This page 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. |
This thread has already been archived, but I know there was some concern a few days ago because the Diva section of WWE.com had vanished along with most mentions of Divas around the website. I am pleased to report that it has been mostly restored back to how it was, save a few links here and there that are dead. Total speculation but I'm guessing the website was hacked. At any rate, its back and there is nothing that needs to be done Wikipedia/article wise about this occurance as it seems to have been a fluke. Cheers, -- Naha| (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't hacked. That's all I can say at the moment. Mshake3 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a tag team title change at the Smackdown taping - and users are again insisting on posting spoilers on the WWE page. Watch out for Australian editors as it has aired here. The last edit removed the note about not placing spoilers on the page. There are some very ignorant people around the place! !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I really wish someone had told me about the above discussion when I didn't notice it. That fact of the matter is, I was involved in a discussion that can be found in the archives and across articles under WP:PW's scope with the outside community involved, including the chairman of the mediation committee, an it wasn't even questioned that spoilers must be verified. That is non-negotiable. If there isn't a source, then there is nothing to say that this event ever actually took place. If you can't provide a source, then you lose per WP:V, period. My consensus is larger, and more in line with the policies. The Hybrid T/ C 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've copied the following from above, as I want more opinions on the proposal I made yesterday.
Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Before we go ahead and create a page, here are some guidlines out of the top of my head. Feel free to comment immediately after each guidline.
One or two of the above are probably not needed and useless, but I've just typed these up out of the top of my head. Leave comments in between each point, and discuss if anything seems wrong with the point I've made. Cheers! Davnel03 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be heading off track a little. Heading back to the original discussion, should we have a spoiler subpage, with the following revised proposals:
Now that we have some sort of guidlines, what websites are reliable? Below are a list of sites that are unreliable and reliable. Discuss which are reliable and unreliable. If there is a clear consensus that a website listed below is unreliable, it can be removed. It's not the best thing to do, but I couldn't think of any other way to solve this issue. Thanks!
PWInsider - blacklisted.
SLAM! Sports
I could list loads more, but some are definite copy-vios of others, most notably Wrestling-Edge and PWMania. -- Davnel03 ( talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's about time we put this to a vote. This debate - until Get Dumb's edit - was disrupting the article no matter who was at fault. It's why I called for an opinion from a member of ArbCom (I haven't checked for a reply this morning yet). So - let's get a consensus on this. The options are;
Also - we need guidelines, and Davnel certainly has my OK to create that page. We can get a consensus that way as well. I strongly recommend that we make a decision on this by the next Smackdown taping - just in case. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous now. We're talking like a previous consensus doesn't exist - and it does. That consensus was that all spoilers be removed until it airs in the US. Bluntly, I'm of the view that Lid is violating WP:NPOV by pushing the WP:SPOILER policy in such a way that it has been disrupting Wikipedia. Whether or not he's right or wrong is beside the point. We'll never get a fresh consensus if this keeps up - no matter what policy may be right or wrong. We'll just keep going around in circles on the left of the chart at WP:CCC. The point is that the only reliable source in this instance on the Internet is WWE.com. I take up Hybrid's point about third party info to wrestling news sites in saying that. Now - let's bring in the issue of places that see Smackdown before the US (such as Australia). We are now in the same position as the news sites. Who's to say the edit is correct and accurate? I could make the edit and say it happened - but where's my back up? I don't have it - therefore the edit fails WP:OR.
So in a nutshell, we can't apply WP:SPOILER, unless we pass WP:OR, WP:V or any other applicable policy. The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US and is acknowledged by WWE.com. And not before. I invite Lid to prove otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I never said the edits were bad faith. I don't recall spoilers being described as bad faith edits. They are simply haven't been accepted by consensus. My issue with Lid is that he is pushing WP:SPOILER without taking into account the other policies (thank you Hybrid for adding other relevant policies). Now then, suppose someone says that there has been a title change on Smackdown after it has aired in Australia? Do we just accept it? As long as WWE.com has not reported on it - the posting of such is a violation of WP:OR. Reason - there is no back up. No way to comply with WP:V. Is Lid saying that we should ignore those policies? I hope not.
So let's make this clear - perhaps we should say that the reason "spoilers" should not be presented is not because of WP:SPOILER. It's because of WP:OR and WP:V. Who's the say an Australian editor is telling the truth? I could say after next week's Smackdown is shown here that Edge won the World Title in an impromptu triple threat match with Batista and the Undertaker if I wanted to - and by your suggested process, Lid, it would be accepted. Where's my back up? Not WWE.com - so WP:V is in instant violation. I hope that settles that. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with WWE.com is they can rewrite history of the show whenever they want. For example, while I don't believe their edits went that far, they could remove all mentions of Chris Benoit from their show results. Does that mean it never happened? As for the concern of fans sending in inaccurate information, who cares? Once again, we're considering something to be unreliable due to the small chance that it's inaccurate. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the episodes are unreliable; I'm saying that until WWE.com confirms what happened in the episode you can't prove that the events you're inserting actually took place. WP:AGF applies to inter-Wikipedian relations, not to content inserted into articles. We don't assume that a person is telling the truth when they insert content; we ask for a good source, and then remove it if they can't provide one. We assume they had good intentions, but we still remove it. Like I said, you can't prove that the event actually took place in the episode, as the content contained within the episode is undefined. A while back you mentioned "not excluding the general public". The general public would be those who watched the episode on TV, not the few-thousand people who were at the event. The general public can't be used until the general public actually knows what happened. Do keep in mind that the IWC is only a very small percentage of wrestling fans, as is the fanbase in Australia, so the general public is happily oblivious until the event airs on US TV. The Hybrid T/ C 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, I've said before that consensus is entirely irrelevant to this matter, so I would like to see that word not be used anymore, but I would also like to not be told I'm in the minority, as the larger group who hate spoilers are sick of arguing about this ad nauseam, and are content to let those of us who are willing to debate this do so on their behalf. The Hybrid T/ C 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - because an RfC would take too long, I've opted for ANI. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Punk, can you link to this "previous consensus" you keep talking about? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe an explanation of motives would help you all to understand why I'm so against spoilers in our articles, when I actually read them myself. Spoilers provide very short term benefits with permanent drawbacks. Spoilers are a major turnoff to many users. They wreck the suspense and fun of a television show. This isn't like a book, or a movie synopsis. We would only have to wait for 4 days to add the information. That's the short-term benefit, it puts the information in there as soon as it's available, but it is only 4 days; after that the benefit is nullified. The long-turn drawback is that it pushes many new and experienced users away from the project. This damages our ability to maintain and improve articles on the macro scale. The drawbacks are more influential than the benefits, and they are permanent. I oppose spoilers because I have the long-term, big picture interests of the project and our articles in mind. I'm tired of all the idealistic, "this is an encyclopedia" bullshit. This is an encyclopedia that requires a constant influx of users, and a good morale level amongst the users for it to survive. The Hybrid T/ C 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two different issues here - core policy and the impact of core policy - I am saying that core policy (that any editor can added sourced material as it becomes available) must be enforced (otherwise why have it), you are saying that enforcing core policy will have a impact on this wikiproject and this sub-set of articles. If there was a massive and noticable impact on article quality then how we work around that should be discussed - I'm not currently convinced that such an impact would occur. The special interest groups on here are out of control as it is and I am of a mind that we must resist their efforts to produce wall gardens that operate outside core policy. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the List of WWE Tag Team Champions article, I've put (John Morrison formerly Johnny Nitro) under Miz & Morrison's reign, but it was reverted by BBoy, citing that it isn't done in other articles (namely List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Personally I think it should be, because your typical non-wrestling fan layman is going to read this article and wonder who John Morrison is and how he got 4 title reigns. I just don't see why we would list former ringnames in individual title lists but not tag title lists. I did essentially the same thing on IWGP World Tag Team Championship quite a while back. So I was just wondering what the community's opinion was on this before it goes any further. -- MarcK 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it IS done in other title lists (crusierweight), so I think it should be done here. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lex94 recently pruned Survivor Series (1997) from the nomination list, see here, with the argument that it never had twelve votes at the time of the deadline. Infact, a user added a vote 13 hours later. I've since reverted the edit, as I really don't think this is a valid argument. His argument is stating that if it doesn't have twelve votes by 00:00 on 19th November or whatever day it is, it should be pruned. In other circumstances, I have tended to leave till the final few hours to at least give the article the chance. Was I right to revert? Dav nel 03 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course you did the right thing to revert it. If there was an extra vote then the nomination of the article should still be put. Zenlax T C S 20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place for this, but I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded my personal photos for George Steele, Buff Bagwell, Tracy Smothers, New Jack, and Marty Jannetty to their respective pages. If any of you have photos that you have taken, I suggest going to that wrestler's page and see if it's in need of one. -- Smart Mark Greene ( talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently went through every wrestler's articles on the Raw and SmackDown! Rosters. I've gone and fixed the links in Finishing and Signature Moves to direct to the exact move, as many of them went to the top of an article. I'd appreciate anyone that would help this by checking over my work, as I may have missed a few. I'll be going over ECW and TNA wrestlers sometime this week when I get a chance. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my username. I, Lex94, am now officially Feedback (which is my real name). Just to clarify. My signature still states I am the same person, but I just don't want to cause confusion. Cheers, Lex T / C Guest Book 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is notable? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that events are notable enough to have pages if they either had third-party coverage (which almost always proves notability) or if they were on pay-per-view. I'm not 100% sure, but that is the sort of pattern I've seen when deleting wrestling events as non-notable. Nikki 311 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we are on the topic of notability of tournaments...what about Champion's Carnival? I don't know much about professional wrestling tournaments in Japan, but this article doesn't really make it seem all to notable. Opinions welcome. Nikki 311 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Another friendly request for comment-slash-shameless plug ;\ Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I noticed that the WrestleMania 23 page has two pictures which have nothing to do with the article. The pictures are of Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the first picture on the page of John Cena. I inquired about the pictures on the talk page and was told that "Pictures like that are being included in most of the expanded PPV articles. They help illustrate the point of who everyone at the was. If a non-wrestling fan reads this article, the pictures help them visualize the event." It struck me as bizarre, but if that was the consensus, I'd be okay with it. I was told, though, that, as far as it was known, "a consensus wasn't reached, but no one has objected to it, so one wasn't really required." It was then suggested to me to bring it up here. Does an article about a PPV really need pictures on it that really have nothing to do with the event in question? The two pictures I mentioned are free-use, but their usage just doesn't seem to fit. I would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why I'm working on Lockdown and No Mercy 07, as I've taken and uploaded plently of photos to use in those articles. I agree that the same repetitive pictures don't enhance the article. Mshake3 ( talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
WWE has eliminated all Armageddon histories from its website:
I was trying to find a source one of the matches on the card, for the New Year's Revolution 2007 article which I am working on in my sandbox; and I found that all the Armageddons are broken links. Lex T/ C Guest Book 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All match results, exclusives, interviews: GONE! Lex T/ C Guest Book 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This has caused a number of broken links in MANY of our articles
Has anyone tried using this? I'm not all that familiar with it or wrestling. Epthorn ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think they will do the same thing they did as the Survivor Series History site ... delete any piece of Benoit , because I check Armageddon 2006 picutres and you see pictures from Benoit vs Guerrrero Guiltypetit89 November 22, 2007 19:36 UTC
In the Background section of the PPVs, are you suppose to put info of all the feuds that are led to that event?-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Truco was talking about Vengeance: Night of Champions. Personally, that would be appropriate, since adding all the background info would explain the matches to come. Comments? The Chronic 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I got another question, is the "access date" and "date" two different things in the (citeweb) template?-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Since my questions have been lost in the shuffle above (and answered only by those who have no idea whatsoever), I'll repeat it here. Why is PWInsider.com (which has N O T H I N G to do with PWI magazine by the way) blacklisted anyway? Also, if you believe it is unreliable, shouldn't we be removing sources that explicitly credit that site as a source? Mshake3 ( talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of a reply, but I have an idea of what your reply to it would be. (Me: Who doesn't respect Dave Scherer? You: Me.) Yet another issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good for Meltzer, and good for Illustrated. That doesn't make Dave Scherer or PWInsider.com any less reliable. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The above comment by Lex was interrupted by the following:
End of interruption, and continuing of Lex's comment...
