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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
If you've been following along with AFDs lately there seems to be a lot of hub-bub about notability guidelines with some taking the "Notability for Athletes" guideline of "Working in a professional league" as a blanket approval of everything pro wrestling related because it's called Professional wrestling. Generally it's a problem where wrestling really falls somewhere between a sport and entertainment - so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one.
It's been tried before but maybe, just maybe if this project (and those of us with an interest in pro wrestling) got together, took suggestions for a guideline and then tried to establish a consensus we could avoid lengthy AFD debates like the one going on for Chuck Taylor right now (it'll probably be "No consensus" due to flawed arguments from multiple voters). I think it's time for WP:PW to do more than argue over match tag lines etc and really DO something to improve the standard of pro wrestling on Wikipedia MPJ-DK 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we all know what is notable at first glance, and most editors know a bad article when then see it, and this latest bunch of PRODs and AfDs have removed a lot of clutter so we can concentrate on making the current set of articles (mainly bios) Burntsauce proof. And as I have been responsible for the AfDs I think I should say what I'm doing. If I see an article and it does not establish the notability of the wrestler or fed then I will PROD, but if there seems to be a small group of editors maintaining one article, and they are likely to have only that article on their watchlist and remove the PROD straight away then I'll AfD. Sometimes there is one editor with who really wants the article to stay and will post endlessly, other times the article will be re-written and I will withdraw the nom [1]. I'm not sure a guide at this point would do anything different that WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS don't do. Of course re-writing and referencing the articles will nearly always save them and will improve the article which, in the end, is the point of an AfD, becuase if an article being deleted can't motivate editors to improve and article then nothing will. Darrenhusted 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright my mistake to think this would actually get the project to do something other than argue over minor edits and list of announced matches on a PPV, I give up on this project completly MPJ-DK 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay...let's get serious people. How about we do it like this. Add * Your suggestion here. ~~~~ to the list below and then people can comment on the different points for establishing notability. Sign your comments and points. I'll start. If I missed a category, feel free to add that, too. Remember, not every point has to be met to be considered notable, but if a wrestler/promotion/stable/whatever meets a couple or more, then they are notable. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling this discussion is going to get long, so I've moved some of the guidelines (as well as adding a few more) HERE. We can discuss changes on the talk page there, and then change the guidelines accordingly. That way, we won't have to worry about this very important discussion getting lost in the shuffle. Nikki311 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That NO new wrestler pages be created by PW folks until the ones already here are sourced as well? That way we A) Have better existing articles and B) reduce the # of crufttastic ones that we have to deal with. SirFozzie 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --- Silent RAGE! 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The page NEEDS a clean up and sources, I just removed some month old vandalism that included a statement that RVD won a match between Bret Hart and someone else. -- Scorpion 0422 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is undergoing a severe edit war between those who think Christian Cage became the first champion at Sacrifice when NWA withdrew its titles, and those who think Kurt Angle became the first champion at Slammiversary by winning the King of the Mountain match. Personally I fall into the former group. Is there anything we can do to sort this out? -- MarcK 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Do wrestlers belong in fictional categories for gimmicks? (Fictional kings for King of the Ring winners, fictional vampires for Gangrel & the brood) They weren't really kings and vampires...but they weren't fictional either. Opinions?«» bd( talk stalk) 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if I could direct everyones eyes to this which has sat in place since June 28 without much involvement from anyone here - when really I would have thought it was a total no-brainer. Contribute, if you would -- SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
It may be unorthodox to give a project a barnstar, but I just want to say you are all doing a great job. MrMurph101 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I've been cleaning up the assessments on most of our pages. There are some truly terrible articles listed as B class, when they really are no more than stubs. Most of the current B articles, need major cleaning up or the addition of sources before they can be considered B class. I've been downgrading some B articles articles to start class, so don't get offended if I downgraded an article you've been working on. The first ones I changed to start class were the ones that I work on myself. Anyway, the point of this post is...to get the article back up to B class, add footnotes and references (make it blank proof, basically). This will also help us sort out which articles need referencing and attention, and which articles are alright for the time being. Nikki311 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, here is the list of everything (i think) that has been downgraded:
Nenog 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to the project, but I wanted to bring a proposal concerning the style guidelines (I'm imagine it could have been discussed before, but I think it needs brought back up). I noticed that the style guidelines there is a "Finishing and signature moves" section that has become an "In wrestling" section (so the guidelines have already been changed without being discussed it seems). This section typically contains finishing moves and managers, but is increasingly including more and more information such as quotes, catch phrases, taunts, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained, commercial endorsements, and on, and on, and on and on. I think this "In wrestling" section is getting cluttered up with too much information and is becoming nothing more than a long list of largely useless information in the middle of an article.
I had an article go through GAR, and I received comments (among others) that the "In wrestling" section was too big and seemed like a lot of junk (and I couldn't disagree with them, I had just left that section as it was). I looked through the existing wrestling GA and above articles to see what they looked like. I liked how the Konnan article had the managers and moves listed in a table, it makes the article look a lot cleaner, so I decided to go with that pattern, making tables for moves and manager. The rest of the info in the "In wrestling" area I merged into the article (where it really should be) or deleted it. I was complimented for doing this (thanks for the idea whoever it was I copied) and was told it made the article look much better.
I think we should change the style guidelines to using the tables as they are in the Konnan article. I believe this will help the project in a couple of ways. It makes the article look cleaner and thereby presents this project as being interested in making our articles look the best they possibly can. By doing this I believe it will also eliminate a lot of the junk that is collecting up in these "In wrestling" sections since the section will not be there. This will also present the project as caring what kind of content is in the wrestling articles (right now we allow a lot of junk). These would both be positive things for this project. - T-75| talk| contribs 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
While the style guidelines don't say so, it seems to me that there is an "unofficial" style guidline that in wrestling bios all non-wrestling info should be at the end of the article underneath the "In wrestling" and "Championships & accomplishments" section (see the John Cena or CM Punk articles for an example). This, to me, really breaks up the continuity of the article and makes the non-wrestling stuff seem less important (being burried beneath a list of stuff). Personally, when I come to lists like that, I don't read anything beyond them (even in wrestler's bios) unless I am reviewing them for a GAC or GAR, so everything else underneath get's overlooked (and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this). It makes a lot more sense to have the body of the article (including the non-wrestling stuff) all together instead of broke up by a couple lists (see Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura articles for examples of this), it allows the article to flow through to the finish and then the reader can see a list of all the other stuff and/or read them in tables (as I proposed above). Again, this would be positive to the project as it wouldn't make it seem that we think the wrestling info in an article is more important than the non-wrestling stuff, plus it would allow the articles to take the form of a more all inclusive biography (which they are supposed to be like already) instead of a play-by-play of a wrestlers career. - T-75| talk| contribs 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A modified version of my suggestion from The Machines (professional wrestling) article that I expanded from a stub to a full article on July 1.
