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 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
I nominated Wade Keller, Ernest Roeber and Hergeleci Ibrahim for deletion. You can read why at each. If one of my reasons were ridiculous or untrue, please keep it to yourself. LOL, I'm joking, please tell me here. I nominated them because I felt each didn't meet WP:N, please tell me if you disagree. Ra agg io 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the prod on Roeber He is notable, he's held several titles in the early days of pro wrestling history - proof of existence is on the title pages where he's listed and they're not hoaxes, I checked a printed source and they list him holding the titles. He's from a time where sources are hard to come by and the articles are generally cut more slack on that account. MPJ-DK ( talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're both dirtsheets. And when i say dirtsheets, I mean they are "news sites" dedicated on the postings of "insider information" in the WWE & perhaps TNA. But other than that, they don't have much news to post. The fact of the matter is, they're just glorified fans like Matt Hardy said in an interview. These men make their living by the curiosity of fans to get spoiled. They aren't more notable than [kryptonsite.com KryptonSite]. Sure, Dave Meltzer should be considered a source for factual information, but of what? Of PPV results, injuries and creative plans? How, in your right mind, could you call that notable? Ra agg io 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are we changing heel/face to villian/crowd favorite or whatever? (See Shawn Michaels for an example.)
I don't really see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.181.244 ( talk) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the idea of "heel (bad guy)" is, it isn't brillant prose. It is decent, all articles should live up to the good or featured (mainly featured) criteria. Heel (bad guy) doesn't role off the tounge or make you think this is written very well. As for villain, it can be used and is understandable very quickly. Plus pipelinking works better and we make sure not to use jargon. That way it is universal. Heel (bad guy) just gets in the way IMO.-- Will C 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, could we possibly split the covers section of the Dale Oliver page to it's own? I mean, it's kinda long. I think it's a good idea to have the songs listed, however it should be sorta like a discography page, in my opinion. What do you think? Cra sh Underride 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was considering completely redoing the notes sections, because they seem to insinuate that championships = importance. I'd like to instead make it a few sentences on why they were inducted and this would involve re-formatting the table and losing the sortability. The big problem is that this could lead to rampant POV, but we could limit it to a few choice quotes from WWE.com. Here's what I'm thinking:
Ring name (Birth name) |
Year | Notable championships | Inducted by | |
---|---|---|---|---|
André the Giant (André René Roussimoff) |
1993 | One-time WWE Championship (one-time) | None | |
| ||||
Bobo Brazil (Houston Harris) |
1994 | WWWF United States Championship (one-time); NWA United States Heavyweight Champion (one-time) | Ernie Ladd | |
| ||||
Jim Ross | 2007 | Steve Austin | ||
| ||||
Arnold Skaaland | 1994 | One-time WWWF United States Tag Team Championship (one-time) | Bob Backlund | |
|
If anyone dislikes having the names in the large column, I could switch it around to having years in it. By the way, this method would be sorted alphabetically. -- Scorpion 0422 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over the article and the title additions are hardly excessive, just a few additions here and there. For example, Harley Race was the first NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and a three time AWA World Tag Team Champion. Not to say that being an eight time NWA World Champion isn't enough, but he did win other presigious titles and two of the more well known are named. In the notes section of some of the inductees, it mentions if they've won a number of regional NWA titles but those titles listed by name. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
can people please help me with this article as I'm close to the 3r rule, IP's (at least 1) keep adding "2009 King of the Board" to his championships and Accomplishments section, surely everyone agrees this isn't notable. Skitzo ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we place a limit on which titles can have navigation templates? This one user he gone and created templates for several titles (including the ROH Championship, TNA X Division Title, and WWE IC Title). This seems to be going overboard and will be a problem on wrestler articles where the person has won lots of different titles. CM Punk, for example, has 4 title boxes. This will be a even bigger problem for wrestlers like Triple H and Shawn Michaels who have wons lots of different titles. 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like WrestleView.com has pointed Wikipedia's articles of the Grand Slam and Triple Crown Championships here. They say "supposed official" lineage, but my question is, how legit is our representation of the articles? Where are we getting this information from?-- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we go by what WWE now calls defunct championships, like the ECW World Television Championship is now the ECW Television Championship. The WCW World Heavyweight Championship (and its related pages) needs to be renamed to WCW World Championship, the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship to the WWE Light Heavyweight Championship.-- ₮RU CӨ 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a while ago that some of you are watching the Dark Angel article over rumors of her signing with TNA. Well I just found an article where she states they've been in talks but nothing is signed - if you speak Spanish read here - I thought you'd like to know so that any rumors of her already being signed can be kept off the page. MPJ-DK ( talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the situation regarding recognition of singles world championships, we've gotten way off base. Let's leave out all the secondary, divisional, women's and whatever potential category there is for them and get back on track. We can talk about all that at some other point. Let's not worry about which world title is more prestigious or deserves to be called a world championship more than others or any of that because we're not going to get anywhere. Now, when last I heard the criteria was as follows:
On the other side of the issue, some feel that PWI alone has the standing to decide which championships should be determined as "world" titles and which shouldn't. So let's give it another shot, we've heard everyone's side of the arguments. We've heard reasons upon reasons why some secondary titles aren't really secondary titles and reasons as to why some titles really aren't division titles and so on and so forth. If anyone has anything new to add to the discussion, not just re-hashing everything that's already been said to death up there already, then please, by all means, bring it up and let's hear it. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
People know my opinion. I'm fine with the criteria, as long as the above only effects world heavyweight championships. While another is needed for lower titles. I kind of agree with Justa Punk on it needs to be on a different continent. That still makes the ECW, ROH, TNA, both WWE, WCW, and NWA Titles world titles.-- Will C 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No matter if it is the past, it is still a former world title. The NWA Title has been defended around the world. You can't take that back. It fits all the other criteria. It is a world title. You say ECW behind, but look at WWE.com. It is the top title on the ECW brand. When it first came into WWE it was called the ECW World Championship. Main evented December to Dismember and is a title the Royal Rumble winner can pick from. WWE even say it is a world title. There have been new talent and vets on ECW. Just because it is a higher OVW plus FCW mix, does not stop the truth that it has had world in its name twice in the past. WWE say it is a world title. Been defended in multiple countries. And is the top title on the ECW brand. Just for you to understand. the WWE Title's real name is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. They shortened it. Also from earlier, the World Heavyweight Championship in WWE, is not the WCW Title nor does it have its history. WWE even state that on the title's description on wwe.com.-- Will C 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with Will. And if you argue any of these points, then you are just trying to force your opinion though it's not even true.
1. If a title has world title status, and a TV Deal is part of it, what would've happened before the TV? Would there have been no world titles? 2. Just like Will said, a "world title status" is made up. Doesn't matter by who it was made-up, but who has the right to take it away? Us, here on Wikipedia? For the record, no, i don't think we have that right. 3. If defenses around the world is what defines a world title, let's take a minute and think this over. When a champion like Rob Van Dam won the WWE Championship, he didn't defend it anywhere out of the continental United States. However, I bet you'd still consider him a world champion because his title HAS been defended around the world. Wouldn't that count the ECW, IWGP and NWA titles also? Ra agg io 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Its really irrelevant if the promotion tours the country or not, sometimes promotions send wrestlers to compete in other countries without the company touring. Back in the 60s and 70s, the WWWF World Heavyweight Champion would defend that title interpromotionally in different countries without the WWWF actually touring. In addition, the WWE Championship is not an exception because as the criteria states A)It had the "World" bit in its name during the WWWF and WWF B)Has been defended in many other countries and C)It is the top-tier title of the SmackDown brand (as of late). The only way for it not to be a World title is if it wasn't one of the top-tier titles of WWE. But I think the criteria should be revised once more, because referring to the definition of a world championship, the top achievement of a sport or contest, a World Championship is not required to have the name bit "World" in it, although it must be an international title and be the top achievement of a company to be a "World Championship". The World Series is based in the U.S., and is not counted as a World Championship. The Speedway Grand Prix is also a World Championship and does not have the "World" bit in its name but its the top achievement of Motorcycle speedway and it is international. So the criteria for World Heavyweight Championships of Professional Wrestling should be as followed:
For A)There is no need to state the brands, because WWE regards all 3 top titles of the brands as their highest achievements. B)All three titles have been defended internationally, and thus meets C, and thus 3 World Heavyweight Championships. Its best if we follow the formula of other World sporting Championships.-- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) -- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Nonbiased? Are you joking? This criteria is the same as the other criteria, except it's been edited just to force the NWA and ECW titles to fail the criteria. And you call this non-biased? This is extremely biased and an insult to all encyclopedia and consensus-forming decisions and criteria in Wikipedia. Ra agg io 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This "defended in at least two different continents" crap has to go. Another country is another country, just ask the UN. Promotion A defends their championship at least once a year in the Canada, Mexico, England, Germany, France and Switzerland as well as regularly in its home country of the United States. Promotion B defended it once in England 5 years ago, once in Japan 3 years ago, and rarely leaves the same building in the same city where they run their one show a month. Of those two, which is the true world championship? Nenog ( talk) 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No - the second proposal is more realistic. Nenog, it's not crap. Another country maybe another country, but just using two (as originally proposed) allows for unrealistic classification. AS in Canada and Mexico. It is not truly international. Now with the example you gave, I would query Promotion B's claim on the basis that was there a major change after the visit to Japan? If not then maybe the claim could be valid. If there was (as is the case with the NWA) then there is a definite problem.
