Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 39

message: Many guys in this project see InDemand as a reliable source. A lot of people disagree with that. I think, we need to find a consensus here, as by now, we take it as reliable for some events, and unreliable for other events (see No Way Out 08).
What do you say? should we add InDemand to the reliable sources? Diivoo (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm yeahhh, InDemand is where WWE air's it PPV's and InDemand has previews and details on the events. Reliable as WWE.com--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  then someone who can should add the Elimination Chamber Match to the No Way Out 2008 page. Diivoo (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, InDemand is only reliable for the promotional poster. Details for a scheduled event is not reliable because they are "spoilers", and we dont list those. And currently the NWO page is fully protected.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect. If a reliable source can be found for spoilers, the rules of WP state that THEY MUST be added, period. If InDemand is a reliable source, spoilers coming from them can and should be listed, as per a previous discussion involving non-project members. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If that's so, then why is the No Way Out article locked, people were adding spoilers according to dirt sheet sites, but InDemand states the same thing and is a reliable source. So why is NWO locked if we have a relibale source? InDemand No Way Out 2008 PreviewTrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 17:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is locked due to the edit warring. Nikki311 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank God. AdaManiac 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Demand reliable? 

message: Shadowbot is supposed to archive conversations 7 days old. It has been archiving conversations 3 to 4 days old. Explanation? Feedback ☎ 06:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I just checked and saw it's doing it to my talk page too. Must be a glitch since it never did this before. TJ Spyke 06:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll switch us over to the appropriate MiszaBot. SexySeaBass 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The code is set up; if it begins to malfunction, or it doesn't work, then whoever notices first should contact User:Misza13. Cheers, SexySeaBass 07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Bot gone crazy 

message: I have been expanding this article over the past couple of days. I was wondering if someone would be able to do a copyedit at some point (and/or help with the two Citation Needed tags - his retirement in 1999 and his diabetes). I've been staring at the article for so long that I can't really do much with it anymore. I'm also wondering about the section headings (eg. should the arrest be under a Personal Life heading?, etc.). And finally, I was wondering what it would take to get the article to B-level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing: the lead needs to be expanded to better summarize all the sections. Other than that, I agree with all of LessThanClippers' suggestions. Nikki311 01:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Masa Saito]] 

message: Do we have such an article? Is it notable to be created?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We had an article on Beat the Clock and deleted it. It's just a series of matches, and it's not really a tournament (unless you consider it a 1 round only tournament). TJ Spyke 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do however have a mention of it in the match type list List_of_professional_wrestling_match_types#Beat_the_Clock_match. LessThanClippers (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what I was about to ask..lol YOU BEAT ME!!TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its what i get for refreshing my watchlist all day long when I should be selling cruises.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beat the Clock tournament 

message: I've been looking through quite a few articles on older wrestlers lately. I've found it confusing when the first sentence in an article about a retired wrestler is written in the past tense. For example, "Timothy Well was a professional wrestler that was also known as Rex King." When I read that, my first impression is that he has died. I would find it much less confusing if it read, "Timothy Well is a retired professional wrestler that was also known as Rex King." Otherwise, I don't see a difference between that opening and "Scott Irwin was a professional wrestler and the brother of Bill Irwin."
Would it be possible to agree to use a word like "former" or "retired" for living people and to reserve writing the first sentence in past tense for deceased wrestlers? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. Nikki311 01:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's how we do it for most articles, so it shouldn't be a problem fixing the articles that don't do it. TJ Spyke 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request: retired wrestlers 

message: Anybody think Eamon O'Neill (wrestler) and Phil Powers are non notable, and should be prodded? Kris (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have made names for themselves in the independent circuit and deserve articles. However, not unsourced lame articles like those. I'd prod those just because the articles are mediocre. Feedback ☎ 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure an article being "mediocre" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nenog (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... yes it is. If an article is not even in the standards of a stub class, then it should be deleted. These articles have absoulutely no sourcing (maybe 1 or 2); and the prose is written ridiculously. We have no idea if the information in the articles is true, so it is completely the same as a blank page. Feedback ☎ 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No Feed, these article would only fall under the CSD criteria if they just failed to establish context wich these even with the mediocre prose do, I would recommend AFD though, if their non-notability can be presented. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Notable? 

message: Would someone who is familiar with the rating scale be able to look this article over? It's quite extensive, and it seems like it's got to be better than Stub-class. I could be wrong, though. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. That's a start. Nikki311 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World's Strongest Tag Team League]] 

message: I request this page be semi-protected due to the current edit war going on over the in-game arenas.
ArcAngel (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -Awaiting  for approval of semi-protection.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 15:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request [[WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008]] 

message: Just finished reading the article, and I am still trying to learn the quality scale (still a newb, I know.)  From what I read, this looks more like a B than a Start, am I correct, or is it still a start?LessThanClippers (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, just realized it had little to 0 sourcing.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Honky Tonk Man]] 

message: Should that be even noted? It is just a rumor, and is not supported by a reliable site. The source I see for it is wrestlezone..I think we should wait until WWE/Playboy/or some other reliable source announces that she has posed for playboy. What you think?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "(this site) reported", source it, and let the reader determine how reliable the site is. Mshake3 (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this type of things happen every year. I remember some sites saying Maria would pose last year too. TJ Spyke 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what? If it's wrong, then you remove it. Stop being so paranoid. Mshake3 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So anytime any site says something, we should add it? TJ Spyke 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not, but this fucking project needs to stop living in fear of a source being wrong. This project is so anal about sources. In any other topic around here, the statement would have been added and sourced, end of story. But not wrestling, and especially not WP:PW.  Mshake3 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the exact attitude we're supposed to have. We must be extremely cautions for a source being wrong. If someone who does not use the internet frequently and decides to read the Maria Kannellis article today, they may be reading false information. And when we find out it's false and take it out, the reader will never find out because they didn't re-read the article. Remember that articles in an encyclopedia are only meant to be read once; and all information at the time of reading should be 100% true. Feedback ☎ 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Amen --EndlessDan 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maria PlayBoy? 

