Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 5

message: An anonymous user created a page for a music producer/filmmaker named "The Blue Panther" and another editor moved it to "Blue Panther."  All the pages that linked to "Blue Panther" referred to the wrestler so I moved the article about the music producer back to "The Blue Panther" since all the pages that link "The Blue Panther" referred to the producer and the article itself always referred to her as "The Blue Panther."  After adding a disambiguation notice at the top of the Blue Panther page, I thought any confusion would be gone but the article has been repeatedly blanked and replaced with a redirect to The "Blue Panther" or simply copied the content of the "The Blue Panther" and pasted it over.  On the talk page, I tried to explain my actions but User:far2steep insists that it should be a redirect despite the fact that 13 pages (not counting non-articles and the disambiguation) link to "Blue Panther" and refer to the wrestler, none refer to the producer (only six articles refer to "The Blue Panther", for your information).  I doubt that my last comment will be any resolution and this person has called me a "child" and threatened legal action against me.  What should I do?--Darren Jowalsen 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The website linked to in the "The Blue Panther" article identities the person in question as "Blue Panther", not "The Blue Panther". Perhaps The Blue Panther could redirect to Blue Panther, which in turn could disambiguate between Blue Panther (wrestler) and Blue Panther (music personality)? McPhail 21:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to do it, but if it will end this madness, I'll do it.--Darren Jowalsen 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Panther Dilemma 

message: User:ContagiousTruth has moved Samoa Joe back to Joe Seanoa, with the reason; "Samoa Joe is a character, Joe Seona is the real name of person the article is about...". I myself am not really worried either way but i thought id bring it to your attention --- Paulley 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the move should be reverted based on WP:NC - "Samoa Joe" is the most recognizable name for the person, and so far, he has only wrestled (in any notable capacity) under that character. I'd keep the move if, say, he writes a biography under his real name, or his ring name is really close to his real name (ie. if he starts calling himself "Samoa Joe Seanoa" or something like that). kelvSYC 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it back. For the most part, wrestlers should be under their ring name unless their ring name changes a lot. This is supported by virtually every naming convention policy Wikipedia has, and also enables more direct linking. McPhail 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe that wrestlers should be listed under their real names with their ring names redirecting to the article. The articles are about the person and all of their characters, not just one. For example, a wrestler like Kevin Nash would have Oz, Vinnie Vegas, and Deisel all redirecting to his Nash page, which will give you the entire career of Nash. I think this is most pressing in the case of Steve Borden. This guy owns the trademark to the name Sting, yet his article page is "Sting (wrestler)". It makes no sense. 209.184.165.20 19:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sting (wrestler)" Was chosen there for the reason of Sting the musical artist also needing to have an article. Darryl Hamlin 08:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samoa Joe|Joe Seanoa]] 

message: Recently, someone changed the page to say Hogan held the WCW international title 6 times, which as far I remember was not the case. The title was unified w/ the WCW title in '94 therefore it was the WCW title. So how is it that Hogan held the title 6 times? -- billz015
:You're correct. I've just made the change right now. --Oakster 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No. of World Title Reigns 

message: Malik McMahon has taken it upon his or herself to add mention of a character by name of "Malik McMahon" to every McMahon family article. I've reverted the edits up to 17:48 GMT, but he/she might try and re-insert them, so please be vigilant if you can spare a minute. McPhail 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This guy may need to be banned. Put "Malik McMahon" into google and this is just the latest instance of this stuff on the web. Good on him for including the "marrying Trish Stratus" thing though. Bdve 18:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Contributions/Malik McMahon|Malik McMahon]]

message: List of WWE pay-per-view events has been nominated for deletion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE pay-per-view events. tv316 05:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like deletion was shot down. I was quite surprised so many people wrote "as per BronzeWarrior" and to that I can only say "heh - cool" and thanks. :) BronzeWarrior 09:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article up for deletion 

