Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Online World of Wrestling

I have just found out that a lot of Online World of Wrestling's content is fan contributed. Apparently a lot of the statistics about independant promotions and wrestlers and other participants rely totally on contributions. They don't even bother checking it. This could well place OWOW's reliability as a source under a cloud. Thoughts? !! Justa Punk !! 11:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is already noted in the project's style guide. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't we solely fan-contributed too? RaaGgio (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, not at all - we have vandals too ;)  MPJ -DK  09:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We are restricted by reliable sources, Raaggio. After what I've discovered, I'm not sure OWOW's reliability is appropriately noted in the Style Guide anymore. I understand that they have no such restrictions, which means anyone could put anything there and it won't be checked properly. !! Justa Punk !! 09:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No website that is on our "reliable sources" list has anything similar to WP:RS. Even guys like Meltzer has a lot of fan-submitted stuff. Its just the way it is. RaaGgio (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

He checks it though doesn't he? Big difference. Justa seems to be onto something, but the claim smacks of WP:OR. Where is this information he's talking about? RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 09:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rick, respectfully, this isn't about original research on Wikipedia in the articles. I found out that a friend within the industry was primarily responsible for the content of OWOW's Australia promotion page and the names of Australian referees. The admin of OWOW didn't even check if he was telling the truth or not according to what I was told. I agree with you about Meltzer - even though he gets it wrong (nobody's perfect). At least he checks as do the other sites that are listed as reliable under the circumstances stated in the MOS. At least I hope they do! The point though is that - subject to a consensus to the contrary - I think OWOW should be shifted in the MOS down to "unreliable". That's why I asked the question to begin with. !! Justa Punk !! 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When you consider just how big MMA and wrestling really is, you'll quickly realize that there is no chance in hell that Meltzer can personally check every single thing. I guarantee you that a notiable amount of content he reports is just him passing along something that one guy is submitting to him. If you're going to bump down OWW with that logic, that Meltzer should be given the same treatement. Mshake3 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's difference between checking (even if it's not everything) by Meltzer, and not checking at all per OWOW. !! Justa Punk !! 01:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on a second-hand story? Have you done any fact checking into your friend's claim, or is this just more hypocrisy? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant comments

This coming from someone who reverts reasonable edits on the basis of an MO? Hey listen, if a user here knows someone from within the industry I would have thought that was pretty reliable wouldn't you? And before you claim COI, it has done nothing in editing has it? He came here and asked for some opinions. Mal Case (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (1) You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about on the first point, so please don't pretend to understand the history behind the situation. (2) My opinion is that someone who says "I haven't done any fact checking on this, but someone told me that someone else doesn't do fact checking" is acting in a hypocritical manner. (3) Don't address any comments to me in the future. I don't know you, but I don't like you. Future communication from you will be considered trolling and will be referred to Wikipedia administrators. I understand that it is imperative that I hold myself to that same standard, of course. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to stop the Meltzer bashing and to get back onto the subject of OWW, Meltzer is considered reliable because many media outlets tend to use his information from what I understand, OWW is dubious though I believe most of the information is checked before addition. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not. GCF's accusation has been referred back to the source, and he informs me that he provided info that is there himself - and it was never checked. He's very angry at being called (in effect) a liar by the way. !! Justa Punk !! 08:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anybody a liar. I said that somebody told you something, and you took the person at his or her word without doing any research to verify the claim. Do you deny that this is the case? Now, how can you possibly use that second-hand, unverified story to discredit a site that supposedly took the same person at his or her word without doing any research to verify the claim? In this case, you, JustaPunk, are acting in exactly the same manner that you believe Online World of Wrestling has behaved. Therefore, if their statements are unreliable, so are yours (if x+y=z, then x+y=z). Another thing to consider is this: unless your friend provided false information, how can you possibly know that it wasn't fact-checked? And, of course (and I'm certainly not saying that this is the case), if your friend did provide false information, that would seem to discredit this friend even further as a reliable source. This is why "Someone told me something" isn't listed on the project's MoS as a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You aren't helping with your rudeness, Gary. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 02:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, I "would be better served not speaking to me under any circumstances", then mind your own business. This doesn't involve you, so you're making yourself look like a hypocrite as well. I would be more than happy with a mutual agreement not to address comments to each other, but you can't say "I'll butt into your conversations with biased and irrelevant observations, but you had better not respond". GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you want out of this, GCF? A solution or a flame war? !! Justa Punk !! 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment#Recent edit warring

Hi there. Could some guys from this project kindly lend their opinions at the inclusion of the section hidden in the drop down tab? User:Screwball23 is advocating its inclusion however User:Justa Punk states it has previously been discussed and discarded here somewhere. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not involved with this topic, but I believe the discussions you're looking for are this and this. Hope this helps. --  Θakster   13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, consensus there seemed a bit hit and miss. If project members could drop by and lend their views to a consensus on the talk page, would be appreciated. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DarrenHusted's been on, everyone. We need everyone else who has been reverting Screwball to put in their two cents as well. !! Justa Punk !! 05:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Get real. Wikipedia is not a gang. People have been reverting the content because of the edit warring involved, and I think you are too trigger-happy to make a clear discussion on this. I have not seen a real discussion on this topic, which takes into account the facts of the WWE's change to PG programming. You are in a rush to build a gang of deletionists to take down this material because you don't have a lucid argument—I still don't see you defending your position in a rational way.

Again, to any editors reading this, I urge you to check World Wrestling Entertainment#Recent edit warring and post what you think. We want to hear from you. Thanks! :-)--Screwball23 talk 04:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

PWInsider.com as a reliable soucre

Ive tried to edit the Bryan Danielson/Daniel Byran section on his release from WWE, with a link to the elite side of the site, to be told that they aren't consider as a reliable source. And that I would need to start a new section here, on why I believe they are.

They work with many contemporary's such as Les Thatcher and Mike 'Simon Dean' Bucchi. They have broken numerous storys, including I believe, talking to Dixie Carter about Slamiversary's surprise. Consider to be as informed as other dirtsheets and websites like the Torch or Wrestling Observer. Have been in the business a long time, all starting in the original ECW. Have many contacts with-in many wrestling companys. Many interview's with people in business.Kellorion96 (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC) 08:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellorion96 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure on the reliability discussion but I am quite sure its preferred that references aren't "locked" as it would be with the Elite side so the information can be verified. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of time the information is first posted on the "elite" side, and later posted on the free site a day or two later. 138.163.106.72 (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Even so, we might need an extensive discussion behind this source to determines whether PWInsider can be considered reliable. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 21:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a note for the discussion, this site is not listed in the MOS at all. !! Justa Punk !! 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, http://corporate.wwe.com/news/releases_2010.jsp. There is no mention here of Bryan Danielson being released (there was for Carlito) so it can be assumed it's a work Jordan Payne ^T /_C 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Corporate only lists releases caused by failing the Wellness Policy. Compare Umaga in 2009 to say Shelton Benjamin a few months back. --  Θakster   18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Mickie James was mentioned either. !! Justa Punk !! 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents and state that PWInsider is a reliable site. They never report a story without doing proper research and are quick to correct an error if one is made in their reporting. Like other sites Wikipedia has deemed reliable, PWInsider has a list of sources inside the business they contact to get information from and they actually contact other outlets as well to get additional information so that they stories they report are as accurate as possible.98.21.206.191 (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I should take a look at that source list and if I don't get a chance maybe someone else should and see if it carries any weight - not just the list being there but some back up evidence within the site of the sources at work. !! Justa Punk !! 04:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's not a reliable source. You have to be suspicious when there are ads all over it and the browser gives you a full screen one to boot. I smell dirtsheet. No sign of a source list although I didn't really get a chance to look because of the ads. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ads have nothing to do with how reliable a source is. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Podgy, why would an insider in any industry have a list of the people they're getting their info from? Mshake3 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Luchas de apuestas

Hi. I have seen a lot of articles without Luchas de apuestas section, as Kane, HHH, Foley... and i did it. My question is Do we consider the Ric Flair's match durning his retirement storyline in WWE Lucha de apuestas?. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Luchas de Apuestas is really irrelevant to these articles. Its like the # of title defenses in championship articles. Although they're really important to ROH and on a lower level TNA, they aren't notable to WWE at all. Similarly, luchas de apuestas are notable in many and most Mexican promotions, but not at all in WWE. WWE has no "lucha de apuestas" records at all. They should be removed from all non-luchador articles. Feedback (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's only really an "accomplishment" for Luchadors - so Rey yes definitley but like Kane? Cover it in text should suffice.  MPJ -DK  05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Only exception - if they actually competed in a true Lucha de Auesta in a Mexican promotion, then it should stay as it's considered a bigger "win" than a championship in Mexico.  MPJ -DK  05:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Terry Brunk to Sabu (wrestler)

I propose change the article Terry Brunk to Sabu (wrestler). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.194.110 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per WP:COMMONNAME. Feedback (talk) 01:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Move this discussion to the article talk page, which is where it is supposed to take place. Placing the discussion here is not helpful to people who are interested in the article but are not members of this project. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • More people view this page than the article. And if significant people comment on this discussion, a consensus can take place. Whomever didn't comment here can challenge the consensus after it takes place. And answering your edit summary, there aren't "too many m's", this is the only one on the page right now. Feedback (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Unless they're specifically people interested in the Sabu article, page views are totally meaningless. I can't imagine that any other Wikiproject conducts discussions in this way (excluding many interested parties from discussions). For clarification, here is the wording from Wikipedia:Requested moves: "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here" (emphasis added). In a later section on that page (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves): "A new section should be made on the talk page of the discussed page" (emphasis added). In reality, though, I don't see how this could be seen as a potentially controversial move, so it doesn't need to be discussed in the first place. As for "too many ms", there were too many in the Commment I placed above. Since commment isn't a word, I removed an m. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support--Curtis23's Usalions 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support-- Off the soapbox Fan... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Lose the personal attacks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Unless you are suggesting I called you a soapbox I don't see how that was a personal attack. Snot a problem :) Happy ranting!^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Lose the personal attacks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
        • copies+pastes^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not that its a big deal...

