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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Is there any particular reason this article is divided up into promotions rather than going chronological?«» bd( talk stalk) 14:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed it. It's chronological now. Nikki311 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This user likes to add images of the Divas in various bondage positions, as he did with Trish Stratus and is now trying with Candice Michelle. Please keep an eye on this. I will try for as long as I can, but I can't do too much by myself. - Deep Shadow 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive 35, this is getting out of hand...-- SteelersFan UK06 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The championships and accomplishments section seems out of control to me. I know they're all successful guys but it seems like a lot of unnecessary trivia. Shouldn't it focus on accomplishments done while part of the group? I took out the Wrestlemania Undertaker jobbing a little while ago but somebody brought it back soon afterwards. We can clean a lot of that out, right? DrWarpMind 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Its fine how it is supermike
Find the date they formed, find the date they broke up, confine all info to that period, for example none of the Royal Rumble wins happened while they were a group, none of the UT losses happened while they were a group, the Tag reigns did, and one of Tripper's title runs happened (RKO's win being the event that began the split), I have to sleep now but I hacked a chunk our of it, if someone else can find dates I'll cut it down later on today. Darrenhusted 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The articles should focus on only their time is a group. A long time ago, I deleted some of it, too, but it was re-added. Nikki311 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
then why not get rid of the whole thing because im not going to go reads about a group just base on the group I want to know EVERYTHING supermike
Before and after, feel free to re-write and trim further if needed. Darrenhusted 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Question, why is the Union in the Corporation article? Mr. C.C. 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this earlier today and am not sure what to do? Should we delete it or clean it up? I have a hard time believing all these DVDs are notable but there is precedent. DrWarpMind 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Per the people who current own the title, this title is the exact same as the Toronto Version. I propose a merge. No "you do it" comments, please. I'm not in the mood, but it has to be done. Consider this post a "heads-up". :) --- Silent RAGE! 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, now we got two official sources that say it does, and two unofficial sources that say it doesn't. Hmmm.... who should we trust? Oh yeah! The official sources who OWN the title: http://www.nwawrestling.com/PHP-Nuke/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=15 --- Silent RAGE! 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Yes, but how exactly is history shared? Does someone own the rights to the belt in the 80's (which would then have to be retained by Gagne [Gagner] later)? -- SteelersFan UK06 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a good bit of overlap between World Wrestling Entertainment and History of World Wrestling Entertainment. I think the WWE article's history section should be pruned down to a few paragraphs and the rest deferred to the history article, like in the case of WCW. Also, I don't think the company infobox should be on the history page. Anyone agree? DrWarpMind 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does The Corporation contain the Corporate Ministry and Union? Shouldn't the Corporate Ministry at least have its own page? There might not be much to say about The Union, but the Corporate Ministry was pretty important at the time. Right now, there's more Corporate Ministry history in the Ministry of Darkness page than in the Corporation one that has the infobox, membership and title info. I propose spinning Corporate Ministry off to its own page that encompasses the info currently contained in these other pages. DrWarpMind 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I purpose an article for the less important stables like the Union, the Oddities, etc.. Mr. C.C. 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a new proposal. I say we spin Corporate Ministry and Union off to their own shared page since their history is so intertwined (Union created to oppose CM, etc). 3 stables on one page makes it kind of cluttered and the Corporation is notable enough to stand on its own (though it's a bit short on content right now). I've been refreshing myself on the history here via YouTube and I think it can be made into something relatively decent, rather than just like 2 lines and some lists on another page. I'm willing to do the change and build up the content but I'm about to go on a wikibreak so it'll be a little while until I get to it.
Sound ok? If not, I'll still get around to building up the content in the existing locations. DrWarpMind 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone has commented in the CM Punk FAC, stating that all of the Ohio Valley Wrestling sources are down. I've checked at least 5 or 6, and yep, they are down. I'm guessing OVW sources are used on most articles, so they are all going to have to be replaced. Davnel03 07:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute going on at Talk:Professional wrestling aerial techniques over whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba. Please contribute to the discussion if interested - Timber99 - Timber99 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was actually going to post this issue here, as per another user's advice. The actual issue is not "whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba", but an ongoing edit war between users Timber99 and WrestlefnLI. For a more concrete idea of what's going on, please feel free to view the talk page here — Fall Of Darkness 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Much like Evolution, there is a lot of singles career info and crufty lists included here. Is the lingo section really necessary? It looks to me like we can gut a lot of this. DrWarpMind 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that many think that he is Mitchells monster but he hasnt appeared on TV yet. I kept removing the information exclusively calling him the monster but it kept being reverted and i got called a sock puppet. Now I know on WWE pages its like this so can someone help me fix it? McBane420 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok guys, I'm here trying to avoid an edit war because it's evidently going to take more than just my word to avoid creating one. User:Ohgltxg has started to go around to various articles, take certain championships and list them under different names that've been used along the way. For instances, he's started listing all former holders of the Mid-Atlantic version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, NWA World Television Championship, and NWA United States Heavyweight Championship as WCW reigns even if the reigns that wrestlers had with them occurred prior to these championships being renamed as WCW titles. Some of the wrestlers that held these championships didn't wrestle for the promotion after it was sold to Ted Turner and became WCW. Using this same logic, all WWE titles should literally be referred to as WWE championships in the C&A section of the articles, such as listing Bruno Sammartino as a two time WWE Champion even though his reigns occurred decades before the company was renamed. Odin's Beard 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone think this article should be split into three seperate articles.
