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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
There are conflicting birth dates and years on her article. Can someone research this? I don't have outside internet access.
Also, please check several sources as she strikes me as the kind of shrew that would shave some years off her age. -- EndlessDan 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is wikipedia - not "Iliketoactlikeachildapedia" please be mindful of this. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that ThinkBlue, Truco9311, and I will be starting the expansion of Survivor Series (2002). Cheers, L A X 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This one seems easy to me, since the parent article to all this, which obviously would be Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling, was deleted as an uncontested PROD almost six months ago, that these all need to go as well. If someone cares to created Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling again, the matter may be different, but that category almost certainly has to go (it just has the two pages, what's the use?). I'll tackle it in the morning if no one else has, I'm off for now. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 10:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(1 e.c.) The process has been going on for a month now. We in the middle of December had 3237 articles; now we have 3264 articles, an increase of 27 articles. Out of them, 777 articles were identified as Stubs in the middle of December. That number is now at 706 a decrease of 71, which is obviously a good thing. As a result, at the start of the Stub Sorting we had 24.06% of our articles identified as stubs. As a result of recent expansions in different departments, now only 21.63% of our articles are stubs! Good work guys! D.M.N. ( talk) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Tommorrow is the delivery date for the next issue. Last week's edition still hasn't been released. Now that The Hybrid is on a wikibreak, nobody has proofread it (as far as I'm aware). What do we do? iMat thew 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because the Hybrid's away doesn't mean nobody else can proofread it. And *oh*, I didn't realize last week's issue wasn't released. Yes, merge into this week's issue. ;) The Chronic 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
See title. :) D.M.N. ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just come across this article. I believe the only thing she actually did was manage Kenzo Suzuki for the whole of here career. Therefore wouldn't it be better if this was only a short-start section in Kenzo's article. I'm suggesting we merge this into Kenzo's article. Opinions (I doubt it will expand upon its current length)? D.M.N. ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:No need to merge, I say just delete. Non-notable.
iMat
thew
20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Karen Angle was for ages merely a section in Kurt's article. This would seem an obvious merge. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As usual, I have no time to take care of the following myself. My real-life is taking up way too much of my Wikipedia time lately. Anyway, keep an eye out here as new User:Ajstyles_tna_roh has created a ton of new articles lately and few (if any) are notable enough to be kept, IMHO. He's been creating articles about African wrestling promotions and wrestlers, which I think we need more of, but only if there are indeed notable. None of the articles he has created establish notability, and because they are from Africa, my guess is that they probably can't. I've tagged a bunch with {{Pro-wrestling}} on the talk page (I'm not done yet), so don't be surprised if our number of stubs increases greatly within the next week or so. Nikki 311 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some people right now going through the Good Articles, checking to make sure everything still looks as good as it did when it was promoted and/or still conforms to the GA criteria. Someone just listed some problems with Sable's article on her talk page. If anybody wants to help fix the problems and keep the article a GA, that would be appreciated. :) Nikki 311 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deep Shadow and I want to nominate Torrie Wilson and Lisa Marie Varon over at WP:GAC. You know the drill. One week for all of y'all to look over them, copy edit, make suggestions, fix links, etc., and then we'll nominate them as GAs. Thanks. Nikki 311 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I am finally done OTE 99, I feel so proud..lol anyway...I have put it up for peer review here in hopes that it will become a future FA/GA Thanks.-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
See the title. D.M.N. ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to pocess enough material to be FL if the nessesary steps are taken (prose cleanup and referencing) these are a piece of cake seeing the small ammount of prose and the fact that I know were to find the refs, however before getting my hand involved in here I was wondering if the article needs to have the wrestler's real names to pass FLC, I have never worked with a wrestling list before and there are some issues that would make it very hard to find out the name of some of them, such as the fact that there are people here that worked on foreing or indy federations before begining their career in WWC, for instance has somebody ever heard of Alofa the Samoan tank? since they are listed by their ringnames when the result of the matches are announced I figured that they might not be a requisite, but the advice of the users that have worked with the varios FLs here is certainly welcome. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little lost. Is Issue 9 or 10 supposed to go out today? According to the newsletter page, it's Issue 9. Issue 9 says January 13, though, but it appears to be the current one. I understand that two issues are being merged because nothing went out last week, but can someone clarify which one will actually be sent out? I just checked the one that looked like it was for today (Issue 9) and saw that the information was out of date. I updated the Project News, AFDs and Stub Article discussion, but I'm now thinking that I might have added that to a newsletter that will never be sent out. Can someone tell me if ( Issue 9) or ( Issue 10) will be going out this week? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The date has been fixed, and misza13 has been notified. The Chronic 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that Kevin Steen and El Generico is not notable enough to warrant an article? Seperately, each worker does, but as a team? I don't think so. Kris ( talk) 03:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's bothered me for a while that I skipped this pay-per-view when I was expanding some of the 1994 events a while back (and yes, I still haven't gone back to do Survivor Series 1993, but that's next on the agenda). Anyhow, I expanded the article this weekend, and I'm fairly pleased with how it went. I know that a few people (myself included) have asked people to look over other articles already, but if anyone really feels like it, I'd appreciate it if they could take a quick glance at this article to see if there are any obvious problems. I'll put it up for peer review and give a week's notice when I plan to nominate it, but that won't be until a while after I nominate SummerSlam (1994) (which is currently up for Peer Review, as I plan to nominate it for a GA Review some time next week). Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just give it up. The wiki-powers that be have spoken, and I think it's highly unlikely that their minds will ever be changed.
