Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 15

message: Is this really necessary in articles?  I just don't see the point in it. When you click on World Wrestling Federation, obviously it'll take you to the WWE article. If the person is searching for World Wrestling Entertainment, the article should show up in a search because of the link. We're encouraged to refer to WWFE articles from before May 2002 as WWF. While it's only four words, I just don't think they're necessary. 67.175.74.87 04:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: now World Wrestling Entertainment

message: As a heads up: many of the shows have no sources. I'm no Ring of Honor expert, so I'm posting this here. If some of the shows aren't very notable, then a prod or AFD should be on them. RobJ1981 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Ring of Honor shows]]

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I've been being bold and assessing various articles for quality and importance, and I wanted to run my importance criteria for biographic articles by everyone, to make sure we're on the same page.  In my opinion, most biographical articles are Low importance (no matter how much we love the individual in question); Mid importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for individuals who've made a special contribution to professional wrestling, either as a superstar of special reknown or as a promoter/booker of special influence (eg. Paul Heyman, Bruno Sammartino, Vincent J. McMahon, etc.); High importance, in my opinion, should be reserved for only those very few individuals who had a formative influence on professional wrestling, without which it would not be what it is today (eg. Vince McMahon, Lou Thesz, Antonio Inoki, Ric Flair, etc.); in my opinion, no biographies can be Top importance, since this is the Pro Wrestling project, and not the Person X project.  Does that scheme fit with everybody else's expectations? - Geoffg 17:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Professional Wrestling, not who people think is important or the people we love.--SteelersFan UK06 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with that. If there's a positive consensus over this, I wouldn't mind this being put up on our assessment page. --  oakster  TALK  16:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance assessment of biographies

message: Who's with me on getting this deleted? It looks like the "producers" are slapping ads for this every where from myspace to youtube. Here's a sample clip from the movie Youtube.com Promo Clip and Promo Clip 2 and even better the trailer Trailer Kyros 07:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like an actual movie, so why delete it?  --James Duggan 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're joking right? Hell I reckon I could create clips like that with a video cam and a PC. Shouldn't be that hard. Still looks like an armatures joke to me. Govvy 13:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it looks like a z grade movie, by someone who is trying to get a movie off a small amount of scenes he shot. it's not worthy enough to be on wikipedia, especially since it doesn't have major distro. Kyros 00:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475218/ Like I said, it looks like an actual movie, or did y'all not bother looking at the article, as the IMDb link is in the article.  --James Duggan 00:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually found the link on IMDB before I even came across the wikipedia article. It's not difficult to add a listing to imdb, I know I've done it. Kyros 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a real movie, so I don't see any reason it should be deleted. The article does need to be cleaned up though. TJ Spyke 00:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As others mentioned, it's a real movie. Heck, just from what was said in the discription in the trailer link above: "Here is the trailer that helped get funding for the film Andre Heart of the Giant. The commercial trailers wont be ready until late summer of 2007." explains away the quality of the work in question, as does another of the links that mentions that the actor playing Andre isn't in the heavy makeup he will actually be wearing when they shoot the movie. The clips and trailer were done to provide potintial investors an idea of what the movie might be like, the quality of the writing, the skill of the actors, etc. and to drum up interest before big money is spent on it. The article does need cleaned up and expanded, though. Vladamire Steelwolf 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand where yoru coming from. From my personal experience, i've seen individuals try to promote a movie without there being a complete movie or no movie at all. Imdb is a good site, but at times it's like Wikipedia and you can easily add a listing.  Kyros 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Andre: Heart of the Giant]]

message: The guy keeps adding the link to the nude modeling Mickie James. Can we do something about him? Govvy 23:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, your edit summary was wrong. Wikipedida DOES allow links to content that contains nudity, and Wikipedia is not censored. TJ Spyke 00:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should be a bit more censored if you ask me! Govvy 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see anything wrong with the links. He's not posting the pictures, so what's wrong Kyros 16:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:CelticJobber]]  

