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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I have made a request for RFC for SummerSlam (2007), because during its FAC, it failed due to unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here. --~ S R S~ 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this event notable? No promotion is listed, so it's hard to tell. There are no articles for other Cage of Death events, but that doesn't mean much (eg. there is also no article for King of the Ring 1996). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about placing a prod on that. King iMat thew 20 08 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a duplicate article. I am not sure what to do in such a case. Could someone please let me know? If someone wants to be bold and fix it, that would be great, but I'd also like to know what to do in the future.
Likewise, both articles have copyrighted images in their infoboxes that have no fair use rationale. Again, what is the proper thing to do about something like that? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of current AfD's for our project, with most of them requiring some more votes, please vote in our AfD's here. King iMat thew 20 08 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WWE Legends of WrestleMania was just announced and created, expect vandalism and speculation, add to watchlist, thanks.--~ S R S~ 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel we should move Chavo Guerrero, Jr. to either Salvador Guerrero, or simply Chavo Guerrero, because he is never referred to as Chavo Guerrero, Jr., and that needs verifiability, and it can't since he isn't called that. Similar to the Rey Mysterio's, Oscar Gutierrez is today's Rey Mysterio, and he is best known as Rey Mysterio, but we title his page by his real name, since he isn't called Rey Mysterio, Jr., since his uncle is Rey Mysterio, Sr., thoughts?--~ S R S~ 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Definate no to Chavo Sr being renamed Chavo Classic. I have no real opinion on the Chavo Guerrero (Jr) rename, but I think Oscar Gutierrez should be renamed to Rey Mysterio, which is a redirect to Oscar Gutierrez anyway. He's definetly better known as Mysterio. Also Rey Misterio Sr. to just Rey Misterio works in my opinion, as it is a redirect to Rey Mysterio, Sr. anyway. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the possible Chavo Jr. move; if it's not broken - why fix it? He may not be refered to as Chavo Jr. in the WWE, but he was during his WCW run. -- Endless Dan 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This list was created yesterday. It doesn't appear as though this is a duplicate list, but I'm assuming there was a reason that it didn't exist before. Is there an existing consensus on this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like some opinions concerning a statement in Keibler's article, per the good article review, The September 2005 edition of the tabloid Star, claimed that Keibler was involved in a love triangle with Geoff Stults and actress Jennifer Aniston. Any comments would be most appreciated. Zenlax T C S 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the info. I looked around the net, and it seemed to be more of a rumor than fact. If anyone can find a legit news source with the information, I have no problems with it being added back in. Nikki 311 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are, apparently, a handful of articles wherein a paragraph or section begin with the company being referred to as the World Wrestling Federation/WWF and end with it being called World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE, though the only one I know of offhand is Tazz. Anyway, until yesterday it was handled with a note at the section header explaining the sudden change to people with no familiarity with the change until it was decided that wasn't necessary. Instead of just unilaterally changing it and changing it back and violating whatever rule, I figure I'll bring it up for discussion.«» bd( talk stalk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute going on at this page over whether Daizee Haze should be on the template or not. I have left a note on both editors talk pages about edit warring, but I thought we should get a consensus to stop this edit warring. Thoughts? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, who took abyss off? As far as we know, he is still with the company awaiting repackage (like Daniels/Curry Man) Sexy Sea Bassist 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion due to some users belief that it is non-notable, which I agree with. King iMat thew 20 08 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I revamped the whole article and I plan to nominate it for FLC soon, but before I can do that, may the community tell me what you think of it, and if you have any comments please feel free to tell me here, thanks =)--~ S R S~ 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see here. I'm not really sure what else to say on this subject beyond quoting policy. This, however, is a bit different.. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-- King iMat thew 20 08 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the code and I realize that there's a field that would add the year after the {{{name}}} and before the "Pay-per-view chronology" line. I don't recall ever seeing this used, and I was wondering whether or not we should remove it. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 00:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Example: {{Infobox wrestling event |2005 |name=Taboo Tuesday (2005) |lastevent=[[WWE No Mercy#2005|No Mercy (2005)]] |nextevent=[[Survivor Series (2005)]] }}
I have removed the feature. It appears to be added by LAX. Must've been the early days. Some articles were also changed to use this format but were reverted. Guess the template was left out. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Voting closes next sunday, and there are only three votes, so please go over there to vote! King iMat thew 20 08 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked for reassesment of its GAN, because this article was on the top of the GAN list for over a month, and a chance was not given to address concerns, follow this link for further explanation.--~ S R X~ 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
