Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 14

message: I'm not completely sure what to do with the article. As it is now, is certainly horrible by far. A small description, followed by lists of promotions. Many of the promotions listed are red links or no links at all. Plus spam as well. If there is no list of promotions page (I've done some searching for some kind of promotion list article and haven't seen one yet), there probably should be.. in my opinion. The professional wrestling promotion article should explain about promotions (in general) more, and list some important major promotions and some indy feds: not all of them. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 06:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Professional wrestling promotion]] is in need of major cleanup

message: This article needs to be renamed to alumni, or recreated with the word alumni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenzeroone (talk • contribs) 
:I agree, it's just a brand of WWE now. It's not notable to have the category be called roster in anyway. We don't have Raw or Smackdown roster cats for that reason. There is a WWE roster page for the 3 brands and that serves the purpose of displaying the whole roster just fine. It should be alumni still (for ONLY the promotion in my opinion, the brand is a part of WWE..not a promotion itself). Why did it get changed? RobJ1981 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why the article is called roster, but I just saw someone changing the links for all the ECW alumni, and realized that the link for a ECW alumni category was broken Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it in CFD. Roster categories aren't how we list wrestlers. There is no WWE roster cat, because there is an article for it (the same goes for TNA and other promotions as well). RobJ1981 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to nominate :Category:Stampede Wrestling roster as well. TJ Spyke 06:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Extreme Championship Wrestling Roster 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Many of the tag teams and stables articles have no pictures. Pictures help the articles, so where's a good place to find free use images to be uploaded on Wikipedia? If anyone knows, post here... or I can give a list of wrestling articles that are in need of pictures. My computer is slow at times, so uploading might take a while for me. RobJ1981 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you name a few articles that need them? --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is a list of some: The Smokin' Gunns, Lo Down, The Machines (wrestling), Steiner Brothers, The Twin Towers (professional wrestling), Wild Samoans, The Quebecers. RobJ1981 20:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good places to find free use wrestling images?

message: Are these really needed? Example: Royal Rumble (2006). Dean Malenko is listed as an offical, but he hardly even appeared on camera. Divas are listed, because they played a role in the Royal Rumble number drawings. General managers are listed because they appeared at the event (even though... in the long run, didn't make a difference in the event much). These sections should be listing only the important other talent: commentators and possibly interviewers. Referees aren't needed, since there is usually just a handful of matches, and each referee does maybe one or two matches. If you compare a PPV to a movie, alot of these other on-screen talents are similar to cameo roles. Look at many movie articles, and you will see cameos aren't listed unless very important. So in my opinion, just list commentators and interviewers... or just remove these sections altogether. What does everyone else think? RobJ1981 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, they are as notable as titles in non-title matches (i.e. neither are needed). TJ Spyke 23:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they are needed at all. Haha TJ, you just had to slip that other argument about the titles being listed in there didn't you. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  23:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People seem to be against the sections, but for the most recent PPV: Survivor Series 2006... the section exists. We need to come to some sort of guideline for it at least (if people insist on having it in articles). I really think it's clutter and should go though. RobJ1981 04:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other on-screen talent sections on PPV articles

message: When I read the wrestling articles in Wikipedia I realised the need to series of WWE By Year articles to understand how events unfold . Typical article would contain a breif of PPVs results and and other important events in between . Other suggestion is to link each PPV to next & previous PPV . Dy yol 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply no, that's fancruft. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not here. The year articles on Wikipedia now are for real sports and events (from what I've seen at least), not something scripted like wrestling. As much I was would like that here, it simply doesn't belong. Encyclopedia: not fan's guide to every year in wrestling. RobJ1981 19:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not say what should be on Wikipedia and what should not but I don't see the differnce between the year articles and the articles there for each PPV for example . Beside wrestling events really connected to each other and need year articles to link things. Dy yol 06:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE By Year 

