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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Should this article be considered within the scope of this project? A lot of the information is already covered by the Championship (professional wrestling) article, so I'm not really sure what should be done about this. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types exists, shouldn't one be made for WWE or should the contents just be moved to the general match types category? A tiny category just to showcase the fact TNA has exclusive matches... seems a bit pointless to me. RobJ1981 ( talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
see here.-- TrU Co 9311 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Wrestler 2008 (2008 cuz that's when it was made). It's not THAT much different from the current one. I just added a place for a the persons real name. Their birth name (may be different than their real name (such as Andrew Martin, who's name was changed from Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin to Andrew Test Martin. It goes like this:
{{Infobox Wrestler 2008 |realname =Andrew Test Martin |birth name =Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin |name =Andrew Martin |names ='''Test'''<br>"The Punisher" Andrew Martin<br>Big Foot<br>Martin Kane<br>T.J. Thunder |image =Andrew Martin-Test at ECW Live.jpg |image_size = |img_capt = |height ={{height|m=1.98}} |weight ={{convert|145.5|kg|lb st|abbr=on|lk=on}} |real_height = |real_weight = |birth_date ={{birth date and age|1975|3|17}} |birth_place =[[Whitby, Ontario]] |death_date = |death_place = |resides =[[Tampa, Florida]] |billed =[[Venice, Los Angeles, California|Venice Beach, California]] |trainer =Leo Burke<br>[[Dory Funk, Jr.]]<br>[[Bret Hart]] |debut =1997 |retired =2007 |website =[http://www.myspace.com/7439092 Andrew Martin] at [[MySpace]] }}
How's it? -- Cra sh U nderride 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would PREFER it if you would leave comments on this on my talk page. Thanks, -- Cra sh U nderride 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This was apparently discussed before, but I think the project should reconsider. Are they better known as the Majors or Hawkins & Rider? -- Endless Dan 13:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So how should this matter procede? Do we take it to a vote? -- Endless Dan 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I support the rename. Nikki 311 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also support the rename. Sexy Sea Bass 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As do I Less Than Clippers 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also support the move. It makes sense, and they have gotten a large push recently as Edge's allies. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This sucks. I supported a name-change before and was rejected, and now because their is a small dispute, the article gets renamed? Really, I find it extrmely hypocritical. Obviously, all of us can agree that we couldn't care less if the article gets renamed or not, but seriously, we shouldn't make such a fuss about such a minor thing. Feed back ☎ 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why bother having a project if the biggest thing we do is hold endless debates about trivial stuff like this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just finished sourcing and fixing up Dawn Marie Psaltis with the intention of nominating the article at WP:GAC at some point. I've been working on it off and on for awhile now, so I'm so used to it that I probably missed some things that need to be fixed. I'd appreciate some comments or copyediting if anybody has some time. Thanks. Nikki 311 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just browsing through the professional wrestling article and came across this. Is it really needed? We already have a template at the bottom of the page listing the most popular and significant promotions going around in each country. Normy 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who haven't learned of it yet, WWE.com has a new section title "Industry News" on the main page of their website. This sections features news about various things in wrestling, including (believe it or not) TNA's current schedule. The thing is, all the news stories don't come from WWE.com, but are credited to places such as Rajah.com, ProWrestling.com and WrestleZone.net (yes, a bunch of "dirt sheet" websites). Now, since some members of this project (and some outside it) have a problem with "dirt sheets" and with what is said on them being posted on Wikipedia, what are you going to do when someone posts a rumor and sources it to WWE.com? Nenog ( talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess my main reason for suspicion lies in the fact that it seems like if WWE actually was trying to draw in a more diverse audience to their website using tactics like this (advertising the news of their competitor), wouldn't THEY use the most reliable source for the information they could get (TNA's official website), and not random news-site_01? Listing TNA news is one thing, listing their news and sourcing it with references other than TNA is what seems odd to me - especially when its info that is readily available from TNA. -- Naha| (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I didn't realise the Industry News section was on the main page of WWE.com I had only been linked to acouple of the stories in it. Unfortunately, wwe.com being a "Rated R" content website, is blocked at work (I work at various local schools, some of which are elementary age kids). Anyway, I had to remote desktop into my computer to even access wwe.com and even then I was just clicking the link that took me directly to one of the stories in question. Remote desktop can be veeeeeeeeeeery slow and applications and webpages load veeeeery slowly, especially multimedia sites like wwe.com. Bottom line, now that I am home and have seen the entire Industry News section and how it is laid out on the main page of wwe.com, it looks very legit to me. *eats foot* -- Naha| (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Although WWE.com are taking cuttings from other website, one of them WrestleZone, it is not a reliable source.
