Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Per WP:PW: support
Line 221: Line 221:
::Most times it refers to a talk issue that is already being discussed, such as if someone were to do something to WrestleMania then I would revert is and say "per discussion at WP:PW". [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
::Most times it refers to a talk issue that is already being discussed, such as if someone were to do something to WrestleMania then I would revert is and say "per discussion at WP:PW". [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm with shake, if "per discussion at WP:PW" isn't followed by a link to the actual discussion any non-WP:PW members may not know what the heck that even means (it could be archived by then). Not only that but at times the "Per discussion" thing is a misinterpretation or someone tries to push a minority view in that discussion (a certain TJ springs to mind). I agree with shake, if you're citing WP:PW as a reason then in the tradition of Wikipedia you should cite it with a source or it's not really any good. [[User:MPJ-DK|MPJ-DK]] 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm with shake, if "per discussion at WP:PW" isn't followed by a link to the actual discussion any non-WP:PW members may not know what the heck that even means (it could be archived by then). Not only that but at times the "Per discussion" thing is a misinterpretation or someone tries to push a minority view in that discussion (a certain TJ springs to mind). I agree with shake, if you're citing WP:PW as a reason then in the tradition of Wikipedia you should cite it with a source or it's not really any good. [[User:MPJ-DK|MPJ-DK]] 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
::::We just need to find where the ruilings were made. Heck, it would be interesting to see how the votes went at the time considering some recent events on here. And once they're found, we can post them on the project home page, for everyone to see. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:05, 28 July 2007

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

Shortcut


Archive
Archives

Evolution

The championships and accomplishments section seems out of control to me. I know they're all successful guys but it seems like a lot of unnecessary trivia. Shouldn't it focus on accomplishments done while part of the group? I took out the Wrestlemania Undertaker jobbing a little while ago but somebody brought it back soon afterwards. We can clean a lot of that out, right? DrWarpMind 13:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit, that's a lot. Let's get moving on it. Mshake3 15:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine how it is supermike

Find the date they formed, find the date they broke up, confine all info to that period, for example none of the Royal Rumble wins happened while they were a group, none of the UT losses happened while they were a group, the Tag reigns did, and one of Tripper's title runs happened (RKO's win being the event that began the split), I have to sleep now but I hacked a chunk our of it, if someone else can find dates I'll cut it down later on today. Darrenhusted 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The articles should focus on only their time is a group. A long time ago, I deleted some of it, too, but it was re-added. Nikki311 01:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then why not get rid of the whole thing because im not going to go reads about a group just base on the group I want to know EVERYTHING supermike

Then you can go to their respective pages and read more about the individuals... Nikki311 02:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to include everything about everyone in a group, imagine how unwieldy the Corporation or Planet Jarrett would get. Pages would get dominated by info on the individuals instead of the group. DrWarpMind 04:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be a page about what they did as a group. Like Ric and Dave winning the Tag titles. Addendum: I have chopped down the first two years (2002-2004 mid) and changed the style which was a fan-ish. I will work on the rest when I get a chance. Darrenhusted 11:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before and after, feel free to re-write and trim further if needed. Darrenhusted 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why is the Union in the Corporation article? Mr. C.C. 05:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edge and Christian

Much like Evolution, there is a lot of singles career info and crufty lists included here. Is the lingo section really necessary? It looks to me like we can gut a lot of this. DrWarpMind 17:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the quotes or the lingo is necessary. If someone really wants it to stay, they can create a WikiQuote for them. Nikki311 20:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through and deleted the quotes and lingo. I can't guarantee someone won't add it back. Nikki311 20:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think that the last paragraph of post-split, the singles career section and records can pretty much all go as well. DrWarpMind 22:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikki311 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Ladder match DVD

I stumbled upon this earlier today and am not sure what to do? Should we delete it or clean it up? I have a hard time believing all these DVDs are notable but there is precedent. DrWarpMind 17:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into the ladder match article?«»bd(talk stalk) 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... -- bulletproof 3:16 20:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the deletion talk section for this article? I looked, but couldn't find it. Mr. C.C. 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Banderas