Dave Scherer has been covering the business of professional wrestling for the past decade. After writing for various publications in the early 1990s, Dave started "The Wrestling Lariat" newsletter in June of 1995. Over the next few years, the Lariat grew steadily and became one of the must-read publications for those in and around the wrestling business.
In August of 1997, Dave was approached by Bob Ryder to become a part of the new website 1Wrestling.com. Ryder wanted the name value of Dave and the Lariat to be one of the draws for the new website, and the two joined forces. Dave worked at 1Wrestling.com as columnist, reporter and webmaster until January of 2004 before deciding to branch out on his own and start this website.
Dave's extended network of contacts and ability to consistently break the top stories in pro wrestling has made him a must-read for anyone who follows the wrestling business online. Dave's column, "The Daily Lariat," quickly became a favorite of cyberspace's wrestling fans around the world and will now be featured here on PWInsiderElite.com.
Also during Dave's time at 1Wrestling.com, he was a staff writer for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines. He also penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. And he was the webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling website until the company ceased operations in 2001.
Dave's combination of reporting skills, humor and ability to succinctly analyze the trends and patterns of today's wrestling business allow for him to pen informative and entertaining pieces for the readers of PWInsiderElite.com.
In conclusion - if they pass the WP:RS guidelines, no matter if people don't like them, then they are reliable sources - call them dirtsheets, give an arbitrary, irrational definition that isn't based in logic or whatever you want. WP:RS is the guideline. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote from WP:V on questionable sources
Now that this week's issue has been cancelled, can we implement the Show/Hide format that I made in the next issue? Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a tad concerned after this discussion we had this week, where an editor argued that we shouldn't have "vote stacking" and therefore shouldn't support FACs unless you have a valid reason for support. This, seemingly has driven some people from participating in FAC's. A FAC that I nominated, In Your House 1 has only had one support, which has come from a non-project member, see here. I'm concerned, because if a candidate does not have enough consensus then the article cannot be promoted. At the moment, the candidate doesn't have a consensus with only one users opinion. Nothing is stopping members from supporting/opposing articles. At the same point, the nominator shouldn't mind if anyone writes a list of problems, if that happens with an FAC that I'm in, I'll deal with it. A valid issue has been brought up at the IYH1 FAC, which I would prefer to have comments on. I'm not stating that you must Strong Support and say "this is the best article ever", but I would prefer you to comment on it with problems (every article has problems in one or two areas) - e.g. POV, citing sources, sentence structure etc.. I think we need to be more involved as a whole in FAC's to help our articles, by not comment we are doing ourselves no favours. If anyone has problems with the article, write it at the FAC, I'm not going to bite your head off. It's just a tad annoying when no one (or very little) comments at the FAC, when several other FAC's have tonnes of comments on. I think I've gone on for a bit too long now. Cheers, Dav nel 03 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
— GaryColemanFan — continues after insertion below Surely that last point would be WP:OR if I can't find a point to back it up? Dav nel 03 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should just be patient and wait for other users. If it doesn't get any opposition, then you don't need to worry about it being closed due to a lack of support. The FAC process is not meant to be a series of revolving doors where project members can help get an article featured. -- Scorpion 0422 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
71.255.5.18 has been going through a ton of pay-per-views today, amking small changes to match results. They're not malicious changes, but they're not always helpful. The user is removing team names from Survivor Series results, adding to internal links (making them redirect by changing Roddy Piper to Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.), changing names that don't need to be changed (every reference to Davey Boy Smith has been changed to The British Bulldog, etc.). If you've been working on a pay-per-view lately, you might want to check it out. And if you've got a little bit of time, going through some of these edits to see if they are actually helpful would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone know this page existed? Anyone up for a prod?-- bulletproof 3:16 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A user has
requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{ RFCpolicy list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. |
This RfC is being called to determine two separate, but somewhat related issues.
The first issue is about whether there existing Wikipolicies allow for a
embargo on publishing the results of pre-recorded WWE wrestling matches between when the matches are broadcasted in Australia and when they are broadcasted four days approximately 36 hours later in the United States and subsequently published on WWE's website.
The second issue concerns whether a television broadcast is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources because television broadcasts are not "published" in print form but "aired". -- Farix ( Talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the time between the Australian and earliest State side broadcast is maybe a day and a half at most...not four Bmg916 Speak 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We are conflating two separate issues here - one of publication date (red herring), one of sources (important). Let me deal with the first - in no way shape or form is it supported by policy to tell users that they cannot add correct, current information to an article because americans don't like it(which is what the U.S. issue boils down to) - that is clearly against WP:BIAS and WP:SPOILER - more importantly it is against the fundamental purpose and principle behind the project - the encyclopedia anyone can edit, this is not Wikipedia - "the encyclopedia that you can edit when the wikiprojects tell you can". It is not even worth discussing the "wait for U.S. broadcast" because it is so far out of line with core practice and the fundamental principles of the project that it will never be allowed to stand regardless of what this RFC says. THe only issue that needs to be discussed is that of sourcing. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Lex:
I think that once the event airs somewhere in the world, it is verifiable and therefore can (and should) be included. I thought the real issue in this discussion was what to do in the time between when the event was taped (Tuesday) and first shown on TV somewhere in the world (Thursday). The argument is that wrestling news sites post the information, so it should be included. The opposing argument is that the news sites are not always reliable and the results of said event should only be added when a reliable source posts the information or it is aired in Australia (which is the first place it airs, as I understand it). The conflict is whether the news sites are reliable in their event summaries, which are e-mailed in by people who visit the show and not actual reporters. Supporters of this argument claim that the results are verifiable, as enough people e-mail the sites to get an accurate report. The opposing side claims that people can and have intentionally deceived the new sites before and it is best to wait until a more reliable site reports the information or it airs on TV. Anyway, that's what I thought this argument was truly about. Nikki 311 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said on the Pump, no matter where it airs, a televised program is verifiable. I mean, it's not like you can't take a few minutes to check some fansite, which more often than not will get reports ahead of time. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Once episodes of a TV program are broadcast on a public network, the events depicted are in the public domain. To embargo comment on those episodes until they are broadcast in one particular country is out of the question. Utterly unacceptable. Moreover, should a wrestling bout take place in public arenas, clubs and the like before members of the public, there can be no embargo on any reliable reportage of the bout, in any form. As long as the source is reliable (for instance, ESPN, CNN or BBC reports the result of the bout) no embargo can apply on Wikipedia, and no decision made here can override that fact. -- Tony Sidaway 10:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). Quibbling about the meaning of the word "published" won't get us anywhere. A TV program that has been publicly broadcast has been published within the meaning of the word as used on Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If they tried to give a detailed account with their spin on it - it's original research. If they say "Wrestler X was the winner of tinpot title Y" then that is acceptable and entirely in line with existing policy and practice. This was *never* about giving detailed accounts so please let's not get started on that strawman - nobody is arguing that should be allowed - we are arguing (backed by policy and current practice) that primary sources may be used as Tony states above On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). that is what is being discussed here - not a single policy based reason has been presented to say why this cannot occur with those shows - all of the "anti" arguments boil down to "I don't like it" or "I don't want to be spoilt" - neither are valid and this wikiproject will not be allowed to dictate to the wider community OR any good faith editor who wants to add current, correct information to articles - that will not stand, it will not stand. As for the WP:NOT#journalism - an equally bogus argument - as this is not about a breaking story - Journalism refers to NEWS not to fictional events such as the pre-determined performance art we are discussing here. In addition, you missed this bit Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. - that NOT is mainly intended to stop people creating articles on breaking news stories, it is not intended to stop people updating existing articles with the most correct factual information available. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how you expect a horde of IP's to listen to or even know about any sort of consensus we may or may not make here. The bottom line is you're not going to stop people from adding spoilers. I'm not saying "Why try?" (this isn't like pure vandalism - when an IP {or anybody} adds the WWE tag team title to the Miz's article, that's true information and a "spoiler" to those who don't want to know it; you only have to see it once and you're "spoiled," rendering whatever gets done here totally moot. When an IP, or anyone, adds the WWE championship to Funaki's article, that's just patent nonsense) or don't edit them out if that proves to be the consensus, but you are not going to stop being "spoiled." You all talk of "it's only 4 days!" between the taping and airing - well, it's also "only 4 days!" that you'd need to go without editing articles of Smackdown or ECW wrestlers. Is that so hard? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) - and I'm not saying you would have to do that every week. Just when something undeniably notable happens at the taping. Surely Lid or I or some other member of the project could extend the courtesy of posting a note here, saying a "spoiler" is likely to be posted to the articles of ECW or Smackdown wrestlers. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- Even if the consensus is "don't post spoilers", the day of the smackdown tapings, any IP Address or disruptive user like Hornetman, etc.... can post the results against consensus. This meaning that you will still be spoiled, regardless of consensus. We can make a policy, but we can't force people to abide by it. Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave up not because I don't care, but because this isn't worth it. It's the holidays people; this is supposed to be a season filled with happiness, and this is the season that first coined the term Peace on Earth. Shouldn't we be doing better things than arguing about spoilers, like spending time with our families, shopping for the children in our family, and eating little animals in massive quantities? Just let the spoilers be added for now. If things do get bad, then I'll restart the discussion later. That's what's great about Wikipedia; nothing is written in stone (except the law). Let's all just enjoy our holidays, and take a look at this again later on if it's necessary. Happy Thanksgiving Americans, and cheers all. The Hybrid T/ C 07:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on New Year's Revolution (2007) which is currently in my sandbox. ( User:Feedback/Sandbox) Lex T/ C Guest Book 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also what I meant by putting the refs at the end, is for the matches in the event section. (It was just a tip for when you write it). TrUcO9311 ( talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
New article. Unfortunately, it looks like the creator has just dumped it, and looks like he's not going to be improving it. Dav nel 03 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My proposal is...