I suggest we don't use WrestleZone.com as a source as it is ultimately "stealing" news without crediting other websites. I'm suggesting we get WrestleZone.com blacklisted as a result. Anyone agree? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this week's COTW be one of the GA candidates? (I mean one of the ones which is already a good article). ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be two. iMat thew 20 08 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the COTW, will these two FA COTW nominations ever be pruned. They have been up since last year's October and November. iMat thew 20 08 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that every two weeks we have one new COTW, and every fourth time, we have a FACOTW. So, then the FACOTW happens once every other month. I think our priority should be making GAs anyway, as they are significantly easier to achieve, and we have SO MANY articles in extreme need of fixing up. As far as pruning GA noms from the FACOTW, I don't think it is a big deal to just keep them. We only have so many GAs, and if they stay there long enough, they are eventually going to win, right? Nikki 311 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there was never a consensus about this. Right when COTW started up, one person wanted to subject those articles to the exact same rules and time limits as the others, I disagreed thinking it should be a longer time period, and everyone else was oblivious to the whole matter. I reverted when they posted a notice saying it would be pruned, no one questioned as I was one of the small handful of users trying to fire the COTW up again, and I guess it set a precedent. That was never my intention, as I just wanted to have it be a longer period of time, but I never followed up on it. Basically, this is the first consensus related to this, as what was going on before was a misinterpretation of my will. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we need more opinions to reach a decision. The following questions need to be answered:
I would like to nominate this article for a Good Article review in a week or so. If anyone has a chance, it would be great if they could look it over and give some feedback and/or help out with the article. I did some work tonight to try to take it out-of-universe, but it might need some more work in that regard. Thanks in advance, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Unforgiven 2004 has passed GA. Thank you to all who helped get the article to GA status. Cheers, to you all. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I have seen some people who expand PPV's refer to Sunday Night Heat matches as dark matches in the Event section. Sunday Night Heat matches were NOT dark matches. Look at the definition of dark match adn the first line is "Non-televised match". While the match may not have been aired on the PPV, it was aired live on Sunday Night Heat (before Heat became a web-based show, WWE would air Heat live from the arena where the PPV was being held). Since it aired live on television, it is not a dark match and shouldn't be referred to as such.
The reason i'm posting this here is because I know the people who expand the PPV's check this page and this helps make sure others see it too. TJ Spyke 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to nominate No Way Out (2007) for GA, but does the community feel it is worthy enough? Also does No Way Out (2004) have the chance to pass for a future FA?-- TrU Co 9311 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No Way Out (2007) has been nominated for
Good article status and
No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for
here.
TrU
Co
9311 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am copying a comment I put on Savage's profile here. It was a reply to another user's comment about the supposed incident between him and Stephanie that resulted in Vince and Savage no longer being on speaking terms.
I agree with removing ubsubstantiated (sp?) rumors, but I do think there should be somthing about a disagreement between him and McMahon. I'm not very good at writing something like this, but maybe something like "they don't get along due to some sort of past conflict, which is the subject of rumor"?
Here's something. It's an answer to a question posed to Wade Keller, editor of Pro Wrestling Torch, a widely regarded "insider" newsletter: Q: What is the problem Vince McMahon has with Randy Savage? Does Savage have an issue with McMahon?
A: It's one of the most widely speculated questions in the industry, and most people on the inside who speak about this believe it has something to do with interaction Savage had with Stephanie McMahon years ago. Savage left WWE where he was co-hosting Raw for WCW to become an active wrestler again and enjoyed a resurgence of his in-ring career at that point, but many wrestlers left under similar circumstances that McMahon has welcomed back in the interest of generating fan interest. I do know that McMahon bristles at the mere mention of Savage's name, and it's considered taboo within WWE to even acknowledge Savage in front of McMahon. McMahon has made is clear over the years bringing Savage back is out of the question and no up for debate.
Source: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Ask_the_Editor_18/article_23941.shtml -- Smart Mark Greene ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ThinkBlue, LAX, and I would like to nominate these for GA within this week. If you can, please look over both articles. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. iMat thew 20 08 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe this team should get an article, because they have been around for the better part of a year. I mean come on this isn't enough to cover this team.-- KingMorpheus ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For the next two weeks, the collaboration of the week is Ric Flair, which should be a pretty easy one to source. Nikki 311 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That with this. -- Endless Dan 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This project hasn't had a featured list in a while. We've got a few lists that look ready to nominate, though. List of ECW Tag Team Champions, List of ECW Television Champions, and List of TNA X Division Champions are all complete and fully referenced. Are they ready to be nominated (probably one at a time)? I'd like to see more featured lists, but I'd prefer if someone else nominated the next couple. I'm willing to help with any changes proposed by nominators, but I'd like to know that someone else is also willing to help if need be. Any opinions on whether or not these are ready? Anyone willing to nominate one? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something, WWE is using 2 logos for SmackDown! and ECW, I was watching Raw and during the WrestleMania Rewind Promo, they used [2] [3] to promote the brands, but then they showed a commercial from ECW, (one produced by Sci-Fi) and they use the old ECW logo to represent the TV show, and during commercials for SmackDown!, they use the FNS logo, should we distinguish these in the article? Also can the RAW logo be updated, to a logo in 3D like the other WWE shows like this?-- TrU Co -X 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone is giving you grief regarding illegal video of a TV or PPV broadcast, just remember that the episodes themselves are reliable sources, and you can use either Template:Cite episode or Template:Cite video as a citation. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has replied to the above comment or edited SummerSlam (2007), I have gone on and nominated it for GA status. --Cheers, L A X 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's only been two days since you posted the notices. What happened to the other five days? I guess I'll go ahead and nominate Dawn Marie Psaltis then, since I posted the notice last Thursday, although now it'll be behind three other wrestling articles in the GAC list. Anyone else have any articles they want to nominate without waiting a week? Go ahead...it seems nobody else is following the one week rule. Nikki 311 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It has moved to be grouped with the other vacant titles on WWE.com (WCW, Television titles, etc). Does this now mean it is officially abandoned/retired? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
IT was created, I proded it, now its an AfD, please voice your opinion.-- TrU Co -X 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be nice if we, as a project, could help out with the backlog of Good Article Nominations. We complain that it takes a long time to get articles reviewed, but not many of us actually review articles to cut down on the list. I, for one, have had three articles pass GA reviews, and I currently have three articles nominated with the intention of nominating another this weekend. That's seven articles that I've added to the list, but I've never reviewed an article myself. I was hoping that we might be able to get a few people to agree to review one article each in the next week or so. It would be a nice way for our project to give back, it would help us become more familiar with GA criteria, and it would cut down on the list and help move our articles up and get them reviewed sooner. Personally, I would recommend reviewing "Sports and recreation" articles, as that is where it would help us the most (although we should avoid reviewing professional wrestling articles). Is anyone else on board? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can this be created? iMat thew 20 08 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, a wrestlers finishing moves are listed 1st in the moves list in alphabetical order and in bold, am I correct? and if so why are my edits on Shawn Michaels page being reverted when all I'm doing is moving it up the page and bolding it. Skitzo ( talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we make a template for defunct championships?-- TrU Co -X 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to the "policy", I am giving a heads up that I will nominate the above article for FL, as me and Blue have sourced and worked hard on it; please copy-edit, revise, comment about the article and tell me whether it is ready to be nominated for FL. -- TrU Co -X 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw a discussion in Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment where they were discussing the current position of the Cruiserweight Championsip. Consensus, I believe, is that the title is not defunct because WWE has not called it as such. However, I don't think that we need WWE's approval to call the title inactive. It is part of the Active titles in the WWE article, which I believe is done erroneously. I understand that the title is not retired, but it isn't in use either. :S Feed back ☎ 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that this project will be featuring in next week's report. Rudget ( ?) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've brought this up. I never get responses about, this so they would be greatly appreciated this time. Last time, I proposed that the page should be in list format instead of table. Now that the List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni has been put in table format, I think that the WWE Alumni page should remain the same. The WWE Alumni page still looks very messy though, so I propose that we make it a little more like the TNA one. The reference column can be deleted, and the references can come after any notes in the "Notes" column. The real name column can be deleted, and instead come after the stage name in parenthesizes. iMat thew 20 08 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be the last to want to delete an article about Puerto Ricans, but I think The Puerto Rican Nightmares aren't notable enough. Thoughts? Feed back ☎ 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, because there weren't enough responses, No Way Out (2004), which was nominated for FA, failed because there weren't enough comments for it. This is a problem, NYR 07 didnt pass because of the same reason, 2 people opposed NWO, 1 (for no reason thats really clear, and the other, we fixed what he opposed, but he didnt reply back). Us not being involved is becoming a drat...-- TrU Co -X 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the problem with FAC and FLC that people would just go "yeah it's good, support" instead of giving an actual review with well thought out reasons and all? the lack of these comments and the overwhelming "Ya it rox" comments is what brought it on to begin with. MPJ-DK ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well most of us agree that we should review our own articles as long as we address reasons on why we support or oppose, so per this. WP:PW members are entitled to review FAC or FLC's as long as they list a reason for their comments. Thus WP:PW members please intervene in your FAC or FLC's so they will at least be noticed and hopefully passed.-- TrU Co -X 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never once said project members shouldn't comment in FL/ACs and I have no problems with one or two supports from project members but I do have issues with asking people to support or when eight members all support without commenting. -- Scorpion 0422 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can WWE Brand Extension, 2005 WWE Draft, or the 2007 WWE Draft be nominated for GA?-- TrU Co -X 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles about Dawn Marie Psaltis and Don Kent (wrestler) both passed GA reviews today, bringing the project's total to 34. Great job to everyone involved! Hopefully, the number will be increasing soon, as we currently have 9 more articles nominated.