message: There are already 2 heavily rumoured matches for WM23 that have sources, so I'm curious as to whether they could be posted on the WM23 page. Almost every wrestling news site are reporting that Batista Vs. Taker (which is being reported by Dave Meltzer) and McMahon Vs. Mankind are likely to happen. So should we add them, but say they are only reported matches or ust wait until things become official? -- Scorpion0422 18:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the above person said: no rumors. This isn't a rumor site, only confirmed information should be listed. RobJ1981 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WrestleMania 23

message: I see a change in the wrestler info boxes has resulted in the inclusion of an image caption field... however, as these boxes havent used this before and empty caption has appeared on all info boxes... just a heads up as "|img_capt=" has to be added under the image section on articles as soon as possible --- Paulley
:I've fixed it now so it's an optional field. --Oakster (Talk) 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanxs --- Paulley 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestler info box 

message: Why exactly are titles listed on an alumni page? I figured I would ask here, before removing it. I've seen other alumni pages, and they aren't about listing titles. RobJ1981 04:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since no one replied, I cleaned the article. I removed redlinks, fixed the tables, and removed the titles listed. RobJ1981 04:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about [[Jim Crockett Promotions alumni]]

message: The article Internet wrestling community is up for a second afd nomination if anyone wants to comment there.  MrMurph101 00:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet wrestling community

message: This applies for upcoming wrestling PPVs and other upcoming events as well. Does the match order really matter that much? It's come to my attention, that TJ Spyke thinks it must be the same as WWE.com's preview, otherwise it's wrong. What's the point of a certain order? I can understand the main event at the top, but the rest doesn't matter. When the event happens, the order listed on a website isn't set in stone and will likely be different as it actually takes place. In my opinion, only the main event should be listed at the top. The rest of the matches should be wherever, period. This same thing applies to which wrestler is listed first and second (except in the case of championship matches of course). I've seen no policy on "let's just copy WWE or TNA's match order for upcoming events" for this project, so I'm starting to think it's just a policy enforced by TJ and a few others. RobJ1981 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, TJ is a controller. You know that Rob. No Offense TJ. --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but either way... this really needs to stop. The order doesn't matter (for matches, and for which wrestler is listed first: except for champions), period. There is no reason to copy WWE.com or TNA's official site to be "accurate" or whatever. If people want to put it different, then they can (and it shouldn't be reverted). Any further controlling of the articles in that matter, will be reported. I'm getting tired of this article controlling, it really needs to stop. RobJ1981 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further note: WWE Armageddon is now locked due to revert wars over the match order. This is simply getting old. The match order shouldn't be determined by TJ and a few of his friends. Articles are for everyone, not just a select few. The match order shouldn't remain the way it was originally posted (what's the point of that? Articles change, and shouldn't stay the same due to a few opinions on it). It shouldn't be a copy of the official preview from WWE or TNA (or whoever), that's just stupid as well. This needs to be discussed more, with others commenting on the matter.  RobJ1981 01:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This is easily one of the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. Rob, since order doesn't matter, be the mature one and let it go. TJ, it doesn't matter if its listed second or third - the PPV hasn't even aired yet. -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Match order for upcoming wrestling events

message: I've been reverting a couple of this user's edits, and it seems I'm not the only one, as he's been editing wrestling articles for a while, most of which are against WP:PW guidelines e.g. changing title layout, making up move names, capitalising wrestling moves etc. It's obvious from his talk page that he's been warned many times, but I hesitate to report him to an admin because to "an outsider" his edits aren't clear vandalism. Any ideas? BertieBasset 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea he has been around for a long time... usually does alot of bad edits on move lists and then dissapears for a while before comming back and doin it all again... --- Paulley 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to star a WP:RFC and, I'm probably just thick but, I couldn't find out how to from the page(!) It's a pain; an administrator won't see it as vandalism, yet he's clearly disruptive. Half his edits are good, half not, and he won't bloody talk to people...BertieBasset 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is no exageration either. I checked his contributions using Interiot's tool, and he has no (user) talk page edits. NONE. I wish that someone would just block him. -- THL 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:The Damaja|The Damaja]]

