Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 27

message: If any user has had any problems with Verdict or know any particular socks, feel free to add anything on his long term abuse page. Davnel03 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verdict

message: Will someone please make a list of all articles where OWW is the primary source so we can start looking for other sources? It seems to me after that discussion that OWW is unlikely to get blacklisted, but just in case anything did happen, we can't be 100% reliable on OWW for our sources. A list of articles which list OWW as the only, or close to all of, the sources, needs to be made. — Moe ε 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, blacklisted or not - having OWW as the ONLY source isn't good at all. It'd help the standing of the project if we make sure we're not soly reliant on OWW as article sources. MPJ-DK 13:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh definitely, having it as the "only" source isn't ideal, I was mainly worried about it getting canned as a source all together :( --Naha|(talk) 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OWW is not a great source, although it is certainly comprehensive. Where possible, legitimate news sources should be used instead of fansites, although I appreciate this is often difficult. McPhail 14:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. --Naha|(talk) 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it's one of the best non-promotional sites for professional wrestling no doubt. News sources should be used just, unless your looking for Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, The Rock or Hulk Hogan, your not going to get many news outlets picking up on professional wrestlers. OWW is the last decent source we have left thats reliable. I'll get started on a list of articles sometime soon. — Moe ε 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not ideal but it is an exhaustive supply of information, that other sources don't seem to have or remember.Halbared 10:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Normally, if I see a article with no sources (or hardly none); I normally just put on OWW sources for the results to start it off. It's one of the only reliable results website we have for wrestling (apart from AngelFire); WWE.com results don't go back that far. As Moe said it's one of the only sources possible. In Rob Van Dam's article, I was going to put a few sources from wrestling related websites in stating why he left WWE and what led to it, but knowing some people they would remove the info. But yeah, OWW is deadly important to this project. Davnel03 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OWW articles

message: I would like all members of WP:PW to add input to the current discussions on Talk:Carly Colón concerning the way the article is written.  We have made some progress and the current agreement is a step in the right direction but we need more of a general consensus.  Please, if possible (for the time being) keep it to a discussion and save the major article editing for now. Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Carly Colón]] Style discussion 

message: This article, like Miss Hyatt's got deleted a few months ago (deletion discussion from then here. Seeing as he was one of the most well-known independent wrestlers of the 1990s, should a page be recreated? Davnel03 18:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Reckless Youth]] 

message: I have another question/concern about vandals. Recently, User:BIGCANDICEFAN was blocked indefinitely as a vandal account. Now s/he is making edits as an IP. For example, is this recent edit. They even signed it under their old name. Which of the trillions of Wikipedia noticeboards should I take this to, or should I wait until they edit something other than a talk page? Nikki311 01:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. It has been taken care of. Nikki311 02:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For future reference of an event like this, I think sockpuppets of already blocked users are reported to admins. At least that's my knowledge from banned users like Verdict and JB196. -  Deep   Shadow  02:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another vandal question 

message: Special:Contributions/Kungfoofighting1. Cheers, The Hybrid 22:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back Hybrid. Let's not be paranoid here. Talk to the user, post a warning on his (or her) talk page if you must...but "watching" is going a bit too far at this point. I see lots of edits to the Terry Gerin article by him: and that's it. Don't get in a petty edit (or revert war) over it, it's not worth it. If push becomes shove: then report it to a notice board. RobJ1981 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned him because Burntsauce has given this user his "blessing". However, I have no intentions of pursuing this further. The Hybrid 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user to be watched 

message: With the invaluable help of a lot of people I've managed to bring the Bobby Eaton article to GA status. Thank you to everyone who contributed, even if it was just a simple copyedit to improve one or two things it's all been invaluable help to get this article passed. Awesome work. MPJ-DK 07:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thaks, hopefully the current GAC's can become GA's! Anyway there only one way we are heading with Eaton's article and that's straight to FA (bypassing Peer Review too)!! Davnel03 08:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's my plan eventually - I got to get some info together on Eaton's son and Eaton's work for the WWE, add that and eventually get it to FA since it's already have some awesome input during it's two GA nominations. I also want to use what I've learned from the GA reviews to help other articles so I've left a few notes on HHH and HBK that I hope helps both articles improve to GA status. MPJ-DK 10:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK. I'll look at both articles now and see what I can improve from the comments. Thanks! :) Davnel03 11:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobby Eaton - Good article 

message: Similar to List of current champions in WWE, I've created List of current champions in TNA. And since there are only four championships (one unofficial) and only one champion, I was wondering if you would please help me expand it and please comment on the page here. Thank you. Kip Smithers 12:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New list created 

message: :Image:Molly holly.jpg I think it should. He says it's his image, when its copyright of WWE. Davnel03 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say yes. Nikki311 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be deleted? 