Bencey 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the split, but now that leaves a lot of links in articles that need to be redirected. E.g. links for The Great American Bash 2007 redirect to the NWA/WCW page. - Deep Shadow 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
F consistancy. It sounds stupid. Also, can't we have votes that last longer than a frickin day? Mshake3 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if it's not consistant. The current naming sucks, and it should be changed. Mshake3 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Quality > Consistancy. Besides, the official name would be "WWE Presents The Great American Bash", or "WWE Great American Bash". Please show me where WWE says it otherwise. Mshake3 23:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I proposing the move of both these pages:
WrestleMania to WrestleMania (PPV Series)
and
WrestleMania (1985) to WrestleMania
What Ya'll think?-- Hornetman16 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My god another nitpicky argument - SummerSlam is not referred to by year - which is why the article name is SummerSlam (19XX) or whatever, not SummerSlam 19XX. As for the first WrestleMania it should be under "WrestleMania I" in my view, yes it wasn't called that during the time, but then again was "World War I" known as "World War I" at the time? No it became known as that when a second one happened, same with WrestleMania - before then there weren't any events of this nature so it wasn't a guarantee that there'd be a 2nd one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK ( talk • contribs)
This gets thrown around a lot. Can't we create a list of these "ruilings" with linked evidence so that when someone says "per WP:PW", we know he's just not talking out of his backside? Mshake3 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think looking for stuff is a concern, unless there is a specific example Shake can give. Maybe in future any per WP:PW should be challenged and then the editor will be forced to back the quote up. Darrenhusted 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Category:WWE video games and this Category:Professional wrestling games. I see many small subcats, and just overcategorization in my view. Games such as Day of Reckoning (2 total games, a sequel could happen, but doubtful at this point) and Legends of Wrestling (3 games, sequel very unlikely) should just be in the main WWE games category, not as a subcat which is what they are currently. I noticed this as well: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Wrestling_video_games. All ended in no consensus. So apparently the CFD wasn't listed anywhere: as one person voted keep in all of them. I think a new CFD that people know about, needs to happen for some of the categories at least. Thoughts, opinions, comments? RobJ1981 07:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've seen a WWF/E name change for the Insane Clown Posse's Juggalo Championshit Wrestling, which is now going by the more traditional Championship. Unfortunately this is leading to (good faith) "update" edits, changing the name in places where it was Championshit at the time. (like Monty Brown's championship reign) I just wanted to alert the project to it, should you see it referenced in an article before last as Championship it's probably incorrect.«» bd( talk stalk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Edge, Big Mark, Rey Rey and Big Nose need to be watched as they are currently the victims of frequent crystal balling as to when they will return. I know Tripper is on the SS07 poster but setneces saying "he will return in 29 days" are the stuff of new sites and not suitable for an encyclopedia. I have all four on my watchlist but if anyone sees anything predictive or unencyclopedic could they revert it, until an wrestler has returned any details about his return are still up in the air (the 'Slam/HHH thing could be a swerve, like The Book did the other week). Once they come back a simple "X returned from injury on the X of X at X" will do. Darrenhusted 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dicussion located here.-- Hornetman16 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
An IP has been vandalizing the Matt Hardy article lately by changing his number of title reigns. I've warned him/her and so has someone else, yet he/she keeps doing it. Is there anything that can be done? Can IP addresses be blocked if they don't have an account? Here is a list of his/her contributions, all of which are vandalism.... HERE. Nikki311 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fresh off their recent block, they vandalized the Matt Hardy page again. I've given them an "only warning" so the next time they disrupt this or any article, please report them. - Deep Shadow 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been repeated vandalism on the Bad Blood PPV page by more than one IP. The vandalism always entails Matt Hardy defeating Edge. Honestly, I wouldn't be bringing this up if I wasn't so green on Editing, but I don't know what to do about it. Ideas, please?
Also, instructions on how to revert to a saved version of the page for future reference would be nice ^^; -- ProtoWolf 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here. Davnel03 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This may have slipped under the radar, but her page was prodded and deleted recently. I think she deserves a page for sure, one of the most notable female wrestling personalities, and very influential, and was part of major wrestling organizations for years. Considering such female wrestling personalities such as Ryan Shamrock and such have pages, I think this page should be recreated. Biggspowd 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally!! We have a wrestler finally at FA status. I couldn't help but thank endless people for this: Nikki311, TheHybrid, MPJ-DK, Gowy, 3bulletproof16, Darrenhusted, Deep Shadow, Hornetman16 (and Lid!!) hell, I could go on all day! Congratulations, CM Punk is a featured article!!! :) Davnel03 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the Nitro Girls' pages and other performers' pages have been deleted completely with no explanation or a discussion about redirecting the information to antoehr page or whatnot.These pages should have a discussion on them before they are completely deleted.( MgTurtle 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).
Honestly this is getting ridiculous - Andrew Martin, prime target of updates since he signed with TNA and made his debut at the TV tapings. It's being removed with the comment "maintaining kayfabe" - What is that? it's not a wrestling website but an encylopedia, if a source can be provided for his apperance it should stay, we can't be on spoiler alert and do 8 million reverts just because it hasn't been on TV yet. This is seriously getting out of hand, is it realy this project's general view that kayfabe must be maintained? DOesn't that strike at the very base of Wikipedia's "No in universe" policy? I say get a source on his apperance, put it in and leave it be! MPJ-DK 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's crystalballing to speculate whether or not a significant appearence for the company's bi-weekly tv taping will actually air. Mshake3 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not crystalballing to say that he appared at the tapings and did whatever, because he did do it, it has happened, it is a fact, whether it ends up on TV is a slightly different matter really - or are we saying "if it isn't on TV it hasn't happened"?? As for the "maintaining kayfabe" 1) it was a revert comment made on the article and 2) if we keep up this "if it isn't shown on TV then it shouldn't be mentioned" policy then we are in fact maintaining Kayfabe here. And nowhere was it speculated when it would air, just that he showed up at the TV tapings, nothing crystalball-like there MPJ-DK 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We can't know it'll be shown until it is, and if it isn't, it's not really notable. Even then, what is considered a reliable source? If the websites with backstage news and such aren't considered reliable, then there's really no reliable source to say he did anything at all. Koberulz 06:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If the dates of people's marriages or the births of their children are know and have sources, should they be put in this section? I think they should be but it should have some source.Any opinions?( MgTurtle 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).
I think that we should put the survivors of the wrestlers on their pages.For example,Ray Traylor is survived by his wife and two daughters.We don't have to put parents and stuff like that just wives and children.Any opinions.( MgTurtle 18:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).
Hornetman16 has suggested that the ECW on Sci Fi bit of the article should be split from the rest of the article. Leave your thoughts here. Davnel03 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
On Kane the undertaker, seems as though it slipped the cracks. If it gets removed and I don't AFD right away, someone please take the honor for me ;) Nosleep1234 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the fake gimmick names that WWE has never used for certain moves really needed? That's just false information. "World's Greatest Finisher?" And where did you hear that? I could name like a thousand other examples. Maxwell85 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we show the Promotional posters (other than the big four ppvs) or DVD covers.-- Kip Smithers 14:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we show posters for the WrestleMania articles?-- Kip Smithers 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Convertible Blondes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (
talk to me)
15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I already forget which article I saw it in, but someone had their Slammy Awards listed in their Championships and accomplishments section. Do we do that? The only ones I can really think of that really mattered were Owen Hart's, and that was as part of his actual bio, not separate in the titles section.«» bd( talk stalk) 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you know... that for the third time one of my "Did you knows" ended up on the Main Page?? Yup it's true from the Norvell Austin article I recreated the other day the following little point to ponder
...that professional wrestler Norvell Austin was part of the first mixed race bad guy Tag team in the Southern United States?
