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 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Just realised something today - we should all use "WWE" rather than "World Wrestling Entertainment" when citing them... I know it's a minor point but we should be remembering it when creating new references. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Edshaft created a page dedicated to Zack Ryder's Internet Championship and added Ryder to the champions list on WWE's and List of current champions in WWE's pages. I tried removing it from those pages, but he keeps re-adding them. Since I don't want to violate 3RR again, can someone help me with this situation?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright guys you'll need to take a look on this. source:wwe.com / source:pwtorch.com WWE is considering officially recognizing the Internet title, and Ryder (in-character) says: "They should be bribing me to defend my title on the internet, on television, wherever" and "“I’m never going to defend this title. I’ve earned this championship. I won it fair and square... I’m the first champion, I’m the last champion, I’m the only champion” Starship.paint ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For everyone's information - the article concerned has been nominated for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Championship) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The announcement has made some users add fantasy matches to the 2011 main event on the Survivor Series page. I've changed it three times already, so I'm holding off to stay on the safe side of WP:3RR, is there anyone who can temporarily lock the page until it has died down a bit? BulbaThor ( talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/2011/the-rock-to-appear-at-survivor-series Starship.paint ( talk) 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I took care of it already. Sent a Full Protection Request for the page.-- Voices in my Head WWE 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has a Flickr account, they might be able to persuade this guy to release the rights to this DDT KO Tag Team belt picture and other people in that stream. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded his pics of the Bloody Sunday, Gedo, Hirooki Goto, Jado, Ryusuke Taguchi, Taichi, TJP and the KO-D Tag Team Championship. TheFBH ( talk) 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that in the PPV articles such as WWE Vengeance, we list only the last match in the main event column. Yes, I know there are several matches which are promoted as co-main events, but there is no need to clutter the column with the rest of the card. If a reader wants to know the rest of the card, they will open the link to the specific PPV. The point is that it looks very cluttered to have several matches listed, having only one match would look much nicer. Feed back ☎ 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this idea. This is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The promotion determines the main event(s). Our job is to report that. This idea would mean such things as identifying The Undertaker vs. The Undertaker as the only main event of SummerSlam 1994, discounting the fact that Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart in a Steel Cage Match for the WWF Championship was promoted as the main event. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then let's remove that column from the PPV lists. The purpose of those articles are to list each individual PPV and link the reader towards them, like a disambiguation page. Cluttering it with the main events adds nothing to the article. I thought that if instead of using main events, we kept the last matches, it would at least look presentable, but if the consensus is that we can't do that, then we have no other choice than to remove the column altogether. The clutter adds nothing to the table and should outright be removed. Feed back ☎ 05:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the Active Members' list to feature 28 different people who have recently edited and participated in our project page. When I checked their collaborations and noticed we have around 20 editors who are editing articles consistently, I thought this is the perfect time to bring back the project's Collaboration of the Week.
For the new users who don't know, and the old ones who don't remember, the Collaboration of the Week was a simple idea. We would nominate stubs, start or C articles and the one with the most votes would be deemed the COTW which basically meant that all the editors would focus on trying to expand the article to a B-class or even GA. Also, once a month, we would choose a Good Article to expand upon so it can reach Featured Article status. This project brought us lots of Good Articles and Featured articles which you can see here.
So what do you guys say? Want to revive the COTW? Feed back ☎ 06:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You can count me in (User:Crisis) 90.204.167.254 ( talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The deletionists recently snuck Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination) through by people that don't even know what The Wrestling Observer is, and now we have more than 300 pages with redlinks. Hooray Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
For those that wish to participate in the discussion, please proceed to Wikipedia:Deletion_Review#21_September_2011. Thank you. Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards has been re-listed for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 00:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Professional Wrestling to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to rearrange the listing of the template from Raw / SmackDown / WWE Legends / NXT / Commentators / Tough Enough / FCW / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / Stables and Tag teams.
to Raw / Smackdown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams / Tough Enough / Commentators / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / FCW.
Here's my rationale: There are three main categories: WWE "cast", WWE "crew" and FCW. FCW should be last. FCW is the developmental territory for WWE and nobody in that category appears on WWE programming at all, therefore it should be last. Now, regarding "cast" and "crew". "Cast", the wrestlers, go first. "Crew", go second. Who are the wrestlers, the cast? Raw / SmackDown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams. Arrange them however you want, but these five cagetories have to be first. Who's the crew? Tough Enough hosts / Commentators / Referees / Unassigned employees. Tough Enough participants though, seem to be "cast", but they're in a separate universe anyway from Raw / SmackDown, so Tough Enough just becomes the first category after the first five. Therefore I propose to rearrange the listing to reflect "cast", then "crew", then "FCW".