message: I've probably took a bit of a risk in doing this, but I have nominated him for FA status. Feel free to comment on the article here. Davnel03 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, Super Crazy is being peer reviewed. Davnel03 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Cena 

message: I've had an on and off edit war over the use of the term Undisputed Championship in select PPV articles. It was proposed that the argument be brought to the project, and here I am.
The case in hand involves the following articles: Royal Rumble (2002), WWE No Way Out#2002, WrestleMania X8 and WWE Backlash#2002. My case is that for those four PPVs, the official naming of the WWF's top title was the Undisputed WWF Championship. And here's my reasoning:
1. The use of my term in various official parts of the program. This includes the match preview graphic, the chyron entrance graphic, and the words spoken by ring announcers Howard Finkel and Lillian Garcia. This was even applied after the event, as the term was used on the event's video release box art, as well as the DVD menus. And let's not forget that Mr. McMahon helped refered to the championship that way on Smackdown! in April for the buildup to Backlash (as seen in the Backlash DVD). In addition, after the WWE name change, when they builded the title with the more traditional naming style (WWE Undisputed Championship), that wording was used for the next four PPVs in the same manners I listed above. In fact, if you watch the last WWF Smackdown, then the first WWE Raw, you'll clearly notice this change in the build for Hogan/Undertaker at Judgment Day.
2. I've been shown a few counterpoints. For example, WrestleMania X8 used the opposite wording for it's match preview. And there's the full screen graphic showing that it's a championship match. In those situations, it was done that way as it was graphically pleasing. Move the WWF logo to a different location in those screens, and it wouldn't look as good. But perhaps most importantly, the one two uses of that wording does not override the five or six uses of the other.
3. Having part of the championship's name before the company's initials is not unusual. Consider the term undisputed. It was added to the championship name when wrestling's top two championships where unified. All that time it was the same championship as it was 30+ years before, and the six years since. Further proof was that the former WWE Undisputed Championship article was merged into WWE Championship after a vote with no complaints. 
4. Printed material from WWE.com and other official WWE merchandise released in the last few years, when looking back at that era, are simply unreliable. They aren't going to use both names at the same time as there's no reason to. Of course, just because WWE wants to be inaccurate, doesn't mean this site has to be too. Articles should reflect how it was done at the time, and not how it's promoted five years later. 
And that's about it. Your move bullet. Mshake3 01:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisputed Championship Showdown! 

message: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_17#Category:New_World_Order_wrestlers. I want to point this out, so it gets some discussion instead of being inactive then closed with no consensus. RobJ1981 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category up for deletion

message: Can anyone tell me any sources regarding the following things as an input into GA candidate:
*Triple H's early career before WWE.
**I found some sources and updated the Triple H bio. Eggy49er 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Questions 

message: * 17 August
** Emiko Kado --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Juts letting you know. The prod for the second article was removed so you will need to take that article to AFD unless you believe there is a valid reason for speedy deletion. --65.95.17.37 01:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put it up for AfD, just letting everyone know. Nikki311 03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PROD]] nominations 

message: I was just looking round Wikipedia and noticed that several sports had these types of article (2007 in [sport name]), and wondered whether we could create a 2007 in professional wrestling articles. Opinions please. Davnel03 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, no. I think those lifts are really crufty. Plus, since wrestling is pre-determined, it isn't quite the same. If someone wins a championship for the first time or sets some kind of record, it really isn't as important, I guess. (I'm trying to think of a good way to word this, but that's all that I could come up with). Nikki311 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2007 in professional wrestling]] 

message: I haven't got much time right now, but just a quick note that this user has been constantly over the past few hours reverting mine and Nikki311's edits on Ashley Massaro and World Wrestling Entertainment roster. I've handed him a warning, but its been ignored. Davnel03 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come again?-- bulletproof 3:16 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks 3bulletproof16 for backing me up. Davnel03 11:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Cowboycaleb1]]

