Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 29

message: I think we should create an article for the Punjabi Prison Match, it is a unique match that is not similar to any other in TNA or WWE. It should have a seperate, such as the Elimination Chamber and Hell In a Cell becasue of its uniique nature, anyone agree or disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 
:Disagree. The match only took place one time, so it fails the notability policy. Chances are it fails the verifiability policy as well. The Hybrid 22:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. I do think the section on it should be expanded back to how it used to be. Due to the unique rules, 2 sentences is not enough for it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Theres another one at No Mercy, just like the EC when it first came out wasnt their an article written about it, so what makes this different?TrUcO9311 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that there is another one at NM, but nonetheless two doesn’t make it much more notable, and it would still be unverifiable. I think expanding the section on the match type is the only course of action that can be taken at this time. Peace, The Hybrid 22:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It should not have its own article. It is already included in the List of professional wrestling match types. Its entry there is sufficient. Anything more could be classified as cruft. Nikki311 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Nikki on this, it definitely does not need its own article and the current entry on the match types page is sufficient... and this doesn't need to be modified unless any different rules or whatever occur at the NM or later Punjabi Prison matches. --Naha|(talk) 23:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on Steel cage match, not List of professional wrestling match types. Someone needs to clean it up though since then entry does not explain the rules of the match, it doesn't mention that the inner docks lock after 1 minute of being opened (for example). TJ Spyke 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually its on both.  See Professional wrestling match types#Punjabi Prison_match. --Naha|(talk) 23:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I didn't see it before. TJ Spyke 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just cleaned it up a bit. Maybe this should be merged to the List of professional wrestling match types. A lot of  the information is duplicate. Nikki311 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just proposed the merger. Peace, The Hybrid 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, have been meaning to clean up the steal cage article for a while now, but it's a hell of a daunting task. I intend to merge things like the Xscape, and Hell in a Cell matches into it too (and anything else in a cage I can find sitting around -- removing their own articles). I figure putting all those onto one article will allow for comparing and contrasting the rules nuances.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Xscape match seems to have already been merged into steel cage match. It redirects there anyway. Nikki311 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think steel cage match was actually split off of List of professional wrestling match types because the latter was such an awful mess. — Gwalla | Talk 21:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punjabi Prison Match 

message: Well in accordance with the proposed guideline that just kinda fizzled out I just want to notify the members of this project that once the Fabulous Kangaroos becomes a GA my next article up for nomination will be Al Costello, it's already been worked over by Naha who's been giving me some great feedback - but it can always stand another pair of eyes or 3 before I nominate it so if anyone feels like having a look I'd appriciate it. MPJ-DK 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good article. I fixed some comma problems and added some wikilinks to some of the pro-wrestling terms non-fans wouldn't be familiar with. Nikki311 19:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks for fixing the tenses throughout the article.  I meant to go back to and do that myself but apparently it slipped my mind. :) --Naha|(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I read through it, and it looks good.  I did some cleanup, but I don't have any major changes for now.  It's mentioned three times that the Kangaroos were the first team inducted into the Professional Wrestling Hall of Fame, which seems a little much.  That's the biggest I can come up with for now, though. GaryColemanFan 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that same line I would like to know if someone can lend me a hand in working with Pedro Morales, for a man that is Hall of Famer and the first triple crown champ the article is quite short and I want to give it a GA push. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of GA Nomination coming up 

message: Can someone with some knowledge of this sport take a look at The Smokin' Gunns?  I can't tell if it would make sense to an expert but as an outsider I find it not entirely clear. RJFJR 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Gunns themselves might have trouble following it. I'll make a few quick changes, but I need to get back to work, so I'll probably have to finish it up a little later (unless anyone else can lend a hand). One thing that bothers me about the article, though, is that the WWF referred to the team as "The Smoking Gunns."  I've never seen them referred to as "The Smokin' Gunns" outside of Apter magazines, so I'd prefer the spelling used on WWF broadcasts and in the WWF magazine. GaryColemanFan 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick search on WWE's website shows 3 pages for "Smokin' Gunns"  but only 1 for "Smoking Gunns" . TJ Spyke 02:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some editing, and I think it reads better now. It might have too much information about their careers after the Gunns, though (it already had a paragraph on Bart, so I added one of Billy). GaryColemanFan 20:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, I gave it a quick copyedit. It obviously still needs to be referenced. --Naha|(talk) 00:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  to put it bluntly that's a shitty article, I'm tempted to give it a total overhaul and actually make it more about the tag team instead of the break up. MPJ-DK 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through today and added some information about the tag team itself (along with some references).  It's getting better, but it can still use quite a bit of work. GaryColemanFan 21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did another series of edits.  I think it's starting to look decent, but it would be nice if anyone wants to look it over and give some feedback on what still needs to be done. GaryColemanFan 01:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I added some info and sources from the WWE title history section of their website. Nikki311 01:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review request 