How about we actually USE this?
Lex T/ C Guest Book 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok Im done the article, will you all go check it out and tell me if its good, if I need to change things or comment on it. Thanks. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment-
The main feud heading into No Way Out, was between SmackDown's World Champion Batista and the Undertaker against RAW's WWE Champion John Cena and Shawn Michaels. This feud began after Undertaker won the 2007 Royal Rumble match. The following week on an episode of Friday Night SmackDown!, the two world champions demanded an answer from Undertaker, but Shawn Michaels would interfere and also wanted an answer.
-You are informing the reader, that the champions wanted an answer, without specifying the question. Lex T/ C Guest Book 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The above title states it all. Please review the article, and if you see any problems, errors, etc; write them here. Cheers, Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the article for Peer Review here. It would be more appropiate if you post your conerns there.
Thank you, Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the comments that were below to the article's Peer Review
Due to the end of my college semester approaching, I have much to do in real life that my time on Wiki won't be suffcient to do much more than hit buttons to revert vandalism when I get the chance. Therefore, I'm putting my work on WrestleMania 23 and fixing the move links in the TNA wrestlers articles on hold until my semester ends. In about two weeks, I'll have the time and energy to continue. If anyone wants to work with what I have on either thing, feel free. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The page was recently moved from The Outsiders (WCW) to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall (since they're now wrestling in TNA). I think it should be moved to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as it's the proper naming convention for tag teams/stables that have wrestled on several promotions. But I need to get an insight from everybody here. The Chronic 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The following articles from Pro Wrestling COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination | Votes | Votes needed | Date of prune |
Survivor Series (1997) | 13 | 15 | November 26 (2 days) |
The Fingerpoke of Doom | 10 | 12 | November 26 (2 days) |
Cyber Sunday (2006) | 7 | 9 | November 25 (1 day!!) |
Santo | 4 | 6 | November 25 (1 day!!) |
Please save the articles from pruning! Lex T/ C Guest Book 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What the title says, and several pruning notices. The following articles from the COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination | Votes | Votes needed | Date of prune |
Survivor Series (1997) | 13 | 15 | November 26 (1 days) |
The Fingerpoke of Doom | 10 | 12 | November 26 (1 days) |
Please save the articles from pruning! Dav nel 03 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay now No Way Out (2007) is officially done, will you all fellow wikipedians go check it out. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment here
I propose moving the page to title her real name. Always after death in the wwe.com keyfab always seems to be broken, they see each person as an athlete/actor in the end. So who agree's to this? Govvy ( talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, it's Lilian Ellison. Even if that was actually her middle name, it's the "real" name that's been used 100% of the time. As for the above...
Then why is Eddie Fatu not Umaga Disambiguation, for one - go to Umaga; Adam Birch not Joey Mathews/Joey Mercury Tough to say which of those names would be better; if he were currently in WWE, it'd be a likely move; Alvin Burke, Jr. not MVP obviously disambiguation, but I'd imagine a RM to Montel Vontavious Porter would pass; Ken Anderson not Mr. Kennedy; Glen Jacobs not Kane proposed and not moved; some project members vehemently oppose any wrestler's article having to have the (wrestler) qualifier; Carly Colón not Carlito disambiguation, would require (wrestler), is also pretty well-known worldwide as Carly Colon; Lisa Marie Varon not Victoria other than disambiguation, nothing; Kevin Fertig not Kevin Thorn beats me; Anthony Carelli not Santino Marella/Boris Alexiev if he's Santino much longer, this one'll be moved; even Bobby Lashley wasn't moved from Franklin Lashley at first; Mark Copani not Muhammad Hassan simple; he CAN'T use that name anymore, and apparently he's going for some kind of acting career; Bob Holly not Hardcore Holly "Bob Holly" IS a stage name, and it's no less well-known than Hardcore; Chris Chavis not Tatanka probably disambiguation; Paul Wight not Big Show you're kidding, right?; Jason Reso not Christian Cage propose it; Adam Copeland not Edge "Adam Copeland" is also well known - so is "Amy Dumas," for the same reason; Booker Huffman not Booker T I got nothin'; Dave Finlay not simply Finlay now you're just nitpicking; Marty Wright not The Boogeyman disambiguation, probably going to be fired at any time and lose the rights to use the name; Ronnie Arniell not Shawn Spears who? does this even matter at this point?; Dylan Postl not Hornswoggle definite disambiguation; John Hennigan not Johnny Nitro/John Morrison which one?; Oscar Gutierrez not Rey Mysterio because there's another Rey Misterio; you could do Rey Misterio, Jr, but that's not his current name, so the benefit is negated, plus there are like twelve different permutations of this name; James Maritato not Nunzio obviously disambiguation, plus Little Guido is just as well-known; Jim Duggan not Hacksaw Jim Duggan do we put nicknames in titles?; Darren Matthews not William Regal/Steven Regal go ahead; Harry Smith not DH Smith he's been using that name for what, two weeks?; Sean Morley not Val Venis allez-vous; James Reiher, Jr. not Deuce/Deuce Shade disambiguation, likely not going to be with the company forever; Cliff Compton not Domino same; Drew Hankinson not Festus hasn't had the name very long, has several other ring names that are well-known; James Yun not Jimmy Wang Yang some other well-known ring names; Ray Gordy not Jesse well disambiguation obviously, but also hasn't had the name long; Mike Mizanin not The Miz this should be moved; Nelson Frazier, Jr. not Viscera/Big Daddy V which one? and why not mabel?
Yeah, there's one or two in that list that might/should be moved, but most have legitimate reasons. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the point where they've worked under several names and achieved something - Steven/William Regal springs to mind, he's better listed under his real name than suffering a semi-monthly move from Steven to William and back. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
NWA Wisconsin is indie-wrestling, which isn't really that famous and notable as WWE. A minority would know Dylan Postl as "Shortstack". He only wrestled 1 match as Little Bastard, which wouldn't be notable, so that name doesn't count (Santino Marella has worked 8 months under that name, and the article continues to be Anthony Carelli). The issue would be between Hornswoggle and Hornswoggle McMahon. I'd say to go for Hornswoggle McMahon, as that would be his kayfabe full name, and everyone knows him by the name.
It isn't really that much of a difference from Christian (wrestler) to Christian Cage. Because Christian Cage has been using that name for the past lustrum, the article should be Christian Cage.
His article should be entitled Mr. Kennedy instead of Ken Anderson. First of all, Ken Anderson is a disambiguation, so it is unwise to put him under that name. Mr. Kennedy seems appropiate as it's the name he's been using since his debut. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any objection that his article should be Montel Vontavious Porter instead of Alvin Burke, Jr.? Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
His article should be entitled Joey Mathews, as it's not a disambiguation and it's his current ringname and more popular name. Joey Mercury must be owned by the WWE, so I believe he's not entitled to that name. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Santino Marella has already used the name for 8 months. He should have his article renamed to it. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly not worth bring this up, I guess you guys respect a character more than the real persom. Such a shame. Govvy ( talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I made this table for the Royal Rumble matches to better organize it as to me the ones that are in the articles are kinda messy.
This is for the 2007 Royal Rumble
Red indicates a RAW superstar, blue indicates a SmackDown! superstar, and purple indicates an ECW extremist. A new entrant came out approximately every 90 seconds.
P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)
Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability.