message: Could we get the spoiler policy listed on the main project page? As I understand it, you aren't supposed to list the results of tapings if the show hasn't aired on US TV. Killswitch Engage is insisting (see here) that it is his right to list the results since the show has already aired in Canada. I just think it would be good to have an official listing of this policy to point to. Eenu  (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler Policy

message: I wanted to get your opinions on the Interpromotional match page that was just made. Do you guys think that it can be expanded on and be made into a useful article, or is it hopeless and a prime candidate for deletion? tv316 05:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Interpromotional match]] page 

message: I feel one of the projects goals should be to get a free, useable image of every mainstream wrestler, as there are still a few lacking some. (Vampiro and Scott Steiner, for example).Kingfisherswift 18:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: According to his WWE.com profile, his name is spelled Mickie Henson so I haved moved his profile to that name.  I have also redirected Mickey Henson, Mickey Hensen, and Mickie Hensen to that location.  --JFred 19:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mickie Henson]] 

message: Whats up with this? I found it on the Glen Jacobs article just now. Is it really needed? Most/many articles explain within the body of the article when they are referring to kayfabe or storyline/plot events. And why would it randomly be on that article and not all others? Not that I want it to appear on other articles ...its just so ...random. I don't think we should use it. --Naha|(talk) 20:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this for the reasoning. --Oakster 22:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either we add the tag to articles with any ambiguity as to what is real and what is staged, or we rewrite every article to read "X was booked to defeat Y for the Z Championship" and "X was booked to feud with Y". The former is a simple task; the latter requires overhauling every single professional wrestling article on Wikipedia. Your choice. McPhail 23:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, those are not the only choices. Plenty of articles just simply state in the body of the article when they are citing kayfabe. I see nothing wrong with that, and it looks much more tidy as well. The less template messages the better. They do nothing but clutter the article space. I especially see no reason to add that tag to articles of wrestlers who have worked no where but WWF/WWE because it has been publicty stated by the company that the wrestling there is staged.--Naha|(talk) 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, taking McPhail's quote from the above linked archive "I actually think the template is a good idea. Virtually every professional wrestling article tends to blend fact and fiction. McPhail" - no kidding! Because the majority of the articles are about wrestlers who work for promotions that make money from selling storylines. I'm aware there is a world of wrestling outside WWE, but storyline is what draws people in by the masses to that franchise and others like it - and those are the articles you would have this tag on. The WWE purposely mixes fact and fiction and we model that in the articles. There is no need to state every result of every match was predetermined, its a given.--Naha|(talk) 05:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The way most articles are now, without any prior knowlege about how pro wrestling works and (worse) what's currently going on in the storylines (especially the Lita/Edge situation), it may be difficult to know the difference between what's worked and what's real. In that case the article should tell so. Having a template up there makes it seem that something's wrong with the article. And it does. So I'll boldy edit the template to add the info at . --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for pointing out kayfabe, but I believe it should continue to be noted by the methods that are aready in place, internally within the article. --Naha|(talk) 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The latter is preferable - in not so many words, thats what several of the articles already do to a point. I still don't think it is necessary. The same header might as well be plastered on every movie/film article. --Naha|(talk) 17:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But films do not pretend, on some level, to be real, and for all that WWE has admitted that wrestling is fake, they still throw "worked shoots" out every so often. Moreover, most films don't have copious numbers of adolescents updating them on a weekly basis with no concern for distinguishing between reality and fantasy. The template has to be easily visible; integrating the disclaimer into the body text means that a casual reader could miss it. McPhail 22:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The importance on which you are placing making sure everyone knows (most) professional wrestling is fake is out of proportion. This is information that is best suited for the article Professional wrestling. And yes, most films do pretend, on every level, to be real. I'm also loathingly aware of all the fanboy teens that feel the need to update every article with the latest play-by-play of their favorite superstar, but those updates are all too often so poorly worded, or not even needed/appropriate at all, that they get edited out quickly anyway. --Naha|(talk) 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The importance on which you are placing making sure everyone knows (most) professional wrestling is fake is out of proportion" - I don't know if it is. Konnan was recently named a good article, but the editor who granted the distinction noted that the article "can still be improved by more clearly separating reality from fiction". If we are to elevate any articles to featured article status, the distinction needs to be made. McPhail 15:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes ...according to that person, and you. Its just an opinion, as is my stance. --Naha|(talk) 20:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kayfabe disclaimer?

