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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
I need a proper consensus on this, so it can be implied in all PPV articles. The examples below are from the Survivor Series (2003) article:
Current Version (not italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....
Other Possibility (italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....
Current Version (italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.
Other Possibility (not italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.
Which should we be using for both examples? I thought we always have to put TV shows (note to self: ONLY TV shows, PPVs stay always in normal font) in italics, eg. RAW, SmackDown!, ECW, iMPACT. Could someone clear the above up for me? Cheers, D.M.N. ( talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify:
Correct usage - However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of Raw... (in this case the name is italicized because it refers to the TV show. "edition of...")
Correct usage - At the previous Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven... (in this case the name is NOT italicized because pay-per-view refers to the brand. It is a brand pay-per-view)
Correct usage - Following this, Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff reactivated...(in this case the name is NOT italicized because it refers to the brand. You have to keep in mind that in storyline a General Manager is not just responsible for the TV show, but the brand entirely)
The thing you have to remember here is that the shows on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday are not brands. They are just that, TV shows. The brand extension implied that Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW would run as if each were their own different promotion, therefore the TV shows each week are just the promotions' TV shows, a small portion of a brand as a whole and not a sole representation of a brand. Just like a promotion, brands host their own house shows, PPVs, etc., have their own roster, and have a boss that runs it all.
A pay-per-view is hosted by a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven" and NOT "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven".
A wrestler belongs to a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Therefore, the correct usage would be " Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!" and NOT " Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!".
A General Manager isn't just in charge of a show,(Raw) but the brand entirely(Raw). Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff" and NOT "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff".
You really have to think hard about this one. To simplify things, unless it says something like "On the December 10 edition of..." or "last week on..." italics aren't used. Hope this helps. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous edits on Joe's Page, on WWE roster page, on TNA roster page, that he has been released from his contract and signed with wwe. I see no source and have reverted, but I am also requesting protection as I dont want to break 3rr. Your help is appreciated. If you find sourced info, that would help. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note that The Pit Bulls (Jamie Noble and Kid Kash) was nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know a few people (myself included) have asked if the winners of these awards are listed online everywhere, but we've never been able to find them. I am pleased to announce that such a list does, in fact, exist. The lists can be seen here. It's a German site (that I've actually found very useful in the past), but all of the award lists are in English. Hope this helps, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I worked on FMW World Street Fight 6-Man Tag Team Championship today, as it wasn't even in a list format. I just finished fixing up the article, but now I noticed that part of the information is repeated in FMW/WEW Six-Man Tag Team Championship. After the first title was retired, it was replaced with another one. The article I was working on lists both titles, but FMW/WEW page only lists the second title. I was wondering how to approach this. Should these be merged or split into two articles? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok usually when a title is vacated in WWE it only lasts about 2 months, but this title has been vacated for almost 5 months. Currently we read the status as Inactive-Status unknown, and for a title to be vacated for that long really is "vacation", that just really is a way to let go of a title. Can we change the wording in the article to past tense i.e The CW title "was" a ...? I mean don't you think this championship is defunct? It hasn't been mention on SmackDown! since September..-- TrU Co 9311 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but all of a sudden the little flag icons have started screwing up wrestlers infoboxes (here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Johnny_Devine&oldid=186916200). So if you see an article with a messed-up infobox, try removing the flag and that should fix it. TJ Spyke 08:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to merging the twelve pages at [Category:Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships] into one page? All of the titles have between one and four champions (most have one). It seems like an unnecesary collection of stub articles that cannot be expanded on their own. If we combine them, it seems like creating a page list Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships (it would be a lowercase "c", right?) would be the way to go, as the current article on the UWF is already a fairly lengthy collection of information. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking this for the WWE article, I think it is very well built and to the point, easy to read and very accurate and informal. If this is the right place to ask it, can we open this for disccusion??? If this isn't the right place to ask if the WWE article can become a FA or GA can someone link me to the right page?? I was sent here by TJ Spike. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 15:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just nominated it and I did what the instructuions said at the top of the page. So that edit is helpful, it is doing what the instructions said at the top of the FA page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a mistake, sorry. We will see on the FA page if people want it as a FA, ok??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't want it nominated, don't say we, you have no right to speak for other people. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then. Well all of the items on the WWE page can be sourced by something on WWE.com. I guess what your saying to me is that I don't know a FA when I see it. I read the FA criteria multiple times and I guees I'm the only one who thinks it should be a FA. W/e, I guess it is 1 vs 100 now. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. Why don't some of us add more sources to the article. Like I said before, mostly everything in that article can be sourced by WWE.com. Can someone remove the canidate of the FA canidate page, I don't know how. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It has over 180 sources and well written do any of you agree. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to disrupt the project. I am serious about the Shawn article. It is a very good article, with over 180 sources. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, I didn't know I had to come here first before I nominated. I know it is a distruption, you told me before, I didn't do it on purpose. What does COTM stand for??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Will someone withdraw the WWE one, please. And can we continue on the discussion on whether the Shawn Michaels article should be FA and stop ripping on me for making a mistake??? So your saying COTM meens the WP:PW people will work on it to mkae it become FA status??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets continue talking on wether it should be an FA or not. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the double-post. Ttne someone should add that to his article, you know, mention that he is not on any of the roster pages anymore on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
May I help improving the article so it can become an FA. Do I have to join the COTM or be a member of the WP:PW project??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Great Khali article has just been moved to Dalip Rana. As I cannot see any reason anywhere for this; should I revert? D.M.N. ( talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can this article be promoted from Start-Class to B? iMat thew 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status this week. I opened a peer review 9 days ago, but the only feedback has been the standard automated review. I know people are busy (I haven't had a chance to respond to a Peer Review in a while), but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could look it over. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion here. NiciVampireHeart ( talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a current discussion about using tables for the Roster here is the discussion.-- TrU Co 9311 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know why the WrestleCrap article is so protected?-- Bedford 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to adding a reference to an article, is there any limit to a site? I ask this because when I added the Jericho-JBL feud to the Background subsection, I only added sources from wwe.com. Also, one of my sources was already sourced earlier in the article; In this situation, do you keep the second source or not? Also, since I am only use to wwe.com, I never really heard of these other wresting websites, does anybody know what happened to their older articles? In fact, the reference that is titled "Time on Rey's side" does not even link to an page; wwe.com states that the page cannot be found. JediYoda1120 ( talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Should his article be considered under the scope of this project? I was thinking about adding the template, but I figured I'd ask here first. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This week's collaboration of the week is Shawn Michaels. Now, I've added the (current COTW) tag to Michaels page, and the (previous COTW) tag to Ricky's page. I know that a lot more things need to be updated, but I've never done this before. Can somebody update the COTW nomination page please. Thanks! iMat thew 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could help in the process of expanding PPV articles into their own, by year, with a written article? If yes, would it be already if I did any of the PPVs of WCW from late 1999 to 2000 and the WWF from late 1999 to early 2002? Also, how do I create a page? JediYoda1120 ( talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you not wishing to be *spoiled* may wish to avoid Wikipedia for over a week next week, as WWE is heavily adjusting their taping schedule [1]:
This is advanced warning for those not wishing to get spoiled. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Jillian Hall albums for deletion. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a poll going on at the WWE Roster page. Please, please go and place your votes. The poll will close on Monday February 4. iMat thew 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am leaning up the article a little, and in the info box, it says one of his ring names was Chris Canyon. Obviously, I remember chris canyon/kanyon of WCW days, but I don't remember that ever being an early ring name of King Kong Bundy (but I just am not sure, maybe thats why Canyon used that name?) does anyone know, I don't have external internet access to check that right now... thanks LessThanClippers ( talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I Posted this on the Royal Rumble 2008 page but realized this could work for all Rumbles, and I really like the idea. I am proposing the use of sortable tables on Rumble pages so that we can easily look at elimination order, who spent the longest in the match, or sort by elimianted by, so you can see how many were eliminated by a certain wrestler. I have made a table for the 2008 rumble as an example, you can see it at User talk:LessThanClippers/royalryrumbletable LessThanClippers ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I love the overwhelmign support. It shouldn't be that hard, I did some copy and pasting from the old table and another table I found, so now it should be easy. I'm gonna go ahead and make the change on 2008 and start working backwards. LessThanClippers ( talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK second question -
To make the time sortable, I had to put a 0 in front of single digit minute enterances. On 2006 rumble I am now running into the issue that 2 wrestlers lasted over an hour. They currently are listed as 1:09:23 would you rather i do 0:08:00 for an 8 minute wrestler, and 0:23:22 for a 23 minute wrestler, or should I change the 1:09:23 to 69:23. I prefer the 69:23.
