(I'm wf104se) The guy went to a SD!/ECWWE show in france and got some good pics. as you can see, he gave me permission in post 6 to upload these here. Any of these we can use? PXKT/C13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to work on this list to nominate it for FLC, but I encountered a problem with the title's history. The title originally was introduced to Universal Wrestling Association, but these reigns are not officially under the WWF banner. My proposal was to take those reigns out of the table and have an external link redirect them to a list that has reigns under the UWA because their are no reliable sources, or many as a matter of fact, that list reigns under the UWA. Or does someone own the Wrestling Title Histories book and can tell me if the WWF lightweight title history is included.--SRX23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Validity
How trustworthy is cagematch.net as a resource? It's all in German but searching on it is pretty easy as it's all drop down boxes so you can guess most of the parameters. I've been using it to help find early information on indie wrestlers and then crossreferenced where I can to the actual promotions' information but out of curiosity of its records I just searched Mick Foley and it had matches going back to 1986 on WWF Superstars so if it is trustworthy then it could help with historical pages, and if not it might at least give people an idea where else to search. Tony2Times (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about non-playable character lists for wrestling games
Tonight is TNA Turning Point. There is going to be alot of ips edits. Alot of edit warring too because of it. I want everyone to watch this page because I don't want what happened at Victory Road earlier this year with a hundred ips and two or three users watching the article. Everyone please keep an eye on it.--WillC23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to make OTE 99 a FA, but since there aren't that many reliable sources to cite the results or episodes of Raw, I am requesting comments/help on this issue. Does anybody have a mag, newsletter, or book outlining the event itself?--SRX23:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I know Mick Foley's Foley is Good book has a chapter about Owen Hart's accident, and I'm sure one of Bret Hart's DVDs or books would have a good deal of info on it. If you don't have a copy of Foley is Good I'd be more than happy to contribute that source. As for the event itself, that'd be hard to track down. Maybe an old DVD or VHS tape off of Amazon or Ebay? Amazon has a used VHS tape, but it's like 35 bucks. Ebay might have a deal. Cheers, DoomsDay00:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you try a wayback machine website like archive.org? I don't know if WWF had a website back then but if they did they'd probably put something up. PXKT/C12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
McNaught who currently plays the character Lance Cade, is he related to the McMahons? Because reading football history (Soccer) It appears that McNaught's are cousins to McMahon's in the 1901 period. So I wanted to put this question to the wrestling project, just on a hunch-theory. Govvy (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone run a bot to clean up this category?
For whatever reason, this: Category:World Wrestling Council is populated with many people that have just wrestled for the company. Wrestlers don't belong in the category. The only articles that belong in the category are the main WWC article, titles and so on. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Question?
Do MMA article's fall under the category of wrestler's? If so, we need to work on them. If not, and they probably don't, what project do they fall under? SteelersFan9405:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if there has been discussion about this or not, so please have patience with me, but is it necessary to add "USA" after the place of birth in the infobox for wrestlers? Reason I ask, User:Londo06 added "USA" on Randy Orton's infobox, but checking the template example out, it doesn't really specify that it should or should not be mentioned. Any thoughts? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone keep an eye on Jason Reso. Ips are adding in statements he is leaving TNA and there is no source. I've revert three times already and I'm trying to get it protected.--WillC03:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The same was said of Kevin Nash. He said he has not renewed, however, that was a lie. I have not seen any website say he has renewed or hasn't. PWInsider is the only thing I've heard that has said anything.--WillC04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I have listed OTE'99 for Peer Review, link found here, because I want it to reach FA status due to it being an older PPV and due to the nature that resolves around it, comments would be appreciated.--SRX19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Lockdown (2008)
Hello everyone, yeah Image:Lockdown2008.jpg needs to be lowered in resolution. I've tried but with no success to get it under the mark that it falls under for Non-free. Can someone who knows what to do, get it under the correct resolution?--WillC21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Try reuploading one from a different source that has one that is smaller, try looking at the wayback machine for TNA.com to see if they have one, or google images.--SRX22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just completely amazed at this wikiproject. Every article i've seen is good, even the stubs. you guys put time into your articles (unlike some other wikiprojects)..
