![]() | 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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
The Attitude Era is being consistently vandalised by 173.60.130.241, who will intermittently change the IP and mark edits as "minor" to drive his agenda. This involves making WM14 the definitive starting point of the era, and March 2001 the definitive end. There are multiple WWE sources giving various dates as the starting point (this user will remove all except the WM14 cite), and there is no official end. Since he is so relentless in his agenda, I suggest protection. 2.124.196.31 ( talk) 13:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war with User:Jack11111, but I am concerned about two images this user has uploaded: File:Nwo 4 life.jpg and File:Wcw doom.jpg. The rationale for the first image is "to show this group origin", and the rationale for the second one is "to show this scandal". This seems flimsy to me, but I thought I would get opinions from other people before pursuing this. Personally, I don't think a photo of Hogan, Nash, and Hall is necessary when separate images of them are available, and I think people can get a good sense of the "fingerpoke" without a picture of Hogan poking Nash. I'm certainly willing to hear any opinions, though. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems we need to re define are un written policy of creating PPV pages two months in advance of the PPV as it seems that not gonna fly anymore any thoughts?-- Steam Iron 06:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone (I think it was Bulletproof) brought this up in the WWE Capitol Punishment AFD discussion. Something I'm not too familiar with that unless the articles name starts with Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, or Survivor Series that we don't need a stand alone article for them. Again this is something I'm not too familiar with.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is still confused, please read the following again: "The policy that governs this is WP:N. The amount of time isn't relevant. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is required--if that exists four months in advance, the article can be created; if that doesn't exist four months after the event, the article can't be created." This doesn't mean the articles can't ever be created--SLAM! Wrestling is a great secondary source that publishes reviews of all WWE pay-per-views (maybe TNA as well...I don't know). I'm sure Wrestling Observer, Figure Four, Pro Wrestling Torch, and/or WrestleView will also report on the results, and the major newspapers from the cities in which the events take place probably do the same. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
We need to make a catchphrase section in the In Wrestling section of wrestlers there is one in the rock but the rock isnt the only one with catchphrases so we need to add it to other people pages like for example
Whoa heads up! Just removed a chunk of catchphrases on Dwayne Johnson. Might be worth looking around other pages for similar content.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I read something recently which I perceived to be a personal attack on me, quitting after about two sentences. I haven't been back since. Last I checked, I haven't attacked anyone personally, unless their status as a public figure possibly warranted it. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Anyway, there is a VERY STUPID edit war being carried out in Kayfabe, in case anyone cares or wishes to do anything about it. RadioKAOS ( talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just recently came across the article and well I'm more inclined to redirecting it rather than nominating it for deletion. Any thoughts?-- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Tagged to be merged just in case anyone opposes. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has added information about Bryan Alvarez liking cats and country music to the article three times. I removed it the first two, but the IP has added it again. I don't want this to lead to an edit war, so I thought I'd see what people here have to say to see if I'm on the right track. Trivial? Notable? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This WikiProject may be interested in this AN discussion in regards to a former member who was banned in 2007. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has tried to redirect List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees into his created List of Impact Wrestling employees. I need help requesting a deletion of his page because I've restored the old one. Plus the user is trying to add All Wheels Wrestling on TNA's template page. Can someone pleae help me?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The WWE Roster page has always been a dilemma for WT:PW. An article like that will never reach FL status due to all the vandalism and headaches it brings about. However, I think I found a solution. A lot of people visit the List of WWE personell page just to look at the performers and don't care for the agents, writers, trainers, etc. So how about we split it?
• List of WWE developmental talent / List of FCW performers (Either name is fine because all developmental talent fall into FCW's roster.)
Anyway, I think these three articles could be much more stable than the current super-article we have. They can all be organized and reach featured status. Especially the second one which usually doesn't change as much as the others. Thoughts? Feed back ☎ 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I read on PW Torch that WWE failed to trademark Sin Cara in Mexico and CMLL trademarked it themselves. I want to put on Mistico's page, but I don't know where to place it. Can someone help me with this or if you want to put it there yourselves?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm essentially new again and most don't respect me but I have to ask. Isn't it a little redundant to put this line in every PPV article:
<ppv> will feature professional wrestling matches that involve different wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that are played out on WWE's primary television programs. Wrestlers portray either a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that built tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches.
