Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Help request for article expansion

I have been working on expanding the article for Royal Rumble (1994), hoping to being it up to Good Article status. I'm having some trouble finding sources for the events during the matches. If anyone knows of a good, reliable recap or review, I would really appreciate it. In addition, if anyone has a chance to look over what I've done so far, that would be very helpful. What I've currently got is at User:GaryColemanFan/RR94. I'm pretty much finished the Background and Aftermath sections, but I'm struggling with the Event section. And help improving the references is always wonderful. Thanks in advance. GaryColemanFan 05:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've moved my work into the mainspace, so anyone can edit it at Royal Rumble (1994). Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryColemanFan (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

COTWs

Right so we've had three complete COTWs, which were:

• Pedro Morales
• Jerry Lawler
• WrestleMania III

I think Morales might need a little bit of a push before nominating for GA status, but I think we could nominate both Lawler and WrestleMania III. Opinions? After all, our aim is to make these GA, and hopefully (probably not in the case of Morales) FA. Davnel03 10:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made Wrestlemania III good enough for GA, but Jerry Lawler and Pedro Morales aren't at that stage yet. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

While you have every right to be proud of your work, please keep in mind that more than 15 editors have had about 180 edits to the page since it was named Collaboration of the Week. In addition, the article should have a Peer Review before it is nominated for a Good Article review, and the fair use problem with the Savage-Steamboat picture can't just be ignored. GaryColemanFan 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

These editors have been correcting minor errors in my writing, as I wrote every section in the article, completely. If you don't believe me: [1] [2] [3] [4]. And the Steamboat/Savage picture has no fair-use problems. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 11:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I, along with well over a dozen editors, spent countless hours while this was the Collaboration of the Week. I am offended that you would dismiss all of our work as "minor." This project is an opportunity for editors to work together, not a competition and reason to brag about how your work is better than another editor's. And just saying there are no Fair Use problems doesn't make it so. I've left a description of the problems on the Peer Review page and the article's Talk page. GaryColemanFan 14:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I've created a peer review request for Jerry Lawler so that we can identify the areas that still need improvement. It would be great if a few people could look it over and leave some comments and suggestions (remember--the more specific, the better). Wikipedia:Peer review/Jerry Lawler/archive1 Thanks.GaryColemanFan 14:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My Next Project....

Firstly, I must say that the PPVs tasks that are going on are absolutely brilliant, with several people doing different articles. It is a credit to have such people as a member of WP:PW. Now that December to Dismember (2006) is a FAC candidate and now that the WWE One Night Stand project is complete, I'm going onto to something where the sources might be a little trickier! As well as updating Survivor Series (2007) on a daily basis starting next week, my next project, I'm going to take it a step further, and am working on the FIRST EVER In Your House PPV! I'm working on it in my sandbox, and it is located here! :) Davnel03 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It that angelfire site a reliable source? «»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a site completely done by a fan. Look at what wrestlers and backstage people have quoted about the website on the front page. I consider it a very reliable source, and it is a credit to the site to have that amount of info. Davnel03 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Billed from" location for The Briscoe Brothers

Exceedingly minor point, I'm only raising it here to get more eyes on the message (does anyone ever look at Talk:Mark Pugh? Methinks not). Anyhow, they are no longer billed from Laurel, Delaware, at least not within ROH. They're billed from what sounds like "Sandy Fort, Delaware" (as well as, more generally, "Southern Delaware"), but that doesn't seem to be an actual city. The closest thing I can find is a Civil War-era prison for Confederates called Fort Delaware. While that would somewhat fit their characters, it seems extremely esoteric. Any idea what this actually is? Tromboneguy0186 19:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not the first time a city has been made up. Just put it in as it's billed, it doesn't have to be a link.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with the Brothers' articles - the same picture is used for both. Now, of course I understand why, but I think it would be prudent to include some kind of caption telling which brother is which, as that's something that's quite a bit less than obvious to a lot of fans and certainly would be to a new reader. Is this possible with the wrestler infobox? (for the record, it's Mark in the background facing the camera, and Jay in the foreground facing away). So is there any way to add such a caption?

And I've become motivated by all the fine work others are doing getting articles up to GA and FA. I might not be able to do that with either/any of these articles, but I think I'll give 'er a shot (might be a little partial to Mark, though, as I started that article ;) Tromboneguy0186 05:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Figured it out on my own. Tromboneguy0186 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

TNA IMPACT

Well I noticed that the WWE RAW, ECW, and SmackDown! pages. Their genre was sports entertainment and TNA Impact was under professional wrestling. Should it be changed?--TrUcO9311 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think so. I tried doing it earlier this year, but it kept getting reverted. TJ Spyke 22:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, because they are just the broadcast shows, not the company genre itself.--TrUcO9311 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Titles being listed on video game articles

Is this necessary? In my view, it's just listcruft. Look at WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 for example. It's cluttered with lists: some useful, some not. I think things such as: match types and championship belts/titles need to be in prose form and not a list. Yes, knowing which titles are in the game is useful: however it's simply game guide content in my view. If people want to know this information, they should be visiting a gaming or wrestling site that specializes in it. RobJ1981 05:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

How would you mention the belts in the game without it just being a simple list? - DrWarpMind 10:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion its needed, its in the other SvR articles as well. WWE SmackDown vs. Raw. WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2006, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007.TrUcO9311 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because it's elsewhere, doesn't make it right. It falls under game guide information, as well as just trivial cruft. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every detail on video games (or any subject for that matter). RobJ1981 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you are right but, its a unique feature that is notable in a wrestling video game, and the rosters and the match types. Look at other video games, like shooting they tell you the type of guns they have, the shooting range, etc. racing games they tell you what kind of cars they have, the spinners, the racers. So basically it is just apart of videogames to add stuff like that including championships to the SvR articles.--TrUcO9311 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In Your House 1: Premiere

