Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35

message: This thread has already been archived, but I know there was some concern a few days ago because the Diva section of WWE.com had vanished along with most mentions of Divas around the website.  I am pleased to report that it has been mostly restored back to how it was, save a few links here and there that are dead.  Total speculation but I'm guessing the website was hacked.  At any rate, its back and there is nothing that needs to be done Wikipedia/article wise about this occurance as it seems to have been a fluke. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the case with the whole TNA website right after Genesis (which lasted for several hours). I don't know. Similar situations with each other. The Chronic 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how would you know? -suspicious- (Just checking in on my Wiki talk page. I'm still on a wikibreak) Vampire Warrior 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: PWInsider Elite member. It's all in their audio. Out of respect to the site, I won't be giving the juicy details, until it's on the site in written form. Mshake3 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the "juicy details," but the guy who ran the divas section of the website left the company recently, and it fell into disrepair for a few days. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Divas 

message: I've copied the following from above, as I want more opinions on the proposal I made yesterday.
;Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Spoilers?
Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would be the best course of action. I honestly have been thinking we need to create a guidelines page in general with all of WP:PW's guidelines and reasons for the consensus of each guideline so that we can point users to it when reverting because of the consensus instead of saying well, per WP:PW consensus this, that and there and then not being able to point out the convo without digging through the archives. Bmg916Speak 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and it should also have a place for consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Lid has opened a massive can of worms here, and as a result of the tag team title change on Smackdown we need to address this PDQ so we have a link to present instead of just telling editors about "consensus". It has also been put to me that once the show is aired anywhere (meaning Australia for example) there is no longer a spoiler issue. My view is that as long as WWE don't acknowledge it (which they don't until after the show airs in the US except in exceptional circumstances - ie Edge's title win), it's a spoiler. Not withstanding Lid's argument under WP:SPOILER which bluntly I think needs to be reviewed - precisely because of the can of worms it opens up. !! Justa Punk !! 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm of the view that unless WWE announce it on their website, it's the breaching of "privacy" (for want of a better word) - sort of like a report from the set of a soapie saying that a major character is being killed off before any news breaks about the actor or actress leaving the show. We don't want to know! If we want to spoiler hunt, there are ways and means of doing that. I think we should consider Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as current WWE news not on the site could be considered as a violation of that guideline. Besides - this isn't a wrestling site either. It's an encyclopedia. !! Justa Punk !! 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section of WP:NOt does not apply, at all, to this discussion. –– Lid(Talk) 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with Lid here. If it's aired (regardless of where in the world), I believe it should be added, should a reliable source be reached. Finding one is the problem. WON is probably the most reliable one you could find, I think it should be able to be used, but only for match results. Rumors, speculation and all the other dirtsheet aspects should not. -- Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to agree, too. As I have stated before, to me, it is an issue of reliable sources and the fact that I don't like to use dirtsheets/news sites for any purpose. However...if it has aired somewhere in the world...it becomes a non-issue. It should be included as the episode itself is the reliable source. Nikki311 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: *It was questioned by a blocked editor using a sockpuppet account to disrupt Wikipedia. His opinion on this reliable website does not count. -  Deep   Shadow  22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Opinion Wanted

message: In the List of WWE Tag Team Champions article, I've put  under Miz & Morrison's reign, but it was reverted by BBoy, citing that it isn't done in other articles (namely List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Personally I think it should be, because your typical non-wrestling fan layman is going to read this article and wonder who John Morrison is and how he got 4 title reigns. I just don't see why we would list former ringnames in individual title lists but not tag title lists. I did essentially the same thing on IWGP World Tag Team Championship quite a while back. So I was just wondering what the community's opinion was on this before it goes any further. --MarcK 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the point in listing the "formerly", if it's a new name, just link it and those that don't know can check the link if they're curious enough. That way the title format isn't cluttered up with too much information MPJ-DK (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with MPJ. Davnel03 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Mshake is right. Helms had three reigns, under three different ring names and that was noted. It shouldn't be any different here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the "someone did it somewhere" is now consensus? How about discussing the pros and cons of each and then make a decision based on that - not being all sheepish about it you know? My 2 cents is, link the new name, keep the count (or if you must put it in the "Note" section, for the love of puddin' it's there for just such a reason) MPJ-DK (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You beat me to it. I think the "Note" section is a great compromise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's exactly how the notes section should be used. Mshake3 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue at [[List of WWE Tag Team Champions]] 

message: Lex94 recently pruned Survivor Series (1997) from the nomination list, see here, with the argument that it never had twelve votes at the time of the deadline. Infact, a user added a vote 13 hours later. I've since reverted the edit, as I really don't think this is a valid argument. His argument is stating that if it doesn't have twelve votes by 00:00 on 19th November or whatever day it is, it should be pruned. In other circumstances, I have tended to leave till the final few hours to at least give the article the chance. Was I right to revert? Davnel03 18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. I think the voting should last until the end of the day, or at least until the evening. Either way, it got the vote before it was pruned, so it should stay. Now, if it was pruned first, and then someone re-added the nomination with the extra vote (which in this case didn't happen) that would be different. Nikki311 20:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the revert was justified.  The article got the vote before it was to be pruned, that is the important thing. --Naha|(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was set to be pruned on 0:00 of November 19; It needed 12 votes, and by that time it only had 10. It should've been eliminated by someone before, so I did what was 12 hours coming. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification over COTW thing 

message: Sorry if this isn't the right place for this, but I just wanted to let you know that I uploaded my personal photos for George Steele, Buff Bagwell, Tracy Smothers, New Jack, and Marty Jannetty to their respective pages. If any of you have photos that you have taken, I suggest going to that wrestler's page and see if it's in need of one. --Smart Mark Greene (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is excellent! Thank you very much Greene. --Naha|(talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added Chris Hamrick and Tommy Dreamer as well. I think that's all I have. If you're wondering, I used to be a referee, thats how I managed to get all these pics. Any striped shirts you may see on the edges of my pictures is me!--Smart Mark Greene (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool! :) --Naha|(talk) 15:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics added 