message: I just came across User:Kungfoofighting1. While looking through some of his edits, I noticed that he was reported as a possible sock puppet of Burntsauce. After looking through his edits, I noticed similarities to that JB guy that was causing so much trouble awhile back. He hasn't been around in awhile, so it seems that he is due for a new puppet. Anyway, this new user likes to remove information from the wrestling articles, citing that there are no sources or that a particular sentence has been unsourced since such-and-such a time...which, as I recall, is also how JB's sockpuppets editing. I'm thinking primarily of User:La Parka Your Car as that was the last one I remember. Could someone with more experience fighting sockpuppetry look into this? Or could we all keep an eye on this guy for the time being? Nikki311 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already mentioned. And man this one is so obvious. Even though I agree with some of the edits, it's still a sock. Mshake3 22:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but what about this? Burntsauce congratulating him?!! Davnel03 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sock 

message: I know there have been two topics started on here about new user Kungfoofighting1, however I will start a new topic to discuss one specific thing. Among his many edits to Alex Shelley, he removed Shelley's real name (Patrick Martin) saying it was not sourced. When another editor re added it saying that Shelley's IMDB profile states his real name is Patrick Martin, Kungfoofighting1 removed it saying "sorry but as has been agreed IMDB is not a trustworthy source because the information can be sent in by anyone and changed, I am going by previous concensus" in the edit summery. Now, I have been away the past couple of weeks, but when I left I do not recall IMDB being considered a non-reliable source. In fact, the only people I recall who had a problem with it are Burntsauce and I believe One Night In Hackney. So, was a decision reached that IMDB was unreliable in the four plus weeks I have been gone, or is this simply a "consensus" of KungFooFighting1 and Burntsauce? Nenog 02:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that pretty much is consensus. IMDB is not reliable (like they said, anyone can edit it) and really shouldn't be used at all. Nikki311 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It would be like using an article in Wikipedia as a source for another article here.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDB as a source

message: Is there anything notable about listing taglines in PPV articles, in which the only use is appearing in small print in posters (as they're never mentioned at all on air)? Mshake3 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why we should take them OUT, really, but if the tagline is on the promotional poster that is shown in the article anyway, then maybe they can be removed. I don't see the point either way though.--76.104.252.229 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taglines 

message: I do not believe this I've only just noticed it. Seems like we've got to improve it AGAIN. Heres the review. Davnel03 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I agree with the delisting. I never thought it was ready to be put forth as a Good Article in the first place. In any event, I am willing to help improve it. Nikki311 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree either, the first comment made was basically that input from the first delisting wasn't incorporated just put up for GA again and passed by an inexperienced user I think. The whole "He needs to articles" debate isn't one to reopen at all but there are definitly improvements to be made to this article, most of all the "in universe" aspects of them. MPJ-DK 19:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I must have psychic powers, I warned about this before on talk:Carly Colón but nobody did nothing to improve it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: technically everybody did nothing ;) MPJ-DK 06:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: or...nobody did anything Nikki311 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Randy Orton's currently a GA candidate, and is being reviewed by LaraLove. Let's all try and improve the article, per the comments she makes on the talkpage. Davnel03 19:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Undertaker]] YET AGAIN delisted from GA 

message: Check out this image. It says permission was given from a fan site. I'm looking at the site, and it gives no information about the image, such as who took it, or where it came from. Since we want the article to be a GA, I just want to make sure everything checks outs. Thoughts? Mshake3 05:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talkpage of the image has a copy of the e-mail, so I guess its OK. Davnel03 10:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean shit, however. Basically, the image looks too professional to simply be available in the public domain. Mshake3 13:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that, but an image can't be used if it's just been released to Wikipedia.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orton image concern 

message: Move requested here!!! Davnel03 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move! 

