Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 8

message: While I was working on the SummerSlam project (see above) it occurred to me that the format of the results is different to others I've seen (noticeably the difference between WWE Vengeance and SummerSlam (1990)). Is there some kind of policy in place about how to do these and if not, should there be one? Normy132 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, though coming up with a common format sounds like a good idea.  --JFred 07:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one on the project page now but it is pretty shotty. At least there something to work around. Normy132 04:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I'm not sure how to go about this user - he makes constant edits to female wrestlers that are usually just wrong. They're not vandalism, and I can't comment on the edits because they seem like honest mistakes but just about every edit has to be reverted as they're just plain wrong. The most recent example of this being replacing Megumi Kudo's Kudo Valentine changing it from a Vertebreaker to a Tiger Driver, when Kudo invented the vertebreaker. Looking at the contributions I have to keep running back through and reverting the edits. Anyone got any ideas? --- Lid 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave him a message asking him why he's making those changes.  --JFred 19:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Tanman5192]] 

message: There are an astronomical number of them. Maybe somebody make a bot to fix them? Tromboneguy0186 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects to [[World Tag Team Championship (WWE)]] 

message: is it Ulf Hermann, or Ulf Herman. the article is under "mann" but in it he is called Herman. i made lots of the links which i all mad to go to Herman as thats what i always found him under... anyway if anyone could clear this up for me it would be great. --- Paulley 08:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on OWW he is listed as Herman -- Lid 09:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yea thought it was. im gonna move it and change thge article abit now then --- Paulley 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulf Herman 

message: A particular user (User:82.35.114.39/User:Rory Carrol) has been continually adding stuff about a fictitious band called "Cole" to the Michael Cole, Tazz and Perry Saturn articles claiming they're members of the band. The guy needs to be watched carefully. --Oakster (Talk) 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cole (band)]] 

message: I'm going to renominate Mass Transit incident (ECW) for deletion. There is no need for a separate article when the incident is mentioned in the lawsuit section. The article is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Kyros 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, you'll find a lot of people saying it's a significant incident in wrestling in general as it highlights many many problems. --- Lid 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered in the ECW lawsuit section, so it's just redundant information. Kyros 02:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass Transit Deletion

message: I can't help but notice that some wrestlers, mostly WWE workers, have just incredibly long pages. The likes of John Cena, Trish Stratus, Randy Orton and Kurt Angle have literally year by year breakdowns of every single thing they've ever done.
Do we have, or can we start, some kind of policy to cut some of these things down? Maybe an "Articles to shorten" section in the to-do box? I can't imagine anyone want to read the amount of information on these pages.Bdve 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wrestler profiles should be similar to profiles of athletes or actors ...Kyros 02:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what that means. A year for other athletes can usually be summed up in a paragraph or two but for an active wrestler it can be much longer. Bdve 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus athletes don't use kayfabe.  Though Athlete pages are a good start.  --Dubhagan 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need every kayfabe detail, you just don't need them. Do you need all the details that are laid out in the Stratus and Cena bios ... no . Kyros 04:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with dedicating a few paragraphs to the events of a calendar year. What is problematic is when an article literally gives week by week coverage of relatively unimportant events. McPhail 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree a few details is okay. Kyros 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So it sounds like we're in agreement that some of these pages need shortening? Can we add that section to the "to-do list"?Bdve 06:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. We should reach a consensus on how to shorten these articles too. In other words, what stuff to keep in and what stuff to keep out of these articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that we should summarize key years in a wrestler's performance history if it is of note.  A lot of storyline information is very confusing to the casual observer. I would prefer we avoid it all together except for things that are integral to the character (Stone Cold Steve Austin's metamorphasis into stone cold, or the Rock's change from rocky) Or were angles that transended the genre (Celebrity appearences, Feuds with nationwide recognition)  We shouldn't be giving plot summary. But that is just my $0.02 NegroSuave 15:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - that sounds about right. Summary style should help keep articles looking trim. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incredibly long pages 

