Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 11

message: I added a section detailing the Code of Honor. Please give it a look and tweak as necessary. Tromboneguy0186 08:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section added to [[Ring of Honor]] 

message: I'm currently seeing edit conflicts on some wrestler bio pages regarding the height of wrestlers.  There are generally multiple sources citing different heights, would it be possible to come to some sort of consensus as to which sources are more reliable and should be used? Apologies if this has been raised before, I didn't want to wade through all the archives Sasaki 12:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point. I like them trhem because they try and strive for accuracy rathr than accepting possible (and in wrestling usual) inflated heights, but I can understand why others don't like it.(Halbared 12:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One solution I've thought of could be to use the kayfaybed stats but change the title of height and weight to 'billed height' and 'billed weight' to ensure it's obvious they are kayfabe. In the case of the where they're from, many of the wreslters aren't actually from where they're billed, but the stat is clearly 'billed from'. HamishMacBeth 13:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that solution is that billed from is in addition to the actual location. –– Lid(Talk) 15:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestler heights 

message: I was reading some articles on rappers and found it interesting to see explanations of their rapping style/technique. So I was thinking it would be cool to have a section on wrestlers' articles detailing their wrestling style/technique. However, I don't mean every wrestler, just distinct wrestlers (e.g. Kurt Angle's shoot style; Shawn Michaels' underdog style, Bret Hart's technical style, Sabu's high risk-hardcore style, etc). You could even say how wrestling styles were changed (e.g. Steve Austin's technical-to-brawling; Jushin Liger's technical/high flying-to-technical). I realize it is fictional, but other than personalities, wrestling style is the only other way to distinguish professional wrestlers. Well, just wanted to get your thoughts. Perry 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List of professional wrestling styles -Bdve 19:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just named styles of wrestling. I'm talking about mentioning a wrestler's style in their article, which most, if not all, don't have. Perry 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be largely POV as far as I can see.  Kurt Angle may appear "shoot style" compared to most WWE wrestlers, but he's hardly shoot style when compared to Nobuhiko Takada, Akira Maeda, Kiyoshi Tamura etc.  Liger's style is very toned down these days, quite often he's just a down and dirty heel.  It would be difficult to accurate reflect this I think. Sasaki 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, I thought that's what you were looking for. Still, it would be pretty easy and not really POV for most guys. Just because Kurt Angles Shoot Style isn't the same as say Maedas or Steve Austins brawling style is different that Bruiser Brodys doesn't mean they're not obviously doing different variations on the same style. The real problem, and where the POV would come in, is when people start to change their styles and when to note that. Like Eddie Guerreros out and out heel tactics at the end of his life versus the more aerial style in the middle of his career and some of his more grounded stuff when he started. Shawn Michaels went through some similar changes and Ric Flair has wrestled just about any style from out and out brawling to heel tactics to scientific. The question lies in how do you list multiple styles? Does it become a list? Is it put into the body of the bio? I'm actually fairly intrigued by the idea now. - Bdve 02:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the biggest problem would be Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho and CM Punk as none of them really fit any mold (at least Punk pre-ECW). They're pretty much allrounders with impact moves, aerial moves, submissions, shoot moves so what style would they fit under? Although Punk does say in Joe/Punk shoot "I'm King's Road" but he was probably joking. –– Lid(Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could cop out and call them "Hybrid". Or invent something. Like "Nifty". - Bdve 02:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's the case, you could probably say So-and-so uses a variety of wrestling styles in his matches, including.... If they apply one style as a face and another as a heel, like Eddie Guerrero and Ric Flair, it could easily be worded to reflect that. James Duggan 02:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling Style 

message: I mean he used his sick days as personal days to wrestle and made fun of Irwin after his death, he seems pretty controversial to me. So if anyone want to expand his article with that, would it be needed?MonkeyKid 03:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost did it earlier, but the Irwin comments didn't get any press outside of the wrestling community (as far as I've seen anyway) and the sick days stuff is in his bio. No reason a mention of the Irwin thing can't just be made in the bio as well. - Bdve 03:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Bdve. I say leave it all in the bio. Unless the media picks up on the Steve Irwin comments(which I doubt), nobody will remember this in a couple of weeks. By the way, I think it would be a good idea if someone could dig up one or two of the news stories about the sick days, and add them as footnotes to the Striker article. I would do it myself, but I'm going to bed. -- SHODAN 03:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should Matt Striker get a Controversy section added to his bio?

