Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 6

message: I have started a new WikiProject along with Kingfisherswift called Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of wrestling. It is the Pro Wrestling WikiProjects new descendant Wikiproject. It is aimed around organizing and starting articles related to WWE albums/theme music for PPV's and entrance musics. Hope everyone joins! Moe ε 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Descendant Wikiprojects

message: Me and the soon to be departing (hopefully not) Moe Epsilon are setting up a project to deal with the music of this great business. It will be Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of wrestling. Join if you are remotely interested - every little helps! Thanks. Kingfisherswift 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll join. I've been busy working on the WWE Wreckless Intent article for months so I'll be very glad to give a helping hand. --Oakster (Talk) 21:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE ASSIST, WRESTLING FANS OF WIKIPEDIA 

message: Anon. users keep reverting the WWE alumni page back to it's original format.  Because of this, I feel that page needs to be protected like the WWE roster page is.  --JFred 22:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE alumni page protection 

message: I'm currently working on the article and using the RoH page as a model. Jsst a heads up to expect many changes in the article in the umpcoming days. --Smoltz 02:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Combat Zone Wrestling]]

message: I would like to know where the info on D-X versus the spirit squad came from on the 2006 vengence page, as well John Cena versus Edge. It may need a citation. Classicrockguy  May 27 12:31 EST
:The Cena v Edge match has a note underneath it saying the champion is undetermined due to ONS, however the DX v Spirit Squad match shouldn't be there until it is announced on Raw, which still hasn't occurred. I've been removing spoilers day-in day-out for the last week on that article. Normy132 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D-X versus Spirit Squad

message: I think that the profile list in the suggested profile for wrestler articles should go after the career section to highlight the prose. Also, the birthday list item seems redundant since it should be in the lead. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is already right aligned; the prose will be highlighted provided the table of contents is not too long. The date of birth of the wrestler should remain in the infobox but be removed from the lead if having two mentions is undesirable. McPhail 08:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was referring to the suggested format without the infobox on the WikiProject's page, namely:
 == Profile ==
 *Height: 
 *Weight: 
 *Birthday:
 *Hometown: 
 *Trained by: 
 *Debut: 
 *Previous identities:
 *Finishing and signature move(s): 
 
 (If a large number of items is in any of the sections,
 place them into a subsection)
 
 == Career ==
 Summarize the career of the wrestler, but make sure you leave it to major 
 events and key points. Try not to include week-by-week synopsis of 
 what that wrestler did on whatever show they're on.
 
 == Championships and accomplishments ==
 *1-time WWE European Champion
 or, if the title has no article,
 *1-time WWE European Champion
--Jtalledo (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry. No arguments here, although a steadily declining number of articles use that format. McPhail 15:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Its debatable whether the trivia sections should event exist at all, so definitely no on that one. Personal life ..eh. I think the wrestling career is what these artiles are about, so no it should not be at the top, but I would support moving it above all the large tables. --Naha|(talk) 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections can actually be useful for some wrestlers. That said I didn't mean top top, just above the tables. The tables seem (to me) to signify the end of the article and more text under it seems out of place (to me).Bdve 18:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. --Naha|(talk) 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Trivia should ideally be integrated as prose in the rest of the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There's way too many articles on Wikipedia where the "Trivia" section takes up the majority of the article when the facts in it could be or already have been mentioned as prose, or where the information on the the list just isn't useful at all. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Profile before career?

message: I'm tempted to remove the notes section from the WWE alumni page due to constant vandalism.  Any thoughts?  --JFred 19:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find them informative, but people are always going to be idiots it seems. Maybe it could be protected? Bdve 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE alumni page vandalism

message: This woman, better known as Beth Phoenix, has been repeadely vandalized since her debut on the latest Raw. There have been edits which give false info as to her plans in the WWE. Just a heads up. ErikNY 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Beth Phoenix|Elizabeth Carolan]]

message: Impeccable H is (as far as i can tell) a fake OVW/WWE wrestler bio... apparently he was trained by The Undertaker and was a Heart Throp at one point.. needs deletion quickly --- Paulley 11:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for The Giant Khan.  --JFred 17:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impeccable H