*…that in 1986 André the Giant’s back was so injured that the WWF invented The Machines storyline to keep the popular Andre on television without having to get in the ring that often?
Is currently displayed on the Main Page's "Did you know?". My second DKY in less than 2 weeks MPJ-DK 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, it seems pretty obvious that stating who is on the promotion poster (when the poster is right there in the article) is not OR, right? Well, this new user named ( User:BlueShrek) keeps removing the note about Cor Von and Lashley being on the ONS 2007 poster by claiming it's OR, and even removing a compromise that just says it's Lashley (which even wwe.com says). The noob even tried to intimidate me by claiming he would report me (even though I hadn't broken any guidelines or policies). Anybody care to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's Lashley. Darrenhusted 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Id like to comment on this situation. First off, TJ has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule SEVERAL times and his claims that Im a "newb" are offensive. Second off, I dont see the point in putting the line about the promo posters bc #1 some form of the poster is there and #2 Its not significant to the article. I request we remove all the promo poster lines from the article only to help better them. Thank you for your time. BlueShrek 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No offence intended: I think BlueShrek is (offensive comment removed) and the articles are perfectly fine the way they are.-- Hornetman 16 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve Austin's article says his real name is Steve Williams, yet Debra said on FOX News a couple of weeks ago that he legally changed it to Steve Austin. Should something be done? Koberulz 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
There is already a Steve Williams (Dr Death Steve Williams), this being the exact reason Austin changed to Steve Austin. As far as I know Austin may have changed his name to get around copyright issues for when he wanted to wrestle outside of WWE (like The Rock paid for the use of his name), but there has never been any evidence provided and I wouldn't trust Debra Marshall-McMichael-Williams-Austin as a WP:RS. Darrenhusted 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there are more important things to worry about. But this is still bugging me. It seems that the promotional poster images are being removed in favor for DVD covers. Check out the edit history of WWE Backlash as an example. Is there a valid reason for this? Mshake3 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3A3bulletproof16&diff=143195320&oldid=134011085— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.225.167 ( talk • contribs)
This issue is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User.E2.80.99s_account_was_hacked. An interesting hypothesis was brought up that this may be a "joe job."
I was just browsing through the Pro Wrestling style guide. Maybe you guys should like update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestler biographies section to reflect the use of infoboxes, the height, weight and birthdate/age templates etc because as it stands now the section does not reflect how it's actually done in articles.
Just an idea MPJ-DK 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Rico's article was in the need of references, as stated on WP:PW's references page. I've referenced the wrestlnig part, but am finding it really difficult to find sources that are not on Online World of Wrestlnig.com. Anyone know any good places to get the other info? Thanks in advance. Davnel03 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed this one at the header at the top of the page, expect it's been inactive for several weeks. Just thought I'd let you know. Is it going to get back up and running, or not? Davnel03 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
On May 18, a new article was created called Corkscrew wrestling moves. Most of these moves are already are could be covered in the existing moves articles. What should we do? Merge the moves not already in other articles and prod it? Clean it up, wikify it, and keep it? Nikki311 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
He made a new account and less than a minute later he made this fishy edit. As you can see, he's asked for CZW World Heavyweight Championship to be delisted from it's FA status. His edit is being discussed here. Davnel03 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been researching professional wrestling history for a time now, and I have seen a plethora of websites that are far from good sources. What alarms me is that many wrestling sites are text dumps loaded with info that was not published or researched. Worse still, I can see that, in the case of Pro-Wrestling Illustrated, for example, a good site, the bios and info on wrestling is dependent on wikipedia! see: http://www.pwi-online.com/pages/hallofame.html
I hate to say this, but wikipedia is already the dominant source for wrestling information. you can interpret that as you wish, but I find it a little alarming. I mean, that means that info that was left on wikipedia for a few months could have "looked good" to a programmer, made into a site, or worse yet, a fansite that holds poor info, and then could be referenced into wikipedia as fact!
The WikiProject for Pro-Wrestling should get much tougher on references.-- Screwball23 talk 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to bitch about that, couldn't you come up with a better example than this? A website doesn't want to write a bio. Alert the authorities! The non-wrestling fan media fails once again. Mshake3 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just sayin'. The one day I watch ECW live something happens and I decide to change it. What was I thinking.«» bd( talk stalk) 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Things were so peaceful the last few weeks. Anyway, here's the dispute. Bullet is saying that at the end of its existance, the WCW Championship, at that point known as the World Championship, was retired (and renamed) AS the WCW Championship. The reasoning? This page, which refers to the title as the WCW title.
Here's my beef (thanks Murph): 1. You're saying that the title was renamed as a WCW championship on December 9, three weeks after WCW was put out of business. 2. You're saying that a title can be refered to as ANYTHING new going forward after it is deactivated. 3. You're saying that WWE.com is the above all, end all source. Shouldn't we start removing ALL references to the letters WWF from all articles, since that's how WWE sees it? 4. WWE.com skipped over the name change from WCW to World, mainly because it was a minor thing. So, does that mean it never happened?
And speaking of, the only reason that page refered to the belt as WCW was because 99% of the time, that's what the belt was known as. The webmaster (the WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com webmasters are apparently WP:PWs messiahs) was simply trying to keep things simple.