message: An editor has been consistenly vandalizing this article by removing the bit about his rehabilition with WWE's Wellness Policy. It's unsourced, but a "factdate" tag is present, so I see no reason for it to be removed. Could someone help revert it, I think I've already passed the three-revert rule, to be honest...Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a way to go around the 3RR rule; just manually add the information to the article everytime he removes it. Technically, you're not reverting. Feedback ☎ 23:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. If you keep adding or removing the same information (despite the method used), you can blocked for violating the rule. Nikki311 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh then... nevermind. Feedback ☎ 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: added to my watchlistLessThanClippers (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: According to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, the article needs to adhere to the standards of a biography of a living person. Stating that a person is in rehabilitation for a drug addiction definitely qualifies as contentious material in my opinion, even if the subject is an admitted drug user. A "citation needed" tag is insufficient in a situation like that, and Wikipedia policy states that the information should be removed until a reliable source is found. Sorry, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a source. TJ Spyke 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be what we normally call a reliable source, but the statement in the article is simply that wrestling websites have said he is in rehab. Adding a source for that works for me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for correcting me, Gary. And thanks for the help. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In the short time since I wrote this, his edits were reverted, he made them again, I reverted, he made them again. I looked at his edit history, He only edits Jake Roberts. This looks like a violation based on bias. What is the next step?LessThanClippers (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning to wait for the results of the 3RR report for now. Perhaps requesting a third opinion if necessary? And, for the record, I agree. I also think that this violates WP:COI and possibly Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I sympathize with Jake for wanting to keep this information private, but encyclopedias are not written by the people they cover. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether Jake or his family want the info included or not doesn't matter. Lindsay Lohan's lawyer doesn't like the fact that her drinking on New Year's Eve (when she's supposed to be sober after just getting out of rehab not too long ago), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't include it. Jake's family confirmed the report, so it should be included. TJ Spyke 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jake Roberts]] 

message: New Year's Revolution (2007) has been nominated for FA-status. I'm a tad concerned about the nomination as the article is only at B-Class at the moment, and hasn't gone through GAN or nothing. While I believe that it could have a chance at FA, I personally feel that the main editor should of gone to GAN first. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked at the help desk, and I was told that if the article is good enough, I should nominate it for FA. I was told that GAN is for articles that don't have a chance for FA; however, I believe mine does, so I nominated it. Also, I did announce it to the project that I had plans to nominate it before and no one objected. Feedback ☎ 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI... 

message: Isn't it time for this article to be deleted? Feedback ☎ 22:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IDK. The Triple Crown Championship seems important to me. What are your reasons? Nikki311 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Nikki, to me it's an important accomplishment and with a little work it could in the future be nominated into a featured list. Also state your reasons why you want to delete it?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Triple Crown Championship" hasn't been mentioned in years, and I think it was just an angle just to place more prestige on wrestlers, and the angle was eventually dropped. The Triple Crown Championship can be on each wrestler's article in the "Championships and Accomplishments" section. Also, the article ha close to no sourcing.Feedback ☎ 22:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The unofficial champions section and OVW section are the main issues I see with the article. The unoffical section (which I just removed, but I can bet will be re-added) is original research and nothing more. We simply don't need OR sections in place, just in case WWE announces the U.S title will be added. As for OVW: no sourcing at all and original research also. Just because OVW is part of WWE, doesn't mean they mention wrestlers as triple crown champions. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah but I remember on RAW during an HBK match not too long ago, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler mentioned HBK as a Triple Crown Champion and some articles on WWE.com mention the Triple Crown ChampionshipTrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article should stay. If its noted in WWE.com, then its reliable here. Right? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may appear on wwe.com, but that doesn't mean it warrants its own article. Feedback ☎ 02:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes but come on Triple Crown is important, especially to TNA. And they use it the most.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: TNA can stay. However, everything else is OR. Feedback ☎ 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Email WWE let them decide..:p, but I think it should stay put up a poll.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: According to WP:N, notability doesn't fade. Just because WWE doesn't rarely mentions the Triple Crown now doesn't mean it isn't still notable. As for TNA, Styles only needs to be listed once since you can't achieve the status more than once (yes I know what TNA says, but that was to make him sound more impressive), you don't see us listing Shawn Michaels 3 times (even though he's won the WWE title 3 times, IC Title 3 times, and Tag Team Title 3 times). TJ Spyke 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: WWE and TNA are different companies. They can create different rules for their Triple Crowns. I believe that WWE retired using the term Triple Crown, because it hasn't been seen or heard of. Why don't Randy Orton and Edge, our current heel world champions, brag about being Triple Crowns? Why don't they hype Ric Flair more for his storyline, by calling him a Triple Crown? How about Triple H, Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels (the top Raw babyfaces!)? Feedback ☎ 03:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Triple Crown can't really be retired since it's just a term used for wrestlers who have won certain titles. Like I said, WWE may not use the term anymore but that doesn't make it non-notable anymore (since notability doesn't fade). TNA can call Styles a 3 time triple crown winner all they want, doesn't make it true IMO since you can't win it more than once (there are 2 TC achievers in TNA history, with Angle being the only true one so far since Styles has not won the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. He won the NWA World Tag Team Championship). TJ Spyke 03:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Triple Crown Championship|WWE Triple Crown]] 