I also propose renaming Broadcast team to Commentators and adding "developmentals" below FCW for clarification. Starship.paint ( talk) 04:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Me and the graphics lab worked together and now the WWE logo on their article is now a SVG file. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 20:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we add PWInsider as a reliable source for TV/PPV results (not rumours)? They've been around since 2004, and they seem to have an established staff. Main purpose is that their reports seem quite detailed and can be used to back up in-ring storylines / contribute to wrestlers' movesets. Might I add that it's a for-profit organization as well... Starship.paint ( talk) 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I would still consider PWInsider questionable (perhaps asking someone who reviews FACs to look at it would be a good idea), but I don't think that ProWrestling.net or CageMatch.de would be considered reliable sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we haven't had an FA since Lockdown (2008) I do believe. I've nominated Turning Point (2008) twice already. Its gotten close, but hasn't had many reviews, resulting in fewer supports and/or opposes. Someone mentioned informing the project when I nominated it again so people more familiar with the topic could comment. So if anyone wants to give a review, here is the subpage: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3.-- Will C 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that was me who nominated it (again). I think this time it'll pass (again) but'll stay one.-- Voices in my Head WWE 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Soliciting PW project members to comment in the FAC is canvassing. Canvassing doesn't mean to recruit Yes Men, it means to advertise a discussion to a sole group of people which Will has effectively done by asking the members to participate. And the "We haven't had an FA since Lockdown" comment doesn't help matters. If I were the closing admin, I'd take at ALL supports from WP:PW members with a grain of salt due to their participation being a product of canvassing. Feed back ☎ 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment about the sources on Elimination Chamber. They're exactly 40 references on the article and only 22 of them are from WWE.com. The other 18 are from third party sources.-- Voices in my Head WWE 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll have other comments on the WON awards debate which are relevant to that discussion. A remark made in response to my comments is more appropriate here. I don't feel like getting blue in the face from having to repeatedly point out that proper historical perspective and proper worldwide perspective are important considerations for every Wikipedia editor. Dismissing those as "someone else's responsibility," while editing article after article to match the WWE historical revisionist version of pro wrestling, is beyond bogus. An old friend who has been a sportswriter for decades, and in fact remained a WON subscriber long after I quit subscribing, made a very poignant comment to me last week. He observed that once the WWE was successful in snapping up the video footage of its former major competitors, it was far too easy for them to portray wrestling's history in any light they so chose. I've bought many of the WWE DVD releases which contain historical content and/or context, and that's exactly what I see in most of them.
I believe the word "cabal" was tossed around (not by myself, however) to describe my attitude towards most of the contributors to this page. Speaking as someone who began watching pro wrestling as a teenager fascinated with Killer Karl Kox and Harley Race, I suppose that just might set me apart from someone who began watching this as a teenager fascinated with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Dwayne Johnson. I was a wrestling fan when it wasn't cool? Ahem, anyway. My real issue is one which is hardly exclusive to this project. I see lots of Wikipedia editors whose efforts amount to attempting to maintain the primacy of their favored sources. Never mind that even with a subject matter like pro wrestling, reliable sources of pre-Internet happenings and occurrences are everywhere. If you haven't already, take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the decades-long body of work of J. Michael Kenyon, published as Wrestling As We Liked It. Numerous other websites exist which chronicle historical affairs in sufficient or substantial detail. That is, unless you want to believe that the present-day wrestling website culture (or the so-called "IWC") is all that matters.
Parroting some web page without further discernment is another problem which is hardly exclusive to this project. As it concerns pro wrestling, my latest poster child for this is Larry Latham. The article notes his role in the Tupelo concession stand brawl, which happened in 1978. Obviously, this is in conflict with his OWW profile, which says that he debuted in 1979. That OWW source was parroted in the article without regard for that important fact. As I've mentioned multiple times in their respective talk pages to this effect, birth information for Bobby Heenan and Sgt. Slaughter as presented in their articles is dubious, regardless of it being sourced. I could go on and on, but I really must go to bed so that I'm not dragging my ass when I'm supposed to be out earning my living today. Good day/night. RadioKAOS ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Could any of you help me expand the lead for Jeri-Show and Big Show and Kane? Evilgohan2 feels that the lead's too short, but I'm not sure how to expand it. Any help would be deeply appreciated. If you think the lead is adequate, please voice out as well. Thank you. Starship.paint ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this:
Because Big Show is a very tall man, the team is occasionally referred to as Jeri-Tall. This is not to be confused with Geritol, which Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan both consume in massive quantities as they continue their ongoing feud. The Flair-Hogan feud is scheduled to conclude in a WCW (not World Championship Wrestling, but rather Walkers, Canes and Wheelchairs) match at WrestleMania 50.
BTW, the redlink was intentional. You'd better start that article now, so you don't miss any important developments. RadioKAOS ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I need some assistance uploading a "free use" image for Bob Starr (wrestler) which I'm hoping to nominate for DYK. I think this [2] would be an ideal image. It's from his official website but it hasn't been updated since 1999 and has (presumably) outdated contact information.
I did find alternative images from his Facebook fan club [3] and on Flickr [4]. I would have uploaded the latter image through WP:IFU, as it allows the image to be used for noncommercial purposes and provides attribution to the author [5], but according to the IFU wizard a BY-NC-ND license can't be used on Wikipedia. Since I'm not able to do it myself, I thought maybe a member of this project who has an account to either of these websites could contact the authors for permission to use a photo for his article? 72.74.206.211 ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. Well I appreciate the quick response. I don't know if this has been brought up before but this photographer [6] seems to have released his images in the public domain ("Feel Free To Use These Pics (Except Direct-Linking to Message Boards, etc.) Please Just Put A Link to My Site From Yours!!! Thanks."). I hope this helps. 72.74.206.211 ( talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this a real thing? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
With this being the first year that WWE has held both Vengeance and Night of Champions, there has been confusion on whether the WWE Vengeance article should be separated. With Vengeance 2011 being the next PPV, the WWE has again put up a page for the event.
The history section in WWE's Vengeance page ( http://www.wwe.com/shows/vengeance/) shows that they only consider Vengeance 2001-2006 (along with the 2011 event) under the Vengeance chronology. Night of Champions has it's own page ( http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions), with Vengeance: Night of Champions and Night of Champions 2008-2011.
Since the WWE has now made its stance about this event, should the Vengeance article be separated and a new one made for Night of Champions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.224.120 ( talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What about this? http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/history 108.38.207.149 ( talk) 11:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I just made
this edit to
Bret Hart removing an uncited series of reigns as champion of Nevermore Championship Wrestling, a company I've never heard of which turns up nothing but mirror sites, forums/sites copying Wikipedia and a useless Yahoo Answer... And a bunch of Wikipedia articles listing wrestlers as having won the same title.
