Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Shortcut WT:PW Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 52. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Article Name Changes

I'm thinking that discussions with no consensus reached and no comments in the last 15 days should be closed as "No consensus for move". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Paul

Who supports a move to JTG (wrestler)? -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He is only 23 years old, has been in and out of WWE a couple times now and has also used different stage names. I do not see significant reason to why JTG would be his most notable name. JTG is far too new a name to meet my standards for supporting this move. — Moe ε 11:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moe Epilson, and to avoid quantifier. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moe Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Snitsky

Who supports a move to Snitsky? -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Darrenhusted (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the proposed JTG move, his name is too new for me to support moving. He has used multiple stage names, two during his 4 year tenure in WWE, which includes the current article title Gene Snitsky. Again, I don't see how the proposed name is more notable than the current title. — Moe ε 11:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Moe Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hazem Ali

Who supports the move to Armando Estrada? Cra sh U nderride 16:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Armando Estrada is more notable than "Hazem Ali"
Support-13 62^talk 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about match results

Someone at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (1988) suggested that the match results would be better formatted as a table. I made up an example at User:Nikki311/sandbox (in the middle). Any thoughts? I think I like it. Nikki311 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's to confusing, no offense. I think our current format works just fine. King iMatthew 20 08 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it confusing? Nikki311 21:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just having to follow it, makes it more complicated than it is now. I agree with D.M.N. and Alex. King iMatthew 20 08 22:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. No offense or anything, but, I seriously prefer it much better in the current format. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. If it is shot down, then it is shot down. Nikki311 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current format also. It is more direct, much more simple, and occupies less space. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 21:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current format, but if the format change happened, I'm sure we'd all get used to the tables eventually. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we change it? wouldn't we have to do the same to Every Pay-Per-View? No-way, to difficult.Altenhofen (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem for me would be the notes. I think they should not be in a table because it's prose and because of its length. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cimmo (talk) 6:48 28 June (UTC)

Some more options

I made two more options in my sandbox. Option 2 removes the bullets and uses numbering instead. Option 3 removes all the match notes and just has the bare bone results. (If someone wants to know the finishing move in the match they can go up to the text). Anyone like either of these? Nikki311 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like Option 2. Perhaps the comments about the match might be easier to read with bullet points, though (number the matches and use bullet points for the comments). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is what it would look like with the bullet points. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Any other opinions? Nikki311 21:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, I edited User:Nikki311/sandbox and made a third option. While I like the idea of the results being easier to read than the plain text, the bulky formatting of option one leaved more to be desired. I made the third option on the page with the box formatting borrowed from the MMA articles, which are slimmer, with sortable columns and nicer headers. — Moe ε 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your version better, but nobody else seemed to like the idea of a table. Nikki311 19:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something we can do, which I did to resolve the issue of the many formats of the 'championship and other accomplishments' sections a couple years ago, is conduct a straw poll for about a week with all the formats voted on. Yes I know, we don't do votes, we do discussions on Wikipedia and all that, but we can ignore that.. — — Moe ε 21:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it to a vote sounds good to me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can definitely ignore in this situation. A vote sounds good. iMatthew _T.C. 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll (2 weeks or so)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK, seems like you agreed that a straw poll can be used here, so here it is, please see User:Nikki311/sandbox for the various options:

I will also decline to place a support for any option so I can close it fairly. — Moe ε 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extending it to another week so more people can comment. — Moe ε 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been near three weeks can we close this up? Darrenhusted (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Option 1

~~~~

For Option 2

Darrenhusted (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hybrid 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--ProtoWolf (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Endless Dan 12:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to vote, but another user suggested a table format on SummerSlam 1988's FAC, so I really think this is the best way to go. Nikki311 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: a third suggestion at a FAC for the results to be in a table format: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starrcade (1983). Nikki311 22:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

----Apsouthern (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take a long time to place in all articles, but it is more organized this way.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SRX.--WWEISREAL 16:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Option 3

I have added Option 5 to the sandbox (a slight variation of this one with bullet points). Option 5 is my preference, but I think Option 3 is the best of those originally presented. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Option 4

Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew _T.C. 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, instead of bullet points, it might be better with numbers. I was going to be bold and create Option 5, but didn't. D.M.N. (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, the numbers look ugly. Then again it may just be lack of being used to them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results of poll:

With the current format being flawed, to say the very least, and with options 1 and 3 being the least popular, the decision came down to Option 2 and 4, as of two weeks ago. I would have said there was no consensus, but I silently let the poll run for another week, and the results turned out rather favorable to the frontrunner of the two choices, which makes this easier. In conclusion, it seems that the MMA-style box formatting with the sortable tables is favored over the plain text bullet numbering, which seems a little too similar to the original formatting which is flawed at FAC/GAC's, with multiple requests of changing to a box formatting wanted. It will take some time to implement these, but these should make our articles qualities better. Regards, — Moe ε 07:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is consensus. However, how will a match such a the Elimination Chamber be formatted? It already uses a table... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a small gap maybe? Darrenhusted (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking something like the WrestleMania IV article, where the results are there, but the tournament bracket after the results, but in this case it would be the royal rumble/elimination chamber match results. Another possible scenario is we can break the results box in half, which is possible, place the royal rumble/elimination chamber table in the middle, and then after that, restart a new box of results for matches after that event. — Moe ε 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who is going to change this format on all PPV's. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just like all the other kinds of formattings agreed upon that were changed over the years, it may be weeks or even months before the formatting is finally set for all the pay-per-view articles. I'm working on WrestleMania right now, and I'm guessing over time people will eventually convert it over like the other kinds of formats. — Moe ε 14:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with iMatthew, because the table looks to confusing. Cheers.- Cimmo (talk) 6:47 28 June (UTC)

Two things, iMatthew stated "who is going to change this format on all PPV's", which means who is going to do the work of changing it, that wasn't a comment on what the table looked like, as you are implying. Second, if you wanted the formatting to be different, you probably should have placed your comments during the three weeks we had an open poll for choosing the format. Besides that point, I don't see how it "looks to [sic] confusing", the table has headers for the winner of the match, the loser, the match type, the time and the additional notes about the match, if you could clarify what is confusing you, that will help. — Moe ε 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow the formatting of PPV match results just gets worse and worse. First, we remove the bolding from match results, which made things EASIER TO READ, then we convert match results into a table. Whats next? Mal1988 (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bolding was due to a Manual of Style violation. The tables can be removed - if a new consensus is formed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In wrestling list orders

Per this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Angle&diff=219745033&oldid=219669255, which cites the WP guidelines on lists (which In wrestling sections qualify for) should be in alphabetical order, meaning managers, moves, nicknames and the like should all be in alphabetical order. I have seen very few articles comply by this, including our featured articles. I had originally reverted the edit due to it not being mentioned at here, but McPhail reverted it, citing Wikipedia:Lists#Organization as the reason. This would be mean most In wrestling sections need to be rewritten, as WP:PW's Style Guide cannot override Wikipedia policy, correct? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Correct. Official Wikipedia policy over-rides any guidelines of ours. D.M.N. (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so. I'm just amazed no one caught this one earlier. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a relevant discussion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Opinion is Needed

I've put Survivor Series (2007) up for peer review here. Please follow the link and review the article. Thanks! -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is needed here as well. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinion was already given—rather than list it for FAR, the project members decided that we should work to improve the article. I have no idea what possessed you to list it for FAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GCF. If you intended to nominate, a notice would have been nice so a fix-up could have come along more speedily. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, too much work is needed, and after seeing the failed nominations of both SummerSlam articles, it has too much to be done. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then point out the problems to the project and give people a chance to fix them. Featured Article Review should never be the first step. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GCF, you should have let the peer review stayed open for a while and let the project do the best it could to improve it. At FAR, once comments are addressed, the FAR community may decide whether to keep the article as an FA or not. I have a fear that it may not ;( due to the new criteria.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point in a way, SRX. It does not meet the new criteria. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then point out the problems to the project and give people a chance to fix them. Featured Article Review should never be the first step. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should point out that there are several FLs I may nominate for removal, depending on how the current FLRC goes. AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Heavyweight Championship, IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW Hardcore Champions and NWA World Women's Championship. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Even better news for our project =)--SRX^--^Latino Heat 01:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment here, but given that I was the main contributer for December to Dismember (2006), I think I should. Issues were raised here about the article, none of which I believed were even valid, hence why I commented back. Unlike some of the other articles which have sources deemed to be unreliable, December to Dismember to an effect doesn't really have that problem. Yes, in a normal article, The Wrestling Blog and TWNPNews.com would be considered 110% reliable, however it's used to back up a statement that says that the PPV was utter rubbish. I also feel that December to Dismember deals with real-life issues much better than some of the other PPV articles around here, whether I'm just being biased as I've developed the article, who knows. The Aftermath section goes pretty in-depth about real-life issues as a lot happened after the PPV surrounding ECW. The Background and Event sections are OK, yes they need improvement, but every featured article on Wikipedia needs improvements, new things may become know, the subject may die or whatever, but every article needs improvement. I'm not going to say that the article is perfect, because hell it isn't, in fact Wikipedia will never have a perfect, but we can work to make it better. FAR is wrong. Sending it to FAR is stupid. We are a project. We work together. We don't send are articles to the kitty litter, we improve articles. We didn't have a deadline with the article, however now unfortunately with the FAR it means that there is a deadline to work to, which puts others under pressure. Also, why have 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spyke been informed of this their talkpages as they are main contributors. Unless I'm missing something quite big and huge, who was it in the first place that suggested this, only to get the backlash of some of this project? I'm also wondering how TJ and 3bulletproof16 are classed as main contributors, who was it that expanded that article?. I strongly am against any FAR to do with this article, as I am with any other article/list or whatever to do with this project. We need to help each other, not stab each other in the foot. I say withdraw the FAR. End of story. D.M.N. (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, I see my errors. I apologize for my wrong-doings. Anyway, lets move on from this, and improve the article. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some specifics on what needs to be done? GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw notification ignored - FAR continuing

iMatthew, your withdraw notification appears to of been ignored, and the FAR appears to be continuing. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I have it withdrawn, if it's being ignored? -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) if you wish. D.M.N. (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW/FMP

Can this be MfD'd? Can't this policy just be written in the WP:PW/MOS? I don't think we need an article most consisting of a discussion to ratify the policy. Comments?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be MfD'ed. -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's IP....

