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 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
Arn Anderson needs our help! We owe it to him, as wrestling fans, to back up at least a few facts with footnotes. It's been tagged for nearly two years. Any editor could remove virtually all of the article at any moment, and it would stand up in Wikicourt. His entire story would be completely lost to history, and future generations would tend to assume "The Enforcer" was either a crappy movie or a monster truck. Horseman or not, no article is "too big to fail". I've done my part, by mentioning it. Won't you do yours, and save Arn from obscurity? InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This, this and this would be good places to start. Google News archive searches are also often useful. And yes, Slam Wrestling is a great site! It may not have an Anderson profile, but it undoubtedly contains some relevant information somewhere. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Googling ("arn anderson" site:slam.canoe.ca) confirms my theory. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but I have a concern I wanted to bring up. I have no idea if this has been discussed here, but it should be. I'm sure most of you have noticed that many MMA articles are being deleted or merged into a big hard-to-read list. When I first saw this happening, I was immediately concerned for pro wrestling articles. If these MMA events, which routinely receive front page coverage in some of the largest sports news sites out there, are being deleted as non-notable, what chance do WWE events have? Now, anyone who did go after pro wrestling ppvs would have a much harder time, because there are more articles, more GAs, and more dedicated editors. But it could happen. I decided to look at some of our GAs and FAs, and I see them sourced almost entirely to pro wrestling sites (and I am aware that there are few to no sources other than dedicated wrestling sites that cover these events - that certainly doesn't help on the notability side). For example, SummerSlam (2003), which is a FA. Reliable sources, sure. But the fact remains that they are dedicated to pro wrestling. It certainly doesn't prove that the event had any kind of notability outside of wrestling. Anyone seeking to delete them would simply cite WP:ROUTINE. Sure the articles are long, but they're just a bunch of detailed (in many cases, overly detailed) summaries of matches. In all honesty, and I am a huge fan of wrestling, I look through some of our GAs and see no reason why they can't be trimmed and merged back into the old system of having all the ppvs listed on the page for the main event.
I think editors need to work harder on proving notability. I know they can be hard to find, but the articles are out there. Many times when a ppv is about to happen, newspapers in the city where it is being held cover the event. A lot of effort should be made to find some of those and use them, because they help prove notability. Either way, I'm hoping that the active editors of this project are aware of this, because it could be a problem down the road. -- Scorpion 0422 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SummerSlam (1995) is now six kilobytes less full of crap, for what it's worth. Still the same links, though. My browser crashes when I try touching the lead. Would someone mind deleting the second paragraph there, and moving the third to the "Aftermath" section (or a new section)? InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this [1] indicates that the WHC is not considered an acceptable substitute for completing the Triple Crown, as it states on the Triple Crown Championship page. It states the the WWE triple crown is "the WWE Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and the World or WWE Tag Team Championship." There is already a section here, but I wanted to post on the project page as well to gather more input. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 15:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Papacha, the page lists the wrestlers that meet the criteria, but doesn't say the criteria must be met to be a Triple Crown winner. "Throughout WWE history, there have been a number of Superstars who captured the three original titles, WWE, Intercontinental and World Tag Team, on their way to becoming WWE's Triple Crown winners." Notice my italics, and the omission of the WWE Tag or Unified Tag (or whatever it's called now) title. It's a list of Triple Crown winners who went the "original belts" route. Nothing more. IP 67, I'll get back to you soon. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, 67, I'll have to take your word on what the game says. It keeps hanging my browser. Is a Flash game a reliable source, though, and would it be considered WP:SYNTH to interpret a direction as a declarative statement? I've noticed the Wiki article has no source for including the WHC, so I guess a flimsy source trumps no source (IF the RS and Synth problems aren't real problems). I'll look for a good countersource. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyone consider that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is a surprising claim, not (apparently) covered by multiple mainstream sources. It is supported purely by self-published sources. It seems against the interest WWE previously defended. InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Also, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
On 5 April 2010, I posted on Talk:Triple Crown Championship that WWE officially defined the criteria for the Triple Crown here. Hopefully that settles this silly argument. Feed back ☎ 17:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi project menmbers!
A few minutes ago, one of our reviewers declined the submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MDW Tri-State Heavyweight Championship. I believe that this championship is notable, although it lacks some more good sources. Would/Will somebody help that submitter?
mabdul
13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I was asked to look at the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Two and a Half Wrestlers, and my personal opinion is that it is almost certain to be declined in its current form. The article author is obviously literate and reasonable, and has already made some changes at my request - he's prepared to make more changes. The list of references is long and perhaps useful, but I have no idea which of them are reliable in this field (or might come close to reliable).
Underneath it all there may be the makings of a topic notable enough to need an article, but someone with more knowledge of the wrestling topic will need to work with the author to achieve that. Equally, the topic might be not notable or not yet notable.
So, if anyone here can help work all this out, that would be fantastic. (I will also be watching this thread, but relatively little to add on my part.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge1000 was very helpful in this creation process. I believe the article may need to be written less first person and less from my perspective and more from reliable sources. I feel if i can get these sources that this is a very deserving article.
Here is the article http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Two_and_a_Half_Wrestlers&oldid=499025465
It seems that we've got a user who is copy/paste moving ppv. I could use a hand in reverting this.-- Dch eagle | Thunder Up 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Your input would be greatly appreciated at this discussion I have started. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Royal Rumble for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am Jayemd, the newest member of WikiProject Pro Wrestling -- Jayemd ( talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there any articles I can expand? Jayemd ( talk) 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has already done this, I doubt it. Anyway, I started an article for Raw's 1000th episode in my sandbox. Feel free to expand and edit it like it was in mainspace. I did this because I thought this upcoming episode of Raw would meet notability guidelines to have a stand alone article like a PPV. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 14:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
May I direct your attention to Tyler Black and Jon Moxley. In both articles, it is reliably sourced that both have appeared in WWE dark matches and house shows. My question is that... is this information even relevant enough to their overall careers for it to be included in their Wikipedia articles? They are already developmental wrestlers, so why should we note these "try-out matches" when every single match in developmentals would also qualify as a try-out match? Starship.paint ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you guys could create an article about the former WCW manager Ralphus. He usually managed Norman Smiley but at one match he managed Chris Jericho. The first time I remembered him in WCW was in (I think) early 1999. Jayemd ( talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there's anything to his career that can't be said in Jericho's article. He wasn't exactly busy, from what I remember. I might be wrong, though. And he's probably more notable than Jamieson. I won't create the article, but I won't oppose it either, if you feel like giving it a go. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, someone can go ahead and add The Miz as a Triple Crown winner, but don't go around changing the criteria because of the buffoon Michael Cole. He said the Triple Crown involved the US, IC and WWE titles, but that is simply not true and we have WWE sources to back it up. There's also multitude of sources that show us that Michael Cole is an idiot and says stupid things on Raw all the time. Just this episode, he called Sin Cara "Mysterio" three times during his match, he forgot that Christian's finisher has been the spear for months, and misnamed about 90% of all moves in the few matches he's been calling tonight. Whatever Michael Cole says doesn't counts. This should be made into a guideline. WP:COLEISATROLL Feed back ☎ 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. It's been a while since I've posted here. However, I've been surfing through the Internet for a while since I haven't posted here and found this website called WrestleEnigma.com. They have the results for every WWE and TNA event. For an example, click here and here. Thoughts? BOD ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and merge the Raw and SmackDown rosters into one roster since the brand extension is mostly dead and done with? Both on TV and house shows have both rosters active and all championships can be defended on both brands. Should it be done?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
User Bright Darkness has changed the name of many articles Primo and A.W. without discussion. Also, Wingman1 has change AJ to AJ Lee. I think that we must to change them again or discusses them.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Came across Tyler Black's talk page where an IP questioned the apparent one-time use of "Sam Robins" instead of "Seth Rollins" for Black in a dark match before a SmackDown taping in December 2010 when Black faced Cody Rhodes. The apparent source for Robins was from PWTorch, what we consider a reliable source. Yet such reports are usually sent in by readers of the site who are attending the show. When checking other reliable sources, PWInsider reports Seth Rollins and the Internet Wrestling Database reports Seth Rollins while other websites (not confirmed as reliable, yet...) also report Seth Rollins ( OWOW and prowrestling.com). Searching for "Sam Robins" with "Cody Rhodes" and "dark match" yields mostly clones of the current Wikipedia entry. So is it safe to say that Sam Robins never existed? Starship.paint ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen my edit to Armageddon 2000? Although there might have been slight edits by other users since, mine was the first to include an entire 'Event' section. It also includes some add information to the 'Aftermath' section. I wonder what all of you guys think about this article being nominated. I have never been a major contributor to a nomination before, and i'm looking to make a major step in my Wikipedia career. -- Jayemd ( talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In both cases, significant changes were made recently to the article, mostly by IP editors. In each case, these IP edits just so happened to resemble what you would come to expect from an experienced Wikipedia editor. This sort of behavior comes across my watchlist often enough to where I would think it flies under the radar of sockpuppet investigations.