ANd bullet, if for some reason you still havn't changed your mind, then I'm going to remove just about all of Benoit's WWE section from his article, as according to WWE going forward, it never happened. Mshake3 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just come across Monday Night Wars, History of World Wrestling Entertainment and History of professional wrestling, which all have literally not many references. All three have the potential to one day be a feature article, but with no references thats impossible. I would just go onto Online World of Wrestling to get info, but for an article like this, that's a little impossible. Apart from OWW, is there any other places that I can get reliable sources from? Thanks in advance. (Please provide a hyperlink to the websites listed [if any!]) Davnel03 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I happened upon a random article which on the talkpage had a link to this taskforce, and looking down the list I noticed that here is no section for wrestling, would it be worth interested parties adding a section for Pro-Wrestling and then members of the project or those with an interest adding themselves to the taskforce, then PW articles could be filtered through this taskforce, and other members of the taskforce (that is to say those who are not project members) may be able to help ease the burden of tidying up some of the worse PW articles, and bring a fresh eye to some articles. Just an idea but given that there are a number of PW editors already acting in this way unilaterally this may be a way to pool resources. Darrenhusted 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that The Undertaker's GA has passed! :) Just hope now that no one delists it like last time. Well done anyway to those who contributed! Davnel03 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Should live event (house show) debuts be included in articles, or should it solely be when they debut on television? Mshake3 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Shelton Benjamin just passed the Good Article process, as well. Just letting everyone know. Nikki311 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has placed Shelton Benjamin on review and made several (in my opinion) counterproductive edits that go against the WP:PW style guide. I reverted some, however I can't find anything in the guidelines that allows me to change the rest. Personally, I don't feel there is too much wrong with the article to require review. But if someone here would like to quickly go through the page and do the necessary edits that I can't see, that would be much appreciated. - Deep Shadow 07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When has enough time passed that you can edit a wrestler's article without violating the "no week-by-week updates" policy? Gavyn Sykes 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That rule has always been misleading. It should be "no week-by-week updates of every little event." If something notable happens, then it should be mentioned as soon as it's allowed (Mon, Tues, Fri, or Sun). Mshake3 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, as much it can be. Gavyn Sykes 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the page WWE Champ should be redirected to WWE Champ (disambiguation) and the contents should be:
WWE Champ could refer to:
or
Vote shall we??-- Hornetman 16 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
When someone says "Champ", it's always in reference to the person holding the title. So it should direct to Cena. Mshake3 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No. What are we doing? Putting in redirects for people who can't figure out what they're looking for, am I looking for the belt or the person?, this makes no sense. If you want WWE Champ then put in WWE and click on links, wrestling wikis have hundreds of wikilinks, sometimes too many, we cannot be creating redirects and disambigs for every possible variation of every search. Darrenhusted 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's highly unnecessary. Anyone looking for the current champ can easily type in "John Cena". What's next, creating a "Current WWE Champion" redirect? -- Scorpion 0422 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The time limit situation is not our problem. - Deep Shadow 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Someone who is interested enough in wrestling to want to look up WWE champ but too lazy or time restricted to scroll down and click on a link? I don't see a reason for adding it. Darrenhusted 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way. If you waited to do you report on that subject till the last day and you ran out of time, You have no more days. Happens to me alot...too much actually. Anyway, you get my point?-- Hornetman 16 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It like a standard 5th Grade report to write a report on your favorite athlete. Mine's just hypothetical cause I just finished 9th Grade and I'm going for my GED.-- Hornetman 16 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In case I'm misunderstanding the situation: the main reason to do this is under the theoretical situation that somebody would run out of time and not be able to type in "John Cena" or and thus would type in "WWE Champ" and then still not have enough time to find a link to the Cena page? It seems to me that anyone looking for Cena would type in John Cena and not WWE Champ (which both have the exact same number of characters). -- Scorpion 0422 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want a count it looks like 7 against, 2 for. I'm not sure what the point would be Hornetman16 for redirecting a redirect which already does its job correctly. Darrenhusted 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You know what? SCREW IT!!! I still thing the Disambig page is better but, whatever.-- Hornetman 16 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That was knd-of snotty!- Hornetman 16 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Since all of the various title reigns are now bein' listed under the promotion in which a champion wins a title, I've hit a little bit of a snag. Flair won it for the third time by defeating Harley Race in Kallang, Singapore and his the fourth by defeating Kerry Von Erich in Yokosuka, Japan. My problem is that I don't know what promotions to list them under. I figure that the title win in Japan was during a match promoted by AJPW or New Japan, but I don't know which one. Anybody got any ideas? Odin's Beard 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Mean I know they are the big 4 but still I would like to see history and fact and stuff like that for the other PPV. supermike
They also tend to have the four highest PPV buyrates each year (usually WM, SummerSlam, RR, Survivor Series). Darrenhusted 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
but History is also behiden the other PPV like No way out and Blacklash Supermike
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you click on NYR and work your way through some pages. Darrenhusted 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
take a look at last year summerslam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SummerSlam_%282006%29 and his last year great american bash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_American_Bash#2006 I just want all the WWE ppv to look like the Big four PPV wikipedia pages supermike
Here is a thing that's more worrying than the PPVs being on the same page - most of the PPV results don't have direct inline references and could for 99% of the cases be slapped with an {{unreferenced}} tag. MPJ-DK 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it's enough work as it is keeping watch on these PPV articles. If we split them up further, the reverts of vandalism would never end. Gavyn Sykes 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok ok ok. You didn't have to get angry.-- Hornetman 16 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comeon folks! Can't we come up with a better reason than "we're too lazy to monitor 200 articles?" Mshake3 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They obviously followed the formatting for In Your House, and although WWE PPVs are 23 years old Wikipedia is not. Check out the edits starting from here [3]. Darrenhusted 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All im saying is that these small PPV like backlash do have a History like how HHH has been in ever Main event of Blacklash escape one Supermike
Well that would be just adding trivia which borders on being OR, and I don't think the articles really need to be bloated with trivia. Darrenhusted 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
you do it for the big 4 so i don't see what the problem is supermiker
Have you not just read the discussion above? I am trying to assume good faith but your contributions are few [4], and you have vandalised pages [5], and your spelling is poor. If by this point you don't understand the reasoning behind us not being willing to maintain 213 articles then there is no point continuing to discuss this matter. Darrenhusted 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I do understand I just think its a lazy reason yoiu're just begin lazy its os easy to maintain a web site and so what my spelling not good that doesn't mean anything and so vandalised a page big deal no ones perfect Supermike
Then maybe you should leave and let someone who care do the job that you're too lazy to do Supermike
I quit reading it after a while (tldr), but it's an interesting read on the use of spoiler tags, and thus spoilers in general. It may lead to some changes in the way things are done in this project. Mshake3 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether World Championship Wrestling Of America is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! -- B. Wolterding 13:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Benoit family tragedy survived AFD, with no consensus. What I'm planning to do is heavily improve the article, and at the moment I'm gathering a a load of sources to insert into the article. Just thought I'd let you guyz know. Davnel03 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen Brian Adams (wrestler) is now officially a Good Article after I addressed the issues outlined in the GA feedback. Congratulations to those that did most of the work, I just got in at the end with a few specific corrections, I can't take much credit for it MPJ-DK 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of them are probably a little far off, but I just wondered if any of them could pass GA in their current state. Personally, I think Anderson and Angle could pass. What do you think? Davnel03 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And I was looking at the Al Snow article earlier, it is very vague about his pre-98 work. His time as Avatar and Lief Cassidy was very short but there were specific dates when he debuted as both and when he finished. Darrenhusted 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Does Gobbledygooker deserve its own page or should it be merged into Hector Guerrero? Don't we normally only have "character" articles if multiple people portrayed it (like Doink)? As far as I can tell in the article, Guerrero was the only Gobbledygooker. DrWarpMind 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take a look at this. We'll probably have to keep a close eye on TJ for any more possible socks... Davnel03 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through and citeing the List of professional wrestling match types. In the process I've come across a host of articles that just seem, to me, to be wholly unnecessary on their own. For the most part I've been prod'ing them as they come up, but I recently came across the Ladder match, and Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match articles. Personally I think the ladder match has enough history to deserve it's own article, but the TLC match is nothing but a ladder match with chairs and tables in the mix, so why not merge one in to the other, yes?