Not bad, 3 times nomminated, three times on the main page MPJ-DK 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a really complicated dispute going on that is becoming hard to keep track of. Its been touched on on a lot of talk pages of both users and the wrestling moves page. Something really needs to be done as it is getting out of hand. I was involved in the dispute and thought it was over and now in the last 24 hours it has rebegun. - Timber99 - Timber99 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about cleaning up Nancy Benoit's article a bit more and nominating it for Good Article status. Before I nominate it, I wanted to ask everyone here about Free-use/Fair-use images. I know living people are supposed to have free-use images. What about for dead people? I checked WP:FU and didn't see anything about it (although I could have just missed it). If the picture is irreplaceable by a fair-use picture, is of low-quality, adds to the article, and doesn't hinder anybody from selling anything (because her image is easily accessible all over the internet)...isn't it okay to use? I just want to make sure before I begin uploading anything. Thanks. Nikki311 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello WP: Professional Wrestling gang! I've been away from the project and Wikipedia as a whole for quite some time and have just recently returned and started to contribute again. I have some questions and comments for you guys and I hope you will be patient with me and consider what I have said and comment/answer my questions accordingly (citing policy if relevant). Thanks!
Comments (personal feelings - feel free to cite official Wiki policy to me etc. if it exists):
(The following text has been copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (autoformatting and linking) section:
Do not autoformat dates that are:
The autoformatting mechanism will not accept date ranges (December 13–17, 1951) or slashes (the night of 30/31 May), which must be input without using the function. Thus:
[[January 15]]
(US editors) or [[15 January]]
(others) will be rendered as either January 15 or 15 January, according to a registered user's set preferences; and[[January 15]], [[2001]]
(US editors), [[15 January]] [[2001]]
(others), [[2001-01-15]]
(ISO), or [[2001 January 15]]
will be rendered as January 15, 2001, 15 January 2001, 2001-01-15, or 2001 January 15, according to a registered user's set preferences.[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.Please note the line I have bolded above. I believe the over linking and misuse of date linking is probably an issue for many of our wrestling articles. Ask yourself, does linking every date that something happened (Wrestling event, title change etc.) in every article REALLY and ACTUALLY "deepen reader's understanding of a topic"? I'm not so sure it does. Please comment on this issue with your own thoughts and interpretations of the date linking policy.
And its not just over linking - its the fact that linking seems to be done haphazardly. Sometimes dates are linked, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes its the full date, sometimes its just the day/month. Sometimes a year is linked and sometimes not. And its not always just a "only link it the first time it appears in an article" issue ....its just all over the place, I don't know how to explain it better. There needs to be some kind of policy to follow.
These are just a few things that I think we might need to work on with this project regarding style and formatting. These are my ideas and opinions and I'm not trying to step on any toes. I just want to know how things should be done properly and whether or not we need to come to a general consensus on some of these and other issues (if there isn't one already). Some of the things I have talked about here continuely get changed or formatted differently depending on the article (by both experienced and non experienced users) - So I think the Project needs to represent a united front on as many issues as possible regarding style and formatting so that everyone is correcting things the same way (whatever way that may be).
I also feel that some of this information (mainly the parts specific to wrestling articles) belongs in this project's style guide section for reference for all users.
Another reason I bring these things up is that I seem to come across comments here and there on various pages throughout Wikipedia that people seem to think this project and its contents are a joke or waste of time. People don't use those words specifically, but after reading enough comments over the months/years in different places, that is what I have inferred. It probably has to do with how many people view professional wrestling in the first place ("fake", "rigged", "blue collar", "stupid" whatever) which is unfortunate. I just happen to really enjoy it for its entertainment value! ..ok I'm getting off topic ..but anyway the more things we can do to streamline and clean up this project, the less certain people might stop looking down on it (or whatever you want to call it) and start helping with it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it currently, but like many aspects of Wikipeida (and life in general) there is room for improvement and I would like to help with these type of administrative issues because I really enjoying organizing things.
Ok I think I've used up enough space here - please let the comments flow! :)
-- Naha| (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the wikiproject has changed for the worst. The Montreal Screwjob, for example, was written with such interest, passion, and intense cooperation, it reached the status of "Today's FA" on the main page. Instead, now, CM Punk, and an array of no-name wrestlers are being promoted to Good-Article class because of nice referencing, but a lack of knowledge. Let me show you an example from CM Punk, an article even wrestling fanatics couldn't stand to read:
Punk's home promotion for his early career is usually considered to be Independent Wrestling Association: Mid-South (IWA:Mid-South).[3] What does that mean? That meanst that nobody knows, but it is considered to be that promotion? That means he was on the indy circuit, moving, travelling, wrestling in various promotions, but some nerd decided to look for the oldest history of him wrestling, and found documented evidence that he was first there.
During Punk's time in IWA:Mid-South he had high profile feuds with Colt Cabana and Chris Hero while also rising to the top of the roster winning the IWA Mid-South Light-Heavyweight Championship twice and the IWA Mid-South Heavyweight Championship on five separate occasions. He became a popular draw at the promotion, rising through the ranks for his noted extreme stunts and high-risk manuevers. Feuding with such high-profiles as Colt Cabana and Chris Hero, he soon bested them in clean wrestling ability to become champion, achieving the Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight titles in multiple title reigns (I don't think the exact # will matter, especially in the article. The bottom has Championships and Achievements).
Notably his feud with Hero included a 55-minute TLC match,[3] a 93-minute two out of three falls match[6] and several 60-minute draws.[8] Punk's matches with Cabana led him to being hired by Ring of Honor promotion.[6] Only a dipshit couldn't put two and two together here. What it should read is that During his high-intensity feud with Hero, Punk received great popularity for exciting, high-endurance matches, including a dangerous TLC match. His performances, notably under a hardcore, high-endurance setting gained him the interest of the Ring of Honor promotion, which offered him a contract.
During his time in IWA:Mid-South he would also meet, wrestle against and become a friend of Eddie Guerrero.[3][6] who really cares? talk about how that may have affected his wrestling training or backstage politics, or something. Or else it's dull trivia.
From February 2003 until May 2004 Punk refused to wrestle for IWA:Mid-South. Punk claims that this was in protest to Ian Rotten's treatment of Chris Hero;[3] however Hero himself has stated he believes there were other reasons and Rotten's treatment of him was just an excuse by Punk to stop working for the company.[9] This sounds somewhat interesting, but it really has no meat to it. For whatever reason, Punk refused to wrestle for Mid South for roughly a year (2003-4); likely reasons include a lower pay, rough travelling schedule, backstage issues, or even laziness, considering that he had joined the more professional, more renowned ROH promotion. Punk claimed that it was in protest of unfair treatment of fellow wrestler Chris Hero by the company, but many, including Hero himself, dismiss this as an alibi to distance himself from the promotion after being accepted by the ROH company.
