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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
See Talk:Justin_LaRouche#Requested_page_move. -- Numyht ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done Adster 95 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick Is this really necessary? Nenog ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In my mind this page is entirely too long. Maybe we can make sub-articles. Along the lines of Object match, to have matches that you must do a certain thing to win like a ladder match. Cage matches. Just read the other section to get a better idea.-- Will C 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why Is It That La Familia Got An Article And Not These? MEM Dominates TNA And Frontline Is Another Big Part Of It. It's Been A Good Few Months Now, But Let's Be Real. Just Create The Article. Is There ANYTHING To Lose Whatsoever? No. There Is No. I'm Just Sayin'. KP317 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I find that it's reliable, don't know about everyone else but look: [1] see, they stated something a few days ago about this week's SmackDown!, which other reliable pages did. Kala jan € ₣ 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are reports of an angle inserted into Friday's Smackdown show where Jeff Hardy and fiance Beth are injured in a hit-and-run auto accident in Cameron, NC, most likely with Christian as the perpetrator. Jeff will be okay but Beth will apparently be seriously injured in storyline. That surprises me a little because she's always wanted to be out of the spotlight.
Why is WrestleView unreliable, was it done anything so to not be? Kala jan € ₣ 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Consensus cannot be built at this time due to the timing of the event, a discussion may take place in the near future.--
Tru
co
00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
According to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), they aren't calling this year's event WrestleMania XXV, only for chronological purposes, but they are promoting its name as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The
Reliant Stadium
is promoting it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. WWE's event details for this years WrestleMania
is calling it the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, in addition, at the bottom of that page, they have the name copyrighted and not trademarked, like it would be for a secondary name. WWE's Corporate website
is also calling the even the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The name "WrestleMania XXV" is only used sparingly by WWE, mostly where spacing is an issue. I believe, the proper name for this year's WrestleMania is The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, I know it will mess up the flow of how the chronology is set up on Wikipedia, but we must go by its official name.--
Tru
co
16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
John Cena is now a GA. ₰imon K S K 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that on all of the upcoming PPV articles it states that all future PPVs are going to be featuring talent from all three brands. There are no references stating this and I believe that these assumptions are based on prior PPVs featuring all three brands. Now, if it's allowed to make assumptions for future PPVs based on what happened on past PPVs you could certainly make the case for including things like the Elimination Chamber match for the No Way Out PPV or the Money in the Bank match for WrestleMania. I'm not saying we SHOULD include these things, but I think it needs to be more consistent. I think we need to wait until matches from all three brands have been announced before the articles state that talent from all three brands will be on the show. Let me know what you think. Eenu ( talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the new name for Awesome Kong's knockout stable, better keep a look out -- Numyht ( talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mm, it's also spelt with a hyphen/dash or with a space inbetween. I'm just sayin'. KP317 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Is PWI even reliable to be declared as a reliable source to call a title "World"? I though it was if the title was called a World Title by a promotion and defended in places other than the U.S, it was given World Title status? Where is the PWI source anyways about the World Titles? I bring this up because they don't call the ECW Championship a World Title anymore, yet, WWE refers to it as a World Championship. What should be our take on this, PWI or what the promotion says?-- Tru co 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the category for world titles, I agree that it's ridiculous. I didn't agree with it, but that was done to end a long debate and edit wars about what was a world title and what wasn't. Any title called a "world" title by its promotion can be added. I don't agree with that though. TJ Spyke 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: lots of regular contributors to the various wrestling articles have got major wood for PWI for some reason. For all intents and purposes, some view PWI as professional wrestling's holy book rather than simply being what it truly is: a magazine. The magazine is entitled to its view on whatever, but that view doesn't automatically trump all others. PWI has dropped recognition of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a "world" title twice, yet the NWA hasn't changed the name of the title to reflect that opinion. PWI's view doesn't erase the, at least, 60 years of history behind the title and the fact that it's still defended across the globe. Now while the other various "World Heavyweight Championships" that exist in wrestling today don't have nearly that prestigious level of history I'll grant, that key issue is applies to them just as it does the National Wrestling Alliance: Pro Wrestling Illustrated doesn't control wrestling. PWI could close its doors tomorrow and never publish another issue and most of pro wrestling, if not all of it, wouldn't be affected at all. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to work on some of the articles covering Japanese wrestlers and I'm looking for websites with wrestling results for the likes of NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, Dragongate & Zero-1. Anyone know of some good sources?? Much appriciated MPJ-DK ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks - good thing I read German pretty well. MPJ-DK ( talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad everyone put up a MEM article, but... uhm... yeah... I was hoping for a Frontline article too... I'd make it I'm just not that good at grabbing too many references. KP317 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The MEM was created one week, and the Frontline (then known as the TNA Originals) was created a week later. The notibility of the two groups are one and the same. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
See here. Cheers, JakeDHS07 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure I've nominated the Diana La Cazadora article for Deletion. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana La Cazadora. I don't know how the WP:PW procedure for this is these days, there used to be a page you can list it on?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to find any reliable source regrading this event or any good sources period that might help improve the article?-- Will C 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Main Event - WWE in the raging 80s by Brian Shields: Major event history, title changes & profiles of WWF stars of the 80s.
