![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I have been working on expanding the article for Royal Rumble (1994), hoping to being it up to Good Article status. I'm having some trouble finding sources for the events during the matches. If anyone knows of a good, reliable recap or review, I would really appreciate it. In addition, if anyone has a chance to look over what I've done so far, that would be very helpful. What I've currently got is at User:GaryColemanFan/RR94. I'm pretty much finished the Background and Aftermath sections, but I'm struggling with the Event section. And help improving the references is always wonderful. Thanks in advance. GaryColemanFan 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Right so we've had three complete COTWs, which were:
I think Morales might need a little bit of a push before nominating for GA status, but I think we could nominate both Lawler and WrestleMania III. Opinions? After all, our aim is to make these GA, and hopefully (probably not in the case of Morales) FA. Davnel03 10:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I have made Wrestlemania III good enough for GA, but Jerry Lawler and Pedro Morales aren't at that stage yet. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I've created a peer review request for Jerry Lawler so that we can identify the areas that still need improvement. It would be great if a few people could look it over and leave some comments and suggestions (remember--the more specific, the better). Wikipedia:Peer review/Jerry Lawler/archive1 Thanks. GaryColemanFan 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I must say that the PPVs tasks that are going on are absolutely brilliant, with several people doing different articles. It is a credit to have such people as a member of WP:PW. Now that December to Dismember (2006) is a FAC candidate and now that the WWE One Night Stand project is complete, I'm going onto to something where the sources might be a little trickier! As well as updating Survivor Series (2007) on a daily basis starting next week, my next project, I'm going to take it a step further, and am working on the FIRST EVER In Your House PPV! I'm working on it in my sandbox, and it is located here! :) Davnel03 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Exceedingly minor point, I'm only raising it here to get more eyes on the message (does anyone ever look at Talk:Mark Pugh? Methinks not). Anyhow, they are no longer billed from Laurel, Delaware, at least not within ROH. They're billed from what sounds like "Sandy Fort, Delaware" (as well as, more generally, "Southern Delaware"), but that doesn't seem to be an actual city. The closest thing I can find is a Civil War-era prison for Confederates called Fort Delaware. While that would somewhat fit their characters, it seems extremely esoteric. Any idea what this actually is? Tromboneguy0186 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Another issue with the Brothers' articles - the same picture is used for both. Now, of course I understand why, but I think it would be prudent to include some kind of caption telling which brother is which, as that's something that's quite a bit less than obvious to a lot of fans and certainly would be to a new reader. Is this possible with the wrestler infobox? (for the record, it's Mark in the background facing the camera, and Jay in the foreground facing away). So is there any way to add such a caption?
And I've become motivated by all the fine work others are doing getting articles up to GA and FA. I might not be able to do that with either/any of these articles, but I think I'll give 'er a shot (might be a little partial to Mark, though, as I started that article ;) Tromboneguy0186 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I noticed that the WWE RAW, ECW, and SmackDown! pages. Their genre was sports entertainment and TNA Impact was under professional wrestling. Should it be changed?-- TrUcO9311 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this necessary? In my view, it's just listcruft. Look at WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 for example. It's cluttered with lists: some useful, some not. I think things such as: match types and championship belts/titles need to be in prose form and not a list. Yes, knowing which titles are in the game is useful: however it's simply game guide content in my view. If people want to know this information, they should be visiting a gaming or wrestling site that specializes in it. RobJ1981 05:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Click the link. Opinions? :) Davnel03 10:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{ sequence}} box down the bottom because I don't think a navbox would be appropriate for these. It may be better incorporated in the {{ Infobox Wrestling event}} instead though. I was wondering how others felt about this. -- Aaru Bui DII 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a proposal to create a unified infobox that would encompass {{ Infobox Wrestler}}, and around five or six other widely used templates. Please join the discussion and comment. east. 718 at 20:35, 10/26/2007
I sourced NWA World Women's Championship the other day, and I'm thinking of nominating it as a Featured List candidate. I usually stick to articles, rather than lists, so if anyone has any suggestions before I nominate it, that would be great. MShake is working on getting a picture, so that shouldn't be a problem. Nikki311 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Update on state abbreviations: I did find that it was against the MoS to abbreviations in normal text, but I couldn't find anything about lists. I'll change it to the abbreviations because all of our other FL are written that way. It is best to be consistent. Nikki311 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to try and tackle a WCW PPV the way Davnel has. I decided to start with Starrcade (2000). Right now I just have the results and opening paragraph, but am working on the rest. TJ Spyke 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The title explains it all, but I have also requested feedback a week ago
Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I know responding to this argument is against my better judgment, but I have to say something as I've been holding it in. Lex, you did not write all of it. Before you began adding in information, others were adding information, and I was in the process of adding/sourcing info with book and article sources. You can check that version here: [5]. You didn't begin adding information until several edits after that. I was going to continue adding legitimate book sources to the article, but your bad attitude turned me off of it. You need to learn to value and respect other's contributions or nobody is going to want to work with you. Nikki311 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a non-notable backyard "wrestling" "organization". Does it qualify for speedy deletion? GaryColemanFan 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just checked because the article is still there - and it seems that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Someone has prodded it instead. I was going to change it back but the criteria doesn't support me doing that. It goes on November 1 unless someone challenges it. !! Justa Punk !! 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that really his name, or just a nickname?-- TrUcO9311 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This might help. Google results: [6] -- Aaru Bui DII 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did a major clean-up/sectioning of the Jeremy Borash article. Hope you like it. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed him from the stub section because I don't think it qualifies anylong, though if it does go ahead a re-add it. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you see an edit to an article I've done leave me a message about it. Let me know what if I did somethin' wrong so I can get better at it. Or just let me know if I'm doin' a good job. Any constructive criticism is fully welcomed. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is it! The Montreal Screwjob article has been selected as the "Today's featured article" for November 9th. You can see the source HERE. Cheers to the WP:PW community! The Chronic 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The recent storyline rivalry had also seen Michaels make insulting remarks about Hart's father Stu Hart, which had left Bret and others in the Hart family upset.