Click the link. Opinions? :) Davnel03 10:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. It looks like you put in a lot of effort. Sources seem to be the main issue at this point. I'll try and spend some time on this as well. Great job! --Aaru Bui ^DII 10:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely going to be inserting sources from different places. Davnel03 10:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph in "Background" could use some trimming. --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the trim down, Aaru. I've added a Aftermath section. With that, I have decided to nominate for GA status. Is anyone heavily against me nominating it? If they are, I will remove the nomination. Davnel03 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but I think that it's generally a good idea to request a peer review and allow time to people to help copyedit. I don't think this is a serious problem, but I'm always willing to look over articles for people and do some copyediting before they nominate articles. Anyhow, I've scrolled through the article quickly, and it looks good. I'll have a chance to look it over in more detail this weekend, so I'll probably have a chance to do a copyedit before the review anyway. Great job! GaryColemanFan 21:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a copyedit this morning. I made a few minor changes, but it looks good for the most part. A couple of suggestions would be: (1) The article discusses Lawler's mother quite a bit, but I seem to remember her being someone about half his age. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the woman wasn't really his mother, and (2) The article doesn't make it clear that the Hart-Lawler feud went on for years. It would be nice to mention that the feud had been going on for two years and would culminate in a Kiss My Foot match at the next pay per view (King of the Ring 1995). Overall, yet another very impressive article. GaryColemanFan 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I never went for the PR option mainly because (not a major problem) not many people tend to comment on them and give constructive feedback, plus some people can give a copy-edit without having to go through the PR option. I'm heading to King of the Ring (1995) now. Davnel03 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the {{sequence}} box down the bottom because I don't think a navbox would be appropriate for these. It may be better incorporated in the {{Infobox Wrestling event}} instead though. I was wondering how others felt about this. --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a succession box is needed. There is already a link to the main In Your House page in the WWEPPV template at the bottom, and there is also the PPV succesion in the infobox. TJ Spyke 03:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with TJ on that one. Davnel03 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New unified infobox for pro wrestlers, boxers, kickboxers, mixed martial artists, etc.

There's a proposal to create a unified infobox that would encompass {{Infobox Wrestler}}, and around five or six other widely used templates. Please join the discussion and comment. east.718 at 20:35, 10/26/2007

Discussion located here. Davnel03 20:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List notice

I sourced NWA World Women's Championship the other day, and I'm thinking of nominating it as a Featured List candidate. I usually stick to articles, rather than lists, so if anyone has any suggestions before I nominate it, that would be great. MShake is working on getting a picture, so that shouldn't be a problem. Nikki311 04:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Lately, we've had one list nominated at a time. List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions was promoted last week, and List of WWE European Champions should be promoted by next Tuesday or Wednesday. Of course, there's no rule that says that we can only have one nominee at a time. Anyhow, my two comments would be (1) The mention in the table of The Fabulous Moolah selling her title seems like it should have a source, and (2) most lists that I've seen use the shortened abbreviations (eg. TX instead of Texas). Someone did a copyedit of the WCW Champions list before I nominated it, and that was one of the changes made. I'm not sure if it's in the Manual of Style, but it seems to be the way a lot of people are doing it. At any rate, it looks good and I strongly encourage you to nominate it, either after the European Champions list is promoted or sooner if you prefer. GaryColemanFan 06:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we get the exact dates for the title vacations/strips and the location of Moolah's 2nd win? The list should be 100% complete. - DrWarpMind 23:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought it was against the MoS to abbreviate states, but I'll check on that. I intended to wait until the list of European Champs was through, I still have to find the source for Moolah selling the title (as you mentioned) and the picture still isn't up yet. I'll try and find some dates/locations for the vacations and strips, but I know for a fact that I won't be able to find a location for Moolah's second win. All the sources listed it as unknown. I'll keep looking, though. Also, thanks to everyone who has already looked over the list. I love teamwork. :) Nikki311 01:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Update on state abbreviations: I did find that it was against the MoS to abbreviations in normal text, but I couldn't find anything about lists. I'll change it to the abbreviations because all of our other FL are written that way. It is best to be consistent. Nikki311 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Starrcade 2000

I have decided to try and tackle a WCW PPV the way Davnel has. I decided to start with Starrcade (2000). Right now I just have the results and opening paragraph, but am working on the rest. TJ Spyke 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Wrestlemania III for a Peer Review

The title explains it all, but I have also requested feedback a week ago

• For the Request for Feedback, see Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#Wrestlemania III
• For the Peer Review, see Wikipedia:Peer review/WrestleMania III/archive1

Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 12:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I left some comments at the Peer Review request regarding the problems with the Fair Use rationales on all of the pictures. Since you've already dismissed the contributions made by all of the other editors during our week-long collaboration as "minor," I don't feel particularly motivated to give you any in-depth feedback about the article itself. If you think it's all your work and you own the article, do it yourself. GaryColemanFan 14:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that they have all been minor. I was just correcting you stating that my edits were minor. I also don't think the article is mine, and it's all my work, because I know that Nahallac, Nikki, Auri, and many editors have been editing this article frequently. You should not make assumptions, before you ask. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And 2/3 pictures have their fair use rationale covered. The third one that I didn't upload is the one that has fair use problems. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Read what I said about the pictures. They all violate Fair Use rules. And your comments about the article have constantly minimized the contributions of the other editors. You've been treating the project as a competition, bragging about how your collaboration nominees have "won" and how you've done all of the writing on the WrestleMania III article. You need to recognize that the purpose of the project is for editors to work together, not against each other, and that Fair Use rules are in place for a reason and cannot be ignored. GaryColemanFan 18:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, you take things too seriously. When I mentioned my nominees won, it was a statement inside of a joke. Second, I don't brag that I have done all the writing for Wrestlemania III (in the last message I am telling you all the contributions of the other editors WITH NAMES). So don't go clicking on your keyboard writing statements that are untrue and ridiculous, before you understand what MY statements mean. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 19:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"I was the one who wrote it ALL. Yeah, all of it." - Lex94 (emphasis in original) GaryColemanFan 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

When/Where did I write that? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 19:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here, not to mention "I wrote every section in the article, completely." (Located here). GaryColemanFan 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the day when I did write it all! Obviously, by now, people have been editing the article, but that day, I had erased every section in the article and rewritten them. So yeah, by that time, I did WRITE THEM ALL. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And I did give you 4 links to prove that by that time, I completely rewrote the sections. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears as though you were one of 14 editors who had worked on the article at that point during the time it had been Collaboration of the Week. GaryColemanFan 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know some editors edited the article, and even wrote a Background, Event, and Aftermath sections, but they were so short, I decided to rewrite them myself. So, that I did: rewrite the whole article, except match listings. That is why, that at the time of that comment, I wrote: ""I wrote every section in the article, completely." and "I was the one who wrote it ALL. Yeah, all of it." Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 20:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lex94, we all appreciate your efforts here at WP:PW, but you are not here to "show off". It's not "Yeah, I wrote the article.... get over it" type of attitude, no. You thank others for helping your, your attempting to say you single-handedly transformed the article. You never. Although I did most of the work on December to Dismember (2006), I will never say "I wrote every section... YEAH, all of it", because that in my book is "showing off" and disrespectful to other members of this project who have helped you. Bragging about your work will backfire on you. When you tell others about a PR, they'll think, well that person seems to have a bad attitude - why should I take the time to comment on their work if they brag on it? 14 editors worked on it. We are a project. Not a bragging shop. Davnel03 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not bragging. Obviously, you cannot just dismiss the editing that has been done by other users on D2D, just like I can't in Wrestlemania III. But, by the time I write a section, and no further editing had been done to it, I can say: "I wrote it". Now, obviously, I cannot say that because a lot of other people have been editing it since then. Gary here has just been using past comments against me here. Now, I know I can't say those things now, but by that time, yeah. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 23:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I know responding to this argument is against my better judgment, but I have to say something as I've been holding it in. Lex, you did not write all of it. Before you began adding in information, others were adding information, and I was in the process of adding/sourcing info with book and article sources. You can check that version here: [5]. You didn't begin adding information until several edits after that. I was going to continue adding legitimate book sources to the article, but your bad attitude turned me off of it. You need to learn to value and respect other's contributions or nobody is going to want to work with you. Nikki311 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Teenage Wrestling Federation

