Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

WWE entrance music

I noticed this today, and put a prod on it. I don't think it's needed. While entrance music is important to a point, it doesn't seem that notable for Wikipedia. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. If it remains, a rename to current WWE entrance music should happen. RobJ1981 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Also by the same user: WWE Multi Time Champions. I could've sworn something similar to this was deleted before. RobJ1981 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've redirected all of his articles to appropiate articles. Most of them are just clones of existing ones in my opinion. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RAW → Raw

The WWE RAW article has been recently moved to WWE Raw according to the Manual of Style (trademarks) guideline. I was wondering if there's any way of fixing links and names to the new naming convention using a bot? --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC) That shouldn't of happened. The show is called "RAW", not "Raw". ^---SilentRAGE! 05:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I mean just because Wikipedia doesn't use all caps. Thats the shows name. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 22:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and there wasn't any consensus. If you count the nominator, the vote was only 2-1. If anybody wants to suggest another move, I will support you and I know at least a couple of others who would as well. TJ Spyke 01:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The result of the first move should have ended as No Consensus. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The person made a good point, but yeah, it looks like the vote should have ended in No Consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm "the person" in question. I want to note a few things: first, Wikipedia's guidelines are very, very, crystally explicitly clear about this. Anybody who doesn't have some sort of agenda or determination to see that Wikipedia follows WWE's spelling choices should see that. See Fox Broadcasting, Time Magazine, and Byte Magazine. Second, I did not end the debate, a disinterested party did, and others besides me have been reverting the editors who changed the spellings back to RAW. Third, even if a bunch of people believe that the debate should have ended with a no consensus, that doesn't mean that it did. Reverting back to RAW despite the vote is vandalism. Fourth, because the MOS is so clear about it, I could see an administrator upholding using the spelling "Raw" despite the result of any vote or discussion here, as was the case for Byte magazine. You guys are certainly welcome to attempt to change the MOS guidelne if you don't like it. Until you do, "Raw" is correct. Croctotheface 18:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles

How is CM Punk considered a Good article when it has 6 fair-use images? I thought that there was supposed to be only 2-3 images per article. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article has been worked over so much. He's not all that important in the scope of historic wrestlers at this point. And the images and the abundance of footnotes (72!) just really baffles me. Tony fanta 04:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can't comment much on the images as I can't find anything on the actual number of fair use images per article, the footnote references are there as a requirement for Good Articles and Featured Articles. The footnotes are there to give the article more credibility with external sources. --Oakster ^(Talk) 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand the need for a few footnotes, but this has about 74, and the sources are pretty questionable. Most are from the same few sites, and many of them are just results pages, which I don't think all need separate footnotes. I also think that the amount of footnotes is likely lowering the chances that it could become a featured article. And I'm not sure an up-and-coming wrestler really needs such treatment at this point, there are dozens that are far more notable and important wrestlers that have crappy articles that need fixing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony fanta (talk • contribs)

Well, we certainly shouldn't be biased against any professional wrestling article. If you want to work on those "crappy" articles, then you can go on ahead, but I think I'll continue working on articles on apparantly non-notable wrestlers. Shot and Botched 03:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Move: Randy Baer > RD Reynolds

How would I go about doing this? ^---SilentRAGE! 05:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just use "Move" at the top, I went ahead and did it.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't think that was possible when the other article (which was a redirect) already existed. ^---SilentRAGE! 09:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment of pro wrestling articles?

Since being put in the template, the assessment system hardly has even been used. We need to discuss if it will be used, or change the template back. I put notes on talk pages of several people, to start assessing... and from the looks of it, no assessing has been done (except for the few articles I've done). If assessment of articles is going to be done for pro wrestling, then several people need to do it... not just some. There is tons of articles, and it shouldn't be so many, if people would actually start at it. As of now, my thought on the matter is: no assessment is really needed, since people don't even seem to care about it much. RobJ1981 23:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I figure that if computer and video games have assessments, so professional wrestling should also have some kind of assessment scale as well. Neither topic is of general interest. There have been some questions about which wrestling articles should be included in Wikipedia 1.0 and an assessment scale might be helpful to address these questions. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I started assessing a few, and then realized some of the grading schemes are slightly different. Does this project have its own grades, or are we using a pre-established system, like the one established by WP:Biography? Mostly I'm interested in where we draw the line between Stub and Start, because that's most of what I have been seeing.Geoffg 04:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Other things have assessments, but that doesn't mean pro wrestling needs it. If only a few people even bother to assess, what's the point? It will just be a big unassessed problem, until people finally decide to assess. Look at video games and movies for example: video games is huge still, while movies finally is almost all assessed. Alot of wrestling articles fall under WP Biography anyway, so I really don't think pro wrestling needs assessing. Further discussing should happen, before the template gets changed back. But in my opinion, assessing isn't needed much. RobJ1981 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

East Coast Wrestling Association

Someone might want to go through this roster, I think some if not all of the wrestlers here aren't notable. Tony fanta 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, that's certainly going to help weed out some non-notable wrestlers. Out of the roster, I know of several of the names but not all. I will prod or afd the ones that aren't, and see how it goes. Wikipedia certainly isn't the place to list every indy wrestler out there. That's what a wrestling wiki is for. RobJ1981 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i removed the roster section completally. Indy rosters really shouldnt be listed esspecially if the article itself doesnt even have a section concerning it own history--- Paulley 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Kashmere

I have created Johnny Kashmere's bio, I would aprpeciate it if someone helped out if they know anything about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) .

Jim Neidhart

This article could use a revamp and an expansion. I really don't think an obscure wrestling newsgroup reference that maybe a couple dozen people get for a fairly unnotable part of his career should take up half of the article. It really shouldn't take up any, just say he was Who, then go into the 1997 WWF days, and so forth. Tony fanta 01:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the unnotable info myself, there appears to be some edit warring in the past, and I hope that is behind who had caused it. An in-joke on a newsgroup isn't notable for a bio article. Tony fanta 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

G.Q. Gallo

I created this article, as I've been helping to create some indy wrestler bios and articles on smaller promotions. However it has been categorised as "Wikipedia articles needing their fiction made clear". If anyone could possibly help in doing this I would be greatful. Thank you *Sam* 15:50, 22 October 2006 (England)

I can try. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 15:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done an OK job, I think. But it needs, obviously, to not be included in the fiction mad clear category. *Sam*

There, go check it out now. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 15:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How did you get rid of the Wikipedia not meeting criteria notice? Thank you, you've improved the article and also reminded me of a few things that I shall bear in mind when editing/composing a new one. *Sam*

I had heard his real name is Robert Gallo, which is it? James Duggan 23:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually know. His newest ring name would appear to be Gabriel Quinten, apparently.

