Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 10

message: *Not so recently, I've came across one for TNA (for the X title, and the article is thankfully now gone). Here is several others: List of WWE world champions by age and List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions by age. I believe I marked them, but I don't know if I did it correctly. Anyway, my opinion on them is... age lists are listcruft and really not needed here on Wikipedia. It's just pointless trivia that isn't very important. If people want to make age pages, put it on a wrestling wiki, or your own created wrestling site, not here. What does everyone else think about the age lists pages? RobJ1981 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of champions by age pages

message: Someone really needs to change the Attitude Era from WrestleMania X-Seven to WrestleMania X8. WrestleMania X8 was the last PPV to advertise the Attitude Era not X7. The logos were still around after X7, why is X7 listed as the end of the Attitude Era? LC6 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What article is your suggestion in reference to?  Deputy Marshall 10:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End of Attitude Era

message: What's the project's position on Championship Succession boxes? I'd be happy to add them to a whole bunch of people's pages (and have been adding them to new stub articles I've been creating, eg. Jaguar Yokota), but I have a couple questions. Firstly, I noticed the task of adding them is not on the Project To Do list, so are they desirable in the opinion of the project membership?  And, secondly, should they be added for every championship a notable wrestler has won (even non-notable championships), or only the championships that have their own article already?  And, while we're on the topic, I would personally like to add some dates to those boxes, perhaps the duration of the championship (eg. January 29, 1984 to April 1, 1988).  What does everyone think? Geoffg 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of this message I just noticed that the projects view on succession was removed from to do. If you look at the top of the page you'll see the current way to display championship succession which I just re-added. Succession boxes are not used anymore and wherever possible the new version is used. --- Lid 05:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  Thanks.  Are the championships to be ordered by promotion and then date won (eg. List of championships and accomplishments won by Ric Flair)?  I ask because it seems that under the "limited-information" scenario, they are being ordered by promotion and then name of title, and this order could be extended to the expanded version as well.Geoffg 08:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convention is alphabetically by promotion and the championships in the promotion by date won. --- Lid 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only we could hide/show the Defeated to and Lost to lines.--Aaru Bui 13:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Championship Succession boxes

message: On the Gladys Gillem article, someone reverted my edit in which I removed the claim that she is the world's oldest professional wrestler (which was presented as fact on the page, and is just a publicity claim on her part). Just to avoid any unpleasentness, are there any wrestlers who are alive that were born before 1923? I know Mae Young and the Fabulous Moolah were also born in the same year, but anyone before that is still alive? Check the talk page of the Gladys Gillem article for more details. Thanks. Burgwerworldz 23:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Black Shadow was born in 1921 and is still alive. Hope that helps.--Darren Jowalsen 03:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gladys Gillem/"World's Oldest Wrestler?"

message: Has anyone seen Steve Romero on WWE TV since Velocity was cancelled? Does anyone know what he is doing now?    From The Holy Trinity of Sports Entertainment
*I don't think he has been on TV. I haven't read he was fired...so he has some backstage role in WWE I would assume. RobJ1981 04:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd just presume he's a sitting duck without any work to do at the moment. He certainly hasn't been fired though. Normy132 04:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He does a little news bit during Canadian airings of WWE programs advertising upcoming houseshows in Canada and such. --James Duggan 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine he will be fired then, there are other people who could do that. He was never that good of an announcer anyways. TJ Spyke 05:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I saw him on WWE 24/7 this morning. I'll check it out a little later. Bdve 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed he's hosting, or at least introing, "The Big Ones" on 24/7 on Comcast. - Bdve 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Romero

message: On the Gene Okerlund page, it mentions about the trademark lawsuit he had about his fast food chain. I'm pretty sure that it was decided, and it was posted somewhere, so that should be updated by someone who's good at transcribing legal news. I think he lost, and he is appealing. Burgwerworldz 04:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mean Gene's Burgers