With the PPV over, I went to wikify it. I'm running into some problems. Check here. Should the matches remain the way they are with the tournament first even though the matches were dispersed throughout the PPV? Should there even be team listings at the beginning or should it go straight into the matche? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Since its previous FAC, an RFC has taken place to determine if two of our major sources, CompleteWWE.com and WrestleView, are reliable, which was the reason why it failed. Based on the comments and external links provided, the sources appear to be reliable. With that being said, if nobody objects, I plan on nominating SummerSlam for FA status once again in one week. – L A X 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Triple H is rumored to be one of the leading contenders to play Marvel Comics' adaptation of Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, in a flick scheduled to be out in the summer of 2010. http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=212638877 Might not be an issue, but I just figured I'd bring it to everyone's attention if they hadn't read the rumors already since it might mean keeping an extra eye on the Triple H article. Odin's Beard ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Odd glitch here. When you go into the above article, Helmsley's first reign now does appear in the table. Attempting to edit the article reveals that his reign is in table, right where it should be, but appears to be invisible for whatever reason in the actual article. It does not have the hidden note tags in the edit box, so I have no idea what the problem is. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep a watch, or review the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship pages. MC511 is claiming that just because TNA says that the NWA belts they had since day one are the same as their current ones that the pages on here have to reflect that and are "truth". I'm pretty sure that's revisionism and something that's against Wiki policies. It's skewing facts and confusing. TonyFreakinAlmeida ( talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is one for your, need to be improved list. Govvy ( talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After stalling for quite a while, I returned to this article and finished it today. I would like to nominate it for a GA review some time in the future when the list is a little smaller. The other four events from 1994 are already GAs, so it would be nice to finish off the year. I would really appreciate it if anyone could look over the article and provide some feedback. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
According to this, Raw has a new logo, much different then the current one in the article. I however, cant find the source for a bigger image to upload, if someone is able to locate it, please notify me so I may upload it, or if you could upload it. Thanks.--~ S R X~ 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that SummerSlam (1988), which I recently put on our GA waiting list, might actually be a good candidate to skip the GA process and go straight to FA. Because the pay-per-view is older, I was able to use mostly book sources, so it doesn't have the sourcing problem that the other newer pay-per-views have. Also, it had a very successful peer review, which I think ironed out all the major problems. If anything is brought up during the FA nom, I'd be able to fix it fairly quickly.
I know that LAX is also considering nominating SummerSlam (2007), but I think it might be a good idea to have two of our articles nominated at once. It will show the reviewers that we are serious about getting our articles to FA quality, and they might be more likely to review and/or give opinions. It is harder to ignore two articles than it is one. We can try it, anyway. Are there any thoughts on this? I'm really interested in everyone's opinion. Nikki 311 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be deleted? I seem to be the only person working on it, and I can't handle it all by myself. I am receiving no help, or help offers and I don't have the time to run it by myself? Should we just delete it? King iMat thew 20 08 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The interview would be best if divided into three sections: Wikipedia Related, Help Related, and Personal Related. If you can, try to come up with about 5 questions for each section. King iMat thew 20 08 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What's EOTW? -- Scorpion 0422 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this relate to the Undertaker's article? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I must assume good faith here and say that this was not done as a joke. If you look at the album, it apparently has a song titled "The Undertaker", so the user probably added it in good faith, realizing that somebody might be looking for that song. King iMat thew 20 08 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody who knows the song, might want to look up the song, and if they type in "The Undertaker" their get our Undertaker, but they want the song, so that note might have been helpful, I'm not sure. Either way, per his response to my comment on his talk page, I believe no harm was intended, and no warning was necessary. King iMat thew 20 08 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate this has probably been argued back and forth numerous times, but I am still new to Wikipedia and am interested in knowing the result.
JC Bailey is currently marked for deletion, and while I agree that the article needs a lot of work, I am confused as to the reasoning behind deleting the article.
Mr Senseless has stated that there is a notability guideline for pro-wrestlers
here ("Wrestlers in tiny wrestling leagues are not notable"), but I would argue that CZW and IWA-MS are not "tiny" promotions. Admittedly they are not drawing WWE-size crowds, but they are up there at the top end of the "indy" promotions.
