![]() | 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I think that Championship pages can be made into Good Articles, if simple roads, like New York State Route 9L can be classified as good articles, so can our championships, as their length are practically the same. However, we need a compromise on what to include in the championship article that can make them good articles. When I say championship articles, I mean the article about the championship itself, like the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Comments/Suggestions welcomed!-- SRX-- Latino Heat 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So long as there are no objection, I plan on keeping this newsletter on hold for a week. There are currently no current events there, but I guess there could be (McMahon's MDM, the upcoming draft, etc.). Anyway, this also provides a change for the newsletter to catch up with the COTW. Reminding all, anybody can help with the newsletter, so feel free to head over there and add more/new infomation (to current events), etc. Also, back to the COTW, it is becoming very inactive lately, there are I believe six nominations all with three or less votes. Please help with the COTW and newsletter, guys. -- iMatthew T. C. 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So I asked Ealdgyth on their interpretation on a couple of third-party websites that we use to source some of our articles, mostly the ones used in List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, as I planned on nominating it for FLC, but due to the sourcing issue I don't think I can. Anyways, so what they said was that some of them could be considered reliable if a reliable third-party website vouched them (or credited them). For some it might not be that hard to do that, but for others it will, so as a project, can we help in trying to prove some of our sources reliability, refer here to the discussion and for the list of sources.-- SRX-- Latino Heat 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Move to WWE Monday Night Raw? WWE refers to it as that. SAVIOR_ SELF .777 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
SAVIOR_ SELF .777 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Not done
Move to ECW (WWE) or WWE ECW? Per WP:ACRONYM, if a particular topic is referred to as it's acronym more than its full name, like NASA, it can be titled as such. ECW hasn't been referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling since its inception as a WWE Brand. [1]
Not done
Move to WWE SmackDown? The logo doesn't use Friday Night Anymore, the only reference to it as "Friday Night SmackDown" is the CW and commentators. Currently, no where is it referred to it as FNS, [2].-- SRX-- Latino Heat 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple move to "List of former WWE programming"?
, no consensus was formed.
Move to William Moody (real name) or Paul Bearer (most famous name)? -- Endless Dan 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not done --
iMatthew
T.
C. 10:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Who supports a move to Billy Kidman? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to Dwayne Johnson. He's no longer just, "The Rock". In his last several films, he was billed as only Dwayne Johnson. I can't believe the article title is actually The Rock (entertainer). This has been discussed before here, but closed with no apparent conclusion. I make a better case on there, but please read all opinions. WP:COMMONNAME isn't an acceptable rebuttal as I can and did made a strong case that Dwayne Johnson would fit that bill.
I disagree with your pov that none of his movies have been blockbusters. The Game Plan (film) made over $100 million dollars just in the theatres. This does not include DVD sales (which was the #1 DVD for 2 weeks upon release). But that's just one movie. In comparison, as far I know no WWE event (with or without the Rock) has ever banked $100 mill (including gate & tv revenue). If you review the WrestleMania X-Seven article, which had one of the Rock's biggest matches ever, the gate at the event was meerly $3.5 million... for "a record-breaking event".
That's retarded. No conclusive evidence that movies are bigger then wrestling?? C'mon. It's common sense. If Hulk Hogan is wrestling's biggest star, I'm sure we can make a laundry list of much more famous actors. There is a reason why Tom Cruise gets paid 30 million dollars a film and Hogan is doing a reality show on CMT.-- Endless Dan 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
“ | After proving he could carry a movie to No. 1 with last fall's surprise hit The Game Plan, he's positioning himself as Hollywood's go-to family comedy hitman. It's all part of the latest reinvention of The Rock — which starts with not referring to himself as The Rock. "I'm aware of everything that comes with that nickname, and I just think there's a lot more you can do without it," he says. "But I wanted it to happen naturally, from 'The Rock' to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson to 'Dwayne Johnson. He doesn't do the thing with the eyebrow anymore, either, and he's trimmed pounds of meathead muscle off his still handsomely chiseled 6'4" self. The purpose of this massive rebranding effort: to cast himself in the image of his four-quadrant matinee idols Will Smith and Tom Hanks. "They embrace being a movie star from beginning to end," says the 36-year-old actor. "From preproduction through the all-important marketing, they work hard and enjoy it." [3] | ” |
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson seems like the best compromise and the most acceptable fit as it would encompass both names. He hasn't been billed as simply The Rock in his movies in quite some time, but he has used and has been refered to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson for media appearances and some of his movies (although, his latest movies he has dropped "The Rock" name). For everyone who voted above or who has not yet cast vote, would this satisfactory? This would also eliminate the (entertainer) tag and should end this seemingly never-ending arguement. -- Endless Dan 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Coleman, I've demonstrated Dwayne Johnson is a viable star grossing over 200 mill in the last 3 years more then he's ever made for or with the WWF. But I keep hearing "Rock" is his common name, but where's the proof? Wraslin is not bigger or more important than Hollywood. WWE is not bigger than Disney films. Not by a mile. We've provided requested links, I've given WP:FILM a heads up, I've even invited other members of this very project to voice there opinions and still nothing. -- Endless Dan 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to come to a decision in regards to this situation or are we just gonna sit on this topic and is it just going to dissapear into the archives of wikipedia as usual? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put WP:IAR into play here, as I believe a straw poll is the best option right now. I'll leave the poll open for one week. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been a full week. Can we call this a wrap? -- Endless Dan 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This vote is for no article name change.