Not that is a big deal or anything, but I am a fan of consistency. Every archive page has "50" discussions archived in them (which is the norm), but archive #43 has 49. Should we move one discussion up to the older archive and so on until we reach "50" each or should we just leave it as it is? Feedback (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not that I'm rude or anything (well maybe) - but oh dear god why don't you get a real problem? Edit and improve articles instead of worrying about totally irrelevant stuff like that.  MPJ -DK  04:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

if it makes you feel any better and so we can look at more important issues, why not archive 51 discussions in the current. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 04:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering it's easily the largest archive to date, I've just split up the proposed moves section into two separate sections (at the respective times I filed them) to prevent it bloating even further. So that's 50 and another archive started, case solved. --  Θakster   11:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just move 'em Feedback, as necessary. I mean damn LOL If its not such a big issue, why the hell are others suggesting different things? Its a simple yes or no thing... If Feedback is willing to do the "thang" then let 'em do it. So go do your thang Feedback. No opposition here. On a side note... actually a question... When did you change your username?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My signature reflected the change by the 20th I think, but it officially changed on the 24th. I posted a section slightly above this one to tell people I changed my name. My old name was confusing, and use this name to comment on many other websites. The only reason I never had it here was because it was taken here on Wikipedia. I was thinking of doing new/other things on Wiki so I thought a name change could reflect that; so I finally got around to usurping it. Feedback (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeahhhh i just noticed the section above. My bad. Anyway, go ahead and do your thing if you wish.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it, there seems to be too many archive pages. What if we increase the number from 50 to 100? That would slice the number of archive pages in half. What do you think? Feedback (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol well I don't know about that. Dude just do that thing you first proposed.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

About rearranging the archives, WP:Article size warns "with some web browsers with certain plug-ins running in certain environments, articles over 400 KB may not render properly or at all." Some of the later archives are around 250 KB and 100 threads would exceed this limit. --  Θakster   19:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a big deal exactly so why I we having a discussion on this just do it and then we can get this over with. So if we're talking about not big things, I'm back are you guys happy?--Curtis23's Usalions 01:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be modest, you coming back is a big thing. A good editor and fellow member is part of our familia. Feedback (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Aaaayyyy welcome back. How youz been?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Goodz, youz?--Curtis23's Usalions 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Awz you knowz it. Good all aroundz.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Soz az wez fixedz thez archivez thatz haz 49z sectionz insteadz ofz 50z?--Curtis23's Usalions 05:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Its up to Feedback. IDC.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lolz happyz earlyz onez yearz annversaryz ofz mez editingz onz herez.--Curtis23's Usalions 05:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

High Flyer Wrestler

High Flyer Wrestler - reads like a piece of fanfiction to me, crufty list, repeated match sections and even the title is not right for the topic.  MPJ -DK  15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The original author recreated it from high-flyer wrestler, which I previously redirected. I'll do the same here. --  Θakster   16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Santina (Santino) Marella as Miss Wrestlemania

On the Santino Marella page should we continue to observe him as Miss WrestleMania (as it say 2 times, current) since "Santina" was kayfabe fired and then the sash was never mentioned again so I assume it was abandoned. So should we take away current?--Curtis23's Usalions 23:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it treated as a title in the first place? Feedback (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's because it was observed and fought for. It's kinda like the Queen of FCW Crown.--Curtis23's Usalions 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Take the current away. I'm guessing you can be bold about it, no controversy will spike up here. Feedback (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been taken care of.  :)   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Florida Championship Wrestling

Hello, my name is Hixteilchen.

I wanted to make a discussion about the Florida Championship Wrestling article. The majority of FCW fans and wiki users wants to take all wrestlers and Divas who are listed on the FCW talent page ( http://www.fcwwrestling.info/talent.html ). But there is one user 187.15.90.220 who doesn't use a wiki account and always excludes the wrestlers and Divas who appear on SmackDown, Raw and NXT. He calls it "Visual polution". I wanna make sure that all FCW wrestlers and Divas are listed on the page cause they also compete in FCW and have a developmental contract with FCW (even Serena, the Usos and the NXT season 1 Rookies). --Hixteilchen (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to agree that it is vandalism. The IP has a clear reason why they think it doesn't belong, just as you have a clear reason why you think it does. Since it is clearly not vandalism but good faith attempts on both your parts to improve the article, neither of you are exempt from 3RR. I have no comment on the basis for the dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't they already listed at List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees? Nikki♥311 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"I doubt anyone is going to agree that it is vandalism. The IP has a clear reason why they think it doesn't belong,(...)it is clearly not vandalism but good faith attempts". Thank you a lot, Syrthiss. I help to improve this article since January 2009. Unfortunately, at my work the "login/registrate" link is blocked, and because of this I cannot use a nickname here. About the discussion, I had the very same one with another user (Yugiohmike) and we agreed and came to consensus to use the version without the wrestlers that do not have a developmental contract with FCW anymore (the wrestlers now on Raw, Smackdown and NXT rosters). To Hixteilchen: the "visual pollution" is about the excessive notes and references that are extremelly unnecessary since all of then are on the link posted by Nikki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.90.220 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But all the WWE Superstars and NXT Rookies also compete in FCW. Therefore they belong to the FCW Roster => See FCW Talent Page. I have made notes in which show they appear. What has this discussion to dow with List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees? I doesn't matter, Nikki! All FCW wrestlers and Divas belong to the list. Don't exclude any wrestlers.! --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"All FCW wrestlers and Divas belong to the list. Don't exclude any wrestlers.!". But the FCW wrestlers were not excluded. The ones excluded are Raw, Smackdown and NXT wrestlers. They do not belong to the FCW Roster anymore.

They do belong to the FCW roster. Therefore they are listed on the FCW talent page. They also compete in FCW. So it is not right to exclude them. --Hixteilchen (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see the fuss here, they clearly are members of the FCW roster, if they were like Christian and The Miz who go down for special appearances I would agree for the removal from the roster page although I doubt they'd be placed there in the first place, but since they regularly actively compete in the shows I see no reason for removal. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

They are listed on the FCW Talent page as alumni, because the FCW website do not have a Alumni page. Active roster and alumni are both talents. They do not belong to FCW roster anymore, since they graduate. This do not prevent them to appear on the shows.

If they appear on the shows AND on the FCW page them it's Original research to claim that they are "alumni", they wrestle in FCW they belong on the page.  MPJ -DK  05:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not "original research" since some of them appears on the page, but not on shows anymore. They are not "claimed" alumni. They are alumni because they graduate. They are not under developmental contract anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.90.220 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its OR. Nothing you have said contradicts that fact. They don't have ceremonial graduations or anything like that. They still are contracted talent even if they do appear on NXT. Feedback (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are contracted, but no more a developmental contract. And we are not talking about NXT wrestlers, but Raw and Smackdown too.

Everybody whos has got a contract is on the FCW page. The FCW wrestlers and Divas who compete on Raw, SmackDown and FCW have a developmental contract, too. They are "WWE Superstars and Divas who are still in training". Therefore they are seen on the FCW talent page. Therefore the page shall stay like it is with all FCW talents! --Hixteilchen (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hix. Feedback (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The funny fact is that since January 2009 I was helping to improve that article and none of you went there to say something about the section in discussion here. And now this user (Hixteilchen) just went there few days ago to call the way I manage the article vandalism. Sorry, but I never met a vandal that helps for one year and a half. I earned a Half-Barnstar for this very same section. Where were you all this time? And now I am just a vandal and the section that gives me more pleasure to work in is just a copy-and-paste of List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees with a lot of visual pollution. IMHO, to do a copy-and-paste of another article it is not the same thing of improve the article. It is preferable to put a link to the FCW section of the other article than to just copy-and-paste all the information from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.53.71 (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Grammar. Whatever you had to say wasn't understood completely because of your disregard of correct grammar. "same thing that improve"? What? Anyway, whatever you said was completely irrelevant. We're not talking about your vandal-accusations or your contribution history, we're talking about the scope of a specific section in an article. Most of us agree with Hix. Deal with it. This is not your article and stop acting as such. WP:KEEPCOOL, WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS, etc. Feedback (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the grammar, I was sleepy. And I am not acting like you said. I was talking just about the scope of the section. "Hix" is doing just a copy-and-paste of another article. If C&P is the right thing to do, just put a link in the article. And it is not polite to say that the opinion of someone that just want to help is irrelevant.

You clearly act like it is your own article ( WP:OWN ). I really respect your work on the page. But you're wrong with the roster. All talents should be listed. All right, I did Copy and paste something from List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees but I also changed the Notes. The List is perfect. So why shall we take an incomplete list? Second, hope you finally checked that you are the ONLY person who wants to remove the Superstars and NXT Rookies from the list. --Hixteilchen (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not acting like the article is mine. And if I am the only one who wants to remove wrestlers no more in development, why the section was the same for one year and a half? Clearly, I am not the only one who have edited the article all this time. The Half-Barnstar that I earned for this very same section proves it.

Okay quit throwing that "half barnstar" thing around like it legitimizes anything.  MPJ -DK  20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

LEGIIT LOL with the Half Barnstar thing. Feedback (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It legitimizes nothing, but proves that a consensus was previuosly reached. And if I am not wrong, we are talking about consensus here.