.... is the article I'm going to be working on next. On a side note, December to Dismember (2006) is set to no-longer be GA status in a few days time.... its going one step higher (5 supports; 0 opposes)! Thanks to everyone who helped my on the article, it seems like we'll be getting a reward for our efforts anytime soon!! :) Davnel03 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the article examples section of the WP:PW front page, does anyone else think we should move it to a subpage? It's getting quite long and will only get longer, and I think now (or soon) is the time to give this section its own page. -- MarcK 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In the essence of improving communication, I'm letting the project know that User:Lex94 has nominated Shelton Benjamin as a Feature Article. The nomination page is HERE. Nikki311 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Frightwolf has recently been adding a "criticism" section containing weasel words, OR, and other claims without references. The user continues to add the section without sources using the argument that the rest of the article isn’t referenced either to justify his actions. The only reference added just a few moments ago is from a site I've never even heard of. firetank.com/smashwrestling Can an opinion from a source I've never even heard of be used as an acceptable source? I would appreciate your thoughts on this. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How is citing DVD's best done? As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to try to improve Jamin Pugh, Mark Pugh, and Briscoe Brothers as much as possible. I'm already thinking of certain claims that probably can't be referenced by a simple list of web results (although now that I think of it, DVD reviews might help, if they pass WP:RS). Anyhow, probably a useful question to ask anyway. One such claim is the kayfabe reason the Brothers left ROH for a year and a half; in kayfabe, the fight at Testing the Limit, their last show before their long hiatus, resulted in fines or suspensions for everyone involved, and since they were too poor to pay the fine they had to leave. If kayfabe details like this don't need to be in the article, that's also important to know (there are some in there now that should, therefore, be edited out). Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 06:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the template is helpful, but you obviously didn't read or even skim what I wrote. I would not need to cite something on WWE TV for articles on the Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For the last couple of weeks, there has been an odd edit war between two IP's at the NWA World Title page. Anybody want to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Version 1
Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. Don Owen was a member from the late 1950's until 1992. Jim Crockett was a member until 1995, Larry O'Day was a member until his death in 1997, Steve Rickard was a member until 2000, and Antonio Inoki is still a member today. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.
Version 2
Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. It should be noted that this new title had no historical connection to the original lineage of the title. None of the membership in the heyday of the organization prior to 1991 was still associated with the alliance, all of them either going out of business or leaving the alliance. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.
Not the best solution to give the two versions above, but I doubt anyone will understand my explanation given that I don't even understand the situation. The first version seems right, but I'm possibly wrong. Davnel03 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am working on a Cyber Sunday 2006 article in my sandbox. I was going to start with Cyber Sunday 2007, but I decided to go in cronological order, and begin with Cyber Sunday 2006. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone please read the Background section. I need some constructive criticism. Thanks, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking: would it be possible for WP:PW to have a full newsletter with info from the WikiProject, including the Collaboration of the Week, member news, cleanup announcements, etc. (got the idea from a newsletter from Saw)? I know we have sort of a newleter (the announcement of the Collaboration), but I was wondering if we could expand that into full. Just a suggestion. The Chronic 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm guessing it's clear that we approve of a newsletter. I'll spend the next few days testing designs and news for the first newsletter here. If there are any more suggestions for the newsletter, please post it here or at this talk page. I hope to get the first trial issue released out by November 11 (the day that the next next COTW is announced). Thanks everyone! The Chronic 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute happening on the Trish Stratus article with another editor claiming that SLAM! Sports is a dirtsheet and is removing sourced information. The page passed GA so obviously the information used can be traced back to reliable sources. I have crossed paths with this editor numerous times as I know many of the editors of this project have and many disputes have occurred. Could some people please help with the current situation at the article? - Deep Shadow 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some more work on this article today, and I think it's almost ready for a GA Review. Thank you to everybody who has helped on the article. I would really appreciate it if people could do a copyedit and give some feedback. I've listed it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994)/archive1, so you can leave comments on the peer review, the article's talk page, my talk page, on as a response to this post. I would love to hear some thoughts on the article and what might still need to be done. Thanks again, everyone. GaryColemanFan 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work done lately on pay-per-view articles, and it's getting hard to keep track of what's going on. I was wondering if the people involved could add to the list below to show which articles are done, are being done, or are about to be done. Thanks.