message: Can someone tidy this up please, I don't seem to be able to move him back. A vandal moved him.(Halbared 21:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got an admin to fix everything --- Lid 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregory Helms

message: The WCW page needs MAJOR cleanup. It has a ton of P.O.V and weasel words. I fixed it a little bit, but it definatly needs to be fixed.--Unopeneddoor 23:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went through and made some changes, but I think it can still be fixed some more. TJ Spyke 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WCW 

message: Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team previously contacted you (see here) to identify the quality articles in your WikiProject, and now we need a few more favors. We would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions.  Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please keep updating your Arts WikiProject article table for articles of high quality (we have 6 so far). If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us.  Please feel free to post your suggestions right here.  Thanks! Walkerma 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably add Mick Foley, Frank Gotch, The Rock, Gorgeous George and Georg Hackenschmidt. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ric Flair, Vince McMahon and André the Giant would be worthwhile additions as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Professional wrestling article would probably be a good start, no? After some clean up Eddie Guerrero. Dusty Rhodes is a hell of an important man in the history of wrestling as are Paul Heyman, Eric Bischoff and Verne Gagne. And lets not forget ECW in general.-Bdve 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Wrestling Alliance and some of the Japanese promotions like All Japan Pro Wrestling come to mind. Some of the notable Mexican promotions might be worth mentioning as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Lucha Libre article?  It does need work though.--Darren Jowalsen 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot!  I put professional wrestling as top-importance (as it's the title of your project!) and put the rest as high-importance.  If this is wrong please amend the wrestling table accordingly. Cheers, Walkerma 06:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 

message: I rewrote the intro and linked all the wrestlers listed on the WWE Legends page. I was about to alphabetize it when I noticed the list has got to be incompete. Sabu is a "legend" as is Bruiser Brody. Does anyone know where we can find a complete list of "legends"? Bdve 18:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know the WWE roster has them listed, though there are others like Sabu and Jim Duggan that are listed elsewhere on the roster.  --Dubhagan 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Legends 

message: is there a category? there should be if not. WillC 00:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies with/about wrestlers 

message: I started this rather stubby article a few weeks ago and...well, pure and simple, I'm asking for some help. Tromboneguy0186 09:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shane Shamrock Memorial Cup]] 

message: I request merging the Undisputed Title Page with WWE Championship Page since the WWE Undisputed is just a small part of the WWWF/WWF/WWE Championship history.
BionicWilliam 21:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with it.  You could always do it yourself.  --Dubhagan 22:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put up the appropriate templates on the pages.  --Dubhagan 22:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE Undisputed Championship-WWE Championship

message: We need another consensus. An edit war has started on RVDs page about where to place his ECW world title reign, under ECW or WWE. Both editors have a point, it is ECW but it's an ECW brand and not ECW proper. 
Since Van Dam is the first holder of the new title we should decide now where to put it for as long as thie brand lives.Bdve 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One promotion = one group of titles? Three letters - NWA. --- Lid 04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I know people want to believe that ECW was its own entity that is untouched by others, but the fact of the matter is that it's a company. The company and all of the parts of it are now owned by WWE company. With them go all the rights to the belts, and their histories, librbararies and titles. Pretending it's something else is simply being an old ECW fan who rejects ECW as it is now and wants to pretend it isn't ECW, ignoring the company aspect. --- Lid 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The WWECW Title 

message: Can somebody tell me why the image of Edge has disappeared? I've tried to upload others and it won't let me. I'm stumped. Anyone offer an insight into why (Probably just my PC and I've just made a prat out of myself, but it annoys me) Kingfisherswift 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Image:AdamCopeland Edge.jpg" is working fine. I don't know what you uploaded or where to but none of them have worked. - Bdve 18:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You're probably looking for :Image:CopelandEdge.jpg and :Image:Edge.jpg. You can access the images you've uploaded by clicking on "My Contributions" at the top of the screen while you're logged in. Select the "Image" namespace from the drop-down list. I still don't think OWW has any rights to these images though and the current one is working fine. At any rate, even if they did give us "permission" they would still be fair use, not free use. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam Copeland|Edge]] 