Eventually Punk returned to IWA:Mid-South and continued to perform as a wrestler and commentator for them until 2005 when he was signed to World Wrestling Entertainment. His last appearance in IWA:Mid-South was on 2 July 2005 in which he competed in a sixty-minute time limit draw against Delirious. Completely unimportant. All trivia. Ok, he came back, but that is not important. A trivia could say "Did you Know?" that he was under contract to the Mid South promotion before being accepted to WWE, wrestling his last match on 2 July 2005 with Delirious, a 60 min time limit draw? I mean, who gives a shit? I can't believe someone would bother to write the day, the outcome, his opponent, and a whole bunch of details about CM Punk's uneventful return to the company.
I did this to show how out of reality the wrestling fans who edit the wikiproject are. The research is mind-boggling, because it is from the wrestling sites alone, and is not interpretated with any thought. If it were, it might read as a story, like what I was able to put together.-- Screwball23 talk 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
My beefs: Mentioning the year and company initials too many times. When you're talking about a wrestler's career in a promotion, you don't have to keep mentioning said promotion's name for every championship, PPV, or TV show. And for dates, when it's established that you're discussion events of 2007, you don't have to mention 2007 everytime a date is listed! Mshake3 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The italics issue is nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's basic English "law" to italicise names of TV shows, books, films, etc. Koberulz 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the above discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide (Where all their is is a redirect to here). Its getting a bit out of hand here and it would be more appropriate there, i think. Just a suggestion...-- SteelersFan UK06 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Move requested here!-- Hornetman16 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although TonyWWE is not a vandal, they are adding copyrighted images to articles under a free use license. Example is in the Brian Kendrick article. Here is one instance where they are trying to add this image to the article. However, the source has "all rights reserved". They are also adding images to other articles such as Mickie James, Super Crazy and Candice Michelle. - Deep Shadow 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't have a page, did this fall through the wiki-cracks? Can someone create a page? -- Endlessdan 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pacman Jones have a second infobox in the Pro Wrestling section listing his wrestling stats. I mean Arnold (the governor of California) as three on his page...Politician infobox, Movie star infobox, and a Body Builder infobox. Doesn't it make sense?-- Hornetman16 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to put there.-- Hornetman16 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he should have one until he actually steps into the ring and wrestles. The reports are conflicting, last I heard at least, as to if he will. If it turns out that all he ends up doing over the next year is standing near Jeff Jarrett he wouldn't really need one.«» bd( talk stalk) 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking that we could do with something like this for a while, especially when dealing with not so well known articles. I think it would be good, so you if you needed to know a specific detail about someone (e.g. something about Eric Bischoff's childhood), you could ask the holder of the book and they would be able to tell you some things, as well as a page reference. I think it a suitable structure would be something like this or this. A section for WWE books, Autobiographies and possibly magazine editions. What do you guys think of possibly having a Professional wrestling library section? (I'll try and do a design in my sandbox.) Davnel03 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I really like this idea. I just added my name to a couple of the existing books on the list and added three that weren't on there yet. Nikki311 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, It says on Chyna's page that she was the first and only female to be ranked in the PWI top 500 men ranking but wasn't Jacqueline ranked in I believe 1993, and wasn't she the first woman to be ranked in the PWI or do I have the wrong infromation?( MgTurtle 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
I believe we should split TNA Lockdown into separate articles likes Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. I believe this because Lockdown 2007 was the second ever TNA Pay-per-view to be featured outside of Orlando, Flordia and Lockdown features only one base match type, Six Side of Steel (with other variations).-- Kip Smithers 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've heard two main reasons against it. 1) It would be hard to maintain against vandalism and 2) The additional information (additional performers, notes, etc) is cruft. If this information is cruft, why is it allowed to be in current articles? Mshake3 21:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another issue. For the WWE Big 4 articles, the promotions initials aren't part of the individual article titles ( SummerSlam (2007) for example). However, for some reason, they're suppost to be apart of the TNA articles? Why is that? Mshake3 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
After you split an article, could you please add {{pro-wrestling}} to the talk page. I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. Nikki311 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nikki311's right, I think we need to vote. Davnel03 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - PPV articles should be split into individual articles
Oppose - PPV articles should stay how they are
For instance, just as an example, for Unforgiven, the article tells the user a list of results, what it doesn't say is how a particular storyline together, however splitting them up, we could expand for instance with Cena/Edge last year, we could talk about how the feud started (Edge winning the title), how it developed (Edge attacking Cenas dad, Cena FU Edge thru' table), and how the feud ended at Unforgiven in the TLC. Davnel03 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how an article with a dozen stub sections is any more notable than twelve stub articles. Mshake3 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Further Comments
In an attempt to stop the blatant overcategorization, I've moved contents from most of the wrestling categories to correct categories. Currently: I see only a need for Raw, Smackdown, WWE, Fire Pro and professional wrestling games categories. Small categories such as this one (which I put up for deletion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_12#Category:Legends_of_Wrestling, don't need to exist anymore. Other examples of categories that simply are too small and broad to exist: ECW games (2 regular games, plus the newest Smackdown vs Raw keeps getting the category added to it because of ECW's appearance in the game), WrestleMania games: only a few here (and it's very unlikely the series will be revived). I wanted to give a heads up here, just in case people revert the category changing I've been working on. On the subject of wrestling games: I also feel the WWE games template doesn't need to be on any WCW or ECW game article, as they were made before WWE owned the companies. Seeing as how the WWE games template is already bulky, there isn't any good reason to add WCW or ECW games to it. WWE owns the companies: but those games aren't known as WWE games in any shape or form. RobJ1981 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Crippler4 has added flags to all the title reign length lists. I'd just like to know if this was ever discussed, because I really don't think these are needed. -- MarcK 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As we know Brian Adams has sadly died today, but, while on his page I noticed his finishing and signature movies were put under some sort of a table. I can't edit it now, because of all of the other edits going on, but when it starts to cool down, somebody will have to fix it. Kris 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A little suggestion here, I was thinking of putting the results on for this Saturday's event, but inserting spoiler templates around it. What do you guys think of that? Davnel03 13:10, 14 August 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 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Is there any particular reason this article is divided up into promotions rather than going chronological?