message: Just wanted to inform project members that this wrestling-related article is up for deletion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one. Both were created by Rlipstock. I suggest we keep a good eye on his contributions. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He also created Category:World Champion Stables. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm getting pretty tired of RLipstock. If you've checked his talk page, he has tons of warnings and the like. I can't even count how many of his edits I've immediately reverted. I can't tell (and am really trying to assume good faith here) if he is subtly vandalizing or just makes plain bad contributions. I hate to say that about someone, and I think most people here can I agree that I normally wouldn't, but enough is enough. Should we try to coach him about how to edit properly or what? Nikki311 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The coaching would be a good idea. But, if he's still doesn't understand, then maybe he should take a vacation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I too, am getting quite tired of him. I've been reverting his edits for months, but I can't call them vandalism... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2008 Extreme Championship Wrestling results. –– Lid(Talk) 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notice: [[Talk shows in pro Wrestling]] 

message: For the sake of the WWE New Year's Revolution article to be complete, I shall begin work on New Year's Revolution (2005) in my sandbox. CHEERS, Feedback ☎ 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. Adamaniac is working on the article in his sandbox. D.M.N. (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's fine with me. I think I'll finish off with NYR07's FAC before going on with another article. I just thought of doing it because there was only one left to start constructing the WWE New Year's Revolution article. Feedback ☎ 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. I am working on it, but I've had family over from overseas lately and it's very difficult to get free time to write anything up. They leave soon, so hopefully it won't take me too much longer. AdaManiac 00:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Year's Revolution (2005) 

message: Ok, havent done one of these "solo" in a while, and this one should have alot of sources. So I am going to work on OTE '99. R.I.P. Owen Hart.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep a good eye on the progress you make. :) D.M.N. (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, ha. Thanks, I see you have done so. And I want to thank YOu CHEERS =)--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats OK. I also added the construction tag so no one else storms along and redirects it to WWF Over the Edge (not saying anyone would; but someone might.) Good work so far. D.M.N. (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I really feel this is a future FA/GA. Very notable event not to have its own article.=)TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Over the Edge (1999)]] 

message: Have been declared as Up For Grabs:
*King of the Ring (1998)
*Starrcade (2000)
*Cyber Sunday (2006)
*Judgment Day (2006)
Does anyone here have enough expertise on any of them to be able to expand them? Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, would someone like to volunteer to expand Over the Edge 1998, so then we can make the Over the Edge page similar to the WWE No Way Out and ECW December to Dismember articles?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following PPVs.... 

message: I was on Yahoo Answers, and people really rely on Wiki, saying how the Elimination Chamber is official. Just letting you all know.   --TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Classic stuff. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Way Out funny find 

message: I've been working on expanding this article, and I started with the Championships section. I have a couple of questions, though: Should the ESA International Tag Team Championship be listed? According to the Wikipedia article, the promotion seems to have awarded the title to the Brisco Brothers even though they didn't wrestle in the area as a team. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. They awarded them the title even though they didn't even wrestle there as a team? That's doesn't make much sense. If it is listed on any of the various title history websites, then I guess it should be included...otherwise, just remove it. Nikki311 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that it was to give the title some credibility or something, kind of like how some promotions introduced a tag team title by awarding it to a team for winning a tournament that never really took place (see The Fabulous Kangaroos). Thanks for the input. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jack Brisco]] question 

message: This article was nominated for deletion a couple of days ago. It doesn't have many votes/opinions yet, so I just thought I'd let you know. You can vote here. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been a regular tag team for several months and are competing for the WWE Tag Team Championship this Tuesday. Tough call. TJ Spyke 06:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but then again the Eugene and William Regal article was deleted, and they won the tag team championship together. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So was Kane and The Big Show (which by the way has been recreated). Nenog (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Eugene and Regal weren't really much of a team though (same with Kane and The Big Show) since they were just little more than two singles wrestlers teaming up. Moore and Yang have basically become a real tag team in that they have concentrated soley on the tag team division since WWE seemed to drop the cruiserweight divison back in September. I agree that the article needs third party sources though. TJ Spyke 06:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I still think it should be deleted, but I suppose we'll have to wait for the the Afd to close. If the result is keep though, I'll certainly help with sources, etc. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang]] 

message: I was wondering if anyone knows what's going on with the article statistics on the WP:PW page. As far as I know, they're updated by a bot every 3 days or so. It's been 7 days since the last update, though. Is something wrong, or does it just take this long sometimes? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated it now, using this tool. It should be OK now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article statistics updates? 