Why is this person notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? The article itself atleast doesn't include information that would classify him as notable. I will put it up for deletion soon unless there is something notable about him that isn't in the article yet.

↪Lakes (Talk) 08:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

He may not be a big name wrestler, but he does seem notable enough to at least have an article. TJ Spyke 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the article makes him notable enough? Listing up for deletion.

↪Lakes (Talk) 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Les Thatcher

I've completed an article on him. One thing off the to-do list! *Sam*

Good job. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 00:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tammy Lynn Sytch

Check this out if you can, it's getting pretty long with indy stuff again. Tony fanta 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro Wrestling Wiki

For those who don't know, there is a pro wrestling Wiki available, http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. It's pretty bad right now though, only 153 articles total. I figure that some articles, like RAW Homecoming in the future can be transwikied there rather than automatically deleted. TJ Spyke 01:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also http://wrestling.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/, http://www.smashmania.com/index.php?title=Main_Page and http://wrestlepedia.crapplications.org/index.php/Main_Page. --James Duggan 06:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ryans Deletion?

Not only is this a seemingly fake Wiki page (and one full of lies anyway), but the constant annon users are editing the 1PW article and talk page to 'big up' The Ryans and make my comments into pro-ryan ones. darkie

A quick Google search for "Ryan Davis", "Ryan Davids" and "The Ryans" show no hits for wrestlers with those names. Looks like this could be fake. TJ Spyke 01:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also full of blatent lies. They havent ever worked for 1PW (and havent ever been approached by them) or BCW, also Alex Shane hasnt ever won a trios belt. darkie

Should move it to speedy for a quick deletion. NegroSuave 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

TNA List of events

Category:Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling_pay-per-views

Im calling this category into question. It is very well done but we do not need a run down of the results of every pay per view event for a promotion. We haven't done it for WWE, or for any other national promotion. TNA Should be no different. Any objections?NegroSuave 17:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views does exist, and it's helpful. RobJ1981 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a bit much if everything was consolidated on maybe a couple of pages as the WWE events are I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'll admit it was all nicely done but it gets to be a lot. NegroSuave 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move WWE Raw to WWE RAW

• WWE Raw → WWE RAW —(Discuss)— The reasoning in this it's the official name, and there wasn't any consensus. If you count the nominator, the vote was only 2-1, not an all inclusive vote. — BionicWilliam 17:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've given my vote to support the move, hopefully it gets enough votes to support it. TJ Spyke 20:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Me too. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The Juniors Division

Hmmm another page for deletion me thinks -- Paulley

I suggest merging it with Midget professional wrestler. TJ Spyke 05:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lex Luger

Another pointless content dispute has popped up and I'm needing some 3rd/4th/10th parties to weigh in.

This one's on the Lex Luger page, specifically the inclusion of a "viral video" in the personal life section. --- bd _{Sup? - Where we goin'?} 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Seriously, someone should call for a temporary lock on the article. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should a CFD be put on this?

Category:Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling alumni. I'm no expert on wrestling in Canada. If it's a major promotion, the category should be populated. If it's only a minor promotion, it should be deleted. RobJ1981 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete. --James Duggan 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there is this: Category:Current Extreme Canadian Championship Wrestling roster. RobJ1981 05:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs deleting too. --James Duggan 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And this: Category:Stampede Wrestling roster. I remember putting it in CFD a while ago, and it just got renamed. The roster should be listified, and the cat should be removed. Everything else at Category:Professional wrestling rosters is for single articles per promotion, not articles on the wrestlers itself (which is how Stampede Wrestling roster's cat is). RobJ1981 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Stampede Wrestling roster category has just gotten worse. I'm not sure if it was one user or several: but the category is now full of many former Stampede wrestlers. I've removed the cat from some pages with a note saying that the roster categories aren't for that. Long ways to go, seeing as there is 74 articles in the cat still. A roster page and alumni page should be made for Stampede, then the wrestlers can be categorized right. RobJ1981 03:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

TNA Hardcore War

Why is this around? It's just a TNA house show with a special name. TNA stars bashed WWE at the event, that's certainly not enough to justify it existing. I put a prod on it and plan to AFD if the prod gets deleted.

Should it be here? No, but it is quite appropriate to a wrestling wiki. --James Duggan 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki it here: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page , a dedicate wrestling Wiki. TJ Spyke 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD is now on it. RobJ1981 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

If you look at a lot of the images on wrestling pages there has been a major crackdown on fair use images and a lot of them have been tagged for deletion, including TNA who even thugh they have given permission to wikipedia have not released the images under a free license. In my eyes we have to get in contact with some of the companies involved and see if they'll release the images under a free license: TNA for TNApics, Mary-Kate Grosso for ROH and WWE for WWE. The images need to be released under a free licence as simple permission on wikipedia still falls under fair use rather than free use. –– Lid^(Talk) 03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think someone contacted WWE with questions regarding image usage some time ago. I don't know if they responded though. WWE seems really strict about using their images, if you take a look at their copyright policy at WWE.com. I don't think images are critical to an article though - text descriptions do just fine in most instances. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

One user, has tagged almost every single fair use image used in WWE and TNA articles for deletion. And they are all getting deleted without question. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kane category

Why is there a Category:Kane? --202.131.32.4 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ask McPhail, he created it. He has done several things without talking to other people, like moving "Jim Harris (wrestler)" to "Kamala (wrestler)" and didn't both to fix the 40 or so redirects. TJ Spyke 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kane category doesn't need to exist. While there is several wrestlers that have been Kane, and important things in Kane's history... we can say the same thing for Undertaker, Steve Austin, Bret Hart, Kurt Angle and so on. I put the category up for CFD. RobJ1981 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I get some help at WWE Cyber Sunday?

The main event is CLEARLY called Champion of Champions, but it keeps getting reverted to a triple threat match. Yes it's a triple threat match: BUT it is officially called Champion of Champions. Money in the Bank is just a ladder match, but it's referred under it's official name, as well as ladder match. So if anything the full name of the match should be Champion of Champions triple threat match. But some editors seem just want to put a note under the match saying "this match is referred to as Champion of Champions". Cyber Sunday is only a few days away, but that doesn't make a difference. In my opinion, editors are just being possessive over the article and their own personal opinion on the matter. WWE clearly calls it something, it's official and should be on the article, period. RobJ1981 04:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this just be deleted?