message: I'm doing a major rewrite on this section. If your interested, let me know on my talk page. Kyros 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lou Albano|"Captain" Lou Albano]]

message: While Wrestlecrap itself is notable, a category about it, isn't needed. Put it on a wrestling wiki, not this wiki. RobJ1981 05:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Up for deletion: [[:Category:Wrestlecrap]]

message: Here's a topic I've been meaning to have but kept forgetting about. A while back on the Messiah's page there was an edit war between JB196 and an IP user who I think was the real life Messiah. The edits were pretty much dedicated to removing the documented history of Messiah's relationship with the XPW porn stars and the assault by two home invaders that left Messiah with no right thumb. I was wondering about as this has long died down should we re-add the information?
The second part of this relates to an incident between myself and an IP user who I think is either Lacey or Aries. This IP was dedicated to removing the relationship of Aries and Lacey as well as the incident that had Aries suspended from TNA, along with personal info on Lacey. It is documented that Aries and Lacey are dating but does that fall under the scope of the articles? Currently it's not listed. –– Lid(Talk) 05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to Aries and Lacey, OWW used to mention they were dating but now that info has been removed from their profiles there.  I also noticed that Lacey's MySpace profile has her listed as single.  If they did date, they have since broken up.  James Duggan 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem there is that they never officially stated they were dating, it was just known they were. –– Lid(Talk) 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, even if it was assumed, the relationship status on MySpace doesn't reveal who one is dating, so even if they never made it official, she probably would have had her relationship status as "In a relationship".  Since she now lists her relationship status as "Single", and OWW took away the reference that they were dating, I bet they broke up, making it pointless to include on their pages.  James Duggan 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Welch]] aka The Messiah and the relationship of [[Austin Aries]] and [[Lacey (wrestler)]] 

message: It was brought to my attention that this is a wikipedia edict at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death:
:Locations should be included in the biography portion of the body article. For example, "(12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England–19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England)" should be separated to "(12 February 1809–19 April 1882) … He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England … He died in Downe, Kent, England".
Nearly every wrestling bio uses the wrong formatting and I myself have been guilty of doing it many times. I think this should be added to the to do list as this seems like a rule that I think all of us were unaware existed. –– Lid(Talk) 09:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually aware of it and made a few changes to some of the articles. I should probably change the rest of them too. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: They are superfluous and not needed - that is what the linebreaks are for. - Chadbryant 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly every wrestling biography ever and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]] 

message: Here is yet another fancruft/listcruft of results: WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results. Will people ever learn?  Wikipedia simply isn't the place for pages of wrestling results. SNME is notable, but all the results listed here isn't needed. SNME is a supercard of sorts, but I don't think the result page belongs here. I added prod, but AFD will probably be added, since I can bet the prod will get removed. RobJ1981 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestling results pages

message: How should this be done? It's two different moves with the same name, but one is a finisher and the other isn't. To further complicate things, the leg drop version's also called the Hardy Boyz Leg Drop. Setting aside the anon who keeps moving it around all the time and making personal attacks against me, there seem to be two versions (not bothering with wiki links, too tired, sorry):
:Downfall (sometimes Downfall 1 or Downfall Leg Drop for no damn reason)/Hardy Boyz Leg Drop (Second-rope diving leg drop)
:Downfall (sometimes Downfall 2 or Downfall Elbow Drop for no damn reason) (Second-rope flying elbow smash)
or:
:Downfall (sometimes with /Hardy Boyz Leg Drop) (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)
I'm personally in favor of the former but both versions seem to be getting swapped around all the time and I feel a consensus needs to be reached. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
:Right now it's listed as "Downfall (Second-rope diving leg drop or second-rope flying elbow smash)". I don't see what's wrong with that. Bdve 02:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The leg drop is not a finisher. The only time, to my knowledge, that it was used to end a match was at Unforgiven 2005 when it was done off the top of a steel cage. Tromboneguy0186 07:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The formatting for [[Matt Hardy]]'s Downfall move. 