Has there ever been an agreed upon list of promotions that would confer notability to a wrestler? If a wrestler has held titles in both the previously mentioned indy promotions, would that not qualify as notability? Or, if the reasoning given is not valid, is there an official notability qualification that would have to be met for a pro-wrestler?--
Apsouthern (
talk)
23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it against regulations to include previously used theme songs by the show?-- S R X 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this for GA today, but my question is, do I nominate him under Games and Sports, or Actors and Actresses, etc.? King iMat thew 20 08 11:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time that we reached a consensus on this. I don't intend this to criticize anyone, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed. Our project is doing an amazing job of improving articles to a GA level. We've also done a great job of reviewing Good Article Nominations for other projects. With that said, I feel that we simply have too many articles nominated. Currently, we have 12 articles nominated for Good Article reviews. The nominations page is backlogged, and 12 of the 28 unreviewed Sports and recreation articles come from this project. I believe that we should have some sort of limit. In the past, we have had discussions of capping the number of articles that the project can nominate at once, capping the number of articles that an individual editor can nominate at once, or ignoring the idea of a cap altogether. I don't want to go straight to "voting", but I think it would be helpful if editors made their opinions known here. If we have a discussion for the next few days, it would be helpful in getting opinions so that we can achieve a consenus. Opinions, anybody? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there should be no limit. It is unfair that our articles take more than one month to become reviewed, so we have to wait months at a time to nominate new articles. Other projects will nominate it, and it's getting review before they click "Save page". If our articles got reviewed after a week or so, then I'd agree that there should be a limit, but it's proven to be over a month at a time, which is unfair. King iMat thew 20 08 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
These are clearly operated by the same person, and this person clearly has no intention of making constructive edits. However, in one of my few merciful moments, I decided to give this person a second chance. If any of you see the person vandalizing a page again, report both of the accounts to WP:AIV please. Somehow they've survived blocking for a while. Cheers, - The Hybrid- 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I will have this done and ready to be sent out by late afternoon today, I need to finalize the EOTW, and proofread/update the newsletter. It will be done later. King iMat thew 20 08 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I finished them. Nikki 311 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put it off for tonight. I'll finalize it early tomorrow morning, and add any notable info from JD. King iMat thew 20 08 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, Bloodstained Memoirs, a wrestling film starring Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Mick Foley, Roddy Piper, Jimmy Snuka, Ultimo Dragon, Keiji Mutoh, Christian Cage, Molly Holly and others is up for deletion review on the main Wiki. Link of DRV and Article bellow:
I honestly believe it is getting overlooked as it is a "wrestling" production. The article is on the wrestling Wiki, but perhaps some support of some of the members here could ensure iots return to the main Wiki. Commoncase ( talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Age of Orton? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This was brought up here before (which didn't result in anything from what I see). The article is just a general list of every event they have had. While the company puts most (or even all) events on DVD, that doesn't justify we need a list of all of them. They don't have a full touring schedule like other promotions: that also doesn't justify a complete list of every event they've had. I personally think this list either needs condensing, or just outright deletion (or even redirecting/merging). RobJ1981 ( talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we have so many GA noms, I think everyone who knows how should go review an article at WP:GAN. I think it is a good idea anyhow...it helps familiarize you with the GA criteria, and it is a great learning experience. I've been doing it a lot lately, and I think my article writing skills have improved 100%. It also trains you to notice the small stuff that other editors might miss. Plus, you learn about new MoS and other guidelines that you may not have known about, which we can then apply to our articles to continue to improve them.
Another good thing about reviewing is that really prominent editors become familiar with your name. A lot of the people who submit and review articles at GAN, also review at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. When an editor recognizes your name and your work, they are much more likely to comment on your nominations. Plus, if you review for them, they might review for you. If you don't know how to review yet, just look on the talk pages of a few articles that are on hold. Reading the comments left by reviewers is also beneficial.
Oh yeah...congrats to ThinkBlue who was a GA reviewer of the week a couple of weeks ago and GaryColemanFan, who is in the top 5 every week. Nikki 311 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already reviewed One Night Stand (2007) and failed it. King iMat thew 20 08 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not reviewed an article in a while, and I guess I did everything wrong. I'd appreciate comments against me to be held back, I will stay away from the reviews in the future. Thanks, King iMat thew 20 08 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the points iMatthew put down during the review was that the "References" section name should be changed to "Notes". Do we have a consensus as to what those particular headings should be? Onto a third point.... D.M.N. ( talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this comment also by iMatthew. I hope this isn't how people on the whole about the article. People should be bold and address the problem, preferrably at a centralized location where everyone will notice. Anyway, anyone else think this shouldn't be an FAC? D.M.N. ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Featured Review and all of that, but in my personal opinion, if it was only a GA and nominated today, it wouldn't pass. I don't want anyone to take offense to that, because I also don't think Shelton Benjamin (one of the articles I heavily worked on) would pass either. If everyone remembers, D2D and Benjamin passed around the same time, and I think the current reviewers are much more picky than they were back in November 2007. Nikki 311 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is worth trying to get this passed for FA for the anniversary (25th June)? It failed GA on 07th August 2007 but has been transformed since. It is worth trying for FA for one month's time? Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I plan on nominating it for GA in 1 week. Comments are welcome! King iMat thew 20 08 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this here before (as has others I would bet). IP editors continue to mess with the track listing, dispite the warnings on the page. I requested protection before, and it didn't happen (or was just ignored). I think we need to several people to watch the page. I've stopped giving them warnings at this point, as their contribs show only Wreckless Intent and once in a while a few other edits. RobJ1981 ( talk) 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Fingerpoke of Doom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Endless Dan 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Crash TV, a professional wrestling-related article, is currently nominated for deletion. You can share your thoughts here. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IRK! Leave me a note or two 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this was discussed before, but it didn't really get anywhere, but why don't we have a future class?-- S R X 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently going through a Featured Article nomination. Ealdgyth, who is pretty strict about reliable sources, is satisfied with everything except Pro Wrestling History. The site is only used for the attendance, and Ealdgyth has said that, since the attendance was apparently mentioned on the broadcast, that the broadcast could be used as a reference because it's not a controversial fact. Does anyone have access to a copy? Jim Ross apparently announced the attendance figure just before the Cena-Orton match. Can anyone check their copy of the event to verify the number he gave? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this image, which states that the uploader is the copyrighted holder of the photo, but the photo has both the WWF (at the time) and the UPN logo, and looks like a screenshot/photo from a website. I'm not sure, and don't know much about images, so could someone take a look at this please? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is not GA material, right? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes spamming, speculation, and rumors on talk pages for future PPV's could get out of hand. So I proposed this warning template (similarly used on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009). Just a first step to aid the cost. Comment on it, and say whether you agree with the template, if so, if anything should be added to the template (i.e, the reliable sources). Thanks.
