Talk:Fantasy wrestling

advertising

the cwf part seems to be advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.175.227 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So was the "Recently, G-Fed has become a driving force in the efed business" part with the link to that small site. Removed. 71.171.87.248 (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Steve

Deleted a section on "Eaw" for being a blatant advertisement

Spam

According to Wikipedia:External links These sites should not be added as: In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. None of the above sites provide a uniqute resource And more importantly: Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming. These sites seem like spam to me. None of them are significantly important as none of them are highly ranked on Alexa or receive a large amount of google hits, thus I am removing all links that appear as spam. Englishrose 08:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Now it does. Some of the sites are in the 1,000,000. But popular enough. GTAjaxoxo —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Except FedWars. I went there and it was 951,000 mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GTAjaxoxo (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Redundant?

Isn't this page rendered redundant by e-wrestling?--Geoff K. 05:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that too... but some people on here dont consider them the samething.. though dont ask me why cus i dont know -- personally i think they should be merged --- Paulley

The reason why they aren't the same thing is because fantasy wrestling isn't just limited to online wrestling federations. It can also be a bunch of teen wrestling fans starting up a promotion in their backyard. Or, it can be someone starting up their own fantasy promotion on paper. That's why they aren't the same thing. That's why they shouldn't be merged. 98.193.77.218 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So they've been merged, now, right? I'm all for that, but it seems we might want to break this article down into more subdivisions for clarity.

The way it is now seems to leave the WWE Fantasy Wrestling Game reference looking out of context under "e-Wrestling" and poses even more potential confusion if anyone brings up the WWF Adventure Game (a tabletop roleplaying/fantasy game) from the early '90s.

By the way... I seem to remember a much lengthier article the last time I came browsing this way. And I don't see any indication on this talk page as to why it should be so heavily reduced now. What's up with that??? 64.111.225.85 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links

While I largely agree with not linking to specific e-wrestling groups, I have added links to E-Wrestling Torch and E-Wrestling Magazine; both sites address e-wrestling in general, giving information on how it works as well as links to a number of e-feds and other sites. IMO this makes them a useful addition to this article. --ElijahOmega (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Solid reasoning. I removed the two individual fed sites (CWF and ONE) that were linked for no reason. 71.171.87.248 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Steve

Advertising and return of Shootclub

WWA and Stablewars did not show on Alexa Internet, therefore must be advertising and Shootclub is returned due to high rankings and it's returning in July 2012. GTAjaxoxo 07:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

More ads

More ads just came. One from WEW-Virtual Federation. Here are the IPs: 79.107.21.235 and 85.115.248.60. Looks like they're trying to advertise this efed. But when I clicked it, it said 404. Must be dead. GTAjaxoxo 02:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty of finding reliable sources

The problem, of course, is that e-wrestling was astoundingly obscure when it started, and as a result, only a few sources exist. This site, for instance, covers the early history of e-wrestling, and affirms (correctly) that it was Scott Baxter, not Ray Duffy, who coined the term. This history has been around, on one site or another, for two decades. However, by Wikipedia standards, it doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source.

So: what to do when the ONLY sources on a particular topic are "unreliable?" I'd very much like to make corrections to the portions of the article concerning the early history of e-wrestling, but I have to tread carefully, given that I'm one of the ones who was involved, and potential CoI issues therefore exist.

Do you think we can at least consider the source sufficient for crediting Scott Baxter with the term e-wrestling, given that no sources exist for attributing it to Ray Duffy, and Ray Duffy himself credits it to Scott Baxter?

--BRPierce (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)