Wikipedia

Talk:Acolytes Protection Agency

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleAcolytes Protection Agency has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 19, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Source list issue

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Although at first glance the article appears to have many sources (103 separate listings, not counting repeated citations of the same item), many of them are different citations from the same underlying source — 33/103 from The Other Arena, 24/103 from PWWEW.net, 20/103 from Online World of Wrestling, and 17/103 from the WWE itself. There are no print sources at all, so nearly as I can tell. Don't get me wrong; I don't know that there's anything in the good article criteria that says you have to have published sources, only reliable and verifiable ones, and for different fields there are somewhat different standards on what is an authoritative source. I just am uncomfortable and wanted to suggest that editors look to see if there are any additional sources to expand the pool a bit. Lawikitejana (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well to WP:PW, the above sources are all reliable because they are not false-reporting, speculating websites like WrestlZone. I however am unclear on what point you are trying to get across, are you saying that the article needs a print source, are you saying that the above websites are unreliable, or what?--~SRS~ 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. To answer your question: No, I'm not saying they're unreliable — I don't have a PW background and would defer to WP:PW on that. I'm new to reviewing GAs and have only just started trying after nearly two years of editing, though I have yet to see one I felt competent to review. The only reason I'm even viewing the article is that it's at the top of the backlog for the GA nominees, and I can't help noticing that its source list is unlike any of the GAs that I've seen, though admittedly those are in other fields. I only wanted (a) to suggest that if there are print sources, it would enhance the article to add them; and (b) to make sure that others coming to review the article would give more than a cursory glance at the size of the source list, actually looking at what the sources are. So long as all those sources meet the standards for good articles — and you've said they do — no problem at all. Lawikitejana (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh ok. But I dont have a print source available, mayby if someone else does, they can add it later, but are you officially reviewing the article?~SRS~ 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, I keep looking at articles that I think I might be able to review, but either they look like good articles to me until I read their Talk pages and discover they have really complicated problems I don't feel prepared to assess, OR they seem to me to be lacking but I think there's leeway to say I'm wrong, and therefore don't pass judgment against them. We'll see if I ever find one I feel I can judge! Lawikitejana (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I did find you one printed source, now added. It was about the April 2003 win, and I wanted to put who they won the title from, because it says the previous holders had had it for less than a month, but I can't make heads or tails to be able to see how to refer to the people from whom they took it.Lawikitejana (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

GA nomination

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You've been waiting a long time for a review. I've expanded the lead and fixed some typos. Overall, I think this covers a lot of details but the main storyline was obscured. How did these two join up (real life or kayfabe)? If they were a successful, popular team, why were they split with the brand split? In general, what is their larger significance to the storyline? This could use another copyedit (the phrasing is a bit awkward in places), and if you could add any more out-of-storyline info, it would help. (A completely optional observation: many of the references come in pairs, one from PWWEW and one from OWOW, but they're only used once; have you ever considered combining them?) Finally, the fair use image of the duo includes the logo; can you really justify fair use for the logo alone a second time? Gimmetrow 23:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

They were split basically because the brand extension consisted of random drafts, and they were drafted randomly to different brands. All part of the draft concept. What can be added about outside of storylines? Outside of the APA, they are good friends and thats about it. There is no need for a personal lives section, thats what their respective article is for. Also, yes because the logo was just cut from the logo, signifying a different image. I see your point about info outside of storylines, but the thing is they have no personal business together, they are too separate people, which is what their respective articles are for, you understand what I'm trying to say? (I feel like I am awkwardly wording it)--SRX 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unlike the Briscoe Brothers, a GA, who are actual brothers and have more info about their personal lives, since they do almost everything together, similar to the The Hardys, but Simmons and Layfield have separate business, like Layfield is a talk show host, and Simmons is a college football hall of famer (nothing related here).--SRX 01:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I understand. This is an article about a fictional duo. I'm asking if there is any info about their place in the storyline other than the storyline itself. For instance, why did WWE write them into the storyline? Were they to appeal to a certain market? Were they necessary counterpoint to some other part of the story WWE wanted to pursue? Did the two people come up with the storyline and gimmicks, or the WWE writers? Things like that. Gimmetrow 01:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well thats explained, in the beginning I added how they formed, why, and who. For the APA, I added who's Idea it was. Also they were put together basically because their careers as single competitors was going nowhere (explained in the article).--SRX 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Looking better. I think this would need a lot more out-of-storyline info to approach FAC, but it passes GA. Please think about the referencing though, since three different editors brought it up. Gimmetrow 01:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Over-referencing

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I think the article might be over-referenced. There is absolutely no need to cite every match win/loss with two or more sources, when one will prove the info. Nikki311 01:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, that may be true. Should all double refs be removed?SRX 01:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't think they have to be removed, but in my opinion, it is just un-necessary. Over-referencing is one of the reasons articles are opposed at FAC. Nikki311 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
(e.c) I agree with you, Nikki. I was concerned about that as well. King iMatthew 2008 02:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well with 2 agreeing, and one being an admin, I will remove them later this week. Thank you for your opinions.--SRX 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in The Acolytes Protection Agency

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Acolytes Protection Agency's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hardcore":

  • From Gregory Helms: "History of the Hardcore Championship". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved June 8, 2008.
  • From D-Generation X: "WWE Hardcore Championship history". WWE. Retrieved 2008-01-20.
  • From Rob Van Dam: "History Of The WWE Hardcore Championship". WWE. Retrieved 2007-12-31.
  • From John Layfield: "WWE Hardcore Championship official title history". WWE. Retrieved April 26, 2008.
  • From Shoichi Funaki: "History Of The WWE Hardcore Championship". World Wrestling Entertainment. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
  • From Billy Gunn: "WWE Hardcore Championship history". WWE. Retrieved 2008-07-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on The Acolytes Protection Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acolytes_Protection_Agency&oldid=1197927019"