message: I've noticed people adding dates for WWE PPV's after WrestleMania XXIV, but none of them have provided any sources. Should we remove them right now, or put  tags up and give them a few days to provide sources? TJ Spyke 03:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PWInsider listed them awhile back (and for the last time, yes, they are a reliable source.) Mshake3 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't get into whether PWInsider is reliable or not, but that still is not a source. At the very least, someone needs to provide a URL for the rest of us to check or the info has to go since its not sourced. TJ Spyke 04:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Sigh*, I didn't want to do anything unpleasant today, but I guess that I will since assertions are being made without any evidence being presented. Mshake, I am now officially asking you to prove that PWInsider meets the requirements stated at WP:RS. Failure to do so will cause me to take this to WP:RSN to get a third opinion from a larger group. Note: The preceding sentence was not a threat; rather, it was actually me saying that I would give the site a second chance rather than allowing the site to be blacklisted de facto. The Hybrid 04:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting for someone to say why this site isn't reliable. It seems that because it's techincally a "dirt site", it automatically can't be used. Everyone I've talked to who were against it hadn't even been to the site. Quite frankly, the authors have several inside sources from WWE and TNA, and wrestling in general. When they report something, they differenate between what is fact, what is planned, what was heard, what could or couldn't be confirmed, etc. Basically, they know what they're doing. I consider them to be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Mshake3 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof falls to the person making the positive assertion. You are asserting that PWI is (that's positive) a reliable source. I am now asking you to prove that it meets the criteria to be considered a reliable source. Asserting that it has several inside sources, differentiate from fact, etc. doesn't mean much. I’m asking you to prove it against the policy. That means, I want you to show that it is a peer reviewed, neutral, and scholarly source. Can you do so? The Hybrid 04:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't. We'll have to accept facts that the only sources we can ever use for wrestling articles are those from their officially companies. Take it up for a peer review. It'll make for an interesting discussion. Mshake3 04:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RSN#PWInsider.com. Peace, The Hybrid 05:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 WWE PPV's 

message: Ok, so there seems to be some debate on whether the next WM is going to be titled "WrestleMania 24" or "WrestleMania XXIV." 3bulletproof16 has uploaded :Image:WrestleMania24logoNEW.JPG, using the source of "wwe.com", but does not point to the full URL where the image is actually located. He has also redirected "WrestleMania 24" to "WrestleMania XXIV."
Doing a search of both wwe.com and corporate.wwe.com for "WrestleMania XXIV" or just "XXIV" yields zero results for both articles and images. However, doing a search for "WrestleMania 24" on WWE.com yields 3 pages of results.  In addition, page 5 of the latest issue of WWE Magazine, the "2007 Fall Preview" Special Issue Sept/Oct 2007 (which I have in my posession and incidently has a fairly interesting interview with CM Punk) has a full page advertisement for "WrestleMania 24" using this WrestleMania 24 logo (as opposed to a "XXIV logo").  Furthermore, www.orlandocentroplex.com (the location of WrestleMania 24), also uses this picture.
 
Ok and as I was typing this, my husband walked in after just checking the mail and plopped down an ever newer edition of WWE Magazine on my desk (November 2007 w/ Undertaker on the cover) and on page 25, it again uses the "24 logo."
Whether or not WWE plans to change to using a "XXIV logo", I have no idea, it may very well happen, but right now I can't find any proof that the "XXIV logo" is legit and actually from WWE. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, or in the correct places, I don't know. If someone can show proof that WWE has switched to the roman numeral logo, that would be great.  Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 18:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparantly they used it in a commercial during Unforgiven and bulletproof ignored a discussion and lack of consensus when he moved the page. -- Scorpion0422 20:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new logo did in fact appear for a promo during the Unforgiven broadcast this past Sunday. The reason why WWE.com might have not updated their page with the new logo immediately after Unforgiven is probably because there aren’t any news updates concerning the event therefore there is no rush in updating the page. Here is the link to the new promotional video uploaded on youtube. . Since the new logo now uses Roman numerals the event is no longer known as WrestleMania 24 but rather WrestleMania XXIV, and as a result, the article's name should reflect that change. Take WrestleMania 22 for example. The same thing occurred when the promo that aired during WrestleMania 21 announced the event as being WrestleMania XXII then a few months later the second and final logos were released which replaced Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. As a result the event immediately became known as WrestleMania 22. While I am positive that the change of name will not be reflected immediately in press releases or news media in that sense, the change has been made clear by WWE as proven by this new promotional video. If they chose to release yet another logo like they did with WrestleMania 22 that’s their business but for now the event's name is WrestleMania XXIV.-- bulletproof 3:16 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so thats where it came from.  However, how does that one commercial with the XXIV logo override all the evidence I have provided above for the 24 logo as far as Wikipedia is concerned?--Naha|(talk) 04:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A TV commercial is more recent than an AD in a magazine, as far as I'm concerned. Question though, what was the ad in the magazine refering to exactly? Mshake3 04:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean what was it referring to? It is a full page color ad for WrestleMania 24. Dates, times, location, saying when the tickets go on sale (Saturday November 3, 10am EST by Ticketmaster). It looks like a big postcard. I can scan it if you want I guess.  --Naha|(talk) 05:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok I scanned it anyway.  The magazine ad can be viewed here: http://pages.suddenlink.net/silverwinds/WrestleMania24ad.jpg. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WrestleMania logo 

message: I question the value of having these articles at all. Particularly the second, it is fraught with problems, not the least of which is adequate citations to show what titles were "world" titles when, having the table accurately depicting only those champions from the time periods in question and not others (although the reverse also seems an issue, that champions have been removed wholesale because the titles in question are either not now or were not at some point counted), and most troubling is that it (both of them, actually) directly contradict another article, that being World Heavyweight Championship, which currently states the following
" NWA World Heavyweight Championship (1948-1991 / 2002-2007) - claims lineage of George Hackenschmidt's 1905 and Frank Gotch's 1908 version, defended in multiple territories and promotions since 1948, used in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling from June 2002 to May 2007. Although it was stripped of its World Title status by PWI in 1991, with the recent success of TNA, PWI restored its World Title status officially in its August 2006 issue since it began being used in TNA in 2002. Shortly after NWA and TNA severed ties, NWA was quietly stripped of its World Title status, while TNA retained theirs. "
Yet Adam Pearce is listed in both the above mentioned articles. This quite obviously can't all be true.
And yes, I think it's a load of mularkey that what one magazine (which has rarely if ever paid attention to smaller companies - their Match of the Year for 2006 was Shawn Michaels vs. Vince McMahon for chrissakes), time-honored and well-respected though it may be, says on the issue is treated like Gospel, but as I hope I've shown that's really beside the point. These articles have issues, issues that need dealing with, and in my mind (though I doubt anyone would agree with me on this) something this synthetic doesn't cry out for an article to begin with.
And then there's PWI's list of wrestling World Tag Team Title reigns, but World Tag Team Championship makes only three passing mentions of PWI, not like World Heavyweight Championship, the pro wrestling section of which makes it clear what its definition of "World Heavyweight Championship" is (despite, again, that being contradicted in PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns and PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns by length)
I think I'm rambling, and my points have probably been made somewhere in there. Cheers to anyone who read through all that :) Nosleep1234 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the 2006 match of the year, I would like to point out that PWI's awards are voted on by the fans (the only exception being the PWI Editors Award, sorta like a lifetime achievement award), so blame the fans for picking that match. We can't abandon PWI unless we want to just remove all mentions of any titles being world titles. We can't make up our own definition (that would be OR) and half of the indy feds out there claim that there title is a world title. Also, PWI does cover a lot of small organizations. TJ Spyke 20:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personsally like the PWI article (singles, I never look at the tag team title one since that is far less clear as to what they consider to be a world tag team title). PWI has generally considered the definitive wrestling magazine since it started out, that is why we have articles on it. I would like to know what others think though. TJ Spyke 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns]] and [[PWI's list of wrestling World Heavyweight Title reigns by length]] 

