Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 37

message: I've been on Wikipedia for a while; believe me, I know my edits carry weight by now. What concerns me is that now that many of the wrestling articles are struggling for featured articleship, many editors are coming to the realization that they have been working to dead ends: Let me help in striving not FA, but pefection:
I copy-n-pasted the criteria for FAship here:
1- fills a gap; search for existing or related articles on the topic first. How many wrestling articles are like that? Most pages are just collaborations based on very little reading or research. This is especially so for history of wrestling articles. Read Bishoff's book. Read Foley's book. Read some of the WWF histories out there. They are loaded with real facts for a wikipedian to put out there. 
The main gap I see is with critical opinion. Think about it. Most of the forums, blogs, and personal sites talking about wrestlers are going to disappear in mere months. Why not preserve important criticisms? Wikipedians are too afraid to put their own opinions and cite reviews. Wrestling fans are very savvy researchers; they know what is going on with their fav wrestlers, and they have plenty to write. Why shouldn't it be that many of the criticisms or feelings towards a wrestler be expressed? Let's say John Cena's in-ring skills were under question. Shouldn't that be added? What about a push? Or an absence? Chris Masters' article is perfect with facts, for instance. It does not have anything newsworthy in that respect. It just has to be consensus-based online.
2- starts with a clear description of the subject; the lead introduces and explains the subject and its significance clearly and accurately, without going into excessive detail. This is hands down, the biggest problem wrestling editors have. Look at the # of times you'll see a minor feud or simple main event being put into excessive detail. Think about the pains someone takes to say something like "Randy Orton def. John Cena in a no-DQ match on the Jan 24th Edition of RAW after he RKO'ed Cena through a table." Who cares? Wrestling people are really, really obsessive on facts. Don't be. Half the time, the results on RAW and Smackdown won't really matter much, anyway. A feud is far more important, especially if it is based on a storyline of some sort.
3- is understandable; it is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, and thoroughly explores and explains the subject This is why no article, not even the Montreal Screwjob, could be considered for the FA of the day. Think about how in-universe the language is whenever you write. Just writing about PPVs, for example, is a few steps away from what the average reader wants to know. 
Just think about how in-universe a pay-per-view is: A pay-per-view is a wrestling event consisting of several matches, usually promoted and built-upon from weeks and months of creative planning. Feuds have been established months in advance, and pay-per-views are often used to systematically present key transformations in many storylines. Pay-per-views achieve highs in viewership and revenue, making them among the finest of a wrestling federation's shows. That is all stuff every wrestling fan knows. Most non-wrestling fans don't know all this background, let alone the series of pay-per-views, or the ridiculous types of specialty matches.
4- is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles. In-links suck. Balls. Believe me, I can tell you that wrestling articles are the hardest to read because of the intense links and citations. Focus on the article, not how to make an article link most effectively or what to link. Let the big-time losers provide wikilinks for you. Chances are, you will have put enough effort and time into the article itself, you won't see any reason for reading, let alone linking, other articles.
5- branches out; it contains wikilinks and sources to other articles and external information that add meaning to the subject. and branches in; editors have found and edited other significant wiki pages which make mention of the topic and link them to the article. Tell this to the fool who bothered to link the $ sign in the Chris Masters article.
6- acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject. is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views. Check Vince McMahon. It will NEVER, EVER reach FA. Not a chance in Hell. Why? Because for all his actions, for every single one of the books written about him, for all the documentaries, interviews, achievements, and failures, little controversy or opinion is presented. Think of all the people he fired over the years. All the bad storylines. Who he has hired. Who has sued him. his business practices. Not one bit of controversy is ever expressed, yet every single forum online spews his name nonstop.
7- is clear; it is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, using logical structure, and plain, clear prose; it is free of redundant language. Check some of the older pay-per-views, especially In Your House 1 and you'll see how unclear the storylines are. It's difficult to see any wrestling article without this problem.
8- is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. LAST, but CERTAINLY NOT LEAST. This sums up the reason the wrestling project is doomed. When someone adds boring, ridiculous links, and unbelievably obsessive details, they make us look bad. The project is shameful. For someone who bothers to read biographies to edit articles, when they see Hulk Hogan's article, they run into complete garbage. Think about how much is on Kurt Angle's page or how many are categorized by "RAW" "SMACKDOWN" RAW-2nd RUN, SMACKDOWN. Think about this. Think about how many people are going to read and understand what you read.
You can have influence, and make FAs if you try. Aim for some perfection, and you'll see. I brought all this up because this is what our project should be arguing about, not all the dumb little facts. This rant might give some people the BIG PICTURE they were looking for.
--Screwball23 talk 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but get the holy by god fuck off your goddamned high horse. "My edits carry a lot of weight" Yeah, I'm sure they're "pefection." If you're so "pefect" why don't you do some work yourself instead of POINTLESSLY BITCHING IN ALL CAPS and big scary bold text at people who are doing good work. You're accomplishing nothing but riling people up. If we're so "shameful" then why even bother with us? If you care that much, get your own ass in gear. God damn it, I am so angry right now.`  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tromboneguy0186 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd love to read that, and the parts I can make out do bring up some great points. But you did a terrible copy and paste. Where'd you copy this from anyway? Mshake3 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even know where to start. But then I wouldn't know when to finish. So I'll just point out this...--EnhancedDownloadBird (Upload) - 05:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If I wasn't there, it never happened" Mshake3 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm guessing this was because of my comments on your talkpage, Screwball. All I wanted was a copy-edit, I didn't really ask for a rant to come with it. All I'm trying to do is try and get In Your House 1 to FA status, and it seems like you've just gone off on one. Davnel03 08:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are actually some good points in there, shame they get lost in the attitude/tone of the whole piece which means that most people will probably just pass it on by. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, your right. What suprises me is that the user doesn't actually attempt to help us improving articles, and instead has to rant despite not being very active.... (somehow, I doubt Screwball will actually look at this topic ever again) Davnel03 18:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's not. I believe it was established, citing WP:BLP, that no name be dragged through the mud, or something like that. Then again, the user who was enforcing that, quite posting here with a loud "FUCK THIS PLACE", so who cares anymore. Let's get controversal! Mshake3 (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MY RANT 

message: Something new for the newsletter: the newsletter will be begin to do user interviews for each newsletter. Apply here if you want to be interviewed for a future issue. Apply today! :) The Chronic 04:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also from the newsletter: you now have methods on how to receive the newsletter. See here for detail! The Chronic 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:PW newsletter 

message: To avoid any issues of biased reviewing etc I've stopped GA reviewing wrestling articles - but I figured I could still review them in a "Non GA" manner and provide input to articles currently up for GA, a "Pre-GA" review if you will, stuff to fix before someone really reviews it according to the GA criterias.
In that regard I've started with Randy Orton and commented on the part I could stand to review, I litterally had to stop reading about 1/4 of the way through for my own sanity. I left notes and comments on the talk page with the many things I found wrong in what little I read. Please, please, please read them and understand that I mean no one ill will or hostility but the state of the article just put me in such a bad mood. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I went ahead and failed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orton non-GA review 

message: Just seen this come up as an article. Two options here:
# Redirect to WWE Raw
#:OR
# Expand (like what we are doing with the PPV's). I'm almost certain we'd be able to find reliable sources.....
Davnel03 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect, with the precedent being WWE Homecoming and Tribute to the Troops. Nikki311 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Redirect from me too. Zenlax T C S 20:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected. Just checkin. Davnel03 20:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it should have been expanded. Tribute to the Troops and Homecoming also were notable specials. Raw XV was just as notable as some of the PPVs. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Raw XV redirects now, but someone else has created 15th Anniversary of RAW, and its even linked through the special episode list in the mainr aw article.LessThanClippers (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Idk but I kinda feel that we could expand RAW XV like a PPV because it had a lot of hype like a PPV. I also believe that Tribute to the troops could be made into an article, plus that its annual and is very important. Just my opinion.=)--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, past consensus shows that these pages aren't notable for there own Wiki page. Anyway, consensus can change over time, and am always willing to discuss the matter again if anyone wishes. :) Davnel03 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than having a lot of past WWE stars, it was not that different from a regular RAW. Have both redirect back to the RAW article. TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[RAW XV]] 

message: The article is UP. Feel free to make any changes. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Vengeance (2006)|Vengeance '06]] 

message: Can somebody tell me why why a PPV like No Mercy 2007 has to have the results on the No Mercy page replaced with a link to its own article? Why can't the results go below the link to the main page so that people who want the results can get them in the results section rather than being mislead and just finding a link to another article? 24.159.39.11 (talk) 09:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We at WP:PW are gradually expanding PPV events and moving them onto seperate pages. Per past consensus, we have opted not to list the matches under the related year, but instead just direct the user to the expanded page. Cheers, Davnel03 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to link to said consensus? Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We actually haven't had an official consensus, editors have just generally done that way, and no users seem to be against it. It was sort of brought up here. Davnel03 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's against it, until now. So it's time to establish a new consceus. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't list the results per common sense. The merged PPV articles were too long, and looked ugly. The Hybrid T/C 16:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was just the match results, and none of this stupid "Batista won the cage match by excaping the cage" crap, it would look just fine. Mshake3 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then it wouldn't be comprehensive, which defeats the purpose of listing the results in the first place. The Hybrid T/C 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a comprehensive look at the PPVs, then you click the "Further Information" link that would be placed above. Mshake3 (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough, but at the same time I think that we should just create templates for each PPV, providing links to all of them, and delete the individual sections for each one entirely. The Hybrid T/C 16:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that any article that breaks the 30KB should be considered for break up. A lot of the more recent PPV's that have been going basically since the In Your House concept was wound up have got to that point now. And as a result it would be inconsistent to treat the younger ones (ie Cyber Sunday and New Year's Revolution even if it is defunct) the same way. No sense in not being practical. !! Justa Punk !! 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PPVs with their own articles

message: I've finished the main Royal Rumble page and have inserted into mainspace. I hope to nominate it as a Featured List Candidate fairly soon. If you can improve the article or want to add to it (with sources!), that's cool. If there's anything wrong with it, let me know on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nikki311 01:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Royal Rumble]] 

message: It's nice to see that every WWE superstar's page has a nifty convenient WWE Roster Template at the bottom of the page; why can't there be a TNA Roster Template?? Maybe it can be split up into Knockouts, X-Division, Staff, and Regular Roster of course. Just a suggestion. Derrty2033 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just finished creating it. See here. Feel free to make any changes to it and add it to the mainspace. The Chronic 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason it should be Velvet Sky. It should either be Velvet Sky or Velvet Sky. Talia Madison is a ringname, and according to apparent consensus, and overwhelmingly non-notable one. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it if you will. The Chronic 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To which? I think both are reasonable, though Velvet Sky is the only one that's not salted. Something tells me it probably will be soon, though. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My thoughts exactly. :) The Chronic 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you should just call them wrestlers.TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made that change. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roster Template 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XNW -- EndlessDan 15:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy deleted. Davnel03 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up 

message: My final exams are over, so I have much more Wiki time now. I started to correct the move links in the TNA Roster's articles, and should finish it tommorrow, if all goes well. After that, I'll begin to work on bringing WrestleMania 23 to GA. I may tackle the ROH roster and other independent wrestlers later. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took one look at  and took a step back. I've not seen him wrestle much, I'd appreciate it if someone could clean up the move section, since there are about twenty-five or more moves there. It looks really bad, to be blunt. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update on my Projects

message: I proposed this idea a few weeks ago, and some people seemed to think it was a good idea but mentioned that they didn't have time until at least mid-December. I am reposting my proposal so that we can revisit it now that things are calming down for some people...
I think this project has done a great job lately with the focus on Good Article and Featured Article/List development. We've made significant progress in this area. One thing that I've been thinking about, though, is that we still have 777 stub articles (that are not likely to be chosen at Collaboration of the Week) out of 3230 total articles. I was thinking that it would be nice to challenge ourselves to see if we can improve a certain number of articles from Stub Class to Start Class within a month or so. I was thinking of something like 15 articles. I was looking through some of the stubs, and quite a few stood out as articles that would have adequate resources for improvement or might already fit the criteria for Start Class. A few that stood out are:
*Adrian Street
*Bill Apter
*Dewey Robertson - I've done some work on this one.
*December to Dismember (1995) - probably just needs a few references
**I'd propose, making it into a featured list. (Match listings) Lex  T/C Guest Book  01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done with my finals now, so I'd love to help out. Do you want to make the subpage or should I? I think we should model it on the PPV expansion subpage. Nikki311 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could pretty much copy Nikki's reply and it would be fully accurate for me. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well one of them has found an underconstruction tag. :P Davnel03 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If someone could create the subpage, I would really appreciate it. I've started it a few times since getting home today, but it just comes off sounding too formal and academic. I think I need to take a few hours off. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stubs. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Article improvement revisited 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hennigan&curid=7419707&diff=177939920&oldid=177821499
There's a small debate going on here. Is this against the style of guide of WP:PW or of Wikipedia itself? Because I'm of the opinion that the left edit looks better and explains things more clearly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think the one of the left looks better. But I really don't mind either way. Davnel03 20:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the left version, since it tells you who he is currently champion with. - DrWarpMind (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my point. But apparently style guidelines dictate that the right version be used. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of left as well. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the partners are listed by the time they were partnered with Hennigan, so logically, if Hennigan is the current champion, then the last one (Miz) would be the current one; so the (1, current) isn't needed. But either way, I'm fine; really don't care. Lex  T/C Guest Book  01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a small debate? Really? «»bd(talk stalk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you call it, then?  Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestlers with multiple Tag Team Championship partners

message: I'm proposing an FA review for one of our project's FAs periodically. We can make it one article every 2 months or so. The thing is that I have found many errors in Montreal Screwjob and I bet I can find so in the others. Lex  T/C Guest Book  01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagee. I wouldn't propose an FA review, possibly just a little general cleanup. These articles get tons of IP edits that the tinest of things that they put in without a fact tag get missed. I really don't think we need a FA review unless there are major problems with the article (citation needed tags; dispute tags; lead too short) etc... Davnel03 09:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Re-Review

message: Repeatedly (first with Senshi, now with Christopher Daniels), User:NickSparrow and myself have been butting heads over inclusion. His current belief is that Christopher Daniels is still employed by TNA, and is reverting any edits that remove him from the roster list. I, on the other hand, believe that he should not be included without a reliable source stating that his release was kayfabe. As stated in one of my edit summaries, his release has been confirmed on the TNA website. Article link. Thanks in advance, Hezekiah957 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any way to verify that? I've given links to news stories that aren't sure if Daniels is only kayfabe fired, the TNA roster on its official site (doesn't include him), etc. If a reliable source (and, isn't the TNA website reliable?) can be given (instead of users just saying it) that Daniels' firing was only a storyline, then I will consider changing my stance on his inclusion. As for Senshi, I made a section higher on the page about that. If we could keep the two discussions separate, I'd much appreciate it. Hezekiah957 (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that since this is a kayfabe issue TNA's website can't be seen as reliable. When WWE "blew up" Vince McMahon, WWE.com reported he was dead, so would it have been right to say that he was in fact dead because WWE.com said so? Nenog (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNA Roster 

message: Can I just quickly point out that the person who signed as User:Davnel03 a few threads above in the WWE roster thread is not me. I have no idea who it is, but Davnel03 has been indefinitely blocked. Davnel03 22:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its good to know that this impostor has been blocked. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I assumed it wasn't you. Their comments were ridiculous. Nikki311 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the reasons I said you shouldn't have requested your old username be deleted. Instead of it being a redirect to your current username, it was made available as a username again. I just hope that you managed to get all comments made by you on talkpages changed to your current name so that they won't be linked to that vandals account. TJ Spyke 04:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or another alternative: when you changed your username, you should've gone and created a new account under your old username (as it's now open), and made at least one edit with that account. That's what I did, and I have advised several people who had changed their usernames to do that as well. Obviously nothing you can do about that now, but I'm just saying. The Chronic 06:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling the "imposter" is Cowboycaleb1 who some of you guys might know. As a result, I have presented my concerns to WP:ANI located here. Davnel03 10:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: User:Davnel03 and User talk:Davnel03 have been deleted and salted. Davnel03 10:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immitator 

message: Someone needs to keep track of the pruning dates and stuff. I think there are some overdue pruned nominations, but I can't tell. The Chronic 08:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Week 

message: He has appeared on screen as The Great Khali's manager for quite a while now, I think he deserves an article. Anybody else agree? Kris (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Feel free to create a draft article on a test page. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will be hard to find much info or references, but go ahead if you feel you want to. FamicomJL (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranjin Singh 

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've stared the expansion of Judgment Day (2006). Cheers, LAX 17:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article - [[Judgment Day (2006)]]

message: Category_talk:World_Champion_professional_wrestlers. —Random832 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up 

message: Can somebody watch the Edge and Christian article for me. There is an editor adding WP:Weasel statements and fair-use images (with no rationale and copyright info) to the article. I've already hit my limit at three reverts. Thanks. Nikki311 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye on it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: As I. Zenlax T C S 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Edge and Christian]] 

message: I am proposing this section be split into a new article while it's young and can be easily done so.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but we should wait for some other opinions. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say wait until after the event, i think it can wait. Its next sunday, split it on Monday or right after the event.TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It becomes harder to write as you wait...do it now.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Trucco, lets wait after it happens. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mind, we should wait until after the event. Cheers, LAX 02:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, 72.186.91.215 is User:Hornetman16-- bulletproof 3:16 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I noticed from . Cheers, LAX 03:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And he said we would never hear from him again... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Aww... and I thought this spoke for itself. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's been editing alot on The Pro Wrestling Wikia lately as Monnitewars. Cheers, LAX 04:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am aware of that. I've been keeping an eye on him for quite some time. He has also been active in other Wikis. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an admin there, so no worries. If he steps out of line I can handle him. Now, I'll take this opportunity to say that anyone who wants to join the wikia should. There are almost no boundaries to what you all can add. It is a wrestling fan's dream wiki. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 04:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Proof this is me?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't start this again Hornetman... Grenelefe, Florida. You think IP's are untraceable?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus that's exactly how you respond every single time. -- Scorpion0422 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. Are you gonna help me copy this template to here or not?--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because you shouldn't be copying things from the main Wiki. -- Scorpion0422 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem... Congrats! Anyway, like I said on the template's talk page, you cant just copy and paste templates from one Wiki to another. I believe some links and tables are only available here. You should ask Hybrid for more info since he's an admin in that Wikia. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why hasn't this IP been blocked yet? The Hybrid T/C 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you at least help me build a new one? I don't know building code as well as ya'll.--72.186.91.215 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you should ask Hybrid there since he is an admin in that Wikia.-- bulletproof 3:16 06:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't do it; I tried. The Hybrid T/C 06:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: HORNETMAN is like a superhero villain. He tries, and tries and tries... but we always win...Lex  T/C Guest Book  00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something we all know to well... the thing is it has become old, his behavior is just to obvious I suggest that any  address is ignored and subsecuently blocked if its either obvious or confirmed that it is being used by this user, otherwise he will keep coming back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this gonna be done?--72.186.88.137 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Armageddon#2007|Armageddon 2007]] 

message: The article has been receiving edits, that both Edge and Orton are World Champions, as to the fact they are no longer a stable. Can someone please monitor the article. Zenlax T C S 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's notable. In 2006, Edge offered Randy to join him to get their world championships back (Edge was referencing his WWE Championship and Orton's World Championship). Well, after joining Rated RKO, and some months after the disban, they did just that (in reverse however). So, Edge kept his promise and that can be added to the article. Lex  T/C Guest Book  21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not notable since it didn't happen as part of the group and they didn't help each other win world titles at all.  - DrWarpMind (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to note that Edge brought Randy back to main event status. Before Rated RKO, he was feuding with Carlito and losing Intercontinental Championship matches. Lex  T/C Guest Book  22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What Orton did backstage is just rumors, not fact. Besides, Orton had been relegated to midcard status long before those rumors started, he was down pretty much right after he lost the WHC to Triple H. WarpMind is right, only titles won while part of the tag team/group are included (at least in the titles won section). TJ Spyke 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument there. But I think the prose should mention something about what I mentioned up there. Lex  T/C Guest Book  00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rated-RKO]] 

message: Quick question - is the proper format for the text above a picture in the infobox the real name of the wrestler or the name of the article? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually answered on the Infobox page (Template:Infobox Wrestler): "The person's most common name (probably the pagename itself)." So Shawn Michael's infobox would say Shawn Michaels, not Michael Hickenbottom. TJ Spyke 16:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, thanks. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestler Infobox text

message: Would it be now time for talks to consider a professional wrestling portal? I'm just wondering what WP:PW thinks, since the last mention of it. The Chronic 07:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet. Wait until the New Year at least. I think a professional wrestling portal is the last thing on people's minds. Davnel03 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I on the other hand think we should. Read my comment about the issue here. Lex  T/C Guest Book  12:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this discussion may go on until the new year. With the newsletter and the development of the articles and stuff, I truly believe a portal can and will be successful. I would support it 100%.The Chronic 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to sound like a total moron, but what the hell is a portal? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem. I'll be a moron with you. So, what is a portal? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:PORTAL. Cheers, LAX 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I do think that there is a real risk it will end up sitting for months without any edits, but if y'all are committing to it, and you're open to being held to that commitment, then I won't oppose it. I will say right now, however, I personally won't be taking part in it actively. The Hybrid T/C 05:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would definitely be committed to keeping the portal up-to-date, even if it means the harder work for me (along with the newsletter, vandal fighting, regular editing, etc.). And I'm sure other users will agree. The Chronic 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hybrid stole the words out of my mouth. I can't oppose something that people are willing to work on, but I can't support something that I know I won't be able to help much with. Nikki311 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. I have no problem with there being a portal, but I might not be able to edit it much. Just remember that portals are supposed to be meant for the general reader (wheras wikiprojects are meant for those knowledgable or interested in a subject), so wrestling jargon should be avoided and written like you are showing it to someone who knows nothing about wrestling. TJ Spyke 16:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will keep that in mind. The Chronic 16:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Portal should be helpful too. TJ Spyke 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Seen that. So should construction of the portal begin now? The Chronic 17:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional wrestling portal 

message: *Support - The Chronic 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Approval poll

message: Ok this is ridiculous, PLEASE stop removing the citations to the article, me and Alex are not done constructing the page. He is working on the tables and look to the page while I am finding citations to prove that each superstar is signed to WWE. We are attempting to make the article an FL class article, I dont know why people are against this? Having a FL article is good to the Project.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the same user has deleted the references seven times, perhaps a message on his talk page would be appropriate? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If only the references were being used correctly. Mshake3 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are good sources, make them right but leave them in if possible. Taking them out completely isn't a solution if they are good sources. All articles should be sourced to the best of our ability. --Naha|(talk) 02:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna repost something I wrote in one of the many, many sections about this article, with an addition: Just a thought here. The discussion seems to be whether or not to use a few references from the roster page at the top of each section, or to cite each and every bio. Well when you cite each and every bio, what are you really citing? For example, Triple H's bio tells me nothing about him being a Raw superstar, except for the URL and the Raw logo. You would have to make it clear that those parts of the page are the proof that he's on the Raw roster. Now, if we were to link to the Raw roster, we now see a list of superstars. The purpose of this page is to show the superstars of the roster, and the brand's champions. Seems to me that the later would be a more accurate reference. Of course, then comes to question of whether or not to use that one reference for every name (me, I'm against that). Mshake3 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, how did he lose the vote? It was 6-5 in favor of including citations. TJ Spyke 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the WP:PW members have spoken even though TJ says i didnt lose the vote, if i add references, members will probably delete it. So I will just work on it in my sandbox. Thank you fellow members for not wanting a FL class list. TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And thank you for wanting an article to have crappy references. Mshake3 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: U kno what milk shake go to.... (w/e):PTrUcO9311 (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: My gut reaction is to err on the side of over-referencing. Looking at Featured Lists like List of birds of Thailand, however, makes me think that two or three general references may be sufficient. I realize this doesn't help much, but I thought I might as well state my opinion (or lack thereof). An idea, though...what about using one or two general references and nominating it as a Featured List? If people oppose based on a lack of references, that would indicate that references are needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The perfect compromise, in my opinion. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to [[WWE Roster]] 

message: I know he/she is just trying to help, but User:Number87 is adding this category to every person and event that had anything to do with WWE (even Drew Carey) from 1996-2002. The article on the Attitude era itself is up for deletion and there is no definitive beginning or end to the era (the end is usually accepted as WrestleMania X-Seven, but the beginning is not as clear). Any opinions? TJ Spyke 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The category doesn't seem too useful and it's a bit speculative, I think it should go to CFD. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, CFD for sure. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominate: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 18#Category:The Attitude Era. TJ Spyke 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:The Attitude Era]] 

message: Is it ready for a Peer Review? Zenlax T C S 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I've noticed one thing that was unsourced, so I've gone and added  tag to the article. Also, I would possibly consider merging some of the stubbier section in the "Event" and the "Aftermath" sections. Davnel03 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Backlash (2006)]] 

message: Here. Davnel03 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that. Thanks for all your help. You were a true asset to the project and really kicked off the PPV expansion project. :) See you. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, you did a great job with the WWE PPV articles too. I hope you change your mind in the future, but thanks for all the work you put in which IMO made you one of the projects top editors. TJ Spyke 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  :( I'm sorry to hear that, as well. I know you've had to deal with a lot from a certain blocked editor. I hope you do change your mind when everything blows over and come back. Best of luck. Nikki311 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aww, that sucks. :( You were a great editor here. I really hope you return. Maybe a short wikibreak is all you need? Either way, best of luck in your future, and try to stay in contact with us! :) FamicomJL (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Why? I didn't get a chance to thank you for the holiday card. You will be missed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Davne, I hope your break turns out to be short.  This project will sorely miss you.  You do great work and a lot of it.  Happy Holidays /hugs --Naha|(talk) 02:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn man you helped me so much with the PPV articles I made. You will be missed!TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: D.M.N. here editing from IP address - the above comment made from D.M.N. and the retirement notices were NOT from me. In other words, a troll has hacked into my account. More details can be found HERE. I have no intention of retiring from Wikipedia, but cannot remove the notices, as my userpage is semi-protected. If you have any advice, please E-MAIL me. 87.127.39.114 (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm happy to hear you aren't retiring, but I'm sad to hear that someone out there apparently has no life and is Wiki-stalking you. Nikki311 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to say that the account is now back in my hands. :) Davnel03 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: YEA, glad you are back man! --Naha|(talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That's great to hear man! This project runs on your edits and advice.TrUcO9311 (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you're still here. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So am I. I know its late, but Thank You for the holiday card. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: The three that have been started expanded, but left inactive:
*King of the Ring (1998)
*No Way Out (2005)
*Starrcade (2000)
Anyone offering to improve these? :) Davnel03 21:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three PPV articles up for grabs - anyone wishing to work on them? 

message: List of WWE World Tag Team Champions (WWE) was deleted! It was recreated, but needs MAJOR work...what happened?! Kris (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh...... Mshake3 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um that article is nonsense. I think the list you are looking for is List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). That other one needs to be deleted. Nikki311 02:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MShake beat me to it. :) Nikki311 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now don't I feel foolish... Kris (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when no page was actually deleted. Mshake3 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALERT: List of WWE World Tag Team Champions (WWE) DELETED 

message: Just letting you know that I'll be taking on the difficult task of attempting to expand the D2D 1995 article. If anyone has got any book or web sources that could help improve the article, that would be great. :P Davnel03 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[December to Dismember (1995)]] 

message: ...here. Davnel03 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notification... 

message: There is a WWE.com source that states that the title may only be challenged by wrestling weighing 215 lbs or less. WWE.com botched their own page, as both Chavo and Helms were billed at exactly 220 lbs during their reigns. Unforunately, there is no source for it being 220, despite it being the correct weight. So I'm not sure where to go from here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please show me this source. I've always known the CW Championship to be contested with wrestlers 220 and under. Lex  T/C Guest Book  10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.wwe.com/shows/thegreatamericanbash/matches/42789824/results/ Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't take it as a source, as it could have been an error from writer Mike McAvennie. Lex  T/C Guest Book  20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was announced as 215 by the ring announcer at the show too.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What show? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE Cruiserweight Championship|Cruiserweight Title]]

message: Just came across this. Couldn't the info in the article easily be merged into Kane's and Big Show's article? They only were together for a few months, so are they really notable for their own article? I was going to prod it, but there might be multiple different opinions on this. Davnel03 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was a long reign (five months). Mshake3 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If they go, then so should Rated-RKO. Mshake3 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eugene and William Regal along with potentionally King Booker's Court could be deleted. A load of the Court article looks like a load of info that has nothing to do with when the group was "officially" together. In fact, were they ever called "King Booker's Court"? Davnel03 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they were offically called "King Booker's Court" (I haven't missed an episode of RAW or SmackDown! in about 3 years nor have I missed an episode of ECW since it began airing, I tape them and watch them the next day or so if I'm not home when they air).  This terminology was also used on WWE.com and repeated by the announcers, in back stage interview segments and proclaimed by King Booker himself several times on SmackDown!.  The court consisted of Booker, Sharmell, William Regal, Finlay and Hornswoggle if I remember correctly.  Hornswoggle might have still been "Little Bastard" at the time though. I also agree with Nikki's definition of how notability should work for tag teams.  The same would go for stables in my opinion. --Naha|(talk) 22:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is too soon to tell on Morrison and the Miz. I don't really watch SmackDown! very often because it comes on while I'm at work, so I'm not sure about King Booker's Court...the same goes for Hardy and MVP. However, I agree that the Eugene and Regal stuff can be covered in their respective articles and that article can be deleted. Nikki311 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it for deletion. Davnel03 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kane and The Big Show]] 

message: Which one is it? Mainly for the PPV articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been brought up before, and I think it was decided that when refering to the name of the TV show (i.e. WWE Raw/WWE Sunday Night Heat/WWE Friday Night SmackDown!), it should be called "Raw", but when it is refering to the "brand" (i.e. "Shawn Michaels is apart of the 'RAW' brand") it should be noted as "RAW". Similar to as SmackDown!, you wouldnt say (Batista is apart of the "Friday Night SmackDown brand",... just "SmackDown". {}--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, cause TJ Spyke keeps changing Raw to RAW. And I need to know which one it is. And I've seen that December to Dismember is a FA article and I'm getting the pointers from there, but the change keeps happening. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this issue had never fully been resolved, because in superstar pages some of them read as "currently signed to........on it's 'Raw' brand", I would put up a poll and let WP:PW members vote on how it should be noted in superstar pages because when refering to the TV show itself it should be "Raw" but the brand is "RAW". What do you think?TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WWE.com has referred Raw, the results of Monday Night Raw and RAW for the brand. I prefer adding Raw to the PPV's instead of RAW. RAW would work like throughout weeks on RAW, DX..... You know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter what WWE refers to it as. WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL says it's Raw regardless. I had to revert TJ Spyke a number of times on the same issue.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, all I needed to know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW or Raw? 

message: Here. Lex  T/C Guest Book  02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most links have been converted. Mshake3 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armageddon 2007

message: How do you make certain things go in a particular order in sortable wikitables, for example the months of the year. Lets say I wanted February to start first, what would I do?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try here: . If you need help on a particular table, just ask. Take a look at the tables at List of Virtual Console games (North America) for an example. TJ Spyke 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldnt find anything. 
Month	$
     	5.00
     	10.00
     	12.00
     	6.20
     	5.32
     	4.12
     	8.20
How would I be able to order this by the months order? (i.e. So January will come first, and December would come last, not by alpahbetical order but my the order of the months [[when you push the sort button])TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sure there is a standard, but my technique is to add . I'e implemented it on the table. -- Scorpion0422 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Members list/Active
::If you are currently editing and improving pro wrestling articles, please add yourself to the above list. Lex  T/C Guest Book  04:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this necessary? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See the discussion above, and most other projects have active and inactive members lists. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though a lot of projects have them, I wouldnt like to use "Everyone does it, so should we" as a reason (...cuz then murder and/or drugs would be acceptable). But yeah, you made a great point, because the reason all the projects have them are because they are very useful. When a non-project member requests/needs a member of WP:PW, they should check the active list and not the full one (the full one might even include people who have retired from wiki). And if in any case, we need a big team of members to help on something (the portal is a good example), we have the list. Hopefully, people who don't post on the talk page regularly will put themselves on the list, and we'd find more active members.Lex  T/C Guest Book  14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active members list 

message: I've put In Your House 1 up for Peer review. Comments and problems appreciated, Davnel03 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/In Your House 1/archive1]] 

message: Just letting ya know. Davnel03 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Nother AFD. Davnel03 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're going AFD crazy lol Lex  T/C Guest Book  20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but some shouldn't create non-notable articles, thats the only reason for the AFD rampage! Davnel03 20:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting: Moment of Truth]] 

