![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi. I'm Adamaniac, a semi-dormant Wiki-editor, but I'm on holidays, got bored and found that the PW section of Wikipedia has finally pulled itself together and started improving the class of all its articles. I had a look at the PPV list and had a question for anoyne that could answer. I see that besides the WWE No Way Out article, there's the seperate articles for years (E.G. WWE No Way Out 2007). My question is relating to whether or not we are changing all past PPVs (such as Backlash 03, for example, because the Backlash PPV page is not divided into seperate year articles). An answer would be appreciated, as I can devote some time and effort into helping create and improve some of these articles. Thanks! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
indeed! P X K 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, guys :) Seeing as I'm allowed to choose, and I remember some events more clearly etc etc, I'll head up the New Years Revolution 2005 page to start with. Any help or advice, Davnel, would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to helping the professional wrestling project here! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can a notice be sent to all WikiProject Pro Wrestling members with an announcement for them to add themselves to this list? Feed back ☎ 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Payne X Killer Here, I changed my username to my real name P X K 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it, I'm on it Jordan Morrison Payne 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Payne ( talk • contribs)
In a related matter, I, The Hybrid, have changed my signature to something no longer containing my actual user name. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 10:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
sexyseabass lol Feed back ☎ 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
well that just proved how crappy sinebot is Jordan Morrison Payne 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Mostly all bots are crappy. Feed back ☎ 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to nominate the above article at WP:GAN. Everything addressed in the article's peer review was discussed and improved. If there are any concerns and objections not discussed in the peer review, please comment in a time lapse of 2-3 days, before I nominate the article. Cheers, Feed back ☎ 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
User:KingMorpheus moved the Major Brothers to the The Edgeheads. I am unable to fix this, may someone fix it?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we work on this article and make it a Featured List? Feed back ☎ 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
this is a bad idea.it is adding nothing but is junk.
Davnel03 (
talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Striking comment by indef-blocked user.
Dav
nel
03
22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out the discussion and my points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster#Citations
Approve, Disapprove, Comment about the project with the WWE Roster!
Comment Nikki there is already a source for the info at the bottom of the page, there isn't any need to cite each and every wrestler on the roster. Skitzo ( talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To Feedback: Like I have said many times before, if you need to provide individual citations for details such as injuries and positions for the other roles section go ahead. But inline citations for EVERY SINGLE superstar as has been done so far is not needed because as policy states, general references are to be used when it supports a significant amount of the information. Wikipedia does not want an article filled with 200 sources if they can be condensed down much easier. Doppy88 ( talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay I do not approve of the Major Brothers being named as the Edge-heads, they are best known as the Major Brothers and the article should remain being named like that. This article should remain like the Dudley Boyz even though they are billed as Team 3D, and the New Age Outlaws as the V.K.M.
Poll
Yes, we've done it again. WWE No Way Out has been protected until January. The dispute is over whether or not to include the elimination chamber match right now, as there are now reliable sources stating that the match will occur. The opposition seems to be that it must be announced during the in-universe WWE storylines before it can be mentioned. One person also suggested that it shouldn't be mentioned because "plans might change". LOL! Mshake3 ( talk) 17:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the protection user Mshake clearly does not have a clear understanding of the policy and the ec should not be added much like we dont add smackdown taping spoilers. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude tell me to to stfu ok you are the one who isnt listening ive stated several times that we are not allowed to put spoilers and we are not allowed to post stuff from shaky sources. You are trying to do both and you have a very bad attitude about as well. If you dont wanna participate and follow the rules then leave. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you fucking dense? what part of "Dont put matches untill announced on WWE tv or WWE.com" don't you understand? LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And its not on WWE.com so its not going in the article. Jesus Fn Christ. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually i was talking to you not gayvn. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else here think I'm an "ignorant newb". Seems like i'm heading towards WP:ANI.... Dav nel 03 20:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Two things, first of all the "fact" that WWE.com is the only reliable source is incorrect and claiming it is simply trying to overturn the previous spoilers debate by pushing the opinion that "dirt sheets" are always unreliable. The articles can simply state "the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Insider have reported X is going to occur but WWE have not confirmed this as such." This is common across articles on all of wikipedia. The "don't post matches until WWE.com states them" is outdated and predates the RFC on spoilers that was overturned by the RFC.