message: I think we should try and create at least stubs for all the wrestlers on the PWI Years article, as if they are in the top 500, they are surely worthy of an article. I challenge you to name another fairly mainstream sport where any of the top 500 athletes in that sport have no article. It's ridiculous! Kingfisherswift 15:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[PWI Years]]

message: I'm slightly confused - If I read any of the WWE or associated articles, they all basically start with a link to the professional wrestling page. That defines professional wrestling as a performing art. So why do all of the articles about WWE have places in the sports Category? 
I have been discussing the matter over at the pump prior to coming here
--Charlesknight 17:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's debatable, but I don't think professional wrestling fits into any of those categories. Classifying it as sport is not entirely accurate and classifying performing art doesn't seem right either. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, although there is one for professional wrestling. A sports entertainment category might be a good idea though. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's not a 100% realistic sport, I do think that it should be included in categories like "Sports in xxxx" for the PPV's. TJ Spyke 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please clarify for me - sport or performing art 

message: Back in July we had a long discussion on page names and which pages should go where based on who owns the trademark etc. A part of that discussion was the revelation that Samoa Joe's fullname wasn't Joe Seanoa but Nuufolau Joel Seanoa, as per the trademark on his name. At the time Dubhagan e-mailed Joe to see his response to it.
I forgot about it until recently and after conversing with Dubhagan I found out he had never received a response from Joe and assumed it was because Joe doesn't want this information known.
Should the article list his real name as Nuufolau Joel (Joe) Seanoa (the name listed on the Samoa Joe trademark) or simply Joe Seanoa (the name he uses to refer to himself outside of wrestling)? --- Lid 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not he wants his real name known isn't a reason to add it or not. If it's an encylcopedia and it can be sourced it should go in there. I can think of at least two other articles that have gone through the same thing and came to the same conclusion MC Frontalot and Criss Angel. While neither one of them (supposedly) wanted their real names to be "out there" they could both be documented and as such were recorded on their articles. - Bdve 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people have to use their full legal name when registering trademarks? If so, then put that in his article as his name. TJ Spyke 02:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samoa Joe]]'s real name 

message: A user at Talk:Powerbomb has brought up that Lou Thesz did not invent the powerbomb by accident and has said it existed for years as well as being done on purpose by Lou Thesz when it first occurred. I  am not well versed in this subject so can someone come to the talk page with better knowledge than I take a look at the situation? --- Lid 07:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Powerbomb#Ganso Bomb|Ganso Bomb]] 

message: If you check the history of the John Cena page you'll see that it gets targeted incredibly heavy, especially after and leading up to pay per views, sometimes getting straight vandalized up to 20 times in a day. The idea of asking for aome kind of permanent lock on the page which would only allow for a few trusted people to edit it when needed has been brought up on the talk page. How would the project feel about trying something like this out on some of the harder hit wrestling pages? I don't know how we'd decide who would be patrolling which pages, but that's a bridge to cross when we get to it should we decide to go that route, I think. - Bdve 05:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it vandalized by anonymous users alot?  If that's the case, use a semi-protect lock on it. Otherwise, get a perma-lock I suppose. RobJ1981 05:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from users and anons. - Bdve 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the same people, then they need to be reported. That should help to a point at least. RobJ1981 05:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Cena & a perma-lock

message: I suggest keeping a close watch on this article - WWE.com has posted notice of his contract release, and all of the markboards are abuzz with markish speculation. - Chadbryant 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screw the "close watch" - can we get a semiprotect? The anon marks are out in full force. - Chadbryant 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kurt Angle]] 