1987 WrestleMania III - B
1993 SummerSlam (1993) - Good Article
1994 Royal Rumble (1994) - B
1995 In Your House 1: Premiere - B (Good Article candidate); King of the Ring (1995) - Start
2000 Starrcade (2000) - Start
2005 One Night Stand (2005) - B (Good Article candidate)
2006 One Night Stand (2006) - B; December to Dismember (2006) - Good Article (Featured Article candidate)
2007
One Night Stand (2007) - B
Have I missed any?
Currently, I'm trying to decide between Survivor Series 1993, WrestleMania X or King of the Ring 1994. I want to fill in the gaps, but I'm leaning toward King of the Ring 1994. GaryColemanFan 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Photos on Flickr are considered free-use, so they can be uploaded, correct? How exactly does that work? I've never had too much success with photo uploading. Nikki311 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I'm starting a "Background" section (obviously for the moment I've only done Michaels v Orton as that is the only match tha has been announced). Revert any SmackDown! spoilers ot vandal edits as per usual. Davnel03 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in the Triple H article, are the titles of the contents really necessary as the contents include more than 2 years (ex. "D-Generation X (1997-1999)" thats 3 years) and then the D- Generation X revial goes only for 2 years from 2006-2007 and the contents don't begin in the beginning of that year. To me those titles and the ranges of the years seem unnecessary as it makes the article look bad, what do you think?-- TrUcO9311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." ( WP:HEAD) Year ranges don't mean much to me. -- Aaru Bui DII 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently I added some images to the CM Punk article from commons based off images from the Spanish wikipedia however I have come to think the user who is uploading all these images is uploading copyrighted images and simply labelling them public domain.
User's contributions to commons here. If some of these are copyvios I think it needs to be assumed all are copyvios and a commons admin needs to be contacted. –– Lid( Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(call me selfish or narcissistic, but I get the feeling no one would see this if I added it on to a previous section)
Anyhow, in doing a little research into their careers, I came across something very curious. It's semi-well known that the Brothers worked under masks in 2001 and 2002 when CZW ran in the ECW arena, owing to Mark only being 17 years old at the time both of them being underage at the time and the state of Pennsylvania having stringent laws against people under 18 working in entertainment.
I can back this claim up , but what's got me really confused is that the Brothers appeared in the ECW arena, for JAPW, even earlier
[8], and it doesn't seem that they hid their identities then. JAPW even now isn't really the kind of company that would go that far out of their way to get someone just to job in their curtain jerker, so did they just skate on the law or something? Anyone know? How would be the best way to introduce this in an article? I've started a subpage for potential article prose,
User:Tromboneguy0186/sandbox (and I surely do hope I created that correctly), and I like the section I've got so far for CZW, but this JAPW issue has me quite confused.
Tromboneguy0186
10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed merging Jamin Pugh and Mark Pugh into Briscoe Brothers. My rationale is on Talk:Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've brought this up before see #Featured List notice, but I want to mention it again since List of WWE European Champions just passed its FL nom. I've corrected the issues brought up by other users (source for Moolah selling title, abbreviations) and added a picture. I, however, could not find specific dates/locations for when the title was vacated, nor could I find a location of Moolah's second win. I really looked, too, but all the sites list it as unknown. Is this going to be a problem with a FL nom or will they take into account that the information just doesn't exist? Anyway, unless anyone strongly opposes, I'll nominate it in a couple of days and try to fix and problems that anyone sees. Nikki311 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it...feel free to leave comments HERE. Nikki311 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some opinions on a change in this article as well as someone with more knowledge of wrestling to clarify something. The questions can be found at the bottom of HERE Gavyn Sykes 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
....has been moved into the mianspace by Lex94. Feel free to edit it, clean it up etc. Davnel03 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Right major question: Am I right in stating that the "Background" section sounds more like a week-by-week analysis of events? Personally, I think we should do it storyline by storyline - talk about Champions of Champions, then go onto DX/Rated RKO and then onto the third major storyline. I think this makes it flow better so that it isn't constantly changing subjects. Opinions? Davnel03 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten into the habit of linking weapons in wrestling articles to Foreign object (professional wrestling). See Cyber Sunday in the the results for the Triple H/Umaga match. I've been meaning to bring this up, but does anyone have any objections to my doing this? I want to make sure it's not violating a Wikiproject rule I was unaware of. Gavyn Sykes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An IP left this message on Talk:Mark Pugh
Somebody has to change the "references" listed to the Jim Cornette profile on the imposter OWW. The REAL url should be credited to the original website from which that information came from http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/j/jim-cornette.html -- the other website "Obsessed" stole all its content from the real OWW "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com". Thank you.