Anyway, for any match type that gets an article, can we agree that these "history" sections, which tend to either be lists/tables of match results or short recaps of the match need to go? We don't even go into that kind of detail on actual PPV articles. «» bd( talk stalk) 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The TLC page is awful, I don't think we need to merge much of it, I recommend hacking it down then merging the remains and creating a redirect. Darrenhusted 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All the TLC matches are notable, and at a push I would say most of the Ladder matches are, considering how many matches the WWE holds each year, and how few are ladder matches. Darrenhusted 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this really a notable federation? The HBK link is to a youtube video [6], and all the other links are to the fed page with embedded youtube videos, the main editor [7] is also the main youtube account [8]. Ghits for Christian Wrestling Federation do not turn much up, and half the links are to porn [9], if someone knows of some good third party coverage for it that can be referenced then I suggest you add it in as I'm considering a PROD or AfD at the moment. Darrenhusted 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to PROD it, but after looking in to the history it turns out it was PROD-ed in February, deleted, then recreated, then CSD G4, then hang on, and although Jdblundell has doen a lot of work the one thing he hasn't done is find third party sources to back up the media exposure section. I could have gone for a CSD, becuase it still violates G4, but instead I feel an AfD will settle this finally. Darrenhusted 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether these reports are "true", but a article on WrestleMag.com states:
We hope to have more details on the situation later today.
I'm putting Copeland's page on my watchlist - if he does drop the title, the page will almost certainly have to be locked. Davnel03 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler for both articles [10] Darrenhusted 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Need to stop reading these things before I watch the programmes...Same thing happened to me with Joe over on TNA...dammit, Wikipedia... -- SteelersFan UK06 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the arguments will begin, because we are 72 hours from Smackdown!, last time UT's injury and KK's injury were known about for longer. Darrenhusted 12:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated a pic for Deletion at this spot: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_17#Image:SurvivorSeries05Stage.jpg-- Hornetman 16 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of debating here why don't you go vote.-- Hornetman 16 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Cause no other WWE article except the Weekly shows show their set.-- Hornetman 16 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea what Hornetman16's reasoning is, from what I can tell it was added in here [11] on the 4th April 2007, and it was removed here [12] by orphanbot on the 8th April 2007, and hasn't been removed since, and it is a fair use image which illustrates the stage set up, which could not be done by screencap. It has only been removed once, not three times (surely the last time would need to be the fourth?) and there is no copyright issues, it may be a bir blurry but it serves its purpose. And I suggest Hornetman16 you reign in the SHOUTING!. I see no merit in this deletion, so I'm going to add it back to the page and if the image is deleted then the link can be removed then. Darrenhusted 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with listing stuff for deletion but List of Tag Teams should definitely go. There's nothing there that's not already covered by World Wrestling Entertainment roster. Could somebody take care of this? DrWarpMind 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I think there may be a few more former tag teams than just the Dudley Boyz and MNM. Nenog 05:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Darrenhusted 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are oftentimes debates as to whether to use a performer's real name vs. their stage name. Since most performers are better known for their stage names people often use WP:NAME to justify making "Dusty Rhodes", "Hulk Hogan", or "The Great Khali" an article's title. While the debates rage on, I think we need to set a standard for when it comes to wrestling's names. What do you guys think? Romis 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In general, while WP:NAME favours ring names, very few actually are done actually this way as very few are exclusively known under one persona. This may be due to:
Ring names are de facto exclusively preferred under the following conditions:
This is moot if the following occurs:
kelvSYC 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Someones messed up the bottom of the article big time, and looking on the edit history, I can't seem to find the last clean version. Can someone try and get it back to normal? Thankz. Davnel03 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I know he probably means well, but, he's messing up the articles 75% of the time.-- Hornetman 16 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A user has decided to build a little garden and inside he has put his backyard fed and declared himself champion. He then removed the PRODs [14], [15], placed on those pages and duplicated the removal messages on the talk pages. Your thoughts on this AfD are welcomed. Darrenhusted 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You may want to keep watch on the Warrior page. I've reverted to the last good version (see edit log for more info). Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:04, 21 July 2007 (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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
If you've been following along with AFDs lately there seems to be a lot of hub-bub about notability guidelines with some taking the "Notability for Athletes" guideline of "Working in a professional league" as a blanket approval of everything pro wrestling related because it's called Professional wrestling. Generally it's a problem where wrestling really falls somewhere between a sport and entertainment - so wrestlers lay somewhere between "Athletes" and "Actors", yet isn't fully neither one.