Thank you so much Spook! That means a lot, especially for the subject of our articles, thanks so much, and I know I speak for everyone when I say that :)--SRX23:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
As I was re-writing OTE'99, I thought about how in the event section the last subsection is called "Main event matches" and thought that those are really the "title matches or the last match(es)." Then I thought how it didn't add up with the preceding subsection title, "Preliminary matches." Preliminary means preceding events before the main parts. So if that is so, how about renaming it to one of the following..
Main matches (same thing really, but without the "event"
Featured matches (since this is tended to be used a lot to describe the main matches)
_____ matches (Fill in the blank for your own input, if you oppose the 2 I gave)
Thing is, featured sounds controversial since all matches are technically "featured." While Main matches is the definition way to go.--SRX02:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not PWInsider is reliable source, until he does in fact leave TNA, it shouldn't be posted. Nenog (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PWTorch is, the last time I looked PWInsider is under questionable or dirtsheet. Anyway if it is true his contract isn't up until December. Either he has to come out and say he is leaving TNA for WWE or TNA must release a press release that says Cage has been released from the company. Everything else is speculation and rumors.--WillC08:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't PWI PWTorch? Because I get the Wade Keller podcasts and He's with PWI and it's reliable. Besides PWI has a magazine. Doesn't that count for something? SteelersFan9418:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well them announcing it as a rumor isn't announcing that he is leaving. I doubt TNA would be dumb enough to advertise that Cage is leaving them for the WWE. That is an angle to take him out of the storyline incase he does leave. There are two PWIs, PW Insider and PW Illustratrated. The later I believe is reliable.--WillC21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PW Torch is the only reliable source for this type of information because it is the only site that does not report rumors. Even though Keller may contribute to PWI, the site itself is not reliable, so his content isn't either, only on PWT.SRX21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Way to confuse everyone again. First, there's a difference between PWInsider and perhaps the more well known PWI, Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Second, the Torch has plently of rumors and speculation. Everything they say, like all wrestling reporting sites, and hell like any reporter, is not the gossipal. Listen folks, these reporters are no different than a John Clayton of ESPN or a Ken Rosenthal and Jay Glazer of FOX Sports. They have their sources, but everything they say should only be listed as "[report] of [website] reports", and not be considered fact. I don't know if there are any projects for the major sports, but we should inquire with them regarding how they handle insider reports. Mshake3 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Show me a rumor or speculative announcement made by PWT, because I surely can't find any reported by PWT.SRX23:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's because the only thing we site that website for are TV results, which you can get from a million places. That's what "PW Torch" brings up in a search. How about you show me something from the Torch that you wouldn't accept if another website said the same thing? Mshake3 (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If another site says something as well as PWT, then PWT is verifying it because of it's reliability, I don't know why this is even a problem. The site was found reliable by the Reliable source verifier, User:Ealdgyth.--SRX23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think she said "marginally reliable". In other words, it is okay for things like results, but not for anything that could possibly by controversial. Nikki31123:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Randy entries like these don't require consensus, just common sense because he is better known obviously by that name. Be bold and move it yourself or ask an admin to move it per WP:UCN. :)--SRX21:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
If Hart won it twice and there's been 18 tournaments, surely there's been 17 KoTR winners? Is there even a point to this list? It seems like list for list's sake. There's not one for Royal Rumble winners and I don't suggest there should be. I think it might be more efficient to rejig the KoTR page and decide whether it should list PPVs or the tournaments, rather than both (specificially referring to the years when the tournament did not centre around the PPV). Tony2Times (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The Royal Rumble has one, except that it is embedded into the article itself. The point is to list them because the main KOR article is divided between results and PPV events.--SRX19:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
That was what I was inferring. The RR one has a list in the main article. If KoTR has one, it should be in the main article too. Maybe some stubs should be done for the PPVs so that the main page can be cleared up and all that remains on it is the concept of the tournament, the list of winners and the tournament brackets from each year. Tony2Times (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
So what? many lists have information, especially background information from the main article, I see no difference here.--SRX21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The only "new" information is the table - that's in the main article but a smaller version. Why not just have the table in the main article - it's not like the main article is over-flowing in size, is it? D.M.N. (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with DMN, the Rumble list could easily be merged. The KOTR list I'm split on, but I wouldn't mind seeing it merged either. And before you bring up the championship histories having pages, I wouldn't mind merging them but a large part of the reason I haven't is because of those annoying reign length lists. -- Scorpion042222:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