message: This is a 411 to the PW community: there is a discussion HERE regarding the page movement of the Slammiversary articles. Please post any discussion at the highlighted link, not here. Thank you! MITB LS 02:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  411: TNA Slammiversary 

message: 1PW Second Anniversary Show‎  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.240.34 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 needs to go too. –– Lid(Talk) 11:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 is up for AfD. Nikki311 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page that should be deleted

message: I've just come across this. Quote from article:
*David Robertson sent this in: Looking through wikipedia today and noticed that Armageddon this December is set to take place Dec. 16 in Pittsburgh, PA at the Mellon Arena.
I'm guessing that a vandal inserted that in, but the fact that its got through to other websites, and the fact that we are credited as a source was beyond me. It seems to suggest that the event place has not been announced yet. What is our stance on this? Davnel03 08:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is one of the reasons that I questioned the reliability of wrestleview.com yesterday. I really don't think it should be used as a source at all. Fact checking clearly isn't a priority for them. Nikki311 12:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't think it should be used in superstar-related articles, but I do think it could be used in the PPV articles that are currently being developed, like December to Dismember (2006). If these articles are going to be as compresive and well-written, then WrestleView and sites like it might have to have a few sources in there. As I stated earlier, and I'll state again, WWE.com simply most of the time stays in kayfabe and most of the time doesn't give us the real reason behind things e.g. Heyman's departure, meaning I've had to use WrestleView to expand on why he left. Thanks, Davnel03 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *In any case I'll try not to use it in One Night Stand (2006) which I'm working on now. I'll try and use WWE.com more often instead, but might need to use WrestleView once or twice if something isn't covered fully in another source. Thanks, Davnel03 15:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *WWE.com isn't the best alternative either for the reasons you pointed out. I think the best tactic is to use books, especially with some of the older pay-per-views, or interviews with the people involved. If those don't exist, then perhaps that particular pay-per-view shouldn't be expanded quite yet. Nikki311 15:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *WWE.com's a good source for results, but that's just about it (well also, title history I guess). Book sources, magazines, I might need some help with that. It's a good job we have the library page! Davnel03 16:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armageddon 2007 

message: What is the protocol on articles about wrestling toys/action figures? I'm only asking because I came across WWF Hasbro Action Figures. Is this worth cleaning up and keeping or should I prod it? Are there other lists of toys/action figures currently, because I don't think I've come across any up until this point. Nikki311 17:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I just found another one: Raw Deal (card game). Is this one notable enough to keep, as well? Nikki311 17:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's good enough for me. I'll try and clean these up at some point. Nikki311 03:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling toys 

message: The message below was left on my talkpage, and thought it would be interesting to bring it here:
:Hey Davnel,
:Considering your interest in professional wrestling, do you think that Rebecca Curci is salvagable? Most of the sections are bulleted lists when they could be paragraphs. I wouldn't have the expertise on the subject you would, but the article could use work. -- Guroadrunner 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should probably mention that I'm indifferent/neutral on this one. Nikki311 03:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Due to its good sourcing I think the article should just try to be reworked.  It has potential.  It doesn't need to be sent to AFDs. --Naha|(talk) 03:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because there are a couple of sources doesn't mean she needs an article. Yes she was one of the Nitro Girls and is the wife of Shawn Michaels, but I am not sure if she is really all that notable. I am leaning towards a merger with the Nitro Girls article (for the stuff on her WCW career) and Shawn Michaels article (for her marriage to him). TJ Spyke 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Seems to me that the references are sufficient to meet the notability guidelines.  I don't see that an AFD would be in order. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The personal life section amounts to a collection of trivia/cruft, and the appearances section is entirely unsourced. I don't feel that the 3 refs which are used repeatedly assert the kind of notability that we are looking for in an article. I think that an AfD would be perfectly justified. The Hybrid 05:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the comments above, I have nominated the article for deletion. The discussion is here. Davnel03 15:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rebecca Curci]] 

message: One Night Stand (2005) - discussion here. Davnel03 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review notification 

message: On PPV's where it says "Results", then the years under isnt there another word we can use instead of "results"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at one of the PPV pages (like WWE Backlash) to see what he means. I don't think it's a big deal, so why change it? TJ Spyke 21:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. Why change it? They are results. Nikki311 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Considering thats what they are ...results, I don't know what else we could change it to.  Nothing comes to mind, although I'm not really trying to think that hard because ..well, I don't see why it needs to be changed.  Did you have a specific suggestion? --Naha|(talk) 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess maybe it could read "Match results." Slightly more descriptive but adding one word doesn't accomplish a whole lot. I guess I just don't know what this person is looking for. *shrug* --Naha|(talk) 03:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Match results, PPV results, Results of each PPV, etc. There are several things that we can change it to, but I, like the others, don't see why we should. The Hybrid 06:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV's 