That line comes across as unnecessary to me. The article is about the specific PPV not what the general formula for a wrestling PPV. To me that's like describing how a movie works in the plot subsection of every article about a specific movie. Just saying, maybe we should get rid of it? chris † ianrocker90 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Could there be any use for it? I obtained it last Summer and just uploaded it today. [1] -- Endlessdan ( talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In the lists List of WWE Champions, List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of ROH World Champions and so on, why do some people appear more than once? Wouldn't it just be easier to list every person once. They are "Lists of champions" and not "Lists of championship reigns". Feed back ☎ 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
# | Wrestlers | Reigns | Date First Won | Days held |
Notes | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
39
|
Sheamus | 2
|
December 13, 2009 | 161 | [1] [2] | |
40
|
The Miz | 1
|
November 22, 2010 | 160 | The Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank contract after Randy Orton successfully defended the WWE Championship. | [3] |
Something like that. Obviously one that looks better. I just made this up on the fly. Per WP:ARTICLETITLE, I think this would make more sense so the title can represent exactly what the content is. As for a name change, it really depends. What's more notable, a "List of WWE Champions" or a "List of WWE Championship reigns"? Feed back ☎ 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the table for the special episodes take up a fraction of the pages should we consider splitting the special episodes section of The RAW and SmackDown articles into their own articles?-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, any particular reason that Raw Roulette isn't listed? Crisis. E X E 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have found the RESPECT Top 50, we'll put in the articles? http://en.calameo.com/read/000061846cb80db31e9c9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.97.34 ( talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to align it in the center of the page and center the text? I mean sure it's aesthetics, but it just seems to me to be logical. chris † ianrocker90 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here are the examples. chris † ianrocker90 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created some articles in the past which have all been deleated, I'm guessing because of that stupid 'lack of interest' claim. So what articles are we actuactly allowed to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is free and it isn't limitless, so not everything can go in. Tony2Times ( talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Im starting a bit of work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigfellaTM/ROHsandbox would be appreciated if someone could give me a few pointers cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone give me the link to reliable sources? Thanks. Varghoo ( talk) 06:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there hasn't been many PPV expanded lately. Apart from the ones I've done, I only know of Elimination Chamber (2010). Even with such small expansion these days, I have some good news that I'm not sure anyone will really care about but it is kinda of a milestone to me. Just wanted to say, that now a very good number of TNA PPVs have been expanded. I'll list all expanded so far, but the main point is now that from Victory Road (2004) to Lockdown (2005) have all have their own articles and up to Destination X (2005) they have been expanded. So most of their earlier events are done. Add that on to how many other PPVs are done, this is a bit of a milestone. So far Victory Road (2004), Turning Point (2004), Final Resolution (2005), Against All Odds (2005), Destination X (2005), Genesis (2007), Lockdown (2008), Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), and Turning Point (2008). I'm possible just blowing smoke, but this is a nice thing regrading how there use to be none expanded at all.-- Will C 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the recent storyline, it'd be wise to keep an eye out on their articles, people thinking that Vince's "ouster" is real and such. Thanks, -- Tærkast ( Discuss) 14:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this guy, Ouloul94. As you can see from his talk page, he's been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing. From what I've seen, he usually removes old finishers of wrestlers (Miz's Reality Check, Ryder's Zack Attack, Cody Rhodes' Silver Spoon DDT), even though these moves are all properly sourced. He doesn't reply on his talk page. What should we do?
Also, can I check does Wikipedia list a timeline for finishers? For example Rough Ryder (Jumping leg lariat)[49] – 2010–present. And also, when a certain move can finish off people only sometimes, like Kofi Kingston's S.O.S., is it a signature move or a finisher? Starship.paint ( talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Is CM Punk the current WWE CHmapion?. He left the WWE, but only in Kayfabe. Also, McMahon started a tournament at RAW, but Punk apears in WWE.com as WWE Champion.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Although it is pure speculation that Punk was released from his contract, it is not speculation that he is no longer WWE Champion. In WWE's title history, they considers Punk's reign a one day endeavor starting July 17th and ending July 17th. Just like with Trish Stratus and Edge, WWE has vacated the title upon retirement. So I guess we should consider the WWE title vacant, even though Punk is running around with the WWE Championship. Feed back ☎ 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This website isn't typically considered a reliable source, as its hosted on 100megsfree4.com, a site similar to Geocities, where anyone can create a website. I would like your opinion on this though, would you all consider it to be a reliable source? Office of Disinformation 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions
I created this page a little over two years ago and just finished updating it completely. I personally think it's a very notable subject (at least more notable than Triple Crown Championship), but I would understand those who believe its trivial. I was thinking of making it into its own article, but if you all disagree, then I guess I'll just keep it in my subpage where you can all view it whenever you wish. Feed back ☎ 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I requested protection of SummerSlam (2011) due to the amazing amount of IPs and newly registered users posting rumors and unsourced matches. chris † ianrocker90 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Protected for 5 days by
Gfoley4 (
talk ·
contribs)
chris
†
ianrocker90 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently people don't know (as usual) where things that don't have any place on an encyclopedia keep ending up. The lastest thing is people trying to put Zach Ryder's so called "Internet Champion of The World" on the article. I know Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit anything but last time I checked there were standards that kept such crap as Ryder's non existent title off this website.-- Voices in my Head WWE 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
But aren't there Wiki Policies that keeps The Internet Title off Wikipedia? All I'm saying is do we really want to add something a tool like Zach Ryder added to himself to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia?-- Voices in my Head WWE 19:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You guys have swung and missed at the original post. I posted if Ryder's title is something that really belongs on this encyclopedia. You guys have completely turned this into a different discussion.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed over time that the addition of text such as 'so-and-so did such-and-such and due to such, turned [face/heel]' has been becoming more and more contentious and it struck me that it might be wise to create a dialogue on it. I especially notice that it's added not so much by older editors but more by newer ones who seem to have a desire to have absolute up-to-the-second information added to a page regardless of whether it's verifiable or sourced (in that it usually isn't - i.e.: Sheamus has been quoted as entering into no less than 3 feuds over the past month alone by numerous editors - mostly IP editors and new editors; edits which were promptly reverted).
This creates multiple inherent problems which, no matter what is said, cannot be overlooked:
The lines of face and heel are no longer what they used to be and cannot just be arbitrarily drawn like they could 10-15-20 years ago with absolute confidence of who was " the good guy" and who was " the bad guy". Those lines have been blurred and today, things realistically exist within shades of grey (i.e.: CM Punk). The perfect example of this would be someone 10-15 years ago like Steve Austin who could do not harm and was always cheered no matter what. Meanwhile, someone like Triple H, for a long time, was the guy who was booed consistently week-in and week-out. Then you look at someone today like John Cena, who under traditional terms would be billed as a face (all things considered); however, it is clear that John Cena is quite hated by many, and yet celebrated by many. Such a reaction goes even beyond the traditional perception of what typically defines a tweener; and while the term tweener could debatebly describe CM Punk, the fact of the matter is that reactions to him have been just as grey as those to John Cena over the past few weeks. Does this mean he is a face now? No. Does this mean he is a heel now? Again, no. What is he? It's all in your perception - which, for Wikipedia, is the exact problem.