And again, since there is such a backlog on the GA nomination page, I'd like to encourage people to review an article from the "Sports and recreation" list (but not a professional wrestling article). I completed my first review today ( Art Houtteman), and I learned a lot from doing it. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I witnessed MVP defeating Jamie Noble to qualify for Money in the Bank at tonight's house show. However, I'm not a reliable source. Right? Mshake3 ( talk) 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The newsletter is supposed to go out today. Please try to improve anything, so that I can inform Misza13 that it's ready to go. If there are any more current events, please feel free to add them. iMat thew 20 08 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been searching the external links in the GA articles, and I discovered that Don Kent (wrestler) only has 5 external links (and one of which is suspicious). An article with very little external links, is an article which is biased towards these links, and receive all information from a small fountain. Feed back ☎ 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And the link comes up as 404 (missing) not suspicious, that's a different matter. One is a technical problem, the other is a comment about the quality of the source. The 404 I can fix with little problem I'm sure, it's not a slight against the article's quality that the net changes from time to time and kills links, just a point to be fixed. MPJ-DK ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the table of broken external links. There are a total of 20 GAs, 5 FAs, and 1 GAC with broken external links. Please check them out and help fix them. Thanks, Feed back ☎ 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested Semi or Full Protection for Reliant Stadium due to the fact WrestleMania XXV keeps getting added to it when it hasn't been confirmed by a reliable source. Yet.-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like World War III has broke out. Please help keep an eye on Money in the Bank ladder match and WrestleMania XXIV; Users keep adding MVP to the match, but with no reliable source. Thanks in advance. --Cheers, L A X 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is time for a change on this consensus. The WrestleMania equivalent in TNA, Bound for Glory, has it's posters and not logos. Both the poster and obviously the logo contain the logo. and finally WrestleMania articles stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of the WWE PPV articles. Time for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the WrestleMania XXIV poster is already out, Cinnamon. They just agree that the logo is more significant and use the logo. -G uffas Borgz7- 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make a difference to the rest of the PPVs how? The posters contain the logos. --Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that it's mentioned, I can see using logos for WrestleMania. As the showcase, yearly event, it has a unique logo. And while the same could be said for other PPVs, with those, you can't tell them apart year to year. Mshake3 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reworded that's consensus is leaning towards Posters 6-3-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time we get an AD for Wikipedia. Thoughts?-- TrU Co -X 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)Look at my userpage, and look at the wiki advertisements in my banner, one of those. 2) So we can promote the project.-- TrU Co -X 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this article really necessary? Every WWE championship article lists whichever wrestler is the champion. Odin's Beard ( talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be crossing off names as I fufill the requests. Mshake3 ( talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Next week I'll be heading to a SmackDown house show, two Axxess events, Monday Night Raw, and Smackdown/ECW. As always, I'll have my camera handy. While I'll be shooting everything like I normally do, does anyone know of any articles that could benefit from photos taken at these shows? Mshake3 ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an update. Raw, of course, is WrestleMania Rewind Night, which means no HeAT, and nothing but big stars. On SmackDown/ECW, there'll be a cage match, and (as announced) an Extreme Rules Tag Team Championship match. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm make is easier for you Mshake, I'll put the requests in list format below and added a few. iMat thew 20 08 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The diva match is clearly called Playboy BunnyMania, so it should be listed. But of course the usual people (TJ Spyke being the main person against it) are removing it. Leave it be already, it does no harm. I'm a bit fed up with this unnecessary removing of match names, just because it's not an official match name WWE has used in the past. This problem happened with battle of the billionaires and others. When WWE.com and the television shows mention it more than enough times (plus it's on the back of the DVD case: which is the case with many of them), it's notable for inclusion. RobJ1981 ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nikki but isn't a Lumberjack match called Lumberjill when it is for the Divas? Or does Wikipedia ignore that one as well? -G uffas Borgz7- 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it's better to use the sentence "this match was promoted as BunnyMania" under the match result. If that's how they promote it, then that's how it should be listed. Mshake3 ( talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
TJ, are you now prepared to delete "Belfast Brawl"? It is just a No Disqualification Match. So why are you not deleting it? You just want to have it both ways. Please read my other comments above about MITB. -G uffas Borgz7- 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is time for a change on this consensus. The WrestleMania equivalent in TNA, Bound for Glory, has it's posters and not logos. Both the poster and obviously the logo contain the logo. and finally WrestleMania articles stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of the WWE PPV articles. Time for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the WrestleMania XXIV poster is already out, Cinnamon. They just agree that the logo is more significant and use the logo. -G uffas Borgz7- 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make a difference to the rest of the PPVs how? The posters contain the logos. --Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that it's mentioned, I can see using logos for WrestleMania. As the showcase, yearly event, it has a unique logo. And while the same could be said for other PPVs, with those, you can't tell them apart year to year. Mshake3 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reworded that's consensus is leaning towards Posters 6-3-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