I know that many think that he is Mitchells monster but he hasnt appeared on TV yet. I kept removing the information exclusively calling him the monster but it kept being reverted and i got called a sock puppet. Now I know on WWE pages its like this so can someone help me fix it?McBane420 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war in the making

Ok guys, I'm here trying to avoid an edit war because it's evidently going to take more than just my word to avoid creating one. User:Ohgltxg has started to go around to various articles, take certain championships and list them under different names that've been used along the way. For instances, he's started listing all former holders of the Mid-Atlantic version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship, NWA World Television Championship, and NWA United States Heavyweight Championship as WCW reigns even if the reigns that wrestlers had with them occurred prior to these championships being renamed as WCW titles. Some of the wrestlers that held these championships didn't wrestle for the promotion after it was sold to Ted Turner and became WCW. Using this same logic, all WWE titles should literally be referred to as WWE championships in the C&A section of the articles, such as listing Bruno Sammartino as a two time WWE Champion even though his reigns occurred decades before the company was renamed.Odin's Beard 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in the right. Things should be left the way they were, as per the Sammartino example. --SteelersFan UK06 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a specific date where some titles were renamed "WCW", the naming of said titles should follow that and not retroactivly rename all titles, that's just common sense IMO MPJ-DK 14:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and that's what I've mentioned on Ohgltxg's discussion page. It makes no sense to list someone as a WCW World Tag Team Champion, for instance, when a wrestler's reign with the title occurred prior to the renaming of the championship. You can't list someone as holding a championship that, at the time of their reign, didn't technically exist.Odin's Beard 14:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dates of the change for titles is clear, just because WWE refers to Bret Hart as a five time "WWE" champion, doesn't mean we have to. Darrenhusted 15:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWE does because they have to for legal reasons. Wikipedia is not bound by such restrictions.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Great American Bash

Does anyone think this article should be split into three seperate articles.