message: I see it has been updated. In the conversation above, it seemed like McPhail was proposing the disclaimer be placed in every Prowrestling article more or less ..and be placed there indefinitely because the articles will always dipict kayfabe events.
But now it includes an additional clean up section? What will you do when it has been sufficently cleaned up but still feel the article needs a notice at the top so that readers don't get "confused between fact and fiction"? If you are determined on using the kayfabe disclaimer, the cleanup part should be its own seperate template. --Naha|(talk) 01:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with that. McPhail 13:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kayfabe disclaimer change in wording

message: I'm confused, what's with the blurb that was added to the beginning of this article?  From what I understand, he is Jimmy Snuka's adopted son.  Also, Snuka (Sr.) is on here under Jimmy Snuka, not his real name of James Reiher, So I think Jr.'s profile should be moved to Jimmy Snuka, Jr. since that's what he is better known as.  --JFred 21:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. I think the guy requesting the move means that his surname isn't actually "Reiher", despite Snuka having adopted him. McPhail 23:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've moved the page to Jimmy Snuka, Jr., and reworded the first paragraph, but it might need more rewording.  (Thanks for moving the blurb to the talk page btw.)  --JFred 01:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[James Reiher, Jr.]] (Deuce Shade) 

message: The article for First Blood match either needs to be overhauled or deleted. Believe it or not they took place before the WWF was around and there have been more than two. It either needs to be expanded (a lot) or just trashed all together. The match is already represented in the match types article. I wanted to post it here before just putting it up for delete. Bdve 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Blood Match page 

message: Here's something I've been working on: a timeline of the belts during the Invasion era, with colored bars representing promotional affiliation. It's not entirely factually accurate, and there are a few bugs with EasyTimeline, but I'd like to solicit opinions on it. The timeline is the one at the bottom of User:kelvSYC/Timelines. kelvSYC 18:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its cool, but can you make an argument as to why a timeline for belts during this specific era is important? That would be needed to justify an article, or inclusion of the timeline in other articles. --Naha|(talk) 20:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok but I'm a little bit confused. You say that the timeline is for belts during the Invasion era, and say that Edge is considered to be the last Invasion-era Intercontinental Champion, but do not include him on it? Maybe I'm missing something but it seems the timeline should include all belt holders. Also, and this really needs to be done - the dark colors, red and blue are really hard to read and should be changed to lighter shades. The same goes for the other timelines you have on that page, they are cool just really hard to read because of the dark colors :) --Naha|(talk) 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The colors are a limitation of EasyTimeline (in the sense that you have very little to work with, and I don't want to be bothered with the details) - one of the reasons why I didn't link to any wrestler's page.  Edge was considered to be the last Invasion-era IC champion because he won it from Test at Survivor Series - since the timeline ends at Survivor Series, I can't really put Edge in the timeline (for a similar reason, I couldn't put Angle's same-day Hardcore reign, and a limitation on EasyTimeline prevents me from doing Austin's promotion turn while he was champion).  I chose Invasion as the beginning largely arbitrarily (you could say that the Storm run-in started the thing, but... kelvSYC 03:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I say something that is hard to read and can't be done 100% factually doesn't have a place in articles /shrug. --Naha|(talk) 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it can't be done, but it seems like no one would be willing to fiddle with the details.  (Another point is that it is difficult to pinpoint when the Invasion began - should we begin at the final Nitro, WM, the Storm run-in, Invasion, etc.) kelvSYC 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion timeline 