Can anyone confirm if this title/company even exists? At the moment I'm assuming it's a hoax, possible an e-Fed.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
13:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a past consensus to keep the WCW and ECW Triple Crowns off the page because they are completely fan-fabricated terms and were never created by the respective promotions. I can't find the original consensus, so let's make a new one. Feed back ☎ 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the Wrestling Information Archive is down or at least its PWI 500 listings. I've already had to replace the 1996 and 1998 issues with archived versions on one article. I've checked with other articles, Bobby Eaton and Bob Holly, and got the same results. Just thought I'd give the project a heads up. 72.74.209.96 ( talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm trying to nominate Mad Dog O'Malley for DYK. Specifically, I'm using his 1996 PWI 500 entry for the following hook, "...that professional wrestler Mad Dog O'Malley, a 500 lbs. Irish brawler, was billed 'from the dog pounds of Dublin, Ireland'?". The problem is that the reviewer won't accept it because its not an online source. Does anyone here have a copy of the 1996 PWI 500 issue so they can verify it? I've typed out his profile at the nomination page and highlighted the relevant text. Just to clarify, his PWI entry lists his weight in 1996 as 430 lbs. but a 1999 newspaper article further down the states he is "an estimated 500 pounds". I'd appreciate any assistance the project can give, thanks. 72.74.225.189 ( talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
To anyone with a Flickr account... could you get this photographer, Julian Holtom to reupload his picture of Evan Bourne? Otherwise, the picture will probably be deleted from Wikipedia. Yeah, it would be a shame if Bourne didn't have that nice picture of him as his main picture. Thanks! Starship.paint ( talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, hope you could help me out with a case I'm following. 65.24.40.18 ( talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) recently changed ( [9], [10]) some articles to fix the hosting address of some interviews he conducted with the article subjects. Though there is a COI, I'm not going to throw this one out of the window yet because I'm not sure if the interviews actually hold merit. Since I don't follow wrestling, I was wondering if you guys could give one or two of the interviews a listen and let me know what you think about their inclusion on the pages. Do they merit their place as external links?
Thanks in advance! m.o.p 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine there's been a discussion about Daniel Bryan and WrestleMania. Even though this is clearly Crystal Ball, one user ain't getting the message and says that WWE.com said it would happen. WWE.com says a lot of things because they follow storyline. But this user takes it as truth.-- Voices in my Head WWE 23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I was posting as you posted this: Yesterday, WWE officially added Daniel Bryan cashing in Money in the bank at WM28 to the website and the card, as such someone added it (I haven't seen who but whoever did, cited a reliable source). So about 30 minutes ago, Nascarking removes it as a "flagrant Crystal Ball" because "[f]or all we know [Bryan] could tear an ACL and be out for a year." I don't by this argument myself because it's based in "could happens" rather than the facts known and is speculation in it's own right. So I explained to him twice why I feel this is not CRYSTALBALL-ing because there is a reliable source proving it's not unverifiable speculation. He expressed concerns about there not being a reliable third-party source, so I humored him and provided one which can be seen here. Despite this he has continued to revert rather then bring it up for discussion here as I asked saying "I'm pretty sure there's been a discussion on this issue." In short, I'd either like to see a new consensus formed or Nascarking told he was wrong, which I'm pretty sure he is. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What a surprise that Feedback would respond with a dickish comment. You say everything I do is wrong. That I can take but the dickish comments from you that bother me. Anyway, you all know very well that WWE changes more than Denver's number of QB's. Not to mention WWE.com follows storyline like there breaking news section is something that follows storyline.-- Voices in my Head WWE 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
He is listed as such on the List of WWE personnel page, but I can't find any reliable sources to back this up. Can anyone confirm this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across the AFD for Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins, one of many such recent AFDs. In this instance, I actually looked over the article and realized that aside from it being a product of misbegotten priorities, how poor of an actual job it was. I had some rather lengthy comments regarding not only the article, but this recent push to create tag team articles and how it serves as yet another example of taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction. I've copied these comments here for further dissemination and discussion:
Delete per nom. I looked through the sources and couldn't believe what a laughably poor job someone did of sourcing this article. I really wanted to piss my pants laughing when I saw that the WWE profiles on Reks and Hawkins actually point to the WWE profiles of
Chris Jericho and
The Big Show. Which leads me to a comment, see below:
Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on
WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the
ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams:
All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below:
In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me. RadioKAOS ( talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Ten Year Test be a bit Crystal Balling? A lot of these articles ain't even relevant anymore yes, but that seems a little crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head WWE 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Radio, most people would just say something like no the Ten Year Test isn't crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head WWE 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Radio, this isn't the first time you've mentioned it, and this isn't the first time I've had to make it clear: Everyone edits whatever they want. If there's no Hollywood Blondes article, it's because no one has had the interest in editing it. Nowhere is Wikipedia advertising that it is a perfect encyclopedia. It relies on its users, their interests, their dedication and their time. The thing is, if you are so hell-bent on wanting to make Hollywood Blondes article or a Murdoch and Rhodes article, make it yourself. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE is stopping you. So get off your high horse and start editing instead of complaining. When you make the 6 or 7 quality articles you wanted, give us a ring and tell us "You see, meanies, I told you so!" and we'll say "Good for you". Until then, just shut up. Thank you. Feed back ☎ 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this user is removing external links from various wrestling articles. Do I need to specifically cite a source with in-line citations instead of listing it under the external links section? I only ask since I just added a few to Klondike Bill. 72.74.205.113 ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If the source is directly linked to a statement in the article, like "Bill died on October 3, 2000 from a neuromuscular disorder, similar to Bells Palsy.", then you should source it. Otherwise, it's just a link I think. Starship.paint ( talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated this for DYK but am having trouble with the nomination ( Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Starr (wrestler)). The reference for the hook has stopped working, but I've been too sick to find anything else and will be out of town for a while now. If anyone can help with this, it would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions on and off for almost two years now (I know, long time but didn't care enough to stay focused). I got it located in a subpage, and after completing Turning Point (2007), Final Resolution (January 2008), Against All Odds (2008), and Destination X (2008) yesterday, I thought to finish it as it wasn't far off. Then I ran across an inconsistency I had forgotten about in the title's history. Normally I'd just go ahead and do the split and source it, etc but since the list is an FL and its honestly a bunch of bullshit which would cause 10 times the work I thought I'd get a few opinions as its WWE stuff, and I could care less other than it being an FL. The whole point I've been working on it is its an FL and it fails the criteria these days, so it would most likely be a default delist. The issue is it includes WCW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns. According to the article WCW did not recognize these reigns, however WWE does recognize them. I know WWE owns it and views it, but this is a case where they should be noted rather than included. The source information would prove the fact of the matter is they are two different titles, meaning they should be split off into a separate article and noted in the list and title article. Alot like TNA's issue with the world title, where TNA includes NWA reigns in the TNA Title history, but they are two separate titles, with those reigns noted in the list (Well they were at one point but no source to explain TNA's view anymore). Anyone got anything to say on the split, otherwise I'm just gonna go ahead and finish the article, split them up and create the other championship?