The first problem is with Kayfabe. Within the past week-plus, two large portions were removed, one after the other, including sourced content. The content which has been added since amounts to more week-to-week nonsense. Particularly troubling is the blanking of the "Etymology" section, since this is after all an article which attempts to explain the meaning of a word. The edit summary reads, and I quote: "rm completely unsourced section after 6 months of waiting". Um, waiting for what, exactly? Someone to do the work for you? I only had the time to write this because my roommate's boyfriend woke me up at 6 o'clock this morning for no reason and I couldn't go back to sleep. Also compare the quality of the sources used in the material which was removed versus the material which was added afterward.
The second problem is with Mil Máscaras. There were a recent series of IP edits, once again by someone who obviously knows what they're doing as opposed to what we're used to seeing by IP editors. Sourced content was removed and a lot of unsourced content was kept. The main issue here is the tone of the article after these edits, which is now so complimentary to where it might as well be labeled an advertisement. I forget whether it was Randy or Jason who said this, but all of a sudden, the line "Mil, your mascaras is running" takes on a whole new meaning after reading this puff piece. The "Criticism" section was rewritten to be a point-counterpoint, once again making the subject look rosy. People have been writing about Mil's monstrous ego since long before there was any such thing as wrestling websites. Note this passage: "Mascaras was also the heavyweight champion of the IWA wrestling promotion, which was founded by Eddie Einhorn, and still holds the title to this day." If you look hard enough, this can be explained by discussion of how the IWA's failure was largely attributed to his unwillingness to put any opponents over, even if such was written by Dave Meltzer. RadioKAOS ( talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
With the release of the official buyrate figures for ER2012, I feel that the article is finally complete (save the conclusion of Lesnar/HHH for the aftermath section). I have worked extensively on the whole article and so I would like to see some fruit for my efforts... Is there any way WP:PW members could guide it to GA-status? I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look. Starship.paint ( talk) 08:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
NJZombie and I have a difference of opinion. It's my thinking that a wrestler that does not go by a personal name (i.e. CM Punk, Big Show, The Ultimate Warrior, you get it) can be referred to in an abbreviated fashion (Punk/Show/Warrior). NJZombie's thought is that these are not surnames and thus should be written in full wherever used in an article. <ex:Punk & Show to lesser extent>
“ | On July 23 at Raw 1000, CM Punk would have an encounter with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and promised to still be holding the WWE Championship in time for the Royal Rumble to face the Rock. Later that night, CM Punk would defend the WWE Championship against Money in the Bank ladder match winner John Cena, who had cashed in his right for a title shot at the event. Big Show interfered in their match, knocking out Cena and leaving CM Punk hesitant on whether to capitalize and secure his title or help his opponent. Ultimately CM Punk chose to go for the win, but Cena kicked out of his pin attempt. Big Show again came out to attack Cena, ending the match in a disqualification. The Rock attempted to intervene, but was clotheslined by CM Punk, who mocked his signature stance before executing a GTS and leaving alone. The following week, CM Punk attacked John Cena from behind during a number one contender's match against the Big Show for the WWE Championship. As CM Punk walked out of the arena, new General Manager AJ announced that both Big Show and Cena would face CM Punk in a triple threat match at Summerslam. | ” |
Not to say there isn't but I don't see an official policy endorsing this; seems a rather clumsy way of noting anything and far from the ideal. While Wikipedia doesn't base its writing style by another website's example WWE has no issue with it, nor would I argue that it's in a casual way inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. Guidelines'll vary surely but I see proper names abridged across the breadth of the site. Feedback or direction appreciated as always. Papacha ( talk) 14:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Papacha. Last name or not, it just reads far smoother abbreviated. It's not like it's going to confuse anyone (unless Ultimate Warrior has a match with Giant Warrior). That paragraph is excessively wordy in other ways, too. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see a good argument for Punk and Warrior. "Show" sounds ridiculous to me, though. While he might be referred to as Show on wrestling websites, it has too much of an unencyclopedic tone for my liking. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind, "Jericho", "Martel" and "Hogan" are also not surnames, strictly speaking. They are partial stage names, like Punk or Show, though they more closely resemble proper names. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to discuss the situation with NXT and Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW). FCW has changed their name to NXT Wrestling and moved everything FCW-related to the NXT name, while also dropping all of the FCW titles (including the Jack Brisco 15 medal) in the process. NXT also changed this year as well, dropping the "Rookie/Pro" aspect in late 2011 and cutting major storylines short in early 2012. NXT has also developed a championship belt called the NXT Championship and giving it to Seth Rollins after defeating Jinder Mahal for it in a "Gold Rush" tournament. What I was thinking was renaming and modifying FCW to NXT Wrestling and modify the NXT page to reflect the changes from merging with FCW to become WWE's developmental territory.-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that the titles and superstar are assigned to a brand? For example, Cena's article:"an American professional wrestler and actor. He is currently signed to WWE as a member of its Raw brand.[7]" But now, in WWE.com, I can't see raw roster and SD roster, I only can see superstars and divas. I think that now, titles and wrestler haven't a brand. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's because as a result of the current 'People Power' era, there is simply no incentive to continue the 'brand warfare' between the two shows. -- Jayemd ( talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If you check the "Current" tab at the bottom of the Superstars page on WWE.com, you'll see that there are options for both Raw and SmackDown. You can see who's officially on Raw and SmackDown by looking at that. SilentGanda ( talk) 07:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Todya, I have loked the NXT Tyler Black's bio and I saw that NXT call him the "first ever “FCW Grand Slam” champion, having held FCW tag team gold, the coveted Jack Brisco 15 medal and the Florida Heavyweight Championship". Do you think that we must add this information to the Grand Slam and Tyler Black articles? Also, if Black won the FCW Grand Slam, Richie Steamboat won too. http://www.fcwwrestling.info/Roster/Seth-Rollins.html -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28#Template:Right to Censor. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion of this in February but this article, most recently deleted two years ago with sock puppet voting, should probably be taken to DRV or someone inputting a new version. It's an interesting oversight that the #1 ranked female wrestler in the world by PWI is the only one without a wikipedia article due to notability discussions several years ago. –– Lid( Talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to John Cleese (there I go again!)...I've mentioned at various times that hip-hop shows obvious signs of being influenced by pro wrestling. Sometimes it appears that tunnel vision is rampant to where this isn't viewed as encyclopedic. I was listening to music just now, and MC Lars came up. He mentions a "musical associate" named "Kay Flabe" (or possibly "Kayflabe"; it's unclear to me whether the name is one or two words). Am I supposed to believe that this is mere coincidence and not at all in reference to kayfabe? RadioKAOS ( talk) 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, what happened here? Did a nuke go off of something? Simply asking because I can't help but notice the unbelievable decline in organization around here. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a small list of things, still something I thought should have been addressed by now. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 17:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is the project inactive? Well, some people burned themselves out. Other people moved on to different phases of their lives. Not a lot of new people took a big role in the project, because interested editors had been chased away. Rather than mentoring newcomers, the approach was often edit wars, criticism, and an insistence on doing things a certain way "because that's just how it's done" or "because someone said that we had to do it that way in an FA review." In the pursuit of "being viewed positively" by the Wikipedia community, the project tried to justify its existence with featured content. Between over-application of (sometimes unhelpful) suggestions and a perpetual inferiority complex ("I think everything is harder for people who write about an unappreciated topic like professional wrestling, so I'll try to have sources declared unreliable and articles deleted to justify my self-fulfilling prophecy."). All of this, combined with people who left in anger and directed their later efforts to attacking the project, left it somewhat of a ghost town. Does this mean the project is unsalvageable? Of course not. But it would take a lot of co-operation and understanding to bring new users into the fold. (Please note that I am not an active member or editor, and I'm simply in a state of limbo because I'm stuck at 98 DYKs and don't want to leave without 100 but can't bring myself to write 2 more articles, so I just check my watchlist 2 or 3 times a week). Oh, and your five points sound fine. I never liked the idea of Wikipedia deciding what constitutes a PPV main event (much like my distaste for Wikipedia deciding which titles are legitimate "world championships"). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been busy writing an NFL article and doing related image work on the Commons, but if there's something needing to be done, let me know because I'm still around. Regards, — Moe ε 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Another thing more pertinent to Wikipedia in general versus this project in particular: it appears to me that the number of warm bodies willing to actually maintain and expand the encyclopedia is at an all-time low since I've been active on here. You have a core of active users, but many appear to be admins, WikiGnomes, full-time editors and the like, plus others who offer the appearance of having ulterior motives (e.g. people maintaining external websites based on sourced contributions to Wikipedia, people trying to push a book they wrote on a particular topic which has an article, etc.). There's a lot of politics and strange beliefs evident on here, which may frustrate people who just wish to share knowledge. Between knowing that my current lull in paying work isn't going to last forever, and the appearance that the aforementioned crappy phone may be dying, I dunno how much longer I can remain active in discussions such as this. I participate in other WPs which see far less activity than this one does, and see work which needs to be done from as long as 5 to 7 years ago which has been left to languish. In all likelihood, this is because that work amounts to drudgery and is not very glamorous, or fits in with either the interest or skill set of very few users.