Ragio, it is not biased to set realistic criteria to prevent unrealistic claims to being a world title. It is in fact the most unbiased way to go. That's the whole point of this. The fact remains that the NWA - as it is now - does not have a world champion. Neither does ECW. Neither should be listed. Truco was right about Orton - the ECW title wasn't even noted as an option. It says plenty. !! Justa Punk !! 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Truco, Will and I got to thinking... If we can agree that a "world title" in professional wrestling is an accomplishment that only exists for storyline purposes, is there really a need for such article? -- Unquestionable Truth-- 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a minute. Who is saying we have a consensus? Admins who are involved in the debate I don't believe should make that call because of potential COI issues. I ask that an uninvolved admin make the call. !! Justa Punk !! 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the thing Punk, you have no source stating what is a world title, what gives that title world status, or that the NWA and ECW Titles are no longer world titles or that they ever were. Accurcacy is based on reliable sources and common sense. There is no common sense in this debate because we don't know what a world title really is or what makes one. We are just blowing smoke. You have yet to give proof what gives or removes world status. If there is no proof, then what are we supposed to do? Fall down and agree with you because you know everything. No, that is OR on your part with just opinions in your eyes. This project is probably the most rule based project there is. In ways that is bad, but we have a repretation to uphold damn it (lol).-- Will C 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of hopefully improving the Money in the Bank ladder match article and bringing it to GA status. Looking at the match history section, I can't say I'm a fan of its current three table setup. So I'm proposing a new table that will incorporate all three into a tidier format, based off Scorpion's table for the WWE Hall of Fame:
Year | Event | Winner | Other competitors | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | WM 21 | Edge | Shelton Benjamin, Chris Benoit, Christian, Chris Jericho, Kane | 14:17 |
| ||||
2006 | WM 22 | Rob Van Dam | Shelton Benjamin, Ric Flair, Finlay, Matt Hardy, Bobby Lashley | 12:21 |
| ||||
2007 | WM 23 | Mr. Kennedy | King Booker, Edge, Finlay, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Randy Orton, CM Punk | 19:10 |
| ||||
Raw | Edge | N/A | 0:07 | |
| ||||
2008 | WM XXIV | CM Punk | Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, Chris Jericho, Mr. Kennedy, John Morrison, Montel Vontavious Porter | 13:54 |
| ||||
2009 | WM XXV | TBD | Shelton Benjamin, CM Punk, Finlay, Kane, Mark Henry, Montel Vontavious Porter, Christian, TBA | TBD |
Any information from the old tables that aren't included here can easily be placed as prose into the history section without any problems. Any thoughts? -- Oakster Talk 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it, too. It condenses it all into one easy to understand table. Nikki♥ 311 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but isn't it time for them to have a article? Since the last time this was discussed, they have even started their own recurring segment in TNA (the Off the Wagon Challenge, which has been used to explain the released of Petey Williams and Lance Rock). They have been the main focus of the TNA tag division for over 7 months, held the tag titles for most of the time, been in feuds with most of the notable teams in TNA (including LAX, the MMG, and Team 3D). I can't think of any reason they don't deserve their own article now. TJ Spyke 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is one article called WWE Friday Night SmackDown while the other is ECW on Sci Fi as opposed to ECW on Sci-Fi? Raw and SmackDown begin by saying they are a television programme, and also a name of the brand whereas ECW just says it's a brand, not a television programme. I don't understand the inconsistency, any help? Tony2Times ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the answer is pretty obvious:
The articles themselves are about the television shows, not about the brands. The brands themselves is just the way WWE chose to split its roster for the three television shows. The closest thing we have to an article on brands and who appears on them is the WWE Brand Extension and List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees articles. — Moe ε 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So when will someone move it? Tony2Times ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this notable? Because I don't think it is.-- Will C 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started working on getting some of the mexican championship pages up to "Feature List" standard and after some input from various people (thank you all) I've got the format ready and I'm pretty happy with it but I would really appriciate if someone could use 5 minutes to read the intro and help me out with a bit of copyediting - I've been looking at it so long I'm having a hard time doing it myself. the article in question is List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions (recently split from Mexican National Heavyweight Championship on advice from Truco). Thanks, if this one works out I plan on putting all Mexican titles that have more than 10 reigns up for FL over time. MPJ-DK ( talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to WrestleMania this year? There are rumors of which past Divas will participate in the Diva's Battle Royal, with names like Wendi Richter and Debra Marshall being thrown out. Both of those women need pics for their articles, as do quite a lot of the older generation of female wrestlers, so I was hoping someone could get a few pics for me. Anyone? Nikki♥ 311 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see boxes for things such as the Holly Cousins, La Familia and so on that probably should be deleted. RobJ1981 ( talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not for FA. It is meant for Good or Featured topics. Knedrick and London are a future Good Topic. The Holly Cousins you'll have to ask Nici. She said somethinmg about doing one.-- Will C 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to nominate the other templates (DX; Dudleys etc) for deletion? D.M.N. ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the above Speaking of ECW post, I was pondering:
For example,
Monday Night Football is very different than
National Football League, as it is a broadcast of each of the NHL's events. Well,
WWE Raw should be very different than
WWE Monday Night Raw,
WWE SmackDown should be different than
WWE Friday Night SmackDown and
ECW on Sci Fi should be different than
ECW. One article should speak about the brand's history and be more like a biographical article on the brand itself, while the other should be the tv article showing the production notes, the on-air talent, it's main cast *ahem* wrestlers, its TV ratings, and TV history. I think 2 extensive articles can be done for each Smackdown and Raw, however, I believe the ECW BRAND part should be included in the
Extreme Championship Wrestling page, because of its relatively small history, lack of impact, and because it is an extension to the original promotion's history (mainly because of its ex-trademarked names and style).
Another reason for this, is because I feel we are cheating a reader when we redirect them to the ECW brand (like in here), yet it merely is an article about the TV program. I think these 3 brands deserve articles about themselves and not just about their broadcasting. Think of it like Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and TNA Impact! Ra agg io 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
My question is very simple ¿Why do you count the Young's X Division regin if all your references said that this egin isn't contabiliced?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.219.7 ( talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not true, if a company reverses the decision, then the reign doesn't count. For example, if, during an "open invitational" match, a fan would jump the barrier and pin the champion, we wouldn't consider it an "UNOFFICIAL REIGN". The company would take him down, throw him out, and continue with their plans, and we can have a small footnote regarding the fan, but in no way we would count it as a reign. Ra agg io 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have said this because no reference said that his ragin was official, like his fist unofficial regin. Also, if he will win the TNA whc, ¿Will he become a TNA Triple Crown Champion? Also, he won the match, but won cheating, because Shane kicked Bashir, maybe Cornette make unofficial as a consequence of this interference. And look, http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/e/eric-young.html OWOW said that his two regins are unofficial. -- 81.34.219.7 ( talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a WikiProject member but have made edits from time to time to wrestling pages for a year or so now. Can I ask you if they feel the Internet Wrestling Database would be a useful external link for readers? The match listings (particularly those on the wrestlers' pages) appear to fit into the scope of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material [...] such as professional athlete statistics" criteria at WP:External Links.