message: I recently went through every wrestler's articles on the Raw and SmackDown! Rosters. I've gone and fixed the links in Finishing and Signature Moves to direct to the exact move, as many of them went to the top of an article. I'd appreciate anyone that would help this by checking over my work, as I may have missed a few. I'll be going over ECW and TNA wrestlers sometime this week when I get a chance. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing this. I catch those myself every once in awhile and fix them but have never systematically gone through all of the wrestler articles to fix them.  Everyone please remember that when linking a move, if it has its own specific entry/section, please link to that section.  Linking to the general page doesn't help as much as the specific link would be when someone is trying to read up on the move. Good work, Gavyn. --Naha|(talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Boredom is a powerful tool, apparently. I'll likely get to the rest of them sometime on Wednesday since I have a night course tomorrow. And the general article definately does help, I've had that happen before and been left in the dark. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more little tip: When linkning a move, be very careful. The text must link exactly. Linking to "List of professional wrestling attacks#Samoan drop will link directly to the said move. Linking to "List of professional wrestling attacks#Samoan Drop will redirect it to the top of the article. The text must be exact. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move links

message: I have changed my username. I, Lex94, am now officially Feedback (which is my real name). Just to clarify. My signature still states I am the same person, but I just don't want to cause confusion. Cheers, Lex T / C Guest Book  14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes Username

message: This is notable? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a major show that's been held annually for the last 8 years by a well-known promotion. It sounds okay to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in other words, 8 years > 5 years, and that makes all the difference? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gary didn't vote to delete anything of that stuff you linked.  Also, while some of us would have voted to save some of that, if we didn't notice it was up for nom, we wouldn't have known to vote or comment.  The same goes for all AFDS ..you have to know its there to vote which makes comparisons like this unfair.  Also, of the people that did vote in that AFD, I only recognize one of them as a frequent WP:PW contributor who may have known what and what not we consider to be notable even within Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ring of Honor is notable and if good articles can be created for their promotion, there is no reason for them to be deleted. --Naha|(talk) 15:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christ, are comparisons never fair? Someone always says that they're strawmen, or contrary to something like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS or just "unfair." Is this something I should just wholesale eliminate from my knowledge and experience? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How could this instance possibly be a fair comparison if the reason it was deleted is because hardly anyone familiar with the pro-wrestling scene voted in the AFD? I mean heck, one of the delete votes is from an Admin basically just stating that he doesn't like pro-wrestling and its coverage is too widespread on Wikipedia - not a valid argument obviously but who knows if it was striken. No one said "RoH is only 5 years old but if it were 8+ it would be ok" - heck, no one even brought up the age of the promotion at all.  If you want the articles back ..re-create them, and source them well and they wil be fine, RoH has lots of coverage and references should be easy to locate. While I completely understand your frustration and disagree with the deletion of the articles (at least based on the arguments that were made), I don't think the comparison is valid ..thats all.  Had the reason for the ROH AFDs been due to age of promotion, then we'd have something to talk about. --Naha|(talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just looking for consistency, that's all. (tromboneguy on a public computer)
My understanding is that events are notable enough to have pages if they either had third-party coverage (which almost always proves notability) or if they were on pay-per-view. I'm not 100% sure, but that is the sort of pattern I've seen when deleting wrestling events as non-notable. Nikki311 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ack, One Night In Hackney again? His user page seems to have been deleted at any rate. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cage of Death]] 

message: Another friendly request for comment-slash-shameless plug ;\ Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed the article for GA. Perhaps with this brouhaha about spoilers going on, there shan't be a conflict of interest with someone from the project reviewing it :P Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Briscoe Brothers]] 

message: Recently, I noticed that the WrestleMania 23 page has two pictures which have nothing to do with the article. The pictures are of Stone Cold Steve Austin, and the first picture on the page of John Cena. I inquired about the pictures on the talk page and was told that "Pictures like that are being included in most of the expanded PPV articles. They help illustrate the point of who everyone at the was. If a non-wrestling fan reads this article, the pictures help them visualize the event." It struck me as bizarre, but if that was the consensus, I'd be okay with it. I was told, though, that, as far as it was known, "a consensus wasn't reached, but no one has objected to it, so one wasn't really required." It was then suggested to me to bring it up here. Does an article about a PPV really need pictures on it that really have nothing to do with the event in question? The two pictures I mentioned are free-use, but their usage just doesn't seem to fit. I would like to hear people's opinions on the matter. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the picture is of a wrestler who played a large role in the ppv, then yes, it does have something to do with the event. I don't have a problem with it, because there will always be a lack of free pictures from a certain event, so it's not like we're throwing in random images when there are perfectly suited alternatives. -- Scorpion0422 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that the picture would work better for the article on the wrestler in question, and not the event. We have a picture of John Cena at WM, which is far more relevant than the first picture of him on the page, which is just him being interviewed who knows where. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The pics should at least be from the same era. The Royal Rumble 1994 article had a pic of Scott Steiner from around 2003, after he pumped up using steroids (I guess I should say "allegedly" to avoid slander) and getting short blond hair. TJ Spyke 00:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures that have nothing to do with the PPV 

message: WWE has eliminated all Armageddon histories from its website:
*The above link exists, but these don't:
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2006/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2005/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2004/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2003/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2002/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2001/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2000/
**http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/1999/
I was trying to find a source one of the matches on the card, for the New Year's Revolution 2007 article which I am working on in my sandbox; and I found that all the Armageddons are broken links. Lex  T/C Guest Book 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like someone at WWE has opted to delete all the links. :( Nothing much we can do, although you could e-mail WWE telling then that all the Armageddon history links are broken. Davnel03 19:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be cancelling the event. Which worries me because if they do that with Armageddon, then I bet they'll do that with D2D and NYR. Lex  T/C Guest Book 20:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cancelled? CANCELLED? Why would they cancel an event in which sales have already began and promotions have already begun airing on their main programs? Mshake3 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Umm D2D and NYR is already cancelled, and Armageddon isnt going to be cancelled, WWE is just probably working on the Armageddon website and probably took the links down, nothing to worry about!. =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't know about that. I am going to use that on all of the links in the NYR07 article. Lex  T/C Guest Book 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't need to now - all above links look like they have been fixed. :) Davnel03 19:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should use the Wayback Machine, because if WWE ever decides to eliminate all history files of NYR and D2D because they are retired, this would break a lot of links and references on our site. They don't have information on IYH, Bad Blood, Insurextion, Mahem in Manchester, InVasion, etc.; so what would stop them from eliminating those? Lex  T/C Guest Book 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And either way, if in 20 years, WWE retires, the links on all the stable articles (mainly FAs) would break, and we'd have no way of ever recovering those files. We should use the wayback machine. Lex  T/C Guest Book 02:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Every single one of those links is functional again.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armageddon History