message: I noticed this was pretty bear, I have added a brief header and a few stars. But there are probably loads of stars to be added. So I thought I highlight this area for you all to know about. Govvy 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to ask, should I be adding the wrestlers by real names or the in-ring names? Govvy 10:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are added by whatever the article is called. Real or in-ring doesn't make a difference, since the category is only added to the relevant article (not redirects obviously). RobJ1981 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Ring of Honor alumni]] 

message: List of wrestlers in movies has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wrestlers in movies.  Input is welcome. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of wrestlers in movies]] up for deletion 

message: Why are the links for it so poor? Raven's official site and what appears to be a Geocities fan site for Raven's nest. It certainly needs better links then that. I'm thinking Obsessed with Wrestling (as per alot of wrestling articles) and TNA's profile of the newest version: Serotonin (if it exists, I'm not sure if it does or not).  RobJ1981 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add them?«»bd(talk stalk) 23:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about [[Raven's Nest]]

message: I created this page as a resource: User:RobJ1981/NeededPWphotos. The page is just a start, I know there is many more needing photos. RobJ1981 19:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since creating the photos needed page, it's grown a bit (and still not even close to being done). I knew articles were missing photos, but I didn't think it was this bad. RobJ1981 09:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro wrestling articles that need photos

message: I came across this category and the first thing I thought was shouldn't this be called :Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni instead?  A move should be proposed, but I don't know how to do it.  --James Duggan 23:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There should be a category for alumni of the original ECW, and not a category for the roster of the current ECW. Geoffg 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Stampede Wrestling roster should be made into alumni as well. Currently it's just a dumping ground for any past or present Stampede wrestler. RobJ1981 09:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Proposal done.  --James Duggan 09:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case we should say "okay" to categories for current and past employees of a promotion, but we need to find a word other than "alumni" or "roster", because alumni implies "former" and roster implies "current".  How about "Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling wrestlers"?  I can't say I like the clunky sound of "Wrestling wrestlers" at the end there, but I can get used to it. Can anyone think of anything better? Geoffg 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "wrestlers" is what I proposed on the CFD too.  James Duggan 03:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How is having this any different than college alumni pages? Like :Category:Harvard University alumni? TJ Spyke 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster]] 

message: Scott Hudson (announcer) and Scott Hudson (wrestling). It's for the same person. A good example of why searching should be done before making an article. Both are in poor shape. RobJ1981 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I merged the info from both into Scott Hudson (announcer) and made Scott Hudson (wrestling) into a redirect page.  Though it still needs improving.  --James Duggan 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Scott Hudson articles

message: I declined to suggest this a few months ago during the whole page move business because I just expected a lot of opposition.  However, it seems that WWE is beginning to abandon their capitalization of RAW.  I don't see any recent use of it on WWE.com, for instance.  If this hasn't already been undertaken, I propose a concerted effort to make the transition to "Raw" throughout any relevant articles. Croctotheface 02:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I wonder if WWE saw what happened here?  I would support that change since it looks like WWE made that change official.  And WWE also seems to have officially removed the exclamation point from SmackDown as well, so we should make that change too.  --James Duggan 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that the logo's are all capped, but when it is written in context it's pretty normal and yes, if you look at the current SmackDown the ! is gone from the end of it. But the SmackDown logo now is "Friday Night SmackDown" by the looks that is the full title. Govvy 11:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know it's Friday Night SmackDown, I just didn't feel like writing out the full name.  I was just saying that we should remove the exclamation point from the article name and all references.  --James Duggan 18:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you don't watch SmackDown since just this past week it had the exclamation point in the opening. TJ Spyke 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll say outright that I don't watch Smackdown, but they seem to be doing away with the exclamation point at wwe.com.  The version of the logo that's on the site now does not have it, and all the recent text uses "SmackDown" without the exclamation point.  Even if the logo remains unchanged, that's no reason to favor the logo typesetting over the typesetting that the company itself uses when talking about the show. Croctotheface 10:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change all instances of "RAW" to "Raw"? 