MPJ-DK nominated this article in mid-January and it was reviewed on February 21. He responded to the "On hold" comments, but the reviewer hasn't been back since then. The article has now been on hold for 15 days. I left a message on the reviewer's talk page five days ago, but there has been no response. Is there anything that can be done to get the review finished (eg. find another reviewer to confirm that the concerns were addressed)? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time we get an AD for Wikipedia. Thoughts?-- TrU Co -X 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)Look at my userpage, and look at the wiki advertisements in my banner, one of those. 2) So we can promote the project.-- TrU Co -X 02:07, 10 March 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 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Should this article be considered within the scope of this project? A lot of the information is already covered by the Championship (professional wrestling) article, so I'm not really sure what should be done about this. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling match types exists, shouldn't one be made for WWE or should the contents just be moved to the general match types category? A tiny category just to showcase the fact TNA has exclusive matches... seems a bit pointless to me. RobJ1981 ( talk) 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
see here.-- TrU Co 9311 03:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Wrestler 2008 (2008 cuz that's when it was made). It's not THAT much different from the current one. I just added a place for a the persons real name. Their birth name (may be different than their real name (such as Andrew Martin, who's name was changed from Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin to Andrew Test Martin. It goes like this:
{{Infobox Wrestler 2008 |realname =Andrew Test Martin |birth name =Andrew James Robert Patrick Martin |name =Andrew Martin |names ='''Test'''<br>"The Punisher" Andrew Martin<br>Big Foot<br>Martin Kane<br>T.J. Thunder |image =Andrew Martin-Test at ECW Live.jpg |image_size = |img_capt = |height ={{height|m=1.98}} |weight ={{convert|145.5|kg|lb st|abbr=on|lk=on}} |real_height = |real_weight = |birth_date ={{birth date and age|1975|3|17}} |birth_place =[[Whitby, Ontario]] |death_date = |death_place = |resides =[[Tampa, Florida]] |billed =[[Venice, Los Angeles, California|Venice Beach, California]] |trainer =Leo Burke<br>[[Dory Funk, Jr.]]<br>[[Bret Hart]] |debut =1997 |retired =2007 |website =[http://www.myspace.com/7439092 Andrew Martin] at [[MySpace]] }}
How's it? -- Cra sh U nderride 22:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I would PREFER it if you would leave comments on this on my talk page. Thanks, -- Cra sh U nderride 22:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This was apparently discussed before, but I think the project should reconsider. Are they better known as the Majors or Hawkins & Rider? -- Endless Dan 13:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
So how should this matter procede? Do we take it to a vote? -- Endless Dan 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I support the rename. Nikki 311 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also support the rename. Sexy Sea Bass 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As do I Less Than Clippers 22:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I also support the move. It makes sense, and they have gotten a large push recently as Edge's allies. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
This sucks. I supported a name-change before and was rejected, and now because their is a small dispute, the article gets renamed? Really, I find it extrmely hypocritical. Obviously, all of us can agree that we couldn't care less if the article gets renamed or not, but seriously, we shouldn't make such a fuss about such a minor thing. Feed back ☎ 00:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why bother having a project if the biggest thing we do is hold endless debates about trivial stuff like this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've just finished sourcing and fixing up Dawn Marie Psaltis with the intention of nominating the article at WP:GAC at some point. I've been working on it off and on for awhile now, so I'm so used to it that I probably missed some things that need to be fixed. I'd appreciate some comments or copyediting if anybody has some time. Thanks. Nikki 311 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just browsing through the professional wrestling article and came across this. Is it really needed? We already have a template at the bottom of the page listing the most popular and significant promotions going around in each country. Normy 04:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who haven't learned of it yet, WWE.com has a new section title "Industry News" on the main page of their website. This sections features news about various things in wrestling, including (believe it or not) TNA's current schedule. The thing is, all the news stories don't come from WWE.com, but are credited to places such as Rajah.com, ProWrestling.com and WrestleZone.net (yes, a bunch of "dirt sheet" websites). Now, since some members of this project (and some outside it) have a problem with "dirt sheets" and with what is said on them being posted on Wikipedia, what are you going to do when someone posts a rumor and sources it to WWE.com? Nenog ( talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess my main reason for suspicion lies in the fact that it seems like if WWE actually was trying to draw in a more diverse audience to their website using tactics like this (advertising the news of their competitor), wouldn't THEY use the most reliable source for the information they could get (TNA's official website), and not random news-site_01? Listing TNA news is one thing, listing their news and sourcing it with references other than TNA is what seems odd to me - especially when its info that is readily available from TNA. -- Naha| (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok I didn't realise the Industry News section was on the main page of WWE.com I had only been linked to acouple of the stories in it. Unfortunately, wwe.com being a "Rated R" content website, is blocked at work (I work at various local schools, some of which are elementary age kids). Anyway, I had to remote desktop into my computer to even access wwe.com and even then I was just clicking the link that took me directly to one of the stories in question. Remote desktop can be veeeeeeeeeeery slow and applications and webpages load veeeeery slowly, especially multimedia sites like wwe.com. Bottom line, now that I am home and have seen the entire Industry News section and how it is laid out on the main page of wwe.com, it looks very legit to me. *eats foot* -- Naha| (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Although WWE.com are taking cuttings from other website, one of them WrestleZone, it is not a reliable source.