message: I know we had this discussion but it's been brought to my attention this article; Abe Coleman. Is there anyone older? –– Lid(Talk) 03:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really relevant article. Should it not be deleted?Kyros 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems notable enough to me.  After all, he invented the dropkick, and was a prominent Jewish athlete in early twentieth-century America, on top of being the oldest living pro-wrestler.  I think it adds up to notable.Geoffg 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's oldest wrestler 

message: Plymouth Championship Wrestling: a small Iowa promotion. Pro Wrestling Phoenix: another small Iowa promotion. Each have title pages as well. I put prods just on the promotion pages. I've heard of PWP, but I still don't think it's a notable enough indy fed to be here. RobJ1981 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You better get ready to AFD them, an anon IP will probably delete them before 5 days has passed. TJ Spyke 21:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More promotions that aren't notable

message: I have started the article on William Jones(better known as Chilly Willy), but the only information I could include is what I found at OWW. Anybody who knows more about him is welcome to expand it. TJ Spyke 21:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[William Jones (wrestler)]] 

message: In the past couple of weeks, I've noticed a few links that do not go to their intended location, i.e. "Undertaker" going to the mortician page, "Public Enemy" going to the rap group, and "PG-13" going to the movie rating. Please make sure you check the disambiguation page to make sure there's not more than one article with that name! --Smart Mark Greene 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this in a lot of PPV articles, I fix them when I see them. The problem is that some people(usually anon IP's) will just type in something like The Undertaker and not check to see if it goes to the correct page. It also bugs me when people move pages and don't bother to fix redirects. TJ Spyke 03:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check your links! 

message: I'm in a dispute with User:BakerBaker on this article. I reverted his heavily-POV edits to the original (which may also be slightly POV) and he re-reverted. As opposed to me getting into a silly pushing contest, would anyone like to moderate a solution? -Umdunno 01:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading your own changes I thought that your change was more POV heavy than his. The content of both are polar opposites but both are POV pushing so neither of them are really valid. –– Lid(Talk) 01:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, well I'll just leave it be then. For the record, I didn't create the original, I just reverted to the original text. -Umdunno 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rick Scaia]] 

message: I rewrote the entire the article. I'm still working on correcting grammar and spelling error. Feedback is appreciated. Here is the "Before" and here is the After Kyros 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a list of all the wrestlers he has managed is really needed. It seems like just a long list of clutter. Notable people he managed or something like that, would be much better than just a long list of every wrestler. RobJ1981 18:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I changed it to Tag Teams Managed, since Albano is know for tag team wrestling. Any other feedback, good or bad Kyros 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks a lot better than it did! --Smart Mark Greene 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lou Albano|"Captain" Lou Albano]]

message: I've changed his debut date from December 7, 2002 to just 2002.  The article itself states he won the JAPW TV title on September 13, 2002 (confirmed by Solie's Title Histories ), so it's pretty clear he didn't debut in December.  Does anyone know his actual debut date? Sasaki 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the correct debut date, December 7, 2001 .  Even Jay Lethal's official site has his debut as 2002, despite it being incorrect. Sasaki 17:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jay Lethal]]

message: I was wondering something concerning the WWE Undisputed Championship. If it's the WWE's position that the title is simply part of the WWE Championship lineage itself, then isn't that what's supposed to be included in the articles? Since the championship is the property of the WWE, then doesn't the WWE have the final say so concerning the 43 year history of their championship? Would it be noncanonical to state otherwise, such as listing them as seperate titles? Odin's Beard 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is just the WWE Championship, I support the merge suggestion that is on both pages since it is not different from the WWE Title. TJ Spyke 02:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason why I asked is because there is a user that keeps insisting, McPhair I believe is the editor, continues to maintain that they're seperate championships and continues to list them so under the championships and accomplishments sections in the Triple H article despite me constantly saying that it's the WWE's position that it's the same championship. I just wanted to be sure that I'm not in the wrong here. Odin's Beard 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship article. The article differs from WWE.com, as WWE.com does not list champions before 1997. WWE is a corporation which acts in its own interests, not in the interests of factual accuracy. It is the role of Wikipedia to record documented fact, not to blindly mirror WWE.com and its revisionist history. McPhail 16:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Championship Lineage