message: In the Background section of the PPVs, are you suppose to put info of all the feuds that are led to that event?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only tend to do the main three feuds (one from ECW, Raw and SD!). Depends really. Only 2 - 4 at the most. Some feuds don't last long and aren't notable enough too have a paragraph in the PPV article. Take the Survivor Series (2007) World Tag title match for instance - that never really had any buildup. Same goes for several matches at the December to Dismember (2006) PPV last year. So your doing No Way Out (2007). I'd concentrate on the main Interpromotional tag match, the 6 man tag (Benoit/Hardys/MVP) and Kane/King Booker feud. Davnel03 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright thanx, --TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should also add Deuce n' Domino vs. Paul London and Brian Kendrick, which was build-up for weeks and Mr. Kennedy vs. Bobby Lashley; mostly a short mention in the Background section, just because it's a world title match. Lex  T/C Guest Book 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually Chronic I was talkin about my no way out article, but the Vengeance article still needs to note the ECW championship feud. TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, also the Background section seems very short. If you can find no way of improving it, you might want to add two other feuds, possibly the US title and World Tag title? Davnel03 15:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. The "access date" is the date that you found the source (the date you accessed it). The "date" is the date it was written...this isn't always available. Nikki311 16:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV Question? 

message: Now that this week's issue has been cancelled, can we implement the Show/Hide format that I made in the next issue? Lex  T/C Guest Book 05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter Format 

message: I'm a tad concerned after this discussion we had this week, where an editor argued that we shouldn't have "vote stacking" and therefore shouldn't support FACs unless you have a valid reason for support. This, seemingly has driven some people from participating in FAC's. A FAC that I nominated, In Your House 1 has only had one support, which has come from a non-project member, see here. I'm concerned, because if a candidate does not have enough consensus then the article cannot be promoted. At the moment, the candidate doesn't have a consensus with only one users opinion. Nothing is stopping members from supporting/opposing articles. At the same point, the nominator shouldn't mind if anyone writes a list of problems, if that happens with an FAC that I'm in, I'll deal with it. A valid issue has been brought up at the IYH1 FAC, which I would prefer to have comments on. I'm not stating that you must Strong Support and say "this is the best article ever", but I would prefer you to comment on it with problems (every article has problems in one or two areas) - e.g. POV, citing sources, sentence structure etc.. I think we need to be more involved as a whole in FAC's to help our articles, by not comment we are doing ourselves no favours. If anyone has problems with the article, write it at the FAC, I'm not going to bite your head off. It's just a tad annoying when no one (or very little) comments at the FAC, when several other FAC's have tonnes of comments on. I think I've gone on for a bit too long now. Cheers, Davnel03 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could just be the time of year and many people (well, Americans anyway ..this week), are busy with Thanksgiving stuff. However, if the previous conversation (as linked above by Davne) has caused you to stay away from FAs completely, it shouldn't have.  As long as you aren't voting blindly, there are no issues with it. If there is a PW article up for FA, please please read through it as soon as you have time.  If you find issues with the article that would make it fail FA ..or issues with it period, list them (with possible ways they could be fixed if you can).  This is the type of advice the nominator needs and should want to receive.  If, by the time you do get around to reading the article, you feel it is supurb and can't find any errors, voting for it is not "vote stacking."  Leave a comment with your vote letting the other reviewers know that you have read the entire article, reviewed the FA criteria and you believe it should pass.  Thoughtfully going through this proccess is the way to do it and should yield no arguments.  That beintg said, I'm not trying to be hypocritical ...I haven't looked at this article yet because I haven't had time yet.  I will though.  I just wanted to comment on this discussion.  Happy holidays, --Naha|(talk) 17:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little torn on this one. The article has never received a Peer Review, as it was nominated for GA status with no notice. There has never been a request to have the article copyedited by project members. I have mentioned a couple of concerns about the article, but neither has been addressed. I don't see the relevance of the discussion of Lawler's mother with no indication in the article that his "mother" was a young woman hired to play the part (or am I mistaken?  The woman looked considerably younger than Lawler, if I remember correctly.). I don't see why the 411mania sources are there if reliable sources are also used to cite the same information. In addition, there seem to be excessive internal links (just looking at the Background section, Razor Ramon, The Roadie, Jeff Jarrett, Sycho Sid, and the 1-2-3 Kid are all linked more than once). If no information about the reason behind creating the pay per view is available, what about indicating that In Your House pay per views were promoted as being cut-rate/"cheap" pay per views?
 Surely that last point would be WP:OR if I can't find a point to back it up? Davnel03 17:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I've been holding back because I'm not convinced that it's ready for FA status yet, but in hindsight, letting you know that would be more helpful, as it would at least let you know what my concerns are. I apologize if some of this comes off as a little harsh. I think you've done a great job on the article and on many others. I just think that having a few people look it over before nominating it for FA status would help and would have addressed some of my concerns in advance. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually have a long list of comments on the article, I just haven't had 10 minutes to sit down and write them down - a lot of stuff jumped out at me when I read it but I didn't just want to say "I object... I'll tell you why later".  Not to be a wet blanket, but I'm not convinced I would have passed it to GA even if I had review it, but it deserves a full, detailed feedback I just haven't had time, I figured others would point it out but they haven't so I'll probably give you a list over the weekend. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I really don't mind if you Oppose to start off with with a long-list of concerns. Its an FAC. An article is never perfect. One thing I will sort out as GCF mentioned is the overlinking and I will get onto that. And no, GCF, I don't find your comments harsh, I really don't want to force people to support the FA. The article has problems. Hopefully now is the time to sort it out and hopefully get it promoted. I apologise if I nominated it too soon, at least I know to wait a bit in the future. The reason I didn't go to peer review, is because for some reason, not many people from this project tend to comment on them. Anyway, I'll get onto the linking issue now. Davnel03 17:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the time to sort out the glaring issues is before it is nominated as an FA. What happened to the rule about informing the project of your intent and waiting a week so others can look over it and give feedback? Everyone else is following that rule. Nikki311 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never noticed any notification of the Bobby Eaton FAC before it was nominated. The only mention I can find of it and FAC in the archives is here, and that's when a user informed the project that it was up for FAC. I've only followed the same system as everyone else. Anyway I thought the "One Week Rule" only applied for GA's, as only one person reviews them. With FA's, many people can make comments/supports/opposes etc. Davnel03 19:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobby Eaton was the FACOTW....that is the weeks notice to improve the article in preparation for nominating it for FA status. Nikki311 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it? It doesn't say that on the COTW page, maybe it needs to be made clearer. So, I should of informed you guys a week earlier. Sorry that I never, at least I know to tell you guys about FAC's a week in advance in the future. I can't see whats the problem with a long-list of Opposes at FAC's really. At least it makes the FAC director know that the reviewers have looked over the whole of the article. Davnel03 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the problem with a long list of opposes is... well simply put it'd be hard to get FA status ;) I think the point is that if people are notified then they can look at the article and give you input more informally to be fixed instead of opposing it on the FAC if it's the first time they've ever taken a critical look at it. It's meant to be a help, a service to anyone who wants to nominate for FA. Also Eaton was the FACOTW - I wonder what the "FA" stands for?? MPJ-DK (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eaton FAC had a long-list of opposes, which have now all been sorted out, and that particular editor is now supporting the article. And I do know what the "FA" in FACOTW stands for, so please don't attempt to assume that I have no idea of what it means when I do. I admit that I made a mistake of not informing you guys earlier - sometimes comments get ignored and no one else comments, which can become annoying as it make you (or rather me) feel like no one appreciates the work that I've done. Anyway, as I said I really don't mind a long-list of opposes if you do oppose it. I'm off for the night now, so hopefully I'll have some comments on the FAC waiting for when I come online to Wiki tomorrow. I admit I should of told you guys a week in advance, and will do for future FAC's. Cheers, Davnel03 22:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've sorted out the linking issues that have been raised by GCF. Diff. Davnel03 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of votes in FAC's 