WWE One Night Stand was a professional wrestling event produced annually in June by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), a Connecticut–based promotion; it was broadcast live and and available only through pay-per-view (PPV). The event's name refers to its original format, that being a one night reunion show for former Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) alumni. The event was first announced in 2005, just as WWE released The Rise and Fall of ECW documentary– DVD, although Paul Heyman, Rob Van Dam, and Tommy Dreamer all assisted in having the concept approved by the WWE board. For the first two shows, the event remained strictly to the reunion format and was promoted under the ECW acronym; however, after WWE launched their own version of ECW (from 2006 until 2010) as a Brand Extension to Raw and SmackDown, the 2007 event and onwards was promoted under the WWE acronym and added it to the regular lineup of annual WWE pay-per-view events. In 2009, WWE replaced the "One Night Stand" name with " Extreme Rules"; however, the new name was adopted as a new event that would not continue the history of One Night Stand, although it would retain its concept of hardcore type matches only.
The reunion shows featured hardcore wrestling bouts, known as "Extreme Rules" matches, which was how every match in ECW was originally contested in. After 2007, WWE kept this concept, adopted the "Extreme Rules" moniker for hardcore bouts, and promoted the event as the only night when WWE featured only Extreme Rules matches on the card. Every match, distinct from one another, followed these regulations. The reunion shows featured mainly ECW alumni fighting in matches, but also featured storylines and bouts that involved anti–ECW wrestlers from the WWE roster. For the last two years of the event's production, the event featured all three WWE brands in matches that involved wrestlers from the brand they were assigned to work on; rarely would interpromotional matches be held. The undercard consisted of various matches that developed or ended rivalries or were for lower-tier championships; the main card was similar to the undercard except that these matches received more promotion on television and were contested for top-tier championships. In its four events, all were held in an indoor arena in the United States. S R X 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources around these parts need to be justified against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. Quote from the template: If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a source. - so I could use any website as a source. So your telling the person reading that that they could use even a MySpace blog for it? Please, it needs to be more specific. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the
Judgment Day (2008) article. Off-topic discussions, including (but not limited to) your thoughts of what any aspect of the pay-per-view should contain (e.g., matches, appearances, etc.) are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be REMOVED. If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a reliable source. Thank you for your help. |
but Mshake keeps disagreeing, because he thinks the above sources shouldn't be the only ones.-- S R X 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PWInsider is reporting that ECW will now be taped at Raw events beginning mid-June, with HeAT being cancelled. IMO, this should be included in the notible articles, but should not be considered "official" until an official announcment occurs. Mshake3 ( talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this can easily turn into something lame, but there are two things I propose for the title of the article. 1) Remove the exclamation mark from the title, as WWE does not use it anywhere in their articles, [3] [4] (and not to mention their logo). 2) I think it should be renamed to just WWE SmackDown, because of the logo and that is basically the name of the program. Some of you might argue because here it says that its called Friday Night SmackDown, but the thing is, that is the name that the shows are advertised under. Just like ECW is advertised under ECW on Sci-Fi on TV ads, and on the above link. Now if consensus is to keep it the way it is, we should rename the ECW article then, comments would be appreciated.-- S R X 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure wwe.com never used the exclamation mark. Archive from '05 - [5] - SmackDown! is wrote SmackDown, but Wikipedia always had it wrote with it. So why are we changing it now. Also, wwe.com capitalizes "match" - ie. Steel Cage Match, and Wikipedia never has. So should we be following that?
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
MoS says nothing about it. I didn't complain about anything by the way.
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Post a link to the part where it says SmackDown! shouldn't have the exclamation mark. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
MoS.
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you see the talk page of Wrestling Classic, someone posted a YouTube link (which also was posted here if I remember right). Is there a more reliable source that proves Wrestlevision was the actual name? RobJ1981 ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
I have made a request for RFC for SummerSlam (2007), because during its FAC, it failed due to unreliable sources. The discussion can be found here. --~ S R S~ 03:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Is this event notable? No promotion is listed, so it's hard to tell. There are no articles for other Cage of Death events, but that doesn't mean much (eg. there is also no article for King of the Ring 1996). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about placing a prod on that. King iMat thew 20 08 20:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a duplicate article. I am not sure what to do in such a case. Could someone please let me know? If someone wants to be bold and fix it, that would be great, but I'd also like to know what to do in the future.