message: Recently I found several pages that list the championship section messed up for several wrestlers. I'm in reference to very obvious copy+paste jobs (text from Obsessed with Wrestling to be exact). 
The wrong way: listing the promotion/title followed by the word(s): title or titles.
The right way: listing the title followed by the word: champion.
Anyone care to help me find and fix other pages with the same problem?  So far I've only seen a few, for lesser known wrestlers. RobJ1981 19:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: List the pages and I'm sure someone will help, I might if I have the time.  --Dubhagan 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned up the only ones I've found so far. I was asking if people could help me look for others.  RobJ1981 19:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles Problem

message: I think we need to work some on the Tammy Lynn Sytch article, it is just way too detailed about the independent shows she's done in the last few years and weight gain and such. It needs to be trimmed quite a bit, it's over 30K even, which is not what her article should be. --Burgwerworldz 22:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Important details can be summarized. See Wikipedia:Summary style.  --Jtalledo (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to really say massive details about a woman's appearances in the independent scene are that notable, they can be trimmed or just totally clipped out. Seriously, there is an entire section about her weight, and much of it is speculative, and another section about what clothing she wears in the present. Even huge stars like Jennifer Aniston don't have sections like this. Just total cruft in the article.--Burgwerworldz 23:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tammy Lynn Sytch]] cleanup

message: I started working on a page for Rusty Brooks. I'm new to editing Wiki, how do I add my name to the member list for this project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Mark Greene (talk • contribs) 
:Hi there and welcome to our little WikiProject. You can add your name to the members list to start off. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! --Jtalledo (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Rusty Brooks]]

message: This article is in the middle of an edit wat as well as it has come into conflict its notability.  As part of a mediation request and I want to recieve some feedback on this page.  The main question is notability and if the Newsletter is indeed notable. Talk: Death Valley Driver Video Review Thanks NegroSuave 02:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Death Valley Driver Video Review]]

message: If you notice on the pages of WWF pre-2002 PPVs, there is a part in the intro of most if not all of them that says something like "Royal Rumble 1994 is a pay-per-view event from the World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment)". I think that the "now World Wrestling Entertainment" is unnecessary and just clutters up the articles. It doesn't make any sense to me that this is included, considering the company's name change was not that cosmetically drastic (like Bellsouth becomes GTE, for a fake example), and it isn't a relevant detail for the time period or event. And if the person didn't know by now, the WWF name is linked so they can figure out the story. I suggest/propose that the phrase (now World Wrestling Entertainment) be removed from the intro paragraphs from those PPVs produced by WWF before the name changed. Thoughts? --Burgwerworldz 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It really is not relevant to the articles in question.  Usage in other articles should also be deleted although there are a few certain cases where the change could be noted.--Darren Jowalsen 19:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good to hear, should we add this to the to-do list then? --Burgwerworldz 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ""(now World Wrestling Entertainment)"" in PPV descriptions

message: does anyone know this person... appearently they work backstage with WWE and they have had extra roles in Buffy and Angel. --- Paulley 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i've found the problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaycey_Harper&diff=58647748&oldid=46276342 --- Lid 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jaycey Harper]] 

message: While doing some updates to profiles I noticed on Cabana's website he has a finisher listed as the Lakeshore Drive  and a google search showed he used it to finish some matches in Japan . The problem is I can not find a description of the move anywhere.
Another problem is with Austin Aries who has a move listed as the Diamond Buster  but no one can find a description of what the diamond buster is. Help with either of these would be appreciated. --- Lid 11:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how reliable this is, but this forum refers to the "Diamond Buster" as a "Running jump over toprope diamond cutter to the outside". I can't find anything on the "Lakeshore Drive", but my advice would be to note the date of a show when Cabana is said to have performed it and then find an alternate report of that show, which might describe the move rather than simply naming it. McPhail 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as that's the only description we have to gon on I added it, but I can not find a detailed listing of the Lakeshore Drive anywhere still. --- Lid 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help finding one move for [[Scott Colton]] and [[Austin Aries]] 

message: Is there a reason there hasn't been a mass deletion of all the articles on small, unknown promotions?  I put a local one from my area up, and I'm planning on doing it for a bunch of others as well.
*Does Wikipedia really need articles on every promotion?  I can understand the more known independents... but really small ones don't need to be here, in my opinion. Is there just a pure wrestling wiki site out there?  If there is, that would be the best place for any and every promotion ever.  RobJ1981 01:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many promotions? 