# | Entrant | Elimination # | Eliminator | Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ric Flair | 1 | Edge | 05:40 | |
2 | Finlay | 12 | Shawn Michaels | 32:32 | |
3 | Kenny Dykstra | 2 | Edge | 04:05 | |
4 | Matt Hardy | 9 | Randy Orton | 18:55 | |
5 | Edge | 28 | Shawn Michaels | 44:02 | |
6 | Tommy Dreamer | 3 | Kane | 06:41 | |
7 | Sabu | 4 | Kane | 05:27 | |
8 | Gregory Helms | 5 | King Booker | 06:50 | |
9 | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Shawn Michaels | 22:22 | |
10 | Kane | 11 | King Booker [1] | 13:21 | |
11 | CM Punk | 22 | The Great Khali | 27:16 | |
12 | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 | |
13 | Super Crazy | 7 | Edge and Randy Orton | 04:32 | |
14 | Jeff Hardy | 8 | Edge | 03:38 | |
15 | The Sandman | 6 | King Booker | 00:13 | |
16 | Randy Orton | 27 | Shawn Michaels | 27:14 | |
17 | Chris Benoit | 19 | The Great Khali | 17:52 | |
18 | Rob Van Dam | 21 | The Great Khali | 15:27 | |
19 | Viscera | 13 | Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn | 06:22 | |
20 | Johnny Nitro | 5 | Chris Benoit | 06:18 | |
21 | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Chris Benoit | 06:15 | |
22 | Hardcore Holly | 18 | The Great Khali | 10:21 | |
23 | Shawn Michaels | 29 | The Undertaker | 24:11 | |
24 | Chris Masters | 17 | Rob Van Dam | 03:32 | |
25 | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | The Great Khali | 06:24 | |
26 | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | The Undertaker | 07:21 | |
27 | Carlito | 23 | The Great Khali | 03:19 | |
28 | The Great Khali | 25 | The Undertaker | 03:45 | |
29 | The Miz | 20 | The Great Khali | 00:07 | |
30 | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
or
# | Brand | Entrant | Eliminated | Eliminated by | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | RAW | Ric Flair | 01 | Edge | 05:40 |
2 | SD! | Finlay | 12 | Shawn Michaels | 32:32 |
3 | RAW | Kenny Dykstra | 02 | Edge | 04:05 |
4 | SD | Matt Hardy | 09 | Randy Orton | 18:55 |
5 | RAW | Edge | 28 | Shawn Michaels | 44:02 |
6 | ECW | Tommy Dreamer | 03 | Kane | 06:41 |
7 | ECW | Sabu | 04 | Kane | 05:27 |
8 | SD! | Gregory Helms | 05 | King Booker | 06:50 |
9 | RAW | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Shawn Michaels | 22:22 |
10 | SD! | Kane | 11 | King Booker [2] | 13:21 |
11 | ECW | CM Punk | 22 | The Great Khali | 27:16 |
12 | SD! | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 |
13 | RAW | Super Crazy | 07 | Edge and Randy Orton | 04:32 |
14 | RAW | Jeff Hardy | 08 | Edge | 03:38 |
15 | ECW | The Sandman | 06 | King Booker | 00:13 |
16 | RAW | Randy Orton | 27 | Shawn Michaels | 27:14 |
17 | SD! | Chris Benoit | 19 | The Great Khali | 17:52 |
18 | ECW | Rob Van Dam | 21 | The Great Khali | 15:27 |
19 | RAW | Viscera | 13 | Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn | 06:22 |
20 | RAW | Johnny Nitro | 05 | Chris Benoit | 06:18 |
21 | ECW | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Chris Benoit | 06:15 |
22 | ECW | Hardcore Holly | 18 | The Great Khali | 10:21 |
23 | RAW | Shawn Michaels | 29 | The Undertaker | 24:11 |
24 | RAW | Chris Masters | 17 | Rob Van Dam | 03:32 |
25 | SD! | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | The Great Khali | 06:24 |
26 | SD! | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | The Undertaker | 07:21 |
27 | RAW | Carlito | 23 | The Great Khali | 03:19 |
28 | RAW | The Great Khali | 25 | The Undertaker | 03:45 |
29 | SD! | The Miz | 20 | The Great Khali | 00:07 |
30 | SD! | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
Do you approve of it to be placed in Royal Rumble articles? or comment if something should be changed or added
Approve, Disapprove, or Comment:
TrUcO9311 ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)
Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability.
Or now you can choose the other one w/ the brands listed
"Eliminator" sounds cheesy as hell. Might that be swapped for "Eliminated by," which is what I believe is in use right now Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Entrant | Eliminated by | Time | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ric Flair | 1 | Edge | 05:40 |
2 | Finlay | 12 | Michaels | 32:32 |
3 | Kenny Dykstra | 2 | Edge | 04:05 |
4 | Matt Hardy | 9 | Orton | 18:55 |
5 | Edge | 28 | Michaels | 44:02 |
6 | Tommy Dreamer | 3 | Kane | 06:41 |
7 | Sabu | 4 | Kane | 05:27 |
8 | Gregory Helms | 5 | Booker | 06:50 |
9 | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Michaels | 22:22 |
10 | Kane | 11 | Booker [3] | 13:21 |
11 | CM Punk | 22 | Khali | 27:16 |
12 | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 |
13 | Super Crazy | 7 | Edge & Orton | 04:32 |
14 | Jeff Hardy | 8 | Edge | 03:38 |
15 | The Sandman | 6 | Booker | 00:13 |
16 | Randy Orton | 27 | Michaels | 27:14 |
17 | Chris Benoit | 19 | Khali | 17:52 |
18 | Rob Van Dam | 21 | Khali | 15:27 |
19 | Viscera | 13 | Edge, Punk, RVD, Benoit, Nitro, Benjamin, Holly & Thorn | 06:22 |
20 | Johnny Nitro | 15 | Benoit | 06:18 |
21 | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Benoit | 06:15 |
22 | Hardcore Holly | 18 | Khali | 10:21 |
23 | Shawn Michaels | 29 | Undertaker | 24:11 |
24 | Chris Masters | 17 | RVD | 03:32 |
25 | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | Khali | 06:24 |
26 | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | Undertaker | 07:31 |
27 | Carlito | 23 | Khali | 03:19 |
28 | The Great Khali | 25 | Undertaker | 03:45 |
29 | The Miz | 20 | Khali | 00:07 |
30 | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
- The Chronic 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok apparently there has been some dispute over the RR tables, so here we go again.
If you agree on this table being put into the RR articles put Agree, or if you disagree put Disagree, or if you want to comment/question about the table put Comment.
TrUcO9311 ( talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR? TrUcO9311 ( talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Approval Posts:
Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR? TrUcO9311 ( talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to this being nominated for Featured List status? All of the IWGP championship lists are fully sourced, so I would like the see them all get up to FL status (perhaps a Featured Topic?). This list currently has no picture, which is the only drawback I can see. I don't know where one could get a picture of the belt, but the article for Matt Bloom (one of the current champions) has a free-use picture (with no belt, though). Is it worth adding, or is the article okay as it is? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Or would it be OK for me to do Backlash (2004)? It's always been a favorite show of mine.....or at least it used to be, if you catch my drift. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mostly every superstar has tattoos, now I know they are added in the "Personal life" section, but do they need to be cited? Zenlax T C S 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have some good news to lighten the mood. Bobby Eaton, our first Featured Article collaboration, got moved to the FA Log, which means it has passed and is now a FA! Hopefully, our current FACOTW, Triple H, will be just as good. Please copyedit, repair links, etc to Triple H's article, and please add suggestions to his article's talk page so it can be promoted to FA status, as well. Nikki 311 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One word: Awesome, two words: Freaking Awesome! our first FACOTW pays off and it's the first article I've been really involved with that's gone FA so it's a great start to my day. MPJ-DK ( talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, has anybody recieved the newsletter yet? I'm having User:Betacommand deliver the newsletter, but nobody seems to be getting it yet. The Chronic 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Good. The Chronic 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for Featured List status. If you have time, please look over the article and leave your feedback. Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No one has been answering NYR07's peer review except TRuco. Come on people, give suggestions! Anyway, I believe WMIII and NYR07 are written great already, so I am gonna start a 3rd article: List of WWE Hardcore Champions.
I am going to try and get sources for this article, and eventually nominate it for FL, as all the other List of WWE Championships. Cheers, Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am now in the process of expanding the list, hopefully until I can get it to FL status. I will be using NWA World Women's Championship as a template to help me. Anyone who would like to help can. The Chronic 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Al Burke is an article on a supposedly former professional wrestler. However I highly suspect this is an elaborate hoax, so I put it up for AfD discussion. Comments welcome here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Burke. Pegasus «C¦ T» 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm close to implementing my work of No Mercy 2007 into it's article location. Obviously I still have to complete the aftermath, as well as add some photos. But if see where improvements can be made (fixing wikilinks, adding them, better sentence structure, references, etc), please feel free to help me out. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article No Way Out (2006). -- LAX 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Talia Madison does not have a page on Wikipedia. When I attempted to create this page, it was blocked from creation as she isn't notable. I have however typed up a wiki page ready to use. She is a talent on the weekly broadcast TNA, and although I could see how she may have not been notable when the page was originally created, she certainly is now. How can we remove the creation protection? - Frenchbreadpizza 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The headline says it all, please review here thanks to all. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I will start improving this list in hopes of raising it to FL status.-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll help out too (I already have). The Chronic 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have or can upload a fair-use image of the WWE Hardcore Championship I would really appreciate it. Cheers =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I agree with what Nikki said above, So now im going to work on NWO 2004 as I have previously worked on NWO 2007. Hopefully we will finish all of the NWO PPV's. So step up people. YEAH! =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Do people think they're clever when they keep putting fake, unused move names on articles? Glamazon-Plex? Har dee har har. When was this ever said on TV? Enough with all these fake move names. Max85 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to get in the PPV crazed. So I'd like to work on the article, but before creating it I'm gonna work on it on my Sandbox. Thought I should let you guys know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just letting the project know that I have nominated one of my Triple H images on Featured picture candidates (would probably be a good addition if the article is soon to be put up for FA, as it seems from the above discussion). If you'd like to see just this nomination it's here. It will remain on the FPC page for approximately one week.
Please don't take this as a petition for votes. If you would like to cast a vote please check to see whether you agree that it meets the Featured picture criteria first. -- jjron ( talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
This thread has already been archived, but I know there was some concern a few days ago because the Diva section of WWE.com had vanished along with most mentions of Divas around the website. I am pleased to report that it has been mostly restored back to how it was, save a few links here and there that are dead. Total speculation but I'm guessing the website was hacked. At any rate, its back and there is nothing that needs to be done Wikipedia/article wise about this occurance as it seems to have been a fluke. Cheers, -- Naha| (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't hacked. That's all I can say at the moment. Mshake3 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There was a tag team title change at the Smackdown taping - and users are again insisting on posting spoilers on the WWE page. Watch out for Australian editors as it has aired here. The last edit removed the note about not placing spoilers on the page. There are some very ignorant people around the place! !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I really wish someone had told me about the above discussion when I didn't notice it. That fact of the matter is, I was involved in a discussion that can be found in the archives and across articles under WP:PW's scope with the outside community involved, including the chairman of the mediation committee, an it wasn't even questioned that spoilers must be verified. That is non-negotiable. If there isn't a source, then there is nothing to say that this event ever actually took place. If you can't provide a source, then you lose per WP:V, period. My consensus is larger, and more in line with the policies. The Hybrid T/ C 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I've copied the following from above, as I want more opinions on the proposal I made yesterday.
Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Before we go ahead and create a page, here are some guidlines out of the top of my head. Feel free to comment immediately after each guidline.
One or two of the above are probably not needed and useless, but I've just typed these up out of the top of my head. Leave comments in between each point, and discuss if anything seems wrong with the point I've made. Cheers! Davnel03 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be heading off track a little. Heading back to the original discussion, should we have a spoiler subpage, with the following revised proposals:
Now that we have some sort of guidlines, what websites are reliable? Below are a list of sites that are unreliable and reliable. Discuss which are reliable and unreliable. If there is a clear consensus that a website listed below is unreliable, it can be removed. It's not the best thing to do, but I couldn't think of any other way to solve this issue. Thanks!
PWInsider - blacklisted.
SLAM! Sports
I could list loads more, but some are definite copy-vios of others, most notably Wrestling-Edge and PWMania. -- Davnel03 ( talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's about time we put this to a vote. This debate - until Get Dumb's edit - was disrupting the article no matter who was at fault. It's why I called for an opinion from a member of ArbCom (I haven't checked for a reply this morning yet). So - let's get a consensus on this. The options are;
Also - we need guidelines, and Davnel certainly has my OK to create that page. We can get a consensus that way as well. I strongly recommend that we make a decision on this by the next Smackdown taping - just in case. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous now. We're talking like a previous consensus doesn't exist - and it does. That consensus was that all spoilers be removed until it airs in the US. Bluntly, I'm of the view that Lid is violating WP:NPOV by pushing the WP:SPOILER policy in such a way that it has been disrupting Wikipedia. Whether or not he's right or wrong is beside the point. We'll never get a fresh consensus if this keeps up - no matter what policy may be right or wrong. We'll just keep going around in circles on the left of the chart at WP:CCC. The point is that the only reliable source in this instance on the Internet is WWE.com. I take up Hybrid's point about third party info to wrestling news sites in saying that. Now - let's bring in the issue of places that see Smackdown before the US (such as Australia). We are now in the same position as the news sites. Who's to say the edit is correct and accurate? I could make the edit and say it happened - but where's my back up? I don't have it - therefore the edit fails WP:OR.
So in a nutshell, we can't apply WP:SPOILER, unless we pass WP:OR, WP:V or any other applicable policy. The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US and is acknowledged by WWE.com. And not before. I invite Lid to prove otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I never said the edits were bad faith. I don't recall spoilers being described as bad faith edits. They are simply haven't been accepted by consensus. My issue with Lid is that he is pushing WP:SPOILER without taking into account the other policies (thank you Hybrid for adding other relevant policies). Now then, suppose someone says that there has been a title change on Smackdown after it has aired in Australia? Do we just accept it? As long as WWE.com has not reported on it - the posting of such is a violation of WP:OR. Reason - there is no back up. No way to comply with WP:V. Is Lid saying that we should ignore those policies? I hope not.
So let's make this clear - perhaps we should say that the reason "spoilers" should not be presented is not because of WP:SPOILER. It's because of WP:OR and WP:V. Who's the say an Australian editor is telling the truth? I could say after next week's Smackdown is shown here that Edge won the World Title in an impromptu triple threat match with Batista and the Undertaker if I wanted to - and by your suggested process, Lid, it would be accepted. Where's my back up? Not WWE.com - so WP:V is in instant violation. I hope that settles that. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with WWE.com is they can rewrite history of the show whenever they want. For example, while I don't believe their edits went that far, they could remove all mentions of Chris Benoit from their show results. Does that mean it never happened? As for the concern of fans sending in inaccurate information, who cares? Once again, we're considering something to be unreliable due to the small chance that it's inaccurate. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the episodes are unreliable; I'm saying that until WWE.com confirms what happened in the episode you can't prove that the events you're inserting actually took place. WP:AGF applies to inter-Wikipedian relations, not to content inserted into articles. We don't assume that a person is telling the truth when they insert content; we ask for a good source, and then remove it if they can't provide one. We assume they had good intentions, but we still remove it. Like I said, you can't prove that the event actually took place in the episode, as the content contained within the episode is undefined. A while back you mentioned "not excluding the general public". The general public would be those who watched the episode on TV, not the few-thousand people who were at the event. The general public can't be used until the general public actually knows what happened. Do keep in mind that the IWC is only a very small percentage of wrestling fans, as is the fanbase in Australia, so the general public is happily oblivious until the event airs on US TV. The Hybrid T/ C 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, I've said before that consensus is entirely irrelevant to this matter, so I would like to see that word not be used anymore, but I would also like to not be told I'm in the minority, as the larger group who hate spoilers are sick of arguing about this ad nauseam, and are content to let those of us who are willing to debate this do so on their behalf. The Hybrid T/ C 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
OK - because an RfC would take too long, I've opted for ANI. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Punk, can you link to this "previous consensus" you keep talking about? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe an explanation of motives would help you all to understand why I'm so against spoilers in our articles, when I actually read them myself. Spoilers provide very short term benefits with permanent drawbacks. Spoilers are a major turnoff to many users. They wreck the suspense and fun of a television show. This isn't like a book, or a movie synopsis. We would only have to wait for 4 days to add the information. That's the short-term benefit, it puts the information in there as soon as it's available, but it is only 4 days; after that the benefit is nullified. The long-turn drawback is that it pushes many new and experienced users away from the project. This damages our ability to maintain and improve articles on the macro scale. The drawbacks are more influential than the benefits, and they are permanent. I oppose spoilers because I have the long-term, big picture interests of the project and our articles in mind. I'm tired of all the idealistic, "this is an encyclopedia" bullshit. This is an encyclopedia that requires a constant influx of users, and a good morale level amongst the users for it to survive. The Hybrid T/ C 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There are two different issues here - core policy and the impact of core policy - I am saying that core policy (that any editor can added sourced material as it becomes available) must be enforced (otherwise why have it), you are saying that enforcing core policy will have a impact on this wikiproject and this sub-set of articles. If there was a massive and noticable impact on article quality then how we work around that should be discussed - I'm not currently convinced that such an impact would occur. The special interest groups on here are out of control as it is and I am of a mind that we must resist their efforts to produce wall gardens that operate outside core policy. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In the List of WWE Tag Team Champions article, I've put (John Morrison formerly Johnny Nitro) under Miz & Morrison's reign, but it was reverted by BBoy, citing that it isn't done in other articles (namely List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Personally I think it should be, because your typical non-wrestling fan layman is going to read this article and wonder who John Morrison is and how he got 4 title reigns. I just don't see why we would list former ringnames in individual title lists but not tag title lists. I did essentially the same thing on IWGP World Tag Team Championship quite a while back. So I was just wondering what the community's opinion was on this before it goes any further. -- MarcK 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it IS done in other title lists (crusierweight), so I think it should be done here. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lex94 recently pruned Survivor Series (1997) from the nomination list, see here, with the argument that it never had twelve votes at the time of the deadline. Infact, a user added a vote 13 hours later. I've since reverted the edit, as I really don't think this is a valid argument. His argument is stating that if it doesn't have twelve votes by 00:00 on 19th November or whatever day it is, it should be pruned. In other circumstances, I have tended to leave till the final few hours to at least give the article the chance. Was I right to revert? Dav nel 03 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course you did the right thing to revert it. If there was an extra vote then the nomination of the article should still be put. Zenlax T C S 20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the right place for this, but I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded my personal photos for George Steele, Buff Bagwell, Tracy Smothers, New Jack, and Marty Jannetty to their respective pages. If any of you have photos that you have taken, I suggest going to that wrestler's page and see if it's in need of one. -- Smart Mark Greene ( talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently went through every wrestler's articles on the Raw and SmackDown! Rosters. I've gone and fixed the links in Finishing and Signature Moves to direct to the exact move, as many of them went to the top of an article. I'd appreciate anyone that would help this by checking over my work, as I may have missed a few. I'll be going over ECW and TNA wrestlers sometime this week when I get a chance. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed my username. I, Lex94, am now officially Feedback (which is my real name). Just to clarify. My signature still states I am the same person, but I just don't want to cause confusion. Cheers, Lex T / C Guest Book 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is notable? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that events are notable enough to have pages if they either had third-party coverage (which almost always proves notability) or if they were on pay-per-view. I'm not 100% sure, but that is the sort of pattern I've seen when deleting wrestling events as non-notable. Nikki 311 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Since we are on the topic of notability of tournaments...what about Champion's Carnival? I don't know much about professional wrestling tournaments in Japan, but this article doesn't really make it seem all to notable. Opinions welcome. Nikki 311 05:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Another friendly request for comment-slash-shameless plug ;\ Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Recently, I noticed that the WrestleMania 23 page has two pictures which have nothing to do with the article. The pictures are of Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the first picture on the page of John Cena. I inquired about the pictures on the talk page and was told that "Pictures like that are being included in most of the expanded PPV articles. They help illustrate the point of who everyone at the was. If a non-wrestling fan reads this article, the pictures help them visualize the event." It struck me as bizarre, but if that was the consensus, I'd be okay with it. I was told, though, that, as far as it was known, "a consensus wasn't reached, but no one has objected to it, so one wasn't really required." It was then suggested to me to bring it up here. Does an article about a PPV really need pictures on it that really have nothing to do with the event in question? The two pictures I mentioned are free-use, but their usage just doesn't seem to fit. I would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. Anakinjmt ( talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is why I'm working on Lockdown and No Mercy 07, as I've taken and uploaded plently of photos to use in those articles. I agree that the same repetitive pictures don't enhance the article. Mshake3 ( talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
WWE has eliminated all Armageddon histories from its website:
I was trying to find a source one of the matches on the card, for the New Year's Revolution 2007 article which I am working on in my sandbox; and I found that all the Armageddons are broken links. Lex T/ C Guest Book 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
All match results, exclusives, interviews: GONE! Lex T/ C Guest Book 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This has caused a number of broken links in MANY of our articles
Has anyone tried using this? I'm not all that familiar with it or wrestling. Epthorn ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think they will do the same thing they did as the Survivor Series History site ... delete any piece of Benoit , because I check Armageddon 2006 picutres and you see pictures from Benoit vs Guerrrero Guiltypetit89 November 22, 2007 19:36 UTC
In the Background section of the PPVs, are you suppose to put info of all the feuds that are led to that event?-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Truco was talking about Vengeance: Night of Champions. Personally, that would be appropriate, since adding all the background info would explain the matches to come. Comments? The Chronic 05:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I got another question, is the "access date" and "date" two different things in the (citeweb) template?-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Since my questions have been lost in the shuffle above (and answered only by those who have no idea whatsoever), I'll repeat it here. Why is PWInsider.com (which has N O T H I N G to do with PWI magazine by the way) blacklisted anyway? Also, if you believe it is unreliable, shouldn't we be removing sources that explicitly credit that site as a source? Mshake3 ( talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of a reply, but I have an idea of what your reply to it would be. (Me: Who doesn't respect Dave Scherer? You: Me.) Yet another issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Good for Meltzer, and good for Illustrated. That doesn't make Dave Scherer or PWInsider.com any less reliable. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The above comment by Lex was interrupted by the following:
End of interruption, and continuing of Lex's comment...
