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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Anyone want to weight in on this? Some people are trying to change the name to "WWE Extreme Rules" just because the PPV sidebar on wwe.com says "Extreme Rules". It's speculation to say that is the new name, especially since that same sidebar also has "Great American Bash" instead of "The Great American Bash" and "WrestleMania 25" instead of "WrestleMania XXV". While a name change is possible, there is nothing official right now. TJ Spyke 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to this similar discussion. Vengenance: Night of Champions became Night of Champions once the schedule graphic changed. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
TJ, I'm following the rules of (multiple) reliable sources. It is not Original Research! And Truco, I havn't violated anything regarding 3RR. I've made changes to each article three times or less, and each time it involved, once again, reliable sources. So do not threaten me. Personally, I find it hilarious that you two are getting articles protected to prevent users from adding reliable information. As implied with the Notability issue, this project is just too strict on everything. Oh, and you wouldn't want me banned, especially after the thousands of photos I've taken at live events over the last couple of weeks, including the Royal Rumble. Mshake3 ( talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The graphic that airs on RAW, SmackDown, and ECW for WWE on Pay Per View shows the event as Extreme Rules. There is absolutely NO reason not to update this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.234.65 ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel the need to weigh in on this since I tried to update the article and it was reversed before I even finished. How can anyone seriously claim that WWE's OFFICIAL WEBSITE is not a reliable source. Also, when I changed the article, I provided an extra source, just to be safe, and one that is used three other times as a source in the same article. Also, the article mentions the Wrestlemania calendar, but THAT is an unreliable source because WWE's printed publications (i.e. that calendar) are written THREE MONTHS before they go on sale. So, there are TWO reliable sources stating the name change and ZERO that can dispute it. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And I would like to point out that the same third party source is used two other times in the same article. If it isn't considered "reliable" then how can it be used in other places? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is this consensus located? I've read everything above and it seems to me that it's split down the middle between the people who can provide reliable sources that show the name has been changed and those that have nothing to prove otherwise, but keep erasing any changes made to the article because for whatever reason they seem think WWE would just change the names of their events on their website and in their television commercials just to mess with the fans. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did read it. It is the same two or three people arguing for changing it vs. the same two or three people arguing against it. The problem is, even if you forget about the wrestle view page, wwe.com AND their television commercial both have the pay per view listed as Extreme Rules. No one has yet to explain to me how that isn't reliable enough to present it as fact. How is my pointing to two official WWE sources a terrible argument? Saying that the words OFFICIAL WEBSITE are meaningless in a dispute over whether or not a company's listing for their own event is reliable enough is a terrible argument. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1. The differentiating calendars you are talking about: One is a calendar that was written three months before it was release and printed and released BEFORE the name change was made. The other is a live, up-to-the-minute, updated-several-times-a-day website. 2. The name Extreme Rules CLEARLY replaces One Night Stand on both the WWE's website calendar and on the television commercial that they air during their shows. Any "speculating" on whether this is a name change or a new event is just plain silly. No one has yet to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the article shouldn't be updated and how the WWE website and television commercial's changing of the name isn't an official announcement. The only explanation I've been given so far is basically amounts to "because I said so." But since there seems to be a few of you hawk-eyeing this page 24 hours a day, ready to change it back before the person trying to update it even has time to blink, I will stop trying. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The television commercial I am talking about and was mentioned earlier aired during every single WWE broadcast this week. It shows the highlights of past pay per views and ends by saying "WWE on Pay Per View. You should have been there." The end of the commercial shows the WWE logo in the middle with the word Pay Per View below it. In the background there is a rotating graphic showing the logos for all of the WWE pay per views. When the commercial first started airing (the first time I remember seeing it was during the Royal Rumble pay per view), it had the logo for One Night Stand. The graphic was recently changed to show the name change to Extreme Rules. If I can figure out a way to get an image of this off of my DVR I will show you. THAT should be proof enough. How did none of you manage to see this commercial? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That link you provided is the video as it aired during the Royal Rumble. On RAW this week, which I have recorded to DVR, it aired with the One Night Stand logo replaced with Extreme Rules. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did edit it because I can provide proof. Provided you agree to let the article be changed once I do. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I get home, I will rewatch RAW, provide you with the exact point in the show the commercial aired, record the commercial either with my video camera or cell phone, AND take screen shots of it. If I can provide all of that, you will have to do more than "consider." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see your argument against both a change on wwe.com AND a WWE television commercial. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The pay per view will DEFINITELY NOT be called One Night Stand this year. Please direct your attention to JR's Q&A: http://www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa about the third question down. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The "it" in question is obviously the new name for the event. You can not deny that. If the name had not been changed at all, he would have said so. This confirmation by JR along with the event calander on wwe.com should be enough to change the article to at least show that the name has been changed. We can even compromise and say that the new name is still in question as it could either be Extreme Rules as listed on wwe.com or Night of Extreme as stated by JR. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't support, I think the name should offically be changed. On many sites it has confirmed that it is now titled Extreme Rules to fit the TV-PG rating. User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC).
In the end it is speculation that it has been renamed. WWE have yet to release a statement regrading it and JR never aknowledged a change. From what he said, he seemed to be joking, but never said it was renamed. We can't accept his word either, look at Rourke, he said he would be in a match at Mania, but he isn't.-- Will C 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose but do you only consider official websites "reliable"? Is there any other sites regarding WWE other than WWE.com that are considered reliable? User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpengo88 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently they don't consider wwe.com a reliable source since it also lists the event as Extreme Rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.25 ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to direct everyone's attention to JR's Blog at www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa. The last question on that page JR says "All I know is that the name One Night Stand has been omitted and changed to "Extreme" whatever." Is THIS proof enough? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I will not change it, but at this point do we not have enough evidence to support that the name of the event will be Extreme Rules? JR has confirmed the name One Night Stand has been dropped and wwe.com lists Extreme Rules in it's place. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On this weeks Raw Randy Orton said that him winning the royal rumble match guarantees him a shot at the wwe championship or the world heavyweight championship and not mentioning the ecw championship this makes me ask is a shot at the ecw championship been faded out it would also suggest it in jrs wwe universe blog "since 1993, has sent its winner to face the WWE Champion in the main event at WrestleMania. Now with the World Heavyweight Title representing the Raw brand, the winner of the Rumble match gets his choice of titles for which he would like to challenge." Adster 95 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
We all know the ECW Championship was once a world title because they used to refer to it as the ECW World Championship. It's pretty self-evident. We're talking about it's current status which, between the comment about Matt and the comment about Randy, seems ambiguous at best. Tony2Times ( talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since the 2009 WWE Draft has just been announced, and they are using the same logo as the one from 2008, is it possible to upload the logo used on WWE.com for the 2009 Draft, although its an exact replica of the 2008 logo, or what, since its not generally acceptable to use two FUR's on one image.-- TRUCO 503 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest splitting the list of independent, retired and non-affiliated wrestlers into 3 different lists:
The basis is, because these three statuses are completely different and when someone looks at the list, the person can't see which is which, and there are a LOT of wrestlers, so IMO the three lists are notable. THoughts? Ra agg io 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about categorys? If not then Category's would be a lot better. -- Numyht ( talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think "inactive" and "non-affiliated" are pretty much the same thing, but agree that "retired," "deceased," and "inactive/non-affiliated" could be three different lists or categories. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that by "non-affiliated" you specifically meant with WWE and TNA. I assumed that people in ROH or NWA would be considered affiliated. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So can we split the list into three? 70.11.119.219 ( talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Should past articles that mention John Cena using the STFU and the FU be edited to reflect the new names of those moves? At least make mention to the fact that the names are changed by adding something like "a move now known as the Attitude Adjustment." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
K Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they ever actually called it that, but I could be wrong. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It was never called the Throwback. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to cause anymore trouble, but I just watched the entire match and the move was never referred to as the Throwback. The first time Cena goes for the move Cole simply says "Cena going for the victory." The second time, Cole says, "JBL in trouble." The third and final time, Cole says, "Look at, look at, look at Cena! Cena! Cena connecting! The cover! John Cena retains the World Title!" During the replay of the end of the match, Jerry Lawler says "Cena hits his... his patented move on JBL and it's all over." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We could go by JR's blog where he states the move has been renamed: The Throwback. This was before RR.-- Will C 08:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Michael Cole never referred move in question as The Throwback on television. On every Raw after the JR said they planned to change the name of the move, they simply referred to it as Cena "going for the finish" or "going for the victory." The first time it was referred to by ANY name was last week's Raw when Cole said Cena "calls that the Attitude Adjustment." You may be thinking of Cena's flipping neckbreaker which IS called the Throwback and has always been called as such by Michael Cole. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I can merge these two because there are no reliable references towards the information. Like the dates/venues/locations of these ceremonies (before 2004). Information like how some of them took place during the weekend of King of the Ring, DVD information, television ratings information, etc. Unless someone can help me find these sources.--< TRUCO> 503 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Here. I still have to revamp the table to like the recent promoted HoF FLs, unless someone else would like to do so, since I won't be able to do it soon.--< TRUCO> 503 04:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Per a previous discussion should these two articles be merged? It only lasted a few months. SAVIOR_ SELF .777 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What's up his inverted facelock camel clutch being changed to the Dragon Clutch and his corkscrew 450 splash being changed to the Phoenix Splash? The former names of both moves are the actual and technical move names whereas. PCE ( Talk) - 2:17 February 15, 2009 (ET)
Why is it that every time I try something new, I get a message along those lines? [3]
So, just after the Rumble when Edge won the title, I decided ago to try adding a template to his row in the combined reigns section in List of WWE Champions [4]. Edge was in his fourth reign, so I calculated the number of days he held the title, and subtracted it to a new date. I felt it was a benefit because then people wouldn't have to update the page every day. In the cited case, it looked like this: {{age in days|month1=09|day1=29|year1=2008}}. It said he won the title on Sept. 29, but he didn't. Sure, the day listed in the template is wrong, but it doesn't really matter because it's just code and that date does not show up in the article.
Anyway, tonight Triple H won the title and I added the template. But for some reason, TJ Spyke decided he didn't like it, and everted it, and accused me of being disruptive. His "logic" is that it's OR because the date in the template isn't the day they won it. (actually, I did the math using the sources provided in the article, so it's not OR) He also said that none of the other pages used this. He was right, so I added it to the Women's page, and was promptly reverted.
