Talk:E-wrestling

message: A lot of revertion is going on here with adding and removing of efederation and interfederation links. Basically, i'd like to request you don't add federations just for the point of advertising. There are very few encyclopaedic federations out there only a few examples need be provided. Hedley 16:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: All you need to know is ewrestling.org and the NeWA are one of the longest standing fantasty wrestling sites on the planet bar none!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.23.5.73 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site Linking 

message: Because you keep adding the FWO, for what? The point of advertising. It's not a big fed (Wow, it's been going ages... big deal, so has my fed, that doesn't make it "massive", it means we have a small group of people who read it regularly, like every e-fed out there).
You, Hedley, on the other hand, continually show bias towards both the FWO and PTC, X-Net is just as viable for a link as PTC is, more so in fact, because while PTC only serves a small handful of e-feds, X-Net serves a huge directory of them, for this place, X-Net is therefore a better place for people to go and get a good idea of what e-feds are.
Length of how long something has been up doesn't dictate how good it is, so by that subject, stop showing amazing levels of bias, and either let ALL e-fed links go up, or none. As for the interfeds, just stop being shallow and leave the links to interfeds other than PTC up there. Everyone's trying to remove the fact of your bias towards FWO and PTC, you continue to keep shoving them back on. I'm about to add them back, I would advise you leave them there to prove you're not biased, just as I'm removing the FWO link, as an e-fed itself has no business being linked here, as if you insist it does, just because it's been running ages, then I'll start finding a huge list of feds that have been around for ages too, and throw them all up. As I say, you can't have it both ways.
* Me? Biased towards PTC? Go over there, say my name, and you'll see why I don't like them.
I didn't add PTC last time but I did add fWo. In big communities (yes, those ones that people care about) it is a big federation and an example of an e-federation needs to be listed here. Needless to say i'll look at your links, and should I not see them as notable, i'll remove them again. If you readd them, then we have a problem.
If your linking to one interfed but denying to link to another, then you are biased. I don't know why you made this useless attack here without using the four tildes (~) to sign it, but either way, i'll edit as I see fit. Be bold in updating pages. Hedley 19:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like the same... 

message: I think that this topic is one that is encyclopaedic, but at the moment the article speaks to very opinionated views of an e-federation. There are definetly different sizes and shapes of them and to expand the article to include everything that can be said would be very exhaustive. Theres a lot that can be said, even for individual federations, but i'm not sure what can be done on the subject.
I'm thinking that an idea could be to branch out into new articles. Theres enough that can be said for the term 'interfederation/interfed' to warrant an article, and this is a broad enough topic for such articles to be notable. An idea could also be a list of efederations, of interfederations and so on, although that would be hard to maintain with so many disappearing and appearing overnight.
Any thoughts on this? Right now the article is good, but in some ways vague and it is written from one person's point of view, when there needs to be more depth in areas. Hedley 20:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The topic of e-wrestling 

message: first, glad ya finally understood why me (and two others) kept putting those links back.
On the subject of how to branch into different areas, I dun think a listing of e-feds themselves would be good, for two reasons:
1 - It'd be too hard to keep adding and removing links as they become dead or as new feds open.
2 - It'd be too open for petty deletion of links, and anyone who's been in the e-fed game for even a couple of months knows how petty some people can get, on RoughKut you'll have people marking you low on the rating just to spite you, you'll have people slandering you in various places, the list is endless, and in here people would just remove links to e-feds they didn't like, or keep the link and have it direct to their fed instead.
But an idea that might be better, is more in-depth details on the various types of e-fed, such as angle e-feds, RP based e-feds, and the general idea behind Interfeds ('tho that much can be tough, seeing as each interfed has a different reasoning behind it, I mean RoughKut's essentially an Interfed, it's just not really used as one that much, 'cause the forums are practically dead. While X-Net's always booming with life).
The article itself at the moment has nothing wrong about it (Fair enough, my g/f & co-owner wrote it, but even so...), however you can never add too much to it.
Unfortunately in a place like this, people will always disagree with certain things, meaning constant re-edits etc. such as what happened with the linking thing. No matter how many people think one way of something, there's at least one other person who thinks differently, and in turn it just creates chaos as people start changing stuff back and forth, and with it being about e-feds, it's guarenteed to turn into just one huge flame war eventually (For some sad reason... almost everything goes that way at some point or other in this hobby).
* I agree with the list of efederations comment, and although the article has nothing wrong with it, it is one persons view on the typical efederation. The bit on the 'a site normally includes' is very vague and basic also. Branching out would be good, although you have to look in to what to branch out into first. By the way, rather than comment anonymously you should possibly register for Wikipedia, or at least finish the message by typing four tildes (~), as that instantly turns into this: Hedley 02:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  e-wrestling topic 

