Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 34

message: Just a quick reminder that the Featured List nomination for this article closes on Tuesday. Currently, there are not enough support votes for it to pass (it has 3 and needs to have at least 4). If anyone has time to look over the article objectively and give feedback, it would be appreciated. If there are any issues that need to be resolved, please post them on the nomination page so that they can be addressed as soon as possible. 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NWA World Women's Championship is in the same boat. Nikki311 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I would have mentioned it, but I thought it already had enough votes (4 support, including the nomination). I definitely didn't mean to leave it out because I don't think it's as important or anything. GaryColemanFan 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[IWGP World Heavyweight Championship]] 

message: Ok, the articles have been split, there were at least 8 supporters for the split including myself. Thanks to all who were involved in the discussion. Any concerns or comments please respond here.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, in the draft article, you included only the lottery results, and forgot the ones involving the new brands. Those are still drafts you know. And then, the draft article contained a ton of the history of the brand extension. Obviously, that should be in the brand extension article. You need to plan it out better before splitting. Mshake3 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I'm going to have to agree with Mshake's reversion here. That was a pretty bad split.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I can see what you were going for, as the tables either had a Brand Extension or Draft Lottery heading. But the draft article should only be about the drafts, and that includes all of them. The championship and PPV impact should be in the brand extension article. Mshake3 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok fine then, lets just leave it like that. They seem the same thing when you put in that way.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now, go look at the two articles, and if they arent good dont revert them back to one, because it is under construction.TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now its a little better. Like you said, its a work in progress.-- bulletproof 3:16 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Brand Extension ]] and [[WWE Draft Lottery]], two seperate articles. 

message: I have nominated WrestleMania III for GA status. If there is any improvement or criticism worth mentioning, please do. Cheers, Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestlemania III

message: The "home page" of the WP:PW newsletter has moved from my userpage to the project space. It can be found here. The Chronic 08:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PW newsletter 

message: This is a notice to inform the members of WP:PW that I intend to nominate these two article for GA status in the future. I would appreciate feedback on the articles, which can be left on their talk pages, on my talk page, or on their peer review pages (located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/King of the Ring (1994)/archive1). Thanks. GaryColemanFan 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future GA Candidates: [[Royal Rumble (1994)]] and [[King of the Ring (1994)]] 

message: I'm not sure who archived the talk page, so this is a comment for everybody: when archiving a talk page, please make sure that you leave comments that are not yet a week old. There were active discussions going on that just got archived, which makes it difficult to continue them. Thanks. Nikki311 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the page history, it was Lex94 that archived it. That's one reason why I never archive things (apart from my own talkpage!). Nikki, why don't you just take the discussion out of the archive and carry it on underneath here? Davnel03 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I didn't realize they weren't a-week-old. I just saw that they hadn't been replied, and/or the matter seemed resolved. Sorry, Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like that idea. Nikki311 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was opposed to this idea before because while something may be a week old, it still may not be resolved. But that makes the talk page get very long at times and we can't "make" people post and resolve things so I guess I am no longer opposed to this. If it ever got to be a problem for some reason we could easily just go back to manually archiving.  Go for it! --Naha|(talk) 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Same here. Davnel03 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have set up the archive. It's set at 7 days. The way the bot works is that it does not archive any sections without a timestamp, but that could be handled just by making a short reply. Like Silverwind said, we could always just go back if there is a problem. TJ Spyke 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Is the above page inactive? Now that the COTW is back running, isn't the list jsut gonig to go down. Should I redirect it to the main WP:PW page? Davnel03 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if it is inactive or not, but if it is decided we don't need it, a speedy delete would be better than a redirect. Nikki311 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally don't think we need it and would not object to a speedy delete.  But that is because I've only looked at it once or twice just to see what it was and what was on it.  I don't use it.  If there are lots of people who use it ..keep it I guess, otherwise, trash it. --Naha|(talk) 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a CSD notice on the page. Davnel03 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References]] 

message: No longer needed by us, and per this discussion it is no longer needed. Clean delete. Davnel03 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References]] 