<ref name="WWF80s">{{cite book | author=Brian Shields | title=Main event – WWE in the raging 80s| publisher=Pocket Books| year=4th Edition 2006 | id=ISBN 978-1-4165-3257-6 }}</ref>
Here's the first event card. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a strange question, but does having eight well-known professional wrestlers appear in a music video warrant inclusion in this project? I think it's an important example of the Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection, but I wanted to get more opinions before adding the WP:PW banner on its talk page. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How would everyone feel if I merged supercard, main event, and undercard into card (sports)? They are all pretty short, and I can't imagine any of them getting much longer. They all deal with basically the same thing, so it makes sense for them to be in the same article. Nikki♥ 311 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to direct people's attention to the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions article where it seems there is an agreement to create an article that has the entire history of both world championships in TNA on the talk page. I just want to get more people into the discussion than about two users and multiple ips.-- Will C 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Want to make a list of New Year's Resolutions for the project to achieve? Make it a tangible goal (like a certain number of GAs, DYKs, etc). List below:
I made a subpage to keep track of the progress, and I've added a few more. I'll be keeping up with it, but if anybody is interested the link is User:Nikki311/NYR. Nikki♥ 311 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The WWE Roster page is protected again. Dear God will it ever quit. I have no idea why it is protected this time but can we figure out a system so this will not happen again?-- Will C 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Stupid place to put this, but since even the talk page got a semi-protect I cannot suggest this there. But what if they moved the FCW roster to it's own page and on the main roster had only the confirm-able wrestlers (say the champions)? The way the page reads ATM to me is that FCW is a 4th brand, which to anyone that pays the least bit attention to the buisness would know that is not fully correct (AFAIK, Raw, ECW and Smackdown go on national tours while FCW stays in Florida). This is where I'm guessing some of the edit wars take place. As for Christian Cage, for all we know he could have retired and never bothered to tell anyone where he was going. So someone really should build a bot to keep him off the WWE roster until he makes a verifiable appearance as signed talent, either on the website or on TV. Flyingcandyman ( talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Spoilers should not be added to an article without a reliable source, in which the promotion's website is only acceptable. Other wrestling websites are not reliable, including the sources marked reliable for pay-per-view articles, because their reports regarding spoilers are not verifiable by promotions. What do you think? I think this is needed regarding spoilers because we can't always trust reports by fans because its only what one person says, and we cannot confirm it since we aren't there. So the promotion is the only source that should be accepted as reliable. This can also, in a way (mostly about the sourcing) apply to signings/releases.-- Tru co 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It it is a reliable source, for instance The Wrestling Observer, add it. I've just added back info on Swagger's win - we don't embargo information from people. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What about situations like this? Mshake3 ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So what are ya going to do when a reliable source attends a taping in person? Mshake3 ( talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A little while ago people were trying to think of categories to make featured (ie Londrick, D-X &c) and I just realised that if anyone was feeling ambitious a far-reaching and interesting category to do might be Raven's Nest and it's many incarnations. Too much work for me, but I thought someone who had an interest in ECW and WCW might like it. Tony2Times ( talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some other users please put the various PWI awards, as well as the page for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards on watch? They all tend to get hit hard in January (but unfortunately not hard enough to need protection). They should be semi-protected, since 99% of the IP edits made to it are vandalism (the only constructive IP edits are where they clean up old vandalism), but that won't happen. If an IP changes any old results, you can verify the changes here. -- Scorpion 0422 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is mainly a matter of cutting down how long it would take one person to do, but can some people here help with moving various Japanese articles? I noticed that there are a bunch of organizations that have part of their name capitalized for no reason (which violates WP:MOSTM) and thus need to be moved (and related pages like roster pages). Some examples include Pro Wrestling NOAH and Pro Wrestling ZERO1, plus the American promotion SHIMMER Women Athletes. I have already moved a few of the articles, but there are a lot more left. TJ Spyke 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This [File:Sting_beats_Jarrett!!!!.jpg] is quite clearly the same as used on Slam Sports' review however the latter is uncropped so maybe this is a legitimate owned picture upload. I wasn't sure but I thought I'd bring it up anyway because I didn't think it was likely that a Slam! Sports photographer would be on the project but if so, hurrah! Tony2Times ( talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Redirect.-- Tru co 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Since we redirected the main article to the main WWE roster article, is this template still needed?-- Tru co 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I saw it and wanted to delete it, but I'm too lazy and they were everywhere. ₰imon KSK 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I just expanded the article, in hopes of a DYK and FLC. Since this is a first for the project, since the WWE Hall of Fame is still in production. I wanted to get the opinions of the project about it. Don't worry about the sources, I got it covered and I know how to handle them at FLC.-- Tru co 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone read Sacrifice (2008) and tell me how the prose of the article is? I would place it on the feed back request section but I would remove it by the end of the day. If anyone can, or if they want to, I would appreciate it. It is a GA but I recently re-wrote alot of it and resourced it. I've taken it from 46 kilobytes to 38. The event had alot of weird things happen.-- Will C 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I created these articles today. I haven't watched the events for a long time, so they're a little sparse. If anyone knows of good, reliable sources, it would be great if you could let me know (or help out with expanding the article). Also, I'm a little confused about the ending of the Hogan-Piper fight at The War to Settle the Score. I've read conflicting reports about who won. Was Hogan disqualified, or was Piper? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From Eddie Guerrero:
Guerrero was set to face Batista and Randy Orton in a triple threat match for the World Heavyweight Championship on the November 13, 2005 taping of SmackDown! (which would have aired on November 18, 2005). Stephanie McMahon hinted that Guerrero had been scheduled to defeat Batista for the World Heavyweight Championship, which would have begun Guerrero's first reign as World Heavyweight Champion and his second world championship reign overall. However, its was later confirmed in Batista's book that Randy Orton was actually scheduled to win the title that night. Then Eddie would begin another heel turn.