message: I was wondering, can the website be a reliable source? The only reason I ask this is because Truco made an interesting point at the Vengeance peer review. Can it be a reliable source? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see why not. It seems to provide detailed TV reports. Cheers, Davnel03Sign It, Junior! 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. Will continue to use. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can write a fake detailed TV report. You know, this reliable source thing has gone for months, and I am kind of getting tired of it. What's wrong with the TV reports on WWE.Com? They're perfect and come from the company! You don't need other sites. Also, if any other site that looks professional is a reliable source, then wouldn't that make anything you find on Wikipedia.org reliable? Feedback ☎ 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Damn calm down Feed, its for verifablity man one source for the whole thing makes the article more reliable.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feed, WWE.com tells me nothing about the complete match history of WCW. Well rather, a good portion of it. Mshake3 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we agree that the website is reliable..... still? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What current event have they "lied" about? D.M.N. (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in general regarding behind the scenes stuff and future plans and whatnot. Why do you think we keep calling these sites unreliable? Mshake3 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason is that they can't back up statements. For example, if ProWrestlingScoops says "Jeff Hardy was inactive due tu injury", we can't write so on the page. However, if we did, we could write "PWS states that Jeff Hardy was inactive due tu injury". But, if WrestleView says "Jeff Hardy was inactive due to his suspension", then how do we choose which to write down? Is one more reliable than the other? If so, why [because they seem equally unreliable]? The vast different answers that these questions can have, are the second reason that why we can't post the info from dirtsheets. Feedback ☎ 04:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If one source disagrees, they're all wrong. Got it. Mshake3 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. If one's wrong, the other has to be right. And because we wouldn't know which is right and which is wrong, then all should be discredited. Feedback ☎ 06:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  My humble opinion is that dirtsheets/fansites et al should only ever be used to corroborate official releases and not be a direct source themselves. My main concerns with dirtsheets are inaccuracy both in content and style. If the dirtsheet can cite sources for their information then the sources should be cited and quoted rather than directly citing the dirtsheet to avoid original research. For example: Wrestling organistation says wrestler X was released from contract amicably, dirtsheet reports that Wrestler Y has posted on his official website that "X was caught doing XXX to YYY and that's why he was released", for wiki purposes we should quote the source (in this case the wrestlers official website), if it can verified. Ideally for controversial issues there should be multiple sources. You can shoot me down now! :-P Sparkyboi (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PWWEW.net 

message: This may not be important, but, I was going through some articles and after going through them I stumbled into this and was wondering should the image be there or should it be removed? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It`s a free use image. -- Scorpion0422 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say it should stay, it sort of shows what they mean in the section about tag-team wikipedians.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 01:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Just wanted to know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel honored. Mshake3 (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A WP:PW added this cade and murdoch image (User:Scorpion0422 to be exact), but he changed a previous image that was there.Edit is right here.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I replaced it because the Rated RKO image that was there before was kind of low quality, so I put one of Cade & Murdoch (who were tag team champions at the time) -- Scorpion0422 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Cade Murdoch No Mercy 07.jpg]] 

message: Should this category exist? It's a category for stables that have had at least 1 world champion. TJ Spyke 02:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hell NO, this category makes no sense wat so ever. Delete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's notable. Feedback ☎ 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have nominated it for deletion yesterday if I knew how. It's another useless RLipstock contribution. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CFD. It's where you nominate categories for deletion or renaming. TJ Spyke 05:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it for deletion. D.M.N. (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:World Champion Stables]] 

message: Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've stared the expansion of No Mercy (2006). Cheers, LAX 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's off to a good start, but I think the references might be a bit of overkill. I don't understand why the results of a match (winner and time) would need 8 references. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy sh**, Gary is right. That is ref OVERKILL, There is no limit but more than 4 is over kill.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought that up on the talkpage. Individual matches, IMO, should have 3 max (2 would actually be enough). TJ Spyke 01:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done I've kept the SLAM! Review and WWE sources. Cheers, LAX 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. I can see why you have 4/5 sources for the Dark match, as this is hardly ever verified by WWE. Good start! D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article - [[No Mercy (2006)]] 

message: I put The Mexicools up for AFD. The link is in the headline. iMatthew (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the article is not under the scope of WP:PW (even though it should be). Second of all, they are a notable stable and they had a 20 month run in the WWE. Feedback ☎ 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, please read my comment on the AFD page. iMatthew (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say we should make it a CotW to improve it, not delete it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. iMatthew (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've (non-admin closure) closed the AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feed, why wouldn't a professional wrestling stable not be under the scope of the professional wrestling WikiProject? TJ Spyke 22:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't have a WP:PW template on the Talk page, so it's never been listed as one of the articles under the scope of the project. Nikki fixed this today by adding the template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If you find an article that comes under our scope, just add it to the talkpage. On that note, do celebrities that have had a role in wrestling get to have the template on their talkpage, for instance Kevin Federline; Donald Trump; Mike Tyson etc.. D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No; it's just like if a singer guest stars in a TV Show, you wouldn't put them under WikiProject Television. Feedback ☎ 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Notice - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mexicools|The Mexicools]] 

message: I recently added No Way Out (2005) up for grabs, as I haven't really contributed to the article. But, if its alright with everyone, I will be working on WrestleMania 21. Zenlax T C S 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WrestleMania 21]] 

message: Apparently Steve Corino has not retired, just retired the "Corino" name, and is going by Mr. Wrestling III now. Maybe his article should reflect that? Kris (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really because superstar/tag team/stable pages are named after what they are best known as, for example, The Major Brothers, they changed their name, but they are best known as "Major Brothers" and not Hawkins and Ryder.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh then yes you can add the required updates but it must be properly sourced with reliable sources.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Corino 

