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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I went through and did a copyedit on this article today. I was hoping somebody could help out with a couple of questions, though.
One sentence reads: In August 2007, King Booker who claimed to be the only one entitled to be known as "King".
I don't know anything about the situation, but could someone who follows wrestling please stick a verb in the sentence?
The other one is at the top of the "Non-wrestling endeavors" section. I replaced "Lawler has recorded some material" with "Lawler has created some musical recordings." I'm still not thrilled about the sentence, but I think it's more clear. The next sentence duplicates the word "recording," though. Can someone tell me if "Cadillac Man/Memphis" and "Bad News" are songs, records, singles, etc. so that I can fix it up? Thanks.
Incidentally, everyone did great work with the article last week. It's come a very long way. GaryColemanFan 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
i personally (and most other editors of the WWE and TNA articles) believe these sites/newsletters (they do both) to be extreamly reliable when it comes to reporting whats happening in the world of wrestling, but recently certain people seem to be saying they are not credible sources. any mistakes they make are extreamly rare and they also have high placed sources in both companies so i believe when they report a story that we can take it as being as reliable as a story on CNN or something similar, but what is the general consensus on here? Skitzo 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keyword: Most. There are a few you can trust, and it's time we start using them. Mshake3 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrestling Observer (run by Dave Meltzer) and F4W (run by Bryan Alvarez)are extrweamly reliable and if something is just a rumour they either don't post it at all or state that it is just a rumour, both opperate Newsletters and pay site so they hae a LEGAL respocibility to be as acurate as possible, when it comes to the Wrestling and MMA industires they ARE as reliable as any news agency you care to think of, especially when reporting injuries or the release of Wrestlers. btw i was not talking about adding spoilers or future appearences i was specifically talking about siteing stories regarding releases an injuries. Skitzo 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
See here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I was trying to fix the nWo article, looking for references, when i came across this website [1], and then I looked at the nWo article here on Wikipedia, and it was the same. So I am going to reconstruct hte article by removing most of the copyright stuff and putting it in more of our own wording. So does anyone have a box that says "currently under construction" or something like that.-- TrUcO9311 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My name's on there, yet I still received the message. Koberulz 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding a few references to this article, but I'm confused about one thing. In the "Championships and accomplishments" section, a few singles titles are mentioned (eg. NWA United States Heavyweight Championship - Hayes). Does these belong in the team's article, or should they just be in the articles for the individual wrestlers? I was also wondering if someone could help with the general layout of the article--it has a lot of sections, but I'm not sure they're all necessary as their own sections, or in some cases, if they're necessary at all ("Members" discusses everybody except Roberts, Gordy and Hayes, "Other appearances", "Offshoots"). GaryColemanFan 15:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a new photo on World Tag Team Championship (WWE).-- Monnitewars (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the edit summary, I said the belt is cut off the purpose of a photo on that page is to show the whole belt which the photo with the hurricane does not.-- Monnitewars (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So someone contacted WWE via e-mail, and asked them whether WWE New Years Revolution would take place this coming January, so how would we add to the article that the PPV was cancelled, becuase it wouldnt make sense if we put on there thata Wiki user contacted WWE and told them it was cancelled. ANswers?-- TrUcO9311 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, myself and Deep Shadow have been working on Melina's article getting it ready for a Good Article nomination. Leave comments or suggestions on the article's talk page, or feel free to make changes yourself. I'll nominate it in one week if everyone agrees that it is ready. Thanks. Nikki311 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This user is back and once again vandalising wrestling articles. I'm pretty busy right now, so if someone could check out his/her contributions, that would be great. I'll see if I have a chance to look through some of them later. GaryColemanFan 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a general note, people should pay attention to these two articles. I hate to post spoilers here, but Vickie Guerrero announced at the SmackDown tapings (they taped them earlier today since all three brands are touring Europe this week) that SmackDown wrestlers will be allowed to compete on ECW and ECW wrestlers will be allowed to compete on SmackDown (the real reason of coarse is because ECW only has 13 wrestlers, thus they pretty much have the same matches every week). Already there have been some IP's adding it despite the announcement not airing on TV or wwe.com. TJ Spyke 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a professional wrestling promotion article standardized format that I am just failing to find around here? If not do we think we should look in to constructing one? All I have found is the template for the basic info in the box that goes in the upper right hand corner. Thanks for the help. WFPro 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Not a problem. I have no problem coming up with a proper format myself for the particular article I am working on I just thought if there was no set format already I would check with our popular opinion as the aim of this WikiProject is to standardize all wrestling related articles.
WFPro 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Angle, Sting, and the TNA World Title. I added them to articles to watch due to TNA's tapings tonight, and the fact that some people are probably goign to try and change it sooner or later.-- ProtoWolf 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
King Haka (via WP:PROD on 18 October 2007) Kept
As many of you know I have been working on this article extensively, and last week, finally managed to get it to GA status. If the article did not get the most amount of votes to be FACOTW, would it be worth me nominating it for FA status? Personally, I think I should nominate it, but wanted to get the opinions of other people. Davnel03 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to start 2 conversations in such a short space of time. Should Madison have an article now that she debuted at the PPV (unfortunately the page is protected from being created)? Davnel03 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion she would be relevant enough as she has also worked shows for the WWE, even though they were in negligible roles. WFPro 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked into this a little, and I have to say I don't understand. There are articles for Awesome Kong, Angel Williams, ODB, and, obviously, Shelly Martinez. With the exception of Martinez, they all (including Madison) have very similar notability away from TNA. What sets Talia apart as being unworthy of an article? I admit I've been gone a while, but is working in a WWE developmental fed paid that much mind now? I can't really remember that being the case. Tromboneguy0186 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Once Al Costello passe GA I plan on nominating Don Kent (wrestler) for GA, it's on par with both the Fabulous Kangaroos (already GA) and Al Costello (hopefully soon GA) and as such shouldn't have a huge problem achieving it. Eventually I want to get Roy Heffernan to GA and maybe the Kangaroos one to FA to make a featured topic (Fabulous Kangaroos), but that's way in the future. For now it's all about improving Don Kent (wrestler), so I'd appriciate any and all input from copyeditors etc. to ensure smooth sailing once I put it up for GA. Thanks MPJ-DK 11:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that I think it'd be a problem but since it is your guys focus area I'd like to inform you that I've made the following move.