As we have over 200 articles at B-Class, and over 2,000 at Start-Class, just letting you know that there is a "vote" here on whether C-Class should be introduced inbetween B-Class and Start-Class. This may help a project like ours with over thousands of articles. Please comment at the above link. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. However, please do not use it yet, as the WP 1.0 Bot does not recognise it yet. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship. Regards, -- Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
From the Featured Article candidacy for SummerSlam (1988): "I don't quite understand why a section is named "Report". The three sections in this article could be individual top-level sections."
This has come up before in other reviews, but our response has always been, "That's the way we do it." I agree with this reviewer, and I don't see the need to have everything included under "Report" (which has never sounded very encyclopedic...isn't every article essentially a report of some kind?). Does anyone else have an opinion about changing this to remove the "Report" line from our pay-per-view articles? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion of making them top-level headings. But I would give this at least half a week for other opinions before we implement. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody not agree? Can anybody see any good reasons not to make the change? Nikki 311 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, what does the community think about moving the results below the event in a subsection. Ex:
-- iMatthew T. C. 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nikki311. It is better to leave the Results right where they are.-- Will C 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If
2008 WWE Draft is not already on your watch list, please add it. Tonight it the draft, and heavy IP and new user vandalism is expected all through out it. Also, those drafted might get a touch of vandalism on their articles as well. And especially
List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees should be watched. Not really! I had the page protected for 2 whole months! After the last month was up, it was vandalized right away, so we have another two free months (expires: August 23, 2008). --
iMatthew
T.
C. 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It has already started, the vandalism. It's pretty funny, actually. -- iMatthew T. C. 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I find the waiting list starting to be ignored.
I bring this up because some of our articles have been on our waiting list for about a month now, and we only have 5 GA nominations.-- SRX-- Latino Heat 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can probably guess, JB196 is back, and has already had a couple socks blocked for his usual behavior on XPW-related articles like William Welch. If you run across any of his socks, could you just leave a message on my talk page or here, so we can try to keep him contained? Thanks in advance. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kurt_Angle&diff=219745033&oldid=219669255, which cites the WP guidelines on lists (which In wrestling sections qualify for) should be in alphabetical order, meaning managers, moves, nicknames and the like should all be in alphabetical order. I have seen very few articles comply by this, including our featured articles. I had originally reverted the edit due to it not being mentioned at here, but McPhail reverted it, citing Wikipedia:Lists#Organization as the reason. This would be mean most In wrestling sections need to be rewritten, as WP:PW's Style Guide cannot override Wikipedia policy, correct? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can this be MfD'd? Can't this policy just be written in the WP:PW/MOS? I don't think we need an article most consisting of a discussion to ratify the policy. Comments?-- SRX-- Latino Heat 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(Sum-up From Vince's talk) See what I did there? anyway, lame joke aside. We should add something to Vinny Mac's article about the "accident". And also mention the fact that while kayfabe, it tried to look legit by having 2 feuding faces and a heel come to his rescue and also calling HHH "Paul". etc. PXK T /C 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
ESPNJr.com? -- SRX-- Latino Heat 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Any website that allows you to openly change the content, including Wikipedia, in not a reliable source of information. — Moe ε 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
....is this? Seems to be trying to manipulate the discussion to do with The Rock article at the top of the page. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Ok, I just thought of this. I was changing the links of the draftees from the 2008 WWE Draft and I noticed different ways that their WWE profile is written. So question..
*Support #4 -
D.M.N. (
talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've struck my comment supporting the 4th one. I personally think we should have (Wrestler name) at (Website name). If we have Official WWE Profile, will we have official TNA Profile, official OWW Profile etc to be consistent. I think now, the best way to do is the way that it is currently done on Kofi Kingston's article where it is fully consistent. Thoughts? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See here and here for the relevant discussions and a full explanation. It boils down to can we list finishers and moves by "order of importance" without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've worked hard on the article for The Attitude Era. I expanded by about 5 times what it was when I started. I added alot about the beginning of the era, also about the even when it happned. I also added how some shows changed, and some shows that were added during the Attitude Era. I placed show logos to show how they changed, etc. I also, expanded the controversies section and got just a tad more in depth about the Montreal Screwjob and the death of Owen Hart. Not like I took the whole articles and place them there or anything. lol. I also added an external link to WWE.com's Fan Nation section that's for Attitude Era fans. I would like someone to go and give it their unbiased assessment. Thanks, Cra sh U nderride 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
So on the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, I wanted to make a change to the format as seen here. What does everyone think about that? Virakhvar321 ( talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavyn, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the results as a table is a bad idea, but consensus is against us. -- iMatthew T. C. 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about that as well, but the employee list changes day-to-day, while the alumni list is only badly affected badly when a release it announced. But I believe a change to list format from table format for the alumni article would provide positive results. The results as a table thing, is just plain horrible. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it for the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees but I don't like it for PPV results, I think it looks horrible and very untidy! Adster95 ( talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that WWE hasn't confirmed that Jericho will defend the title, but Jericho did an interview, where when asked if he had a title defense said "I believe so, that’s the gimmick of the PPV, that every title is defended. I’m not sure who I’ll be facing at this point. But I’ll be there." (see here) Is that a good enough source for it to be put onto the page? Because, just to play Devil's advocate, he doesn't explicitly say that he does have a match. Him "being there" does not equal a match. Thoughts? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Logically, when the WWE stated that every title would be defended, they were confirming that he would be in a match, right? The gimmick of the PPV should be enough, shouldn't it? Cheers, The Hybrid 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) Actually we can most definately add something like this:
WWE Intercontinental Championship: TBD vs. TBD
Because we have plenty of sources confirming that every title will be defended. We do not have any sources that Chris Jericho will be in the match, even though it's completely obvious, we don't have a source. But the above can and should be added, because we have references to back that up. -- iMatthew T. C. 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew, not including Chris Jericho in one of the TBA is rather silly, he is the current IC champion, the whole night is about the champion defending their titles, and it is a match that is confirmed to be for the IC title. The logic of 'no reliable sources' that state Jericho is in the match is not true, the match is between the IC champion and a TBA opponent, although it doesn't explictly say Jericho, that is what it means. — Moe ε 10:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been a strand of articles on professional wrestlers bios that say "On June 22, 2008, WWE commentator, Tyrone Wilson stated in an interview that he is going to talk to Vince McMahon about rehiring [insert wrestlers name here]". There is no evidence of this being true, sourced or having any weight to it. Anyone who sees these kinds of entries, which are primarily a target from IP's from the 4.129.xxx.xxx and 4.152.xxx.xxx ranges, revert them. Articles they target are former WWE alumni articles such as Scott Hall, Sid Eudy, Big Van Vader, Jimmy Snuka King Kong Bundy, etc. — Moe ε 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988) suggested that the match results would be better formatted as a table. I made up an example at User:Nikki311/sandbox (in the middle). Any thoughts? I think I like it. Nikki 311 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. No offense or anything, but, I seriously prefer it much better in the current format. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem for me would be the notes. I think they should not be in a table because it's prose and because of its length. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cimmo ( talk) 6:48 28 June (UTC)
I made two more options in my sandbox. Option 2 removes the bullets and uses numbering instead. Option 3 removes all the match notes and just has the bare bone results. (If someone wants to know the finishing move in the match they can go up to the text). Anyone like either of these? Nikki 311 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nikki, I edited User:Nikki311/sandbox and made a third option. While I like the idea of the results being easier to read than the plain text, the bulky formatting of option one leaved more to be desired. I made the third option on the page with the box formatting borrowed from the MMA articles, which are slimmer, with sortable columns and nicer headers. — Moe ε 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, seems like you agreed that a straw poll can be used here, so here it is, please see User:Nikki311/sandbox for the various options:
I will also decline to place a support for any option so I can close it fairly. — Moe ε 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
With the current format being flawed, to say the very least, and with options 1 and 3 being the least popular, the decision came down to Option 2 and 4, as of two weeks ago. I would have said there was no consensus, but I silently let the poll run for another week, and the results turned out rather favorable to the frontrunner of the two choices, which makes this easier. In conclusion, it seems that the MMA-style box formatting with the sortable tables is favored over the plain text bullet numbering, which seems a little too similar to the original formatting which is flawed at FAC/GAC's, with multiple requests of changing to a box formatting wanted. It will take some time to implement these, but these should make our articles qualities better. Regards, — Moe ε 07:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And who is going to change this format on all PPV's. -- iMatthew T. C. 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cheers.- Cimmo ( talk) 6:47 28 June (UTC)
When you revert an IP, it probably means that IP has done something wrong in most cases vandalised an article. However, after you've reverted the edit, you should place a warning of the user's talkpage, either {{subst:uw-vandal1}}, {{subst:uw-vandal2}}, {{subst:uw-vandal3}} or {{subst:uw-vandal4}} depending on the severity of the vandalism. Or, if it isn't entirely vandalism, but a gross BLP violation, you give the IP another type of warning, preferably, one of these. I'm saying this here, because I notice a lot of people in particular from this project revert someone else (in most cases IP's) but do not leave messages on their talkpage. I try to in most cases. So, just a general reminder, after reverting an IP, leave a warning on their talkpage, for instance under this formatting:
==June 2008==
{{subst:uw-vandal3|John Cena}} ~~~~
I think we need to do this a bit more often. However, do not take edits like this vandalism, as that particular edit is a mistake on the IP's behalf, and should never be counted as vandalism. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 08:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well per the FAR of D2D, reviewers state that there isn't that much of a sourcing issue. I think thats great, because D2D uses many sources, that I am using to replace in the Backlash (2003) article.
Other than those, the other ones we use aren't reliable, but can be used for GA's. But not in hopes of FA's. Comments? SRX-- Latino Heat 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This article lists Jericho as having had NINE reigns. All other related articles list it as eight. WWE seems to count Jericho's reign as co-champion with Chyna and his reign after defeating her to become sole champion as a single reign per the official title history. So is this revisionism? did they count it as two reigns at the time? What should be changed? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here own "The Complete History of Champions", a special edition magazine put out by WWE last June? If so, could you please let me know the page number for the discussion of The Headbangers in the "5 Champs Who Didn't Deserve It" article? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that a tag team partner qualifies as a manager. Manager listings should only be for managers/enforcers/bodyguards.