message: I request merging the Undisputed Title Page with WWE Championship Page since the WWE Undisputed is just a small part of the WWWF/WWWf/WWE Championship history
BionicWilliam 20:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually was going to consider asking the same thing and I personally wouldn't mind a merge for the same reason above. --Oakster (Talk) 22:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE Championship|WWE Undisputed Championship]]-[[WWE Championship]]

message: I want to rewrite the Sid Vicious section. I went and did an overhaul once and looking at it now, I think an overhaul is needed again. Since Sid jumped from fed to fed in the 90's should I break down his section chronological or cover it in bulk Kyros 04:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing A Good Article

message: What is ...this --Naha|(talk) 06:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is from a figure fed?  Either way, I think it's quite deletable.--Darren Jowalsen 16:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: User:McMahonist has created a Category:McMahonists (followers of McMahonism) even going as far as adding himself as being a follower.... we need to nip this in the bud now... along with the whole McMahonism page --- Paulley
:Why do you seek to censor and restrict one Wikipedians' freedom-of-religion?  McMahonist 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the way I see it, McMahonism was created for a storyline, so it should be treated as such.  There are several storylines that have their own seperate page, and considering how detailed the McMahonism page is, it might be a little too much info to merge into the Vince McMahon page.  However, creating the Category for McMahonists is a bit much.  --JFred 18:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget, there are also articles dedicated to the Force (Star Wars) and Wayism (Andromeda).  --JFred 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McMahonists 

message: Just want to clear this up before I go and re-edit the S.D. Jones page and add a bunch of my stuff that people pulled out, but aren't we supposed to change everything as WWE but mention the changeover? Bdve 01:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that since the name change, WWE is refering to everything that happened under the WWF name as WWE, so maybe we should do the same.  --JFred 02:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem referring to WWE as the WWF in a historical context.  It would be like changing all Houston Oilers references in bios about older football players to the Tennnesse Titans.  We are under no legal obligation to refrain from using the WWF name.--Darren Jowalsen 03:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but then again, WWE was legally forced to change their name by the World Wildlife Fund, so there's that too, though the WWE does refer to their full name from before the change, just not the initials.  But I also agree that we don't have the same legal obligations that WWE does.  --JFred 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWF vs WWE 

message: I've deleted the following info from the Hulk Hogan's Pastamania entry, and for some odd reason, it popped back up again:
Another instance of audacious advertising for the restaurant was the event "Hulk Hogan's Pastamania I," a play on the famous World Wrestling Federation WrestleMania events. However, this one comprised teams of professional wrestlers and world-class chefs in competition with each other, both in the wrestling ring and cooking events. In Hogan's match, he teamed with Mario Batali against Harold "The Crusher" Johnson and Emeril Lagasse. Hogan pinned Johnson while Batali's Gorgonzola cream sauce triumphed over Lagasse's dish.
To me, I think that it's a bunch of hooey. I even posted it on its talk page.
In short, IT'S COMING FROM A BLOG.
I think you should take a look at it and judge for yourself. Duo02  *Shout here!** 16:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hulk Hogan's Pastamania info 

message: According to our article on Shane McMahon, he passed away a couple of months ago, I can find no mention of this anywhere else, can any of you confirm or disconfirm this please. As I'm sure you all can understand it would be very unfortunate to have such a statement if it were incorrect. Thanks. --Eivindt@c 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering he was on RAW tonight... --- Lid 05:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I knew there was something fishy about that edit. Again thanks. --Eivindt@c 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shane McMahon 

message: Just wondering: why was the UFC article placed under the Pro-wrestling project? hateless 01:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFC 

message: I really think the Turn (professional wrestling) page is getting a little out of hand.  I say we only keep the first two sections (important turns and disatrous turns) and ditch the rest.  --Darren Jowalsen 03:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  turn page 