AAA Second Mascot Tag Team Championship → AAA Mascot Tag Team Championship
Not that it's a huge inconvinence or anything but still. MPJ-DK 11:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I added the articles for Jamie Szantyr aka Talia Madison of TNA. Go have a look. Thanks. ThisDude62 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What is WP:PW's policy on spoilers? I never have seen a spoiler tag on PW articles, and I havent seen anywhere a warning to not include spoilers. Just curious for future editing. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Needed to know that for future editing. I was checking out the WWE talk page, and the discussion you and Hybrid had with some dude obsessed with Hornswoggle. It gave me curiosity about where spoilers stand on WP:PW. Thanks. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if a talk page is allowed with spoilers, then what is really the point. An established wikipedia user [or any person which is curious for more information] would look in an article's talk page. So, I find that if spoilers would be prohibited without source outside the talk page, it should be inside too. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
After a lot of very hard work getting December to Dismember (2006) to GA status and having it passed, it looks like it will not be this weeks FACOTW (personally I don't mind whether it is or isn't), so I have nominated it for FA status. Please comment on the article; the discussion is here.
Also, as you may or may not know One Night Stand (2006) was inappropriately failed a week ago. I took it to WP:GAR, but haven't got many comments on the situation from WP:PW. If other people do not comment the article will not (and probably will never) be promoted. The discussion in question is here.
I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Davnel03 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can help make it better let me know because I was able to clean it up some. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As many of you know, WrestleMania III is the current COTW. I've been working on it, and a lot of information was added recently by a couple of other users. Some of the grammar and English of the new additions could be cleaned up a bit. I cleaned up as much as I could, but I've just been staring at it for too long. Could some of the copy editors out there clean it up for me and make the English sound more sophisticated. Thanks. Nikki311 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote it ALL. Yeah, all of it. Well, I find that the English is fine, the only problem with the page is that it's in-universe. But, I just can't find it in my heart to write something like "Hogan was booked to slam and end Andre's undefeated streak...]] or something like that, because it just doesnt sound right. When someone writes "was booked to..", immediately, it is implying that there is a ",but this happened.." or "yet he didnt make it to the event..." or something that will counter the original phrase. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I nominated this article for COTW, so I wanted it to be successful. The night before yesterday, the Background section was very short, so I wrote a huge section. Then, Nikki told me I didnt have enough sources (which sadly was true), so I surfed the internet looking for reliable sources. I filled the Background section with reliable sources, and then I found it was "near-perfection"; so the next day I edited the EVENT section. I did the same with the EVENT section, but I looked for the sources first (much more responsible) and "Voila!", We have ourselves excellent Background and Event sections. Now, obviously, like you said, they still can use some correcting. I think the only thing wrong with it, is that it's in-universe (even though i like it better that way), needs more pictures (don't know where to find them ,without Yamla getting on my case saying they're copyright), and whatever English-grammar correcting I had wrong. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
...here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a quick update...I nominated this article a while back and it was promoted to Featured List status today.
Now, I believe DrWarpMind will be nominating the List of WWE European Champions next, so be sure to give some input on that one. I was thinking that it would be nice to have another nominee ready for when the European Championship list is finished. Any suggestions? GaryColemanFan 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
List of WWE European Champions has been nominated here. Please take some time to comment on it. Thanks. DrWarpMind 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what the war is about, but think that it should be brought here for a proper resolution. The edit history says it all. Monnitewars has been adding this which has been removed by several members (quite rightly), but wanted to come to a proper solution that satisfies everybody. If fact, the original revision did satisify everybody.... bar one. Having a edit war on the main page, really doesn't look good for the project as a whole. Davnel03 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not particularly prevalent, but there's one occurrence I've seen numerous times. It's usually in the notes box next to a particular champion when something happens to the title, such as when it changes names. For example, my old favorite FIP World Heavyweight Championship used to have this text in the notes next to Roderick Strong's name:
"Becomes the FIP World Heavyweight Championship when Strong defeats PAC in Liverpool, England at ROH's Fifth Year Festival: Liverpool."
"Becomes" and "defeats," despite everything else on the page being in the past tense. ROH World Championship used to have something similar regarding the name change and the unification with the pure title, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions contains a noodle-scratching mix of both the present and past tense that I'm going to fix as soon as I'm done writing this, same for List of WWE Champions, though the shift from "Undisputed" is entirely in the present tense. Again, this is with everything else on all of these pages being in the past tense. I've fixed a few occurrences on other pages as well (I think CZW World Heavyweight Championship had something similar as well).
Is there any reason for these particular notes to be in the present tense? If there is, it's escaping me.