message: I think the project needs more admins among its ranks cause I'm sick of reverting vandalism and the idiot not even getting a slightest temp ban or warning. So, who would be willing to become an admin? I would back most of the core members of the project. Jordan Morrison Payne 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would but I would easily be decline I think.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think Naha would be pretty fit for the job. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I might put myself up because I may not have millions of edits but I do know how to edit properly and such. Only things I have a problem with are HTML coding. Jordan Morrison Payne 17:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm with Gavyn, Naha would be great for the job. Also, she is probably the member with the best chance of succeeding. SexySeaBass 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Nominate her then. By the way, while you are at it check this out. Jordan Morrison Payne 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No. You need a lot more experience and need a good grasp of the policies on Wikipedia. You need to get stuck in at WP:XFD, WP:ANI and them sort of places. As we are discussing admin stuff, I'd like to direct you to this. :) D.M.N. (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I just don't think that you've experienced enough on here to be capable of using the tools correctly at this time. Also, asking for support on a project talk page, ie attempted votestacking, is very, very frowned upon. SexySeaBass 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the RfA was quickly closed, sorry. (Please do not add any more votes!)--12 Noon 2¢ 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel Naha, D.M.N, and TJ Spyke are good candidates for admin as well.--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 04:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the SexySeaBass himself? Hell what about me? :P-- bulletproof 3:16 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get into details, but suffice it to say that I haven't got a snowballs chance in hell of becoming an admin (not that I wouldn't want to be one, but take a look at my block log to see why it's not gonna happen). TJ Spyke 04:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I would love everyone here to be nominated as an admin, HELL I WANT TO BE AN ADMIN, but some of us dont qualify, like me I dont have enough edits. I would be bashed by other users in my candidacy. But like I said not all of us qualify, I mentioned those names because I am more familiar with their works and I know them well. But im sure other users would have a chance.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I never really understood what the big deal about being an admin is... Seems like a lot more work to me. -- Scorpion0422 05:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's like being named the hall monitor in school, or being mod on a messageboard; it's being in a position of authority. Admins can also protect pages, block users, and juts fight vandalism a lot quicker than non-admins. Like with anything else though, there are people who abuse their authority (like a certain admin who had a vendetta against me and finally got de-sysopped after several other editors also complained about him and his abuse of admin powers). TJ Spyke 05:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I ask who?-- bulletproof 3:16 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Alkivar. Notice that he "retired" as soon as he was de-sysopped. TJ Spyke 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh... Must have happened while I was on a Wikibreak.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly a lot of new work, and there is a lot more scrutiny as well, any wrong move and you find a thread in AN/I claiming sysop misconduct on your behalf, just take a look at that page and you will see what I mean. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, with Nikki those users also have a chance. *Plus the above comment is coming from an admin herself. One question though I looked at some candidacies and they bashed users about their number of edits. Is that really important?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That is Mr. "Sexy" SeaBass :-) - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit count isn't a requirement, but a lot of the regulars at RFA view low edit count as not having much experience and thus not someone who should have the tools that admins get. TJ Spyke 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, I notice that most of the adminships are determined by how well they answer the admin questions. Well, belated Congrats to Nikki for her adminship! Cheers! =D TJ What block log were you referring to?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . I don't feel like diggin up the links, but the block that kept me away for July and August was not one that was supported (Alkivar gave me a permanent block). One of the conditions for my unblocking is that I am on a perment 1RR (the exceptions being reverting vandalism and applying a consensus). TJ Spyke 05:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so supposely you violated the 3RR rule?TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It started when I got into an argument with a user named BlueShrek (who was later discovered to be a sockpuppet of Wrestlinglover420, a vandal who kept popping back up to vandalize wrestling articles). During my block, Alkivar turned it into a permanet one citing BLP reasons (the same reason he perma-blocked me earlier that year, that block had been overturned after a few hours due to the fact that I had just sourced an article minutes before he blocked me) and apparently just not liking me. There's more to the story, but all that matters it I won't be an admin anytime soon (if ever). I think the people named by Nikki would all be good. TJ Spyke 05:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, sorry man. But yeah those people are kool to be admins.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew about both Spyke's and Hybrid's situations on this matter, hence why I recommended Naha. But honestly, I think all of the regulars in this project have some shot at a being an admin. Especially Naha, bulletproof, Bdve and DMN. And yeah, the BlueShrek situation was very unfortunate and got way out of control. But that's neither here nor there, really. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Admin? 

message: FOr those curious, this is what our article statistics thing looked like on December 31, 2006:
Professional wrestlingarticles	Professional wrestlingarticles	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance
Professional wrestlingarticles	Professional wrestlingarticles	          	          	          	          	          	Total
Class                         	                              	          	          	          	          	          	
Class                         	                              	          	          	          	          	          	
Class                         	                              	          	          	          	          	          	
Class                         	                              	          	          	2         	          	1         	3
Class                         	                              	1         	11        	16        	15        	6         	49
Class                         	                              	          	4         	7         	18        	28        	57
Class                         	                              	          	1         	3         	11        	37        	52
Class                         	                              	1         	4         	10        	48        	1429      	1492
Class                         	Total                         	2         	20        	38        	92        	1501      	1653
And this is it on December 30, 2007:
Professional wrestlingarticles	Professional wrestlingarticles	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance	Importance
Professional wrestlingarticles	Professional wrestlingarticles	          	          	          	          	Total     	
Quality                       	                              	          	          	          	          	          	
Quality                       	                              	          	          	3         	21        	24        	
Quality                       	                              	          	4         	3         	18        	25        	
Quality                       	                              	1         	9         	30        	160       	200       	
Quality                       	                              	1         	43        	180       	2030      	2254      	
Quality                       	                              	          	1         	27        	704       	732       	
Quality                       	                              	2         	57        	243       	2933      	3235      	
Quality                       	Total                         	2         	57        	243       	2933      	3235      	
Quite an improvement. In late 2006, we had 3 GAs (these are our top articles from that date) and now we have 5 FAs, 20 FLs, an FT and 26 GAs. We were definitely one of the most improved projects in 2007 (although those of us in WP:SIMPSONS got 60 GAs in 2007, but a lot of them were episode pages). -- Scorpion0422 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: January 30, 2007?? Is that a typo? Haven't you got the 2007 data? D.M.N. (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: December 30th was the last day in 2007 that the bot was run, so there is a small margin of error. -- Scorpion0422 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for posting this. I personally find this very interesting because I like to stay on top of the assessments given to our articles. Awhile back, I went through all of the articles to make sure they were tagged properly (if they were tagged at all) and basically cleaned up the mess. Good to know. Nikki311 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, 2007 was a great year for the project then. We really pulled together. Here's to an even better 2008! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, couldn't resist: :)
		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		for a superb 2007 year, which included our first FA. Here's to a great '08! Here's a target: 6 more FA's before the end of the year. Isn't it realistic! :) D.M.N. (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's very possible. Like I said, I went through all the categories and tagged all the articles that didn't have the tag on the talk page (and there were a lot, especially when it came to wrestlers who weren't American). Other than that, the Articles for Creation people have made a ton of wrestling articles. Plus, the PPV expansion is increasing the number, as well. Nikki311 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of 2007 article stats 