I don't believe that, firstly because it would have made no sense from a storyline perspective. Secondly, at the time Batista was slightly injured, which is why fans believed he was going to drop the title to Eddie so that he could have a little bit of time to recover. So, if he was instead going to drop the title to Orton, why didn't they do afterwards? -- Scorpion 0422 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have Batistas book from page 215 of Batista unleased "At the time I was champion. The plan was to pass the title back to Randy. But I wanted them to put it on Eddie. I'd told them earlier that I was going to Vince to ask him to do that. Well Eddie called me and left a message saying that he appreciated what I was going to do, but that it was the wrong decision. Randy should be champ, not him. We should do what Vince says. Vince is smart said Eddie. He knows this business and he wouldn't make a wrong decision. Its what's best for the company. He added that he loved me and appreciated that I wanted him to have the title, even though it was the wrong decision." It then talks about later that morning Eddie died. He received the message from Eddie in the early hours of the morning. Hope that was useful Adster 95 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, please help in watching Jake Hager and Matt Hardy and related pages until the US airing? TrekFanatic ( talk) 08:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Attention everyone. STOP TELLING US TO WATCH SPECIFIC PAGES FOR TAPED BUT UNAIRED EVENTS!!!! You can monitor those pages on your own, you don't need all of us to gang up on it! 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather famously the first Rumble wasn't a PPV and was just broadcast on television. However on the infobox for that event it's still included as part of the PPV chronology; isn't this oxymoronic considering it says in the introductory paragraph that it wasn't available on PPV? Tony2Times ( talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Again just for general use not necessarily wrestling: when using the cite template for a website, if the publisher only exists as a website (ie it's not the BBC or WWE or any company like that) then do you put just the name of the website (ie UK Hip Hop) or the full address (www.ukhiphop.co.uk) or a mix of the two (ukhiphop.co.uk) or something else? Tony2Times ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to throw out this possibility of possibly expanding the Ring of Honor and/or Pro Wrestling Guerrilla database of events, I'd be willing to help on possibly the results side, I know it'd at least be worth it for ROH as they do actually have somewhat of a PPV deal. All thoughts are appreciated. afkatk ( talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From WWE.com about Mr. McMahon's return: With WWE’s two tag team titles currently held by members of SmackDown and ECW, now could be the perfect time to introduce a third tag title to be defended on Raw. I don't know, from my understanding of the text, it seems like the WTTC is now on ECW, dis/agree?-- Tru co 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The snippet above doesn't say the titles have left Raw, just that they're not held by Raw roster Superstars. Let's leave them on Raw until one way or the other it's made official that they're not on Raw. The blurb seems speculative in itself, so there's no concrete evidence to say the titles were moved at all. Hazardous Matt 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is creating made up stables and wrestlers. He is making them up with an entire history for them, such as WWE starts holding the championships in one stable and fighting TNA stars. I don't know how many articles he has created but they all need to be deleted.-- Will C 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to inform any interested project members that the good article nomination for No Mercy (2004) is currently on hold and awaiting changes to the article so it can be approved as a good article. Please check out the article's GAN review page if you're interested. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 07:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
These two events present an interesting naming problems in that while they were taped in 2007 and 2008, respectively, they both aired a few months later in 2008 and 2009, respectively. While the Rising Above event taped in 2007 remains under that name, the event taped in 2008, was recently moved and sparked this question. Originally, Manual of Style concerns were cited, but since, myself and Will have found that this was a mis-cite (note: Will originally made the move). So, I wanted to bring this up to the project: essentially, should these articles be named by the date they were taped (07 & 08) or by the date they aired (08 & 09). It should be noted that Ring of Honor refers to and promotes these events by the year they were taped, so the event that airs tomorrow night will be referred to as Rising Above 2008. I also go to the fact that if someone comes to Wikipedia for information on the event, they would likely search for the name that ROH uses, which as I said before, is the date of taping. I'd like to get some project member's opinions on what year to place these two articles under. Cheers, Dooms Day 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, don't complain about a company's action in how it effects Wikipedia. Very petty. As for this, ROH releases DVDs of the shows using the date the show was taped. That is what's important. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone check this article - I think it maybe a hoax (sorry, don't have time to check fully now). D.M.N. ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as I reckon I'm the only one who watches over RQW's page I thought I'd ask for some advice here so that I'm not just being despotic. As an umbrella company with three other promotions in their auspices, the list of champions has not just RQW, but also IPW:UK, WAW and SAS champions listed there. I put it in one list whereas someone else has edited the page and split them up and I was wondering if there was any particular way it should go? Tony2Times ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Since we have many GA's listed for candidacy at GAN, right now the section has a huge backlog of 63+, if members can voluntarily review one article, or more, it will help the backlog and our article can be reviewed quicker as well. I just reviewed 3, which is my first 3 reviews in over half a year.-- TRU CO 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Coincidentally, No Way Out (2009) will take place on February 15, the same date as No Way Out (2004), so I want to nominate it for WP:TFA (Today's Featured Article), but since this is the first time, I need some assistance to help the article get a good chance at making it for that day (February 15). Seeing the criteria, I think it may have a good chance..