What the heck? I'd never heard of "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com." The two pages definitely appear to be duplicates of each other, but I recall "OWW" always referring to obsessedwithwrestling.com; what (if anything, in fact) changed? And unless there's proof of plagiarism, what differences does it make? Tromboneguy0186 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that this PPV article was outlining events in a week-by-week format, which is not how it's done in any other Expanded PPV ( December to Dismember (2006); SummerSlam (1993); In Your House 1: Premiere etc.). In other PPV's it is done with the three or four main storylines (five if we ever did WrestleManias). It's not done like that in the Cyber Sunday article - and in its current style is seems like the subject is changing constantly from going to talking about the Champions of Champions match to DX to Umaga before going back to the Champions of Champions match. It constantly does that, and for a neutral non-wrestling fan, can make things very confusing, and would probably be brought up if the article became a GA candidate. For ease of flow, should we change the article, so that it talks about one storyline, before going onto another; in this case talk about the Champions of Champions match, before going onto talk about the DX-Rated RKO storyline, like in the above article examples? In my view we should change it as the current version seems quite confusing. Opinions on the current format? Thanks, Davnel03 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposed deletion has run its course for Teenage Wrestling Federation. Can someone explain what happens next? Can the article be deleted by just anyone? I also noticed that another god-awful wrestling article, Dans D Generation X, has a proposed deletion that will be over in a couple of hours. Is there someone who makes sure that these are deleted? I'd just like to get rid of them as soon as possible so that nobody will assume that this project is connected to the articles. GaryColemanFan 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I began work on this article today. I've written part of the background section (the results of the qualifying matches). Is this the format I should be using? I think it's important to list the results of the qualifying matches and give some detail about the significant ones, but I'm not fond of the two-sentence paragraphs. Does anyone have an idea on this? GaryColemanFan 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I did some work on the FBI article, I know its not like FA or GA quality but can you give it a rating on the talk page, or comment here about the changes Ive done, or if the sources arent good. Thanx.-- TrUcO9311 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have suggested that the WWE Brand Extension article be split into two articles:WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Lottery. See discussion here.-- TrUcO9311 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I figured since everyone else is working on a PPV I'd give it a shot too, only I'm not picking the popular choice or the good shows - I'm starting with Uncensored 1995 and work on that in my sandbox. MPJ-DK 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on a couple of pay-per-view articles lately. Royal Rumble (1994) is pretty much ready to go. I was hoping that some people could look over the references and let me know if any of the sources are likely to be challenged.
The other thing I'm struggling with now is finding a source that says that Roddy Piper donated money from his match at King of the Ring (1994) to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Does anyone know where I can find a source for that? Thank you to anyone who can help (or is willing to try). GaryColemanFan 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The article has been unprotected and I've (re-)added his wrestling career to the article. I've also sectioned it up by year and it looks pretty good. -- Cra sh U nderride 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New article. -- Aaru Bui DII 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Outreach program that I started, I thought it would be appropriate to create a welcome template for WP:PW. So I created one here. Use it for new users who contribute to any pro wrestling article. The Chronic 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As I started to work on Uncensored I noticed WCW didn't have a PPV template box like WWE has, so I created one - replacing the incomplete one someone had started on in September {{WCWPPV}} So please remember to add that to WCW PPVs if you single them out. I've gone through and added the info box to all WCW PPVs and also created a category for WCW PPVs instead of just listing them as WCW shows, that's inconsistent with how the WWE is set up. Just FYI. MPJ-DK 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In less than a day, a new COTW article will be promoted and the Bobby Eaton article's run as the first ever GA-class COTW article will be over. The article had considerable support, achieving the winning 9 votes in the 14 days it was listed. However, as of this moment, the article has had only 31 edits between 6 editors, considerably low compared to the 98 edits to Hulk Hogan and the 158 edits to WrestleMania III during their COTW period.
This, however, may be due to Hulk Hogan's lengthy article and WrestleMania III's major expansion. Going through the edits made, mostly comprised of copyediting and fixes in the references and links. Something I didn't expect, seeing that it is of GA-class. The lack of edits may be because of the reasons for the voting, with some preferring it for its "stability" and how it receives less vandalism compared to articles of more recent superstars. It is an article that is just harder to contribute to by people that are not "old school" wrestling fans.