Likewise, both articles have copyrighted images in their infoboxes that have no fair use rationale. Again, what is the proper thing to do about something like that? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 20:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be a lot of current AfD's for our project, with most of them requiring some more votes, please vote in our AfD's here. King iMat thew 20 08 21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WWE Legends of WrestleMania was just announced and created, expect vandalism and speculation, add to watchlist, thanks.--~ S R S~ 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel we should move Chavo Guerrero, Jr. to either Salvador Guerrero, or simply Chavo Guerrero, because he is never referred to as Chavo Guerrero, Jr., and that needs verifiability, and it can't since he isn't called that. Similar to the Rey Mysterio's, Oscar Gutierrez is today's Rey Mysterio, and he is best known as Rey Mysterio, but we title his page by his real name, since he isn't called Rey Mysterio, Jr., since his uncle is Rey Mysterio, Sr., thoughts?--~ S R S~ 17:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Definate no to Chavo Sr being renamed Chavo Classic. I have no real opinion on the Chavo Guerrero (Jr) rename, but I think Oscar Gutierrez should be renamed to Rey Mysterio, which is a redirect to Oscar Gutierrez anyway. He's definetly better known as Mysterio. Also Rey Misterio Sr. to just Rey Misterio works in my opinion, as it is a redirect to Rey Mysterio, Sr. anyway. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the possible Chavo Jr. move; if it's not broken - why fix it? He may not be refered to as Chavo Jr. in the WWE, but he was during his WCW run. -- Endless Dan 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This list was created yesterday. It doesn't appear as though this is a duplicate list, but I'm assuming there was a reason that it didn't exist before. Is there an existing consensus on this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like some opinions concerning a statement in Keibler's article, per the good article review, The September 2005 edition of the tabloid Star, claimed that Keibler was involved in a love triangle with Geoff Stults and actress Jennifer Aniston. Any comments would be most appreciated. Zenlax T C S 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the info. I looked around the net, and it seemed to be more of a rumor than fact. If anyone can find a legit news source with the information, I have no problems with it being added back in. Nikki 311 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There are, apparently, a handful of articles wherein a paragraph or section begin with the company being referred to as the World Wrestling Federation/WWF and end with it being called World Wrestling Entertainment/WWE, though the only one I know of offhand is Tazz. Anyway, until yesterday it was handled with a note at the section header explaining the sudden change to people with no familiarity with the change until it was decided that wasn't necessary. Instead of just unilaterally changing it and changing it back and violating whatever rule, I figure I'll bring it up for discussion.«» bd( talk stalk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute going on at this page over whether Daizee Haze should be on the template or not. I have left a note on both editors talk pages about edit warring, but I thought we should get a consensus to stop this edit warring. Thoughts? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of which, who took abyss off? As far as we know, he is still with the company awaiting repackage (like Daniels/Curry Man) Sexy Sea Bassist 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion due to some users belief that it is non-notable, which I agree with. King iMat thew 20 08 19:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I revamped the whole article and I plan to nominate it for FLC soon, but before I can do that, may the community tell me what you think of it, and if you have any comments please feel free to tell me here, thanks =)--~ S R S~ 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see here. I'm not really sure what else to say on this subject beyond quoting policy. This, however, is a bit different.. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-- King iMat thew 20 08 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the code and I realize that there's a field that would add the year after the {{{name}}} and before the "Pay-per-view chronology" line. I don't recall ever seeing this used, and I was wondering whether or not we should remove it. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 00:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Example: {{Infobox wrestling event |2005 |name=Taboo Tuesday (2005) |lastevent=[[WWE No Mercy#2005|No Mercy (2005)]] |nextevent=[[Survivor Series (2005)]] }}
I have removed the feature. It appears to be added by LAX. Must've been the early days. Some articles were also changed to use this format but were reverted. Guess the template was left out. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 02:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Voting closes next sunday, and there are only three votes, so please go over there to vote! King iMat thew 20 08 12:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I asked for reassesment of its GAN, because this article was on the top of the GAN list for over a month, and a chance was not given to address concerns, follow this link for further explanation.--~ S R X~ 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