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 15 - D.M.N. ( talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, something was bothering me so I decided to get on and start this discussion. The real names besides the ring name. I have no problem with it but people do. There is the idea that using common name is okay on people like A.J. Styles, instead of the adding his real name at all, just linking the ring name as if everyone already knows who he is, but I disagree. I think it should only be used when someone is widely know, like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting, Randy Savage, etc. Because if we use common name then there is no point to even place the real names in because then there is the argument that they aren't known enough and people wouldn't know the difference between Allen Jones and A.J. Styles. There needs to be a ground rule here, because in the end using common name would just mean we shouldn't even place in the real name period. Any thoughts, if you know what I'm talking about?-- Will C 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, about the rap analogy, lets be completely honest here. If you're not a fan of rap, you don't know who Young Jeezy is, chances are you don't really care who he is and knowing what his real name is isn't going to make that much of a difference. Same goes with wrestling. And the casual fans, they probably aren't into wrestling enough to look up and/or remember a wrestlers real name, so whats the point of putting "Texas Red (Mark Calaway)" when they don't know Calaway is the Undertaker. also, to the guy who said it, he's been using the Undertaker name for well over ten years now (just past 18). I don't think we should have them because this isn't a printed encyclopedia, its an online encyclopedia, and everything is linked. So if I really cared enough to want to know a wrestler's real name while reading an article about a pay-per-view, all I'd have to do is click on the link. Its not hard. Nenog ( talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Consensus states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because it was voted on six months ago doesn't mean we can't start the vote over again. I say we put it to a vote to decide to keep the real names with all their rules and exceptions, or drop them all together. Nenog ( talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, TJ wants to remove them but I still think they should be there. The consensus here was 4-2 for TJ, but I'd like a bigger one since I took the time to add pretty much all of them. I explained why I want them on that link. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on the above: As mentioned, the match ratings are subjective, so they shouldn't be included in a wrestler's bio. However, they could be included in the reception section for events (if they happen to occur in PPVs or for events we have articles for). As for Playboy...they should definitely be removed and any appearance in the magazine is usually located in the article itself and in the lead. Nikki♥ 311 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as star ratings go, I just got a glance at the arguments and I wonder: has the general subject of star ratings, as applies to such things as movie and album reviews, been discussed on their respective project pages? Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss the topic there, so that we're consistent all the way across the board. I think Wikipedia needs to have a consistent "star ratings" policy as applies to all entertainment-related articles that have reviews included. [[ Briguy52748 ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)]]
There is a dispute on this article about whether the move in which Frazier jumps off the second rope onto his opponent should be called a "Running splash" or "Big splash". I have created a section for discussion on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate it if editors from this project could comment there to resolve the dispute. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This may seem a bit "retarded", but since WWE replaced the ECW belt with the platinum version, the new one has the name "World Wrestling Entertainment ECW Champion engraved on it, so wouldn't the name of the title be "The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship"? or would it be "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)"? In addition to this, wouldn't this also add more evidence that WWE is alluding the Extreme Championship Wrestling name, and is using the acronym more and thus the article should be renamed to ECW (WWE) per WP:ACRONYM?-- TRU CO 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is really terrible and needs loads of work, I'd appreciate some people helping me with it. I spent most of yesterday improving it but... And we need a better photo. Kala jan €· ₣ 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My latest project has been creating articles on some older wrestlers. Over the past week or so, I completed articles on Rip Hawk and Swede Hanson (wrestler), and an article about them as a team ( Blond Bombers, which also discusses the other three teams to use that name), as well as Skull Murphy and Brute Bernard. I've read through them so many times now that I can't really judge them well. I know they need better lead sections (I'm terrible at writing leads, so any help is appreciated) and could benefit from some copyediting, but I'm wondering if any of them would be worth submitting as GA nominees. Masa Saito was recently failed because there wasn't enough information about his personal life and what made him unique as a wrestler, and these might fall into the same category. If someone (or more than one person) could take an objective look at them, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, several sites are reporting that Bob Orton Jr. was on a plane to Detroit, Michigan (the location for Royal Rumble) this morning. Might be worth putting his page on your watchlists. No IP's have hit it yet.... but give 12 to 24 hours and IP's are likely to be editing it.