In conclusion, the support shown through the voting did not necessarily translate in the actual improvement process. This is a good start to this monthly event and certainly has potential, especially with articles whose topic is more well known by our editors. -- Aaru Bui DII 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
With our other good articles, I suppose there will be more to work on and make this COTW actually beneficial to the article. It just seems like we got little out of this week. -- Aaru Bui DII 22:52, 3 November 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
I have been working on expanding the article for Royal Rumble (1994), hoping to being it up to Good Article status. I'm having some trouble finding sources for the events during the matches. If anyone knows of a good, reliable recap or review, I would really appreciate it. In addition, if anyone has a chance to look over what I've done so far, that would be very helpful. What I've currently got is at User:GaryColemanFan/RR94. I'm pretty much finished the Background and Aftermath sections, but I'm struggling with the Event section. And help improving the references is always wonderful. Thanks in advance. GaryColemanFan 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Right so we've had three complete COTWs, which were:
I think Morales might need a little bit of a push before nominating for GA status, but I think we could nominate both Lawler and WrestleMania III. Opinions? After all, our aim is to make these GA, and hopefully (probably not in the case of Morales) FA. Davnel03 10:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I have made Wrestlemania III good enough for GA, but Jerry Lawler and Pedro Morales aren't at that stage yet. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I've created a peer review request for Jerry Lawler so that we can identify the areas that still need improvement. It would be great if a few people could look it over and leave some comments and suggestions (remember--the more specific, the better). Wikipedia:Peer review/Jerry Lawler/archive1 Thanks. GaryColemanFan 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I must say that the PPVs tasks that are going on are absolutely brilliant, with several people doing different articles. It is a credit to have such people as a member of WP:PW. Now that December to Dismember (2006) is a FAC candidate and now that the WWE One Night Stand project is complete, I'm going onto to something where the sources might be a little trickier! As well as updating Survivor Series (2007) on a daily basis starting next week, my next project, I'm going to take it a step further, and am working on the FIRST EVER In Your House PPV! I'm working on it in my sandbox, and it is located here! :) Davnel03 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Exceedingly minor point, I'm only raising it here to get more eyes on the message (does anyone ever look at Talk:Mark Pugh? Methinks not). Anyhow, they are no longer billed from Laurel, Delaware, at least not within ROH. They're billed from what sounds like "Sandy Fort, Delaware" (as well as, more generally, "Southern Delaware"), but that doesn't seem to be an actual city. The closest thing I can find is a Civil War-era prison for Confederates called Fort Delaware. While that would somewhat fit their characters, it seems extremely esoteric. Any idea what this actually is? Tromboneguy0186 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Another issue with the Brothers' articles - the same picture is used for both. Now, of course I understand why, but I think it would be prudent to include some kind of caption telling which brother is which, as that's something that's quite a bit less than obvious to a lot of fans and certainly would be to a new reader. Is this possible with the wrestler infobox? (for the record, it's Mark in the background facing the camera, and Jay in the foreground facing away). So is there any way to add such a caption?
And I've become motivated by all the fine work others are doing getting articles up to GA and FA. I might not be able to do that with either/any of these articles, but I think I'll give 'er a shot (might be a little partial to Mark, though, as I started that article ;) Tromboneguy0186 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I noticed that the WWE RAW, ECW, and SmackDown! pages. Their genre was sports entertainment and TNA Impact was under professional wrestling. Should it be changed?-- TrUcO9311 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this necessary? In my view, it's just listcruft. Look at WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 for example. It's cluttered with lists: some useful, some not. I think things such as: match types and championship belts/titles need to be in prose form and not a list. Yes, knowing which titles are in the game is useful: however it's simply game guide content in my view. If people want to know this information, they should be visiting a gaming or wrestling site that specializes in it. RobJ1981 05:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Click the link. Opinions? :) Davnel03 10:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I added the {{ sequence}} box down the bottom because I don't think a navbox would be appropriate for these. It may be better incorporated in the {{ Infobox Wrestling event}} instead though. I was wondering how others felt about this. -- Aaru Bui DII 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a proposal to create a unified infobox that would encompass {{ Infobox Wrestler}}, and around five or six other widely used templates. Please join the discussion and comment. east. 718 at 20:35, 10/26/2007
I sourced NWA World Women's Championship the other day, and I'm thinking of nominating it as a Featured List candidate. I usually stick to articles, rather than lists, so if anyone has any suggestions before I nominate it, that would be great. MShake is working on getting a picture, so that shouldn't be a problem. Nikki311 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Update on state abbreviations: I did find that it was against the MoS to abbreviations in normal text, but I couldn't find anything about lists. I'll change it to the abbreviations because all of our other FL are written that way. It is best to be consistent. Nikki311 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have decided to try and tackle a WCW PPV the way Davnel has. I decided to start with Starrcade (2000). Right now I just have the results and opening paragraph, but am working on the rest. TJ Spyke 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The title explains it all, but I have also requested feedback a week ago
Cheers, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I know responding to this argument is against my better judgment, but I have to say something as I've been holding it in. Lex, you did not write all of it. Before you began adding in information, others were adding information, and I was in the process of adding/sourcing info with book and article sources. You can check that version here: [5]. You didn't begin adding information until several edits after that. I was going to continue adding legitimate book sources to the article, but your bad attitude turned me off of it. You need to learn to value and respect other's contributions or nobody is going to want to work with you. Nikki311 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a non-notable backyard "wrestling" "organization". Does it qualify for speedy deletion? GaryColemanFan 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just checked because the article is still there - and it seems that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Someone has prodded it instead. I was going to change it back but the criteria doesn't support me doing that. It goes on November 1 unless someone challenges it. !! Justa Punk !! 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that really his name, or just a nickname?-- TrUcO9311 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This might help. Google results: [6] -- Aaru Bui DII 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did a major clean-up/sectioning of the Jeremy Borash article. Hope you like it. -- Cra sh U nderride 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed him from the stub section because I don't think it qualifies anylong, though if it does go ahead a re-add it. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you see an edit to an article I've done leave me a message about it. Let me know what if I did somethin' wrong so I can get better at it. Or just let me know if I'm doin' a good job. Any constructive criticism is fully welcomed. -- Cra sh U nderride 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is it! The Montreal Screwjob article has been selected as the "Today's featured article" for November 9th. You can see the source HERE. Cheers to the WP:PW community! The Chronic 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The recent storyline rivalry had also seen Michaels make insulting remarks about Hart's father Stu Hart, which had left Bret and others in the Hart family upset.