message: This has been mentioned already on Kurt Angle's talk page. Karen Angle has become pretty notable and appears on TNA TV more than most wrestlers and is featured in the TNA Knockouts section of TNA's site. Currently Karen Angle redirects to Kurt's personal life section. Should she have her own article now? TJ Spyke 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She does play a major role along side Kurt. Though is she notable? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. I don't watch TNA, but do look at the results. I think she is notable, but my fear is that some of the info might overlap.Did she ever appear on WWE TV? I can only recall her being on the WrestleMania XX extras on the DVD (one leading up to the previous WrestleMania), thats about it. If we have sufficient detail on her, I say give it a go. I can't see why not. If the info does overlap, we can always merge it back. Another example would of been Vickie Guerrero back in middle of 2006 - her article was created in the middle of the feud. Davnel03 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think she did appear on WWE TV. I believe you are correct in that she only appeared on the "Mania of WrestleMania" bio that WWE made. TJ Spyke 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Vickie's article was "created" in April 2006, and was never more than a stub before it became a redirect to Eddie in August. The article in its current form began in September 2006, and very quickly became substantive. Tromboneguy0186 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karen Angle 

message: I've recently begun putting together an article for New Japan Pro Wrestling's PPV held on November 11, Destruction '07 in my sandbox. It's a work in progress, so any comments would be appreciated. --MarcK 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good so far. Just a quick note that if anyone in the future creates a new PPV proper, either in the sandbox or in the mainspace, can you please add a new entry on the PPV page please. Thanks! Davnel03 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious: who was the numnut you said expanding and splitting the articles was a bad idea? Mshake3 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not gonna say who, but here (and here) are the two times where there were opposition to them being split up. I'd bet now that they'd all be split by 13th November 2008. Davnel03 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was refering to someone else, who doesn't really edit anymore. "There will be too many articles to watch for vandalism"? Mshake3 18:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be here. Davnel03 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh. Maybe it's someone that's been blocked indef since. Oh well. :) Davnel03 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumping on the PPV bandwagon 

message: Since the WP:GAC page suggest reviewing another article when you put one up for GA I took the task of reviewing the Melina Perez article since I never contributed to it or well frankly read it before (I don't spend a lot of time on Diva articles), so I figured I'd be unbiased enough to review it, at least ya'll know I don't have an anti-wrestling agenda ;). To the point, I put the GA Nom on hold and left a laundry list of things to improve, so if anyone feels like contributing there is plenty to dig into. It's on hold for no more than a week as per the rules. Happy editing MPJ-DK 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Melina Perez]] GA on hold 

message: There are multiple IPs rounding up, excessively adding Funaki as a former and current WWE Champion... of all people... FUNAKI!?!? The man's a great worker but jeez!-- bulletproof 3:16 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been semi-protected for 2 weeks. TJ Spyke 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite hating vandalism, I find it slightly more tolerable when they have a sense of humor. There's was a similar problem with the World Heavyweight Championship article last week. Gavyn Sykes 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've run into that guy before. He used to upload an obviously fake picture of Funaki holding the WWE CHampionship as "proof". -- Scorpion0422 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IP vandals at [[List of WWE Championship reigns by length]]

message: I have moved this article to the main space. I have a few more things to do (copyedit, expand the lead, get rid of the trivia section, work on internal links, etc.). If anyone has any feedback, I'd love to hear it. GaryColemanFan 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SummerSlam (1994)]] 

message: A user recently moved Khali's article to Dalip Singh Rana, without consensus as far as I can tell. Gavyn Sykes 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll alert an admin. Bmg916Speak 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Yamla handled it real quick. :) Gavyn Sykes 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yea, Yamla's good. I also let the user (as they are brand new) know about WP:PW. Never hurt to have to many quality editors around here :-). Bmg916Speak 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, she is. She still hasn't responded to Davnel's query about the screwjob, but I'm sure she'll get around to it. And yeah, you're right, it never hurts to have more editors here (unless their in the vein of Hornetman16). Actually, I think we have at least one or two reformed vandals on the project currently. Gavyn Sykes 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd hardly call one movie a "movie career." He's more well known for his work as Khali in WWE than for his apperance in the Longest Yard. Gavyn Sykes 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also that he was a world champion bodybuilder in India and his pre-WWE days in New Japan in which it should be remembered that although this is the English encyclopedia, it is not the Western encyclopedia (a statement I have used before) and thus western interpretations should not trump in cases with other circumstances, especially when his "common name" does not seem to follow other wrestler ring name debates. The article was moved there in the first place without consensus, I think a debate should've been held on the issue and still do. –– Lid(Talk) 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The thing about that, is that we have barely any information about any part of his pre-WWE life. Just short snippets, really. But I agree, perhaps we should vote on the matter. My take is that if Singh's article is named the Great Khali, then Glen Jacobs' and Adam Copeland's should be named Kane (wrestler) and Edge (wrestler) respectively. Gavyn Sykes 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His article was created in May 2005 as "Dalip Singh" (, long before he joined WWE), move to "The Great Khali" in May 2006 () but was reverted 10 minutes later (), moved again in April 2007 () where it's been since then. "Dalip Singh Rana" was created in January 2007 (), but redirected the same day to Khalis article. It was today that user copy and pasted the content from "The Great Khali" to "Dalip Singh Rana", then turned it into a redirect. If someone wants an article moved, they should request it (not do a copy and paste move). TJ Spyke 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is also the fact that WWE owns the trademark to "The Great Khali". So when he leaves WWE, he can't use that name. TJ Spyke 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Great Khali redirected to [[Dalip Singh Rana]]