D.M.N. ( talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at this, and I questioned, do we list reigns by the date the individual won the title or the day it aired?-- TRU CO 14:30, 25 January 2009 (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 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | → | Archive 70 |
See Talk:Justin_LaRouche#Requested_page_move. -- Numyht ( talk) 21:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not done Adster 95 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick Is this really necessary? Nenog ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In my mind this page is entirely too long. Maybe we can make sub-articles. Along the lines of Object match, to have matches that you must do a certain thing to win like a ladder match. Cage matches. Just read the other section to get a better idea.-- Will C 22:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why Is It That La Familia Got An Article And Not These? MEM Dominates TNA And Frontline Is Another Big Part Of It. It's Been A Good Few Months Now, But Let's Be Real. Just Create The Article. Is There ANYTHING To Lose Whatsoever? No. There Is No. I'm Just Sayin'. KP317 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I find that it's reliable, don't know about everyone else but look: [1] see, they stated something a few days ago about this week's SmackDown!, which other reliable pages did. Kala jan € ₣ 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There are reports of an angle inserted into Friday's Smackdown show where Jeff Hardy and fiance Beth are injured in a hit-and-run auto accident in Cameron, NC, most likely with Christian as the perpetrator. Jeff will be okay but Beth will apparently be seriously injured in storyline. That surprises me a little because she's always wanted to be out of the spotlight.
Why is WrestleView unreliable, was it done anything so to not be? Kala jan € ₣ 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Consensus cannot be built at this time due to the timing of the event, a discussion may take place in the near future.--
Tru
co
00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
According to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), they aren't calling this year's event WrestleMania XXV, only for chronological purposes, but they are promoting its name as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The
Reliant Stadium
is promoting it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. WWE's event details for this years WrestleMania
is calling it the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, in addition, at the bottom of that page, they have the name copyrighted and not trademarked, like it would be for a secondary name. WWE's Corporate website
is also calling the even the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The name "WrestleMania XXV" is only used sparingly by WWE, mostly where spacing is an issue. I believe, the proper name for this year's WrestleMania is The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, I know it will mess up the flow of how the chronology is set up on Wikipedia, but we must go by its official name.--
Tru
co
16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
John Cena is now a GA. ₰imon K S K 17:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that on all of the upcoming PPV articles it states that all future PPVs are going to be featuring talent from all three brands. There are no references stating this and I believe that these assumptions are based on prior PPVs featuring all three brands. Now, if it's allowed to make assumptions for future PPVs based on what happened on past PPVs you could certainly make the case for including things like the Elimination Chamber match for the No Way Out PPV or the Money in the Bank match for WrestleMania. I'm not saying we SHOULD include these things, but I think it needs to be more consistent. I think we need to wait until matches from all three brands have been announced before the articles state that talent from all three brands will be on the show. Let me know what you think. Eenu ( talk) 01:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the new name for Awesome Kong's knockout stable, better keep a look out -- Numyht ( talk) 09:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mm, it's also spelt with a hyphen/dash or with a space inbetween. I'm just sayin'. KP317 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Is PWI even reliable to be declared as a reliable source to call a title "World"? I though it was if the title was called a World Title by a promotion and defended in places other than the U.S, it was given World Title status? Where is the PWI source anyways about the World Titles? I bring this up because they don't call the ECW Championship a World Title anymore, yet, WWE refers to it as a World Championship. What should be our take on this, PWI or what the promotion says?-- Tru co 19:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As for the category for world titles, I agree that it's ridiculous. I didn't agree with it, but that was done to end a long debate and edit wars about what was a world title and what wasn't. Any title called a "world" title by its promotion can be added. I don't agree with that though. TJ Spyke 19:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again: lots of regular contributors to the various wrestling articles have got major wood for PWI for some reason. For all intents and purposes, some view PWI as professional wrestling's holy book rather than simply being what it truly is: a magazine. The magazine is entitled to its view on whatever, but that view doesn't automatically trump all others. PWI has dropped recognition of the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as a "world" title twice, yet the NWA hasn't changed the name of the title to reflect that opinion. PWI's view doesn't erase the, at least, 60 years of history behind the title and the fact that it's still defended across the globe. Now while the other various "World Heavyweight Championships" that exist in wrestling today don't have nearly that prestigious level of history I'll grant, that key issue is applies to them just as it does the National Wrestling Alliance: Pro Wrestling Illustrated doesn't control wrestling. PWI could close its doors tomorrow and never publish another issue and most of pro wrestling, if not all of it, wouldn't be affected at all. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to work on some of the articles covering Japanese wrestlers and I'm looking for websites with wrestling results for the likes of NJPW, AJPW, NOAH, Dragongate & Zero-1. Anyone know of some good sources?? Much appriciated MPJ-DK ( talk) 10:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and thanks - good thing I read German pretty well. MPJ-DK ( talk) 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad everyone put up a MEM article, but... uhm... yeah... I was hoping for a Frontline article too... I'd make it I'm just not that good at grabbing too many references. KP317 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The MEM was created one week, and the Frontline (then known as the TNA Originals) was created a week later. The notibility of the two groups are one and the same. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
See here. Cheers, JakeDHS07 05:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure I've nominated the Diana La Cazadora article for Deletion. Discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana La Cazadora. I don't know how the WP:PW procedure for this is these days, there used to be a page you can list it on?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to find any reliable source regrading this event or any good sources period that might help improve the article?-- Will C 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Main Event - WWE in the raging 80s by Brian Shields: Major event history, title changes & profiles of WWF stars of the 80s.