.... is the article I'm going to be working on next. On a side note, December to Dismember (2006) is set to no-longer be GA status in a few days time.... its going one step higher (5 supports; 0 opposes)! Thanks to everyone who helped my on the article, it seems like we'll be getting a reward for our efforts anytime soon!! :) Davnel03 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the article examples section of the WP:PW front page, does anyone else think we should move it to a subpage? It's getting quite long and will only get longer, and I think now (or soon) is the time to give this section its own page. -- MarcK 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
In the essence of improving communication, I'm letting the project know that User:Lex94 has nominated Shelton Benjamin as a Feature Article. The nomination page is HERE. Nikki311 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Frightwolf has recently been adding a "criticism" section containing weasel words, OR, and other claims without references. The user continues to add the section without sources using the argument that the rest of the article isn’t referenced either to justify his actions. The only reference added just a few moments ago is from a site I've never even heard of. firetank.com/smashwrestling Can an opinion from a source I've never even heard of be used as an acceptable source? I would appreciate your thoughts on this. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How is citing DVD's best done? As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to try to improve Jamin Pugh, Mark Pugh, and Briscoe Brothers as much as possible. I'm already thinking of certain claims that probably can't be referenced by a simple list of web results (although now that I think of it, DVD reviews might help, if they pass WP:RS). Anyhow, probably a useful question to ask anyway. One such claim is the kayfabe reason the Brothers left ROH for a year and a half; in kayfabe, the fight at Testing the Limit, their last show before their long hiatus, resulted in fines or suspensions for everyone involved, and since they were too poor to pay the fine they had to leave. If kayfabe details like this don't need to be in the article, that's also important to know (there are some in there now that should, therefore, be edited out). Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 06:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the template is helpful, but you obviously didn't read or even skim what I wrote. I would not need to cite something on WWE TV for articles on the Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For the last couple of weeks, there has been an odd edit war between two IP's at the NWA World Title page. Anybody want to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Version 1
Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. Don Owen was a member from the late 1950's until 1992. Jim Crockett was a member until 1995, Larry O'Day was a member until his death in 1997, Steve Rickard was a member until 2000, and Antonio Inoki is still a member today. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.
Version 2
Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. It should be noted that this new title had no historical connection to the original lineage of the title. None of the membership in the heyday of the organization prior to 1991 was still associated with the alliance, all of them either going out of business or leaving the alliance. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.
Not the best solution to give the two versions above, but I doubt anyone will understand my explanation given that I don't even understand the situation. The first version seems right, but I'm possibly wrong. Davnel03 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am working on a Cyber Sunday 2006 article in my sandbox. I was going to start with Cyber Sunday 2007, but I decided to go in cronological order, and begin with Cyber Sunday 2006. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone please read the Background section. I need some constructive criticism. Thanks, Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking: would it be possible for WP:PW to have a full newsletter with info from the WikiProject, including the Collaboration of the Week, member news, cleanup announcements, etc. (got the idea from a newsletter from Saw)? I know we have sort of a newleter (the announcement of the Collaboration), but I was wondering if we could expand that into full. Just a suggestion. The Chronic 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm guessing it's clear that we approve of a newsletter. I'll spend the next few days testing designs and news for the first newsletter here. If there are any more suggestions for the newsletter, please post it here or at this talk page. I hope to get the first trial issue released out by November 11 (the day that the next next COTW is announced). Thanks everyone! The Chronic 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute happening on the Trish Stratus article with another editor claiming that SLAM! Sports is a dirtsheet and is removing sourced information. The page passed GA so obviously the information used can be traced back to reliable sources. I have crossed paths with this editor numerous times as I know many of the editors of this project have and many disputes have occurred. Could some people please help with the current situation at the article? - Deep Shadow 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some more work on this article today, and I think it's almost ready for a GA Review. Thank you to everybody who has helped on the article. I would really appreciate it if people could do a copyedit and give some feedback. I've listed it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994)/archive1, so you can leave comments on the peer review, the article's talk page, my talk page, on as a response to this post. I would love to hear some thoughts on the article and what might still need to be done. Thanks again, everyone. GaryColemanFan 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work done lately on pay-per-view articles, and it's getting hard to keep track of what's going on. I was wondering if the people involved could add to the list below to show which articles are done, are being done, or are about to be done. Thanks.