message: Should a pay per view that never happened be included on a list of pay-per-views. It was located here List of WCW pay-per-view events. I've removed it, but I have a feeling that it's going to be reverted back.  Kyros 17:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's been confirmed that was a planned WCW event, Time Warner (who owned WCW before selling it to McMahon) even had a poster of it in a booklet they sent out to some customers about upcoming events. TJ Spyke 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pay per view never happened ..... if the pay per view happened than that's different, but it never happened. That's like making a listing for a film project that never panned out Kyros 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are. Big movies that were canceled are mentioned in the correct articles (like the various Superman movies started before Superman Returns). TJ Spyke 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The movie you mentioned was eventually made, so it makes sense in to mention the other attempted.  What I do not get is why a payperview that never occurred is listed.  Kyros 06:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since it was scheduled and promoted, it is worthy of a mention with an explaination of sorts as to why it was cancelled.  I'd say mention it after the list instead of in the list as kind of a side note.  James Duggan 04:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Bang WCW Pay Per View

message: My opinion is: even if the title isn't on the line, champions should still be listed. At the PPV itself: the wrestlers are announced as champions during the match. A Wikipedia article shouldn't be ignoring who the champions are, just because the title isn't on the line. Non-title or not: champions should be listed on PPV articles, period. They are champions no matter if the title is on the line. There was a discussion on this before, but no consensus was made.  RobJ1981 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We had this deabte last month and it was decided they didn't belong in there. You can argue it again but a result is a result. Normy132 06:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I know a debate happened, and there was no official decision or anything. If I remember right: some wanted it, and some didn't. That's certainly not a decent result. RobJ1981 07:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-title matches on pay per view articles

message: Include or not include: what does everyone think?  Royal Rumble is one of the "big 4" WWE pay per views of the year: WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series are the other three. On articles for the other 3 events: there isn't mass debut lists (and there never should be). Royal Rumble is an ever changing battle royal each year, so obviously new people will be in it from year to year. It's cruft listing every new RR wrestler on the articles, since the other event articles don't do that. The only debuts that should be listed on PPV (or other notable events) articles: on-screen debuts, or in-ring debuts... such as Undertaker's 1990 Survivor Series debut. Useless trivia such as "these 11 wrestlers were in their first ever Royal Rumble" belongs on a wrestling wiki, not here.RobJ1981 05:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be included, but it's not that big of a deal to me. This is one of WWE's trademark events, and the list of wrestlers making their debut in the match will never be that big. TJ Spyke 05:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't a big deal: you would NOT have went to every article and reverted them as vandalism (and clearly ignored my edit summary of why I did it). Others have the right to edit, but how can they, when you just revert it... and ignore the edit summary that clearly explains the change? Obsessive controlling needs to stop. Re-adding the cruft isn't helping the articles that everyone can edit. RobJ1981 17:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just didn't think that you should unilaterally be removing something like this from every RR article. TJ Spyke 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If it was their debut in WWE, I can see including it, but if it's just their first time in the Rumble match, it's pointless, considering there are first timers every year.  James Duggan 01:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't feel too strongly one way or the other, but, just to play devil's advocate, I would point out that this statistic is one that WWE makes a big deal about, in as much as the commentators (Jim Ross, etc.) always bring it up.  Does that make it more notable? - Geoffg 03:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Geoffg's comment: Jim Ross mentions many facts and statistics, it doesn't mean Wikipedia should list them all. We have no "first appearance" list for Wrestlemania or the other big PPVs (like I mentioned above). Royal Rumble being a battle royal shouldn't be the exception, period. TJ said himself it wasn't a big deal, yet reverts it when the information is removed. It's cruft and the pro wrestling project shouldn't have to discuss every minor edit that TJ doesn't agree with. One line of trivia being removed, certainly isn't vandalism as TJ called it (when he first reverted it). If I need to bring an admin into this, I guess I will. As you can see, this section isn't getting many replies (and I doubt it will, since the PW project talk page isn't that active all the time). His opinion shouldn't be dominating all the articles he has in his watch list and/or articles he "monitors" regularly for edits he disagrees with. RobJ1981 18:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would remove those listings, we don't need to give trivia on every little thing, and if someone wants to know that, they can research it themselves.  Let's assume that the readers are a little more intelligent. Booshakla 07:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Rumble debuts

message: What exactly is this? --Aaru Bui DII 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A promotion to help promote TNA's first PPV, back when it was still on FSN. I would prod it since it wasn't very notable IMO. TJ Spyke 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Damn Wrestling Event Period 