Secondly there has been a ridiculous rise in incivility here and people better shape up before I need to start blocking people. It isn't even small things, I have seen several violations of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL in one thread on here alone. –– Lid( Talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, to everyone talking about dirtsheets.... I WASN'T CITING ONE! Mshake3 ( talk) 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple days later, the article still looks like shit, and the status quo is that "reliable sources" is on the same billing as "I don't like spoilers." G-A-H! Mshake3 ( talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It repeatedly says "they were booked to defeat/get beaten by wrestler1 and wrestler2". This gives me the impression that one of them got injured and couldn't attend the match or something. Can't we reduce the amount of times it says this? It's bad on the same scale as Carlito's article saying Jim "Sandman" Fullington. If noone edits it in the next 30 minutes I'm gonna be bold. P X K 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sign your posts Feedback. and by the way, It's because we don't need OMG WRESTLING IZ FAKEORZ !!!11one!!1eleven1!! waved in our face. It just looks bad to me to have the word booked about 50 times in the same para. P X K 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I respect that but you don't have to do it that many times. It gets into the reaches of annoying. I'll put a toned down version on my sandbox for approval once I'm done. P X K —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
is this any good? P X K 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, put the sections in order. For example, the PWU section says they started wrestling there in 2005, but the part about them leaving wrestling in 2004 comes after. Also, they started wrestling in ROH in 2002, but the PWG (which was founded in late 2003) section is before it. Same with NOAH coming before FIP. Nenog ( talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, so nobody did anything to the article except Nenog reordering sections. Way to whine and complain without doing anything about it, everybody. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the claims. They're back to being in-universe. Shall I also withdraw the good article nomination? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of category sorting to do with the PPV expansion, as some PPVs have been put mistakenly in wrong categories. I've tried to standardise it. Anway, while doing this, I came across the following categories:
Are the categories really needed? Do we really need them? I was going to go ahead and CFD them, but wanted other opinions to do with these categories. Dav nel 03 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view, [1] [2] [3] with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view.....
I would stop short of calling it the worst pay-per-view of all time, but it's certainly among the worst. ECW as a brand is dead, and the WWE should definitely take notice that a sizable portion of their ECW fanbase is chanting "TNA" during a WWE PPV.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Worst PPV of the year:
Two shows are on my list for this category, one from November and one from December. Can you guess? Cyber Sunday and the ill-fated December to Dismember.
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
For those of us who have had to sit through the slow and tortuous second death of ECW, though, it was to be expected. That sound at Sunday's awful December To Dismember show - between the crowd's chants of "where's my refund" and "bulls**t" - was the coffin being shut.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Is that statement in bold, weasely? I personally think it isn't really, but Feedback thinks it is. The references are included, therefore I think the statement does not violate WP:WEASEL. Does anyone else think the statement is weasely, even with the references included? Dav nel 03 14:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
References to do not turn a weasel word into a concrete quantity. I read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words thoroughly to see if there was any exemption, and there is not. However, in the bottom paragraph of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Improving weasel-worded statements, it says that instead of writing:
...it should be written:
The later suggests that the Yankees are a superlative baseball franchise, rather than simply the greatest baseball team in history. The idea is to let the readers draw their own conclusions about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.
To apply this to your article:
Instead, you can find other ratings of the payperview and it can say:
Feed back ☎ 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view[weasel words],[46][47][48] with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view 4 out of 10 stars, stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle."[1]
I have decided that I need a break from this page. A couple of project members are driving me crazy, and I will enjoy editing Wikipedia more if I put some distance between us. I find it sad that anyone would think that adding a rigid bureaucracy and attempting to control the administrative side of the project is the way to go. Aside from an ego trip, I see no need for pruning COTW articles early, archiving active discussions, making a big deal about which bot will archive discussions, calling for reassessment of all Featured Articles, needlessly criticizing well-sourced statements in Featured Articles, arguing with GA reviewers, and telling me that I'm not a good member unless I put my name on a pointless list. I'll continue to edit articles, but, for the next while, I'll stick to talk pages for contacting people. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I too have been convinced to take a "break". Cheers, Feed back ☎ 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Goodness. I've been absent from this page for a couple of days, and apparently, all hell has broken loose. I definitely think a number of editors here should consider taking a few days off from this page to cool down. Nikki 311 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there some way that we can make the WWE Draft into seperate articles by year similar to the NFL Draft, NBA Draft, NHL Draft yearly drafts, like each year was written in similar format to those draft articles ? That way the WWE Draft can also have it's own category what are your opinions? -- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. It should be one table, and not split into multiple one-row tables. Here's what categories I would include: Overall Pick, Brand, Wrestler, Leaving Brand (2007 only), and Notes. The notes section can include things such as the matches used to win picks, any trades that occured right after the draft, releases prior to redebuting, etc. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've finished expanded the article. All three sections need a bit of improvement, and copy-edit. I've done what I can with the sources I have. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references and so on to the Shannon Moore article, and I'm looking for suggestions, help, etc, on how to improve it further. All help greatly appreciated. NiciVampireHeart ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll help. I'll do some copy editing for you. I think my #1 suggestion, though, is to cut down the extremely long signature moves section. That thing is ridiculous. Also, I'm pretty sure Crash Holly wasn't his manager so much as his lackey. I'll remove that. Nikki 311 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You've done a good job so far. If you can take it out of universe, and add a few more references, as well as expanding the lead, you could (if you wish) nominate it for GA status. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been vandalised multiple times over the past few days. The edits in question all have the same pattern but appear to be made by mulitiple anonamous IP addresses. Stephen Day ( talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think WCCW Parade of Champions and WCCW Parade of Champions results should be merged. Anybody else agree (and anybody who could do it, please do, I'm not sure how it works). Kris ( talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I merged them. Nikki 311 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, wat do i need in my browser or my computer to view Wikipedia tables because when I look at the WWE Draft Lottery tables they have white backgrounds and I know they are suppose to be red, blue, and purple.Help? (what do I neen ie.java,?) TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this one needs some work. I don't know who, but someone a while back "sourced" the article, but really only sourced the " Championships and accomplishments" section. There are 57 sources, only 5 of which aren't citing titles. Nenog ( talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What the title says. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
COTW is in a huge mess. Sould I remove the nominations that are currently on the page, and start back at scratch. Virtually all of them seem like they would be pruned by now. Should we just let The Fabulous Moolah go on till this Sunday? Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So ive worked on the 2007 WWE Draft in my Sandbox. Go check it out and tell me if I should add/remove, or if you have comments for improvements, tell me here in this section. If nothing stands out, can I publish it?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
New article. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never actually put an article up for deletion, so I don't know how to. Can somebody help me? Thanks. Hardyboyz27 ( talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I, and many other users have worked hard on this article over the past few months, do you think its good enough to nominate for GA?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Feedback suggested I nominate the 2007 WWE Draft for FL status, you can find it here.-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on Sika Anoa'i's article, and I managed to find sources for almost everything. There is one title win, however, that has me confused. On June 1, 1973, The Samoans won the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship. Accoring to one source, this was Afa and Sika. According to a different source, however, this was Tio Tio and Reno Tufuuli. Does anyone know how to find out for sure? Should this be listed if the sources aren't clear? I've taken it off of Sika's article for now, but it's still in Afa's article as a sourced statement. Any suggestions? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hardyboyz27 here, I have changed my name to iMatthew. So that's how I will sign off in the future. iMatthew ( talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Per Gavyn Sykes's invitation, I have added myself to the Members list and the appropriate icon to my user page, and hope to have an active presence here. :) ArcAngel ( talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed it for peer review. You can comment here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for GA status, feel free to contribute to the article, or if you have comments, leave them here. Th@nX..-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the above articles be merged into the normal title history pages of each championship. It's basically the same list, except sorted by reign length (which can be done with a sort table). Feed back ☎ 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not use the technique suggested in this conversation? Feed back ☎ 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
People keep changing the track listing (even though there is clear warnings not to), every few days. Not quite enough for page protection, and most of it is from random IP editors with little or no other edits. So posting a warning on their talk page probably wouldn't do much good. RobJ1981 ( talk) 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement on how the roster should be setup: a prose, or the general list (which has always been on wrestling game articles, but there is no set rule that they must remain that way). The discussion is on the talk page. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