Comparing consensus to "half barnstars" is like comparing apples to horsepears.  MPJ -DK  08:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars aren't rewarded for consensus they are rewarded for ethic and hard work, nothing to do with Consensus. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 11:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Half Barnstar is awarded for excellence in Cooperation, especially for productive editing together with someone who holds diametrically opposed viewpoints.". Sorry, but to cooperate with someone who holds diametrically opposed viewpoints, a consensus needs to be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.53.71 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BS "It is the custom to reward Wikipedia contributors for hard work and due diligence by awarding them a barnstar.", not for helping keep consensus, I could work with TJ and get the Half Barnstar as long as productive edits came out of it, would have nothing to do with maintaining a consensus. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 16:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a concensus that all FCW wrestlers and Divas who are listed on the FCW talent page should be listed on Florida Championship Wrestling. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all FCW wrestlers. Not Raw, Smackdown and NXT wrestlers.

Nope, you are the only one who wants it this way. We have a concensus that ALL FCW Wrestlers and Divas from the Talent Page are listed on Florida Championship Wrestling. --Hixteilchen (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is what I said. ALL FCW wrestlers. Just them. Not the others that are on Raw, Smackdown and NXT rosters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.114.220 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Everybody knows it but you. --Hixteilchen (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, You act like every article you discuss you must get your way or you will die, also, as I see it people who compete on Raw, Smackdown, or NXT don't need to be repeated on another list of people in the same company. Hypothetically, say that John Cena made a guest appearance on FCW and fought a match would he have to be on FCW Roster since he fought?--Curtis23's Usalions 03:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Curtis. For one second I got distracted and really thought that I could be wrong.

Curtis, you are ridiculous. That's everything I have to say. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Second, your argument is bad cause John Cena is not on the FCW talent page. All wrestlers and Divas on the talent page do compete in FCW. That's a fact. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hix, the people who compete in FCW that also compete in one of WWE major brands as next to them Also competes in FCW why is that not enough?--Curtis23's Usalions 16:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time I have to tell you this, but Curtis, you should read the discussion before commenting. Why? Because we're talking about the Florida Championship Wrestling article, not List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees. You've just got the Ip on a high horse now while pissing Hix off just because you didn't thoroughly read the discussion. Feedback (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the discussion I'm using that page as an EXAMPLE!!!!!! Maybe you should read my comment thoroughly before saying something.--Curtis23's Usalions 23:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No examples were stated. You addressed Hix's stating it was enough that the hybrid main roster/FCW wrestlers had "Also competes in FCW" next to their names. However, Hix is not bothered by that nor does he want to address it. He's saying that these main roster guys also regularly' (not a one-time John Cena match) compete in FCW and therefore should be in the FCW article. "Not the FCW section of the WWE Roster article; the FCW article. The IP is opposed because he thinks main roster guys shouldn't be in the FCW Roster. However, FCW treats them as roster members and they continue to regularly compete there. Thats the issue, not anything you stated above. Feedback (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can people not infer anymore? If you want to hear me I'd say that if you fight in the main roster and also fight in FCW you should not be stated on the FCW page just because they fight in the main roster which means they fight a more important role or you could say they are also technically a main roster person just developing more skills in FCW regularly so no I don't think they should be on the FCW page just on the WWE Employees page. Are you happy with that Feedback?--Curtis23's Usalions 02:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Much clearer stated, so yes. But still, I've got to reiterate what Hix, Afro, MPJ-DK and I all stated which is that until FCW stops advertising them as part of the roster and until they stop regularly appearing there, they still are FCW roster members. Feedback (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I agree now but we could also put, say, Also competes on WWE Raw, Also competes on WWE Smackdown, or Also competes on WWE NXT. What do you guys think about that?--Curtis23's Usalions 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to remind folks to cut it out with the ad hominems and accusations of ownership. Discuss, don't bully. Also, I'm unlikely to be swayed by Hixteilchen coming to my talk page to tell me everything is decided when it is clearly not per the above discussion. My questions are: (1) is the material properly sourced and accurate and (2) does the material improve the article and (3) is the information not already covered in similar detail in another article? Syrthiss (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. 5 editors agree on something while only 1 disagrees. Curtis had a misunderstanding, but that has already been addressed and Curtis agrees with the consensus made clear by everyone else. The IP who started the problem in the first place is the only one who disagrees. There is a consensus, and 1 person disagreeing won't damage it. As for your questions, (1) this isn't a WP:RS problem, (2) This isn't a WP:IMPROVE problem and (3) this isn't a WP:FORK problem. This is just 2 disagreeing good faith views on a situation where WP:CONSENSUS needs to take place. Considering the agreeing statements by MPJ-DK, Afro, Hix, Curtis and I, consensus is clear. Feedback (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(1)"all stated which is that until FCW stops advertising them as part of the roster". Hey, Feedback, FCW NEVER advertised them as part of the roster. In fact, they are advertised as "Raw, SmackDown and NXT Superstars". In the website there is no "roster page". There is a talent page including FCW Roster and FCW Alumni. And about regular appearances, Curt Hawkins was there for about one year and became Florida Tag Team Champion, but never was on the talent page because he is a SmackDown Superstar and is not a FCW alumnus. The same about Shad whom is making regular appearances now.

(2) To Syrthiss: your answers. (1) The are some inaccurate material. (2) Not really. It causes more visual pollution to readers than improves the article. (3) Hell yeah. Nikki said exactly this.

(3) And thanks again, Curtis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.111.179 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Rant all you want, like stated above, there is no such thing as "graduating". If you're sitting down and 2 people get in the ring, start wrestling, a match takes place with a referee, someone pins the other and the match ends, you don't call it an "unofficial match" just because it wasn't announced. It was official, it happened, move on. Same with the talent. You don't wait for someone to officially announce "The talent, as a member of FCW". When you see them regularly on FCW and they compete in FCW matches and feuds and are on the FCW talent page, they are talent. No ifs, ands or buts. End of discussion. Feedback (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because I agree with this after Feedback persuaded me to his side you rant to me saying "And thank again, Curtis". I have a right to have my own views, tough if you think differently,187.15.111.179. PS Sign your comments.--Curtis23's Usalions 21:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Syrthiss, I don't wanted to spam on your page. There was 4 days no other comment on the discussion page so I thougt that there's a concensus. But then the discussion startet again. In my opinion and most of the wiki users opinion take all Talent of the talent page. The IP wants to exclude the main roster and NXT Rookies. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Curtis, are you crazy? Easy there, boy. I did not rant. I really thanked you for understanding my point of view. And to Feedback: "they are talent". Of course they are. No one here are saying that they are not. But the "talents" are the actual roster and the alumni. If you watch the TV show you will notice the commentators saying that they are from Raw, SmackDown or NXT. And you did not comment about the year Curt Hawkins competed regularly just there and were not on the "talent page" (the same with Shad now).

I'm done with this conversation. This is an obvious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and I'm not going to sit through it. Feedback ^☎ 06:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article, Feedback addressed my concerns. I ask that 187.X please abide by the consensus and not revert the article to their preferred version. Thanks everyone for the discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I will not revert it, but I still think it is wrong this way. The big problem now is the visual pollution. There are two or three references on informations that need none. Can it be discussed?

I have a new name

Hey, I just want to point out that my username has been changed to "Feedback". I will no longer be known as "Raaggio" (that name was too confusing). This is my 3rd change after "Lex94". Feedback (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the project talk page, not a place to point out user name changes. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been a member of this project for almost 4 years and any time we've had name changes, we'd post them; good for communication. Wanna do something constructive, go copyedit this page and stop being rude. Feedback ^☎ 03:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah back to make yet another contribution to the project eh RobJ? You know there's lots of things to do around here. Why don't you go count something?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WWE PPV Infobox change

This is a revival of WWE PPV Infobox change about the brand field in Template:Infobox wrestling event. I'm moving it from the archives where the original author posted a few minutes ago. --  Θakster   20:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But the brand extension still exist, I mean we still have the draft and on some theme ppv we see the division between brands, like in Elimination Chamber when we see the RAW Chamber and the Smackdown Chamber or in Money in The Bank wee see the MITB match from RAW and Smackdown, It doesnt matter if it doesnt come out in the introduction. I assume WWE thinks that We already know that so I guess there is no reason to put it on the introduction. But if you see the PPV you see you see the division in the matches, I see the MITB example again, If there was no division and it was only World Wrestling Entertainment, then we would see only 1 MITB ladder match with talent from RAW and Smackdown but that is not the case, We see 2 matches with talent from EXCLUSIVE BRANDS so I think that the brands are still divided and sharing the PPV just like in 2002. att: kerbymanuel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerbymanuel (talk • contribs)

Would this not fall into the came category as "Seinfeld is a sitcom"? The brands still exist, in the sense that they existed and so in a historical sense they still exist. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Nexus (Professional wrestling)

I left a question there about when they were called Nexus. If you can clarify that would be great. Thanks! WWEFan225 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

They declared their name two weeks ago. And on the last Raw, "Nexus" was clearly word of the day. Doesn't matter anyway, the article should be deleted and even though there are more "keeps", the consensus clearly is to delete it. Feedback ^☎ 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of c&a