It's been tried before but maybe, just maybe if this project (and those of us with an interest in pro wrestling) got together, took suggestions for a guideline and then tried to establish a consensus we could avoid lengthy AFD debates like the one going on for Chuck Taylor right now (it'll probably be "No consensus" due to flawed arguments from multiple voters). I think it's time for WP:PW to do more than argue over match tag lines etc and really DO something to improve the standard of pro wrestling on Wikipedia MPJ-DK 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we all know what is notable at first glance, and most editors know a bad article when then see it, and this latest bunch of PRODs and AfDs have removed a lot of clutter so we can concentrate on making the current set of articles (mainly bios) Burntsauce proof. And as I have been responsible for the AfDs I think I should say what I'm doing. If I see an article and it does not establish the notability of the wrestler or fed then I will PROD, but if there seems to be a small group of editors maintaining one article, and they are likely to have only that article on their watchlist and remove the PROD straight away then I'll AfD. Sometimes there is one editor with who really wants the article to stay and will post endlessly, other times the article will be re-written and I will withdraw the nom [1]. I'm not sure a guide at this point would do anything different that WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS don't do. Of course re-writing and referencing the articles will nearly always save them and will improve the article which, in the end, is the point of an AfD, becuase if an article being deleted can't motivate editors to improve and article then nothing will. Darrenhusted 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright my mistake to think this would actually get the project to do something other than argue over minor edits and list of announced matches on a PPV, I give up on this project completly MPJ-DK 05:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay...let's get serious people. How about we do it like this. Add * Your suggestion here. ~~~~ to the list below and then people can comment on the different points for establishing notability. Sign your comments and points. I'll start. If I missed a category, feel free to add that, too. Remember, not every point has to be met to be considered notable, but if a wrestler/promotion/stable/whatever meets a couple or more, then they are notable. Nikki311 06:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling this discussion is going to get long, so I've moved some of the guidelines (as well as adding a few more) HERE. We can discuss changes on the talk page there, and then change the guidelines accordingly. That way, we won't have to worry about this very important discussion getting lost in the shuffle. Nikki311 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
That NO new wrestler pages be created by PW folks until the ones already here are sourced as well? That way we A) Have better existing articles and B) reduce the # of crufttastic ones that we have to deal with. SirFozzie 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. --- Silent RAGE! 08:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The page NEEDS a clean up and sources, I just removed some month old vandalism that included a statement that RVD won a match between Bret Hart and someone else. -- Scorpion 0422 23:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is undergoing a severe edit war between those who think Christian Cage became the first champion at Sacrifice when NWA withdrew its titles, and those who think Kurt Angle became the first champion at Slammiversary by winning the King of the Mountain match. Personally I fall into the former group. Is there anything we can do to sort this out? -- MarcK 01:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Do wrestlers belong in fictional categories for gimmicks? (Fictional kings for King of the Ring winners, fictional vampires for Gangrel & the brood) They weren't really kings and vampires...but they weren't fictional either. Opinions?«» bd( talk stalk) 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if I could direct everyones eyes to this which has sat in place since June 28 without much involvement from anyone here - when really I would have thought it was a total no-brainer. Contribute, if you would -- SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
It may be unorthodox to give a project a barnstar, but I just want to say you are all doing a great job. MrMurph101 04:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
I don't know if anyone has noticed, but I've been cleaning up the assessments on most of our pages. There are some truly terrible articles listed as B class, when they really are no more than stubs. Most of the current B articles, need major cleaning up or the addition of sources before they can be considered B class. I've been downgrading some B articles articles to start class, so don't get offended if I downgraded an article you've been working on. The first ones I changed to start class were the ones that I work on myself. Anyway, the point of this post is...to get the article back up to B class, add footnotes and references (make it blank proof, basically). This will also help us sort out which articles need referencing and attention, and which articles are alright for the time being. Nikki311 20:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
For those interested, here is the list of everything (i think) that has been downgraded:
Nenog 01:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm kinda new to the project, but I wanted to bring a proposal concerning the style guidelines (I'm imagine it could have been discussed before, but I think it needs brought back up). I noticed that the style guidelines there is a "Finishing and signature moves" section that has become an "In wrestling" section (so the guidelines have already been changed without being discussed it seems). This section typically contains finishing moves and managers, but is increasingly including more and more information such as quotes, catch phrases, taunts, intro songs, signature foreign objects, nicknames, wrestlers trained, commercial endorsements, and on, and on, and on and on. I think this "In wrestling" section is getting cluttered up with too much information and is becoming nothing more than a long list of largely useless information in the middle of an article.
I had an article go through GAR, and I received comments (among others) that the "In wrestling" section was too big and seemed like a lot of junk (and I couldn't disagree with them, I had just left that section as it was). I looked through the existing wrestling GA and above articles to see what they looked like. I liked how the Konnan article had the managers and moves listed in a table, it makes the article look a lot cleaner, so I decided to go with that pattern, making tables for moves and manager. The rest of the info in the "In wrestling" area I merged into the article (where it really should be) or deleted it. I was complimented for doing this (thanks for the idea whoever it was I copied) and was told it made the article look much better.
I think we should change the style guidelines to using the tables as they are in the Konnan article. I believe this will help the project in a couple of ways. It makes the article look cleaner and thereby presents this project as being interested in making our articles look the best they possibly can. By doing this I believe it will also eliminate a lot of the junk that is collecting up in these "In wrestling" sections since the section will not be there. This will also present the project as caring what kind of content is in the wrestling articles (right now we allow a lot of junk). These would both be positive things for this project. - T-75| talk| contribs 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
While the style guidelines don't say so, it seems to me that there is an "unofficial" style guidline that in wrestling bios all non-wrestling info should be at the end of the article underneath the "In wrestling" and "Championships & accomplishments" section (see the John Cena or CM Punk articles for an example). This, to me, really breaks up the continuity of the article and makes the non-wrestling stuff seem less important (being burried beneath a list of stuff). Personally, when I come to lists like that, I don't read anything beyond them (even in wrestler's bios) unless I am reviewing them for a GAC or GAR, so everything else underneath get's overlooked (and I'm sure I'm not the only one to do this). It makes a lot more sense to have the body of the article (including the non-wrestling stuff) all together instead of broke up by a couple lists (see Hulk Hogan and Jesse Ventura articles for examples of this), it allows the article to flow through to the finish and then the reader can see a list of all the other stuff and/or read them in tables (as I proposed above). Again, this would be positive to the project as it wouldn't make it seem that we think the wrestling info in an article is more important than the non-wrestling stuff, plus it would allow the articles to take the form of a more all inclusive biography (which they are supposed to be like already) instead of a play-by-play of a wrestlers career. - T-75| talk| contribs 17:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A modified version of my suggestion from The Machines (professional wrestling) article that I expanded from a stub to a full article on July 1.