message: I don't exactly consider this "serious", but it seems like another project are keeping a close eye at what we are doing, see here. Maybe is shows that we put in our effort to get articles to GA status, or the lack of work they do. Nethertheless, I hope our six GA candidates do pass and also hope that John Cena goes through FA, but that needs a few more comments otherwise there won't be a consensus! Davnel03 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Work on some British wrestlers?«»bd(talk stalk) 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair The Rambling Man is more than a FOOTY (hehe, footy...) member, he is actually one of the users that are constantly competing for GA reviewer of the week, wich means he is familiar with what goes on on WP:GAC, actually after reading that I am inclined to think that it was more of a wake up call for FOOTY(...) than a shot at this project. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think it wasn't really a swipe, just a comparison. WP:PW doesn't even have that many GAs, we at WP:SIMPSONS have around 40 and WP:TROP has an unbelievable 124 GAs, about 1/9 of all of their tagged articles. -- Scorpion0422 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but comparing WP:TROP with any other project is unfair, there you have a somewhat ancient project with articles that are extremely easy to take to GA (hurricanes and tropical storms never comeback or produce any new information after they disappear so its basically a matter of research) now what I see missing in this project is focus for instance while we at WP:PUR are working on a project that would produce a minimum of 30 GAs per semester the folk at this project are knee deep dealing with another of JBs socks. Wrestling is a extremely popular sport/entertainment and it can attract fans of several nationalities, if focused the project can produce at least two GAs per month, now lets also leave clear that there are a few other issues working aganist this project besides this for instance reviewers aren't willing to give the articles the respect they give to any other sports related articles because "wrestling is fake" and the GACs are left there for weeks unattended, another issue is the reliability of the reference on the articles mostly caused by WWE's obsesive copyrighthing and last but not less important this project has users constantly blanking content while blindly quoting policy. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FOOTY]] take a swipe at us 

message: The article was nominated for deletion several days ago, and I don't think the nominator notified this project. The deletion discussion is here. Davnel03 14:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Milena Leticia Roucka]] 

message: I've just finished my copyediting of The Fabulous Kangaroos (I'm sure it could be better but I made a lot of progress) and have posted some comments and questions about the article on its talk page. Please read the talk page when you have time, and answer my question if you can. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 05:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fabulous Kangaroos 

message: I recently prodded two articles, but they were both removed. I've put them up now for AFD. The discussions are here and here. Davnel03 13:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two AFD's 

message: :see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kungfoofighting1
This editor is a sockpuppet of JB196, who is banned, and is therefore not allowed to edit. Feel free to revert any edits you like from this editor or any sockpuppet account found on this request for checkuser. — Moe ε 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Kungfoofighting1]]

message: I've been doing a lot of work in trying to improve this article, taking it from this stub like version to the current version. I really want to try and improve the article further, possibly taking it to GA, but realise their is a lot of work to be done on the article. However, I am having real bad trouble trying to find reliable sources that I can use in the article. Has anyone got any book sources, or even website links for Adamo aka. Elektra. Thanks in advance. Davnel03 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked my sources, honestly I got nothing. Good luck improving the article, it really needs it. MPJ-DK 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering how short-lived and minor her mainstream contributions were, it's going to be hard to make this a big article.  It's slightly better at this point, but the glut of web junk used as references (Gerweck, TV.com, IMDB, etc.) is not doing any favors. Dannycali 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. IMDB and TV.com (I'm not familiar enough with Gerweck to judge) are not reliable and should not be used. Nikki311 23:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to have to leave the references in. If I find more reliable references than the current ones then I will replace them. Davnel03 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to focus over quality over quantity.  Having refs to tv.com and IMDB are hurting the article, not helping. Dannycali 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I know, but when there aren't that many sources available on how, it's hard to. I'll try and keep improving it, though. Davnel03 18:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Donna Adamo]]

message: Hi, I strongly recommed this project to give your notabilty guidelines for a new notabilty proposal that I'm creating on my userpage, once it is completed, I will move to wikipedia namespace for the community to decide. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up, I am interested to see your proposal. --Naha|(talk) 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Jaranda/Notabilty (sports)]] 