message: I noticed yesterday that this article had a non-notable tag on it.  I've been working on it, and it's getting better.  If anyone wants to look over it, I'd really appreciate it. I'd like to get the tag removed and make sure that the article doesn't get deleted. GaryColemanFan 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and if it's good enough to be considered notable now, how much more work would it need to take it from stub-class to start-class? GaryColemanFan 15:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hack Meyers]] article 

message: I dont kknow if anyone else saw it but, WWE has confimed the chris jericho return, in a weird way. Listen this link is not considered reliable but the video is from last night on Monday NIght RAW (9/24) and they ahve written its significance, I actually paused the video to see if it was true, IT WAS!. Click Here >>.
P.S. Before you read what they have wrote, scroll down to the video box and watch the video from last night and then read it what they wrote
So should we request and admin to add this information?--TrUcO9311 21:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not confirmation in the slightest bit. That is just some people speculating on what they think a weird promo was about (personally, I thought it was a promo for Cyber Sunday). So, no, I would not ask an admin to add anything. TJ Spyke 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe he is. We can't say for sure he is though, I hope you understand. TJ Spyke 21:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of Course I Do, dirt sheet sites always speculate things sometimes true sometimes false but we will see what happens.TrUcO9311 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's becoming more and more suspicious about Y2J's return, another vignette aired on ECW (9/25) about the Save_Us 222 promo.--TrUcO9311 02:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea we know, the website is fake. I mean if people will just take the time to pause the video and think about what that "dirt " website says it all adds up. To Y2J and vignettes keep airing on the WWE TV Shows, but we should stop havig thsi conversation as it is non-related to improvin PW articles, and "his" return is unconfirmed.--TrUcO9311 22:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Y2J Chris Jericho Return 

message: There appears to be a lot of discrepancies and questionable information on Antonino Rocca's article. Case in point: him being a national champion rugby or soccer player & starting his wrestling career when he was 13. Can anyone check out the article or maybe fix er up? --<FONT COLOR="#DD3300">En</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DD6600">dl</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DD9900">ess</FONT><FONT COLOR="#DDC000"> Dan</FONT> 12:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antonino Rocca]] 

message: Just letting you guys know that due to recent vandalism stemming from the promo on RAW, the Jericho article has been fully-protected, and the talkpage has been semi-protected. Davnel03 19:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chris Jericho]] 

message: It's that wonderful time of year again...the Diva Search and everything that comes along with it. As expected, a couple of the contestants have had pages pop up. I've put a speedy delete on Eve Torres and Jessica Hatch. The latter was contested, so I took it to AfD. Feel free to comment. Nikki311 00:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is that wonderful time of year 

message: I know the site is a "dirt" wrestling site, but they have the poster for the 2007 event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 
:I really hope that ends up being fake, because it's not that good IMO. TJ Spyke 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from In Demand , which means it's likely to change. --Aaru Bui DII 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried putting that in the article, but some other user reverted it and put back a fake image they uploaded (that has no source, no copyright, nothing). Would it be acceptable for me to revert it since the image I added has a source, copyright, and seems real since it's from In Demand (which has a history of getting the real posters). TJ Spyke 01:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really no need to rush to put this in the article. It is just a poster, not a breaking news report. Pay-per-view articles can never be complete until the event actually occurs anyway, so leaving this image out until a WWE source becomes available does no harm. --Naha|(talk) 01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To reply to your question TJ, I would say that switching a sourced image to an unsourced one counts as copyright vandalism, and is open to multiple reversions. The Hybrid 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What about UFC articles (like UFC 64 for example) or movie articles? I think posters are acceptable since they represent that specific PPV (and WWE tends to use the same logo for a PPV for several years). TJ Spyke 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor Series Poster 

message: This picture has to violate some sort of Wikipedia rule. It's about 10 times larger than any other picture I've seen on Wikipedia, and a non-wrestling fan might have trouble figuring out which one is Arcidi. Is it possible to crop the picture or is it an all-or-nothing deal? GaryColemanFan 06:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reduced the size of the pic. I would add a caption, but i'm not sure which one is Arcidi. TJ Spyke 07:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in [[Ted Arcidi]] article 

message: The wrestlers are confirmed: but has it been confirmed they will appear on those brands in the game? If not, the roster should be changed back to just a general listing (until the game comes out). Just because someone is on a certain brand for WWE now, doesn't completely mean he or she will be on that brand when the game actually comes out. The game comes out in a little over a month, but that doesn't justify original research in the article. I posted this on the talk page of the article as well, to get a few more opinions on this.RobJ1981 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the characters should be listed at all to be honest. That kind of info is usually kept off of real fightin game articles since it's usually considered cruft. TJ Spyke 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tekken games, Mortal Kombat games, Dead or Alive games, Street Fighter games all have a list of characters in the games. Nenog 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008]]

message: I am planning to nominate December to Dismember for good article in a couple of days time (I brought it here after our recent change in policy). Is anyone against me nominating this for GA? Davnel03 17:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No once against it, so I've nominated it for GA. Davnel03 09:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nominee proposal - [[December to Dismember (2006)]]