-- Will C 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What's going on with the archive? In theory, everything on this page should be archived by now. Feed back ☎ 02:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Those of you in this project may be very interested in the discussion at User talk:Cm3solutions. A person working on behalf of CM3 Solutions, who operates allwrestling.com, is attempting (in violation of WP:COI) to update links between these two sites. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Chuck Zito's talk page says his article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Is this correct, or can I remove it? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This community previously established that since there is a reliable source saying Daniel Bryan's match is happening at 'Mania that it should be added to the article. Newcomer Wwewrestlingmadman ( talk · contribs) refuses to acknowledge this due to recent developments in storyline involving Daniel trying to cash it in and apparently changing his mind. Despite these developments WWE continues to list the match for WrestleMania so I have continued to impose the previous consensus til such a time that either consensus changes, Bryan cashes in successfully or WWE removes the match. Wwwewrestlingmad doesn't agree resulting in a content dispute edit war, please head over to Talk:WrestleMania XXVIII and weigh in to establish a newer consensus, thanks. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Why have this photos changed? When I uploaded the Consequences Creed's photo, it was ok. Also, in Commons view history doesn't appear any change in the photo. Thanks-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.255 ( talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Lita just appeared on Raw and the IPs are going crazy adding that she's returned, I've reverted for the time being. Extra eyes needed. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am checking new Japan-related articles as a member of WikiProject Japan and noticed this article on Vilza Fenz. It looks very suspicious. I cannot find any reliable sources on her in English or Japanese, and it looks like not only the user who created this article, but also some IPs have been going through various related articles, especially on Hiroko Suzuki and Malia Hosaka, and adding text about this person (for a time, this person was even equated with Sumie Sakai). I know little about professional wrestling, but I have the stinking suspicion this is a hoax. Can anyone with more expertise confirm or deny this? Michitaro ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I requested semi-protection of Kane due to rampant vandalism. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are Epico and Primo a new version of The Colóns? If they are, can I edit the group page to reflect it?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is wrestling activity on this project and around the wiki starting to resemble the activity at the Simple English Wikipedia? (i.e.: slim to no activity.) CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 08:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I was wondering. All the early 90s events are almost finished. SummerSlam (1992) to In Your House 1 are all finished. Hart's book gives alot of info on these and later ones. Thought to let you know in case you do more.-- Will C 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2011) article resembles a stub. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe we do have enough people to work on PPV articles if we all cooperate and decide on which article and we just do it one at a time. How about Money in the Bank (2011)? Starship.paint ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If y'all want something to do Elimination Chamber has some issues keeping it from becoming a Good Article like references missing dates. So there's something.-- Daytona 500 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or is there no contents list on the 4th January article? Tony2Times ( talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays everyone!-- Deely talk 17:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey everyone, hope your New Year's Day is going swimmingly. Having an issue with an over-zealous fan adding every ranking of wrestlers in the PWI 500, particularly CM Punk's. Been persistant for a while now with multiple reverts, so figured I'd take it to the project.
Looking through the archives it seems consensus was reached to list only the top performance - if any - but that was a year or so ago, and I'd like to know if the majority still favors culling these lower listings from articles outright. Papacha ( talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I found 2 pages for this wrestling manager. From these 2 pages and what is in the article, I might be missing something important. I would like someone's expertise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleem Sadiq. SL93 ( talk) 23:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm interested in promoting Zack Ryder to Good Article status, but I'm rather clueless of the process: where can I reviewers to check and pass the article? Starship.paint ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have requested Bryan Danielson be moved to Daniel Bryan here. Do not reply here, reply on the talk page there. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are some Flickr photos for indy wrestlers. I don't have the time to upload these but if you do, feel free to give it a shot. Starship.paint ( talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please nominate ROH's 10th Anniversary Show for speedy deletion on the basis that it's not a PPV, thanks. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've requested here that Peter Polaco be moved to Justin Credible. I think this is relatively uncontroversial but any objections should be posted on the talkpage there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 10:09, 13 January 2012 (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 82 | Archive 83 | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | → | Archive 90 |
Just realised something today - we should all use "WWE" rather than "World Wrestling Entertainment" when citing them... I know it's a minor point but we should be remembering it when creating new references. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Edshaft created a page dedicated to Zack Ryder's Internet Championship and added Ryder to the champions list on WWE's and List of current champions in WWE's pages. I tried removing it from those pages, but he keeps re-adding them. Since I don't want to violate 3RR again, can someone help me with this situation?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Alright guys you'll need to take a look on this. source:wwe.com / source:pwtorch.com WWE is considering officially recognizing the Internet title, and Ryder (in-character) says: "They should be bribing me to defend my title on the internet, on television, wherever" and "“I’m never going to defend this title. I’ve earned this championship. I won it fair and square... I’m the first champion, I’m the last champion, I’m the only champion” Starship.paint ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
For everyone's information - the article concerned has been nominated for deletion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Championship) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The announcement has made some users add fantasy matches to the 2011 main event on the Survivor Series page. I've changed it three times already, so I'm holding off to stay on the safe side of WP:3RR, is there anyone who can temporarily lock the page until it has died down a bit? BulbaThor ( talk) 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.wwe.com/shows/survivorseries/2011/the-rock-to-appear-at-survivor-series Starship.paint ( talk) 13:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I took care of it already. Sent a Full Protection Request for the page.-- Voices in my Head WWE 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