message: Does this category need to include people who are only "on-air" authority figures (eg. Teddy Long)?  I feel like it blurs the line between kayfabe and reality when we mix things up like this. Maybe those kayfabe "executives" need their own category. - Geoffg 08:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Professional wrestling executives 

message: Should we delete the whole lot?? Because this is the first result Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_Before_Dishonor_%28ROH%29 and I am not impressed. You say you want evidence it was on TV and I gave it. Here it is again  and no one seems to care. Everyone thought they where just DVDs, but a list has even been compiled on TV.com. So it's either one or the other in my view, they all need to go back or you should remove the whole lot. Every reference about Ring of Honor. Govvy 10:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ring of Honor 

message: Do we really need to list the OVW alumni in WWE on the OVW page?  I think it's completely useless.  --James Duggan 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that subset of OVW alumni is the subset of most interest to the casual reader, so I wouldn't call it useless.  I think that list just needs its own page, with a link from the OVW page. If no one likes that idea we could start a category.  "Category:OVW alumni who made it to the WWE roster" might be too narrow, though.  It could be time for "Category:OVW alumni" (or did we decide on 'roster'?). The advantage to a list is that we can keep it sorted by brand, and include "red links" for people who are on the list, but don't have articles. - Geoffg 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, it had been agreed to switch them back to alumni, although an admin hasn't actually changed ECW back from roster to alumni (I left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the vote). TJ Spyke 07:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would revamp it and redo it for something more stable.  They won't be on those shows forever, but being promoted alumni will always remain.Booshakla 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni list on OVW page 

message: This article has once again been listed for deletion. The Mob Rules 09:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look and voted my opinion, to me it looks like channel/newsgroup advertising! Govvy 12:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if anyone has noticed but this is getting abused again. Govvy 12:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling_%28second_nomination%29]]

message: On these pages, there are some serious issues with these long, crufty sections.  If someone could check it out and trim it considerably, that would be very helpful.  Booshakla 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Madusa]] and [[Tammy Lynn Sytch]] pages need trimming

message: I see these two have appeared (i think we best remove them quick)
:2007 Monday Night Raw results
:2007 ECW on Sci-Fi results
::--- Paulley
:AFD is the best idea, since I doubt prod would work... people remove those too often from what I've seen. RobJ1981 18:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put AFD's on both of them, so feel free to comment there. If possible, someone could put them on a wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 18:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is there a wrestling wiki? --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  22:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe one has been listed on here in the past. Look at the archives. RobJ1981 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result pages 

message: I would really appreciate if somebody could help clean up the Davey Andrews page, or at least post other info on him they know of. Thanks! Kris Classic 01:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Davey Andrews

message: It's amazing where we have WWE Raw, WWE Friday Night SmackDown, but not ECW on Sci-Fi, or WWE Raw, Extreme Championship Wrestling, but not WWE SmackDown!.  So we can't even name WWE's three brands consistently - two are the brand names and the third isn't, and two are the brand shows and the third isn't (and two are performed on the same day and the third isn't, but that isn't the point).  Maybe we should be a little more consistent in this regard. kelvSYC 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an ECW on Sci Fi, but it's a redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE). The problem is, as far as I can tell, that the first two started as shows and then became brands which were named after the show it was represented on, whereas ECW started as a brand and the name of the show is, more or less, just ECW. The "on Sci Fi" is just an afterthought. I don't see any reason to change that one, if any of them is changed it should probably be the SmackDown! one to just SmackDown! or WWE SmackDown!.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "ECW on Sci Fi" is the name of the show, WWE always just calls it ECW (Styles sometimes calls it ECW on Sci Fi, but I think that's just the same way JR sometimes says WWE RAW on USA or Michael Cole sometimes says Friday Night SmackDown! on The CW). TJ Spyke 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brands vs TV shows 

message: That page is on afd here. More tag team fancruft, yeah. -- The Hybrid 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sting's Army]] 