Back to recentism, as well as perhaps the lack of regional perspective due to the one-size-fits-all global attitudes brought on by the Internet and television: I just noticed Category:Wrestling people from Ontario. Of the professional wrestlers listed in that category (there are also amateur wrestlers), Abdullah the Butcher is the sole entry who was a star prior to the past 10-15 years. The first name I would have added was Whipper Billy Watson, who was synonymous with wrestling in Toronto (and it could be argued that Maple Leaf Gardens was a far more important wrestling venue than even Madison Square Garden) for longer than many of the names currently found in that category have been alive. Gary Will has written extensively enough to where I don't believe lack of available information is the problem there. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP just added this to the lead of Gorilla Monsoon. Thought I would share it before it gets reverted (or perhaps more importantly, before I no longer have the time to dig it up):
Despite posthumous, revisionist acclaim, Marella was widely derided during his commentary career.
The only problem I see with this statement is that in reality, it applies to just about every wrestling announcer, with the possible exception of Lance Russell, Dave Brown and Jim Ross. Yes, it even applies to Gordon Solie. RadioKAOS ( talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This reminds me of another common mistake PW editors should watch out for/not make themselves: those who call the match or babble through it are commentators, those who introduce the wrestlers and relay the ref's decision are announcers. I've fixed the Monsoon article accordingly. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
WWE has been putting Daniel Bryan and Kane through a "Anger Management" storyline with a character called "Dr. Shelby" as their counselor. Last night on Raw, Dr. Shelby informed both Bryan and Kane that they will work together as a tag team to solve their anger issues. I just wanted to know if it's ok to add Dr. Shelby in the Other On-air employees section on the List of WWE personnel page or wait until after Night of Champions?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I know nothing of pro wrestling so could some people that do take a look at the following userpages and determine if any of these are actual legit drafts or WP:FAKEARTICLE violations?
My impression, after digging, is that a number of common IPs link these pages to User:IFL(MMA Company) & User:Fight League (IFL); all seem to be the work of User:Justin Bianco/ User:Michael Cage. Before I plow into a large MfD, I want to know if any of the subjects listed above have a chance at a Wiki article.
Thanks, — Scien tizzle 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Kendell Windham recently had an "a" replaced by an editor who says he read it should be "e" in unspecified "public records". I've reverted the article text and added a reference for the familiar spelling, but I'm not sure how to revert the page move. Someone here is sure, I'm sure. Thanks. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This editor is rather busy today. Sheesh. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Lynn Denton should be moved back, too. You may remember him (like the rest of the wrestling world does) as Len Denton. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Brian Knobs was moved due to an alleged e-mail, despite all sources in the article calling him Brian Knobbs. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the NXT Championship has the WWE logo on the belt design. Does this make the championship and it's current holder Seth Rollins apart of the List of current champions in WWE?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It is an official WWE title belt, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed as a WWE championship? KANE 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could I please request that the article List of WWE pay-per-view events by protected as it has been vandalised a lot recently. I have posted on the articles talk page too but I though if I post here it will get noticed quicker, thanks, KANE 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
PWInsider.com has reported that WWE and APJW will be entering some sort of a talent exchange/alliance with each other. I've posted the link to both pages, but should I continue adding more info when or if WWE and AJPW acknowledges the rumor?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to request an article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a bit of a dispute has arisen regarding the lead images on championship pages, and I'd appreciate it if others could chip in opinions. Essentially, the dispute goes like this: For a while, championship lists used an image of a champion with the belt, even if that person was not the current champion. It simply used the best image we had. ( example) In recent times, users have started switching the lead image to one of the current champion, with or without the belt. ( example)
I disagree with this, because I think it's more important to show what the belt looks like (after all, it is a list of CHAMPIONS) as opposed to going for recentism. I noticed this yesterday and made some changes. The US champion list used an image of Claudio Castagnoli long before he became Antonio Cesaro. The List of WWE Champions used double stacked images, which collided with the table below. I switched the images, and didn't expect a problem. But there was one.
Now a user has come up with a one-person "compromise", decreeing that from now on champions lists should use an image of the belt, with an image of the champion further below. ( example) I disagree with this because 1) The page is about the champions, not the belt itelf. and 2) The images further below collide with the tables on smaller browsers.
So could some others please chip in on this. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. The article is "List of United States Champions", no WWE United States Championship. I think that we can put a Cesareo's picture in the WWE United States Championship's article. Also, maybe we can do like WWE Hall of Fame, we put to the right some pictures of important Champions. For example, in the List of WWE Champions, we can put Hogan, Rock, Austin or Cena. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to request several article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. I was for the assessment of Evan Karagias, Hajime Ohara, Taka Michinoku, Vampiro, Tajiri and Yujiro Kushida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I have made an 8k improvement to Jado's professional wrestling career section and will be needed to be assessed and most likely go to start status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I need to use prowrestling.net as a source but I want input from WP:PW before do.-- Dch eagle | Join the Fight! 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I know that, since articles like ShowMiz, Jerishow or The Unholly Alliance, we have created a lot of Tag team Articles. But I think that this has gone very very far and we need to decide again what makes a tag team relevant. For example, The Encore. One day and the stable has his own article, but I can't see why is relevant. One day only... Or Team Hell No. Yeah, Kane and Bryan have a feud, but they do nothing relevant as a Tag Team. I think that a Tag team regin is not relevant, in that case, we can create articles like Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam or Edge and Chris Benoit. Other examples, the Chickbusters. They only had weekly matches and we have the rule "no weekly event". Also, we have a lot of Tag teams that only focused in singles carers, not in Tag Team action, like TnT or Angelina Love and Winter. I think that we must discus it. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, who thinks that we must nominate the next articles:
TnT (professional wrestling),
The Encore,
Team Hell No,
The Chickbusters --
HHH Pedrigree (
talk)
20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll take this opportunity to repeat: The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. Time is completely irrelevant. A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is a fair amount of discussion of the team in independent reliable sources, the article stays. If not, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Please put personal preference aside and stick with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Please note that some, or maybe even all, of the teams mentioned here do not meet the notability guidelines, but not necessarily for the reasons people are claiming.) GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, saying a bunch of things I've probably already said, but...
A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
Not about tag teams, but the point is still the same. Enough has been written about the 1971 Freddie Blassie vs. John Tolos match at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum over the years that, going by your logic, it would deserve its own article. If that's perhaps considered out of line, at least an article on the event or the feud. What's been mentioned about the match thus far on Wikipedia (sourced, even) is a start, though without further knowledge of the event, you may think this to be another opinion-driven invention on my part. Quite possibly there's some truth to that, though that's more the case of my understanding of the significance of that match than in deliberately trying to make something up. Yes, wrestling promotions were (semi-)regularly doing stadium shows during "the wilderness years," even if they weren't selling them out like WrestleMania does today.
My main point *is* a rehash. Reliably sourced information is everywhere. Some of it just requires work to find and bring to the table. Sgt. Slaughter told the same story about how he became a pro wrestler to sports columnist Steve Turcotte of the Anchorage Times in 1985 as he told on the Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's DVD twenty-some years later, minus the part about holding his own against Billy Robinson. I would hope this would clue someone in to the notion that there may be other sources out there to explore. It may very well address my most recent, as well as overall, grievances with undue weight and one-dimensional articles in general, which proliferate throughout articles covered under this project.