As I see it, there are three solutions:
I would prefer #2, but some people like to make things unnecessarily complex, so we'll see. -- Scorpion 0422 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Really in this case OR doesn't really matter. No one sees what day the template is set on unless you edit the article and people probably don't even look in the first place. I would go with option two because it doesn't hurt anything, but would be nice to make a new template to solve this problem once and for all (3).-- Will C 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit the title reigns anyway, but #2 definitely sounds like it would make things easier and still show accurate information to the viewing public. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the reigns for single or combined help at all. Does it really matter that Batista held the World Heavyweight title for 8 days or that Sting held the TNA title for 2. It seems like non-notable information that only wrestling fans would want or need to know.-- Will C 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know when they were added, but I don't know why we even keep track of them in the first place. They are useless. They come in handy when you want to know how long someone's reign was but other that any record breaking reigns, shortest reigns, etc can be mentioned in the prose.-- Will C 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be bold, but this seems controversial. Should we wait for the world title situation to be cleared? According to [5], both the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship now belong to SmackDown. I have no doubt this will change on Raw, but should we move the WHC to SmackDown for now since even WWE's website says that? The exact quote is (bolding is mine) "The most intriguing fact behind the mayhem, however, is that the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania is a mere six weeks away and the two top titles in WWE now belong to the Friday night brand. With newly crowned World Heavyweight Champion Edge and WWE Champion Triple H sharing the SmackDown stage, just how erratic will the Road to WrestleMania get?" TJ Spyke 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be changed to reflect what wwe.com says. Both titles are officially part of SmackDown now. To say that it will be cleared up tomorrow night, however likely that is, is speculation (crystal balling). Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you TJ, that is a seeemly senario. The savor of the Raw brand. But anyway, lets wait to see if WWE follow that path or just have the title change back after one night because they have house shows promoted with a World Title match between Orton and Cena.-- Will C 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I've been working on the Rey de Reyes page and I've updated everything except the early shows which were nothing but the tournament. I'd like to put some kind of tournament bracket on there but there isn't one where there are 4 competitors/teams in each semifinal and final - I guess it's not that used in other sports. Can anyone help out?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Before I made the edit, I wanted to discuss it here first. It says there that Team DX was the first clean sweep in history, but shouldn't that milestone be awarded to Jerry Lawler and his team 12 years earlier at Survivor Series (1994)? Ra agg io 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this list necessary? This user keeps on adding lots of uncited information to pages and more annoyingly lots of lists and splitting of grids and pointless subheadings, I've tried sending him messages to stop or improve the quality of his writing (he doesn't even capitalise proper nouns) and he just wipes his talk page and ignores me. I don't wanna be accused of trying to own articles but I doubt m/any people here check the British circuit to keep it up to standard so was wondering if I was just being possessive or he is being unproductive? Tony2Times ( talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The name change seems simple to me, but I didn't want to take a chance of just moving it myself. If you want to comment on the move request: Talk:1 Pro Wrestling#Requested move. TJ Spyke 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
WrestleView.com is reporting that Sarah Stock, A.K.A. Dark Angel, has been signed by TNA. Though their source is PWInsider. I was wondering if this is usable since both WrestleView and PWinsider are questionable sources these days.-- Will C 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just updated the Triplemanía page with full results etc and when I look at it it's rather long (22 shows) - at what point should it be split up into a page per show? I also just created Verano de Escandalo and Guerra de Titanes which both clock in at 12 shows and run the risk of becoming too large and unwieldy too. Does WP:PW have a rule of thumb when they should be split up?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just curious about the top bit of the page, all those tag bits about citation and things. Is it needed all of that? The quality of the article isn't that bad to warrant that whole lot of questioning over the article!!!! Govvy ( talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at the articles related to Lucha Libre and found a lot of them to be in a very sad state (check out Ari Romero for what may be the worst of them all) and well I've decided that I will work on them, I got a few sources, insides and knowlege from being a longtime fan of the Luchas so why not. Now I've got a list of the articles I've found that need work but I'm just one man I don't roam that much of Wikipedia so I'm sure there are plenty of articles I've missed that need to be fixed or articles that haven't been created yet. So I'm asking this project for a bit of help compiling the list, if you could please let me know when you find a Lucha Libre related article in need of cleanup or one that's totally missing then I can add it to my list. You can either post here or on my talk page. And hey if someone wanted to pitch in and help improve these articles I'm not going to get offended :) it's my hope that every article currently listed on my user page will be brought to at least a "B" level and some (like Santo, Hijo del Santo, Blue Demon & La Parka) made GA or even FA. Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK ( talk) 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
First I want to know if anyone has a problem with creating a list about monthly PPV events. Something like this which is no where near finished: User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA monthly PPV events. I feel it could be useful. Though not all of TNA's PPVs are expanded, it could still be useful in the see also section instead of List of TNA pay-per-view events being there. Just an idea, or is it list cruft? Next I want to know if anyone has a problem with me moving the history of the TNA World Tag Team Championship out of the article and into a list. There have been 10 reigns, that is including an unofficial reign with Kaz and Eric Young which could exist considering Cornette stripped Young and Kaz of the belt and didn't just state it never existed. That way I believe it meets the FL criteria and I could easily source and improve it afterwards.-- Will C 06:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently uploaded the enhanced and new version of the WWE Hall of Fame logo. As a result, [[Image:File:Wwehalloffame247.png]] [the original logo from 2004] is orphaned. Unless someone can think of an article that could benefit using this logo, it will end up being delete because per WP:FAIR Criteria 4A, multiple uses of non-free content should be avoided if one can cover for the other, and the new logo covers for the old one. -- TRU CO 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we 99% of the time list the match type why not state it as Match type and/or Stipulation(s)?-- TRU CO 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to Template:WWE Championships. Simple changes but hopefully helpful ones. I added sub-groups and sub-lists to the Brand and Developmental Championship boxes. This basically gives Raw, ECW, SmackDown, and FCW their own subfields. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As a result of the discussion above about the brand listings for championships, a topic about whether we should continue listing the brands in the infobox for WWE PPVs. From research we have found out that WWE stopped stating in their introduction to PPVS ...and now Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present... after One Night Stand (2007). From then on, the introduction has stated ...and now World Wrestling Entertainment and Snickers presents... Since we state in the background section (the intro paragraph) that talent from the 3 brands will be involved it seems irrelevant to list the brands in the infobox since the pay-per-views are not brand exclusive anymore. I propose that we should either remove the brands from the infobox from the Backlash (2007) PPV and beyond (since WWE made the announcement of stopping brand exclusive PPVs after WrestleMania 23) or remove them from One Night Stand (2007) and beyond, after WWE stopped referencing the brands in their introduction. (Please discuss don't vote, since this project tends to turn many discussion as such into votes; consensus will be built upon a general agreement.)-- TRU CO 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This press release says it all. Start with Backlash 07. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to turn the above list into an article since it is not long enough to go to FLC and then I'll just take it to GAN, does anyone mind if I rename it to Current champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling?-- Will C 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been considering making a few changes to the page and I need some input.
The first would be seperating the singles inductees from the tag teams. The problem with this is that it gives the impression that there are official categories when there are not. Another problem is that in the case of the Briscos and Funks (and should the be inducted, the von Erichs) is that they were also largely inducted because of their singles careers.
The other change would be adding a "Notable tag teams where both members have been inducted table". ie. (NOTE: The table is not complete, so don't bother posting and pointing that out)
Team | Members | Notes |
---|---|---|
Tony Atlas (2006) and Rocky Johnson (2008) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
The Executioners | Killer Kowalski (1996) and Big John Studd (2004) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. |
Ivan Putski (1995) and Tito Santana (2004) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
The Iron Sheik (2005) and Nikolai Volkoff (2005) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
Gorilla Monsoon (1994) and Killer Kowalski (1995) | One-time WWWF United States Tag Team champions. |
The problem with this one is that some might consider it OR, and what makes a tag team notable? Should a pair of inductees who briefly tagged together (ie. Piper & Flair) be included? For example, Pat Patterson has been involved in tag teams with at least five different Hall of Famers. Which ones do you include? Anyway, all opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion 0422 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been following this page for a good couple of years. It's stayed, relatively, the same that whole time. When I went there earlier this year it was changed into a Wikitable, which isn't a bad thing. The bad thing was that the table was unfinshed, and it still is and it's been 3 months since the change happend. There have been numerous requests for it to go back the way it was as it was at least organized and with all the dates, even though some were not cited. I think that the wikitable would be a good stay if it was just completed. Also, Moe has been deleting most of the talk about the quality of the article on the talk page. He has stated that it is halfway done because he is only half finished with it, which I find very unprofessional, would an actually encyclopedia only publish an article that was half completed? I think not. Jcm431 ( talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
On a different note, there may be a issue with the number of templates on the page after I am finished because of all the references I am adding. Due to template limits which will be surpassed, I am going to insert refs but remove the {{ cite web}}, {{ cite book}}, etc. so that the refs will still be visible. The only difference is that instead of:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp|title=Contact WWE|accessdate=2009-01-31|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]]}}</ref>
It will be written as:
<ref>[http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp "Contact WWE"]. [[World Wrestling Entertainment]]. Retrieved on 2009-01-31.</ref>
If I do not make this change and continue inserting references with {{ cite web}} the article could have massive errors occuring like the List of Brazilian football transfers 2008 (note the reference section with the repeated errors saying "cite news", "cite news", "cite news". — Moe ε 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
PER WP:COMMONNAME. He used other names but none of 'em are notable. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the recent press release of WrestleMania XXVI [6], WWE constantly refers to it as WM XXVI, like in "The City of Glendale, Ariz., Global Spectrum and World Wrestling Entertainment® announced that the University of Phoenix Stadium will host WrestleMania XXVI on Sunday, March 28, 2010." Now for this year's WM, they refer to it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania: "This year’s 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania will take place in Houston’s Reliant Stadium on April 5th where it is expected to set the stadium attendance record." If it was really going to be named "WrestleMania XXV" or "WrestleMania 25", I'm sure as hell they would have used it here since they refer to the 26th edition as "WrestleMania XXVI". I'm just saying.-- TRU CO 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You all need to lsiten to them say it on TV, it isn't the name, it is promotional purposes the entire way. They don't go "The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania". They go "The 25th anniversary of...WrestleMania". Plus JBL clearly without stopping said WrestleMania 25 during his promo with HBK last week on Raw. That is the first time, I believe, that they have even referred to it outside of a promo video hyping up the event. Most other times it is just WrestleMania.-- Will C 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The Cleanup listing was updated today by the bot for the first time since October. It turns out we have some FAs and GAs with problems (along with a bunch of other articles). All help greatly appreciated! Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was attempting to revert Crystal Balling on WrestleMania XXVI and apparently, corporate.wwe.com has just been blacklisted. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that they are a kayfabe part of title changes, but they are used after every title change it seems lately (Atleast in the WWE). What I am suggesting is that in the Title pages a blurb be added to all of the title pages, something like
"Wrestlers who are unsuccesful at defending their titles are granted a rematch, under a (kayfabe) contractual rematch clause, where they are offered a chance to regain the title."-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm once again considering making some changes to the page, namely splitting off tag teams. My main concern is that wrestlers like Jack Brisco or Terry Funk are known a lot more for their singles career than with tag teams, and they probably should have their own row (complicating things, Gerald & Jack Brisco each have their own section at WWE.com but none of the other tag teams fo). However, having a seperate row for both Jack and Gerald Brisco would lead to repitition problems. Anothger problem is that the von Erichs will likely be inducted this year. This means there will be at least four (possibly five or six if they decide to include Mike and Chris) and they were a stable, with a variety of singles accomplishments and various combinations of them held tag team championships. As I see it, there are three solutions:
For number 3, this is what I was thinking of:
Year | Tag Team | Notes | Inducted by |
---|---|---|---|
1996 | The Valiant Brothers | One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions, first tag team to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame. [1] | British Bulldog and Owen Hart |
Jimmy Valiant (James Harold Fanning) - four-time
NWA Television Champion Johnny Valiant (John L. Sullivan) | |||
2006 | The Blackjacks | One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions. [2] | Bobby Heenan |
Blackjack Mulligan (Robert Deroy Windham) - two-time NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and one-time NWA World Tag Team Champion. Blackjack Lanza (Jack Lanza) - one-time AWA World Tag Team Champion | |||
2007 | The Wild Samoans | Three-time WWF World Tag Team Champions. [3] | Samu and Matt Anoa'i |
Afa (Arthur Anoa'i, Sr.) Sika (Leati Anoa'i) | |||
2008 | The Brisco Brothers | Held over twenty Tag Team Championships, including the NWA World Tag Team Championship on three occasions. | John "Bradshaw" Layfield |
Jack Brisco (Freddie Joe Brisco) - two-time
NWA World Heavyweight Champion.
[4] Gerald Brisco (Floyd Gerald Brisco) - one-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion. [5] | |||
2009 | The Funks | Held several tag team championships, including the NWA International Tag Team Championship on three occasions. [6] | Dusty Rhodes |
Terry Funk - one-time
NWA World Heavyweight Champion, two-time
ECW World Heavyweight Champion and one-time
WWF Tag Team Champion. Dory Funk, Jr.: one-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion. |
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I was considering (although not seriously) was adding several columns for the various major championships and then you could check (or add numbers for) which wrestlers have held them. It would save a lot of repition. -- Scorpion 0422 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For example. Note that this is just a quickly whipped up table. Any final version would look much better
Ring name (Birth name) |
Notes | Heavyweight championships | Tag Team | Other | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WWE | ECW | WCW | NWA | WWE | ECW | WCW | NWA | Int. | U.S. | Royal Rumble? | King of the Ring? | ||
Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steven Williams) |
[7] | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1997 1998 2001 |
1996 | |||||
Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat (Richard Henry Blood) |
[8] | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
WWE has just released the details of their Night of Extreme pay-per-view. It is still uncertain, however, whether it will replace the name 'One Night Stand' or whether it will be a new event replacing the ONS event itself, so watch out for the movement of WWE One Night Stand if it isn't already move-protected. You can also discuss this at Talk:WWE One Night Stand#Night of Extreme.-- TRU CO 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Today the live event schedule says Extreme Rules [7]. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you report an IP that keeps on removing the same piece of sourced information from the same page? Tony2Times ( talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This may be of interest to project members, as many are also active GA reviewers. There is a backlog elimination drive currently underway. If anyone wants to get involved, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009. It would be a great way to help reduce wait times for the 11 wrestling articles currently awaiting reviews. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to put this article on their watchlist because of users like User:Cena Jr blanking images for "copyright violations" that don't exist. — Moe ε 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It was recommended at Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni#Load times that the article be split in half or so to save on load time. So I would like opinions on what you think about splitting it from A-M and N-Z or maybe A-H, I-Q, R-Z with the latter (A-H, etc.) being more preferable since I did a test and template limits would have stopped at letter H or so to begin with and this way I could continue refing it normally. — Moe ε 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Trying to follow in the example of other long lists that are featured, I am thinking it should be split by the number of names, rather than what letter it is, like for example the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (split like A, Ba-Bh, Bi-Bz, C, etc.). Each article has about the same number of names and references and they are featured lists, so I think this would be most appropriate. A-M/N-Z presents many problems, mostly being template limits and rendering for load time. The same amount of references currently on the article could easily be on a subpage as wide as A-M once it is finished. Even my proposed A-H, I-Q, R-Z would present the subpages having a ton of references like the article is at present, so the number of names per page like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be a good solution. — Moe ε 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While you guys bicker about the titles, I just want to clear the statement that if WWE calls their WWE Tag Team Championship the WWE World Tag Team Championship, it would be considered redundant, because WWE is an abbreviation for World Wrestling Entertainment
So, WWE can easily state that every single title owned by their company includes the word World. By this logic, WWA, WWC, and others can state that they have World in their titles. Promotions like FCW cannot, because they officially limit their titles to Florida
Ra agg io 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow so it's come to this? Basically there once was a "World European" title? Doesn't this project have more important things to do? I dunno like improve quality instead of bicker over infintesimal details? this gets reply after reply while requests for help to find bad articles or reviews and the likes usually dies a quiet death from being ignored? MPJ-DK ( talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is world does not exist. It is just a name. The title is a prop. World means as much as Triple H saying he is the King of Kings, but no he isn't. He is just an asshole from CT. Really the World Heavyweight Championship article isn't useful. World Status doesn't exist in pro wrestling. Only to the fans it does.-- Will C 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A know a couple of people are working on Hall of Fame lists at the moment. Is anybody working on Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum? I'd like to fix it up if nobody else was planning to. Nikki♥ 311 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In most cases when citing information from WWE to their official websites or to their corporate websites, we have done the following.
While expanding a new article in my sandbox, I ran down to both websites copyright information at the bottom of the sites and noticed that the copyright publisher is formally called World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.. So this needs to be fixed accordingly..
The corporate website is published by WWE, Inc. but the work is separate from the official website, so the work field is called "WWE Corporate" (like the name of the site states), while WWE.com is just its official website so no work field is needed. Its a minor change, but a makes a big difference.-- ₮RU CӨ 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute between myself and Bulletproof over the status of the NWA title. Bullet accepts it's status as a "world" title. I do not - and neither does Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which if I recall correctly has already been established by consensus as an authority on the subject. There are only three world titles - two in WWE and one in TNA. Bullet claimed that PWI says that the WWE title (the one held by Triple H) is not a world title, but I put that down to simply differing it from the "World" title (the one held by Edge).
To allow Bullet's edit will open up a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a world title. Promotions are known to call a title "world" even though it's not, but Bullet's precedent would mean that any old "world" title should be noted as such. That is hardly encyclopaedic IMO.
I ask for other views on this, and also seek a final consensus on;
!! Justa Punk !! 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I must say this is funny to read you two argue, I love it. But anyway I must agree with Bullet, mainly because of the fact it was determined a few months or weeks ago, that PWI has no control over a title's world status and that we shouldn't use PWI as a governing body. So, a world title in my opinion is a title that is defended around the world. That would include the NWA Title and the ROH Title. If a title is defended outside of the country it was created in and primarily defended, it would make it a world title. PWI in this case means nothing.-- Will C 08:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
PWI is not the definitive authority on what is and is not a world championship in professional wrestling, nor is there a consensus on here. There is however a consensus that states PWI isn't the definitive source, and what they say has no bearing on Wikipedia outside the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article. Nenog ( talk) 09:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just if the title has been defended outside of the US recently, it is about the entire title's history. The NWA Title has been defended in Japan, Canada, Mexico, etc. The ROH Title was defended in Japan not too long ago when ROH held a show over there. Also TNA didn't even leave the country until 2005 for a show I believe. The TNA title wasn't defended outside the country until No Surrender. Considering that, the only reason that PWI gave the NWA Titlle world status while it was in TNA, was because TNA was on PPV. ROH doesn't hold calim to the NWA Title, but the title was defended in ROH. Seeing that ROH have a PPV deal and now a TV deal, well not really a TV, just a less lucky weekly PPV deal on HDnet, which is really just foxsports.net's retarded cousin, but anyway, back on subject. In that mind, the NWA Title is still defended around the country and out of the US from time to time. So, in that mind, both titles gain world status seeing the have been defended outside the country and are also defended on PPV, so using common sense, they gain world status.-- Will C 09:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
<--My two cents: if a title is defended outside of the country in which it was created and primarily defended, then it's a world title, i.e. if it's defended around the world, it's a world title. PWI's opinion doesn't count in ths instance. At Justa Punk, why doesn't the ROH title changing hands in Mexico count? ROH is an American complany, as in the US of America. Mexico to the best of my knowledge isn't part of the US, so technically that would count. In my opinion anyway. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Here my two cents. I think in order for a World Title to be recognized by us it needs to meet guidelines that have been set by us. For example
1) Title must be the top championship of said promotion (Or in the WWE's case, top championship of the brand)
2) Title must have been defended in a foreign country.
3) Title must be recognized as a World Championship by the company itself. (Prevents us classifying the Interontinental Championship as a World Championship at the moment)
4) The Promotion must have some level of international recognition. (For example, ROH travels over seas, TNA travels overseas, a small independant promotion like UWF in Ontario did not)
Of course we can bicker over the guidelines if we decided to go this route, it's just an idea.-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, lets get a sure fired consensus here. The NWA Championship is a world title, because a title can not lose its world status because it left one company. The NWA Title has been defended in multiple company's around the world and on PPV. Because it is no longer toured actively does not grant the reason of removing its world status. The ROH Title was defended in Japan when ROH held a show over there. ROH also sell their produces, such as shows, PPV, and any other merchindise in other countries. Hense so it is an international company. Believing in that thought, the NWA still obtains its world status, and the ROH title gains its world status, seeing that the NWA Title was really the first world title, and the NWA and ROH both believe that their top titles are world titles.-- Will C 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you know where I live do you not Gary? But I disagree, we should go by the definition of a world title. A Title that is defended around the world. No way the OVW Heavyweight Championship is a world title.-- Will C 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I kind of agree with the consensus. PWI does not matter in this situation. I think we should go by if the company calls it a world title and if it has been defended outside of the country in-which it was originally created. Because I'm sure if we say the CZW Championship is a world title, then alot of ips are going to disagree.-- Will C 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the title must meet the above 3 criteria to be classified as a World Championship and to be listed as such on the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling).-- TRU CO 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think its perfect. Using the WWE titles as an example...
Checks and Balances...sort of. I love it.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Only if it passes the other two criteria. Does it or did it have world in its name? I remember Borash saying NWA-TNA World X Division Championship on an old weekly ppv. Has it been defended in two different countries. The X Title has and changed hand in two as well. Crap, the tag division belt can be won by one man alone. The heavyweight title can be won by a crusierweight. the women's title can be won by a man dressed up as a woman. There is no restictions on a division.-- Will C 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree there is no limits, but there are no limits for anyother division in TNA or WWE. Hell are we really sure that Awesome Kong is a woman, because I didn't order Bound for Glory 2007, so I never got to see the infamous video. The X division is nothing more than a crusierweight division. Joe and Angle are the only heavyweights that have competed in the division.-- Will C 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel if we are going to recongize tag titles as world, when they aren't the top title in their company or brand as a world title because it is the top tag title in their division, then why not a woman's title or an X title. There are very few companies that are just about woman's wrestling. Probably the most known is Shimmer. Though they don't have a world title.-- Will C 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what this section is about, but I didn't want to start a new one. Clearly multiple companies believe that there is more than one world title in their company i.e. when TNA called their woman's title a world title. Just because it wasn't the top title in the company makes that void. No I don't think so. I heard it on a weekly ppv. I don't have a source. I'm just stating that. A title does not have to be the top title to be a world title. I'm just showing that TNA believe their title means more than just a secondary title by placing it in the main event.-- Will C 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has drifted way off course. This really isn't all that complicated at all. The criteria that is being proposed goes as follows.
All of these arguments over the Women's title and Knockouts title and X Division titles are really unecessary. This critira is simple, effective, and really not that complicated. Allow me to explain. The WWE Women's title was argued. From the proposed criteria above, the Women's title fits the first two; the title has had the word "world" in its name and the title has been defended in at least 2 different countries. However it is not what we would call a world title because it fails to meet the third requirement. The championship is not and has not been the top championship of the promotion (or brand for that matter). Therefore the title is not a world title. There was confusion over the terms "Division" and "Brand". Allow me to differentiate. The is unlike any other professional wrestling promotion. The division of the company that was instituted essentially created three different promotions: Raw SmackDown and ECW. In a way, the WWE has become what the NWA was. So essentially the brands are their own promotions opperated by a single entity, the WWE. A division however is differnt. Championships such as the Women's and World Tag titles on Raw, and the Divas and WWE Tag titles on SmackDown serve as the top prizes for those particular divisions. However, they are not the top titles of the promotions/brands. If Raw was a brand that featured ONLY tag teams and SmackDown was brand that featured ONLY women, only then would the World Tag and Women's title be the top titles of the brands and only then would they be world titles.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not blowing this out, I'm just trying to make sure everything is covered. Look at the TNA Title article. An entire year of arguing over Cage and now ips are trying to add Cage into the article. Just trying to make sure everything is covered so we have a consensus over all titles and that we have everything covered. I think the criteria should be this for all titles.
That way we have a rule for all titles. No double standards. That way, any title can be a world title, which is true. The X Title is not a world title at the moment. The Knockout Title is a world title for woman. The IC Title is not a world title. This is all I'm trying to say. Get a full system for all titles. That way the heavyweight championship article can be moved to World Championship, and we can write an article stating this.-- Will C 06:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I disgaree, because a title can have world status and not be a heavyweight title or be the company's main championship. Plus the ECW is not clearly a secondary title. Remember Cyber Sunday 06, it was a world title.-- Will C 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The ECW Title does have world status. It is still the third top title, is still considered a world title by WWE, with all the top champions fighting on SD's debut on My Network TV (Matt vs Jericho vs Trips). The ECW Title never lost its world status. Only its activity. from 01 to 06 it was not around, but as soon as it was brought back, it gained its world status with already being defended around the world and being called a world title by the WWE.-- Will C 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the WWE Chamionship doesn't really have the word "World" in it. It is the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, but in this case the word World refers to the company, not the title itself. It does occasionally have "World Heavyweight" tagged on, but I believe it is officially the "WWE Championship". This presents a problem with the WWE Championship applying to the first guideline, but we can all agree that it is a World Championship and is the top title of the company.-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
How about..
There has to be one more criteria point to nullify and simply the list, because A and B would make a big list for titles. Suggestions?-- TRU CO 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
They have on WWE.com and have loosely referred to the tag team champion as the SD World Tag Team Championship. Plus they state Matt Hardy is an 8 time world tag team champion. 7 world tag, 1 wwe tag.-- Will C 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, this week on Smackdown during the WWE tag team championship match, JR kept saying that Miz and Morrison could become "undisputed world tag team champions." This seems to indicate that the WWE tag team championship is considered a world title by WWE. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this is all coming from. The project generally refers to titles by the names given to them by the promotions. At what point is it necessary for an article to distinguish between a world title and a non-world title? I seriously can't think of why this would ever be important. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It says that WWE discontinued One Night Stand in favor for Extreme Rules on February 25. That is not true, as it was changed weeks ago. I feel it should have said "the date changed weeks ago, but this project refused to acknowledge it until now."
I'm not sure if there's an official newsletter discussion page, but like everything else, I felt putting it here would be the best. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the reason activity is down is because this project always seems to have arguments every five minutes caused over a very small thing. People need to think before they write and do things. Why does this project have a bad reputation may I ask? D.M.N. ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am currently expanding a list on the defunct championships of WWE in my sandbox, and I have a source which gets its information from the "Wrestling Title Histories" book by Royal Duncan and Gary Will. This title, however, is not listed there. I also researched and I only find that wrestling-titles.com verifies it, an unreliable source, especially since they consider the title lineage to be the same as today's WWE United States Championship, which is wrong. I also researched on WWE.com and found nothing, weird since WWE does acknowledge the existance of the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship. So was this a real championship? If can't be verified, then we can't verify its existence and it should be deleted.-- ₮RU CӨ 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because we can't find many reliable sources for the title history doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Maybe tagged for lacking additional sources or something, but deleted is just absurd. The championship did exist. Even WWE.com acknowledges the existence of the title and the rivalry between Bobo Brazil and The Shiek on Bobo Brazil's Hall of Fame profile: [8]
And bleacherreport.com acknowledges it: [9]
If research is coming up short on "reliable" references, maybe expanding what you consider reliable out would help or searching for something related. WWE was part of the NWA back in the day of this championship, so less sources are likely to exist for things back then, but thats no reason for deletion. — Moe ε 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm back at least temporarily after a long absence. Have there any major policy or formatting changes I should know about? I'd hate to go start editing and screw something up. If I've been reading some comments correctly, tables should now be completely wikilinked on every line, right? If so, I thought maybe I'd start there and standardize the championship articles. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone please keep an eye out on Jeff Jarrett's wikipedia page. Someone vandalized it a few times. So I had to change it. Also please check on the rest of the TNA roster wikipedia pages too. I think someone vandalized Booker T's wikipida page too. Miss Lindsie ( talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Could a few people add their opinions to this discussion please, as currently only me and the user with whom I'm having the disagreement have commented. More opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 08:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has a few extra minutes, some help with this article would be appreciated. It's nominated for a DYK, but it's 12 characters short and the reviewer says the stub tag needs to be removed for it to be promoted. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not a member of this Wikiproject or even a fan of wrestling but I came upon the article Wade Keller and it is a disaster. Someone who has a massive problem with this guy has done a hatchet job on it and there are serious WP:BLP issues. Just thought I'd let you know. Intesvensk ( talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but when a title is vacated, the "Days Held" is a zero. I know no real reign exists but the 0 somewhat implies that it was filled in the same day, much like Andre's and Ortons reigns which last a less then a day and are places with a 0. My proposal is that for vacated periods we list the days that it remained vacant, but we differentiate them from normal reigns. For a crude example
Wrestler A..... 12 Wrestler B..... 0 Vacated ....... (12) or *12
The Brackets or star should hopefully keep all the vacated reigns together when the table is sorted. And just with a note at the bottom of the page "Days in brackets represent a title being vacant and is not a part of the title history. -- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I just read on a dirtsheet site that he signed with WWE, and I don't believe it at all. But, for curiosity, I searched his Wikipedia article, and it just came to my knowledge, he doesn't have one. I think he's notable enough, and heck, it's not like if he doesn't have articles on other Wikipedias ( See what I mean?). Ra agg io 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Who? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Raaber is an Austrian wrestler known in that part of the world, hence his inclusion on the German Wikipedia. However, he is not known to English speaking fans, making him not notable enough for this Wikipedia. It has been reported that he was under contract a while ago, but it was either false, or he was under contract for a very brief time. Just like with other, until he can be confirmed by reliable sources, he stays off the roster page. -- James Duggan 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Gwalla was the creator of the project, and is still active. They also seem very neutral considering that they rarely edit pro wrestling articles or the project. Then again, there are also other "founding fathers/mothers" of the project that could coordinate the project, or maybe editors from the "recent era" or should we not even think about listing ourselves there with a coordinator?-- ₮RU ₢0 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! I'd be willing to do it, but sometimes I get pretty busy with school/work, so I think having 2 co-coordinators would be a good idea. Anyone willing to be my partner in crime? Nikki♥ 311 22:34, 6 March 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 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Anyone want to weight in on this? Some people are trying to change the name to "WWE Extreme Rules" just because the PPV sidebar on wwe.com says "Extreme Rules". It's speculation to say that is the new name, especially since that same sidebar also has "Great American Bash" instead of "The Great American Bash" and "WrestleMania 25" instead of "WrestleMania XXV". While a name change is possible, there is nothing official right now. TJ Spyke 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to this similar discussion. Vengenance: Night of Champions became Night of Champions once the schedule graphic changed. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