message: Many people, myself included, have been going around saying that WP:PW policy is to keep finishers as finishers after they aren't used as such anymore. However, I don't see where this is written, and neither does Paulley. Let's just hold a vote and move it to a subpage after a decision is reached. That way it is official project policy, and we have something to show people when they ask. So, here is my nomination.
I think that any finishing or signature move that a wrestler uses should always be listed under its respective section regardless of how it is used later on. I feel this way because the article is about the wrestler's entire career, not just their present career, and the Finishing and Signature Moves section should reflect that. -- The Hybrid 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im for that where move are split into finisher and signature (i.e. Gregory Helms).. i think it would be possible in that article only to bold the moves (or names) which are in current use (i.e. "Nightmare on Helms Street / Eye of the Hurricane (Spinning headlock elbow drop)")  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment dating the moves achieves the same goal. -- The Hybrid 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment/Question Why not just put it on the signature moves list (like in the case of the split legged moonsault) and put it on the top and bold it so people can know its a former finisher? --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everyone who reads wrestling articles will have read this discussion to know what that means. It is much clearer that  - Dragon Suplex until 2002 - is a former finisher then having it in a different section entirely. It could be taken as that being the most commonly used signature move, a signature move that will occasionally get a pinfall (such as Matt Hardy's legdrop and Kane's Big Boot), ect. -- The Hybrid 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that if you say "Dragon Suplex until 2002", people will assume that the wrestler used the move until 2002 and no longer uses it in any capacity. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Dragon Suplex until 2002, current signature move". -- The Hybrid 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That works. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finishing and Signature moves 

message: *Support per my nomination. -- The Hybrid 13:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im for that where move are split into finisher and signature (i.e. Gregory Helms).. i think it would be possible in that article only to bold the moves (or names) which are in current use (i.e. "Nightmare on Helms Street / Eye of the Hurricane (Spinning headlock elbow drop)")  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulley (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: *Oppose If the wrestler did this move as a finisher, and he no longer uses the move in any capacity, it should be known as a finisher still. However, if the person did use a move as a finisher, then for several years used the move as a non finisher, it should be downgraded in status and reflected as such in a move list. If this person begins to use the move as a finisher again, then it should be upgraded in status again. In the case of dead wrestlers, the wrestler is DEAD, and obviously cannot compete anymore, so the page should remain unedited, with all the moves that he used as a finisher at the time staying in status, and all the moves he used as signature also staying in status. In active wrestlers, it should be different, as I said above, where current finishers should be on the list. I wouldn't be against creating a new subsection to the In Wrestling section called Past moves or Past finishers, meaning moves (regardless of if they are in signature or not) that were once a finisher (which are obviously not used anymore) listed there. I feel it would take away confusion from non wiki editors. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment dating the moves achieves the same goal. -- The Hybrid 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment/Question Why not just put it on the signature moves list (like in the case of the split legged moonsault) and put it on the top and bold it so people can know its a former finisher? --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  21:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because not everyone who reads wrestling articles will have read this discussion to know what that means. It is much clearer that  - Dragon Suplex until 2002 - is a former finisher then having it in a different section entirely. It could be taken as that being the most commonly used signature move, a signature move that will occasionally get a pinfall (such as Matt Hardy's legdrop and Kane's Big Boot), ect. -- The Hybrid 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bear in mind that if you say "Dragon Suplex until 2002", people will assume that the wrestler used the move until 2002 and no longer uses it in any capacity. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Dragon Suplex until 2002, current signature move". -- The Hybrid 23:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That works. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  01:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: *Support - I like this idea, especially if we can set some guidelines to keep the description short. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bdve (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: Do all of the shows really need articles? Considering many were clip shows (with very few, if any new matches), they can't be expanded much past a stub. The template listed below, lists them all... but needs cleaning, in my opinion.  Notable ones should be articles still, while the lesser ones such as Super Astros, LiveWire and Mania should only be mentioned on a list page.
   --RobJ1981 05:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Former WWF/WWE shows

message: There's been a really big debate as to what counts as a "world title", what counts as a "world title reign", what is deemed verifiable, an independent authority, and so on, down at Talk:Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling.  This should be a massive cleanup job, and I've made a few Cliff's notes on it down near the bottom.  Clearly, the project should reach a consensus on this issue.  kelvSYC 07:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement drive idea: [[Number of World Heavyweight title reigns in professional wrestling]] 