Sample pages:
Any thoughts? Poker Flunky ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this really his most common name? Obviously Christian has disambiguation issues, but he wrestled for 4ish televised years as Christian Cage as well as his pre-fame indie days. Wouldn't that be a more suitable article name? Tony2Times ( talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think, Cage wasn't pinned or made to submit for two years. Just like Joe lost the Three Way at Unbreakable but wasn't pinned or made to submit until Genesis 06. I'm talking about that. Yes WWE is bigger, but Cage still used Christian Cage alot and won the NWA Title which could be the most famous championship in all of wrestling. But I'm saying I would rather go by real name than nick or middle name considering we are supposed to name articles by the person's real name unless they are known more by another name.-- Will C 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
But that is his friends. I'm called Will or Willbert by some of my friends but if I become a notable person one day my article will not be Will or Willbert Chaudoin. It would be titled William Chaudoin unless I have a ringname of some sort. We should rename it his real name since there is no rule that says we go by what he or his friends perfer to call him, and Jason nor Christian is a common name. He has no common name now considering he has used Christian and Christian Cage near equally and won titles under both.-- Will C 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When has he had the chance too? I've never seen him use Jason or William. Just his friends call him Jason. Willbert was one of my dumbass friends ideas, not mine. We don't know what he likes to be called. His friends could just like calling him Jason like mine likes calling me Willbert.-- Will C 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Two have already been given. IMDB and TV.com. Also here is IGN and Slam. The slam one is the only one that gives Jason but half the time they short hand it and give nicknames. Like with Jarrett it says Jeff Jarrett when his full name is Jeffery Jarrett.-- Will C 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what they named it. It is his biography, it states his birth name is William Jason Reso. We must follow guidelines, not nicknames from friends. If we follow nicknames then we would move The Undertaker to demon of death-valley. Or Kane to big red machine. A.J. Styles would be named The Phenomenal A.J. Styles.-- Will C 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No, to name the article the common name it must be the most common name. If they are widely known by more than one name, their article is to be named their legal birth name. In Bill Clinton's case he is widely know just as Bill Clinton, not as William Clinton. He has no other names. Cage here has two: Christain and Christian Cage. He was never referred to on TV as William or Jason. Just his friends calls him Jason, and they play no part in this.-- Will C 10:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No third runner up in common name. It is either most common name or no common name. Since he has more than one common name it is named his birth name. That simple, it is per common name.-- Will C 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If a person were searching for William Jason Reso they wouldn't use William or Jason. They would type in Christian or Christian Cage. Maybe even Edge and Christian. If they didn't even know his real name they would still use what they know him as, Christian or Christian Cage. That determines their common name. Jason nor William are even a selection. That means he has no common name. He is widely known by two names. It is named his legal birth name as a result. If you were to go up to a wrestling fan and show them a picture of Cage and ask them who that was a picture of, they would reply Christian (Cage). They wouldn't say Jason Reso, nor would they say William Reso.-- Will C 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. How can something this minor be debated for so long? Regardless of where it's put, redirects will help anyone find it. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently folks in the know (like Tammy Lynn Sytch on her facebook page) are reporting that Andrew "Test" Martin has passed away. Might want to keep an eye on his article for the next bit, to keep the speculation and "breaking news" factor down. 128.222.37.21 ( talk) 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Also a note from TNA: [13]-- Will C 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Not that old at all, pretty shocking in a way, it would be interesting to know the course of death also. Govvy ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of deceased wrestlers, I was thinking maybe a topic to make Good/Featured could be The Radicalz as, with two of them passed on, one MIA and one retired their own articles won't need to be updated once they reach GA/FA and they're also recent enough wrestlers that there should be a fair amount of online sources. Tony2Times ( talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Myself and Juliancolton are about to copyedit the article and make it look decent. Take a look at this, it's crazy. iMatthew // talk // 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the recently created PWA championships notable, like the PWA Elite Tag Team Championship? I don't believe they are, but thought to ask before putting them up for deletion.-- Will C 07:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree the promotion is notable and the titles are but I don't believe they need their own articles. Would be better if they were just mentioned in the main article or a seperate article called PWA Championships that lists the history for each.-- Will C 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[14] The highlight in that article is this:
Did WWE state official criteria for a city to complete a "Grand Slam" of WWE events? Ra agg io 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any "consensus" gained from the above discussion (and archived discussions) about the "World" status of titles. Should it be like the criteria was proposed above will classify a World Title or will the term "World Championship" be merely a slang term?--Best, ₮RU CӨ 02:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets just place it in the slang article and get it over with.-- Will C 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
So recently I created the List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment in hopes that the project can get another FT off of former championships. I wanted to take the list to FLC, but when I took it to to FL Director Scorpion, he suggested merging it and the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment list since they are related. To avoid conflicts, I wanted to see what the project thought before I opened an FLC. I personally oppose merging them because that would ruing the FT for the current championships and merging the two (seeing the size of both leads) would lead to a much bigger article that would be harder to navigate through. I would rather see another FT made from the former titles, but that's IMO. Comments/Suggestions?--Best, ₮RU CӨ 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Suicide won the TNA X Division Championship tonight. It is said that Christopher Daniels is filling in for Kaz as Suicide. Who should we put the win under, Kaz or Daniels since I'm not sure who is playing Suicide anymore. I have an idea of making a Suicide character article since he is a character played on TV and in a video game. So I don't think there would be a problem there. I would like some opinions on this matter.-- Will C 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Though Daniels is the one who was playing the character while he won it, it makes a big mess.-- Will C 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering more about who to put the win under. Which article should the reign be added too. Because I'm going to use a little common sense here and state that you can clearly see the difference between Kaz and Daniels. So seeing it was Daniels, if Kaz takes over the gimmick then we'll have a big problem. They both played the character during the reign.-- Will C 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I say since the video game project has articles regrading certain characters in certain games, that we can make one for Suicide and place the win under that article. State that he was played on TV by Daniels and Kaz. Also have a back story of who created the character for the game and such. I'll be gald to make the article. I was already thinking about about doing it when I worked on the TNA game.-- Will C 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I can't do the character article at the moment anyway, but there are enough sources. When the TNA game was featured on Spike TV's video game show or whatever it is called (I don't watch it that much) Suicide was one of the main features of the show. The game has been under development for years, so multiple sites will have sources regrading the game and the character. So it will not remain a stub or start forever. Suicide has enough build that he is notable and the main focus of the entire TNA game. Also came to life (lack of better phrasing) in TNA. I feel it would be notable and now the character won a title, I believe it would be useful.-- Will C 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe WrestleView, Slam, and PWTorch have already released articles stating Daniels is Suicide and that Kaz is filling in for him. Though we still have a problem with the switch.-- Will C 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I messed up. I was probably doing four things at once and didn't know what I was writing. I should have payed more attention.-- Will C 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't have their own article? I tried to create one but it was reverted immediately. They should have their own article as they have 2 TNA tag team title reigns and their own match type. Downwardspiral203 ( talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
His article says that Jonathan Coachman is also known as "The Coach". However I'm sure I remember another "Coach" character earlier in the WWF (1992-ish?). However I can't find any mention of him on the PPV articles from around that time so maybe it just my memory playing tricks...? -- Jameboy ( talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking to help expand Professional wrestling promotion#TimeLine of major promotions and I thought that it would improve the article greatly if we moved removed the Template already in place and added a table along the lines of This and I was wondering if I could some people's opinions on this idea. Afkatk - The Mind Reader ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering this involves wrestling I'll just ask for help here. I'm working on Destination X 2005 in a subpage. TNA built the main event off of an incident at a Best Damn Sports Show special, in which DDP, Kevin Nash, Monty Brown, and Jarrett all appeared on in 2005. I have no idea how to find a source for this show. Does anyone have anyother ideas to source these actions?-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Problem is I don't know what day it happened on. I guess I could search pretty hard for it, plus cite episode was my back-up if I can't find a reliable written source.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I found the video of it on Youtube. It was something about the superbowl. I remember DDP saying that Nash was going to beat Jarrett this Sunday, meaning it was closer to Against All Odds 05 which happened on the 13. I believe it was probably on the 12, I'll check IMDB for the date.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it would, thanks. This will help me finish Against All Odds and most of Destination X.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't use Online World of Wrestling considering it isn't reliable for everything. I just really needed an in-depth telling of the events and what day it happened.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well I don't need it now anyway. I have it finished: Against All Odds (2005).-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Tonight on ECW, they announced that Carlito and Primo will face John Morrison and The Miz at WrestleMania to unify the 2 tag belts (about damn time). I know it may be early, but any ideas on what we should do for the articles? Assuming the titles are kept unified (which WWE has been consistent with, the only titles I can think of that they unified and later brought back were the IC and US Titles), what happens if they name the belts WWE Tag Team Championship? I think we will probably have to wait and see if WWE considers it a continuation of the World Tag Team Championship (which is what would cause a problem since we would have to move that article and try to find a new name for articles related to the WWE Tag Team Championship). Of coarse, it could have a whole new name as the wwe.com re-cap of ECW calls it Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (which would still cause a problem if they consider it's title lineage to be that of the WTTC). TJ Spyke 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the lineage. It was once named WWE Tag Team Championship. We could use a quantifier giving the years of said championship. WWE Tag Team Championship (1971 - present) and WWE Tag Team Championship (2002 - 2009) if we have too. Maybe WWE Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship (Smackdown). The new one will be called the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship or the WWE Undisputed Tag Team Championship. Maybe World will be involved in there somewhere. No reason to worry at the moment. The chaos will come WrestleMania night when all the ips make their edits and we have complete insanity with edit conflicts left and right. Lets enjoy the piece at the moment. Wait until Vince gets the dumb idea to have one world title and wants to unify both of those. Then no one will have the chance to be world champion since Stephine is booker and Trips will be champ, and they will get the great idea of making a brand new world title to have both histories. That is when we should worry. Right now, the only chaos is to figure out who is Suicide. Hey, I just remebered Who is Suicide.com. TNA wanted to make that site actually mean something lol.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's..... just...... wait! Wait for the unification. Wait for the naming convention to be announced. Wait for the title history to be kept, and for the title history to be dropped. Mshake3 ( talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest adding <noinclude> around the __NOTOC__ at the beginning, like this: <noinclude>__NOTOC__</noinclude>. Currently the page is transcluded onto hundreds of user talk pages which for that reason have no table of contents now. Not transcluding the NOTOC by adding "noinclude" would mean that it would still work on the project page, but not mess up the talk pages. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It was actually a problem from I believe only two editions of the news, Oct 13, 2007 and Oct 20, 2007. If anyone still has them on their user talk page, and more than a couple hundred users do, it eliminates their table of contents, just as if they added __NOTOC__ themselves. You are not one of them, but would not be affected anyway because you have manually added a TOC to your user talk page. Click on any of the links above, like User talk:Darkguy, User talk:Ekedolphin, or User talk:Johnissoevil, then undo TJ Spyke's undo, and the TOC will magically appear (you may have to refresh their user talk page). Actually it may be affecting your archives. TJ Spyke's archive is at User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13, and has no TOC either, which will be restored as soon as the edit is restored. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No, but easily fixed. My first inclination was to clean up their user talk page so that new messages would be visible, but I found out that the source was the transclusion of this project page, which was more easily fixed by fixing the project page, and not transcluding the part that shouldn't be transcluded - the NOTOC. And affecting me is never a consideration for me - I never know nor care who is going to read any of the edits that I make - they are done simply to improve the encyclopedia, and to benefit everyone who stumbles across whatever section I have edited. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In the title histories, under the event title heading it reads "Raw" and "WrestleMania 13" &c yet for the annual events it reads SummerSlam (2003). Aren't the paranthesis merely a disambig for the title? Seldom is it referred to the event as Summerslam 2003 on screen. Shouldn't it just read SummerSlam? The link will remain the same to that year and the date the belt changes will also indicate the year. Tony2Times ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on when a title change counts. I'm sure we all know by now that Smackdown Tapings happen on Tuesdays and then air on Friday night. However when a title changes hand on Smackdown, an edit war breaks out on said championship page over what counts. I've seen use count the title reign as ending on the date of the taping (case in point Maryse's Diva's championship win) and at other times we count the date Smackdown airs as the title change, (case in point, MVP's second United States Championship reign.).-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be moved because aside from a brief managerial stint in ECW she has always used the name Allison Danger, this includes her years in Ring of Honor, her tours of Japan and Europe and as commentator, competitor and founder of Shimmer. Tony2Times ( talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if I could get editors with a greater knowledge of the subject matter than myself (ie. you guys, hence why I came here) to have a look at Rob Feinstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit it to make sure it complies with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, it would be greatly appreciated. Any edits to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.