While there is no set rule for lists, it doesn't mean paragraphs need to be put in either. You know, A table wouldn't be bad. A list would still be awesome. But a paragraph? That's just crap right there. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to read. Not jumbled up, and making you forget in 3 seconds. Oh, and I started this debate anyways, so, Rob, you are easily outnumbered even on this page! Tech43 ( talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) The decision has been made to make a table instead of a list. Tech43 ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a list would do better after all. Tech43 ( talk) 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the DVD release is notable. Every single WWE PPV has been released on DVD, and none of the PPV articles include anything about DVD releases. The fact is that sporting events are produced mainly for the live audience, and are taped additionally for people who couldn't be there. Obviously, because of this fact, the DVD releases of many live events of every other sports are not covered in their articles. Just take the Super Bowl for example. Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts on the issue. Cheers, Feed back ☎ 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I nicely asked the members of this project not to vote in each other's FLCs because it looks like vote stacking, and there you go again. An FLC that passes thanks only to project support isn't much of an accomplishment, is it? And don't give me that "nobody else wants to vote in professional wrestling related things" garbage, because eventually, there will always be enough votes for a pass or fail. I've been closing FLCs for six months and I've never had to fail one heading for promotion due to a lack of votes. What really makes me think that nobody really looked at it is the fact that it's not really a well formatted table - there's needless colour in the header, there's too much whitespace and there are citations in the header. -- Scorpion 0422 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)----
Anybody want to help with this page? Somebody kept adding unsourced info, and now keep trying to add different MySpace pages (first one that they claimed was Jeff's despite the fact that Matt has said on his official page that Jeff doesn't have one). Now they keep adding the MySpace page of something called "Itchweed" that Matt says Jeff is involved with. I don't think any should be listed since Jeff doesn't have a MySpace page, and the MySpace page of the Hardy Show can go on the Hardy Boyz page (if it isn't already there). TJ Spyke 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter is sent out tomorrow afternoon, make sure that you add all last minute things if you need to. I also put a suggestion in the "suggestions" section of the interview set-up page. Please go there and read my idea/thought. iMatthew ( talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on improving this article, and it's definitely much better than it was a few days ago. One of the big problems I have with wrestler biographies, though, is naming the sections. Could someone please look over the article quickly and recommend better names for the sections? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created a tabled look for the WWE Roster page in my sandbox. Please visit my sandbox and tell me what you like and what you don't like. Feed back ☎ 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, keep that format but group the indiviual rosters together ... Skitzo ( talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they are but while they still officially have it we should continue to separate the performers as such. Skitzo ( talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anybody second nominating this article for GA status? iMatthew ( talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Two recently-promoted featured lists, IWGP World Tag Team Championship and AJPW Triple Crown Championship, have gone against typical WP:PW policy by using large print in the notes section and (less importantly) making the table sortable. I don't think either of these is necessary, and frankly I think they make it look ugly. They were changed because of a concern from the voters during the nomination, and I certainly can't blame the nominator for implementing their wishes, but I'd just like to see what general consensus is in the project itself. -- MarcK 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently created article. I don't feel they are notable enough yet. Should we take it to AfD? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
When adding references to articles, is the name of the website supposed to be listed as the Work or Publisher? For example, with a match result from the Wrestling Information Archive, would Wrestling Information Archive be listed as the Work or Publisher? I've always listed it as the Work, but many people list it as publisher. Does it matter either way, or should be just be consistent in each article, regardless of which is used. Listing it as the Work puts it in italics, but listing it as the Publisher doesn't, so I've noticed that a few articles have a mix of the two. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have an opinion on listing the AWA World Title in Hulk Hogan's list of titles? I know we sometimes list "unofficial" title reigns (usually WWE going back and striking out title changes they want to ignore, like when the WCW Championship was held up after Flair and Steamboat double pinned each other at Spring Stampede 1994). However, the original AWA never recognized Hogan's title wins and neither does the WWE (which legally owns the rights to the AWA). The only ones who recognized the title wins are "AWA Superstars of Wrestling", a indy wrestling organization that does not legally have any say over the AWA or its history (WWE purchased all rights to the AWA from its legal owner Verne Gagne). So this is not a case of an organization deciding to alter history since Hogan was never recognized as AWA Champion. TJ Spyke 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter is supposed to go out today, but it doesn't list a Collaboration of the Week. I've been focusing on stub articles lately, so I'm out of the loop. Is Dusty Rhodes this week's collaboration? If so, can he be added to the newsletter? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I went through this article and added references. I'm not sold on the section headings that have been used, though. I don't know of any other aticles that have headings for each of the feuds. Should this all be combined into one section? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm.. ive read on "dirt sheet" sites that WM2010 will be in Phoenix, Arizona because some owner of an NHL team wore a WrestleMania shirt that has 2010 on it and "destruction in the desert", the image is here and the article is here Just thought I'd mention it so you can watch out if it get's created. TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok SS '07 is finally done. May someone go rate it. Thanx-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Might want to add WrestleMania XXVI, WrestleMania 26, and WrestleMania 2010 on your watchlists. [7] [8] Thanks to Wayne Gretzky and his apparent desire to have a 'Mania in Phoenix, expect to see trolls bombarding Wiki soon. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
08 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