*…that in 1986 André the Giant’s back was so injured that the WWF invented The Machines storyline to keep the popular Andre on television without having to get in the ring that often?
Is currently displayed on the Main Page's "Did you know?". My second DKY in less than 2 weeks MPJ-DK 05:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, it seems pretty obvious that stating who is on the promotion poster (when the poster is right there in the article) is not OR, right? Well, this new user named ( User:BlueShrek) keeps removing the note about Cor Von and Lashley being on the ONS 2007 poster by claiming it's OR, and even removing a compromise that just says it's Lashley (which even wwe.com says). The noob even tried to intimidate me by claiming he would report me (even though I hadn't broken any guidelines or policies). Anybody care to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It's Lashley. Darrenhusted 23:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Id like to comment on this situation. First off, TJ has been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule SEVERAL times and his claims that Im a "newb" are offensive. Second off, I dont see the point in putting the line about the promo posters bc #1 some form of the poster is there and #2 Its not significant to the article. I request we remove all the promo poster lines from the article only to help better them. Thank you for your time. BlueShrek 16:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No offence intended: I think BlueShrek is (offensive comment removed) and the articles are perfectly fine the way they are.-- Hornetman 16 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Steve Austin's article says his real name is Steve Williams, yet Debra said on FOX News a couple of weeks ago that he legally changed it to Steve Austin. Should something be done? Koberulz 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
There is already a Steve Williams (Dr Death Steve Williams), this being the exact reason Austin changed to Steve Austin. As far as I know Austin may have changed his name to get around copyright issues for when he wanted to wrestle outside of WWE (like The Rock paid for the use of his name), but there has never been any evidence provided and I wouldn't trust Debra Marshall-McMichael-Williams-Austin as a WP:RS. Darrenhusted 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I know there are more important things to worry about. But this is still bugging me. It seems that the promotional poster images are being removed in favor for DVD covers. Check out the edit history of WWE Backlash as an example. Is there a valid reason for this? Mshake3 03:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3A3bulletproof16&diff=143195320&oldid=134011085— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.225.167 ( talk • contribs)
This issue is being discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#User.E2.80.99s_account_was_hacked. An interesting hypothesis was brought up that this may be a "joe job."
I was just browsing through the Pro Wrestling style guide. Maybe you guys should like update the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Professional wrestler biographies section to reflect the use of infoboxes, the height, weight and birthdate/age templates etc because as it stands now the section does not reflect how it's actually done in articles.
Just an idea MPJ-DK 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed Rico's article was in the need of references, as stated on WP:PW's references page. I've referenced the wrestlnig part, but am finding it really difficult to find sources that are not on Online World of Wrestlnig.com. Anyone know any good places to get the other info? Thanks in advance. Davnel03 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just noticed this one at the header at the top of the page, expect it's been inactive for several weeks. Just thought I'd let you know. Is it going to get back up and running, or not? Davnel03 19:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
On May 18, a new article was created called Corkscrew wrestling moves. Most of these moves are already are could be covered in the existing moves articles. What should we do? Merge the moves not already in other articles and prod it? Clean it up, wikify it, and keep it? Nikki311 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
He made a new account and less than a minute later he made this fishy edit. As you can see, he's asked for CZW World Heavyweight Championship to be delisted from it's FA status. His edit is being discussed here. Davnel03 17:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been researching professional wrestling history for a time now, and I have seen a plethora of websites that are far from good sources. What alarms me is that many wrestling sites are text dumps loaded with info that was not published or researched. Worse still, I can see that, in the case of Pro-Wrestling Illustrated, for example, a good site, the bios and info on wrestling is dependent on wikipedia! see: http://www.pwi-online.com/pages/hallofame.html
I hate to say this, but wikipedia is already the dominant source for wrestling information. you can interpret that as you wish, but I find it a little alarming. I mean, that means that info that was left on wikipedia for a few months could have "looked good" to a programmer, made into a site, or worse yet, a fansite that holds poor info, and then could be referenced into wikipedia as fact!
The WikiProject for Pro-Wrestling should get much tougher on references.-- Screwball23 talk 21:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to bitch about that, couldn't you come up with a better example than this? A website doesn't want to write a bio. Alert the authorities! The non-wrestling fan media fails once again. Mshake3 00:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just sayin'. The one day I watch ECW live something happens and I decide to change it. What was I thinking.«» bd( talk stalk) 02:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Things were so peaceful the last few weeks. Anyway, here's the dispute. Bullet is saying that at the end of its existance, the WCW Championship, at that point known as the World Championship, was retired (and renamed) AS the WCW Championship. The reasoning? This page, which refers to the title as the WCW title.
Here's my beef (thanks Murph): 1. You're saying that the title was renamed as a WCW championship on December 9, three weeks after WCW was put out of business. 2. You're saying that a title can be refered to as ANYTHING new going forward after it is deactivated. 3. You're saying that WWE.com is the above all, end all source. Shouldn't we start removing ALL references to the letters WWF from all articles, since that's how WWE sees it? 4. WWE.com skipped over the name change from WCW to World, mainly because it was a minor thing. So, does that mean it never happened?
And speaking of, the only reason that page refered to the belt as WCW was because 99% of the time, that's what the belt was known as. The webmaster (the WWE.com and TNAWrestling.com webmasters are apparently WP:PWs messiahs) was simply trying to keep things simple.