I suggest we don't use WrestleZone.com as a source as it is ultimately "stealing" news without crediting other websites. I'm suggesting we get WrestleZone.com blacklisted as a result. Anyone agree? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this week's COTW be one of the GA candidates? (I mean one of the ones which is already a good article). ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be two. iMat thew 20 08 23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of the COTW, will these two FA COTW nominations ever be pruned. They have been up since last year's October and November. iMat thew 20 08 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that every two weeks we have one new COTW, and every fourth time, we have a FACOTW. So, then the FACOTW happens once every other month. I think our priority should be making GAs anyway, as they are significantly easier to achieve, and we have SO MANY articles in extreme need of fixing up. As far as pruning GA noms from the FACOTW, I don't think it is a big deal to just keep them. We only have so many GAs, and if they stay there long enough, they are eventually going to win, right? Nikki 311 03:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, there was never a consensus about this. Right when COTW started up, one person wanted to subject those articles to the exact same rules and time limits as the others, I disagreed thinking it should be a longer time period, and everyone else was oblivious to the whole matter. I reverted when they posted a notice saying it would be pruned, no one questioned as I was one of the small handful of users trying to fire the COTW up again, and I guess it set a precedent. That was never my intention, as I just wanted to have it be a longer period of time, but I never followed up on it. Basically, this is the first consensus related to this, as what was going on before was a misinterpretation of my will. Peace, Sexy Sea Bass 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Then we need more opinions to reach a decision. The following questions need to be answered:
I would like to nominate this article for a Good Article review in a week or so. If anyone has a chance, it would be great if they could look it over and give some feedback and/or help out with the article. I did some work tonight to try to take it out-of-universe, but it might need some more work in that regard. Thanks in advance, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Unforgiven 2004 has passed GA. Thank you to all who helped get the article to GA status. Cheers, to you all. ;) -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently I have seen some people who expand PPV's refer to Sunday Night Heat matches as dark matches in the Event section. Sunday Night Heat matches were NOT dark matches. Look at the definition of dark match adn the first line is "Non-televised match". While the match may not have been aired on the PPV, it was aired live on Sunday Night Heat (before Heat became a web-based show, WWE would air Heat live from the arena where the PPV was being held). Since it aired live on television, it is not a dark match and shouldn't be referred to as such.
The reason i'm posting this here is because I know the people who expand the PPV's check this page and this helps make sure others see it too. TJ Spyke 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to nominate No Way Out (2007) for GA, but does the community feel it is worthy enough? Also does No Way Out (2004) have the chance to pass for a future FA?-- TrU Co 9311 00:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No Way Out (2007) has been nominated for
Good article status and
No Way Out (2004) has been nominated for
here.
TrU
Co
9311 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I am copying a comment I put on Savage's profile here. It was a reply to another user's comment about the supposed incident between him and Stephanie that resulted in Vince and Savage no longer being on speaking terms.
I agree with removing ubsubstantiated (sp?) rumors, but I do think there should be somthing about a disagreement between him and McMahon. I'm not very good at writing something like this, but maybe something like "they don't get along due to some sort of past conflict, which is the subject of rumor"?
Here's something. It's an answer to a question posed to Wade Keller, editor of Pro Wrestling Torch, a widely regarded "insider" newsletter: Q: What is the problem Vince McMahon has with Randy Savage? Does Savage have an issue with McMahon?
A: It's one of the most widely speculated questions in the industry, and most people on the inside who speak about this believe it has something to do with interaction Savage had with Stephanie McMahon years ago. Savage left WWE where he was co-hosting Raw for WCW to become an active wrestler again and enjoyed a resurgence of his in-ring career at that point, but many wrestlers left under similar circumstances that McMahon has welcomed back in the interest of generating fan interest. I do know that McMahon bristles at the mere mention of Savage's name, and it's considered taboo within WWE to even acknowledge Savage in front of McMahon. McMahon has made is clear over the years bringing Savage back is out of the question and no up for debate.
Source: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Ask_the_Editor_18/article_23941.shtml -- Smart Mark Greene ( talk) 02:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ThinkBlue, LAX, and I would like to nominate these for GA within this week. If you can, please look over both articles. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. iMat thew 20 08 19:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe this team should get an article, because they have been around for the better part of a year. I mean come on this isn't enough to cover this team.-- KingMorpheus ( talk) 21:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For the next two weeks, the collaboration of the week is Ric Flair, which should be a pretty easy one to source. Nikki 311 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That with this. -- Endless Dan 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This project hasn't had a featured list in a while. We've got a few lists that look ready to nominate, though. List of ECW Tag Team Champions, List of ECW Television Champions, and List of TNA X Division Champions are all complete and fully referenced. Are they ready to be nominated (probably one at a time)? I'd like to see more featured lists, but I'd prefer if someone else nominated the next couple. I'm willing to help with any changes proposed by nominators, but I'd like to know that someone else is also willing to help if need be. Any opinions on whether or not these are ready? Anyone willing to nominate one? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed something, WWE is using 2 logos for SmackDown! and ECW, I was watching Raw and during the WrestleMania Rewind Promo, they used [2] [3] to promote the brands, but then they showed a commercial from ECW, (one produced by Sci-Fi) and they use the old ECW logo to represent the TV show, and during commercials for SmackDown!, they use the FNS logo, should we distinguish these in the article? Also can the RAW logo be updated, to a logo in 3D like the other WWE shows like this?-- TrU Co -X 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