message: Does there really need to be pages for each of the WWE 24/7 programs?  24/7 is just old wrestling content. I really don't think all of them need pages, when there isn't much to write about them. Same goes for lesser WWF/WWE television programs: LiveWire, Action Zone, etc. Shows like those were recap shows usually with very little new content.  At best, they will be stubs and never improve, since the shows didn't have much to them. I really hope pages for certain WWE DVD's (Divas, Rey Mysterio, etc) don't get pages someday as well. In my opinion, if there is only a little content for it, it certainly doesn't need a Wiki page at all.  RobJ1981 17:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the lesser television shows could be moved to one combined page since they have little content by themselves. --Electricbolt 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point. It could be something like "List of minor WWE television programs". --Jtalledo (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good idea, and it should apply for most DVD's as well. I noticed today, there is way too many pages for individual wrestling DVD's. The pages are basically stubs, and just say the chapters/easter eggs of the DVD, and sometimes other minor things. That certainly shouldn't be enough for a page. Wikipedia shouldn't be about listing DVD's and their features, there is more than enough DVD websites out there for that.  RobJ1981 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just took a look at the WWE 24/7 pages and it seems the shows are already covered on the main page and are pretty much the same in detail as the individual pages. --Electricbolt 22:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just an addition to my above post, I think the programs section of WWE 24/7 page can be expanded to include the information on the other pages. As for the other "lesser" shows, I'll see what I can do since I have some time right now. --Electricbolt 22:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the pages for the WWE 24/7 shows should be removed completely. What's the point in having pages for lesser things?  It just seems like clutter to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... but that doesn't mean every little thing needs it's own page.  RobJ1981 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree. That's why I'm going to work on a page to place all the lesser shows into one page so we can get rid of all the other individual pages. --Electricbolt 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE 24/7, old TV shows

message: :Category:Professional wrestling stubs has a lot of articles in it - well over 400. A large amount of them appear to be biographies on professional wrestlers. Should we create a new stub type, like prowrestling-bio-stub for organization purposes? This could categorize wrestlers into a "Professional wrestling bio stubs" category which would be subcategory of the "Professional wrestling stubs." --Jtalledo (talk)
:well we do need to go through them abit a i have on occasion took a letter and gone through the articles in that section cus most only need a little editing to get to a position to remove the stub completally --- Paulley
::I've started to go through some. From the looks of it (so far at least), some can be deleted or merged with other articles.  RobJ1981 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional wrestling bio stub? 

message: User:Doctat3 just signed up today and decided to seperate all Survivor Series article into individual articles. Since he's new, I don't exactly know how far he's going to go with this but I had to cleanup a few templates that he just cut and pasted from. I would help him myself further but I've got Royal Rumble to finish off along with the remaining SummerSlam articles now under my hands. I was wondering if I could get a little help with this situation. --Oakster (Talk) 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old Survivor Series article was in desperate need of seperation as the article size was getting huge due to elimination tables, 1998's tournament, etc. As for help, it's alright as I can now be able to sort these articles out. --Oakster (Talk) 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivor Series 

message: We currently have too many pages for Saturday Night's Main Event. We have a results page chronicling the entire history, the Main page about what the show is and a page just for 2006, which is only about the upcoming one. I've already nominated the 2006 one for deletion and it looks like it's on it's way out, but that leaves the results page and the main page, both of which (now) have the results on them.
This begs the question, should we keep the results on their seperate article or leave them on the main page and trash the results page? I am torn. By torn, I of course mean I mean don't care either way. Bdve 14:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNME 