«» bd( talk stalk) 14:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed it. It's chronological now. Nikki311 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This user likes to add images of the Divas in various bondage positions, as he did with Trish Stratus and is now trying with Candice Michelle. Please keep an eye on this. I will try for as long as I can, but I can't do too much by myself. - Deep Shadow 11:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Archive 35, this is getting out of hand...-- SteelersFan UK06 02:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The championships and accomplishments section seems out of control to me. I know they're all successful guys but it seems like a lot of unnecessary trivia. Shouldn't it focus on accomplishments done while part of the group? I took out the Wrestlemania Undertaker jobbing a little while ago but somebody brought it back soon afterwards. We can clean a lot of that out, right? DrWarpMind 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Its fine how it is supermike
Find the date they formed, find the date they broke up, confine all info to that period, for example none of the Royal Rumble wins happened while they were a group, none of the UT losses happened while they were a group, the Tag reigns did, and one of Tripper's title runs happened (RKO's win being the event that began the split), I have to sleep now but I hacked a chunk our of it, if someone else can find dates I'll cut it down later on today. Darrenhusted 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The articles should focus on only their time is a group. A long time ago, I deleted some of it, too, but it was re-added. Nikki311 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
then why not get rid of the whole thing because im not going to go reads about a group just base on the group I want to know EVERYTHING supermike
Before and after, feel free to re-write and trim further if needed. Darrenhusted 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Question, why is the Union in the Corporation article? Mr. C.C. 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this earlier today and am not sure what to do? Should we delete it or clean it up? I have a hard time believing all these DVDs are notable but there is precedent. DrWarpMind 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Per the people who current own the title, this title is the exact same as the Toronto Version. I propose a merge. No "you do it" comments, please. I'm not in the mood, but it has to be done. Consider this post a "heads-up". :) --- Silent RAGE! 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, now we got two official sources that say it does, and two unofficial sources that say it doesn't. Hmmm.... who should we trust? Oh yeah! The official sources who OWN the title: http://www.nwawrestling.com/PHP-Nuke/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=15 --- Silent RAGE! 01:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)Yes, but how exactly is history shared? Does someone own the rights to the belt in the 80's (which would then have to be retained by Gagne [Gagner] later)? -- SteelersFan UK06 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a good bit of overlap between World Wrestling Entertainment and History of World Wrestling Entertainment. I think the WWE article's history section should be pruned down to a few paragraphs and the rest deferred to the history article, like in the case of WCW. Also, I don't think the company infobox should be on the history page. Anyone agree? DrWarpMind 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does The Corporation contain the Corporate Ministry and Union? Shouldn't the Corporate Ministry at least have its own page? There might not be much to say about The Union, but the Corporate Ministry was pretty important at the time. Right now, there's more Corporate Ministry history in the Ministry of Darkness page than in the Corporation one that has the infobox, membership and title info. I propose spinning Corporate Ministry off to its own page that encompasses the info currently contained in these other pages. DrWarpMind 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I purpose an article for the less important stables like the Union, the Oddities, etc.. Mr. C.C. 04:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've got a new proposal. I say we spin Corporate Ministry and Union off to their own shared page since their history is so intertwined (Union created to oppose CM, etc). 3 stables on one page makes it kind of cluttered and the Corporation is notable enough to stand on its own (though it's a bit short on content right now). I've been refreshing myself on the history here via YouTube and I think it can be made into something relatively decent, rather than just like 2 lines and some lists on another page. I'm willing to do the change and build up the content but I'm about to go on a wikibreak so it'll be a little while until I get to it.
Sound ok? If not, I'll still get around to building up the content in the existing locations. DrWarpMind 12:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone has commented in the CM Punk FAC, stating that all of the Ohio Valley Wrestling sources are down. I've checked at least 5 or 6, and yep, they are down. I'm guessing OVW sources are used on most articles, so they are all going to have to be replaced. Davnel03 07:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute going on at Talk:Professional wrestling aerial techniques over whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba. Please contribute to the discussion if interested - Timber99 - Timber99 01:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I was actually going to post this issue here, as per another user's advice. The actual issue is not "whether an Iconoclasm is also called a XiBalba", but an ongoing edit war between users Timber99 and WrestlefnLI. For a more concrete idea of what's going on, please feel free to view the talk page here — Fall Of Darkness 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Much like Evolution, there is a lot of singles career info and crufty lists included here. Is the lingo section really necessary? It looks to me like we can gut a lot of this. DrWarpMind 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that many think that he is Mitchells monster but he hasnt appeared on TV yet. I kept removing the information exclusively calling him the monster but it kept being reverted and i got called a sock puppet. Now I know on WWE pages its like this so can someone help me fix it? McBane420 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok guys, I'm here trying to avoid an edit war because it's evidently going to take more than just my word to avoid creating one. User:Ohgltxg has started to go around to various articles, take certain championships and list them under different names that've been used along the way. For instances, he's started listing all former holders of the Mid-Atlantic version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, NWA World Television Championship, and NWA United States Heavyweight Championship as WCW reigns even if the reigns that wrestlers had with them occurred prior to these championships being renamed as WCW titles. Some of the wrestlers that held these championships didn't wrestle for the promotion after it was sold to Ted Turner and became WCW. Using this same logic, all WWE titles should literally be referred to as WWE championships in the C&A section of the articles, such as listing Bruno Sammartino as a two time WWE Champion even though his reigns occurred decades before the company was renamed. Odin's Beard 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone think this article should be split into three seperate articles.