message: I saved the later by having it moved to my namespace and adding sources.    I don't think we need two seperate articles for these items.   They could be done on one page probably under the term Smart.   There should also be a link from the mark page to pull it up.    What do you guys think? NegroSuave 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it under Smark myself as that seems the more "official" term, but I agree they should be merged.  --James Duggan 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem here is that the two terms refer to different things, but the bottom half of the Smart article is actually describing Smarks.  In other words, Smarts are people who are "in on the secret" but not necessarily fans (eg. roadies, agents, bookers, wives), while Smarks are both "smart" and fans, a seeming dichotomy in the old days.  My question is not "should these articles be merged?" but rather "should these be dictionary entries instead of encyclopedia articles?" Geoffg 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that smark actually has a reason to be encylopediac smart I think could be a part of kayfabe article (i think it is actually mentioned there. NegroSuave 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Smart (professional wrestling)]] and [[Smark (professional wrestling)]] 

message: I think we need to get some consistincy with these pages. Personally I think the List of WWE Champions page looks the best and that should be the format. If anyone has any suggestions, put them here. Otherwise, I'm going to start changing a few of them. Mshake3 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I cannot count the number of times I've been looking at title histories and been annoyed with their setup. I'll write the List of WWE Champions format into the WP:PW main page. Normy132 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Mshake3 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Champions Pages

message: This article needs to be expanded or deleted.  We don't need a list of professional wrestling schools. NegroSuave 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it should be about wrestling schools in general, not a list page. A list page probably should be created for the notable content on the slang page. RobJ1981 03:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe even a category would be more appropriate rather than creating a completely new article. Normy132 06:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you blanked out most of the links there Rob,  I think we should take the initiaive and see if we can actually do an article on wrestling schools.  I'll look for some sources. NegroSuave 15:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Professional wrestling school]]

message: Can this article be deleted - it's just a normal RAW except it's filmed in Iraq with the Troops. It doesn't develop any future storylines. Davnel03 21:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The survey that matters can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tribute to the Troops.  --James Duggan 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tribute to the Troops]]