Disclaimer: This request is in relation to OTRS #2009031710055272, the resolution of which requires a cleanup of the article.
Regards,
Daniel (
talk)
07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone here has a copy of the magazine. According to the WWE.com summary, it features an article about pyrotechnics, staging, etc. Considering I was quite interested in writing about that kind of stuff last year in the production section for WrestleMania XXIV, I wouldn't mind some help having a similar section for this year. -- Oakster Talk 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I'm doing the same for TNA events when they have their fan interactons and other stuff along that nature. We should mention what WWE does around Mania in the proudtion or marketing section. I don't have a copy of WWE's mag, so I can't help you there. I forgot to mention that.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw on dot com a few days ago that DK are publishing a WWE encyclopedia. I have no idea what's in it or what it will be like but if anyone sees it, it might be an idea to flick through and see what's on offer. It may be a good source for pre-internet facts and even if we're lucky it might be a useful source for general professional wrestling articles. Tony2Times ( talk) 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Problem is it is written in kayfabe, so it will not help us on backstage stuff. But about wrestler's time there and titles that will be useful.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This guy is adding random garbage to Randy Savage. I've reverted twice, could someone watch just in case? RandySavageFTW ( talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
|diplay=none
.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Untied States template that's appeared only counts the WWE time. Now although the template says WWE United States Championship the lineage goes back for the WCW and NWA versions. Shouldn't teh template reflect this too? If this is deemed messy there could be seperations (like the current championships&accomplishments template) for the three eras which may help to stop it looking cluttered. Tony2Times ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
After tweaking the links, I've gotten a link for easy access to the Article alerts page up. The article alerts give notices on Good and Featured news, DYK?'s, and XfD's, and other various notice on our articles which have the project talk banner on them. This is a very helpful tool, so lets take advantage of it ;) The link is on the main page and in the nav bar above.--Best, ₮RU CӨ 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
They are notable, because they are major supporting characters in this Orton/Triple H feud, 2 time tag champs, and been around for the better part of a year. And they retired a guy. KingMorpheus ( talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Their rivalry with Orton lead really to nothing. They still are not an official stable. The Cryme feud? If that was a feud, then it was a lazy one. They had about two or three matches that lead to nothing. Wasn't even on PPV. They've done as much as Santino and Beth. Right now, having their own articles is fine. It states everything they've done. They have yet to even have a match go passed 10 minutes. Plus, did you read drug problem? Last I heard he was in rehab.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
How do they deserve an article? Legacy has won no titles. Priceless won two, but the stable has won none. The only thing they have won was the Royal Rumble. Have yet to team together. They've done nothing but stand around and talk. How do they pass notability?-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy fix instead of arguing - read the Notability criteria. If they fullfill that then they're notable enough for an article. MPJ-DK ( talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I go by notability on what they've done and time. Legacy has only been around around three to five months, and have yet to even become official. I don't think they are notable just yet, not until they get more focus and actually have a real meaningful match.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We write articles people would normally search. If someone watches Raw, and is practically orgasmic when he sees Orton, DiBiase and Rhodes, because he loves the stable, he will go to Wikipedia and search The Legacy. He will find nothing, so he goes to Orton's article. It will say NOTHING about the history of Rhodes and DiBiase in WWE. So, he'll have to go to Ted DiBiase. Again, it will say next-to-NOTHING about Randy Orton. How is it that people will want to search for The Highlanders (professional wrestling), The Bella Twins, The Mexicools, Vince's Devils, The New Breed, Cryme Tyme and not Los Colons (who've been teaming since they debuted in WWC). Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes, Cody Rhodes and Hardcore Holly, The Legacy (professional wrestling), and Finlay and Hornswoggle (teaming together since 2006, contended for tag team titles, feuded with JBL, Mr. McMahon, Jack Swagger, Miz and Morrison, Glamarella, Mark Henry, Mr. Kennedy [must I continue?), and also Glamarella who obviously is a lot more notable than The Bella Twins because they actually won titles TOGETHER at SummerSlam (2008). Ra agg io 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough, search the net - see if you can find enough information on the team/faction/whatever to see if it fullfills the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, then there isn't even a debate. Write it in your sandbox and source it and you can make any and all articles that you have sources to support and not have to worry about them being deleted. Easy fix. MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, everyone! I figured you guys would be the place to go for this question. An article I'm working towards FA quality, No Jacket Required has a bit of info I wrote-up about how " Take Me Home" was the shows closing theme for three years, and I need to find a reliable source that states this. However, I am not an expert on which wrestling websites are more reliable than the others. Would anyone know where I could find a reliable source that says that "Take Me Home" was the closing theme to the show from 1985-1988? Thanks to whoever can answer, and a barnstar is in order for whoever can help me out! Have a great day! CarpetCrawler ( talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a trend of using "Wrestlers Name" (Linked "Real name") in a lot of place and I was just wondering where that came from? Is there any other type of Wikipedia article that uses that annoying annotation? I find it pointless and frankly listing the real name of say Tommy Dreamer in an article doesn't add anything to it, it just brings the readability down. What's the inspiration? I haven't found it used in any articles where actors who use stagenames and not their real names, I've not seen it used in movie articles or TV shows. How does it bring it "Out of universe" to know what Kane's real name is? What does it matter what Kane's real name is except on the article about Kane? Do you need to know it in order to read a PPV Article? I think that WP:PW have gone a bit far in order to claim "It's out of universe", but it's a misguided attempt at a quick fix - the "OOU" aspects are in the general writing of the article not the addition of their birth names. MPJ-DK ( talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I rather like all of the out of universe format. I don't like explaining all the moves since those are hard, but as for the names, theyr are fine with me. They make the article seem more professional. Plus all the wrestlers play characters, not theirselves. So, treat them as characters.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A powerbomb is not known by everyone. Plus it is a name of a move, which makes it jargon. Also there are guidelines against the relying on a pipelink to help explain it. I don't like explaining the moves since I don't know where to start, but I understand why we should. The same as if you were reading an article about religion, and you didn't understand a certain term. Are you going to stop reading and read the term's article? What is it doesn't have one? The explaining helps.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it doesn't have to go overboard. Just explain the stuff that anyone can get. The moves to a decent detail, just the main points, the name of the move, the matches and the rules. The wrestler's names. Just the stuff no one that has ever read about wrestling does not know. Do not go into detail to a point where you've written a brand new Professional Wrestling article.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the out of universe has brung good, as well as a burden. The reception was a great addition. I feel we should leave it up to the editor to choose what to explain and what not too. I talked to a friend of mine the other day who couldn't tell the difference between King Booker and Booker T. There are some who don't know what a headlock or sleeper hold is. I agree the making of the out of universe decision was handled wrong, but we weren't getting anywhere before. When the subject was brung up all it did was make this project page a living hell. I think the OOU should explain moves that are not too common. The Chokeslam is too common, while a Pedigree isn't. Go by common name on the wrestler's names in parenthesis. If they have more than one gimmick they are known for ( Mick Foley or Christopher Daniels in this case), then real name in parenthesis. If they only have one name ( A.J. Styles), then just link it. Explain the difficult terms, like jobber or face, but book should be simple enough.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Letting you all know of a change I made/am going to make to these group of articles. Since the exact day/week/month of a person joining or leaving WWE is not widely known (unless an official statement from WWE can be found), I have made it so that only the year is what is listed as the tenure (see List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni: A–C). Some websites are inaccurate, leading to conflicting changes and the information on exact days isn't the easiest thing to confirm with a couple of references and there are a few people who only worked for WWE for only months or weeks. Some people who get released (like Freddie Prinze, Jr.) are also not reported on due to WWE not making an official statement for them, leading to conflicting information when they actually left. A year instead of exact days should benefit this article, as the year is usually something that can be confirmed pretty easily. Personally, I also think the exact day of release matters very little (keeping with the reason I started making changes to this article in the first place), and should probably only be included within the biography of the person themselves. — Moe ε 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
has been removing moves from some move articles and inserting them into others as well as adding more variations. Is this helpful or not? I'm on the fence. If it is deemed a good idea, we've got a lot link updates to do in just about every article. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
In the descriptions of this event, there are several places where crowd chants are referenced. Some of the chants include things like "you suck dick" and "fuck you" and things like that. I don't see how any of these are relevant to the article in any way. Especially in the section describing the Benoit/Guerrero match where the chants referenced have nothing to do with the participants of the match at all. It seems like they are only included to give someone an excuse to say "dick" and "fuck" a few times. I feel like it would be a great improvement to the article to remove most of them. It would certainly make it seem more like an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I agreed that it would be fair to put this up for discussion before making a move so what does everyone else think? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you look at ECW One Night Stand (2006), that article is fine and it doesn't mention any of the profane chants at all in the article. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I went back as far as the history would let me and I couldn't find who originally wrote the chants into the article. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about Criticism of World Championship Wrestling? Should it be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling (there is a lot of overlap) or left alone? My opinion is that a merge is in order. Nikki♥ 311 02:14, 25 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 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
I nominated Wade Keller, Ernest Roeber and Hergeleci Ibrahim for deletion. You can read why at each. If one of my reasons were ridiculous or untrue, please keep it to yourself. LOL, I'm joking, please tell me here. I nominated them because I felt each didn't meet WP:N, please tell me if you disagree. Ra agg io 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I removed the prod on Roeber He is notable, he's held several titles in the early days of pro wrestling history - proof of existence is on the title pages where he's listed and they're not hoaxes, I checked a printed source and they list him holding the titles. He's from a time where sources are hard to come by and the articles are generally cut more slack on that account. MPJ-DK ( talk) 15:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they're both dirtsheets. And when i say dirtsheets, I mean they are "news sites" dedicated on the postings of "insider information" in the WWE & perhaps TNA. But other than that, they don't have much news to post. The fact of the matter is, they're just glorified fans like Matt Hardy said in an interview. These men make their living by the curiosity of fans to get spoiled. They aren't more notable than [kryptonsite.com KryptonSite]. Sure, Dave Meltzer should be considered a source for factual information, but of what? Of PPV results, injuries and creative plans? How, in your right mind, could you call that notable? Ra agg io 22:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are we changing heel/face to villian/crowd favorite or whatever? (See Shawn Michaels for an example.)