Bencey 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the split, but now that leaves a lot of links in articles that need to be redirected. E.g. links for The Great American Bash 2007 redirect to the NWA/WCW page. - Deep Shadow 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
F consistancy. It sounds stupid. Also, can't we have votes that last longer than a frickin day? Mshake3 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if it's not consistant. The current naming sucks, and it should be changed. Mshake3 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Quality > Consistancy. Besides, the official name would be "WWE Presents The Great American Bash", or "WWE Great American Bash". Please show me where WWE says it otherwise. Mshake3 23:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I proposing the move of both these pages:
WrestleMania to WrestleMania (PPV Series)
and
WrestleMania (1985) to WrestleMania
What Ya'll think?-- Hornetman16 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My god another nitpicky argument - SummerSlam is not referred to by year - which is why the article name is SummerSlam (19XX) or whatever, not SummerSlam 19XX. As for the first WrestleMania it should be under "WrestleMania I" in my view, yes it wasn't called that during the time, but then again was "World War I" known as "World War I" at the time? No it became known as that when a second one happened, same with WrestleMania - before then there weren't any events of this nature so it wasn't a guarantee that there'd be a 2nd one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK ( talk • contribs)
This gets thrown around a lot. Can't we create a list of these "ruilings" with linked evidence so that when someone says "per WP:PW", we know he's just not talking out of his backside? Mshake3 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think looking for stuff is a concern, unless there is a specific example Shake can give. Maybe in future any per WP:PW should be challenged and then the editor will be forced to back the quote up. Darrenhusted 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at this: Category:WWE video games and this Category:Professional wrestling games. I see many small subcats, and just overcategorization in my view. Games such as Day of Reckoning (2 total games, a sequel could happen, but doubtful at this point) and Legends of Wrestling (3 games, sequel very unlikely) should just be in the main WWE games category, not as a subcat which is what they are currently. I noticed this as well: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_17#Wrestling_video_games. All ended in no consensus. So apparently the CFD wasn't listed anywhere: as one person voted keep in all of them. I think a new CFD that people know about, needs to happen for some of the categories at least. Thoughts, opinions, comments? RobJ1981 07:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've seen a WWF/E name change for the Insane Clown Posse's Juggalo Championshit Wrestling, which is now going by the more traditional Championship. Unfortunately this is leading to (good faith) "update" edits, changing the name in places where it was Championshit at the time. (like Monty Brown's championship reign) I just wanted to alert the project to it, should you see it referenced in an article before last as Championship it's probably incorrect.«» bd( talk stalk) 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Edge, Big Mark, Rey Rey and Big Nose need to be watched as they are currently the victims of frequent crystal balling as to when they will return. I know Tripper is on the SS07 poster but setneces saying "he will return in 29 days" are the stuff of new sites and not suitable for an encyclopedia. I have all four on my watchlist but if anyone sees anything predictive or unencyclopedic could they revert it, until an wrestler has returned any details about his return are still up in the air (the 'Slam/HHH thing could be a swerve, like The Book did the other week). Once they come back a simple "X returned from injury on the X of X at X" will do. Darrenhusted 01:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dicussion located here.-- Hornetman16 (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
An IP has been vandalizing the Matt Hardy article lately by changing his number of title reigns. I've warned him/her and so has someone else, yet he/she keeps doing it. Is there anything that can be done? Can IP addresses be blocked if they don't have an account? Here is a list of his/her contributions, all of which are vandalism.... HERE. Nikki311 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Fresh off their recent block, they vandalized the Matt Hardy page again. I've given them an "only warning" so the next time they disrupt this or any article, please report them. - Deep Shadow 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There has been repeated vandalism on the Bad Blood PPV page by more than one IP. The vandalism always entails Matt Hardy defeating Edge. Honestly, I wouldn't be bringing this up if I wasn't so green on Editing, but I don't know what to do about it. Ideas, please?
Also, instructions on how to revert to a saved version of the page for future reference would be nice ^^; -- ProtoWolf 03:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here. Davnel03 16:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This may have slipped under the radar, but her page was prodded and deleted recently. I think she deserves a page for sure, one of the most notable female wrestling personalities, and very influential, and was part of major wrestling organizations for years. Considering such female wrestling personalities such as Ryan Shamrock and such have pages, I think this page should be recreated. Biggspowd 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally!! We have a wrestler finally at FA status. I couldn't help but thank endless people for this: Nikki311, TheHybrid, MPJ-DK, Gowy, 3bulletproof16, Darrenhusted, Deep Shadow, Hornetman16 (and Lid!!) hell, I could go on all day! Congratulations, CM Punk is a featured article!!! :) Davnel03 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the Nitro Girls' pages and other performers' pages have been deleted completely with no explanation or a discussion about redirecting the information to antoehr page or whatnot.These pages should have a discussion on them before they are completely deleted.( MgTurtle 03:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).
Honestly this is getting ridiculous - Andrew Martin, prime target of updates since he signed with TNA and made his debut at the TV tapings. It's being removed with the comment "maintaining kayfabe" - What is that? it's not a wrestling website but an encylopedia, if a source can be provided for his apperance it should stay, we can't be on spoiler alert and do 8 million reverts just because it hasn't been on TV yet. This is seriously getting out of hand, is it realy this project's general view that kayfabe must be maintained? DOesn't that strike at the very base of Wikipedia's "No in universe" policy? I say get a source on his apperance, put it in and leave it be! MPJ-DK 22:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It's crystalballing to speculate whether or not a significant appearence for the company's bi-weekly tv taping will actually air. Mshake3 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not crystalballing to say that he appared at the tapings and did whatever, because he did do it, it has happened, it is a fact, whether it ends up on TV is a slightly different matter really - or are we saying "if it isn't on TV it hasn't happened"?? As for the "maintaining kayfabe" 1) it was a revert comment made on the article and 2) if we keep up this "if it isn't shown on TV then it shouldn't be mentioned" policy then we are in fact maintaining Kayfabe here. And nowhere was it speculated when it would air, just that he showed up at the TV tapings, nothing crystalball-like there MPJ-DK 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
We can't know it'll be shown until it is, and if it isn't, it's not really notable. Even then, what is considered a reliable source? If the websites with backstage news and such aren't considered reliable, then there's really no reliable source to say he did anything at all. Koberulz 06:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If the dates of people's marriages or the births of their children are know and have sources, should they be put in this section? I think they should be but it should have some source.Any opinions?( MgTurtle 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).
I think that we should put the survivors of the wrestlers on their pages.For example,Ray Traylor is survived by his wife and two daughters.We don't have to put parents and stuff like that just wives and children.Any opinions.( MgTurtle 18:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)).
Hornetman16 has suggested that the ECW on Sci Fi bit of the article should be split from the rest of the article. Leave your thoughts here. Davnel03 07:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
On Kane the undertaker, seems as though it slipped the cracks. If it gets removed and I don't AFD right away, someone please take the honor for me ;) Nosleep1234 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Are the fake gimmick names that WWE has never used for certain moves really needed? That's just false information. "World's Greatest Finisher?" And where did you hear that? I could name like a thousand other examples. Maxwell85 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we show the Promotional posters (other than the big four ppvs) or DVD covers.-- Kip Smithers 14:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Do we show posters for the WrestleMania articles?-- Kip Smithers 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
A {{
prod}} template has been added to the article
Convertible Blondes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{
db-author}}. User:Ceyockey (
talk to me)
15:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I already forget which article I saw it in, but someone had their Slammy Awards listed in their Championships and accomplishments section. Do we do that? The only ones I can really think of that really mattered were Owen Hart's, and that was as part of his actual bio, not separate in the titles section.«» bd( talk stalk) 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you know... that for the third time one of my "Did you knows" ended up on the Main Page?? Yup it's true from the Norvell Austin article I recreated the other day the following little point to ponder
...that professional wrestler Norvell Austin was part of the first mixed race bad guy Tag team in the Southern United States?