On a side note, this theme music stuff is a total mess due to what passes. Tons of incorrect or even just made up information more often than not. Also, people don't seem to know what "production music" is. Production music is "generic" music licensed from companies like Firstcom. In-house WWE produced music is not "production." This should just be scrapped. 69.23.151.9 ( talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put Survivor Series (2007) up for peer review here. Please follow the link and review the article. Thanks! -- iMatthew T. C. 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is needed here as well. -- iMatthew T. C. 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys, too much work is needed, and after seeing the failed nominations of both SummerSlam articles, it has too much to be done. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point in a way, SRX. It does not meet the new criteria. -- iMatthew T. C. 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here, but given that I was the main contributer for December to Dismember (2006), I think I should. Issues were raised here about the article, none of which I believed were even valid, hence why I commented back. Unlike some of the other articles which have sources deemed to be unreliable, December to Dismember to an effect doesn't really have that problem. Yes, in a normal article, The Wrestling Blog and TWNPNews.com would be considered 110% reliable, however it's used to back up a statement that says that the PPV was utter rubbish. I also feel that December to Dismember deals with real-life issues much better than some of the other PPV articles around here, whether I'm just being biased as I've developed the article, who knows. The Aftermath section goes pretty in-depth about real-life issues as a lot happened after the PPV surrounding ECW. The Background and Event sections are OK, yes they need improvement, but every featured article on Wikipedia needs improvements, new things may become know, the subject may die or whatever, but every article needs improvement. I'm not going to say that the article is perfect, because hell it isn't, in fact Wikipedia will never have a perfect, but we can work to make it better. FAR is wrong. Sending it to FAR is stupid. We are a project. We work together. We don't send are articles to the kitty litter, we improve articles. We didn't have a deadline with the article, however now unfortunately with the FAR it means that there is a deadline to work to, which puts others under pressure. Also, why have 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spyke been informed of this their talkpages as they are main contributors. Unless I'm missing something quite big and huge, who was it in the first place that suggested this, only to get the backlash of some of this project? I'm also wondering how TJ and 3bulletproof16 are classed as main contributors, who was it that expanded that article?. I strongly am against any FAR to do with this article, as I am with any other article/list or whatever to do with this project. We need to help each other, not stab each other in the foot. I say withdraw the FAR. End of story. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew, your withdraw notification appears to of been ignored, and the FAR appears to be continuing. D.M.N. ( talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here get the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? If should could you please tell me if there was anything about Johnny Jeter being released in it recently? Wrestlezone is claiming that it does, but I have heard it said that it doesn't and I'd like it cleared up. Much appreciated, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well currently there is an AfD for List of ECW events, so if this is being deleted, should List of Ring of Honor events, also be deleted per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:C, and as stated in the AfD of ECW, it may fail WP:SPAM. I know ROH is different, and they dont have big PPV's like TNA and WWE, but if we are deleting the list of ECW events, I think we should delete list of ROH events, we can't just make a list listing every event, some of those events happen on consecutive days. AfD?-- SRX-- Latino Heat 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Cody Rhodes stated on Raw that he does not know if he lost his tag team championship. I, also am curious to know if Rhodes is still in his first reign, but with a different tag team partner like Dominic DeNucci; or is this a new reign? Please add a reliable source with the answer. Feed back ☎ 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to believe it is considered two reigns, because there was actually a match, rhodes was actually a partner in both teams, wwe lists the match as DiBiase & Rhodes def. Holly and Rhodes, so he won, and lost the match, second reign, the team of holly and rhodes dropped the title to the team of DiBiase and Rhodes. This isnt like where a tag team feuds, splits up, and then afterwards they fight over who gets to keep the belt, ala Sting and The Giant when Giant joined the nWo. Less Than Clippers 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Has been proposed to be merged into Professional wrestling attacks. Should it be merged into powerbomb or deleted altogether? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone here experienced with submitting Did You Know proposals? I think it would be good if the project could have a few featured on the main page, as there have been a lot of articles created and expanded by this project. For example, Bull Pain was created two days ago, so it's eligible. It would be nice to see something from that article mentioned, but I've never submitted one before, so I'm a little unsure of how to go about it. I know it needs to be something with a citation (perhaps the Taipei Death and Barbed Wire Baseball Bat matches)? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A subpage should be created for article name changes. I say we move them off of the talk page, and into a project subpage. Possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article Name Changes. There are so many articles for discussion, so yeah.. -- iMatthew T. C. 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And done. -- iMatthew T. C. 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1443 of the articles assigned to this project, or 39.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this page really necessary? -- iMatthew T. C. 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships. -- iMatthew T. C. 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention that at the AfD. -- iMatthew T. C. 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Korpela and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Loyd for other deletion debates concerning our project. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem here. The promotions official site makes no mention of the reign of Samoa Joe and his partner. ALl other sources I can find on this title state that Joe DID in fact a reign. So what do we go with? The official source and remove his reign? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If you use this {{User WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Userbox2}} you'll get this:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Professional Wrestling. |
Hope ya'll like it. I just thought that it would be a change. This is the one I will be usin' from now on. Cra sh U nderride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actuall, It's not the 2nd. I made the 2nd. {{ User:Straight Edge PXK/ECW_PWbox}} PXK T /C 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found it a little difficult and repetitive to add pictures to several articles, so I decided to dig through a few old boxes today. The result is that I found some old pictures that I took at WWF events. I have uploaded them and collected them on a page at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures. They can all be used freely in articles, and I hope this is helpful to editors in illustrating articles about the mid-1990s. I don't make any claim to be the world's best photographer, but I think the editing has helped. Please note that I have no idea how to resize pictures, so this is how they came out after I put them through my scanner and cropped them. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. I don't think that the Billy Gunn one would do for his main picture though. Looks more like Jimmy Rave! PXK T /C 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! Nikki 311 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the golden dreams match in my sandbox and just want to know what everyone thinks of it! I could try expanding it more and try to make an article out of it or merge it into the Pole Match or WWE Divas championship article! Here it is Golden dreams match! Adster95 ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No but should it not be included in Professional wrestling match types or in the WWE Divas Championship article! Adster95 ( talk) 18:53, 6 July 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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