The above examples have only been based around WWE. The problem is further exasperated when you look at companies like TNA (and their product Impact Wrestling), Ring of Honor, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Combat Zone Wrestling, etc., which tend to completely blur the lines of the good and bad with an extremely wide palette of shades of grey - save for some rare examples.
What I'm basically proposing here is that we stick to pure verifiable encyclopedic content only and leave out those items which could be perceived as POV such as who is a heel, who's a face - or someone became a heel, or someone became a face based upon singular/multiple actions/circumstances. This way, we solidly remove a point of contention, there's absolutely no perception of editor's perspective what-so-ever, and we all breathe a collective sigh of relief as contention lessens. If a person absolutely must be cited as a face or a heel, do so with proper citations using reliable sources in accordance with both Wikipedia policy, and, specifically policy as it relates to BLP articles. It should be noted that a source mentioning the action which a person typically cites as being the cause of a persons alignment shift usually does not state that that person actually made the alignment shift, therefore it is - under the very policy of Wikipedia, not valid as a source for the statement as it does not support it.
I leave the floor open for discussion, now. Please comment. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 10:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Face/heel statuses are irrelevent because turns occur so frequently and therefore mentions of face/heeldom should not occur in articles except in highly-notable (i.e. landscape changing) turns such as Hogan at BATB 1996, Bret/Austin at WM13, Savage at SNME prior to WM5... IMHO, anyway. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I'm making a list of world champions here at User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world champions and I'm pretty upset that many articles including List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions, List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions and List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions like to include many "reversed" or "unofficial" reigns. There are many reigns included when they were eventually reversed by the organization. For example, Ric Flair lost the title once, but claimed a fast count and the organization reversed the decision. Why include the title change in the official numbering when the organization decides to reverse it?
Does that mean Chris Jericho won the WWE title when he beat Triple H in a fast-count and it was later reversed? Does that mean John Cena was co-winner of the Royal Rumble along with Batista before Vince McMahon restarted the match?
I bring it up now because Kurt Angle is in his 4th TNA World Heavyweight Championship reign starting tonight, but Wikipedia considers him a 5-time TNA Champion. After his first title win in a controversial finish, TNA took back the title and decided to crown the "first-ever" TNA Champion afterwards.
I think a promotion is COMPLETELY entitled to alter the history of their fictional title's lineage and if an unofficial title change occurred that was later reversed, it should be added in the Notes section and not as an official part of the title's history. What do you guys think? Feed back ☎ 10:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if that happens that is the history. What you are saying is to deny the events as they occurred. If a title reign happened and is recognizes it is official. That was the consensus reached long ago during the many world title discussions we've had. Angle was recognized as champion, so it became official. That is the fact. It is fictional of course, and as such we must be correct with what has happened in the events. Not ignore things which occurred. We state WWE changed its view later on in the history. The problem with many WWE reigns is they are reversed immediately. If they've occured and were recognized for a period of time then reversed, it must be noted in the title history.-- Will C 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.profightdb.com/ I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo ( talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.
Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.
Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.
As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.
Cheers.
Varghoo ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo ( talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is with Template:WWE_personnel. User:Mikeymike2001 continues to remove David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty from the list of tag teams despite the fact that they are the regining tag team champions. 65.29.224.172 ( talk) 06:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic but there is currently a move request to move Nexus (professional wrestling) to Nexus (wrestling) so far no one has responded to it so some input would be useful.-- 76.66.180.220 ( talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about articles discussing title belts. If I search for one or click on a link to one, it's only as a way of getting to the list of champions. For example, I might be reading about a wrestler, see that he won a title, and want to get more information. The link in the text will just take me to a page discussing the creation, appearance, etc. of the belt. If I want to actually get to the list of champions, I have to then scroll down to the title history and then click on the link (likewise, I don't bother searching for "List of..."; I just do a search for the championship itself, scroll down, and click on the link). Mind you, this isn't unique to professional wrestling articles. For example, to see a list of basketball Hall of Famers, one might follow the path: "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of players in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame".
What I am proposing is adding a hatnote to these championship pages. Something to the effect of: "This is an article about the championship belt. For the title history, see [[List of WWE Intercontinental Champions]]." Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
An IP has gone through a bunch of articles and removed any reference to Nash and Hall's ring names. I have reverted some of them, but help with the rest would be great. The IP's contributions are here: [2]. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Aside from a minor naming problem (capitalization should be "WWE Raw arenas"), I think Category:WWE RAW Arenas represents overcategorization, specifically categorization by a non-defining or trivial characteristic. Some venue articles don't even mention use by Raw (e.g. Danville High School (Pennsylvania)), while many others have hosted just a few events (trivial/non-defining relative to the venue; e.g. Rupp Arena). I wanted to raise this issue here first rather than simply go to CfD. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I know David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty are still teaming together and dropped the Nexus name, but should we make a page just for the McGillicutty and Otunga team or continue to update the Nexus page even though the group is dead?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
^ This consensus applies to all tag teams including Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston which I have nominated for speedy deletion. Feed back ☎ 12:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
So we have PPVs, bios, special moments, etc as GAs, FLs, FAs, etc but we don't have a single promotion article. I've thought about it for a long time at trying to do the TNA article, and even attempted for a brief point in a subpage before becoming bored with it. Thought about trying again, but I'd like to get some opinions first. What exactly should our format be for them?-- Will C 06:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.profightdb.com/ I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo ( talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.
Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.
Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.
As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.
Cheers.
Varghoo ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo ( talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Any other comments regarding Pro Wrestling Illustrated and ProFightBB? So far only RadioKAOS has objected to ProFightBB, but just because a source has incomplete information on a certain time period doesn't mean the rest of the information presented is unreliable. Missing information from the 1970s does not mean any info after the 1979 onwards is incorrect. If one needs to cite a source about matches in the 2000s, one can easily use ProFightBB. If one is looking for a 1970 Flair main event, one would simply search somewhere else. So I think it still should be considered a reliable source. Starship.paint ( talk) 13:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Since new WWE Tag Team Champions Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston got a team name, Air Boom, could someone rename that article to Air Boom? Starship.paint ( talk) 12:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Have none of you heard of WP:CBALL? You can't just keep an article awaiting for it to have future notability. To have an article, it must be NOTABLE now. This article doesn't even have enough content for crying out loud. It should be deleted, and it should be speedy-deleted. Just because they have some belts doesn't mean they should avoid speedy deletion. They do not warrant notability in ANY SHAPE, WAY or FORM and would fail an AFD simply because of WP:SNOW and that alone warrants the A7CSD. Anyway, we should continue the conversation at the AFD now that it is active. Feed back ☎ 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Feedback is right it is not CURRENTLY notable and should be deleted until it is, also where's JeriShow's article and ShoMiz, and Edge and Chris Jericho? -- ChristianandJericho ( talk) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've manage to do my best on those articles. I just need someone who knows how to proof read and maybe improve those two articles. It would be helpful since that's as far as I can do. If anyone reads this, please help. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm a newbie, does someone know how to do this? It's hard to find a public image for a tag team so I was thinking of showing two individual public images. If you could teach me I would greatly appreciate it. Starship.paint ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey just a quick question here. Is the WP:PW Newsletter still active? Deely 1 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
When I think of the newsletter, I think of User:The Chronic, the original chief editor and creator of the newsletter. I remember really liking it, but eventually, I felt it was just spam on my talk page. I wanted to use my time ACTUALLY editing or seeking consensus in discussions instead of reading and editing a newsletter. I remember day-long arguments about wether or not the newsletter should include a bit of news or not. It was just a waste of time that distracted us from actual constructive editing. Nor the Portal nor the Newsletter really do anything for the articles. Basically what I'm saying is, let's focus on improving our content. Feed back ☎ 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay just take a look at this template for example.
May I query why when a team article is written like John Morrison and The Miz only the "and" in John Morrison and The Miz links to that article while "John Morrison", "The Miz" links to the individual wrestlers? After all the team has already received a team page, so why doesn't the whole John Morrison and The Miz link to the team page? One would think that looking in the template for tag champs people would want to read the team articles more than the individual articles. If one wants to read the individual articles one can access them from the team page. Another issue is that the "and" is small that people might miss the team page altogether, see theoretically you have only a 20% chance of picking the "and" when clicking on "John Morrison and The Miz" and being directed to the team page. Your thoughts? Starship.paint ( talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be like this:
{{ User:Feedback/Template}} Feed back ☎ 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ User:Feedback/Template2}} Feed back ☎ 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the C&A section, Money in the Bank winners are credited as Mr Money in the Bank (2010). However, I would argue that's the title of them as a person, not the title they won. It's the same as listing Alberto Del Rio as WWE Champion (1 time) rather than WWE Championship (1 time) or Edge Royal Rumble Winner (2010). Shouldn't it just be Money in the Bank (2010)? I realise this is minor, but there's a few articles it affects. Tony2Times ( talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So I nominated the page R-Truth & The Miz for deletion as it isn't an official tag-team. Just saying.-- Deely 1 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Percy appeared on WWE Superstars during the Raw tapings last monday which aired today. Does this mean that Percy's apart of the Raw roster or wait until he appears on TV during Raw?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
At the begining of 2011, I asked on the talkpage about changing Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu, but since then it has been ignored so I brought it here. Should I change Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 00:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a notification that it has been proposed that the article Ken Anderson (wrestler) be moved to Mr. Kennedy. Please feel free to comment on the discussion on the article's talk page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
...was closed as keep. CRRays Head90 | Another way... 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Utilizing Air Boom's AFD result as a representation of current consensus, can we restore this article? It would have to be kept at The Unholy Alliance (professional wrestling), of course, but I believe the article could be even longer than Air Boom's current state and have many more sources due to this tag team forming during the much more popular WWF era. Feed back ☎ 17:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Done It's not located in my user space (
User:Feedback/The Unholy Alliance (WWF)) and I'll start working on it tonight. If anyone else wants to work on it, they can freely edit the page as well. Thanks,
Feed
back
☎ 16:25, 14 September 2011 (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 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | → | Archive 90 |
The Attitude Era is being consistently vandalised by 173.60.130.241, who will intermittently change the IP and mark edits as "minor" to drive his agenda. This involves making WM14 the definitive starting point of the era, and March 2001 the definitive end. There are multiple WWE sources giving various dates as the starting point (this user will remove all except the WM14 cite), and there is no official end. Since he is so relentless in his agenda, I suggest protection. 2.124.196.31 ( talk) 13:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war with User:Jack11111, but I am concerned about two images this user has uploaded: File:Nwo 4 life.jpg and File:Wcw doom.jpg. The rationale for the first image is "to show this group origin", and the rationale for the second one is "to show this scandal". This seems flimsy to me, but I thought I would get opinions from other people before pursuing this. Personally, I don't think a photo of Hogan, Nash, and Hall is necessary when separate images of them are available, and I think people can get a good sense of the "fingerpoke" without a picture of Hogan poking Nash. I'm certainly willing to hear any opinions, though. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems we need to re define are un written policy of creating PPV pages two months in advance of the PPV as it seems that not gonna fly anymore any thoughts?-- Steam Iron 06:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Someone (I think it was Bulletproof) brought this up in the WWE Capitol Punishment AFD discussion. Something I'm not too familiar with that unless the articles name starts with Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, or Survivor Series that we don't need a stand alone article for them. Again this is something I'm not too familiar with.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If anyone is still confused, please read the following again: "The policy that governs this is WP:N. The amount of time isn't relevant. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is required--if that exists four months in advance, the article can be created; if that doesn't exist four months after the event, the article can't be created." This doesn't mean the articles can't ever be created--SLAM! Wrestling is a great secondary source that publishes reviews of all WWE pay-per-views (maybe TNA as well...I don't know). I'm sure Wrestling Observer, Figure Four, Pro Wrestling Torch, and/or WrestleView will also report on the results, and the major newspapers from the cities in which the events take place probably do the same. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