@ Matthew: Shouldn't the year in the table link to the event? IE - [[Royal Rumble (2008)|2008]]. And I think you should mention what promotion held the event. Other than that, it looks pretty good. RandySavageFTW (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Definitely main article. And with the Rumble winner one, once it's on the main page there's no need for dates and venues as it's already there. Is runner-up noteable? It's barely mentioned on programming afterwards as far as I remember, there's more interest in who is #1, #2, #30 and the so called Iron Man. Tony2Times (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
IDK, I think an RFC should be opened on this matter, because many FL's are passed every week similar to this.--SRX23:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
No you didn't. Also, what does one list really have to do with the other. I've been trying to come up with ways to add any type of information to add that could help the article. iMatthew11:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I did but it got a DYK, however, Scorpion0422 told me that both articles is exact replicas of the main articles.--TRUCO11:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
New class
What does everyone think of adding the A-Class to the project? I kind of like the idea but I don't really care if we add it or not. I just thought to throw this idea out there and get peoples opinions.--WillC22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well there are some A-Class articles out there, but we need people who are willing to review an article for A-Class inside the project and outside of it. I somewhat agree, not to keen about it though because I think with work, articles can make FA.--SRX22:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...we would need a peer review process with unbiased people. I think it would be too big an undertaking right now, and our focus should be improving the stub and start class articles, not articles that are already classified as "good". Nikki31116:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I've always been a supported of A-Class. I happen to think that setting it up would be a great idea. And two users (myself and SRX) aren't as active with the project as we used to be. Infact, we both have been working at WP:FLC for a while (SRX longer than myself) ;) but I think if the project has an A-class system, myself and SRX may be good candidates to review the articles. What do you guys think? By the way, this wouldn't take away from expanding stubs and starts - it's just a small nomination process to tell which articles are closer to Featured status than others. iMatthew20:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well before we even decide to add this new class or not, we need to tell more users about this discussion. Seeing everytime something new is added everyone gets pissed about not knowing. Though I don't see any negatives from adding this class, people could still get upset.--WillC21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with what Matt said, I've lured myself more towards FLC, but I wouldn't mind reviewing an article for A-Class, but then again we need more users to agree on this matter, but I'm always up for a challenge.--SRX23:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
How about we post a link about this discussion in the newsletter or something to get more people involved. I would like to keep this discussion going.--WillC23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to really notice, there is not many people left in this project. We have alot of discussions that just die, like this one. I'm for the class, is there any objections?--WillC05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah these days this project is going on empty and dead like the WWE ;). Maybe it's time to leave WP:PW as a historical page?--TRUCO01:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
lol, I like the WWE joke, hopefully TNA with their vets/young blood storyline will make WWE better somehow. Anyway back on subject. I'll make the tombstone: Here lies the remains of Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, if you listen closely you can still hear the IPs bitching about the Out of Universe writing.--WillC01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well if there is at least one person working on the WWE stuff and one working on the TNA stuff, the project will at least be doing something. Moving forward is very unlikely right now. Though I'm determined to expand all of TNA's ppvs and taking Samoa Joe and A.J. Styles to GA and then FA one day. So it will move forward on the TNA side. Not sure about the WWE side. Plus if ROH ever gets a TV deal, or I get a good job, I'll buy ROH DVDs and start expanding their ppvs as well.--WillC02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that this project is about dead. I'm not very active, and I focus mostly on reverting vandalism/copyediting, so I won't really be expanding to many articles:). @Wrestlinglover: If you can turn that tombstone into a template it would be AWESOME!!!. lol. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook13:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll get on that eventually. After I place in TNA's table roster into the page and ips and user accounts start having a shit it will be a good time. Then I'll change it to "bitching about the out of universe and the tables."--WillC22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
When you (and that is a generic "you" that refers to everyone) mention that a wrestler is better known, I'd like to see some examples as to why this is the case. Otherwise, since I (and maybe a lot of other people?) are not familiar with this wrestler (or any other that happens to come up), it will help move the discussion along. Nikki♥31104:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Five Star Matches
Quick suggestion: On bio pages, they should be broken out into a different category from the WON Awards. They're not an "award". They turn the WON Awards part of the bio into a "cluster", and just bury the actually WON Awards under a list of matches. Create a new bio category that's "WON Five Star Matches" that lists them on their own.