message: I have asked for CM Punk to be put onto the main page for October 26. To voice your opinion, click here. Thanks, Davnel03 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I don't support CM Punk being on the main page, but... the 10th anniversary of the Montreal Screwjob is coming up (November 9). It would also be very nice to have that on the main page. Of course, it would seem kind of unethical for two WP:PW pages to be on the front page within very close proximity (14 days). I'm just saying: it would also be very nice if the Screwjob article was also on the main page on it's 10th anniversary. It would be even more nice if we could fit both articles on the main page this year (unlikely though). In my opinion, CM Punk being on the main page on his birthday next year makes more sense; his 30th birthday is next year.  :) MITB LS 23:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they will wait more than a year to put Punk on the front page. We wanted to get Wii as the FAC on its 1 year anniversary (November 19), but the person in charge of the FAC didn't want to wait 7 months to list it (the request was in March). So I doubt he will let it wait 13 months. I have no preferance to when/if it gets listed. TJ Spyke 23:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, maybe not wait until next year. My main concern is the proximity between Oct. 26 and Nov. 9. Both dates are very important for their respective articles, and would be suitible to have on the main page. It  would be hard which to feature on the main page (kind of like my current personal war; which should I get: the iPhone or the iPod Touch ). Has there been any two articles of the same WikiProject in which they've been on the main page that same range from each other? If so, my view on this may change, and, I don't know, get both articles on the main page on their respective requested dates (I haven't put in a request for Screwjob yet, as per the guideline on that page). MITB LS 23:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does come down to a choice, I'd rather have the MSJ on the main page on it's anniversary. The Hybrid 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both can be featured, just request a different date for Punk. What day a FA appears as the FAC doesn't have to mean anything. If you want to have Punk appear on the front page in 2007, just request a certain date (or don't request a date, and just let the admin in charge of the FA program pick a date). I agree that the MS is the more important one. TJ Spyke 00:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah what TJ said. Although it would be cool to have the MSJ on the front page on its anniversary--Naha|(talk) 00:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Page Request - [[CM Punk]]

message: Could you all look at Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment#Hornswoole and tell me if that source passes WP:RS, please? Peace, The Hybrid 00:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not, it is something we call "dirt wrestling websites" and those are spoiler sites, which are unsourceful.--TrUcO9311 02:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some dirt sheets are able to pass WP:RS (such as WON) so I figured that I should ask. TJ Spyke didn't give it the thumbs up, so I'm going to trust his judgment, which is the same as yours. Thanks for the reply. Cheers, The Hybrid 03:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spilers" are not a violation of any policy, and ommitting facts flies in the face of wikipedia. This has been gone over again and again in policy. –– Lid(Talk) 04:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, "spilers" aren't a violation. ;) Seriously, not posting spoilers isn't violating any policy, and this project has been against including spoilers since I even started editing (March 2006), and it seems to be working. TJ Spyke 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgotten this already? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 38 and Wikipedia:Spoiler#Should this article contain spoilers?. –– Lid(Talk) 12:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Why don't you request it be unblocked if you feel that strongly? Some of us did the same thing after a troll joe jobbed OWW. Of coarse that was different since someone got that site blacklisted on purpose and I don't know why PWInsider was blacklisted. TJ Spyke 05:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if the people of this project actually trusted the site. Instead, they trust [www.wrestleview.com another site], which gets all of it's info from PWInsider.com. GAH! Mshake3 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't trust most rumor sites, so they are all the same to me. TJ Spyke 06:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've stated several times that I don't trust wrestleview.com. I don't think any of those sites should be used either. Nikki311 14:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certain rumor sites I don't trust (Wrestling-Edge and PWMania to name two), but I do trust other sites, like WrestleView and PWInsider, along iwth of course Wrestling Observer. Davnel03 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to contribute to this discussion. Davnel03 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who started it :P The Hybrid 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I was thinking about putting tabels in the "recurring segemnts" sections of the WWE TV Shows, but I wanted to get your opinion on it. 
I was thinking of placing all the info of segments into the tables?--TrUcO9311 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "placing all the info into the tables"? MITB LS 03:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Segments 

message: Should we create a seperate article for Tribute TO The troops as it is an annual event, and it has a symbolic impact on those fighting in Iraq.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I think maybe it could be mentioned elsewhere. Having a whole article listing results and stuff would be nothing more than cruft. Nikki311 03:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. This has been discussed before. Davnel03 09:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They actually did have an article, but they were deleted along with other special editions of RAW (like RAW is Owen). TJ Spyke 10:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, a new article would probably violate criterion G4 of WP:CSD. Even if it didn't, it would be deleted as non-notable, most likely. The Hybrid 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribute To The Troops 

message: I have noticed some of the wrestler bio articles when I decide to view them have this type of list thing going, On date he did/she did, in single sentence paragraphs. These are suppose to be biographies not just a list of On so so date! Try and remember that when editing, Thanks Govvy 09:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much agreed, however you are preaching to the choir here. The regular participants of WP:PW (also the ones who happen to utilize this page) are not the ones doing that.  Pro wrestling articles are a major target for edits by children, general fans who just want to insert info here and there without the thought of the greater encyclopedia in mind, and vandals.  We do not structure articles like this as a rule, and attempt to incorporate this type of information into paragraphs on sight.  Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On date.. type list!! 

message: On the Botch (professional wrestling) page, Sean Waltman's win over Razor Ramon is listed as a "botch". Someone at least put a "citation needed" tag on it, but it's been that way for a week now. When is it okay for me to delete the paragraph, when the poster hasn't found any source whatsoever besides a vague statement of "it was all over the national news when it happened", which I seriously doubt? Phoenix 19:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the edit. I seriously think the user in question is wrong. Unless a source can be found, the paragragh should be removed. Davnel03 20:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree, but how long does the user in question have to find a source before the paragraph gets deleted? -- Phoenix 20:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has inserted several non-sourced statements in several articles (see his contributions). Revert his edit if you wish. Davnel03 20:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botches 