We need to make a catchphrase section in the In Wrestling section of wrestlers there is one in the rock but the rock isnt the only one with catchphrases so we need to add it to other people pages like for example
Whoa heads up! Just removed a chunk of catchphrases on Dwayne Johnson. Might be worth looking around other pages for similar content.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 01:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I read something recently which I perceived to be a personal attack on me, quitting after about two sentences. I haven't been back since. Last I checked, I haven't attacked anyone personally, unless their status as a public figure possibly warranted it. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Anyway, there is a VERY STUPID edit war being carried out in Kayfabe, in case anyone cares or wishes to do anything about it. RadioKAOS ( talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I just recently came across the article and well I'm more inclined to redirecting it rather than nominating it for deletion. Any thoughts?-- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Tagged to be merged just in case anyone opposes. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor has added information about Bryan Alvarez liking cats and country music to the article three times. I removed it the first two, but the IP has added it again. I don't want this to lead to an edit war, so I thought I'd see what people here have to say to see if I'm on the right track. Trivial? Notable? Thanks. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
This WikiProject may be interested in this AN discussion in regards to a former member who was banned in 2007. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This user has tried to redirect List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees into his created List of Impact Wrestling employees. I need help requesting a deletion of his page because I've restored the old one. Plus the user is trying to add All Wheels Wrestling on TNA's template page. Can someone pleae help me?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The WWE Roster page has always been a dilemma for WT:PW. An article like that will never reach FL status due to all the vandalism and headaches it brings about. However, I think I found a solution. A lot of people visit the List of WWE personell page just to look at the performers and don't care for the agents, writers, trainers, etc. So how about we split it?
• List of WWE developmental talent / List of FCW performers (Either name is fine because all developmental talent fall into FCW's roster.)
Anyway, I think these three articles could be much more stable than the current super-article we have. They can all be organized and reach featured status. Especially the second one which usually doesn't change as much as the others. Thoughts? Feed back ☎ 12:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I read on PW Torch that WWE failed to trademark Sin Cara in Mexico and CMLL trademarked it themselves. I want to put on Mistico's page, but I don't know where to place it. Can someone help me with this or if you want to put it there yourselves?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 21:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm essentially new again and most don't respect me but I have to ask. Isn't it a little redundant to put this line in every PPV article:
<ppv> will feature professional wrestling matches that involve different wrestlers from pre-existing feuds, plots, and storylines that are played out on WWE's primary television programs. Wrestlers portray either a villain or a hero as they follow a series of events that built tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches.
That line comes across as unnecessary to me. The article is about the specific PPV not what the general formula for a wrestling PPV. To me that's like describing how a movie works in the plot subsection of every article about a specific movie. Just saying, maybe we should get rid of it? chris † ianrocker90 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Could there be any use for it? I obtained it last Summer and just uploaded it today. [1] -- Endlessdan ( talk) 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In the lists List of WWE Champions, List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of ROH World Champions and so on, why do some people appear more than once? Wouldn't it just be easier to list every person once. They are "Lists of champions" and not "Lists of championship reigns". Feed back ☎ 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
# | Wrestlers | Reigns | Date First Won | Days held |
Notes | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
39
|
Sheamus | 2
|
December 13, 2009 | 161 | [1] [2] | |
40
|
The Miz | 1
|
November 22, 2010 | 160 | The Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank contract after Randy Orton successfully defended the WWE Championship. | [3] |
Something like that. Obviously one that looks better. I just made this up on the fly. Per WP:ARTICLETITLE, I think this would make more sense so the title can represent exactly what the content is. As for a name change, it really depends. What's more notable, a "List of WWE Champions" or a "List of WWE Championship reigns"? Feed back ☎ 08:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the table for the special episodes take up a fraction of the pages should we consider splitting the special episodes section of The RAW and SmackDown articles into their own articles?-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, any particular reason that Raw Roulette isn't listed? Crisis. E X E 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I have found the RESPECT Top 50, we'll put in the articles? http://en.calameo.com/read/000061846cb80db31e9c9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.97.34 ( talk) 12:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to align it in the center of the page and center the text? I mean sure it's aesthetics, but it just seems to me to be logical. chris † ianrocker90 02:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here are the examples. chris † ianrocker90 19:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've created some articles in the past which have all been deleated, I'm guessing because of that stupid 'lack of interest' claim. So what articles are we actuactly allowed to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is free and it isn't limitless, so not everything can go in. Tony2Times ( talk) 20:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Im starting a bit of work at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigfellaTM/ROHsandbox would be appreciated if someone could give me a few pointers cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigfellaTM ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone give me the link to reliable sources? Thanks. Varghoo ( talk) 06:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that there hasn't been many PPV expanded lately. Apart from the ones I've done, I only know of Elimination Chamber (2010). Even with such small expansion these days, I have some good news that I'm not sure anyone will really care about but it is kinda of a milestone to me. Just wanted to say, that now a very good number of TNA PPVs have been expanded. I'll list all expanded so far, but the main point is now that from Victory Road (2004) to Lockdown (2005) have all have their own articles and up to Destination X (2005) they have been expanded. So most of their earlier events are done. Add that on to how many other PPVs are done, this is a bit of a milestone. So far Victory Road (2004), Turning Point (2004), Final Resolution (2005), Against All Odds (2005), Destination X (2005), Genesis (2007), Lockdown (2008), Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), and Turning Point (2008). I'm possible just blowing smoke, but this is a nice thing regrading how there use to be none expanded at all.-- Will C 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In light of the recent storyline, it'd be wise to keep an eye out on their articles, people thinking that Vince's "ouster" is real and such. Thanks, -- Tærkast ( Discuss) 14:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with this guy, Ouloul94. As you can see from his talk page, he's been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing. From what I've seen, he usually removes old finishers of wrestlers (Miz's Reality Check, Ryder's Zack Attack, Cody Rhodes' Silver Spoon DDT), even though these moves are all properly sourced. He doesn't reply on his talk page. What should we do?