Menace (wrestler), its not well written and the wrestler in question doesn't seem to be notable in any sense of the word. I'm mentioning this here as I'm terrible with code and I don't think I can list it for deletion myself. Stephen Day 19:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be surprised if that wasn't just some kid's e-fed character. — Gwalla | Talk 08:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion on the article's page. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrestlers of questionable notability

Here's a list of wrestlers that I don't think belong here, but can be transwiki'd to a pro wrestling wiki:

• TS Aggressor
• Brian Ash (Wrestler)
• Arik Cannon
• Chance Cordova
• Mr. Destiny (Wrestler)
• Matty Fitness
• Troy Roberts ( a.k.a. "Cowboy"Troy Hansen)
• Referee Billy J.
• Nate Mattson
• Truth Martini
• Gage Octane
• Darrien Sanders
• Jaysin Strife
• Alex Arion
• Marc Ash
• Nick Scoville
• Cremator (wrestler)
• Pat Kelly (wrestler)
• Kirby Mack
• JC Williams
• Mike Miller (wrestler)
• Shane Bower (wrestler)
• Carl J. Williams
• Pete Wilson (wrestler)
• Youth Suicide
• Eva Destruction (Wrestling)
• Amy Lee (Wrestler)

I would like this WikiProject's help is determining the future of these articles. --James Duggan 04:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of those. Too much cruft when it comes to wrestlers on Wikipedia, it's time to finally clean it up. RobJ1981 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki them all the the Pro Wrestling Wiki. I suppose the (wrestler) part could be removed in the process. TJ Spyke 06:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but if someone could, that would be great. Is there a specific pro wrestling wiki that this WikiProject recommends? I've heard of several different ones. --James Duggan 06:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one I know of is http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page, but it's pretty small (only 159 articles). As for how to transwiki, i'm not sure since i've never tried it. TJ Spyke 06:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also three other wrestling wiki's I have come across: http://wrestling.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/, http://www.smashmania.com/index.php?title=Main_Page and http://wrestlepedia.crapplications.org/index.php/Main_Page. --James Duggan 07:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That first one doesn't appear to use the GNU license, so it's not an option. The second one appears alright. The third one seems to be almost totally empty. TJ Spyke 07:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the inclusions of Arik Cannon and Youth Suicide. Cannon as he is quite notable on the indies and is the current CHIKARA Young Lions champion along with two IWA:MS Heavyweight reigns. Suicide as he has appeared on 20/20 and other "current" affairs programs on backyard wrestling. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the transwiki, it would be great if someone could do a database dump on all the professional wrestling related articles and import them to the professional wrestling wiki. Assistance could be asked for from the folks who set up Memory Alpha and/or Wookiepedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The question of notability comes up again and again. Perhaps it would be useful for this project to have some clear, concrete "rules" for determining notability. We could start with "obvious" rules that we presumably all agree on (like any former world champions, anyone who has worked for a major company like WWE, CMLL, New Japan, etc.), and then proceed to discuss the rules for more questionable wrestlers. Once we agree on some, they can be added to the project page as a guide for members and other editors.Geoffg 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't consider everyone who has worked for WWE, CMLL or NJPW to be notable.

↪Lakes (Talk) 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? What about anyone who held a belt? Anyone who's been in a pay-per-view match? Appeared on TV? Am I going about this wrong? Geoffg 04:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a difficult question indeed. We've pondered it for a while now with no clear answer. Anyone who has held a belt could be considered notable, but then again that brings up the question whether every WWF Hardcore Champion is notable. I question Joey Abs for example, his championship win isn't even mentioned in his article.

Then again some people have never even won championships in a notable promotion, and I would still call them notable, Delirious for example. He is a notable upper card wrestler in a notable promotion, Ring of Honor. Of course whether someone is a jobber, midcarder, or main eventer is debateable.

↪Lakes (Talk) 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WWE roster

What does everyone else think about placing the WWE roster in a tale format? An example of this would be:

Male wrestlers
Shelton Benjamin	Lance Cade
Carlito (Carlos Colón, Jr.)	John Cena
Rob Conway	"Hacksaw" Jim Duggan - also has a Legends contract
Edge (Adam Copeland)	Eugene (Nick Dinsmore)
Ric Flair (Richard Fliehr)	Charlie Haas
Jeff Hardy	Johnny (Johnny Jeter)
JTG (Jayson Paul)	Kenny (Ken Doane)
Chris Masters (Chris Mordetsky)	Robbie McAllister (Derek Graham-Couch)
Rory McAllister (Russell Murray)	Shawn Michaels (Michael Hickenbottom)
Mikey (Michael Brendli)	Mitch (Nick Mitchell)
Trevor Murdoch (Trevor Rhodes)	Nicky (Nick Nemeth)
Johnny Nitro (John Hennigan)	Randy Orton
"Rowdy" Roddy Piper (Roderick Toombs) - also has a Legends contract	Shad (Shad Gaspard)
(Gene) Snitsky (Eugene Snisky)	Super Crazy (Francisco Pantoja Islas)
Triple H (Paul Levesque)	Umaga (Eddie Fatu)
Val Venis (Sean Morley)	Viscera (Nelson Frazier, Jr.)

Any comments? semper fi — Moe 20:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. With a table you completely destroy the semantics of a list. If the only reason you need a table is to eliminate whitespace, then you can make each list element inline-block. (There is one minor implementation issue with inline-block on Mozilla as far as I know, but it works fine on any modern non-Mozilla browser). kelvSYC 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons a table format may be better are:

Yes, it eliminates whitespace (although that wasn't my original intention)

The length of the article when viewing will be a lot shorter as compared to

The extra long TOC I was going to customize will be dramatically shorter.

The reduction of ==headings== will allow use to add as many sub-categories as we like, and it doesn't cause a large TOC or extended the length too bad

A major advantage I see coming out of table formats constantly is minor vandalism can be spotted quite easier. (ie. someone removes a name randomly from the roster. A blank spot can surely increase the chances of reverting faster

I'm going to test it to see how confortable people are with it. semper fi — Moe 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

How it is, is just fine. Why fix something that isn't broken? RobJ1981 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything, broken or not, can always be improved. semper fi — Moe 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to put RAW and Smackdown down but apart from that it looks better, rkoed

SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble titles

The parentheses in the seperate articles aren't necessary. For redirecting purposes at least, would it be okay to remove them? Maestro25 21:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the name of every pay-per-view is SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble. The year in parenthases is helping with disambiguation. semper fi — Moe 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Stampede Wrestling roster

For whatever reason, it turned into a dumping ground for anyone that worked for Stampede. No other roster categories (that I've seen at least) are for that. An article for Stampede roster needs to be made and should be the only thing in the cat (per how the other roster cats are setup). I mentioned this above briefly, but it was ignored. I have no idea what the current Stampede roster is, so I'm not going to create the page myself. If it was that easy, the category wouldn't be a big mess. RobJ1981 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving article names

I've noticed three or four discussions about moving article names recently e.g; Glen Jacobs to Kane (wrestler). I think the reason given that it's "disrespectful" is absolute rubbish, however, I've always thought that the articles should be what the subject is best known as, i.e. who knows Kane more as Glen Jacobs?! There's plenty of articles with real names that I think should be moved to ring names; a couple I could quickly find that all use the unknown real names; William Regal, Hardcore Holly, Crash Holly, and Edge (wrestler). SteveLamacq43 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already requested to move Glen Jacobs to Kane (wrestler) at requested moves and here. Anyone who wants to support the move, go to Glen Jacobs talk page.