Nosleep1234 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This does seem incorrect. I'll keep an eye out for it. Tromboneguy0186 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there any A-Class articles in WP:PW, because there is no mention of them on the Main Page. An A-Article is rated higher than a Good Article, so I dont understand why the GAs are mentioned and As arent Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles don't have to climb a scale and hit every rung on the ladder. If they improve enough, sometimes they can skip a step or two between evaluations. I don't think anyone is intentionally ignoring any of the steps, its just not that black and white. We shouldn't try to force a particular rating level upon articles, but rather try to see where they fit naturally. If its A class, so be it. If its FA, even better! -- Naha| (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So, if some GAs arent ready for FAs, the improvements can be specified as A-Class? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this really warrant its own article? Should we AFD it? DrWarpMind 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely hate to bug people about this, but can people involved in this project please comment on the article. If people don't begin to comment on it at the above link, it will be failed. Sorry to bug you about this, but if I get not many comments, I can't improve it. The discussion is getting a bit out of hand between me and Lex94 and would appreciate some other comments. Davnel03 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
How was the discussion getting out of hand? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Desperately need images for the article mentioned above. Any help will be appreciated. Can someone please tell me if there are pictures on wikipedia that can fit in the article, or in which site I can find images of WM3? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this picture has been there for nearly a year now (since November 16, 06) and no one has found some problem with it. But, I see your point. Well, here's another site where the image is being used: http://www.answers.com/topic/wrestlemania-iii Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
At this link [2], there is another picture of Steamboat vs. Savage that can replace the one in the article. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's better than nothing. And it helps the article, because in the GA Criteria page, it mentions images are needed. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasnt this a special episode of RAW, so it can be added ?-- TrUcO9311 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question: no. It was a one time special, like Super Tuesday and the Smackdown! Special. Mshake3 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't do this, but is this IP anyone's here? The IP has made one or two edits to the COTW page, including declaring who has won etc. I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, but should IP's really be doing that? Also, is this anyone's IP address here, but just have forgotten to log in? Davnel03 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hogan nomination was deleted by the IP after "proclaiming" that article the winner. Original nomination: [3] -- Aaru Bui DII 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't my IP, either. I say that we just roll with it. Let Hogan be the nominee this week, and have the FACOTW next week. The bot notifying everyone is my fault, as I forgot about the FACOTW :(. Sorry everyone (Hybrid bows head in shame) The Hybrid T/ C 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why isn't Hogan technically the COTW? And what does the FACOTW have to do with it? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Table Proposal
Date | Type |
---|---|
October 21 - October 27 | Collaboration of the Week |
October 28 - November 3 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
November 4 - November 10 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 11 - November 18 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 18 - November 25 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 25 - December 1 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
December 2 - December 8 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 9 - December 15 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 16 - December 22 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 23 - December 29 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
There is a dispute to which photo should be on WrestleMania. Photo A or Photo B. Which one? GIve you Opinion here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of multiple disputes involving the reliability of sources concerning PPV articles (note: does not concern the reliability of superstar articles), and whether we as a whole should use dirtsheets as sources.
So, I'm between a rock and a hard place (hence the title). Do I:
On a side note, how should I do the " Event" section of the article. MPJ-DK and Lex are having a discussion about this, again on the FAC page. Lex is stating that during the Event section, you must state that these finishes and matches are pre-planned and pre-determined. He also believes that we should state that a particular set-up was set up before hand, violating OR. Although we probably know that they (Hardys/MNM in Lex's examples) talked about the match pre-hand, we have no sources to back it up. I personally think this is wrong in itself.
Opinions on the above matters? Sorry it's SUCH a long post, but I needed to get that out! Either comment here, or at the FAC. Again, apologises for the long post - but I'm stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place. :( Davnel03 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think dirt sheets are completely valueless in an encyclopedic sense. They post rumors, inuendoes, and things that aren't independently verifiable (while it may not be required to have 2 sources give the same info, it sure doesn't hurt). This does leave things like Torch, the Observer, and PWI (that's PW Insider) in kind of a gray area, since they aren't seen on the same level as wrestleview and rajah and wrestlezone and all the others, but I don't believe they're considered as meeting the WP:RS standard, either. Tromboneguy0186 12:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok on the page One Night Stand (2007) There is a incredibly long backstory on the page. Normally its not on the p0age its in their individual articles. I keep getting reverted though when i change it. Will someone help me? LifeStroke420 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The headline speaks for itself. Keep an eye out for any "new" users that have similar edit patters to them. Davnel03 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont recall a Hornetman 16... Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, if you're a good contributor, I don't give two shits if you're a sock. Just saying. Mshake3 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I never payed much attention to Hornetman for my own sanity. He just got on my last nerve. That's why I made the comment about it making sense when I found that MW was his sock. I guess I should pay more attention to my woman's intuition. Nikki311 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
When referring to a tag team championship, do you say "the team regained the title" or "the team regained the titles." While it may be "considered one title" it does, in fact, involve two people and two belts, and to me, the plural seems correct here. I seem to always see it referred to in the plural also:
Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/cademurdochhardys06052007
Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/mnmtagchamps
Source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive/10052007/articles/keeponhatin
I could go on, but I've already taken up enough space here with my examples. I bring this up for two reasons: (1) I had this edit reverted and I'm not sure it was correct, and (2) we DO need to be consistent throughout all of our articles. Please comment, thanks. -- Naha| (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
One "title," one "championship," two "belts." What's so hard about that?
:5. Sports. the championship: He won the title three years in a row.