Also, can I check does Wikipedia list a timeline for finishers? For example Rough Ryder (Jumping leg lariat)[49] – 2010–present. And also, when a certain move can finish off people only sometimes, like Kofi Kingston's S.O.S., is it a signature move or a finisher? Starship.paint ( talk) 10:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Is CM Punk the current WWE CHmapion?. He left the WWE, but only in Kayfabe. Also, McMahon started a tournament at RAW, but Punk apears in WWE.com as WWE Champion.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Although it is pure speculation that Punk was released from his contract, it is not speculation that he is no longer WWE Champion. In WWE's title history, they considers Punk's reign a one day endeavor starting July 17th and ending July 17th. Just like with Trish Stratus and Edge, WWE has vacated the title upon retirement. So I guess we should consider the WWE title vacant, even though Punk is running around with the WWE Championship. Feed back ☎ 16:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
This website isn't typically considered a reliable source, as its hosted on 100megsfree4.com, a site similar to Geocities, where anyone can create a website. I would like your opinion on this though, would you all consider it to be a reliable source? Office of Disinformation 23:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world heavyweight champions
I created this page a little over two years ago and just finished updating it completely. I personally think it's a very notable subject (at least more notable than Triple Crown Championship), but I would understand those who believe its trivial. I was thinking of making it into its own article, but if you all disagree, then I guess I'll just keep it in my subpage where you can all view it whenever you wish. Feed back ☎ 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I requested protection of SummerSlam (2011) due to the amazing amount of IPs and newly registered users posting rumors and unsourced matches. chris † ianrocker90 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Done Protected for 5 days by
Gfoley4 (
talk ·
contribs)
chris
†
ianrocker90 06:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently people don't know (as usual) where things that don't have any place on an encyclopedia keep ending up. The lastest thing is people trying to put Zach Ryder's so called "Internet Champion of The World" on the article. I know Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit anything but last time I checked there were standards that kept such crap as Ryder's non existent title off this website.-- Voices in my Head WWE 15:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
But aren't there Wiki Policies that keeps The Internet Title off Wikipedia? All I'm saying is do we really want to add something a tool like Zach Ryder added to himself to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia?-- Voices in my Head WWE 19:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You guys have swung and missed at the original post. I posted if Ryder's title is something that really belongs on this encyclopedia. You guys have completely turned this into a different discussion.-- Voices in my Head WWE 03:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed over time that the addition of text such as 'so-and-so did such-and-such and due to such, turned [face/heel]' has been becoming more and more contentious and it struck me that it might be wise to create a dialogue on it. I especially notice that it's added not so much by older editors but more by newer ones who seem to have a desire to have absolute up-to-the-second information added to a page regardless of whether it's verifiable or sourced (in that it usually isn't - i.e.: Sheamus has been quoted as entering into no less than 3 feuds over the past month alone by numerous editors - mostly IP editors and new editors; edits which were promptly reverted).
This creates multiple inherent problems which, no matter what is said, cannot be overlooked:
The lines of face and heel are no longer what they used to be and cannot just be arbitrarily drawn like they could 10-15-20 years ago with absolute confidence of who was " the good guy" and who was " the bad guy". Those lines have been blurred and today, things realistically exist within shades of grey (i.e.: CM Punk). The perfect example of this would be someone 10-15 years ago like Steve Austin who could do not harm and was always cheered no matter what. Meanwhile, someone like Triple H, for a long time, was the guy who was booed consistently week-in and week-out. Then you look at someone today like John Cena, who under traditional terms would be billed as a face (all things considered); however, it is clear that John Cena is quite hated by many, and yet celebrated by many. Such a reaction goes even beyond the traditional perception of what typically defines a tweener; and while the term tweener could debatebly describe CM Punk, the fact of the matter is that reactions to him have been just as grey as those to John Cena over the past few weeks. Does this mean he is a face now? No. Does this mean he is a heel now? Again, no. What is he? It's all in your perception - which, for Wikipedia, is the exact problem.
The above examples have only been based around WWE. The problem is further exasperated when you look at companies like TNA (and their product Impact Wrestling), Ring of Honor, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Combat Zone Wrestling, etc., which tend to completely blur the lines of the good and bad with an extremely wide palette of shades of grey - save for some rare examples.