With the PPV over, I went to wikify it. I'm running into some problems. Check here. Should the matches remain the way they are with the tournament first even though the matches were dispersed throughout the PPV? Should there even be team listings at the beginning or should it go straight into the matche? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Since its previous FAC, an RFC has taken place to determine if two of our major sources, CompleteWWE.com and WrestleView, are reliable, which was the reason why it failed. Based on the comments and external links provided, the sources appear to be reliable. With that being said, if nobody objects, I plan on nominating SummerSlam for FA status once again in one week. – L A X 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Triple H is rumored to be one of the leading contenders to play Marvel Comics' adaptation of Thor, the Norse God of Thunder, in a flick scheduled to be out in the summer of 2010. http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=212638877 Might not be an issue, but I just figured I'd bring it to everyone's attention if they hadn't read the rumors already since it might mean keeping an extra eye on the Triple H article. Odin's Beard ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Odd glitch here. When you go into the above article, Helmsley's first reign now does appear in the table. Attempting to edit the article reveals that his reign is in table, right where it should be, but appears to be invisible for whatever reason in the actual article. It does not have the hidden note tags in the edit box, so I have no idea what the problem is. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep a watch, or review the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and TNA World Tag Team Championship pages. MC511 is claiming that just because TNA says that the NWA belts they had since day one are the same as their current ones that the pages on here have to reflect that and are "truth". I'm pretty sure that's revisionism and something that's against Wiki policies. It's skewing facts and confusing. TonyFreakinAlmeida ( talk) 06:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is one for your, need to be improved list. Govvy ( talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After stalling for quite a while, I returned to this article and finished it today. I would like to nominate it for a GA review some time in the future when the list is a little smaller. The other four events from 1994 are already GAs, so it would be nice to finish off the year. I would really appreciate it if anyone could look over the article and provide some feedback. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
According to this, Raw has a new logo, much different then the current one in the article. I however, cant find the source for a bigger image to upload, if someone is able to locate it, please notify me so I may upload it, or if you could upload it. Thanks.--~ S R X~ 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been brought to my attention that SummerSlam (1988), which I recently put on our GA waiting list, might actually be a good candidate to skip the GA process and go straight to FA. Because the pay-per-view is older, I was able to use mostly book sources, so it doesn't have the sourcing problem that the other newer pay-per-views have. Also, it had a very successful peer review, which I think ironed out all the major problems. If anything is brought up during the FA nom, I'd be able to fix it fairly quickly.
I know that LAX is also considering nominating SummerSlam (2007), but I think it might be a good idea to have two of our articles nominated at once. It will show the reviewers that we are serious about getting our articles to FA quality, and they might be more likely to review and/or give opinions. It is harder to ignore two articles than it is one. We can try it, anyway. Are there any thoughts on this? I'm really interested in everyone's opinion. Nikki 311 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be deleted? I seem to be the only person working on it, and I can't handle it all by myself. I am receiving no help, or help offers and I don't have the time to run it by myself? Should we just delete it? King iMat thew 20 08 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The interview would be best if divided into three sections: Wikipedia Related, Help Related, and Personal Related. If you can, try to come up with about 5 questions for each section. King iMat thew 20 08 22:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What's EOTW? -- Scorpion 0422 23:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Does this relate to the Undertaker's article? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I must assume good faith here and say that this was not done as a joke. If you look at the album, it apparently has a song titled "The Undertaker", so the user probably added it in good faith, realizing that somebody might be looking for that song. King iMat thew 20 08 01:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Somebody who knows the song, might want to look up the song, and if they type in "The Undertaker" their get our Undertaker, but they want the song, so that note might have been helpful, I'm not sure. Either way, per his response to my comment on his talk page, I believe no harm was intended, and no warning was necessary. King iMat thew 20 08 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate this has probably been argued back and forth numerous times, but I am still new to Wikipedia and am interested in knowing the result.
JC Bailey is currently marked for deletion, and while I agree that the article needs a lot of work, I am confused as to the reasoning behind deleting the article.
Mr Senseless has stated that there is a notability guideline for pro-wrestlers
here ("Wrestlers in tiny wrestling leagues are not notable"), but I would argue that CZW and IWA-MS are not "tiny" promotions. Admittedly they are not drawing WWE-size crowds, but they are up there at the top end of the "indy" promotions.