message: A move seems to have been made unilaterally on this (I can find no discussion). I don't necessarily disagree, but I thought I'd bring it up. Kidman won the cruiserweight title four times in WWF/E - the first two were "WCW" cruiserweight titles during the Invasion, then a "WWF" cruiserweight title during the few months the belt was known by that name, then a "WWE" cruiserweight title a year or so later. Previously, his article tried (somewhat vainly) to differentiate all of these, but now it just says "Cruiserweight Championship (4 times)" with no promotion name given. Does this work for everybody? Nosleep1234 20:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's the same belt renamed, so either leave it without a qualifier, or just call it WWE Cruiserweight Championship. --Phoenix 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When a title is renamed, it's customary to have the article of one its holders show the name of the title as it was when it was won, unless 1) the title changed names while that particular wrestler was holding it (i.e. Samoa Joe and the ROH World Championship), or 2) the wrestler won it again under the new name (i.e. Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Kane and probably others and the WWF/E Intercontinental Championship). Kidman's case is a unique one, because the title changed names twice and he won it under both new names. The fact that he has WCW cruiserweight title reigns listed under WCW (obviously) only further complicates the issue. Now that I think of it, a similar issue exists with Rikishi, considering he won the WWE Tag Team Championship but also won the World Tag Team Championship (WWE) at the time when it was called the "WWE Tag Team Championship." Nosleep1234 21:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidman's cruiserweight titles 

message: I created a table for the Recurring Segments section under the weekly WWE TV shows.
This is for SmackDown!
Segment                	Segment Type       	Host                  	Years Active	Notes                                                                                                                                                                                                 	Source
Piper's Pit            	Interview          	Roddy "Rowdy" Piper   	2003        	Debuted on SmackDown! during Piper's feud with Hulk Hogan.                                                                                                                                            	
Café de René           	Interview          	René Dupree           	2004        	Replaced Piper's Pit in 2004;appeared only once on WWE TV.                                                                                                                                            	
$1,000,000 Tough Enough	Competition        	WWE                   	2004        	Segments were featured weekly on SmackDown!.                                                                                                                                                          	
Kurt Angle Invitational	Wrestling Challenge	Kurt Angle            	2004        	Format: an invitational to any local wrestler to defeat Kurt Angle in under three minutes for his Olympic Gold Medals. Ended on SmackDown! after Angle was drafted to RAW, continued there until 2005.	
Carlito's Cabana       	Interview          	Carlito               	2005        	Created by Carlito after Wrestlemania 21 to compete with Piper's Pit. The segment ended on SmackDown! after Carlito was drafted to RAW.                                                               	
Peep Show              	Interview          	Christian             	2005        	Created shortly after Christian was drafted to SmackDown!. Ended when Christian's contract expired with WWE.                                                                                          	
WWE Diva Search        	Competition        	WWE                   	2006        	Segments were featured weekly on SmackDown!.                                                                                                                                                          	
Miz TV                 	Interview          	Mike "The Miz" Mizanin	2007        	Created after Mizanin's brief absence from SmackDown!, but ended when he was drafted to ECW.                                                                                                          	
The Cutting Edge       	Interview          	Edge                  	2007-present	Debuted on SmackDown! after Edge was drafted from RAW. The segment was in absence during Edge's 2007 injury.                                                                                          	
V.I.P Lounge           	Interview          	MVP                   	2007-present	Replaced The Cutting Edge                                                                                                                                                                             	
Do you approve for it to be put in the articles?--TrUcO9311 21:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Approve-I like it and I think it's a fine idea. I'm not sure if there will be any issues getting it into the article, but I can't foresee it violating any policies. Gavyn Sykes 21:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve-Same as Sykes. Davnel03 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve but, obviously, tweak the links in the title, a little rewording on some of the rows, and... yeah. MITB LS 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve Go for it. The Hybrid 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nitpick - Christian was never released. His contract simply expired and he declined to sign a new one. Nosleep1234 21:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something to tweak. MITB LS 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some fixes on the SmackDown page. Cafe de Renee can't be considered a recurring segment if it only appeared once, and technically the Diva Search has no host. TJ Spyke 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve Neat idea. --Naha|(talk) 00:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mayby, but it is a better way to have the sections of articles organized more neatly. --TrUcO9311 00:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True about Bdve's comment: we are brginning to maybe add too many tables on the articles. Of course a few tables on a page wouldn't hurt, but in Bdve's case, the whole article can't be composed of all tables. i.e. for authority figures: I wouldn't really approve of a table for that. The past format looked better and simpler. Compared to the recurring events table, there are several parameters to fill out ("segment", "segment type", "host", "years Active", "notes" and "source"). Probably just a guideline not to add too many tables. An artile should be kept simple and not too complex. MITB LS 06:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's harder to read. The largest cell in the table is all in small type.«»bd(talk stalk) 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Segments Table Approval 

message: Inspired by Davnel03, I have expanded the article on my favorite pay per view. I have placed it up for peer review, so it would be great if some people from here could check it over and comment here.  If possible, I'd love to see it reach Good Article status. Thanks for any help you can provide. GaryColemanFan 22:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request: [[SummerSlam (1993)]] 

message: An IP recently inserted a "Other on-screen talent" section into the One Night Stand (2005) article, see here. Now, I can understand why they are in the WrestleMania, SS, SummerSlam and Rumble articles because they aren't as detailed, but do they need to be in the articles which now have a full reivew (ONS '06, D2D, SS '93)? Davnel03 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously man, he/she simply thought that it should have it since other articles do. If you think it doesn't, remove it. Here's my question: does the article mention everyone that would be listed in the "other talent" section? Mshake3 21:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "other talent" section lists the referees (which the main article doesn't) and other people like the commentators and ring announcers. If you think you can comeup with a way to mention all those people that normally would appear in the "other talent" section, go ahead. TJ Spyke 23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A table might be a good way to go. Nikki311 23:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other on-screen talent" section from expanded PPV articles 

