Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 1

message: Should we vfd Internet Wrestling Syndicate? The page seems like advertising and the promotion doesn't seem notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I'll keep it and tweak the page somewhat so it sounds less like advertising. If nothing else, the fed seems fairly well known and organized. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 23:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Wrestling Syndicate 

message: Please vote for or against the infobox here and add your comments.
*For - the infobox needs a little tweaking, but it actually might save a little space over a profile section. The infobox looks a lot better than just having a section of just list items. This also shifts the focus from just a list of facts about the performer to the wrestler's career which should be the center of the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I said before, ideally all the previous information could be integrated in any sections about the wrestler's career. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting on infobox 

message: A user has been adding "Canada" to the hometowns of Canadian wrestlers. However, most American wrestlers are simply described as being from "town, state", not "town, state, USA". Since pro-wrestling is not purely an America phenomenon (there are dozens of wrestling promotions in Mexico and Canada), I think it's unfair to impose this standard. It assumes that a wrestler is American unless stated otherwise, which borders on ethnocentrism. I think that hometowns should be left in the form "town, state/region", or unanimously changed to "home, state/region, country". Any thoughts? McPhail 13:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, it's a section that says hometown, the fact it says "town, state" as an example is irrelevant place the correct hometoen and make sure the links work... im English, and i designed the original stadard, yet i still placed town, state on it as an example. You would have thought i would have been real biased and placed "town, county", plus you missed out the fact that Japan, England and the rest of Europe have many promotions working in them esspecially as pro wrestling was far more populor in these areas before it was adopted by America and its neighbouring counties, fact it very ethnocentric of you to not consider the other 5 Continents of the world in your arguement. Lol anyway you should be more worried by the fact i thought it was nessicary to place an example of what to put in a hometown section, as if i didnt trust people to place the right info on that section. --- Paulley 16:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose you are right i think most articles do state on the first line "Blah blah blah is an American professional wrestler", as the other articles about foriegn wrestlers state the name of there country... next time im editing any bio i will check for this and change accordingly Paulley 18:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Wrestlers 

message: Does anyone else feel like we're at a point where we could fix up an article well enough to make it a featured article candidate? Or is it too soon yet?  — Gwalla | Talk 02:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only articles that come to mind as possible featured article candidates right now are World Wrestling Entertainment and maybe Chris Benoit. From what I've heard, it's hard enough to get an article up to featured article status. Good luck trying to get them to vote in an article about professional wrestling. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Personally I think that all-around, the grammar usage in a lot of the wrestling-related articles has got to improve before most merit consideration as featured articles. Almost every wrestler profile I visit has some sloppy sections, especially for new or lesser known wrestlers. Before I signed up with a profile I did more grammar brush-ups on WCW than I would have liked to. Some parts look good, others need work, as they are being edited too often by people whose command of English grammar is somewhat lacking. Such is life in the wikipedia, of course, but the condition of some entries in the wrestling section contribute to the whole. --Pathogen 06:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured articles 

message: Right now a lot of moves in Professional wrestling throws, Professional wrestling holds, etc. have inconsistent capialization. This is partly my fault: when I started the throws article I capitalized all moves, unaware of the general policy of capitalizing only proper names in headings, and when I started the holds article I didn't. So it was an inconsistent mess from the start. We should work towards getting these in line with the Manual of Style.
But this isn't just about headings in those articles. It's capitalization of moves in general. Part of the problem is that people who write about wrestling (for fansites and the like) have a tendency to Capitalize Practically Everything, in ways That make No Sense, and it's bled over into our articles. I propose a general style rule for wrestling articles: moves under generic names (450 splash, hurricanrana, suplex, etc.) are uncapitalized, while the names of explicitly named signature moves and finishers are considered proper nouns and capitalized. So the crossface is uncapitalized, but the Crippler Crossface, Chris Benoit's finisher, is. There's a grey area for moves that were once named signature moves but are now generic (like the sharpshooter): the rule should be that when one is referred to in the context of its original namer or preceding its adoption as a generic term, it should be capitalized, but outside that context it should not.
Proper names for signature moves should be used only in the context of the wrestler who uses them under those names, and avoided outside of that context, unless there is no other generic way of referring to those moves (which should be rare—you can almost always construct a generic name like "tilt-a-whirl sit-out powerslam" or something unless it's totally unprecedented).  — Gwalla | Talk 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of move names: proposal