This is a non-notable backyard "wrestling" "organization". Does it qualify for speedy deletion? GaryColemanFan 15:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. There's no sources for it. No info for it on Google. It's probably just a made up "promotion" by a small community of kids. The Chronic 16:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, clearly that is a made up promotion. No references, the info is unclear, bad grammar. In my opinion it should be speedy deleted--TrUcO9311 16:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated it for Speedy Deletion. --Crash Underride 17:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just checked because the article is still there - and it seems that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Someone has prodded it instead. I was going to change it back but the criteria doesn't support me doing that. It goes on November 1 unless someone challenges it. !! Justa Punk !! 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle McMahon??

Is that really his name, or just a nickname?--TrUcO9311 17:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been hearin' J.R. call him Hornswoggle McMahon. So I'm not sure. --Crash Underride 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

He's been called it sometimes, but other times he is still just called Hornswoogle. RobJ1981 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like that is the characters full name (like Mr. Kennedy is Ken Kennedy), but he is almost always called Hornswoggle. TJ Spyke 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This might help. Google results: [6] --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I finally remembered seein' a match preview on RAW on night it had Hornswoggle's picture up on the left and it said "Hornswoggle McMahon" on it. --Crash Underride 16:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Borash

I just did a major clean-up/sectioning of the Jeremy Borash article. Hope you like it. --Crash Underride 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

2 Cold Scorpio

I've removed him from the stub section because I don't think it qualifies anylong, though if it does go ahead a re-add it. --Crash Underride 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick request....

If you see an edit to an article I've done leave me a message about it. Let me know what if I did somethin' wrong so I can get better at it. Or just let me know if I'm doin' a good job. Any constructive criticism is fully welcomed. --Crash Underride 21:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Montreal Screwjob to be "Today's featured article" for November 9

Well, this is it! The Montreal Screwjob article has been selected as the "Today's featured article" for November 9th. You can see the source HERE. Cheers to the WP:PW community! The Chronic 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Was it a conscious decision to say "Bret's finishing hold" rather than "Hart's finshing hold" in that parenthetical phrase? It's the only point where first names are used, and it seems to not mesh with the tone of the rest of the summary. Tromboneguy0186 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see that. You'll have to bring that up with Raul654, the Featured Article director, since you can't edit that page. The Chronic 00:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This inconsistency is also evident in other areas of the actual article. That should also be addressed. --Aaru Bui ^DII 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's actually pretty widespread, too ("Vince" in place of "McMahon" is as well, but that's a little easier to excuse). I think the only time "Bret" should be used is in a sentence such as

The recent storyline rivalry had also seen Michaels make insulting remarks about Hart's father Stu Hart, which had left Bret and others in the Hart family upset.

I'll take a deeper look at it when I get home from work. Tromboneguy0186 04:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff! A side note, that many vandals will be targeting the page (as they usually do with the pages that appear on the Main Page), so we are going to have to keep a watch on it. Davnel03 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, a semi-protect may be appropriate when the time comes. The Chronic 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

They always refuse to protect the TFA, since they want to let new users passing by experiment with editing, and since they can't edit the Main Page they target the TFA. The good news is, a small army of Wikipedians always watch it to protect it from the test edits and the vandalism. We'll have backup when the time comes. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, apparently they don't always refuse, because the article has been semi'd. I went in and edited first names out for surnames or pronouns where appropriate. Tromboneguy0186 06:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Hybrid meant that they usually refuse to fully protect the article. They are willing to semi-protect them though (which happened when Wii was TFA, it was unprotected the day it became TFA and was vandalized dozens of times within minutes. TJ Spyke 20:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange, as when I tried to get the TFA (it was Fighting in ice hockey) semi-protected, they flat-out refused me saying the TFA is not supposed to be protected. It is probably only protected in extraordinary cases (dozens of vandalisms within minutes would certainly be extraordinary). Also, the article is not semi'd, as tromboneguy said. It is protected against non-admin moves, but anons can still edit the page. I highly doubt that our page will be semi'd for the 9th, but I also highly doubt that it will need it, seeing as tons of people will be watching it. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring (1995).....

.... is the article I'm going to be working on next. On a side note, December to Dismember (2006) is set to no-longer be GA status in a few days time.... its going one step higher (5 supports; 0 opposes)! Thanks to everyone who helped my on the article, it seems like we'll be getting a reward for our efforts anytime soon!! :) Davnel03 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I would have gotten to KOTR 1995 eventually, but probably not for another 6-8 months. I'm planning to keep working forward from SummerSlam 1993 until the point that I stopped watching wrestling (around Survivor Series 1996). And yes, I know I skipped Survivor Series 1993, but I'll get back to it after Royal Rumble 1994. I'd be glad to help with King of the Ring 1995 if you need anything. GaryColemanFan 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Article examples

Concerning the article examples section of the WP:PW front page, does anyone else think we should move it to a subpage? It's getting quite long and will only get longer, and I think now (or soon) is the time to give this section its own page. --MarcK 21:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. Or maybe we might need to slightly redo the front page? Davnel03 21:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary to list every FA and GA article there since it's a section for "examples". We can check the categories for the list anyway and that's linked to from the stats. The nominations can stay but perhaps as a separate section. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

New Featured Article nomination

In the essence of improving communication, I'm letting the project know that User:Lex94 has nominated Shelton Benjamin as a Feature Article. The nomination page is HERE. Nikki311 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Invasion (professional wrestling)

Frightwolf has recently been adding a "criticism" section containing weasel words, OR, and other claims without references. The user continues to add the section without sources using the argument that the rest of the article isn’t referenced either to justify his actions. The only reference added just a few moments ago is from a site I've never even heard of. firetank.com/smashwrestling Can an opinion from a source I've never even heard of be used as an acceptable source? I would appreciate your thoughts on this. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Frightwolf added a YouTube video moments ago. Still, not directly referencing any "criticism".-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested that he move the section into his own userspace while he works on finding good references for it, as well as pointing out that one of the other sources used was Wikipedia, which is obviously not really usable as a source. He is relatively new to Wikipedia, so he probably doesn't realise where he's going wrong. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a fact tag to the claim that Randy Savage, Jeff Jarrett and Lex Luger weren't brought in because of personal anomisity with Vince. With Savage I'm pretty sure that's true, but I'm not so convinced about the other two. Nevertheless it needs a source.

