Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 12

message: Orange Country Wrestling Federation, The Avalanche (wrestler), Zodiac (Wrestler), Eddie Suzuki, Night Stalker (wrestler). All of these appear to be non-notable: I googled the promotion and found no decent results, so I'm assuming the wrestlers aren't notable either. I prodded them, hopefully it lasts and they just go. RobJ1981 18:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And another: Melissa Merida. Appears to be vanity as well. I did a search for Melissa and her wrestling name as well, and came up with very little. RobJ1981 17:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two more: List of PWG World Tag Team Championship defenses and List of PWG World Championship defenses. RobJ1981 06:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Several things to keep an eye on

message: *For Succession Boxes:
#----Darren Jowalsen 01:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession Boxes

message: -------------------------------------------------------------
*Ohio Valley Wrestling
:*1-time OVW Heavyweight Champion
-------------------------------------------------------------
#-- Giant onehead 23:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format 1

message: -------------------------------------------------------------
*Ohio Valley Wrestling
:*OVW Heavyweight Championship (1)
::Defeated Leviathan on February 20, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA. 
::Lost to Nova on May 15, 2002 in Jeffersonville, Indiana, USA.
-------------------------------------------------------------
#— Moe Epsilon 22:54 September 22 '06
#-- TJ Spyke 23:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format 2

message: Does it make more sense for this article to be title Eric Kulas and have all links redirect to this page. It makes more sense? Kyros 06:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass Transit Incident (ECW)

message: A suggestion: more use of animated gifs for mid-maneuver images. Often single images make it unclear as to what is going on. While animated gifs are larger, the point of images in not just to entertain, but to inform, so making the action that they are portraying clearer would be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.85.180 (talk • contribs) .
:We still have to consider people with slow Internet connections. A lot of people who can use Wikipedia, particularly those in emerging nations probably have slow connections. A well done text description supplemented by a preferably free image suffices in most cases. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jtalledo, animated GIF's would be hell for those on dial-up and other slow internet connections. If a move is described well enough (which I will admit that there are many that aren't) then a person should be able to see the move in their mind. TJ Spyke 22:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Since the Women's Championsip is now defunct, it really shouldn't be listed under "RAW championships". Also, I think it would be nice if we added "Former championships" to the template, and added the Woman's championship to that section. I just wanted to know all of your opinions on this, and get some consensus on the matter.  ---SilentRAGE! 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add new topics to the bottom. The Women's title is not defunct, it's vacant, there's a difference. They're still mentioning it and setting up something to crown a champ between Lita and Mickie James.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My bad, there's actually a tournament being set up for it. Still, not defunct and should stay where it is.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but what about my suggestion about adding a defunct title section to the template?  ---SilentRAGE! 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:WWE_Championships|WWE Championship Template Article]] 

message: World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster need locks on them. Anons have been sticking Kurt Angle in heavyweight division, yet Angle hasn't wrestled for TNA once. One recent promo isn't active. This seems to be an ongoing trend that should be stopped. WWE roster had a lock at one point, but was removed. WWE roster has constant reverts as well. Anytime someone new has a promo, they are put in an active section. Same goes for anytime a rumor pops up, anons usually stick it on the roster page. All these edits need to be stopped. Posting things on the talk page isn't helping alot. Locking seems like the best solution. RobJ1981 20:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Normy132 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 wrestling pages that probably should be locked

message: Sirelda (Jaime Dauncey) is still on the TNA roster page under he inactive section. I'm pretty sure TNA said they were finished with her just after her match with Gail Kim. Can someone follow this up please. Normy132 02:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She's still on TNAWrestling.com's roster page.  We should leave her on our roster until they take her off their roster.  --James Duggan 02:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sirelda 

message: Although I started the article on WWE Xperience (some time ago, even) for the new Canadian WWE recap show, it should be merged with The WWE Experience as this is the correct title and has a similar format.  However, it is presented in a substantially different manner (having Score anchor Ryan Paton host it rather than, say, Steve Romero or Todd Grisham), and would require massive structural changes to the article in question.  Your thoughts? kelvSYC 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian WWE Experience 