message: Events (pay per views, etc) comprise about half of all the entries on the category:professional wrestling page (here), and are likely to consume more space as time passes. I think a subcategory along the lines of "Professional wrestling events" would help to organise the page. Any thoughts? McPhail 15:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me, but maybe we should name the category "Professional wrestling shows" as it would suit annul and one time events the same, plus we can place RAW, Smackdown, HEAT on it too --- Paulley 16:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Professional wrestling events for specific events, Professional wrestling television shows for RAW/SD/etc, and Professional wrestling pay-per-views as a subcategory of both? Or would that be excessive?  — Gwalla | Talk 20:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  a little excessive maybe as there isnt that many TV shows, maybe if you did a Professional wrestling events with the sub of Professional wrestling television shows ---62.253.64.14 21:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There don't appear to be any objections, so I'll take Paulley's original suggestion and create "Professional wrestling shows", with an option to sub-cat. McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional wrestling events

message: *I can't see any reason to retain this article, so I've listed it on votes for deletion, along with the linked stubs. I thought I should probably announce this in case anything thinks they should be retained. McPhail 12:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GMW]] 

message: Given that a lot of wrestlers now use songs played by actual bands rather than in-house stuff, should there be a list of wrestling entrance themes, like List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers but with song names and band names? McPhail 11:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entrance themes

message: Looks like there's a mini edit-war going on involving myself and McPhail on the Jason Reso article. I should explain my recent edits. The thing is, the page seems to violate the guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Embedded list, which states, in part:
"As a basic principle, you should avoid list-making in entries. Wikipedia is not a list repository. Lists of links, if warranted, should have their own entry: see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for detail. Instead of giving a list of items, the significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text."
"Having lists instead of article text makes Wikipedia worse, not better.".
My primary issue with this in this article and other wrestler is that a lot of this information can be included in the article as prose and some information such as managers and birthdate is actually mentioned elsewhere in the article.  --Jtalledo (talk) 20:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that prose is generally superior to lists, but integrating data into large blocks of text makes it hard to quickly locate a particular piece of information. If someone visits the Jason Reso article to find out who he was managed by, I'm sure they'd prefer to have the information displayed clearly rather than have to read through several paragraphs to find out what they want to know. The wording of the policy is that lists instead of article text is a bad thing, and I agree with that - I think the profile should be used to give a quick summary of the data, while the prose itself should elaborate on this data. For example, anyone merely wishing to know who Reso has been managed by could look at the list (which in most cases is not really a list, it's generally a single line consisting of three or four entries) and see that he has been managed by X, Y and Z, while anyone wishing further information could read through the text and learn the context and circumstances in which Reso was managed by X. McPhail 22:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the list-of-facts can probably be shofted out of the main article body into a statbox. The information should also be covered in prose form in the article, however: the profile/statbox is there to provide a quick summary of basic facts in the article. I agree with Jtalledo that our wrestler bios are a little too preoccupied with lists. Our main focus should be on the articles; lists-of-facts are tangential to that.  — Gwalla | Talk 19:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't get me wrong, I definitely think lists have their place in the pro wrestling articles but I think we should look into focusing on the prose – it's a lot more "encyclopedic" as some Wikipedia editors like to say. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: Isnt the list we have already good enough? i dont think we need these:
* Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names
* List of every professional wrestler 
Paulley 4 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)
:Where did those come from? I agree, they're unnecessary (and the one in the talk namespace doesn't belong there anyway).  — Gwalla | Talk 4 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)
::Yea i tend to browse through much of wikipedia picking up on these sorta things, mainly its just a case of add a category and stub but sometimes i come across silly things like this --- Paulley 4 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
:::I was the one that created both List of every professional wrestler  and Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names. See I created List of professional wrestlers/More names one night to build a dynamic list of everyone, including names of wrestlers I've never seen, and put them in categories List of professional wrestlers doesn't have. Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names was originally called List of every professional wrestler. When someone reverted it into Talk:List of professional wrestlers/More names I had to create a new one to continue this; hence * List of every professional wrestler. I intend on doing this, meaning the new names and categories, to List of every professional wrestler that is currently there. Do you guys think I should do this  new page or add the new names and categories to List of professional wrestlers? — Moe ε 19:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have since scraped the List of every professional wrestler and did the edits I mentioned to List of professional wrestlers, meaning I added the Independant Circuit idea section under there. — Moe ε 01:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it has not been done yet can you please put the List of every professional wrestler up for deletion/redirect it to list of professional wrestlers ---- Paulley 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of professional wrestlers 

message: PWInsider.com has reported that the Dudley Boyz will have full use of their stage names when they leave WWE.  Should we change Mark Lamonica and Devon Hughes to Bubba Ray Dudley and D-Von Dudley now. I believe if this development is true, we ought to. If this isn't an outright case about when to use the stage name as the article name for a wrestler, then there aren't any outright cases about this issue. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is always the questions of Buh-Buh versus Bubba and D'Von versus D-Von, though. McPhail 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True. No big deal. The current name convention seems to be working out fine and I certainly don't want to change any of those redirects manually. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dudley Boyz names 