message: Konnan is listed as a good article, does this mean we should be listing all Finishing/signature maneuvers and managers in tables to give some sort of uniformality to wrestling bios or should we add an "in wrestling"/"wrestling fact" section to his article? - -Bdve
:I don't think so, the table part was part of the peer review of the article but it has problems associated with it such as location and some wrestlers with many sig moves could cause the tables to ruin the articles appearance. –– Lid(Talk) 03:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Our "Good" articles

message: As an extension of the MySpace/fansite debate, I am proposing that a standard be developed and agreed to by WP:PW in regards to "markcruft" (a wrestling version of fancruft) - the irrelevant & unencyclopedic content that seems to creep into wrestling articles on a daily basis. I would propose that the following be considered as markcruft and strongly discouraged (and deleted from current articles):
*Comprehensive title histories for individual wrestlers (it bloats articles and is much better suited to a wrestling-specific wiki or site instead of a general encyclopedia - sites like www.onlineworldofwrestling.com already exist for this content) 
*Fansites as external links (too many issues with quality & relevance to the subject matter)
*MySpace profiles as external links (it is existing Wikipedia policy not to include links to social networking profiles unless they are mandated by the article itself)
*Show results for non-PPV events, or weekly/semi-regular television shows (this would also be considered listcruft, and would include SNME, non-PPV ECW events, and similar events)
*Hypothetical acheivements related to titles ("Double Triple Crown Champion", etc.)
Additions/suggestions are encouraged. A standard for wrestling articles would go a long way towards making the wrestling content here much more encyclopedic. - Chadbryant 20:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with every point made here, especially the too detailed title histories and hypothetical acheivements, which I think it somewhat original research on my part, but I support this all the way. I mean, it's all predetermined, the honor is not as big as it seems. Renosecond 20:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's often too difficult to determine which fansite is "most notable".  Unless someone can define an objective way to determine that,I think it will lead to listcruft. -- Davetron5000 22:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to fansites are best left to wrestling-specific sites such s www.onlineworldofwrestling.com - they are not relevant to an encyclopedia, which is what we are editing here. - Chadbryant 22:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't completely agree with not listing things that aren't PPV's. Things like Clash of the Champions are supercards and are notable to a point, same goes for SNME I suppose. Then there is the important shows for indy feds. They don't have PPV's, so you are basically saying no results for major shows for indy feds (big mistake)?  Also, from the sounds of it... you want wrestler articles not to have anything but PPV results? That would make the articles pretty boring. Eventful things happen on Raw, Smackdown, Impact and other non-PPV results, leaving them off is a huge mistake. Names for multi-title holders isn't a big deal. As for title histories: they don't bloat articles much and it's incomplete if all aren't listed (so what if a site like Obsessed with Wrestling is better suited, Wikipedia articles should be complete, not just highlights of the best titles). I don't see a problem with leaving things alone. This whole markcruft thing is just a bit ridiculous. You are basically just trying to remove anything YOU feel isn't right for pro wrestling articles. In the replies, some have agreed with you, but that's certainly not enough to make this happen to all articles. Fansites can go for the most part, but the rest should just be left alone, period. RobJ1981 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll change my stance somewhat, but I do think that most of those proposals are resonable and should be implemented. The "somewhat" major shows have been taken care of (like various ECW ones) and I certainly think that AWA shows can be merged to a degree. The format for title histories really should be trimmed to just say something like "8-time WWF European Champion" or the like, it's a fake sport, and the titles do not need to take that much space, it's not as big of an accomplishment as it seems. The fansites can certainly be trimmed and most myspace profiles can go. And I really don't care for the "triple crown" pages and mentions, I can't remember any acknowledment of this sort of thing on any WWF/E show, and I don't think it is widely used wrestling slang to merit these mentions, it just sounds like someone just made up the rules and guidelines for the "triple crown" and forces it on everyone. If anything, all that stuff needs to go unless more info can be verified. Renosecond 18:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that there's no need to mention Triple Crown and Grand Slam achievements(except for maybe the first people to do it, like AJ Styles and Shawn Michaels). Title reigns should and WILL stay. Also, why does every single TNA pay-per-view have it's own page? Imagine how many more pages would be created if every single WWE/WCW/ECW PPV had their own page. TJ Spyke 19:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Markcruft