message: 71.255.5.18 has been going through a ton of pay-per-views today, amking small changes to match results. They're not malicious changes, but they're not always helpful. The user is removing team names from Survivor Series results, adding to internal links (making them redirect by changing Roddy Piper to Rowdy Roddy Piper, etc.), changing names that don't need to be changed (every reference to Davey Boy Smith has been changed to The British Bulldog, etc.). If you've been working on a pay-per-view lately, you might want to check it out. And if you've got a little bit of time, going through some of these edits to see if they are actually helpful would be appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also been listing Champions in non-title matches. Just another thing to watch for... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP editor editing almost all PPV results 

message: Did anyone know this page existed? Anyone up for a prod?-- bulletproof 3:16 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod away. Nenog (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also left a notice about the prod on the user's talk page.TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't delete the article! We can turn it improve it and make it a featured topic. It just needs better formatting, referencing, images, etc. It can have some success. Lex  T/C Guest Book 21:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I suppose it could also feature PPV's from other wrestling organizations that didn't produce many (like the WWA PPV's, LPWA Super Ladies Showdown, AWA Superclash III, etc.). TJ Spyke 21:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can even make it a featured list for the future. Lex  T/C Guest Book 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wrestling Pay-Per-View Events]]

message: New article. Unfortunately, it looks like the creator has just dumped it, and looks like he's not going to be improving it. Davnel03 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know? Lex  T/C Guest Book 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it some time, he stopped editing it yesterday. People do have lives =), he probably is doing other things that are important in real life. If he doesnt edit it in maby 3 days, then you can say he dumped it.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Unforgiven (2007)]]

message: My proposal is...
How about we actually USE this?
Lex  T/C Guest Book 23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Ok Im done the article, will you all go check it out and tell me if its good, if I need to change things or comment on it. Thanks.TrUcO9311 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check, thanxTrUcO9311 (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No Way Out (2007)]] 

message: The above title states it all. Please review the article, and if you see any problems, errors, etc; write them here. Cheers, Lex  T/C Guest Book  21:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have finished [[New Year's Revolution (2007)]]!

message: Due to the end of my college semester approaching, I have much to do in real life that my time on Wiki won't be suffcient to do much more than hit buttons to revert vandalism when I get the chance. Therefore, I'm putting my work on WrestleMania 23 and fixing the move links in the TNA wrestlers articles on hold until my semester ends. In about two weeks, I'll have the time and energy to continue. If anyone wants to work with what I have on either thing, feel free. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WrestleMania 23 and other updates

message: The page was recently moved from The Outsiders (WCW) to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall (since they're now wrestling in TNA). I think it should be moved to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as it's the proper naming convention for tag teams/stables that have wrestled on several promotions. But I need to get an insight from everybody here. The Chronic 06:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Outsiders definitly, that's what they're most famous as, it's what they're referred to by everyone but TNA who can't for legal reasons, it's an actual team name as well. I think that's plenty of reasons MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike Tenay has called them the Outsiders several times. TJ Spyke 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How bout NWO? Lex  T/C Guest Book  16:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NWO is the superstable that consisted of more wrestlers (in different combos, some not involving Nash or Hall). The Outsiders are just a tag team of Nash an Hall. The Chronic 17:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok, then I think Nash and Hall should just be merged into the NWO article. It's not like if we have seperate articles for DX and "Triple H and Shawn Michaels". Lex  T/C Guest Book  18:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Outsiders (Nash & Hall) have also been successful in their own right (outside of NwO). That deserves their own article. Besides, mostly the only times that HHH and HBK wrestle as a tag team are when they wrestle as DX, and that doesn't need a separate article. The Chronic 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's more comparable to the New Age Outlaws and DX. They were a team before they were part of the stable, and they were a team afterward. Nikki311 02:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should not have been moved since they have always been known as the Outsiders. TJ Spyke 00:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the thing. I can't move the page to The Outsiders (professional wrestling), as that page already has a bit of edit history (besides my double-redirect fix). Would it be alright to just copy and paste it, even though the history wil not be preserved? The Chronic 05:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I will ask an admin to do so (in this case, Nikki). The Chronic 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing you didn't decide to do that, since it would have been reverted. Copy and past moves are NOT allowed, you are supposed to use WP:RM for move requests. TJ Spyke 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot that rule for a second. The Chronic 05:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kevin Nash and Scott Hall]] 