Bencey 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2 should be fine, NWA and WCW were the same organisation just a change of name, it'd be like splitting WWE PPVs in "WWF" and "WWE", it'd have little meaning - but I agree the NWA/WCW and the WWE PPVs should be split MPJ-DK 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the split, but now that leaves a lot of links in articles that need to be redirected. E.g. links for The Great American Bash 2007 redirect to the NWA/WCW page. - Deep Shadow 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So be bold and deal with it, I would have thought. Also, in my opinion should the articles not be called "The Great American Bash" for the NWA/WCW version, and then "The Great American Bash (WWE)" for the WWE version? This would show that the even is a spin-off from the original. Or something like that. Opinions! --SteelersFan UK06 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new page should be called The Great American Bash (WWE), because it technically has never been called WWE The Great American Bash. It is like naming issues with the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) or the World Tag Team Championship (WWE). Nikki311 03:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just hate the way WWE The Great American Bash looks like as a title. Mshake3 03:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, do it as per an existing similar situation: ECW and ECW (WWE). Would this not just make sense? --SteelersFan UK06 03:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only would it make sense, that was the format suggested at the beginning. Who's the wize guy that screwed this up anyway? Mshake3 03:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to be bold and move the page, but after trying using the [move] tab it wouldn't let me due to the redirect already in place in the new title's article. I then tried to read WP:MOVE and WP:RM on how to move the page, but it all got a bit complicated. How would this be done? From the n00b, SteelersFan UK06 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All other WWE ppv articles have the WWE initials before their name. So for the purpose of being consistent, the WWE ppv was named WWE The Great American Bash -- bulletproof 3:16 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F consistancy. It sounds stupid. Also, can't we have votes that last longer than a frickin day? Mshake3 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now why the page was named in this way. I still feel the article should be moved, purely for the Bash's origins. What should be done? --SteelersFan UK06 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for the redirect to be deleted, which can be done, then move the page to it. Mshake3 04:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not allowed to do that just yet. Bulletproof reverted my attemps. Nothing against him, just a bit confused as to what to do now. --SteelersFan UK06 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you guys propose the WWE GAB page be moved to then?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose WWE The Great American Bash → The Great American Bash (WWE), making "The Great American Bash" and "The Great American Bash (WWE)" in line with ECW and ECW (WWE). --SteelersFan UK06 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if thats the case then we use the WWE initials before the name of the event to disambiguate as we do with all the other minor WWE PPVs.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling this will not be debated. Fine, I will drop the arguement in favour of current trends in PPV naming. I suppose it doesn't really matter all that much, anyway. --SteelersFan UK06 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it's not consistant. The current naming sucks, and it should be changed. Mshake3 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its the event's official name. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pages for the small ten PPV all start WWE..., there is no reason to chnage this, mainly because all PPV pages need to be consistant and changing to the other nine will actually lead to hundreds of redirects, just sorting out GAB is going to take time. Darrenhusted 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality > Consistancy. Besides, the official name would be "WWE Presents The Great American Bash", or "WWE Great American Bash". Please show me where WWE says it otherwise. Mshake3 23:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. [1]-- bulletproof 3:16 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's got you there Mshake. Darrenhusted 23:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hear "The Great American Bash" and "WWE Great American Bash". Either sound fine to me (BUT NOT "WWE The Great American Bash"). Mshake3 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another one for you-- bulletproof 3:16 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really have no idea why you're arguing this, the consensus (remember that?) is for all minor PPV articles to start WWE (insert title here), this has only arisen because of a split, and in fact if the split titles had been put correctly at the top (and by correctly I mean following the MoS of all WWE PPV) then this issue wouldn't have come up. Why have one article with the initials the other way around? The article titles are consistent as they are, as it stands there are still hundreds of articles which will need to have wikilinks fixed, so why not get on with that rather than trying to fight consensus? Darrenhusted 00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus because this PPV wasn't included in any past discussions, as it wasn't renamed with all the others. Remember, in YOUR WORDS, consensus can change. Mshake3 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add that in this discussion, three users agree that the title should be changed, while you two keep saying "it's policy." Policy is established by user opinion, right? Mshake3 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said policy, and you need to read about consensus by silence, if the titles of the minor articles have said WWE... since they were created, and no one has changed them then you can only assume a consensus of silence. Darrenhusted 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No now its just you that wants it changed. The rest said it wasn't important.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mshake, I really can't see why this is so important to you. I started this arguement way way way way way back (See above) and I've already changed my statement to say that the page should be kept the way it is. Yeah initially I thought that the page should be changed, even went as far as to start changing other things to make way for a move. But after we talked about it here, as should be done in a case like this, a user quite clearly and simply stated that the reason for this is consistency amongst the minor ppv's, keeping links going to the correct places and above all else, i feel, simplicity. Can you not see that it would look sort of stupid now if we had ONE article that went out of the normal style of all the ppv's? All the pages start with WWE...etc, and fair enough to them. I say, now, that that makes the most sense. You said "Quality > Consistency", but where is the issue with quality on the current page? I see no problem. Do you STILL feel that the page should be moved, just to satisfy the difference between WWE's version and the NWA/WCW version? Because i don't. --SteelersFan UK06 05:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWE The Great American Bash is a god awful article title from a grammer persepective. Drop the "The", or move WWE to the end, and I'll shut up. Until then, this is proof that WP:PW's motto is Consistancy>Quality. Mshake3 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping that is a deliberate "grammer" otherwise you've just undermined your argument. And how is this a consistency before quality issue, it's just you trying to fight consensus over naming of minor WWE PPV articles. Darrenhusted 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the article title sounds fine, even though NO ONE says those four words in that exact order (I'm still waiting for proof). Mshake3 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you jump back to that? You know that all the other articles are named with WWE..., so why fight this one? And surely WWE The Great American Bash is five words? Darrenhusted 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mshake, one thing. STOP ARGUING. this is silly - somewhere you know that. The pay per view is named that way for WP:PW MoS reasons. It doesn't matter what way it is "said". This is one of the reasons we are archiving like 8 pages a month...SteelersFan UK06 13:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allright, I'll stop for now. But I'll propose the change later on, as I think the initials should only be used for disamb purposes, and they should be at the end of the title, not the beginning. Mshake3