But that whole section seems to lack direction. That is, it doesn't know if it wants to talk about the booking legit, or kayfabe it. I'm not sure if it can be saved to be honest. !! Justa Punk !! 22:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citing DVD's + utility of kayfabe details

How is citing DVD's best done? As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to try to improve Jamin Pugh, Mark Pugh, and Briscoe Brothers as much as possible. I'm already thinking of certain claims that probably can't be referenced by a simple list of web results (although now that I think of it, DVD reviews might help, if they pass WP:RS). Anyhow, probably a useful question to ask anyway. One such claim is the kayfabe reason the Brothers left ROH for a year and a half; in kayfabe, the fight at Testing the Limit, their last show before their long hiatus, resulted in fines or suspensions for everyone involved, and since they were too poor to pay the fine they had to leave. If kayfabe details like this don't need to be in the article, that's also important to know (there are some in there now that should, therefore, be edited out). Any help greatly appreciated. Tromboneguy0186 06:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm thinking of organizational issues. WWE wrestlers, who undeniably get the most attention from WP:PW, by and large don't appear for any other promotions, and when they do it's almost always not long-term and for groups so small they might not even warrant mention in Wikipedia. That's not the case with the Briscoe Brothers (and countless other indy talents, but the Brothers are my point of focus). They've worked for at least six promotions in the long-term, and usually two or three of them simultaneously. So would career histories best be presented chronologically or promotion-by-promotion? Or does it really even matter? I'm also a little worried about redundancy between the article Briscoe Brothers and either of the brothers' own articles; their singles histories are negligible compared to their history as a team, and any information specific to one brother (Jay's cage match with Samoa Joe, Mark's serious concussion from earlier this year) could easily be incorporated into the article on the team. Tromboneguy0186 08:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I really dont see the reliability of citing DVDs. For example, when people have to find an internet source for any single thing that happens on a PPV, like a screwjob, a pinfall, backstage issues, which are explained in the PPV's dvd and/or its commentary, they could easily cite the DVD and have all their info sourced, and have no proof. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 20:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Particularly the claim about the Brothers' hiatus - that was simply covered by Jimmy Bower on commentary during, I think, Scramble Cage Melee. It's not a match result, obviously, but it's relevant to the storyline and probably isn't available anywhere else, except perhaps a DVD review. Most claims can probably be cited by a web source, though, true. Tromboneguy0186 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking how to cite a DVD? There is a Cite Video templat: Template:Cite video (there is also a template for citing a TV episode, which might help in citing something that happens on WWE TV). TJ Spyke 20:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Tromboneguy0186 21:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the template is helpful, but you obviously didn't read or even skim what I wrote. I would not need to cite something on WWE TV for articles on the Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Heavyweight Championship

For the last couple of weeks, there has been an odd edit war between two IP's at the NWA World Title page. Anybody want to weigh in on it? TJ Spyke 21:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. First time I've seen an IP edit war in my life. Guess there's a first for everything! Right, one IP seems to think one version is right, and another has a different view. Here are the two versions (when resolved, remove them!):

Version 1

Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. Don Owen was a member from the late 1950's until 1992. Jim Crockett was a member until 1995, Larry O'Day was a member until his death in 1997, Steve Rickard was a member until 2000, and Antonio Inoki is still a member today. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.

Version 2

Despite losing WCW as its flagship program, the NWA picked up new members and remained in existence as a legal entity. After nearly a year, the organization scheduled a tournament to crown a new champion, and brought back the "Domed Globe" belt from the '70s to early '80s—to represent this new champion. It should be noted that this new title had no historical connection to the original lineage of the title. None of the membership in the heyday of the organization prior to 1991 was still associated with the alliance, all of them either going out of business or leaving the alliance. By this time, the NWA was stripped of world title status by Pro Wrestling Illustrated magazine, considered the gold standard of world title status.

Not the best solution to give the two versions above, but I doubt anyone will understand my explanation given that I don't even understand the situation. The first version seems right, but I'm possibly wrong. Davnel03 21:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have two takes on this. One - I agree that the lineage between 1948 and the present day is unbroken. Two - I also agree that the PWI reference isn't warranted re "World" title, but having said that it appears there has been a consensus decision within WP that PWI's said recognition (or lack thereof) be accepted. Perhaps that should be pointed out directly - complete with the appropriate WP policy (whatever it is). Davnel I think the first version is right. !! Justa Punk !! 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

WWE Cyber Sunday#2006 = User:Lex94/Sandbox

I am working on a Cyber Sunday 2006 article in my sandbox. I was going to start with Cyber Sunday 2007, but I decided to go in cronological order, and begin with Cyber Sunday 2006.Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you begin with 2004 then? Taboo Tuesday and Cyber Sunday are the same event, just with a different name (even WWE confirms this). TJ Spyke 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with TJ. Although you could do '06 and come back to '04 if you wished. Davnel03 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

TJ, not only is it the same event it's also held on a different night (I think they had trouble with Tuesday because of Raw the previous night mucking around with overseas schedules). Which would be a good enough reason to treat the two seperately even though they are the same. !! Justa Punk !! 22:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone please read the Background section. I need some constructive criticism. Thanks, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 01:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed it for now, but two things did pop out at me. You need to properly format your citations using <ref>{{cite web|url=|title=|author=|publisher=|accessdate=|date=}}</ref>. Also, SmackDown! and RAW should be put in italics. I'll look over it again in more depth later. Nikki311 01:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I went through and fixes a ton of link problems. There are some minor other things I would change (nothing major, just stuff like move the word "Hacksaw" out of the link. So it would be "Hacksaw" [[Jim Duggan]] rather than [[Jim Duggan|"Hacksaw" Jim Duggan]]), but you are still working on it. TJ Spyke 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I still am not used to using the citing template. Also, I want to know if you think there is too much info, to less info, if something is missing, etc. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Nikki, I answered the Melina issue on Deep Shadow's talk page

You seem to be doing it week-by-week. I heavily oppose that. If the article ever got to FAC, the reviewers would not like the constant changing of topic, from one storyline to another. I suggest you set it out something like I have done in In Your House 1: Premiere and all of the WWE One Night Stand pay-per-views. Davnel03 17:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Full newsletter for WP:PW?