message: I started cleaning this page up a bit back in July and am wondering exactly what should be done with it.  It's a huge magnet for POV/OR and crufty lists.  Certainly some examples like Hogan should be listed but I'm not sure where to draw the line.  I think it's gotten over-categorized and out of control.  What should go/stay?  DrWarpMind 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Maybe you should take it to AfD. Only a few sentences describing the meaning are really necessary (maybe one example). Once it is deleted, you could add a redirect to List of professional wrestling slang#T, which defines the word and is sourced. That way, nobody can undo the redirect, which happened on a few other pages I redirected to the list awhile back. The word/concept of turn, by itself, is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia, but adding it to the list fixes that problem. For all of the different types of turns, different additions to the list could be made. Nikki311 23:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I agree with what Nikki has proposed. --Naha|(talk) 00:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, that makes sense.  Could somebody take care of the AFD stuff?  I'm not 100% sure how to get one started yet.  DrWarpMind 22:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it. Nikki311 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Turn (professional wrestling)]]

message: I know this isn't a messageboard, but two updates on two different users:
*Hornetman16 has been indef. blocked by the community, see here. Watch out for possible socks.
*Also, several users are currently in discussion about whether TJ Spyke should be unblocked. One or two users feel he should remain blocked. The general opinion is that it shall reviewed again in two months. The current discussion is still ongoing, and is here. Taken to CSN, see here Davnel03 13:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Users

message: The article has failed FA. I'm pretty surprised that we weren't given longer to improve it, but meh. The reasons why it failed are here. Davnel03 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I personally have been working on 2 or 3 other articles, trying to help prep them for GA status and didn't have any more time to devote to Cena. --Naha|(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Cena]]

message: On a rather trivial note, would anyone like me to set up User:MiszaBot II to archive this talk page? If so, how many days should it wait to archive something? Peace, The Hybrid 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, I'm weary of this. Probably because I've recently had more than one conversation cut short because a bot autoarchived it before we were done.  I personally don't have any problem archiving stuff manually, but if we go with the auto-archive bot, I'd say no less than 10 days old or 10 days with no thread activity. --Naha|(talk) 20:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look like many people care, so I just won't do it. No need for unnecessary annoyance. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiszaBot II 

message: User:TJ Spyke has just been unblocked following a discussion at WP:CSN. He has been placed on an indefinite editing parole which states that he has to adhere to a 1 Revert Rule, and cannot have more than one account for any reason. If you see him violate the 1RR on anything but blatant vandalism, then report him to WP:AN, or WP:ANI immediately stating that he was on a revert parole. If you suspect that he may have a sockpuppet, then you may file a WP:SSP or WP:CHECKUSER case, or you may contact me or Moe Epsilon to deal with the situation if you feel uncomfortable doing so. The Hybrid 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ Spyke 

message: Having a bit of trouble keeping spoilers out of this article at the moment, if anyone wants to jump in and help, I can't do much more without breaking the 3RR rule.  Please note this conversation higher up on this talk page. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I has been announced at WWE.com, so it doesn't count as a spoiler. The Hybrid 04:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does its annoucement on another website make it not a spoiler? Its a spoiler to people who avoid as much contact as possible to anything WWE-related until the program actually airs. --Naha|(talk) 04:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By Wikipedia standards it isn't a spoiler. Once the actual company makes an announcement stating the information, then the information is considered current and not only worthy of being in an article, but necessary to the article. The Hybrid 04:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm ok, can you please link me to exactly where it says that? This is something I'm apparently unfamiliar with. --Naha|(talk) 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, thats how things have been handled so far, and it seems to have worked.--ProtoWolf 04:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by it "seems to have worked."  I just had a major event in an episode of a TV show that has not aired yet ruined by reading a spoiler in an article.  This deters me from wanting to stay on Wikipedia and contribute for fear of accidently coming across more spoilers so it seems counterproductive. So if you could please elaborate on that statement, I'm really interested in what you mean. --Naha|(talk) 04:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry I didn't mean to delete your comment and not sure how it happened.  While I see where you are coming from I still don't agree with it in cases like this, especially after what we were talking about in the previous thread about spoilers.  What you just said makes that entire other conversation obselete, because this information completely overrides it.  If this is truely the case then I'm not quite sure what to do and may have to restrict my use of Wikipedia from Tuesday till Thursday and any other time (like this weekend) shows I care about are pre-taped, at least every time WWE gets a whim to put the spoiler on their own website, which I wouldn't technically know unless it had already been spoiled for me by inadvertenly visiting the site. This is unfortunate. --Naha|(talk) 05:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't trump the other conversation. If I didn't know how to counter this statement for every case but the ones where the company announces the results ahead of time, then I wouldn't have been against spoilers in that conversation. A spoiler is a spoiler unless the company itself announces the results ahead of time. That only happens on the special weeks of Thursday Night RAW, or during the very rare events such as a house show title change. I guarantee this is the exception, not the rule. The previous consensus trumps everything but this situation. For something to not be considered a spoiler, the company itself has to announce the results. The Hybrid 05:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I kind of noted the "rare" thing in my last post.  I still don't agree with it but at this point I guess it doesn't matter, if that is an offical policy thats how it is.  I'm not about to spend all my waking moments on Wikipedia arguing to change all the "official Wikipedia-wide policies" that I disagree with..it might send me to an early grave from stress overload :) --Naha|(talk) 05:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, playing lawyer gets annoying after a while. I've only been (active) here 13 months, and I've taken 4 Wikibreaks, one of them an attempted retirement. *Sigh* - but you do make really good friends on here, so I consider it worth it. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely! --Naha|(talk) 05:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I know this is a bit pre-emptive but WWE.com is hyping a Intercontinental Championship match between Jeff Hardy and Umaga. IF a title change occures (after all Umaga is one person getting suspended) BUT is not announced on WWE.com, do we remove spoilers from the articles? Davnel03 07:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove them on sight. Cheers, The Hybrid 07:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Hennigan]] 