message: Should the double team moves of Roderick Strong and Jack Evans be added to the Professional wrestling double-team maneuvers? I would usually just add them but the sheer number of moves these guys create on the fly is astounding but they do have a few that are trademarks: i.e. the Ode to the Bulldogs (Roderick with an inverted firemans carry on one opponent with a downed one behind him, Jack jumps off the top rope onto the inverted opponents chest in a double foot stomp then procedes to perform an aerial move such as a moonsault off him onto the downed opponent while Strong delivers a backbreaker drop), the suplex-450 (Roderick suplexes Jack, let's go in mid air and Jack performs a 450 onto a downed opponent) and the leg up phoenix splash (Roderick gives Jack a leg up in the middle of the ring in with a downed opponent behind them with Jack facing away, Jack then performs a phoenix splash onto the downed opponent).
::most of those are easier described like that than they would be if they were placed in the double team move sections... espeecially as most are a combination of a variaty of moves (esspecially the first one which is 4 moves on two opponents) and its not like we add the aided (leg up) moonsault or pheonix splash in this case... the suplex 450 could be put in though. --- Paulley 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roderick Strong and Jack Evans 

message: I have personally gone through a few articles and rewritten their career sections completally; to remove week-by-week and make the section into career summaries.. aswell as make general clean up edits (so far i have worked through Kristal Marshall, Melina Perez, Jillian Hall, Rey Mysterio's recent WWE career, and most recently Shelton Benjamin) However, this will never be cured as we can clean up what they have been doing in the past 4 years but as soon as another RAW airs, or a news repot comes out, then the next lot will be added with no regard to anything previouslt written --- Paulley
:Probably the easiest thing for us to do is go in once a month to organize them.  The week by week editors will not stop their weekly postings, so the best thing to do will be to do a once a month clean up, or when there is a storyline change for that person.  Otherwise we're just putting too much stress on ourselves.  --JFred 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea i known... but i still think their are a few article that need to be gone through and re-written, namely Shane McMahon (which i have just done), Edge, Mick Foley, Vince McMahon, Triple H, Kane etc.... hmm i think "few" was the wrong word --- Paulley 12:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War on week-by-week

message: Reid Flair might be the poorest wrestling bio on Wikipedia I've read to date.  I would have said it needed a drastic rewrite, but the more I thought about it the more it occurred to me - is he even notable enough for a page? His amateur career has lacked distinction except for his showboating and he has done nothing at a professional level worth mentioning either. That being said whoever wrote (or altered) the page clearly has a palpable hate for the young boy, whereas I'm indifferent about it - I don't find him noteworthy but I wouldn't write such silly garbage like "all his mates at school hate him but keep silent." What should be done with this junk? BronzeWarrior 08:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say nominate it for deletion.  --JFred 08:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit: whoops they fixed that up --- Lid 09:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reid Flair 

message: Instead of concentrating on a real bio or his wrestling accomplishments, the Iron Sheik's page concentrates mainly on what a kook he has become and about how he's on shock radio now and then. Really doesn't do the sheik justice on an encyclopedic level, or probably a respect level, for that matter. --Pathogen 10:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen better, I've seen worse.  It does mention his important career accomplishments, and I'd say the section for "what a kook he's become" is about equal in length to that, although they could each probably be twice as long if fully fleshed out - so I'd say one balances the other.  Either way it can't be helped that "Iron Sheik Goes Nuts" on YouTube has made him an internet celebrity figure, so it's something serious wrestling fans will just have to live with. BronzeWarrior 07:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Iron Sheik Page

message: I half-expected the edits to come after this. As far as I know the belt hasn't been reactivated for full time nor has WWE recognised Foley and Edge on their list of champions or title history so far. How shall we deal with this? Removing them off the champion lists (and the Hardcore Title history) with a little note on the championship's article? --Oakster (Talk) 06:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, Jerry Lawler declared them the current and reigning Hardcore Co-Champions while doing play by play with J.R. - whether that's official or not can still be up to interpretation but it definitely implied the belt was now active.  Given Foley actually proposed having a match for it at one point, that seemed to be the icing on the cake. BronzeWarrior 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Hardcore Championship]] 

message: Somebody more talented then me has to add the info on Billy Kidman's page that it is impossible to powerbomb him. I just don't know how to do in a professional manner. This bit of info is very pertinent to Billy Kidman as it is definitely a key trademark of his. For this user, I have found no real place to add this in. I want somebody to add a trivia section at the very least and add that whenever somebody tried to Powerbomb Kidman, he would turn it into the X-Factor.
:You have a point because when Kidman was powerbombed (which may have only been once by Hulk Hogan) it was a moment to be remembered and although it does list the K-Factor as a powerbomb counter it doesn't list just how much of a counter it was. --- Lid 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can't Powerbomb Kidman 