message: One day after i clean up the Ladder match article all my edits were reverted (see ) by an established user, FutureNJGov. Bewildered by this idea that cleaning an article, that had more information on Money in the Bank matches from SmackDown! than info on ladder matches as a whole, was considered vandalism I looked to find his reasoning... "Kayfabe" was his motive.. why?, what had i done, did linking towards the rules of pro wrestling and the spotfest article break some secret rule of wikipedia kayfabe that i didnt know about! or was he just on auto revert and didnt check to see edits? i just dont know--- Paulley 14:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his previous edits, he has used the "vandalism, kayfabe" explanation when reverting spoilers. I'm not sure why he reverted your edits, though. McPhail 16:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd pose the question directly to him in his talk page.  He probably didn't realize your intentions.  --JFred 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well im not really that worried cus i just reverted it back, i just thought it was a bit weird --- Paulley 13:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up = vandalism???? 

message: There are consistently users who upload copyrighted images on professional wrestling related articles. I suggest that those who are actively involved in this project familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia copyright policy. Currently the professional wrestling article and the professional wrestling holds article (and many other related articles) contain copyrighted images which are NOT eligible for fair-use nor have any referencing to actually being press release/promotional photographs. Copyright policy is much more strict than can be expected, and currently, there is considerable copyright violation in the articles related to this project. --Marcus 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problems 

message: Why is it deemed a spoiler if someone in Australia sees Smackdown! and adds the result of a match to it before the episode airs in the US? User:Night_Bringer
::That's just how we roll!Bdve 14:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that it's because the US is the biggest market.  Plus it's good to have a standard, and since it's an American company, the American airings are chosen as the standard.  --JFred 18:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoilers? 

message: I was wondering if anyone thinks that Eddie Gurrerro's variation of the chair/belt-shot and Kane & Undertaker's situp could be considered signature moves, since no one else uses them. Or do they have to be actual attacks to count in this regard? If so would it be possible to add a catergory to cover these? User:Night_Bringer
::They could probably be mentioned in trivia..."Eddie G was known for his specific weapon shot..." "Both Kane & The Undertaker are known to perform 'zombie situps'...", but probably not signature "moves" Bdve 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sig move? 

message: What Wikipedia is not states, "There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." Wikipedia:External links states, "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)". With this in mind, I think that all fansites should be deleted from external links. Opinions? McPhail 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What pages would you say this is a major problem with?--Darren Jowalsen 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that this is a problem (at least on articles I have a intrest in), but I think it would be overboard to delete *all* fansites.  One fan site seems to me quite acceptable bearing that site is of a high quality (eye pleasing design, updated, and with quality infomation).  Anything over one link though would be too much as in most cases they provide the same content over and over.--Anthony 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I would just stick to policy and leave only one fansite. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fansites

message: I have been pondering this for a while and recent edits on the Rey Mysterio article have really got me thinking.  What should the logic be when arranging titles in the succession boxes.  I think it should be chronological based on first reign with each title either starting at the top with the oldest with the most recent title at the bottom or the oldest at the bottom with the most recent on top.  Any opinions?--Darren Jowalsen 23:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's better for the opposite. Starting from the first unique title won, then the oldest to newest time that person got it, then state the next unique title. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>
I don't think the succession boxes are a particularly good idea, to be honest. They convey very little information and take up a lot of space. The Booker Huffman article is dominated by a fairly uninformative list of boxes that only give two pieces of information - who he won the title from, and who he lost it to. They don't tell us when, where, in what type of match, on what show, etc. Compare this to the Bill Goldberg article, where far more information is conveyed in a much smaller space. McPhail 16:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be arranged by relevance of the titles, with World titles at the top.--Trick man01 06:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: I think spliting the AWA Articles (Belts/Main AWA Page) into AWA (Classic), AWA: Superstars of Wrestling, and move AWA territories article to AWA: Superstars of Wrestling article as a section, and update all title histories thru current day. Since the new AWA is an extension of the old AWA but with a totally new concept
(Its actual legality is up to later discussion on this or AWA's talk page)
BionicWilliam 02:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About AWA