message: I think I have a solution, replace (in kayfabe) with fictional or storyline. 
*Example: When he started he used the character of Troy Orndorff and Terry Orndorff, the ficitional cousin of Paul Orndorff Kyros 01:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it a lot better than (in kayfabe), especially for people who are not familiar with a wrestling term like kayfabe. --Darren Jowalsen 05:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty much the exact same thing, only replacing the wrestling specific term with a generalized term. I still don't see the problem with (kayfabe) and (in kayfabe) when it's necessary. "Undertaker was attacked out of nowhere by his (kayfabe) brother Kane" doesn't disrupt the structure of anything, conveys the fact that he's only his brother in the world of VinceCo, and all is well.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, just make sure to put kayfabe instead of just kayfabe, this way people can find out what kayfabe means if they don't already know. TJ Spyke 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually link it the first time, then don't link it two or three times, then link it again, repeat. Having it linked every time can get a bit annoying and redundent, especially if they're one after another in the same section.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather have the fictional or storyline idea because many of the articles seem to throw (kayfabe) in at arbitrary points and is rather distracting.  Plus, paranthetical comments should be avoided whenever possible, in my book at least.--Darren Jowalsen 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Anything with ( ) seems out of place. The fictional and storyline mention maintains a harmonious flow. That's right I said harmonious :-).  Kyros 02:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (In Kayfabe) Suggestion

message: Listcruft and fancruft, I put a PROD on it but someone might have to nominate it for deletion if that gets removed. TJ Spyke 21:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Samoa Joe's winning streak]] 

message: Is this WikiProject still working? I was just wondering as it might be a good idea to merge this back to WP:PW if there's a lack of activity. --Oakster (Talk) 15:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Media of wrestling]] 

message: Namely :Image:Marufuji as GHC Heavyweight Champion.jpg and :Image:Johnny Nitro2.jpg. These are both marked as "I am the creator" but they both look like promo images, though I can not find the source. If anyone can find the source of these please tell me? –– Lid(Talk) 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related but has anyone tried to contact Mary-Kate Grosso about using ROH images on wikipedia?  a while back claimed to be Mary-Kate, and ROHCamera1 is Mary-Kate's username on ROH photos, hwoever before I had a chance to ask about the images the user appeared to stop being active. Anyone? –– Lid(Talk) 04:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nitro picture is indeed a promo pic.  I'll sort out the tags and set it up for deletion over at Commons. --Oakster (Talk) 06:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know where the Marufuji picture came from? –– Lid(Talk) 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of {{user|The Serial Thriller}} 

message: *World Wrestling Entertainment
:*WWE Championship (2 times)
----
#— Moe Epsilon 00:42 October 02 '06
#- TJ Spyke 00:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The New Format:

message: Wrestling being what wrestilng is there's no shortage of "fair use" promo images of (current, at least) stars around. Can we, as a project, set a policy on the amount of images we use and when? It's understandble, say, when a gimmick changes and there's a notable difference, but do we really need a post match picture every time Edge wins the title?
I'm aware this is picking nits, but it can be annoying to see some articles turned into almost image galleries.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FUC covers this stuff pretty well, particularly #8, which states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." An image that just shows a wrestler with a belt doesn't really contribute significantly to the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few seemingly inexperienced/immature editors who insist on inserting a number of fair-use images into various articles. There is another user uploading vast amounts of WWE promotional photographs to Wikipedia without tagging the uploads properly, then adding said images to articles. WP:FUC is pretty clear, and there is a Wikipedia-wide movement to include as little copyrighted material as possible. Given how aggressive WWE's legal department is, it is not too unreasonable to assume that they will eventually object to the inclusion of so many of their copyrighted promotional photographs on Wikipedia. - Chadbryant 22:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're being a little over aggresive now. Taking out Cena's album cover and the picture of Edge & Christian from the Edge article may be a little much when considering overall article size. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cena's album has its own article. Edge and Christian have their own article as well. - Chadbryant 02:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which doesn't change the fact that they're both notable on the other pages as well.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it means that if people want to see the cover of Cena's album or a picture of Edge & Christian together, they can view the articles those images are relevant to. - Chadbryant 02:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The "small number" clause in the WWE photo template comes into play here. - Chadbryant 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think you're over reacting. Two or three images per article, with the size of some of the articles, is a "small number", especially when they're demonstrating something like the change in someone's look or a finish.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use images

message: One more nitpicky thing, this one about a whole article. There's an ECW chants article. I've maintained it for a while and linked it from a few others, but it feels like cruft. I'm not sure if it should be deleted outright or maybe expanded to a more generic Wrestling chants and include TNA chants and the like. Suggestions?-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Transwiki it to Wikiquote, it's more appropriate there. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I moved it and just nominated the original for deletion, but the wikiquote page has already been nominated for deletion on wikiquote, and I can't really argue with their reasoning.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 01:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[ECW chants]] 