Something specific about other sources: there was a comment on this page some while back to the effect that sheets are unverifiable. I suppose that few or none of you were aware of the role that Factsheet Five played in popularizing sheets during the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, you may also not be aware that Mike Gunderloy donated his collection to the New York State Library. That means that a major research library in the United States has quite a number of wrestling sheets amongst its collections. To me, that renders the verifiability argument moot. Looking at individual publications, the remaining major question would be one of editorial standards. RadioKAOS ( talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
@ANI This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal... To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Wikipedia version of a lynch mob.
According to NXT's page on WWE.com, it looks like some of NXT's most featured superstars and divas have profiles on the website. But when I click on Seth Rollins' profile, it's just a photo gallery and a brief description of him. Should I move the featured NXT superstars and divas on the main roster on the List of WWE personnel page or wait? Keith Okamoto ( talk) 17:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been reliving a few weeks worth of Raw from 1994, and if there's anything more prevalent in the SummerSlam hype than Undertaker vs Undertaker, it's Domino's Pizza. Which leads me to wonder what the Wikiproject thinks about about having a "Sponsor" (or similar term) column in the PPV article (the ones for the event in general, like SummerSlam above) tables. I think that the particular brand associations with PPVs add a distinct, intangible overall "feeling" to the show, like the venue or main event does. Hogan vs Warrior at SkyDome wouldn't have the same soul, fueled by Snickers instead of Castrol GTX. Maybe I've just watched too much TV. But I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's not exactly necessary information, but it might certainly qualify as interesting. Anyone interested? InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, nevermind that. Quite a few events aren't explicitly sponsored by anyone, so a table would have blanks. But I've been adding the info to leads of individual events (where applicable), and would like to see a parameter in the infobox for this. Thoughts? InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes are still a bit foreign to me. Can I just add the Sponsor parameter to each article by simply typing it in, or do I need to edit a central infobox template page somewhere?
InedibleHulk (
talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I've tried both at
Elimination Chamber (2011) and
Template:Infobox Wrestling event. I'm still missing a piece of the puzzle, apparently.
InedibleHulk (
talk) 09:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Got it. We now have a "Sponsor" field, if anyone cares to use it.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
All my Arsion articles have been deleted which was because they are apparently not relevant, can some people vote on their speddy deletion because I think they're important. GamingWithStatoke ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you'd be better off leaving all and any ARSION related info in the main ARSION article itself... stuff like the Twin Star championships, just merge it. You're already facing enough sourcing issues as it is. I searched F4WOnline and WrestleView and found passing mentions of ARSION but nothing much about the promotion itself. I hit gold, one single link to help you out through PWTorch. You might want to try googling site:slam.canoe.ca , there are some passing mentions there too. Starship.paint ( talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe there's glaring folly with professional wrestler based articles ON A WHOLE here at Wikipedia: When the real name of a professional wrestler is looked up, one is often immersed with an article, chocked full of information based predominately on the fictitious, storylined wrestling character and/or career of the person. A professional wrestler's wrestling career and character, believe it or not, is but one mere aspect of them and should not cover 95% of their article, but this is the format used in most, if not all Wikipedia articles based upon professional wrestlers. It follows the same exact logic as not having the Jaleel White article focus predominately on his Steve Urkel character; instead, there's a separate article for Steve Urkel. This is not, however, the case with Mark Calaway. Just as is the case with Steve Urkel solely being Jaleel White's on-screen character and not the man behind the character, The Undertaker is Mark Calaway's on-screen character, HBK is Michael Hickenbottom's on-screen character, etc.
In most articles based upon public figures, we learn about their: childhood years, early years, how the star started out in the industry, personal trials and tribulations, etc., but we only learn a smidgen of this at best in articles based upon professional wrestlers because they're dedicated to facts and figures relating to the professional wrestling careers or characters of the person. It makes no sense to me as to why these professional wrestlers don't have separate articles as between their major wrestling gimmicks and their real lives. It's just shocking that if people want to know about Mark Calaway on Wikipedia, they're inundated with facts about The Undertaker gimmick. You're certainly not going to get much on Mark Calaway from this article: The Undertaker.
By the way, there's currently an ongoing poll on whether to merge the Mr. McMahon article with the Vince McMahon article. I expressed these same concerns in the poll. 173.0.254.226 ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is the near solitary emphasis on his one "gimmick", and not even really his gimmick, but rather the gimmick's match-by-match history. (This is not only exampled by the Undertaker article, but many professional wrestler articles and only professional wrestler articles). Mark Calaway has competed in a number of different wrestling leagues with different wrestling gimmicks, done movies, TV shows, been involved in controversies, etc. What we get, however, when we view the Mark Calaway article is a match-by-match map of the Undertaker gimmick's career. There needs to be a separation between heavy emphasis on his one gimmick's feud-by-feud career and his public figure life as a whole. The Mark Calaway article should concisely touch upon his wrestling career as whole:
Example: these are his early years and where he went to K-12 and college; BOOM! this is where he went to wrestling school; BOOM! this is the wrestling industry he started out in; BOOM! he played this, this, this, this in WCW; BOOM! He spent the majority of his career in WWE as Undertaker and for more see "Undertaker gimmick" article; BOOM! He did this in hollywood (Poltergeist, Suburban Commando); BOOM! These are his controversies and criticisms; BOOM!, etc.) But when we look up Mark Calaway, what we find is his scripted match-by-match career as The Undertaker: Undertaker fights Diesel in March 1996; Undertaker then fights Goldust at In Your House Be Ware of Dog in May of 1996; Undertaker then gets in a fight with Mankind in June of 1996, Undertaker then fights Goldust again at the following pay-per-view of In Your House.
It's basically like looking up Jaleel White and getting what he did episode-by-episode on Family Matters as Steve Urkel. 173.0.254.226 ( talk) 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
~
Pardon me if I tl;dr, but there's a Personal life sub-section for most articles on pro wrestlers. If you want to tell the story of Mark Calaway's life, you can do it that sub-section. Are the wrestlers' personal lives so interesting and full of information that they warrant a separate article? I doubt it. Starship.paint ( talk) 12:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, there is an ongoing (rather, stagnant?) discussion on whether to merge the Vince McMahon and Mr. McMahon articles Here. Anyone care to weigh in? Starship.paint ( talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
We have info boxes for wrestlers, teams, stables, events, promotions and championships - would it make sense to come up with one for tournaments? or just use the champions info box? Tournaments such as King of the Ring, Leyenda de Azul etc. may benefit from one single, consistent info box? not sure of content but is it even a good idea to try to create one? MPJ -US 23:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this template really needed? Having a navbox with a single entry (and, most likely, no other entries for close to a year) seems fairly unnecessary. I'd propose deleting it.
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is relevant here.
{{ TNA Hall of Fame}}
McPhail ( talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
How about {{ LayCool}} Starship.paint ( talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently it has come to my attention that we have three NXT articles... NXT Wrestling, WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT. Firstly, "NXT Wrestling" is the renamed Florida Championship Wrestling article, renamed after FCW was rebranded to NXT. As for the latter two articles, it was proposed (click!) by Srsrox in August to split the article. Recently Kerbymanuel split the two articles, but I look at it now and there's still a lot of overlap IMO. I'd like for the project to weigh in on this matter... should we have only two articles, one for NXT 1-5 (proposed by Keith Okamoto) and the second for FCW + NXT6? Or any other alternative anyone wants to propose? Starship.paint ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is annoying. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational, but we're not using the proper terms for face and heel. I get that these words are a bit foreign for non-fans, but there are many terms in many fields across Wikipedia that are Greek to a far greater readership. These are explained by Wikilinks. A new reader will go "Heel? What's that?", click the link and be enlightened. Next time they see the word (on Wikipedia or anywhere), they'll recognize it. Mission accomplished. And we don't sound like idiots for dumbing it down. Who's into repealing this crap? InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And yes, I'm aware that this has been discussed. But times change (and I wasn't there). InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's a pretty strong consensus. I'll rewrite the part of the MoS that recommends "heroes" and "villains" (and "damsels", if it's there). InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 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 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
Arn Anderson needs our help! We owe it to him, as wrestling fans, to back up at least a few facts with footnotes. It's been tagged for nearly two years. Any editor could remove virtually all of the article at any moment, and it would stand up in Wikicourt. His entire story would be completely lost to history, and future generations would tend to assume "The Enforcer" was either a crappy movie or a monster truck. Horseman or not, no article is "too big to fail". I've done my part, by mentioning it. Won't you do yours, and save Arn from obscurity? InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This, this and this would be good places to start. Google News archive searches are also often useful. And yes, Slam Wrestling is a great site! It may not have an Anderson profile, but it undoubtedly contains some relevant information somewhere. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Googling ("arn anderson" site:slam.canoe.ca) confirms my theory. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello folks, it's been a long time since I've posted here, but I have a concern I wanted to bring up. I have no idea if this has been discussed here, but it should be. I'm sure most of you have noticed that many MMA articles are being deleted or merged into a big hard-to-read list. When I first saw this happening, I was immediately concerned for pro wrestling articles. If these MMA events, which routinely receive front page coverage in some of the largest sports news sites out there, are being deleted as non-notable, what chance do WWE events have? Now, anyone who did go after pro wrestling ppvs would have a much harder time, because there are more articles, more GAs, and more dedicated editors. But it could happen. I decided to look at some of our GAs and FAs, and I see them sourced almost entirely to pro wrestling sites (and I am aware that there are few to no sources other than dedicated wrestling sites that cover these events - that certainly doesn't help on the notability side). For example, SummerSlam (2003), which is a FA. Reliable sources, sure. But the fact remains that they are dedicated to pro wrestling. It certainly doesn't prove that the event had any kind of notability outside of wrestling. Anyone seeking to delete them would simply cite WP:ROUTINE. Sure the articles are long, but they're just a bunch of detailed (in many cases, overly detailed) summaries of matches. In all honesty, and I am a huge fan of wrestling, I look through some of our GAs and see no reason why they can't be trimmed and merged back into the old system of having all the ppvs listed on the page for the main event.