I was thinking: would it be possible for WP:PW to have a full newsletter with info from the WikiProject, including the Collaboration of the Week, member news, cleanup announcements, etc. (got the idea from a newsletter from Saw)? I know we have sort of a newleter (the announcement of the Collaboration), but I was wondering if we could expand that into full. Just a suggestion. The Chronic 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I, myself, like the idea. --Crash Underride 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This idea has been brought up a couple of times, and the general consensus is that it would be a great idea in the future, but we have too much going on right now to be able to implement it and keep it going. Newsletters take a lot of time and effort to create. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that most of the contributors want to focus on other things right now, such as bringing our articles up to standards, getting rid of the cruft, and increasing the project's credibility. While a newsletter would be beneficial for that in the future, I think now just isn't the time. Nikki311 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not good at improving articles, and all I really do is behind the scenes meta-work for the project and revert vandalism, so I'd be willing to help create the newsletter. I couldn't do it by myself, of course, but I'd most certainly be willing to help organize it, write things for it, and keep it running. If I could get a couple of other people to leave me messages and such on notable events within the project, I'd even be willing to just do it all. It would probably be a monthly thing if I just did it, and not weekly, but that would still work just fine. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nikki hit the nail on the head in regards to my sentiments on this matter at the moment. Heck, I have barely been editing at all this moneth due to real life commitments. However, if Hybrid wants to head up a small team of people who are dedicated to doing this each week or bi-monthly or even just once a month, I see no problem with it ..its just not something that *I* can't commit to yet - if ever and I believe my efforts at Wikipedia are probably better spent in other areas of this project. If there are people who have time and want to do it though, go for it ..the worst that can happen is that it doesn't last :) --Naha|^(talk) 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in quite a similiar situation. I mostly just revert vandalism, remove week-by-weeks and fix wikilinks. I'd be willing to assist you in creating and organizing the newsletter. Gavyn Sykes 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, fron what I've seen, a lot of newsletters on Wikipedia are released anywhere from a few weeks to monthly. Since we announce the COTW every week, the newsletter would probably have to be released every week. It could affect the structure of the COTW as well. Of course that's something I would be willing to do (along with some other people willing to). The Chronic 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

So should we go ahead and create the newsletter (or at least having a trial run) once we get approval from the community? The Chronic 23:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a minor draft here. The Chronic 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, take this with a grain of salt because I haven't gone around Wikipedia to see how different project newsletters are structured or what they include because I just don't have time. What you have done looks really neat... However, aside from the news section and the part about the COTW which is already delivered by weekly notice, it basically just looks like "to do list" stuff which can already be found at the top of this page already. I was thinking newsletters were more news oriented overall? I know people post stuff on this page when something gets accomplished but it soon gets lost in all the other discussions, so its hard to keep up with and sometimes I miss it all together. FAs and GAs and greatly improved articles, changes to project "guidelines" or "policy" that members should be notified of etc ..that is the kind of thing I was thinking the newsletter was for. I, personally, really don't need a "To do" list delivered every so often because I can get that here. But seeing actual news gives me a feeling of accomplishment and notification of new/updated guidelines keeps me informed.

I know we recently was approved some tables for use in certain articles and are contemplating article structure changes. I haven't been able to keep up but I'm not even sure how the COTW is working right now because I've been absent so much..with the normal weekly one and then people proposed some stuff about GA or FA collaborations. I swear I saw an article that had more votes than the one that was chosen for this week but I'm assuming it has something to do with how we are doing differnt types of COTW now? Anyway, stuff like that would make for a good newsletter read IMO.

Another possibility would be to include links to new pro-wrestling articles about recent events, like pay per views that have just happened, so people can "keep up" with them. That type of thing would be relevent to project members that are still current fans. Or anytime something pro-wrestling related is written about at Wikinews or any other Wikimedia sister projects, that would make for a good inclusion in the newsletter.

Disclaimer: These are just random thoughts and ideas flowing out of my brain this morning, I haven't had any caffiene yet, so if none of this makes sense, I place the blame on lack of Dr Pepper. --Naha|^(talk) 14:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

All those ideas sound good. I hope we can get enough approval for at least one trial newletter to see how people think of it. I would be 100% devoted to it (as I'm not really finding myself editing any mainspace wrestling articles). The Chronic 14:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was talking about a newsletter, I meant a newsletter. I would want to post stories about articles that have just made FA, (really) notable disputes, new consensuses (yes, that is the correct plural form of consensus), current events in the wrestling world, perhaps tributes to members who are doing an exceptional job, things along those lines. When I think of a project newsletter, I'm thinking of a WP:PW Signpost. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm guessing it's clear that we approve of a newsletter. I'll spend the next few days testing designs and news for the first newsletter here. If there are any more suggestions for the newsletter, please post it here or at this talk page. I hope to get the first trial issue released out by November 11 (the day that the next next COTW is announced). Thanks everyone! The Chronic 01:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Approval poll

• Support - I want to get a summary of how many people would support a newsletter, so I'm creating this section to see. The Chronic 15:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If there are people willing to do it, then let's give it a try. Nikki311 21:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If there are people willing to do it, then let's give it a try. Ditto for me. --Naha|^(talk) 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I have set up a "home page" for the newsletter (there seems to be a good support for it). If there are any suggestions for it, please post it on the talk page. Thank you. The Chronic 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, for this purpose, and as part of the discussion, I have created a paage titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Outreach. This page may also help with "project recruitment and member interaction efforts". The Chronic 01:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I say let's go for it!!! --Crash Underride 18:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I proposed this idea a while back, and still support it now. The Hybrid T/C 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Definitely, and I am willing to help with it in any way I can. Gavyn Sykes 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support Davnel03 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support LAX 17:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trish Stratus

There is a dispute happening on the Trish Stratus article with another editor claiming that SLAM! Sports is a dirtsheet and is removing sourced information. The page passed GA so obviously the information used can be traced back to reliable sources. I have crossed paths with this editor numerous times as I know many of the editors of this project have and many disputes have occurred. Could some people please help with the current situation at the article? - Deep Shadow 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The editor, Aladdin Zane, has been on Wiki less than a month, and is making a very bad impression. Oh, and for the record, SLAM! Sports is almost certainly a reliable source. This user is certainly attempting to cause a disruption. December to Dismember (2006) is up for FAC. That has SLAM! Sports referencing, and no one has said that isn't a reliable source. This user is 100% wrong. Davnel03 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 100% wrong, because I don't believe Slam! Sports is a reliable source either. However, I do understand that professional wrestling news' only reliable source is TNA or WWE directly, and that an established communication with these companies is hard to find. For that matter, Slam! Sports, The Wrestling Observer, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and other big, well-known, established News Sites that have been trusted for years with good news should be acceptable. Plus, this matter has had a consensus stating so, which deems this editor wrong. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (1994)

I did some more work on this article today, and I think it's almost ready for a GA Review. Thank you to everybody who has helped on the article. I would really appreciate it if people could do a copyedit and give some feedback. I've listed it for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994)/archive1, so you can leave comments on the peer review, the article's talk page, my talk page, on as a response to this post. I would love to hear some thoughts on the article and what might still need to be done. Thanks again, everyone. GaryColemanFan 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pay Per View article improvements

There has been a lot of work done lately on pay-per-view articles, and it's getting hard to keep track of what's going on. I was wondering if the people involved could add to the list below to show which articles are done, are being done, or are about to be done. Thanks.