Hi. I'm Adamaniac, a semi-dormant Wiki-editor, but I'm on holidays, got bored and found that the PW section of Wikipedia has finally pulled itself together and started improving the class of all its articles. I had a look at the PPV list and had a question for anoyne that could answer. I see that besides the WWE No Way Out article, there's the seperate articles for years (E.G. WWE No Way Out 2007). My question is relating to whether or not we are changing all past PPVs (such as Backlash 03, for example, because the Backlash PPV page is not divided into seperate year articles). An answer would be appreciated, as I can devote some time and effort into helping create and improve some of these articles. Thanks! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 14:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
indeed! P X K 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome back, guys :) Seeing as I'm allowed to choose, and I remember some events more clearly etc etc, I'll head up the New Years Revolution 2005 page to start with. Any help or advice, Davnel, would be greatly appreciated. I'm looking forward to helping the professional wrestling project here! Adamaniac Ad@maniac 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can a notice be sent to all WikiProject Pro Wrestling members with an announcement for them to add themselves to this list? Feed back ☎ 22:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Payne X Killer Here, I changed my username to my real name P X K 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm on it, I'm on it Jordan Morrison Payne 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Payne ( talk • contribs)
In a related matter, I, The Hybrid, have changed my signature to something no longer containing my actual user name. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 10:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
sexyseabass lol Feed back ☎ 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
well that just proved how crappy sinebot is Jordan Morrison Payne 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Mostly all bots are crappy. Feed back ☎ 16:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am going to nominate the above article at WP:GAN. Everything addressed in the article's peer review was discussed and improved. If there are any concerns and objections not discussed in the peer review, please comment in a time lapse of 2-3 days, before I nominate the article. Cheers, Feed back ☎ 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
User:KingMorpheus moved the Major Brothers to the The Edgeheads. I am unable to fix this, may someone fix it?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 20:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we work on this article and make it a Featured List? Feed back ☎ 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
this is a bad idea.it is adding nothing but is junk.
Davnel03 (
talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Striking comment by indef-blocked user.
Dav
nel
03
22:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out the discussion and my points here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Wrestling_Entertainment_roster#Citations
Approve, Disapprove, Comment about the project with the WWE Roster!
Comment Nikki there is already a source for the info at the bottom of the page, there isn't any need to cite each and every wrestler on the roster. Skitzo ( talk) 09:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
To Feedback: Like I have said many times before, if you need to provide individual citations for details such as injuries and positions for the other roles section go ahead. But inline citations for EVERY SINGLE superstar as has been done so far is not needed because as policy states, general references are to be used when it supports a significant amount of the information. Wikipedia does not want an article filled with 200 sources if they can be condensed down much easier. Doppy88 ( talk) 18:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay I do not approve of the Major Brothers being named as the Edge-heads, they are best known as the Major Brothers and the article should remain being named like that. This article should remain like the Dudley Boyz even though they are billed as Team 3D, and the New Age Outlaws as the V.K.M.
Poll
Yes, we've done it again. WWE No Way Out has been protected until January. The dispute is over whether or not to include the elimination chamber match right now, as there are now reliable sources stating that the match will occur. The opposition seems to be that it must be announced during the in-universe WWE storylines before it can be mentioned. One person also suggested that it shouldn't be mentioned because "plans might change". LOL! Mshake3 ( talk) 17:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with the protection user Mshake clearly does not have a clear understanding of the policy and the ec should not be added much like we dont add smackdown taping spoilers. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 17:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Dude tell me to to stfu ok you are the one who isnt listening ive stated several times that we are not allowed to put spoilers and we are not allowed to post stuff from shaky sources. You are trying to do both and you have a very bad attitude about as well. If you dont wanna participate and follow the rules then leave. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 17:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you fucking dense? what part of "Dont put matches untill announced on WWE tv or WWE.com" don't you understand? LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And its not on WWE.com so its not going in the article. Jesus Fn Christ. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually i was talking to you not gayvn. LifeStroke420 ( talk) 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else here think I'm an "ignorant newb". Seems like i'm heading towards WP:ANI.... Dav nel 03 20:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Two things, first of all the "fact" that WWE.com is the only reliable source is incorrect and claiming it is simply trying to overturn the previous spoilers debate by pushing the opinion that "dirt sheets" are always unreliable. The articles can simply state "the Wrestling Observer and the Pro Wrestling Insider have reported X is going to occur but WWE have not confirmed this as such." This is common across articles on all of wikipedia. The "don't post matches until WWE.com states them" is outdated and predates the RFC on spoilers that was overturned by the RFC.