I think that Championship pages can be made into Good Articles, if simple roads, like New York State Route 9L can be classified as good articles, so can our championships, as their length are practically the same. However, we need a compromise on what to include in the championship article that can make them good articles. When I say championship articles, I mean the article about the championship itself, like the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Comments/Suggestions welcomed!-- SRX-- Latino Heat 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So long as there are no objection, I plan on keeping this newsletter on hold for a week. There are currently no current events there, but I guess there could be (McMahon's MDM, the upcoming draft, etc.). Anyway, this also provides a change for the newsletter to catch up with the COTW. Reminding all, anybody can help with the newsletter, so feel free to head over there and add more/new infomation (to current events), etc. Also, back to the COTW, it is becoming very inactive lately, there are I believe six nominations all with three or less votes. Please help with the COTW and newsletter, guys. -- iMatthew T. C. 11:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
So I asked Ealdgyth on their interpretation on a couple of third-party websites that we use to source some of our articles, mostly the ones used in List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, as I planned on nominating it for FLC, but due to the sourcing issue I don't think I can. Anyways, so what they said was that some of them could be considered reliable if a reliable third-party website vouched them (or credited them). For some it might not be that hard to do that, but for others it will, so as a project, can we help in trying to prove some of our sources reliability, refer here to the discussion and for the list of sources.-- SRX-- Latino Heat 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 02:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Move to WWE Monday Night Raw? WWE refers to it as that. SAVIOR_ SELF .777 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
SAVIOR_ SELF .777 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Not done
Move to ECW (WWE) or WWE ECW? Per WP:ACRONYM, if a particular topic is referred to as it's acronym more than its full name, like NASA, it can be titled as such. ECW hasn't been referred to as Extreme Championship Wrestling since its inception as a WWE Brand. [1]
Not done
Move to WWE SmackDown? The logo doesn't use Friday Night Anymore, the only reference to it as "Friday Night SmackDown" is the CW and commentators. Currently, no where is it referred to it as FNS, [2].-- SRX-- Latino Heat 02:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Simple move to "List of former WWE programming"?
, no consensus was formed.
Move to William Moody (real name) or Paul Bearer (most famous name)? -- Endless Dan 12:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not done --
iMatthew
T.
C. 10:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Who supports a move to Billy Kidman? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Move to Dwayne Johnson. He's no longer just, "The Rock". In his last several films, he was billed as only Dwayne Johnson. I can't believe the article title is actually The Rock (entertainer). This has been discussed before here, but closed with no apparent conclusion. I make a better case on there, but please read all opinions. WP:COMMONNAME isn't an acceptable rebuttal as I can and did made a strong case that Dwayne Johnson would fit that bill.
I disagree with your pov that none of his movies have been blockbusters. The Game Plan (film) made over $100 million dollars just in the theatres. This does not include DVD sales (which was the #1 DVD for 2 weeks upon release). But that's just one movie. In comparison, as far I know no WWE event (with or without the Rock) has ever banked $100 mill (including gate & tv revenue). If you review the WrestleMania X-Seven article, which had one of the Rock's biggest matches ever, the gate at the event was meerly $3.5 million... for "a record-breaking event".
That's retarded. No conclusive evidence that movies are bigger then wrestling?? C'mon. It's common sense. If Hulk Hogan is wrestling's biggest star, I'm sure we can make a laundry list of much more famous actors. There is a reason why Tom Cruise gets paid 30 million dollars a film and Hogan is doing a reality show on CMT.-- Endless Dan 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
“ | After proving he could carry a movie to No. 1 with last fall's surprise hit The Game Plan, he's positioning himself as Hollywood's go-to family comedy hitman. It's all part of the latest reinvention of The Rock — which starts with not referring to himself as The Rock. "I'm aware of everything that comes with that nickname, and I just think there's a lot more you can do without it," he says. "But I wanted it to happen naturally, from 'The Rock' to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson to 'Dwayne Johnson. He doesn't do the thing with the eyebrow anymore, either, and he's trimmed pounds of meathead muscle off his still handsomely chiseled 6'4" self. The purpose of this massive rebranding effort: to cast himself in the image of his four-quadrant matinee idols Will Smith and Tom Hanks. "They embrace being a movie star from beginning to end," says the 36-year-old actor. "From preproduction through the all-important marketing, they work hard and enjoy it." [3] | ” |
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson seems like the best compromise and the most acceptable fit as it would encompass both names. He hasn't been billed as simply The Rock in his movies in quite some time, but he has used and has been refered to Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson for media appearances and some of his movies (although, his latest movies he has dropped "The Rock" name). For everyone who voted above or who has not yet cast vote, would this satisfactory? This would also eliminate the (entertainer) tag and should end this seemingly never-ending arguement. -- Endless Dan 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Coleman, I've demonstrated Dwayne Johnson is a viable star grossing over 200 mill in the last 3 years more then he's ever made for or with the WWF. But I keep hearing "Rock" is his common name, but where's the proof? Wraslin is not bigger or more important than Hollywood. WWE is not bigger than Disney films. Not by a mile. We've provided requested links, I've given WP:FILM a heads up, I've even invited other members of this very project to voice there opinions and still nothing. -- Endless Dan 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
So are we going to come to a decision in regards to this situation or are we just gonna sit on this topic and is it just going to dissapear into the archives of wikipedia as usual? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to put WP:IAR into play here, as I believe a straw poll is the best option right now. I'll leave the poll open for one week. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It's been a full week. Can we call this a wrap? -- Endless Dan 12:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This vote is for no article name change.
As we have over 200 articles at B-Class, and over 2,000 at Start-Class, just letting you know that there is a "vote" here on whether C-Class should be introduced inbetween B-Class and Start-Class. This may help a project like ours with over thousands of articles. Please comment at the above link. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
As a result of a "ratification vote" that took place at WT:ASSESS, the C-Class will now be added to the Version 1.0 Assessment scale. Please see this for further details. However, please do not use it yet, as the WP 1.0 Bot does not recognise it yet. Regards, D.M.N. ( talk) 11:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has been nominated for the removal of its Featured list status. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship. Regards, -- Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
From the Featured Article candidacy for SummerSlam (1988): "I don't quite understand why a section is named "Report". The three sections in this article could be individual top-level sections."