TJ, I'm following the rules of (multiple) reliable sources. It is not Original Research! And Truco, I havn't violated anything regarding 3RR. I've made changes to each article three times or less, and each time it involved, once again, reliable sources. So do not threaten me. Personally, I find it hilarious that you two are getting articles protected to prevent users from adding reliable information. As implied with the Notability issue, this project is just too strict on everything. Oh, and you wouldn't want me banned, especially after the thousands of photos I've taken at live events over the last couple of weeks, including the Royal Rumble. Mshake3 ( talk) 22:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The graphic that airs on RAW, SmackDown, and ECW for WWE on Pay Per View shows the event as Extreme Rules. There is absolutely NO reason not to update this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.234.65 ( talk) 05:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel the need to weigh in on this since I tried to update the article and it was reversed before I even finished. How can anyone seriously claim that WWE's OFFICIAL WEBSITE is not a reliable source. Also, when I changed the article, I provided an extra source, just to be safe, and one that is used three other times as a source in the same article. Also, the article mentions the Wrestlemania calendar, but THAT is an unreliable source because WWE's printed publications (i.e. that calendar) are written THREE MONTHS before they go on sale. So, there are TWO reliable sources stating the name change and ZERO that can dispute it. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And I would like to point out that the same third party source is used two other times in the same article. If it isn't considered "reliable" then how can it be used in other places? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Where is this consensus located? I've read everything above and it seems to me that it's split down the middle between the people who can provide reliable sources that show the name has been changed and those that have nothing to prove otherwise, but keep erasing any changes made to the article because for whatever reason they seem think WWE would just change the names of their events on their website and in their television commercials just to mess with the fans. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did read it. It is the same two or three people arguing for changing it vs. the same two or three people arguing against it. The problem is, even if you forget about the wrestle view page, wwe.com AND their television commercial both have the pay per view listed as Extreme Rules. No one has yet to explain to me how that isn't reliable enough to present it as fact. How is my pointing to two official WWE sources a terrible argument? Saying that the words OFFICIAL WEBSITE are meaningless in a dispute over whether or not a company's listing for their own event is reliable enough is a terrible argument. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 02:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
1. The differentiating calendars you are talking about: One is a calendar that was written three months before it was release and printed and released BEFORE the name change was made. The other is a live, up-to-the-minute, updated-several-times-a-day website. 2. The name Extreme Rules CLEARLY replaces One Night Stand on both the WWE's website calendar and on the television commercial that they air during their shows. Any "speculating" on whether this is a name change or a new event is just plain silly. No one has yet to provide a reasonable explanation as to why the article shouldn't be updated and how the WWE website and television commercial's changing of the name isn't an official announcement. The only explanation I've been given so far is basically amounts to "because I said so." But since there seems to be a few of you hawk-eyeing this page 24 hours a day, ready to change it back before the person trying to update it even has time to blink, I will stop trying. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The television commercial I am talking about and was mentioned earlier aired during every single WWE broadcast this week. It shows the highlights of past pay per views and ends by saying "WWE on Pay Per View. You should have been there." The end of the commercial shows the WWE logo in the middle with the word Pay Per View below it. In the background there is a rotating graphic showing the logos for all of the WWE pay per views. When the commercial first started airing (the first time I remember seeing it was during the Royal Rumble pay per view), it had the logo for One Night Stand. The graphic was recently changed to show the name change to Extreme Rules. If I can figure out a way to get an image of this off of my DVR I will show you. THAT should be proof enough. How did none of you manage to see this commercial? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That link you provided is the video as it aired during the Royal Rumble. On RAW this week, which I have recorded to DVR, it aired with the One Night Stand logo replaced with Extreme Rules. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I did edit it because I can provide proof. Provided you agree to let the article be changed once I do. Otherwise, I'm not wasting my time. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I get home, I will rewatch RAW, provide you with the exact point in the show the commercial aired, record the commercial either with my video camera or cell phone, AND take screen shots of it. If I can provide all of that, you will have to do more than "consider." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would love to see your argument against both a change on wwe.com AND a WWE television commercial. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The pay per view will DEFINITELY NOT be called One Night Stand this year. Please direct your attention to JR's Q&A: http://www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa about the third question down. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The "it" in question is obviously the new name for the event. You can not deny that. If the name had not been changed at all, he would have said so. This confirmation by JR along with the event calander on wwe.com should be enough to change the article to at least show that the name has been changed. We can even compromise and say that the new name is still in question as it could either be Extreme Rules as listed on wwe.com or Night of Extreme as stated by JR. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't support, I think the name should offically be changed. On many sites it has confirmed that it is now titled Extreme Rules to fit the TV-PG rating. User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC).
In the end it is speculation that it has been renamed. WWE have yet to release a statement regrading it and JR never aknowledged a change. From what he said, he seemed to be joking, but never said it was renamed. We can't accept his word either, look at Rourke, he said he would be in a match at Mania, but he isn't.-- Will C 03:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose but do you only consider official websites "reliable"? Is there any other sites regarding WWE other than WWE.com that are considered reliable? User:Mrpengo88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpengo88 ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently they don't consider wwe.com a reliable source since it also lists the event as Extreme Rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.25 ( talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to direct everyone's attention to JR's Blog at www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa. The last question on that page JR says "All I know is that the name One Night Stand has been omitted and changed to "Extreme" whatever." Is THIS proof enough? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I will not change it, but at this point do we not have enough evidence to support that the name of the event will be Extreme Rules? JR has confirmed the name One Night Stand has been dropped and wwe.com lists Extreme Rules in it's place. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
On this weeks Raw Randy Orton said that him winning the royal rumble match guarantees him a shot at the wwe championship or the world heavyweight championship and not mentioning the ecw championship this makes me ask is a shot at the ecw championship been faded out it would also suggest it in jrs wwe universe blog "since 1993, has sent its winner to face the WWE Champion in the main event at WrestleMania. Now with the World Heavyweight Title representing the Raw brand, the winner of the Rumble match gets his choice of titles for which he would like to challenge." Adster 95 13:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
We all know the ECW Championship was once a world title because they used to refer to it as the ECW World Championship. It's pretty self-evident. We're talking about it's current status which, between the comment about Matt and the comment about Randy, seems ambiguous at best. Tony2Times ( talk) 15:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since the 2009 WWE Draft has just been announced, and they are using the same logo as the one from 2008, is it possible to upload the logo used on WWE.com for the 2009 Draft, although its an exact replica of the 2008 logo, or what, since its not generally acceptable to use two FUR's on one image.-- TRUCO 503 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I suggest splitting the list of independent, retired and non-affiliated wrestlers into 3 different lists:
The basis is, because these three statuses are completely different and when someone looks at the list, the person can't see which is which, and there are a LOT of wrestlers, so IMO the three lists are notable. THoughts? Ra agg io 20:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you talking about categorys? If not then Category's would be a lot better. -- Numyht ( talk) 21:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think "inactive" and "non-affiliated" are pretty much the same thing, but agree that "retired," "deceased," and "inactive/non-affiliated" could be three different lists or categories. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that by "non-affiliated" you specifically meant with WWE and TNA. I assumed that people in ROH or NWA would be considered affiliated. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So can we split the list into three? 70.11.119.219 ( talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Should past articles that mention John Cena using the STFU and the FU be edited to reflect the new names of those moves? At least make mention to the fact that the names are changed by adding something like "a move now known as the Attitude Adjustment." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
K Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they ever actually called it that, but I could be wrong. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It was never called the Throwback. Mshake3 ( talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to cause anymore trouble, but I just watched the entire match and the move was never referred to as the Throwback. The first time Cena goes for the move Cole simply says "Cena going for the victory." The second time, Cole says, "JBL in trouble." The third and final time, Cole says, "Look at, look at, look at Cena! Cena! Cena connecting! The cover! John Cena retains the World Title!" During the replay of the end of the match, Jerry Lawler says "Cena hits his... his patented move on JBL and it's all over." Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We could go by JR's blog where he states the move has been renamed: The Throwback. This was before RR.-- Will C 08:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Michael Cole never referred move in question as The Throwback on television. On every Raw after the JR said they planned to change the name of the move, they simply referred to it as Cena "going for the finish" or "going for the victory." The first time it was referred to by ANY name was last week's Raw when Cole said Cena "calls that the Attitude Adjustment." You may be thinking of Cena's flipping neckbreaker which IS called the Throwback and has always been called as such by Michael Cole. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I can merge these two because there are no reliable references towards the information. Like the dates/venues/locations of these ceremonies (before 2004). Information like how some of them took place during the weekend of King of the Ring, DVD information, television ratings information, etc. Unless someone can help me find these sources.--< TRUCO> 503 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Here. I still have to revamp the table to like the recent promoted HoF FLs, unless someone else would like to do so, since I won't be able to do it soon.--< TRUCO> 503 04:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Per a previous discussion should these two articles be merged? It only lasted a few months. SAVIOR_ SELF .777 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
What's up his inverted facelock camel clutch being changed to the Dragon Clutch and his corkscrew 450 splash being changed to the Phoenix Splash? The former names of both moves are the actual and technical move names whereas. PCE ( Talk) - 2:17 February 15, 2009 (ET)
Why is it that every time I try something new, I get a message along those lines? [3]
So, just after the Rumble when Edge won the title, I decided ago to try adding a template to his row in the combined reigns section in List of WWE Champions [4]. Edge was in his fourth reign, so I calculated the number of days he held the title, and subtracted it to a new date. I felt it was a benefit because then people wouldn't have to update the page every day. In the cited case, it looked like this: {{age in days|month1=09|day1=29|year1=2008}}. It said he won the title on Sept. 29, but he didn't. Sure, the day listed in the template is wrong, but it doesn't really matter because it's just code and that date does not show up in the article.
Anyway, tonight Triple H won the title and I added the template. But for some reason, TJ Spyke decided he didn't like it, and everted it, and accused me of being disruptive. His "logic" is that it's OR because the date in the template isn't the day they won it. (actually, I did the math using the sources provided in the article, so it's not OR) He also said that none of the other pages used this. He was right, so I added it to the Women's page, and was promptly reverted.