message: I'm in the middle of reorganising the King of the Ring article and replacing tournament lists with bracket templates. The only problem is that by the time it's finished, the article is going to end up huge in size. It's going to need seperating but I don't know how should I seperate it as. At the moment, I was thinking of making something along the lines of two articles called King of the Ring results, 1985-1995 and King of the Ring results, 1996-2006 as there's not enough detail for each tournament to have its own article but even that has a problem in the future if a 2007 tournament is held. Any suggestions? --Oakster 17:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be the ideal situation. However, the only problem is the main contributing factor to the large size are the tournament brackets. Each one takes about 2-3 kilobytes and with 17 tournaments, it still doesn't solve my original problem. --Oakster 18:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of the Ring 

message: An independent wrestler has added a page of himself Ethan de Sade; Ian Walsh, and has added himself to some articles (his contribs). I reverted the changes to the other pages as vanity, as Wikipedia policy is that people should not edit pages of themselves. Google finds some stuff about the guy, but nothing suggests that he'd be notable enough for Wikipedia. So I'm suggesting the page should be added for deletion.
↪Lakes (Talk) 21:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, he also has Ethan de Sade and Ian Walsh linking to that article too, so those need to be deleted as well.  --JFred 20:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ethan de Sade; Ian Walsh]] 

message: Just to let you know I reworded a lot of the inactive explainations on the Current WWE roster page. While doing this, I had a thought that we should have a standard for the wording, especially when it comes to injuries. I feel that we should mention the date of injury (or date of surgery if they had it), including type of injury, and total expected ring time to miss. I used this wording when rewording some of the injuries.  --JFred 02:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive lists 

message: Since the WHC Page restates the same infomation,the belt factoids should be added to the page under the List of Number of World Title Reigns#World Titles in Pro Wrestling section
BionicWilliam 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think the [[World Heavyweight Championship]] should merged with [[List of Number of World Title Reigns]]

message: I request the it should be expanded to include an overview about it NWA & WCW History as the NWA/WCW United States Heavywieght Championshipto be more like the WWE Crusierwieght Championship (that also needs more info.
BionicWilliam 04:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I also request the WWE United States Championship be expanded

message: Wow, I haven't been to this talk page in a while. :-D Well, first can someone please look for updated rosters of all of the ones featured on the List of professional wrestlers. It seems all the rosters, except for the WWE and TNA rosters don't get updated often.
Next, can someone look through the unactive/retired wrestlers list and see if any wrestlers mentioned on that page need to be deleted. The last time I came to that page, there was a bunch of red links and now, for the most part, they are filled. Some articles aren't worth having and should be put up on WP:AFD. I went to the first link on the unactive/retired list and found the article Mean Marc Ash. I decided not to put it up on AFD, but to clean it up and rename it. Please everyone, check the pages above for articles that don't need to be here. Moe ε 05:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of professional wrestlers]]

message: Bit of a wierd article but it might be worth keeping... though i think the article's name needs to be changed... but i dont know how you could put it... any suggestions --- Paulley 18:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article is cleaned-up, then we could create a "The Undertaker" category (:Category:The Undertaker) as a sub-category of :Category:American professional wrestlers. The category could contain the aforementioned article, Mark Calaway, Personas of The Undertaker, Brothers of Destruction, Tombstone: The History of The Undertaker, Ministry of Darkness and Percy Pringle. The article itself is a list, so should be moved to something like "List of wrestlers / people (gender neutral) who have defeated The Undertaker". McPhail 19:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm putting this article up on AFD. At the most, it should be merged into the Undertaker article because alone the article isnt encyclopedic enough to hold it's own article. Moe ε 20:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Men Who Have Defeated The Undertaker]]