1987 WrestleMania III - B
1993 SummerSlam (1993) - Good Article
1994 Royal Rumble (1994) - B
1995 In Your House 1: Premiere - B (Good Article candidate); King of the Ring (1995) - Start
2000 Starrcade (2000) - Start
2005 One Night Stand (2005) - B (Good Article candidate)
2006 One Night Stand (2006) - B; December to Dismember (2006) - Good Article (Featured Article candidate)
2007
One Night Stand (2007) - B
Have I missed any?
Currently, I'm trying to decide between Survivor Series 1993, WrestleMania X or King of the Ring 1994. I want to fill in the gaps, but I'm leaning toward King of the Ring 1994. GaryColemanFan 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Photos on Flickr are considered free-use, so they can be uploaded, correct? How exactly does that work? I've never had too much success with photo uploading. Nikki311 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I'm starting a "Background" section (obviously for the moment I've only done Michaels v Orton as that is the only match tha has been announced). Revert any SmackDown! spoilers ot vandal edits as per usual. Davnel03 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in the Triple H article, are the titles of the contents really necessary as the contents include more than 2 years (ex. "D-Generation X (1997-1999)" thats 3 years) and then the D- Generation X revial goes only for 2 years from 2006-2007 and the contents don't begin in the beginning of that year. To me those titles and the ranges of the years seem unnecessary as it makes the article look bad, what do you think?-- TrUcO9311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." ( WP:HEAD) Year ranges don't mean much to me. -- Aaru Bui DII 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently I added some images to the CM Punk article from commons based off images from the Spanish wikipedia however I have come to think the user who is uploading all these images is uploading copyrighted images and simply labelling them public domain.
User's contributions to commons here. If some of these are copyvios I think it needs to be assumed all are copyvios and a commons admin needs to be contacted. –– Lid( Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
(call me selfish or narcissistic, but I get the feeling no one would see this if I added it on to a previous section)
Anyhow, in doing a little research into their careers, I came across something very curious. It's semi-well known that the Brothers worked under masks in 2001 and 2002 when CZW ran in the ECW arena, owing to Mark only being 17 years old at the time both of them being underage at the time and the state of Pennsylvania having stringent laws against people under 18 working in entertainment.
I can back this claim up , but what's got me really confused is that the Brothers appeared in the ECW arena, for JAPW, even earlier
[8], and it doesn't seem that they hid their identities then. JAPW even now isn't really the kind of company that would go that far out of their way to get someone just to job in their curtain jerker, so did they just skate on the law or something? Anyone know? How would be the best way to introduce this in an article? I've started a subpage for potential article prose,
User:Tromboneguy0186/sandbox (and I surely do hope I created that correctly), and I like the section I've got so far for CZW, but this JAPW issue has me quite confused.
Tromboneguy0186
10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've proposed merging Jamin Pugh and Mark Pugh into Briscoe Brothers. My rationale is on Talk:Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've brought this up before see #Featured List notice, but I want to mention it again since List of WWE European Champions just passed its FL nom. I've corrected the issues brought up by other users (source for Moolah selling title, abbreviations) and added a picture. I, however, could not find specific dates/locations for when the title was vacated, nor could I find a location of Moolah's second win. I really looked, too, but all the sites list it as unknown. Is this going to be a problem with a FL nom or will they take into account that the information just doesn't exist? Anyway, unless anyone strongly opposes, I'll nominate it in a couple of days and try to fix and problems that anyone sees. Nikki311 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it...feel free to leave comments HERE. Nikki311 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some opinions on a change in this article as well as someone with more knowledge of wrestling to clarify something. The questions can be found at the bottom of HERE Gavyn Sykes 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
....has been moved into the mianspace by Lex94. Feel free to edit it, clean it up etc. Davnel03 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Right major question: Am I right in stating that the "Background" section sounds more like a week-by-week analysis of events? Personally, I think we should do it storyline by storyline - talk about Champions of Champions, then go onto DX/Rated RKO and then onto the third major storyline. I think this makes it flow better so that it isn't constantly changing subjects. Opinions? Davnel03 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten into the habit of linking weapons in wrestling articles to Foreign object (professional wrestling). See Cyber Sunday in the the results for the Triple H/Umaga match. I've been meaning to bring this up, but does anyone have any objections to my doing this? I want to make sure it's not violating a Wikiproject rule I was unaware of. Gavyn Sykes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
An IP left this message on Talk:Mark Pugh
Somebody has to change the "references" listed to the Jim Cornette profile on the imposter OWW. The REAL url should be credited to the original website from which that information came from http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/j/jim-cornette.html -- the other website "Obsessed" stole all its content from the real OWW "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com". Thank you.
What the heck? I'd never heard of "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com." The two pages definitely appear to be duplicates of each other, but I recall "OWW" always referring to obsessedwithwrestling.com; what (if anything, in fact) changed? And unless there's proof of plagiarism, what differences does it make? Tromboneguy0186 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice that this PPV article was outlining events in a week-by-week format, which is not how it's done in any other Expanded PPV ( December to Dismember (2006); SummerSlam (1993); In Your House 1: Premiere etc.). In other PPV's it is done with the three or four main storylines (five if we ever did WrestleManias). It's not done like that in the Cyber Sunday article - and in its current style is seems like the subject is changing constantly from going to talking about the Champions of Champions match to DX to Umaga before going back to the Champions of Champions match. It constantly does that, and for a neutral non-wrestling fan, can make things very confusing, and would probably be brought up if the article became a GA candidate. For ease of flow, should we change the article, so that it talks about one storyline, before going onto another; in this case talk about the Champions of Champions match, before going onto talk about the DX-Rated RKO storyline, like in the above article examples? In my view we should change it as the current version seems quite confusing. Opinions on the current format? Thanks, Davnel03 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The proposed deletion has run its course for Teenage Wrestling Federation. Can someone explain what happens next? Can the article be deleted by just anyone? I also noticed that another god-awful wrestling article, Dans D Generation X, has a proposed deletion that will be over in a couple of hours. Is there someone who makes sure that these are deleted? I'd just like to get rid of them as soon as possible so that nobody will assume that this project is connected to the articles. GaryColemanFan 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I began work on this article today. I've written part of the background section (the results of the qualifying matches). Is this the format I should be using? I think it's important to list the results of the qualifying matches and give some detail about the significant ones, but I'm not fond of the two-sentence paragraphs. Does anyone have an idea on this? GaryColemanFan 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I did some work on the FBI article, I know its not like FA or GA quality but can you give it a rating on the talk page, or comment here about the changes Ive done, or if the sources arent good. Thanx.-- TrUcO9311 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have suggested that the WWE Brand Extension article be split into two articles:WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Lottery. See discussion here.-- TrUcO9311 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I figured since everyone else is working on a PPV I'd give it a shot too, only I'm not picking the popular choice or the good shows - I'm starting with Uncensored 1995 and work on that in my sandbox. MPJ-DK 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on a couple of pay-per-view articles lately. Royal Rumble (1994) is pretty much ready to go. I was hoping that some people could look over the references and let me know if any of the sources are likely to be challenged.
The other thing I'm struggling with now is finding a source that says that Roddy Piper donated money from his match at King of the Ring (1994) to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Does anyone know where I can find a source for that? Thank you to anyone who can help (or is willing to try). GaryColemanFan 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The article has been unprotected and I've (re-)added his wrestling career to the article. I've also sectioned it up by year and it looks pretty good. -- Cra sh U nderride 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
New article. -- Aaru Bui DII 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Outreach program that I started, I thought it would be appropriate to create a welcome template for WP:PW. So I created one here. Use it for new users who contribute to any pro wrestling article. The Chronic 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
As I started to work on Uncensored I noticed WCW didn't have a PPV template box like WWE has, so I created one - replacing the incomplete one someone had started on in September {{WCWPPV}} So please remember to add that to WCW PPVs if you single them out. I've gone through and added the info box to all WCW PPVs and also created a category for WCW PPVs instead of just listing them as WCW shows, that's inconsistent with how the WWE is set up. Just FYI. MPJ-DK 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
In less than a day, a new COTW article will be promoted and the Bobby Eaton article's run as the first ever GA-class COTW article will be over. The article had considerable support, achieving the winning 9 votes in the 14 days it was listed. However, as of this moment, the article has had only 31 edits between 6 editors, considerably low compared to the 98 edits to Hulk Hogan and the 158 edits to WrestleMania III during their COTW period.
This, however, may be due to Hulk Hogan's lengthy article and WrestleMania III's major expansion. Going through the edits made, mostly comprised of copyediting and fixes in the references and links. Something I didn't expect, seeing that it is of GA-class. The lack of edits may be because of the reasons for the voting, with some preferring it for its "stability" and how it receives less vandalism compared to articles of more recent superstars. It is an article that is just harder to contribute to by people that are not "old school" wrestling fans.
In conclusion, the support shown through the voting did not necessarily translate in the actual improvement process. This is a good start to this monthly event and certainly has potential, especially with articles whose topic is more well known by our editors. -- Aaru Bui DII 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
With our other good articles, I suppose there will be more to work on and make this COTW actually beneficial to the article. It just seems like we got little out of this week. -- Aaru Bui DII 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)