ANd bullet, if for some reason you still havn't changed your mind, then I'm going to remove just about all of Benoit's WWE section from his article, as according to WWE going forward, it never happened. Mshake3 04:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just come across Monday Night Wars, History of World Wrestling Entertainment and History of professional wrestling, which all have literally not many references. All three have the potential to one day be a feature article, but with no references thats impossible. I would just go onto Online World of Wrestling to get info, but for an article like this, that's a little impossible. Apart from OWW, is there any other places that I can get reliable sources from? Thanks in advance. (Please provide a hyperlink to the websites listed [if any!]) Davnel03 16:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I happened upon a random article which on the talkpage had a link to this taskforce, and looking down the list I noticed that here is no section for wrestling, would it be worth interested parties adding a section for Pro-Wrestling and then members of the project or those with an interest adding themselves to the taskforce, then PW articles could be filtered through this taskforce, and other members of the taskforce (that is to say those who are not project members) may be able to help ease the burden of tidying up some of the worse PW articles, and bring a fresh eye to some articles. Just an idea but given that there are a number of PW editors already acting in this way unilaterally this may be a way to pool resources. Darrenhusted 11:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just letting you know that The Undertaker's GA has passed! :) Just hope now that no one delists it like last time. Well done anyway to those who contributed! Davnel03 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Should live event (house show) debuts be included in articles, or should it solely be when they debut on television? Mshake3 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Shelton Benjamin just passed the Good Article process, as well. Just letting everyone know. Nikki311 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has placed Shelton Benjamin on review and made several (in my opinion) counterproductive edits that go against the WP:PW style guide. I reverted some, however I can't find anything in the guidelines that allows me to change the rest. Personally, I don't feel there is too much wrong with the article to require review. But if someone here would like to quickly go through the page and do the necessary edits that I can't see, that would be much appreciated. - Deep Shadow 07:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
When has enough time passed that you can edit a wrestler's article without violating the "no week-by-week updates" policy? Gavyn Sykes 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That rule has always been misleading. It should be "no week-by-week updates of every little event." If something notable happens, then it should be mentioned as soon as it's allowed (Mon, Tues, Fri, or Sun). Mshake3 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up, as much it can be. Gavyn Sykes 23:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the page WWE Champ should be redirected to WWE Champ (disambiguation) and the contents should be:
WWE Champ could refer to:
or
Vote shall we??-- Hornetman 16 02:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
When someone says "Champ", it's always in reference to the person holding the title. So it should direct to Cena. Mshake3 13:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
No. What are we doing? Putting in redirects for people who can't figure out what they're looking for, am I looking for the belt or the person?, this makes no sense. If you want WWE Champ then put in WWE and click on links, wrestling wikis have hundreds of wikilinks, sometimes too many, we cannot be creating redirects and disambigs for every possible variation of every search. Darrenhusted 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's highly unnecessary. Anyone looking for the current champ can easily type in "John Cena". What's next, creating a "Current WWE Champion" redirect? -- Scorpion 0422 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The time limit situation is not our problem. - Deep Shadow 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Someone who is interested enough in wrestling to want to look up WWE champ but too lazy or time restricted to scroll down and click on a link? I don't see a reason for adding it. Darrenhusted 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Think of it this way. If you waited to do you report on that subject till the last day and you ran out of time, You have no more days. Happens to me alot...too much actually. Anyway, you get my point?-- Hornetman 16 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
It like a standard 5th Grade report to write a report on your favorite athlete. Mine's just hypothetical cause I just finished 9th Grade and I'm going for my GED.-- Hornetman 16 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In case I'm misunderstanding the situation: the main reason to do this is under the theoretical situation that somebody would run out of time and not be able to type in "John Cena" or and thus would type in "WWE Champ" and then still not have enough time to find a link to the Cena page? It seems to me that anyone looking for Cena would type in John Cena and not WWE Champ (which both have the exact same number of characters). -- Scorpion 0422 20:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want a count it looks like 7 against, 2 for. I'm not sure what the point would be Hornetman16 for redirecting a redirect which already does its job correctly. Darrenhusted 21:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You know what? SCREW IT!!! I still thing the Disambig page is better but, whatever.-- Hornetman 16 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That was knd-of snotty!- Hornetman 16 21:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Since all of the various title reigns are now bein' listed under the promotion in which a champion wins a title, I've hit a little bit of a snag. Flair won it for the third time by defeating Harley Race in Kallang, Singapore and his the fourth by defeating Kerry Von Erich in Yokosuka, Japan. My problem is that I don't know what promotions to list them under. I figure that the title win in Japan was during a match promoted by AJPW or New Japan, but I don't know which one. Anybody got any ideas? Odin's Beard 23:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Mean I know they are the big 4 but still I would like to see history and fact and stuff like that for the other PPV. supermike
They also tend to have the four highest PPV buyrates each year (usually WM, SummerSlam, RR, Survivor Series). Darrenhusted 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
but History is also behiden the other PPV like No way out and Blacklash Supermike
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you click on NYR and work your way through some pages. Darrenhusted 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
take a look at last year summerslam page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SummerSlam_%282006%29 and his last year great american bash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_American_Bash#2006 I just want all the WWE ppv to look like the Big four PPV wikipedia pages supermike
Here is a thing that's more worrying than the PPVs being on the same page - most of the PPV results don't have direct inline references and could for 99% of the cases be slapped with an {{unreferenced}} tag. MPJ-DK 10:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, it's enough work as it is keeping watch on these PPV articles. If we split them up further, the reverts of vandalism would never end. Gavyn Sykes 16:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok ok ok. You didn't have to get angry.-- Hornetman 16 23:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Comeon folks! Can't we come up with a better reason than "we're too lazy to monitor 200 articles?" Mshake3 23:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
They obviously followed the formatting for In Your House, and although WWE PPVs are 23 years old Wikipedia is not. Check out the edits starting from here [3]. Darrenhusted 00:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All im saying is that these small PPV like backlash do have a History like how HHH has been in ever Main event of Blacklash escape one Supermike
Well that would be just adding trivia which borders on being OR, and I don't think the articles really need to be bloated with trivia. Darrenhusted 10:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
you do it for the big 4 so i don't see what the problem is supermiker