message: There are some OVW stars that were recently moved from OVW to the main rosters of RAW and SmackDown! namely, The Boogey Man (Marty Wright) went to RAW, and Frankie Kazarian, and Vito (Vito LaGrasso) went to SmackDown! as they will appear regulary for WWE now. — Moe ε 02:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the RAW and SmackDown! rosters 

message: I am trying to end all professional wrestling related red links. If you see a red link I don't have listed on my user page thats pro wrestling related type it on my discussion page here and I will create an article for it. — Moe ε 06:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quality, not quantity... I'm all for ending red links, but you shouldnt just go gun 'ho with low quality stubs. I will say at least you cat and stub them aswell as actually write a few factual bits of info, which is better than some ppl i have seen on here, but you should take pride in the articles you create... for example i recreated your Wagner Brown stub, and this is without any sort of career section --- Paulley 11:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Also add stubs like that to "articles to recreate" on the to do list at the top of the page --- Paulley 11:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: A stub doesn't really help anyone. Your time would be better spent writing one good article, i.e. an article with some well-researched prose, than in creating dozens of uninformative articles. McPhail 13:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I plan on doing a research for them all, i.e. I was GOING to recreate Wagner Brown, I was just busy and left for a while, when I came back It was recreated. I plan on making quality articles, It just takes me more time. More time than usual because I wont be here for the next few days. Thanks for the recreation Paulley. — Moe ε 18:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats ok, it's what i do --- Paulley 21:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Links 

message: Hello! I am going to put my username on the Participants list and help out with the wrestling articles. I have been doing alot of edits on them recently and have noticed alot of names for titles are incorrect. One of the biggest examples is the "Mid-Southern" area titles. They were called Mid-Southern titles until 1987, when they became "AWA" titles (AWA Southern Heavyweight Title, etc.). I named the title history as the AWA Southern Title because it was the best known name for it, but the fact is that somebody who held the title in 1977 held it as the Mid-Southern Title instead of the AWA Southern Title and in my humble opinion, needs to be listed as the Mid-Southern Title on their page. Another huge mess (in my opinion) is saying that for example, Tully Blanchard was a WWE World Tag Team Champion, when he was a WWF World Tag Team Champion. There have been tons of these and I have been changing them all.
What do you guys think about this? I am just trying to keep the titles under the names that they were known by when the wrestler held them.
Please let me know what you think about this! I know it is kinda late, I have changed so many of them, but your opinions are very much valued since you guys do alot of work on here! Thanks in advance!
Also, what is UTC?!? I always put US ET for United States Eastern Time Zone because I have no idea what UTC is!
--- Phatcat68 22:14, 20 July 2005 (US ET)
:UTC = Coordinated Universal Time.  You're on Wikipedia, use it.  :)  --HBK 02:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
::The use of WWE retrospectively is a worrying tendency. It's practically revisionism. McPhail 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I try to use "WWF" when referring to events during the time frame in which it was the World Wrestling Federation (although I try to always use the full name first with the acronym in parens so that readers can see what it means without having to look it up separately). The settlement to the World Wildlife Fund's lawsuit is binding on the WWE, not us.  — Gwalla | Talk 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here, if i have to write WWF, i write the full name usually ending it with "(now WWE)", and if its is for the link of a championship i write "[WWE Championship|WWF Championship]"... treat it the same way as you would when talking about the WWWF (World Wide Wrestling Federation) --- Paulley 09:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Names 

message: I noticed a few days ago that there's an article entitled Christian & Tyson Tomko which talks a little bit about that team.  I think it ought to be deleted.  This pairing's already mentioned in both Christian and Tomko's biographies, and it's not as if they actually accomplished much as a team.  Thoughts?  ekedolphin 06:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
:Hello! Welcome to the wrestling project! I agree with you on this. It seems that there are alot of WWE teams that did not accomplish much or anything that have had articles created on them. However, upon seeing these articles that I felt did not add much, I have created a few articles such as The Diamond Dolls that do not add much to the professional wrestling articles either, so I may not be the best one to add my opinion. Anyway, welcome to the project! This is a good topic for everybody to discuss!  P.S. I still cannot figure out how to use UTC. The article on it talks over my head to be honest. I am not a science major or a math major! Phatcat68 08:10, July 30, 2005 (US ET)
::Phatcat, all you have to do to sign your name is type 4 of these  ~~~~. It will sign your name with the time and everything. As for Tomko and Christian I think it should merge with both as a section in their career section, does not need thier own page, they never did anything. — Moe ε 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Moe Epsilon! phatcat68 12:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian and Tyson Tomko