Hi. I have seen that we have incremented the number of C&A. It's good, but I thini that a lot of the C&A are very irrelevant. Por example, we put that Yosi Tatsu is teh Pre WrestleMania 2010 Battle Royal winner, but it's only a normal Battle Royal before WM, Tatsu never won a championship or similar. Also, in his WWE profile, I don't see the battle royal as a C&A. WWE.com sais that tatsu don't win any C&A. Also, the runner-up. I think that the runner up is an accomplishments. We say that X Pac is the Runner up of the HOTR, but be a Runner up isn't a accomplishments, win the KOTR is a accomplishments. In that case, we can say that Randy Orton is the Runner-Up of the 2006 Royal Rumble because he was eliminated by Mysterio. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historically, the WWE has never recognized dark matches (matches that don't air) as an accomplishment. I could be wrong, but that is my impression. Thus that is why his "pre" WM battle royal win is not included in the C&A. Heck, his article doesn't even have that section, so it's irrelevant.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But it stills appearing i the articles of Kane and Booker t. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's been taken care of. My feeling is, if it wasn't aired, it didn't happen.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yoshi winning the battle royal was acknowledged on PPV. Kane winning the Battle Royal was acknowledged too. And a lot of other times, dark matches are acknowledged on TV like when Shelton retained his US title against Truth at the Bash. Dark matches are referenced sometimes. Feedback ^☎ 21:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Being a runner up in the Rumble or KoTR isn't an accomplishment, neither is winning a battle royal. It has no bearing on anything. Tony2Times (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WWE Roster

Can we get a consensus to change the protection level from "Semi=Protection" to "Pending Changes" during the trial for this particular article? Feedback ^☎ 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Support--Curtis23's Usalions 19:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Silva

Can someone add a photo in Giant Silva? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about an article that needs a lot of work. There's really not much there. As for the photo, if there's a free one somewhere it can be added.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I send a message to this tree men http://www.flickr.com/photos/mcwild/sets/72157594168556246/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/10829693@N05/ & http://www.flickr.com/photos/arq199/sets/72157612229261906/ I you want, you can send them more messages --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some photos of Silva. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about potential Good Topic (Ted DiBiase)

I was wondering what people thought would be necessary to make this into a Good Topic. Obviously, the main article would need to get up to GA standards. The Mega Bucks and Money Inc. are already GAs. I suppose Million Dollar Championship would need to be a GA (it's too short to be a Featured List). He was also in the Million Dollar Corporation and New World Order (professional wrestling), so I assume those would be necessary as well. Would those six be sufficient, or can anyone think of something else that would be required? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Virgil? Nikki♥311 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ashley Lane --> Madison Rayne

Please comment at Talk:Ashley Lane. Nikki♥311 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Is it really notable that say Melina was the first Mexican-American Divas Champion that it must be noted on List of WWE Divas Champions same with Alicia Fox.--Curtis23's Usalions 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so for a title that's only been held by about five people. But then not being American I don't feel the need to put a suffix before my nationality. Tony2Times (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reid Fliehr → Reid Flair

If he is a Fliehr, then I'm sure he's better known as a Flair. It's just like how all of the Bolleas are better known as Hogans. --GeicoHen (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is yet another move discussion that does not need to take place at all, let alone on this page instead of on the article's talk page. I have added a G6 speedy deletion tag to the redirect so that the non-controversial move can be made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Moved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Screwball

Alert to members involved in protecting the WWE article from Screwball23. He's canvassing again and I've told one of the receivers (who I think may be an admin) to watch out. His latest "line by line rebuttal" section is the last straw as far as I'm concerned and this disruption has gone on for long enough and is showing no signs of stopping in my opinion. I'd like to put to a vote that we - as a group - take some action against him through ArbCom or something close to it. He just isn't listening as most of us know and I really believe that a long term block is the only way to send the message that he is doing the wrong thing. What say we all? !! Justa Punk !! 06:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think its time we look in to a topic ban for Screwball as he just seems to want to keep this up till we all fold to what he wants which is not happening any time soon.--Steam Iron 07:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing to combat canvassing. Interesting idea. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Justapunk, lets not waste the ArbCom's time with Screwball. I think Nikki could deal with him on her own, and if she just doesn't want to (I wouldn't blame her), then we can take him to ANI instead. Feedback ^☎ 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about ANI I have to admit! I'll look that up for specific options if need be. The topic ban suggestion has appeal and if ANI becomes the way to go I'll mention that. !! Justa Punk !! 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI is probably the best idea Punk. I'm tired of him to can't he just get through his head that there is consensus to keep the page as it is.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Guys, let it go and move on to other things.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I wanted a fair discussion of the topic, and I feel that this was never given reasonable consideration. I have seen refusals to even consider my side before I even started. I would like to remind this group that my edits were mercilessly reverted as soon as they were put forward, each time for a different reason, and the defenses I've encountered have often been personally and emotionally directed.

I presented the material line-by-line to make it very clear that this is verifiable and to encourage a fair evaluation of the additions I have proposed. My main goal was to have it available for reading, because I am a firm supporter of putting the truth and using open minded discussion. I still would like to bring this to mediation so that a fair discussion can happen. --Screwball23 talk 04:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The evaluation has already taken place, mate. Move on. Mal Case (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again! Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally had a fair discussion with 3Bulletproof16 and I have placed material that is well-supported for entry into the page. Again, I hope more people can join a more productive discussion on this topic, rather than this gang of reverts that I'm seeing Podgy putting into place.--Screwball23 talk 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has already been held, and consensus is you are wrong. I advised you before about this and you have ignored that advice. I believe you to be faced with stricter action on this occasion. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already reverted your edits Screwball as it goes against a strong consensus to leave the information that you want included out as the sources provided are insufficient and as such it makes it OR.--Steam Iron 08:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That does it! I've taken this to ANI. It's about time action was taken and I've initiated it. Here's the report. If anyone wishes to add to it, go right ahead. !! Justa Punk !! 12:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul Wight → The Big Show

 Not done I'm closing per WP:SNOW. "The Big Show" is a disambiguation page that directs to a number of very notable articles. Also in a relevant note, other than being Big Show's real name, "Paul Wight" is also the screen name he uses in films so a rename is not necessary. Feedback ^☎ 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Is he known by more people as Paul Wight than as (The) Big Show? WWEFan225 (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

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

GA Work

Would anybody be interested in helping me get an article to GA Status? If you would reply here or at my talkpage. Thanks! WWEFan225 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any particular article you are thinking about? Nikki♥311 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dustin Rhodes or Sheamus is a choice, in my opinion. WWEFan225 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on either one, I'll give you a pre-GA review when you are done. Nikki♥311 18:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some groundwork on Sheamus, and i'm not sure if I can add anything else to it, so if anybody can help with any facts I forgot that would be great. WWEFan225 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

World Championship question

Just a query (and an advance warning for any potential movement) about the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) article. With Rey Mysterio now champion, WWE are now referring it to simply as the World Championship again just like Rey's last reign in 2006. Clearly, it's a temporary name change for as long as Mysterio is champion so there's no need for an article move. However, I'm just wondering considering it's now the second time this has happened if it's notable enough for a mention and if so which section in the article should this be included? --  Θakster   23:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it will still be a temporary name change because, as we all know, Rey's not a Heavyweight. So, the name World Championship should be a second name for the holders who don't qualify in the Heavyweight division.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I still see it as "World Heavyweight Championship" --> http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/ --Truco ₅₀₃ 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing major but I wouldn't mind seeing this mentioned somewhere in the article; a note explaining that under certain circumstances it is simply referred to as the World Championship. This may be more than just a reign specific name - which we've agreed before isn't notable. Lance Storm's renaming of the US title to the Canadian Heavyweight Championship was exclusive to his reign since we've seen other Canadians as recently as Bret Hart have their reign without renaming the title (even under Storm's reign the thing is noted in List of WWE United States Champions). However, with Rey Mysterio we've seen the World Heavyweight Championship renamed twice to World Championship with even on-screen graphics reflecting the change. Its obvious that when a non-heavyweight wins the World "Heavyweight" Championship more than just the reign itself conflicts with the naming of the title. WWE seems to want to cover the breach in their imaginary weight divisions so when a situation like Mysterio's happens, the title is referred to differently to accommodate the champion.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 15:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, we're gonna need stone bulletproof (no pun intended) evidence that this is so. Such as evidence from Mysterio's 2006 reign and his current 2010 reign.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In the case of 2010, one could simply compare a WWE.com recap pre-Mysterio with one during the Mysterio reign. Similarly, in 2006 we have pre-Mysterio, during Mysterio and post-Mysterio. --  Θakster   17:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees

There is a section for company officials which I find would be much more fitting if they are placed in the World Wrestling Entertainment article while this list becomes more of a List of World Wrestling Entertainment performers or wrestlers or talent or anything else. Feedback ^☎ 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Video reference needed urgently

I need help. A reference from You Tube that proves that Eve Torres is billed from Denver, Colorado, and not Los Angeles is being thrown out for reasons that I severely question, given that previously You Tube videos have been used in similar ways in the past to prove that written sources are not correct. Another video reference is needed, because Eve is definitely billed as being from Denver on Raw and on pay per views. The copyright rule is holding up true and verifiable information, and I'm tempted to apply WP:IAR except that I've been threatened with a ban for using this reference. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, panic over. I was pointed to the "Cite Episode" option to fix the issue. A video would help though, although now it's no longer urgent. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 08:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We aren't allowed to cite youtube directly, per WP:YOUTUBE, but you can use the Template:Cite video to do so, as here you will cite the show not the Youtube video.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that WWE has an official YouTube account, surely we can cite it? Tony2Times (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all WP:YOUTUBE is about External links sections, not about references. Hell, its a section IN WP:External Links. And yes, videos from WWE's YouTube channel are considered a primary source because they are proven to be WWE submitted. Feedback ^☎ 10:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I also must note that quite a number of WWE's YouTube videos (namely the full episodes) are geolocked for (presumingly) the United States only, making those particular videos unsuitable for sourcing. --  Θakster   07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm Sorry Oakster, but why the fuck? WP:PAYWALL is pretty specific that verifiable sources can be unaccessible to everyone and thats what WP:RESOURCE is for. Feedback ^☎ 10:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nexus members Proposed moves