Have you not just read the discussion above? I am trying to assume good faith but your contributions are few [4], and you have vandalised pages [5], and your spelling is poor. If by this point you don't understand the reasoning behind us not being willing to maintain 213 articles then there is no point continuing to discuss this matter. Darrenhusted 23:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I do understand I just think its a lazy reason yoiu're just begin lazy its os easy to maintain a web site and so what my spelling not good that doesn't mean anything and so vandalised a page big deal no ones perfect Supermike
Then maybe you should leave and let someone who care do the job that you're too lazy to do Supermike
I quit reading it after a while (tldr), but it's an interesting read on the use of spoiler tags, and thus spoilers in general. It may lead to some changes in the way things are done in this project. Mshake3 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether World Championship Wrestling Of America is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! -- B. Wolterding 13:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Benoit family tragedy survived AFD, with no consensus. What I'm planning to do is heavily improve the article, and at the moment I'm gathering a a load of sources to insert into the article. Just thought I'd let you guyz know. Davnel03 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen Brian Adams (wrestler) is now officially a Good Article after I addressed the issues outlined in the GA feedback. Congratulations to those that did most of the work, I just got in at the end with a few specific corrections, I can't take much credit for it MPJ-DK 18:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of them are probably a little far off, but I just wondered if any of them could pass GA in their current state. Personally, I think Anderson and Angle could pass. What do you think? Davnel03 20:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
And I was looking at the Al Snow article earlier, it is very vague about his pre-98 work. His time as Avatar and Lief Cassidy was very short but there were specific dates when he debuted as both and when he finished. Darrenhusted 21:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Does Gobbledygooker deserve its own page or should it be merged into Hector Guerrero? Don't we normally only have "character" articles if multiple people portrayed it (like Doink)? As far as I can tell in the article, Guerrero was the only Gobbledygooker. DrWarpMind 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should take a look at this. We'll probably have to keep a close eye on TJ for any more possible socks... Davnel03 15:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through and citeing the List of professional wrestling match types. In the process I've come across a host of articles that just seem, to me, to be wholly unnecessary on their own. For the most part I've been prod'ing them as they come up, but I recently came across the Ladder match, and Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match articles. Personally I think the ladder match has enough history to deserve it's own article, but the TLC match is nothing but a ladder match with chairs and tables in the mix, so why not merge one in to the other, yes?
Anyway, for any match type that gets an article, can we agree that these "history" sections, which tend to either be lists/tables of match results or short recaps of the match need to go? We don't even go into that kind of detail on actual PPV articles. «» bd( talk stalk) 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The TLC page is awful, I don't think we need to merge much of it, I recommend hacking it down then merging the remains and creating a redirect. Darrenhusted 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
All the TLC matches are notable, and at a push I would say most of the Ladder matches are, considering how many matches the WWE holds each year, and how few are ladder matches. Darrenhusted 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this really a notable federation? The HBK link is to a youtube video [6], and all the other links are to the fed page with embedded youtube videos, the main editor [7] is also the main youtube account [8]. Ghits for Christian Wrestling Federation do not turn much up, and half the links are to porn [9], if someone knows of some good third party coverage for it that can be referenced then I suggest you add it in as I'm considering a PROD or AfD at the moment. Darrenhusted 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to PROD it, but after looking in to the history it turns out it was PROD-ed in February, deleted, then recreated, then CSD G4, then hang on, and although Jdblundell has doen a lot of work the one thing he hasn't done is find third party sources to back up the media exposure section. I could have gone for a CSD, becuase it still violates G4, but instead I feel an AfD will settle this finally. Darrenhusted 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether these reports are "true", but a article on WrestleMag.com states:
We hope to have more details on the situation later today.
I'm putting Copeland's page on my watchlist - if he does drop the title, the page will almost certainly have to be locked. Davnel03 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler for both articles [10] Darrenhusted 23:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Need to stop reading these things before I watch the programmes...Same thing happened to me with Joe over on TNA...dammit, Wikipedia... -- SteelersFan UK06 06:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the arguments will begin, because we are 72 hours from Smackdown!, last time UT's injury and KK's injury were known about for longer. Darrenhusted 12:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated a pic for Deletion at this spot: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_17#Image:SurvivorSeries05Stage.jpg-- Hornetman 16 22:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Instead of debating here why don't you go vote.-- Hornetman 16 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Cause no other WWE article except the Weekly shows show their set.-- Hornetman 16 22:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea what Hornetman16's reasoning is, from what I can tell it was added in here [11] on the 4th April 2007, and it was removed here [12] by orphanbot on the 8th April 2007, and hasn't been removed since, and it is a fair use image which illustrates the stage set up, which could not be done by screencap. It has only been removed once, not three times (surely the last time would need to be the fourth?) and there is no copyright issues, it may be a bir blurry but it serves its purpose. And I suggest Hornetman16 you reign in the SHOUTING!. I see no merit in this deletion, so I'm going to add it back to the page and if the image is deleted then the link can be removed then. Darrenhusted 22:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with listing stuff for deletion but List of Tag Teams should definitely go. There's nothing there that's not already covered by World Wrestling Entertainment roster. Could somebody take care of this? DrWarpMind 23:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I think there may be a few more former tag teams than just the Dudley Boyz and MNM. Nenog 05:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Darrenhusted 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There are oftentimes debates as to whether to use a performer's real name vs. their stage name. Since most performers are better known for their stage names people often use WP:NAME to justify making "Dusty Rhodes", "Hulk Hogan", or "The Great Khali" an article's title. While the debates rage on, I think we need to set a standard for when it comes to wrestling's names. What do you guys think? Romis 22:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In general, while WP:NAME favours ring names, very few actually are done actually this way as very few are exclusively known under one persona. This may be due to:
Ring names are de facto exclusively preferred under the following conditions:
This is moot if the following occurs:
kelvSYC 22:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Someones messed up the bottom of the article big time, and looking on the edit history, I can't seem to find the last clean version. Can someone try and get it back to normal? Thankz. Davnel03 14:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I know he probably means well, but, he's messing up the articles 75% of the time.-- Hornetman 16 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A user has decided to build a little garden and inside he has put his backyard fed and declared himself champion. He then removed the PRODs [14], [15], placed on those pages and duplicated the removal messages on the talk pages. Your thoughts on this AfD are welcomed. Darrenhusted 12:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You may want to keep watch on the Warrior page. I've reverted to the last good version (see edit log for more info). Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)