Secondly there has been a ridiculous rise in incivility here and people better shape up before I need to start blocking people. It isn't even small things, I have seen several violations of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL in one thread on here alone. –– Lid( Talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You know, to everyone talking about dirtsheets.... I WASN'T CITING ONE! Mshake3 ( talk) 22:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple days later, the article still looks like shit, and the status quo is that "reliable sources" is on the same billing as "I don't like spoilers." G-A-H! Mshake3 ( talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
It repeatedly says "they were booked to defeat/get beaten by wrestler1 and wrestler2". This gives me the impression that one of them got injured and couldn't attend the match or something. Can't we reduce the amount of times it says this? It's bad on the same scale as Carlito's article saying Jim "Sandman" Fullington. If noone edits it in the next 30 minutes I'm gonna be bold. P X K 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Sign your posts Feedback. and by the way, It's because we don't need OMG WRESTLING IZ FAKEORZ !!!11one!!1eleven1!! waved in our face. It just looks bad to me to have the word booked about 50 times in the same para. P X K 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I respect that but you don't have to do it that many times. It gets into the reaches of annoying. I'll put a toned down version on my sandbox for approval once I'm done. P X K —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
is this any good? P X K 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, put the sections in order. For example, the PWU section says they started wrestling there in 2005, but the part about them leaving wrestling in 2004 comes after. Also, they started wrestling in ROH in 2002, but the PWG (which was founded in late 2003) section is before it. Same with NOAH coming before FIP. Nenog ( talk) 22:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, so nobody did anything to the article except Nenog reordering sections. Way to whine and complain without doing anything about it, everybody. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded the claims. They're back to being in-universe. Shall I also withdraw the good article nomination? Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 01:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been doing a lot of category sorting to do with the PPV expansion, as some PPVs have been put mistakenly in wrong categories. I've tried to standardise it. Anway, while doing this, I came across the following categories:
Are the categories really needed? Do we really need them? I was going to go ahead and CFD them, but wanted other opinions to do with these categories. Dav nel 03 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view, [1] [2] [3] with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view.....
I would stop short of calling it the worst pay-per-view of all time, but it's certainly among the worst. ECW as a brand is dead, and the WWE should definitely take notice that a sizable portion of their ECW fanbase is chanting "TNA" during a WWE PPV.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Worst PPV of the year:
Two shows are on my list for this category, one from November and one from December. Can you guess? Cyber Sunday and the ill-fated December to Dismember.
{{
cite web}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
For those of us who have had to sit through the slow and tortuous second death of ECW, though, it was to be expected. That sound at Sunday's awful December To Dismember show - between the crowd's chants of "where's my refund" and "bulls**t" - was the coffin being shut.
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Is that statement in bold, weasely? I personally think it isn't really, but Feedback thinks it is. The references are included, therefore I think the statement does not violate WP:WEASEL. Does anyone else think the statement is weasely, even with the references included? Dav nel 03 14:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
References to do not turn a weasel word into a concrete quantity. I read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words thoroughly to see if there was any exemption, and there is not. However, in the bottom paragraph of Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words#Improving weasel-worded statements, it says that instead of writing:
...it should be written:
The later suggests that the Yankees are a superlative baseball franchise, rather than simply the greatest baseball team in history. The idea is to let the readers draw their own conclusions about the Yankees' greatness based on the number of World Series the Yankees have won. Objectivity over subjectivity. Dispassion, not bias.
To apply this to your article:
Instead, you can find other ratings of the payperview and it can say:
Feed back ☎ 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Many fans had a negative reaction to the pay-per-view[weasel words],[46][47][48] with SLAM! Sports rating the pay-per-view 4 out of 10 stars, stating "the two matches that were promoted saved this thing from being a debacle."[1]
I have decided that I need a break from this page. A couple of project members are driving me crazy, and I will enjoy editing Wikipedia more if I put some distance between us. I find it sad that anyone would think that adding a rigid bureaucracy and attempting to control the administrative side of the project is the way to go. Aside from an ego trip, I see no need for pruning COTW articles early, archiving active discussions, making a big deal about which bot will archive discussions, calling for reassessment of all Featured Articles, needlessly criticizing well-sourced statements in Featured Articles, arguing with GA reviewers, and telling me that I'm not a good member unless I put my name on a pointless list. I'll continue to edit articles, but, for the next while, I'll stick to talk pages for contacting people. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions or concerns. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I too have been convinced to take a "break". Cheers, Feed back ☎ 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Goodness. I've been absent from this page for a couple of days, and apparently, all hell has broken loose. I definitely think a number of editors here should consider taking a few days off from this page to cool down. Nikki 311 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there some way that we can make the WWE Draft into seperate articles by year similar to the NFL Draft, NBA Draft, NHL Draft yearly drafts, like each year was written in similar format to those draft articles ? That way the WWE Draft can also have it's own category what are your opinions? -- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. It should be one table, and not split into multiple one-row tables. Here's what categories I would include: Overall Pick, Brand, Wrestler, Leaving Brand (2007 only), and Notes. The notes section can include things such as the matches used to win picks, any trades that occured right after the draft, releases prior to redebuting, etc. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I've finished expanded the article. All three sections need a bit of improvement, and copy-edit. I've done what I can with the sources I have. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 21:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding references and so on to the Shannon Moore article, and I'm looking for suggestions, help, etc, on how to improve it further. All help greatly appreciated. NiciVampireHeart ( talk) 00:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll help. I'll do some copy editing for you. I think my #1 suggestion, though, is to cut down the extremely long signature moves section. That thing is ridiculous. Also, I'm pretty sure Crash Holly wasn't his manager so much as his lackey. I'll remove that. Nikki 311 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You've done a good job so far. If you can take it out of universe, and add a few more references, as well as expanding the lead, you could (if you wish) nominate it for GA status. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This article has been vandalised multiple times over the past few days. The edits in question all have the same pattern but appear to be made by mulitiple anonamous IP addresses. Stephen Day ( talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think WCCW Parade of Champions and WCCW Parade of Champions results should be merged. Anybody else agree (and anybody who could do it, please do, I'm not sure how it works). Kris ( talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I merged them. Nikki 311 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, wat do i need in my browser or my computer to view Wikipedia tables because when I look at the WWE Draft Lottery tables they have white backgrounds and I know they are suppose to be red, blue, and purple.Help? (what do I neen ie.java,?) TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this one needs some work. I don't know who, but someone a while back "sourced" the article, but really only sourced the " Championships and accomplishments" section. There are 57 sources, only 5 of which aren't citing titles. Nenog ( talk) 07:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What the title says. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
COTW is in a huge mess. Sould I remove the nominations that are currently on the page, and start back at scratch. Virtually all of them seem like they would be pruned by now. Should we just let The Fabulous Moolah go on till this Sunday? Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 09:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So ive worked on the 2007 WWE Draft in my Sandbox. Go check it out and tell me if I should add/remove, or if you have comments for improvements, tell me here in this section. If nothing stands out, can I publish it?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
New article. Cheers, Dav nel 03 Sign It, Junior! 15:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never actually put an article up for deletion, so I don't know how to. Can somebody help me? Thanks. Hardyboyz27 ( talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I, and many other users have worked hard on this article over the past few months, do you think its good enough to nominate for GA?-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Feedback suggested I nominate the 2007 WWE Draft for FL status, you can find it here.-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on Sika Anoa'i's article, and I managed to find sources for almost everything. There is one title win, however, that has me confused. On June 1, 1973, The Samoans won the NWA Florida Tag Team Championship. Accoring to one source, this was Afa and Sika. According to a different source, however, this was Tio Tio and Reno Tufuuli. Does anyone know how to find out for sure? Should this be listed if the sources aren't clear? I've taken it off of Sika's article for now, but it's still in Afa's article as a sourced statement. Any suggestions? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hardyboyz27 here, I have changed my name to iMatthew. So that's how I will sign off in the future. iMatthew ( talk) 12:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Per Gavyn Sykes's invitation, I have added myself to the Members list and the appropriate icon to my user page, and hope to have an active presence here. :) ArcAngel ( talk) 21:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've placed it for peer review. You can comment here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for GA status, feel free to contribute to the article, or if you have comments, leave them here. Th@nX..-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest the above articles be merged into the normal title history pages of each championship. It's basically the same list, except sorted by reign length (which can be done with a sort table). Feed back ☎ 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not use the technique suggested in this conversation? Feed back ☎ 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
People keep changing the track listing (even though there is clear warnings not to), every few days. Not quite enough for page protection, and most of it is from random IP editors with little or no other edits. So posting a warning on their talk page probably wouldn't do much good. RobJ1981 ( talk) 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is currently a disagreement on how the roster should be setup: a prose, or the general list (which has always been on wrestling game articles, but there is no set rule that they must remain that way). The discussion is on the talk page. RobJ1981 ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