message: I was interested in reviewing a Good Article nomination. I noticed that it needed copyediting, so I went through the article and fixed it up. Does this count as "contributing significantly" to the article, thus disqualifying me from reviewing the article? I made no major changes, but I just wanted to ensure that this is not considered a conflict of interest (the article is not a WP:PW article). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so, some reviewers prefer to let the regular contributers make all the necessary changes, while others (like me) make some changes themselves. As long, as you didn't contribute significantly to the article before the review, I think it's okay. -- Scorpion0422 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. The big problem I have is that I haven't been able to find a definition of "significantly contributing" anywhere on Wikipedia. The main things I did were add or remove commas, change references to the subject by his first name to his last name, and add wikilinks to a few words for clarification. There were also a few places where I thought the sentence structure could be improved, so I fixed those as well. Does this add up to a "significant contribution"? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in my view. I think "significant contribution" means when you've virtually written the whole article, or done a copy-edit of it. The wikilinking and stuff, anybody from this project wikilinks stuff. Unless you've written parts of the article, I say, go ahead, review it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh you mean the copyedit you did on Roberto Clemente? it was done really well (I must admit that my prose can be wordy) but doesn't really constitute "contributing significantly", all around you copyedited the article within less than ten edits and most changes were puntuation and tweaks to the prose, I have seen experienced reviewers do simmilar edits as well as minor referecing, in any case if you decide to review it I am ready to attend it, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request re: Good Article reviews 

message: So I have stumbled on this article, and cleaned ups oem vandalism a few days ago.  Since then, the vandalism has been OUT OF CONTROL. What is the history of this article, and why is it being subjected to soooo much vandalism by IP edits that have never been on before. It just seems strange.LessThanClippers (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the history of the article, but two very distinct possibilities are: 1) It's the same guy who keeps coming back with different IPs or 2) A forum has been talking about the article and various people have come here to vandalize the page. -- Scorpion0422 18:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems like a strange one to target.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, might be. I've put it on my watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's probably because of his youtube account. He apparently posted videos criticising everyone and everything in wrestling. That could possibly have something to do with the vandlism. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And, its been approved. Good, good. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Phil Theis]] 

message: Does anyone know of any sources that can be used on the page? It's never had a single source on it, and it's been tagged as such since May 2007. -- Scorpion0422 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. A quick Google search didn't bring up anything. Sorry. Nikki311 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we remove them from the articles?  Speed CG Talk 17:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever has the magazines can use the CITE:BOOK template. Feedback ☎ 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think they have magazines, at least I have never seen any (unless the only way to get them is by subscription because I have never seen any in stores). If it's online only, it would be the cite web. The only award from them I know can be sourced is their Hall of Fame, which is included in PWI's annual "Wrestling Almanac and Book of Facts" since PWI considers it the official HOF for wrestling. TJ Spyke 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, TWO is a newsletter. The site mostly doesn't give you ANY information. They don't say anything on the site, so you can look for it in the mag. Feedback ☎ 01:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think scorpion is asking for a actual source though. Right now there is no way for anyone to check and see if those awards and winners are correct. TJ Spyke 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can order back issues from the site.  Anyway, the past awards are reprinted in each year's awards issue.  At least they were last year.  This year's awards issue comes out in a couple weeks, so now's the time to subscribe if you want a copy (geez, I sound like I'm trying to sell the thing!).  I could cite the entire article using my copy of last year's awards issue, but that seems kind of flimsy to me, since it would basically be one citation over and over again for the whole thing.  Maybe I'll start by citing last year's awards. - Geoffg (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If its one source that covers most (or in this case all) of the article you don't need in-line citations. Just put the source in the reference section. Nenog (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else would have to do it. I'm not gonna support a dirtsheet by giving them my money. The only thing I use Meltzer's site for are SmackDown spoiler reports and WWE/TNA PPV coverage. TJ Spyke 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you say dirtsheet like it's a bad thing. Mshake3 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards]] 