message: There's an ongoing debate about spoiler warnings at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. This could affect the way we treat spoilers and kayfabe in professional wrestling articles, so if anyone is interested, please contribute to the discussion there. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler debate 

message: Spirit Squad page needs some clean up... i have gone through the move list and standardised them and cleaned but their history section needs to be trimmed most of it concerns the last month on raw... i did go through before so most of the pre DX is tidy also the title accomplishment needs to be under the new format and i think we need to remove all references to "The Spirit Squad" becuse they are just "Spirit Squad" (ala "the WWE" -> "WWE") --- Paulley
:According to the official WWE site: it is The Spirit Squad: . So that should be left alone in my opinion. Also, it doesn't really sound correct by saying "Spirit Squad are the tag champions for Raw" for example. The page name is fine, there is no reason to add a "the" to it, but other references to them should be The Spirit Squad. In some sentences, just Spirit Squad is fine. Example of that (straight from the Spirit Squad page): "Even though Kenny and Mikey were the ones who won the tag titles, any two Spirit Squad members can defend them." Hope all that made sense. RobJ1981 20:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE tends to play hard and fast when it comes to definite articles, e.g. (The) Undertaker, (The) Big Show. McPhail 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clean up 

message: While I've been doing the Royal Rumble articles, I've just noticed the SummerSlam articles and how they are categorised under (year) in sports. I was wondering if it's a good idea to start (year) in professional wrestling categories and placing them as subcategories of (year) in sports (or even just the (year) categories if professional wrestling as a sport is questionable)? This wouldn't just be used for individual event articles but also major storylines such as Montreal Screwjob (1997), Fingerpoke of Doom (1999) and The Invasion (2001). --Oakster (Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, that seems to be putting a bit too much "importance" on the world of pro-wrestling.  I don't think you'd ever see that kind of info in Britannica...  If you'd like to do it on wrestlepedia, go ahead, but I just think it's a bit much for Wikipedia. - NickSentowski 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Years in professional wrestling 

message: : Somehow a user name got a wrestling bio?
: The regular Los Guerreros link.  From the looks of it, it's the same as the user Tigermave version.  
I wasn't sure how to clean it up, so I didn't edit. RobJ1981 20:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no issue really... it looks like he just copied and pasted the content to a subpage, maybe to work on it a little. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Los Guerreros issue

message: I just noticed that I've contributed to alot more Wrestling articles than anything else, so I thought that I might as well sign-up. So can I please join?  SilentRage 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Just add your name to our members list. Feel free to ask any questions you have here. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I don't have any questions.  SilentRage 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I join? 

message: Since we're trying to find more free alternatives to copyrighted photos, I've noticed quite a lot of WWE images over at flickr.com under Creative Commons Licenses. I'm not fully sure on how far we can use them but I thought I might post this as it might be a great contribution for images, even more than the current military-based photos we currently use. WWE search (commercial use allowed) WWE search (non-commercial use) --Oakster (Talk) 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, ideally we should use the commercial use allowed photos. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OWW doesn't actually own most of the images they've "given permission" for.Bdve 21:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.. OWW is just a glorified fan site if you ask me. I actually helped with the site at one time, and got little credit for all the things I helped research. The main person in charge of the site lets just about anyone help him add things, but doesn't give decent credit. What a joke. The site has good reliable information most of the time, but there is still plenty of information that is wrong as well. But anyway, I'm sure there is other photo sites that would let us use photos here on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE images 

message: I truly think that Wrestlemania X8 should be considered the end and not Wrestlemania X7, because remind you that Wrestlemania X8 was the first and only time that huge stars from the Federation Era, New Generation Era, and Attitude Era were all on there. Add to the fact that ratings started declining and business started going down after X8, not X7. X8 was considered the peak IMO because Wrestlemania X8 was the last time that all of the A.E. stars were the main focus on storylines and such before new stars started coming in.
Austin's heel turn had nothing to do with ending the Attitude Era, because he'd become a face again later on that year anyways. I don't get why everybody says X7 ended it, when it obviously didn't.LC6 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The End of the Attitude Era

message: I noticed Michinoku Pro Wrestling, as influential as it was, didn't yet have an article and isn't even on the docket. Any particular reason, or can I just go ahead and get one started?
--Endsmouth 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michinoku Pro Wrestling? 