message: I've marked several for too much trivia. What are people thinking? This isn't an all wrestling wiki. Not every little note or fact is notable or needed. Either put the information in the article somewhere else, or remove. Don't just simply rename trivia as facts (or other similar names), because it's still trivia that way. An enyclopedia isn't about every little non-notable detail or fact, it's about important things. I don't think it matters that X # people won the hardcore title and also won the I.C title, or whatever the case might be.  RobJ1981 04:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much trivia on championship pages

message: :Category:Professional wrestling stubs, there is currently 645 stubs. I've improved some with bits and pieces, but certainly not enough to remove the stub tag. If others can help me out, this category will be alot smaller in a matter of months. Many of the articles (such as the old WWF tv shows on the last page) could easily be merged together. The old WWF shows aren't always notable, so a page of just minor or lesser WWF shows should be made. I don't see much point to an article on a show that just aired recaps. I believe someone was going to do this before, but forgot?  Also, it should be noted... many of the stubs could easily be non-notable things. I've found several things that I put prods on. So it's just a matter of going through them. RobJ1981 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Professional wrestling stubs needs some help

message: I've added a article assessment and importance rating to the Pro-wrestling template. If you don't like it or don't want it, you can revert it, but I really think it'll help identify what articles are in good condition and what articles need attention. --Targetter (Lock On) 02:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it could work, but I don't think it's completely necessary. I'm not going to change it at all, until others decide what to do with it. RobJ1981 05:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I've changed the template image as fair use images shouldn't be used for templates. Since we haven't actually discussed about this, I've hidden the article assessment fields for now except for when the article has a rating (e.g Talk:CM Punk) so that we get a smooth transition whether we agree to this or not. As for article assessment, I'm all for it as long as we have some dedicated people to rate articles or else there's not much use to it. --Oakster (Talk) 06:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created the categories for stub, start and B class so far. When articles with other classes are made, make sure to add the correct cats. I didn't add them yet, since I haven't seen a good article or above yet for pro wrestling. I will assess as many articles as I can, to help start the assessment process. Hopefully others help out as well, I don't want this to end up being a huge task months from now. RobJ1981 00:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Pro-wrestling 

message: I believe I have completely cleaned up the article. It now reads a lot better than it used to, so I removed it from the to-do list.Shot and Botched 16:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generation Next

message: I was cleaning up the Lex Luger page and trying to link to StarrCade '97 only to find that the main Starrcade page links to a lot of (redirects) to seperate StarrCade pages. Is the article being split and who's working on it if it is? -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I intend to fix them in a few days, right now I am working on other WCW articles (I've already gone through and fixed most WCW PPV's, like Fall Brawl and Souled Out. There is no reason for them to be seperate. TJ Spyke 21:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, if Survivor Series can be split there's no reason Fall Brawl can't too. It was a pretty important show in it's day.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. In addition, the main Starrcade page is long and unwieldy. McPhail 00:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested putting the pre-PPV ones(1983-1986) on a seperate page and call it something like "Starrcade (1983-1986)". That will enable the main Starrcade article more than small enough since there won't be another Starrcade to make the page bigger. TJ Spyke 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pre-PPV events could be put on a single page, but the PPV era Starrcades definitely deserve individual articles. The current situation reflects the huge imbalance where information relating to WCW and WWE is concerned, and cramming the articles on the major WCW PPV into a single page will only exacerbate this situation. McPhail 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to come up with criteria for which shows deserve to be seperated by year, and which ones shouldn't. The TNA pay per views seem to all have their own pages for each year.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 17:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[StarrCade]]

message: I'm not especially happy with having two values for height and two values for weight. This is leading to many articles having two sets of statistics, which can only cause confusion. In my opinion, the "real" height and weight values, which are virtually always unsourced, fields should be removed and the infobox should contain only the billed statistics. Where the wrestler in question is irrefutably known to be drastically different in height and/or weight from their billed statistics, e.g. Andre the Giant this could be mentioned in the personal life section. Having both fields, however, detracts from the article, particularly when the two figures are both unsourced. McPhail 00:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. While the intention behind adding the fields was probably good (e.g. to stop the incredibly lame height edit wars), their "real" heights and weights normally have no source and are just the product of speculation. We can only go by the billed height and weight. I think those two "real" fields should be deleted and the other fields should be kept as "billed height" and "billed weight" to decrease the chance of them being changed. As per WP:V, verifiability, not truth is the threshold for inclusion. 10:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as the heights are sourced, there shouldn't be an issue. And a great many are, Andre, Hulk Hogan, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Giant Gonzales, Bill Goldberg etcHalbared 15:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox height and weight 

message: I recently noticed this. This was deleted before, so I added a speedy to it. Wikipedia isn't a wrestling guide to every special edtion/season premiere of Raw. Keep an eye on it. This Raw special is still going on, but I doubt an article for it is needed. RobJ1981 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[RAW Family Reunion]]