Tromboneguy0186 (
talk)
00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? No, but that certainly seems to be the case here. Articles at various titles for Sky/Szantyr/Madison have been deleted something like 20 times and all three potential titles have been salted. Even now the deletion review "vote" is about 60/40 if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? What I'm saying is there are plenty of people who think that way, and their minds are notoriously hard to change. In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted Good luck. I don't think much of anything has changed. If there's an easier way to respond point-by-point (or maybe we should just not ask/say a hundred different things in one comment? :p ) please let me know. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an update on this - The review was positive, and a new article is up at Velvet Sky and other names directy. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft.
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feed back ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 ( talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AWWWWW!!!! I missed this... :( -- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there so much ego-boosting over the banning of this user? Mshake3 ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Hornetman is misunderstood. If he wouldn't need to be so afraid of being blocked every time he makes an edit, he may take Wikipedia seriously, and not make so much vandalism. In my opinion, the editor should be given another chance to becoming a good editor on Wikipedia, because you guys have to admit that he has done some constructive edits like the above. And because the blocks he keeps getting are "Indef Blocks", he has no "Time Out" Limit, so he has never been given the chance to actually think about what he's done. I think that if he apologizes to the sockpuppetry he was blocked for in the first place (i think it was that) to all his blocking editors, he should be given that 2nd chance. Feed back ☎ 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. ( talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.) Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason. I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent." LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just give it up. The wiki-powers that be have spoken, and I think it's highly unlikely that their minds will ever be changed.
Tromboneguy0186 (
talk)
00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? No, but that certainly seems to be the case here. Articles at various titles for Sky/Szantyr/Madison have been deleted something like 20 times and all three potential titles have been salted. Even now the deletion review "vote" is about 60/40 if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? What I'm saying is there are plenty of people who think that way, and their minds are notoriously hard to change. In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted Good luck. I don't think much of anything has changed. If there's an easier way to respond point-by-point (or maybe we should just not ask/say a hundred different things in one comment? :p ) please let me know. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an update on this - The review was positive, and a new article is up at Velvet Sky and other names directy. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft.