message: The correct name of the tournament is G1 Climax, not G-1 Climax. Any objections to it being moved to the correct name? Sasaki 07:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be controversial, so be BOLD. TJ Spyke 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move - [[G-1 Climax]] 

message: this really needs to be said cos i'm personally getting sick of this. At the moment certain users are saying pictures cant be added to the page because of free images rule, fansites cant be on his page because of yet another rule which doesnt actually say they cant be added at all. Yet they say this for just that page they do not go and change them on all the other wrestlers pages. I'm sick and tired of the randy orton page being singled out at the moment, now if you wanna use these stupid rules go ahead and use them on ALL pages not just randy ortons one. Until these so called rules are used on all pages then i wont accept them on just his page. Lil crazy thing 12:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you did generously tell us which page needed a fansite link removing, and as I've said I'll be happy to remove links from any other articles you tell me about.  However you refused to give any details, so I can only remove links as I come across them.  The consensus is that they should be removed, and this is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines.  Sasaki 12:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: John Cena currently uses two fair-use images, one of which is the cover of his album. - Chadbryant 20:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Randy Orton page

message: Just looking through this cat, there seems to be a few minor shows that aren't even PPVs, I was wondering if we should try to afd some like the various ECW shows as of late. Renosecond 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They should probably be AFD'ed. - Chadbryant 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done, check the to-do list for a link. And if you vote, please look at the ecw precedent that I posted and don't vote merge, I suggest. Renosecond 01:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:American Wrestling Association shows]]

message: I stumbled on a Wikipedia page for an e-fed called RoughKut Wrestling while searching for info on the indy wrestler Cham Pain (I guess he doesn't warrant his own page yet). I'm thinking it's not encyclopediac worthy, but I'm a Wikin00b and I couldn't really understand the whole deletion process. So I figured I'd make more experienced users aware of it and hopefully somebody else could do it. Unright 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD with great predjudice, e-feds are never notable. –– Lid(Talk) 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominted it for deletion. TJ Spyke 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[RoughKut Wrestling]]

message: I have a question about the Infobox Wrestling event template. Does the "Next Event" mean the next one to take place or next to air? This only really applies to "Kollision in Korea"(a 1995 joint PPV between WCW and NJPW). It took place in April 1995 but aired on PPV in August 1995. So would it be listed after Uncensored 1995(which was in March) or after Bash at the Beach 1995(which was in July)? TJ Spyke 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To air, presumably. That appears to be the precedent where television episodes, etc, are concerned. McPhail 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestling Event template 

message: Am I the only one who finds this notation in wrestling articles unnecessary. Kyros 04:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It annoys me up the wall! I was reading the article on Vito Lograsso and it just ruined it for me! Normy132 06:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't put it, people complain. -- bd (talk to me) 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if we do, I'll complain more.  It's stated that it's a storyline, constant reminders of (kayfabe) are annoying.--Darren Jowalsen 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Kayfabe needs to stay out, I think it should go on the the To Do List. Kyros 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wresting is fiction, as such we follow the writing about fiction rules. Long ago we considered a few different options (such as quotes) and decided that noting (kayfabe) was the best and easiest option. Wrestling articles are not supposed to read "in universe", even if that does "ruin it for you". -- bd (talk to me) 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean wrestling storylines and titles are fiction. IMHO, if a section is clearly detectable as presenting the storyline, we need not put Kayfabe notes. If some legit things pop up in between, we might mark these. If a section however is evenly mixed, some notes are in order. Str1977 (smile back) 22:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, where was it decided that we should interrupt articles with parenthetical comments that disrupt the flow of the sentences?  And I never said "ruin it for me." Darren Jowalsen 23:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply have no interest in looking through all of the archives to find it, but it was a while ago. -- bd (talk to me) 01:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the latest discussion, we really didn't agree to anything except better writing to distinguish between fact and fiction.  We brought up the kayfabe disclaimer template, but that has since been deleted. --Darren Jowalsen 01:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Alright then, maybe it wasn't ecided and it was simply picked up on. Propose something else. -- bd (talk to me) 02:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite the section in question so it is clear it is part of a storyline.  Darren Jowalsen 21:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (In Kayfabe)