Dave Scherer has been covering the business of professional wrestling for the past decade. After writing for various publications in the early 1990s, Dave started "The Wrestling Lariat" newsletter in June of 1995. Over the next few years, the Lariat grew steadily and became one of the must-read publications for those in and around the wrestling business.
In August of 1997, Dave was approached by Bob Ryder to become a part of the new website 1Wrestling.com. Ryder wanted the name value of Dave and the Lariat to be one of the draws for the new website, and the two joined forces. Dave worked at 1Wrestling.com as columnist, reporter and webmaster until January of 2004 before deciding to branch out on his own and start this website.
Dave's extended network of contacts and ability to consistently break the top stories in pro wrestling has made him a must-read for anyone who follows the wrestling business online. Dave's column, "The Daily Lariat," quickly became a favorite of cyberspace's wrestling fans around the world and will now be featured here on PWInsiderElite.com.
Also during Dave's time at 1Wrestling.com, he was a staff writer for the now-defunct WOW and ECW magazines. He also penned the Saturday pro wrestling column at the New York Daily News for two years. And he was the webmaster for the Extreme Championship Wrestling website until the company ceased operations in 2001.
Dave's combination of reporting skills, humor and ability to succinctly analyze the trends and patterns of today's wrestling business allow for him to pen informative and entertaining pieces for the readers of PWInsiderElite.com.
In conclusion - if they pass the WP:RS guidelines, no matter if people don't like them, then they are reliable sources - call them dirtsheets, give an arbitrary, irrational definition that isn't based in logic or whatever you want. WP:RS is the guideline. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote from WP:V on questionable sources
Now that this week's issue has been cancelled, can we implement the Show/Hide format that I made in the next issue? Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a tad concerned after this discussion we had this week, where an editor argued that we shouldn't have "vote stacking" and therefore shouldn't support FACs unless you have a valid reason for support. This, seemingly has driven some people from participating in FAC's. A FAC that I nominated, In Your House 1 has only had one support, which has come from a non-project member, see here. I'm concerned, because if a candidate does not have enough consensus then the article cannot be promoted. At the moment, the candidate doesn't have a consensus with only one users opinion. Nothing is stopping members from supporting/opposing articles. At the same point, the nominator shouldn't mind if anyone writes a list of problems, if that happens with an FAC that I'm in, I'll deal with it. A valid issue has been brought up at the IYH1 FAC, which I would prefer to have comments on. I'm not stating that you must Strong Support and say "this is the best article ever", but I would prefer you to comment on it with problems (every article has problems in one or two areas) - e.g. POV, citing sources, sentence structure etc.. I think we need to be more involved as a whole in FAC's to help our articles, by not comment we are doing ourselves no favours. If anyone has problems with the article, write it at the FAC, I'm not going to bite your head off. It's just a tad annoying when no one (or very little) comments at the FAC, when several other FAC's have tonnes of comments on. I think I've gone on for a bit too long now. Cheers, Dav nel 03 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
— GaryColemanFan — continues after insertion below Surely that last point would be WP:OR if I can't find a point to back it up? Dav nel 03 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you should just be patient and wait for other users. If it doesn't get any opposition, then you don't need to worry about it being closed due to a lack of support. The FAC process is not meant to be a series of revolving doors where project members can help get an article featured. -- Scorpion 0422 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
71.255.5.18 has been going through a ton of pay-per-views today, amking small changes to match results. They're not malicious changes, but they're not always helpful. The user is removing team names from Survivor Series results, adding to internal links (making them redirect by changing Roddy Piper to Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.), changing names that don't need to be changed (every reference to Davey Boy Smith has been changed to The British Bulldog, etc.). If you've been working on a pay-per-view lately, you might want to check it out. And if you've got a little bit of time, going through some of these edits to see if they are actually helpful would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Did anyone know this page existed? Anyone up for a prod?-- bulletproof 3:16 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A user has
requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section. This tag will automatically place the page on the {{ RFCpolicy list}}. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. |
This RfC is being called to determine two separate, but somewhat related issues.
The first issue is about whether there existing Wikipolicies allow for a
embargo on publishing the results of pre-recorded WWE wrestling matches between when the matches are broadcasted in Australia and when they are broadcasted four days approximately 36 hours later in the United States and subsequently published on WWE's website.
The second issue concerns whether a television broadcast is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources because television broadcasts are not "published" in print form but "aired". -- Farix ( Talk) 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out the time between the Australian and earliest State side broadcast is maybe a day and a half at most...not four Bmg916 Speak 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
We are conflating two separate issues here - one of publication date (red herring), one of sources (important). Let me deal with the first - in no way shape or form is it supported by policy to tell users that they cannot add correct, current information to an article because americans don't like it(which is what the U.S. issue boils down to) - that is clearly against WP:BIAS and WP:SPOILER - more importantly it is against the fundamental purpose and principle behind the project - the encyclopedia anyone can edit, this is not Wikipedia - "the encyclopedia that you can edit when the wikiprojects tell you can". It is not even worth discussing the "wait for U.S. broadcast" because it is so far out of line with core practice and the fundamental principles of the project that it will never be allowed to stand regardless of what this RFC says. THe only issue that needs to be discussed is that of sourcing. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Lex:
I think that once the event airs somewhere in the world, it is verifiable and therefore can (and should) be included. I thought the real issue in this discussion was what to do in the time between when the event was taped (Tuesday) and first shown on TV somewhere in the world (Thursday). The argument is that wrestling news sites post the information, so it should be included. The opposing argument is that the news sites are not always reliable and the results of said event should only be added when a reliable source posts the information or it is aired in Australia (which is the first place it airs, as I understand it). The conflict is whether the news sites are reliable in their event summaries, which are e-mailed in by people who visit the show and not actual reporters. Supporters of this argument claim that the results are verifiable, as enough people e-mail the sites to get an accurate report. The opposing side claims that people can and have intentionally deceived the new sites before and it is best to wait until a more reliable site reports the information or it airs on TV. Anyway, that's what I thought this argument was truly about. Nikki 311 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Like I said on the Pump, no matter where it airs, a televised program is verifiable. I mean, it's not like you can't take a few minutes to check some fansite, which more often than not will get reports ahead of time. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Once episodes of a TV program are broadcast on a public network, the events depicted are in the public domain. To embargo comment on those episodes until they are broadcast in one particular country is out of the question. Utterly unacceptable. Moreover, should a wrestling bout take place in public arenas, clubs and the like before members of the public, there can be no embargo on any reliable reportage of the bout, in any form. As long as the source is reliable (for instance, ESPN, CNN or BBC reports the result of the bout) no embargo can apply on Wikipedia, and no decision made here can override that fact. -- Tony Sidaway 10:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). Quibbling about the meaning of the word "published" won't get us anywhere. A TV program that has been publicly broadcast has been published within the meaning of the word as used on Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway 10:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If they tried to give a detailed account with their spin on it - it's original research. If they say "Wrestler X was the winner of tinpot title Y" then that is acceptable and entirely in line with existing policy and practice. This was *never* about giving detailed accounts so please let's not get started on that strawman - nobody is arguing that should be allowed - we are arguing (backed by policy and current practice) that primary sources may be used as Tony states above On use of primary sources such as broadcast TV programs, they can be used at the very least as sources for themselves ("in the Australian broadcast of X program, A and B won a tag bout against C and D"). that is what is being discussed here - not a single policy based reason has been presented to say why this cannot occur with those shows - all of the "anti" arguments boil down to "I don't like it" or "I don't want to be spoilt" - neither are valid and this wikiproject will not be allowed to dictate to the wider community OR any good faith editor who wants to add current, correct information to articles - that will not stand, it will not stand. As for the WP:NOT#journalism - an equally bogus argument - as this is not about a breaking story - Journalism refers to NEWS not to fictional events such as the pre-determined performance art we are discussing here. In addition, you missed this bit Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. - that NOT is mainly intended to stop people creating articles on breaking news stories, it is not intended to stop people updating existing articles with the most correct factual information available. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Tell me how you expect a horde of IP's to listen to or even know about any sort of consensus we may or may not make here. The bottom line is you're not going to stop people from adding spoilers. I'm not saying "Why try?" (this isn't like pure vandalism - when an IP {or anybody} adds the WWE tag team title to the Miz's article, that's true information and a "spoiler" to those who don't want to know it; you only have to see it once and you're "spoiled," rendering whatever gets done here totally moot. When an IP, or anyone, adds the WWE championship to Funaki's article, that's just patent nonsense) or don't edit them out if that proves to be the consensus, but you are not going to stop being "spoiled." You all talk of "it's only 4 days!" between the taping and airing - well, it's also "only 4 days!" that you'd need to go without editing articles of Smackdown or ECW wrestlers. Is that so hard? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC) - and I'm not saying you would have to do that every week. Just when something undeniably notable happens at the taping. Surely Lid or I or some other member of the project could extend the courtesy of posting a note here, saying a "spoiler" is likely to be posted to the articles of ECW or Smackdown wrestlers. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- Even if the consensus is "don't post spoilers", the day of the smackdown tapings, any IP Address or disruptive user like Hornetman, etc.... can post the results against consensus. This meaning that you will still be spoiled, regardless of consensus. We can make a policy, but we can't force people to abide by it. Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I gave up not because I don't care, but because this isn't worth it. It's the holidays people; this is supposed to be a season filled with happiness, and this is the season that first coined the term Peace on Earth. Shouldn't we be doing better things than arguing about spoilers, like spending time with our families, shopping for the children in our family, and eating little animals in massive quantities? Just let the spoilers be added for now. If things do get bad, then I'll restart the discussion later. That's what's great about Wikipedia; nothing is written in stone (except the law). Let's all just enjoy our holidays, and take a look at this again later on if it's necessary. Happy Thanksgiving Americans, and cheers all. The Hybrid T/ C 07:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on New Year's Revolution (2007) which is currently in my sandbox. ( User:Feedback/Sandbox) Lex T/ C Guest Book 18:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Cheers =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 21:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Also what I meant by putting the refs at the end, is for the matches in the event section. (It was just a tip for when you write it). TrUcO9311 ( talk) 00:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
New article. Unfortunately, it looks like the creator has just dumped it, and looks like he's not going to be improving it. Dav nel 03 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My proposal is...