message: The following articles from Pro Wrestling COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination            	Votes	Votes needed	Date of prune
Survivor Series (1997)	13   	15          	November 26 (2 days)
The Fingerpoke of Doom	10   	12          	November 26 (2 days)
Cyber Sunday (2006)   	7    	9           	November 25 (1 day!!)
Santo                 	4    	6           	November 25 (1 day!!)
Please save the articles from pruning! Lex  T/C Guest Book  18:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyber Sunday (2006) pruned. Davnel03 09:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prune notice

message: What the title says, and several pruning notices. The following articles from the COTW, are about to be pruned:
Nomination            	Votes	Votes needed	Date of prune
Survivor Series (1997)	13   	15          	November 26 (1 days)
The Fingerpoke of Doom	10   	12          	November 26 (1 days)
Please save the articles from pruning! Davnel03 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Triple H]] now the FACOTW + pruning notices

message: I propose moving the page to title her real name. Always after death in the wwe.com keyfab always seems to be broken, they see each person as an athlete/actor in the end. So who agree's to this? Govvy (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The naming conventions say use the most commonly known name, and in her case that's the name she used in public for ~50 years.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is Eddie Fatu not Umaga; Adam Birch not Joey Mathews/Joey Mercury; Alvin Burke, Jr. not MVP; Ken Anderson not Mr. Kennedy; Glen Jacobs not Kane; Carly Colón not Carlito; Lisa Marie Varon not Victoria; Kevin Fertig not Kevin Thorn; Anthony Carelli not Santino Marella/Boris Alexiev; Mark Copani not Muhammad Hassan; Bob Holly not Hardcore Holly; Chris Chavis not Tatanka; Paul Wight not Big Show; Jason Reso not Christian Cage; Adam Copeland not Edge; Booker Huffman not Booker T; Dave Finlay not simply Finlay; Marty Wright not The Boogeyman; Ronnie Arniell not Shawn Spearsl Dylan Postl not Hornswoggle; John Hennigan not Johnny Nitro/John Morrison; Oscar Gutierrez not Rey Mysterio; James Maritato not Nunzio; Jim Duggan not Hacksaw Jim Duggan; Darren Matthews not William Regal/Steven Regal; Harry Smith not DH Smith; Sean Morley not Val Venis; James Reiher, Jr. not Deuce/Deuce Shade; Cliff Compton not Domino; Drew Hankinson not Festus; James Yun not Jimmy Wang Yang; Ray Gordy not Jesse; Mike Mizanin not The Miz; Nelson Frazier, Jr. not Viscera/Big Daddy V;  I could go on, but I am tired... Lex  T/C Guest Book 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The Miz is disambiguation, as is Booker T. As for Darren Matthews he published his autobiography under that name thus putting him on any ring name would be incorrect, as precedent of "Adam Copeland on Edge". –– Lid(Talk) 16:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. A deceased pool player whose nickname only appears in an external link versus a current TV star who's used that name both in wrestling and "reality" TV. I think an  template would be sufficient there. I am embarrassed I didn't recognize Booker T as a disambiguation. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Viscera, Montel Vontavious Porter, Mr. Kennedy, Hornswoggle and Christian Cage? Also "Hacksaw" is not a nickname, as "Hacksaw Jim Duggan" is his full ring name. He will never be announced to the ring as "Jim Duggan" alone, because it wouldn't be his full ring name. Lex  T/C Guest Book 18:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, "Hacksaw" IS a nickname as his ringname is Jim Duggan. Article names are on a case by case basis, but Moolah should stay where she is since she used the name in and out of the ring for almost her entire 50+ years in wrestling. TJ Spyke 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For people who have worked under multiple ring names for large chunks of their career we tend to demure to real names. Viscera, Honswaggle, Regal, & MVP fit that description. Just because someone has been on WWE TV for the last 2 months or year with a name doesn't make them more known with that name.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hornswoggle has only competed under that name. He was Little Bastard, when he didn't compete; MVP has competed under that gimmick for a long time and is much better known as MVP, than with his indie name, Antonio Banks; Viscera is much better known as Viscera, than Nelson Frazier, Jr., so the article should be renamed; every time I mention Mr. Kennedy and Christian Cage, the following comment always ignores them. Lex  T/C Guest Book 19:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Dylan Postl competed in NWA Wisconsin as "Shortstack, the World's Sexiest Midget" and won their X-Division Championship before appearing in WWE as Little Bastard and Hornswoggle. Check his article, I believe it's sourced. Jason Reso used the name "Christian" for many more years than his current ring name. If anything, the article should be called Christian (wrestler). But I personally think that sounds really stupid, and should just stay Jason Reso. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He also wrestled as The Little Bastard at No Way Out 2007 (teaming up with Finlay to take on The Boogeyman and Little Boogeyman). TJ Spyke 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what is he in the WWE? Little Bastard? Hornswoggle? Hornswoggle McMahon? Not even the WWE can keep his name consistent for more than 6 months, which is why the best option is to pick the one name that's stable, his real one. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nelson Frazier has been known as, and held titles in WWE alone, both Mabel and Viscera, and currently works as Big Daddy V. How are you deciding which of those is best known? Everytime I see him I still think Mabel. Christian and Christian Cage are supposed to be separate ring names, so there's no reason not to go with the "multiple names → ring name" guide line. I have little issue with Ken Anderson being moved to Ken Kennedy—not Mr. Kennedy, but Shortstack (title)/Little Bastard/Hornswoggle/Hornswoggle McMahon just recently went through a name change. I'll say it again, just because someone has been using a name on WWE (or TNA) television recently doesn't erase their past where they used a name for much longer.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WOW!! You guys have gone off on a tangents and what of The Fabulous Moolah to Mary Ellison? Two sources are provided with her real name. Including the WWE! The article should be titled to her real name and The Fabulous Moolah should be directed to it. Not the other way around. It's a shame that some of you guys don't follow true biographical rules and instead followed the wwe's naming convention instead. Because the simple fact remains Moolah is a character name, if you want to know the real person like you should do instead of the character the biography should start with the title of the real name. That's how it should be. Govvy (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is arguing if it's her real name or not, the point is Wikipedia naming conventions regarding common names.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do remember reading, title by common >> redirect to correct. Govvy (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why rename her? Plenty of other articles on people are at what they are best known as, not their real name (like Snoop Dogg instead of Cordorzar Broadus). Also, so what that WWE said her real name? They usually do that when they announced a persons death. They called Mike Awesome Michael Alfonso after he hung himself, do you want that renamed? Moolah is best known as Moolah, and the naming conventions would suggest sticking at the articles current name. TJ Spyke 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It has nothing to do with a lack or respect at all. People here are simply following WP:COMMONNAME and the person in question is better known under the name currently. Also, I have not seen any mucic fans accused of a lack of respect for using Snoop Dogg over Cordozar Calvin Broadus, Jr or sports fans for using Pelé over Edson Arantes do Nascimento even though the article titles do not use there real names. I don't see how this is any different. --70.48.108.213 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal: [[The Fabulous Moolah]] to Mary Ellison 