What I'm basically proposing here is that we stick to pure verifiable encyclopedic content only and leave out those items which could be perceived as POV such as who is a heel, who's a face - or someone became a heel, or someone became a face based upon singular/multiple actions/circumstances. This way, we solidly remove a point of contention, there's absolutely no perception of editor's perspective what-so-ever, and we all breathe a collective sigh of relief as contention lessens. If a person absolutely must be cited as a face or a heel, do so with proper citations using reliable sources in accordance with both Wikipedia policy, and, specifically policy as it relates to BLP articles. It should be noted that a source mentioning the action which a person typically cites as being the cause of a persons alignment shift usually does not state that that person actually made the alignment shift, therefore it is - under the very policy of Wikipedia, not valid as a source for the statement as it does not support it.
I leave the floor open for discussion, now. Please comment. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 10:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Face/heel statuses are irrelevent because turns occur so frequently and therefore mentions of face/heeldom should not occur in articles except in highly-notable (i.e. landscape changing) turns such as Hogan at BATB 1996, Bret/Austin at WM13, Savage at SNME prior to WM5... IMHO, anyway. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I'm making a list of world champions here at User:Feedback/List of professional wrestling world champions and I'm pretty upset that many articles including List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions, List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions and List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions like to include many "reversed" or "unofficial" reigns. There are many reigns included when they were eventually reversed by the organization. For example, Ric Flair lost the title once, but claimed a fast count and the organization reversed the decision. Why include the title change in the official numbering when the organization decides to reverse it?
Does that mean Chris Jericho won the WWE title when he beat Triple H in a fast-count and it was later reversed? Does that mean John Cena was co-winner of the Royal Rumble along with Batista before Vince McMahon restarted the match?
I bring it up now because Kurt Angle is in his 4th TNA World Heavyweight Championship reign starting tonight, but Wikipedia considers him a 5-time TNA Champion. After his first title win in a controversial finish, TNA took back the title and decided to crown the "first-ever" TNA Champion afterwards.
I think a promotion is COMPLETELY entitled to alter the history of their fictional title's lineage and if an unofficial title change occurred that was later reversed, it should be added in the Notes section and not as an official part of the title's history. What do you guys think? Feed back ☎ 10:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, if that happens that is the history. What you are saying is to deny the events as they occurred. If a title reign happened and is recognizes it is official. That was the consensus reached long ago during the many world title discussions we've had. Angle was recognized as champion, so it became official. That is the fact. It is fictional of course, and as such we must be correct with what has happened in the events. Not ignore things which occurred. We state WWE changed its view later on in the history. The problem with many WWE reigns is they are reversed immediately. If they've occured and were recognized for a period of time then reversed, it must be noted in the title history.-- Will C 19:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.profightdb.com/ I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo ( talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.
Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.
Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.
As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.
Cheers.
Varghoo ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo ( talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is with Template:WWE_personnel. User:Mikeymike2001 continues to remove David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty from the list of tag teams despite the fact that they are the regining tag team champions. 65.29.224.172 ( talk) 06:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is slightly off topic but there is currently a move request to move Nexus (professional wrestling) to Nexus (wrestling) so far no one has responded to it so some input would be useful.-- 76.66.180.220 ( talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about articles discussing title belts. If I search for one or click on a link to one, it's only as a way of getting to the list of champions. For example, I might be reading about a wrestler, see that he won a title, and want to get more information. The link in the text will just take me to a page discussing the creation, appearance, etc. of the belt. If I want to actually get to the list of champions, I have to then scroll down to the title history and then click on the link (likewise, I don't bother searching for "List of..."; I just do a search for the championship itself, scroll down, and click on the link). Mind you, this isn't unique to professional wrestling articles. For example, to see a list of basketball Hall of Famers, one might follow the path: "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame"->"List of players in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame".
What I am proposing is adding a hatnote to these championship pages. Something to the effect of: "This is an article about the championship belt. For the title history, see [[List of WWE Intercontinental Champions]]." Any thoughts? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 12:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
An IP has gone through a bunch of articles and removed any reference to Nash and Hall's ring names. I have reverted some of them, but help with the rest would be great. The IP's contributions are here: [2]. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Aside from a minor naming problem (capitalization should be "WWE Raw arenas"), I think Category:WWE RAW Arenas represents overcategorization, specifically categorization by a non-defining or trivial characteristic. Some venue articles don't even mention use by Raw (e.g. Danville High School (Pennsylvania)), while many others have hosted just a few events (trivial/non-defining relative to the venue; e.g. Rupp Arena). I wanted to raise this issue here first rather than simply go to CfD. Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I know David Otunga and Michael McGillicutty are still teaming together and dropped the Nexus name, but should we make a page just for the McGillicutty and Otunga team or continue to update the Nexus page even though the group is dead?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 21:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
^ This consensus applies to all tag teams including Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston which I have nominated for speedy deletion. Feed back ☎ 12:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
So we have PPVs, bios, special moments, etc as GAs, FLs, FAs, etc but we don't have a single promotion article. I've thought about it for a long time at trying to do the TNA article, and even attempted for a brief point in a subpage before becoming bored with it. Thought about trying again, but I'd like to get some opinions first. What exactly should our format be for them?-- Will C 06:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.profightdb.com/ I have gone on that website which seems to me like it is reliable, how do I get it checked/verified? It is used in Pro Wrestling Illustrated as a source. Varghoo ( talk) 22:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
"Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
But in pro wrestling, that's not easily going to happen. Even the Wrestling Observer is self-published and Dave Meltzer's a bonafide legend. What I'd say is for anything non-controversial, most of the websites out there that can support the information in a Wikipedia article are a benefit over having nothing supporting it at all.