message: Um, I thought this page was only for the original ECW?  Someone went and added WWE info for it, even though the current ECW wrestlers are actually under WWE contract, not ECW contracts.  I think the current incarnation of ECW should be left out of it since it is not seperate from WWE like the original was.  --James Duggan 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think wrestlers who only competed for the ECW version should be removed, it would be like having a page for alumni of Raw or alumni of SmackDown. TJ Spyke 07:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ECW version?  Don't you mean the WWE version of ECW?  --James Duggan 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that what I meant. I was typing that at 2AM. Wrestlers who only competed for the WWE version should not be included. TJ Spyke 20:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page needs major editing, since the ECW brand of WWE seems to be a big part of the article. RobJ1981 21:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up the page, hopefully it doesn't happen again. I wonder if the WCW alumni page is the same?  I looked it at a little, and didn't notice any WWE stars (during the Invasion storyline) that shouldn't be on the list. RobJ1981 21:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, we both did, I was still cleaning it up when you finishes. Not that it matters. I don't think WCW would be a problem because there were only a few Alliance members who didn't compete in the original WCW(like Test and Kurt Angle). TJ Spyke 21:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni]] 

message: There's a little edit war between RAMistheMAN and me at The Highlanders (professional wrestling). I don't think it's necessary to include week-by-week detail about their career, but Ram thinks it's necessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even worth calling it an edit war, obviously week by week stuff is not necessary. Keep deleting it, drop him a note on his user page. - Bdve 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did drop him a note and put a note on the talk page as well, but it keeps getting added back in. Ah well. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd direct him to this WikiProject and its policies.  --James Duggan 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good idea, it looks like Bdve tagged the article's talk page. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: RAM has done this with other articles as well. TJ Spyke 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He's doing the same thing with Jeff Hardy, even after I told him to stop. TJ Spyke 07:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say report him then if he's doing more harm than good.  --James Duggan 07:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war  on [[The Highlanders (professional wrestling)]] 

message: *[]
[]
[]
Why were these even made? It's listcruft and useless trivia that doesn't belong here. Ring of Honor is a popular indy fed, but either way.. a list of title defenses certainly doesn't belong here. I put prods on all three, and I'll wait and see what happens. But they should just be AFD'd and then removed. RobJ1981 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put AFD on the world heavyweight defenses (since the prod was deleted). Even if they are copyright issues, it's still useless trivia that doesn't belong here. I'm surprised the articles lasted so long, without getting deleted. RobJ1981 18:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were made because the defenses were previously part of the articles on the titles themselves and made the tables ridiculously long. I did NOT copy-and-paste anything from their site, and frankly resent the implication. Tromboneguy0186 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All three are AFD now. It's fancruft, listcruft...and simply just useless trivia. Title defenses aren't needed here. If I find any others, they will just tagged AFD right away. I tried just a prod to start, but of course people delete them... because they fail to realize it's just fancruft. RobJ1981 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of title defenses

message: Just read the edit history and the talk page. Tells the whole story. Tromboneguy0186 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grand Slam Championship|Grand Slam Champion]] 

message: Not only do we have alumni pages, but we also have alumni categories. I was thinking, do we really need both? If we can list the wrestlers in an alumni category, are the alumni pages really necessary?  --James Duggan 08:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this was the reason List of WCW alumni was up for deletion a while ago. It seems rather redundant, although the lists do include some extra info about the person's role in the promotion. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list and category is redundant. I think the categories for alumni should be deleted. The list pages are far more useful. RobJ1981 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni pages 

message: A few weeks ago, I asked if a mention and/or summary of every single defense of the ROH World Heavyweight Title was necessary on the entry's discussion page (unfortunately I had a brainfart and forgot to sign it).  It seems that the suggestion has gone on deaf ears, as it didn't receive any response and users continue to update after every single title defense.  Does including every title defense in that section constitute "week by week" updates?  I'd be interested to see some feedback on this, as the last thing I want to do is to start a huge Edit War on that page and I'm still not quite 100% certain as to my stance on the issue (though I do think it's gotten out of hand).  Deputy Marshall 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has taken it further and created a page of EVERY title defense in the title's histories. Title defenses are not really notable. TJ Spyke 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bryan Danielson]] Page, section:  ROH World Champion 

message: His page is badly in need of an update and/or revision! Take a look and you will see what I mean! --Smart Mark Greene 10:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capt. Lou Albano 