Toshiaki1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC).
Confusing, but no because WON is not as notable as a championship, it is fine where it is because it is an "accomplishment" thus the award in the Championships and accomplishments section.--TRUCO02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a matter of being "confusing". It's a mess. If you want to see what WON Awards a wrestlers has gotten, you have to scroll through a dozen 5* matches at times. I'm not suggesting pitching it overboard. Just have "WON Awards" and then "WON 5* Matches" below it. That Kobashi has a slew of 5* matches is a different beast from the readers awarding him a number of WON Wrestler of the Year Awards.Toshiaki1 (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not just list the awards at the top and the five star matches at the bottom, kind of like how titles are listed before tournaments? Nenog (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What matches Meltzer gives 5 stars are not notable and shouldn't be listed at all. You don't see what movies Siskel & Ebert/Ebert & Roper gave 2 thumbs up to (and that is a far more respected rating). That info is cruft at best and doesn't warrant mention. TJSpyke15:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Released superstar project?
I had an idea, considering out Collaboration is (and has been tagged) inactive, what about coming up with a new collaboration project? I had the idea of working on bio's of released WWE and TNA superstars, as their articles lighten up after the releases. Thoughts? iMatthew23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
How about we just not even start the discussion. Considering it will die by the end of today since there is a grand total of 10 editors in this project who will even check this page. If we start a new collaboration then it is going to die like the last one.--WillC23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
What's with all the pessimism? Just because not everybody checks this page, doesn't mean they aren't working on articles. Everybody has their niche, so work will get done. I'm working on the Divas, Will is working on TNA pay-per-views, a couple of people are working on WWE pay-per-views, some people occasionally expand stubs... If even one person wants to help iMatt with released superstars, then it is a benefit...if any of them are ever Divas, count me in. I'd also like to remind everyone that 10 active participants (and I do think that is an underestimate) is a lot more than most projects have. Nikki♥31103:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the New Class section. I'm supposed to be making a tombstone template. lol I agree the project will continue but expanding is another thing. I'm going to make all the TNA ppvs GAs and maybe then FAs. After I get done with all the 2008 TNA ppvs I'm going to get Samoa Joe to GA, since I voted for it in the collaboration because that was my plan. Then I'll get A.J. Styles. The project will continue on the TNA side I can grantee that. The ROH section will eventually get expanded as well. It is just there is more arguing than there is actual working anymore. I also agree there is more editors in this project than some. For example the Martial arts project. I don't think they have an extreme lot. The project just seems to be dieing because of the arguing.--WillC04:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, many of the people seem to have left this talk page because of the arguments. Many of them are now focused on other things (like expanding articles) instead of hovering on the talk page. I don't think that should be seen as a step back for the project. If anything, it just might be a huge step forward. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a step forward if we are expanding more articles, but it is also a step backwards because we aren't making any decisions on making the project better. Like my suggestion to add the A-Class. That could expand out horizon on taking articles to certain classes. But discussions like that die in less than a day. We are stuck unless people check this page.--WillC04:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
TNA Roster
I just placed my finished product of the TNA roster page in the article with an amazing amount of references I think are needed if I decide to take it to FLC. Though I still have more work to do on it in my subpage but I feel what is done will do for now. Everyone keep an eye on it to make sure no edit wars start. I removed alot of unsourced info and people are probably going to add it back in and remove the tables and pictures. I would really hate to get it fully protected.--WillC04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't spend a whole lot of time on the TNA roster page, but if it is even half as bad as the WWE one, it can never be a FL due to instability. I don't want to squash your dreams or anything, but it is best to be realistic. Nikki♥31118:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand the high activity but after a while it won't be edited that much. At one point it was edited probably no more than 5 or 10 times a week. Not until everyone gets along with the new format and there is no more edit wars on the article will I ever try to take it to FLC. Probably in February of next year.--WillC19:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
FAC questions
For those of you who seem to be more familiar with FACs now-a-days than me, what do you think of WrestleMania (1985) and SummerSlam (1988)? I wrote them both quite awhile ago. SummerSlam failed its first FAC, but that was before we started using the new format that has actually had some success at FAC. If anybody wants to give some suggestions (either here or on their respective talk pages), it would be greatly appreciated. Nikki♥31123:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