I think editors need to work harder on proving notability. I know they can be hard to find, but the articles are out there. Many times when a ppv is about to happen, newspapers in the city where it is being held cover the event. A lot of effort should be made to find some of those and use them, because they help prove notability. Either way, I'm hoping that the active editors of this project are aware of this, because it could be a problem down the road. -- Scorpion 0422 03:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
SummerSlam (1995) is now six kilobytes less full of crap, for what it's worth. Still the same links, though. My browser crashes when I try touching the lead. Would someone mind deleting the second paragraph there, and moving the third to the "Aftermath" section (or a new section)? InedibleHulk ( talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this [1] indicates that the WHC is not considered an acceptable substitute for completing the Triple Crown, as it states on the Triple Crown Championship page. It states the the WWE triple crown is "the WWE Championship, the Intercontinental Championship, and the World or WWE Tag Team Championship." There is already a section here, but I wanted to post on the project page as well to gather more input. 67.181.76.194 ( talk) 15:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Papacha, the page lists the wrestlers that meet the criteria, but doesn't say the criteria must be met to be a Triple Crown winner. "Throughout WWE history, there have been a number of Superstars who captured the three original titles, WWE, Intercontinental and World Tag Team, on their way to becoming WWE's Triple Crown winners." Notice my italics, and the omission of the WWE Tag or Unified Tag (or whatever it's called now) title. It's a list of Triple Crown winners who went the "original belts" route. Nothing more. IP 67, I'll get back to you soon. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
OK, 67, I'll have to take your word on what the game says. It keeps hanging my browser. Is a Flash game a reliable source, though, and would it be considered WP:SYNTH to interpret a direction as a declarative statement? I've noticed the Wiki article has no source for including the WHC, so I guess a flimsy source trumps no source (IF the RS and Synth problems aren't real problems). I'll look for a good countersource. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Everyone consider that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. This is a surprising claim, not (apparently) covered by multiple mainstream sources. It is supported purely by self-published sources. It seems against the interest WWE previously defended. InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Also, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. InedibleHulk ( talk) 07:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
On 5 April 2010, I posted on Talk:Triple Crown Championship that WWE officially defined the criteria for the Triple Crown here. Hopefully that settles this silly argument. Feed back ☎ 17:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi project menmbers!
A few minutes ago, one of our reviewers declined the submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MDW Tri-State Heavyweight Championship. I believe that this championship is notable, although it lacks some more good sources. Would/Will somebody help that submitter?
mabdul
13:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I was asked to look at the article draft Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Two and a Half Wrestlers, and my personal opinion is that it is almost certain to be declined in its current form. The article author is obviously literate and reasonable, and has already made some changes at my request - he's prepared to make more changes. The list of references is long and perhaps useful, but I have no idea which of them are reliable in this field (or might come close to reliable).
Underneath it all there may be the makings of a topic notable enough to need an article, but someone with more knowledge of the wrestling topic will need to work with the author to achieve that. Equally, the topic might be not notable or not yet notable.
So, if anyone here can help work all this out, that would be fantastic. (I will also be watching this thread, but relatively little to add on my part.) -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 20:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Demiurge1000 was very helpful in this creation process. I believe the article may need to be written less first person and less from my perspective and more from reliable sources. I feel if i can get these sources that this is a very deserving article.
Here is the article http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Two_and_a_Half_Wrestlers&oldid=499025465
It seems that we've got a user who is copy/paste moving ppv. I could use a hand in reverting this.-- Dch eagle | Thunder Up 20:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Your input would be greatly appreciated at this discussion I have started. Thanks. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 13:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Royal Rumble for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I am Jayemd, the newest member of WikiProject Pro Wrestling -- Jayemd ( talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there any articles I can expand? Jayemd ( talk) 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone has already done this, I doubt it. Anyway, I started an article for Raw's 1000th episode in my sandbox. Feel free to expand and edit it like it was in mainspace. I did this because I thought this upcoming episode of Raw would meet notability guidelines to have a stand alone article like a PPV. CRRays Head90 | Get Some! 14:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
May I direct your attention to Tyler Black and Jon Moxley. In both articles, it is reliably sourced that both have appeared in WWE dark matches and house shows. My question is that... is this information even relevant enough to their overall careers for it to be included in their Wikipedia articles? They are already developmental wrestlers, so why should we note these "try-out matches" when every single match in developmentals would also qualify as a try-out match? Starship.paint ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you guys could create an article about the former WCW manager Ralphus. He usually managed Norman Smiley but at one match he managed Chris Jericho. The first time I remembered him in WCW was in (I think) early 1999. Jayemd ( talk) 22:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there's anything to his career that can't be said in Jericho's article. He wasn't exactly busy, from what I remember. I might be wrong, though. And he's probably more notable than Jamieson. I won't create the article, but I won't oppose it either, if you feel like giving it a go. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, someone can go ahead and add The Miz as a Triple Crown winner, but don't go around changing the criteria because of the buffoon Michael Cole. He said the Triple Crown involved the US, IC and WWE titles, but that is simply not true and we have WWE sources to back it up. There's also multitude of sources that show us that Michael Cole is an idiot and says stupid things on Raw all the time. Just this episode, he called Sin Cara "Mysterio" three times during his match, he forgot that Christian's finisher has been the spear for months, and misnamed about 90% of all moves in the few matches he's been calling tonight. Whatever Michael Cole says doesn't counts. This should be made into a guideline. WP:COLEISATROLL Feed back ☎ 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. It's been a while since I've posted here. However, I've been surfing through the Internet for a while since I haven't posted here and found this website called WrestleEnigma.com. They have the results for every WWE and TNA event. For an example, click here and here. Thoughts? BOD ( talk) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we go ahead and merge the Raw and SmackDown rosters into one roster since the brand extension is mostly dead and done with? Both on TV and house shows have both rosters active and all championships can be defended on both brands. Should it be done?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
User Bright Darkness has changed the name of many articles Primo and A.W. without discussion. Also, Wingman1 has change AJ to AJ Lee. I think that we must to change them again or discusses them.-- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Came across Tyler Black's talk page where an IP questioned the apparent one-time use of "Sam Robins" instead of "Seth Rollins" for Black in a dark match before a SmackDown taping in December 2010 when Black faced Cody Rhodes. The apparent source for Robins was from PWTorch, what we consider a reliable source. Yet such reports are usually sent in by readers of the site who are attending the show. When checking other reliable sources, PWInsider reports Seth Rollins and the Internet Wrestling Database reports Seth Rollins while other websites (not confirmed as reliable, yet...) also report Seth Rollins ( OWOW and prowrestling.com). Searching for "Sam Robins" with "Cody Rhodes" and "dark match" yields mostly clones of the current Wikipedia entry. So is it safe to say that Sam Robins never existed? Starship.paint ( talk) 13:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen my edit to Armageddon 2000? Although there might have been slight edits by other users since, mine was the first to include an entire 'Event' section. It also includes some add information to the 'Aftermath' section. I wonder what all of you guys think about this article being nominated. I have never been a major contributor to a nomination before, and i'm looking to make a major step in my Wikipedia career. -- Jayemd ( talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In both cases, significant changes were made recently to the article, mostly by IP editors. In each case, these IP edits just so happened to resemble what you would come to expect from an experienced Wikipedia editor. This sort of behavior comes across my watchlist often enough to where I would think it flies under the radar of sockpuppet investigations.