message: Since the little issue with the references with the list, I have made changes to the list in my sanbox. Check it out here and comment here or my sandbox's talk page about the changes. Cheers! =)TrUcO9311 T / GB 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did we really need four different sections on this one frickin article?!?!? Nonetheless, I'll check it out. Mshake3 (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 1, the tables look awful. You don't need to table everything! Two, the sources are still inaccurate. You're linking to the bios. What does that tell me regarding what roster they're on? Just use the main superstar pages and cite those numerous times. Mshake3 (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What is with people and “every article has to have inline citations not matter what”.  WP:V states “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation”, and all you are focused on are the wrestlers. Now tell me, out of these two which is more likely to be challenged: “Triple H is a wrestler for the WWE” or “Lou D’Angeli is the Director of Promotions & Event Marketing for WWE”? Every single source you are using comes from WWE.com and OWW.com, both of which are already listed. The rosters themselves aren't being composed from several different sources, so you can just put each roster section from WWE.com (along with OVW and FCW’s rosters pages) and the OWW.com pages in the references section and use that. And $50 bucks says if you ask an administrator they will tell you that is acceptable. Nenog (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you! The general roster pages will cover most of the wrestlers. Use inlines for everything else. Mshake3 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You guys are full of it but fine, I really dont think that 4 Sources will make that list a FL, but I will go to the trouble to find sources for the brand rosters in general. Happy Milkshake?TrUcO9311 T / GB 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's Master Shake to you buddy! Mshake3 (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why you should ask if you don't know]] Nenog (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "::Well my bad "MASTER SHAKE"? So "Master Shake", will you at least help me find sources for the rosters in general?TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can start here. Nenog (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in one of your many, many sections about this article, I've suggested (several times in fact) using this, along with the other roster pages. Gee, wasn't that easy? Mshake3 (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Im planning on using those, now if I have like 5 sources for each brand will people complain that it look's ugly?(general question, has happened before)--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better than the 50 you have now. Mshake3 (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WWE Roster is obviously not just for wrestlers; it's for all contracted talent. http://www.wwe.com/superstars does not assure us that the superstars have a talent contract. Ron Simmons is on the page, and yet he has a Legends Contract; same as Stone Cold. Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler are also on the page, but the page does not specify if they are talent or announcers. So, the WWE.com Rosters Page is invalid. Lex  T/C Guest Book  15:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you use additional citations, perhaps in this case their bios, for them to clarify their actual position in the company. God damn, this isn't one or the other folks. Use the general refs for MOST of the talent, and use inline citations for everyone else. Mshake3 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm glad someone finally said it. This is getting tiresome. And we don't want to lose any productive editor in the project, you included, Naha. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Roster Update 

message: Apparently other non-WP:PW members opposed to the redirects, and the result was deleted because no one opposed as no one was notified of this. How do we challenge it now?--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What redirects? -- Scorpion0422 04:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Huh? I assume you are talking about the Major Brothers. What's happening is that since you did a copy and past move, non-admins can't move the article back. So what's happening is that Major Brothers will be deleted, and then The Edge-heads (which has the edit history of the Major Brothers article) will be moved back. The end result is that the article will on the team will be back at Major Brothers with its edit history intact. Nothing controversial. TJ Spyke 04:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the redirects to the project like WPT:PW wpt pw(nowiki'd by User:Jerry per RFD) WP:PW they were opposed and/or deleted.--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: GO here for the discussion on it.--TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a big deal? What's wrong with WP:PW and WT:PW? -- Scorpion0422 04:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: oh i didnt kno those existed, thanx for informing me. Then forget about the other ones.TrUcO9311 T / GB 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The project's redirects 

message: (sorry, fourth new topic started in a row by me). The Cruiserweight title, as you guys know has been vacated now for three months. As it has been vacated for several months now and not one single mention of it has been made on WWE TV of it since, I really think in the infobox of the article, I think the status should be changed from "Vacated" to "Inactive - Status Unknown". It's pretty obvious that they have dropped the title, and we can't keep it listed as "Vacated" for ever, can we? Davnel03 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you are right, it cant stay vacted forever, I like your idea of "inactive-status unknown". Despite I got my info from a dirt sheet site, I read that WWE had plans on dropping the WWE Cruiserweight Championship and then replacing it with a brand new one in like 2008. Apparently they were some what 50% right.:p...but yea lets go with your idea D.M.N--TrUcO9311 (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As no one has objeced to this, I'm going to be bold and change it. Cheers, Davnel03 17:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Cruiserweight Championship]] 

message: (Just letting you all know that) I am currently working on making seperate article for Matt Cardona (Brett/Zach) and for Brian Myers(Brian/Curt) in my sandbox.TrUcO9311 T / GB 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should split them up, as they would basically be duplicates of each other, as they have teamed together for the vast majority of their wrestling career. The Highlanders also do not have seperate articles. Davnel03 15:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you say so..--TrUcO9311 T / GB 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same with the Briscoe Brothers and they've been around considerably longer. -- Scorpion0422 16:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a problem with the article right now. As far as I can tell, Talk:The Major Brothers should be deleted and redirected to Talk:Major Brothers. How does one go about doing that? GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be BOLD. It's not controversial, so I just did it myself and turned it into a redirect. TJ Spyke 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your help. It wasn't a lack of boldness on my part. It was a lack of knowledge (how to create a redirect and whether the talk pages needed to be merged). GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Brothers have their own articles