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feed back ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 ( talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AWWWWW!!!! I missed this... :( -- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there so much ego-boosting over the banning of this user? Mshake3 ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Hornetman is misunderstood. If he wouldn't need to be so afraid of being blocked every time he makes an edit, he may take Wikipedia seriously, and not make so much vandalism. In my opinion, the editor should be given another chance to becoming a good editor on Wikipedia, because you guys have to admit that he has done some constructive edits like the above. And because the blocks he keeps getting are "Indef Blocks", he has no "Time Out" Limit, so he has never been given the chance to actually think about what he's done. I think that if he apologizes to the sockpuppetry he was blocked for in the first place (i think it was that) to all his blocking editors, he should be given that 2nd chance. Feed back ☎ 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. ( talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.) Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason. I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent." LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can it be rated as a B class? does anyone know his birth date, I looked all over the web for it, but was unable to find it. -- TrU Co 9311 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently a former Wikipedia editor by the name of Chad Bryant edited on the wrestling wiki. Didn't he cause many problems? I can't remember for sure. He hasn't done anything bad yet on the wiki, but that doesn't mean he's changed. The link is: [1]. Also if anyone is willing to help out, let me know. Many deleted wrestling articles could be transwikied there. RobJ1981 ( talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone feel like a PROD? Nenog ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
it depends they could be doing a mickey whipwreck with him, getting him over by being the guy that ju8st keeps trying no matter how badly he gets battered, then giving him a big "upset" win. Skitzo ( talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now two articles from WWE stating Raw and Smackdown! will get new sets. I think we need a new consensuss to wether to add it or not. Article 1 Article 2 (part 1) Article 2 (part 2)-- 72.186.91.47 ( talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need a link on every wrestlers and tangentially related article. I've added it to the talk page template, can we take it of us less important articles now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdve ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I brought in the tables that were previously in the articles up for AFD (not the length one, though, that I find to be far too trivial). The article is somewhat large now, but not excessively massive (42-43 KB or so). What might still need a little work is the placement of the tables and the heading hierarchy - I just don't know. So, as I said, have a look at it and see what needs to be done. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
So according to his official website, Bobby Lashley is done with WWE. People have alreaqdy added this to his page, but I think the policy is to wait for official confirmation because this kinda looks like a hoax. Am I right, or is a forum post on his official website enough? -- Scorpion 0422 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the article for Feature Article status a couple of weeks ago. It received an Oppose vote yesterday because an editor had a few concerns. There are two statements that the editor added "Citation Needed" tags to, and I have been unable to find a source:
In addition, the editor was confused by what "Times" meant in the table, but I don't see that as a major concern. If anyone knows where we can find a reliable citation for these two items, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This really doesnt have to do with the project but my user page was vandalised for the FIRST time. So... where do I report this? Feed back ☎ 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If an ECW original won the ECW title under the WWE banner could that be used to complete the ECW triple crown? I ask this because it was on Rob Van Dams championship accomplishments under the WWE.-- TrU Co 9311 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Check this conversation. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Randy Dodge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Dodge. Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brandon Smith, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Smith. Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The following PPV articles have been declared "Up For Grabs" on the PPV Expansion page. Does anyone wish to completely expand the following articles:
Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How come there is absolutely no personal information, or information of Vader's football career? Kris ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly certain stuff was already in it, but it was removed. I don't know much about his personal life, that is why I came here. Kris ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
...I am starting up a thread here to see what all of you think about unblocking him. Please make your replies as cute and entertaining as possible so I don't feel like I've wasted my time. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If Im the said member, then I was blocked for sockpuppeting, but I never did make a sockpuppet. I told the blocking admin to use CheckUser to find out the IPs but he was afraid of being wrong and did not use it. He suspected sockpuppetry because a new user's only contribution was the AfD of an article I created. Feed back ☎ 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read my thread on an above section about why Hornetman does deserve a chance. Hey if Chavo got a chance at being world champion, I guess Hornetman can be unbanned [with constant supervision]. Feed back ☎ 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is this Hornetman? What'd he do? (link me to something maybe?) Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For the newbies who need to catch up, here's a little reading material for you: his indef ban discussion, his entry at the list of banned users, request for adminship 1, request for adminship 2, list of confirmed sockpuppets, list of suspected sockpuppets, and disruption on the media/images for deletion board. Plus, as his most recent sockpuppet, he vandalized my talk page. Clearly, he needs to stay gone because he hasn't learned his lesson. Nikki 311 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
HA! XD -- bulletproof 3:16 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a comment Hornetman wrote in July in his RFA
I uderstand the hothead I've been...I'm sorry and trying to prove I not evil but it's hard to do that when ya'll put me down the way you are. Is so much to give a chance. Give me a test for adminship. I do anything but wait months or even year. all I want is a chance! -- Hornetman16 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm a firm believer in that everyone deserves a second chance. However, I also believe that some old habits never change. You want to hear my opinion? Give Aaron his shot. Set some ground rules for the guy and make it crystal clear to him that he will be under a Zero-Tolerance policy and that this will be his final chance of making it here. Knowing Aaron, he'll probably do something stupid like troll around again and get be banned right on the spot again. BUT, but, but... At least his arrogant self can never... EEEEEEEEVER (couldn't resist) say that we were too self centered and butthole-ish to give him a chance. Again, he'll probably do something stupid and get banned again but we should at least let him try to prove us wrong. (Or prove us right...) Just my 2 cents. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'll discuss this matter thoroughly with him. Hybrid, I'll keep you posted. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Don't give him a chance. But you guys must know, that you provoked his behavior. You always talked down to him and never really believed he changed, and that is why he reverted to his bad behavior many times before. I believe it was a small violation of WP:BITE that wne unnoticed caused him to feel unwelcome and he started thinking wrong about Wikipedia, so he began damaging it. The only reason you guys don't want to unblock him is because you don't think the monster you have spawn can change. Feed back ☎ 10:59, 24 January 2008 (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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
There are conflicting birth dates and years on her article. Can someone research this? I don't have outside internet access.