I don't really see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.181.244 ( talk) 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the idea of "heel (bad guy)" is, it isn't brillant prose. It is decent, all articles should live up to the good or featured (mainly featured) criteria. Heel (bad guy) doesn't role off the tounge or make you think this is written very well. As for villain, it can be used and is understandable very quickly. Plus pipelinking works better and we make sure not to use jargon. That way it is universal. Heel (bad guy) just gets in the way IMO.-- Will C 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, could we possibly split the covers section of the Dale Oliver page to it's own? I mean, it's kinda long. I think it's a good idea to have the songs listed, however it should be sorta like a discography page, in my opinion. What do you think? Cra sh Underride 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I was considering completely redoing the notes sections, because they seem to insinuate that championships = importance. I'd like to instead make it a few sentences on why they were inducted and this would involve re-formatting the table and losing the sortability. The big problem is that this could lead to rampant POV, but we could limit it to a few choice quotes from WWE.com. Here's what I'm thinking:
Ring name (Birth name) |
Year | Notable championships | Inducted by | |
---|---|---|---|---|
André the Giant (André René Roussimoff) |
1993 | One-time WWE Championship (one-time) | None | |
| ||||
Bobo Brazil (Houston Harris) |
1994 | WWWF United States Championship (one-time); NWA United States Heavyweight Champion (one-time) | Ernie Ladd | |
| ||||
Jim Ross | 2007 | Steve Austin | ||
| ||||
Arnold Skaaland | 1994 | One-time WWWF United States Tag Team Championship (one-time) | Bob Backlund | |
|
If anyone dislikes having the names in the large column, I could switch it around to having years in it. By the way, this method would be sorted alphabetically. -- Scorpion 0422 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I've looked over the article and the title additions are hardly excessive, just a few additions here and there. For example, Harley Race was the first NWA United States Heavyweight Champion and a three time AWA World Tag Team Champion. Not to say that being an eight time NWA World Champion isn't enough, but he did win other presigious titles and two of the more well known are named. In the notes section of some of the inductees, it mentions if they've won a number of regional NWA titles but those titles listed by name. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
can people please help me with this article as I'm close to the 3r rule, IP's (at least 1) keep adding "2009 King of the Board" to his championships and Accomplishments section, surely everyone agrees this isn't notable. Skitzo ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we place a limit on which titles can have navigation templates? This one user he gone and created templates for several titles (including the ROH Championship, TNA X Division Title, and WWE IC Title). This seems to be going overboard and will be a problem on wrestler articles where the person has won lots of different titles. CM Punk, for example, has 4 title boxes. This will be a even bigger problem for wrestlers like Triple H and Shawn Michaels who have wons lots of different titles. 02:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like WrestleView.com has pointed Wikipedia's articles of the Grand Slam and Triple Crown Championships here. They say "supposed official" lineage, but my question is, how legit is our representation of the articles? Where are we getting this information from?-- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we go by what WWE now calls defunct championships, like the ECW World Television Championship is now the ECW Television Championship. The WCW World Heavyweight Championship (and its related pages) needs to be renamed to WCW World Championship, the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship to the WWE Light Heavyweight Championship.-- ₮RU CӨ 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw a while ago that some of you are watching the Dark Angel article over rumors of her signing with TNA. Well I just found an article where she states they've been in talks but nothing is signed - if you speak Spanish read here - I thought you'd like to know so that any rumors of her already being signed can be kept off the page. MPJ-DK ( talk) 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the situation regarding recognition of singles world championships, we've gotten way off base. Let's leave out all the secondary, divisional, women's and whatever potential category there is for them and get back on track. We can talk about all that at some other point. Let's not worry about which world title is more prestigious or deserves to be called a world championship more than others or any of that because we're not going to get anywhere. Now, when last I heard the criteria was as follows:
On the other side of the issue, some feel that PWI alone has the standing to decide which championships should be determined as "world" titles and which shouldn't. So let's give it another shot, we've heard everyone's side of the arguments. We've heard reasons upon reasons why some secondary titles aren't really secondary titles and reasons as to why some titles really aren't division titles and so on and so forth. If anyone has anything new to add to the discussion, not just re-hashing everything that's already been said to death up there already, then please, by all means, bring it up and let's hear it. Odin's Beard ( talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
People know my opinion. I'm fine with the criteria, as long as the above only effects world heavyweight championships. While another is needed for lower titles. I kind of agree with Justa Punk on it needs to be on a different continent. That still makes the ECW, ROH, TNA, both WWE, WCW, and NWA Titles world titles.-- Will C 04:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No matter if it is the past, it is still a former world title. The NWA Title has been defended around the world. You can't take that back. It fits all the other criteria. It is a world title. You say ECW behind, but look at WWE.com. It is the top title on the ECW brand. When it first came into WWE it was called the ECW World Championship. Main evented December to Dismember and is a title the Royal Rumble winner can pick from. WWE even say it is a world title. There have been new talent and vets on ECW. Just because it is a higher OVW plus FCW mix, does not stop the truth that it has had world in its name twice in the past. WWE say it is a world title. Been defended in multiple countries. And is the top title on the ECW brand. Just for you to understand. the WWE Title's real name is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. They shortened it. Also from earlier, the World Heavyweight Championship in WWE, is not the WCW Title nor does it have its history. WWE even state that on the title's description on wwe.com.-- Will C 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree with Will. And if you argue any of these points, then you are just trying to force your opinion though it's not even true.
1. If a title has world title status, and a TV Deal is part of it, what would've happened before the TV? Would there have been no world titles? 2. Just like Will said, a "world title status" is made up. Doesn't matter by who it was made-up, but who has the right to take it away? Us, here on Wikipedia? For the record, no, i don't think we have that right. 3. If defenses around the world is what defines a world title, let's take a minute and think this over. When a champion like Rob Van Dam won the WWE Championship, he didn't defend it anywhere out of the continental United States. However, I bet you'd still consider him a world champion because his title HAS been defended around the world. Wouldn't that count the ECW, IWGP and NWA titles also? Ra agg io 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Its really irrelevant if the promotion tours the country or not, sometimes promotions send wrestlers to compete in other countries without the company touring. Back in the 60s and 70s, the WWWF World Heavyweight Champion would defend that title interpromotionally in different countries without the WWWF actually touring. In addition, the WWE Championship is not an exception because as the criteria states A)It had the "World" bit in its name during the WWWF and WWF B)Has been defended in many other countries and C)It is the top-tier title of the SmackDown brand (as of late). The only way for it not to be a World title is if it wasn't one of the top-tier titles of WWE. But I think the criteria should be revised once more, because referring to the definition of a world championship, the top achievement of a sport or contest, a World Championship is not required to have the name bit "World" in it, although it must be an international title and be the top achievement of a company to be a "World Championship". The World Series is based in the U.S., and is not counted as a World Championship. The Speedway Grand Prix is also a World Championship and does not have the "World" bit in its name but its the top achievement of Motorcycle speedway and it is international. So the criteria for World Heavyweight Championships of Professional Wrestling should be as followed:
For A)There is no need to state the brands, because WWE regards all 3 top titles of the brands as their highest achievements. B)All three titles have been defended internationally, and thus meets C, and thus 3 World Heavyweight Championships. Its best if we follow the formula of other World sporting Championships.-- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC) -- ₮RU CӨ 14:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Nonbiased? Are you joking? This criteria is the same as the other criteria, except it's been edited just to force the NWA and ECW titles to fail the criteria. And you call this non-biased? This is extremely biased and an insult to all encyclopedia and consensus-forming decisions and criteria in Wikipedia. Ra agg io 01:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This "defended in at least two different continents" crap has to go. Another country is another country, just ask the UN. Promotion A defends their championship at least once a year in the Canada, Mexico, England, Germany, France and Switzerland as well as regularly in its home country of the United States. Promotion B defended it once in England 5 years ago, once in Japan 3 years ago, and rarely leaves the same building in the same city where they run their one show a month. Of those two, which is the true world championship? Nenog ( talk) 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
No - the second proposal is more realistic. Nenog, it's not crap. Another country maybe another country, but just using two (as originally proposed) allows for unrealistic classification. AS in Canada and Mexico. It is not truly international. Now with the example you gave, I would query Promotion B's claim on the basis that was there a major change after the visit to Japan? If not then maybe the claim could be valid. If there was (as is the case with the NWA) then there is a definite problem.