The World Tag Team Championship (WWE), for example, is one title. I can't fathom how "they won the titles" could be considered accurate when a team or pair of wrestlers wins this championship. Particularly since it seems like no one wants to say "they won the championships" - I don't see what the difference is and can't understand how it isn't all very, very, very wrong. Nosleep1234 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm getting a little sick of how since someone else does it, that has to be the correct way. WWE.com is just written by a bunch of guys like us. There's no assurance that they are meant to all the write the same way, and they're not authoritative. This is not an issue for one promotion. With all your sources that say (and look very stupid in doing so) "WWE Tag Team Titles," does that mean because WWE says so that for the ROH World Tag Team Championship or the PWG World Tag Team Championship or the bobs-your-uncle world tag team championship that that has to be titles too? Nosleep1234 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, if they're plural, let's just move the article to WWE Tag Team Championships, then, and say "Currently, they are exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" where right now it says Currently, it is exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" How can plural be correct for one notion but not all? Nosleep1234 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep adding on like this, but I keep having more thoughts. Just think about what, in question, is tangible. Is it the "title," which is the distinction of being (in kayfabe, but still) the best tag team in your company, or is it the "belts," which are the physical representation of that distinction. If you want to talk about "the titles," that should only refer to multiple of these distinctions, such as "the titles currently held by MVP," or during the Invasion when Kane & The Undertaker "held the WCW & WWF tag team titles." Nosleep1234 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to revert your edit Nahallac Silverwinds, but I will explain why I changed it. Title is a synonym of championship, so it should stay singular unless you are talking about two separate titles. A belt is not a championship but a representation of it, so it's okay to use the plural form when saying belt. E.g. They won the Tag Team Title and showed their belts off to the crowd. - Deep Shadow 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that it is one title, one championship, and two belts. Anyone still disagree or can this discussion be closed? Nikki311 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I think I just made a further realization regarding my confusion about "title" being another word for "championship" and not "belt." I hear "title belts" a lot, and I'm guessing I thought "titles" was short for "title belts." Oh well. -- Naha| (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, "title belts" mean the Belts of the title Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some, removed some pov wording, and per the guidelines the moves used to finish a few matches (only had 2). I also removed the links to "her" MySpace account until it's proven to be hers. Matt Hardy and Gregory Helms have lists of WWE superstars who have MySpace accounts, only Matt left off Edge probably for obvious reasons. Last time I checked Beths name wasn't on either list. So take a look and help out. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can't be some dirtsheets, and whatever the info they shouldn't be rumors either. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What does everybody else think about this? Ticketmaster has a listing for Judgment Day 2008 (which hasn't officially been announced by WWE yet), along with a location: http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/06003F50E212E70D?artistid=807358&majorcatid=10004&minorcatid=27 TJ Spyke 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And commercials have aired locally too. Mshake3 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I sent WWE.com an email asking where and when the show will be, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, their response is. Tromboneguy0186 12:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the protocol on the PWI annual 500 lists? My understanding was that we listed the rank in the Top 500 of the PWI years and if they were in the top ten, but other than that, placements in the individual years weren't listed. Am I wrong? I want to know because a lot of individual rankings were added to Hulk Hogan, and as long as the article already is, I just don't see the necessity of listing his ranking for every year. Nikki311 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we want to get rid of the rankings in the 500 lists altogether? They are pretty useless. Nikki311 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards? Nikki311 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the awards themselves? TJ doesn't believe that we've been referring to the PWI awards at all, just the listings. To me, it's splitting hairs to get rid of the listings and keep the various awards. Odin's Beard 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have nearly finished December to Dismember (2006) and am shortly planning to renominate it for FA status (as well as finishing the WWE One Night Stand series), I am planning to move on into a new PPV. Instead of moving PPV's into seperate articles again, I am planning to work on, yes, Survivor Series (2007). I'm planning to add things week by week as the shows go by. Obviously one thing we might have to watch out for is SmackDown! spoilers, but I expect the page to be semi-protected pretty soon. Is there any major objections to me focusing on this article from next week? Davnel03 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. There is more potential for the newest PPVs, because there if info all around the internet. I am also going to have an extreme focus on Wrestlemania III, because I want to make it A-Class, I already nominated it for COTW, it won, and I wrote all the sections in it. It just needs a little more... Lex94.
Wow, I must say, terrific work on all of these. Sure beats the hell out of a simple list of match results. Tromboneguy0186 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This page has been deleted about three times, yet surely ranks as some degree of importance now that she is actively wrestling in TNA's Women's league? http://www.tnawrestlingnews.com/headlines/195175104.shtml Can anyone do something to stop the deletions of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisgil ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
le sigh. Yes, I know. But when their subjects have very similar notability (Madison's won a bunch of titles, too), there's a basis for comparison that can be made. I could see setting Awesome Kong apart, as she's won the definitely-notable
NWA World Women's Championship and the
AWA Japan Women's Championship, but OVW is simply an indy, one that's only set apart from easily less notable groups like, say, HWA, BCW, or 3PW by a working agreement with WWE (WWE doesn't own OVW and never has). In fact, ODB was never under a WWE contract. She worked with OVW directly. What makes OVW, and by proxy ODB and Williams, so special in this case? I'm not arguing for deletion of their articles (an inclusionist like me? heaven forfend), I just want to know why the basis for comparison can't be made.
Tromboneguy0186 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to giving the 1998 KOTR it's own page? The big problem is that if we give it it's own page, we'd have to do one for all of the KOTRs and that could be a can of worms we don't want to open. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have been privately working on an article for Talia Madison and will put it into the main namespace once the people of Wikipedia decide she is worthy, and just wanted to get an opinion on it, maybe a little help. The article is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox, check it out and let me know what you think. ThisDude62 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
After the problems that I had with the WrestleView sources that caused the article to be failed, I have renominated December to Dismember (2006) for FA status. I have put so much work into this, so can you please comment, support or oppose the article! A special thanks to Nikki311 for helping me to find sources to replace the WrestleView sources. Davnel03 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I added this new image. If there is a problem with the image, please clarify. Image:Hogan and Andre.jpg Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have passed the Trish Stratus article's GA nomination. It was an excellent read and met all the GA criteria, from well-written, to images, to sources. Great job to the people who edited the article. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Four articles are on the verge of getting pruned:
If you are interested in any of these in becoming COTW, please vote and avoid them getting pruned. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I have submitted a proposal to have the articles Jamie Szantyr/Talia Madison unsalted. Participate in the discussion at [ [13]] and vote to have the article unsalted.
The article that will be put up if it is unsalted is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox. It is well-written, sourced, the whole nine yards. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What was ShyGuy's violation to the policy? I read the Forbidden uses of sockpuppets, and he didn't do anything to violate the policy. The only thing you guys found were similar contributions, which means nothing, because wikipedia does not frown upon spliting your contributions (see Legitimate uses of sockpuppets Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures Lex94 22:40, 26 October 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 25 | ← | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | → | Archive 35 |
I went through and did a copyedit on this article today. I was hoping somebody could help out with a couple of questions, though.
One sentence reads: In August 2007, King Booker who claimed to be the only one entitled to be known as "King".
I don't know anything about the situation, but could someone who follows wrestling please stick a verb in the sentence?