message: I think we should have a good, non-objectable criteria about naming the PPV's and TV shows, not leaving to how everyone thinks should be name. I think that should be the criteria:
When a PPV or TV show is organized by only one promotion, we should name it: [Initial of the promotion] [Name of the PPV or TV show]. E.g. WWE Raw, TNA Bound for Glory, ROH Respect is Earned.
When a PPV or TV show is or has been organized at any time by two or more promotions, simultaneously or by one promotion first and later by another, there has to go only the name of the PPV or TV show. E.g. The Great American Bash (organized by WCW and NWA, later only by WCW)
I don't know what to do in the cases of the WWE Big Four PPV's (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series), who doesn't have the WWE prefix. I think we should leave it that way, but it's open to discussion.
So, those are my two cents. What do you think about that, people? Xbox6 16:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to check the July archives as this has been brought up before, the general feeling was minor WWE PPVs are WWE No Way Out (etc, esp as they are mainly just single words or well known phrases, like Backlash or Judgment Day). The big four do not need WWE as they are sorted by year, and in the case of WrestleMania and SummerSlam they are trademarked words, and unlikely to ever be used in any other sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "not leaving to how everyone thinks should be name", as it stands there are only two ways to name PPVs and the whole PPV naming thing has been agreed by consensus for a while, what exactly are you proposing? Darrenhusted 20:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming PPV's 

message: Hello everybody. I'm having a dispute with User:Enhanceddownloadbird, who insists on removing the "in-universe" tag from The Undertaker's article, even though the article is primarily "in-universe". If anybody wants to help me out with this, or even if you disagree with me totally, you can air your thoughts on the situation at Talk:The Undertaker#Cleanup/in-universe. I'm having a hard time explaining my reasoning behind the tag. Perhaps someone more well-spoken  or mre knowledgeable than myself can explain the situation. Nikki311 19:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you two resolved this yourselves :) --Naha|(talk) 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed for a dispute 

message: Attention everyone! The List of professional wrestling slang has been put up for AfD. This could be a tremendous set back for the project as it helps take articles "out of universe". Also, it defines terms that almost every wrestling article uses, which keeps us from having to define them in every article. You can get to the AfD HERE. Nikki311 00:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind! The result of the discussion was keep. MITB LS (t·c) 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMPORTANT! 

message: Someone has gone and changed the name of the page "World Wrestling Entertainment Roster" to "HAGGER???????"
I'm unsure how to revert this. Could someone handle it? Gavyn Sykes 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE Roster Name Change

message: How would you guys feel if maybe we started a list of other sites that we can use to source stuff so that we can stop relying on OWW so much?  Eggy49er 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of WWE. I've mainly been using it for title changes on taped shows, but it will be quite useful for results. Mshake3 22:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Sources