<ref name="WWF80s">{{cite book | author=Brian Shields | title=Main event – WWE in the raging 80s| publisher=Pocket Books| year=4th Edition 2006 | id=ISBN 978-1-4165-3257-6 }}</ref>
Here's the first event card. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a strange question, but does having eight well-known professional wrestlers appear in a music video warrant inclusion in this project? I think it's an important example of the Rock 'n' Wrestling Connection, but I wanted to get more opinions before adding the WP:PW banner on its talk page. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 15:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
How would everyone feel if I merged supercard, main event, and undercard into card (sports)? They are all pretty short, and I can't imagine any of them getting much longer. They all deal with basically the same thing, so it makes sense for them to be in the same article. Nikki♥ 311 01:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I want to direct people's attention to the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions article where it seems there is an agreement to create an article that has the entire history of both world championships in TNA on the talk page. I just want to get more people into the discussion than about two users and multiple ips.-- Will C 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Want to make a list of New Year's Resolutions for the project to achieve? Make it a tangible goal (like a certain number of GAs, DYKs, etc). List below:
I made a subpage to keep track of the progress, and I've added a few more. I'll be keeping up with it, but if anybody is interested the link is User:Nikki311/NYR. Nikki♥ 311 02:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The WWE Roster page is protected again. Dear God will it ever quit. I have no idea why it is protected this time but can we figure out a system so this will not happen again?-- Will C 02:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Stupid place to put this, but since even the talk page got a semi-protect I cannot suggest this there. But what if they moved the FCW roster to it's own page and on the main roster had only the confirm-able wrestlers (say the champions)? The way the page reads ATM to me is that FCW is a 4th brand, which to anyone that pays the least bit attention to the buisness would know that is not fully correct (AFAIK, Raw, ECW and Smackdown go on national tours while FCW stays in Florida). This is where I'm guessing some of the edit wars take place. As for Christian Cage, for all we know he could have retired and never bothered to tell anyone where he was going. So someone really should build a bot to keep him off the WWE roster until he makes a verifiable appearance as signed talent, either on the website or on TV. Flyingcandyman ( talk) 01:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Spoilers should not be added to an article without a reliable source, in which the promotion's website is only acceptable. Other wrestling websites are not reliable, including the sources marked reliable for pay-per-view articles, because their reports regarding spoilers are not verifiable by promotions. What do you think? I think this is needed regarding spoilers because we can't always trust reports by fans because its only what one person says, and we cannot confirm it since we aren't there. So the promotion is the only source that should be accepted as reliable. This can also, in a way (mostly about the sourcing) apply to signings/releases.-- Tru co 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It it is a reliable source, for instance The Wrestling Observer, add it. I've just added back info on Swagger's win - we don't embargo information from people. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What about situations like this? Mshake3 ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So what are ya going to do when a reliable source attends a taping in person? Mshake3 ( talk) 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
A little while ago people were trying to think of categories to make featured (ie Londrick, D-X &c) and I just realised that if anyone was feeling ambitious a far-reaching and interesting category to do might be Raven's Nest and it's many incarnations. Too much work for me, but I thought someone who had an interest in ECW and WCW might like it. Tony2Times ( talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Could some other users please put the various PWI awards, as well as the page for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards on watch? They all tend to get hit hard in January (but unfortunately not hard enough to need protection). They should be semi-protected, since 99% of the IP edits made to it are vandalism (the only constructive IP edits are where they clean up old vandalism), but that won't happen. If an IP changes any old results, you can verify the changes here. -- Scorpion 0422 18:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This is mainly a matter of cutting down how long it would take one person to do, but can some people here help with moving various Japanese articles? I noticed that there are a bunch of organizations that have part of their name capitalized for no reason (which violates WP:MOSTM) and thus need to be moved (and related pages like roster pages). Some examples include Pro Wrestling NOAH and Pro Wrestling ZERO1, plus the American promotion SHIMMER Women Athletes. I have already moved a few of the articles, but there are a lot more left. TJ Spyke 05:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
This [File:Sting_beats_Jarrett!!!!.jpg] is quite clearly the same as used on Slam Sports' review however the latter is uncropped so maybe this is a legitimate owned picture upload. I wasn't sure but I thought I'd bring it up anyway because I didn't think it was likely that a Slam! Sports photographer would be on the project but if so, hurrah! Tony2Times ( talk) 16:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Redirect.-- Tru co 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Since we redirected the main article to the main WWE roster article, is this template still needed?-- Tru co 21:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete, I saw it and wanted to delete it, but I'm too lazy and they were everywhere. ₰imon KSK 21:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I just expanded the article, in hopes of a DYK and FLC. Since this is a first for the project, since the WWE Hall of Fame is still in production. I wanted to get the opinions of the project about it. Don't worry about the sources, I got it covered and I know how to handle them at FLC.-- Tru co 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone read Sacrifice (2008) and tell me how the prose of the article is? I would place it on the feed back request section but I would remove it by the end of the day. If anyone can, or if they want to, I would appreciate it. It is a GA but I recently re-wrote alot of it and resourced it. I've taken it from 46 kilobytes to 38. The event had alot of weird things happen.-- Will C 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I created these articles today. I haven't watched the events for a long time, so they're a little sparse. If anyone knows of good, reliable sources, it would be great if you could let me know (or help out with expanding the article). Also, I'm a little confused about the ending of the Hogan-Piper fight at The War to Settle the Score. I've read conflicting reports about who won. Was Hogan disqualified, or was Piper? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From Eddie Guerrero:
Guerrero was set to face Batista and Randy Orton in a triple threat match for the World Heavyweight Championship on the November 13, 2005 taping of SmackDown! (which would have aired on November 18, 2005). Stephanie McMahon hinted that Guerrero had been scheduled to defeat Batista for the World Heavyweight Championship, which would have begun Guerrero's first reign as World Heavyweight Champion and his second world championship reign overall. However, its was later confirmed in Batista's book that Randy Orton was actually scheduled to win the title that night. Then Eddie would begin another heel turn.