The other one is at the top of the "Non-wrestling endeavors" section. I replaced "Lawler has recorded some material" with "Lawler has created some musical recordings." I'm still not thrilled about the sentence, but I think it's more clear. The next sentence duplicates the word "recording," though. Can someone tell me if "Cadillac Man/Memphis" and "Bad News" are songs, records, singles, etc. so that I can fix it up? Thanks.
Incidentally, everyone did great work with the article last week. It's come a very long way. GaryColemanFan 22:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
i personally (and most other editors of the WWE and TNA articles) believe these sites/newsletters (they do both) to be extreamly reliable when it comes to reporting whats happening in the world of wrestling, but recently certain people seem to be saying they are not credible sources. any mistakes they make are extreamly rare and they also have high placed sources in both companies so i believe when they report a story that we can take it as being as reliable as a story on CNN or something similar, but what is the general consensus on here? Skitzo 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keyword: Most. There are a few you can trust, and it's time we start using them. Mshake3 02:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrestling Observer (run by Dave Meltzer) and F4W (run by Bryan Alvarez)are extrweamly reliable and if something is just a rumour they either don't post it at all or state that it is just a rumour, both opperate Newsletters and pay site so they hae a LEGAL respocibility to be as acurate as possible, when it comes to the Wrestling and MMA industires they ARE as reliable as any news agency you care to think of, especially when reporting injuries or the release of Wrestlers. btw i was not talking about adding spoilers or future appearences i was specifically talking about siteing stories regarding releases an injuries. Skitzo 09:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
See here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I was trying to fix the nWo article, looking for references, when i came across this website [1], and then I looked at the nWo article here on Wikipedia, and it was the same. So I am going to reconstruct hte article by removing most of the copyright stuff and putting it in more of our own wording. So does anyone have a box that says "currently under construction" or something like that.-- TrUcO9311 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
My name's on there, yet I still received the message. Koberulz 08:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding a few references to this article, but I'm confused about one thing. In the "Championships and accomplishments" section, a few singles titles are mentioned (eg. NWA United States Heavyweight Championship - Hayes). Does these belong in the team's article, or should they just be in the articles for the individual wrestlers? I was also wondering if someone could help with the general layout of the article--it has a lot of sections, but I'm not sure they're all necessary as their own sections, or in some cases, if they're necessary at all ("Members" discusses everybody except Roberts, Gordy and Hayes, "Other appearances", "Offshoots"). GaryColemanFan 15:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a new photo on World Tag Team Championship (WWE).-- Monnitewars (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Read the edit summary, I said the belt is cut off the purpose of a photo on that page is to show the whole belt which the photo with the hurricane does not.-- Monnitewars (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
So someone contacted WWE via e-mail, and asked them whether WWE New Years Revolution would take place this coming January, so how would we add to the article that the PPV was cancelled, becuase it wouldnt make sense if we put on there thata Wiki user contacted WWE and told them it was cancelled. ANswers?-- TrUcO9311 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, myself and Deep Shadow have been working on Melina's article getting it ready for a Good Article nomination. Leave comments or suggestions on the article's talk page, or feel free to make changes yourself. I'll nominate it in one week if everyone agrees that it is ready. Thanks. Nikki311 23:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This user is back and once again vandalising wrestling articles. I'm pretty busy right now, so if someone could check out his/her contributions, that would be great. I'll see if I have a chance to look through some of them later. GaryColemanFan 23:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a general note, people should pay attention to these two articles. I hate to post spoilers here, but Vickie Guerrero announced at the SmackDown tapings (they taped them earlier today since all three brands are touring Europe this week) that SmackDown wrestlers will be allowed to compete on ECW and ECW wrestlers will be allowed to compete on SmackDown (the real reason of coarse is because ECW only has 13 wrestlers, thus they pretty much have the same matches every week). Already there have been some IP's adding it despite the announcement not airing on TV or wwe.com. TJ Spyke 00:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we have a professional wrestling promotion article standardized format that I am just failing to find around here? If not do we think we should look in to constructing one? All I have found is the template for the basic info in the box that goes in the upper right hand corner. Thanks for the help. WFPro 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Not a problem. I have no problem coming up with a proper format myself for the particular article I am working on I just thought if there was no set format already I would check with our popular opinion as the aim of this WikiProject is to standardize all wrestling related articles.
WFPro 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Angle, Sting, and the TNA World Title. I added them to articles to watch due to TNA's tapings tonight, and the fact that some people are probably goign to try and change it sooner or later.-- ProtoWolf 01:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
King Haka (via WP:PROD on 18 October 2007) Kept
As many of you know I have been working on this article extensively, and last week, finally managed to get it to GA status. If the article did not get the most amount of votes to be FACOTW, would it be worth me nominating it for FA status? Personally, I think I should nominate it, but wanted to get the opinions of other people. Davnel03 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to start 2 conversations in such a short space of time. Should Madison have an article now that she debuted at the PPV (unfortunately the page is protected from being created)? Davnel03 15:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion she would be relevant enough as she has also worked shows for the WWE, even though they were in negligible roles. WFPro 16:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I looked into this a little, and I have to say I don't understand. There are articles for Awesome Kong, Angel Williams, ODB, and, obviously, Shelly Martinez. With the exception of Martinez, they all (including Madison) have very similar notability away from TNA. What sets Talia apart as being unworthy of an article? I admit I've been gone a while, but is working in a WWE developmental fed paid that much mind now? I can't really remember that being the case. Tromboneguy0186 11:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Once Al Costello passe GA I plan on nominating Don Kent (wrestler) for GA, it's on par with both the Fabulous Kangaroos (already GA) and Al Costello (hopefully soon GA) and as such shouldn't have a huge problem achieving it. Eventually I want to get Roy Heffernan to GA and maybe the Kangaroos one to FA to make a featured topic (Fabulous Kangaroos), but that's way in the future. For now it's all about improving Don Kent (wrestler), so I'd appriciate any and all input from copyeditors etc. to ensure smooth sailing once I put it up for GA. Thanks MPJ-DK 11:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Not that I think it'd be a problem but since it is your guys focus area I'd like to inform you that I've made the following move.