message: I just nominated a article for next week and was wondering if we should archive the nominations that are there wich were intended for last week, I just asking because I wasn't active that week and don't want to post an nomination that would break the limit. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't sure if it was ok to nominate an article considering the previous articles are still up. What can be done about this? iMatthew (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Dusty Rhodes should be removed from the Collaboration list. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Dusty Rhodes should be promoted as this week's COW and the other articles should probably be archived or given later dates. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Collaboration of the week]] 

message: A lot of WWE Superstars/Announcers/Development Stars/ are not yet notable to have their own profile. Yet, they are still under contract to the WWE, or appear on the shows regularly. I propose that we create one article for those Superstars (the Superstar would have a section on that page with basic information about them). Basic information that would be enough to know who the person is, what they do, why they are here, etc. Superstars such as Ranjin Singh aren't ready for their own article, but maybe we could give him a section on the new page, with basic information about him. iMatthew (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and once/if they become notable, they can move off of the page and into their own article. iMatthew (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so because most of these un-notable people dont have reliable sources that we can use to cite in this "new article". Some of them dont even have their own WWE.com profile. I think with just what's listed in the WWE roster article is enough for them.TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article would serve well for someone who doesn't have any knowledge of the person being written about. It would just be some background information about them. iMatthew (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, if someone who didn't give a shit for professional wrestling knew who the wrestler is, then the wrestler must be notable. In other words, it will be very hard to encounter someone who knows who Ranjin Singh is and yet doesn't know anything about pro wrestling. Feedback ☎05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could note in the article that these are all non-notable superstars, and for a Roster of the notable WWE Superstars please see, (WWE Roster). iMatthew (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Certain WWE Superstars 

message: Just a little heads up, this user is going around and changin birthdates to multple wrestlers articles without citing any sources. I have reverted several, but haven't gotten all of them and he/she may continue. TJ Spyke 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User talk:Shermanvermin 

message: :Please look at Archive.org to see if you can fix the links.
===Featured Articles===
====CM Punk====
has 12 broken links; I think that's terrible for one of our "best articles".
:Only 4 broken now (1 from WWE.com). D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix them myself, but couldn't. What do you suggest? Feedback ☎07:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now has 0 broken links D.M.N. (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed, it only had two.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still one that is supposed to be a webcast with Mick Foley, but it redirects to the site's homepage. Feedback ☎ 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked, and now reads as working through the tool.«»bd(talk stalk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 1 broken link«»bd(talk stalk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed one (Wrestleline.com), Archived four (Benoit), moved one (Warrior). Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed this one. Nikki311 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 1 broken links, comes up on a search of the site, but then is broken.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed, 100% working.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed, one reports as still broken by design.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: xcuse my newbieism.  When you say broken links, are your referring to internal links or external links?LessThanClippers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, they are External Links. I will specify it above in the heading. Feedback ☎ 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Broken Links 

message: ====CM Punk====
has 12 broken links; I think that's terrible for one of our "best articles".
:Only 4 broken now (1 from WWE.com). D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix them myself, but couldn't. What do you suggest? Feedback ☎07:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Now has 0 broken links D.M.N. (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed, it only had two.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still one that is supposed to be a webcast with Mick Foley, but it redirects to the site's homepage. Feedback ☎ 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked, and now reads as working through the tool.«»bd(talk stalk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Articles

message: has 12 broken links; I think that's terrible for one of our "best articles".
:Only 4 broken now (1 from WWE.com). D.M.N. (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix them myself, but couldn't. What do you suggest? Feedback ☎07:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CM Punk]]

message: 3 broken links
:Now has 0 broken links D.M.N. (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[December to Dismember (2006)]]

message: Our first Featured Article has 7 broken links
:Fixed, it only had two.«»bd(talk stalk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still one that is supposed to be a webcast with Mick Foley, but it redirects to the site's homepage. Feedback ☎ 01:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It worked, and now reads as working through the tool.«»bd(talk stalk) 04:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Montreal Screwjob]]

message: ====AJPW Triple Crown Championship====
2 broken links
====CZW World Heavyweight Championship====
4 broken links
:1 broken link«»bd(talk stalk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Removed one (Wrestleline.com), Archived four (Benoit), moved one (Warrior). Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed this one. Nikki311 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featued Lists

message: 4 broken links
:1 broken link«»bd(talk stalk) 14:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[CZW World Heavyweight Championship]]

message: 2 broken links.
:Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame]]

message: 6 broken links
:Removed one (Wrestleline.com), Archived four (Benoit), moved one (Warrior). Fixed.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of WWE Intercontinental Champions]]

message: 3 broken links
:Fixed this one. Nikki311 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of WWE United States Champions]]

message: ====All Star Pro-Wrestling====
4 broken links 
====Amy Dumas====
4 broken links
:1 broken links, comes up on a search of the site, but then is broken.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, 100% working.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Fixed, one reports as still broken by design.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: xcuse my newbieism.  When you say broken links, are your referring to internal links or external links?LessThanClippers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, they are External Links. I will specify it above in the heading. Feedback ☎ 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Articles

message: 4 broken links
:1 broken links, comes up on a search of the site, but then is broken.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Amy Dumas]]

message: 7 broken links
:Fixed, 100% working.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[John Cena]]; [[WP:PWCOTW|Current COTW]]

message: 11 broken links
:Fixed, one reports as still broken by design.«»bd(talk stalk) 19:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Konnan]]

message: These articles do not have broken links; however, there are 6 links in Kurt Angle and 3 links in Trish Stratus that redirect to the homepage of their respective site, because the articles don't exist. Feedback ☎ 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kurt Angle]] and [[Trish Stratus]]