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Homecoming.  Also, check out the one for RAW's Family Reunion  --James Duggan 05:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE Homecoming]]

message: Someone reverted an edit of mine with the edit summary WP:PW, so I guess I should have to explain it here:
*In the main event, the article formerly stated that Shawn Michaels was "with Mike Tyson as Special Enforcer" and later that "Tyson turned on Michaels".
*However, a Special Enforcer is a special kind of referee and a referee, as biased as he might supposed to be, is a neutral man and not a valet, manager etc. Yes, Tyson was thought to be siding with the DX at that point but "technically" he was neutral. If he were a valet, he couldn't have counted any pin.
*Because of Tyson's association with the DX, it is correct to say that he turned on Michaels, as his actions were unexpected. Hence, I have retained this in my latest edit.
I hope that statisfies the need for explanation. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 09:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special referees and enforcers are lister as (w/ ) next to the last name. So if Michaels had won it woulh said Michaels defeated Austin (w/Tyson as Enforcer). TJ Spyke 06:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this seems like a ambiguity to me and suggest a better format, even if it only means separating the ref from the losing competitor by a semi-colon, dash or whatever. Str1977 (smile back) 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the current version seems clear enough for me. But still, the project may consider such problems for the future (there's not always a title to separate ref from loser). Str1977 (smile back) 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WrestleMania XIV]]

message: Our immature/inexperienced editors are once again disrupting the editing process by insisting on including an image taken from a marksite that does not fall under fair-use criteria, while improperly tagging the image taken directly from WWE.com (and properly tagged & cited) that was uploaded to replace it. The same users have also instigated a campaign on Adam Copeland that blatantly violates WP:OWN as well. Other editors (and possibly an admin) need to get involved to deal with this strongarming & vandalism based on pure ignorance. - Chadbryant 09:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. DXRAW 09:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The image that our resident Randy Orton Fan Club insists on using was not taken directly from WWE.com - it is an image that was taken from one of the numerous marksites that Orton has inspired. The image I replaced it with is properly tagged, and the URL where it can be found on WWE.com is provided. The same can not be said for the other image. - Chadbryant 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: it was taken from wwe.com its not my fault you can't understand that. Your picture was not properly tag which i have been telling you but you also fail to understand that thinking everything you do is right. an admin has even re added the tag that shows even more that you havent tagged it right. Just leave the randy orton page alone, consistant name calling from you is getting pathetic, i am not a fan girl, you know nothing at all about be or anything so before you make statement like that you need to get your information right. Lil crazy thing 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Randy Orton]]

message: is it me or did this page get really long... either someone knows alot about Molly Holly or they copied her book into the article? --- Paulley
:It got huge. I tagged a section with  - there's way too much detail there. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article needs some serious work. The "Behind-the-scenes issues" section in particular is somewhat unnerving. McPhail 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nora Greenwald]] 

message: Is this article necessary? It doesn't look like there's any assertion of importance here. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it up for deletion.  --James Duggan 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Paula Finlay]] 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE RAW X Anniversary Show and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW is Owen.  --James Duggan 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW specialty shows 

message: You may want to keep watch on Botch (professional wrestling), since the anons keep on adding "weekly botch reports", as well as adding some non-notable ones. I've added a warning to let the editors know. Duo02  *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the list. See the article's talk page for further discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Botch (professional wrestling)]] 

message: This user has been changing the heights and weights on many articles without providing a source, when I reverted the change on Jeff Hardy he/she just changed it back later and still didn't provide a source. I will put a warning on his talk page, if he keeps it up though someone will have to report him. TJ Spyke 04:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User: B-Boy2006]] 