How about we actually USE this?
Lex T/ C Guest Book 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok Im done the article, will you all go check it out and tell me if its good, if I need to change things or comment on it. Thanks. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment-
The main feud heading into No Way Out, was between SmackDown's World Champion Batista and the Undertaker against RAW's WWE Champion John Cena and Shawn Michaels. This feud began after Undertaker won the 2007 Royal Rumble match. The following week on an episode of Friday Night SmackDown!, the two world champions demanded an answer from Undertaker, but Shawn Michaels would interfere and also wanted an answer.
-You are informing the reader, that the champions wanted an answer, without specifying the question. Lex T/ C Guest Book 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The above title states it all. Please review the article, and if you see any problems, errors, etc; write them here. Cheers, Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have listed the article for Peer Review here. It would be more appropiate if you post your conerns there.
Thank you, Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the comments that were below to the article's Peer Review
Due to the end of my college semester approaching, I have much to do in real life that my time on Wiki won't be suffcient to do much more than hit buttons to revert vandalism when I get the chance. Therefore, I'm putting my work on WrestleMania 23 and fixing the move links in the TNA wrestlers articles on hold until my semester ends. In about two weeks, I'll have the time and energy to continue. If anyone wants to work with what I have on either thing, feel free. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The page was recently moved from The Outsiders (WCW) to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall (since they're now wrestling in TNA). I think it should be moved to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as it's the proper naming convention for tag teams/stables that have wrestled on several promotions. But I need to get an insight from everybody here. The Chronic 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The following articles from Pro Wrestling COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination | Votes | Votes needed | Date of prune |
Survivor Series (1997) | 13 | 15 | November 26 (2 days) |
The Fingerpoke of Doom | 10 | 12 | November 26 (2 days) |
Cyber Sunday (2006) | 7 | 9 | November 25 (1 day!!) |
Santo | 4 | 6 | November 25 (1 day!!) |
Please save the articles from pruning! Lex T/ C Guest Book 18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What the title says, and several pruning notices. The following articles from the COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination | Votes | Votes needed | Date of prune |
Survivor Series (1997) | 13 | 15 | November 26 (1 days) |
The Fingerpoke of Doom | 10 | 12 | November 26 (1 days) |
Please save the articles from pruning! Dav nel 03 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay now No Way Out (2007) is officially done, will you all fellow wikipedians go check it out. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 16:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment here
I propose moving the page to title her real name. Always after death in the wwe.com keyfab always seems to be broken, they see each person as an athlete/actor in the end. So who agree's to this? Govvy ( talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
For one thing, it's Lilian Ellison. Even if that was actually her middle name, it's the "real" name that's been used 100% of the time. As for the above...
Then why is Eddie Fatu not Umaga Disambiguation, for one - go to Umaga; Adam Birch not Joey Mathews/Joey Mercury Tough to say which of those names would be better; if he were currently in WWE, it'd be a likely move; Alvin Burke, Jr. not MVP obviously disambiguation, but I'd imagine a RM to Montel Vontavious Porter would pass; Ken Anderson not Mr. Kennedy; Glen Jacobs not Kane proposed and not moved; some project members vehemently oppose any wrestler's article having to have the (wrestler) qualifier; Carly Colón not Carlito disambiguation, would require (wrestler), is also pretty well-known worldwide as Carly Colon; Lisa Marie Varon not Victoria other than disambiguation, nothing; Kevin Fertig not Kevin Thorn beats me; Anthony Carelli not Santino Marella/Boris Alexiev if he's Santino much longer, this one'll be moved; even Bobby Lashley wasn't moved from Franklin Lashley at first; Mark Copani not Muhammad Hassan simple; he CAN'T use that name anymore, and apparently he's going for some kind of acting career; Bob Holly not Hardcore Holly "Bob Holly" IS a stage name, and it's no less well-known than Hardcore; Chris Chavis not Tatanka probably disambiguation; Paul Wight not Big Show you're kidding, right?; Jason Reso not Christian Cage propose it; Adam Copeland not Edge "Adam Copeland" is also well known - so is "Amy Dumas," for the same reason; Booker Huffman not Booker T I got nothin'; Dave Finlay not simply Finlay now you're just nitpicking; Marty Wright not The Boogeyman disambiguation, probably going to be fired at any time and lose the rights to use the name; Ronnie Arniell not Shawn Spears who? does this even matter at this point?; Dylan Postl not Hornswoggle definite disambiguation; John Hennigan not Johnny Nitro/John Morrison which one?; Oscar Gutierrez not Rey Mysterio because there's another Rey Misterio; you could do Rey Misterio, Jr, but that's not his current name, so the benefit is negated, plus there are like twelve different permutations of this name; James Maritato not Nunzio obviously disambiguation, plus Little Guido is just as well-known; Jim Duggan not Hacksaw Jim Duggan do we put nicknames in titles?; Darren Matthews not William Regal/Steven Regal go ahead; Harry Smith not DH Smith he's been using that name for what, two weeks?; Sean Morley not Val Venis allez-vous; James Reiher, Jr. not Deuce/Deuce Shade disambiguation, likely not going to be with the company forever; Cliff Compton not Domino same; Drew Hankinson not Festus hasn't had the name very long, has several other ring names that are well-known; James Yun not Jimmy Wang Yang some other well-known ring names; Ray Gordy not Jesse well disambiguation obviously, but also hasn't had the name long; Mike Mizanin not The Miz this should be moved; Nelson Frazier, Jr. not Viscera/Big Daddy V which one? and why not mabel?
Yeah, there's one or two in that list that might/should be moved, but most have legitimate reasons. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 16:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the point where they've worked under several names and achieved something - Steven/William Regal springs to mind, he's better listed under his real name than suffering a semi-monthly move from Steven to William and back. MPJ-DK ( talk) 18:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
NWA Wisconsin is indie-wrestling, which isn't really that famous and notable as WWE. A minority would know Dylan Postl as "Shortstack". He only wrestled 1 match as Little Bastard, which wouldn't be notable, so that name doesn't count (Santino Marella has worked 8 months under that name, and the article continues to be Anthony Carelli). The issue would be between Hornswoggle and Hornswoggle McMahon. I'd say to go for Hornswoggle McMahon, as that would be his kayfabe full name, and everyone knows him by the name.
It isn't really that much of a difference from Christian (wrestler) to Christian Cage. Because Christian Cage has been using that name for the past lustrum, the article should be Christian Cage.
His article should be entitled Mr. Kennedy instead of Ken Anderson. First of all, Ken Anderson is a disambiguation, so it is unwise to put him under that name. Mr. Kennedy seems appropiate as it's the name he's been using since his debut. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any objection that his article should be Montel Vontavious Porter instead of Alvin Burke, Jr.? Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
His article should be entitled Joey Mathews, as it's not a disambiguation and it's his current ringname and more popular name. Joey Mercury must be owned by the WWE, so I believe he's not entitled to that name. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Santino Marella has already used the name for 8 months. He should have his article renamed to it. Lex T/ C Guest Book 21:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly not worth bring this up, I guess you guys respect a character more than the real persom. Such a shame. Govvy ( talk) 15:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I made this table for the Royal Rumble matches to better organize it as to me the ones that are in the articles are kinda messy.
This is for the 2007 Royal Rumble
Red indicates a RAW superstar, blue indicates a SmackDown! superstar, and purple indicates an ECW extremist. A new entrant came out approximately every 90 seconds.
P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)
Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability.