AAA Second Mascot Tag Team Championship → AAA Mascot Tag Team Championship
Not that it's a huge inconvinence or anything but still. MPJ-DK 11:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I added the articles for Jamie Szantyr aka Talia Madison of TNA. Go have a look. Thanks. ThisDude62 04:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What is WP:PW's policy on spoilers? I never have seen a spoiler tag on PW articles, and I havent seen anywhere a warning to not include spoilers. Just curious for future editing. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 06:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Needed to know that for future editing. I was checking out the WWE talk page, and the discussion you and Hybrid had with some dude obsessed with Hornswoggle. It gave me curiosity about where spoilers stand on WP:PW. Thanks. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 09:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if a talk page is allowed with spoilers, then what is really the point. An established wikipedia user [or any person which is curious for more information] would look in an article's talk page. So, I find that if spoilers would be prohibited without source outside the talk page, it should be inside too. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
After a lot of very hard work getting December to Dismember (2006) to GA status and having it passed, it looks like it will not be this weeks FACOTW (personally I don't mind whether it is or isn't), so I have nominated it for FA status. Please comment on the article; the discussion is here.
Also, as you may or may not know One Night Stand (2006) was inappropriately failed a week ago. I took it to WP:GAR, but haven't got many comments on the situation from WP:PW. If other people do not comment the article will not (and probably will never) be promoted. The discussion in question is here.
I look forward to your comments! Thanks, Davnel03 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If anyone can help make it better let me know because I was able to clean it up some. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As many of you know, WrestleMania III is the current COTW. I've been working on it, and a lot of information was added recently by a couple of other users. Some of the grammar and English of the new additions could be cleaned up a bit. I cleaned up as much as I could, but I've just been staring at it for too long. Could some of the copy editors out there clean it up for me and make the English sound more sophisticated. Thanks. Nikki311 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote it ALL. Yeah, all of it. Well, I find that the English is fine, the only problem with the page is that it's in-universe. But, I just can't find it in my heart to write something like "Hogan was booked to slam and end Andre's undefeated streak...]] or something like that, because it just doesnt sound right. When someone writes "was booked to..", immediately, it is implying that there is a ",but this happened.." or "yet he didnt make it to the event..." or something that will counter the original phrase. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I nominated this article for COTW, so I wanted it to be successful. The night before yesterday, the Background section was very short, so I wrote a huge section. Then, Nikki told me I didnt have enough sources (which sadly was true), so I surfed the internet looking for reliable sources. I filled the Background section with reliable sources, and then I found it was "near-perfection"; so the next day I edited the EVENT section. I did the same with the EVENT section, but I looked for the sources first (much more responsible) and "Voila!", We have ourselves excellent Background and Event sections. Now, obviously, like you said, they still can use some correcting. I think the only thing wrong with it, is that it's in-universe (even though i like it better that way), needs more pictures (don't know where to find them ,without Yamla getting on my case saying they're copyright), and whatever English-grammar correcting I had wrong. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
...here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to give a quick update...I nominated this article a while back and it was promoted to Featured List status today.
Now, I believe DrWarpMind will be nominating the List of WWE European Champions next, so be sure to give some input on that one. I was thinking that it would be nice to have another nominee ready for when the European Championship list is finished. Any suggestions? GaryColemanFan 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
List of WWE European Champions has been nominated here. Please take some time to comment on it. Thanks. DrWarpMind 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what the war is about, but think that it should be brought here for a proper resolution. The edit history says it all. Monnitewars has been adding this which has been removed by several members (quite rightly), but wanted to come to a proper solution that satisfies everybody. If fact, the original revision did satisify everybody.... bar one. Having a edit war on the main page, really doesn't look good for the project as a whole. Davnel03 12:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not particularly prevalent, but there's one occurrence I've seen numerous times. It's usually in the notes box next to a particular champion when something happens to the title, such as when it changes names. For example, my old favorite FIP World Heavyweight Championship used to have this text in the notes next to Roderick Strong's name:
"Becomes the FIP World Heavyweight Championship when Strong defeats PAC in Liverpool, England at ROH's Fifth Year Festival: Liverpool."
"Becomes" and "defeats," despite everything else on the page being in the past tense. ROH World Championship used to have something similar regarding the name change and the unification with the pure title, List of WWE Intercontinental Champions contains a noodle-scratching mix of both the present and past tense that I'm going to fix as soon as I'm done writing this, same for List of WWE Champions, though the shift from "Undisputed" is entirely in the present tense. Again, this is with everything else on all of these pages being in the past tense. I've fixed a few occurrences on other pages as well (I think CZW World Heavyweight Championship had something similar as well).
Is there any reason for these particular notes to be in the present tense? If there is, it's escaping me.
Nosleep1234 14:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This does seem incorrect. I'll keep an eye out for it. Tromboneguy0186 12:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there any A-Class articles in WP:PW, because there is no mention of them on the Main Page. An A-Article is rated higher than a Good Article, so I dont understand why the GAs are mentioned and As arent Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles don't have to climb a scale and hit every rung on the ladder. If they improve enough, sometimes they can skip a step or two between evaluations. I don't think anyone is intentionally ignoring any of the steps, its just not that black and white. We shouldn't try to force a particular rating level upon articles, but rather try to see where they fit naturally. If its A class, so be it. If its FA, even better! -- Naha| (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So, if some GAs arent ready for FAs, the improvements can be specified as A-Class? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Does this really warrant its own article? Should we AFD it? DrWarpMind 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely hate to bug people about this, but can people involved in this project please comment on the article. If people don't begin to comment on it at the above link, it will be failed. Sorry to bug you about this, but if I get not many comments, I can't improve it. The discussion is getting a bit out of hand between me and Lex94 and would appreciate some other comments. Davnel03 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
How was the discussion getting out of hand? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Desperately need images for the article mentioned above. Any help will be appreciated. Can someone please tell me if there are pictures on wikipedia that can fit in the article, or in which site I can find images of WM3? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this picture has been there for nearly a year now (since November 16, 06) and no one has found some problem with it. But, I see your point. Well, here's another site where the image is being used: http://www.answers.com/topic/wrestlemania-iii Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
At this link [2], there is another picture of Steamboat vs. Savage that can replace the one in the article. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's better than nothing. And it helps the article, because in the GA Criteria page, it mentions images are needed. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Wasnt this a special episode of RAW, so it can be added ?-- TrUcO9311 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
To answer the question: no. It was a one time special, like Super Tuesday and the Smackdown! Special. Mshake3 03:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I probably shouldn't do this, but is this IP anyone's here? The IP has made one or two edits to the COTW page, including declaring who has won etc. I'm not saying that it's bad or anything, but should IP's really be doing that? Also, is this anyone's IP address here, but just have forgotten to log in? Davnel03 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hogan nomination was deleted by the IP after "proclaiming" that article the winner. Original nomination: [3] -- Aaru Bui DII 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't my IP, either. I say that we just roll with it. Let Hogan be the nominee this week, and have the FACOTW next week. The bot notifying everyone is my fault, as I forgot about the FACOTW :(. Sorry everyone (Hybrid bows head in shame) The Hybrid T/ C 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why isn't Hogan technically the COTW? And what does the FACOTW have to do with it? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Table Proposal
Date | Type |
---|---|
October 21 - October 27 | Collaboration of the Week |
October 28 - November 3 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
November 4 - November 10 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 11 - November 18 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 18 - November 25 | Collaboration of the Week |
November 25 - December 1 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
December 2 - December 8 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 9 - December 15 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 16 - December 22 | Collaboration of the Week |
December 23 - December 29 | Featured Article Collaboration of the Week |
There is a dispute to which photo should be on WrestleMania. Photo A or Photo B. Which one? GIve you Opinion here.-- Monnitewars (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of multiple disputes involving the reliability of sources concerning PPV articles (note: does not concern the reliability of superstar articles), and whether we as a whole should use dirtsheets as sources.
So, I'm between a rock and a hard place (hence the title). Do I:
On a side note, how should I do the " Event" section of the article. MPJ-DK and Lex are having a discussion about this, again on the FAC page. Lex is stating that during the Event section, you must state that these finishes and matches are pre-planned and pre-determined. He also believes that we should state that a particular set-up was set up before hand, violating OR. Although we probably know that they (Hardys/MNM in Lex's examples) talked about the match pre-hand, we have no sources to back it up. I personally think this is wrong in itself.
Opinions on the above matters? Sorry it's SUCH a long post, but I needed to get that out! Either comment here, or at the FAC. Again, apologises for the long post - but I'm stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place. :( Davnel03 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think dirt sheets are completely valueless in an encyclopedic sense. They post rumors, inuendoes, and things that aren't independently verifiable (while it may not be required to have 2 sources give the same info, it sure doesn't hurt). This does leave things like Torch, the Observer, and PWI (that's PW Insider) in kind of a gray area, since they aren't seen on the same level as wrestleview and rajah and wrestlezone and all the others, but I don't believe they're considered as meeting the WP:RS standard, either. Tromboneguy0186 12:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok on the page One Night Stand (2007) There is a incredibly long backstory on the page. Normally its not on the p0age its in their individual articles. I keep getting reverted though when i change it. Will someone help me? LifeStroke420 15:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The headline speaks for itself. Keep an eye out for any "new" users that have similar edit patters to them. Davnel03 12:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont recall a Hornetman 16... Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, if you're a good contributor, I don't give two shits if you're a sock. Just saying. Mshake3 02:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I never payed much attention to Hornetman for my own sanity. He just got on my last nerve. That's why I made the comment about it making sense when I found that MW was his sock. I guess I should pay more attention to my woman's intuition. Nikki311 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
When referring to a tag team championship, do you say "the team regained the title" or "the team regained the titles." While it may be "considered one title" it does, in fact, involve two people and two belts, and to me, the plural seems correct here. I seem to always see it referred to in the plural also:
Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/cademurdochhardys06052007
Source: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/archive/mnmtagchamps
Source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive/10052007/articles/keeponhatin
I could go on, but I've already taken up enough space here with my examples. I bring this up for two reasons: (1) I had this edit reverted and I'm not sure it was correct, and (2) we DO need to be consistent throughout all of our articles. Please comment, thanks. -- Naha| (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
One "title," one "championship," two "belts." What's so hard about that?
:5. Sports. the championship: He won the title three years in a row.
The World Tag Team Championship (WWE), for example, is one title. I can't fathom how "they won the titles" could be considered accurate when a team or pair of wrestlers wins this championship. Particularly since it seems like no one wants to say "they won the championships" - I don't see what the difference is and can't understand how it isn't all very, very, very wrong. Nosleep1234 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And I'm getting a little sick of how since someone else does it, that has to be the correct way. WWE.com is just written by a bunch of guys like us. There's no assurance that they are meant to all the write the same way, and they're not authoritative. This is not an issue for one promotion. With all your sources that say (and look very stupid in doing so) "WWE Tag Team Titles," does that mean because WWE says so that for the ROH World Tag Team Championship or the PWG World Tag Team Championship or the bobs-your-uncle world tag team championship that that has to be titles too? Nosleep1234 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
While we're at it, if they're plural, let's just move the article to WWE Tag Team Championships, then, and say "Currently, they are exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" where right now it says Currently, it is exclusive to the SmackDown! brand" How can plural be correct for one notion but not all? Nosleep1234 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to keep adding on like this, but I keep having more thoughts. Just think about what, in question, is tangible. Is it the "title," which is the distinction of being (in kayfabe, but still) the best tag team in your company, or is it the "belts," which are the physical representation of that distinction. If you want to talk about "the titles," that should only refer to multiple of these distinctions, such as "the titles currently held by MVP," or during the Invasion when Kane & The Undertaker "held the WCW & WWF tag team titles." Nosleep1234 18:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to revert your edit Nahallac Silverwinds, but I will explain why I changed it. Title is a synonym of championship, so it should stay singular unless you are talking about two separate titles. A belt is not a championship but a representation of it, so it's okay to use the plural form when saying belt. E.g. They won the Tag Team Title and showed their belts off to the crowd. - Deep Shadow 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that it is one title, one championship, and two belts. Anyone still disagree or can this discussion be closed? Nikki311 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, I think I just made a further realization regarding my confusion about "title" being another word for "championship" and not "belt." I hear "title belts" a lot, and I'm guessing I thought "titles" was short for "title belts." Oh well. -- Naha| (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, "title belts" mean the Belts of the title Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some, removed some pov wording, and per the guidelines the moves used to finish a few matches (only had 2). I also removed the links to "her" MySpace account until it's proven to be hers. Matt Hardy and Gregory Helms have lists of WWE superstars who have MySpace accounts, only Matt left off Edge probably for obvious reasons. Last time I checked Beths name wasn't on either list. So take a look and help out. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it can't be some dirtsheets, and whatever the info they shouldn't be rumors either. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What does everybody else think about this? Ticketmaster has a listing for Judgment Day 2008 (which hasn't officially been announced by WWE yet), along with a location: http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/06003F50E212E70D?artistid=807358&majorcatid=10004&minorcatid=27 TJ Spyke 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
And commercials have aired locally too. Mshake3 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I sent WWE.com an email asking where and when the show will be, it'll be interesting to see what, if anything, their response is. Tromboneguy0186 12:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the protocol on the PWI annual 500 lists? My understanding was that we listed the rank in the Top 500 of the PWI years and if they were in the top ten, but other than that, placements in the individual years weren't listed. Am I wrong? I want to know because a lot of individual rankings were added to Hulk Hogan, and as long as the article already is, I just don't see the necessity of listing his ranking for every year. Nikki311 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Do we want to get rid of the rankings in the 500 lists altogether? They are pretty useless. Nikki311 16:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards? Nikki311 21:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the awards themselves? TJ doesn't believe that we've been referring to the PWI awards at all, just the listings. To me, it's splitting hairs to get rid of the listings and keep the various awards. Odin's Beard 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that I have nearly finished December to Dismember (2006) and am shortly planning to renominate it for FA status (as well as finishing the WWE One Night Stand series), I am planning to move on into a new PPV. Instead of moving PPV's into seperate articles again, I am planning to work on, yes, Survivor Series (2007). I'm planning to add things week by week as the shows go by. Obviously one thing we might have to watch out for is SmackDown! spoilers, but I expect the page to be semi-protected pretty soon. Is there any major objections to me focusing on this article from next week? Davnel03 10:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. There is more potential for the newest PPVs, because there if info all around the internet. I am also going to have an extreme focus on Wrestlemania III, because I want to make it A-Class, I already nominated it for COTW, it won, and I wrote all the sections in it. It just needs a little more... Lex94.
Wow, I must say, terrific work on all of these. Sure beats the hell out of a simple list of match results. Tromboneguy0186 11:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
This page has been deleted about three times, yet surely ranks as some degree of importance now that she is actively wrestling in TNA's Women's league? http://www.tnawrestlingnews.com/headlines/195175104.shtml Can anyone do something to stop the deletions of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisgil ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
le sigh. Yes, I know. But when their subjects have very similar notability (Madison's won a bunch of titles, too), there's a basis for comparison that can be made. I could see setting Awesome Kong apart, as she's won the definitely-notable
NWA World Women's Championship and the
AWA Japan Women's Championship, but OVW is simply an indy, one that's only set apart from easily less notable groups like, say, HWA, BCW, or 3PW by a working agreement with WWE (WWE doesn't own OVW and never has). In fact, ODB was never under a WWE contract. She worked with OVW directly. What makes OVW, and by proxy ODB and Williams, so special in this case? I'm not arguing for deletion of their articles (an inclusionist like me? heaven forfend), I just want to know why the basis for comparison can't be made.
Tromboneguy0186 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have any objections to giving the 1998 KOTR it's own page? The big problem is that if we give it it's own page, we'd have to do one for all of the KOTRs and that could be a can of worms we don't want to open. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 15:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have been privately working on an article for Talia Madison and will put it into the main namespace once the people of Wikipedia decide she is worthy, and just wanted to get an opinion on it, maybe a little help. The article is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox, check it out and let me know what you think. ThisDude62 19:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
After the problems that I had with the WrestleView sources that caused the article to be failed, I have renominated December to Dismember (2006) for FA status. I have put so much work into this, so can you please comment, support or oppose the article! A special thanks to Nikki311 for helping me to find sources to replace the WrestleView sources. Davnel03 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I added this new image. If there is a problem with the image, please clarify. Image:Hogan and Andre.jpg Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have passed the Trish Stratus article's GA nomination. It was an excellent read and met all the GA criteria, from well-written, to images, to sources. Great job to the people who edited the article. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Four articles are on the verge of getting pruned:
If you are interested in any of these in becoming COTW, please vote and avoid them getting pruned. Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I have submitted a proposal to have the articles Jamie Szantyr/Talia Madison unsalted. Participate in the discussion at [ [13]] and vote to have the article unsalted.
The article that will be put up if it is unsalted is at User:ThisDude62/sandbox. It is well-written, sourced, the whole nine yards. Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThisDude62 ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What was ShyGuy's violation to the policy? I read the Forbidden uses of sockpuppets, and he didn't do anything to violate the policy. The only thing you guys found were similar contributions, which means nothing, because wikipedia does not frown upon spliting your contributions (see Legitimate uses of sockpuppets Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures Lex94 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)