message: 3 broken links
: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: xcuse my newbieism.  When you say broken links, are your referring to internal links or external links?LessThanClippers (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, they are External Links. I will specify it above in the heading. Feedback ☎ 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Shawn Michaels]]

message: It's late Tuesday and no newsletter. What gives? Is Mizabot on the fritz? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking that it might be because we don't have the information in yet. Nobody seems to know what's going on with the Collaboration of the Week. Personally, I think Dusty Rhodes could use another week, because not many people had a chance to contribute last week. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, one more week won't hurt. But, what's going on with the newsletter? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, there was news out there, but none of it was reliably sourced, and apparently (again), the newsletter requires sources. Mshake3 (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe Mizabot just glitched. I just received the very first newsletter on my talk page (November 1st issue). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same... hezekiah (talk to me) 20:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just coming to see if there was already a discussion about this.  I recieved the 1st Edition of the Newsletter too heh. --Naha|(talk) 01:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. The error has been corrected. The Chronic 05:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Newsletter this week? 

message: I've been going through a bunch of WP:PW stub articles, and this video game series stood out. The article for the first game, All Star Pro-Wrestling, is fine. The articles for the others (All Star Pro-Wrestling II and All Star Pro-Wrestling III) have two sentences each. Since the sequels are already mentioned in the article for the first game, would it make sense to just merge them into one article and make II and III into redirects? If so, is that the sort of change that would need to be voted on? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one support it. I'd say to  merge everything into an article on the series, and if someone would like to expand seperate articles for each game, then they can do so. But until an editor who wants to do so does not speak up, then they should be merged. Feedback ☎08:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am against merging multiple video games into one article. They should be expanded, yes, and that's what  is for. TJ Spyke 01:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[All Star Pro-Wrestling]] and sequels 

message: can you all add this to your watch list, someone keeps adding a statement about him having 6 toes unsourced, i have removed it twice but i only have 1 left under the 3R's rule. Skitzo (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like an edit war in the making.  Could we get the page semi-protected? ArcAngel (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a violation of WP:BLP, so I protected the page for 36 hours. Hopefully, that'll deter the IP. If he comes back after the protection expires, I'll protect it longer. Nikki311 19:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Todd Grisham]] 

message: I got a few things updated on the COTW subpage. I updated the template and I added the notice to the Dusty Rhodes talk tage. I added the Former COTW template to the John Cena talk page, and I updated the diffs on the Former COTWs table. I'm not sure how to add Dusty Rhodes to the COTWs table or how to archive nominees (Cena and Rhodes, at the very least, need to be archived). After that, I think the page should be up to date (unless anyone wants to do some pruning). If someone has a chance, could they please update the table and archive those two nominations? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Rhodes' nomination, pruned nominations, updated "past collaborations" and "removed nominations" lists. --202.180.171.153 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  COTW Updates 

message: someone with an annominous IP keeps removing her from the WWE roster, we need to keep an eye on this, unless we have a source for her release.Skitzo (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the blurb at Pussycat_Dolls_Present:#Anastacia_McPherson needs verified also. ArcAngel (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anastacia McPherson 

message: I think it would be a good idea to provide a link to currently active wrestling-wrestled deletion discussions each week in the newsletter. It would keep project members informed about articles being discussed for deletion every week. I know that I often don't find out about the discussions (and frankly, it would probably be a little much to have every single one of them posted on the talk page here), but it might be good to have a link that people can click to see what's being discussed each week. Any thoughts? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea. Nikki311 20:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's normally sheer blind luck that i find out about them. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to the newsletter 

message: Is this really notable? The article is basically stuff that is on Pacman's article. The team was only together for 2 months? This is an example why the Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang shouldnt be created now.. Thoughts?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 21:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, because of the attatched contreversy, a wrestler who couldn't wrestle, and the fact that they won gold, makes them notable enough for an article, even if it is quite weak.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but still, an article built on info in the Pacman article and an article for 1 short title reign? But if you all insist so..--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 22:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not stuff in the Pacman Jones article since I removed the redundant information and put a  template a month ago.«»bd(talk stalk) 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Team Pacman]] 

message: Just a quick heads up: Peteash802005 (a new Wikipedia editor) created an account today and has been editing articles. His edits seem well intentioned, but they seem to consist of adding redundant wikilinks, adding unsourced trivia, and accidentally deleting parts of sentences. I'm hoping to have a chance to go through and revert some of them if I have time tomorrow unless anyone gets to them first. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New editor's contributions 

message: Can this image be uploaded? I have never uploaded an image before, and I believe this image is significantly important to the Over the Edge (1999) and Owen Hart article. Help?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would meet Fair Use criteria - I doubt we'll get a free-use image of Owen Hart dying. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 02:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it can be uploaded? Do you know how (if it can be uploaded)?--TrUcO9311 TaLk / SiGn 02:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm, it seems Wikipedia's interpretation of Fair Usage has been tightened during my hiatus. Having double-checked WP:FU and WP:IUP I would say that inclusion hinges around whether the photo would (to quote WP:FU policy) significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, i.e. Owen's death. I personally don't think it does. If you disagree then all you have to do is follow the instructions at WP:UPIMAGE and be prepared to justify the necessity of using the image on its discussion page. It isn't an issue of good taste, simply an issue of copyright (as BBC own the image). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 03:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can this image? 

message: Just wanted to let people know that Category:WWE celebrities is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 9#Category:WWE celebrities in case anyone wants to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another category being discussed for deletion