They have a chance, but I recommend a peer review first, because at a quick glance I see some wording problems and plus they are written in the out dated OOU format.--TRUCO00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SRX. Maybe following Lockdown 08 a little. Its recent copyedit has perfected the out of universe format a little bit in my mind.--WillC00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. {{Uw-create1}}-4, so just replace the 1 with the warning level (1-4). (Which is creating inappropriate pages, but you could also use {{uw-redirect1}} (same rules apply as the other one). Hope this helps.--TRUCO02:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I gave him a warning, so hopefully it will stop. As for the ones he has created, can they be speedily deleted, or do they have to be nominated at Redirects for Discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the TNA roster page, it seems different viewpoints have came up on correct organization. It is currently organized by last name or last letter/name in the ring name. Examples include Curry Man placed in the "m" section and booker t placed in the "t" section. I have no problem with Kevin Nash, Abyss, or AJ Styles being placed in their proper areas ("n", "a", "s") but if thats the case, it is bad organizational skills of having Curry Man in the "m" area, when he should be placed in "c". Same with Booker T being in the "b" section, as respectfully "man" and "t" are not their last names.
Im proposing a final vote that we organize by last name and ring names respectfully. Abyss, Booker T, Brother Ray, Brother Devon, Curry Man, etc.
I have it like that for consistency. Since it is organized by Styles then the second word of all ring names should be organized as such. It is organized mainly by second word and not by last name.--WillC05:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Is wrestlingtruth.com a reliable source? More specifically can it be used to say, per here that Brian Kendrick is a frequent Marijuana user? I have reverted the edit used to be safe, but I'd like some clarification. Btw this has been mentioned on other dirtsheets as well, so if people could keep an eye on the article for a few days just in case, that'd be great. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's not have any violence, please. :) I redirected it to Carlito, since he is probably the most notable of the team. Nikki♥31118:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If anybody who is familiar with the way PPV articles should be written now-a-days wants to help this article out (because I apparently have no clue), that would be great. Otherwise, I'm just going to get the reviewer to fail it. There is no point in it staying on hold at WP:GAN for forever, and I personally can't fix it. Nikki♥31101:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Not yet. The reviewer was going to wait until the OOU was fixed to do the review, but I don't know the particulars of the new format. The article has been on hold for almost a month. Nikki♥31101:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll fix it up to the best of my ability, and see if we can't get a review for it after that. I'll let the reviewer now when it's ready (should be soon). Cheers, DoomsDay02:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I talked to Save Us a few days ago and told him it was under review. I guess he just doesn't want to get online. IDK. If I had time I would work on the article but can't.--WillC02:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
First off I want to give props to Will for his awesome work on the TNA roster table. The amount of references is staggering. However it does pose a continuity issue. On the WWE table wrestlers that use their real name such as John Cena the name is listed twice where as on the TNA table wrestlers with their real name such as Kurt Angle is listed once with it spanning both columns. This should be universal between both tables. I like the TNA rosters way better and think someone should configure the WWE roster the same way. I would do it myself but the table formatting is too difficult for me to figure out. JakeDHS0706:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I worked on it for a while. Though I still need to find references for multiple more things. We also have to discuss if we should alphabetize by ring name or real name. That has become a problem on both article's talk pages.--WillC07:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for repeating what I said Matt :D. I propose if their real name is the same as their ring name, leave an emdash and then a footnote for those entries stating that they are the same as the ring name.--TRUCO13:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
What would be the point of that. It makes it look weird and is really pointless. I got the idea from you SRX. Remember, you said to have it span two rounds. It brings no point in having it say the ring name is the same as the real name when it could just span two rounds and do the same job and have a better look.--WillC01:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's because you left them blank, but since then I've seen other FL's and my proposal above seems to fit the tables better.--TRUCO02:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeff Hardy was just found unconscious in a hotel in Boston, apparently according to WWE.com
Please watch his article for vandalism, as well as Survivor Series (as he will most likely not be competing tonight). iMatthew14:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Jeff's article is semi'd, so I wouldn't expect too much vandalism on it. Plus, I added the info into the personal life section anyway. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've seen a lot from even semi protected articles, so it's still a good idea to keep watching it. ("Breaking News" turns a lot of heads) ;) iMatthew14:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll add this here as well, can we start organizing tables by real last name. It is more professional to go by it. In wrestling the superstars have names that vary. Some have full first and surnames (some with middle names too) while some only go by one word names. In most of websites on wrestling things are organized by the first letter of the first word in there name, but since this goes against policy since the superstars in wrestling are real people, we can't organize it like that. Instead let's go by real last name. This would make things easier. Would sports rosters be organized by nicknames, no, which is what ringnames pretty much are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.69.191 (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Certainly it brings up the point though that for the real name column, when made sortable it'd be better to be listed by surname rather than forename. Tony2Times (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
In what order do we list the WWE brands?