He is the winner of WWE NXT season 1, and he is a future main eventer. I think he deserves to have his article under the name Wade Barrett. I also request the following moves:

1. Stu Bennett → Wade Barrett
2. Ryan Reeves → Skip Sheffield
3. Tyrone Evans → Michael Tarver

Both are members of a popular faction increasing in popularity. --GeicoHen (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support- They both have been utilizing these names for about 4 months on NXT and a little bit longer in FCW. Both of these wrestlers are obviously going to keep these names for a while and even if they are "suddenly released" and stop using these names, I doubt they will achieve more notable ones afterwards. If they achieve notability under new names in the future, I doubt its much of a problem because they could be moved again as the case with any other article. Feedback ^☎ 10:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Then propose the move on the article talk pages. Why do people not bother reading the instructions? It's very clear...it says "article talk page". That's not here. Please move this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... where are these instructions? I've never seen the admins, the community or anyone in fact frown upon having move discussions on WikiProject pages before. If you're talking about the instructions on WP:RM, those instructions are solely for the people that want to utilize WP:RM to announce the moves. If there is any other "instruction" page which you are referring to, then please do tell.Feedback ^☎ 10:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requested moves: "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here" (emphasis added). In a later section on that page (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves): "A new section should be made on the talk page of the discussed page" (emphasis added). Please note that it specifically states that this is the process to follow, whether or not the proposal is listed at WP:RM. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no obligatory instructions stated there. All it says is that you can use WP:RM, but you also can make a move on the talk page. In no way does it even imply that carrying moves elsewhere is frowned upon. Feedback ^☎ 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume that you're either joking or that you posted your reply before reading the second half of my previous post (that is quite direct about where the section should be placed). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you're funny. Your tone actually makes it seem like you're being serious. It's as if you didn't know that the instructions you are citing are part of Wikipedia:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves which is a set of instructions on how to carry out move discussions so they get automatically added to WP:RM's list. There is no policy that forces anyone to use WP:RM and therefore no one has to follow its procedures. Feedback ^☎ 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about. The phrasing is quite clear: "Discussions about retitling of an article (page move) can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry here. See the directions in the section Requesting potentially controversial moves." In other words, whether or not you plan to list the article at WP:RM, follow the instructions below. What I quoted is the first step in the instructions below, which is to be followed whether or not you want to list the page at WP:RM. I know you're not stupid, so I must assume that you can follow this logic and see that you're way off base. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy/paste is in order: There is no policy that forces anyone to use WP:RM and therefore no one has to follow its procedures. Feedback ^☎ 17:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not a substitution for willful ignorance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you're the smartest person to turn to, but then other times like this, you seem blind to reality. Its not ignoring a rule, Gary. WP:RM is not a rule. Its not a guideline, its not a policy, its not even an information page. Its a backlog. No one needs to even view that page if they don't want to. Feedback ^☎ 18:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Genickbruch.com as a reliable source (for real names)

Hello! I wanted to make a discussion about the German wrestling site Genickbruch.com ( http://www.genickbruch.com ). In my opinion it is a very good wrestling site with lots of information and data about professional wrestlers. They do have many biographys and they always have the correct real names of the wrestlers.

Here is the reason why I want Genickbruch.com as a reliable source. The articles Melina Perez and Taryn Terrell don't have the correct real names. Melina's correct name is "Melina Nava Pérez" => http://www.genickbruch.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=865 and Tiffany's real name is Taryn Nicole Terrell-Galloway => http://www.genickbruch.com/index.php?befehl=bios&wrestler=8359 . That are just 2 examples. Unfortunately, at the moment my changes are not accepted cause they don't think Genickbruch.com is a reliable source.

But the German wrestling site always has the correct names. if you are searching the correct names it's better than http://www.gerweck.net and http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com that are already accepted as reliable sources. But these 2 sites don't have always the correct names. --Hixteilchen (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does it have a proven fact checking system? Also, Gerweck and Online World of Wrestling have not been accepted yet as reliable sources. See the bottom of WP:PW/SG. Nikki♥311 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

They check back all names. They have very good authors who know what they do. I have checked many names and they are always right. It is really the No. 1 source for real names of wrestlers. In the article Taryn Terrell there is Onlineworldofwretling.com as the reliable source for her name. But that's not her correct name. Her correct name is Taryn Nicole Terrell-Galloway. Genickbruch.com is one of the few sites on the internet that has her correct real name. And Melina Nava Pérez is Melina's real name (even the current source says it). So I say: yes, they have a real good fact checking system. --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because OWW is listed as a source for Taryn's name doesn't mean its been deemed reliable, I can't find anything on how reliable this site is. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 00:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To Hixteilchen: Everything you said is original research and your opinion. The site needs to explain how it fact checks. Nikki♥311 01:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hix, The whole thing is written in German how would you know how it checks it's facts?--Curtis23's Usalions 01:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am German. I don't know what you mean with "proven fact checking system", I just know that they have always the correct names not like other "reliable sources". They have a team that is very into wrestling and many assistants from Germany and other countries. Check out different wrestlers on http://www.genickbruch.com and you'll see that they have the right real names of them. --Hixteilchen (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't enough alone to deem them as a reliable source. Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 09:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As a German and English speaker, Hixteilchen, can you find anywhere on the website that explains where they get their information and research from. I think that's what is meant by "proven fact checking system". Dave Meltzer of Wrestling Observer is proven to be a seriously respected journalist by wrestlers, such as in Mick Foley's book, while Wade Keller from PWTorch has been conducting interviews with wrestlers since 1990ish and the website is frank about whether news items are rumours or not. I don't really understand what makes something reliable, but I think that knowing where it gets its facts from is the main concern. Tony2Times (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have send an e-mail to the Genickbruch.com team with the question where they get the correct names from and I got this answer:

"I think I can help you if you write me what especially you are interested in. Depending on whether Mexican, English German wrestlers, Indy workers or American wrestlers that competed 70 years ago the answer differs / is always different. I will agitate this extensively but to talk about this would last too long. :-D"

So I gotta write another email and ask how they do research in detail. They have many experts (for Mexican wrestlers, WWE, UFC and so on). I bet they sure use Wikipedia, too. I mean 99% of the real names of wrestlers are correct in wiki. --Hixteilchen (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What makes you certain that what they have is right over someone else? You say they are right, but I still don't see any tangible proof. Nikki♥311 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the internet. I used Google, Wikipedia and many American wrestling sites that have the real names. Genickbruch.com always had the right names. The last days I had no time for internet / wikipedia cause I gotta work. I will send an email to the Genickbruch team and ask them how they do research. --Hixteilchen (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just got an answer from the Genickbruch.com-Team

The guy writes that he is responsible for the older wrestlers and he uses the "Social Security Death Index", he uses obits => Obituary, Books, Newspaper Biographys, Forums and other sources. He writes he hat a good review over the sources what makes him know which sources are reliable and which not. He writes their primary sources are family members. The team also knows how to deal with wrong information they get.

Other employees of Genickbruch.com also use the Social Media, Homepages of the Wrestling promotions and many other sources. So they check many sources and they not always but in the most cases have the right names.

I wanna ask you what are the demands / claims for wikipedia to Genickbruch.com as a reliable source. --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Combined Reigns

I see that the "List of Combined reigns" is still shown in the championship lists. Wasn't consensus to remove them, and if it wasn't, can we get a consensus right now? Those "combined reigns" sections are irrelevant listcruft. Feedback ^☎ 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I think they are very informative.--Curtis23's Usalions 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment- Well, geez, if we would keep things because they were informative, then we should just rid ourselves of the WP:CRUFT guideline, huh? Feedback ^☎ 02:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as well as surely being interesting to more than just "a small population of enthusiastic fans", it is as notable as listing the individual reign dates. Furthermore, it's something Wikipedia can offer that few (if any) reliable websites, even unreliable websites have listed. Tony2Times (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

When we deleted the "average length per reign" tables (tables that divided the total length between the number of reigns), we agreed that "anyone with a calculator can do it". The same applies here. Feedback ^☎ 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - you're asking for opinions, no need to get all snarky when someone has a different view on how informative they are.  MPJ -DK  16:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for opinions, I'm asking for us to enforce guidelines. They are listcruft, and they add nothing to the article. I'm flabbergasted that three people have voted keep on some tables that fail WP:IMPROVE, WP:N, WP:CRUFT and WP:OR. Never has WWE ever quoted or even mentioned the total number of days a championship reign has had; its not important to them, its quite irrelevant actually. Adding the list to the article would be the same as adding the # of title defenses, the average length per reigns, etc. None of these aspects about the title reigns are relevant because they aren't important in any way to WWE. To ROH, the title defenses are important (thats why they are mentioned in the ROH article). I thought we had a clear consensus on this. Feedback ^☎ 19:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You THOUGHT there were guidelines against it, you THINK they are listcruft. Life lessons are often learned by being wrong. Either start a debate on a specific guideline or stop talking about it since it's obviously not an established guideline.  MPJ -DK  22:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, pardon the word, but its necessary to convey my respone: What the FUCK. Did you just ask me to point at specific guidelines when I already posted WP:IMPROVE, WP:N, WP:CRUFT and WP:OR. Read the freaking comment before you try to respond. If you're too lazy to press the little blue links, I'll help you out. Those blue links lead to guidelines that these lists currently violate.