message: I hate to bring this up again so soon, but no one seemed to notice. I'm just asking for a consensus from WP:PW, and if I'm wrong, fine. Tromboneguy0186 08:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to go back to the February archives to see what you were talking about, but I'm still not quite sure what you're asking.  Are you asking specifically about what qualifies someone as a Grand Slam Champion?  If that's the case, I think a debate is pointless as it's anyone WWE would consider a Grand Slam Champion.  Regardless, I think the non-existence now of a Euro title might be moot, since I seem to remember then using the term before that belt came into existence, so I'd assume that one could also qualify as such now that the belts no longer in existence.  And not to seem like we're going crazy with AfDs, but I have to wonder if this article should even exist on Wikipedia...the dinstinction itself now seems abritrary and like something that might be appropriate for a wrestling-specific Wiki, but maybe not a general Wiki?  Idunno.  Deputy Marshall 01:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, somehow missed the thread above.  I still think, though, that the whole debate might be somewhat moot.  Deputy Marshall 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought the edit histories and the talk page were self-explanatory. Me and the anon were in an edit war over whether JBL counted based on his comments on "a recent episode of Smackdown" (which whether it's good enough for inclusion or not is an absolute BS citation). I contended that that wasn't good enough to include him, the anon kept putting him back in. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but in the past when other belts were used as subs for the Grand Slam they were accompanied by citations from WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 02:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as for the AFD, I think Triple Crown Champion is a much better candidate for it. Rife with OR, and it was never specifically defined by anyone anyway. This is apparent by reading the article - A world title, a second-tier title, and a tag team title? Some sources please! WWE, on the other hand, have referred to their Grand Slam champions both on the web and in shows many times. Tromboneguy0186 02:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Grand Slam Championship|Grand Slam Champion]] 

message: You may want to consider semi-protection for this article. The anon WrestleCrappers has struck again! They are also targeting the Dennis Stamp article as well. I've already tagged them with the 3RR Warning. Duo02  *Shout here!** 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lex Luger]] 

message: User:Samgibbs, and his other IP have been causing me alot of hasstle lately due to me stopping him using wikipedia as a secondary homepage for his local wrestling promotion, RQW. I have been changing his edits on the page to fit with formatting and the look of a wrestling article and well as the tense as his version read like news post (which they are; see this change)... This has been goin on for almost six months with him gettin more and more angry.. yet i have tried to show him how to edit correctly and given pointers he seem now intent on leaving personal attacks on my user page which he useds as a talk page (because he doesnt seem to get that they are different things... you understand what im up against here) --- any help or advice would be appriciated --- Paulley
:I guess you could start a request for comment about the user. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, he just left a very apologetic note on my talk page (yes he actually used my talk page) asking for my help as a few of his sub-par articles have been put up for deletion --- Paulley 12:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User SamGibbs 

message: You may want to keep watch on the Dennis Stamp article. Several anon. editors may keep readding the "The Dennis Stamp Film Collection" section again. This is obviously Fancruft work. Thanks. Duo02  *Shout here!** 19:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed some minor clean-up on the article; it's on my Watchlist so I can keep an eye out.  Personally, part of me wonders if we should nominate the article for deletion.  His scenes stood out as they were some of the stranger (and subsequently more amusing) aspects of the film, but I don't know if that alone should warrant an entire entry.  And not to completely discount him, as I'm sure there are some people out there remember him from when he was active, but as far as I know he really didn't accomplish anything in his career that would warrant the existence of a Wikipedia entry (as harsh as that sounds).  Thoughts?  Deputy Marshall 10:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done it 4 times today alone, I quit. - Bdve 22:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've actually gone a step further and nominated the page for deletion.  This isn't a "quick fix" to the edit war at all; rather, it's due to my personal view that regardless of the Fancruft aspect, I really don't think he's notable enough to justify an entry to begin with.  Deputy Marshall 22:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: NOTE - Sorry for the brainfart.  Deletion Discussion Page here:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Stamp  Deputy Marshall 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if he qualifies as an article under the internet meme guidelines, but didn't he have somewhat of a mid-card career in the florida territories in the 70s? But I did give a weak delete vote. Renosecond 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I grappled with right before I nominated it.  What I ultimately decided is that while he wasn't a guy who was just around for a few months and retired, his work was not that notable in that he never seemed to achieve even upper-midcard status.  In other words, the conclusion I've reached in all I've read about him is that to say he "never made it to the main event" would be putting it very lightly.  If he wasn't even all that notable on a regional level, he certainly isn't notable enough to warrant an article.  Deputy Marshall 01:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dennis Stamp article 