1987 WrestleMania III - B

1993 SummerSlam (1993) - Good Article

1994 Royal Rumble (1994) - B

1995 In Your House 1: Premiere - B (Good Article candidate); King of the Ring (1995) - Start

2000 Starrcade (2000) - Start

2005 One Night Stand (2005) - B (Good Article candidate)

2006 One Night Stand (2006) - B; December to Dismember (2006) - Good Article (Featured Article candidate)

2007 One Night Stand (2007) - B

Have I missed any?

Currently, I'm trying to decide between Survivor Series 1993, WrestleMania X or King of the Ring 1994. I want to fill in the gaps, but I'm leaning toward King of the Ring 1994. GaryColemanFan 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to request whether we start a new page, possibly under the heading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs, but thought the idea would be rejected. Given that this is happening at a very alarming rate (faster than I ever expected) I think we need a subpage, so that if anyone does an event, they can just add it to the list. Opinions? Davnel03 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. That would keep two people from wasting time doing the same one independently of each other. Nikki311 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's definitely a good idea, that probably should have been thought of sooner, lol. Gavyn Sykes 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The link will turn colour in a few minutes. :) Davnel03 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Or we could call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Current Projects and anybody working on an article can list it. Nikki311 17:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Even better. It accomplishes the same purpose and encompasses more. Gavyn Sykes 17:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just created it under the first link. Feel free to move it. Davnel03 17:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Flickr photo question

Photos on Flickr are considered free-use, so they can be uploaded, correct? How exactly does that work? I've never had too much success with photo uploading. Nikki311 19:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends what license the uploader has used.

All rights reserved - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC-ND - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC-SA - NOT OK

CC-BY-NC - NOT OK

CC-BY-ND - NOT OK

CC-BY - OK

CC-BY-SA - OK

You can single-out OK photos by doing an advanced search on Flickr (click here. Tick the Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos box to single out OK photos. Hope this helps! Davnel03 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That does help. I'm currently working on Amy Dumas and was hoping to find a picture of her with her band. Using the method you suggested, I could use one of these? Nikki311 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia photo uploading is very complicated. Maybe this could help. (Note: You must be logged in on Wikimedia Commons to see it). If you can't, create an account. :) Davnel03 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is complicated, which is why I've avoided it until now. I suppose I'll just continue to avoid it. Nikki311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2007)

Just a heads up that I'm starting a "Background" section (obviously for the moment I've only done Michaels v Orton as that is the only match tha has been announced). Revert any SmackDown! spoilers ot vandal edits as per usual. Davnel03 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed a few things in the section (it was Vince who announced that DX would reform next week, all Regal did was say he thought it was a great idea). I will keep an eye on the article since I watch every PPV article anyways. TJ Spyke 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Triple H

Ok, in the Triple H article, are the titles of the contents really necessary as the contents include more than 2 years (ex. "D-Generation X (1997-1999)" thats 3 years) and then the D- Generation X revial goes only for 2 years from 2006-2007 and the contents don't begin in the beginning of that year. To me those titles and the ranges of the years seem unnecessary as it makes the article look bad, what do you think?--TrUcO9311 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should have the headers like they are in the Randy Orton article. It looks much better in Orton's article in my view. Davnel03 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, so I'm going to do it, and revert the editor.--TrUcO9311 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I think they look better in Triple H's article. It helps to have section names, as well as dates, to help find exactly the time in their life that you want to read about. Nikki311 21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might bear the question: Why do it with Triple H, but not with Shawn Michaels or The Undertaker? I don't mind either way, but its best to be consistent. Davnel03 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mayby, but to me it looks messy, random year ranges, and thats why we put "main article links" for sections like "DX", the other eras arent really necessary, look at hulk hogans page, he has a longer history than HHH, and his article is not like that, although it could use some clean up. Also other HOF pages arent like that. Leaving Undertaker's page how it is, is best! same with HHH.--TrUcO9311 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." (WP:HEAD) Year ranges don't mean much to me. --Aaru Bui ^DII 08:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio images being uploaded to commons under public domain licences, need help

Recently I added some images to the CM Punk article from commons based off images from the Spanish wikipedia however I have come to think the user who is uploading all these images is uploading copyrighted images and simply labelling them public domain.

User's contributions to commons here. If some of these are copyvios I think it needs to be assumed all are copyvios and a commons admin needs to be contacted. –– Lid^(Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Definite copy-vio. I doubt the user has even stood inside a hell in a cell. I think some of them have come from WWE.com and possibly some of the photos from Online World of Wrestling. The user has even copy-vios of Mshake3's work I noticed from his contribs. Davnel03 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case can someone with a commons account get in contact with a commons admin to fix this? These images all need removing. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be a serial vandal, and he has been warned about uploading images with fraudulent copyright claim in both Spanish and English [7] I don't have a commons account but any user with enough patience can nominate the material for deletion without the need of creating a account. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have contacted an admin there, User:Raul654 (he's an admin there and here). Feel free to add another comment on contact another admin. TJ Spyke 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing some research for the Briscoe Brothers

(call me selfish or narcissistic, but I get the feeling no one would see this if I added it on to a previous section)

Anyhow, in doing a little research into their careers, I came across something very curious. It's semi-well known that the Brothers worked under masks in 2001 and 2002 when CZW ran in the ECW arena, owing to Mark only being 17 years old at the time both of them being underage at the time and the state of Pennsylvania having stringent laws against people under 18 working in entertainment. I can back this claim up , but what's got me really confused is that the Brothers appeared in the ECW arena, for JAPW, even earlier [8], and it doesn't seem that they hid their identities then. JAPW even now isn't really the kind of company that would go that far out of their way to get someone just to job in their curtain jerker, so did they just skate on the law or something? Anyone know? How would be the best way to introduce this in an article? I've started a subpage for potential article prose, User:Tromboneguy0186/sandbox (and I surely do hope I created that correctly), and I like the section I've got so far for CZW, but this JAPW issue has me quite confused. Tromboneguy0186 10:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to go off course here but you really need to look at and learn the proper way to cite websites - Template:Cite web hopefully that link will help you so that the formatting problems are cleared right up —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPJ-DK (talk • contribs) 14:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go to the trouble of using cite templates on what's just a subspace. At least not yet. I've just tossed those refs in there so I know where they are for later. Everything will be correctly cited in time, and well before it gets to the mainspace.