This has come up before in other reviews, but our response has always been, "That's the way we do it." I agree with this reviewer, and I don't see the need to have everything included under "Report" (which has never sounded very encyclopedic...isn't every article essentially a report of some kind?). Does anyone else have an opinion about changing this to remove the "Report" line from our pay-per-view articles? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion of making them top-level headings. But I would give this at least half a week for other opinions before we implement. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody not agree? Can anybody see any good reasons not to make the change? Nikki 311 01:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, what does the community think about moving the results below the event in a subsection. Ex:
-- iMatthew T. C. 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nikki311. It is better to leave the Results right where they are.-- Will C 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If
2008 WWE Draft is not already on your watch list, please add it. Tonight it the draft, and heavy IP and new user vandalism is expected all through out it. Also, those drafted might get a touch of vandalism on their articles as well. And especially
List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees should be watched. Not really! I had the page protected for 2 whole months! After the last month was up, it was vandalized right away, so we have another two free months (expires: August 23, 2008). --
iMatthew
T.
C. 15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It has already started, the vandalism. It's pretty funny, actually. -- iMatthew T. C. 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I find the waiting list starting to be ignored.
I bring this up because some of our articles have been on our waiting list for about a month now, and we only have 5 GA nominations.-- SRX-- Latino Heat 22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As you can probably guess, JB196 is back, and has already had a couple socks blocked for his usual behavior on XPW-related articles like William Welch. If you run across any of his socks, could you just leave a message on my talk page or here, so we can try to keep him contained? Thanks in advance. SirFozzie ( talk) 01:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kurt_Angle&diff=219745033&oldid=219669255, which cites the WP guidelines on lists (which In wrestling sections qualify for) should be in alphabetical order, meaning managers, moves, nicknames and the like should all be in alphabetical order. I have seen very few articles comply by this, including our featured articles. I had originally reverted the edit due to it not being mentioned at here, but McPhail reverted it, citing Wikipedia:Lists#Organization as the reason. This would be mean most In wrestling sections need to be rewritten, as WP:PW's Style Guide cannot override Wikipedia policy, correct? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Can this be MfD'd? Can't this policy just be written in the WP:PW/MOS? I don't think we need an article most consisting of a discussion to ratify the policy. Comments?-- SRX-- Latino Heat 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
(Sum-up From Vince's talk) See what I did there? anyway, lame joke aside. We should add something to Vinny Mac's article about the "accident". And also mention the fact that while kayfabe, it tried to look legit by having 2 feuding faces and a heel come to his rescue and also calling HHH "Paul". etc. PXK T /C 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
ESPNJr.com? -- SRX-- Latino Heat 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Any website that allows you to openly change the content, including Wikipedia, in not a reliable source of information. — Moe ε 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
....is this? Seems to be trying to manipulate the discussion to do with The Rock article at the top of the page. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Ok, I just thought of this. I was changing the links of the draftees from the 2008 WWE Draft and I noticed different ways that their WWE profile is written. So question..
*Support #4 -
D.M.N. (
talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've struck my comment supporting the 4th one. I personally think we should have (Wrestler name) at (Website name). If we have Official WWE Profile, will we have official TNA Profile, official OWW Profile etc to be consistent. I think now, the best way to do is the way that it is currently done on Kofi Kingston's article where it is fully consistent. Thoughts? D.M.N. ( talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
See here and here for the relevant discussions and a full explanation. It boils down to can we list finishers and moves by "order of importance" without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've worked hard on the article for The Attitude Era. I expanded by about 5 times what it was when I started. I added alot about the beginning of the era, also about the even when it happned. I also added how some shows changed, and some shows that were added during the Attitude Era. I placed show logos to show how they changed, etc. I also, expanded the controversies section and got just a tad more in depth about the Montreal Screwjob and the death of Owen Hart. Not like I took the whole articles and place them there or anything. lol. I also added an external link to WWE.com's Fan Nation section that's for Attitude Era fans. I would like someone to go and give it their unbiased assessment. Thanks, Cra sh U nderride 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
So on the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, I wanted to make a change to the format as seen here. What does everyone think about that? Virakhvar321 ( talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Gavyn, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the results as a table is a bad idea, but consensus is against us. -- iMatthew T. C. 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking about that as well, but the employee list changes day-to-day, while the alumni list is only badly affected badly when a release it announced. But I believe a change to list format from table format for the alumni article would provide positive results. The results as a table thing, is just plain horrible. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it for the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees but I don't like it for PPV results, I think it looks horrible and very untidy! Adster95 ( talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that WWE hasn't confirmed that Jericho will defend the title, but Jericho did an interview, where when asked if he had a title defense said "I believe so, that’s the gimmick of the PPV, that every title is defended. I’m not sure who I’ll be facing at this point. But I’ll be there." (see here) Is that a good enough source for it to be put onto the page? Because, just to play Devil's advocate, he doesn't explicitly say that he does have a match. Him "being there" does not equal a match. Thoughts? ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Logically, when the WWE stated that every title would be defended, they were confirming that he would be in a match, right? The gimmick of the PPV should be enough, shouldn't it? Cheers, The Hybrid 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(e.c.) Actually we can most definately add something like this:
WWE Intercontinental Championship: TBD vs. TBD
Because we have plenty of sources confirming that every title will be defended. We do not have any sources that Chris Jericho will be in the match, even though it's completely obvious, we don't have a source. But the above can and should be added, because we have references to back that up. -- iMatthew T. C. 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew, not including Chris Jericho in one of the TBA is rather silly, he is the current IC champion, the whole night is about the champion defending their titles, and it is a match that is confirmed to be for the IC title. The logic of 'no reliable sources' that state Jericho is in the match is not true, the match is between the IC champion and a TBA opponent, although it doesn't explictly say Jericho, that is what it means. — Moe ε 10:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Recently there have been a strand of articles on professional wrestlers bios that say "On June 22, 2008, WWE commentator, Tyrone Wilson stated in an interview that he is going to talk to Vince McMahon about rehiring [insert wrestlers name here]". There is no evidence of this being true, sourced or having any weight to it. Anyone who sees these kinds of entries, which are primarily a target from IP's from the 4.129.xxx.xxx and 4.152.xxx.xxx ranges, revert them. Articles they target are former WWE alumni articles such as Scott Hall, Sid Eudy, Big Van Vader, Jimmy Snuka King Kong Bundy, etc. — Moe ε 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988) suggested that the match results would be better formatted as a table. I made up an example at User:Nikki311/sandbox (in the middle). Any thoughts? I think I like it. Nikki 311 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. No offense or anything, but, I seriously prefer it much better in the current format. D.M.N. ( talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the main problem for me would be the notes. I think they should not be in a table because it's prose and because of its length. -- 13 of Diamonds ( talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cimmo ( talk) 6:48 28 June (UTC)
I made two more options in my sandbox. Option 2 removes the bullets and uses numbering instead. Option 3 removes all the match notes and just has the bare bone results. (If someone wants to know the finishing move in the match they can go up to the text). Anyone like either of these? Nikki 311 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Nikki, I edited User:Nikki311/sandbox and made a third option. While I like the idea of the results being easier to read than the plain text, the bulky formatting of option one leaved more to be desired. I made the third option on the page with the box formatting borrowed from the MMA articles, which are slimmer, with sortable columns and nicer headers. — Moe ε 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, seems like you agreed that a straw poll can be used here, so here it is, please see User:Nikki311/sandbox for the various options:
I will also decline to place a support for any option so I can close it fairly. — Moe ε 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
With the current format being flawed, to say the very least, and with options 1 and 3 being the least popular, the decision came down to Option 2 and 4, as of two weeks ago. I would have said there was no consensus, but I silently let the poll run for another week, and the results turned out rather favorable to the frontrunner of the two choices, which makes this easier. In conclusion, it seems that the MMA-style box formatting with the sortable tables is favored over the plain text bullet numbering, which seems a little too similar to the original formatting which is flawed at FAC/GAC's, with multiple requests of changing to a box formatting wanted. It will take some time to implement these, but these should make our articles qualities better. Regards, — Moe ε 07:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And who is going to change this format on all PPV's. -- iMatthew T. C. 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cheers.- Cimmo ( talk) 6:47 28 June (UTC)
When you revert an IP, it probably means that IP has done something wrong in most cases vandalised an article. However, after you've reverted the edit, you should place a warning of the user's talkpage, either {{subst:uw-vandal1}}, {{subst:uw-vandal2}}, {{subst:uw-vandal3}} or {{subst:uw-vandal4}} depending on the severity of the vandalism. Or, if it isn't entirely vandalism, but a gross BLP violation, you give the IP another type of warning, preferably, one of these. I'm saying this here, because I notice a lot of people in particular from this project revert someone else (in most cases IP's) but do not leave messages on their talkpage. I try to in most cases. So, just a general reminder, after reverting an IP, leave a warning on their talkpage, for instance under this formatting:
==June 2008==
{{subst:uw-vandal3|John Cena}} ~~~~
I think we need to do this a bit more often. However, do not take edits like this vandalism, as that particular edit is a mistake on the IP's behalf, and should never be counted as vandalism. Thanks, D.M.N. ( talk) 08:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well per the FAR of D2D, reviewers state that there isn't that much of a sourcing issue. I think thats great, because D2D uses many sources, that I am using to replace in the Backlash (2003) article.
Other than those, the other ones we use aren't reliable, but can be used for GA's. But not in hopes of FA's. Comments? SRX-- Latino Heat 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
This article lists Jericho as having had NINE reigns. All other related articles list it as eight. WWE seems to count Jericho's reign as co-champion with Chyna and his reign after defeating her to become sole champion as a single reign per the official title history. So is this revisionism? did they count it as two reigns at the time? What should be changed? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here own "The Complete History of Champions", a special edition magazine put out by WWE last June? If so, could you please let me know the page number for the discussion of The Headbangers in the "5 Champs Who Didn't Deserve It" article? Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that a tag team partner qualifies as a manager. Manager listings should only be for managers/enforcers/bodyguards.
