Talk:The Invasion (professional wrestling)

message: Can someone explain why the title of this article was changed from something more specific to something less specific?  I supposed it's possible to regard "The Invasion" as being meaningful in the context of pro-wrestling, but this title doesn't make a lot of sense.  It should either be my original title, or The Invasion (pro wrestling), unless I'm mistaken about some Wikipedia entry naming policy.
:I'd be inclined to agree. Perhaps "The Invasion" should be a disambiguation page, pointing to "The Invasion (Animorphs)", "The Invasion (Doctor Who)" and "The Invasion (pro wrestling)". Anyone object? 80.93.170.99 09:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections to making "The Invasion" a disambiguation and moving this article to "The Invasion (pro wrestling)" before Nov 20th, then I'll go ahead and make that change. 80.93.170.99 13:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: First off, Wrestlecrap is notable (since their entry in Wikipedia exists and isn't scheduled for deletion).  That they mention the Invasion is also notable, especially given the large section on criticisms of the invasion.  I would love to hear an explanation as to why it's not notable.  Please provide one before reverting -- Davetron5000 14:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While Wrestlecrap may not be the top most awesomest website ever, a) it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia and b) in the realm of wrestling-related websites, it is not some piddling site, but is, in fact, quite popular.  The authors have published a book under the brand name "Wrestlecrap", so I think it's notable and worthy of inclusion  here, especially given the discussion on the Invasion angle being poorly executed. -- Davetron5000 21:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just because a site is notable enough to be on wikipedia does not mean that mentions to all it's material be included on every page. You look at the alexa rating , it is not even in the top 200,000 sites in the world. Is the site notable enough to be in wikipedia, maybe, but just barely at best. But the info that keeps being added on is already on the main wrestlecrap page here on WP. It is only needed there, and it provides a link to this page here. It should not be added back here, it just clutters up the article and solely provides free advertising to that site, which is a cult site at best. Again, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Burgwerworldz 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, thanks for reverting before discussing.  Awesome.  Anyway, What is the cut-off for being allowed to be linked on this page?  150,000?  100,000?  I think it's somewhat specious to say it isn't notable for this page based on it's rank among all websites ever. That rank is not in any context and is a pretty weak metric of "notability to be included in an entry abouta wrestling angle."  I think since it is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and it's entry links to this page, and the trivia is directly related to the topic at hand, it adds something.  Furthermore, what is the harm?  It's not like it's some one-off fan-site hosted on tripod or something.  The site's owners have published multiple books, which is more than can be said for pwinsider.com, pwtorch.com and wrestlingobserver.com, which all rank in the 20Ks on your site ranking thingy.  And how is adding a bit of trivia turning Wikipedia into a social networking site?  Or a blog?  Or a free host? or a repository or links or media files?  That comments makes no sense to me.  I guess since you're just going to revert it every time without regard to anyone else's opinion, I'll leave it for the next person.  Anyway, thanks for playing by the rules, this has been constructive.  -- Davetron5000 14:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlecrap 

message: I removed the "Reaction" section due to the fact that it is non-POV, and that Slam Wrestling, SmashWrestling.com, etc. are akin to dirtsheets. These articles should be taken with a grain of salt. Duo02  *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through all the discussion on the Talk Page and it looks like this thing has been taken care of.  There is no rule against citing POV.  The article has been cleaned up by both sides of the aisle so that it does not endorse what the articles say.  The majority of Wikipedia articles dealing with storylines, movies, and music have reaction/reception sections, and none of them get deleted because they are all within Wikipedia's rules.  Unless the article is endorsing a POV, it can't just be removed (not to mention that if the article did endorse the POV, it should be cleaned up,  not deleted). Algon6004 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These aforementioned sources, when it comes to credibility, are no Meltzer, Keller, Bryan Alvarez, etc. These are just the opinions of the fans, and the problem with it is that they are presenting it as fact. I don't know what happens at the backstage meetings. Duo02  *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 05:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are opinions of the fans as you're stating, then I'd think it would be even more important to have it to gauge fan reaction.  Most people will state their opinions as facts since they believe passionately about it.  Slam Wrestling and Smash Wrestling are good sites from what I can see.  As long as the article is not presenting their opinions as fact, though, I don't see much of a problem.  70.171.29.84 (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned before, those guys at SmashWrestling.com are NOT RELIABLE. They're no Meltzer, Keller, or Alvarez. As for the OWOW, they're just the opinions of the fans who think they're the guys I mentioned above. Duo02  ~Please direct all praises/complaints here.~ 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Still haven't heard a good reason why they're unreliable.  It's been here for months and people have edited it for accuracy, so no problems there.  If we agree with you that these are "merely" opinions of fans, then they are important in gauging fan reaction.  Fans, who gave WWE the ratings, are very important in gauging fan reaction. -- Frightwolf (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reaction" section