Also, please check several sources as she strikes me as the kind of shrew that would shave some years off her age. -- EndlessDan 15:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This is wikipedia - not "Iliketoactlikeachildapedia" please be mindful of this. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that ThinkBlue, Truco9311, and I will be starting the expansion of Survivor Series (2002). Cheers, L A X 01:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
This one seems easy to me, since the parent article to all this, which obviously would be Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling, was deleted as an uncontested PROD almost six months ago, that these all need to go as well. If someone cares to created Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling again, the matter may be different, but that category almost certainly has to go (it just has the two pages, what's the use?). I'll tackle it in the morning if no one else has, I'm off for now. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 10:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(1 e.c.) The process has been going on for a month now. We in the middle of December had 3237 articles; now we have 3264 articles, an increase of 27 articles. Out of them, 777 articles were identified as Stubs in the middle of December. That number is now at 706 a decrease of 71, which is obviously a good thing. As a result, at the start of the Stub Sorting we had 24.06% of our articles identified as stubs. As a result of recent expansions in different departments, now only 21.63% of our articles are stubs! Good work guys! D.M.N. ( talk) 10:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Tommorrow is the delivery date for the next issue. Last week's edition still hasn't been released. Now that The Hybrid is on a wikibreak, nobody has proofread it (as far as I'm aware). What do we do? iMat thew 13:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because the Hybrid's away doesn't mean nobody else can proofread it. And *oh*, I didn't realize last week's issue wasn't released. Yes, merge into this week's issue. ;) The Chronic 17:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
See title. :) D.M.N. ( talk) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Just come across this article. I believe the only thing she actually did was manage Kenzo Suzuki for the whole of here career. Therefore wouldn't it be better if this was only a short-start section in Kenzo's article. I'm suggesting we merge this into Kenzo's article. Opinions (I doubt it will expand upon its current length)? D.M.N. ( talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
:No need to merge, I say just delete. Non-notable.
iMat
thew
20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Karen Angle was for ages merely a section in Kurt's article. This would seem an obvious merge. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
As usual, I have no time to take care of the following myself. My real-life is taking up way too much of my Wikipedia time lately. Anyway, keep an eye out here as new User:Ajstyles_tna_roh has created a ton of new articles lately and few (if any) are notable enough to be kept, IMHO. He's been creating articles about African wrestling promotions and wrestlers, which I think we need more of, but only if there are indeed notable. None of the articles he has created establish notability, and because they are from Africa, my guess is that they probably can't. I've tagged a bunch with {{Pro-wrestling}} on the talk page (I'm not done yet), so don't be surprised if our number of stubs increases greatly within the next week or so. Nikki 311 20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some people right now going through the Good Articles, checking to make sure everything still looks as good as it did when it was promoted and/or still conforms to the GA criteria. Someone just listed some problems with Sable's article on her talk page. If anybody wants to help fix the problems and keep the article a GA, that would be appreciated. :) Nikki 311 03:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Deep Shadow and I want to nominate Torrie Wilson and Lisa Marie Varon over at WP:GAC. You know the drill. One week for all of y'all to look over them, copy edit, make suggestions, fix links, etc., and then we'll nominate them as GAs. Thanks. Nikki 311 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I am finally done OTE 99, I feel so proud..lol anyway...I have put it up for peer review here in hopes that it will become a future FA/GA Thanks.-- TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
See the title. D.M.N. ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This article seems to pocess enough material to be FL if the nessesary steps are taken (prose cleanup and referencing) these are a piece of cake seeing the small ammount of prose and the fact that I know were to find the refs, however before getting my hand involved in here I was wondering if the article needs to have the wrestler's real names to pass FLC, I have never worked with a wrestling list before and there are some issues that would make it very hard to find out the name of some of them, such as the fact that there are people here that worked on foreing or indy federations before begining their career in WWC, for instance has somebody ever heard of Alofa the Samoan tank? since they are listed by their ringnames when the result of the matches are announced I figured that they might not be a requisite, but the advice of the users that have worked with the varios FLs here is certainly welcome. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little lost. Is Issue 9 or 10 supposed to go out today? According to the newsletter page, it's Issue 9. Issue 9 says January 13, though, but it appears to be the current one. I understand that two issues are being merged because nothing went out last week, but can someone clarify which one will actually be sent out? I just checked the one that looked like it was for today (Issue 9) and saw that the information was out of date. I updated the Project News, AFDs and Stub Article discussion, but I'm now thinking that I might have added that to a newsletter that will never be sent out. Can someone tell me if ( Issue 9) or ( Issue 10) will be going out this week? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The date has been fixed, and misza13 has been notified. The Chronic 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that Kevin Steen and El Generico is not notable enough to warrant an article? Seperately, each worker does, but as a team? I don't think so. Kris ( talk) 03:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's bothered me for a while that I skipped this pay-per-view when I was expanding some of the 1994 events a while back (and yes, I still haven't gone back to do Survivor Series 1993, but that's next on the agenda). Anyhow, I expanded the article this weekend, and I'm fairly pleased with how it went. I know that a few people (myself included) have asked people to look over other articles already, but if anyone really feels like it, I'd appreciate it if they could take a quick glance at this article to see if there are any obvious problems. I'll put it up for peer review and give a week's notice when I plan to nominate it, but that won't be until a while after I nominate SummerSlam (1994) (which is currently up for Peer Review, as I plan to nominate it for a GA Review some time next week). Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just give it up. The wiki-powers that be have spoken, and I think it's highly unlikely that their minds will ever be changed.
Tromboneguy0186 (
talk)
00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? No, but that certainly seems to be the case here. Articles at various titles for Sky/Szantyr/Madison have been deleted something like 20 times and all three potential titles have been salted. Even now the deletion review "vote" is about 60/40 if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? What I'm saying is there are plenty of people who think that way, and their minds are notoriously hard to change. In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted Good luck. I don't think much of anything has changed. If there's an easier way to respond point-by-point (or maybe we should just not ask/say a hundred different things in one comment? :p ) please let me know. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an update on this - The review was positive, and a new article is up at Velvet Sky and other names directy. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft.
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feed back ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 ( talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AWWWWW!!!! I missed this... :( -- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there so much ego-boosting over the banning of this user? Mshake3 ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Hornetman is misunderstood. If he wouldn't need to be so afraid of being blocked every time he makes an edit, he may take Wikipedia seriously, and not make so much vandalism. In my opinion, the editor should be given another chance to becoming a good editor on Wikipedia, because you guys have to admit that he has done some constructive edits like the above. And because the blocks he keeps getting are "Indef Blocks", he has no "Time Out" Limit, so he has never been given the chance to actually think about what he's done. I think that if he apologizes to the sockpuppetry he was blocked for in the first place (i think it was that) to all his blocking editors, he should be given that 2nd chance. Feed back ☎ 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. ( talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.) Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason. I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent." LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering, cause she's been wrestling for quite a while, yet her page hasn't been made yet, and she's on TNA's roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBoy ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just give it up. The wiki-powers that be have spoken, and I think it's highly unlikely that their minds will ever be changed.
Tromboneguy0186 (
talk)
00:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Why give it up? Are you saying that people can't ever achieve notability with time? No, but that certainly seems to be the case here. Articles at various titles for Sky/Szantyr/Madison have been deleted something like 20 times and all three potential titles have been salted. Even now the deletion review "vote" is about 60/40 if they don't instantly have it they'll never have it? What I'm saying is there are plenty of people who think that way, and their minds are notoriously hard to change. In this case I think a good argument can be made that she is now notable unlike when the article was initially deleted Good luck. I don't think much of anything has changed. If there's an easier way to respond point-by-point (or maybe we should just not ask/say a hundred different things in one comment? :p ) please let me know. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just an update on this - The review was positive, and a new article is up at Velvet Sky and other names directy. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the "Background" section for WrestleMania 23 and am coming across a problem that the section maybe seen as too long. Therefore, I think we should move the whole Background section to WrestleMania 23 build-up (can anyone think of an alternative??) and just have the main 3-4 feuds outlined on the main WrestleMania 23 page. In my view its beginning to get a tad too long. Opinions? (I would of posted this on the WrestleMania 23 talkapge, but I'd rather have a wider consensus from the project.) D.M.N. ( talk) 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are all the pictures in WrestleMania 23 really needed? Pictures of Stone Cold, Bobby Lashley and John Cena which aren't from the event are there. I think that the reader does not need to see the face of these wrestlers while reading the article, because if they don't know who the wrestler is, the wikilink is right there. And each of Stone Cold, Lashley and Cena's articles have enough pictures to satisfy the reader. The pictures of The Undertaker and the world championship and Kennedy winning the MitB are useful, and depict two big moments in the event, while the others are just image cruft.