message: Now, if you may or may not know, any two members of the Spirit Squad may defend the WTTC, which of course is reminiscent of the Freebird rule.  Perhaps we should make an article about it? kelvSYC 01:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or include it in the Tag Title article.  --JFred 04:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Freebird rule is applied inconsistently, and not only in WWE (after all, the Freebird rule came out of GCW). The definition of a tag team and a stable really has to come into question (how about tag teams that form a part of a stable?) - you couldn't call the Freebird rule on the New Age Outlaws and suddenly say that DX teammates Triple H and X-Pac could defend Road Dogg and Billy Gunn's belts, for instance.  Even in TNA today - AMW is aligned with Team Canada with that Planet Jarrett thing, but I haven't seen Team Canada defending the tag belts there. kelvSYC 05:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's usually fairly simple to note the differences between a tag team with more than two members and a stable, and especially a tag team in a stable. The only group that I can think of as being ambiguous about who would be defending belts under a freebird rule situation right now would be if (TNA) Team Canada got their hands on them. They could be argued both ways.Bdve 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget that Triple X used this rule in TNA, or was it 3Live Kru?  Maybe they both used it, though I know one of these groups used it for sure.  --JFred 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section on the rule to the Freebirds page. Bdve 01:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article on the Freebird rule 

message: Someone keeps putting in unverified info that she is to debut on Raw as Mickie James' bodyguard. I keep removing the info and note that they must show proof, but anon users keep putting it back in. Besides, I think that this info makes no sense. How can someone be a bodyguard to someone of basically the same size, if not heavier? ErikNY 01:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Stephanie Finochio]]

message: Since it hasn't been posted on WWE.com and SD! hasn't aired yet in the US (to keep to the Title Holder Standard). Wouldn't be simple to make the rule on spoilers to just post whats been posted on WWE.com for WWE and TNA.com for TNA etc. So we eliminate any USA POV from Wikipedia on Wrestling?
BionicWilliam 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with that, but with respect to Dalip Singh, since they didn't refer to him by any other name last week, and the fact that he has already debuted, means I don't consider it a spoiler per se.  --JFred 00:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's literally the rule I go by in terms of spoilers anyway. Though there was a slight mishap where WWE.com posted the recent Angle/Orton result and removed it a few hours later. --Oakster (Talk) 20:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I reverted Dalip Singh to his real name plus about spoilers

message: Professional wrestling Deathmatch types
I'd merge this into match types or delete it. Its useless even to FMW fans etc. Warmon 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deathmatch types page

message: I think that the articles for Mike Shane and Todd Shane should be merged with Shane Twins since the individual articles repeat the same info as the Shane Twins article.  --JFred 05:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shane Twins|The Shane Twins/The Gymini]] 

message: Can everybody be on the watch out on the move articles it seems an anon user doesnt like TNA and repeatedly tries to blank out any and every TNA pic. On occasion this user will replaces TNApics with poor quality WWE versions aswell --- Paulley 09:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TNA image blanking

message: I've been monitoring this guy's contributions here, and pretty much every edit he makes has needed to be reverted.  I think he should be blocked indefinately since he doesn't appear to be a positive contributer to Wikipedia.  --JFred 18:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jeffjhicks]] 

message: I just had to do some cleaning to the slang page from a guy signing everything as G-Unit192 with the IP: 67.176.240.95.
Just something that may need to be watched out for.Bdve 20:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-Unit192 

message: Just wanted to get everyone's opinion on this.  Trosk and myself have been debating what name the page currently titled Former World Wrestling Entertainment performers (formerly Previous World Wrestling Entertainment roster) should have.  I was arguing that previous sounded too time specific, while roster typically denotes something current (though that's not part of the dictionary definition).  Also, should the word Current be put back at the beginning of World Wrestling Entertainment roster.  --JFred 19:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a WWE alumni category, similar to that of the ECW alumni category? Genocidal 09:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: World Wrestling Entertainment Alumni definately sounds better than what Trosk and myself were suggesting.  In fact, I think Alumni should be used for all former roster lists.  --JFred 22:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved it to World Wrestling Entertainment alumni.  I also did the same for Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni, World Championship Wrestling alumni, Jim Crockett Promotions alumni, and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni.  This way we have a standard to go by.  --JFred 23:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former WWE performers/Previous WWE roster 