message: Hi, I was wondering if someone out there could help me out. I am having an editing war with someone over Template:Professional wrestling in Japan. He keeps reverting FMW to the major promotions portion of the template and has not responded to the talk page. I attended school in Japan for 3 years and had the privlage to see several promotions over there, including FMW. FMW was never considered a major promotion as evidenced by the lack of coverage by any newspaper and the way it was covered by Fight magazine - as an indy. Can someone help me out with this matter? Thanks --Endlessdan 20:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FMW is certainly notable, but it was far from on par with NJPW, AJPW and the like. Not major. --MarcK 21:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! How does somebody lock a template? There really shouldn't be anything edited on the template (unless a new Japanese promotion springs up overnight).  --Endlessdan 13:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Universal Fighting Organization listed on a template of professional wrestling promotions?  UFO is an MMA promotion that has housed fighters like Royce Gracie, Matt Serra, etc. I am going to remove it from that template unless someone can give a valid reason not to.  Mr. C.C. 05:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FMW, a major promotion?? 

message: If you look further up this page you’ll see discussions about GA nominations and concerns about WP:PW flooding the GA nomination board with nominees, especially some that are substandard. Well working on the suggestions given there and some of our own input Naha and myself have put together a suggestion on a WP:PW pre-GA/FA/FL "pre nomination procedure" which means that we as a project go in and do a bit of quality assurance on articles before they’re nominated for GA/FA/FL. The idea is that the better then articles are before nomination the easier they pass, the less they annoy the reviwers and the better we as a project look. So please check it out and then vote here if it’s something that you’d participate in and something you thing WP:PW should adopt as official policy (maybe it can replace the dead "Collaboration of the week" section and actually do some good). Check out the suggestion: User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 and let us know what you think. MPJ-DK 06:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks pretty good. Maybe we could make that actual PW policy, and hopefully it won't go down the drain. Davnel03 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we adopt it as official policy then I'll do my best to see this actually work, I know that 1 or 2 others have already indicated that they're onboard with this idea. If this works it could be a real boost to the project so I encourage everyone to chime in with their opinion (and with time also their attention). MPJ-DK 09:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, I am all for this and am willing to help make sure it actually gets used if approved by members.--Naha|(talk) 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we program a bot to run a notification to all of the project members? because someone just added Shane O'Mac as a GAC and it seems he/she wasn't notified of this. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't inform anyone untill people have said "Okay" to this, until then it's not official in any way and he didn't actually do anything wrong beyond having three articles up for GA at the same time. It's just a shame that not that many people chime in. "Approval by silence" doesn't work here, we need to know if you're pro or con here please. MPJ-DK 06:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He certainly didn't, when I say "notification" I don't mean a desicion notification but a notification that lets them know this discussion is happening. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we need to send out a message to all active members of WP:PW asking them to please come "vote" on this because we REALLY need to get it going and SOON.  There are a handful of us who work together and keep each other notified of certain things, simply becuase we have collaborated in the past on various articles/issues, and while no one HAS to "join" a wikiproject to work on certain articles, it seems that being an acitive member would benifit them, the Project, and Wikipedia as a whole because in the end, its all about communication.  So anyway yes yes yes ..lets send out a notice to everyone to come read this new proposed policy and state whether they agree with it or not.  What is the best way to go about sending out the notification? --Naha|(talk) 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if there's a way to directly send a message to everyone but we could put something big and obvious at the top of the talk (or project) page.  That would attract the attention of the active members anyway.  DrWarpMind 20:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it wouldn't hurt, but attracting *active* members is like preaching to the choir.  I'm more concerned with the people who aren't coming here much, if at all currently.  I see other Wiki Projects and/or other Wiki organizations "send out news letters"  (in mass) to people's talk pages.  So I'm wondering if there is an automated way to do this with a bot or some other means? --Naha|(talk) 20:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article nomination suggestion 

message: For wrestlers such as Brock Lesnar and Ken Shamrock, would they receive a wrestling infobox or a MMA infobox.  Or is there a way to combine the two since they have different information? Eggy49er 01:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooh good question, and I don't have any idea, but am now waiting intently for someone else to answer. Will be good information to have if this crops up again with other articles. --Naha|(talk) 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There should definitely be either an MMA extension for the wrestler infobox or a full MMA fighter/wrestler infobox for guys like Lesnar and Shamrock, Minoru Suzuki, Kazuyuki Fujita, etc. --MarcK 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Question