LessThanClippers (
talk)
00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
{{sort}}
, like we do at
WP:PW/PPV? Cheers,
L
A
X
01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oops, noticed I have to fix the sorting again, i will work on it. LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) In order to reverse look up entrants (from 30 to 1) or eliminations from 29 to 1. I need to set the single digit entrance and eliminations as 01 to 09. Unless someone knows a command. I will change this to the 4 i have already done, and then I will work in talk space until I have the answers to the others. Thanks LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Status update ---- I am through 2004 and leaving work for the day. Will probably finish tomorrow. LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that on my talk page and start replacing the tables. LessThanClippers ( talk) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
{In General) Can these articles be well sourced and nominated for FL status?-- TrU Co 9311 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a better idea is to merge them into a List of professional wrestling cage matches, including the cage match variations from the List of professional wrestling match types. There was talk on the latter's talk page about it, but nothing ever happened. The list of matches in both Elimination chamber and Hell in a Cell are more listcruft than FL material, IMHO. Nikki 311 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Shazza keeps adding a second Elimination Chamber match scheduled for No Way Out featuring SmackDown! talent only. Anyone care to help?-- bulletproof 3:16 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? this article has so many problems that would keep it from being a Good Article I mean I can see 10-15 things right now I'd point out if I was reviewing it. I mean it's whomever put it up for GA's decission and all but personally I think it needs a lot of work. MPJ-DK ( talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of time to fix whatever problems you see. It is pretty far down in the never-ending list of sports-related GACs. List the problems on the article's talk page, and I'm sure they will be taken care of. Nikki 311 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The protection is off, and the vandals are back. I have requested blocking of the main vandal, as well as requested full protection. I am out of reverts, can someone help me keep an eye on this? LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been bugging me for awhile, but there are no sources for what channels RAW/SmackDown/ECW air on in international markets. People will add a country and a TV station without any source provided. I will put citation tags for now, how long before we just remove those that don't have a source? TJ Spyke 06:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason it's never being sent out anymore? This is an problem every week, as it is never sent out on time. What's going on with it. iMat thew 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Two questions:
This poll is to determine whether we should keep the newsletter weekly, or we should have it be issued monthly or every two weeks, that way we can avoid future delivery/delayed problems. This poll will close on February 8 2008.
There are still two polls going on at here about the format of the WWE Roster page. Format (Tables/Normal) and Citations (Yes/No). iMat thew 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
for a couple of months now i have seen spoilers on wikipedia. isnt there a rule against spoilers until theyre announced? Baseball16 ( talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry if im posting this on the wrong page, but can someone put the wrestling userbox on my page. I have been trying to do it for a while now. Baseball16 ( talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Any chance that we could get an update on the article ratings? I'd update it myself if I understood how, but I'd really like to see how things have changed this week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
After several months of procrastinating, I finally (re-)created an article that seemed like a notable absence. LeDuc once again has a Wikipedia article. With that said, the other articles that I've been thinking about creating for a while are the Brawl to End it All and the War to Settle the Score. Would these be notable enough to have their own articles? GaryColemanFan ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
User:CactusJack1234567 and User:CactusJack12345678 are two usernames being used by one person. This user is constantly vandalizing the WWE Roster page. Where does this need to be reported? iMat thew 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, the edits look fine to me. What's the problem? Mshake3 ( talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Do we need articles for every single one of them shows. I'm pretty sure some, for instance WWF Friday Night's Main Event should be deleted, while others could be merged. Do others agree, that some of the articles located in the template should be deleted/merged? D.M.N. ( talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects in the next couple of days....I'll get started on it. Nikki 311 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I've started the merging. I'm only going to merge the stub articles and add {{main}} tags for the articles with sufficient info to be a separate article. Nikki 311 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We can put to rest that the term "Fatal Four Way" does not use the hyphen. ( See here) Feed back ☎ 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the original newsletter took up too much space on our talk pages (in length). So I took the liberty to have the newsletter have the show/hide feature. Do you like the new format? -- TrU Co 9311 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The newsletter is finished. Issue 10 is ready to be released, so I will be leaving Misza13 a message. Based on the poll above, the newsletter will now be released on an "Every other week" basis. The dates have been updated. The next issue will be released on February 17. iMat thew 20 08 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...to read this. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this on 4/5 talkpages but I'll post it here to. Just a quick note that I'll be on a break till the end of the week, so any requests for help or any questions (e.g. "When are you going to finish.....") will be ignored. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see here. Opinions are welcome. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm slowly making a return to Wikipedia with a help out by expanding the WrestleMania X-Seven article and I just have a query about the infobox image. All of the other pay-per-view articles feature the show's poster except for the WrestleMania which show the logos. Is there any reason as to why this is different? -- Oakster Talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the talk page I was suprised to see it listed as low importance. The NWO and D-X are jointly responsible for the change in pro wrestling. D-X was one of the biggest players in the attitude era, and I think should at least be considered a medium, especially if NWO is a high. Thoughts? LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has definately been a chance for me to learn a bunch of wiki codes. Here is the update. I am done with Royal Rumble 1988 and 1989, and thought I was done with 08,07,and 06 but I have decided to make a few changes. I now have the winner listed as before, but sorting as 30 so he shows at the top or bottom of the list (already corrected in 88 and 89. here are some questions though. What type of sorting conventions should we be using for names. Sort by first so its easy to read, or by last, the more proper, and in cases of The, should we sort by the first word like sort The Undertaker by The or by Undertaker. And What about guys whose ringname includes a nickname, like Big John Stud. Obviously you would sort by John Stud by Stud, but as Big John Stud I would say by big. I personally think we should sort all names by first names, but skipping "the". Opinions? Has there already been consensus on this? LessThanClippers ( talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the sorting of the 2008 royal rumble. When you sort by time in the match from less to most, John Cena (8:29) is before Mark Henry (7:49). Feed back ☎ 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I know I might have finaly gone overboard on this but I thought it might also be helpful to sort by the 4 brands. i created 3 different options.
Option 1 Keeping it the way it is.
Option 2 Removing the color, and having a sortable Brand Option
Option 3 Color and Sorting.
Let me know what ya think, I will make the adjustment to all the tables (so far 4 done). LessThanClippers ( talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WOW, 0 opinions? That might be a first here. LessThanClippers ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how to prune a nomination, so I need somebody to prune Hornswoggle's nomination. It did not have nine supports by last Friday. Also, Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need nine supports by Monday. Chris Jericho needs nine supports by Tuesday. Otherwise they will be prunned as well. iMat thew 20 08 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, in the article, we all know that he's referred to as "The Legend Killer", however Dlae keeps removing "The" from Legend Killer. Any suggestions on what should be done? Sexy Sea Shark 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody think that this article could soon be a GA? iMat thew 20 08 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Heads-up people. I intend to nominate Jeff Hardy for GA in a week. So if you could all look over it and perform any fixes, etc, or leave notes on the talk page and I'll do it ;), that would be great. Regards ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this that WrestleMania (1985) should be changed to WrestleMania I. yes I know that at the time it was just called WrestleMania, but there are other Wikipedia sports articles that use the name it is known by now. Shuch as Super Bowl I at the time it was called "AFL-NFL World Championship Game"-- JB ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
I need a proper consensus on this, so it can be implied in all PPV articles. The examples below are from the Survivor Series (2003) article:
Current Version (not italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....
Other Possibility (italics): At the previous RAW brand pay-per-view Unforgiven, Goldberg defeated Triple H with the title on the line.....
Current Version (italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.
Other Possibility (not italics): However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of RAW that he was took out.