The first problem is with Kayfabe. Within the past week-plus, two large portions were removed, one after the other, including sourced content. The content which has been added since amounts to more week-to-week nonsense. Particularly troubling is the blanking of the "Etymology" section, since this is after all an article which attempts to explain the meaning of a word. The edit summary reads, and I quote: "rm completely unsourced section after 6 months of waiting". Um, waiting for what, exactly? Someone to do the work for you? I only had the time to write this because my roommate's boyfriend woke me up at 6 o'clock this morning for no reason and I couldn't go back to sleep. Also compare the quality of the sources used in the material which was removed versus the material which was added afterward.
The second problem is with Mil Máscaras. There were a recent series of IP edits, once again by someone who obviously knows what they're doing as opposed to what we're used to seeing by IP editors. Sourced content was removed and a lot of unsourced content was kept. The main issue here is the tone of the article after these edits, which is now so complimentary to where it might as well be labeled an advertisement. I forget whether it was Randy or Jason who said this, but all of a sudden, the line "Mil, your mascaras is running" takes on a whole new meaning after reading this puff piece. The "Criticism" section was rewritten to be a point-counterpoint, once again making the subject look rosy. People have been writing about Mil's monstrous ego since long before there was any such thing as wrestling websites. Note this passage: "Mascaras was also the heavyweight champion of the IWA wrestling promotion, which was founded by Eddie Einhorn, and still holds the title to this day." If you look hard enough, this can be explained by discussion of how the IWA's failure was largely attributed to his unwillingness to put any opponents over, even if such was written by Dave Meltzer. RadioKAOS ( talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
With the release of the official buyrate figures for ER2012, I feel that the article is finally complete (save the conclusion of Lesnar/HHH for the aftermath section). I have worked extensively on the whole article and so I would like to see some fruit for my efforts... Is there any way WP:PW members could guide it to GA-status? I would very much appreciate it if you would take a look. Starship.paint ( talk) 08:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
NJZombie and I have a difference of opinion. It's my thinking that a wrestler that does not go by a personal name (i.e. CM Punk, Big Show, The Ultimate Warrior, you get it) can be referred to in an abbreviated fashion (Punk/Show/Warrior). NJZombie's thought is that these are not surnames and thus should be written in full wherever used in an article. <ex:Punk & Show to lesser extent>
“ | On July 23 at Raw 1000, CM Punk would have an encounter with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and promised to still be holding the WWE Championship in time for the Royal Rumble to face the Rock. Later that night, CM Punk would defend the WWE Championship against Money in the Bank ladder match winner John Cena, who had cashed in his right for a title shot at the event. Big Show interfered in their match, knocking out Cena and leaving CM Punk hesitant on whether to capitalize and secure his title or help his opponent. Ultimately CM Punk chose to go for the win, but Cena kicked out of his pin attempt. Big Show again came out to attack Cena, ending the match in a disqualification. The Rock attempted to intervene, but was clotheslined by CM Punk, who mocked his signature stance before executing a GTS and leaving alone. The following week, CM Punk attacked John Cena from behind during a number one contender's match against the Big Show for the WWE Championship. As CM Punk walked out of the arena, new General Manager AJ announced that both Big Show and Cena would face CM Punk in a triple threat match at Summerslam. | ” |
Not to say there isn't but I don't see an official policy endorsing this; seems a rather clumsy way of noting anything and far from the ideal. While Wikipedia doesn't base its writing style by another website's example WWE has no issue with it, nor would I argue that it's in a casual way inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. Guidelines'll vary surely but I see proper names abridged across the breadth of the site. Feedback or direction appreciated as always. Papacha ( talk) 14:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Papacha. Last name or not, it just reads far smoother abbreviated. It's not like it's going to confuse anyone (unless Ultimate Warrior has a match with Giant Warrior). That paragraph is excessively wordy in other ways, too. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I can see a good argument for Punk and Warrior. "Show" sounds ridiculous to me, though. While he might be referred to as Show on wrestling websites, it has too much of an unencyclopedic tone for my liking. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 21:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind, "Jericho", "Martel" and "Hogan" are also not surnames, strictly speaking. They are partial stage names, like Punk or Show, though they more closely resemble proper names. InedibleHulk ( talk) 06:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to discuss the situation with NXT and Florida Championship Wrestling (FCW). FCW has changed their name to NXT Wrestling and moved everything FCW-related to the NXT name, while also dropping all of the FCW titles (including the Jack Brisco 15 medal) in the process. NXT also changed this year as well, dropping the "Rookie/Pro" aspect in late 2011 and cutting major storylines short in early 2012. NXT has also developed a championship belt called the NXT Championship and giving it to Seth Rollins after defeating Jinder Mahal for it in a "Gold Rush" tournament. What I was thinking was renaming and modifying FCW to NXT Wrestling and modify the NXT page to reflect the changes from merging with FCW to become WWE's developmental territory.-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 16:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you think that the titles and superstar are assigned to a brand? For example, Cena's article:"an American professional wrestler and actor. He is currently signed to WWE as a member of its Raw brand.[7]" But now, in WWE.com, I can't see raw roster and SD roster, I only can see superstars and divas. I think that now, titles and wrestler haven't a brand. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That's because as a result of the current 'People Power' era, there is simply no incentive to continue the 'brand warfare' between the two shows. -- Jayemd ( talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If you check the "Current" tab at the bottom of the Superstars page on WWE.com, you'll see that there are options for both Raw and SmackDown. You can see who's officially on Raw and SmackDown by looking at that. SilentGanda ( talk) 07:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Todya, I have loked the NXT Tyler Black's bio and I saw that NXT call him the "first ever “FCW Grand Slam” champion, having held FCW tag team gold, the coveted Jack Brisco 15 medal and the Florida Heavyweight Championship". Do you think that we must add this information to the Grand Slam and Tyler Black articles? Also, if Black won the FCW Grand Slam, Richie Steamboat won too. http://www.fcwwrestling.info/Roster/Seth-Rollins.html -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 28#Template:Right to Censor. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion of this in February but this article, most recently deleted two years ago with sock puppet voting, should probably be taken to DRV or someone inputting a new version. It's an interesting oversight that the #1 ranked female wrestler in the world by PWI is the only one without a wikipedia article due to notability discussions several years ago. –– Lid( Talk) 05:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect to John Cleese (there I go again!)...I've mentioned at various times that hip-hop shows obvious signs of being influenced by pro wrestling. Sometimes it appears that tunnel vision is rampant to where this isn't viewed as encyclopedic. I was listening to music just now, and MC Lars came up. He mentions a "musical associate" named "Kay Flabe" (or possibly "Kayflabe"; it's unclear to me whether the name is one or two words). Am I supposed to believe that this is mere coincidence and not at all in reference to kayfabe? RadioKAOS ( talk) 06:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, what happened here? Did a nuke go off of something? Simply asking because I can't help but notice the unbelievable decline in organization around here. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 23:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a small list of things, still something I thought should have been addressed by now. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 17:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is the project inactive? Well, some people burned themselves out. Other people moved on to different phases of their lives. Not a lot of new people took a big role in the project, because interested editors had been chased away. Rather than mentoring newcomers, the approach was often edit wars, criticism, and an insistence on doing things a certain way "because that's just how it's done" or "because someone said that we had to do it that way in an FA review." In the pursuit of "being viewed positively" by the Wikipedia community, the project tried to justify its existence with featured content. Between over-application of (sometimes unhelpful) suggestions and a perpetual inferiority complex ("I think everything is harder for people who write about an unappreciated topic like professional wrestling, so I'll try to have sources declared unreliable and articles deleted to justify my self-fulfilling prophecy."). All of this, combined with people who left in anger and directed their later efforts to attacking the project, left it somewhat of a ghost town. Does this mean the project is unsalvageable? Of course not. But it would take a lot of co-operation and understanding to bring new users into the fold. (Please note that I am not an active member or editor, and I'm simply in a state of limbo because I'm stuck at 98 DYKs and don't want to leave without 100 but can't bring myself to write 2 more articles, so I just check my watchlist 2 or 3 times a week). Oh, and your five points sound fine. I never liked the idea of Wikipedia deciding what constitutes a PPV main event (much like my distaste for Wikipedia deciding which titles are legitimate "world championships"). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I've been busy writing an NFL article and doing related image work on the Commons, but if there's something needing to be done, let me know because I'm still around. Regards, — Moe ε 19:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Another thing more pertinent to Wikipedia in general versus this project in particular: it appears to me that the number of warm bodies willing to actually maintain and expand the encyclopedia is at an all-time low since I've been active on here. You have a core of active users, but many appear to be admins, WikiGnomes, full-time editors and the like, plus others who offer the appearance of having ulterior motives (e.g. people maintaining external websites based on sourced contributions to Wikipedia, people trying to push a book they wrote on a particular topic which has an article, etc.). There's a lot of politics and strange beliefs evident on here, which may frustrate people who just wish to share knowledge. Between knowing that my current lull in paying work isn't going to last forever, and the appearance that the aforementioned crappy phone may be dying, I dunno how much longer I can remain active in discussions such as this. I participate in other WPs which see far less activity than this one does, and see work which needs to be done from as long as 5 to 7 years ago which has been left to languish. In all likelihood, this is because that work amounts to drudgery and is not very glamorous, or fits in with either the interest or skill set of very few users.