I don't believe that, firstly because it would have made no sense from a storyline perspective. Secondly, at the time Batista was slightly injured, which is why fans believed he was going to drop the title to Eddie so that he could have a little bit of time to recover. So, if he was instead going to drop the title to Orton, why didn't they do afterwards? -- Scorpion 0422 01:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I have Batistas book from page 215 of Batista unleased "At the time I was champion. The plan was to pass the title back to Randy. But I wanted them to put it on Eddie. I'd told them earlier that I was going to Vince to ask him to do that. Well Eddie called me and left a message saying that he appreciated what I was going to do, but that it was the wrong decision. Randy should be champ, not him. We should do what Vince says. Vince is smart said Eddie. He knows this business and he wouldn't make a wrong decision. Its what's best for the company. He added that he loved me and appreciated that I wanted him to have the title, even though it was the wrong decision." It then talks about later that morning Eddie died. He received the message from Eddie in the early hours of the morning. Hope that was useful Adster 95 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Folks, please help in watching Jake Hager and Matt Hardy and related pages until the US airing? TrekFanatic ( talk) 08:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Attention everyone. STOP TELLING US TO WATCH SPECIFIC PAGES FOR TAPED BUT UNAIRED EVENTS!!!! You can monitor those pages on your own, you don't need all of us to gang up on it! 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather famously the first Rumble wasn't a PPV and was just broadcast on television. However on the infobox for that event it's still included as part of the PPV chronology; isn't this oxymoronic considering it says in the introductory paragraph that it wasn't available on PPV? Tony2Times ( talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Again just for general use not necessarily wrestling: when using the cite template for a website, if the publisher only exists as a website (ie it's not the BBC or WWE or any company like that) then do you put just the name of the website (ie UK Hip Hop) or the full address (www.ukhiphop.co.uk) or a mix of the two (ukhiphop.co.uk) or something else? Tony2Times ( talk) 04:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to throw out this possibility of possibly expanding the Ring of Honor and/or Pro Wrestling Guerrilla database of events, I'd be willing to help on possibly the results side, I know it'd at least be worth it for ROH as they do actually have somewhat of a PPV deal. All thoughts are appreciated. afkatk ( talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From WWE.com about Mr. McMahon's return: With WWE’s two tag team titles currently held by members of SmackDown and ECW, now could be the perfect time to introduce a third tag title to be defended on Raw. I don't know, from my understanding of the text, it seems like the WTTC is now on ECW, dis/agree?-- Tru co 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
The snippet above doesn't say the titles have left Raw, just that they're not held by Raw roster Superstars. Let's leave them on Raw until one way or the other it's made official that they're not on Raw. The blurb seems speculative in itself, so there's no concrete evidence to say the titles were moved at all. Hazardous Matt 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is creating made up stables and wrestlers. He is making them up with an entire history for them, such as WWE starts holding the championships in one stable and fighting TNA stars. I don't know how many articles he has created but they all need to be deleted.-- Will C 03:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, this message is to inform any interested project members that the good article nomination for No Mercy (2004) is currently on hold and awaiting changes to the article so it can be approved as a good article. Please check out the article's GAN review page if you're interested. Cheers, Monowi ( talk) 07:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
These two events present an interesting naming problems in that while they were taped in 2007 and 2008, respectively, they both aired a few months later in 2008 and 2009, respectively. While the Rising Above event taped in 2007 remains under that name, the event taped in 2008, was recently moved and sparked this question. Originally, Manual of Style concerns were cited, but since, myself and Will have found that this was a mis-cite (note: Will originally made the move). So, I wanted to bring this up to the project: essentially, should these articles be named by the date they were taped (07 & 08) or by the date they aired (08 & 09). It should be noted that Ring of Honor refers to and promotes these events by the year they were taped, so the event that airs tomorrow night will be referred to as Rising Above 2008. I also go to the fact that if someone comes to Wikipedia for information on the event, they would likely search for the name that ROH uses, which as I said before, is the date of taping. I'd like to get some project member's opinions on what year to place these two articles under. Cheers, Dooms Day 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, don't complain about a company's action in how it effects Wikipedia. Very petty. As for this, ROH releases DVDs of the shows using the date the show was taped. That is what's important. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone check this article - I think it maybe a hoax (sorry, don't have time to check fully now). D.M.N. ( talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as I reckon I'm the only one who watches over RQW's page I thought I'd ask for some advice here so that I'm not just being despotic. As an umbrella company with three other promotions in their auspices, the list of champions has not just RQW, but also IPW:UK, WAW and SAS champions listed there. I put it in one list whereas someone else has edited the page and split them up and I was wondering if there was any particular way it should go? Tony2Times ( talk) 14:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Since we have many GA's listed for candidacy at GAN, right now the section has a huge backlog of 63+, if members can voluntarily review one article, or more, it will help the backlog and our article can be reviewed quicker as well. I just reviewed 3, which is my first 3 reviews in over half a year.-- TRU CO 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Coincidentally, No Way Out (2009) will take place on February 15, the same date as No Way Out (2004), so I want to nominate it for WP:TFA (Today's Featured Article), but since this is the first time, I need some assistance to help the article get a good chance at making it for that day (February 15). Seeing the criteria, I think it may have a good chance..