message: Enhanceddownloadbird has nominated Dave Bautista for GA. The article is a lot better than what is was when it was last nominated but I still think it has a fairly long way to go. Also it is constantly vandalised by IPs. Moves like this (nominating articles on the fly) gives the project a bad reputation, despite the efforts of its members to improve the credibility of the wrestling project by discussing GA nominations beforehand and recently wanting to revive the collaboration of the week. -  Deep   Shadow  04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uumm, I think it has got a bit to go. Yeah you could nominate it for next weeks COTW. I've just put one on there if anyone wishes to take a look. Davnel03 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Its not ready for GA yet. I'd also like some more help on the post-GA review I'm doing on Shawn Michaels' talk page. IMO it should have not been passed and I am listing some things that need to be fixed. I'm not quite done going through the entire article yet, but if anyone can start helping to try to fix some of the things I've pointed out, that would be great! The entire review is still in progress. Thanks :) --Naha|(talk) 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: His comment was no intended to be a personal attack in any way. Your mistake is an understandable one and it's not that big of a deal. To be honest, I was unaware of this page's existence until several months after I joined the project. The WP:PW does have it's own consensus on things that can be interpreted as policy. There is no need to distance yourself from the project. We need all the help we can get. Now you know the procedure and this won't happen again. There shouldn't be any problems. :) Gavyn Sykes 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, that's one of the problems of this project. Davnel03 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I know you didn't necessarily like the comment I left but it wasn't intended to be an attack. It probably would have been ideal for me to discuss this with you first, but the reason I came here is because this project has recently become about making and maintaining good articles. The idea of discussing nominations beforehand was formed the last time I brought up the topic of articles being nominated on the fly. It is not you that gives the project a bad reputation, it is lack of communication amongst its editors. I am (obviously) guilty of this too, although I am technically not a member of the project. -  Deep   Shadow  02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We're currently working on improving communication, ie the creation of the Notice Board, and the revival of the COTW. There is still a long way to go, but with new and/or previously quiet users making their presence felt like never before this project is beginning to move away from its former, hollow self. Before there were only a few active users, and after a couple of them retired the project basically became a hollow shell, and its articles fell into disrepair. Now, several users have stepped up to the plate and are replacing the old guard, so this project is now more effective than I have ever seen it. There isn't the in-fighting like there used to be, and this project is beginning to move away from its old, isolationist self. It now actually cares what outsiders think of it, and is beginning to embrace the overall policies like never before. The good project policies have been kept, such as no week-by-week information, but all-in-all the house has been cleaned, and the project is starting over again on the right track. I've gone off on a tangent. EDB, what I was trying to say is that the problems with a lack of communication are currently being worked on, and should be solved fairly soon. We'd love your help solving them, and hope that there aren't any hard feelings. Peace, The Hybrid 02:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Bautista 

message: Why is there a Save Us 22 article???>>>Saveus.222  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BECAUSE SOMEONE CREATED IT LAST NIGHT! GAH! Instead of wondering about it, do something about it and get it deleted. Mshake3 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Because User:RedSoxTeen0626 created it --Naha|(talk) 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  YOu know its official, the video says JER_ICO above SAVE_RAW. And 222 in the dewey decimal system and  refers to the books of the old testament of the bible, which talk alot about Jericho. How much more proof do you need?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.190.119 (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jericho to appear on WWE programming is the proof, which hasn't happened yet. Wait six days, please. Davnel03 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Jericho was to appear on WWE programming this wouldn't deserve an aricle on its own, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Woah, I weren't even suggesting that. Davnel03 17:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is there a Save Us.222 article? 

message: There is an IP that keeps adding possibly libelous info to Martha Hart's article lately. I reverted a couple of times yesterday and posted a warning in both my edit summaries and on their talk page about WP:BLP. Anyway, they keep posting information about her religious affiliations and that she had affairs on Owen Hart without providing a source to back up the info. Can some other people keep an eye on the page for me, because I have a really busy week and can't spend all my time possibly violating WP:3RR. Thanks. Nikki311 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reported to ANI. Davnel03 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IP range 206.40.96.0 - 206.40.96.24 blocked for 24 hours and article protected for 15 days. Davnel03 18:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Martha Hart]] 

message: Discussion here. Davnel03 20:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD nomination 

message: We have an IP calling Batista's spinebuster a "Batistabuster." I have reverted it at least five times. After that many times, is it appropiate to mark another edit of the same nature by that user as vandalism? Gavyn Sykes 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it is vandalism, it isn't techically a Batistabuster. In any case the IPs violate 3RR, so I've left this on the IPs talkpage. Davnel03 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate it. It's one thing when the info is added once, it's another when a legitimate explanation to why it shouldn't be there is ignored completely. Gavyn Sykes 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has since created a user name (as if that will make this situation any different?)  and was blocked for 3RR and vandalism of the article for 31 hours. If he comes back and starts again I'm requesting an indef. block for a vandalism only account and a bad case of the I didn't hear thats. Bmg916Speak 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Brilliant. Thank you. Gavyn Sykes 18:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Batistabuster"

message: In the WWE article it says Cena has to surrender the WWE title, and WILL NOT compete this sunday, so does that mean the WWE title is currently vacant???--TrUcO9311 20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, almost certainly. Davnel03 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cena is still champion until Sunday. On Sunday he vacants the title. --Maestro25 20:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you work that out?Just read article - you're right. Davnel03 21:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: From what i've read on WWE's site, he will officially vacate the title on Sunday. It also says that Vince McMahon will address the situation at the beginning of ECW tonigh, so I expect a lot of IP edits. I don't like Cena that much, but I hate to see any wrestler have to give up a title because of injury. TJ Spyke 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IPs don't worry me much, established editors are the ones that will give us headaches, we should also keep an eye on the WWE Championship page, until WWE recognizes the title as vacant that page should stay intact. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already had to revert the WWE page and the List of WWE Champions page. TJ Spyke 01:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we all know that now. These posts were made before ECW aired and before the announcment was made. TJ Spyke 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cena WWE Champion status 