As I see it, there are three solutions:
I would prefer #2, but some people like to make things unnecessarily complex, so we'll see. -- Scorpion 0422 03:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Really in this case OR doesn't really matter. No one sees what day the template is set on unless you edit the article and people probably don't even look in the first place. I would go with option two because it doesn't hurt anything, but would be nice to make a new template to solve this problem once and for all (3).-- Will C 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't edit the title reigns anyway, but #2 definitely sounds like it would make things easier and still show accurate information to the viewing public. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the reigns for single or combined help at all. Does it really matter that Batista held the World Heavyweight title for 8 days or that Sting held the TNA title for 2. It seems like non-notable information that only wrestling fans would want or need to know.-- Will C 04:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I know when they were added, but I don't know why we even keep track of them in the first place. They are useless. They come in handy when you want to know how long someone's reign was but other that any record breaking reigns, shortest reigns, etc can be mentioned in the prose.-- Will C 04:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I would be bold, but this seems controversial. Should we wait for the world title situation to be cleared? According to [5], both the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship now belong to SmackDown. I have no doubt this will change on Raw, but should we move the WHC to SmackDown for now since even WWE's website says that? The exact quote is (bolding is mine) "The most intriguing fact behind the mayhem, however, is that the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania is a mere six weeks away and the two top titles in WWE now belong to the Friday night brand. With newly crowned World Heavyweight Champion Edge and WWE Champion Triple H sharing the SmackDown stage, just how erratic will the Road to WrestleMania get?" TJ Spyke 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be changed to reflect what wwe.com says. Both titles are officially part of SmackDown now. To say that it will be cleared up tomorrow night, however likely that is, is speculation (crystal balling). Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 04:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you TJ, that is a seeemly senario. The savor of the Raw brand. But anyway, lets wait to see if WWE follow that path or just have the title change back after one night because they have house shows promoted with a World Title match between Orton and Cena.-- Will C 04:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, I've been working on the Rey de Reyes page and I've updated everything except the early shows which were nothing but the tournament. I'd like to put some kind of tournament bracket on there but there isn't one where there are 4 competitors/teams in each semifinal and final - I guess it's not that used in other sports. Can anyone help out?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 09:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Before I made the edit, I wanted to discuss it here first. It says there that Team DX was the first clean sweep in history, but shouldn't that milestone be awarded to Jerry Lawler and his team 12 years earlier at Survivor Series (1994)? Ra agg io 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this list necessary? This user keeps on adding lots of uncited information to pages and more annoyingly lots of lists and splitting of grids and pointless subheadings, I've tried sending him messages to stop or improve the quality of his writing (he doesn't even capitalise proper nouns) and he just wipes his talk page and ignores me. I don't wanna be accused of trying to own articles but I doubt m/any people here check the British circuit to keep it up to standard so was wondering if I was just being possessive or he is being unproductive? Tony2Times ( talk) 18:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The name change seems simple to me, but I didn't want to take a chance of just moving it myself. If you want to comment on the move request: Talk:1 Pro Wrestling#Requested move. TJ Spyke 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
WrestleView.com is reporting that Sarah Stock, A.K.A. Dark Angel, has been signed by TNA. Though their source is PWInsider. I was wondering if this is usable since both WrestleView and PWinsider are questionable sources these days.-- Will C 21:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just updated the Triplemanía page with full results etc and when I look at it it's rather long (22 shows) - at what point should it be split up into a page per show? I also just created Verano de Escandalo and Guerra de Titanes which both clock in at 12 shows and run the risk of becoming too large and unwieldy too. Does WP:PW have a rule of thumb when they should be split up?? MPJ-DK ( talk) 13:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just curious about the top bit of the page, all those tag bits about citation and things. Is it needed all of that? The quality of the article isn't that bad to warrant that whole lot of questioning over the article!!!! Govvy ( talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at the articles related to Lucha Libre and found a lot of them to be in a very sad state (check out Ari Romero for what may be the worst of them all) and well I've decided that I will work on them, I got a few sources, insides and knowlege from being a longtime fan of the Luchas so why not. Now I've got a list of the articles I've found that need work but I'm just one man I don't roam that much of Wikipedia so I'm sure there are plenty of articles I've missed that need to be fixed or articles that haven't been created yet. So I'm asking this project for a bit of help compiling the list, if you could please let me know when you find a Lucha Libre related article in need of cleanup or one that's totally missing then I can add it to my list. You can either post here or on my talk page. And hey if someone wanted to pitch in and help improve these articles I'm not going to get offended :) it's my hope that every article currently listed on my user page will be brought to at least a "B" level and some (like Santo, Hijo del Santo, Blue Demon & La Parka) made GA or even FA. Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK ( talk) 06:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
First I want to know if anyone has a problem with creating a list about monthly PPV events. Something like this which is no where near finished: User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA monthly PPV events. I feel it could be useful. Though not all of TNA's PPVs are expanded, it could still be useful in the see also section instead of List of TNA pay-per-view events being there. Just an idea, or is it list cruft? Next I want to know if anyone has a problem with me moving the history of the TNA World Tag Team Championship out of the article and into a list. There have been 10 reigns, that is including an unofficial reign with Kaz and Eric Young which could exist considering Cornette stripped Young and Kaz of the belt and didn't just state it never existed. That way I believe it meets the FL criteria and I could easily source and improve it afterwards.-- Will C 06:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I recently uploaded the enhanced and new version of the WWE Hall of Fame logo. As a result, [[Image:File:Wwehalloffame247.png]] [the original logo from 2004] is orphaned. Unless someone can think of an article that could benefit using this logo, it will end up being delete because per WP:FAIR Criteria 4A, multiple uses of non-free content should be avoided if one can cover for the other, and the new logo covers for the old one. -- TRU CO 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Since we 99% of the time list the match type why not state it as Match type and/or Stipulation(s)?-- TRU CO 04:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've made some changes to Template:WWE Championships. Simple changes but hopefully helpful ones. I added sub-groups and sub-lists to the Brand and Developmental Championship boxes. This basically gives Raw, ECW, SmackDown, and FCW their own subfields. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
As a result of the discussion above about the brand listings for championships, a topic about whether we should continue listing the brands in the infobox for WWE PPVs. From research we have found out that WWE stopped stating in their introduction to PPVS ...and now Raw, SmackDown, and ECW present... after One Night Stand (2007). From then on, the introduction has stated ...and now World Wrestling Entertainment and Snickers presents... Since we state in the background section (the intro paragraph) that talent from the 3 brands will be involved it seems irrelevant to list the brands in the infobox since the pay-per-views are not brand exclusive anymore. I propose that we should either remove the brands from the infobox from the Backlash (2007) PPV and beyond (since WWE made the announcement of stopping brand exclusive PPVs after WrestleMania 23) or remove them from One Night Stand (2007) and beyond, after WWE stopped referencing the brands in their introduction. (Please discuss don't vote, since this project tends to turn many discussion as such into votes; consensus will be built upon a general agreement.)-- TRU CO 15:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This press release says it all. Start with Backlash 07. Mshake3 ( talk) 05:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to turn the above list into an article since it is not long enough to go to FLC and then I'll just take it to GAN, does anyone mind if I rename it to Current champions in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling?-- Will C 05:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been considering making a few changes to the page and I need some input.
The first would be seperating the singles inductees from the tag teams. The problem with this is that it gives the impression that there are official categories when there are not. Another problem is that in the case of the Briscos and Funks (and should the be inducted, the von Erichs) is that they were also largely inducted because of their singles careers.
The other change would be adding a "Notable tag teams where both members have been inducted table". ie. (NOTE: The table is not complete, so don't bother posting and pointing that out)
Team | Members | Notes |
---|---|---|
Tony Atlas (2006) and Rocky Johnson (2008) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
The Executioners | Killer Kowalski (1996) and Big John Studd (2004) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. |
Ivan Putski (1995) and Tito Santana (2004) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
The Iron Sheik (2005) and Nikolai Volkoff (2005) | One-time WWF World Tag Team champions. | |
Gorilla Monsoon (1994) and Killer Kowalski (1995) | One-time WWWF United States Tag Team champions. |
The problem with this one is that some might consider it OR, and what makes a tag team notable? Should a pair of inductees who briefly tagged together (ie. Piper & Flair) be included? For example, Pat Patterson has been involved in tag teams with at least five different Hall of Famers. Which ones do you include? Anyway, all opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion 0422 15:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've been following this page for a good couple of years. It's stayed, relatively, the same that whole time. When I went there earlier this year it was changed into a Wikitable, which isn't a bad thing. The bad thing was that the table was unfinshed, and it still is and it's been 3 months since the change happend. There have been numerous requests for it to go back the way it was as it was at least organized and with all the dates, even though some were not cited. I think that the wikitable would be a good stay if it was just completed. Also, Moe has been deleting most of the talk about the quality of the article on the talk page. He has stated that it is halfway done because he is only half finished with it, which I find very unprofessional, would an actually encyclopedia only publish an article that was half completed? I think not. Jcm431 ( talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
On a different note, there may be a issue with the number of templates on the page after I am finished because of all the references I am adding. Due to template limits which will be surpassed, I am going to insert refs but remove the {{ cite web}}, {{ cite book}}, etc. so that the refs will still be visible. The only difference is that instead of:
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp|title=Contact WWE|accessdate=2009-01-31|publisher=[[World Wrestling Entertainment]]}}</ref>
It will be written as:
<ref>[http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp "Contact WWE"]. [[World Wrestling Entertainment]]. Retrieved on 2009-01-31.</ref>
If I do not make this change and continue inserting references with {{ cite web}} the article could have massive errors occuring like the List of Brazilian football transfers 2008 (note the reference section with the repeated errors saying "cite news", "cite news", "cite news". — Moe ε 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
PER WP:COMMONNAME. He used other names but none of 'em are notable. RandySavageFTW ( talk) 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the recent press release of WrestleMania XXVI [6], WWE constantly refers to it as WM XXVI, like in "The City of Glendale, Ariz., Global Spectrum and World Wrestling Entertainment® announced that the University of Phoenix Stadium will host WrestleMania XXVI on Sunday, March 28, 2010." Now for this year's WM, they refer to it as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania: "This year’s 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania will take place in Houston’s Reliant Stadium on April 5th where it is expected to set the stadium attendance record." If it was really going to be named "WrestleMania XXV" or "WrestleMania 25", I'm sure as hell they would have used it here since they refer to the 26th edition as "WrestleMania XXVI". I'm just saying.-- TRU CO 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You all need to lsiten to them say it on TV, it isn't the name, it is promotional purposes the entire way. They don't go "The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania". They go "The 25th anniversary of...WrestleMania". Plus JBL clearly without stopping said WrestleMania 25 during his promo with HBK last week on Raw. That is the first time, I believe, that they have even referred to it outside of a promo video hyping up the event. Most other times it is just WrestleMania.-- Will C 23:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The Cleanup listing was updated today by the bot for the first time since October. It turns out we have some FAs and GAs with problems (along with a bunch of other articles). All help greatly appreciated! Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was attempting to revert Crystal Balling on WrestleMania XXVI and apparently, corporate.wwe.com has just been blacklisted. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand that they are a kayfabe part of title changes, but they are used after every title change it seems lately (Atleast in the WWE). What I am suggesting is that in the Title pages a blurb be added to all of the title pages, something like
"Wrestlers who are unsuccesful at defending their titles are granted a rematch, under a (kayfabe) contractual rematch clause, where they are offered a chance to regain the title."-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm once again considering making some changes to the page, namely splitting off tag teams. My main concern is that wrestlers like Jack Brisco or Terry Funk are known a lot more for their singles career than with tag teams, and they probably should have their own row (complicating things, Gerald & Jack Brisco each have their own section at WWE.com but none of the other tag teams fo). However, having a seperate row for both Jack and Gerald Brisco would lead to repitition problems. Anothger problem is that the von Erichs will likely be inducted this year. This means there will be at least four (possibly five or six if they decide to include Mike and Chris) and they were a stable, with a variety of singles accomplishments and various combinations of them held tag team championships. As I see it, there are three solutions:
For number 3, this is what I was thinking of:
Year | Tag Team | Notes | Inducted by |
---|---|---|---|
1996 | The Valiant Brothers | One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions, first tag team to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame. [1] | British Bulldog and Owen Hart |
Jimmy Valiant (James Harold Fanning) - four-time
NWA Television Champion Johnny Valiant (John L. Sullivan) | |||
2006 | The Blackjacks | One-time WWWF World Tag Team Champions. [2] | Bobby Heenan |
Blackjack Mulligan (Robert Deroy Windham) - two-time NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and one-time NWA World Tag Team Champion. Blackjack Lanza (Jack Lanza) - one-time AWA World Tag Team Champion | |||
2007 | The Wild Samoans | Three-time WWF World Tag Team Champions. [3] | Samu and Matt Anoa'i |
Afa (Arthur Anoa'i, Sr.) Sika (Leati Anoa'i) | |||
2008 | The Brisco Brothers | Held over twenty Tag Team Championships, including the NWA World Tag Team Championship on three occasions. | John "Bradshaw" Layfield |
Jack Brisco (Freddie Joe Brisco) - two-time
NWA World Heavyweight Champion.