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#February 15 - D.M.N. ( talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, something was bothering me so I decided to get on and start this discussion. The real names besides the ring name. I have no problem with it but people do. There is the idea that using common name is okay on people like A.J. Styles, instead of the adding his real name at all, just linking the ring name as if everyone already knows who he is, but I disagree. I think it should only be used when someone is widely know, like Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting, Randy Savage, etc. Because if we use common name then there is no point to even place the real names in because then there is the argument that they aren't known enough and people wouldn't know the difference between Allen Jones and A.J. Styles. There needs to be a ground rule here, because in the end using common name would just mean we shouldn't even place in the real name period. Any thoughts, if you know what I'm talking about?-- Will C 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, about the rap analogy, lets be completely honest here. If you're not a fan of rap, you don't know who Young Jeezy is, chances are you don't really care who he is and knowing what his real name is isn't going to make that much of a difference. Same goes with wrestling. And the casual fans, they probably aren't into wrestling enough to look up and/or remember a wrestlers real name, so whats the point of putting "Texas Red (Mark Calaway)" when they don't know Calaway is the Undertaker. also, to the guy who said it, he's been using the Undertaker name for well over ten years now (just past 18). I don't think we should have them because this isn't a printed encyclopedia, its an online encyclopedia, and everything is linked. So if I really cared enough to want to know a wrestler's real name while reading an article about a pay-per-view, all I'd have to do is click on the link. Its not hard. Nenog ( talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia: Consensus states "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable." Just because it was voted on six months ago doesn't mean we can't start the vote over again. I say we put it to a vote to decide to keep the real names with all their rules and exceptions, or drop them all together. Nenog ( talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, TJ wants to remove them but I still think they should be there. The consensus here was 4-2 for TJ, but I'd like a bigger one since I took the time to add pretty much all of them. I explained why I want them on that link. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 11:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on the above: As mentioned, the match ratings are subjective, so they shouldn't be included in a wrestler's bio. However, they could be included in the reception section for events (if they happen to occur in PPVs or for events we have articles for). As for Playboy...they should definitely be removed and any appearance in the magazine is usually located in the article itself and in the lead. Nikki♥ 311 19:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as star ratings go, I just got a glance at the arguments and I wonder: has the general subject of star ratings, as applies to such things as movie and album reviews, been discussed on their respective project pages? Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss the topic there, so that we're consistent all the way across the board. I think Wikipedia needs to have a consistent "star ratings" policy as applies to all entertainment-related articles that have reviews included. [[ Briguy52748 ( talk) 14:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)]]
There is a dispute on this article about whether the move in which Frazier jumps off the second rope onto his opponent should be called a "Running splash" or "Big splash". I have created a section for discussion on the article's talk page, and I would appreciate it if editors from this project could comment there to resolve the dispute. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
This may seem a bit "retarded", but since WWE replaced the ECW belt with the platinum version, the new one has the name "World Wrestling Entertainment ECW Champion engraved on it, so wouldn't the name of the title be "The World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship"? or would it be "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Championship of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE)"? In addition to this, wouldn't this also add more evidence that WWE is alluding the Extreme Championship Wrestling name, and is using the acronym more and thus the article should be renamed to ECW (WWE) per WP:ACRONYM?-- TRU CO 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The page is really terrible and needs loads of work, I'd appreciate some people helping me with it. I spent most of yesterday improving it but... And we need a better photo. Kala jan €· ₣ 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
My latest project has been creating articles on some older wrestlers. Over the past week or so, I completed articles on Rip Hawk and Swede Hanson (wrestler), and an article about them as a team ( Blond Bombers, which also discusses the other three teams to use that name), as well as Skull Murphy and Brute Bernard. I've read through them so many times now that I can't really judge them well. I know they need better lead sections (I'm terrible at writing leads, so any help is appreciated) and could benefit from some copyediting, but I'm wondering if any of them would be worth submitting as GA nominees. Masa Saito was recently failed because there wasn't enough information about his personal life and what made him unique as a wrestler, and these might fall into the same category. If someone (or more than one person) could take an objective look at them, I would really appreciate it. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up, several sites are reporting that Bob Orton Jr. was on a plane to Detroit, Michigan (the location for Royal Rumble) this morning. Might be worth putting his page on your watchlists. No IP's have hit it yet.... but give 12 to 24 hours and IP's are likely to be editing it.
D.M.N. ( talk) 21:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at this, and I questioned, do we list reigns by the date the individual won the title or the day it aired?-- TRU CO 14:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)