On a side note, I think you should get a picture of McMahon being shaved, the interaction between Trump and McMahon, or of his head shaved, because this was like "the biggest moment" of the night and a very notable moment in WWE history which will be remembered forever. Feed back ☎ 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
hi! I would like to introduce myself. My name is Florida16, and I hope you all will accept me into this community. Please do not block me as some puppet or something. BYE! Florida16 ( talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
AWWWWW!!!! I missed this... :( -- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is there so much ego-boosting over the banning of this user? Mshake3 ( talk) 18:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Hornetman is misunderstood. If he wouldn't need to be so afraid of being blocked every time he makes an edit, he may take Wikipedia seriously, and not make so much vandalism. In my opinion, the editor should be given another chance to becoming a good editor on Wikipedia, because you guys have to admit that he has done some constructive edits like the above. And because the blocks he keeps getting are "Indef Blocks", he has no "Time Out" Limit, so he has never been given the chance to actually think about what he's done. I think that if he apologizes to the sockpuppetry he was blocked for in the first place (i think it was that) to all his blocking editors, he should be given that 2nd chance. Feed back ☎ 23:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you guys know that this article at long last has been created, therefore unsalted! :) D.M.N. ( talk) 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wanted to let you guys know that Unforgiven '04 has been nominated for GA status and wanted to see if you guys can check to see if everything is in place. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I wil be creating this article, with my book Death of WCW as a source. EWC Champion ( talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
...that we now have over 50 PPV articles fully expanded! I think we need to give ourselves a big pat on the back! (Side note: I'm expanding Survivor Series (2003)) D.M.N. ( talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Paul Wight has signed with the WWE, and it is listed in his article (sourced.) Someone also placed it in the wwe roster page, but it was removed as a spoiler, which we know is not a valid reason. I was wondering, should we place him in a category, maybe called "Unassigned Talent." LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't ask me for details, but as of yesterday it is very important that I be informed personally if Hornetman creates another sockpuppet on here. There is a real chance that he's gone for real now, but it is imperative I be informed if he returns. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 02:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Can it be rated as a B class? does anyone know his birth date, I looked all over the web for it, but was unable to find it. -- TrU Co 9311 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently a former Wikipedia editor by the name of Chad Bryant edited on the wrestling wiki. Didn't he cause many problems? I can't remember for sure. He hasn't done anything bad yet on the wiki, but that doesn't mean he's changed. The link is: [1]. Also if anyone is willing to help out, let me know. Many deleted wrestling articles could be transwikied there. RobJ1981 ( talk) 06:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone feel like a PROD? Nenog ( talk) 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
it depends they could be doing a mickey whipwreck with him, getting him over by being the guy that ju8st keeps trying no matter how badly he gets battered, then giving him a big "upset" win. Skitzo ( talk) 12:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now two articles from WWE stating Raw and Smackdown! will get new sets. I think we need a new consensuss to wether to add it or not. Article 1 Article 2 (part 1) Article 2 (part 2)-- 72.186.91.47 ( talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't need a link on every wrestlers and tangentially related article. I've added it to the talk page template, can we take it of us less important articles now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdve ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I brought in the tables that were previously in the articles up for AFD (not the length one, though, that I find to be far too trivial). The article is somewhat large now, but not excessively massive (42-43 KB or so). What might still need a little work is the placement of the tables and the heading hierarchy - I just don't know. So, as I said, have a look at it and see what needs to be done. Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 10:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
PWI World Titles
Number of world title reigns
Footnotesa WWE recognizes Flair's 10th reign in 1993, unlike PWI. PWI recognizes one of his reigns from the 80s, unlike WWE. His 8th NWA reign and 1st WCW reign are considered by both PWI and WWE as one single reign. [3] b Angle also had a title reign in TNA from May 13 and May 14, 2007, between the time NWA regained control of the NWA World Title and when TNA crowned its first champion (Angle, himself). This reign is not officially claimed in the title history of either organization. It is unclear which title PWI will group this reign with, if they recognize it at all. |