message: I was adding some references to this page today, but I can't figure out what's wrong with one of the footnotes.  Would someone be able to look at reference #3 and tell me what I've done wrong?  Thanks.
Incidentally, I hit 2,000 edits today.  Hooray me. GaryColemanFan 01:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it working correctly. Nikki311 02:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'm not sure what you did, but it works now.  There's only so long I can stare at editing code before I start to lose my mind. GaryColemanFan 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions]] 

message: User:TJ Spyke/PPV Win Percent
I created this subarticle awhile ago after months of working. It's an article featuring the PPV Win percentage of every wrestler with at least 10 PPV matches (the same way most statistics have minimum requirements). Does anybody have any ideas on how to turn it into a full article or would be willing to help? I have the info saved on my computer, but think it could make a good article. TJ Spyke 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows up as a red link to me. --Naha|(talk) 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got deleted as "original research". Nenog 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's a bit horrible, even if it was OR. Did Alkivar even contact TJ? Ah, it was deleted seven hours after TJ started this topic. Guess Alkivar seen it and hated it.Davnel03 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm.  It was in his USER PAGE space.  Why was that deleted? Its not in the main article space! I cry outrage! --Naha|(talk) 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a bullshit abuse of power. There are so many garbage pages in people's user space and they target your good idea? Just look at that guy who nominated your page for deletion. He's got a page in his user space jerking himself off for his contributions. This place isn't for tooting your own horn. At least you were working on an article. And his claim about original research? So because you were the first one to put PPV win percentages on the internet, it's original research? How can it be faulty if the stats have to be backed up by PPV results and those are all on the internet! Are you just supposed to wait for somebody else on www.markymarksmarkwwewrestlingwcwecw.com to write it and ONLY THEN can you bring it over here? It's a ridiculous and over abused rule. You can feel free to make a new page in my user space with your PPV Win Percentage page and you can touch it up from there. And that admin who deleted it silently hours after you posted here acted worse than the guy who nominated it months ago. F-402 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been restored, but it nominated for deletion at WP:MFD. Anybody got suggestions or is willing to help? TJ Spyke 22:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV Win Percent 

message: Does this need its own article?  It doesn't give any family history other than listing the family members involved in wrestling and a sentence or so about each.  All of the people listed have their own articles and this unsourced stub doesn't seem to add anything. GaryColemanFan 05:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the article, but I'm not sure how to word the AfD nomination. If someone else could tackle that I would be ever-so-grateful, assuming that's the consensus of course :P. The Hybrid 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has opposed an Afd, and I'm in agreement with GCF. I'm going to try prod'ing it first. Nikki311 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vachon wrestling family]] 

message: I have a few questions about the COTW Candidates for next week:
*Are people allowed to vote on two different articles? Personally I think they should, so others are not discouraged from putting there article on there seeing as the one above it has several votes.
: Yes. --Naha|(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so.  Don't be so discouraged though, Lawler only has one more vote than ONS :P --Naha|(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they are. I just voted for Lawler in addition to ONS so Lawler wouldn't be pruned out. I never expected it to pass ONS, but whatever :P. The Hybrid 06:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I see nothing wrong with that. Anything to help get people involved! --Naha|(talk) 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with it either, at least until most of the active WP:PW members get the page onto their watchlist. The Hybrid 06:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COTW 

message: Over the past two weeks several users of this project have been working on PPV articles as follows:
*Davnel03 - One Night Stand (2005), One Night Stand (2006) (WIP) and December to Dismember (2006)
*GaryColemanFan - SummerSlam (1993)
*Mshake and Kip - Lockdown (2007)
Right, I'm about to propose something, might get rejected might not. Instead of working on these articles individually (others can still do that if they wish), I wondered if we could work on these articles together, one per week maybe, similar to the COTW. I was thinking if we use a similar format to the COTW, possibly create a new section on that page named "PPV's". A user can then nominate a PPV that needs severe work to it (WrestleManias, SS, Slam, TNA etc.) and then the one with the most votes we work on. Same can happen with the In Your House PPV's, but might be harder work and will need a new page created. Opinions? Davnel03 17:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having more than one collaboration of the week is a very good idea. Between all the members of this project, I believe we could sort through and improve one PPV and one non-PPV article a week. Gavyn Sykes 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see the need for PPV articles to have their own COTW, but thats just me. I mean if that were the case, we might as well let promotions have their own, or a COTW specifically for wrestler (people) articles etc.  I don't see an issue with having 2 COTWs somewhere down the line in a few months, after we are sure people are actually going to participate in it, now that it is back up and running.  The second article should get voted on just like the first one though.  It might be a PPV article, it might not be.  Thats just my 2 cents.  I'm weary of jumping in too deep too soon. Little slow steps build a good foundation. --Naha|(talk) 18:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naha raises a good point. A separate subdivision for PPV articles is rather unnecessary. Voting on two CotW every week sounds fine. I do agree we should give this a little bit of time and see how one CotW goes before we jump straight to two. Gavyn Sykes 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV articles 

message: I've been doing some work on this list, trying to get it all sourced. I'm almost there, but I was hoping someone could look it over. My two biggest concerns are January 24-26, 2000 and July 9, 2000. There were quite a few changes in each of those time spans, so I'm not quite sure that I'm following correctly. I wasn't watching wrestling then (truth be told, I haven't watched in over a decade), although I imagine that I'm not the only person confused by WCW in 2000. If someone could help me with those and let me know what else would need to be done to get it to Featured List level, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks.  GaryColemanFan 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.wrestling-titles.com/home.html is a good source (be warned, the site is screwed up and sometime has trouble loading in Internet Explorer. It works fine in Firefox though). I was a loyal follower of WCW at the time (even though it was getting harder every week), so I will take a look. TJ Spyke 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions]]