In PPV articles, in what order should the brands be listed in the prose? Alphabetically? By importance, by the day of the week the show is shown on?
In the lead or in the background of pro wrestling prose. The event featured wrestlers from the ECW, Raw, and SmackDown brands - etc.--TRUCO22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We have always done it Raw, SmackDown, and ECW (which is also the order WWE would do it. They would say "Raw, SmackDown, and ECW presents (PPV name)". I think that sound best and should stay that way. TJSpyke16:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I redirected it. A paragraph is each member's article is enough. Not every stable or tag team needs an article...otherwise we'd have 10,000. Since the members' articles are short, I see no point in employing WP:SUMMARY and making a new article. Maybe in the future when their pages are long and we need to split sections into separate articles...we can. Plus, show me an independent reference that refers to the three of them...that isn't just results? IMO, teams and stables should be limited to the really important ones like D-Generation X or New World Order (professional wrestling) that actually impacted wrestling. These are just three kids who recently entered the WWE. Not notable, whether they held the tag title or not. Nikki♥31103:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Real names in articles
I will not try and get real names removed from PPV articles (although I think they should be removed), but I do have a suggestion to make. Instead of listing the wrestlers ring name and then having their real name linked (i.e. The Undertaker (Mark Callaway), I think it should be the other way (i.e. The Undertaker (Mark Callaway)). Since it is talking about the character and not the person, it should be reflective of that. It's not a big deal, it just makes it look better IMO. TJSpyke16:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Asthetically, yes, it does look better. However, the reason seems a little off to me. Don't most stage-screen productions have something like "Character (Actor)"? The Wrestler portrays a role. I don't know. Asthetically, it works for me. Hazardous Matt16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a big difference between an actor and a wrestler. Tom Hanks is better known as "Tom Hanks" and not "Chuck Noland" or "John Miller". His is an actor, so his job is to portray different characters. Michael Hickenbottom has wrestled continuously as "Shawn Michaels" for over 20 years, and is better known as "Shawn Michaels" and not "Michael Hickenbottom". Personally, I don't think their real name should be listed because, unless it is the wrestler's bio, it really isn't relevant. Phil Brooks portrayed "CM Punk" at the last pay-per-view, Phil Brooks portrayed "CM Punk" at this pay-per-view, gosh I wonder who is going to portray "CM Punk" at the next pay-per-view.Nenog (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thats amazing how its linked to Glen Jacobs but says "I wonder". What if there is way to do the same thing in other articles and have, say, a link to the article Bob Holly read "Hardcore Holly", thereby eliminating the need to put "(Robert Howard)" because were you to click on "Hardcore Holly", it would in fact go to the article about the person who wrestles as Bob/Hardcore Holly where you would find out not only his real name, but also his height, weight, birthday, favorite color, the name of his dog, what he likes on pizza and any other information not relevant to the sentence "Hardcore Holly defeated random-wrestler in a random-gimmick match at random-event". I'm sure there must be a way, considering that both the WWE and TNA rosters only have the real names linked, yet when you click on "Joe Seanoa" it really goes to "Samoa Joe". Nenog (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Okay, that's how it used to be. The reason it was changed was because of feedback for articles that were sent for Feature Article status. The change wasn't widely-accepted at first but makes the articles seem much more credible now. It's most likely not going to revert any time soon. Hazardous Matt19:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
THe user who reverted is an administrator not associated with this project. However, he seems to think that the article complies with out of universe style. I'm not sure how to bring it to his attention that it currently is in-universe per the views of many other admins and FARs. Who's right here?