message: I have put a survey on this matter.
*Support: Reason
OR
*Oppose: Reason
Sign your name with 4 tildes (Davnel03 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Per Jim's suggestion under the cfd discussion at , I am posting an FYI for your project's consideration regarding a categorization guideline that seems to contradict the way you are setting up "alumni" and "roster" categories.
Specifically, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions (categories)-Occupation specifies that occupation categories should not be divided into "current" or "former" categories. For example, Category:Former child actors and Category:Current Minnesota Twins players should not exist. One reason for this guideline is to reduce category maintainence, so that once an article qualifies for category inclusion its status does not have to be constantly monitored.
However, that contradicts categories that distinguish between current members of a wrestling roster versus former members.  Examples of wrestler categories that divide current and former "alumni" members include :Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni, :Category:World Championship Wrestling alumni, :Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni, and :Category:Ring of Honor alumni. Per the guideline, such categories should instead list all members, both former and current.
As Jim suggested in the :Category:Extreme Championship Wrestling roster cfd discussion, I'm posting this to allow you guys to discuss how this might affect your categorization scheme, and also decide on whether or not you prefer to use the word "roster" or "alumni" to include both current and former members.  Once you guys hash it out, you can then create an umbrella cfd nomination for all the affected categories and either rename or merge/delete categories as necessary to make them all consistent.  
Personally, my opinion here is that the categories should follow the guideline and include both former and current members. I don't really have a strong opinion on whether to use the word "roster" versus "alumni".  Dugwiki 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since it's a guideline, the roster categories should exist then. The only issue I have with it is: ECW. The old ECW was a promotion, the current ECW is just a brand of WWE. So I'm sure many editors will stick people such as Test, Hardcore Holly in ECW... when they should be in WWE only. We don't need Raw, Smackdown and ECW cats, for each of those brands (just in case someone mentions it). But alumni categories should exist for defunct (dead) promotions still: WCW and so on. Since there is no WCW currently (and no plans to bring it back...yet at least), a roster cat seems misleading, in my opinion. RobJ1981 17:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, ECW is a tricky situation. The current version of ECW is actually simply a branded show under the WWE wrestling promotion.  The prior version of ECW was its own independent promotion.  So as a technical matter the current ECW wrestlers are actually technically WWE wrestlers, since that's the actual company they're working for.  One way to handle this might be to emphasize in the category description for ECW that it is for the independent promotion ECW that is now defunct, and that wrestlers who appear on the WWE show titled "ECW" are categorized instead as WWE wrestlers. Dugwiki 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Another alternative to the words "alumni" and "roster" is "wrestlers".  In The Rock's article, I noticed he's part of the category "Miami Hurricanes football players", so having the categories as "(insert promotion here) wrestlers" could work.  --James Duggan 23:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the ECW category should only be for wrestlers from the original ECW promotion (not WWE) and that this should be made clear in the category description.  If nothing else it will give us something to point to when correcting editors that don't realize it.  I also agree that "wrestlers" is better than "roster" or "alumni", since it is neutral regarding current vs. former members.  Also, since we're on the topic, should we have a separate category for wrestlers from the original AWA and wrestlers from Dale Gagne's new AWA? Or are multi-promotion "alliances" like the AWA and NWA too big to get their own category? Geoffg 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the person that started this, what about college alumni categories? Like :Category:Harvard University alumni? I think having similar categories for wrestling promotions is just the same. As for ECW, I agree that only alumni of the ECW wrestling organization should be included since the current ECW is just a brand (like RAW and SmackDown). TJ Spyke 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy seems pretty clear to me.  Maybe the college alumni categories should be changed too. I think part of the idea with sports teams, etc. is that individual athletes might move from roster to roster with some frequency, even returning to a previous roster sometimes, which would cause constant maintenance issues with their categorizations.  College alumni, on the other hand, simply become alumni and stay that way.  Geoffg 05:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We already have articles with the rosters on for instance there is an article thats "WWE Roster" which contains Raw, Smackdown and ECW. An alumni should be the former stars as the rosters will hold the current ones. You don't need to repeat those stars on the roster in categories. That's just replicating what we already have. So can we stick too, article rosters, and alumni categories. Govvy 17:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories should include both current and former members per guideline 

message: ..has been nominated for deletion a second time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen (2nd nomination). The circumstances of its nomination were not entirely normal, but it's out there now. I closed the previous debate, as far as I can see there is no new reason to delete nor has the article changed in 2 months. Deizio talk 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, somebody already started a article for tonight's episode of RAW (Three Hour WWE Raw). I've prodded it, and will keep an eye on it in case the PROD is removed. TJ Spyke 00:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RAW is Owen]] 

message: Recently, articles continue to use the name Matt Bentley, even though he's been officially called Maverick Matt since March (yeah, I thought it was a temporary thing too). Look out for articles that reference from March 2006 through today that still say Matt Bentley. Mshake3 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is still called Matt Bentley as well. They may refer to him mainley as Maverick Matt, but they call him Matt Bentley as wel. TJ Spyke 00:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you show me a recent article from TNA that says Matt Bentley? Mshake3 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't found one.  In the recent PPV recap, they keep calling him Maverick Matt.  Whenever he's come to the ring, he's called Maverick Matt.  The fact they still say Matt Bentley means nothing, as in WWE they still sometimes refer to HHH as Hunter, and King Booker as Booker T.  --James Duggan 01:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find a few articles from the site. But the one thing to consider is that since March, he's been announced by Penzer as Maverick Matt, his on-screen graphic has said Maverick Matt, and his bio on TNAWrestling.com says Maverick Matt. I'm all for articles refering to him as Bentley (ala Triple H as Hunter) as the sentences will flow better, but the first mention should be his ring name at the time, which for most of this year was Maverick Matt. Mshake3 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Bentley - Maverick Matt