message: What's with the nominations of deletion of articles on supercards, anyways?  A lot of WWE's supercards, including tribute shows (Raw is Owen, Tributes to Eddie Guerrero) have been nominated for deletion, as are one-time specials (WWE Homecoming).  Next thing you know articles on PPVs will be nominated for deletion.  I have not seen this trend for any other wrestling promotion, even though they might go into even greater excesses (TNA PPVs have a separate article for every year, WWE does so only on the four major PPVs, for example).  Can someone fill me in to what's going on? kelvSYC 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are supercards, they were just special edition of RAW. Clash of the Champions and Satuday Night's Main Event are examples of supercards. RaW is Owen was just an episode of RAW dedicated to Owen Hart, same thing with the Eddie tributes. RAW Homecoming was just an episode of RAW celebrating the return to the USA Network. TJ Spyke 05:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contend that these are considered supercards in the sense that they are not be regularly scheduled, just like SNME, the rare 3-hour Raw or 90-minute SmackDown!.  kelvSYC 05:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not regularly scheduled?  They were episodes of RAW in the RAW timeslot.  Of course they were regularly scheduled because RAW is regularly scheduled.  James Duggan 19:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tributes to Eddie Guerrero was nominated I thought? I don't see an AFD on it. Just a heads up, in case someone vandalised and removed the AFD. I looked at the history a little and didn't see an AFD listed. This article isn't worth keeping, per other tribute one-time shows such as Raw is Owen. RobJ1981 22:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercards 

message: Why do the TNA PPV's all have a seperate article for every years edition? It's quite annoying. --Mikedk9109 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a downside to having individual articles for each PPV? It allows more direct linking, it prevents pages from becoming long and cluttered and it enables the individual PPV articles to be more detailed. There aren't a huge number of articles, and neither are they being created at a fantastic rate. McPhail 02:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TNA PPV's

message: I don't know why, but for some reason a user nominated this for deletion. I hope that the people in this WikiProject help make sure it stays. TJ Spyke 18:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This same poster, User:Aaru Bui, has now nominated several other WWE PPV's. TJ Spyke 00:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trolls...-- bulletproof 3:16 00:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has now removed themselves from the members list of WP:PW. I'm assuming this is an attempt/violation of WP:POINT in response to the deletion of RAW "supercards". –– Lid(Talk) 00:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, something's up with this user. Perhaps doing this as retaliation? -- bulletproof 3:16 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does removing myself as a member help to illustrate a point? --Aaru Bui DII 00:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tell you what you illustrate... WP:TROLL -- bulletproof 3:16 00:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I support the deletion of those RAW specials. --Aaru Bui DII 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE New Year's Revolution]] 

message: I have gotten Glen Jacobs and Chris Benoit semi-protected because of all the vandalism in the past days. (Spoilers, results, wins etc.) It had gotten to a point where no one could handle it. It was quite annoying also. --Mikedk9109 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, the pages that need semi-protection now are World Wrestling Entertainment roster and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster. Both are vandalised and edited way too much, everytime a Smackdown is taped on Tuesday... people disrupt the page and post many spoilers. Same goes for TNA's page, after every Impact taping. RobJ1981 15:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll request when I get the chance. --Mikedk9109 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll take a look at it. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 19:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: Tag teams are more common, that's the majority of the page right now. A rename to just stables would be helpful I suppose, or just a split into 2 pages. But then we need to have a good definition of stable, so every tag team with manager doesn't show up on the page all the time. In my opinion, a stable includes at least 3 people and they all wrestle on a regular basis. So for WWE, Spirit Squad is the only official stable, and possibly the alliance that includes Heyman's security and Holly and Test. Or I wouldn't mind just deleting it altogether, since it's technically original research. This isn't an all wrestling wiki. RobJ1981 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What should be done with [[List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams]]

message: Should the Mr. Money in the Bank really be included in the championships and accomplishments section? --Mikedk9109 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be listed, it's similar to being #1 contender.. which is never listed in championships and accomplishments. The information about the wrestler winning it (in the career section) is enough.  RobJ1981 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should we delete it from Rob Van Dam and Edge's article? --Mikedk9109 16:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it should be deleted. Hopefully people don't re-add it. RobJ1981 17:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I deleted it from both their articles. --Mikedk9109 17:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, hold on now, I disagree. The Money in the Bank is similar to the Royal Rumble in as far as an accomplishment. There's no reason not to list it, especially if they continue to do it and make it an annual thing.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's an annual thing. It's been at Wrestlemania, 2 years in a row, and it's almost safe to say, it will be in 2007 at well. As I stated before: MITB is just like being #1 contender, that's not listed everytime someone is the current #1 contender to a title belt.  RobJ1981 19:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Royal Rumble makes someone #1 contender with special circumstances too. MitB goves them a year, Rumble makes it a WrestleMania math. If we list one we may as well list the other.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Money in the Bank

message: Somebody needs to fix the Infobox for that article, because I have no idea how to do so. And about the infoboxes, why do all of them look so bad now?Shot and Botched 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think AFD should be put on that. It was a one-time special, and wasn't that notable in the long run of things (in my opinion at least). If things like Raw X and other related specials get deleted, then WWE vs ECW certainly shouldn't remain. RobJ1981 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE vs. ECW Head to Head]]