Well, just with this article in particular its a little confusing. The opening paragraph of the Background section basically says that its scripted, which wrestling is. The very next paragraph is about John Cena returning from injury. According to the first paragraph, how do you know if the injury is real or a work? On top of that, there is the whole "Jeff Hardy found unconscious" stuff (however, that was cleared up by the same editor, who put that it was an angle). Nenog (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I think as long as it is referenced in the prose, there's no need for it in the championships and accomplishments section. Cheers, DoomsDay20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I've seen everything from most reigns to oldest to only. As long as it is mentioned in the text, it is fine. I think the bolding is probably against MOS:BOLD anyway. Nikki♥31121:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I like it being noted but in honesty it doesn't seem proper or like it's part of any proper policy. The only one I do agree with is 'current'. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Is there any method or madness to the way they are listed? I would have thought the most obvious way would be in terms of seniority or perhaps in the order that it is won. Or am I missing a method already employed? Tony2Times (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, I guess the many heated debates we had on here actually accomplished something. Plus, looks like IPs and Vandals did something overall with editing the WWE roster :)--TRUCo00:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
That article has been around since June and no one has seen it. Wow, I guess it should be deleted. I've never heard of it.--WillC05:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Check out this user's user page. I just thought to tell everyone. He could decided to place that back in the article. Plus I have no idea why he has it in his user page anyway.--WillC06:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that progress on the current batch of collaboration articles has ground to a halt. Looking over the progress, Gino Brito was raised from a stub to a start-class article. Kamala is now up to C-class. WrestleMania 23 is almost ready for a GA nomination. The Dudley Boyz looks like it's probably ready to be reassessed, as it looks more like C-class than start-class. I know that collaborative efforts are dying down a bit, but it would be nice to select a new group of collaborations, even if it's just to give a few people something to do if they're looking for something to do. If anyone has any interest, it would be great if they could stop by the page and vote. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree the collaboration has died down a bit. I haven't worked on many of them in a while because I've been really busy, and I already plan to work on Samoa Joe. I was going to source the Dudley Boyz's TNA section eventually and work on it. The WrestleMania article needs a few more fixes, I was going to nominate it for GA a long time ago but never finished the Reception section or took it fully out of universe. Maybe we could start voting again and choose a few new ones.--WillC03:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Too many rumors. Can someone help me out here. Ips and users are adding rumors he is going to WWE and his contract does not end with TNA until mid December.--WillC00:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm watching Armageddon (2008), there have already been several attempts to add Edge vs. Triple H vs. Jeff Hardy. While it might end up that way because of the 'tie' in the Beat the Clock match it hasn't been confirmed. Fortunatley it seems some IP edits are also taking out attempts to add this mach. None the less I'll continue to keep an eye on the article. (Loosie (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC))
Are you ready for another round of the OOU Policy?
I guess I should explain what they said. Per WP:PROSELINE and WP:PLOT, articles list to much details, and they should only explain the main parts, like how I reworded the BG section for OTE. It may suck, but it looks better in that way IMO, in addition, the aftermath should only contain info relevant to the PPV itself, so if something occurs afterwards because of the PPV, it should be noted (i.e a feud), but if someone starts a new feud, then that shouldn't be added because the PPV had nothing to do with that, see OTE's AM section for that as well.--TRUCo15:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
We would also have to apply that to the background. (Fake example) In a PPV match where Shawn Michaels faces John Cena, we shouldn't include information on a Michaels vs. Jericho match two weeks earlier, unless Cena is somehow involved. iMatthew15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. That's what I meant, for the BG section. Exactly, a match 2 weeks prior that has nothing to do with it should not be added, and if someone interfered, just state it After interference by Jericho in one of Cena's matches.--TRUCo16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The projects first championship list FL since March
Resolved