Ragio, it is not biased to set realistic criteria to prevent unrealistic claims to being a world title. It is in fact the most unbiased way to go. That's the whole point of this. The fact remains that the NWA - as it is now - does not have a world champion. Neither does ECW. Neither should be listed. Truco was right about Orton - the ECW title wasn't even noted as an option. It says plenty. !! Justa Punk !! 07:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Truco, Will and I got to thinking... If we can agree that a "world title" in professional wrestling is an accomplishment that only exists for storyline purposes, is there really a need for such article? -- Unquestionable Truth-- 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a minute. Who is saying we have a consensus? Admins who are involved in the debate I don't believe should make that call because of potential COI issues. I ask that an uninvolved admin make the call. !! Justa Punk !! 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Here is the thing Punk, you have no source stating what is a world title, what gives that title world status, or that the NWA and ECW Titles are no longer world titles or that they ever were. Accurcacy is based on reliable sources and common sense. There is no common sense in this debate because we don't know what a world title really is or what makes one. We are just blowing smoke. You have yet to give proof what gives or removes world status. If there is no proof, then what are we supposed to do? Fall down and agree with you because you know everything. No, that is OR on your part with just opinions in your eyes. This project is probably the most rule based project there is. In ways that is bad, but we have a repretation to uphold damn it (lol).-- Will C 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking of hopefully improving the Money in the Bank ladder match article and bringing it to GA status. Looking at the match history section, I can't say I'm a fan of its current three table setup. So I'm proposing a new table that will incorporate all three into a tidier format, based off Scorpion's table for the WWE Hall of Fame:
Year | Event | Winner | Other competitors | Time |
---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | WM 21 | Edge | Shelton Benjamin, Chris Benoit, Christian, Chris Jericho, Kane | 14:17 |
| ||||
2006 | WM 22 | Rob Van Dam | Shelton Benjamin, Ric Flair, Finlay, Matt Hardy, Bobby Lashley | 12:21 |
| ||||
2007 | WM 23 | Mr. Kennedy | King Booker, Edge, Finlay, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Randy Orton, CM Punk | 19:10 |
| ||||
Raw | Edge | N/A | 0:07 | |
| ||||
2008 | WM XXIV | CM Punk | Shelton Benjamin, Carlito, Chris Jericho, Mr. Kennedy, John Morrison, Montel Vontavious Porter | 13:54 |
| ||||
2009 | WM XXV | TBD | Shelton Benjamin, CM Punk, Finlay, Kane, Mark Henry, Montel Vontavious Porter, Christian, TBA | TBD |
Any information from the old tables that aren't included here can easily be placed as prose into the history section without any problems. Any thoughts? -- Oakster Talk 16:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it, too. It condenses it all into one easy to understand table. Nikki♥ 311 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but isn't it time for them to have a article? Since the last time this was discussed, they have even started their own recurring segment in TNA (the Off the Wagon Challenge, which has been used to explain the released of Petey Williams and Lance Rock). They have been the main focus of the TNA tag division for over 7 months, held the tag titles for most of the time, been in feuds with most of the notable teams in TNA (including LAX, the MMG, and Team 3D). I can't think of any reason they don't deserve their own article now. TJ Spyke 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is one article called WWE Friday Night SmackDown while the other is ECW on Sci Fi as opposed to ECW on Sci-Fi? Raw and SmackDown begin by saying they are a television programme, and also a name of the brand whereas ECW just says it's a brand, not a television programme. I don't understand the inconsistency, any help? Tony2Times ( talk) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the answer is pretty obvious:
The articles themselves are about the television shows, not about the brands. The brands themselves is just the way WWE chose to split its roster for the three television shows. The closest thing we have to an article on brands and who appears on them is the WWE Brand Extension and List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees articles. — Moe ε 23:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
So when will someone move it? Tony2Times ( talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this notable? Because I don't think it is.-- Will C 06:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started working on getting some of the mexican championship pages up to "Feature List" standard and after some input from various people (thank you all) I've got the format ready and I'm pretty happy with it but I would really appriciate if someone could use 5 minutes to read the intro and help me out with a bit of copyediting - I've been looking at it so long I'm having a hard time doing it myself. the article in question is List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions (recently split from Mexican National Heavyweight Championship on advice from Truco). Thanks, if this one works out I plan on putting all Mexican titles that have more than 10 reigns up for FL over time. MPJ-DK ( talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Is anyone going to WrestleMania this year? There are rumors of which past Divas will participate in the Diva's Battle Royal, with names like Wendi Richter and Debra Marshall being thrown out. Both of those women need pics for their articles, as do quite a lot of the older generation of female wrestlers, so I was hoping someone could get a few pics for me. Anyone? Nikki♥ 311 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I see boxes for things such as the Holly Cousins, La Familia and so on that probably should be deleted. RobJ1981 ( talk) 09:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Not for FA. It is meant for Good or Featured topics. Knedrick and London are a future Good Topic. The Holly Cousins you'll have to ask Nici. She said somethinmg about doing one.-- Will C 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want to nominate the other templates (DX; Dudleys etc) for deletion? D.M.N. ( talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Because of the above Speaking of ECW post, I was pondering:
For example,
Monday Night Football is very different than
National Football League, as it is a broadcast of each of the NHL's events. Well,
WWE Raw should be very different than
WWE Monday Night Raw,
WWE SmackDown should be different than
WWE Friday Night SmackDown and
ECW on Sci Fi should be different than
ECW. One article should speak about the brand's history and be more like a biographical article on the brand itself, while the other should be the tv article showing the production notes, the on-air talent, it's main cast *ahem* wrestlers, its TV ratings, and TV history. I think 2 extensive articles can be done for each Smackdown and Raw, however, I believe the ECW BRAND part should be included in the
Extreme Championship Wrestling page, because of its relatively small history, lack of impact, and because it is an extension to the original promotion's history (mainly because of its ex-trademarked names and style).
Another reason for this, is because I feel we are cheating a reader when we redirect them to the ECW brand (like in here), yet it merely is an article about the TV program. I think these 3 brands deserve articles about themselves and not just about their broadcasting. Think of it like Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and TNA Impact! Ra agg io 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
My question is very simple ¿Why do you count the Young's X Division regin if all your references said that this egin isn't contabiliced?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.219.7 ( talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not true, if a company reverses the decision, then the reign doesn't count. For example, if, during an "open invitational" match, a fan would jump the barrier and pin the champion, we wouldn't consider it an "UNOFFICIAL REIGN". The company would take him down, throw him out, and continue with their plans, and we can have a small footnote regarding the fan, but in no way we would count it as a reign. Ra agg io 22:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have said this because no reference said that his ragin was official, like his fist unofficial regin. Also, if he will win the TNA whc, ¿Will he become a TNA Triple Crown Champion? Also, he won the match, but won cheating, because Shane kicked Bashir, maybe Cornette make unofficial as a consequence of this interference. And look, http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/e/eric-young.html OWOW said that his two regins are unofficial. -- 81.34.219.7 ( talk) 13:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a WikiProject member but have made edits from time to time to wrestling pages for a year or so now. Can I ask you if they feel the Internet Wrestling Database would be a useful external link for readers? The match listings (particularly those on the wrestlers' pages) appear to fit into the scope of "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material [...] such as professional athlete statistics" criteria at WP:External Links.
Sample pages:
Any thoughts? Poker Flunky ( talk) 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this really his most common name? Obviously Christian has disambiguation issues, but he wrestled for 4ish televised years as Christian Cage as well as his pre-fame indie days. Wouldn't that be a more suitable article name? Tony2Times ( talk) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If you think, Cage wasn't pinned or made to submit for two years. Just like Joe lost the Three Way at Unbreakable but wasn't pinned or made to submit until Genesis 06. I'm talking about that. Yes WWE is bigger, but Cage still used Christian Cage alot and won the NWA Title which could be the most famous championship in all of wrestling. But I'm saying I would rather go by real name than nick or middle name considering we are supposed to name articles by the person's real name unless they are known more by another name.-- Will C 03:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
But that is his friends. I'm called Will or Willbert by some of my friends but if I become a notable person one day my article will not be Will or Willbert Chaudoin. It would be titled William Chaudoin unless I have a ringname of some sort. We should rename it his real name since there is no rule that says we go by what he or his friends perfer to call him, and Jason nor Christian is a common name. He has no common name now considering he has used Christian and Christian Cage near equally and won titles under both.-- Will C 21:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
When has he had the chance too? I've never seen him use Jason or William. Just his friends call him Jason. Willbert was one of my dumbass friends ideas, not mine. We don't know what he likes to be called. His friends could just like calling him Jason like mine likes calling me Willbert.-- Will C 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Two have already been given. IMDB and TV.com. Also here is IGN and Slam. The slam one is the only one that gives Jason but half the time they short hand it and give nicknames. Like with Jarrett it says Jeff Jarrett when his full name is Jeffery Jarrett.-- Will C 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what they named it. It is his biography, it states his birth name is William Jason Reso. We must follow guidelines, not nicknames from friends. If we follow nicknames then we would move The Undertaker to demon of death-valley. Or Kane to big red machine. A.J. Styles would be named The Phenomenal A.J. Styles.-- Will C 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
No, to name the article the common name it must be the most common name. If they are widely known by more than one name, their article is to be named their legal birth name. In Bill Clinton's case he is widely know just as Bill Clinton, not as William Clinton. He has no other names. Cage here has two: Christain and Christian Cage. He was never referred to on TV as William or Jason. Just his friends calls him Jason, and they play no part in this.-- Will C 10:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
No third runner up in common name. It is either most common name or no common name. Since he has more than one common name it is named his birth name. That simple, it is per common name.-- Will C 11:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