Has there ever been an agreed upon list of promotions that would confer notability to a wrestler? If a wrestler has held titles in both the previously mentioned indy promotions, would that not qualify as notability? Or, if the reasoning given is not valid, is there an official notability qualification that would have to be met for a pro-wrestler?--
Apsouthern (
talk)
23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it against regulations to include previously used theme songs by the show?-- S R X 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this for GA today, but my question is, do I nominate him under Games and Sports, or Actors and Actresses, etc.? King iMat thew 20 08 11:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's time that we reached a consensus on this. I don't intend this to criticize anyone, but I think it's something that needs to be discussed. Our project is doing an amazing job of improving articles to a GA level. We've also done a great job of reviewing Good Article Nominations for other projects. With that said, I feel that we simply have too many articles nominated. Currently, we have 12 articles nominated for Good Article reviews. The nominations page is backlogged, and 12 of the 28 unreviewed Sports and recreation articles come from this project. I believe that we should have some sort of limit. In the past, we have had discussions of capping the number of articles that the project can nominate at once, capping the number of articles that an individual editor can nominate at once, or ignoring the idea of a cap altogether. I don't want to go straight to "voting", but I think it would be helpful if editors made their opinions known here. If we have a discussion for the next few days, it would be helpful in getting opinions so that we can achieve a consenus. Opinions, anybody? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that there should be no limit. It is unfair that our articles take more than one month to become reviewed, so we have to wait months at a time to nominate new articles. Other projects will nominate it, and it's getting review before they click "Save page". If our articles got reviewed after a week or so, then I'd agree that there should be a limit, but it's proven to be over a month at a time, which is unfair. King iMat thew 20 08 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
These are clearly operated by the same person, and this person clearly has no intention of making constructive edits. However, in one of my few merciful moments, I decided to give this person a second chance. If any of you see the person vandalizing a page again, report both of the accounts to WP:AIV please. Somehow they've survived blocking for a while. Cheers, - The Hybrid- 04:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I will have this done and ready to be sent out by late afternoon today, I need to finalize the EOTW, and proofread/update the newsletter. It will be done later. King iMat thew 20 08 10:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I finished them. Nikki 311 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've put it off for tonight. I'll finalize it early tomorrow morning, and add any notable info from JD. King iMat thew 20 08 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear all, Bloodstained Memoirs, a wrestling film starring Chris Jericho, Rob Van Dam, Mick Foley, Roddy Piper, Jimmy Snuka, Ultimo Dragon, Keiji Mutoh, Christian Cage, Molly Holly and others is up for deletion review on the main Wiki. Link of DRV and Article bellow:
I honestly believe it is getting overlooked as it is a "wrestling" production. The article is on the wrestling Wiki, but perhaps some support of some of the members here could ensure iots return to the main Wiki. Commoncase ( talk) 18:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The Age of Orton? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 20:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This was brought up here before (which didn't result in anything from what I see). The article is just a general list of every event they have had. While the company puts most (or even all) events on DVD, that doesn't justify we need a list of all of them. They don't have a full touring schedule like other promotions: that also doesn't justify a complete list of every event they've had. I personally think this list either needs condensing, or just outright deletion (or even redirecting/merging). RobJ1981 ( talk) 05:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Since we have so many GA noms, I think everyone who knows how should go review an article at WP:GAN. I think it is a good idea anyhow...it helps familiarize you with the GA criteria, and it is a great learning experience. I've been doing it a lot lately, and I think my article writing skills have improved 100%. It also trains you to notice the small stuff that other editors might miss. Plus, you learn about new MoS and other guidelines that you may not have known about, which we can then apply to our articles to continue to improve them.
Another good thing about reviewing is that really prominent editors become familiar with your name. A lot of the people who submit and review articles at GAN, also review at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. When an editor recognizes your name and your work, they are much more likely to comment on your nominations. Plus, if you review for them, they might review for you. If you don't know how to review yet, just look on the talk pages of a few articles that are on hold. Reading the comments left by reviewers is also beneficial.
Oh yeah...congrats to ThinkBlue who was a GA reviewer of the week a couple of weeks ago and GaryColemanFan, who is in the top 5 every week. Nikki 311 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already reviewed One Night Stand (2007) and failed it. King iMat thew 20 08 00:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not reviewed an article in a while, and I guess I did everything wrong. I'd appreciate comments against me to be held back, I will stay away from the reviews in the future. Thanks, King iMat thew 20 08 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the points iMatthew put down during the review was that the "References" section name should be changed to "Notes". Do we have a consensus as to what those particular headings should be? Onto a third point.... D.M.N. ( talk) 21:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this comment also by iMatthew. I hope this isn't how people on the whole about the article. People should be bold and address the problem, preferrably at a centralized location where everyone will notice. Anyway, anyone else think this shouldn't be an FAC? D.M.N. ( talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about Featured Review and all of that, but in my personal opinion, if it was only a GA and nominated today, it wouldn't pass. I don't want anyone to take offense to that, because I also don't think Shelton Benjamin (one of the articles I heavily worked on) would pass either. If everyone remembers, D2D and Benjamin passed around the same time, and I think the current reviewers are much more picky than they were back in November 2007. Nikki 311 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It is worth trying to get this passed for FA for the anniversary (25th June)? It failed GA on 07th August 2007 but has been transformed since. It is worth trying for FA for one month's time? Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I plan on nominating it for GA in 1 week. Comments are welcome! King iMat thew 20 08 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this here before (as has others I would bet). IP editors continue to mess with the track listing, dispite the warnings on the page. I requested protection before, and it didn't happen (or was just ignored). I think we need to several people to watch the page. I've stopped giving them warnings at this point, as their contribs show only Wreckless Intent and once in a while a few other edits. RobJ1981 ( talk) 01:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, The Fingerpoke of Doom, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fingerpoke of Doom (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Endless Dan 20:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Crash TV, a professional wrestling-related article, is currently nominated for deletion. You can share your thoughts here. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? IRK! Leave me a note or two 07:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this was discussed before, but it didn't really get anywhere, but why don't we have a future class?-- S R X 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is currently going through a Featured Article nomination. Ealdgyth, who is pretty strict about reliable sources, is satisfied with everything except Pro Wrestling History. The site is only used for the attendance, and Ealdgyth has said that, since the attendance was apparently mentioned on the broadcast, that the broadcast could be used as a reference because it's not a controversial fact. Does anyone have access to a copy? Jim Ross apparently announced the attendance figure just before the Cena-Orton match. Can anyone check their copy of the event to verify the number he gave? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I came across this image, which states that the uploader is the copyrighted holder of the photo, but the photo has both the WWF (at the time) and the UPN logo, and looks like a screenshot/photo from a website. I'm not sure, and don't know much about images, so could someone take a look at this please? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is not GA material, right? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes spamming, speculation, and rumors on talk pages for future PPV's could get out of hand. So I proposed this warning template (similarly used on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009). Just a first step to aid the cost. Comment on it, and say whether you agree with the template, if so, if anything should be added to the template (i.e, the reliable sources). Thanks.