[4] Gerald Brisco (Floyd Gerald Brisco) - one-time NWA World Junior Heavyweight Champion. [5] | |||
2009 | The Funks | Held several tag team championships, including the NWA International Tag Team Championship on three occasions. [6] | Dusty Rhodes |
Terry Funk - one-time
NWA World Heavyweight Champion, two-time
ECW World Heavyweight Champion and one-time
WWF Tag Team Champion. Dory Funk, Jr.: one-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion. |
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing I was considering (although not seriously) was adding several columns for the various major championships and then you could check (or add numbers for) which wrestlers have held them. It would save a lot of repition. -- Scorpion 0422 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
For example. Note that this is just a quickly whipped up table. Any final version would look much better
Ring name (Birth name) |
Notes | Heavyweight championships | Tag Team | Other | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WWE | ECW | WCW | NWA | WWE | ECW | WCW | NWA | Int. | U.S. | Royal Rumble? | King of the Ring? | ||
Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steven Williams) |
[7] | 6 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1997 1998 2001 |
1996 | |||||
Ricky "The Dragon" Steamboat (Richard Henry Blood) |
[8] | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 4 |
Thoughts? -- Scorpion 0422 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
WWE has just released the details of their Night of Extreme pay-per-view. It is still uncertain, however, whether it will replace the name 'One Night Stand' or whether it will be a new event replacing the ONS event itself, so watch out for the movement of WWE One Night Stand if it isn't already move-protected. You can also discuss this at Talk:WWE One Night Stand#Night of Extreme.-- TRU CO 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Today the live event schedule says Extreme Rules [7]. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you report an IP that keeps on removing the same piece of sourced information from the same page? Tony2Times ( talk) 14:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This may be of interest to project members, as many are also active GA reviewers. There is a backlog elimination drive currently underway. If anyone wants to get involved, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009. It would be a great way to help reduce wait times for the 11 wrestling articles currently awaiting reviews. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to put this article on their watchlist because of users like User:Cena Jr blanking images for "copyright violations" that don't exist. — Moe ε 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It was recommended at Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni#Load times that the article be split in half or so to save on load time. So I would like opinions on what you think about splitting it from A-M and N-Z or maybe A-H, I-Q, R-Z with the latter (A-H, etc.) being more preferable since I did a test and template limits would have stopped at letter H or so to begin with and this way I could continue refing it normally. — Moe ε 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Trying to follow in the example of other long lists that are featured, I am thinking it should be split by the number of names, rather than what letter it is, like for example the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people (split like A, Ba-Bh, Bi-Bz, C, etc.). Each article has about the same number of names and references and they are featured lists, so I think this would be most appropriate. A-M/N-Z presents many problems, mostly being template limits and rendering for load time. The same amount of references currently on the article could easily be on a subpage as wide as A-M once it is finished. Even my proposed A-H, I-Q, R-Z would present the subpages having a ton of references like the article is at present, so the number of names per page like List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people would be a good solution. — Moe ε 02:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
While you guys bicker about the titles, I just want to clear the statement that if WWE calls their WWE Tag Team Championship the WWE World Tag Team Championship, it would be considered redundant, because WWE is an abbreviation for World Wrestling Entertainment
So, WWE can easily state that every single title owned by their company includes the word World. By this logic, WWA, WWC, and others can state that they have World in their titles. Promotions like FCW cannot, because they officially limit their titles to Florida
Ra agg io 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow so it's come to this? Basically there once was a "World European" title? Doesn't this project have more important things to do? I dunno like improve quality instead of bicker over infintesimal details? this gets reply after reply while requests for help to find bad articles or reviews and the likes usually dies a quiet death from being ignored? MPJ-DK ( talk) 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is world does not exist. It is just a name. The title is a prop. World means as much as Triple H saying he is the King of Kings, but no he isn't. He is just an asshole from CT. Really the World Heavyweight Championship article isn't useful. World Status doesn't exist in pro wrestling. Only to the fans it does.-- Will C 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
A know a couple of people are working on Hall of Fame lists at the moment. Is anybody working on Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame and Museum? I'd like to fix it up if nobody else was planning to. Nikki♥ 311 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
In most cases when citing information from WWE to their official websites or to their corporate websites, we have done the following.
While expanding a new article in my sandbox, I ran down to both websites copyright information at the bottom of the sites and noticed that the copyright publisher is formally called World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.. So this needs to be fixed accordingly..
The corporate website is published by WWE, Inc. but the work is separate from the official website, so the work field is called "WWE Corporate" (like the name of the site states), while WWE.com is just its official website so no work field is needed. Its a minor change, but a makes a big difference.-- ₮RU CӨ 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a dispute between myself and Bulletproof over the status of the NWA title. Bullet accepts it's status as a "world" title. I do not - and neither does Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which if I recall correctly has already been established by consensus as an authority on the subject. There are only three world titles - two in WWE and one in TNA. Bullet claimed that PWI says that the WWE title (the one held by Triple H) is not a world title, but I put that down to simply differing it from the "World" title (the one held by Edge).
To allow Bullet's edit will open up a whole can of worms as to what constitutes a world title. Promotions are known to call a title "world" even though it's not, but Bullet's precedent would mean that any old "world" title should be noted as such. That is hardly encyclopaedic IMO.
I ask for other views on this, and also seek a final consensus on;
!! Justa Punk !! 08:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I must say this is funny to read you two argue, I love it. But anyway I must agree with Bullet, mainly because of the fact it was determined a few months or weeks ago, that PWI has no control over a title's world status and that we shouldn't use PWI as a governing body. So, a world title in my opinion is a title that is defended around the world. That would include the NWA Title and the ROH Title. If a title is defended outside of the country it was created in and primarily defended, it would make it a world title. PWI in this case means nothing.-- Will C 08:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
PWI is not the definitive authority on what is and is not a world championship in professional wrestling, nor is there a consensus on here. There is however a consensus that states PWI isn't the definitive source, and what they say has no bearing on Wikipedia outside the Pro Wrestling Illustrated article. Nenog ( talk) 09:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't just if the title has been defended outside of the US recently, it is about the entire title's history. The NWA Title has been defended in Japan, Canada, Mexico, etc. The ROH Title was defended in Japan not too long ago when ROH held a show over there. Also TNA didn't even leave the country until 2005 for a show I believe. The TNA title wasn't defended outside the country until No Surrender. Considering that, the only reason that PWI gave the NWA Titlle world status while it was in TNA, was because TNA was on PPV. ROH doesn't hold calim to the NWA Title, but the title was defended in ROH. Seeing that ROH have a PPV deal and now a TV deal, well not really a TV, just a less lucky weekly PPV deal on HDnet, which is really just foxsports.net's retarded cousin, but anyway, back on subject. In that mind, the NWA Title is still defended around the country and out of the US from time to time. So, in that mind, both titles gain world status seeing the have been defended outside the country and are also defended on PPV, so using common sense, they gain world status.-- Will C 09:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
<--My two cents: if a title is defended outside of the country in which it was created and primarily defended, then it's a world title, i.e. if it's defended around the world, it's a world title. PWI's opinion doesn't count in ths instance. At Justa Punk, why doesn't the ROH title changing hands in Mexico count? ROH is an American complany, as in the US of America. Mexico to the best of my knowledge isn't part of the US, so technically that would count. In my opinion anyway. ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 12:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Here my two cents. I think in order for a World Title to be recognized by us it needs to meet guidelines that have been set by us. For example
1) Title must be the top championship of said promotion (Or in the WWE's case, top championship of the brand)
2) Title must have been defended in a foreign country.