message: Hi Hedley.  I have left a message for you on your talk page concerning this article. Proto t c 09:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Hedley 

message: The information that was on the Efed article has been merged into this one.  Quite a big job, so it may need some checking.  I also tried to make the tone a little bit more encyclopedic.  And, I've put a note about what efeds should be linked to (ie, proper ones with more than 5 members, not ones run by three guys and hosted on angelfire, tripod or geocities) Proto t c 08:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efed merged into this article 

message: I think FWO should be mentioned on this page because of its history in pro wrestling. I wish I could find the articles relating to this, but back when WWF had Chyna and Jericho as the co-champions, it was proven that the whole angle was lifted straight from FWO. There's a clip or sound byte out there of Lawler saying something related to FWO or one of the wrestlers in that FWO storyline, and Jim Ross says "now lets not go there." WWF would print out FWO cards and bring them to writer's meetings. Again, I wish I could find the articles relating to this so I could post it, but either way, I think FWO deserves some sort of mention.
* You can try telling the people who edit this article all you want, like I did, but they insist on being fair to the Triple X's and M's over on Geocities. I gave up on it. :p Hedley 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is one of those where unless you can find a reference, noone is going to believe you. Have you tried going back through Byte This? They're archived somewhere on wwe.com. Proto t c 08:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - It was actually during a match on Raw, so unless you can find that specific show, you won't be able to hear the reference. Thing is, Lawler apparently says the name "Ultra Violet," which is a character who was doing the exact same gimmick/angle in fWo at the time, during the broadcast. Or at least, that's how it's been told to me. I may be apart of the fWo but even I don't trust whether it's true or not :-) I do trust that they read us, and they rip us, so I'm not doubting it. I'm just doubting it until I see it myself too. - Ford
* I think the entire detail of the WWE ripping off various federations needs addressing, as XFW (the fed I represent) has noticed similar 'coincidences' with its angles (regarding Gabriel the White / Mordecai in its most obvious form, among with Teddy Long and a few other SmackDown! wrestlers)). However, without the kind of proof you claim to have, your speculation is as good as mine, certainly isn't unique to FWO, and if you want to brag about FWO so much, you should just set up an independant article in the same category and leave the definitive E-wrestling article with as minor a mention as possible. Ideally the page should describe how to organize such a federation, NOT be used as a virtual pissing contest. Veled 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding FWO 

message: Before we get into an edit war, let me explain my summary for removing this:
2002 and onwardsHowever e-wrestling had developed since the days of wrestling’s mainstream popularity. E Wrestling now tends to focus on the creative side of the game with detailed novel style role play’s and show transcripts the size of books. These changes to the game have made E Wrestling a niche game. Fed’s such as FWO, PCW and OSW brought about the rise of this style of efeds.
*There is already an explanation of roleplay feds earlier in the article, so saying things "now to tend to focus on the creative side" is redundant- it is simply not a new development.
*Thus, to suggest people have only been writing detailed novel-type posts since 2002 is factually wrong. It was going on before then.
*E-wrestling has always been a niche game, that is also not a new development.
*I would hope we do not need to go back into arguments about which feds are worthy of being mentioned. There either needs to be consensus of which is/are notable enough to be mentioned (which there isn't), or none should be mentioned at all. To say those three federations were responsible for a supposedly huge shift in style is ridiculous. The article is no weaker without the feds names.
There's no value in getting into an edit war over this, and I'm only striving for creating the best possible NPOV article. I'm more than happy to hear reasoned counterarguments from anyone who wishes to put them forward. --Lawlore 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed paragraph