And could someone for once please address something I ask here? It'd be kinda nice. Tromboneguy0186 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The link to labor laws that you provided has the labor laws as of January 1, 2007. Perhaps the laws were different in 2001 when all of this took place. That would be a good way to start. Nikki311 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't notice that. How about this (warning, it's a PDF...and since I can't tinyurl it I have to use that beast of a link)? I'll have to look at it in greater depth to find a specific claim, but a cursory skimming shows it lays down some pretty specific regulations regarding child labor in the state of Pennsylvania, and it was written in 1915 (and updated many times through at least the 1980's, so I'm guessing it was on the books in 2001). Tromboneguy0186 01:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I may have just stumbled on it. Section 7.1(a)(3) - No such minor shall be permitted to perform in a boxing, sparring or wrestling match or exhibition or in an acrobatic or other act, performance, or exhibition hazardous to his safety or well-being. Seems a pretty good reason for CZW to want to hide their identities, but the question remains why JAPW didn't. Tromboneguy0186 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They could have lied about their age (the same way that guy who died after wrestling against New Jack in ECW did). TJ Spyke 01:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's possible, but the first ECW arena show was the seventh or eighth show the Brothers had worked for CZW. They'd even held the tag straps by that point. I think Zandig probably would have known their correct ages by that point, unless he was in on any sort of deception. Tromboneguy0186 01:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were talking about JAPW with that comment. There's a similar point to be made, though. They appeared two additional times for JAPW in Philly before they ever did for CZW. Tromboneguy0186 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is merely speculation, but maybe because JAPW is based in New Jersey, they were allowed to work under Jersey's child labor laws. Maybe your next step is to find some child labor laws for Jersey, which may or may not be quite as extensive/restrictive as in Penn. Nikki311 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas, thanks guys. I'm gonna send an email to the chair of the Labor & Industry committee in the Pennsylvania state Senate, John Gordner. Who knows if he or an aide of his will respond, but it's worth a shot. I figure I'll ask if this law is still on the books (it looks like it's known simply as "Child Labor Law") and if the rules might somehow have been different for JAPW. Tromboneguy0186 01:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got a reply from one of Gordner's aides. The law has been on the books since 1915 and should be enforced in the whole of the state of Pennsylvania. It looks like JAPW more than likely simply ignored the law. Tromboneguy0186 13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed merging Jamin Pugh and Mark Pugh into Briscoe Brothers. My rationale is on Talk:Briscoe Brothers. Tromboneguy0186 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

NWA World Women's Championship

I've brought this up before see #Featured List notice, but I want to mention it again since List of WWE European Champions just passed its FL nom. I've corrected the issues brought up by other users (source for Moolah selling title, abbreviations) and added a picture. I, however, could not find specific dates/locations for when the title was vacated, nor could I find a location of Moolah's second win. I really looked, too, but all the sites list it as unknown. Is this going to be a problem with a FL nom or will they take into account that the information just doesn't exist? Anyway, unless anyone strongly opposes, I'll nominate it in a couple of days and try to fix and problems that anyone sees. Nikki311 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job, and I agree that is probably next to impossible to find the rest of the information. I think it should be nominated. GaryColemanFan 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it...feel free to leave comments HERE. Nikki311 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A few concerns in the Hulk Hogan article

I need some opinions on a change in this article as well as someone with more knowledge of wrestling to clarify something. The questions can be found at the bottom of HERE Gavyn Sykes 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The latter issue has been resolved. I would appreciate any more comments on the former. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Cyber Sunday (2006).....

....has been moved into the mianspace by Lex94. Feel free to edit it, clean it up etc. Davnel03 21:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went through and wikified all the references. TJ Spyke 21:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and purged it of redirects and fixed a few move links. Gavyn Sykes 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed non-notable material. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Right major question: Am I right in stating that the "Background" section sounds more like a week-by-week analysis of events? Personally, I think we should do it storyline by storyline - talk about Champions of Champions, then go onto DX/Rated RKO and then onto the third major storyline. I think this makes it flow better so that it isn't constantly changing subjects. Opinions? Davnel03 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign Objects

I've gotten into the habit of linking weapons in wrestling articles to Foreign object (professional wrestling). See Cyber Sunday in the the results for the Triple H/Umaga match. I've been meaning to bring this up, but does anyone have any objections to my doing this? I want to make sure it's not violating a Wikiproject rule I was unaware of. Gavyn Sykes 22:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, we should try and link to the specific item (i.e. sledgehammer, brass knuckles, etc.) unless we don't know what the item is (like in older broadcasts where we can't see what the item is and the announcers just say "foreign object"). You're not breaking any rule that I know of. TJ Spyke 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Like TJ said, if it is the actual specific object that is linked to, I see no problem with this. --Naha|^(talk) 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I'll go back and change the ones I edited then. Thanks. :) Gavyn Sykes 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...what?

An IP left this message on Talk:Mark Pugh

Somebody has to change the "references" listed to the Jim Cornette profile on the imposter OWW. The REAL url should be credited to the original website from which that information came from http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/profiles/j/jim-cornette.html -- the other website "Obsessed" stole all its content from the real OWW "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com". Thank you.

What the heck? I'd never heard of "OnlineWorldofWrestling.com." The two pages definitely appear to be duplicates of each other, but I recall "OWW" always referring to obsessedwithwrestling.com; what (if anything, in fact) changed? And unless there's proof of plagiarism, what differences does it make? Tromboneguy0186 13:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed with Wrestling changed its name to Online World of Wrestling. I don't know about plagiarism or anything...they are the same site. Nikki311 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If that were the case, why would there still be an 'Obsessed With Wrestling?' Is 'Obsessed' just a mirror now? What proof have we that 'Online World' isn't the mirror? Does any of it actually even matter? Tromboneguy0186 13:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

it happened months ago, check the OnlineWorldofWrestling archives. A bot was created to move all the obsessed links.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 14:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obsessed With Wrestling changed it's name to Online World of Wrestling. Read the press release. Davnel03 15:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that about clinches it. Brad Dykens is certainly the name I remember. Tromboneguy0186 15:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2006)