1. They violate WP::IMPROVE because they do not improve the article in any way.

• Mor correctly - you think they don't improve them, I think they do.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

2. They violate WP:N because these lists aren't notable. The "combined length" of days as champion are never referenced by the WWE in any capacity. There are no references that state these "combined length" numbers are notable enough to be listed, and thats because they're not. (WP:OR)

• Combined lenghts are as notable as individual lengths. And all your arguments center around "WWE", it's a general wrestling format so "WWE doesn't do this" means nothing.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

3. They're not, because they are completely original research. The numbers aren't given by WWE.com, WWE TV Shows, books, magazines or any other WWE-related source. They are created and generated by the editors instead. Of course, its just mathematics to sum the numbers, but what the numbers represent is completely trivial.

• So are they "original research" or "just mathematics"? They can't be both, adding numbers up that ANYONE and everyone with basic math skills or a calculator can check is not "research", it's what we're taught in the first grade.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

4. Its trivial because summing up the number of days of different reigns iss miscellaneous information that is unimportant. Just like a list that sums up the reigns of all Canadians who held the title or a list of all title defenses. Having such lists is LISTCRUFT.

• It's unimportant in your view, others have chosen to have a differnet point of view on it. It's part of the list or the article on the championship, not a standalone list, nor is it arbitrary like picking canadians or generally impossible to ever get complete like number of title matches.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

5. Not only is it "listcruft", but it is also an obvious case of WP:FANCRUFT because it is " a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". No one outside of wrestling fans would ever even consider to sum up wrestlers' reign lengths.

• Well if the criteria is "no one outside of wrestling fans" then there'd be no wrestling content on Wikipedia at all.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of violating all these guidelines. Not a matter of opinion, its a matter of enforcing the guidelines. Feedback ^☎ 19:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I seemed to disagree with your oppinion on this being a guideline violation. I see it as you not liking them and despite people have either disagreed with you or said nothing at all and then you rant on. As I said before - it's in the MOS - it was never removed like you thought. So start a debate on removing them or respectfully ST-heck-U.  MPJ -DK  20:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Its Original Research MPJ, and you can't say its not. Find a reliable source for the notability of these lists and you can prove its not OR. Obviously, you can't do that because no such source exists. That pretty much says it all. Feedback ^☎ 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Find me a list that has individual reign length by day from a reliable source. It's not OR, it's maths. Why bother listing individual reigns, the article header just says List of WWE Champions, let's just list each champion the one time and be done with it(!) Tony2Times (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually stated that once and because of it, I had proposed a move to List of WWE Championship reigns; people answered with what you stated below which is that names don't have to literally describe the content (which I disagree). However, look at "List of Puerto Ricans" and how obviously not every single Puerto Rican is listed, yet they still keep that name. Anyway, it is OR, because the lists aren't relevant. The length is stated in all WWE championship title histories, however not in number form, but in "From X date-To X date" form. If length weren't relevant to WWE, and just "who's holding it" was the only thing that mattered, then they should be removed. However, WWE constantly recognizes milestones with dates (shortest reign, longest reign, "has held title for 120 days", etc.) Feedback ^☎ 04:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly Tony Sorry I meant MPJ-DK. Feedback, Like Tony said you are acctually stating an opinion of your own, right now you are the only one to think that it fails all the guidelines you stated.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No I think what happened was that someone pointed out that it wasn't technically a List of WWE Champions as it had two lists. And then I think most people realised that article names don't have to be exactly everything on the page. I also think a lot of people are interested in combined reigns, just like they are individual reign length (which is seldom mentioned by WWE either, unless someone passes a milestone of a year) whereas as you point out average title reign has very little interest. I'll be honest, I can't articulate an exact reason why I think it should be included, it's just so intrinsic to the title reigns data. Tony2Times (talk) 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again - it's not original research because you' say it is. Adding numbers together is not research. And If you would please stop with this "Oh the WWE this, the WWE that". They do not set the standard for wrestling articles on Wikipedia. If the lenth of a title reign is not "notable" then why do they list the dates they changed hands? Next you'll claim that any title that the WWE doesn't mention should be deleted and that the WWE was never, ever, no-siree-bob called the WWF.  MPJ -DK  22:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're being absurd. I never said title length wasn't notable, on the contrary, I said it was notable because they mention the dates. What ISN'T notable is the "sum of all reign lengths together". Establishing notability for such trivial details such as those is a perfect example of OR. And as for the dead titles and old name, WWE did use them and did acknowledge them whereas they never have used or acknowledged "the sum of a wrestler's title reigns." Feedback ^☎ 05:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think it's absurd to not see the logic of "one" being notable, but "all" are not - is all not a sum of ones? ergo, "all" is a bunch of notables. And I cannot take your arguments citing how the WWE do stuff seriously, they're not representative of all wrestling.  MPJ -DK  16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about WWE's championship list articles. ROH and others have different formats to their lists; for example, ROH includes "title defenses", something which is notable to them, but not notable to WWE. I don't think "Combined length" is notable to ROH either nor is it to any other wrestling promotion, however I am 100% sure it is not notable at all to WWE's. If you can find a reliable reference on such trivial a statistic then I imagine it can be considered notable. And the argument about the sum of a lot of notable numbers together makes a new notable number is just laughable. Feedback ^☎ 20:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You started out by stating "the championship lists, not the WWE specific ones, it's was a general thing - it's also a general format for ALL professional wrestling articles and should not be differentiated because you cannot remember a recent incident where the WWE has promoted "combined reigns". As I stated early on - no such consensus was reached. Either be quiet or actually start a discussion on changing the general format for championships. I can't argue logically with someone who is incabable of logic, I will thus stop this exercise in futility, I could spend my time more wisely trying to teach a cat to paint like Picasso.  MPJ -DK  20:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is incapable of logic its you. You say I "cannot remember a recent incident where the WWE has promoted "combined reigns"", then fine, prove me wrong by reminding me. I'm sure that all doubt will be cleared when you provide a SOURCE. Unsourced material are challenged as OR until a source can be provided. So go on, provide one reliable source and the argument is concluded. Your lack of doing so is just a reflection of your pig-headedness and a glaring example of your determination to either misunderstand or to remain unreasonable (WP:HEAR). Feedback ^☎ 21:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep -- in addition to adding informative information to the reigns, it adds to the leads of the featured lists. For example, you are able to tell who was the longest champion(s) and the one who had the most reigns. This is how some wrestlers are recognized in the world of professional wrestling, even if they had like one title reign, it could have been the longest in history. For example, when JBL won the title and held it for the longest in the history of the SmackDown brand at the time, he was recognized for it, although he had a reign that was not #1, it was in the top ten but was the most recent longest reign in history. You can verify that how? Not through most sources, but through automated information that we can calculate and sort ourselves with such sections.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to have misunderstood what this thread is about. I am requesting to remove the "Combined Reigns", not each "reign length". The length in days should stay, I just want to remove the second table. Feedback ^☎ 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oh in that case, I agree it should be removed then. It doesn't really add to the list IMO. The only thing it adds is the combined length of reigns, even though we don't acknowledge it in the leads of the articles for title reigns.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's funny beause it's acknowledged in all the championship FL's I've put through.  MPJ -DK  05:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - The encyclopedia wouldn't benefit in any way by removing them. Calling this original research is not in keeping with the spirit or intention of the policy. As for cruft arguments, they're tossed around so much on Wikipedia that they have become completely meaningless (the equivalent of IDONTLIKEIT). The information enhances the article, so it should stay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

About the triple crown

Hi. My quuestion is about the Triple Crownand the Grand Slam. My question is, when WWE completely ignored a period with the company. For example, Nik Nemeth. Imagine that he wins the WWE Championshop and the IC. Will he be a Triple Crown? I said this because WWE doesn't say that the won the WOrld Tag Team championship as part of Spirit Squad. Another wrestler is Ron Killings. If he wins the WWE Championship, WWE Tag Team Championship and the IC championship, will he be a grand slam champion? because WWE doesn't say that he won the hardcore championship as K-Kwiki--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:FORUM. Still, I'll answer you. We'll never know for sure, but WWE does count Kane's "Yankem" persona's Rumble appearance in his Rumble statistics mentioned Helms was a multiple-time Cruiserweight champion although he held the title under completely different personas. For the sake of Wikipedia, even if WWE doesn't consider the person a Triple Crown, we would still do so in our Triple Crown Championship article. Probably with a footnote that states WWE doesn't acknowledge it for whatever reasons. Feedback ^☎ 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, I think the "No future reigns possible" should be reworded. It implies that it is impossible for the guy to rejoin with WWE or come out of retirement. Kris (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Should "The Nexus (Professional wrestling)" be moved to "The Nexus (professional wrestling"

I think that it should be. I've tried to move it but it wouldn't let me move it. --Dragonslayer619 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. If you look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#General, you'll see under criterion G6 that, if it is just a redirect, anyone can request the target page to be speedily deleted. Just type {{db-move|Current title of the page you want moved|Brief explanation of your reason}}. I requested the deletion/move, so it should be done soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the parenthesis, Dragon? And Gary, why would you agree? Was that sarcastic? I didn't notice... Feedback ^☎ 03:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The section header contains a typo. The change that Dragonslayer619 was discussing was whether the "p" in "profesional wrestling" should be uppercase or lowercase. It's currently (and incorrectly) uppercase, so it should be moved. Based on the section header, of course, you are right in questioning why anyone would possibly want to remove the final parenthesis. I would have been baffled as well, but I saw someone ask the same question (about the P/p situation) a few days ago. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Manny Fernandez

Just wanted to point out, to any ambitious editors out there. Manny Fernandez (wrestler)'s article is in terrible shape. It has numerous typos, discussions and questions IN the article and very few sources. Kris (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up a bit. Nikki♥311 03:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cliff Compton