NWA Canadian Heavyweight Championship

Per the people who current own the title, this title is the exact same as the Toronto Version. I propose a merge. No "you do it" comments, please. I'm not in the mood, but it has to be done. Consider this post a "heads-up". :) ---SilentRAGE! 18:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say merge it because of the two sources that have the same lineage. Mr. C.C. 05:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say don't because the important secondary sources disagree with each other - one says they are, the other says they're not, when it doubt leave them alone MPJ-DK 01:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWA?

And AWA Superstars of Wrestling claim the AWA World Heavyweight Championship as a direct line from the 1960s as well as Hogan being a 2 time champion. Does that actually mean it's true? It's a primary source, find a secondary credible source that backs it up before I'd consider this an "has to be done" issue MPJ-DK 21:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page of this said championship, I think it should be merged together because ECCW.com and Solie.org represent the same lineage. Two sources with the same lineage verses one source Wrestling-Titles.com with different lineage. AWA Supers of Wrestling and kayfabe era AWA are essentially the same governing body except it has a different name. Verne Gange's son Dale (correct me on the name) is the president now. Mr. C.C. 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Dave Gagner - he uses the name Gagne to try and get a legit claim on the lineage but he's no relation to the Gagne family at all. The AWA wasn't a "governing body" but an indivudual federation. You've got one secondary source who is at odds with another secondary source on this - can't say that's conclusive at all MPJ-DK 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, that's irrelevant the relation to the Gagne's. ECCW.com and Solie.org have the same lineage. So I say merge it. But of course I will need more support. Mr. C.C. 06:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that actually has to be proven to confirm the lineage? Do the titles have to be physically the same belt? Does someone need to have passed the belt from the old promotion to the new promotion and said, "here, take a shot."? I'm confused by this. --SteelersFan UK06 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you actually "continue" the lineage from a title that was abandoned in the mid-1980s? Basically it's only a continuation because they say it is, no shared history or anything. It's a claim - which needs to be verfied by independent sources to be a part of Wikipedia per. Verifiability - there is one source that claims that it is and one source that claims that it's not. MPJ-DK 07:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Yes, but how exactly is history shared? Does someone own the rights to the belt in the 80's (which would then have to be retained by Gagne [Gagner] later)? --SteelersFan UK06 08:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can "retain" something when there is no connection other than in name (you can't "keep" something that you never had). Dale Gagner licensed the name "American Wrestling Association" in like 1996 - the name. I mean I could go down tomorrow and license the name "United States Wrestling Association" and claim to have a lineage to the original USWA. MPJ-DK 10:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AWA tape library was purchased by WWE years ago as part of a fire sale, and the real Gagne son (Greg Gagne (wrestler)) was a WWE road agent, which is why AWA wrestlers are started to entering the WWE HoF. I would guess that the belts were kept by the family and Greg is the one with the rights to the belts. See here. Darrenhusted 11:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So can the new promotion claim lineage? --SteelersFan UK06 11:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, on the page there is a lot of mentions of "legal" action but no refs, only Greg Gagne (and his father, who is still alive, his promotion died in 1991, not him) could say, if Dale Gagne/r has the original belts, or at least the rights to use the original belts then why not? WWE has effectively done the same thing with ECW. Darrenhusted 11:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WWE bought ECW outright, lock, stock and barbwire bat. MPJ-DK 11:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that Rhyno still has the TV title and ECW title on his wall, so they struck a new title belt, and they actually lost the rights during the invasion to the ECW name, which was why they called it the Alliance. So they needed to take legal action with ECW to get all the rights. With AWA they haven't had to do the same thing, and inducting Verne was seen as his OK for the AWA tape library purchase. Darrenhusted 11:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So someone had the actual physical belts and? Does that mean that Rhyno could start ECW again and claim that it was legitimate continuation?? Your argument doesn't make sense MPJ-DK 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this is going off topic, ECW went under, WWE bought a licence to use the name for 90 days, this ran out during the invasion and then last year they finally brought the tape library and cleared the companies debts. AWA went under in 1991, WWE bought just the tape library and the Gagne's were happy with a HoF induction. Rhyno can't call himself ECW TV and World champion despite having the belts becuase WWE bought ECW, but with AWA they just bought the old TV shows. Darrenhusted 18:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point - Dale Gagner has no relations to anyone in the original AWA, he licensed the name for promotional use, that's all they have in common in any real way - a name, he's not related to the Gagnes, he does not OWN anything the Gagnes owned or anything like that. If I licensed the USWA name tomorrow and claimed that it was a direct lineage to the title of the old USWA would that actually make it so? MPJ-DK 18:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I don't think we can resolve this, Gagner is claiming lineage, does PWI or anyone else acknowledge it? WWE has claimed ECW's lineage, but at least Heyman gave them approval, I think the Gagne family gave up on AWA in 1991, even Bischoff tried hocking the tape library in '91 to no avail. If Gagner wants to recognise Hogan retroactively as a two-time AWA champ then we need a source like PWI to disagree, othwise I say a note explaining the current state of play needs to be added. Darrenhusted 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWE can claim ECW's lineage because they OWN the ECW name. Mshake3 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dale Gange purchased the rights to the AWA, thus Gagne can claim lineage.[2]

