ryans as a stable and adding bogus quotes to the page.
Oh, also I belive The Ryans have a page on Wiki that is full of bogus stuff as well. Id deal with it, but i dont know how. :(
darkie
Tag teams are more common, that's the majority of the page right now. A rename to just stables would be helpful I suppose, or just a split into 2 pages. But then we need to have a good definition of stable, so every tag team with manager doesn't show up on the page all the time. In my opinion, a stable includes at least 3 people and they all wrestle on a regular basis. So for WWE, Spirit Squad is the only official stable, and possibly the alliance that includes Heyman's security and Holly and Test. Or I wouldn't mind just deleting it altogether, since it's technically original research. This isn't an all wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Should the Mr. Money in the Bank really be included in the championships and accomplishments section? -- Mikedk9109 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, until they make it an annual thing, it shouldn't be listed. -- Mikedk9109 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, might as well. -- Mikedk9109 19:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Keep it. Just as everyone else said. Plus, they are announced as such, when then come to the ring. --- Silent RAGE! 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me)
Somebody needs to fix the Infobox for that article, because I have no idea how to do so. And about the infoboxes, why do all of them look so bad now? Shot and Botched 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I can try. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me) 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. -- Mikedk9109 ( talk to me) ( watch me) 22:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)