Not bad, 3 times nomminated, three times on the main page MPJ-DK 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a really complicated dispute going on that is becoming hard to keep track of. Its been touched on on a lot of talk pages of both users and the wrestling moves page. Something really needs to be done as it is getting out of hand. I was involved in the dispute and thought it was over and now in the last 24 hours it has rebegun. - Timber99 - Timber99 21:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about cleaning up Nancy Benoit's article a bit more and nominating it for Good Article status. Before I nominate it, I wanted to ask everyone here about Free-use/Fair-use images. I know living people are supposed to have free-use images. What about for dead people? I checked WP:FU and didn't see anything about it (although I could have just missed it). If the picture is irreplaceable by a fair-use picture, is of low-quality, adds to the article, and doesn't hinder anybody from selling anything (because her image is easily accessible all over the internet)...isn't it okay to use? I just want to make sure before I begin uploading anything. Thanks. Nikki311 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello WP: Professional Wrestling gang! I've been away from the project and Wikipedia as a whole for quite some time and have just recently returned and started to contribute again. I have some questions and comments for you guys and I hope you will be patient with me and consider what I have said and comment/answer my questions accordingly (citing policy if relevant). Thanks!
Comments (personal feelings - feel free to cite official Wiki policy to me etc. if it exists):
(The following text has been copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (autoformatting and linking) section:
Do not autoformat dates that are:
The autoformatting mechanism will not accept date ranges (December 13–17, 1951) or slashes (the night of 30/31 May), which must be input without using the function. Thus:
[[January 15]]
(US editors) or [[15 January]]
(others) will be rendered as either January 15 or 15 January, according to a registered user's set preferences; and[[January 15]], [[2001]]
(US editors), [[15 January]] [[2001]]
(others), [[2001-01-15]]
(ISO), or [[2001 January 15]]
will be rendered as January 15, 2001, 15 January 2001, 2001-01-15, or 2001 January 15, according to a registered user's set preferences.[[1997 in South African sport|1997]]
), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.Please note the line I have bolded above. I believe the over linking and misuse of date linking is probably an issue for many of our wrestling articles. Ask yourself, does linking every date that something happened (Wrestling event, title change etc.) in every article REALLY and ACTUALLY "deepen reader's understanding of a topic"? I'm not so sure it does. Please comment on this issue with your own thoughts and interpretations of the date linking policy.
And its not just over linking - its the fact that linking seems to be done haphazardly. Sometimes dates are linked, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes its the full date, sometimes its just the day/month. Sometimes a year is linked and sometimes not. And its not always just a "only link it the first time it appears in an article" issue ....its just all over the place, I don't know how to explain it better. There needs to be some kind of policy to follow.
These are just a few things that I think we might need to work on with this project regarding style and formatting. These are my ideas and opinions and I'm not trying to step on any toes. I just want to know how things should be done properly and whether or not we need to come to a general consensus on some of these and other issues (if there isn't one already). Some of the things I have talked about here continuely get changed or formatted differently depending on the article (by both experienced and non experienced users) - So I think the Project needs to represent a united front on as many issues as possible regarding style and formatting so that everyone is correcting things the same way (whatever way that may be).
I also feel that some of this information (mainly the parts specific to wrestling articles) belongs in this project's style guide section for reference for all users.
Another reason I bring these things up is that I seem to come across comments here and there on various pages throughout Wikipedia that people seem to think this project and its contents are a joke or waste of time. People don't use those words specifically, but after reading enough comments over the months/years in different places, that is what I have inferred. It probably has to do with how many people view professional wrestling in the first place ("fake", "rigged", "blue collar", "stupid" whatever) which is unfortunate. I just happen to really enjoy it for its entertainment value! ..ok I'm getting off topic ..but anyway the more things we can do to streamline and clean up this project, the less certain people might stop looking down on it (or whatever you want to call it) and start helping with it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it currently, but like many aspects of Wikipeida (and life in general) there is room for improvement and I would like to help with these type of administrative issues because I really enjoying organizing things.
Ok I think I've used up enough space here - please let the comments flow! :)
-- Naha| (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the wikiproject has changed for the worst. The Montreal Screwjob, for example, was written with such interest, passion, and intense cooperation, it reached the status of "Today's FA" on the main page. Instead, now, CM Punk, and an array of no-name wrestlers are being promoted to Good-Article class because of nice referencing, but a lack of knowledge. Let me show you an example from CM Punk, an article even wrestling fanatics couldn't stand to read:
Punk's home promotion for his early career is usually considered to be Independent Wrestling Association: Mid-South (IWA:Mid-South).[3] What does that mean? That meanst that nobody knows, but it is considered to be that promotion? That means he was on the indy circuit, moving, travelling, wrestling in various promotions, but some nerd decided to look for the oldest history of him wrestling, and found documented evidence that he was first there.
During Punk's time in IWA:Mid-South he had high profile feuds with Colt Cabana and Chris Hero while also rising to the top of the roster winning the IWA Mid-South Light-Heavyweight Championship twice and the IWA Mid-South Heavyweight Championship on five separate occasions. He became a popular draw at the promotion, rising through the ranks for his noted extreme stunts and high-risk manuevers. Feuding with such high-profiles as Colt Cabana and Chris Hero, he soon bested them in clean wrestling ability to become champion, achieving the Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight titles in multiple title reigns (I don't think the exact # will matter, especially in the article. The bottom has Championships and Achievements).
Notably his feud with Hero included a 55-minute TLC match,[3] a 93-minute two out of three falls match[6] and several 60-minute draws.[8] Punk's matches with Cabana led him to being hired by Ring of Honor promotion.[6] Only a dipshit couldn't put two and two together here. What it should read is that During his high-intensity feud with Hero, Punk received great popularity for exciting, high-endurance matches, including a dangerous TLC match. His performances, notably under a hardcore, high-endurance setting gained him the interest of the Ring of Honor promotion, which offered him a contract.
During his time in IWA:Mid-South he would also meet, wrestle against and become a friend of Eddie Guerrero.[3][6] who really cares? talk about how that may have affected his wrestling training or backstage politics, or something. Or else it's dull trivia.