message: Or redone if deleted for any other purpose
BionicWilliam 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Justin Roberts (a secondary annouccer) Page need to be recreated

message: This user is repeatedly adding false info and speculation to several WWE wrestler articles, as well as the WWE roster article.  I keep reverting him, but he keeps re-adding the false info.  I've been monitoring him here.  If someone here has the authority, he needs to be blocked.  --JFred 05:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User 70.248.33.133 

message: I think this article needs to be trimmed a little bit, and at least have more info about his WWE career, pre-2005. Burgwerworldz 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Ross

message: I must admire the extensive work that has been done to ensure every wrestling article is accurate and well-written.  These articles have been created similar to other forms of sport and entertainment.  However, there is one major flaw.  The frequent, non-stop metioning of "this did not really happen in real life", or, as it is called, kayfabe.  I myself a devoted mark, which some of you know, I have a problem with this, but even thinking like a smark it troubles me.  Any other article on Wikipedia, other than those of professional wrestling, never mention that "this did not really happen in real life".  Neither articles on The Simpsons, All in the Family, That 70's Show or even Unan1mous (though, this is up for debate) mention "this did not really happen in real life".  So, then, why do we constantly do this in our articles?  According to the smarks of the world and the Internet Wrestling Community, it should be common knowledge that wrestling is "fake" or "staged", whatever you prefer to define it as.  So, to keep on par with other articles on sports and/or entertainment we should eliminate "this did not really happen in real life", with the exception of current and previous rosters.  Please do not scoff at my viewpoint, and throw it out the window, but consider it. Trosk 19:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can get truely confusing when talking about the world of wrestling when things are or aren't Kayfabe. Especially when we have invented relations and injuries. It just makes for a better to understand article when we mention, quickly, that Ole Anderson and Arn Anderson aren't really brothers or that Randy Savage and Liz were already married when they...got married...before getting on with the story. Bdve 20:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example would be useful. Also, it has to be noted when injuries are real and when they are fake; when acrimony is real and when it is fake, etc. Wrestling is different from TV shows in that it frequently attempts to blend fact and fiction, as with the Edge/Lita/Hardy storyline or the ongoing storyline with Orton, his suspension and his ankle.  McPhail 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I know when I've read kayfabe stuff elsewhere, they've used quotation marks (ie. Undertaker and Kane are "brothers", or Orton was "injured" at the hands of Angle).  Maybe doing something like that here might help.  --JFred 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes have been tried here and get really distracting. It's easier to just put a (kayfabe) at the first mention of something then let it go on from there. Bdve 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Kayfabe"

message: I was looking at the Kane article and noticed that the "Championships and Accomplishments" section needs some cleaning up, like adding that box format.  I know if I try I'll screw up.  Someone should also go around and see if other profiles need that section, or any other, cleaned up.  --JFred 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I changed it about a week ago and a few of the other articles have also got the same format. I believe McPhail said it well here why this format might be a good idea. --Oakster (Talk) 21:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, forgot about that.  Fair enough.  --JFred 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kane 

message: An anonymous user who uses the IP address 4.38.35.1 continually vandalizes wrestling related pages.  He has been blocked several times this month already, but when the block expires, he's right back at it.  Just thought I'd let you guys know, as I've already reverted him twice today.  --JFred 19:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked any of the articles I created or rewrote yet, but I will to make sure this guy didn't vandalize them. Thanks for the tip! BronzeWarrior 06:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat Vandal 

message: McPhail pulled the fan specific stuff from the slang page, and after thinking about it for a minute I decided that I agreed with the decision but I still think the removed items deserve to be mentioned somewhere. Would anyone object (or forsee any objections) to a Professional Wrestling fan slang type page? Bdve 18:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would. WP:NOT says that Wikipedia isn't for definitions and the professional wrestling slang article treads the gray area with dictionary definitions as it is. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, good point, nevermind. Bdve 06:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Wrestling Slang