Back to recentism, as well as perhaps the lack of regional perspective due to the one-size-fits-all global attitudes brought on by the Internet and television: I just noticed Category:Wrestling people from Ontario. Of the professional wrestlers listed in that category (there are also amateur wrestlers), Abdullah the Butcher is the sole entry who was a star prior to the past 10-15 years. The first name I would have added was Whipper Billy Watson, who was synonymous with wrestling in Toronto (and it could be argued that Maple Leaf Gardens was a far more important wrestling venue than even Madison Square Garden) for longer than many of the names currently found in that category have been alive. Gary Will has written extensively enough to where I don't believe lack of available information is the problem there. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
An IP just added this to the lead of Gorilla Monsoon. Thought I would share it before it gets reverted (or perhaps more importantly, before I no longer have the time to dig it up):
Despite posthumous, revisionist acclaim, Marella was widely derided during his commentary career.
The only problem I see with this statement is that in reality, it applies to just about every wrestling announcer, with the possible exception of Lance Russell, Dave Brown and Jim Ross. Yes, it even applies to Gordon Solie. RadioKAOS ( talk) 01:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
This reminds me of another common mistake PW editors should watch out for/not make themselves: those who call the match or babble through it are commentators, those who introduce the wrestlers and relay the ref's decision are announcers. I've fixed the Monsoon article accordingly. InedibleHulk ( talk) 20:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
WWE has been putting Daniel Bryan and Kane through a "Anger Management" storyline with a character called "Dr. Shelby" as their counselor. Last night on Raw, Dr. Shelby informed both Bryan and Kane that they will work together as a tag team to solve their anger issues. I just wanted to know if it's ok to add Dr. Shelby in the Other On-air employees section on the List of WWE personnel page or wait until after Night of Champions?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I know nothing of pro wrestling so could some people that do take a look at the following userpages and determine if any of these are actual legit drafts or WP:FAKEARTICLE violations?
My impression, after digging, is that a number of common IPs link these pages to User:IFL(MMA Company) & User:Fight League (IFL); all seem to be the work of User:Justin Bianco/ User:Michael Cage. Before I plow into a large MfD, I want to know if any of the subjects listed above have a chance at a Wiki article.
Thanks, — Scien tizzle 20:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Kendell Windham recently had an "a" replaced by an editor who says he read it should be "e" in unspecified "public records". I've reverted the article text and added a reference for the familiar spelling, but I'm not sure how to revert the page move. Someone here is sure, I'm sure. Thanks. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
This editor is rather busy today. Sheesh. InedibleHulk ( talk) 23:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Lynn Denton should be moved back, too. You may remember him (like the rest of the wrestling world does) as Len Denton. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Brian Knobs was moved due to an alleged e-mail, despite all sources in the article calling him Brian Knobbs. InedibleHulk ( talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that the NXT Championship has the WWE logo on the belt design. Does this make the championship and it's current holder Seth Rollins apart of the List of current champions in WWE?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
It is an official WWE title belt, I don't see why it shouldn't be listed as a WWE championship? KANE 22:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could I please request that the article List of WWE pay-per-view events by protected as it has been vandalised a lot recently. I have posted on the articles talk page too but I though if I post here it will get noticed quicker, thanks, KANE 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
PWInsider.com has reported that WWE and APJW will be entering some sort of a talent exchange/alliance with each other. I've posted the link to both pages, but should I continue adding more info when or if WWE and AJPW acknowledges the rumor?-- Mikeymike2001 ( talk) 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to request an article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a bit of a dispute has arisen regarding the lead images on championship pages, and I'd appreciate it if others could chip in opinions. Essentially, the dispute goes like this: For a while, championship lists used an image of a champion with the belt, even if that person was not the current champion. It simply used the best image we had. ( example) In recent times, users have started switching the lead image to one of the current champion, with or without the belt. ( example)
I disagree with this, because I think it's more important to show what the belt looks like (after all, it is a list of CHAMPIONS) as opposed to going for recentism. I noticed this yesterday and made some changes. The US champion list used an image of Claudio Castagnoli long before he became Antonio Cesaro. The List of WWE Champions used double stacked images, which collided with the table below. I switched the images, and didn't expect a problem. But there was one.
Now a user has come up with a one-person "compromise", decreeing that from now on champions lists should use an image of the belt, with an image of the champion further below. ( example) I disagree with this because 1) The page is about the champions, not the belt itelf. and 2) The images further below collide with the tables on smaller browsers.
So could some others please chip in on this. Thanks, Scorpion 0422 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. The article is "List of United States Champions", no WWE United States Championship. I think that we can put a Cesareo's picture in the WWE United States Championship's article. Also, maybe we can do like WWE Hall of Fame, we put to the right some pictures of important Champions. For example, in the List of WWE Champions, we can put Hogan, Rock, Austin or Cena. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I want to request several article for assessment however when I check Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment it tells be request below but I see nothing. Can someone show me where to ask for an assessment on an article. I was for the assessment of Evan Karagias, Hajime Ohara, Taka Michinoku, Vampiro, Tajiri and Yujiro Kushida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I have made an 8k improvement to Jado's professional wrestling career section and will be needed to be assessed and most likely go to start status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GamingWithStatoke ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I need to use prowrestling.net as a source but I want input from WP:PW before do.-- Dch eagle | Join the Fight! 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I know that, since articles like ShowMiz, Jerishow or The Unholly Alliance, we have created a lot of Tag team Articles. But I think that this has gone very very far and we need to decide again what makes a tag team relevant. For example, The Encore. One day and the stable has his own article, but I can't see why is relevant. One day only... Or Team Hell No. Yeah, Kane and Bryan have a feud, but they do nothing relevant as a Tag Team. I think that a Tag team regin is not relevant, in that case, we can create articles like Eddie Guerrero and Tajiri, Rey Mysterio and Rob Van Dam or Edge and Chris Benoit. Other examples, the Chickbusters. They only had weekly matches and we have the rule "no weekly event". Also, we have a lot of Tag teams that only focused in singles carers, not in Tag Team action, like TnT or Angelina Love and Winter. I think that we must discus it. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, who thinks that we must nominate the next articles:
TnT (professional wrestling),
The Encore,
Team Hell No,
The Chickbusters --
HHH Pedrigree (
talk)
20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I think I'll take this opportunity to repeat: The only real determining factor is whether the team is discussed in some detail in reliable independent sources. Time is completely irrelevant. A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is a fair amount of discussion of the team in independent reliable sources, the article stays. If not, it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Please put personal preference aside and stick with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Please note that some, or maybe even all, of the teams mentioned here do not meet the notability guidelines, but not necessarily for the reasons people are claiming.) GaryColemanFan ( talk) 02:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, saying a bunch of things I've probably already said, but...
A team could be together for a single match and warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
Not about tag teams, but the point is still the same. Enough has been written about the 1971 Freddie Blassie vs. John Tolos match at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum over the years that, going by your logic, it would deserve its own article. If that's perhaps considered out of line, at least an article on the event or the feud. What's been mentioned about the match thus far on Wikipedia (sourced, even) is a start, though without further knowledge of the event, you may think this to be another opinion-driven invention on my part. Quite possibly there's some truth to that, though that's more the case of my understanding of the significance of that match than in deliberately trying to make something up. Yes, wrestling promotions were (semi-)regularly doing stadium shows during "the wilderness years," even if they weren't selling them out like WrestleMania does today.
My main point *is* a rehash. Reliably sourced information is everywhere. Some of it just requires work to find and bring to the table. Sgt. Slaughter told the same story about how he became a pro wrestler to sports columnist Steve Turcotte of the Anchorage Times in 1985 as he told on the Greatest Wrestling Stars of the 80's DVD twenty-some years later, minus the part about holding his own against Billy Robinson. I would hope this would clue someone in to the notion that there may be other sources out there to explore. It may very well address my most recent, as well as overall, grievances with undue weight and one-dimensional articles in general, which proliferate throughout articles covered under this project.