I see that the Cliff Compton's In wrestling section hasn't references in the moves. OWOW says that Cliff has two techniques, the Domino Effect / Cliffhanger and the Domino Driver. But this page doesn't say what move is the Domino Effect, or what move is the Domino Driver. How do you know that the Domino Effect is a springboard tornado DDT? The fisherman buster hasn't references neither. Please, this section should be improved. --84.79.153.47 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's the beauty of Wikipedia, anyone can fix it, including yourself.  MPJ -DK  05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that is true. But this doesn't resolves the problem of Cliff Compton. If the article is a candidate for good article we should resolve the problem of the In wrestling section, do not you think? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, the beauty of Wikipedia is that you can fix it yourself. Feedback ^☎ 23:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
      • What the hell you mean? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I think they're saying that, if you want it fixed, you should fix it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/July 2010‎

Just a quick reminder that this backlog elimination drive lasts all month. Anyone with good proofreading skills is welcome to help. If you don't want to get involved in the drive but have some time to copyedit wrestling articles, it would be great if anyone has a chance to look at Rebecca Hickenbottom, Dustin Lee, and/or Tennessee Xtreme Wrestling. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help making Elimination Chamber (not the ppv) a good article

This is what came out of the Elimination Chamber being nominated for Good Article status: Failed, #1 reason, NO LEAD Section. This is the lead section on the Elimination Chamber: The Elimination Chamber is a match type in professional wrestling, specifically seen in World Wrestling Entertainment. This is probably why it failed its Featured Article Candidate nomination. The most detailed sections were the tables listing the Elimination Chamber matches and their participants. I can do some work on some of the article but I don't think I can change the whole thing without totally going overboard.--Nascarking (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, all the sources are primary, so that'll need to be fixed. Nikki♥311 00:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The best place to start would be reading the Good Article Criteria (and, since you currently have WrestleMania (1985) nominated at Featured Article Candidates, the Featured Article Criteria as well). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with what GaryColemanFan said. I'll help. Also, what's wrong with listing only primary sources?Simon^KSK 00:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY. Nikki♥311 00:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Grrr....As the primary contributor to WrestleMania (1985), I would have really appreciated a notice before nomination. It is always best to notify the primary contributors that you want to nominate an article because they'll be able to tell you if it is ready or not, and what is left to be done. Nikki♥311 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

One more thing...you should probably withdraw the nomination of WrestleMania from WP:GAN. There are citation needed tags all of the place and most of the text is unsourced. I suggest slowly becoming involved with writing and nominating articles so you can learn the process. Nikki♥311 00:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're misreading WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. I don't see where this article ever violated that. Feedback ^☎ 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant this part: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully." Secondary and third party sources are clearly preferable. We've had GAs, FAs, and FLs failed before for the same reason. Primary sources are okay, but not when it's 90% of the sources in an article. Nikki♥311 17:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think its been sourced very carefully. Nothing controversial, opinionated or so on has been referenced by the primary sources. Its a simple article with a simple topic that has good sources regardless their status of primary or secondary. I don't see anywhere where it says an article can't be run on 100% of the article. You haven't cited anything that says otherwise although I agree 2ndary sources wouldn't "hurt". But to say that the primary sourcing "needs to be fixed", thats just not right. Feedback ^☎ 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." That is exactly the opposite of an article being based on primary sources. Nikki♥311 02:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's out-of-context. You're excluding the attached sentence that says "though primary sources are permitted if used carefully". I have to although agree that WP:SECONDARY doesn't specify a minimum or maximum amount of primary sourcing allowed in an article. But it does say they are permitted if used carefully. Therefore, I must induce that there is no limit to how much primary sourcing you can use, if used carefully. Feedback ^☎ 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In most cases, primary sources are only acceptable for the majority of the article if the topic is not widely covered in the abundant sources. Take Japanense Championships like the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship or the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship. Mostly primary, but for good reason, yet still third party sources that were avaliable. There should be plenty of third party articles avaliable for it. PPV reviews should help certainly. A reception section would vastly help the article. Commentary on the creation, concept, etc as well. IMO that article has a long way to go.--WillC 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"Colón"

Just like to know what you guys think about this. Orlando Colón was give the ring name "Tito Colón" a few months ago, but due to someone's lousy Spanish grammar the name has been misspelled as "Tito Colon". An anon has been removing the accent mark for a few weeks. I reverted the issue as vandalism, so did Majorclanger before me, eventually protecting the page from anon edits since the anon kept showing signs of ownership over the page despite being undone by multiple users. However, now MPJ-DK is also removing them citing that "they billed him as Colon". I don't mind misspelling "Epico", but Colón is his last name, it is prononced "co-LON" not "colon". The only precedent here is The Colóns, which WWE never spelled poperly either, but Wikipedia does based on the actual spelling of the last name. In any case, we should have some consistency on the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm from Spain and, in Spain, it is Colón. I think that we must put the original name with the original grammar, like Shawn Hernández, Melina Pérez... but, if the WWE or another company, write the name without accent, we can do nothing. Is like Eugene, he can't use the name Eugene, but can use the name of Ugene.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What matters on W~ikipedia are facts, not how you believe it should be but how the WWE billed him - they billed him as "Colon" and "Epico", that's what he was or is billed as. So he could be known as Z-9KY@@$ in the WWE and that's how it should be listed. The WWE seems to think that "Colon" is the proper spelling when promoting him, I'm not changing any ring name used outside the WWE - just the ones the WWE have come up with and the way the WWE spells it.  MPJ -DK  21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with MPJ-DK here. Regardless of people's Spanish grammar, this is English grammar we're talking about and accents are unneeded. I don't see "Christopher Colombus" being under Christophorus Columbus. Names change across languages. I'm Alessandro, Alejandro and Alexander in the three languages I speak. We have to just live with it. Feedback ^☎ 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Not sure who has noticed, but I've been missing for the pasted few weeks. Well I plan to return to editing, hopefully finishing off the TNA articles I was working on. Now the reason I've posted this is I thought to ask if in the last month or so if any major changes have occurred? Also, if anyone needs any help on an article: a review, copyedit, etc?--WillC 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't notice at all. Feedback ^☎ 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, has there been any changes?--WillC 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing major really, although I don't know since when you were gone. If anything happened, its in the archives. Skim through the archives and see if you find a really long section. Whatever major is probably there. Feedback ^☎ 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking a few days ago that I hadn't seen you in a while. Can't remember any notable changes that have gone down in the meantime, though. Tony2Times (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd expect either people to wonder where I was because I'm annoying and a bit dickish on here or just not care. Not important anyway, just wanted to make sure nothing big has happened recently.--WillC 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

wwe

On the above page it says that Los Aviadores are the current fcw florida tag team champion and that they are the former champions. Can someone who now how to change it so it says that Los Aviadores are the former champions and that Kaval and Michael McGillicutty are the current champions and that they won it on july 15,2010.Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they lost it back to Los Aviadores the next night. Simon^KSK 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And to further your info, Simon, FCW will not count Kaval and Michael's title reign.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the info, updated the title history. FCW "not counting" the title reign needs a source for inclusion in the articles.  MPJ -DK  01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why won't they count it? Someone didn't sign their post

Look it up, mate. !! Justa Punk !! 10:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

erm it's the responsibility of the guy making a statement to actually prove it.  MPJ -DK  13:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Results of TV Shows

Hello. Hi. Excuse me, I don't really know which user is running this Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling or is the administrator of this project. But anyway, if someone can help me then reply me on my talk page. I have come up with a better idea to contribute to the professional wrestling articles on Wikipedia. I think that I should create articles, containing results of television shows of World Wrestling Entertainment, World Championship Wrestling, Extreme Championship Wrestling and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.--Richard "Wrestler" Lopez (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That has been discussed and declined for various reasons. Mainly that its hard to source and that the subject matter is trivial at best. "Cruft" if you will. Anyway, its obvious due to your introduction that you are new and don't know how Wikipedia works so on behalf of most of us, welcome. There are many pages you should read before creating articles. WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NPOV, WP:CBALL, WP:MOS, WP:TRIVIA, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:MOVE, WP:R2D, WP:WEASEL, WP:CRUFT, WP:LIST, WP:IMAGE, WP:FU, IDK, there are a lot more. Happy Reading! Feedback ^☎ 19:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not bite the newbie guys. First of all it's never been "declined", in fact last time it was brought up (by me) it was agreed that if it could be sourced from reliable sources and everything then there is nothing keeping articles from being created, in fact I created and continue to create articles such as CMLL Super Viernes (June 2010), List of CMLL Super Viernes shows in 2010 . If someone can find actual reliable sources then I don't see the problem with creating similar articles for WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA.  MPJ -DK  22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I didn't bite him, I was serious. Feedback ^☎ 04:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not intentionally, I'm sure, but think about how you would feel if you offered to help with something and someone told you that you needed to read at least 15 pages of policies and guidelines before you can even start (not to mention that some of the pages are unimportant for regular editing, such as R2D and MOVE). Personally, I'd say that Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset#Writing high-quality articles may be a good thing to read before you get going. Essentially, include reliable sources for what you add. The rest will come, and you will become familiar with the policies and guidelines as time goes on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right... I guess reading a lot of policies before editing sounds boring. But still, if everyone was required to take courses in each policy, we probably wouldn't have many good-faith-editing problems. Feedback ^☎ 20:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Survivor Series

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but WWE appear to have reversed their decision and the Survivor Series IS taking place in 2010 in November. It's listed on the official website. Some well meaning fans may not know about this and might try to revert such edits in good faith, so if anyone's got it on their watch list it might be worth keeping an eye on. !! Justa Punk !! 10:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reassessment