WWE One Night Stand was a professional wrestling event produced annually in June by World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), a Connecticut–based promotion; it was broadcast live and and available only through pay-per-view (PPV). The event's name refers to its original format, that being a one night reunion show for former Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) alumni. The event was first announced in 2005, just as WWE released The Rise and Fall of ECW documentary– DVD, although Paul Heyman, Rob Van Dam, and Tommy Dreamer all assisted in having the concept approved by the WWE board. For the first two shows, the event remained strictly to the reunion format and was promoted under the ECW acronym; however, after WWE launched their own version of ECW (from 2006 until 2010) as a Brand Extension to Raw and SmackDown, the 2007 event and onwards was promoted under the WWE acronym and added it to the regular lineup of annual WWE pay-per-view events. In 2009, WWE replaced the "One Night Stand" name with " Extreme Rules"; however, the new name was adopted as a new event that would not continue the history of One Night Stand, although it would retain its concept of hardcore type matches only.
The reunion shows featured hardcore wrestling bouts, known as "Extreme Rules" matches, which was how every match in ECW was originally contested in. After 2007, WWE kept this concept, adopted the "Extreme Rules" moniker for hardcore bouts, and promoted the event as the only night when WWE featured only Extreme Rules matches on the card. Every match, distinct from one another, followed these regulations. The reunion shows featured mainly ECW alumni fighting in matches, but also featured storylines and bouts that involved anti–ECW wrestlers from the WWE roster. For the last two years of the event's production, the event featured all three WWE brands in matches that involved wrestlers from the brand they were assigned to work on; rarely would interpromotional matches be held. The undercard consisted of various matches that developed or ended rivalries or were for lower-tier championships; the main card was similar to the undercard except that these matches received more promotion on television and were contested for top-tier championships. In its four events, all were held in an indoor arena in the United States. S R X 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of sources around these parts need to be justified against WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Hang on. Quote from the template: If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a source. - so I could use any website as a source. So your telling the person reading that that they could use even a MySpace blog for it? Please, it needs to be more specific. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the
Judgment Day (2008) article. Off-topic discussions, including (but not limited to) your thoughts of what any aspect of the pay-per-view should contain (e.g., matches, appearances, etc.) are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be REMOVED. If you wish to make a change to the article, cite it with a reliable source. Thank you for your help. |
but Mshake keeps disagreeing, because he thinks the above sources shouldn't be the only ones.-- S R X 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
PWInsider is reporting that ECW will now be taped at Raw events beginning mid-June, with HeAT being cancelled. IMO, this should be included in the notible articles, but should not be considered "official" until an official announcment occurs. Mshake3 ( talk) 22:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I know this can easily turn into something lame, but there are two things I propose for the title of the article. 1) Remove the exclamation mark from the title, as WWE does not use it anywhere in their articles, [3] [4] (and not to mention their logo). 2) I think it should be renamed to just WWE SmackDown, because of the logo and that is basically the name of the program. Some of you might argue because here it says that its called Friday Night SmackDown, but the thing is, that is the name that the shows are advertised under. Just like ECW is advertised under ECW on Sci-Fi on TV ads, and on the above link. Now if consensus is to keep it the way it is, we should rename the ECW article then, comments would be appreciated.-- S R X 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Pretty sure wwe.com never used the exclamation mark. Archive from '05 - [5] - SmackDown! is wrote SmackDown, but Wikipedia always had it wrote with it. So why are we changing it now. Also, wwe.com capitalizes "match" - ie. Steel Cage Match, and Wikipedia never has. So should we be following that?
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
MoS says nothing about it. I didn't complain about anything by the way.
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 03:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Post a link to the part where it says SmackDown! shouldn't have the exclamation mark. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
MoS.
RandySavageFTW ( talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you see the talk page of Wrestling Classic, someone posted a YouTube link (which also was posted here if I remember right). Is there a more reliable source that proves Wrestlevision was the actual name? RobJ1981 ( talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)