If anyone has a Flickr account, they might be able to persuade this guy to release the rights to this DDT KO Tag Team belt picture and other people in that stream. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded his pics of the Bloody Sunday, Gedo, Hirooki Goto, Jado, Ryusuke Taguchi, Taichi, TJP and the KO-D Tag Team Championship. TheFBH ( talk) 19:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that in the PPV articles such as WWE Vengeance, we list only the last match in the main event column. Yes, I know there are several matches which are promoted as co-main events, but there is no need to clutter the column with the rest of the card. If a reader wants to know the rest of the card, they will open the link to the specific PPV. The point is that it looks very cluttered to have several matches listed, having only one match would look much nicer. Feed back ☎ 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this idea. This is a blatant violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. The promotion determines the main event(s). Our job is to report that. This idea would mean such things as identifying The Undertaker vs. The Undertaker as the only main event of SummerSlam 1994, discounting the fact that Bret Hart vs. Owen Hart in a Steel Cage Match for the WWF Championship was promoted as the main event. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Then let's remove that column from the PPV lists. The purpose of those articles are to list each individual PPV and link the reader towards them, like a disambiguation page. Cluttering it with the main events adds nothing to the article. I thought that if instead of using main events, we kept the last matches, it would at least look presentable, but if the consensus is that we can't do that, then we have no other choice than to remove the column altogether. The clutter adds nothing to the table and should outright be removed. Feed back ☎ 05:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I have updated the Active Members' list to feature 28 different people who have recently edited and participated in our project page. When I checked their collaborations and noticed we have around 20 editors who are editing articles consistently, I thought this is the perfect time to bring back the project's Collaboration of the Week.
For the new users who don't know, and the old ones who don't remember, the Collaboration of the Week was a simple idea. We would nominate stubs, start or C articles and the one with the most votes would be deemed the COTW which basically meant that all the editors would focus on trying to expand the article to a B-class or even GA. Also, once a month, we would choose a Good Article to expand upon so it can reach Featured Article status. This project brought us lots of Good Articles and Featured articles which you can see here.
So what do you guys say? Want to revive the COTW? Feed back ☎ 06:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You can count me in (User:Crisis) 90.204.167.254 ( talk) 20:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The deletionists recently snuck Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination) through by people that don't even know what The Wrestling Observer is, and now we have more than 300 pages with redlinks. Hooray Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
For those that wish to participate in the discussion, please proceed to Wikipedia:Deletion_Review#21_September_2011. Thank you. Agent Vodello OK, Let's Party, Darling! 23:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards has been re-listed for deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (3rd nomination). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 00:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Professional Wrestling to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 23:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I want to rearrange the listing of the template from Raw / SmackDown / WWE Legends / NXT / Commentators / Tough Enough / FCW / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / Stables and Tag teams.
to Raw / Smackdown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams / Tough Enough / Commentators / Referees and WWE En Español / Unassigned employees / FCW.
Here's my rationale: There are three main categories: WWE "cast", WWE "crew" and FCW. FCW should be last. FCW is the developmental territory for WWE and nobody in that category appears on WWE programming at all, therefore it should be last. Now, regarding "cast" and "crew". "Cast", the wrestlers, go first. "Crew", go second. Who are the wrestlers, the cast? Raw / SmackDown / NXT / WWE Legends / Stables and tag teams. Arrange them however you want, but these five cagetories have to be first. Who's the crew? Tough Enough hosts / Commentators / Referees / Unassigned employees. Tough Enough participants though, seem to be "cast", but they're in a separate universe anyway from Raw / SmackDown, so Tough Enough just becomes the first category after the first five. Therefore I propose to rearrange the listing to reflect "cast", then "crew", then "FCW".
I also propose renaming Broadcast team to Commentators and adding "developmentals" below FCW for clarification. Starship.paint ( talk) 04:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Me and the graphics lab worked together and now the WWE logo on their article is now a SVG file. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 20:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we add PWInsider as a reliable source for TV/PPV results (not rumours)? They've been around since 2004, and they seem to have an established staff. Main purpose is that their reports seem quite detailed and can be used to back up in-ring storylines / contribute to wrestlers' movesets. Might I add that it's a for-profit organization as well... Starship.paint ( talk) 04:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I would still consider PWInsider questionable (perhaps asking someone who reviews FACs to look at it would be a good idea), but I don't think that ProWrestling.net or CageMatch.de would be considered reliable sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 03:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we haven't had an FA since Lockdown (2008) I do believe. I've nominated Turning Point (2008) twice already. Its gotten close, but hasn't had many reviews, resulting in fewer supports and/or opposes. Someone mentioned informing the project when I nominated it again so people more familiar with the topic could comment. So if anyone wants to give a review, here is the subpage: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3.-- Will C 01:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah that was me who nominated it (again). I think this time it'll pass (again) but'll stay one.-- Voices in my Head WWE 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Soliciting PW project members to comment in the FAC is canvassing. Canvassing doesn't mean to recruit Yes Men, it means to advertise a discussion to a sole group of people which Will has effectively done by asking the members to participate. And the "We haven't had an FA since Lockdown" comment doesn't help matters. If I were the closing admin, I'd take at ALL supports from WP:PW members with a grain of salt due to their participation being a product of canvassing. Feed back ☎ 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment about the sources on Elimination Chamber. They're exactly 40 references on the article and only 22 of them are from WWE.com. The other 18 are from third party sources.-- Voices in my Head WWE 20:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll have other comments on the WON awards debate which are relevant to that discussion. A remark made in response to my comments is more appropriate here. I don't feel like getting blue in the face from having to repeatedly point out that proper historical perspective and proper worldwide perspective are important considerations for every Wikipedia editor. Dismissing those as "someone else's responsibility," while editing article after article to match the WWE historical revisionist version of pro wrestling, is beyond bogus. An old friend who has been a sportswriter for decades, and in fact remained a WON subscriber long after I quit subscribing, made a very poignant comment to me last week. He observed that once the WWE was successful in snapping up the video footage of its former major competitors, it was far too easy for them to portray wrestling's history in any light they so chose. I've bought many of the WWE DVD releases which contain historical content and/or context, and that's exactly what I see in most of them.