message: So what's a Reliable source for match results and the basics of angles and storylines? Kevinbrowning went insane adding the verify tag, and since you're not "supposed" to just delete those something has to be done. 
Adding a source after every other sentence would be idiotic, there has to be something we can do.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can delete them, which I ended up doing from some pages, because some pages don't have any sources needed. Kevinbrowning just went crazy and added the tags to every wrestler page he could think of. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up) SIGN 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the project's opinion as to how far we can use Wrestling Observer Newsletter (WON) as a reliable source for citations?  In the terms of the Reliability guideline for Non-scholarly sources: WON is self-published, and may not have editorial oversight, but I would consider Dave Meltzer an expert in his field.  He has extensive experience, loads of contacts in the industry, and is widely read and respected.  Most importantly he is a non-biased journalist, who is more than willing to break kayfabe.  I believe his claims are highly attributable and his conclusions are replicable.  His stories appear very well researched, often including conversations with the subjects and those that know them.  He almost always writes extensive obituaries for notable wrestlers who pass away, and every issue has a "match results" section.  At the very least, issues of the Observer could be used for citations until someone finds something better. - Geoffg 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He has shown that he is biased against WWE, and rarely ever says anything good about them (even when they do put on good matches and events). WON itselfs is good for news, but I don't give a rats ass what Meltzer himself thinks anymore. TJ Spyke 04:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I wasn't suggesting citing Meltzer's opinions, only using the fruits of his research to support claims made in WP articles.  I agree that he has his own likes and dislikes.  By "non-biased" in my previous comment, I meant that he is not employed by any specific promotion or company, so he is able to speak freely about all of them. - Geoffg 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I mentioned this at Talk:World Wrestling Entertainment roster, articles on him have been deleted, but maybe it's time for him to have an article. How does David Lagana deserve an article more than him? DeJoseph is also a writer for WWE, and has appeared on TV/PPV many times as "Big Dick Johnson". He was even mocked a couple of time in TNA by the Voodoo Kin Mafia. IMO, this makes him notable (far more than Lagana at least). TJ Spyke 03:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are his entries at TV.com:  and IMDb: . TJ Spyke 03:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't mind having an article for him, it might be a pretty thin article. But I like the idea of being extensive!! Govvy 21:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anybody willing to do this? He done enough to deserve an article (especially more so than Dave Lagana). TJ Spyke 03:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, most of the bookers/writers who have pages here have been prominent in other capacities.  Russo was an on-screen character, is very influential, outspoken, and a former WCW world champion.  Cornette has managed and been on-screen for about 20 years.  I do have a problem with writers/creative staff from WWE getting their own pages, and some have been deleted.  Booshakla 11:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher DeJoseph/Big Dick Johnson 

message: The Hybrid has been going around removing images from various TNA Wrestling articles, citing that they are fair use and therefore in violation of Copyright Law...  He seems to be ignoring a mention on every TNA image tag I've seen so far: Total Nonstop Action Wrestling recognizes and accepts the use of their pictures on Wikipedia, as long as they are credited as the source of said photos. However, the terms of the permission do not include third party use. Clint 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Images

message: Due to the recent speedy/afd of various countries wrestlers, I purpose that we start a notability criteria that can be added to WP:BIO as i dont think that professional wrestlers currently fit into any of the current criteria. DXRAW 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are covered by the rule for sportspeople (ie. have played in major league, equivalent, or highest level of amateur play), and/or the rule for television personalities (ie. have appeared on a well-known television program).  (Further to that, I would say that a high-level indy, like ROH, would count for me as the "highest level of amateur play" in the case of pro wrestling, and that major leagues would be nationally televised promotions, like WWE, CMLL, New Japan, etc.)  I also think that holding a widely-recognized championship might count as making a widely-recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in their field. - Geoffg 08:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable criteria

message: Please help protect this page from spoilers for another hour and a half. It isn't blatant vandalism, and I am so far over the 3 revert rule I'm considering reporting myself. Help, -- The Hybrid 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble Spoilers 

message: For TNA Roster lists and other things, next to a wrestler's stage name in parenthasis is their real name, I think it is not needed, and just their stage name should be listed? Does any body else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 January, 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I think if the real name can be provide it should for that can't be change as easily as making an in-ring alias. Also for all bio's wrestler or not, a real name should be provide, because that should also be the article name. Govvy 11:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is useful to give the real name in parentheses, since ring names can change over the years, but real names generally don't, but I don't agree that all articles should be named by real name.  According to WP:NAMEPEOPLE (particularly the section on stage names), articles should be named after a subject's best-known name (ie. the name a casual reader would know someone by), and for most people, that is their ring name.  For example, anyone on the street has heard of Hulk Hogan, but most of those people do not know Terry Bollea, so the article is rightly named 'Hulk Hogan'. - Geoffg 18:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Names? 