....is this? Seems to be trying to manipulate the discussion to do with The Rock article at the top of the page. D.M.N. (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, nothing to really look into. I believe it was an honest mistake after the user read this. I of course was being sarcastic. --Endless Dan 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was me. I was too lazy to login and I honestly thought that you had changed your mind. So I moved it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 00:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Ok, I just thought of this. I was changing the links of the draftees from the 2008 WWE Draft and I noticed different ways that their WWE profile is written. So question..

1)What is the consensus on how they should be written?

2)If there is none, which of these is better?

I support #4.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support #1 or #3. --Endless Dan 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #4 Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- "Profile" should not be capitalised. McPhail (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Support #4 - D.M.N. (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support #1--WillC 21:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #4 –L A X 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #1 or #4 ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #1 --Apsouthern (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #4 -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #4 Darrenhusted (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #3 -- iMatthew _T.C. 11:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #4 PXK ^T /_C 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further comment

I've struck my comment supporting the 4th one. I personally think we should have (Wrestler name) at (Website name). If we have Official WWE Profile, will we have official TNA Profile, official OWW Profile etc to be consistent. I think now, the best way to do is the way that it is currently done on Kofi Kingston's article where it is fully consistent. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good idea. Plus above, #1 and #4, have the most supports. Or we could also have real name (stage name) at (website name)

lets do this again.

Support #3 or #4 --SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #3 Darrenhusted (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #3 D.M.N. (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support #3 Cra sh U nderride 19:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus needed - move list orders

See here and here for the relevant discussions and a full explanation. It boils down to can we list finishers and moves by "order of importance" without violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no consensus is reached, I plan to continue alphabetizing move lists per the suggestion/guideline at WP:Lists#Organization. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus shouldn't be needed. Plain and simple, we should go with what Wikipedia's guidelines say. D.M.N. (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or in other words, there is already consensus, within the greater Wikipedia project, for this sort of change. — Gwalla | Talk 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the debate on Triple H's talk page still leaves it open enough depending on how we organize. Is IT even possible to do so without violating the above policies? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Attitude Era

I've worked hard on the article for The Attitude Era. I expanded by about 5 times what it was when I started. I added alot about the beginning of the era, also about the even when it happned. I also added how some shows changed, and some shows that were added during the Attitude Era. I placed show logos to show how they changed, etc. I also, expanded the controversies section and got just a tad more in depth about the Montreal Screwjob and the death of Owen Hart. Not like I took the whole articles and place them there or anything. lol. I also added an external link to WWE.com's Fan Nation section that's for Attitude Era fans. I would like someone to go and give it their unbiased assessment. Thanks, Cra sh U nderride 03:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. A lot of good content, but for an article of this size, it should contain more references to reliable sources. Only 3-4 ref's for this article is too little. So it should remain at Start class.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated it for COTW. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only used the references that were already there. At least, as far as I can remember. lol Cra sh U nderride 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why 3bulletproof16 removed everything that I add. He removed EVERYTHING about the shows, and how they differed from what there was before, and COMPLETELY removed ANY mention of the Austin 3:16 speech and the 1996 King of the Ring, when the Era actually began. They've gutted the article. Now, they have made SOME good edits. But the article has ONE section "The Initiation" which right as of this writing, covers the bookin' of Vince Russo, to the DX invasion of Nitro, which last I checked WASN'T at the beginning of the Era. 3bulletproof16 has screwed up this article. Cra sh U nderride 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, remain civil. Second, the article was in horrific shape and its "programming" content had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. The logos were also removed because WP:FU specifies that those images are copyrighted and their use in multiple articles compromises their fair use status. The edits I've made are only part of a longer expansion process that intends to give the articles its much-needed qualities that our wikiproject's featured articles already have. Once again, remain civil, as this process doesn't happen over night and will probably last a few weeks as other experienced WP:PW editors take a crack at improving the article. If the rant you posted on my talk page is in direct response to me removing the content that you added to the article please note that per WP:OWN you do not own the article and it can be edited on freely. Cheers ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look out from above!

(Sum-up From Vince's talk) See what I did there? anyway, lame joke aside. We should add something to Vinny Mac's article about the "accident". And also mention the fact that while kayfabe, it tried to look legit by having 2 feuding faces and a heel come to his rescue and also calling HHH "Paul". etc. PXK ^T /_C 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, there is a discussion at his talk page, I suggest you check it out. -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, I brought it here for moar people to see PXK ^T /_C 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this reliable?

ESPNJr.com? --SRX^--^Latino Heat 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a rip-off to the real ESPN for me. D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think you are right, once I saw this, I felt skeptical about it.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No expert on sourcing policies, but that is a definite no. PXK ^T /_C 16:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any website that allows you to openly change the content, including Wikipedia, in not a reliable source of information. — Moe ε 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a results page. Why do we need another one? Mshake3 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT's not only results, but provides news, just like the actual ESPN newsite. But it's officially not reliable.SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to table format

So on the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, I wanted to make a change to the format as seen here. What does everyone think about that? Virakhvar321 (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'll say here like i said there it's hard to read 13 62^talk 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed more than twice already, and consensus was to leave the current format. The table format would make the page hard to edit, and would become an easy vandal target. I see both sides of the coin here, but I have to say that the answer is no. We've made it clear before that it is not to be changed. -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Matt, me and him were the original proposers of this idea, twice was it shot down, and I agree it is a vandal target and harder to edit.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If tables make it more of a vandal target, why was consensus to change PPV Results section to such a format? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is more vulnerable for IPs to screw up the table. What was the consensus about the PPV results, I see the discussion closed but no set agreement.SRX^--^Latino Heat 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn, I couldn't agree with you more. I think the results as a table is a bad idea, but consensus is against us. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say challenge the consensus. If you look at the table, it is harder to edit, easier to screw up, harder to read, it throws the whole page out of whack, It looks terrible, and it is hard to fix and make. I think Tables are a bad idea on some occasions. Like with the PPV Results and with the roster.--WillC 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hate the table format. But consensus is consensus. But maybe a re-count is in order IF said tables really do attract vandals. No offense to the FAC reviewers, I have great respect for them, but it would seem they all want to put everything in a table that's a viable to do so. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni is in a table format, and so, every few days some well-meaning ip screws it up unintentionally, and it has to be fixed. I personally think tables should be avoided, and I agree about the results. The table format just is horrible. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about that as well, but the employee list changes day-to-day, while the alumni list is only badly affected badly when a release it announced. But I believe a change to list format from table format for the alumni article would provide positive results. The results as a table thing, is just plain horrible. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to change it from the table format for the alumni article. I can see the sense behind, my thoughts were just that IPs and unexperienced editors tend to screw up tables because they don't understand them. I think that putting them in PPV results will just mean a load of extra work for everyone, fixing them. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we should just have a revote now that we know what it will officially look like in the article. Also what will we do when there is a elimination match? Like the Elimination Chamber, a elimination Fatal 4 Way or Triple Threat, Xscape Match, etc? If all of the results are in a table then how will we write that out? Also PPVs are edited more than Alumni. Like iMatthew said, the Roster is edited day to day and so are PPVs. Tables should only be used for small things when it makes since. PPVs and Roster pages aren't good ideas. I actually like the look for the Roster page with a table but when I try to fix a edit made by a IP it takes me forever to find his edit in the middle of the Alumni page. So the same will be with the Roster page. I feel we should scape the whole Table idea for Roster and PPVs. Just leave it for small and unused stuff. Like Alumni and Elimination Matches.--WillC 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it for the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees but I don't like it for PPV results, I think it looks horrible and very untidy! Adster95 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude or anything, and I do agree about it looking bad, but it would have been useful if you had voted above in the poll that was open for about 2/3 weeks. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the tables in the PPV results section, and I think everyone else should give it a bit more time to grow on them. Several prominent GA and FA reviewers suggested a table format, so I think we should really give it a chance. You can always re-format the tables to make it look more aesthetically pleasing or to make them easier to read (although I think they are fine how they are). As for things like elimination matches, etc....that can be figured out. Maybe the winner and losers can be listed in the results table, and the elimination order table can be put into the prose (kind of like the other on screen talent). That's just one idea...we have a lot of options....we just need people to come up with solutions by experimenting a bit. Nikki311 05:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Champions - IC Title

I know that WWE hasn't confirmed that Jericho will defend the title, but Jericho did an interview, where when asked if he had a title defense said "I believe so, that’s the gimmick of the PPV, that every title is defended. I’m not sure who I’ll be facing at this point. But I’ll be there." (see here) Is that a good enough source for it to be put onto the page? Because, just to play Devil's advocate, he doesn't explicitly say that he does have a match. Him "being there" does not equal a match. Thoughts? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should place it in there because we know every title is to be defended. He said on Raw he wish he could defend his title at NOC but he has no opponent. He'll probably defend the title against a unnamed opponent. But WWE has stated all titles are to be defended. So to me that is enough since we know everyone of them is to be defended.--WillC 23:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BAW GAWD, I am sick of having this issue brought up. Yes he will defend the title, thats the point of the PPV, but we cant add it because WWE hasn't confirmed it, and we aren't a crystal ball, unless a reliable source states that Y2J has a match we can add it, but for now we still have to keep waiting.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it SRX that the source I provided^^ won't cut it? I didn't think it would to be honest, but oh well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't directly state that he will be in a match. (Forgot to state that earlier)SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, never mind. I just thought I'd bring it up here anyway, just to see. I didn't it would be accepted really. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, when the WWE stated that every title would be defended, they were confirming that he would be in a match, right? The gimmick of the PPV should be enough, shouldn't it? Cheers, The Hybrid 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) Actually we can most definately add something like this:

WWE Intercontinental Championship: TBD vs. TBD

Because we have plenty of sources confirming that every title will be defended. We do not have any sources that Chris Jericho will be in the match, even though it's completely obvious, we don't have a source. But the above can and should be added, because we have references to back that up. -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--WillC 00:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Added.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iMatthew, not including Chris Jericho in one of the TBA is rather silly, he is the current IC champion, the whole night is about the champion defending their titles, and it is a match that is confirmed to be for the IC title. The logic of 'no reliable sources' that state Jericho is in the match is not true, the match is between the IC champion and a TBA opponent, although it doesn't explictly say Jericho, that is what it means. — Moe ε 10:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Moe. By that logic, we shouldn't list any matches ever until they occur, as there's a chance that a wrestler could be fired, suspended, dead, AWOL, injured or stripped of the title before then. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some very sly vandals

Recently there have been a strand of articles on professional wrestlers bios that say "On June 22, 2008, WWE commentator, Tyrone Wilson stated in an interview that he is going to talk to Vince McMahon about rehiring [insert wrestlers name here]". There is no evidence of this being true, sourced or having any weight to it. Anyone who sees these kinds of entries, which are primarily a target from IP's from the 4.129.xxx.xxx and 4.152.xxx.xxx ranges, revert them. Articles they target are former WWE alumni articles such as Scott Hall, Sid Eudy‎, Big Van Vader, Jimmy Snuka King Kong Bundy, etc. — Moe ε 10:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of events for promotions

Well currently there is an AfD for List of ECW events, so if this is being deleted, should List of Ring of Honor events, also be deleted per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:C, and as stated in the AfD of ECW, it may fail WP:SPAM. I know ROH is different, and they dont have big PPV's like TNA and WWE, but if we are deleting the list of ECW events, I think we should delete list of ROH events, we can't just make a list listing every event, some of those events happen on consecutive days. AfD?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did have an AfD but didn't get much attention. You can always got for 2. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I sent it to XfD again, here it is.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

little help with explaining

I had someone remove a title from a wrestlers page under with the explanation (and i quote) They don't have their own wikipedia page, I really don't see why this title is included - he never defended against a 'name' wrestler. im trying to convince them that just because the promotion isnt very good doesnt mean we dont add the title but im not getting much luck... and this editors other edits for the most part have been good and helpful.

Other minor discussions im having with this editor is over the "Other Title" section of the "Championships and accomplishments" he now wishes to take off the promotions name and move it down to other titles as the promotions are not big name enough. I know i have been away for a while, but we are still trying to move every title we know the name of the promotions of off that Other Titles list. Aren't we?

Second discussion, and this is for the British editors mostly, that the Frontier Wrestling Alliance which scaled itself down and changed its name to XWA after the IPW:UK feud made the promotion "go out of business". he believes that FWA/XWA should be in a seperate articles from each other rather than being in what is now the XWA (professional wrestling) page.. if you know the promotion you will know that the XWA uses the FWA website as a homepage and has FWA's history as part of their achieve aswell as using most of there staff, equipment, concepts etc etc.

The discussions can be found here and here, any help to better explain the points would be much appreciated. ---Paulley (talk)

Vandals - a note

When you revert an IP, it probably means that IP has done something wrong in most cases vandalised an article. However, after you've reverted the edit, you should place a warning of the user's talkpage, either {{subst:uw-vandal1}}, {{subst:uw-vandal2}}, {{subst:uw-vandal3}} or {{subst:uw-vandal4}} depending on the severity of the vandalism. Or, if it isn't entirely vandalism, but a gross BLP violation, you give the IP another type of warning, preferably, one of these. I'm saying this here, because I notice a lot of people in particular from this project revert someone else (in most cases IP's) but do not leave messages on their talkpage. I try to in most cases. So, just a general reminder, after reverting an IP, leave a warning on their talkpage, for instance under this formatting:

==June 2008==
{{subst:uw-vandal3|John Cena}} ~~~~

I think we need to do this a bit more often. However, do not take edits like this vandalism, as that particular edit is a mistake on the IP's behalf, and should never be counted as vandalism. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

I'll start this thread over, so hopefully we can find a common ground that everyone agrees on. For starters, I've created a sixth option. Even though one has been picked, I ask you look at option 6. I've combined the winner/loser columns to form a "results" column, because having two separate columns for that sounded like a good idea, but turned out not to be, IMHO. I removed the notes section, because the notes are in the event section, and the results section should be just that, the results. I've changes the "match type" column to "stipulation," because it is not logical to say that the match type was a championship. So in the stipulation column, it will say "____ match" or "For the ________ championship" or any other stipulation.

I am open to almost any way others can think of to improve the table, because right now, it just seems to complicated, IMHO. -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am for implementing this style as it is more aesthetically pleasing to the normal reader, but where should the extra notes about the match be included, if at all? Below the result, bullet formatted, or should we just leave the details for the prose in the article? — Moe ε 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should leave the match notes for the prose in the article. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably for the best anyways. But I have to think, if the match is like a 20-man battle royal, the result would list all 20 competitors, right? — Moe ε 13:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in that situation, the best thing to do would probably be to say something like "Wrestler A won a 20-man battle royal, last eliminating Wrestler B." And add a footnote, that would list the other competitors. Or instead of a footnote, we could just list the wrestlers in the match in the event section. -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer this one to the one currently being implemented. I much prefer having the winners/losers column combined into one. It works a lot better. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted above, because everyone else was voting. I prefer no tables at all, but if there has to be one embedded, than, I prefer the sixth option.SRX^--^Latino Heat 15:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer no tables as well, but for some reason the FA reviewers want them in tables. So if there has to be tables, they may as well be good tables, right? -- iMatthew _T.C. 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely love Option 6 as compared to the other table format. I almost like it better than no tables at all - almost. I'm assmuing that "other notes" would include the finishing move, correct? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I'm glad you all like it, but so far, only one of the people who voted for option 2, have responded. We need to get their approval, basically, to make the switch. -- iMatthew _T.C. 17:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to improve Option 6 even further? -- iMatthew _T.C. 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. =D

On that note, there's a new type of reference group formatting around here on Wiki, see here and the result here. =D D.M.N. (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, too! Good work. That is much easier to read. Nikki311 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm glad everyone likes it. Should we make the change, to this table format instead? -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely!! **high five!!** D.M.N. (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Gives D.M.N. a high five** Alright, so I'll be glad to get started making these changes later on. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For an example, go here. -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I think should be noted is that "Match #", "Stipulation", and "Time" are singular, whereas "Results" is plural. I think there should be consistency. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the example article, SummerSlam (2007), to fix that. I changed Match #, Stipulation and Time to #, Stipulations and Times, repectively. — Moe ε 00:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done December to Dismember (2006) with the new format and redone the Elimination Chamber entrances and eliminations table as well if anyone would like to see that as well. — Moe ε 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the table

I'm going to make it known now that I really do hate the idea of a table. Because it is ugly, easy to screw up, and hard to fix. There will be many problems with it. We haven't even started to add tables to many articles and we already have our first screw up see here.--WillC 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New editors to this website who don't know the ends and outs of wikitext, just like with anything on Wikipedia, is not a reason to remove table formattings and keep the article qualities low. — Moe ε 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it keeping the quality low without a table? I think with a table it makes it look sad. It doesn't make it more easier to read. The old way made it more easier. I just don't see the reason for changing it in the first place? We got articles to Featured and GA without the table.--WillC 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not passing FAC/GAC as it was before, it may have in the past, the more experienced FAC reviewers are actually requesting a table formatting now. My suggestion is if you see someone screw up the table formatting, then see what they were trying to do and either correctly do it or teach them how to if their edits were well-intended. — Moe ε 02:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't know why they want a table. What good does it do? I just don't like the thing. Never have liked tables since I first figured out how to work them. But alright, hopefully we'll get rid of them in the future because I feel there will be alot of screw ups.--WillC 02:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have to agree with Wrestling Lover, the table looks horrible in the articles, its actually more confusing, and if you read it as an outside user, its like WTF? I prefer the old format, we cant just make something happen because 1 or 2 editors want it a certain way. This is MO (my opinion)SRX^--^Latino Heat 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him as well. Because you can't do the samethings with the new as you can with the old format and it works alot better with the old format. It is a straight read the old way. With the new it isn't.

match	type	note
Example 1 defeated Example 2	No DQ	Pinned after a Example

OR

Example 1 defeated Example 2 in a No DQ match.
- 1 pinned 2 after a Example.

I like the second one better.--WillC 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started to love the current table format. I think it works much better. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. D.M.N. (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you guys understand that plain text results are flawed, and no matter how many bullets, italics, or indents you remove or add, plain text is not wanted for FAC. — Moe ε 12:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's understood. But why? What's the logic behind that? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I don't know. Ask SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) or start a new topic at WT:FA. D.M.N. (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some quotes from SummerSlam 88's FAC: "The data you have in the Results section is perfect for a table. Names of the wrestlers, and the length of match - 3 columns (Winners, Losers, Time, as an example...) I don't see why this is such a problem. At the moment, the data is hard to read in the messy list format. I will consider opposing as per FA criterion 1a which states: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" Is the disorganized list professional?". Other reviewers just suggested it, as the multiple components lends itself to a table format. Nikki311 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at it this way, how many Featured lists on Wikipedia all together are promoted with plain text over a table formatting? I'm thinking the same principles for FL's would apply for this section. — Moe ε 21:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to see how the list format looked or read at all unprofessionally. It was organized in a clear manner and looks better (only in my opinion of course) than a table. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't unprofessional, but have you looked outside the scope of the professional wrestling articles, and looked at other lists of information, you don't find as much original plain text lists as much as you do tables now. — Moe ε 13:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gavyn. The way we had it was not messy and it was easy to read. The table pushes it all together and makes the page look weird. The table makes it harder to edit and easier to screw up. With the old format it was simple and effective.--WillC 00:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have either of you considered this may be because of your internet browser or the screen resolution you are using as compared to what you are currently using? When I look at these tables they are not pushed together or harder to edit at all. — Moe ε 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if it that wasn't clear enough, this is what I see when I look at the tables on the WrestleMania 2 article. I can create a screenshot of me editing it as well to prove that the it doesn't look weird in my view. — Moe ε 13:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (again and again)

Well per the FAR of D2D, reviewers state that there isn't that much of a sourcing issue. I think thats great, because D2D uses many sources, that I am using to replace in the Backlash (2003) article.

I think the following are considered reliable:

WrestleView.com - per the SummerSlam RFC, and I showed it to User:Ealdgyth, and they said it was found reliable, so that could be used.
PWTorch.com - if WV was found reliable, which was found in 1997, and has established writers, than so can PWTorch, which is used in D2D, as it was established in 1987 and has established writers.
Archive.org - Users should attempt to use the wayback machine to find source from WWE.com in the past
Online World of Wrestling - Ealdgyth told me in the past when I asked about sources, this source could be considered reliable if another third reliable party website acknowledged it. I finally found it, which is WrestleView.
CompleteWWE.com - This was never found reliable, though it is used in D2D. So Im sketchy on this one.
Wrestling Observer - This has always been reliable.
PWI - magazine, reliable.
SLAM Sports -always reliable, well established website.

Other than those, the other ones we use aren't reliable, but can be used for GA's. But not in hopes of FA's. Comments?SRX^--^Latino Heat 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So WON isn't reliable? O_O Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn Sykes is not to post on talk pages less than one hour after waking up without at least two cups of coffee in his system. Damn, that was stupid. Anyway, the above list looks wonderful and provides a very nice variety of sources. My only concern is that OWOW is the only site there for title win refs. I prefer using sites that list full title histories, though I'm not sure if they can be found reliable or not. Solie and Wrestling Titles.com are the two I primarily use for indy feds. Also, is Wrestling Information Archive acceptable for PWI refs? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge, WIA was used as a main source, but then something happened, and it lost some of it's "reliability", the owner of the website bragged about how Wiki used it to source its article, so then the site became questionable. I think Solie is reliable, but who owns and operates that website? Also, wrestling-titles is like the only "reliable" source we use to source title lists, but Im not sure what Ealdgyth will say about it. --SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n/m, wrestling-titles was found unreliable, until we can find a third party website that credits them or affiliates with them.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solie looks more professional thatn WT, as there aren't any ads. I generally use Solie before anything else, shoudl Solie not have listing for a title, I try WT, then WIA then if all else fails google for something else. I've never seen WT be incorrect, but the ads make it look very unreliable, IMO. There's info on Solie's owners and operators on the first page of the site. They actually source books and magazines to compile their title listings. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, wasn't Slam! sports considered reliable as well? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM! Sports was reliable the last time I looked unless I've turned into a total muppet. SLAM! Sports is almost 110% reliable! =D D.M.N. (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. ;)SRX^--^Latino Heat 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions discrepancy

This article lists Jericho as having had NINE reigns. All other related articles list it as eight. WWE seems to count Jericho's reign as co-champion with Chyna and his reign after defeating her to become sole champion as a single reign per the official title history. So is this revisionism? did they count it as two reigns at the time? What should be changed? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was only changed about half an hour ago. [1] It used to be correct. It wouldn't let me revert it due to "conflicting intermediate edits", so I'll let you do it manually, reading through the table! Enjoy! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, serves me right for not checking the edit history. Fixed. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed then! I usually check the edit history if I spot a problem like that. More often than not, it's someone's changed/vandalised/whatever it, and it's easy enough to fix. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a WWE magazine from last year

Does anyone here own "The Complete History of Champions", a special edition magazine put out by WWE last June? If so, could you please let me know the page number for the discussion of The Headbangers in the "5 Champs Who Didn't Deserve It" article? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes I have it! Not here at the moment, but when I get home I will look for the page number and post it tomorrow morning. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have it, it's on page 65! -- iMatthew _T.C. 20:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Jeter

Does anyone here get the Wrestling Observer Newsletter? If should could you please tell me if there was anything about Johnny Jeter being released in it recently? Wrestlezone is claiming that it does, but I have heard it said that it doesn't and I'd like it cleared up. Much appreciated, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the Newsletter myself, but there is a supposed transcript of the article here [2] --Apsouthern (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IM not sure, but try the PW Torch newsletter.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change for managers

I really don't think that a tag team partner qualifies as a manager. Manager listings should only be for managers/enforcers/bodyguards.

On a side note, this theme music stuff is a total mess due to what passes. Tons of incorrect or even just made up information more often than not. Also, people don't seem to know what "production music" is. Production music is "generic" music licensed from companies like Firstcom. In-house WWE produced music is not "production." This should just be scrapped. 69.23.151.9 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be any tag team partners in the "managers" section. If you see any, feel free to remove them. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we incorporated the "List-Class" into our assessment

The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has just been removed as a Featured List, and FL director, Scorpion13, stated that he would nominate more of our FL's for FLR, if so, we need to keep them at a higher level than B, and the way to do that is to use the "List Class". The GimmeBot updated the rating of the IWGP Championship, but it listed it as List-Class, something we dont have yet, but it looks like it's necessary, as that is what list that are close to FL are, they are "List-Class". Comments?--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how List-class works, to my understanding. It isn't higher than B...it is for anything that is a list. I wouldn't mind adding it in, as it would cut down on our start-class articles. I've thought for awhile now that we should, but didn't know how to go about fixing it to work. I can do that now, so if nobody objects, I think we should incorporate it in. Nikki311 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, then like you said, we can incorporate it so we can cut down on Start classes and any Stub lists. I dont object. Mayby you should wait a week for other people to comment. I will post this discussion in the newsletter as project news to get more attention.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Rhodes

Cody Rhodes stated on Raw that he does not know if he lost his tag team championship. I, also am curious to know if Rhodes is still in his first reign, but with a different tag team partner like Dominic DeNucci; or is this a new reign? Please add a reliable source with the answer. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but who's Dominic DeNuci? It goes to a dead-link? D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic DeNucci - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as two separate reigns Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to class it as 2 different reigns per WWE.com - D.M.N. (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't something similar happen awhile ago with Kurt Angle and the TNA Tag belts? At first, TNA listed it as two separate reigns, but eventually changed their website to reflect it as one. Nikki311 00:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean that Pat Barrett (DeNucci's 2nd tag team partner) was never a tag team champion, because this page doesn't list him in an official reign...? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's say yes, actually. When Killings and Jones held the TNA tag titles, Creed defended with them. He was never recognized as a former champ. And that did happen with Angle's reign too. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (Nikki), and I think that Cody's reign is one, because he never lost it he just gained a new partner. Remember, we don't always have to go via WWE's way.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PR Lockdown (2008)

I have placed Lockdown (2008) up for a peer review and I thought to tell everyone so I can get some feed back. Here is the link to the review page--WillC 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New userbox

If you use this {{User WikiProject Professional Wrestling/Userbox2}} you'll get this:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Professional Wrestling.

Hope ya'll like it. I just thought that it would be a change. This is the one I will be usin' from now on. Cra sh U nderride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a little bit to dark.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 21:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of that, I'm workin' on it. The reason I first chose black and red was, well lets face it, TNA, WWE, and ROH all use red and black. So it just seemed like a clear choice. Cra sh U nderride 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only someone could make a user box that had all the logos from the top companies in it. WCW, ECW, TNA, ROH, NWA, and WWE. Instead of the WCW belt and the old WWF belt.--WillC 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using copyrighted logos for a userbox would violate Wikipedia policy (and copyright laws). GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about some kind of logo we could use. Just something better than the old WWE belts.--WillC 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a free use, non copyrighted image, present it here, but for now we cant use copyrighted logos.SRX^--^Latino Heat 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]