3) Title must be recognized as a World Championship by the company itself. (Prevents us classifying the Interontinental Championship as a World Championship at the moment)
4) The Promotion must have some level of international recognition. (For example, ROH travels over seas, TNA travels overseas, a small independant promotion like UWF in Ontario did not)
Of course we can bicker over the guidelines if we decided to go this route, it's just an idea.-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, lets get a sure fired consensus here. The NWA Championship is a world title, because a title can not lose its world status because it left one company. The NWA Title has been defended in multiple company's around the world and on PPV. Because it is no longer toured actively does not grant the reason of removing its world status. The ROH Title was defended in Japan when ROH held a show over there. ROH also sell their produces, such as shows, PPV, and any other merchindise in other countries. Hense so it is an international company. Believing in that thought, the NWA still obtains its world status, and the ROH title gains its world status, seeing that the NWA Title was really the first world title, and the NWA and ROH both believe that their top titles are world titles.-- Will C 23:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing you know where I live do you not Gary? But I disagree, we should go by the definition of a world title. A Title that is defended around the world. No way the OVW Heavyweight Championship is a world title.-- Will C 23:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I kind of agree with the consensus. PWI does not matter in this situation. I think we should go by if the company calls it a world title and if it has been defended outside of the country in-which it was originally created. Because I'm sure if we say the CZW Championship is a world title, then alot of ips are going to disagree.-- Will C 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the title must meet the above 3 criteria to be classified as a World Championship and to be listed as such on the World Heavyweight Championship (professional wrestling).-- TRU CO 01:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think its perfect. Using the WWE titles as an example...
Checks and Balances...sort of. I love it.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Only if it passes the other two criteria. Does it or did it have world in its name? I remember Borash saying NWA-TNA World X Division Championship on an old weekly ppv. Has it been defended in two different countries. The X Title has and changed hand in two as well. Crap, the tag division belt can be won by one man alone. The heavyweight title can be won by a crusierweight. the women's title can be won by a man dressed up as a woman. There is no restictions on a division.-- Will C 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree there is no limits, but there are no limits for anyother division in TNA or WWE. Hell are we really sure that Awesome Kong is a woman, because I didn't order Bound for Glory 2007, so I never got to see the infamous video. The X division is nothing more than a crusierweight division. Joe and Angle are the only heavyweights that have competed in the division.-- Will C 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel if we are going to recongize tag titles as world, when they aren't the top title in their company or brand as a world title because it is the top tag title in their division, then why not a woman's title or an X title. There are very few companies that are just about woman's wrestling. Probably the most known is Shimmer. Though they don't have a world title.-- Will C 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I understand what this section is about, but I didn't want to start a new one. Clearly multiple companies believe that there is more than one world title in their company i.e. when TNA called their woman's title a world title. Just because it wasn't the top title in the company makes that void. No I don't think so. I heard it on a weekly ppv. I don't have a source. I'm just stating that. A title does not have to be the top title to be a world title. I'm just showing that TNA believe their title means more than just a secondary title by placing it in the main event.-- Will C 04:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has drifted way off course. This really isn't all that complicated at all. The criteria that is being proposed goes as follows.
All of these arguments over the Women's title and Knockouts title and X Division titles are really unecessary. This critira is simple, effective, and really not that complicated. Allow me to explain. The WWE Women's title was argued. From the proposed criteria above, the Women's title fits the first two; the title has had the word "world" in its name and the title has been defended in at least 2 different countries. However it is not what we would call a world title because it fails to meet the third requirement. The championship is not and has not been the top championship of the promotion (or brand for that matter). Therefore the title is not a world title. There was confusion over the terms "Division" and "Brand". Allow me to differentiate. The is unlike any other professional wrestling promotion. The division of the company that was instituted essentially created three different promotions: Raw SmackDown and ECW. In a way, the WWE has become what the NWA was. So essentially the brands are their own promotions opperated by a single entity, the WWE. A division however is differnt. Championships such as the Women's and World Tag titles on Raw, and the Divas and WWE Tag titles on SmackDown serve as the top prizes for those particular divisions. However, they are not the top titles of the promotions/brands. If Raw was a brand that featured ONLY tag teams and SmackDown was brand that featured ONLY women, only then would the World Tag and Women's title be the top titles of the brands and only then would they be world titles.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 05:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not blowing this out, I'm just trying to make sure everything is covered. Look at the TNA Title article. An entire year of arguing over Cage and now ips are trying to add Cage into the article. Just trying to make sure everything is covered so we have a consensus over all titles and that we have everything covered. I think the criteria should be this for all titles.
That way we have a rule for all titles. No double standards. That way, any title can be a world title, which is true. The X Title is not a world title at the moment. The Knockout Title is a world title for woman. The IC Title is not a world title. This is all I'm trying to say. Get a full system for all titles. That way the heavyweight championship article can be moved to World Championship, and we can write an article stating this.-- Will C 06:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I disgaree, because a title can have world status and not be a heavyweight title or be the company's main championship. Plus the ECW is not clearly a secondary title. Remember Cyber Sunday 06, it was a world title.-- Will C 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The ECW Title does have world status. It is still the third top title, is still considered a world title by WWE, with all the top champions fighting on SD's debut on My Network TV (Matt vs Jericho vs Trips). The ECW Title never lost its world status. Only its activity. from 01 to 06 it was not around, but as soon as it was brought back, it gained its world status with already being defended around the world and being called a world title by the WWE.-- Will C 11:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the WWE Chamionship doesn't really have the word "World" in it. It is the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, but in this case the word World refers to the company, not the title itself. It does occasionally have "World Heavyweight" tagged on, but I believe it is officially the "WWE Championship". This presents a problem with the WWE Championship applying to the first guideline, but we can all agree that it is a World Championship and is the top title of the company.-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
How about..
There has to be one more criteria point to nullify and simply the list, because A and B would make a big list for titles. Suggestions?-- TRU CO 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
They have on WWE.com and have loosely referred to the tag team champion as the SD World Tag Team Championship. Plus they state Matt Hardy is an 8 time world tag team champion. 7 world tag, 1 wwe tag.-- Will C 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, this week on Smackdown during the WWE tag team championship match, JR kept saying that Miz and Morrison could become "undisputed world tag team champions." This seems to indicate that the WWE tag team championship is considered a world title by WWE. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this is all coming from. The project generally refers to titles by the names given to them by the promotions. At what point is it necessary for an article to distinguish between a world title and a non-world title? I seriously can't think of why this would ever be important. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 19:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It says that WWE discontinued One Night Stand in favor for Extreme Rules on February 25. That is not true, as it was changed weeks ago. I feel it should have said "the date changed weeks ago, but this project refused to acknowledge it until now."
I'm not sure if there's an official newsletter discussion page, but like everything else, I felt putting it here would be the best. Mshake3 ( talk) 17:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, the reason activity is down is because this project always seems to have arguments every five minutes caused over a very small thing. People need to think before they write and do things. Why does this project have a bad reputation may I ask? D.M.N. ( talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I am currently expanding a list on the defunct championships of WWE in my sandbox, and I have a source which gets its information from the "Wrestling Title Histories" book by Royal Duncan and Gary Will. This title, however, is not listed there. I also researched and I only find that wrestling-titles.com verifies it, an unreliable source, especially since they consider the title lineage to be the same as today's WWE United States Championship, which is wrong. I also researched on WWE.com and found nothing, weird since WWE does acknowledge the existance of the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship. So was this a real championship? If can't be verified, then we can't verify its existence and it should be deleted.-- ₮RU CӨ 16:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because we can't find many reliable sources for the title history doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Maybe tagged for lacking additional sources or something, but deleted is just absurd. The championship did exist. Even WWE.com acknowledges the existence of the title and the rivalry between Bobo Brazil and The Shiek on Bobo Brazil's Hall of Fame profile: [8]
And bleacherreport.com acknowledges it: [9]
If research is coming up short on "reliable" references, maybe expanding what you consider reliable out would help or searching for something related. WWE was part of the NWA back in the day of this championship, so less sources are likely to exist for things back then, but thats no reason for deletion. — Moe ε 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
So, I'm back at least temporarily after a long absence. Have there any major policy or formatting changes I should know about? I'd hate to go start editing and screw something up. If I've been reading some comments correctly, tables should now be completely wikilinked on every line, right? If so, I thought maybe I'd start there and standardize the championship articles. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 19:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone please keep an eye out on Jeff Jarrett's wikipedia page. Someone vandalized it a few times. So I had to change it. Also please check on the rest of the TNA roster wikipedia pages too. I think someone vandalized Booker T's wikipida page too. Miss Lindsie ( talk) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Could a few people add their opinions to this discussion please, as currently only me and the user with whom I'm having the disagreement have commented. More opinions would be welcomed. Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 08:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If anyone has a few extra minutes, some help with this article would be appreciated. It's nominated for a DYK, but it's 12 characters short and the reviewer says the stub tag needs to be removed for it to be promoted. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 14:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm not a member of this Wikiproject or even a fan of wrestling but I came upon the article Wade Keller and it is a disaster. Someone who has a massive problem with this guy has done a hatchet job on it and there are serious WP:BLP issues. Just thought I'd let you know. Intesvensk ( talk) 16:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, but when a title is vacated, the "Days Held" is a zero. I know no real reign exists but the 0 somewhat implies that it was filled in the same day, much like Andre's and Ortons reigns which last a less then a day and are places with a 0. My proposal is that for vacated periods we list the days that it remained vacant, but we differentiate them from normal reigns. For a crude example
Wrestler A..... 12 Wrestler B..... 0 Vacated ....... (12) or *12
The Brackets or star should hopefully keep all the vacated reigns together when the table is sorted. And just with a note at the bottom of the page "Days in brackets represent a title being vacant and is not a part of the title history. -- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 00:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I just read on a dirtsheet site that he signed with WWE, and I don't believe it at all. But, for curiosity, I searched his Wikipedia article, and it just came to my knowledge, he doesn't have one. I think he's notable enough, and heck, it's not like if he doesn't have articles on other Wikipedias ( See what I mean?). Ra agg io 19:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Who? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Raaber is an Austrian wrestler known in that part of the world, hence his inclusion on the German Wikipedia. However, he is not known to English speaking fans, making him not notable enough for this Wikipedia. It has been reported that he was under contract a while ago, but it was either false, or he was under contract for a very brief time. Just like with other, until he can be confirmed by reliable sources, he stays off the roster page. -- James Duggan 04:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Gwalla was the creator of the project, and is still active. They also seem very neutral considering that they rarely edit pro wrestling articles or the project. Then again, there are also other "founding fathers/mothers" of the project that could coordinate the project, or maybe editors from the "recent era" or should we not even think about listing ourselves there with a coordinator?-- ₮RU ₢0 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! I'd be willing to do it, but sometimes I get pretty busy with school/work, so I think having 2 co-coordinators would be a good idea. Anyone willing to be my partner in crime? Nikki♥ 311 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)