If someone is giving you grief regarding illegal video of a TV or PPV broadcast, just remember that the episodes themselves are reliable sources, and you can use either Template:Cite episode or Template:Cite video as a citation. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has replied to the above comment or edited SummerSlam (2007), I have gone on and nominated it for GA status. --Cheers, L A X 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's only been two days since you posted the notices. What happened to the other five days? I guess I'll go ahead and nominate Dawn Marie Psaltis then, since I posted the notice last Thursday, although now it'll be behind three other wrestling articles in the GAC list. Anyone else have any articles they want to nominate without waiting a week? Go ahead...it seems nobody else is following the one week rule. Nikki 311 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It has moved to be grouped with the other vacant titles on WWE.com (WCW, Television titles, etc). Does this now mean it is officially abandoned/retired? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
IT was created, I proded it, now its an AfD, please voice your opinion.-- TrU Co -X 00:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking that it would be nice if we, as a project, could help out with the backlog of Good Article Nominations. We complain that it takes a long time to get articles reviewed, but not many of us actually review articles to cut down on the list. I, for one, have had three articles pass GA reviews, and I currently have three articles nominated with the intention of nominating another this weekend. That's seven articles that I've added to the list, but I've never reviewed an article myself. I was hoping that we might be able to get a few people to agree to review one article each in the next week or so. It would be a nice way for our project to give back, it would help us become more familiar with GA criteria, and it would cut down on the list and help move our articles up and get them reviewed sooner. Personally, I would recommend reviewing "Sports and recreation" articles, as that is where it would help us the most (although we should avoid reviewing professional wrestling articles). Is anyone else on board? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can this be created? iMat thew 20 08 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, a wrestlers finishing moves are listed 1st in the moves list in alphabetical order and in bold, am I correct? and if so why are my edits on Shawn Michaels page being reverted when all I'm doing is moving it up the page and bolding it. Skitzo ( talk) 20:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Can we make a template for defunct championships?-- TrU Co -X 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Due to the "policy", I am giving a heads up that I will nominate the above article for FL, as me and Blue have sourced and worked hard on it; please copy-edit, revise, comment about the article and tell me whether it is ready to be nominated for FL. -- TrU Co -X 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw a discussion in Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment where they were discussing the current position of the Cruiserweight Championsip. Consensus, I believe, is that the title is not defunct because WWE has not called it as such. However, I don't think that we need WWE's approval to call the title inactive. It is part of the Active titles in the WWE article, which I believe is done erroneously. I understand that the title is not retired, but it isn't in use either. :S Feed back ☎ 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that this project will be featuring in next week's report. Rudget ( ?) 12:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've brought this up. I never get responses about, this so they would be greatly appreciated this time. Last time, I proposed that the page should be in list format instead of table. Now that the List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni has been put in table format, I think that the WWE Alumni page should remain the same. The WWE Alumni page still looks very messy though, so I propose that we make it a little more like the TNA one. The reference column can be deleted, and the references can come after any notes in the "Notes" column. The real name column can be deleted, and instead come after the stage name in parenthesizes. iMat thew 20 08 12:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I would be the last to want to delete an article about Puerto Ricans, but I think The Puerto Rican Nightmares aren't notable enough. Thoughts? Feed back ☎ 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, because there weren't enough responses, No Way Out (2004), which was nominated for FA, failed because there weren't enough comments for it. This is a problem, NYR 07 didnt pass because of the same reason, 2 people opposed NWO, 1 (for no reason thats really clear, and the other, we fixed what he opposed, but he didnt reply back). Us not being involved is becoming a drat...-- TrU Co -X 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the problem with FAC and FLC that people would just go "yeah it's good, support" instead of giving an actual review with well thought out reasons and all? the lack of these comments and the overwhelming "Ya it rox" comments is what brought it on to begin with. MPJ-DK ( talk) 21:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Well most of us agree that we should review our own articles as long as we address reasons on why we support or oppose, so per this. WP:PW members are entitled to review FAC or FLC's as long as they list a reason for their comments. Thus WP:PW members please intervene in your FAC or FLC's so they will at least be noticed and hopefully passed.-- TrU Co -X 04:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never once said project members shouldn't comment in FL/ACs and I have no problems with one or two supports from project members but I do have issues with asking people to support or when eight members all support without commenting. -- Scorpion 0422 05:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Can WWE Brand Extension, 2005 WWE Draft, or the 2007 WWE Draft be nominated for GA?-- TrU Co -X 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The articles about Dawn Marie Psaltis and Don Kent (wrestler) both passed GA reviews today, bringing the project's total to 34. Great job to everyone involved! Hopefully, the number will be increasing soon, as we currently have 9 more articles nominated.