Which should we be using for both examples? I thought we always have to put TV shows (note to self: ONLY TV shows, PPVs stay always in normal font) in italics, eg. RAW, SmackDown!, ECW, iMPACT. Could someone clear the above up for me? Cheers, D.M.N. ( talk) 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify:
Correct usage - However, it was during a World Heavyweight Championship match between Goldberg and Shawn Michaels on the October 20 edition of Raw... (in this case the name is italicized because it refers to the TV show. "edition of...")
Correct usage - At the previous Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven... (in this case the name is NOT italicized because pay-per-view refers to the brand. It is a brand pay-per-view)
Correct usage - Following this, Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff reactivated...(in this case the name is NOT italicized because it refers to the brand. You have to keep in mind that in storyline a General Manager is not just responsible for the TV show, but the brand entirely)
The thing you have to remember here is that the shows on Monday, Tuesday, and Friday are not brands. They are just that, TV shows. The brand extension implied that Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW would run as if each were their own different promotion, therefore the TV shows each week are just the promotions' TV shows, a small portion of a brand as a whole and not a sole representation of a brand. Just like a promotion, brands host their own house shows, PPVs, etc., have their own roster, and have a boss that runs it all.
A pay-per-view is hosted by a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven" and NOT "Raw pay-per-view, Unforgiven".
A wrestler belongs to a brand,(Raw) not a TV show.(Raw) Therefore, the correct usage would be " Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!" and NOT " Edge moved from Raw to SmackDown!".
A General Manager isn't just in charge of a show,(Raw) but the brand entirely(Raw). Because of this, the correct usage would be "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff" and NOT "Raw General Manager, Eric Bischoff".
You really have to think hard about this one. To simplify things, unless it says something like "On the December 10 edition of..." or "last week on..." italics aren't used. Hope this helps. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
There are numerous edits on Joe's Page, on WWE roster page, on TNA roster page, that he has been released from his contract and signed with wwe. I see no source and have reverted, but I am also requesting protection as I dont want to break 3rr. Your help is appreciated. If you find sourced info, that would help. LessThanClippers ( talk) 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick note that The Pit Bulls (Jamie Noble and Kid Kash) was nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I know a few people (myself included) have asked if the winners of these awards are listed online everywhere, but we've never been able to find them. I am pleased to announce that such a list does, in fact, exist. The lists can be seen here. It's a German site (that I've actually found very useful in the past), but all of the award lists are in English. Hope this helps, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I worked on FMW World Street Fight 6-Man Tag Team Championship today, as it wasn't even in a list format. I just finished fixing up the article, but now I noticed that part of the information is repeated in FMW/WEW Six-Man Tag Team Championship. After the first title was retired, it was replaced with another one. The article I was working on lists both titles, but FMW/WEW page only lists the second title. I was wondering how to approach this. Should these be merged or split into two articles? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok usually when a title is vacated in WWE it only lasts about 2 months, but this title has been vacated for almost 5 months. Currently we read the status as Inactive-Status unknown, and for a title to be vacated for that long really is "vacation", that just really is a way to let go of a title. Can we change the wording in the article to past tense i.e The CW title "was" a ...? I mean don't you think this championship is defunct? It hasn't been mention on SmackDown! since September..-- TrU Co 9311 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why, but all of a sudden the little flag icons have started screwing up wrestlers infoboxes (here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Johnny_Devine&oldid=186916200). So if you see an article with a messed-up infobox, try removing the flag and that should fix it. TJ Spyke 08:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to merging the twelve pages at [Category:Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships] into one page? All of the titles have between one and four champions (most have one). It seems like an unnecesary collection of stub articles that cannot be expanded on their own. If we combine them, it seems like creating a page list Universal Wrestling Federation (Herb Abrams) championships (it would be a lowercase "c", right?) would be the way to go, as the current article on the UWF is already a fairly lengthy collection of information. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm asking this for the WWE article, I think it is very well built and to the point, easy to read and very accurate and informal. If this is the right place to ask it, can we open this for disccusion??? If this isn't the right place to ask if the WWE article can become a FA or GA can someone link me to the right page?? I was sent here by TJ Spike. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 15:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I just nominated it and I did what the instructuions said at the top of the page. So that edit is helpful, it is doing what the instructions said at the top of the FA page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I made a mistake, sorry. We will see on the FA page if people want it as a FA, ok??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You don't want it nominated, don't say we, you have no right to speak for other people. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, then. Well all of the items on the WWE page can be sourced by something on WWE.com. I guess what your saying to me is that I don't know a FA when I see it. I read the FA criteria multiple times and I guees I'm the only one who thinks it should be a FA. W/e, I guess it is 1 vs 100 now. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I agree. Why don't some of us add more sources to the article. Like I said before, mostly everything in that article can be sourced by WWE.com. Can someone remove the canidate of the FA canidate page, I don't know how. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It has over 180 sources and well written do any of you agree. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to disrupt the project. I am serious about the Shawn article. It is a very good article, with over 180 sources. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, I didn't know I had to come here first before I nominated. I know it is a distruption, you told me before, I didn't do it on purpose. What does COTM stand for??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Will someone withdraw the WWE one, please. And can we continue on the discussion on whether the Shawn Michaels article should be FA and stop ripping on me for making a mistake??? So your saying COTM meens the WP:PW people will work on it to mkae it become FA status??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, lets continue talking on wether it should be an FA or not. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This is OT, but, Bobby Lashley is gone. He is not on any of the rosters on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the double-post. Ttne someone should add that to his article, you know, mention that he is not on any of the roster pages anymore on WWE.com. Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
May I help improving the article so it can become an FA. Do I have to join the COTM or be a member of the WP:PW project??? Fresh Prince Carlton ( talk) 18:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Great Khali article has just been moved to Dalip Rana. As I cannot see any reason anywhere for this; should I revert? D.M.N. ( talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Can this article be promoted from Start-Class to B? iMat thew 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that I plan to nominate this article for Good Article status this week. I opened a peer review 9 days ago, but the only feedback has been the standard automated review. I know people are busy (I haven't had a chance to respond to a Peer Review in a while), but I'd really appreciate it if anyone could look it over. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion here. NiciVampireHeart ( talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a current discussion about using tables for the Roster here is the discussion.-- TrU Co 9311 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know why the WrestleCrap article is so protected?-- Bedford 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
When it comes to adding a reference to an article, is there any limit to a site? I ask this because when I added the Jericho-JBL feud to the Background subsection, I only added sources from wwe.com. Also, one of my sources was already sourced earlier in the article; In this situation, do you keep the second source or not? Also, since I am only use to wwe.com, I never really heard of these other wresting websites, does anybody know what happened to their older articles? In fact, the reference that is titled "Time on Rey's side" does not even link to an page; wwe.com states that the page cannot be found. JediYoda1120 ( talk) 13:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Should his article be considered under the scope of this project? I was thinking about adding the template, but I figured I'd ask here first. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This week's collaboration of the week is Shawn Michaels. Now, I've added the (current COTW) tag to Michaels page, and the (previous COTW) tag to Ricky's page. I know that a lot more things need to be updated, but I've never done this before. Can somebody update the COTW nomination page please. Thanks! iMat thew 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could help in the process of expanding PPV articles into their own, by year, with a written article? If yes, would it be already if I did any of the PPVs of WCW from late 1999 to 2000 and the WWF from late 1999 to early 2002? Also, how do I create a page? JediYoda1120 ( talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you not wishing to be *spoiled* may wish to avoid Wikipedia for over a week next week, as WWE is heavily adjusting their taping schedule [1]:
This is advanced warning for those not wishing to get spoiled. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Jillian Hall albums for deletion. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a poll going on at the WWE Roster page. Please, please go and place your votes. The poll will close on Monday February 4. iMat thew 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am leaning up the article a little, and in the info box, it says one of his ring names was Chris Canyon. Obviously, I remember chris canyon/kanyon of WCW days, but I don't remember that ever being an early ring name of King Kong Bundy (but I just am not sure, maybe thats why Canyon used that name?) does anyone know, I don't have external internet access to check that right now... thanks LessThanClippers ( talk) 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I Posted this on the Royal Rumble 2008 page but realized this could work for all Rumbles, and I really like the idea. I am proposing the use of sortable tables on Rumble pages so that we can easily look at elimination order, who spent the longest in the match, or sort by elimianted by, so you can see how many were eliminated by a certain wrestler. I have made a table for the 2008 rumble as an example, you can see it at User talk:LessThanClippers/royalryrumbletable LessThanClippers ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I love the overwhelmign support. It shouldn't be that hard, I did some copy and pasting from the old table and another table I found, so now it should be easy. I'm gonna go ahead and make the change on 2008 and start working backwards. LessThanClippers ( talk) 00:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK second question -
To make the time sortable, I had to put a 0 in front of single digit minute enterances. On 2006 rumble I am now running into the issue that 2 wrestlers lasted over an hour. They currently are listed as 1:09:23 would you rather i do 0:08:00 for an 8 minute wrestler, and 0:23:22 for a 23 minute wrestler, or should I change the 1:09:23 to 69:23. I prefer the 69:23.