message: Not sure if Burke and Terkay teamed up before but James and Stevens are in the tag title hunt.MonkeyKid 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Burke is just a manager/sidekick most of the time. I'd hold off on the James/Stevens page because I think it's only a matter of time before they give them an actual name. Though I guess it could always be moved. -- bd (talk to me) 03:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If they aren't given a name by WWE though, then the page should be "KC James and Idol Stevens", I hate how some people have articles with just the last names. Like Cade and Murdoch, when they are always introduced as "Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch". TJ Spyke 05:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move 'em, but don't forget to fix links if you do. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Cade and Murdoch" was how they were origionally announced in the RAW graphic and in their entrance video --- Paulley 10:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should a tag team bio be made for Burke and Terkay? And KC James and Idol Stevens?

message: I know it's been discussed before, but still no solution has been found. As I thought it was quite a good idea, and as that's the chosen height on most of the articles already, I recently tried to edit the infobox to change height and weight to billed height and weight, but it didn't work. Anybody better than me at it could probably work it out no problem. BertieBasset 10:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats

message: Keep an eye on this one. If even I am advocating deletion, you know it's crap. Tromboneguy0186 14:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon removed the prod, I've AFD'd it. Tromboneguy0186 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dx reunion tour]] 

message: do these edits seem familier to any one --- Paulley 09:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May want to look at the histories of DVDVR and 411mania. –– Lid(Talk) 09:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  look whos back 

message: I put :Category:Current Stampede Wrestling roster in CFD earlier today. No other roster categories are listed with current in them, so Stampede won't be the exception. From what I know, there is no roster page for Stampede Wrestling... so if the category is renamed, there needs to be one made. A roster category listing just the wrestlers seems a bit pointless (which is what the category is for now). --RobJ1981 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A wrestling category now up in CFD

message: Professional wrestling promotion should just be a page for information about promotions in general, but it's a huge list of promotions in the world. I noticed on the talk page, a discussion from a few months ago. They were talking about redlinks and wanted to fill them. So it's safe to say: many promotions on the overall list there, aren't completely needed on Wikipedia itself. So we now have a big task of going through the promotions, and checking them. Remember: Wikipedia isn't the place for every promotion ever. As much as some people want it to be, it simply should never be for that. :Category:Professional wrestling promotions is also a place to take a look. Subcats are a good start: NWF and OCWF are prime examples of lesser promotions in my opinion. NWF's cat is empty, while OCWF just lists some of it's wrestlers in the cat. RobJ1981 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about this article. There should only be a category for all the promotions that actaully exist on WIkipedia. Maybe we should trim that massive list down to just the notable ones i.e. WWE, WCW, ECW etc. Normy132 02:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is called Professional wrestling promotion, not "List of professional wrestling promotions". If people want a list of all promotions so badly, then make it I suppose. The page now shouldn't be a list page at all. RobJ1981 18:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess

message: Is this really needed here? I just noticed it and I think it's alot of fancruft. It's factual: but if it's done for Undertaker... what's to stop people from doing it for other wrestlers? People like Hulk Hogan have had many personas over the years. I haven't put AFD on it just yet, but I plan to soon if people don't justify it enough. Articles like this one, belong on a wrestling Wikipedia, not here. RobJ1981 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a well written article, but i'm not sure if the article should be here. If we had a wrestling wiki then we could transwiki it there. I don't know what to do. TJ Spyke 03:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd actually say link it as a "See also" on the Calaway page. –– Lid(Talk) 03:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need that much in-depth about personas though?  The casual wrestling fan probably could careless about a page about how the Undertaker has changed over the years. This probably should be moved to a wrestling wiki. I remember there was a wrestling wiki, but I'm not sure if it's around anymore. RobJ1981 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be merged with his article. Gimmick changes should really be mentioned in his article. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Personas of The Undertaker]]

message: Prodding, please keep an eye on it Tromboneguy0186 16:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon IP with a history of vandalism removed the PROD, so i've nominated it for deletion. TJ Spyke 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Summer Bash Tour]]