Both Adam Copeland and Glen Jacobs have recently failed move requests. Bob Holly has been referred to more as "Bob" than "Hardcore" not only in his career, but recently.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What were the reasons given for the Adam Copeland move failing? I really can't think why it would. SteveLamacq43 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I really can't remember and it's no longer on the talk page. Nominate it again.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No one supported or opposed the vote for like a week, so I guess someone came along and deleted it. I might put in a request again. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the guidelines regarding stage names in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) apply to wrestlers. So normally a wrestler that is commonly known by his stage name should have his article use that stage name as well (eg. The Undertaker is the name of his article, with a redirect from Mark William Calaway).

Now that being said, there are some exceptions. In Kane's case, there are multiple wrestlers who have used that stage name. So for disambiguity purposes you probably need to name the individual wrestler articles by their actual name. In a similar vein, for Edge, aka Adam Copeland, you have a disam issue because Edge can also refer to a number of other articles that have nothing to do with wrestling. So your choices would be to call the article something like "Edge (wrestler)" or "Adam Copeland", and using his actual name sounds a little better (not to mention he hasn't always called himself "Edge"). Dugwiki 23:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources in wrestling articles

I've recently had to put the unsourced tag on several WWE championship pages. I know for a fact the titles do exist, but pages still need references and sources to back it up. So, remember to list it: a known title history site, a page on WWE.com or another reliable site. RobJ1981 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good reliable page: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/wwf/home.html TJ Spyke 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:World Wrestling Entertainment teams and stables

As I looked through some articles: The Smokin' Gunns and Disciples of Apocalypse are two good examples. The articles are very short, no pictures, unsourced and poorly written. The Gunns were in WWF for several years (as well as indy promotions) prior to that, and there is two paragraphs on them. I think this could be a task for the project. Teams and stables have been a big part of WWE (and wrestling in general) over the years, their articles need to be much better than they currently are. RobJ1981 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of wrestling articles just plain suck. Tag them as stubs, hope someone who knows about it gets to them.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can try to look up some info on these articles, but I don't know if I'll have time. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Should Piper's Pit be an article or remain a redirect to Roddy Piper?

The Roddy Piper article has a huge Piper's Pit section. Alot of it is notable, but it takes up too much of the article. In my opinion, Piper's Pit should be a regular article. It's a very notable interview segment. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 05:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It takes up alot of the article, and its notable. Its one of the best-known segments, and it should have its own article. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Piper's Pit is now an article. I used the information from the Roddy Piper article as a start. Much more should be added, since the segment has been featured for many years in WWF/E and (briefly) in other promotions as well. If anyone has a decent picture or two of Piper's pit, it should be added to the article. I'm not sure what to put for categories though. I added just World Wrestling Entertainment for a category, since there is no category for interview segments (and I doubt there ever needs to be, there isn't that many ongoing notable segments in wrestling history). RobJ1981 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's back to a redirect to Roddy Piper for no good reason, except for one editor calling it "listcruft" and not even bothering to help the article out. The interview segment is notable enough, and should remain as a seperate article. RobJ1981 08:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, was that L0b0t? THat seems like the kind of thing he'd do. I agree that Piper's Pit deserves its own page. It was one of the first wrestling "talk shows" and served as inspiration for many short lived later segments - Highlight of the Night, Carlitos Cabanna, The Cutting Edge - they don't deserve a page, Piper's Pit does. -- Scorpion0422 15:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, he wasn't the one that did it. 3bulletproof16 (talk · contribs) did the revert, with just an edit summary of "rv. listcruft". I simply disagree when people just instantly make a big change like he did (without discussing it first). In my opinion, that's a sign of controlling articles on Wikipedia. Piper's Pit is clearly notable enough, and there is no reason it shouldn't be an article. RobJ1981 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is notable enough. It set the standard's for wrestling talk shows, and it was one of the most well-known talk shows. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment on this matter? Otherwise it becomes an article again. If it gets reverted back... there is no just cause for it, since I've clearly posted here (and on the talk page of Roddy Piper). I will give a little more time, since not many have replied yet.RobJ1981 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well then.. it looks like I will change it back to a normal article. It's been 2 weeks, and it's on this talk page as well as Piper's. The majority rules in this case. A discussion has been made. If it gets reverted: there is no just cause for it and it's smply disruptive and vandalism if the revert happens. RobJ1981 21:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

PWI Years

Why is the PWI Years article gone? Now every wrestler on it has bad links on their page and, without that link, the mention of their rank makes no sense. Can we get it undeleted, or at elast get the information that used to be there put on the PWI page and redirect links there?«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, it's pure fancruft. It's not notable. --James Duggan 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

How are awards cruft? It's the closest pro wrestling will ever get to an official awards show, and they carry some kind of weight with fans. «»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling Years

Had an idea for linking years and dates listed in wrestling articles to that date for wrestling history. For instance, linking to November 9 would of course go to a page that would include the infamous Montreal Screwjob among anything else that may have happened on the 9th of November before or since. I've seen websites out there do this as a feature of their page, listing the events for the day that you visit and almost everyday there is something that can be listed, even if it's just a PPV listing. Not sure if this idea will go over well, just figured I'd throw it out there. Eric42 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its a good idea, but it would take forever to do. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's an idea everyone likes, we would just have to hammer out the details (like link syntax, like should it be (November 9 (wrestling)|November 9) (I used ()'s so everyone can see the syntax) or should it go more like by the year, listing everything important item for that year on that single page. As I thought about it, it'd be better to list by the year, giving each "day" listed it's own heading so pages can link straight to it. I'll see if I can whip something up based off of the day of the Montreal Screwjob and see if anyone likes it or not. Eric42 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a good idea. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Just for the heck of it, I created 1997 (wrestling) to start. Let's hammer out details for what should be listed, how things should be listed, etc. Eric42 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not follow the example used by video games? "1997 in wrestling", for example. What would be the criteria to be included? Do we include every single event? Small wrestling organizations like Ring of Honor give unique names to most of their events, how would we determine which should be listed? TJ Spyke 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1997 (wrestling) is up for speedy deletion. Just to let you know. Its been tagged as a test page. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, TJ Spyke did that. I'm fine with it, I didn't mean for it to be anything but a test page. Eric42 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize that video games did that, but that's cool. It works for me. I think "Major Events" should be listed on the page. I listed PPVs, which I think should be there too, but mainly the focus should be major events that's happened. Supercards you could say. That major match between Ric Flair and I forget that holds/held the attendance record should be listed even if it wasn't a title match/change. Title changes should be noted for all of the major organizations. You don't have to link every PPV or supercard listed, but I think they should be noted. Eric42 20:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This idea of "wrestling years" although good, could be cited as "fancruft" and by certain people. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea at all. Purely fancruft in my opinion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide to every little thing people want. Real sports have date articles, a fake sport doesn't need them. I'm a huge fan of wrestling, but I simply think this is a bad idea. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 23:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I was thinking about this. In the lead in the article of a wrestler, I am proposing that their best known nickname should be bolded next to their ring name. Heres an example:

better known by his ring name "The Game" Triple H.

Various superstars such as Edge, Randy Orton, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, and Hulk Hogan have their nickname announced before their ring name as they are coming to the ring. So, I'd like to see hear everyone elses thoughts on this. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nicknames and ring names are different. Adam Copeland's ring name is "Edge", "Rated R Superstar" is just his nickname. So Paul Levesque's ring name is just "Triple H". TJ Spyke 02:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ron Harris (wrestler)

May God Bless You Always!

I was looking up professional wrestlers to mark the ones from Missouri witha Missouri Project Tag. I also use to watch the old WCW. In my research I came across Ron Harris and his brother Don Harris. In Don Harris'Article it says that he and his brother were known as the Harris Brothers with a link. Ron Harris' says that the team was The Bruise Brothers. Which is it?

Yours in Christ, (Steve 03:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

They've been known as several names: The Harris Brothers, The Bruise Brothers, Creative Control, The Blu Brothers, Skull and 8-Ball of the Disciples of Apocalypse. Most commonly is Harris Brothers (their real names). TJ Spyke 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Just like we had to with RAW and iMPACT, somebody has gone and created a collection of ECW TV results. Here is the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ECW on Sci Fi episodes. 06:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ric Flair's championships/awards page

Now that we've got a shorter representation of the championships and awards, is the page still necessary? The contents have already been copied to the main Ric Flair page anyway. Should it be deleted? --202.180.171.182 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I would get rid of that alleged "WCW Grand Slam" thing, and possibly merge. Maybe condense the PWI awards into one lines for those he has won multiple times. Cornerbock 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The page should be deleted. It's simply fancruft, if one list page is allowed... others will pop up. Those types of list belong on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 05:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The list was initially started because it became way too big for Flair's article (and is still pretty big). Winning many titles for over 30 years will do that. TJ Spyke 07:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Championship Dates

There's an ongoing discussion on the X Division Championship page on what dates should be listed by title regins. Some say it should be when the match actually took place, while others claim it should be when the match aired. Further more, if the companies were to change their offical history (by say, completely ignoring a specific title reign), then wiki should reflect that as well in the interest of Kayfabe.

My stance is this. Title changes should be listed as occuring on the day the match happened:

• WWE and TNA have been inconsistant in their title histories by listing title changes by both the taping dates and airdates. Therefore we shouldn't 100% follow them.
• You can't follow the Kayfabe of a Smackdown taping when WWE themselves has announced on their website a title change right after it happened at the tapings.

Does anyone else have an opinion? 131.230.135.105 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should do both. What I mean is, it could say something like "Wrestler X won the title on the November 2nd edtion of Show Y (taped on October 30th)." How about that? TJ Spyke 22:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. However, for a list of champions, the day the match took place should be highlighted. For AJ's title win, I think it should say he won it on the 24th, and in an astrick mention the day it aired.

I think it should be the other way around. List it as being won on the day it has aired, and then put an asterisk saying when it was taped. The official TNA & WWE title histories list the date they won the title on TV, and while in some cases they have listed the date they won the title at the tapings, who's to say that it isn't just an oversight? vDub 12:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then what about this? [[1]] WWE admits that the show is taped on Tuesdays, and they also tell us to watch it happen on Friday. 131.230.185.23 19:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Grand Slam Champions

Since when did WWE consider the United Staes championship a requirement for the Grand Slam Championship status. The article says "JBL compared himself to Tiger Woods and said he completed the Grand Slam of professional wrestling". To me, JBL saying that he did doesn't mean its official. I think we should remove JBL until another source can safely say that the United States Championship is interchangable with the IC championship, because JBl saying this doesn't mean squat. (FWIW, obsessedwitwrestling.com only recognizes 5 people (excluding RVD) which means they recognize 6 people while Wikipedia claims 7 people). semper fi — Moe 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think WWE made the US title a replacement for the European title, since it was discontinued, so there would be more grand slam champions in the future. I think the IC title is something you have to win, since it was around for the original grand slam definition, which said that the wrestler would have to win the WWE, European, IC, and Tag Team championships. The US title replaced the European, so JBL is actually a grand slam champion. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

And wheres your source for where the European Championship was replaced with the United States Championship?? The European Championship was a third-teir championship, the US Championship is a second. I don't agree with that at all, unless you got some proof of this. semper fi — Moe 00:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

And did you notice that I said "I think". I didn't say I had a source. Who said the European title was third-tier? --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Per our No original research policy I have removed JBL from the list as there are no sources for this claim of the US Championship being part of the requirements. The European Championship, because there already was a Heavyweight Championship and a second-tier (IC championship), it makes it a third tier, as decribed from the beginning of the status when Shawn Micheals first won the title. semper fi — Moe 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The term Grand Slam Champion, IMO, should refer to someone winning all four available championships at a given time. Therefore, while I'll all for keeping the article as is, a note should be made that several of these wrestlers didn't win a true Grand Slam Championship. 131.230.135.105 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WWE has stated that the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Team Championship are both exceptable substitutes for the Grand Slam/Triple Crown status' to occur. The article already distinguishes which ones have won the titles under the original meaning and under the new meaning. The only debate now is the United States Championship part of that new exception now, as no source has indicated so. semper fi — Moe 21:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the only source is out of the horse's mouth, so to say. JBL's self-proclaimation isn't even kayfabe-verifiable. If WWE recognizes it as part of kayfabe (ie. if someone other than Cole, JBL, or possibly anyone feuding with those two mentions this) or if WWE claims this out of kayfabe we can add JBL onto the list. kelvSYC 05:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing champions for PPV events?