WrestleMania and WrestleMania (1985)

I proposing the move of both these pages:

WrestleMania to WrestleMania (PPV Series)

and

WrestleMania (1985) to WrestleMania

What Ya'll think?--Hornetman16 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Just like with the other big four event, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble are the article about the PPV series. Since the first WrestleMania didn't have a number, it is referred to by year just like SummerSlam (1988), Survivor Series (1987), or Royal Rumble (1988). -- bulletproof 3:16 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Other three of the Big four are always refered to with year. where in history do you remeber hearing the first WrestleMania refered to as WrestleMania 1985? It wasn't.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in history do you remember hearing last year's SummerSlam referred to with year? That’s right, never. They always refer to the other events by name without year. That’s why the years are in parenthesis, to disambiguate. The same thing goes for the WrestleMania (1985) page. The event was referred to as WrestleMania without a number like "1", however for disambiguation we use the year of the event in parenthesis.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WWESHOP.com is where.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about when the event was held. When the opening graphics for an event come up they never refer to it by year. Just like when the announcers promote the event.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ever seen that graphics bar above the ring...it show the year.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again thats also used by them to disambiguate, however they have never actually referred to those events by year. Take this years The Great American Bash intro. [3]. Not once referred to by year.-- bulletproof 3:16 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or last year's Unforgiven. [4] I didn't hear "And now, RAW presents... WWE Unforgived 2006"-- bulletproof 3:16 20:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WrestleMania is always refered to by number not year. An the other three have the Year number somewhere on set. WrestleMania doesn't.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere on the set doesnt make it the official name of the event. All promotional posters, logos, commercials, etc. for those events have never made use of the year. WrestleMania is different though because after the first one (which was only referred to as WrestleMania without a number 1 in its title) the rest have been referred to by number (with the exception of WrestleMania 2000 which is the only one that was actually referred to by year, which is why the year 2000 isn't in parenthesis). -- bulletproof 3:16 20:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok take my brother's Undertaker DVD. When it shows one of those four it shows JUST THE NAME withe date and location under that.--Hornetman16 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly but even there the official name of the event is not referred to with a year in the title. Just a date and location below the event's name, meaning that the year is not part of the name. Its never part of the name. Thats why we use parenthesis to disambiguate. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god another nitpicky argument - SummerSlam is not referred to by year - which is why the article name is SummerSlam (19XX) or whatever, not SummerSlam 19XX. As for the first WrestleMania it should be under "WrestleMania I" in my view, yes it wasn't called that during the time, but then again was "World War I" known as "World War I" at the time? No it became known as that when a second one happened, same with WrestleMania - before then there weren't any events of this nature so it wasn't a guarantee that there'd be a 2nd one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs)