Something specific about other sources: there was a comment on this page some while back to the effect that sheets are unverifiable. I suppose that few or none of you were aware of the role that Factsheet Five played in popularizing sheets during the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, you may also not be aware that Mike Gunderloy donated his collection to the New York State Library. That means that a major research library in the United States has quite a number of wrestling sheets amongst its collections. To me, that renders the verifiability argument moot. Looking at individual publications, the remaining major question would be one of editorial standards. RadioKAOS ( talk) 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
@ANI This is an orchestrated witch-hunt by the pro wrestling Wiki-cabal... To put it bluntly, I am being harassed by a Wikipedia version of a lynch mob.
According to NXT's page on WWE.com, it looks like some of NXT's most featured superstars and divas have profiles on the website. But when I click on Seth Rollins' profile, it's just a photo gallery and a brief description of him. Should I move the featured NXT superstars and divas on the main roster on the List of WWE personnel page or wait? Keith Okamoto ( talk) 17:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've been reliving a few weeks worth of Raw from 1994, and if there's anything more prevalent in the SummerSlam hype than Undertaker vs Undertaker, it's Domino's Pizza. Which leads me to wonder what the Wikiproject thinks about about having a "Sponsor" (or similar term) column in the PPV article (the ones for the event in general, like SummerSlam above) tables. I think that the particular brand associations with PPVs add a distinct, intangible overall "feeling" to the show, like the venue or main event does. Hogan vs Warrior at SkyDome wouldn't have the same soul, fueled by Snickers instead of Castrol GTX. Maybe I've just watched too much TV. But I'm sure I'm not alone in that. It's not exactly necessary information, but it might certainly qualify as interesting. Anyone interested? InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, nevermind that. Quite a few events aren't explicitly sponsored by anyone, so a table would have blanks. But I've been adding the info to leads of individual events (where applicable), and would like to see a parameter in the infobox for this. Thoughts? InedibleHulk ( talk) 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes are still a bit foreign to me. Can I just add the Sponsor parameter to each article by simply typing it in, or do I need to edit a central infobox template page somewhere?
InedibleHulk (
talk) 02:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I've tried both at
Elimination Chamber (2011) and
Template:Infobox Wrestling event. I'm still missing a piece of the puzzle, apparently.
InedibleHulk (
talk) 09:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Got it. We now have a "Sponsor" field, if anyone cares to use it.
InedibleHulk (
talk)
09:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
All my Arsion articles have been deleted which was because they are apparently not relevant, can some people vote on their speddy deletion because I think they're important. GamingWithStatoke ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you'd be better off leaving all and any ARSION related info in the main ARSION article itself... stuff like the Twin Star championships, just merge it. You're already facing enough sourcing issues as it is. I searched F4WOnline and WrestleView and found passing mentions of ARSION but nothing much about the promotion itself. I hit gold, one single link to help you out through PWTorch. You might want to try googling site:slam.canoe.ca , there are some passing mentions there too. Starship.paint ( talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe there's glaring folly with professional wrestler based articles ON A WHOLE here at Wikipedia: When the real name of a professional wrestler is looked up, one is often immersed with an article, chocked full of information based predominately on the fictitious, storylined wrestling character and/or career of the person. A professional wrestler's wrestling career and character, believe it or not, is but one mere aspect of them and should not cover 95% of their article, but this is the format used in most, if not all Wikipedia articles based upon professional wrestlers. It follows the same exact logic as not having the Jaleel White article focus predominately on his Steve Urkel character; instead, there's a separate article for Steve Urkel. This is not, however, the case with Mark Calaway. Just as is the case with Steve Urkel solely being Jaleel White's on-screen character and not the man behind the character, The Undertaker is Mark Calaway's on-screen character, HBK is Michael Hickenbottom's on-screen character, etc.
In most articles based upon public figures, we learn about their: childhood years, early years, how the star started out in the industry, personal trials and tribulations, etc., but we only learn a smidgen of this at best in articles based upon professional wrestlers because they're dedicated to facts and figures relating to the professional wrestling careers or characters of the person. It makes no sense to me as to why these professional wrestlers don't have separate articles as between their major wrestling gimmicks and their real lives. It's just shocking that if people want to know about Mark Calaway on Wikipedia, they're inundated with facts about The Undertaker gimmick. You're certainly not going to get much on Mark Calaway from this article: The Undertaker.
By the way, there's currently an ongoing poll on whether to merge the Mr. McMahon article with the Vince McMahon article. I expressed these same concerns in the poll. 173.0.254.226 ( talk) 02:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is the near solitary emphasis on his one "gimmick", and not even really his gimmick, but rather the gimmick's match-by-match history. (This is not only exampled by the Undertaker article, but many professional wrestler articles and only professional wrestler articles). Mark Calaway has competed in a number of different wrestling leagues with different wrestling gimmicks, done movies, TV shows, been involved in controversies, etc. What we get, however, when we view the Mark Calaway article is a match-by-match map of the Undertaker gimmick's career. There needs to be a separation between heavy emphasis on his one gimmick's feud-by-feud career and his public figure life as a whole. The Mark Calaway article should concisely touch upon his wrestling career as whole:
Example: these are his early years and where he went to K-12 and college; BOOM! this is where he went to wrestling school; BOOM! this is the wrestling industry he started out in; BOOM! he played this, this, this, this in WCW; BOOM! He spent the majority of his career in WWE as Undertaker and for more see "Undertaker gimmick" article; BOOM! He did this in hollywood (Poltergeist, Suburban Commando); BOOM! These are his controversies and criticisms; BOOM!, etc.) But when we look up Mark Calaway, what we find is his scripted match-by-match career as The Undertaker: Undertaker fights Diesel in March 1996; Undertaker then fights Goldust at In Your House Be Ware of Dog in May of 1996; Undertaker then gets in a fight with Mankind in June of 1996, Undertaker then fights Goldust again at the following pay-per-view of In Your House.
It's basically like looking up Jaleel White and getting what he did episode-by-episode on Family Matters as Steve Urkel. 173.0.254.226 ( talk) 04:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
~
Pardon me if I tl;dr, but there's a Personal life sub-section for most articles on pro wrestlers. If you want to tell the story of Mark Calaway's life, you can do it that sub-section. Are the wrestlers' personal lives so interesting and full of information that they warrant a separate article? I doubt it. Starship.paint ( talk) 12:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, there is an ongoing (rather, stagnant?) discussion on whether to merge the Vince McMahon and Mr. McMahon articles Here. Anyone care to weigh in? Starship.paint ( talk) 02:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
We have info boxes for wrestlers, teams, stables, events, promotions and championships - would it make sense to come up with one for tournaments? or just use the champions info box? Tournaments such as King of the Ring, Leyenda de Azul etc. may benefit from one single, consistent info box? not sure of content but is it even a good idea to try to create one? MPJ -US 23:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this template really needed? Having a navbox with a single entry (and, most likely, no other entries for close to a year) seems fairly unnecessary. I'd propose deleting it.
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is relevant here.
{{ TNA Hall of Fame}}
McPhail ( talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
How about {{ LayCool}} Starship.paint ( talk) 11:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently it has come to my attention that we have three NXT articles... NXT Wrestling, WWE NXT and History of WWE NXT. Firstly, "NXT Wrestling" is the renamed Florida Championship Wrestling article, renamed after FCW was rebranded to NXT. As for the latter two articles, it was proposed (click!) by Srsrox in August to split the article. Recently Kerbymanuel split the two articles, but I look at it now and there's still a lot of overlap IMO. I'd like for the project to weigh in on this matter... should we have only two articles, one for NXT 1-5 (proposed by Keith Okamoto) and the second for FCW + NXT6? Or any other alternative anyone wants to propose? Starship.paint ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
This is annoying. Wikipedia is supposed to be educational, but we're not using the proper terms for face and heel. I get that these words are a bit foreign for non-fans, but there are many terms in many fields across Wikipedia that are Greek to a far greater readership. These are explained by Wikilinks. A new reader will go "Heel? What's that?", click the link and be enlightened. Next time they see the word (on Wikipedia or anywhere), they'll recognize it. Mission accomplished. And we don't sound like idiots for dumbing it down. Who's into repealing this crap? InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
And yes, I'm aware that this has been discussed. But times change (and I wasn't there). InedibleHulk ( talk) 13:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's a pretty strong consensus. I'll rewrite the part of the MoS that recommends "heroes" and "villains" (and "damsels", if it's there). InedibleHulk ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)