# Talk:Paul London and Brian Kendrick

Have they done the 'Get Well Soon' in this run? I haven't seen ALL their matches, but I've seen quite a few and don't recall it. Tromboneguy0186 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

they havent used it except for the first match that they returned as a team on WWE Velocity. However, they often used the move to finish matches in their initial run in the tag division ---Paulley 20:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It says they've only faced each other once since they started teaming, but I could have sworn the fatal 4 way took place after they became a team.

I think it was talking about one-on-one action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.109.163 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the championship list is necessary, for goodness sake it's only got one thing in it. The history section already mentions their title win. Also see Wikipedia:Embedded lists, which states that lists make Wikipedia worse, not better. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, trivia sections are generally bad form, see WP:AVTRIV. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
But its in every other wrestler/tag team bio on wikipedia, i just dont think we can get rid of it on one and leave it on others... i mean are we goin to go remove the titles section from the Dudley Boyz article now.... as for Trivia the only reason its their is because we got fed up of reverting the Hooliganz comment every three hours --- Paulley 19:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
lol Just because it's on every other one doesn't mean it's good form and it clearly runs counter to the style guide. I suppose we could leave it, although it still doesn't make too much sense to have a list with one already mentioned bit of info in it. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone.  On a page for a pro wrestling stable Triple X there is a person who went by 2 ring names (Senshi-Low Ki)  On that page in the members section the 2 ring names are seperated by one of these "/"  So, I thought since Brian Kendrick preformed as Brian Kendrick and Spanky, I thought it'd be ok for me to put /Spanky after Kendrick in the members section. =======

I thought they were reffered to as Gemini at one point, when they wore masks 80.229.169.189 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the Gymini were a completley different team.  But the night on Smackdown they debuted the mask attire they were attacked by the Gymini.  ===
I've never heard them being refered to as Londrick on tv, I thought the IWC made it up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.171.63 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC) 

Indeed, and I'd like to raise into question the officialness of "HooliganZ" as well, especially as it appears nowhere in the article prose. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It says that they were the PWI 2006 Tag Team of the Year, but the wiki page for PWI says they were first runner up. Styles and Daniels won.Kirby17 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. I read the year wrong in the article. I'd delete this, but I'm not sure how.Kirby17 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's proof that they're the new World Tag Team Champions - a picture taken by a fan in attendance in Cape Town. [1] Steveweiser 23:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it has been confirmed, but so far WWE isn't acknowledging it, so I don't think it will be officially recognized. Most likely Cade and Murdoch will get the titles back before they come back to the US. It was most likely an extra treat for the fans over there. Just have to wait and see. --Zii_XFS 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
for the LAST time. They are NOT the world tag champs. wwe.com is a more reliable source than wrestleview.com in that case. If wwe.com says they are not champs, they just are not champs. and thats the bottom line. Diivoo 09:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a World Tag Team Title match, and they won. WWE just hasn't announced it yet because they want to save it for when RAW airs. Can't wait until it they show the result on TV and you people will have no choice but to get over yourselves. Also, the title history here lists The Rockers title win that got reversed, so you have to list this, as it is an actually title win that will not be reversed. Can't have a double standard just because this title change happened in the "whiny pricks who feel important patrolling a web page" era. Just watch RAW tomorrow, high and mightys. Max85

maybe you should take a look at this WP:CIVIL  and if it is aired tomorrow, then we can wait till tomorrow and add it then. Diivoo 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this is what everyone has been waiting for. --Naha|(talk) 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There, now you finally have to give in and add it, plus the change back. Max85  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max85 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC) 

I didn't provide the link so "somebody could be right and somebody could be wrong." Please remain civil.  As you can see here, you, as well as everyone else, didn't "know everything" as you seem to have stated that L&K would be announced as the champs on RAW on Monday.  Obviously this is not the case as Cade and Murdoch won the titles back.  In the future, please let events play out, wait for confirmation from reliable sources, and do not make demands of other Wikipedians. There should never be a rush to first add information to articles and then search for credible sources.  Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paul London and Brian Kendrick's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wwe":
From Paul London: "WWE Bio". WWE. Archived from the original on 2008-01-10. Retrieved 2008-11-08.
From Matt Hardy: "WWE Profile". WWE. Retrieved 2007-07-29.
From Jeff Hardy: "WWE Bio". WWE. Retrieved 2008-06-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this article's GA nomination because it is not ready to be nominated. Here is a list of things to work on before renomination:

WP:LEAD - The lead needs to summarize all the main points of the article.
Done.
Ref #35 is invalid.
Not sure if its still invalid.
A lot of the sources are missing authors and dates or are deadlinks.
I think that's taken care of.
There is a lot of information that requires a source. I've added some citation needed tags to reflect this.
Done.
"Subsequently, they had an impressive showing against Tag Team Champions, MNM (Johnny Nitro and Joey Mercury)" - sounds like POV
Re-worded so it doesn't sound POVish.
I'd like to see some more varied sources (not WWE or Online World of Wrestling).
Added some Slam! and WrestleView sources.
Let me know if you need some help. Nikki♥311 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've gotten your queries. If there's more, please let us know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul London and Brian Kendrick/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am beginning GA review. Please feel free to leave comments regarding the review below. Vicenarian (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


### GA Review Result = PASS
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Well-written, I made a few minor grammatical edits.
B. MoS compliance: 
Complies with MoS, though includes plenty of wrestling jargon - all linked to help the uninformed.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
A wide variety of sources that are reliable in appearance.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Good use of citations, all in appropriate places.
C. No original research: 
None is apparent.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
A good treatment of the team, no belt left unturned.
B. Focused: 
Sticks to the team.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
No POV issues.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Not edited since nomination.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images noted as free.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
I wouldn't mind a few more images of the team in action, but the images illustrate the subjects and are appropriately captioned.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
PASS Well done!
Vicenarian (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)