So according to his official website, Bobby Lashley is done with WWE. People have alreaqdy added this to his page, but I think the policy is to wait for official confirmation because this kinda looks like a hoax. Am I right, or is a forum post on his official website enough? -- Scorpion 0422 16:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the article for Feature Article status a couple of weeks ago. It received an Oppose vote yesterday because an editor had a few concerns. There are two statements that the editor added "Citation Needed" tags to, and I have been unable to find a source:
In addition, the editor was confused by what "Times" meant in the table, but I don't see that as a major concern. If anyone knows where we can find a reliable citation for these two items, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This really doesnt have to do with the project but my user page was vandalised for the FIRST time. So... where do I report this? Feed back ☎ 23:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If an ECW original won the ECW title under the WWE banner could that be used to complete the ECW triple crown? I ask this because it was on Rob Van Dams championship accomplishments under the WWE.-- TrU Co 9311 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Check this conversation. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 20:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Randy Dodge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Dodge. Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Brandon Smith, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Smith. Thank you. EndlessDan 21:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The following PPV articles have been declared "Up For Grabs" on the PPV Expansion page. Does anyone wish to completely expand the following articles:
Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 10:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How come there is absolutely no personal information, or information of Vader's football career? Kris ( talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly certain stuff was already in it, but it was removed. I don't know much about his personal life, that is why I came here. Kris ( talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
...I am starting up a thread here to see what all of you think about unblocking him. Please make your replies as cute and entertaining as possible so I don't feel like I've wasted my time. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If Im the said member, then I was blocked for sockpuppeting, but I never did make a sockpuppet. I told the blocking admin to use CheckUser to find out the IPs but he was afraid of being wrong and did not use it. He suspected sockpuppetry because a new user's only contribution was the AfD of an article I created. Feed back ☎ 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read my thread on an above section about why Hornetman does deserve a chance. Hey if Chavo got a chance at being world champion, I guess Hornetman can be unbanned [with constant supervision]. Feed back ☎ 00:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Who is this Hornetman? What'd he do? (link me to something maybe?) Tromboneguy0186 ( talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For the newbies who need to catch up, here's a little reading material for you: his indef ban discussion, his entry at the list of banned users, request for adminship 1, request for adminship 2, list of confirmed sockpuppets, list of suspected sockpuppets, and disruption on the media/images for deletion board. Plus, as his most recent sockpuppet, he vandalized my talk page. Clearly, he needs to stay gone because he hasn't learned his lesson. Nikki 311 02:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
HA! XD -- bulletproof 3:16 03:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a comment Hornetman wrote in July in his RFA
I uderstand the hothead I've been...I'm sorry and trying to prove I not evil but it's hard to do that when ya'll put me down the way you are. Is so much to give a chance. Give me a test for adminship. I do anything but wait months or even year. all I want is a chance! -- Hornetman16 05:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm a firm believer in that everyone deserves a second chance. However, I also believe that some old habits never change. You want to hear my opinion? Give Aaron his shot. Set some ground rules for the guy and make it crystal clear to him that he will be under a Zero-Tolerance policy and that this will be his final chance of making it here. Knowing Aaron, he'll probably do something stupid like troll around again and get be banned right on the spot again. BUT, but, but... At least his arrogant self can never... EEEEEEEEVER (couldn't resist) say that we were too self centered and butthole-ish to give him a chance. Again, he'll probably do something stupid and get banned again but we should at least let him try to prove us wrong. (Or prove us right...) Just my 2 cents. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'll discuss this matter thoroughly with him. Hybrid, I'll keep you posted. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Don't give him a chance. But you guys must know, that you provoked his behavior. You always talked down to him and never really believed he changed, and that is why he reverted to his bad behavior many times before. I believe it was a small violation of WP:BITE that wne unnoticed caused him to feel unwelcome and he started thinking wrong about Wikipedia, so he began damaging it. The only reason you guys don't want to unblock him is because you don't think the monster you have spawn can change. Feed back ☎ 10:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)