And again, since there is such a backlog on the GA nomination page, I'd like to encourage people to review an article from the "Sports and recreation" list (but not a professional wrestling article). I completed my first review today ( Art Houtteman), and I learned a lot from doing it. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I witnessed MVP defeating Jamie Noble to qualify for Money in the Bank at tonight's house show. However, I'm not a reliable source. Right? Mshake3 ( talk) 07:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The newsletter is supposed to go out today. Please try to improve anything, so that I can inform Misza13 that it's ready to go. If there are any more current events, please feel free to add them. iMat thew 20 08 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have been searching the external links in the GA articles, and I discovered that Don Kent (wrestler) only has 5 external links (and one of which is suspicious). An article with very little external links, is an article which is biased towards these links, and receive all information from a small fountain. Feed back ☎ 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
And the link comes up as 404 (missing) not suspicious, that's a different matter. One is a technical problem, the other is a comment about the quality of the source. The 404 I can fix with little problem I'm sure, it's not a slight against the article's quality that the net changes from time to time and kills links, just a point to be fixed. MPJ-DK ( talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the table of broken external links. There are a total of 20 GAs, 5 FAs, and 1 GAC with broken external links. Please check them out and help fix them. Thanks, Feed back ☎ 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've requested Semi or Full Protection for Reliant Stadium due to the fact WrestleMania XXV keeps getting added to it when it hasn't been confirmed by a reliable source. Yet.-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 17:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Looks like World War III has broke out. Please help keep an eye on Money in the Bank ladder match and WrestleMania XXIV; Users keep adding MVP to the match, but with no reliable source. Thanks in advance. --Cheers, L A X 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is time for a change on this consensus. The WrestleMania equivalent in TNA, Bound for Glory, has it's posters and not logos. Both the poster and obviously the logo contain the logo. and finally WrestleMania articles stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of the WWE PPV articles. Time for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the WrestleMania XXIV poster is already out, Cinnamon. They just agree that the logo is more significant and use the logo. -G uffas Borgz7- 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make a difference to the rest of the PPVs how? The posters contain the logos. --Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that it's mentioned, I can see using logos for WrestleMania. As the showcase, yearly event, it has a unique logo. And while the same could be said for other PPVs, with those, you can't tell them apart year to year. Mshake3 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reworded that's consensus is leaning towards Posters 6-3-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time we get an AD for Wikipedia. Thoughts?-- TrU Co -X 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)Look at my userpage, and look at the wiki advertisements in my banner, one of those. 2) So we can promote the project.-- TrU Co -X 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this article really necessary? Every WWE championship article lists whichever wrestler is the champion. Odin's Beard ( talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be crossing off names as I fufill the requests. Mshake3 ( talk) 00:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Next week I'll be heading to a SmackDown house show, two Axxess events, Monday Night Raw, and Smackdown/ECW. As always, I'll have my camera handy. While I'll be shooting everything like I normally do, does anyone know of any articles that could benefit from photos taken at these shows? Mshake3 ( talk) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an update. Raw, of course, is WrestleMania Rewind Night, which means no HeAT, and nothing but big stars. On SmackDown/ECW, there'll be a cage match, and (as announced) an Extreme Rules Tag Team Championship match. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm make is easier for you Mshake, I'll put the requests in list format below and added a few. iMat thew 20 08 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The diva match is clearly called Playboy BunnyMania, so it should be listed. But of course the usual people (TJ Spyke being the main person against it) are removing it. Leave it be already, it does no harm. I'm a bit fed up with this unnecessary removing of match names, just because it's not an official match name WWE has used in the past. This problem happened with battle of the billionaires and others. When WWE.com and the television shows mention it more than enough times (plus it's on the back of the DVD case: which is the case with many of them), it's notable for inclusion. RobJ1981 ( talk) 05:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nikki but isn't a Lumberjack match called Lumberjill when it is for the Divas? Or does Wikipedia ignore that one as well? -G uffas Borgz7- 19:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why it's better to use the sentence "this match was promoted as BunnyMania" under the match result. If that's how they promote it, then that's how it should be listed. Mshake3 ( talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
TJ, are you now prepared to delete "Belfast Brawl"? It is just a No Disqualification Match. So why are you not deleting it? You just want to have it both ways. Please read my other comments above about MITB. -G uffas Borgz7- 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is time for a change on this consensus. The WrestleMania equivalent in TNA, Bound for Glory, has it's posters and not logos. Both the poster and obviously the logo contain the logo. and finally WrestleMania articles stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of the WWE PPV articles. Time for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, the WrestleMania XXIV poster is already out, Cinnamon. They just agree that the logo is more significant and use the logo. -G uffas Borgz7- 10:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
That would make a difference to the rest of the PPVs how? The posters contain the logos. --Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy ( talk • contribs) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that it's mentioned, I can see using logos for WrestleMania. As the showcase, yearly event, it has a unique logo. And while the same could be said for other PPVs, with those, you can't tell them apart year to year. Mshake3 ( talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Reworded that's consensus is leaning towards Posters 6-3-- CiNnAmon CrUchy 02:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
MPJ-DK nominated this article in mid-January and it was reviewed on February 21. He responded to the "On hold" comments, but the reviewer hasn't been back since then. The article has now been on hold for 15 days. I left a message on the reviewer's talk page five days ago, but there has been no response. Is there anything that can be done to get the review finished (eg. find another reviewer to confirm that the concerns were addressed)? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time we get an AD for Wikipedia. Thoughts?-- TrU Co -X 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1)Look at my userpage, and look at the wiki advertisements in my banner, one of those. 2) So we can promote the project.-- TrU Co -X 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)