While there is no set rule for lists, it doesn't mean paragraphs need to be put in either. You know, A table wouldn't be bad. A list would still be awesome. But a paragraph? That's just crap right there. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to read. Not jumbled up, and making you forget in 3 seconds. Oh, and I started this debate anyways, so, Rob, you are easily outnumbered even on this page! Tech43 ( talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) The decision has been made to make a table instead of a list. Tech43 ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a list would do better after all. Tech43 ( talk) 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the DVD release is notable. Every single WWE PPV has been released on DVD, and none of the PPV articles include anything about DVD releases. The fact is that sporting events are produced mainly for the live audience, and are taped additionally for people who couldn't be there. Obviously, because of this fact, the DVD releases of many live events of every other sports are not covered in their articles. Just take the Super Bowl for example. Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts on the issue. Cheers, Feed back ☎ 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I nicely asked the members of this project not to vote in each other's FLCs because it looks like vote stacking, and there you go again. An FLC that passes thanks only to project support isn't much of an accomplishment, is it? And don't give me that "nobody else wants to vote in professional wrestling related things" garbage, because eventually, there will always be enough votes for a pass or fail. I've been closing FLCs for six months and I've never had to fail one heading for promotion due to a lack of votes. What really makes me think that nobody really looked at it is the fact that it's not really a well formatted table - there's needless colour in the header, there's too much whitespace and there are citations in the header. -- Scorpion 0422 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)----
Anybody want to help with this page? Somebody kept adding unsourced info, and now keep trying to add different MySpace pages (first one that they claimed was Jeff's despite the fact that Matt has said on his official page that Jeff doesn't have one). Now they keep adding the MySpace page of something called "Itchweed" that Matt says Jeff is involved with. I don't think any should be listed since Jeff doesn't have a MySpace page, and the MySpace page of the Hardy Show can go on the Hardy Boyz page (if it isn't already there). TJ Spyke 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter is sent out tomorrow afternoon, make sure that you add all last minute things if you need to. I also put a suggestion in the "suggestions" section of the interview set-up page. Please go there and read my idea/thought. iMatthew ( talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on improving this article, and it's definitely much better than it was a few days ago. One of the big problems I have with wrestler biographies, though, is naming the sections. Could someone please look over the article quickly and recommend better names for the sections? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have created a tabled look for the WWE Roster page in my sandbox. Please visit my sandbox and tell me what you like and what you don't like. Feed back ☎ 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, keep that format but group the indiviual rosters together ... Skitzo ( talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they are but while they still officially have it we should continue to separate the performers as such. Skitzo ( talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Would anybody second nominating this article for GA status? iMatthew ( talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Two recently-promoted featured lists, IWGP World Tag Team Championship and AJPW Triple Crown Championship, have gone against typical WP:PW policy by using large print in the notes section and (less importantly) making the table sortable. I don't think either of these is necessary, and frankly I think they make it look ugly. They were changed because of a concern from the voters during the nomination, and I certainly can't blame the nominator for implementing their wishes, but I'd just like to see what general consensus is in the project itself. -- MarcK 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently created article. I don't feel they are notable enough yet. Should we take it to AfD? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
When adding references to articles, is the name of the website supposed to be listed as the Work or Publisher? For example, with a match result from the Wrestling Information Archive, would Wrestling Information Archive be listed as the Work or Publisher? I've always listed it as the Work, but many people list it as publisher. Does it matter either way, or should be just be consistent in each article, regardless of which is used. Listing it as the Work puts it in italics, but listing it as the Publisher doesn't, so I've noticed that a few articles have a mix of the two. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have an opinion on listing the AWA World Title in Hulk Hogan's list of titles? I know we sometimes list "unofficial" title reigns (usually WWE going back and striking out title changes they want to ignore, like when the WCW Championship was held up after Flair and Steamboat double pinned each other at Spring Stampede 1994). However, the original AWA never recognized Hogan's title wins and neither does the WWE (which legally owns the rights to the AWA). The only ones who recognized the title wins are "AWA Superstars of Wrestling", a indy wrestling organization that does not legally have any say over the AWA or its history (WWE purchased all rights to the AWA from its legal owner Verne Gagne). So this is not a case of an organization deciding to alter history since Hogan was never recognized as AWA Champion. TJ Spyke 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The newsletter is supposed to go out today, but it doesn't list a Collaboration of the Week. I've been focusing on stub articles lately, so I'm out of the loop. Is Dusty Rhodes this week's collaboration? If so, can he be added to the newsletter? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I went through this article and added references. I'm not sold on the section headings that have been used, though. I don't know of any other aticles that have headings for each of the feuds. Should this all be combined into one section? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Umm.. ive read on "dirt sheet" sites that WM2010 will be in Phoenix, Arizona because some owner of an NHL team wore a WrestleMania shirt that has 2010 on it and "destruction in the desert", the image is here and the article is here Just thought I'd mention it so you can watch out if it get's created. TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok SS '07 is finally done. May someone go rate it. Thanx-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Might want to add WrestleMania XXVI, WrestleMania 26, and WrestleMania 2010 on your watchlists. [7] [8] Thanks to Wayne Gretzky and his apparent desire to have a 'Mania in Phoenix, expect to see trolls bombarding Wiki soon. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
08 (UTC)