A discussion here: Talk:Survivor Series (2006)#Listing the Champions? needs to be clarified. The basics of it: some people don't want champions listed for tag matches and/or elimination matches that don't involve the title, while others wanted it listed. My stand on the matter is they should be listed. In a tag match or elimination match or whatever match it might be, it's obvious the title isn't on the line (unless stated in a special stipulation). There is no reason to ignore their championship status, just because the title isn't on the line. Non-title matches still list them as champions, tag matches are in theory non-title matches as well. RobJ1981 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Include For any PPV event, I think it's important to know who the champions are, whether or not the championship(s) are defended. 131.230.135.105 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If a title is not on the line, then I don't see the point in mentioning it. It doesn't do anything for the article, and somebody who really wants to know who a champion was at the event can check the title's hisory. Also, I don't see wrestling magazines or even WWE listing titles not on the line is result pages. Non-title matches do not list the champions because the title has nothing to do with the match. TJ Spyke 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the champions should be noted. WWE barely does anything with their undercard titles now - so it's useful to show what the champions are doing on each card. Otherwise readers might think the title holder or the title itself is "missing in action". --Jtalledo (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I don't see what titls matter in non-title matches. A title isn't notable in an non-title match, it would be like mentioning who the referee is or the Royal Rumble/KOTR winner in every PPV. They don't help the articles and are not informative. Edgecution 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Titles are regular things, not just a one time award like KOTR and Royal Rumble. If I remember right: alot of PPV articles list the referees. RobJ1981 21:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited looked at and edited many of the PPV articles, and only special referees are listed, not regular refs (just like only title on the line should be mentioned, titles not on the line shouldn't be mentioned). TJ Spyke 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Many of the SummerSlam articles have a section called "other on-air talent" and lists referees: not just special ones. In my opinion, the section should remain... but be condensed. I don't think it's notable to list every backstage agent that appeared in a pull-apart or whatever the case might be. Titles on the other hand: are notable, even if you don't want to admit it. Not listing them, is just ignoring an official part of the wrestler. This is similar to the disagreement over an official name for the main event of Cyber Sunday. I think it's safe to say, the majority does agree titles should be listed. I suppose the discussion can continue for a little longer on the matter, but a change is certainly needed in my opinion. Things can't always remain the same. RobJ1981 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe to put the titles in the articles now? From the looks of this, more people agree to titles than not. RobJ1981 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No they should not go in. There is no VALID reason to list a title if its not on the line and you have good reason why it should. If the title is not on the line then it has nothing to do with the match, has no affect on the match, and just clutters up the page. They are not importent to the match, and a person can always look at the titles page if they are really interested in who the champ was at the time. TJ Spyke 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't own the articles, so just stop. If enough people agree titles should be listed: it will be. Ignoring them as champions shouldn't be happening. As of now: 3 are for titles should be listed, and 2 are against it. Further discussion should obviously be made, since 5 people decided on something isn't enough. RobJ1981 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said I owned the articles. I just stated the truth, that no valid reason has been stated as to why they should be inlcuded. I have presented valid reasons why they shouldn't. TJ Spyke 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Here is a formal survey (hopefully I did it right). If you support listing champions for PPV (and supercard) articles, post support with comments and your signature. If you oppose, post oppose with comments and your signature. --RobJ1981 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Support - There is no reason to ignore what champion they are, just because the title isn't on the line. RobJ1981 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Championships that are not on the line do not need to be listed. It is just plain unnecessary if the bout is a non-title match. Other articles do not list a contender as a the champion in non-title matches either, especially in past Survivor Series articles. Information such as... who is champion in a match where it doesn't matter... is better suited for a wrestling news site, which is something that Wikipedia is not. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose for the reasons stated by bulletproof. Titles not on the line have nothing to do with a match and have no affect on on, they also don't help the article. TJ Spyke 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Titles not on the line really doesn't have anything to do with the current storyline so the wrestler fighting the champion doesn't care about it and the same with the promotion. There are certain exceptions but those are very rare. airr233 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I don't see any reason NOT to put them. I think its important to note who is the champion, otherwise, down the road, people may look at the page and wonder what happened to _____ champion. This way, they'll know they had a match and what match it was. -- Scorpion0422 14:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose They will just know that the title wasn't on the line. That's why I and other people i've talked to think when we don't see a title listed. If a title isn't on the line then it doesn't matter for that event. Edgecution 02:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I agree with RobJ1981 since I believe noting the champions even in non-title situations is due to the involvement of the champions having definite value, not to mention the WWE and TNA both market and promote the champions regardless of titles being on the line. I understand bulletproof's statement about how Wikipedia is not a wrestling site but we should still strive to keep a detailed record of the event specifics nonetheless, and given how important champions in past Survivor Series (Lesnar/Benoit, Big Show/Cena, etc) can affect feuds and promotions, it seems relevant. Simply noting title matches as such and leaving that header off of non-title ones seems like a very simple solution. CyclopsScott 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It's useful information to note what champions are involved in which matches. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per reasons above me. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Not even WWE lists champions in non-title matches [2]. The reason? Simply because it isn't important. If you look at the results for the 2001 Survivors Series team match, neither the The Rock or Stone Cold are listed as being WCW champion or WWE champion. As RobJ1981 says, If WWE lists or calls something one way, then it should be listed the same way on Wikipedia. It is not useful information to note what champions are involved in which matches if the article and the information is dated by the time the event is over. Big Show may not be champion by next year's Survivor Series, so what good is it to list him as the champion in a match that doesn't involve his championship as a stipulation. It is not important to his career, it is not important to the match, and it is not important to the article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly did I say "if WWE lists something it should be the same way on Wikipedia". I don't think I ever said that. So don't say things like that just to make a point. I'm sick of this article controlling, and things should change when needed. One person's opinion shouldn't dominate the articles, period. RobJ1981 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In your own words... WWE clearly calls it something, it's official and should be on the article, period [3] -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to step in a second, he said you should CALL things what the WWE calls them, not how the WWE does things. You are very clearly misquoting him. All it is is a couple extra words, whats the big deal? -- Scorpion0422 20:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because WWE doesn't list it, doesn't make it non-notable. When the ring announcer, announces all the wrestlers for matches at Survivor Series..what champion they are will be mentioned. WWE isn't ignoring the fact they are champions, so the articles about the PPV matches shouldn't either. I still don't see what the big deal is. The match is obviously not for the title, there is no reason to leave out what champion they are. No one is going to get confused over if the title is on the line or not. Things should be able to change once in a while, without having to do a survey about it (since regular discussion gets no where when it comes to some controlling editors). RobJ1981 20:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He meant do things the way WWE does them. The very fact that his championship is not on the line means it is not important to his career, it is not important to the match, and it is not important to the article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't twist my words around. All I meant by it was: things should be listed that are clearly on WWE.com or mentioned on shows. The whole arguement (where I posted that comment) was about people leaving out "Champion of Champions" match from the main event. Are you saying all non-title matches aren't important? That's pretty wrong, many non-title matches (or matches with no title on the line: Survivor Series) have great importance. What's next.. not mentioning the title if it doesn't change hands in a match? A titleholder should be listed no matter what, there is no reason to act like the champion isn't important (if the title isn't on the line). You are acting like the Survivor Series elimination matches aren't important at all, which is just your opinion. Hopefully this survey is just the start of changes around here, because changes are certainly needed. RobJ1981 20:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What you just said made absolutely no sense what so ever. You just said that all you meant by it was: things should be listed that are clearly on WWE.com or mentioned on shows. That is clearly contradicting what you were trying to prove. And your arguement on What's next? also made absolutely no sense. Of course noting that a title changes hands is notable. That's why its called a title match. This arguement is about not listing champions in non-title matches. Meaning that champions should only be listed in title matches. And again your arguement has failed to prove why it is important to list champions in non title matches. RobJ1981, all of the surveys you have added seem to be on whatever TJ Spyke is agianst. This leads me to believe that you really don't care about the article. This leads me to believe that this is just you on a personal vendetta against TJ Spyke. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to just accuse someone of a vendetta. I don't have a problem with TJ Spyke, but I certainly have a problem with the way he edits sometimes. He adds warnings that he makes up, and reverts everything that doesn't suit his needs. I know he is a good editor who constantly reverts vandalism, but he likes to control articles from good-faith editors also. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however, TJ Spyke follows Wikipedia:Verifiability when removing unconfirmed posters and other nonsense. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on what? --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is no vendetta. This is my opinion against his. His reverting of certain things (like the whole back and forth garbage of Champion of Champions) shouldn't be happening. His opinion is fine and well, but other's have the right to edit...without being reverted each and every time he doesn't like it. Articles are free to edit by anyone, but how can that even work if it just gets reverted because he doesn't like it? I'm a big fan of wrestling, and you know this. I've edited pages long before these disagreements with TJ Spyke. Check out my edit history and my edit count lists: much of it is about WWE and wrestling articles. I've reverted alot of vandalism and cleaned articles as well. The vendetta comment wasn't necessary at all. RobJ1981 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

He reverts things without a discussion or forming a consensus. That's what led to this [4] -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that policy, and it would be fine if TJ wouldn't just change every article to how he sees fit. He doesn't own the article, nor does anyone else. But reverting any change he hates, simply needs to stop sometimes. How can an article change if he just controls it? If only his edits are put into it, what's the point of even editing the article? While this isn't always the case, recently it does seem like that. Champion of Champions match comes to mind, as a good example of this. Official match name of the main event, but he hated it and kept reverting. Finally he admitted that was the name and didn't revert, but it took a while. RobJ1981 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic. Who the champion(s) are in non-title matches have no affect on the match (unless it's a stipulation like getting a shot at that title for winning). Not only does WWE not list champions in non-title matches in their results, but nether do respectable sites like prowrestlinghistory.com. If somebody wants to know who the champion was at that time, there are articles chronicling the history of those belts. It's not ignoring anything, but it's info that is not needed. What's next, listing all the titles that are NOT on the line? Somebody might be wondering where those titles are too (this is for the argument listed by Rob at the top). TJ Spyke 07:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing titlein matches where they are not on the line would hurt articles more than they would help. They would give the impression that the title was on the line, which would not be helpful at all. Not to mention all the clutter it would cause. Edgecution 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - If the titles aren't on the line there's no point in listing them. It's pretty simple. If someone wants to find out who was champion at that point in time they'd go to the effort of going to the "list of <insert title here> champions" article and look it up there. Normy132 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Trying to set some precedents

I need some help establishing some things throughout wrestling pages.

• On WWE articles I'm trying to link the word "brand" to the WWE Brand Extension page, since who in the world knows what that even means if they're not a wrestling fan.
• Keeping tag team information off of specific wrestler articles. I just see no reason to have multiple articles with the exact same information, usually even worded the same way (Shad Gaspard, JTG and Cryme Tyme for example).

Any comments or other ideas?«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the tag team information point, I generally agree. If a tag team is notable, it should have its own page, and all the important details about that team's history and achievements should go there. Nevertheless, if membership in a particular tag team is a significant part of an individual's legacy, the achievements attendent thereto should be mentioned on the individual's page as well as the team page, just not in the same detail. Otherwise, if the person was most notably a singles wrestler, it should suffice to mention that they were in a tag team with person X, and that's it. Of course some people (eg. Edge & Christian, the Hardyz, Chigusa Nagayo & Lioness Asuka) have had both notable tag team and singles phases in their careers.09:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Don Harris and Ron Harris (wrestler), they are basically mirrors of each other. TJ Spyke 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Which, I think, is just really unnecessary. There's no reason not to shorten both articles and put a {{see|Harris Brothers}}.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 04:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In the case of the Harris Brothers, or other individuals who gained no substantial notability outside a tag team (eg. Cryme Tyme, so far), it may be questionable whether each of them needs much of an individual article at all. Of course, the other extreme is exemplified by the Jumping Bomb Angels. In their current situation, Itsuki Yamazaki and Noriyo Tateno both redirect to the team page, even though both individuals have won singles titles. I would argue that the two women could each sustain a short individual article. Obviously, we must draw the line for each team on a case by case basis.Geoffg 07:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yea we had this discussion before its just a case of making tag team articles to replace team wrestlers (note this can only be done if the wrestlers rearly wrestle out side of their team... it works well for brothers/family and such also) i.e. Shane Twins, UK Pitbulls, The Highlanders (professional wrestling) --- Paulley 11:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC) --- The Harris brothers need the same treatment but remeber there are some things that dont appear in the team page but may do on thiers be careful that you infact merge the articles and not just delete them...

The Harris Brothers could possibly be two pages: one for each brother. Didn't one of them work solo (or in another team) in TNA for a bit? I remember one did, and the other was just part of the staff. Granted, it's not much... but it's still something different. RobJ1981 21:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Crowd chants

Anyone think this should go? --Aaru Bui ^DII 04:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Too pro-wrestling-centered right now. If it was about crowd chanting in general, I'd be for keeping it. This is too biased to keep at this time. kelvSYC 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good page, but it needs to be expanded to include all chants, for all sports. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The ECW Chants page got deleted, this one should too.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Then put it up for deletion. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, done and done.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See Also

Another idea I had for improving bio articles was to add "See Also" sections at the end to (re)link important topics related to the subject. For example, on the Edge article linking Rated RKO, Matt Hardy, Lita, etcetera.

When I tried on Edge it was repeatedly deleted with the only explanation being "already linked" information, but with every third word being linked in some places I just can't really buy that as a reason to get rid of the section. The idea of a "see also" is to bring more attention to related articles, no? It's kind of hard to spotlight some things with the length of some articles.

If no one else thinks they'd be helpful, fine, but I'd like input from more than one person.«»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If the article is about one person, and the links you want to put in see also section are already linked in the article most likely more than once, then whats the point? The article is about the subject of the article, not what relates to it. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is to use the interlinking to point people to more information about related topics. «»bd^{I'm cool!}I'm cocky! _{I'm bad!} 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And the links are already in the article, so whats the use in making the article longer by just linking it again, so lazy people don't have to scroll back up thru the article to get the link. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  23:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Roster issues

Why do people feel the need to "control" articles? On both WWE and TNA roster pages, my edits get reverted due to the fact people can't understand reason. If the superstars are in alphabetical by last name: teams/stables should be as well. America's Most Wanted: under W, not A. Alphabetizing in 2 different forms for one article makes the article look bad. What does everyone else think? A discussion needs to happen about this. RobJ1981 02:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I say it should be is the way it's historically been. For everyone else, please see here for what we are talking about. --James Duggan 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Things don't have to stay the same, period. Changes can and should happen to make things better. All sections should be formatted the same way. RobJ1981 02:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "the same way" to you is not the same way to everyone else, as to me, the last name rule applies only to proper name, like John Cena, not names like Super Crazy and Cryme Tyme. And we've already had a big discussion here a while back as to the alphabetical order of ring names like Super Crazy and Samoa Joe, where we decided they don't apply to the last name rule. So I'd say that stable names fall into that same ruling. --James Duggan 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Project

compile the win-loss record for every wrestler on wikipedia. WillC 03:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointless cruft, all things considered.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lex Luger

You should take a close look at the Lex Luger article. It looks like the same anon person (Cornerbock, among others.) keeps on beating the dead horse A LOT and restoring the "viral video" part ("I DON'T KNOOOWW!"). It was funny back then, but, just like everything else, it goes flat and stale. AFAIK, it's only popular among the posters at the WrestleCrap message board and YouTubers. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 17:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out more times than I can count and I'm really sick of it. It's being popular on YouTube and mentioned on ESPN just really don't make it notable, but they seem to refuse to let it go.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 17:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone get a temporary lock on the article? Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I put it up for a Request for Comment.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 22:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Lita's retirement and a few comments

Lita' retirement should be listed on the Survivor Series page: she said herself on Raw, it would be her last match. Even if it's just kayfabe, it doesn't hurt the article to list it (until at least Survivor Series airs). Some editors of course disagree with this, and revert it back. This article controlling really needs to stop. I can't remember what a certain Wikipedia article exactly said: but it's something along the lines of "accept other's edits to the article". This certainly isn't happening, when people just instantly revert it back with absolutely NO discussion on the talk page or elsewhere. If there is discussion, it usually doesn't get far, because the editors still wont accept change at all. If I need to, I will get an admin into this... because I'm simply fed up. I've tried talking, and it does nothing. No compromises or anything works with these editors. Personal opinion isn't the always way to go, when it comes to edits. RobJ1981 01:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting PPV's and shows in italics

This has been bugging me for quite a while, and I need other editors opinions on this.

Should PPV's be italicized? They are shows, and shows are italicized. One person says they shouldn't be italicized because they are events. Raw and SmackDown! are events, and they are italicized. Raw and SmackDown!, and PPV's are both shows and events, so they should they both be italicized? I think in my mind, they are the same thing. So they both should be in italics or not. Not one is in italics and the other is not. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If one is in italics, the other should be as well. It should be consistent, not just one type of show. It should be done for all shows (TV and PPV), or none at all. RobJ1981 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then go ahead and edit every article that mentions the Super Bowl, the World Cup, the World Series, etc. and edit them to put them in italics. For example, according to you it should say Super Bowl XXXVII rather than Super Bowl XXXVII. TJ Spyke 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), Italics should be used for:

• • Books
  • Comic strips and webcomics
  • Computer and video games
  • Court cases
  • Films
  • Long or epic poems
  • Musical albums
  • Named passenger trains
  • Orchestral works
  • Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)
  • Plays
  • Ships
  • Ship class
  • Television series
  • Works of visual art (except sculpture)

PPV event articles are not italicized because they are not television shows or films. The articles are about the event and not the video release. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this is a matter of perception (or definition). If we classify PPV events as sports events (like Super Bowl XXXVII, etc.) then they should not be italicized, but if we classify them as scripted dramatic (albeit athletic and semi-improvised) theatrical performances (like a play) then their titles should be italicized. I say italics for WWE, no italics for UFC.Geoffg 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not theatre though. It's in the same category as the UFC when it comes to this. TJ Spyke 02:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think WWE is just as much theatre as commedia dell'arte is. In both art forms you have a troupe of actors who travel from town to town dressing up and playing the same archetypal characters each night. They are handed a more or less detailed "scenario" and go out and improvise a scene/match. The finishes are pre-determined, it's not a competitive sport. It's just really athletic theatre. MMA, on the other hand, like boxing, is not predetermined and not full of good vs. evil gimmickry. It is a competitive sport. That's just how I see it.Geoffg 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a wrestling pay-per-view isn't comparable to an MMA or boxing event. Jeff Silvers 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing the "Raw" article's title

I believe the name of the "WWE Raw" article should be renamed to "WWE Monday Night Raw", for it is the correct title of the show, given by both the WWE, as well as countless other on-screen guides, TiVos, channel listings, thescore.ca, USA Network and so on. The wrestlers on the show are still the "Raw Brand", however, the name of the show they wrestle on is called "WWE Monday Night Raw." It is similar to how "WWE SmackDown!" changed its name when it moved from Thursdays to Fridays by becoming "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" (as it's correctly titled in its article.) Recognize, that while the ring apron on "Friday Night SmackDown!" still simply says "SMACKDOWN!", it's proper title still has the "Friday Night" affixed to it. Same goes for "Monday Night Raw", the ring aprons still simply say "RAW", but, the proper title of the show (and so should the article) reads "WWE Monday Night Raw." Opinions? Kyle C Haight 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Where I live, on tv guides, channel listings, and the tv guide channel, it says WWE RAW. I have noticed more and more on WWE.com that they are using Raw instead of RAW. So, I don't know. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, Friday Night SmackDown! has always went without the "Friday Night" part on The Score as far as I can remember. kelvSYC 06:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)