message: I made this table for the Royal Rumble matches to better organize it as to me the ones that are in the articles are kinda messy. 
This is for the 2007 Royal Rumble
Red indicates a RAW superstar, blue indicates a SmackDown! superstar, and purple indicates an ECW extremist. A new entrant came out approximately every 90 seconds.
P.S.-Yes i do know the colors arent that good, but I will change that if it gets approved. Cheers=)
     Focus on it's neatness and sort-ability. 
# 	Entrant                 	Elimination #	Eliminator                                              	Time 	
1 	Ric Flair               	1            	Edge                                                    	05:40	
2 	Finlay                  	12           	Shawn Michaels                                          	32:32	
3 	Kenny Dykstra           	2            	Edge                                                    	04:05	
4 	Matt Hardy              	9            	Randy Orton                                             	18:55	
5 	Edge                    	28           	Shawn Michaels                                          	44:02	
6 	Tommy Dreamer           	3            	Kane                                                    	06:41	
7 	Sabu                    	4            	Kane                                                    	05:27	
8 	Gregory Helms           	5            	King Booker                                             	06:50	
9 	Shelton Benjamin        	14           	Shawn Michaels                                          	22:22	
10	Kane                    	11           	King Booker                                             	13:21	
11	CM Punk                 	22           	The Great Khali                                         	27:16	
12	King Booker             	10           	Kane                                                    	09:23	
13	Super Crazy             	7            	Edge and Randy Orton                                    	04:32	
14	Jeff Hardy              	8            	Edge                                                    	03:38	
15	The Sandman             	6            	King Booker                                             	00:13	
16	Randy Orton             	27           	Shawn Michaels                                          	27:14	
17	Chris Benoit            	19           	The Great Khali                                         	17:52	
18	Rob Van Dam             	21           	The Great Khali                                         	15:27	
19	Viscera                 	13           	Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn	06:22	
20	Johnny Nitro            	5            	Chris Benoit                                            	06:18	
21	Kevin Thorn             	16           	Chris Benoit                                            	06:15	
22	Hardcore Holly          	18           	The Great Khali                                         	10:21	
23	Shawn Michaels          	29           	The Undertaker                                          	24:11	
24	Chris Masters           	17           	Rob Van Dam                                             	03:32	
25	Chavo Guerrero          	24           	The Great Khali                                         	06:24	
26	Montel Vontavious Porter	26           	The Undertaker                                          	07:21	
27	Carlito                 	23           	The Great Khali                                         	03:19	
28	The Great Khali         	25           	The Undertaker                                          	03:45	
29	The Miz                 	20           	The Great Khali                                         	00:07	
30	The Undertaker          	-            	WINNER                                                  	13:15	
King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
or
# 	Brand	Entrant                 	Eliminated	Eliminated by                                           	Time
1 	RAW  	Ric Flair               	01        	Edge                                                    	05:40
2 	SD!  	Finlay                  	12        	Shawn Michaels                                          	32:32
3 	RAW  	Kenny Dykstra           	02        	Edge                                                    	04:05
4 	SD   	Matt Hardy              	09        	Randy Orton                                             	18:55
5 	RAW  	Edge                    	28        	Shawn Michaels                                          	44:02
6 	ECW  	Tommy Dreamer           	03        	Kane                                                    	06:41
7 	ECW  	Sabu                    	04        	Kane                                                    	05:27
8 	SD!  	Gregory Helms           	05        	King Booker                                             	06:50
9 	RAW  	Shelton Benjamin        	14        	Shawn Michaels                                          	22:22
10	SD!  	Kane                    	11        	King Booker                                             	13:21
11	ECW  	CM Punk                 	22        	The Great Khali                                         	27:16
12	SD!  	King Booker             	10        	Kane                                                    	09:23
13	RAW  	Super Crazy             	07        	Edge and Randy Orton                                    	04:32
14	RAW  	Jeff Hardy              	08        	Edge                                                    	03:38
15	ECW  	The Sandman             	06        	King Booker                                             	00:13
16	RAW  	Randy Orton             	27        	Shawn Michaels                                          	27:14
17	SD!  	Chris Benoit            	19        	The Great Khali                                         	17:52
18	ECW  	Rob Van Dam             	21        	The Great Khali                                         	15:27
19	RAW  	Viscera                 	13        	Edge,Punk, RVD, Benoit, Benjamin, Nitro, Holly and Thorn	06:22
20	RAW  	Johnny Nitro            	05        	Chris Benoit                                            	06:18
21	ECW  	Kevin Thorn             	16        	Chris Benoit                                            	06:15
22	ECW  	Hardcore Holly          	18        	The Great Khali                                         	10:21
23	RAW  	Shawn Michaels          	29        	The Undertaker                                          	24:11
24	RAW  	Chris Masters           	17        	Rob Van Dam                                             	03:32
25	SD!  	Chavo Guerrero          	24        	The Great Khali                                         	06:24
26	SD!  	Montel Vontavious Porter	26        	The Undertaker                                          	07:21
27	RAW  	Carlito                 	23        	The Great Khali                                         	03:19
28	RAW  	The Great Khali         	25        	The Undertaker                                          	03:45
29	SD!  	The Miz                 	20        	The Great Khali                                         	00:07
30	SD!  	The Undertaker          	-         	WINNER                                                  	13:15
King Booker returned to the ring after being eliminated and eliminated Kane.
Do you approve of it to be placed in Royal Rumble articles? or comment if something should be changed or added 
Approve, Disapprove, or Comment:
TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current format is fine. If we did use this one (sortable tables I mean), the colors have to be extended to all of them. TJ Spyke 00:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? I did it with the 2007 drafts. Mshake3 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Mshake. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment-Okay its changed.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well Chronic thats basically what I am doing, just plugging in the table to the current ones w/ a few adjustments.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean pluging in the sort-thing into the Royal Rumble tables that are existing on the Royal Rumble pages right now. The Chronic 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, thats what I am doing, I just wanted to show you how it would look. (w/ a few adjustments)TrUcO9311 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well they are since superstars are not from one brand, they are from three. Notable since there is different talent coming from different places.TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it not be handled with a dagger & obelisk (†, ‡)? A column seems extraneous.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Approve The Chronic's table Now that's more like it! Nice work Chronic!-- bulletproof 3:16 03:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble table Approval  