message: User:GhettoV1 has been the cause of  recent upsurge in poorly added PR wreslters. He doesnt seem to grasp the concept of spacing, most notable because his articles all originally began life as, for example, Blitz(wrestler), Los Bad Guys(Bandido & Crazy Rudy), Livewire(wrestler)... i have personally gone through 20 or so to bring them to a sort of stub standard (for example Abbad, Adrian Cortez, Daniel Garcia Soto) while tagging or prodding some of the more 30 plus others horrible pages and leaving messages on his talk page in hopes that he would try to follow the formatting of some of his changed articles. However it is evedent that he is simply ignoring this by removing the tags and continuing to add more badly written articles... still without using spaces or commas correctly.... i think something needs to be done. --- Paulley 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if some pages he creates are nonsense, put a nonsense warning. I'm not sure if there is anything else in place for people that regularly make poor articles. Many people don't know about the proper formatting, so I think you've done just about all you can do by posting on his talk page. I suppose you could bring it up at WP:AN/I, since the editor is ignoring your help and continues to create poor articles. RobJ1981 19:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peurto Rician wrestlers 

message: We need to establish some guidelines as to what should be included and what should not be included.  I know that these things are a dime a dozen but some of them are actually quite notable it is becoming very hard to establish the notability.  This is made even more difficult by the semi kayfabe that pervades wrestling so it's really hard to see what's a work and what is legit.  It is easy to say "Well I know this because so and so said so"  unfortunately we can't be primary sources or do original research.    I want to know what you all think about what we can do here.  I defended the Scott Keith article because he is one of the few writers to write specifically about professional wrestling. But as far as quick and easy link research, that is very hard to establish through net sites. NegroSuave 15:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling Newsletters, Magazines, Periodicals, review sites etc 

message: This article needs a lot of clean up and help.  It should be one of our flagship articles along with the Professional Wrestling article.  It needs a lot of sourcing. NegroSuave 16:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Puroesu]] 

message: On the talk page for Lex Luger there's an ongoing discussion about the inclussion of a segment about a viral video he was in. We need more input from some uninterested third parties.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More [[Lex Luger]] fun

message: I have a proposal for the TNA pay-per-views, so they look more like the WWE Pay-Per-View articles. WWE Pay-Per-View articles, for instance have all the WWE No Way Out's together and all the WWE Vengeance's together, so is there any way you could put all the TNA PPV's into one?
E.G.:
*TNA Final Resolutions all in one article
*TNA Genesis in a seperate article.
If this occurs with all Pay-Per-View's, it would look more like the traditional way, like what it is like for WWE, ECW + WCW PPV's
I have set up a poll underneath.
===Poll===
*Support
OR
*Oppose
Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little question here. What makes Bound for Glory more notable to have its own page? The article's about the same size, the show's the same length and the way I see it, TNA ain't really making quite that big of a deal out of it as WWE is with WrestleMania. --Aaru Bui DII 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They made a big deal out of BFG this year, and more than once they said this was their biggest show of the year (their version of the Super Bowl/World Series).
*Support: Except for the TNA PPVs that are identified as "major" - BFG, Slam, the one where every match is in a steel cage, and one other one I can't recall... kelvSYC 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TNA Pay-Per-Views

message: *Support
OR
*Oppose
Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 09:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little question here. What makes Bound for Glory more notable to have its own page? The article's about the same size, the show's the same length and the way I see it, TNA ain't really making quite that big of a deal out of it as WWE is with WrestleMania. --Aaru Bui DII 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They made a big deal out of BFG this year, and more than once they said this was their biggest show of the year (their version of the Super Bowl/World Series).
*Support: Except for the TNA PPVs that are identified as "major" - BFG, Slam, the one where every match is in a steel cage, and one other one I can't recall... kelvSYC 18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: This what I'm about to say is more than likely not to happen, but I am (yet again) proposing something. I am proposing that a month before that PPV it gets blocked. The  day after the event has occured, we unblock it.
E.g.
*WrestleMania 23 occurs on April 1st. We automatically block it on March 1st. It becomes unblocked on April 2nd.
*Backlash 2007 occurs on April 28th. We block it on March 28th. It gets unblocked on April 29th.
This way, vandals will have no way to put in any unannounced matches, as they will not be able to access them. I don't know whether this can happen, but I think it can. I have set up a survey underneath.
===Poll===
*Support
OR
*Oppose
Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocking Pay-Per-View's

message: *Support
OR
*Oppose
Sign your name with 4 tildes Davnel03 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Vandal.. who has been blocked before... is once again vandalising this article and others. his edits get reverted and many messageses have been left on his talk page.. which he now blanks he has to be stopped... the last 500 edits on Brok Lesnar are his plus the reverts... --- Paulley
:He is also adding .gif images to moves lists which he constandly readds when they are removed --- Paulley
::I've used my three reverts now, although reverting his vandalism shouldn't probably count towards 3RR. I've nominated him for a permanent ban.
::↪Lakes (Talk) 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brock Lesnar and [[User:Verdict]]

message: Just to let you guys know since its creation was half-finished, I've set up the page for article assessment here showing how to assess articles involved in this project.
In terms of quality assessment, a few have already been previously assessed before. I've just assessed the non-article pages.
While I don't expect this to be done overnight, it might be helpful in terms of focus if we have an idea which articles are more important in the project than others. For those wondering, we have four categories in the importance scale (Top, High, Mid and Low). Take consideration that Top importance is really the basis of all information and so would include only a few articles such as professional wrestling and history of professional wrestling as opposed to High importance articles which would include such articles as Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair. As a helping hand, from last year's talk with WP:1.0, we gave these as examples of high importance articles:
* World Wrestling Entertainment
* World Championship Wrestling
* Jesse Ventura
* Hulk Hogan
* Chris Benoit
* Stone Cold Steve Austin
* Shawn Michaels 
* Triple H
* The Undertaker
* Mick Foley
* Frank Gotch 
* The Rock (entertainer)
* Gorgeous George	
* Georg Hackenschmidt
* Ric Flair 
* Vince McMahon 
* André the Giant
* Eddie Guerrero
* Dusty Rhodes (wrestler)
* Paul Heyman
* Eric Bischoff
* Verne Gagne
* Extreme Championship Wrestling
* National Wrestling Alliance
* Lucha Libre
--  oakster  TALK  21:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: I have initiated the above AfD. Pro or con, I figured this would be the best place to notify people that might have an interest and an opinion in this debate. Cheers.  youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necro Butcher]] 

message: I'm almost positive we covered this, but can't find it in the huge archives. 
Do we really need to have "then-champion", "then-wife", "then-partner" in articles? Isn't it a little obvious? 
This seems to go along with removing "the late" before mentions of now dead wrestlers to me, which we've stopped doing.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that many details of pro-wrestling history, such as who was champion and who was married to whom, would not be obvious to the casual reader.  Since an encyclopaedia is for explaining stuff to the general reader, shouldn't we mention that someone is a "then-champion" or "then-wife" when it's relevant? I would agree, however, that such things should be avoided when they're not relevant. Geoffg 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, I tend to disagree. If the article is about a specific time or specific event it's obviously the "then-whatever". «»bd(talk stalk) 16:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Then-champ/wife/whatever

message: I have written this article, any comments are appreciated. Thank you. Kyros 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[The Heavenly Bodies]]

message: On the AFD for V-Squared, there is a suggestion about starting an article like "List of minor WWE tag teams". Maybe that is something we could do, make a page about minor/short lived tag teams (like V-Squared, and Fire & Ice). It could have a short description for each team (like who was in the team and when they were together), it would be for teams that don't deserve an article.  TJ Spyke 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. An article like that should be on a wrestling wiki, not here. Tag team cruft shouldn't get an article. Short lived teams (when notable: such as a short lived tag team championship team), should only be on the wrestlers articles. RobJ1981 17:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short lived tag teams