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jack Swagger has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarking (talk • contribs)

Why is this being posted here? Post it on the main contributor's page.--WillC 02:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Move WWE Hell in a Cell to Hell in a Cell (2009)

I think it's time to move the page since Hell in a Cell (2010) is coming up soon and then change the page to the list of events like usually.--Curtis23's Usalions 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no real hurry at the moment since 2010 shouldn't be up for another couple of weeks (in comparison, Night of Champions 2010 has only just been started a few days ago). -- Θak5ter  07:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Go do it Curtis. "There's no real hurry", but the move isn't unproductive. You can do it already. Feedback ^☎ 21:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would this move mean starting up a parent article where WWE Hell in a Cell was? If it does then, I'll agree to it as long as we set a timescale as to how long before we can move the others (Bragging Rights, TLC, etc.). My main concern is mostly seeing an event like TLC in December moved say next week when WWE's pay-per-view schedule has in the past 14 months been let's say, unstable. The nearer the time, the safer it would be to see if a move is necessary. -- Θak5ter  06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the big deal about its "instability". Right now, TLC is a future event that is set to happen and we can get sources for that from various first-parties and third-parties. If TLC is then cancelled and we have a source for that, we remove the page. Its not a big deal. The beauty of Wikipedia is that everything is changeable. Feedback ^☎ 18:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering all we have is the date and venue, starting parent articles now so early would also pretty much be content forking and the idea of starting so early and removing if cancelled also sounds more of a waste of time if you ask me. All I'm suggesting is that when the 2010 article is started, say the two months from the event date like we usually do now, then we move the 2009 articles and start a parent article along with it. -- Θak5ter  19:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it a timewaster if someone is asking to do it? Feedback ^☎ 21:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Road to WrestleMania

It should create an article called "Road to WrestleMania", giving information about this story mode that has been watching from WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009, bringing who the "Road to WrestleMania", which game has been and what has been the argument of each story. I think so.

Thanks for your time. --Ponce (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say at most it could be a section in the game article, it does not deserve a whole seperate article.  MPJ -DK  06:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Kaneafterbeingunmasked.jpg

File:Kaneafterbeingunmasked.jpg So as I was editing Kane's article to reword his recent weeks, I noticed this image in his 2003 section. Aside from a poorly written Fair-Use template, this looks a lot like a screenshot or a WWE.com photo. This is just my view as I know that even cameras back then couldn't blur out the audience like that, the only time I see that happen is when WWE touches them up. Any thoughts? (plus the website where its from isn't as reliable as one could ever think)--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed a WWE.com photo, back in the days when they posted television screencaps instead of the photos we get nowadays. The Internet Archive's a bit slow today but here is an archive of the original link. -- Θak5ter  18:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though it has the "Screenshot fair use template", is it still valid enough to be a file here on Wikipedia?--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If the image talks about that exact moment Kane unmasked himself (which I believe it does), it might go under #1 of WP:FU, no free equivalent. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" Considering that he changed his look directly after that one night, it will be very hard these days to find a free-use alternative. -- Θak5ter  20:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess in this case, its good to go. It would fall under the same rationale as the Montreal Screwjob image.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 18:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are wrestling blogs notable enough for articles?

That. Feedback ^☎ 15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What type exactly? First reaction is "hell no!" honestly though.--WillC 16:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's the wrestler's real personal blogs, then yes. If it's other kinds of wrestling blogs, then no.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Both I guess. I was just looking at WP:BLOG's articles and then wondered "hey, why don't we have any wrestling blogs and podcasts under our scope?" There are a lot out there that have lots of viewers/readers, why can't they have articles? Feedback ^☎ 16:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, are you asking if blogs are sufficiently notable for articles to be written about them? If so, I suggest using the usual notability test. Are they discussed in other reliable sources? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Booker T. prison section

Okay. I've been in sort of a reverting war with user 71.176.59.101 about adding one sentence in the early life section about his prison time.I think it's not needed and that the prison section could be added to the early life section instead of having its own section down the page.What does everyone else think?(MgTurtle (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC))

• IMO It would fit into the "early life" section as it's chronologically the place it took place and where I would put it and then no need to repeat it later on.  MPJ -DK  10:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hard Justice problem

Hard Justice has recently been moved to Hardcore Justice twice due to the fact the 2010 event has been renamed this for one night only. I just want to get an opinion from the members on what should happen. Move or not to move, that is the question. 5 Hard Justice events to 1 special Hardcore Justice event.--WillC 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be called "Hard(CORE) Justice (2010)"--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging on what I recently did with The Bash, Hard Justice should remain where it is and the 2010 event should instead be moved to Hardcore Justice as there is simply no disambiguation for the name "Hardcore Justice", it's a one-off event. -- Θak5ter  20:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking should happen. The main article stay at Hard Justice, and the 2010 event be moved to Hardcore Justice.--WillC 20:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ditto to Oakster. Tony2Times (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

TNA clearly has stated "One Night Only". Seems an obvious decision to me.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 22:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

They said something about it on impact didn't they about it being one night only. Although they might not have been specific, I bet this is what they're talking about. I agree with Oakster. WWEFan225 (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Would still mean that we have a consensus?--WillC 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a consensus. Tony2Times (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

Today, My question is about the nicknames in the infobox. Have we to put them in the infobox or not? I say this because I have seen that you h¡removed the Dashing of Cody's infobox, but it stills in the infoboxes of Ted DiBiase (The Million Dollar Man) and Steve Austin (Stone Cold/Stunning/Superstar) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The Straight Edge Society

Well someone create this article today, is it notable to warrant its article? In its current state, I say redirect.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I say redirect for the time being. But to where, Punk or Gallows or Serena or Mercury?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the SES is notable enough. Its discussed in third-party sources, has been active for a long time, and has constant exposure on television. However, the "the" in the article name is unnecessary. "Straight Edge Society" is a much better title. Sure the article needs clean-up, but fuck, if the community agreed on keeping The Nexus article then we surely should keep this one. Feedback ^☎ 18:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agreed both on recreating it and moving it to Straight Edge Society. -- Θak5ter  20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it got deleted. I guess somebody might restart it and do it correctly.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Or we could ask the admin who deleted it about possibly overturning the AfD for the article. Simply restarting the article doesn't seem to the whole solution to this. -- Θak5ter  08:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Jayjg has userfied the page and it's now at User:Oakster/The Straight Edge Society. All that's required now to move back into article space is sourcing. Feel free to help me clean this article up. -- Θak5ter  18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:THE, "The" should be in the article's title.--WillC 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Per WP:THE, it shouldn't have it. See Odds or Pixies. Feedback ^☎ 02:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WWE refers to the group with the in the title, so that's how the article should be. Also, there is no need to swear over a disagreement. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No they don't. Here's some proof. Its not the only proof, there are many references on the website that excludes the "the". Like I said, just like Pixies or Odds (band). And this isn't a PG-website. Swearing is allowed, unless its in an attack. Feedback ^☎ 03:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

See Punk's current WWE profile where they are called "the Straight Edge Society". It is interchangable. Almost always they are referred to as "The Straight Edge Society" on broadcasts. Per THE, it should be included in the title.--WillC 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:THE before referencing it. Conversely, some bands — such as Eurythmics, Pixies and Odds — do not in fact have the in their names, even though they may sometimes be referred to as The (Name) in everyday speech. In all cases, default to the form of the name that is actually used by the band themselves, and use "(band)" to disambiguate if necessary.

And the bio you referenced has the "the" in lowercase which means its being used strictly as an article and not as part of the Proper name. Read Proper name if you have issues with grammar too. Feedback ^☎ 03:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what's more important than this? Everything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Question, is the page ready to go up now?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let Oakster decide that. Feedback ^☎ 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It really needs sourcing to return. I'll try to get it done this weekend but any help would be nice. -- Θak5ter  20:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been fully sourced and restored. Hopefully Straight Edge Society will be unsalted and redirected in due time. -- Θak5ter  12:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Over-explanation of holds and moves

I don't know if this has really been discussed here, but do we really need to describe moves in the overly complicated way we see them in PPV pages? The Survivor Series 2007 page is particularly bad. For example, "Jeff Hardy pinned and eliminated him after pulling his head over his shoulders down to the mat to perform a 'Twist of Fate'." Why can't we just say "Jeff Hardy gave him a Twist of Fate and pinned him, eliminating him." We can simply link to the page for Twist of Fate/cutter/etc. We don't see other sports/tv shows/movies/etc. overly describing things like this. You can go to the page for ice skater Kristi Yamaguchi, and it won't say "She performed a triple axle, a maneuver that consists of skating forward, using momentum to turn around and jump in the air, spinning three times before landing."

These overly complicated descriptions just clutter up the pages and cause these things to be more difficult to read than normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.248.206 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree but a lot of others don't. Feedback ^☎ 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. No we do not have to use long explanations. We just have to state the main point. That article was expanded a long time ago. See Turning Point (2008) for an updated look. It is the most recent PPV to pass GA.--WillC 06:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remnants from this projects "overcompensating" period and could do with a little clean up - yes it' a GA but then again so is Ricky Banderas and that is the most ridiculously overelaborate, poorly worded, overcompensating wrestling article I've seen.  MPJ -US  16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Takuya Sugi

Can someone add references in the in wrestling section of Takuya Sugi? The names had not references. --84.79.153.47 (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The article is not protected, so anyone, including an IP editor, is able to add sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree Gary he certainly can.  MPJ -US  17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Takuya hadn't OWOW Profile, and Cagematch is short. Where I can find sources? --84.79.153.47 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)