message: Ok apparently there has been some dispute over the RR tables, so here we go again.
If you agree on this table being put into the RR articles put Agree, or if you disagree put Disagree, or if you want to comment/question about the table put Comment.
TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They already do that. We just need to pick some colors and stick to them. The current colors used for SmackDown and ECW (at least in the 2007 article) are way too similar. TJ Spyke 02:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they dont, when I go look at them its white.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody made the colors lighter, but they are not all white. They just need to be made darker (maybe match the colors used in the main WWE article). TJ Spyke 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Idk if its my browser that shows the table colors white cuz on the main wwe article I see a white background in the tables.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that this table: World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders looks all white to you? Then it must be your browser because they are not even close to white. TJ Spyke 02:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow it is my browser (Mozilla FireFox). But when I go use Internet Explorer 7, i still see a white background.TrUcO9311 (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe others can chime in. I use IE7 and do not see a white backround, I checked with FF and do not see a white backround. TJ Spyke 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: TJ what do colors do you see? I see like a dark whitish color, a little less than GreyTrUcO9311 (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a light lavender for ECW, a really light blue for SmackDown, and a really light red for RAW. RAW and SmackDown could probably be a little darker though. TJ Spyke 03:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If we do decide to change the table, which I don't see the point of doing, I suggest we go with The Chronic's table posted above. The colors are perfect and its much better organized than the ones recently nominated. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we do go with my design, there's just one or two things that need to be fixed. The "Eliminated by" and "Time" columns, when sorted, are not sorted correctly (by numbers, going up or down depending on what is selected). Can someone fix that? I've tried something, but it's no use. The Chronic 06:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See List of Virtual Console games (North America). The table will sort by number (meaning 12:45 wil show up before 6:32 since "1" comes before "6". You would have to manually set that up (so it would be 01, 02, etc.).  That means someone would have to manually adjust those two columns in every table. TJ Spyke 06:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble  Table Re:Approval

message: Is anyone opposed to this being nominated for Featured List status? All of the IWGP championship lists are fully sourced, so I would like the see them all get up to FL status (perhaps a Featured Topic?). This list currently has no picture, which is the only drawback I can see. I don't know where one could get a picture of the belt, but the article for Matt Bloom (one of the current champions) has a free-use picture (with no belt, though). Is it worth adding, or is the article okay as it is? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some small copy edits I'd like to do before it is nominated, as I saw some MOS issues just now when I skimmed it. I'll probably get to that tomorrow afternoon, and I'll post here when I'm finished with it. Other than that, the sources look good. I think the free-use of Bloom would be good. There aren't any pictures of the NWA World Women's Championship or the WWE European Championship titles, so both of those FL's use free-use pics of current or past champions. Nikki311 05:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright. I've fixed what I wanted to. I have no objections with it being nominated, except for the addition of the picture. Nikki311 17:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the picture. Could someone give it one last look before I nominate it? I'm not great at writing captions, so I'm not sold on what I wrote. In addition, I don't know much about spacing, so I'm not sure if there's too much room after the Table of Contents. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IWGP World Tag Team Championship]] 

message: Mostly every superstar has tattoos, now I know they are added in the "Personal life" section, but do they need to be cited? Zenlax T C S 20:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rule of thumb is everything needs to be cited. I've found that the best way to cite tattoos, if they're notable enough to be in the article, is with pictures.«»bd(talk stalk) 20:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. All I needed. Zenlax T C S 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE also has their superstar ink section on wwe.com Lex  T/C Guest Book  23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off question 