message: Shouldn't Shootclub.com at least be given some mention in this page?  From what I've seen, it's the biggest E-fed out there, as well as one of the oldest.  To be honest, I'm shocked it hasn't gotten it's own wiki page yet. 24.19.62.17 03:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Shootclub? 

message: In an attempt to be bold, I have added a link to the Ewrestling wiki at wikia.com to the article as a sole external link.  Since the goal and editing guidelines are more condusive to listing individual feds, I thought this to be an amenible solution to this constant bickering of "should there be an e-fed list?"  Now there is, elsewhere.  Englishrose (among others) can now feel free (not that you haven't in the past) to revert fed links within this article with impunity.  Perhaps instructing those who add links to head to the external link.  --EazieCheeze 04:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. I was going to add it myself but I forgot. I've already being transfering indivual e-fed pages to thise wikia. Englishrose 09:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ewrestling Wiki 

message: Hey all, I'm new to this site, and I admit I have a slight bias as to why G-Fed should be included somehow in this E-wrestling article. However, I'd like to suggest that it should be. I also don't want to step on any toes, which is why I'm asking here.
Although I work for Geeksoft, and our site would be helped by this type of "free advertising", I put forth the argument that G-Fed, a term coined by Geeksoft, should be mentioned in this article. For those that aren't familiar with it, G-Fed is a suite of software made up for E-Fed users to help them run E-Feds hosted on Geeksoft's website. The reason I think this shouldn't be dismissed as advertising is that many have been confused by the G-Fed/E-Fed name. How are they the same? How are they different? I was going to join an E-Fed but then I heard about G-Fed. Is a G-Fed the same as an E-Fed? And so on. 
Well, if anyone else would agree that it should be included in the article for informational purposes, then I'd be happy to provide info. Would love to hear some feedback about this. Sleuth14 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for coming here first.  I would be very reluctant to add a mention to a fed that runs only on one specific site to this article, as you run into the slippery slope of letting other people add the specific ways they run their feds (with specific examples provided, and all the ugliness that will come with that).  I think it may be best for your information to be included in the E-wrestling Wikia rather than in this article, but your candor in posting here before editing willy-nilly is much appreciated.  Certainly others are welcome to come here to disagree.  --EazieCheeze 17:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  G-Fed vs. E-Fed 

message: I think tagging this page as lacking sources is a tad unfair given the nature of efedding.  There are no definitive authoritative websites (so I'd think) about this subject, and again, so I'd think, no books, articles etc. in general circulation that could be used as sources.  The page is written by the whole efedding community by itself and is therefore a creation of the community out of its shared experiences. LancasterII 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment, didn't the WWE sue thousands of e-feds for copyright voilation. Right that's a source, now we need someone clever enough to find a valid news article on it. Englishrose 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking Sources 

message: Seems though it's a fairly big edit I'm going to explain it. Firstly I've got rid of a lot of stuff that quite simply cannot be verified by independent sources such as an e-fed claiming to be the first ever e-fed from 1985. I couldn’t find independent sources so I deleted it. Secondly, I’ve added a few sources. Don’t get me wrong they’re not ideal sources apart from one from the Internet Magazine (which is brilliant) but for now it’s a good start. I've also used a history page of a game simulator site to reference that text sims are used in e-feds and an article from a small and now defunct online entertainment magazine, which will do for now. If you have sources (especially on the WWE sueing e-feds) which are independent then add them or let me know. Thanks. Englishrose 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My last edit