# | Entrant | Elimination # | Eliminator | Time | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ric Flair | 1 | Edge | 05:40 | |
2 | Finlay | 12 | Shawn Michaels | 32:32 | |
3 | Kenny Dykstra | 2 | Edge | 04:05 | |
4 | Matt Hardy | 9 | Randy Orton | 18:55 | |
5 | Edge | 28 | Shawn Michaels | 44:02 | |
6 | Tommy Dreamer | 3 | Kane | 06:41 | |
7 | Sabu | 4 | Kane | 05:27 | |
8 | Gregory Helms | 5 | King Booker | 06:50 | |
9 | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Shawn Michaels | 22:22 | |
10 | Kane | 11 | King Booker [1] | 13:21 | |
11 | CM Punk | 22 | The Great Khali | 27:16 | |
12 | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 | |
13 | Super Crazy | 7 | Edge and Randy Orton | 04:32 | |
14 | Jeff Hardy | 8 | Edge | 03:38 | |
15 | The Sandman | 6 | King Booker | 00:13 | |
16 | Randy Orton | 27 | Shawn Michaels | 27:14 | |
17 | Chris Benoit | 19 | The Great Khali | 17:52 | |
18 | Rob Van Dam | 21 | The Great Khali | 15:27 | |
19 | Viscera | 13 | Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn | 06:22 | |
20 | Johnny Nitro | 5 | Chris Benoit | 06:18 | |
21 | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Chris Benoit | 06:15 | |
22 | Hardcore Holly | 18 | The Great Khali | 10:21 | |
23 | Shawn Michaels | 29 | The Undertaker | 24:11 | |
24 | Chris Masters | 17 | Rob Van Dam | 03:32 | |
25 | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | The Great Khali | 06:24 | |
26 | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | The Undertaker | 07:21 | |
27 | Carlito | 23 | The Great Khali | 03:19 | |
28 | The Great Khali | 25 | The Undertaker | 03:45 | |
29 | The Miz | 20 | The Great Khali | 00:07 | |
30 | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
or
# | Brand | Entrant | Eliminated | Eliminated by | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | RAW | Ric Flair | 01 | Edge | 05:40 |
2 | SD! | Finlay | 12 | Shawn Michaels | 32:32 |
3 | RAW | Kenny Dykstra | 02 | Edge | 04:05 |
4 | SD | Matt Hardy | 09 | Randy Orton | 18:55 |
5 | RAW | Edge | 28 | Shawn Michaels | 44:02 |
6 | ECW | Tommy Dreamer | 03 | Kane | 06:41 |
7 | ECW | Sabu | 04 | Kane | 05:27 |
8 | SD! | Gregory Helms | 05 | King Booker | 06:50 |
9 | RAW | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Shawn Michaels | 22:22 |
10 | SD! | Kane | 11 | King Booker [2] | 13:21 |
11 | ECW | CM Punk | 22 | The Great Khali | 27:16 |
12 | SD! | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 |
13 | RAW | Super Crazy | 07 | Edge and Randy Orton | 04:32 |
14 | RAW | Jeff Hardy | 08 | Edge | 03:38 |
15 | ECW | The Sandman | 06 | King Booker | 00:13 |
16 | RAW | Randy Orton | 27 | Shawn Michaels | 27:14 |
17 | SD! | Chris Benoit | 19 | The Great Khali | 17:52 |
18 | ECW | Rob Van Dam | 21 | The Great Khali | 15:27 |
19 | RAW | Viscera | 13 | Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn | 06:22 |
20 | RAW | Johnny Nitro | 05 | Chris Benoit | 06:18 |
21 | ECW | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Chris Benoit | 06:15 |
22 | ECW | Hardcore Holly | 18 | The Great Khali | 10:21 |
23 | RAW | Shawn Michaels | 29 | The Undertaker | 24:11 |
24 | RAW | Chris Masters | 17 | Rob Van Dam | 03:32 |
25 | SD! | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | The Great Khali | 06:24 |
26 | SD! | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | The Undertaker | 07:21 |
27 | RAW | Carlito | 23 | The Great Khali | 03:19 |
28 | RAW | The Great Khali | 25 | The Undertaker | 03:45 |
29 | SD! | The Miz | 20 | The Great Khali | 00:07 |
30 | SD! | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
^ King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
Do you approve of it to be placed in Royal Rumble articles? or comment if something should be changed or added
Approve, Disapprove, or Comment:
TrUcO9311 ( talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)
Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability.
Or now you can choose the other one w/ the brands listed
"Eliminator" sounds cheesy as hell. Might that be swapped for "Eliminated by," which is what I believe is in use right now Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Entrant | Eliminated by | Time | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ric Flair | 1 | Edge | 05:40 |
2 | Finlay | 12 | Michaels | 32:32 |
3 | Kenny Dykstra | 2 | Edge | 04:05 |
4 | Matt Hardy | 9 | Orton | 18:55 |
5 | Edge | 28 | Michaels | 44:02 |
6 | Tommy Dreamer | 3 | Kane | 06:41 |
7 | Sabu | 4 | Kane | 05:27 |
8 | Gregory Helms | 5 | Booker | 06:50 |
9 | Shelton Benjamin | 14 | Michaels | 22:22 |
10 | Kane | 11 | Booker [3] | 13:21 |
11 | CM Punk | 22 | Khali | 27:16 |
12 | King Booker | 10 | Kane | 09:23 |
13 | Super Crazy | 7 | Edge & Orton | 04:32 |
14 | Jeff Hardy | 8 | Edge | 03:38 |
15 | The Sandman | 6 | Booker | 00:13 |
16 | Randy Orton | 27 | Michaels | 27:14 |
17 | Chris Benoit | 19 | Khali | 17:52 |
18 | Rob Van Dam | 21 | Khali | 15:27 |
19 | Viscera | 13 | Edge, Punk, RVD, Benoit, Nitro, Benjamin, Holly & Thorn | 06:22 |
20 | Johnny Nitro | 15 | Benoit | 06:18 |
21 | Kevin Thorn | 16 | Benoit | 06:15 |
22 | Hardcore Holly | 18 | Khali | 10:21 |
23 | Shawn Michaels | 29 | Undertaker | 24:11 |
24 | Chris Masters | 17 | RVD | 03:32 |
25 | Chavo Guerrero | 24 | Khali | 06:24 |
26 | Montel Vontavious Porter | 26 | Undertaker | 07:31 |
27 | Carlito | 23 | Khali | 03:19 |
28 | The Great Khali | 25 | Undertaker | 03:45 |
29 | The Miz | 20 | Khali | 00:07 |
30 | The Undertaker | - | WINNER | 13:15 |
- The Chronic 23:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok apparently there has been some dispute over the RR tables, so here we go again.
If you agree on this table being put into the RR articles put Agree, or if you disagree put Disagree, or if you want to comment/question about the table put Comment.
TrUcO9311 ( talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR? TrUcO9311 ( talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Approval Posts:
Comment- ok I see most people agree just to make them sortable, and Im ok with that but shouldnt we add the brands to the 2003-2007 RR? TrUcO9311 ( talk) 01:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone opposed to this being nominated for Featured List status? All of the IWGP championship lists are fully sourced, so I would like the see them all get up to FL status (perhaps a Featured Topic?). This list currently has no picture, which is the only drawback I can see. I don't know where one could get a picture of the belt, but the article for Matt Bloom (one of the current champions) has a free-use picture (with no belt, though). Is it worth adding, or is the article okay as it is? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Or would it be OK for me to do Backlash (2004)? It's always been a favorite show of mine.....or at least it used to be, if you catch my drift. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 08:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Mostly every superstar has tattoos, now I know they are added in the "Personal life" section, but do they need to be cited? Zenlax T C S 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have some good news to lighten the mood. Bobby Eaton, our first Featured Article collaboration, got moved to the FA Log, which means it has passed and is now a FA! Hopefully, our current FACOTW, Triple H, will be just as good. Please copyedit, repair links, etc to Triple H's article, and please add suggestions to his article's talk page so it can be promoted to FA status, as well. Nikki 311 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
One word: Awesome, two words: Freaking Awesome! our first FACOTW pays off and it's the first article I've been really involved with that's gone FA so it's a great start to my day. MPJ-DK ( talk) 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, has anybody recieved the newsletter yet? I'm having User:Betacommand deliver the newsletter, but nobody seems to be getting it yet. The Chronic 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Good. The Chronic 00:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for Featured List status. If you have time, please look over the article and leave your feedback. Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No one has been answering NYR07's peer review except TRuco. Come on people, give suggestions! Anyway, I believe WMIII and NYR07 are written great already, so I am gonna start a 3rd article: List of WWE Hardcore Champions.
I am going to try and get sources for this article, and eventually nominate it for FL, as all the other List of WWE Championships. Cheers, Lex T/ C Guest Book 05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I am now in the process of expanding the list, hopefully until I can get it to FL status. I will be using NWA World Women's Championship as a template to help me. Anyone who would like to help can. The Chronic 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Al Burke is an article on a supposedly former professional wrestler. However I highly suspect this is an elaborate hoax, so I put it up for AfD discussion. Comments welcome here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Burke. Pegasus «C¦ T» 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm close to implementing my work of No Mercy 2007 into it's article location. Obviously I still have to complete the aftermath, as well as add some photos. But if see where improvements can be made (fixing wikilinks, adding them, better sentence structure, references, etc), please feel free to help me out. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article No Way Out (2006). -- LAX 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that Talia Madison does not have a page on Wikipedia. When I attempted to create this page, it was blocked from creation as she isn't notable. I have however typed up a wiki page ready to use. She is a talent on the weekly broadcast TNA, and although I could see how she may have not been notable when the page was originally created, she certainly is now. How can we remove the creation protection? - Frenchbreadpizza 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The headline says it all, please review here thanks to all. TrUcO9311 ( talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I will start improving this list in hopes of raising it to FL status.-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll help out too (I already have). The Chronic 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have or can upload a fair-use image of the WWE Hardcore Championship I would really appreciate it. Cheers =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey I agree with what Nikki said above, So now im going to work on NWO 2004 as I have previously worked on NWO 2007. Hopefully we will finish all of the NWO PPV's. So step up people. YEAH! =)-- TrUcO9311 ( talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Do people think they're clever when they keep putting fake, unused move names on articles? Glamazon-Plex? Har dee har har. When was this ever said on TV? Enough with all these fake move names. Max85 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to get in the PPV crazed. So I'd like to work on the article, but before creating it I'm gonna work on it on my Sandbox. Thought I should let you guys know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just letting the project know that I have nominated one of my Triple H images on Featured picture candidates (would probably be a good addition if the article is soon to be put up for FA, as it seems from the above discussion). If you'd like to see just this nomination it's here. It will remain on the FPC page for approximately one week.
Please don't take this as a petition for votes. If you would like to cast a vote please check to see whether you agree that it meets the Featured picture criteria first. -- jjron ( talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)