message: *I did a google search on both, and didn't come up with much decent information. An editor of Phil Blitz improved the article, but that certainly doesn't make the wrestler more notable. We really need to go through wrestlers and promotions more and AFD the non-notable ones more. RobJ1981 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on both.  In the case of Blitz, I support a delete with the note that he hasn't attained enough notoriety yet to warrant an article...though he could sometime in the future, but that's not the case right now.  In the case of the UWF, I remember hearing and reading an awful lot about them when I was a kid in the mid to late nineties.  Maybe we could put out an open call for expansion of the article before deleting?  Deputy Marshall 01:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion: [[Phil Blitz]] and [[Ultimate Wrestling Federation (UWF)]]

message: It looks like I'm gonna have problems with this user on the TNA roster page.  He wants to delete all nicknames from that page and threatens to keep deleting when we revert back.  I left him a message, but I just want to warn everyone.  --James Duggan 02:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but if he is he's going about it the wrong way.  Besides, the WWE page includes certain nicknames too, and the TNA page doesn't include all nicknames, just ones that are part of the ring name.  --James Duggan 03:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think nicknames should only be included on certain wrestlers, like "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan. I don't think A.J. Styles should be listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles, for example. TJ Spyke 09:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But his bio on TNA's website has him listed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles.  When he's announced by the ring announcer, he's billed as "The Phenomanal" A.J. Styles.  I'd say, in those types of cases, the nickname stays, since it is obviously an integral part of the ring name.  James Duggan 19:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP address 24.154.232.76 

message: Quick summary:  This article is up for Afd, in part because there are multiple articles about this individual including one about his wrestling career as Johnny Angel (wrestler).  I just attempted to merge the wrestling article into the real name article per a growing consensus in the Afd (he's also a former member of the KKK and has, to me, a rather interesting bio.)  In the course of doing this merge I found myself confused because I don't know a thing about pro wrestling.  Mostly I'm having trouble distinguishing exactly what "belt" he holds and what wrestling organization awarded it.  The orginal article is a bit hard to follow for a novice like myself.  I'd love it if someone would give the original article a read, then check my section on Johnny Lee Clary to see if I transferred the info correctly.  Thanks! Dina 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, thanks for contacting us!  Secondly, I re-wrote some of the section and included a link at the bottom of the entry for his profile on onlineworldofwrestling.com.  Hope that helps!  Deputy Marshall 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love your rewrite.  Thanks so much for the help! Dina 01:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A little article help on [[Johnny Lee Clary]] 

message: I think he may be a sockpuppter, he may not be, but from some recent edits a few random IP's have been making I think it's possible. He is an admitted vandal (talk page) and used to liken himself to will on wheels.
Here is one poss sockpuppet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.185.26.89
(Halbared 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User Cuke monster

message: See Talk:ROH World Heavyweight Championship Tromboneguy0186 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick question - I've seen it said before that the title's official designation is "ROH World Heavyweight Title," so I was going to oppose.  However, I do not see the promotion refer to it as anything except the "ROH World Title," particularly on its website (ROHwrestling.com).  Could someone please cite?  Deputy Marshall 06:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: ROHwrestling.com's title history page says "world heavyweight title." And I would be of the opinion that this is the correct name for the belt. As I said in the RM, I wouldn't support this move but I think the decision needs to be made conclusively, even if the result is one of "just leave it where it is" rather than explicitly favoring "ROH World Heavyweight Championship" Tromboneguy0186 06:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks.  Don't know how I didn't see that or find it.  Deputy Marshall 06:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, check again! The website has revamped. The new title history page DOES NOT use the word "heavyweight." Tromboneguy0186 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting input on a fairly substantial [[WP:RM]] 