message: On the listing of jobbers in the Job (professional wrestling) page, the listing need to be a little more concise and include just standard jobbers, not a bunch of current jobber-to-the-stars (JTTS) from Smackdown and such. If you look at sites like  you can get a feel to what someones win/loss record is. I have a hard time considering guys like Al Snow, Scotty 2 Hotty, Stevie Richards and such to be considered jobbers. There seems to be some comments made on the talk page, but some consensus should be made about the listing, or not have one at all. --Burgwerworldz 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Snow, the man who started the J.O.B. Squad not a jobber? I don't really think we need a list, especially one that includes "The Zombie" and "Slim the Stripper". Bdve 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Al Snow did win the Hardcore, European and Tag Team titles, and I just don't consider him a jobber, despite his classic gimmick. The ECW list should go for sure, that stripper guy didn't even have an official match, and the other one-offs are just that. --Burgwerworldz 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the jobber list should just go. Many of them listed aren't really jobbers, while others are obvious jobbers. But if you look at the indy work of WWF/E jobbers such as Barry Horowitz, Duane Gill and so on... they have won titles, and don't always lose. RobJ1981 20:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you and I both removed the one-off ECW guys, but they were reverted for some unvalid reason. I think we need to build some consensus as to how to have a jobber listing, if we should have one in the first place. --Burgwerworldz 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not a jobber category then? Bdve 22:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is to say you won't see them again, or that one appearance as an obviously booked jobber is not enough? Could we at the very least make a separate paragraph for people who have been booked to job like Zombie, Slim, etc...WillC 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A jobber should be considered a relatively no-frills wrestler who has had relative longevity of basically losing every match. It is too early to tell at this point if the one-off ECW guys will return, and it should not be included at this point, if ever. And if the information is notable, then it can be put on the respective performer's pages. But calling someone like Koko B Ware a jobber is a matter of personal opinion, and we are here to provide a NPOV. --Burgwerworldz 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like a consensus decision on this before you unilaterally delete info off the page; you are no more/less of an expert than me. i call on you to restore the page. WillC 22:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIVIL please, and RobJ1981 was the first one to remove the info, which I agreed with, and that's what the intent of my rvs were. --Burgwerworldz 22:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: CIVIL? good grief! i am being civil! i said we are on the same level! you need to read up on wiki etiquette about explaining your edits/reverts on the site when you do them, and also not removing relevant questions/comments from your talk page. WillC 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I find it insulting that you have attempted put myself down to your level. The message still has a hostile undertone, especially with the exclaimation points. Maybe you should stay out of this discussion for a bit and let others come up with their opinions. Just because something is valid doesn't mean it needs to be added here. --Burgwerworldz 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it insulting you think I am below you. WillC 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legit jobbers seem to have gone the way of the buffalo recently. We're left with mostly Jobbers to the Stars and "upcoming" kids on shows like Velocity. True jobbers are guys like SD Jones and the Brooklyn Brawler who always lost, not guys who started out as losers then moved on to being somebody. If that's the qualifications we have to consider Mick Foley and HHH jobbers. - Bdve 22:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: which is why i support inclusion of the jobbers i keep having to restore because of burgwerworldz's unexplained reverts on the page itself....almost all wrestlers have jobbed, but it is easier to say the ones you mentioned are pure jobbers just as it is to say the recent ecw ones are. WillC 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we just added a sentence to the page that says something like: "Some of the most notable jobbers for major wrestling promotions include Barry Horowitz and Steve Lombardi."? --Burgwerworldz 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a compromise, but those things usually end up getting expanded back up to what has become the issue now when people stop watching them. Bdve 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list should definitely be gone, as per Wikipedia:Embedded lists, which says lists make Wikipedia worse, not better. Not sure the sentence would keep away invalid entries from being added, but it's a thought. A category wouldn't be too good either. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Al Snow doesn't belong on that list at all. I think the list is a good idea as long as it doesn;t get out of hand. Honestly, when  i think "jobber" I always think of the classic 80's and 70's type jobber (SD Jones, Lee Wong, Jake Milliman, Zane Hickey, Mike Davis, Rusty Brooks) than people like Al Snow or Stevie Richards. TruthCrusader 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: So instead of deleting information, maybe we could attach years in which they jobbed. WillC 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so, I would prefer just the list being gone. Years they jobbed isn't that easy to list, especially for guys like Duane Gill and Barry Horowitz; since they were jobbers for part of a year, and then actually won some matches later on in the year. Same goes for the basic jobbers of WWE now: Scotty Too Hotty, Val Venis, Funaki, etc: they job on the main shows... but have had wins at house shows, dark matches and the lesser shows (Heat, and the inactive Velocity).  RobJ1981 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, we'll let consensus decide. Perhaps there could be some sort of disclaimer noting that they have been booked as jobbers for a large part of their career. Even if there is no list, there should be examples. WillC 12:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples, yes, in prose and with proper context. But a list just encourages edit wars over who is and isn't a jobber as more entries are added to the list, particularly wrestlers who have jobbing a lot recently but haven't made career out of jobbing. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: let's get started on that then....you don't like the way it is? you start. WillC 14:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See my talk page comments there about noting current jobbers. thoughts? WillC 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Jobbers 