True but unlike World War I, the first WrestleMania has never been called "WrestleMania I". Since it was only referred to by name we use the year in parenthesis just as we do for SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble events that have also never been referred to by event number. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A wise man once said - "Never say never": SIlvervision page the DVD shows the original cover to the WrestleMania tape that was sold years ago (I should know, I have it on my shelf) and it quite clearly says "WrestleMania I" on the cover, official European WWE video distributor and all. So "Never say never" (I'd look for a wwe.com link but I'm lazy and knew this one had what I was looking for) MPJ-DK 21:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...No. That cover is of the re-release by Silvervision, not the original. Unless the WWF was WWE in 1985, you got nothing. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see the article. Chronologically, yes it is "WrestleMania I", just like this year's SummerSlam is really "SummerSlam 20", but officially, as was used in the actual event, the name of the event is WrestleMania. But like McPhail said, the franchise holds the prime article name. Therefore we use the year in parenthesis to disambiguate, just as we do with SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The WrestleMania franchise as a whole is far more important than the inaugural event, and thus deserves the prime article name. WrestleMania (1985) is a good compromise in that it does not support nor oppose the retroactive naming of the event "WrestleMania 1" / "WrestleMania I". McPhail 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as I've been canvassed, these type of moves will do nothing but waste time and cause confusion, none of the other big four are numbered, and some would even dispute Royal Rumble's numbering because is the first one really a PPV? Keep as is, if I'm looking to WMI and I go to WM page then a quick scroll will find it. We are not here to make the search process idiot proof (Simpsons Movie joke). Darrenhusted 21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who types in WrestleMania (1985) to get to the first WrestleMania besides the people that have done it before?--Hornetman16 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one types WrestleMania (1985), but once they have typed "WrestleMania" then at least they are on the right page for the information they are looking for. Hornetman16 you canvassed me, I don't know why, and I have told you what I think. The PPVs are all fine as they are, the big 4, the small 10, the defunct 16, all fine. Darrenhusted 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per the KISS method. If it isn't broken, then why should we fix it? There is no problem with the organization, so let's just leave it. Simplicity is bliss. The Hybrid 00:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh* what-the-heck-ever, I'm tired of these nitpicky, stupid arguments about stuff that doesn't in any way improve the articles one little bit. Sorry that I thought WP:PW had actually improved for a minute there. MPJ-DK 05:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PW

This gets thrown around a lot. Can't we create a list of these "ruilings" with linked evidence so that when someone says "per WP:PW", we know he's just not talking out of his backside? Mshake3 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, there are the archives feel free to trawl. Darrenhusted 14:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping it would be the other way around. If someone wants to cite established ruilings, then they should find the ruiling themselves. Mshake3 18:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most times it refers to a talk issue that is already being discussed, such as if someone were to do something to WrestleMania then I would revert is and say "per discussion at WP:PW". Darrenhusted 18:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with shake, if "per discussion at WP:PW" isn't followed by a link to the actual discussion any non-WP:PW members may not know what the heck that even means (it could be archived by then). Not only that but at times the "Per discussion" thing is a misinterpretation or someone tries to push a minority view in that discussion (a certain TJ springs to mind). I agree with shake, if you're citing WP:PW as a reason then in the tradition of Wikipedia you should cite it with a source or it's not really any good. MPJ-DK 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We just need to find where the ruilings were made. Heck, it would be interesting to see how the votes went at the time considering some recent events on here. And once they're found, we can post them on the project home page, for everyone to see. Mshake3 02:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling&oldid=147582067"