I couldn't help but notice that this PPV article was outlining events in a week-by-week format, which is not how it's done in any other Expanded PPV (December to Dismember (2006); SummerSlam (1993); In Your House 1: Premiere etc.). In other PPV's it is done with the three or four main storylines (five if we ever did WrestleManias). It's not done like that in the Cyber Sunday article - and in its current style is seems like the subject is changing constantly from going to talking about the Champions of Champions match to DX to Umaga before going back to the Champions of Champions match. It constantly does that, and for a neutral non-wrestling fan, can make things very confusing, and would probably be brought up if the article became a GA candidate. For ease of flow, should we change the article, so that it talks about one storyline, before going onto another; in this case talk about the Champions of Champions match, before going onto talk about the DX-Rated RKO storyline, like in the above article examples? In my view we should change it as the current version seems quite confusing. Opinions on the current format? Thanks, Davnel03 18:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed for ease of reading and consistency. Nikki311 18:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as the PPV articles are consistent in their format, there is no problem with either. I prefer the former format, so I agree that this should be changed. Gavyn Sykes 18:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed. The prose seems quite bad for the background section, and will need a lot of work on. Davnel03 19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles

The proposed deletion has run its course for Teenage Wrestling Federation. Can someone explain what happens next? Can the article be deleted by just anyone? I also noticed that another god-awful wrestling article, Dans D Generation X, has a proposed deletion that will be over in a couple of hours. Is there someone who makes sure that these are deleted? I'd just like to get rid of them as soon as possible so that nobody will assume that this project is connected to the articles. GaryColemanFan 19:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Only administrators have the power to delete articles. There is a group of admins who routinely check the expired prods, so it should be deleted fairly quickly. Nikki311 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring (1994)

I began work on this article today. I've written part of the background section (the results of the qualifying matches). Is this the format I should be using? I think it's important to list the results of the qualifying matches and give some detail about the significant ones, but I'm not fond of the two-sentence paragraphs. Does anyone have an idea on this? GaryColemanFan 20:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Look good, but two-sentence paragraph I'm afraid are the ultimate no-nos. Davnel03 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Full Blooded Italians

Hey I did some work on the FBI article, I know its not like FA or GA quality but can you give it a rating on the talk page, or comment here about the changes Ive done, or if the sources arent good. Thanx.--TrUcO9311 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, TV.com is not a reliable source because anybody can edit it, so that should be removed from the article. Secondly, you need to use a citation template. Template:Cite web should help you with that. Lastly, references go behind punctuation, as opposed to in front of it, as is the case in the FBI article. Hope that helps. Nikki311 23:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, removed those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension Split

Ok, I have suggested that the WWE Brand Extension article be split into two articles:WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Lottery. See discussion here.--TrUcO9311 03:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking the hard way out

I figured since everyone else is working on a PPV I'd give it a shot too, only I'm not picking the popular choice or the good shows - I'm starting with Uncensored 1995 and work on that in my sandbox. MPJ-DK 15:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Help request for reliable sources

I've been working on a couple of pay-per-view articles lately. Royal Rumble (1994) is pretty much ready to go. I was hoping that some people could look over the references and let me know if any of the sources are likely to be challenged.

The other thing I'm struggling with now is finding a source that says that Roddy Piper donated money from his match at King of the Ring (1994) to the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Does anyone know where I can find a source for that? Thank you to anyone who can help (or is willing to try). GaryColemanFan 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve Blackman

The article has been unprotected and I've (re-)added his wrestling career to the article. I've also sectioned it up by year and it looks pretty good. --Crash Underride 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What needs to happen next is to add sources...otherwise, it'll just get blanked and protected again. Nikki311 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing that could use a little work is changing the mentions of WWE and World Wrestling Entertainment to WWF and World Wrestling Federation. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what the section header should be called and I don't actually know when the name change took place. GaryColemanFan 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When? From the top of your guys' own talk page (this one) Change all mentions of WWE before May 8, 2002 to "WWF" or "the WWF", including championships and pay-per-views. MPJ-DK 19:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of WWE before May 5, 2002. Should be changed to WWF. That's when the name change happened. I also went and changed the references to WWE in the Blackman article to WWF. --Crash Underride 19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2007)

New article. --Aaru Bui ^DII 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW welcome template

As part of the Outreach program that I started, I thought it would be appropriate to create a welcome template for WP:PW. So I created one here. Use it for new users who contribute to any pro wrestling article. The Chronic 03:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WCW PPVs

As I started to work on Uncensored I noticed WCW didn't have a PPV template box like WWE has, so I created one - replacing the incomplete one someone had started on in September {{WCWPPV}} So please remember to add that to WCW PPVs if you single them out. I've gone through and added the info box to all WCW PPVs and also created a category for WCW PPVs instead of just listing them as WCW shows, that's inconsistent with how the WWE is set up. Just FYI. MPJ-DK 09:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

First FACOTW in review

In less than a day, a new COTW article will be promoted and the Bobby Eaton article's run as the first ever GA-class COTW article will be over. The article had considerable support, achieving the winning 9 votes in the 14 days it was listed. However, as of this moment, the article has had only 31 edits between 6 editors, considerably low compared to the 98 edits to Hulk Hogan and the 158 edits to WrestleMania III during their COTW period.

This, however, may be due to Hulk Hogan's lengthy article and WrestleMania III's major expansion. Going through the edits made, mostly comprised of copyediting and fixes in the references and links. Something I didn't expect, seeing that it is of GA-class. The lack of edits may be because of the reasons for the voting, with some preferring it for its "stability" and how it receives less vandalism compared to articles of more recent superstars. It is an article that is just harder to contribute to by people that are not "old school" wrestling fans.

In conclusion, the support shown through the voting did not necessarily translate in the actual improvement process. This is a good start to this monthly event and certainly has potential, especially with articles whose topic is more well known by our editors. --Aaru Bui ^DII 09:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

consider this as well, the standard was already higher for Bobby Eaton since it was a GA article compared to the stub/start/B level articles that haven't gone through a GA Review (or two). So this probably didn't have as many obvious things wrong with it as the regular COTW articles. Just a thought. MPJ-DK 15:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I went through and did a copyedit this morning. I don't have any information to add, but I fixed a few things. There is one sentence, though, that I don't understand: "After reuniting the team, Eaton and Gulas had one final run with tag team champions, and worked an intense feud with Latham and Ferris." Did they have one last run as champions, or did they have one last run, and work and intense feud, with Latham and Ferris? GaryColemanFan 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did several edits throughout the week, but overall the article was already ready to be FAC. I was only able to avoid a couple of isolated redirects and added a few wikilinks (that's pretty much my specialty, I guess). I agree with MPJ, the quality was far and above our other collaborations to begin with, so not as many edits were needed. Gavyn Sykes 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With our other good articles, I suppose there will be more to work on and make this COTW actually beneficial to the article. It just seems like we got little out of this week. --Aaru Bui ^DII 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)