message: There has been a loose discussion on Talk:WWE Friday Night SmackDown! about whether the exclamation mark should be used throughout the article and as the name of the article itself, including a requested move that had little participation (probably due to it not being added to this project's todo list). I would like to restart that discussion and perhaps follow up with a second request to move the article. The arguments for SmackDown include its use on WWE.com and SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, and per MoS:TM. Arguments for SmackDown! are that it's used in the show itself and how that should supercede other sources of reference. --Aaru Bui DII 12:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Friday Night SmackDown!|SmackDown]]'s exclamation mark 

message: I'm requesting protection for the Gene Snitsky page, as several people keep on adding in speculation about what the wrestling sites say concerning the possible move of Snitsky to the ECW brand. --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  Contribs  20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to go here then: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. That is where you request protection for a page. TJ Spyke 02:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Protection 

message: I put up an AFD on a internet wrestling show that is only getting input from the people who made the article... so any way you think about the article your input would be appreciated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocketbusta Radio 49erInOregon 17:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New wrestling AFD 

message: Are all the categories in that, needed? Most champions are listed already list pages for one thing. For another thing: the wrestler articles list what titles they have won as well. In my opinion, all (or most) of these cats should be deleted. Since title holders are listed numerous places already, what's the point of sticking a cat on the wrestler page?  Overcategorizing is a problem at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Here is a section straight from the main page of the guideline:
*Mostly overlapping categories:Example:  1971 National League All-Stars, 1852 religious leaders
:If two categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many atheletes participate in multiple all-star games), it is generally better to handle these with a single category, and create lists that detail the multiple instances. Categories like this will likely add multiple categories to many articles.'''
List pages exist, so many of the champions categories should be removed. Many of the same people are in grand slam, triple crown, WWE champions and so on.  RobJ1981 00:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  A category like "WWE Champions" is completely redundant.  The purpose is much better served by the List of WWE Champions for the standard reasons: it can be organized with tables and sub-headings, and can include every item that qualifies, whether there is an article for it or not. - Geoffg 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Professional wrestling champions]]

message: The Succesion box at the RCA Dome article doesn't make any sense. Right now there is "WrestleMania VIII". This doesn't make sense because there is only one WrestleMania VIII. It happened in Indianapolis at the Hosier Dome (RCA Dome now). It didn't happen in Los Angeles or at Las Vegas. It should be put as WrestleMania VIII|Wrestlemania. This way it makes sense since it will say Wrestlemania which there have been several and it's linked to that spicific Wrestlemania. Kingjeff 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestlemania Succesion Boxes

message: What is the point of this article? --202.131.32.49 09:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling programs]] 

message: Music in professional wrestling is up for deletion. Just bringing it to everyone's attention, I don't care either way.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Music in professional wrestling