message: New users are re-adding the roster list after it was agreed to no longer make use of these kinds of lists. Just thought I'd pass that along. Would really appreciate someone keeping an eye on the page.-- bulletproof 3:16 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It should be rv'ed per WP:EMBED. Bmg916Speak 23:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem lies with the old pages having the rosters listed and this one omitting it. To the casual observer it would appear the vandalism would be the removal of the rosters, not vice versa. –– Lid(Talk) 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Apparently a consensus was formed in the article's talk page a few weeks ago based on the same policy Bmg916 brought up. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just gonna second what bulletproof said, I really couldn't have said it any better :-). Bmg916Speak 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comment. Bmg916 couldn't have said it better. XD -- bulletproof 3:16 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 roster lists

message: I think Briscoe Brothers probably satisfies WP:GA. I've gone in and phrased more and more claims to be "out of universe." Is the next step listing it for GA, or going to peer review? I know there's probably no "right" or "wrong" answer, but what's usually the next step? Tromboneguy0186 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next step is to come here, give a week's notice that you are planning to nominate an article, and the project members will give you feedback on the article's talk page. Then, when the week is up, if all the concerns are addressed, it can be nominated. If the concerns are not addressed, fix them and then nominate. I'll look through right now and give some feedback. Nikki311 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks...I kinda thought I already did that :p Tromboneguy0186 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Your previous thread about the work you have done on this article already got archived, and once something gets archived its easy to forget that we've already discussed it :)  You didn't actually say at that point that you were nominating it for GA, but rather just wanted a peer review. So if you want to follow our semi-formal protocol, this can be your offical annoucement that you are going for GA status which gives everyone who wants to 7 good days to check over everything again before you offically post the GA nom.  I tend to like to see at least 3 editors go through the article checking for stuff before an article gets nominated ..but that part is just my personal critera :P I'll try to look at it too :) --Naha|(talk) 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like to have GA in mind at all times because it helps me focus on what needs to be done to make the article better, regardless if it ever gets nominated or not :)  That being said, both Nikki and I have made several suggestions as to how you can improve the article.  Start with that and let us know if you need any help! --Naha|(talk) 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! As I said there, I'll get to work on it in a few hours. Tromboneguy0186 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be happy to comment on it as well, but I'll wait until the list from Nikki & Naha has been reduced a bit so that it's not too overwhelming and all. MPJ-DK 08:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I attempted a lead, and I don't much like it. But it's there, at least. Tromboneguy0186 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the next step? 

message: I merged the information for 1994 and 1995 into the main article for King of the Ring because for some strange reason they were the only 2 years out of 17 that had their own articles.
I think in the interest in uniformity that there should either be 1 article inclusive of all years, or separate articles for each year.  Giving 1994 and 1995 special treatment does not make sense to me.
Thoughts?
Yagobo79 12:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I got a thought - you were wrong to do so. Why? because it's slowly being split up one article at a time and work put into one event at a time, it's not a "strange reason" it's one of the focuses of this project. They should be returned to their previous state and then slowly work on splitting ALL the KOTR articles. MPJ-DK 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have returned them to the way they were MPJ. Yagobo - We are currently working on separating all the PPV articles into their own years to make it all uniform. However, there are only so many editors working on this with only so much time to do so. Eventually (hopefully) all 17 years will have their own articles. For now, the one's for 1994 and 1995 look well written and well sourced and should not be re-directed, as they could be used to help write articles for other years. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. As one of the people that is currently (well not really currently as I had a bit of time out for exams) expanding KOTR 1995, I feel very insulted by that move, Yagobo. Davnel03 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Insulted?  Sheesh.  I think people take this stuff too seriously.  I think the seperate articles are fine, but perhaps the results synopsis and brackets should remain in the main article, just for the sake of uniformity within that article.  Right now it just seems too random. Yagobo79 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: King of the Ring article

message: What do we feel about an IP adding  tag to some PPV related articles, see the IP's contributions. Should I revert? I'm not saying he's wrong, infact he's correct, but some of them (WrestleMania 23 and SummerSlam (2007)) are still underconstruction, so should they be removed? Davnel03 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're under construction, and the IP isn't being disruptive and placing them in bad faith then I'd just simply leave them until you add the third party sources and then remove them. Bmg916Speak 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said it yourself, he's not wrong - that should be the end of it, leave it there until the tag is no longer valid. MPJ-DK 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Just wonderin' Davnel03 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Leaderboard ready for COTW beginning 18th November:
*History of professional wrestling - Nine Supports - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
*Survivor Series (1997) - Nine Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
*Stone Cold Steve Austin - Eight Supports
*The Fingerpoke of Doom - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have nine votes
*WrestleMania (1985) - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED TOMORROW! if it doesn't have nine votes
*The Fabulous Moolah - Six Supports
*Magnum T.A. - Six Supports - but set to be PRUNED TOMORROW! if it doesn't have nine votes
*Cyber Sunday (2006) - Five Supports - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have six votes
*Mr. Fuji - Four Supports
*Santo - One Support - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have three votes
This COTW could go possibly seven or eight different ways - your votes are needed to make sure your favourite becomes the COTW! This is the closest ever! You need to vote, otherwise your favourite will not be COTW, and some could be pruned... possibly seven! Davnel03 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really sucks, too. Oh well, I'll re-nominate Wrestlemania I again when it can be re-nominated again, which is in a few months. FamicomJL 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can get two more supports by tomorrow, it can stay on there. Unfortunately no one is going over to the page, and putting their supports on. Davnel03 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW leaderboard and '''SEVEN''' PRUNED NOTICES!

message: Can the to do list have its own subpage? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling/To do list) Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already is. Davnel03 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean to add it as a subpage, instead of having it posted on the talk page. It takes up too much space up there, and the font is too small. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the size of your computer screen. Anyway, the To do list is hidden, so how can you say it takes up too much space? Davnel03 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it is showed, it looks like if it was forced and cramped inside the page. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: At the beginning it says the page is archived by Werdnabot, and at the end by Shadowbot. WHo is it really? Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure Shadowbot does what Werdnabot used to do. One does what the other used to do. FamicomJL 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't you erase the above statement with Werdnabot being the archiver? Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't. That's what the current template still says. It was never updated by the author of the template. It's confusing, yeah, but nothing we can do, unless we want to manually archive the discussions again. FamicomJL 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: Should it be noted that the crown was treated as a Championship that changed hands during more than one of the reigns?
Haku carried the crown after Race, and then it was contested in matches.  Haku lost it to Duggan who lost it to Savage.
Then in 1993 Lawler defeated Bret at SummerSlam to become the "Undisputed King of the WWF". Should these people be noted as King of the Ring champions, or Kings of the WWF?
I feel that if there is an article noting the title history of the Million Dollar Championship, then surely these changes in the King of the Ring title, particularly those of Duggan and Savage, should also be recognized.
Yagobo79 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, you do bring up an excellent point. I think it should be noted under those reigns that it was contested in matches. Bmg916Speak 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: King of the Ring as a Championship

message: ...and I'm going to list Briscoe Brothers for GA. Please give feedback on the article's talk page as to what needs to be done (and as always, feel free to actually do it!) so as to better ensure its passage. Tromboneguy0186 05:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One week... 

message: I've reverted Clonetrooper's edits on the Professional wrestling in Australia page as he insists on adding a little house show note called the Brisbane Cup. As it is only a house show it fails WP:N and yet he insists on posting it. I have told him that house show specific info is not notable - and I expect him to argue the point. Some help may be needed over this. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Shows issue 

message: Leaderboard ready for COTW beginning 18th November:
*History of professional wrestling - Twelve Supports
*Survivor Series (1997) - Ten Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
*Stone Cold Steve Austin - Eight Supports
*The Fingerpoke of Doom - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have nine votes
*The Fabulous Moolah - Six Supports
*Cyber Sunday (2006) - Six Supports
*Mr. Fuji - Four Supports
*Santo - Three Supports
*Dusty Rhodes - Three Supports
I'm disappointed by the lack of interest over at the COTW, and the lack of response from thr ocment above I made yesterday. If no one has supported the articles that are set to be pruned later today by 4pm ET, they WILL be pruned. Davnel03 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The striked ones have been pruned. However, we need more votes, otherwise it will be pruned. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Pruning Notice 

message: User talk:Metal to the Max! Left a message on my userpage saying I was kicked from Pro Wrestling Project because I knew nothing about wrestling, and left me a link to Ron Simmon's talk page. I went there, and I saw a message from a few months back I left, saying damn wasn't his catch phrase, I only used it once (this was when he said it only once). He then responded on the talk page saying I wasn't a real fan, etc. Very ridiculous, so just watch out for him vandalizing...-- Kris (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk:Metal to the Max! 

message: Is the above page really needed? The sections that compose the page, is just guidelines on how to post discussions. And all notices and discussions take action here, not there. So, I think the page isn't really needed. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is needed. Davnel03 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we nominate the page for deletion? Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for more opinions before nominating it. Davnel03 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Nikki here. Gavyn Sykes 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs more activity, that's for sure, but Naha and I fought so hard to keep it, and it would be of such use if we actually put it to use that I would hate to delete it. The Hybrid T/C 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes we need it and can utilize it.  It is practically brand new. I've had so much else going on that I haven't had time to properly institute it's use yet.  Please do not delete the Notice Board. --Naha|(talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notice board]]

message: I am now finished writing this article. I would like to nominate if for GA status in the future (but obviously not for a while, since I want to nominate Royal Rumble (1994) and King of the Ring (1994) first). I would really appreciate it if a few people could look through it (and perhaps do some copyediting) and give me some feedback. Thank you to anyone who can help (and to TJ Spyke, who has alreayd been a big help). Oh yeah, and I don't feel right about assessing articles that I've contributed to, so I would also appreciate it if someone could look it over and decide if it's up to B-level. GaryColemanFan 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a B article, so I made the upgrade for you. I don't have time to copyedit right now, but I promise I will later tonight or tomorrow. Nikki311 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. And no rush on the copyedit. Real life comes first. And thanks for the peer review comments on the other two articles. I'll get on that when I get a chance. GaryColemanFan 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[SummerSlam (1994)]] article complete

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that User:Kevin Hotfury has gone and created this page without alerting us. -- Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Judgment Day (2007) –– Lid(Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article - [[Backlash (2007)]]

message: So, anybody else think we should put a speedy delete on Heavy on Wrestling, and all of its unnotable workers? Kris (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it non-notable? They had Baron Von Raschke, Nora Greenwald, Christy Hemme and "Wild" Bill Irwin at their last event. Jake Roberts, Rikishi and Hemme will be at their next event. That seems somewhat notable to me, or at least notable enought that a speedy delete is probably not in order. I'm open to opinions, though. There could very well be precedents in WP:PW that I'm not aware of. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having notable wrestlers and being a notable promotion are two different things, the indy circuit has lots of "notable" people that wrestle on them at some time or another but they do not grant promotions notability by proxy. –– Lid(Talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bigger point is that they've only had one show. NOBODY's notable after one show. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it matters, but they are having their second show tonight (November 17) which features Christy Hemme, Jake "The Snake" Roberts and Rikishi among several other lesser known wrestlers. I know it may be for the wrong reasons, but the reason I dumpster dived to save this article awhile back was that I was very impressed that a 22 year old kid could pull this type of promotion together with these big names and donate part of the proceedings to a good cause, and that he plans to continue to do it as long as possible. The first show was verified by newspapers and other media outlets. --Naha|(talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy on Wrestling 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References is at MfD. -- Jreferee   t/c 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References at MfD

message: Judgment Day (2007) is now being created as a seperate article. This means that we now have the following as being expanded or have been expanded:
*WrestleMania 23
*Backlash (2007)
*Judgment Day (2007)
*One Night Stand (2007)
*Vengeance: Night of Champions
*The Great American Bash (2007)
*SummerSlam (2007)
*Cyber Sunday (2007)
*Survivor Series (2007)
*No Mercy (2007) is being worked on here.
If anyone wishes to fill in the gaps and expand TGAB 2007 and Unforgiven 2007, please do. Also note that Armageddon 2007 will be split next weekend.
This is obviously a good thing, but is beginning to leave a huge amount of broken links in articles. Just as a note, make sure, either using AWB or something else to repair the links and send them to the right location! Davnel03 10:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007 WWE PPV's notice

message: This page about a JCW event is in need of some serious work. Among others, the matches are described, poorly, in blow-by-blow style. I'll leave it to your capable hands as I'm not sure when and how to begin. -- 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the event even notable? Davnel03 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. –– Lid(Talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prodded. Davnel03 13:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod has been removed. Shall I take to AFD? Davnel03 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prod was removed, so you might want to take it to AfD. Nikki311 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD'd. Davnel03 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloodymania

message: I did it! The Show/Hide bar is on the newsletter. Please go to User:Lex94/Sandbox and tell me if you like it this way. I prefer it this way because it doesn't take up much space on the talk page. Thoughts? Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. I think that's a great idea. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will integrate it into the drawing board. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WPPW Newsletter

message: This article has been nominated for deletion, see here. I never normally notify the project about deletion debates, but this one seems different. Unlike others, looking at the article, it seems to have numerous reliable references and seems to satisfy notability. Am I wrong when I say that? I was a bit surprised when I seen the AFD notice. Davnel03 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually went through a rewrite since it wad AFD'd. It originally looked like this . --65.95.16.135 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Billy Reil]]

message: Anybody else think Ricochet (wrestler) should be prodded? Kris (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it. Nikki311 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricochet (wrestler) 

message: This is goofy. On an article like Nelson Frazier, Jr. the move list is broken up into characters, which gives the impression (to me) that moves not under a character name weren't done unless they were being done as that character, but that's not true. So in order to rectify that someone decided to just repeat everything three times. There has got to be a better way to do this.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could have the common moves at the top of the list, before it splits for each character - DrWarpMind (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I know for several some of the articles that Deep Shadow and I have worked on together, we decided it was better to list all the moved together, even if they had different names and were used under different gimmicks...it reduces redundancy and makes the section look less listy. I went ahead and fixed it like that, but I can't guarantee it won't be reverted. Nikki311 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem with move names 

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article The Great American Bash (2007). -- LAX 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article - [[The Great American Bash (2007)]]

message: What the title says. Also, despite the fact WWE had 15 votes or so to become the COTW, not much progress was made in terms of referencing on the article, see the diff. Davnel03 10:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally, both Survivor Series (1997) and The Fingerpoke of Doom need two more votes each to survive being pruned tomorrow! Please vote for them here. Also, next weeks COTW will be the FACOTW! Davnel03 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of professional wrestling]] now the COTW

message: I am going to work on the No Way Out (2007) article, as part of the PPV expansion, hopefully we will get all the 2007 ppv's expanded.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[No Way Out (2007)]] 

message: Later tonight, I'll begin work on New Year's Revolution (2007). Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE New Year's Revolution]] 

message: There's been two attempts at resolving a debate as to whether PWI rankings and awards and Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards should be included and nothing has really been resolved. Some see them as important wrestling honors and some see them as trivial bits of information. So, let's just get this out of the way once and for all. Should we:
1. Delete all PWI and WON material from the championships and accomplishments section.
2. Delete PWI rankings and WON awards from the championships and accomplishments section but leave the various PWI awards.
3. Keep all PWI and WON material as part of the championships and accomplishments section.Odin's Beard 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say 2 because yes the rankings sounds trivial to me, but the awards are an honor and considering that it comes from a magazine that recognizes the world and tag championships, seems important.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: #2 The rankings are just trivial. The awards mean something. The Chronic 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all trivial, including PWI's pathetically arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't a "world title." What's even more trivial is the notion that that matters in an encyclopedic sense. Tromboneguy0186 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose listing every ranking a wrestler ever received. I do, however, think that there is a place for the wrestler's ranking on the PWI 500 of the PWI Years (as it demonstrates longevity and fairly consistent achievement) and the Top 100 Tag Teams of the PWI Years (especially for someone like Bobby Eaton, whose notability is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that he made the list three times). In addition, I see no harm in listing a wrestler's best single-year performance on the PWI 500. I think it helps establish notability for many wrestlers (eg. Tony Anthony, who was ranked #24 one year but whose article was once deleted as non-notable). GaryColemanFan 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add all awards and rankings to a trivia section. This would be neutral to all three of your options, as the awards will be kept (option 3), and will keep them out of the championships and accomplishments sections (options 1,2). Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've spent a lot of time trying to keep trivia sections out of the wrestling articles, and I know a lot of other people have, too. I really hate trivia sections because they invite all sorts of useless information like shoe size, favorite song, and championship related original research. Moreover, they go against WP:Trivia, which says to integrate the information into the article or if it's non-notable, delete it altogether. Nikki311 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about integrate the information in a section entitled: "Awards". Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Me personally, I say just delete them altogether. I keep hearing PWI awards themselves are important to the wrestling industry in and of itself, though I've yet to see anyone provide anything solid to back up their point of view other than personal opinions. What makes the awards so important? What is it that makes PWI declare a title a "world" title? If the wrestling industry considered them a big deal, why are PWI rankings and awards never used in the promotion of a wrestler or in promotion of storylines by the various promotions? Take John Cena for instance; regardless of personal opinion of him, it's hard to refute that he's been the biggest star in pro wrestling for the past 2.5 years or so. Certainly the most hyped and exposed as well. Yet, in all of the various interviews and television appearances he's made, both for wrestling and non-wrestling programs, none of his PWI rankings and awards are mentioned in the slightest. Outside media doesn't recognize or acknowledge their importance and I've seen nothing that proves the wrestling industry in and of itself does. I've heard that a sign of their importance comes from some wrestlers being photographed while holding their PWI awards. I think it's fairly obvious that PWI is going to publish photos of wrestlers holding THEIR awards in THEIR publication. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Odin's Beard. The best example that I can think of which parallels this situation is eonline.com's Tater Top Awards. I'm sure not many people here have heard of them, except for me because I'm nerdy like that. Anyway...allow me to explain: they are awards annually given to television stars that win certain categories voted for by fans on the internet (such as best kiss, hottest lead actor, that sort of thing). The winners are given trophies either by mail or by an eonline employee doing taped interviews on the red carpet. They also sometimes mention them in interviews with eonline ("thanks for such and such award"). Does that mean we should include this award in the articles of all the television actors who won them? No....it's trivial, even if they are video-taped with the award. PWI is the same thing, in my opinion, but dressed up a little nicer. I think the only time they should be included is if they help establish notability in articles for less well-known wrestlers, although there are better ways to accomplish the same task, IMO. Nikki311 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very different situation. Obviously, Eonline awards are nothing compared to major awards like the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, etc. But, in wrestling, there are no major awards. The most major is the PWI and TWO awards and rankings, which would tempt us to add them to the articles; as they are the only prestigious awards that can be won. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking was that the various championships themselves are the prestigious awards. Championship belts and major tournament wins could be analogous to the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes. Nikki311 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about wrestlers that haven't won a lot of titles but have been ranked several times or won these awards? Steve Lombardi (better known as The Brooklyn Brawler) has never won any titles other than very minor indy belts. TJ Spyke 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, there are other ways to prove notability. Lombardi has worked for WWE either on-screen or behind the scenes for 20 something years. He also had an action figure released through WWE. Nikki311 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: After reviewing all the information on final time, I still find them all trivial and lacking notability. I say delete them all. --Naha|(talk) 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the reason why I'm against using them is that I think there's a contradiction when it comes to pointing out their importance. Picking and choosing which PWI or WON honors goes in and which doesn't make sense to me. If the rankings aren't considered a big deal, I don't see how the awards themselves are. Being ranked one of the 500 best wrestlers in the world is trivial but winning PWI Comeback of the Year award isn't?Odin's Beard (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What about keeping yearly rankings if they can be written into the article itself? This is how I included Tony Anthony's 1994 ranking in his article. I strongly believe that this helps establish his notability, so I thought it should be included. Aside from that, I still think that PWI 500 of the PWI Years and PWI Top 100 Tag Teams rankings make sense to include, and I don't buy the argument that they clutter up championship lists. Nor do I agree that wrestlers don't care about them. Someone like Bret Hart might not care, but many independent wrestlers certainly do. One of my friends definitely looks forward to finding out where he is placed year after year. And the wrestlers who care are usually the ones whose PWI 500 rankings are a major asset in establishing their notability. Getting rid of them will just hurt our project in the long run. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure that they do matter to some. There are few absolutes in life afterall. But, I'm talking about the industry as a whole, not just a handful of unknown promotions and workers. I'd accept their importance if there was something in the wrestling industry to signify that the industry does consider them a big deal. If the WWE, TNA, All Japan, New Japan, AAA, ZERO1-MAX, ROH, the NWA, Stampede, etc. acknowledged them as being important, it'd help establish importance. Any or all of them would help that. However, why would they not use the awards to further their own notoriety? Why not use them to promote wrestlers and storylines? It's certainly not like the WWE not to use something that they think is going to make them more money.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I read the same argument above a few times. I'm trying to work toward a compromise by proposing several ways to address the issue. You repeat the same argument over and over again. That won't resolve anything. Obviously, WWE has no need to use PWI 500 rankings to promote wrestlers. I already said that. They're an established company and have no need to advertise like that. On a related note, Wal-Mart doesn't use door-to-door advertising or telephone operators to let people know they exist. Go figure. For the most part, I'm talking about independent wrestlers. It can be hard to establish notability for some of them, as reliable sources for the independent circuit can be hard to come by. This doesn't mean that they're not notable wrestlers, but members of this project have limited resources at hand. If PWI compiles information about independent wrestlers, I feel that we'd be foolish not to use it to our advantage. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Round Three

message: I noticed that the last WWF ppv and the upcoming Survivor Series have their own articles. What about starting new articles for each of the upcoming WWF ppv? It would be pretty easy considering the details of these events that occur leading up to the ppv would be fresh on everyone's mind and references would be ridiculously easy to locate. The reason I bring this up is cause I noticed users going back and creating pages for inconsequential PPVs (Backlash 07 & December to Dismember come to mind). They do excellent jobs, but I would imagine this process each month with a new PPV would be even easier as a group, given it's timing and would be beneficial down the road. Thoughts? --Endless Dan 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you've zoomed back to 2001, its the WWE, not the WWF! :) Onto topic, I tend to agree with you there. Davnel03 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Phooey. I'm not giving into some Panda and a couple of tree-huggers. --Endless Dan 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this was already the plan. Go for it, in case it's not. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my notice below. Davnel03 10:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe this has been the plan for a month or so now and I am sure the folks that have been working on getting these articles fleshed out would be happy to have another set of hands on the job! Please see the WP:PW PPV Expansion page, which was created on October 30. --Naha|(talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPV task force 

message: Just letting you know that I have nominated In Your House 1 for FA status. As a result of this discussion, please do not support it without leaving a comment. If you do have legitimate problems with the article, or if there is something you do not understand, please do say at the FAC, I don't mind. The other thing, about major contributers being allowed to vote doesn't really apply to this article, as I have made most of the contributions to the article. Thanks! Davnel03 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the 411mania sources add to the article? It's not considered a reliable source, and it's only used in places where there is already another reference. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of it altogether. And are there any other reviews/recaps of the show available? Although I understand that The History of WWE is a quality site, I'm not sure how it would look to people outside the project to have 55 facts referenced by an Angelfire page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does. In this instance, isn't it a reliable source. And no, there ain't any other reviews available I don't think. :( Davnel03 18:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1]] 

message: This article has undegone a peer review process and I informed members of the project one week ago that I would be nominating it for GA-status. My preference is that the review is done by someone outside of the project, as I want to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. And, as always, if you can see any problems with the article, please let me know. Thank you to everyone who has helped so much to get it to this level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Royal Rumble (1994)]] - GA Nominee 

message: If its alright with everyone, I'd like to create the Backlash 2006 article. Zenlax T C S 20:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Backlash (2006)]] 

message: I've passed Melina Perez and it is now a GA - I personally think that I'm capable of reviewing a pro wrestling article I haven't worked on but well since some people are weary of biased reviewing etc this will be the last GA Review I'll be doing. I know I can be fair & tough on these things but I'd rather not cause suspicion or finger pointing at the expense of this project so I'll refrain from GA Reviewing in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melina Perez - GA