If a person were searching for William Jason Reso they wouldn't use William or Jason. They would type in Christian or Christian Cage. Maybe even Edge and Christian. If they didn't even know his real name they would still use what they know him as, Christian or Christian Cage. That determines their common name. Jason nor William are even a selection. That means he has no common name. He is widely known by two names. It is named his legal birth name as a result. If you were to go up to a wrestling fan and show them a picture of Cage and ask them who that was a picture of, they would reply Christian (Cage). They wouldn't say Jason Reso, nor would they say William Reso.-- Will C 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. How can something this minor be debated for so long? Regardless of where it's put, redirects will help anyone find it. Problem solved. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 04:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Apparently folks in the know (like Tammy Lynn Sytch on her facebook page) are reporting that Andrew "Test" Martin has passed away. Might want to keep an eye on his article for the next bit, to keep the speculation and "breaking news" factor down. 128.222.37.21 ( talk) 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Also a note from TNA: [13]-- Will C 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Not that old at all, pretty shocking in a way, it would be interesting to know the course of death also. Govvy ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of deceased wrestlers, I was thinking maybe a topic to make Good/Featured could be The Radicalz as, with two of them passed on, one MIA and one retired their own articles won't need to be updated once they reach GA/FA and they're also recent enough wrestlers that there should be a fair amount of online sources. Tony2Times ( talk) 14:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Myself and Juliancolton are about to copyedit the article and make it look decent. Take a look at this, it's crazy. iMatthew // talk // 14:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Are the recently created PWA championships notable, like the PWA Elite Tag Team Championship? I don't believe they are, but thought to ask before putting them up for deletion.-- Will C 07:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree the promotion is notable and the titles are but I don't believe they need their own articles. Would be better if they were just mentioned in the main article or a seperate article called PWA Championships that lists the history for each.-- Will C 00:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
[14] The highlight in that article is this:
Did WWE state official criteria for a city to complete a "Grand Slam" of WWE events? Ra agg io 00:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any "consensus" gained from the above discussion (and archived discussions) about the "World" status of titles. Should it be like the criteria was proposed above will classify a World Title or will the term "World Championship" be merely a slang term?--Best, ₮RU CӨ 02:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Lets just place it in the slang article and get it over with.-- Will C 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
So recently I created the List of former championships in World Wrestling Entertainment in hopes that the project can get another FT off of former championships. I wanted to take the list to FLC, but when I took it to to FL Director Scorpion, he suggested merging it and the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment list since they are related. To avoid conflicts, I wanted to see what the project thought before I opened an FLC. I personally oppose merging them because that would ruing the FT for the current championships and merging the two (seeing the size of both leads) would lead to a much bigger article that would be harder to navigate through. I would rather see another FT made from the former titles, but that's IMO. Comments/Suggestions?--Best, ₮RU CӨ 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Suicide won the TNA X Division Championship tonight. It is said that Christopher Daniels is filling in for Kaz as Suicide. Who should we put the win under, Kaz or Daniels since I'm not sure who is playing Suicide anymore. I have an idea of making a Suicide character article since he is a character played on TV and in a video game. So I don't think there would be a problem there. I would like some opinions on this matter.-- Will C 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Though Daniels is the one who was playing the character while he won it, it makes a big mess.-- Will C 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering more about who to put the win under. Which article should the reign be added too. Because I'm going to use a little common sense here and state that you can clearly see the difference between Kaz and Daniels. So seeing it was Daniels, if Kaz takes over the gimmick then we'll have a big problem. They both played the character during the reign.-- Will C 02:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I say since the video game project has articles regrading certain characters in certain games, that we can make one for Suicide and place the win under that article. State that he was played on TV by Daniels and Kaz. Also have a back story of who created the character for the game and such. I'll be gald to make the article. I was already thinking about about doing it when I worked on the TNA game.-- Will C 03:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I can't do the character article at the moment anyway, but there are enough sources. When the TNA game was featured on Spike TV's video game show or whatever it is called (I don't watch it that much) Suicide was one of the main features of the show. The game has been under development for years, so multiple sites will have sources regrading the game and the character. So it will not remain a stub or start forever. Suicide has enough build that he is notable and the main focus of the entire TNA game. Also came to life (lack of better phrasing) in TNA. I feel it would be notable and now the character won a title, I believe it would be useful.-- Will C 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe WrestleView, Slam, and PWTorch have already released articles stating Daniels is Suicide and that Kaz is filling in for him. Though we still have a problem with the switch.-- Will C 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I messed up. I was probably doing four things at once and didn't know what I was writing. I should have payed more attention.-- Will C 16:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Why don't have their own article? I tried to create one but it was reverted immediately. They should have their own article as they have 2 TNA tag team title reigns and their own match type. Downwardspiral203 ( talk) 19:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
His article says that Jonathan Coachman is also known as "The Coach". However I'm sure I remember another "Coach" character earlier in the WWF (1992-ish?). However I can't find any mention of him on the PPV articles from around that time so maybe it just my memory playing tricks...? -- Jameboy ( talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking to help expand Professional wrestling promotion#TimeLine of major promotions and I thought that it would improve the article greatly if we moved removed the Template already in place and added a table along the lines of This and I was wondering if I could some people's opinions on this idea. Afkatk - The Mind Reader ( talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Considering this involves wrestling I'll just ask for help here. I'm working on Destination X 2005 in a subpage. TNA built the main event off of an incident at a Best Damn Sports Show special, in which DDP, Kevin Nash, Monty Brown, and Jarrett all appeared on in 2005. I have no idea how to find a source for this show. Does anyone have anyother ideas to source these actions?-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Problem is I don't know what day it happened on. I guess I could search pretty hard for it, plus cite episode was my back-up if I can't find a reliable written source.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I found the video of it on Youtube. It was something about the superbowl. I remember DDP saying that Nash was going to beat Jarrett this Sunday, meaning it was closer to Against All Odds 05 which happened on the 13. I believe it was probably on the 12, I'll check IMDB for the date.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it would, thanks. This will help me finish Against All Odds and most of Destination X.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't use Online World of Wrestling considering it isn't reliable for everything. I just really needed an in-depth telling of the events and what day it happened.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, well I don't need it now anyway. I have it finished: Against All Odds (2005).-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Tonight on ECW, they announced that Carlito and Primo will face John Morrison and The Miz at WrestleMania to unify the 2 tag belts (about damn time). I know it may be early, but any ideas on what we should do for the articles? Assuming the titles are kept unified (which WWE has been consistent with, the only titles I can think of that they unified and later brought back were the IC and US Titles), what happens if they name the belts WWE Tag Team Championship? I think we will probably have to wait and see if WWE considers it a continuation of the World Tag Team Championship (which is what would cause a problem since we would have to move that article and try to find a new name for articles related to the WWE Tag Team Championship). Of coarse, it could have a whole new name as the wwe.com re-cap of ECW calls it Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (which would still cause a problem if they consider it's title lineage to be that of the WTTC). TJ Spyke 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with the lineage. It was once named WWE Tag Team Championship. We could use a quantifier giving the years of said championship. WWE Tag Team Championship (1971 - present) and WWE Tag Team Championship (2002 - 2009) if we have too. Maybe WWE Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship (Smackdown). The new one will be called the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship or the WWE Undisputed Tag Team Championship. Maybe World will be involved in there somewhere. No reason to worry at the moment. The chaos will come WrestleMania night when all the ips make their edits and we have complete insanity with edit conflicts left and right. Lets enjoy the piece at the moment. Wait until Vince gets the dumb idea to have one world title and wants to unify both of those. Then no one will have the chance to be world champion since Stephine is booker and Trips will be champ, and they will get the great idea of making a brand new world title to have both histories. That is when we should worry. Right now, the only chaos is to figure out who is Suicide. Hey, I just remebered Who is Suicide.com. TNA wanted to make that site actually mean something lol.-- Will C---( What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's..... just...... wait! Wait for the unification. Wait for the naming convention to be announced. Wait for the title history to be kept, and for the title history to be dropped. Mshake3 ( talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest adding <noinclude> around the __NOTOC__ at the beginning, like this: <noinclude>__NOTOC__</noinclude>. Currently the page is transcluded onto hundreds of user talk pages which for that reason have no table of contents now. Not transcluding the NOTOC by adding "noinclude" would mean that it would still work on the project page, but not mess up the talk pages. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It was actually a problem from I believe only two editions of the news, Oct 13, 2007 and Oct 20, 2007. If anyone still has them on their user talk page, and more than a couple hundred users do, it eliminates their table of contents, just as if they added __NOTOC__ themselves. You are not one of them, but would not be affected anyway because you have manually added a TOC to your user talk page. Click on any of the links above, like User talk:Darkguy, User talk:Ekedolphin, or User talk:Johnissoevil, then undo TJ Spyke's undo, and the TOC will magically appear (you may have to refresh their user talk page). Actually it may be affecting your archives. TJ Spyke's archive is at User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13, and has no TOC either, which will be restored as soon as the edit is restored. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
No, but easily fixed. My first inclination was to clean up their user talk page so that new messages would be visible, but I found out that the source was the transclusion of this project page, which was more easily fixed by fixing the project page, and not transcluding the part that shouldn't be transcluded - the NOTOC. And affecting me is never a consideration for me - I never know nor care who is going to read any of the edits that I make - they are done simply to improve the encyclopedia, and to benefit everyone who stumbles across whatever section I have edited. 199.125.109.126 ( talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In the title histories, under the event title heading it reads "Raw" and "WrestleMania 13" &c yet for the annual events it reads SummerSlam (2003). Aren't the paranthesis merely a disambig for the title? Seldom is it referred to the event as Summerslam 2003 on screen. Shouldn't it just read SummerSlam? The link will remain the same to that year and the date the belt changes will also indicate the year. Tony2Times ( talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
We need to come to a consensus on when a title change counts. I'm sure we all know by now that Smackdown Tapings happen on Tuesdays and then air on Friday night. However when a title changes hand on Smackdown, an edit war breaks out on said championship page over what counts. I've seen use count the title reign as ending on the date of the taping (case in point Maryse's Diva's championship win) and at other times we count the date Smackdown airs as the title change, (case in point, MVP's second United States Championship reign.).-- DonJuan.EXE ( talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be moved because aside from a brief managerial stint in ECW she has always used the name Allison Danger, this includes her years in Ring of Honor, her tours of Japan and Europe and as commentator, competitor and founder of Shimmer. Tony2Times ( talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, if I could get editors with a greater knowledge of the subject matter than myself (ie. you guys, hence why I came here) to have a look at Rob Feinstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit it to make sure it complies with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, it would be greatly appreciated. Any edits to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.