message: For that page, what exactly determines the year released? Is it when someone stopped wrestling or work regularly or what? I've noticed that Bruno Sammartino was listed at being released in 1981, but I know he still wrestled occasionally and commentated well into the late 1980s. Just wondering. --Burgwerworldz 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the page, and it just seems to be when the person was released (the most recent release, if the wrestler returned to WWE later on), retired or just quit. Some exceptions will happen though: Jesse Ventura for example. He has made several non-wrestling appearances since leaving WWF in 1990. As for Bruno, I have no idea why it says 1981.  I think it's probably an error.  If you know an exact year when he left WWF for good, fix the mistake...if not, leave it until an exact date is found. I think that list is incorrect in some spots, because it lists development wrestlers: such as the Wall, Jason Riggs, Johnny Riggs.  I'm pretty sure the Wall never appeared on WWF/E television (unless it was briefly during the Invasion storyline..). The Riggs Brothers (Jason+Johnny) never appeared on WWE TV...  how does that make them WWE alumni?  You have to be part of WWE, to be an alumni...  not just a part of WWE's development system.  Same goes for all the wrestlers that weren't given contracts, when WWF/E bought WCW. I don't consider that alumni either, since they didn't appear on WWE TV either.  RobJ1981 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those developmental guys should go, I think this list is designed for more "full-time" talent. I looked up Mike Sanders, who had a similar situation, and according to this site  he only wrestled one dark match in 2002. Interesting that you bring up Jesse as he had retired from wrestling in the mid-80s, but is listed as when he was done as an announcer, hence "released" from the WWF. Bruno did retire from full-time wrestling in 1981, but was still in the WWF for much of the 1980s by managing, announcing and occasionally wrestling. I figure that his release date would be when he left the WWF, not when he quit wrestling full-time. This list could use some work, but I've fixed a bunch thanks to the website I just mentioned.--Burgwerworldz 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A dark match really isn't much either, so anyone on the alumni that did a dark match only..should be removed as well in my opinion.  Dark matches aren't very memorable, and shouldn't consider someone an "alumni"... because if that's the case, you can include any random person that has done dark matches over the years (prior to when WWE decided to use development people alot in dark matches..). I deleted the "those whose contracts were involved in promotion merge". I'm sure it will be reverted...but it really doesn't need to be (unless by some chance, the people had ON-AIR appearances on television..which I doubt. Another note: Tony DeVito (on that section I deleted) was one of the people squashed by Sandman on the ECW show if I recall...so he basically has a contract with WWE now (even if it's verbal and/or pay-per appearance type of deal).  RobJ1981 05:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[World Wrestling Entertainment alumni]] page