From February 2003 until May 2004 Punk refused to wrestle for IWA:Mid-South. Punk claims that this was in protest to Ian Rotten's treatment of Chris Hero;[3] however Hero himself has stated he believes there were other reasons and Rotten's treatment of him was just an excuse by Punk to stop working for the company.[9] This sounds somewhat interesting, but it really has no meat to it. For whatever reason, Punk refused to wrestle for Mid South for roughly a year (2003-4); likely reasons include a lower pay, rough travelling schedule, backstage issues, or even laziness, considering that he had joined the more professional, more renowned ROH promotion. Punk claimed that it was in protest of unfair treatment of fellow wrestler Chris Hero by the company, but many, including Hero himself, dismiss this as an alibi to distance himself from the promotion after being accepted by the ROH company.
Eventually Punk returned to IWA:Mid-South and continued to perform as a wrestler and commentator for them until 2005 when he was signed to World Wrestling Entertainment. His last appearance in IWA:Mid-South was on 2 July 2005 in which he competed in a sixty-minute time limit draw against Delirious. Completely unimportant. All trivia. Ok, he came back, but that is not important. A trivia could say "Did you Know?" that he was under contract to the Mid South promotion before being accepted to WWE, wrestling his last match on 2 July 2005 with Delirious, a 60 min time limit draw? I mean, who gives a shit? I can't believe someone would bother to write the day, the outcome, his opponent, and a whole bunch of details about CM Punk's uneventful return to the company.
I did this to show how out of reality the wrestling fans who edit the wikiproject are. The research is mind-boggling, because it is from the wrestling sites alone, and is not interpretated with any thought. If it were, it might read as a story, like what I was able to put together.-- Screwball23 talk 22:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
My beefs: Mentioning the year and company initials too many times. When you're talking about a wrestler's career in a promotion, you don't have to keep mentioning said promotion's name for every championship, PPV, or TV show. And for dates, when it's established that you're discussion events of 2007, you don't have to mention 2007 everytime a date is listed! Mshake3 03:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The italics issue is nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's basic English "law" to italicise names of TV shows, books, films, etc. Koberulz 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the above discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide (Where all their is is a redirect to here). Its getting a bit out of hand here and it would be more appropriate there, i think. Just a suggestion...-- SteelersFan UK06 15:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Move requested here!-- Hornetman16 (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although TonyWWE is not a vandal, they are adding copyrighted images to articles under a free use license. Example is in the Brian Kendrick article. Here is one instance where they are trying to add this image to the article. However, the source has "all rights reserved". They are also adding images to other articles such as Mickie James, Super Crazy and Candice Michelle. - Deep Shadow 03:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't have a page, did this fall through the wiki-cracks? Can someone create a page? -- Endlessdan 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't Pacman Jones have a second infobox in the Pro Wrestling section listing his wrestling stats. I mean Arnold (the governor of California) as three on his page...Politician infobox, Movie star infobox, and a Body Builder infobox. Doesn't it make sense?-- Hornetman16 (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to put there.-- Hornetman16 (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he should have one until he actually steps into the ring and wrestles. The reports are conflicting, last I heard at least, as to if he will. If it turns out that all he ends up doing over the next year is standing near Jeff Jarrett he wouldn't really need one.«» bd( talk stalk) 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking that we could do with something like this for a while, especially when dealing with not so well known articles. I think it would be good, so you if you needed to know a specific detail about someone (e.g. something about Eric Bischoff's childhood), you could ask the holder of the book and they would be able to tell you some things, as well as a page reference. I think it a suitable structure would be something like this or this. A section for WWE books, Autobiographies and possibly magazine editions. What do you guys think of possibly having a Professional wrestling library section? (I'll try and do a design in my sandbox.) Davnel03 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I really like this idea. I just added my name to a couple of the existing books on the list and added three that weren't on there yet. Nikki311 19:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, It says on Chyna's page that she was the first and only female to be ranked in the PWI top 500 men ranking but wasn't Jacqueline ranked in I believe 1993, and wasn't she the first woman to be ranked in the PWI or do I have the wrong infromation?( MgTurtle 03:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC))
I believe we should split TNA Lockdown into separate articles likes Slammiversary and Bound for Glory. I believe this because Lockdown 2007 was the second ever TNA Pay-per-view to be featured outside of Orlando, Flordia and Lockdown features only one base match type, Six Side of Steel (with other variations).-- Kip Smithers 07:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've heard two main reasons against it. 1) It would be hard to maintain against vandalism and 2) The additional information (additional performers, notes, etc) is cruft. If this information is cruft, why is it allowed to be in current articles? Mshake3 21:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another issue. For the WWE Big 4 articles, the promotions initials aren't part of the individual article titles ( SummerSlam (2007) for example). However, for some reason, they're suppost to be apart of the TNA articles? Why is that? Mshake3 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
After you split an article, could you please add {{pro-wrestling}} to the talk page. I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. Nikki311 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Nikki311's right, I think we need to vote. Davnel03 10:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support - PPV articles should be split into individual articles
Oppose - PPV articles should stay how they are
For instance, just as an example, for Unforgiven, the article tells the user a list of results, what it doesn't say is how a particular storyline together, however splitting them up, we could expand for instance with Cena/Edge last year, we could talk about how the feud started (Edge winning the title), how it developed (Edge attacking Cenas dad, Cena FU Edge thru' table), and how the feud ended at Unforgiven in the TLC. Davnel03 20:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how an article with a dozen stub sections is any more notable than twelve stub articles. Mshake3 22:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Further Comments
In an attempt to stop the blatant overcategorization, I've moved contents from most of the wrestling categories to correct categories. Currently: I see only a need for Raw, Smackdown, WWE, Fire Pro and professional wrestling games categories. Small categories such as this one (which I put up for deletion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_12#Category:Legends_of_Wrestling, don't need to exist anymore. Other examples of categories that simply are too small and broad to exist: ECW games (2 regular games, plus the newest Smackdown vs Raw keeps getting the category added to it because of ECW's appearance in the game), WrestleMania games: only a few here (and it's very unlikely the series will be revived). I wanted to give a heads up here, just in case people revert the category changing I've been working on. On the subject of wrestling games: I also feel the WWE games template doesn't need to be on any WCW or ECW game article, as they were made before WWE owned the companies. Seeing as how the WWE games template is already bulky, there isn't any good reason to add WCW or ECW games to it. WWE owns the companies: but those games aren't known as WWE games in any shape or form. RobJ1981 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Crippler4 has added flags to all the title reign length lists. I'd just like to know if this was ever discussed, because I really don't think these are needed. -- MarcK 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As we know Brian Adams has sadly died today, but, while on his page I noticed his finishing and signature movies were put under some sort of a table. I can't edit it now, because of all of the other edits going on, but when it starts to cool down, somebody will have to fix it. Kris 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A little suggestion here, I was thinking of putting the results on for this Saturday's event, but inserting spoiler templates around it. What do you guys think of that? Davnel03 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)