Disclaimer: This request is in relation to OTRS #2009031710055272, the resolution of which requires a cleanup of the article.
Regards,
Daniel (
talk)
07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I was just wondering if anyone here has a copy of the magazine. According to the WWE.com summary, it features an article about pyrotechnics, staging, etc. Considering I was quite interested in writing about that kind of stuff last year in the production section for WrestleMania XXIV, I wouldn't mind some help having a similar section for this year. -- Oakster Talk 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, I'm doing the same for TNA events when they have their fan interactons and other stuff along that nature. We should mention what WWE does around Mania in the proudtion or marketing section. I don't have a copy of WWE's mag, so I can't help you there. I forgot to mention that.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw on dot com a few days ago that DK are publishing a WWE encyclopedia. I have no idea what's in it or what it will be like but if anyone sees it, it might be an idea to flick through and see what's on offer. It may be a good source for pre-internet facts and even if we're lucky it might be a useful source for general professional wrestling articles. Tony2Times ( talk) 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Problem is it is written in kayfabe, so it will not help us on backstage stuff. But about wrestler's time there and titles that will be useful.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This guy is adding random garbage to Randy Savage. I've reverted twice, could someone watch just in case? RandySavageFTW ( talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
|diplay=none
.
Headbomb {
ταλκ
κοντριβς –
WP Physics}
09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The Untied States template that's appeared only counts the WWE time. Now although the template says WWE United States Championship the lineage goes back for the WCW and NWA versions. Shouldn't teh template reflect this too? If this is deemed messy there could be seperations (like the current championships&accomplishments template) for the three eras which may help to stop it looking cluttered. Tony2Times ( talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
After tweaking the links, I've gotten a link for easy access to the Article alerts page up. The article alerts give notices on Good and Featured news, DYK?'s, and XfD's, and other various notice on our articles which have the project talk banner on them. This is a very helpful tool, so lets take advantage of it ;) The link is on the main page and in the nav bar above.--Best, ₮RU CӨ 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
They are notable, because they are major supporting characters in this Orton/Triple H feud, 2 time tag champs, and been around for the better part of a year. And they retired a guy. KingMorpheus ( talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Their rivalry with Orton lead really to nothing. They still are not an official stable. The Cryme feud? If that was a feud, then it was a lazy one. They had about two or three matches that lead to nothing. Wasn't even on PPV. They've done as much as Santino and Beth. Right now, having their own articles is fine. It states everything they've done. They have yet to even have a match go passed 10 minutes. Plus, did you read drug problem? Last I heard he was in rehab.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
How do they deserve an article? Legacy has won no titles. Priceless won two, but the stable has won none. The only thing they have won was the Royal Rumble. Have yet to team together. They've done nothing but stand around and talk. How do they pass notability?-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy fix instead of arguing - read the Notability criteria. If they fullfill that then they're notable enough for an article. MPJ-DK ( talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I go by notability on what they've done and time. Legacy has only been around around three to five months, and have yet to even become official. I don't think they are notable just yet, not until they get more focus and actually have a real meaningful match.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We write articles people would normally search. If someone watches Raw, and is practically orgasmic when he sees Orton, DiBiase and Rhodes, because he loves the stable, he will go to Wikipedia and search The Legacy. He will find nothing, so he goes to Orton's article. It will say NOTHING about the history of Rhodes and DiBiase in WWE. So, he'll have to go to Ted DiBiase. Again, it will say next-to-NOTHING about Randy Orton. How is it that people will want to search for The Highlanders (professional wrestling), The Bella Twins, The Mexicools, Vince's Devils, The New Breed, Cryme Tyme and not Los Colons (who've been teaming since they debuted in WWC). Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes, Cody Rhodes and Hardcore Holly, The Legacy (professional wrestling), and Finlay and Hornswoggle (teaming together since 2006, contended for tag team titles, feuded with JBL, Mr. McMahon, Jack Swagger, Miz and Morrison, Glamarella, Mark Henry, Mr. Kennedy [must I continue?), and also Glamarella who obviously is a lot more notable than The Bella Twins because they actually won titles TOGETHER at SummerSlam (2008). Ra agg io 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Easy enough, search the net - see if you can find enough information on the team/faction/whatever to see if it fullfills the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, then there isn't even a debate. Write it in your sandbox and source it and you can make any and all articles that you have sources to support and not have to worry about them being deleted. Easy fix. MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello there, everyone! I figured you guys would be the place to go for this question. An article I'm working towards FA quality, No Jacket Required has a bit of info I wrote-up about how " Take Me Home" was the shows closing theme for three years, and I need to find a reliable source that states this. However, I am not an expert on which wrestling websites are more reliable than the others. Would anyone know where I could find a reliable source that says that "Take Me Home" was the closing theme to the show from 1985-1988? Thanks to whoever can answer, and a barnstar is in order for whoever can help me out! Have a great day! CarpetCrawler ( talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a trend of using "Wrestlers Name" (Linked "Real name") in a lot of place and I was just wondering where that came from? Is there any other type of Wikipedia article that uses that annoying annotation? I find it pointless and frankly listing the real name of say Tommy Dreamer in an article doesn't add anything to it, it just brings the readability down. What's the inspiration? I haven't found it used in any articles where actors who use stagenames and not their real names, I've not seen it used in movie articles or TV shows. How does it bring it "Out of universe" to know what Kane's real name is? What does it matter what Kane's real name is except on the article about Kane? Do you need to know it in order to read a PPV Article? I think that WP:PW have gone a bit far in order to claim "It's out of universe", but it's a misguided attempt at a quick fix - the "OOU" aspects are in the general writing of the article not the addition of their birth names. MPJ-DK ( talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I rather like all of the out of universe format. I don't like explaining all the moves since those are hard, but as for the names, theyr are fine with me. They make the article seem more professional. Plus all the wrestlers play characters, not theirselves. So, treat them as characters.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A powerbomb is not known by everyone. Plus it is a name of a move, which makes it jargon. Also there are guidelines against the relying on a pipelink to help explain it. I don't like explaining the moves since I don't know where to start, but I understand why we should. The same as if you were reading an article about religion, and you didn't understand a certain term. Are you going to stop reading and read the term's article? What is it doesn't have one? The explaining helps.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it doesn't have to go overboard. Just explain the stuff that anyone can get. The moves to a decent detail, just the main points, the name of the move, the matches and the rules. The wrestler's names. Just the stuff no one that has ever read about wrestling does not know. Do not go into detail to a point where you've written a brand new Professional Wrestling article.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the out of universe has brung good, as well as a burden. The reception was a great addition. I feel we should leave it up to the editor to choose what to explain and what not too. I talked to a friend of mine the other day who couldn't tell the difference between King Booker and Booker T. There are some who don't know what a headlock or sleeper hold is. I agree the making of the out of universe decision was handled wrong, but we weren't getting anywhere before. When the subject was brung up all it did was make this project page a living hell. I think the OOU should explain moves that are not too common. The Chokeslam is too common, while a Pedigree isn't. Go by common name on the wrestler's names in parenthesis. If they have more than one gimmick they are known for ( Mick Foley or Christopher Daniels in this case), then real name in parenthesis. If they only have one name ( A.J. Styles), then just link it. Explain the difficult terms, like jobber or face, but book should be simple enough.-- Will C--- Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Letting you all know of a change I made/am going to make to these group of articles. Since the exact day/week/month of a person joining or leaving WWE is not widely known (unless an official statement from WWE can be found), I have made it so that only the year is what is listed as the tenure (see List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni: A–C). Some websites are inaccurate, leading to conflicting changes and the information on exact days isn't the easiest thing to confirm with a couple of references and there are a few people who only worked for WWE for only months or weeks. Some people who get released (like Freddie Prinze, Jr.) are also not reported on due to WWE not making an official statement for them, leading to conflicting information when they actually left. A year instead of exact days should benefit this article, as the year is usually something that can be confirmed pretty easily. Personally, I also think the exact day of release matters very little (keeping with the reason I started making changes to this article in the first place), and should probably only be included within the biography of the person themselves. — Moe ε 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
has been removing moves from some move articles and inserting them into others as well as adding more variations. Is this helpful or not? I'm on the fence. If it is deemed a good idea, we've got a lot link updates to do in just about every article. Gavyn Sykes ( talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
In the descriptions of this event, there are several places where crowd chants are referenced. Some of the chants include things like "you suck dick" and "fuck you" and things like that. I don't see how any of these are relevant to the article in any way. Especially in the section describing the Benoit/Guerrero match where the chants referenced have nothing to do with the participants of the match at all. It seems like they are only included to give someone an excuse to say "dick" and "fuck" a few times. I feel like it would be a great improvement to the article to remove most of them. It would certainly make it seem more like an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I agreed that it would be fair to put this up for discussion before making a move so what does everyone else think? Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
If you look at ECW One Night Stand (2006), that article is fine and it doesn't mention any of the profane chants at all in the article. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I went back as far as the history would let me and I couldn't find who originally wrote the chants into the article. Wwehurricane1 ( talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What do we do about Criticism of World Championship Wrestling? Should it be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling (there is a lot of overlap) or left alone? My opinion is that a merge is in order. Nikki♥ 311 02:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)