On a side note, this theme music stuff is a total mess due to what passes. Tons of incorrect or even just made up information more often than not. Also, people don't seem to know what "production music" is. Production music is "generic" music licensed from companies like Firstcom. In-house WWE produced music is not "production." This should just be scrapped. 69.23.151.9 ( talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've put Survivor Series (2007) up for peer review here. Please follow the link and review the article. Thanks! -- iMatthew T. C. 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is needed here as well. -- iMatthew T. C. 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Come on guys, too much work is needed, and after seeing the failed nominations of both SummerSlam articles, it has too much to be done. -- iMatthew T. C. 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly my point in a way, SRX. It does not meet the new criteria. -- iMatthew T. C. 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to comment here, but given that I was the main contributer for December to Dismember (2006), I think I should. Issues were raised here about the article, none of which I believed were even valid, hence why I commented back. Unlike some of the other articles which have sources deemed to be unreliable, December to Dismember to an effect doesn't really have that problem. Yes, in a normal article, The Wrestling Blog and TWNPNews.com would be considered 110% reliable, however it's used to back up a statement that says that the PPV was utter rubbish. I also feel that December to Dismember deals with real-life issues much better than some of the other PPV articles around here, whether I'm just being biased as I've developed the article, who knows. The Aftermath section goes pretty in-depth about real-life issues as a lot happened after the PPV surrounding ECW. The Background and Event sections are OK, yes they need improvement, but every featured article on Wikipedia needs improvements, new things may become know, the subject may die or whatever, but every article needs improvement. I'm not going to say that the article is perfect, because hell it isn't, in fact Wikipedia will never have a perfect, but we can work to make it better. FAR is wrong. Sending it to FAR is stupid. We are a project. We work together. We don't send are articles to the kitty litter, we improve articles. We didn't have a deadline with the article, however now unfortunately with the FAR it means that there is a deadline to work to, which puts others under pressure. Also, why have 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spyke been informed of this their talkpages as they are main contributors. Unless I'm missing something quite big and huge, who was it in the first place that suggested this, only to get the backlash of some of this project? I'm also wondering how TJ and 3bulletproof16 are classed as main contributors, who was it that expanded that article?. I strongly am against any FAR to do with this article, as I am with any other article/list or whatever to do with this project. We need to help each other, not stab each other in the foot. I say withdraw the FAR. End of story. D.M.N. ( talk) 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew, your withdraw notification appears to of been ignored, and the FAR appears to be continuing. D.M.N. ( talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone here get the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? If should could you please tell me if there was anything about Johnny Jeter being released in it recently? Wrestlezone is claiming that it does, but I have heard it said that it doesn't and I'd like it cleared up. Much appreciated, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well currently there is an AfD for List of ECW events, so if this is being deleted, should List of Ring of Honor events, also be deleted per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:C, and as stated in the AfD of ECW, it may fail WP:SPAM. I know ROH is different, and they dont have big PPV's like TNA and WWE, but if we are deleting the list of ECW events, I think we should delete list of ROH events, we can't just make a list listing every event, some of those events happen on consecutive days. AfD?-- SRX-- Latino Heat 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Cody Rhodes stated on Raw that he does not know if he lost his tag team championship. I, also am curious to know if Rhodes is still in his first reign, but with a different tag team partner like Dominic DeNucci; or is this a new reign? Please add a reliable source with the answer. Feed back ☎ 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to believe it is considered two reigns, because there was actually a match, rhodes was actually a partner in both teams, wwe lists the match as DiBiase & Rhodes def. Holly and Rhodes, so he won, and lost the match, second reign, the team of holly and rhodes dropped the title to the team of DiBiase and Rhodes. This isnt like where a tag team feuds, splits up, and then afterwards they fight over who gets to keep the belt, ala Sting and The Giant when Giant joined the nWo. Less Than Clippers 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Has been proposed to be merged into Professional wrestling attacks. Should it be merged into powerbomb or deleted altogether? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone here experienced with submitting Did You Know proposals? I think it would be good if the project could have a few featured on the main page, as there have been a lot of articles created and expanded by this project. For example, Bull Pain was created two days ago, so it's eligible. It would be nice to see something from that article mentioned, but I've never submitted one before, so I'm a little unsure of how to go about it. I know it needs to be something with a citation (perhaps the Taipei Death and Barbed Wire Baseball Bat matches)? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A subpage should be created for article name changes. I say we move them off of the talk page, and into a project subpage. Possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Article Name Changes. There are so many articles for discussion, so yeah.. -- iMatthew T. C. 17:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
And done. -- iMatthew T. C. 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 1443 of the articles assigned to this project, or 39.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this page really necessary? -- iMatthew T. C. 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships. -- iMatthew T. C. 14:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mention that at the AfD. -- iMatthew T. C. 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Korpela and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Loyd for other deletion debates concerning our project. D.M.N. ( talk) 16:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem here. The promotions official site makes no mention of the reign of Samoa Joe and his partner. ALl other sources I can find on this title state that Joe DID in fact a reign. So what do we go with? The official source and remove his reign? Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
If you use this {{User WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Userbox2}} you'll get this:
This user is a participant in WikiProject Professional Wrestling. |
Hope ya'll like it. I just thought that it would be a change. This is the one I will be usin' from now on. Cra sh U nderride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actuall, It's not the 2nd. I made the 2nd. {{ User:Straight Edge PXK/ECW_PWbox}} PXK T /C 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've found it a little difficult and repetitive to add pictures to several articles, so I decided to dig through a few old boxes today. The result is that I found some old pictures that I took at WWF events. I have uploaded them and collected them on a page at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures. They can all be used freely in articles, and I hope this is helpful to editors in illustrating articles about the mid-1990s. I don't make any claim to be the world's best photographer, but I think the editing has helped. Please note that I have no idea how to resize pictures, so this is how they came out after I put them through my scanner and cropped them. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Nice work. I don't think that the Billy Gunn one would do for his main picture though. Looks more like Jimmy Rave! PXK T /C 13:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Very nice! Nikki 311 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I was working on the golden dreams match in my sandbox and just want to know what everyone thinks of it! I could try expanding it more and try to make an article out of it or merge it into the Pole Match or WWE Divas championship article! Here it is Golden dreams match! Adster95 ( talk) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No but should it not be included in Professional wrestling match types or in the WWE Divas Championship article! Adster95 ( talk) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)