message: User:Weatherman5000 started this article, but all he did was copy and paste the Shad Gaspard article there. TJ Spyke 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the info and redirected it to JTG, which is still a red link.  --James Duggan 05:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody should create the article, all I know about him is that he wrestled in OVW. TJ Spyke 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Started, though it needs a major expanding (I don't even have info for a profile).  I've asked for help from the OVW community on LiveJournal.  --James Duggan 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Neighborhoodie]] 

message: Warriors of Wrestling was the AWF tv show that was in 95+96. The page here at Wikipedia is just a list of results: which is simply listcruft. I had a prod on it, but it was deleted by an editor because it's a TV show. But to put it simply...Wikipedia isn't a place to list wrestling results. Also results at the bottom of TNA Impact, should get a mass AFD. There is several pages of results for certain months for Impact. RobJ1981 16:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion: [[Warriors of Wrestling]]

message: Located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ECW Born To Be Wired.  I voted to keep them all, I think all ECW events are notable enough for Wikipedia. VegaDark 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the articles are fleshed out enough to be encyclopedic.  Reference the WWE and WCW pay-per-view articles to get a feel for the level of detail needed in a single-event article.  Perhaps they should be pared down to the ones with significant events (Shane Douglas throwing down the NWA World Heavyweight Title, Raven's crucifixtion angle, etc.).  For example, if Born to be Wired was the first time a world title was contested in a barbed-wire match (and I don't know if a world title was even contested at the show at all), then you have a context for significance.  --EazieCheeze 14:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those 7 ECW events aren't notable, they are house shows with special names (none of the 7 are TV or PPV events). Just because an ECW event has a special name, doesn't make it notable enough. Look at all the WWE tours that have special names: not many (or any at all) are very notable. Special names aren't notable, period. RobJ1981 16:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I assumed they were PPV's. VegaDark 20:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, can we delete Ring of Honor and Chikara show pages too since they were not televised or broadcast on PPV?--Darren Jowalsen 21:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you post links to some so we can see? I would imagine most could be deleted, people tend to create a lot of fluff articles(like the list of every ROH title defense). ROH is a indy fed, so most of their events would not be notable. TJ Spyke 22:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a whole categoryDarren Jowalsen and here's a Chikara one- Torneo Cibernetico. 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put PROD tags up on some of the ROH shows, and the Torneo one should maybe be merged into List of professional wrestling match types since it seems to just describe a type of match. TJ Spyke 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROH is just an indy fed, but it's a big one. I didn't PROD ones that seemed to be importent(like the first ROH event and the one where the first ROH champion was crowned). TJ Spyke 04:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROH is a well known indy fed, but that certainly doesn't mean every show is important. I think AFD should be put on pages instead of prods for the most part. Regular editors of pages usually just remove prods pretty quick, then it ends up going to AFD anyway. Also I think several of the shows listed here: :Category:Professional wrestling shows should be gone. A Night of Appreciation for Sabu and Professional wrestling tours of Australia are two examples. The Sabu show was used to raise funds for him, I don't see that being notable (as there has been many shows to help out wrestlers that need money for surgery or to pay bills or whatever: the shows simply aren't anything notable enough). As for Australia tours: it's a fancruft and listcruft of many Australia wrestling events: WCW, WWF/E, etc. Non-notable house shows. RobJ1981 04:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think people have gotten derailed here, the original topic in question was non-notable ECW house shows with names. Now it's onto ROH shows with names. I agree most of the ROH shows should be deleted, however I am going against deleting one single one: Survival of the Fittest. SOTF falls under the same banner as the Ted Petty Invitational, the Battle of Los Angeles and the ECWA Super 8 Tournament in that they are all highly important independent wrestling tournaments. These are yearly events in indy wrestlers and they have a wide range of combatants and the winners move places in the indy world, and even to the majors. I'm going to bring up the same argument I brought up when we had the debate about wrestler article names - it's largely a case by case basis. Going all or nothing never helps anybody. –– Lid –(Talk) 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 ECW events up for deletion

message: There seems to be a problem with wrestlers on shows like iMPACT! and SmackDown of people putting results before they air, especially when there's a title change involved. I was thinking we can start putting a warning like we do for week by week targets kinda like this:

That language may need to be cleaned up a little bit, but it would help having to erase something 100 times between Wednesday morning and Friday night. - Bdve 03:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to bring this up on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning before deciding anything.  There's a huge ongoing discussion on if spoiler warnings should even be on Wikipedia, and it is my understanding that right now only fictional events should have a warning, not real life things such as sporting events (even if taped prior to airing) VegaDark 05:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A warning note for pre-tape show wrestlers

message: In my opinion, these really aren't needed. Take a look at :Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television programs. There are Impact results for several months. These aren't really needed. If someone could mass AFD them, that would be helpful. Using prods probably wont work, people usually remove them. RobJ1981 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated all the monthly results, the link is at the top of the page. TJ Spyke 05:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TNA Impact results

message: I know you created the article and put it up for prod to make a point, but don't think everyone is against you. I know my reply seems like I thought you didn't know what the SOTF is but it's to show some of us do care about the indies. –– Lid(Talk) 06:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I got a little carried away, but I don't see what the point is of deleting some of the ROH articles. If the company is to be dismissed as "just an indy" why does it matter when their first title match was, their first event out of Philly, etc... Tromboneguy0186 06:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just being an indy fed doesn't have anything to do with it. It's like how ECWA is just an indy fed but the Super 8 tournament they host is the biggest(and most well known) indy event. TJ Spyke 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you not prod ROH: Honor Invades Boston, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins, or ROH: Crowning a Champion ? Tromboneguy0186 06:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those individual events are not importent. I thought you understood that, the importence of the organization is not directly related to an event. A notable wrestling fed can have non-notable events. TJ Spyke 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstood - why did you NOT prod those ones? Tromboneguy0186 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Era of Honor Begins was the first ROH event, I suppose that's notable. Crowning a Champion marked the first ROH champion. I suppose Honor Invades Boston could go though. TJ Spyke 07:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it can be shown that some events are notable.  I think even a casual fan or non-wrestling fan would agree that WrestleMania I was a notable event.  It just remains for us to draw the line.  For my part, I think any event that is well-known enough (or notorious enough) for a casual fan to want to know about is notable (after all, that's what an encyclopaedia is for, right?).  Also, any well-known annual events and tournaments deserve their own article, though it may be debatable whether each yearly instance deserves its own article.Geoffg 07:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then would some events (marking similar milestones) from other indies be notable? My gut reaction would be "No, of course not, why would you ask such a dumb question?" but then why is that not the case of ROH if it is "just an indy" ? If, for example, ROH: The Era of Honor Begins is suitable for an article, how about FIP: Emergence or CZW: Opening Night ? Tromboneguy0186 08:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think ROH is "just an indy".  It is an indy, but it is the premiere indy in North America, and it features some of the most talented (and notable) wrestlers in North America. I think of ROH as the third most well-known promotion in North America, after WWE and TNA. I feel the notability of any of its events is related to that significance.  I believe this is true for all promotions.  Does WWE Backlash have an article because it is super important, or because WWE is very notable?  I think that because WWE is very notable, an event like Backlash will be of interest to more people.  Likewise, an indy promotion that is only marginally notable is very unlikely to have any notable events.Geoffg 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AAA and CMLL regularly draw around 10,000 for regular tapings and 18,000 for big shows with TV on national broadcast television with various internataional and cable deals.  I think they trump Ring of Honor.Darren Jowalsen 15:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have said "in the USA and Canada".  I hadn't even considered Mexico.  You are completely correct that AAA and CMLL are highly notable, non-indy promotions.  They trump ROH for notability not only because of their high drawing power, but also history and television deals. Nevertheless, I feel ROH is highly notable.Geoffg 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SOTF