message: I have some good news to lighten the mood. Bobby Eaton, our first Featured Article collaboration, got moved to the FA Log, which means it has passed and is now a FA! Hopefully, our current FACOTW, Triple H, will be just as good. Please copyedit, repair links, etc to Triple H's article, and please add suggestions to his article's talk page so it can be promoted to FA status, as well. Nikki311 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent news, congratulations are in order to the whole project. I've just been through Triple H's article and fixed various minor things, but I haven't the time to contribute much more than that right now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, it really is horrible timing, as it is my last couple of weeks of class, too. I have a million things to do and won't be able to contribute anything major, other than some minor things here and there either (unless I decide to do some major procrastinating). Nikki311 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine it will be the same for several other editors as well. Can't really be helped though. *shrugs shoulders* Oh well. Let's hope there are some younger editors that can pick up the slack, so to speak (not that I really do a lot around here to begin with). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I apologize.  I am in the same boat as well and that is why I haven't been around the last several days.  I've made promises to copyedit and proof read some stuff and I feel really bad that I haven't gotten to it yet (sorry Davne I honstly haven't forgotten I'm just really bogged down).  That, together with Thanksgiving and the fact that I'm graduating in a few weeks and trying to find a job ....ugh ...REALLY busy.  Everyone keep up the great work you always do, we college folks will surely be back in full force once we get our stuff done.  --Naha|(talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Why are you two finishing up class this early? Did you two start school in the spring? Normally (at least here in the US), school goes from August/September to May/June unless a college student starts their semester in the spring. No matter what the reason, you two are both good editors, but real life is more important. TJ Spyke 03:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I go to school at the University of Georgia, and we're just finishing the Fall semester, which started mid-August. I have two more weeks of class and then a week of finals. Then I have about a month of break before the Spring semester starts. Nikki311 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here as far as my schedule is concerned, but I'm at Texas A&M University. No class for me in the spring though, I'm finally graduating after 7 years of college ...Woooooooooo --Naha|(talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I started late August and I have two more weeks of classes. I go to a community college (currently in my third of six semesters before I have enough money to transfer out). I have a month and a half before my Spring semester starts. And thanks for the compliment, TJ. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good news 

message: Hey, has anybody recieved the newsletter yet? I'm having User:Betacommand deliver the newsletter, but nobody seems to be getting it yet. The Chronic 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I received it. --ProtoWolf (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it. Bmg916Speak 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got it. Lex  T/C Guest Book  23:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PW newsletter 

message: I have nominated this article for Featured List status. If you have time, please look over the article and leave your feedback. Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured List candidate: [[IWGP World Tag Team Championship]] 

message: No one has been answering NYR07's peer review except TRuco. Come on people, give suggestions! Anyway, I believe WMIII and NYR07 are  written great already, so I am gonna start a 3rd article: List of WWE Hardcore Champions. 
I am going to try and get sources for this article, and eventually nominate it for FL, as all the other List of WWE Championships. Cheers, Lex  T/C Guest Book  05:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYR07/Peer Review; New List

message: I am now in the process of expanding the list, hopefully until I can get it to FL status. I will be using NWA World Women's Championship as a template to help me. Anyone who would like to help can. The Chronic 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions]] 

message: Al Burke is an article on a supposedly former professional wrestler. However I highly suspect this is an elaborate hoax, so I put it up for AfD discussion. Comments welcome here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Burke. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Al Burke]] 

message: I'm close to implementing my work of No Mercy 2007 into it's article location. Obviously I still have to complete the aftermath, as well as add some photos. But if see where improvements can be made (fixing wikilinks, adding them, better sentence structure, references, etc), please feel free to help me out. Mshake3 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mshake3/NoMercy07|No Mercy (2007)]] 

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article No Way Out (2006). -- LAX 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article - [[No Way Out (2006)]]

message: I noticed that Talia Madison does not have a page on Wikipedia. When I attempted to create this page, it was blocked from creation as she isn't notable. I have however typed up a wiki page ready to use. She is a talent on the weekly broadcast TNA, and although I could see how she may have not been notable when the page was originally created, she certainly is now. How can we remove the creation protection? -Frenchbreadpizza 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had gotten the page unprotected, but then someone created a bad article and caused it to be deleted and protected again. If you have an article that is sourced and well written (so it wouldn't be speedy deleted), show it to User:The Anome, who protected the page from being recreated. TJ Spyke 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I see, well thanks for clarifying and I'll let him know. Thanks again. -Frenchbreadpizza 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talia Madison IS notable 

message: The headline says it all, please review here thanks to all.TrUcO9311 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for [[No Way Out (2007)]] 

message: I will start improving this list in hopes of raising it to FL status.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lex said he was going to work on it, too, here. Nikki311 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We will work together on it, we cool like that.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of WWE Hardcore Champions]] 

message: Does anyone have or can upload a fair-use image of the WWE Hardcore Championship I would really appreciate it. Cheers =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardcore Championship Image 

message: Hey I agree with what Nikki said above, So now im going to work on NWO 2004 as I have previously worked on NWO 2007. Hopefully we will finish all of the NWO PPV's. So step up people. YEAH! =)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No Way Out (2004)]] new article 

message: Do people think they're clever when they keep putting fake, unused move names on articles? Glamazon-Plex? Har dee har har. When was this ever said on TV? Enough with all these fake move names. Max85 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I see all these move names in articles that I never heard them ever say on TV or in the wrestlers profile. I say put a fact tag for plausible names and give it a couple of days before removing the name, and just remove the fake sounding names right away. TJ Spyke 23:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You are speaking to the choir. We try and remove them when we see them and/or source them. It's mostly IPs and a few annoying non-WP:PW regulars (that you can't do anything about because they aren't necessarily doing anything wrong, but all their edits are non-notable or just plain un-needed). Nikki311 23:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough with the fake move names 

message: I want to get in the PPV crazed. So I'd like to work on the article, but before creating it I'm gonna work on it on my Sandbox. Thought I should let you guys know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vengeance 2006 

message: Hi all, 
Just letting the project know that I have nominated one of my Triple H images on Featured picture candidates (would probably be a good addition if the article is soon to be put up for FA, as it seems from the above discussion). If you'd like to see just this nomination it's here. It will remain on the FPC page for approximately one week.
Please don't take this as a petition for votes. If you would like to cast a vote please check to see whether you agree that it meets the Featured picture criteria first. --jjron (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I got a lot of complaints from my nominations for little things. Yours gets nothing but supports despite the actual quality of the images. There's got to be a secret to this. Mshake3 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, check again ;-). I suspect (as with the Featured Articles) that any wrestling based pics will always face automatic opposes from a certain number of people. (BTW, I didn't think the images were that bad). --jjron (talk) 11:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture Nomination