Even so, I believe putting a link into the External Links section of a Wiki page is unrelated to this policy, so should be fine.
Mind you, one non-self-published source we have received favor from is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, who independently sung our praises in a 5-star review in its December 2010 issue.
As for whether we're experts... hopefully. We've been doing this for some time now. No one's perfect of course, but we strive to do our best to preserve a little piece of pro wrestling history for everyone that's ever been a fan. We're certainly not a hobby site with the rent we have to pay on our webservers.
Cheers.
Varghoo ( talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Pro Wrestling Illustrated links to them on the left sidebar selection thing, where it says IWD Database. Their website is here. Is that enough to make it reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varghoo ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Varghoo ( talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC) So, what is the consensus? Varghoo ( talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Any other comments regarding Pro Wrestling Illustrated and ProFightBB? So far only RadioKAOS has objected to ProFightBB, but just because a source has incomplete information on a certain time period doesn't mean the rest of the information presented is unreliable. Missing information from the 1970s does not mean any info after the 1979 onwards is incorrect. If one needs to cite a source about matches in the 2000s, one can easily use ProFightBB. If one is looking for a 1970 Flair main event, one would simply search somewhere else. So I think it still should be considered a reliable source. Starship.paint ( talk) 13:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Since new WWE Tag Team Champions Evan Bourne and Kofi Kingston got a team name, Air Boom, could someone rename that article to Air Boom? Starship.paint ( talk) 12:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Have none of you heard of WP:CBALL? You can't just keep an article awaiting for it to have future notability. To have an article, it must be NOTABLE now. This article doesn't even have enough content for crying out loud. It should be deleted, and it should be speedy-deleted. Just because they have some belts doesn't mean they should avoid speedy deletion. They do not warrant notability in ANY SHAPE, WAY or FORM and would fail an AFD simply because of WP:SNOW and that alone warrants the A7CSD. Anyway, we should continue the conversation at the AFD now that it is active. Feed back ☎ 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Feedback is right it is not CURRENTLY notable and should be deleted until it is, also where's JeriShow's article and ShoMiz, and Edge and Chris Jericho? -- ChristianandJericho ( talk) 07:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I've manage to do my best on those articles. I just need someone who knows how to proof read and maybe improve those two articles. It would be helpful since that's as far as I can do. If anyone reads this, please help. Thanks. Johnnyauau2000 ( talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm a newbie, does someone know how to do this? It's hard to find a public image for a tag team so I was thinking of showing two individual public images. If you could teach me I would greatly appreciate it. Starship.paint ( talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey just a quick question here. Is the WP:PW Newsletter still active? Deely 1 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
When I think of the newsletter, I think of User:The Chronic, the original chief editor and creator of the newsletter. I remember really liking it, but eventually, I felt it was just spam on my talk page. I wanted to use my time ACTUALLY editing or seeking consensus in discussions instead of reading and editing a newsletter. I remember day-long arguments about wether or not the newsletter should include a bit of news or not. It was just a waste of time that distracted us from actual constructive editing. Nor the Portal nor the Newsletter really do anything for the articles. Basically what I'm saying is, let's focus on improving our content. Feed back ☎ 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay just take a look at this template for example.
May I query why when a team article is written like John Morrison and The Miz only the "and" in John Morrison and The Miz links to that article while "John Morrison", "The Miz" links to the individual wrestlers? After all the team has already received a team page, so why doesn't the whole John Morrison and The Miz link to the team page? One would think that looking in the template for tag champs people would want to read the team articles more than the individual articles. If one wants to read the individual articles one can access them from the team page. Another issue is that the "and" is small that people might miss the team page altogether, see theoretically you have only a 20% chance of picking the "and" when clicking on "John Morrison and The Miz" and being directed to the team page. Your thoughts? Starship.paint ( talk) 03:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be like this:
{{ User:Feedback/Template}} Feed back ☎ 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
{{ User:Feedback/Template2}} Feed back ☎ 16:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
In the C&A section, Money in the Bank winners are credited as Mr Money in the Bank (2010). However, I would argue that's the title of them as a person, not the title they won. It's the same as listing Alberto Del Rio as WWE Champion (1 time) rather than WWE Championship (1 time) or Edge Royal Rumble Winner (2010). Shouldn't it just be Money in the Bank (2010)? I realise this is minor, but there's a few articles it affects. Tony2Times ( talk) 12:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So I nominated the page R-Truth & The Miz for deletion as it isn't an official tag-team. Just saying.-- Deely 1 16:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Percy appeared on WWE Superstars during the Raw tapings last monday which aired today. Does this mean that Percy's apart of the Raw roster or wait until he appears on TV during Raw?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
At the begining of 2011, I asked on the talkpage about changing Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu, but since then it has been ignored so I brought it here. Should I change Naofumi Yamamoto into Yoshi Tatsu?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 00:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a notification that it has been proposed that the article Ken Anderson (wrestler) be moved to Mr. Kennedy. Please feel free to comment on the discussion on the article's talk page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 16:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
...was closed as keep. CRRays Head90 | Another way... 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Utilizing Air Boom's AFD result as a representation of current consensus, can we restore this article? It would have to be kept at The Unholy Alliance (professional wrestling), of course, but I believe the article could be even longer than Air Boom's current state and have many more sources due to this tag team forming during the much more popular WWF era. Feed back ☎ 17:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Done It's not located in my user space (
User:Feedback/The Unholy Alliance (WWF)) and I'll start working on it tonight. If anyone else wants to work on it, they can freely edit the page as well. Thanks,
Feed
back
☎ 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)