message: This is really an issue with a lot of Wikipedia articles, not just professional wrestling articles, but I see it on a lot of those articles, particular ones about pay-per-view events. The "trivia" sections pose a variety of problems in articles:
*They get huge. Wikipedia:Embedded lists says lists make Wikipedia worse, not better and looking at how big some of these lists are it's easy to see why. See the "Facts and Figures" sections in the WrestleMania article. People tend to shy away from adding prose because it's a lot to add sentences that flow and fit in the context of the article, but they have no trouble adding small list entries, contributing to gigantic lists in the process.
*They contain all kinds of useless information and information that is either already in the main part of the article or can be integrated as prose in the rest of the article. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source for information, any information should be relevant to the rest of the article and as such, written into it. "X wrestler has gone 2-0 at Y pay-per-view event" or other random bits aren't really relevant.
The point is, if you see some trivia sections, particularly on the pay-per-view event articles, please try to integrate the trivia with the rest of the article. And if it has no place in the rest of the article, then it probably should be deleted. I've tried to do this, but these sections just keep coming back. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia sections 

message: I've just started up the article for ECW's brand new show on the Sci Fi Channel at ECW on Sci Fi. It probably won't be the official name of the show but it's a suitable name for now.
I was just wondering what shall we do concerning the ECW articles, such as Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni. There needs to be a way to differentiate the old promotion and the new WWE brand and I was wondering what your opinion on how you think this should be sorted out. --Oakster (Talk) 16:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The return of ECW 

message: More and more, articles are starting to refer to him as "the late Eddie Guerrero," which, while technically accurate, seems superfluous. I've seen that at least a dozen times, yet I haven't once seen "the late Curt Hennig," "the late Davey Boy Smith," "the late Ray Traylor," or even "the late Owen Hart." The most glaring example is on WWE European Championship, which uses "the late Eddie Guerrero" but merely "The British Bulldog." I'm hesitant to go on an editing spree because this is technically accurate and will probably just get changed back. What's the best course of action? Tromboneguy0186 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed this and it seems wrong to me. I changed a few but stopped when I noticed just how many there were. In my opinion "the late" should be removed from all references to Eddie, especially when it's talking about things he did in his life )the black tiger was the late eddie guerrero) because it makes the tense weird, like he was Black Tiger when he was dead or something.Bdve 19:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't stop the people from adding "the late" we should settle for the next best thing: stopping people from changing the late Eddie Guerrero to the late great Eddie Guerrero. --- Lid 19:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everybody is going to be "late" sooner or later. The fact that Eddie Guerrero is dead does not need to be added to every single article that mentions him.--Darren Jowalsen 19:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I'll start editing that out when I see it. I've already changed it on WWE European Championship Tromboneguy0186 19:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Eddie Guerrero 

message: Like the WWF vs WWE issue, I think it's important that someone find the date of the first non NWA branded TNA show because if you watch older shows, they always refer to the promotion as NWA-TNA.  I think its important in order to hammer in that TNA either was or wasn't a member of the NWA at certain times throughout history.--
:The distinction is slightly less important in that the legal name of the company did not change following the withdrawal of TNA from the NWA. McPhail 18:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. The distinction is already made clear on the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling page and the only change was dropping the "NWA" name and affiliation from the company. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NWA-TNA vs TNA

message: There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Crawford where the majority of participants feel that this wrestler is not notable and that the Victoria Crawford article should therefore be deleted. Your comments  would be welcome. TruthbringerToronto 21:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related to this is this page I'm nominating for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Amaurazan - It's related to the previous post IP users adding non-existant wrestlers to lists in that it's an article on the wrestlers who are either e-fedders or not notable at all (a double wrist clutch scoop powerslam is physically impossible) --- Lid 05:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability for wrestlers 

message: See here for more.
We should either call it Female and list ALL women under it, regardless of role, or call it Women's Division and list only those women active in the Women's Division.  --JFred 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female vs. Women's Division 

message: in attemps to clean up Lashley's page i have changed to format of his new title reign and the lay out of his "In wrestling" section to remove subsection and provide more more info without succession boxes. However, users seem to be intent to revert this and add a succession box which is really starting to annoy me. --- Paulley 09:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I'll keep a look out for that. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobby Lashley