LessThanClippers (
talk)
00:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
{{sort}}
, like we do at
WP:PW/PPV? Cheers,
L
A
X
01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oops, noticed I have to fix the sorting again, i will work on it. LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC) In order to reverse look up entrants (from 30 to 1) or eliminations from 29 to 1. I need to set the single digit entrance and eliminations as 01 to 09. Unless someone knows a command. I will change this to the 4 i have already done, and then I will work in talk space until I have the answers to the others. Thanks LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Status update ---- I am through 2004 and leaving work for the day. Will probably finish tomorrow. LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will try that on my talk page and start replacing the tables. LessThanClippers ( talk) 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
{In General) Can these articles be well sourced and nominated for FL status?-- TrU Co 9311 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a better idea is to merge them into a List of professional wrestling cage matches, including the cage match variations from the List of professional wrestling match types. There was talk on the latter's talk page about it, but nothing ever happened. The list of matches in both Elimination chamber and Hell in a Cell are more listcruft than FL material, IMHO. Nikki 311 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
User:Shazza keeps adding a second Elimination Chamber match scheduled for No Way Out featuring SmackDown! talent only. Anyone care to help?-- bulletproof 3:16 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? this article has so many problems that would keep it from being a Good Article I mean I can see 10-15 things right now I'd point out if I was reviewing it. I mean it's whomever put it up for GA's decission and all but personally I think it needs a lot of work. MPJ-DK ( talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of time to fix whatever problems you see. It is pretty far down in the never-ending list of sports-related GACs. List the problems on the article's talk page, and I'm sure they will be taken care of. Nikki 311 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The protection is off, and the vandals are back. I have requested blocking of the main vandal, as well as requested full protection. I am out of reverts, can someone help me keep an eye on this? LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This has been bugging me for awhile, but there are no sources for what channels RAW/SmackDown/ECW air on in international markets. People will add a country and a TV station without any source provided. I will put citation tags for now, how long before we just remove those that don't have a source? TJ Spyke 06:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason it's never being sent out anymore? This is an problem every week, as it is never sent out on time. What's going on with it. iMat thew 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Two questions:
This poll is to determine whether we should keep the newsletter weekly, or we should have it be issued monthly or every two weeks, that way we can avoid future delivery/delayed problems. This poll will close on February 8 2008.
There are still two polls going on at here about the format of the WWE Roster page. Format (Tables/Normal) and Citations (Yes/No). iMat thew 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
for a couple of months now i have seen spoilers on wikipedia. isnt there a rule against spoilers until theyre announced? Baseball16 ( talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
sorry if im posting this on the wrong page, but can someone put the wrestling userbox on my page. I have been trying to do it for a while now. Baseball16 ( talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Any chance that we could get an update on the article ratings? I'd update it myself if I understood how, but I'd really like to see how things have changed this week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
After several months of procrastinating, I finally (re-)created an article that seemed like a notable absence. LeDuc once again has a Wikipedia article. With that said, the other articles that I've been thinking about creating for a while are the Brawl to End it All and the War to Settle the Score. Would these be notable enough to have their own articles? GaryColemanFan ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
User:CactusJack1234567 and User:CactusJack12345678 are two usernames being used by one person. This user is constantly vandalizing the WWE Roster page. Where does this need to be reported? iMat thew 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, the edits look fine to me. What's the problem? Mshake3 ( talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Do we need articles for every single one of them shows. I'm pretty sure some, for instance WWF Friday Night's Main Event should be deleted, while others could be merged. Do others agree, that some of the articles located in the template should be deleted/merged? D.M.N. ( talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If no one objects in the next couple of days....I'll get started on it. Nikki 311 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so everyone knows, I've started the merging. I'm only going to merge the stub articles and add {{main}} tags for the articles with sufficient info to be a separate article. Nikki 311 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We can put to rest that the term "Fatal Four Way" does not use the hyphen. ( See here) Feed back ☎ 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought that the original newsletter took up too much space on our talk pages (in length). So I took the liberty to have the newsletter have the show/hide feature. Do you like the new format? -- TrU Co 9311 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The newsletter is finished. Issue 10 is ready to be released, so I will be leaving Misza13 a message. Based on the poll above, the newsletter will now be released on an "Every other week" basis. The dates have been updated. The next issue will be released on February 17. iMat thew 20 08 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
...to read this. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this on 4/5 talkpages but I'll post it here to. Just a quick note that I'll be on a break till the end of the week, so any requests for help or any questions (e.g. "When are you going to finish.....") will be ignored. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see here. Opinions are welcome. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I'm slowly making a return to Wikipedia with a help out by expanding the WrestleMania X-Seven article and I just have a query about the infobox image. All of the other pay-per-view articles feature the show's poster except for the WrestleMania which show the logos. Is there any reason as to why this is different? -- Oakster Talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Reading the talk page I was suprised to see it listed as low importance. The NWO and D-X are jointly responsible for the change in pro wrestling. D-X was one of the biggest players in the attitude era, and I think should at least be considered a medium, especially if NWO is a high. Thoughts? LessThanClippers ( talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, this has definately been a chance for me to learn a bunch of wiki codes. Here is the update. I am done with Royal Rumble 1988 and 1989, and thought I was done with 08,07,and 06 but I have decided to make a few changes. I now have the winner listed as before, but sorting as 30 so he shows at the top or bottom of the list (already corrected in 88 and 89. here are some questions though. What type of sorting conventions should we be using for names. Sort by first so its easy to read, or by last, the more proper, and in cases of The, should we sort by the first word like sort The Undertaker by The or by Undertaker. And What about guys whose ringname includes a nickname, like Big John Stud. Obviously you would sort by John Stud by Stud, but as Big John Stud I would say by big. I personally think we should sort all names by first names, but skipping "the". Opinions? Has there already been consensus on this? LessThanClippers ( talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the sorting of the 2008 royal rumble. When you sort by time in the match from less to most, John Cena (8:29) is before Mark Henry (7:49). Feed back ☎ 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I know I might have finaly gone overboard on this but I thought it might also be helpful to sort by the 4 brands. i created 3 different options.
Option 1 Keeping it the way it is.
Option 2 Removing the color, and having a sortable Brand Option
Option 3 Color and Sorting.
Let me know what ya think, I will make the adjustment to all the tables (so far 4 done). LessThanClippers ( talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
WOW, 0 opinions? That might be a first here. LessThanClippers ( talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how to prune a nomination, so I need somebody to prune Hornswoggle's nomination. It did not have nine supports by last Friday. Also, Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need nine supports by Monday. Chris Jericho needs nine supports by Tuesday. Otherwise they will be prunned as well. iMat thew 20 08 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, in the article, we all know that he's referred to as "The Legend Killer", however Dlae keeps removing "The" from Legend Killer. Any suggestions on what should be done? Sexy Sea Shark 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody think that this article could soon be a GA? iMat thew 20 08 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Heads-up people. I intend to nominate Jeff Hardy for GA in a week. So if you could all look over it and perform any fixes, etc, or leave notes on the talk page and I'll do it ;), that would be great. Regards ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this that WrestleMania (1985) should be changed to WrestleMania I. yes I know that at the time it was just called WrestleMania, but there are other Wikipedia sports articles that use the name it is known by now. Shuch as Super Bowl I at the time it was called "AFL-NFL World Championship Game"-- JB ( talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)