I believe the word "cabal" was tossed around (not by myself, however) to describe my attitude towards most of the contributors to this page. Speaking as someone who began watching pro wrestling as a teenager fascinated with Killer Karl Kox and Harley Race, I suppose that just might set me apart from someone who began watching this as a teenager fascinated with Stone Cold Steve Austin and Dwayne Johnson. I was a wrestling fan when it wasn't cool? Ahem, anyway. My real issue is one which is hardly exclusive to this project. I see lots of Wikipedia editors whose efforts amount to attempting to maintain the primacy of their favored sources. Never mind that even with a subject matter like pro wrestling, reliable sources of pre-Internet happenings and occurrences are everywhere. If you haven't already, take the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the decades-long body of work of J. Michael Kenyon, published as Wrestling As We Liked It. Numerous other websites exist which chronicle historical affairs in sufficient or substantial detail. That is, unless you want to believe that the present-day wrestling website culture (or the so-called "IWC") is all that matters.
Parroting some web page without further discernment is another problem which is hardly exclusive to this project. As it concerns pro wrestling, my latest poster child for this is Larry Latham. The article notes his role in the Tupelo concession stand brawl, which happened in 1978. Obviously, this is in conflict with his OWW profile, which says that he debuted in 1979. That OWW source was parroted in the article without regard for that important fact. As I've mentioned multiple times in their respective talk pages to this effect, birth information for Bobby Heenan and Sgt. Slaughter as presented in their articles is dubious, regardless of it being sourced. I could go on and on, but I really must go to bed so that I'm not dragging my ass when I'm supposed to be out earning my living today. Good day/night. RadioKAOS ( talk) 15:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Could any of you help me expand the lead for Jeri-Show and Big Show and Kane? Evilgohan2 feels that the lead's too short, but I'm not sure how to expand it. Any help would be deeply appreciated. If you think the lead is adequate, please voice out as well. Thank you. Starship.paint ( talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
How about this:
Because Big Show is a very tall man, the team is occasionally referred to as Jeri-Tall. This is not to be confused with Geritol, which Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan both consume in massive quantities as they continue their ongoing feud. The Flair-Hogan feud is scheduled to conclude in a WCW (not World Championship Wrestling, but rather Walkers, Canes and Wheelchairs) match at WrestleMania 50.
BTW, the redlink was intentional. You'd better start that article now, so you don't miss any important developments. RadioKAOS ( talk) 19:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I need some assistance uploading a "free use" image for Bob Starr (wrestler) which I'm hoping to nominate for DYK. I think this [2] would be an ideal image. It's from his official website but it hasn't been updated since 1999 and has (presumably) outdated contact information.
I did find alternative images from his Facebook fan club [3] and on Flickr [4]. I would have uploaded the latter image through WP:IFU, as it allows the image to be used for noncommercial purposes and provides attribution to the author [5], but according to the IFU wizard a BY-NC-ND license can't be used on Wikipedia. Since I'm not able to do it myself, I thought maybe a member of this project who has an account to either of these websites could contact the authors for permission to use a photo for his article? 72.74.206.211 ( talk) 18:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok. Well I appreciate the quick response. I don't know if this has been brought up before but this photographer [6] seems to have released his images in the public domain ("Feel Free To Use These Pics (Except Direct-Linking to Message Boards, etc.) Please Just Put A Link to My Site From Yours!!! Thanks."). I hope this helps. 72.74.206.211 ( talk) 07:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Is this a real thing? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
With this being the first year that WWE has held both Vengeance and Night of Champions, there has been confusion on whether the WWE Vengeance article should be separated. With Vengeance 2011 being the next PPV, the WWE has again put up a page for the event.
The history section in WWE's Vengeance page ( http://www.wwe.com/shows/vengeance/) shows that they only consider Vengeance 2001-2006 (along with the 2011 event) under the Vengeance chronology. Night of Champions has it's own page ( http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions), with Vengeance: Night of Champions and Night of Champions 2008-2011.
Since the WWE has now made its stance about this event, should the Vengeance article be separated and a new one made for Night of Champions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.224.120 ( talk) 05:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
What about this? http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/history 108.38.207.149 ( talk) 11:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I just made
this edit to
Bret Hart removing an uncited series of reigns as champion of Nevermore Championship Wrestling, a company I've never heard of which turns up nothing but mirror sites, forums/sites copying Wikipedia and a useless Yahoo Answer... And a bunch of Wikipedia articles listing wrestlers as having won the same title.
Can anyone confirm if this title/company even exists? At the moment I'm assuming it's a hoax, possible an e-Fed.
ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹
Speak
13:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a past consensus to keep the WCW and ECW Triple Crowns off the page because they are completely fan-fabricated terms and were never created by the respective promotions. I can't find the original consensus, so let's make a new one. Feed back ☎ 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the Wrestling Information Archive is down or at least its PWI 500 listings. I've already had to replace the 1996 and 1998 issues with archived versions on one article. I've checked with other articles, Bobby Eaton and Bob Holly, and got the same results. Just thought I'd give the project a heads up. 72.74.209.96 ( talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm trying to nominate Mad Dog O'Malley for DYK. Specifically, I'm using his 1996 PWI 500 entry for the following hook, "...that professional wrestler Mad Dog O'Malley, a 500 lbs. Irish brawler, was billed 'from the dog pounds of Dublin, Ireland'?". The problem is that the reviewer won't accept it because its not an online source. Does anyone here have a copy of the 1996 PWI 500 issue so they can verify it? I've typed out his profile at the nomination page and highlighted the relevant text. Just to clarify, his PWI entry lists his weight in 1996 as 430 lbs. but a 1999 newspaper article further down the states he is "an estimated 500 pounds". I'd appreciate any assistance the project can give, thanks. 72.74.225.189 ( talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
To anyone with a Flickr account... could you get this photographer, Julian Holtom to reupload his picture of Evan Bourne? Otherwise, the picture will probably be deleted from Wikipedia. Yeah, it would be a shame if Bourne didn't have that nice picture of him as his main picture. Thanks! Starship.paint ( talk) 12:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, hope you could help me out with a case I'm following. 65.24.40.18 ( talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) recently changed ( [9], [10]) some articles to fix the hosting address of some interviews he conducted with the article subjects. Though there is a COI, I'm not going to throw this one out of the window yet because I'm not sure if the interviews actually hold merit. Since I don't follow wrestling, I was wondering if you guys could give one or two of the interviews a listen and let me know what you think about their inclusion on the pages. Do they merit their place as external links?
Thanks in advance! m.o.p 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine there's been a discussion about Daniel Bryan and WrestleMania. Even though this is clearly Crystal Ball, one user ain't getting the message and says that WWE.com said it would happen. WWE.com says a lot of things because they follow storyline. But this user takes it as truth.-- Voices in my Head WWE 23:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I was posting as you posted this: Yesterday, WWE officially added Daniel Bryan cashing in Money in the bank at WM28 to the website and the card, as such someone added it (I haven't seen who but whoever did, cited a reliable source). So about 30 minutes ago, Nascarking removes it as a "flagrant Crystal Ball" because "[f]or all we know [Bryan] could tear an ACL and be out for a year." I don't by this argument myself because it's based in "could happens" rather than the facts known and is speculation in it's own right. So I explained to him twice why I feel this is not CRYSTALBALL-ing because there is a reliable source proving it's not unverifiable speculation. He expressed concerns about there not being a reliable third-party source, so I humored him and provided one which can be seen here. Despite this he has continued to revert rather then bring it up for discussion here as I asked saying "I'm pretty sure there's been a discussion on this issue." In short, I'd either like to see a new consensus formed or Nascarking told he was wrong, which I'm pretty sure he is. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
What a surprise that Feedback would respond with a dickish comment. You say everything I do is wrong. That I can take but the dickish comments from you that bother me. Anyway, you all know very well that WWE changes more than Denver's number of QB's. Not to mention WWE.com follows storyline like there breaking news section is something that follows storyline.-- Voices in my Head WWE 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
He is listed as such on the List of WWE personnel page, but I can't find any reliable sources to back this up. Can anyone confirm this? GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I came across the AFD for Tyler Reks and Curt Hawkins, one of many such recent AFDs. In this instance, I actually looked over the article and realized that aside from it being a product of misbegotten priorities, how poor of an actual job it was. I had some rather lengthy comments regarding not only the article, but this recent push to create tag team articles and how it serves as yet another example of taking the encyclopedia in the wrong direction. I've copied these comments here for further dissemination and discussion:
Delete per nom. I looked through the sources and couldn't believe what a laughably poor job someone did of sourcing this article. I really wanted to piss my pants laughing when I saw that the WWE profiles on Reks and Hawkins actually point to the WWE profiles of
Chris Jericho and
The Big Show. Which leads me to a comment, see below:
Comment - Evidently, one or more editors active on
WP:PW received divine inspiration of the great need (as in the old Internet in-joke, "I see a great need") to create one article after another on current WWE tag teams. Based upon the erroneous linking referenced above, articles are being created by taking another article as a template and just copying everything over. It would appear the philosophy inherent is that their favorite wrestling websites will in time provide the necessary sources. I contend that the vast majority of these new articles fail the
ten-year test, that without common sense intervening this problem will continue to manifest itself over and over again, and that these editors and WP:PW as a whole are failing to recognize tag teams which were not only very notable in their era, but remain historically significant today. Let me throw out a few names and tell me if you see any articles on these teams:
All of the teams I mentioned above have passed the ten-year test. The most egregious examples, IMO, follow below:
In summary, like I mention above, we will continue to see needless AFDs on needless articles until someone wakes up. The usual approach has been for other editors to tell me "If you care enough about it, then that's your job, not mine." I haven't really been that active with pro wrestling articles; I may have other things I wish to work on. The impression I get from many who work primarily or exclusively on pro wrestling articles is that they treat this like a parallel universe form of video gaming, where barnstars and GA nominations and the like is all that matters. Ask them where their priorities are at before you ask that of me. RadioKAOS ( talk) 08:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't the Ten Year Test be a bit Crystal Balling? A lot of these articles ain't even relevant anymore yes, but that seems a little crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head WWE 21:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Radio, most people would just say something like no the Ten Year Test isn't crystal balling.-- Voices in my Head WWE 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Radio, this isn't the first time you've mentioned it, and this isn't the first time I've had to make it clear: Everyone edits whatever they want. If there's no Hollywood Blondes article, it's because no one has had the interest in editing it. Nowhere is Wikipedia advertising that it is a perfect encyclopedia. It relies on its users, their interests, their dedication and their time. The thing is, if you are so hell-bent on wanting to make Hollywood Blondes article or a Murdoch and Rhodes article, make it yourself. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE is stopping you. So get off your high horse and start editing instead of complaining. When you make the 6 or 7 quality articles you wanted, give us a ring and tell us "You see, meanies, I told you so!" and we'll say "Good for you". Until then, just shut up. Thank you. Feed back ☎ 12:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this user is removing external links from various wrestling articles. Do I need to specifically cite a source with in-line citations instead of listing it under the external links section? I only ask since I just added a few to Klondike Bill. 72.74.205.113 ( talk) 19:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If the source is directly linked to a statement in the article, like "Bill died on October 3, 2000 from a neuromuscular disorder, similar to Bells Palsy.", then you should source it. Otherwise, it's just a link I think. Starship.paint ( talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I nominated this for DYK but am having trouble with the nomination ( Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Starr (wrestler)). The reference for the hook has stopped working, but I've been too sick to find anything else and will be out of town for a while now. If anyone can help with this, it would be appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions on and off for almost two years now (I know, long time but didn't care enough to stay focused). I got it located in a subpage, and after completing Turning Point (2007), Final Resolution (January 2008), Against All Odds (2008), and Destination X (2008) yesterday, I thought to finish it as it wasn't far off. Then I ran across an inconsistency I had forgotten about in the title's history. Normally I'd just go ahead and do the split and source it, etc but since the list is an FL and its honestly a bunch of bullshit which would cause 10 times the work I thought I'd get a few opinions as its WWE stuff, and I could care less other than it being an FL. The whole point I've been working on it is its an FL and it fails the criteria these days, so it would most likely be a default delist. The issue is it includes WCW Light Heavyweight Championship reigns. According to the article WCW did not recognize these reigns, however WWE does recognize them. I know WWE owns it and views it, but this is a case where they should be noted rather than included. The source information would prove the fact of the matter is they are two different titles, meaning they should be split off into a separate article and noted in the list and title article. Alot like TNA's issue with the world title, where TNA includes NWA reigns in the TNA Title history, but they are two separate titles, with those reigns noted in the list (Well they were at one point but no source to explain TNA's view anymore). Anyone got anything to say on the split, otherwise I'm just gonna go ahead and finish the article, split them up and create the other championship?-- Will C 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
What's going on with the archive? In theory, everything on this page should be archived by now. Feed back ☎ 02:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Those of you in this project may be very interested in the discussion at User talk:Cm3solutions. A person working on behalf of CM3 Solutions, who operates allwrestling.com, is attempting (in violation of WP:COI) to update links between these two sites. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Chuck Zito's talk page says his article is within the scope of this WikiProject. Is this correct, or can I remove it? Joefromrandb ( talk) 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This community previously established that since there is a reliable source saying Daniel Bryan's match is happening at 'Mania that it should be added to the article. Newcomer Wwewrestlingmadman ( talk · contribs) refuses to acknowledge this due to recent developments in storyline involving Daniel trying to cash it in and apparently changing his mind. Despite these developments WWE continues to list the match for WrestleMania so I have continued to impose the previous consensus til such a time that either consensus changes, Bryan cashes in successfully or WWE removes the match. Wwwewrestlingmad doesn't agree resulting in a content dispute edit war, please head over to Talk:WrestleMania XXVIII and weigh in to establish a newer consensus, thanks. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Why have this photos changed? When I uploaded the Consequences Creed's photo, it was ok. Also, in Commons view history doesn't appear any change in the photo. Thanks-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.42.96.255 ( talk) 18:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Lita just appeared on Raw and the IPs are going crazy adding that she's returned, I've reverted for the time being. Extra eyes needed. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 02:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I am checking new Japan-related articles as a member of WikiProject Japan and noticed this article on Vilza Fenz. It looks very suspicious. I cannot find any reliable sources on her in English or Japanese, and it looks like not only the user who created this article, but also some IPs have been going through various related articles, especially on Hiroko Suzuki and Malia Hosaka, and adding text about this person (for a time, this person was even equated with Sumie Sakai). I know little about professional wrestling, but I have the stinking suspicion this is a hoax. Can anyone with more expertise confirm or deny this? Michitaro ( talk) 20:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I requested semi-protection of Kane due to rampant vandalism. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Are Epico and Primo a new version of The Colóns? If they are, can I edit the group page to reflect it?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 18:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is wrestling activity on this project and around the wiki starting to resemble the activity at the Simple English Wikipedia? (i.e.: slim to no activity.) CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 08:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting, I was wondering. All the early 90s events are almost finished. SummerSlam (1992) to In Your House 1 are all finished. Hart's book gives alot of info on these and later ones. Thought to let you know in case you do more.-- Will C 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2011) article resembles a stub. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe we do have enough people to work on PPV articles if we all cooperate and decide on which article and we just do it one at a time. How about Money in the Bank (2011)? Starship.paint ( talk) 08:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If y'all want something to do Elimination Chamber has some issues keeping it from becoming a Good Article like references missing dates. So there's something.-- Daytona 500 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it just my computer or is there no contents list on the 4th January article? Tony2Times ( talk) 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy holidays everyone!-- Deely talk 17:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey everyone, hope your New Year's Day is going swimmingly. Having an issue with an over-zealous fan adding every ranking of wrestlers in the PWI 500, particularly CM Punk's. Been persistant for a while now with multiple reverts, so figured I'd take it to the project.
Looking through the archives it seems consensus was reached to list only the top performance - if any - but that was a year or so ago, and I'd like to know if the majority still favors culling these lower listings from articles outright. Papacha ( talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I found 2 pages for this wrestling manager. From these 2 pages and what is in the article, I might be missing something important. I would like someone's expertise at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saleem Sadiq. SL93 ( talk) 23:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm interested in promoting Zack Ryder to Good Article status, but I'm rather clueless of the process: where can I reviewers to check and pass the article? Starship.paint ( talk) 05:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have requested Bryan Danielson be moved to Daniel Bryan here. Do not reply here, reply on the talk page there. CRRays Head90 | We Believe! 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are some Flickr photos for indy wrestlers. I don't have the time to upload these but if you do, feel free to give it a shot. Starship.paint ( talk) 04:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please nominate ROH's 10th Anniversary Show for speedy deletion on the basis that it's not a PPV, thanks. Tony2Times ( talk) 13:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I've requested here that Peter Polaco be moved to Justin Credible. I think this is relatively uncontroversial but any objections should be posted on the talkpage there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 10:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)