message: I imagine is the nature of the beast with professional wrestlers, but why must they LIE about having professional football careers or experience???? I have corrected FIVE entries who all had facts based on lies or rumor. Don't these guys know that NFL and CFL (my primary interest) teams, including the ARENA FOOTBALL LEAGUE now, all have detailed ALL TIME ROSTERS that allow quick checking. Jeez, if someone is signed to a training camp contract and then CUT, it doesn't mean they played pro football. KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR THIS. Mundster 19:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume one was Brock Lesnar? Technically he was in the NFL, even though he was cut. Also, you do realize that wrestling is ENTERTAINMENT? It's not like Kevin Gertig (Kevin Thorn) thinks he is really a vampire. TJ Spyke 21:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone isn't on an All Time roster doesn't, technically, mean they weren't part of a team for a time. Guys like Lex Luger were picked up by teams, participated in pre-season practices (and in some cases games), but were cut before the season started, and as such never played in official league games and aren't listed on all-time rosters. Those are the NFL rules, but the specific guys can still, arguably, claim NFL expeirence.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, guy, relax a bit. Like I said, just because they're not on an all-time roster doesn't mean they were never a part of a team pre-season. It's arguable, and it's technical, and it's semantics, but you don't get the last say on it and there's no reason to go crazy calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the big deal? If a wrestler claims they play football, then it should be noticed. The Undertaker isn't really from Death Valley, but it's noted on his page. -- Scorpion 19:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly not as big a deal as you're making it out to be. I, personally, don't care about a wrestler's career in football. If they were part of a team that went all the way to the Super Bowl or made a big deal about quitting wrestling to play football, then fell on their face. It's not hard to, on a case by case basis, mark them off by that happened. "Lex Luger was selected by the Green Bay Packers, reposted to training camp, but was cut before the season started due to injury." "Ron Simmons was drafted to the Cleveland Browns, but never played a league game and thus does not appear on the all-time roster." Easy. No problem. Not worth fussing about.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching football since I was five years old. Try again.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling editors "fanboys" isn't needed one bit. No personal attacks, and assume good faith next time. Insulting editors doesn't help things. As for this discussion: if a wrestler did a tryout for a football team... it's simply that: a tryout. If they didn't make the team, they shouldn't be considered a member of that team, period. A mention that they tried out for the team and got cut, is worth mentioning in the article. RobJ1981 08:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How many articles are that claim a wrestler played football when they really didn't? I don't pay attention (or really care) about that sort of thing. -- Scorpion 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: All five of those guys have football experience, and before you went in and vandalized the pages by adding bold and italicized did not play to the articles every article made it clear where they had and hadn't played.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine. I offer you this compromise, you list any and all bios you claim are "lying" about football experience and they will be taken care of with very specific, not vandalizing, language.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I have your stuff?«»bd(talk stalk) 04:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lying about professional football careers 

message: Someone update that on the to do list. Then I can help on what new stuff you want cleaned up. :) Govvy 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is one I just found today: Tom Howard. It's just lists, and needs to be formatted. I started on it a little, but there is alot of cleanup needed still. RobJ1981 21:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe me when I say there's a ton that need it. Just follow links from any wrestler and I'd put the over/under on when you find one that needs work at three, four tops. «»bd(talk stalk) 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cleaned up the Tom Howard page a fair bit. Still needs work on know. Govvy 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles to cleanup 

message: can someone help me finish my article on one of my favorite czw wrestlers Nate Webb, before it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme Enigma (talk • contribs) 00:28, 18 January, 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry but he's not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You should add him to one of the various Pro Wrestling specific Wikis.
:↪Lakes (Talk) 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can someone  

message: This is a weird problem, so bear with me, and it seems to mostly be a problem in WWE.
If a person drops or adds a word to their name should we consider that a name change for the purposes of the list in the infobox? For example Armando Alejandro Estrada's WWE.com profile page recently had the graphic and URL changed to simply Armando Estrada or Shad Gaspard, who started out as Shad Gaspard, then had his graphic/URL changed to just Shad. In both cases they're referred to by both named in arena just to make matters more complicated. Other examples are Gene Snitsky, who dropped the "Gene", and Dave Finlay, who seems to randomly use and not use his first name. Or, to go the other way, Kelly Kelly went a while as just "Kelly" before adding her last name. I'm fairly sure there are other examples, but none are springing to mind. 
To me it seems fairly pointless to list these kind of name changes, or even go out of out way to mention them in the article text unless there's a good kayfabe reason (for example, when Estrada added on to his Osama name). «»bd(talk stalk) 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone, at all, have any thoughts on this?«»bd(talk stalk) 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When is a name change a name change 

message: Bam Bam Bigelow tragically passed away today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extreme Enigma (talk • contribs) 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page for article improvements: not general wrestling talk. Wikipedia isn't a message board or a general chat site. RobJ1981 00:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would agree with you, but when someone dies there is nothing wrong with notifying the people who would care. Enigma, don't worry about it. -- The Hybrid 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea its good it has been brought up because the page is getting edited all ways and we will eed to keep an eye on it... give it a week then we will have to go through and do a good clean up. ---- Paulley 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceased