Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 28

message: Do not comment on these articles here. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything. If you think the article merits keeping, the remove the  template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
* 28 August - expires 2 September
** Billy Reil (PROD by User:Nikki311; professional wrestler from South Philadelphia, debuting in 1995)
*:I'm currently now working on this article. --Naha|(talk) 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Billy Reil I only know of because he was a JAPW Tag Team Champion.  Never head of the rest of them.  Mr. C.C. 07:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: Is there a professional wrestling portal?  I don't ever remember reading or seeing one.  Just thought I would ask.  Mr. C.C. 07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think there is. Davnel03 10:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope, and I don't think we are ready for one yet either.  There is still too much disorganization among this project to start anything new heh :P --Naha|(talk) 15:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but agree with Naha's point. With the amount of disagreements and disorganization in the project (amount of GA's; spoilers; references; notability etc.), and with what's going on currently in wrestling (releases; steroids; suspensions; congress), this certainly isn't the right time for a portal. Davnel03 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I asked. I have thought of starting one.  But will have to work it out in a sandbox or something.  Mr. C.C. 05:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Portal.  A list of all portals on Wikipedia can be found at Portal:List of portals, and for an example of what I consider to be an outstanding portal, see Portal:Scouting.  That being said, some day in the future we may want a portal for Professional Wrestling.  Right now is not that time.  They take a lot of work to keep up properly, and there are many portals on Wikipedia that are severely neglected, see Portal:Baseball (which has actually come a long way since the last time I looked at it, but still has a long way to go as far as being kept up). The reason we do not need a portal now is because the professional wrestling wikiproject is not where it needs to be, not even close.  We need to focus on streamlining and organizing this project, settle most if not all major disputes, and come up with a lot more guidelines and policies  ..this thing can run like clockwork, I've seen it in other projects, we just have to put the necessary effort into it.  At this time, my personal feelings are that ..anyone who wants to spend time on creating a portal, should first (please please please) look into, help figure out ways to, and actually see WP:PW improvement all the way through first. At that point, and at that point only, should thoughts of a portal start circulating.  Its a good idea, for sometime in the future, but right now this project needs anyone/everyone passionate about pro wrestling to get this thing where it needs to be. I just feel like we need to focus efforts before we greatly expand them. The people that stick with this project and keep it up, are going to be the same ones maintaining the portal so we need to get them (us) organized first.  This project needs to be a well-oiled machine. Again these are just my personal feelings and opinions and do not necessarily reflect that of the project or any other individual. --Naha|(talk) 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional Wrestling Portal? 

message: I have proposed to merge Personas of The Undertaker into The Undertaker. The discussion is here. Thanks - Davnel03 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge! 

message: I have put the article up for Peer review as the article recently failed FA. After the peer review, I hope I can renominate it for FA status. If you which to comment on any concerns you may have with the article, please do so here. Thanks, Davnel03 17:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Randy Orton failed on hold by a GA re-review made by LaraLove. The re-review is here. Davnel03 20:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[John Cena]] 

message: I was wondering if these events are considered noteworthy enough to warrant articles.  I was editing some links yesterday, and I was surprised to discover that they don't have articles. GaryColemanFan 20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War to Settle the Score/Brawl to Settle it All 

message: I've been having this problem with an anonymous user in regards to Adam Pearce's page.  I changed his championships and accomplishments to list the actual promotions within the NWA in which he won the Heritage and World Heavyweight Titles.  Those being NWA Pro in regards to the Heritage Title, and International Wrestling Association for the NWA World Title.  I have noticed that this is the way it is done for many of the former NWA World Champions as well, like Harley Race's page where it lists every NWA World Championship reign separately for each promotion he won the title in.  Also of note, the NWA Title changes that took place in WCW, just an example.  Is there a policy in regards to how the Championships and Accomplishments should be structured for cases like these?  Thanks. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NWA Title isn't defended in any one promotion anymore. IWA just happened to host the final match (other NWA promotions hosted earlier matches in the tournament). I would just list it under the general NWA name since it is not exclusive to any one promotion right now. TJ Spyke 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this........ I'm asking should the accomplishment be listed for the individual promotion it was won under, or the NWA itself? TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave my opinion, the NWA itself. The only time we really listed NWA World Title changes under specific promotions was when it was exclusive to the promotion or really only defended in one (WCW/TNA for example). TJ Spyke 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's the case here though, I'm talking about the territory days, those being pre-TNA and now with the belt.  The belt wasn't exclusive to each territory who got each change, look at Harley Race's page, it lists the every promotion he won the title in separately.  I don't know how to be any clearer. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'd actually disagree with the way the Harley Race page is done, since the NWA world title is non promotion specific but ruled on by the board of the NWA, it should be listed under "National Wrestling Alliance" both in the territory days and now that it's gone back to being a territory title like it was in the past. so like TJ has already said twice, "list it under the NWA" not the promotion that happens to host the title change. MPJ-DK 04:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, we can change the Harley Race situation to reflect whatever the decision here is. As for what I think about the situation, I agree with TJ and MPJ-DK. It is a national title currently, not a territory title, and our articles should reflect that. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: With exception of TNA, NWA World Heavyweight Championship was never a one promotion championship.  It's just that some promotions get to host an NWA World Heavyweight Championship match more than others.  Mr. C.C. 05:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, my question remains, is it the promotion the title was won in, or the promotion that controls the title.  Jarrett won the NWA North American Title in the WWF in 1997.  There was a time when the NWA World Title was defended exclusively in another company, and that was WCW for a few years. I can go on and on, but what is the criteria for championships and accomplishments here, the promotion where it was won, or the promotion for.  Either way, Pearce won the title in IWA(an NWA territory once again), a decision made by the NWA board.  You certainly can't say that Jeff Jarrett won the North American Title in the NWA, or that the Headbangers for that matter won the NWA World Tag Titles in the NWA. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should list the title under whichever promotion was controlling it at the time.  In other words, we shouldn't go back and change the historical record to match the current situation.  In Jarrett's case it would go under WWF, and in Race's case it would go under NWA.  As for where the match was held, I think that's incidental.  It might merit a mention in the body of the article, but an inter-territory belt should be listed under the overarching body, like the NWA, not what promotion happened to host the bout. - Geoffg 06:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put, I totally agree MPJ-DK 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NWA World Heavyweight Champions 

message: There is now a brand spanking new GA article as Kurt Angle has been passed. Congratulations to all those involved. MPJ-DK 05:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright! Way to go everyone!  I had a lot of fun reviewing the article :) --Naha|(talk) 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff! On a side note, Randy Orton is currently on GA Hold. I would be much appreciative if you could help me address the points raised, thanks. Davnel03 11:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurt Angle GA 

message: Can anybody get a good copyright notice on this pic: :Image:Evolutiontitles.jpg  ---SilentRAGE! 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a fair use rationale. Hopefully that'll help. Davnel03 20:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution pic 

message: 20 minutes with no response. I'm satisfied. So, if people could comment on my current proposal for a compromise, then that would be great. Once again, my proposal is:
*As part of the project manual of style, we insert hide/show boxes into all of the biography articles under the project's scope similar to the ones on my user page. This would contain any spoilers, and since it's in all of them it wouldn't reveal any title change by being there. The spoiler tags could be placed above and below the box, or we could simply title the box Spoilers and not deal with the tags. When show is clicked, it would reveal a subpage of the article, so someone could edit the spoiler section without it going into the history of the main article. That way, those who want to avoid spoilers simply have to keep the article subpages off of their watchlist, and not click show.
Cheers, The Hybrid 10:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got an idea. Those who want to avoid spoilers don't read articles that contain spoilers. Picaroon (t) 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have no way of knowing which articles those are. That's why that won't work. The Hybrid 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles on wrestling can be expected to contain the details of the event(s) in question. Not including the (verifiable) details is a dereliction of the goals of the encyclopedia, one of which is to provide information. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explains the threshold for inclusion. If information is verified with reliable sources, and its relevance to the article can be established, hiding it in a box is not acceptable. As per the Content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains spoilers." Picaroon (t) 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are talking about a large portion of the people who edit, patrol, and expand these pages leaving as a result of information being inserted a couple of days before the event has taken place. Surely we can wait a few days to insert the information to prevent that from happening. We aren't leaving it out entirely, just postponing it for the good of the encyclopedia. Without the editors, there is no encyclopedia, and without enough editors, there is no good encyclopedia. That is perfectly acceptable, The Hybrid 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Besides, if you read over my compromise, I've found a way to keep the spoilers while not driving these people away. The Hybrid 21:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you're proposing putting the info on a separate page? Sorry, but absolutely not. Splitting edit histories on purpose is not a solution, it is an additional problem. I suppose you expect admins to come along and perform history merges for you once the shows have been aired? If you don't want to see the info, de-watch the articles. Picaroon (t) 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a problem at all. I don't propose history merges; I propose cutting the information, pasting it into the article, and giving credit to the original poster in the edit summary so that they receive attribution. There is no policy against this. The Hybrid 22:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could keep debating you, and expose more and more holes (how do people know to edit the subpage instead of the article? who is going to monitor the subpage for vandalism? which namespace is the subpage going to be in, since it can't be in article space?) in this well-intentioned but completely impractical proposal, but I'm not going to. Simply put, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it contains spoilers, and it is not censored. Just because there is no policy against screwing up the edit history for the sake of users who don't understand the preceding three facts does not mean it is going to be done. Period. Picaroon (t) 22:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to address all of the concerns that you just pointed out, and I am currently writing up my idea in a completely developed way to post in a new section on this talk page. Look at it when I'm finished. The Hybrid 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No hide-show boxes wrapped around article text, please.  The template to create such boxes, Template:Hidden, may completely hide the hidden text when a reader's browser does not support JavaScript, or when a reader has disabled JavaScript in his or her browser.  (For an example, view the navigation boxes of Art Modell with and without JavaScript.)  Doing so is terrible in terms of usability and is a disservice to the readers.  --Iamunknown 03:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Please ignore the statement "There is no room for compromise" as any kind of generalization. In general, there is always room for compromise. 
I don't know the editors here, nor any details of the article or editing history. However, I know a lot about the Wikiguide-level struggle over spoiler and spoiler notice tag philosophy. I'd like to add a philosophical context with an opportunity for negotiation, since it may have some useful effect on the amount and type of disagreements here. Bear with me for some background paragraphs and then I'll make my point. 
If it's not something that editors here have studied or observed, the philosophy of an organizational system controls much, though not all, of its detail behavior. A philosophy that centrally micromanages every detail is known as fascist, or operates by control-freakery in slang terms. A philosophy that centrally manages nothing is known as anarchist, or "wild west" in slang. Either extreme is rarely seen.
Good systems try to strike a balance between central control (top-down pyramid hierarchy) to avoid anarchy, and peripheral control (bottom-up grassroots democracy) to avoid fascism. 
Hierarchies try to hold on to the past and fail to survive by adapting poorly to changing conditions. Anarchies want to dismantle past controls but fail to survive by institutional inability to collectively implement the good strategies or collectively avoid mistakes of the past. 
Social evolution selects balanced (= good) organizational systems for survival, because balanced systems are usually the fittest. (Consider the analogy that the wrestler in nearly perfect physical condition is also in a state of nearly perfect physical and mental balance.) 
By understanding social evolution, individuals (= Wikipedia wrestling editors) can enhance the possibility that their organization will survive by choosing balanced viewpoints, compromises, and accommodations for diverse populations. There is strength in diversity, because  the environment is always changing. Skills, abilities, and other characteristics that may not be useful in the current environment, may become vital for survival in the next environment.
The point of writing this is to address The Hybrid's remark, "All hell has broken loose, and now we're trying to build a dam to stop the flow of hellfire." If this significantly true after discounting some degree of hyperbole, it suggests that the professional wrestling or the WikiProject environments are changing. If I correctly understand him, there is or may be a threat to the survival of usefulness of the professional wrestling articles. 
Remember that I don't know what's 'really' going on. I could analyze it in detail, but it's not my gig. So I'll just remark on what I read from you folks doing the debate in the context of social evolution survival and spoiler/spoiler notice tag philosophy. 
I hear (meaning the message I get from the actual words) The Hybrid saying there's a crisis. Picaroon isn't denying there's a crisis, but I think he's saying there's Wikiguides to be followed, and if WPPW implements the compromise suggested by The Hybrid, it would mean accommodating a class of users of which Picaroon doesn't approve (Picaroon (22:31): "users who don't understand the preceding three facts"). 
Many wrestling fans are union members, or at least are familiar with labor negotiations and collective bargaining. Negotiating and bargaining in good faith is the internationally sanctioned method of reaching a satisfactory compromise which allows organizations to survive and prosper. If editors who disagree are willing to negotiate, the chances of WPPW's usefulness survival will be improved.  
Negotiating for wages and benefits is somewhat different than negotiating among differing organizational philosophies. A way to approach the latter is to find out if the negotiating parties can agree on an ideal state for the foreseeable future. It turns out that an ideal future is easier to agree on than the practical present. An ideal future is not possible to achieve, partly because it's a moving target. However, if parties can agree on what that ideal future is during any particular negotiating period (classically when a contract expires), it creates a unity of purpose among parties with quite different ideas about how to operate in the practical present. 
When there is agreement on an ideal, even a moving one, people work together to achieve that ideal, and many otherwise intractable practical disagreements fall by the wayside. A simple example of this concept is that neighbors who don't ordinarily get along well will unite to repel an invasion of their neighborhood by gangs, because their ideal is a gang-free neighborhood. 
I suggest for an opening negotiation, it's very important to find out whether Picaroon primarily objects to doing things differently, or whether he primarily objects to that certain class of users. Each of those possibilities calls for a differing negotiating strategy. Milo 06:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to comment on this situation. Instead, a member involved in this situation, The Hybrid has decided to retire from Wikipedia, partially because of this argument. Davnel03 08:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's retired again? He'll likely be back. He retired once before and came back about two months later. In any case, this is very unfortunate. In my opinion, he was one of the keystones of the project. It may have to do with the family crisis he mentioned though.
In any case, I agree that negotiations need to happen. I appreciate your mediator skills, Milo as well as the good faith you've shown towards the members of this project (rather rare these days). Gavyn Sykes 15:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opportunity for negotiation toward compromise 

message: Per the previous discussions about this higher up on the page, I've gone ahead and done this.  Please let me know what you think.  I'm sure it could be improved, so please make suggestions also. Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Voting booth|Voting booth]] 

message: I'm just going to be bold and hope this works. We are going to insert a hide/show box into all BLP's under the project scope. When show is clicked, it will reveal an article subpage containing verified spoilers if there are any. Those who don't want to see the spoilers simply have to keep the subpages off of their watchlist, and not click show. This should dramatically shrink the problem spoilers are causing while addressing the concerns over removing verified information. When the show airs, the spoilers can be cut and pasted into the main article with credit being given to the original poster of the information in the edit summary. This addresses the concern that history merges will need to be performed, and also gives attribution to the original poster. We keep these boxes which will look like this...
	Spoilers
...in all of the BLPs under this project's scope. That way the box just being there doesn't create concern. The subpage will contain a subsection heading (three = signs) or sub-subsection heading (4 = signs), depending on the article, which will be titled spoilers. That way anyone coming along who wants to insert spoilers has an edit button to click when they decide to. Those here who don't care whether or not the shows get spoiled for them, I fit into that category, will be the ones to monitor the subpages for vandalism. There are enough of us to handle this task effectively and efficiently. Since pages in article space have the subpage function disabled, we will create the spoiler subpages in project subspace. One naming convention that we could use would be to simply title the subpages Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/ARTICLETITLEspoilers. I believe this to be the easiest one. The way to go about inserting these boxes into articles would be to copy the code for the box, and then copy simply paste the code into the articles. I have used PAGENAME in the code so all that we have to do is copy the code, and paste it without any modifications necessary. After every article has a box, we can go back to the articles and use the redlinks to create the subpage. I'm going to dinner now, so I won't be back on a for a couple of hours, but when I get back on I will begin this process, and I would appreciate any help anyone feels like giving. Cheers, The Hybrid 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't intend to add this to any articles until there is consensus to do so, and I mean consensus across Wikipedia to allow this project an exemption from Wikipedia:Spoiler and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. I'd recommend starting by posting at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Picaroon (t) 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a warped understanding of WP:CENSORED. Read over the section and the links. This is not prohibiting material from being in articles. This is not a disclaimer, either, though there is a slightly better case that you could make for that. This is simply a different way of presenting material in articles which makes the articles available to a broader audience while maintaining the same information. This is not censorship, and this is not preventing verifiable material from being inserted into articles. Therefore, this is not a violation of any policies, and I will be bold in inserting this into articles because I do not need any exemptions from policies. I am not violating any. Now, something important has just come up within my family, so I won't be back on until tomorrow when I will begin. If anyone wants to get a head start on this, then be bold. This is not a violation of any policies, regardless of what Picaroon believes. The Hybrid 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SUBPAGE#Disallowed uses, point three. Daniel 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bad solution to a problem that does not really exist. Also, an individual project consensus cannot override sitewide guidelines such as Wikipedia:Subpages, Wikipedia:Spoiler. If you "will be bold in inserting this into articles", you will be reverted for doing so against guidelines and with no consensus.  Mr.Z-man 03:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I did not notice this section.  I think that my comments above are relevant, so I will post them here.  I strongly object to hide-show boxes wrapped around article text.  The template used to create such boxes, Template:Hidden, may completely hide the hidden text when a reader's browser does not support JavaScript, or when a reader has disabled JavaScript in his or her browser.  (For an example, view the navigation boxes of Art Modell with and without JavaScript.)  Doing so is terrible in terms of usability and is a disservice to the readers.  --Iamunknown 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry to hear that Hybrid. Unfortunately this discussion got so petty and so stupid that it spiraled ou of control. Because of this, I'm only going to be a semi-active member of this WikiProject, as I'm going to be trying some new things in my sandbox. Davnel03 08:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what you want to do, but you should not hide text from the reader. Mr.Z-man 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's what we'll try 

message: * Aaron Casey (PROD by User:RHaworth; "Aaron Casey is a former professional wrestler and promoter currently living in Rochester, NY."  Considered by person proposing for deletion to be a non-notable autobiographical article.) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isn't it listed on the pages nominated for deletion for that day?  It would pretty much be unanimous.  But nevertheless, it should be listed.  Mr. C.C. 05:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) &mdash; 5 September 

message: I've PROD'd this article, because I came across it and it looks rediculous. It looks like a fan made article to me. --ProtoWolf 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nitro (wrestler)]] 

message: To end the headache of reverts and speculation and guessing as to what happened, here is the WWE confirmation regarding the World Tag titles http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch. Apparently they switched hands twice, and currently Cade and Murdoch have them back. Edit articles accordingly. --Naha|(talk) 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE World Tag Titles 

message: You may want to keep watch on the Dave Bautista article. The Wrestlecrappers have struck again, and are bragging about it on this thread on the Wrestlecrap forum. Duo02  *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the page to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads-up. Gavyn Sykes 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to get the page semi-protected by an admin.  This will cut down on any vandalism on the page.  Mr. C.C. 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dave Bautista]] 

message: Deep Shadow and I have been working on Trish Stratus' article, trying to get it ready to be nominated for Good Article status. According to that discussion we had while back on the nomination process, everyone decided it would be a good idea to post here first so other members can look over the article. If you have any suggestions or comments, you can post on the article's talk page (rather than here). If everyone agrees it's ready, then I guess either Deep Shadow or I will nominate the article. Thanks. Nikki311 17:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sweet, thanks for mentioning this here first rather than just nominating it.  Would you two mind taking a look at User:MPJ-DK/Update 3 please? This is something MPJ and I are going to offically propose to the project soon, but since you have gone ahead with the pre-nom notice, I thought you might want to check this out.  I'll look at the article too but may not be able to make any suggestions till later tonight :) Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 17:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I clarified it. Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just so you know I haven't forgotten what I said earlier today, I am currently looking at this article and making list of suggestions.  I haven't found anything too major, but I will post my when I am done in a little while. It looks really good overall. Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. :) Nikki311 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've nitpicked it to death! Pre-GA review posted on Trish's talk page :) --Naha|(talk) 00:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Works for me! --Naha|(talk) 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Trish Stratus]] 

message: I need help in improving the list of NWA World Heavyweight Champions and list of NWA World Tag Team Champions lists. I've improved it some, but I can't completely improve it all alone. I need help. I would consider improving the lists to match the quality of the WWE championship lists (cite sources, cleanup, etc.). Perhaps we could get them to featured list status. Please help! MITB LS (t·c) 03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of NWA World Heayweight & World Tag Team Champions list 

message: Hello.  I am not a member of this project, and I have made very few edits to pro wrestling articles in general.  However, the attention given recently (thanks to the Chris Benoit incident) to early deaths of pro wrestlers led me to search for a WP list of wrestlers who died young.  Finding one did not exist (at least not that I could find), I ended up creating my own: User:Skudrafan1/List of professional wrestlers who died young.  I modeled it on List of ice hockey players who died young.  The hockey article is currently up for deletion, though, on the grounds that it is an indiscriminate list of players.  However, I think a list of wrestlers who died young is more than an indiscriminate list: again, given the recent attention on wrestlers' health.  The list of wrestlers who have died in their 30s and 40s of heart attacks and drug overdoses is staggering.  Do you, the members of WP:PW, think that this should be moved into the mainspace and expanded?  If so, feel free to use what I have already created.  If not, just leave it on my user page and I won't be offended. :) 
Also, I apologize if you have already considered this type of a list and rejected it.  As I said, I am not a member of this WikiProject. Skudrafan1 23:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't understand the point of this list, or any other lists similar to it.  "Young" is a relative and subjective term in the first place.  Also, I'd have to agree with lists of this type being indiscriminate, its not like they all died of the same causes.  There is a pretty wide range of causes actually: suicide, murder, car accident, heart problems, other health issues, etc.  That is my take on it anyway /shrug --Naha|(talk) 00:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  This is why I brought the idea here before I put it on the mainspace; I wanted to gauge opinion rather than just creating and then going through the shame of an AfD :) Skudrafan1 00:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naha, that's why the way they died is listed as well.  It's very well done and should be put in the mainspace.  I mean, if there are other lists like that then why not have one for professional wrestling?  Mr. C.C. 06:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree to put the article up, with all the media buzz, people might be interested in such a list. With the cause of death listed, it will be pretty easy to distinguish between accidents, natural causes and anything involving drugs or foul play. The PW Torch webste has a regular column about deceased wrestlers, lists for 2007 and 2006 are up, the guy doing them is working his way backwards through the years regularily, so I'm sure lots of infos can be gathered from there. The link to that category is http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Annual_Obituaries_39/. --Darkguy 03:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of one article isn't reason to create another.  I'm just giving my opinion and am only one person. --Naha|(talk) 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of professional wrestlers who died young 

message: I recently read the History of professional wrestling article for the first time. While it is rather well-written, it is mostly a "history of professional wrestling in the United States". There is no history of puroresu, history of lucha libre or history of professional wrestling in Europe article either. I also propose that some information of catch wrestling should be merged into it. Professional wrestling in the United Kingdom also has some interesting tidbits, that might be merged into the main article, as do some biographies of wrestlers such as Rikidozan and Salvador Lutteroth.
But as far as puroresu and lucha libre are concerned, there is virtually no real history to be found in Wikipedia (I am not sure if there is more/better info in the Spanish- or Japanese-langage versions of Wikipedia, since unfortunately, I don't speak those languages). Also, history of wrestling in Canada (Stampede et al, although I am sure Stampede was not the beginning) and maybe also in Germany/Austria (CWA/Otto Wanz was really big here in the 1970s and 1980s and continued to promote well into the 1990s) should be collected and put into the article, respectively should get their own articles.
My expirience with Wikiprojects is limited, so please bear with me if this has been discussed before. I would be willing to help out with the history tidbits though, as far as my time allows and would also be willing to dig into finding out more about the early periods and find verifiable sources. --Darkguy 07:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of professional wrestling 

message: It has come to my attention about a somewhat "page move conflict" around the TNA Bound for Glory pages. A user redirected each of the BFG pages (2005, 2006 & 2007) to include the prefix "TNA". Another user would undo that a few days later. It now seems that a consensus from the WP:PW community is needed to settle this: whether to keep the pages at "Bound for Glory (200X)", or at 
"TNA Bound for Glory (200X). I will put a  on each of the BFG pages. I would suggest keeping the pages at "(without prefix) BFG" until a decision is reached. MITB LS (t·c) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while I don't think theres going to be a problem with other BFG pages, the main article that lists the years is TNA Bound For Glory, so I think the rest of the pages should be TNA Bound For Glory (200X). (Afterall, the announcer does say "and now, TNA Bound for Glory.") --ProtoWolf 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I set up the discussion for this to reach a consensus through the WP:PW community. So, if you wanna say something, say it HERE. MITB LS (t·c) 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The initials do seem to be part of the official name of the events. — Gwalla | Talk 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but can't the same be said for the WWE PPV events, and thus shouldn't they carry the initials? Mshake3 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[TNA Bound for Glory]] pages 

message: *Please vote or at least comment regarding your personal feelings, thanks.  
*I personally believe the page was completely misrepresented as "a far off corner of a WikiProject" for us to have secret meetings and hold secret polls, which is clearly NOT what it is intended for, nor was it ever meant as a REPLACEMENT for discussions which was also implied in the MfD.  No where was that ever said or even implied  on the actual voting booth page to the best of my knowledge.  However, I have clarified these important points with a few edits to the page.  Please make any other further changes you think would be helpful. --Naha|(talk) 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't come to a consensus, than a vote would exasterbate the situation.  Voting is good in some cases, but not for general project duties and whatnot.  Mr. C.C. 06:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: We do not decide things by vote on Wipedia. --Tony Sidaway 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope we argue until someone gets tired, he who cares afterwards gets his way ;) (kinda kidding, yet sadly not)MPJ-DK 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Voting booth|Voting booth already up for MfD]]

message: There is a very interesting article up at WWE.com now celebrating the five year history of the World Heavyweight Championship. The lineage of this championship has often been debated whether WWE considered it the same title as the WCW World Title, or whether an entire new lineage was created when Bischoff handed this particular belt to Triple H. It has now been confirmed in this article that the WWE World Heavyweight Championship IS the same championship as the WCW World Title and the lineage has continued. I tried to click on the section entitled Five Years Later but it just kept sayin "Not Found". Anyhow, if this is the case, I recommend keeping an eye on the articles of those that've won the World Heavyweight Championship. I just have a feeling that someone is going to go around changing their reigns to read WCW World Heavyweight Championship instead. Odin's Beard 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link: DrWarpMind 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the article reads, it sounds like the current WHC decends from the WCW World Title the same way the the WCW World Title descended from the NWA World Title. I don't think this changes anything (unless we are supposed to pretend this is the same title as the one Flair/Race/Steamboat/etc. held). TJ Spyke 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World Heavyweight Championship anniversary

message: I'm doing a few edits in my sandbox, and am planning to split December to Dismember into two seperate pages in a few weeks (seeing as there were only two events). The current page would then be a short page with a short description with links to the 1995 event and 2006 event. However, in order for this to happen, I am writing a report in my sandbox (link here). I think that I've done OK at the moment having done a little bit, but wondered who I could improve the preview part to the event. Please don't say that I shouldn't even be doing it otherwise I will ignore your comments. If I happen to move it into the mainspace in a few weeks I will do experiements with other PPV's (possibly One Night Stand 2007) to see how they would look. I chose D2D as it is possibly no doubt the worse PPV, and would have an interesting aftermath section (Heyman quitting, Show leaving, poor buyrate etc.) How do you guys think it is so far? Thanks in advance, Davnel03 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit concerned about some OR, but outside of that it's a good start. Anything to make the PPV articles more than a bunch of stubs is a good thing. Mshake3 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm not expecting it to be "the greatest article ever" because that's probably not possibly, but as you said, anything more than a bunch of stubs is a good things. On the OR point, I'm guessing your talking about the first part of the background section? Davnel03 17:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but some detailed Raw and SD results, showing the emphasis on Survivor Series and lack of for D2D could take care of that. Mshake3 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to go to in-detail with the Raw and SD results because I could then head completely off track and head into the wrong direction. Maybe just three or four sentences stating what was going on (in general) on Raw + SD? Anyway, thanks for your comments, Mshake3 they are helpful in helping me improve. Davnel03 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I just ment using a detailed result as a source, showing the lack of emphasis, thus not making it OR. Mshake3 17:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, OK, my misunderstanding. Davnel03 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Except this doesn't fall under the "comments" here at all, since each PPV was by different companies, see the Great American Bash with WCW and WWE versions. The consensus is actually that they should be two articles as they're by different companies. MPJ-DK 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe in the future, yeah. At the moment, with D2D it's going well. It's going to take time to get PPV reports out of "their stubby state", but we can do it. 1995 events, yes, it's going to be hard to find sources, but never say never. At the moment, as I said, I'm purely concentrating on December to Dismember in my sandbox, and if I like the way that goes, I'll go on to another one, and another and so on. Obviously I won't just go ahead all on my own, hence the reason why I came here to discuss to see where I need to improve at the moment. When I get D2D 2006 in a satisfactory state, I will split the article in two probably. I can't help but reiterate what Mshake3 said earlier: Anything to make the PPV articles more than a bunch of stubs is a good thing. Davnel03 18:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finished the background section. Any feedback here or on my talkpage, positive or negative will be helpful to help me improve the section. Davnel03 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  December to Dismember 2006 

message: Take a look. :P Davnel03 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if no one else will toot your horn eh? MPJ-DK 20:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad. Now if only we could get more PPV pages to look like that, especially some of the important ppv pages like WM3, Summerslam 1992, Royal Rumble 1991, etc, etc. -- Scorpion0422 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we work at it we can do it! Anyway, do you like my format? Davnel03 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really a full run show run down? Encyclopedia, not recap site.«»bd(talk stalk) 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you rather? A load of stubs that mean nothing or a review of the event? Davnel03 21:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't really a place for "reviews" but thats not really what you did, you did more of a coverage kind of thing. --ProtoWolf 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, all of the info is sourced, so if it is possible to create a page like this for all PPVs, then I wouldn't be opposed to it. However, it isn't possible, so no worries. The Hybrid 03:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow. 

message: Released in 2002 (), this can be used as another source. Here's an interesting thing I found.
#The Tag Team Championship was originally known as the U.S. Tag Team Championship. And the first champions were Eddie and Dr. Jerry Graham. Mshake3 01:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate World Wrestling Entertainment Trivia Book 

message: A few people are vandalising this page tonight.  I've been reverting the edits, but it would be great if someone else could watch it for a little while (or get it semi-protected for the time being).  And is it possible to get an IP ban for 84.9.149.87? GaryColemanFan 03:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe its those WrestleCrap guys who were vandalizing the Batista Article too.--ProtoWolf 05:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. However...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Khali article 

message: I've just come across this page. Should I prod it? Davnel03 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Prod away. Nenog 18:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need a PROD it could be CSD instead, look at the list of CSD categories, it is bound to fall under one. (edit) On second thoughts turn the page in to a redirect. (edit again) I've redirected it. Darrenhusted 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except there are more wrestling ppvs than just WWE. Nenog 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It was a quick fix. If you want to take other action feel free. Darrenhusted 18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page I've Just Come Across 

message: As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether British Wrestling Federation is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert review: British Wrestling Federation 

message: Is there anyone here who can explain the reason why the page was deleted? I'd say he's a fairly well known wrestler in Dragon Gate, with history pertaining to Ring of Honor and Wrestling Society X as well. I'd recreate the page, but I'm not too familiar with earlier work with the surfer gimmick and Do Fixer. Anyone have any links to help me out with this, or anyone want to start the page and I can add on afterwards? Thanks! Ghanarhea 06:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First it was deleted by Prod for being a non-notable wrestler and no one challenged it (gee, I wish people would inform the project so we don't have to go through every single page daily to check to see if it has a Prod or no). It was then recreated and deleted a second time due to no assertion of nobility. The third time it was because someone recreated it and just mashed the keyboard (i.e. "a;lsdkhfoajdshp") Nenog 07:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Genki Horiguchi]] 

message: This is a little bit of madness. A user moved this page from FIP World Heavyweight Championship, saying that it "is not world title status."   and scores of ROH and FIP DVD pages on ROH's website all call it "FIP World Heavyweight Championship," effective after it was defended in the UK. Just because some magazine doesn't give its phoney baloney seal of approval and "world title status" doesn't change what the title is called. I mean, shall we move CZW World Heavyweight Championship or PWG World Championship or even ROH World Championship for this reason? Nosleep1234 11:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, "World Title Status" is defined by Pro Wrestling Illustrated and nothing else. In fact, as of right now the ECW and ROH World Titles are not recognized as world titles by PWI. Gavyn Sykes 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big deal. Does that change the name of the title itself? Surely, the almighty PWI doesn't so recognize PWG or CZW's titles? Nosleep1234 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, they called it the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. It was early in The Big Show's reign that they changed it to ECW World Championship. TJ Spyke 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The company who creates a title gives the title its name, period. A Pro Wrestling magazine coming up with its own criteria for title designations is not relevent, regardless of how popular the magazine is. In addition, the magazine is not affiliated with the promotion in question. --Naha|(talk) 16:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was that Wikipedia itself uses PWI as it's source for calculating a wrestler's "official" World title reigns. My personal opinion is that the company should decide for themselves. Gavyn Sykes 16:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be used a source to aid in calculating all title reigns, not "World" title reigns if they infact have their OWN criteria for what they decide is and is not a "world title."  Its just a name and every article must reflect the proper name of the title according to the company/promotion who created/uses the title. --Naha|(talk) 16:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but that consensus was the use PWI. *shrugs* Gavyn Sykes 16:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what? We can use PWI as a source for title reigns, but we can't use their personal criteria for what designates a world title when it conflicts with what a promotion/company calls their own title. --Naha|(talk) 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, unfortunately, that's exactly what the project has decided to do. See here and here. Gavyn Sykes 16:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I don't think I'm communicating my point well. There is nothing wrong with the pages you just linked. Those 2 articles clearly state, via the article's names and further explanation in the lead paragraphs that the lists given are just for PWI and do not represent how the promotion's classify their titles.  I'm not concerned with those 2 pages at all.  What I am concerned with is favoring PWI's criteria for what constitutes a "world title" OVER the ACTUAL NAME of the title as given by the wrestling promotion to NAME AN ARTICLE about the title (like the above mentioned FIP World Heavyweight Championship).  I was under the impression that this is not the type of thing that can be up for change by "group consensus" according to Wikipedia naming policy? --Naha|(talk) 16:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats what I've been trying to say. --Naha|(talk) 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I understand now. It was a simple misinterpretation on my part. My apologies Gavyn Sykes 17:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with MPJ, let them call their title whatever the hell they want. That doesn't mean that they are world titles (hell, half of the indy feds out there call their title a world title), just that the promotion calls it that. If FIP calls it the "FIP World Heavyweight Championship" (even though it's not a world title), then have the article be called that too. TJ Spyke 01:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I never meant to suggest that the article's name should be changed because of PWI. The promotion has every right to call it whatever they want. Gavyn Sykes 01:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you thought Cherry Coke tasted like lemon, would you move that page? Nosleep1234 11:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let it go, the page is located at FIP World Heavyweight Championship and isn't moving. --Naha|(talk) 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[FIP Heavyweight Championship]] 

message: As many of you know, I am doing work on PPV events and have recently finished December to Dismember (2006). I'm now working on 2005's ECW One Night Stand in my sandbox. Should I make a mention to the Hardcore Homecoming event that occured two days earlier or not? Davnel03 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, no. Hardcore Homecoming didn't really effect One Night Stand in any way, so whats the point?--ProtoWolf 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because they both happened on the same weekend. They both had former ECW superstars. They both were at former ECW arena. That's why I brought it here if your wondering. Davnel03 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With that information, its more a Trivia stub, that maybe you can slip into the backround, but its not worthy of much more mention then that.--ProtoWolf 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: On the Mark Henry article someone put under his personal life that he is married to some man, and they were the hottest/gayest couple in some magazine, now that sounds fake, but is it?--TrUcO9311 01:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, its fake and and its vandalism. Nenog 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Henry Vandilism?? 

message: Golden boy enterprises just bought the PWI, should it be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? I don't see any mention on their website. TJ Spyke 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im not sure if this is reliable but it looks like it, --TrUcO9311 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are We Going To ADD....to the PWI Article ? 

message: WHy are most of the TNA PPV events written like the Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Survivor Series, and Royal RUmble articles. And the WWE PPVS (other then the Big 4) arent written like that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me an example? Davnel03 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he means is how, for example, TNA Lockdown 2005 has its own article, TNA Lockdown 2006 has its own article, TNA Lockdown 2007 has its own article, but every single WWF In Your House is lumped into one page. Nenog  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenog (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but Lockdown, Slammiversary, and Bound for Glory are the only ones like that, last I checked, and they are considered TNA's most important PPVs.--ProtoWolf 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Every time someone "new" comes along who doesn't want to spend days digging through archives to see everything that has ever been discussed probably ;) --Naha|(talk) 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE/TNA PAY PER VIEW ARTICLES 

message: something is up with the Professional wrestling throws page (see the reference section)... i think somes missed tagged a reference somewhere in the article. --- 88.108.144.0  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.144.0 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem Solved! Davnel03 18:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional wrestling throws 

message: TNA mobile has infomred subscribers that their will be a womens title created at Bound For Glory and The Champion will be determined in the Gautlet. Should it be created?--TrUcO9311 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been created. See TNA Women's Championship. -  Deep   Shadow  20:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNA Womens Championship 

message: There is a sockpuppet account deleting the recent title change information on the Paul London, Brian Kendrick and Paul London and Brian Kendrick articles. I have made two reports to two different admins but currently no action has been taken. Please keep an eye out for AwesomeKong07 on those articles. They are a sock of user BloodRunsCold1996. Thank you. -  Deep   Shadow  22:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet to watch out for 

message: Are we done yet? Since my start as an editor at Wikipedia this article has been moved an excessive number of times and it got old a long time ago. We need to settle on a damn name and leave it be. To that note, are there any policies for this kind of thing, a page being renamed every time we blink an eye? --Naha|(talk) 13:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same thing. It's quite annoying. I have no clue why the page is constantly being moved nor if there's some sort of policy that keeps changing. Gavyn Sykes 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm don't think I worded my question right, I was thinking more along the lines of a policy that would force the article to stay with 1 name for at least X amount of months due to it's excessive movement, or if we could "prove" that one of the article's various names is indeed the way he is "best known" so that is the way it needs to stay and, perhaps get protected from being moved or something, because seriously ..this is rediculous. --Naha|(talk) 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed the move following a request, clearly he is best known as "The Rock" since he has been credited as that since his pro wrestling years and has continually used it trought his acting career, a quick search proves this The Rock (955,000,000 hits) Dwayne Johnson (8,970,000 hits), the most common name is the one that should be used, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is quite clear on this matter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. He is clearly best known as The Rock. He even uses the name for his acting career. I suggest the page be moved (and stay at) The Rock (entertainer) as it is the most common name, and he is no longer strictly a professional wrestler. Nikki311 16:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine, at this point I personally no longer care what his article is called as long as it stops moving every 5 seconds. Seriously people :( --Naha|(talk) 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The aritcle had been at The Rock (entertainer) for a long time, then it appeared to go to hell during the 2 months I was gone. Hopefully people leave it where it is. TJ Spyke 22:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rock, The Rock (professional wrestler), The Rock (entertainer), Dwayne Johnson, The Rock (my page moves more often than a [[U-Haul]] truck) 

message: I have this pic, and im wondering if someone can cut them (like the naturals and cryme tyme). Plus im not sure if its wiki compatible.
heres the pic.--TrUcO9311 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That can't be used. It's a fair-use image, and only free-use images can be used for living persons. Check WP:FU. Nikki311 01:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope. Sorry. Can't be used. Davnel03 09:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pic Of Taker and Pic 4 MIchelle Mccool 

message: I saw the "Women Wrestlers" section and it said for more info to go to "WWE Diva", shouldnt it be more accurate if that article was renamed since TNA is adding a womens division, maby it should be called "Professional Women Wrestling" or somethin like that.--TrUcO9311 14:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused by your post. You saw the "Women Wrestlers" section where exactly? -  Deep   Shadow  14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're all confused by the posts. Seriously, how about some frickin links for goodness sakes? Mshake3 14:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense, but many of your posts Truco9311 have been confusing. Davnel03 14:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Women's wrestling subsection of Professional wrestling has a "main" link to WWE Diva, which is incorrect.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Further information" link is incorrect. Would anybody object to a "see also" link? Nikki311 15:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Im Sorry,  here.--TrUcO9311 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Diva 

message: I've just put December to Dismember (2006) up for peer review. That discussion is here. Also, I put John Cena up for PR a few weeks ago, yet it is getting very little comments. I would be much appreciative if anyone could make comments on the artice here. Thanks, Davnel03 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Peer review notices 

message: I have a question, since the NYR 2008 is questioned whether it will occur, should we add a 2008 section and place "TBA" where needed?--TrUcO9311 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. However, I would like an official source off WWE.com or any other wrestling related website before it gets inserted into the article. Davnel03 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't care what you do, but if there's another edit war over something so pointless I swear I will flip. The Hybrid 09:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I say no. It seems like speculation at this point. Speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Nikki311 16:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I remember PWI saying that it wouldn't be taking place. I know the concern about using "those sites" is the backstage gossip and whatnot. But this seems like something that could be considered reliable. Why would they be wrong about the scheduling of a PPV event? Mshake3 16:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as i'm concerned, we should continue listing it unless WWE says they are cancelling it. They announced a date for the 2008 event in the WrestleMania 23 program they sent out to affiliates back in March (I no longer have access to their affiliates page though), so we should continue to include it. It's annoying seeing some people removing it because they read a rumor that the event won't take place (almost as bad as when people would remove Armageddon 2007 even after being shown proof from WWE's corporate website of the date). TJ Spyke 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, that should be treated as "PWI reports there may not be a 2008 event", but we shouldn't remove mention of the 2008 event unless WWE says something (since they already announced a date for it). Not to mention that I wouldn't call PWIinsider the most reliable rumor site (aren't they still blacklisted here? They were a couple of months ago). I would also like to know the source for 2008 PPV's after WrestleMania 24. TJ Spyke 21:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares what their sources are? Why don't we trust it? Were they wrong with something? Mshake3 22:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it makes more sense to write an article about something, after it has been announced that it will occur, not beforehand.  It really has nothing to do with a fan website reporting something may or may not occur. There is no reason I can think of (other than someone wanting to stroke their ego by being first to write an article or add information to an article) to include this type of information until there has been confirmation by the company it involves.  Again, no events should be in article space until they have been officially announced, regardless of what has or has not happened in the past. It doesn't help anything, it doesn't make the article better, because its unconfirmed. --Naha|(talk) 17:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE New Year's Revolution 

message: Can anyone tell who the 13 suspended WWE superstars are? Im not sure atm.Ocelot 13:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This really isn't the place for that, just about every dirt sheet site has what they claim is the "confirmed" list though.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't directed at you Ocelot, but why are we having such utterly pointless conversations over the past few days? *sigh* Davnel03 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I was aware there are only 10 suspensions. As it is not possible to ascertain exactly who the suspended Wrestlers are, the media is "recklessly" speculating. WWE has previously threatened legal action against people who make false allegations about anyone on their lists. WWE is also well known to zealously protect the interests of the wrestlers in the "wellness programme". The following link will direct you to the offical WWE statement on the matter; http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wellnesspolicysuspensions . I do recommend to everyone editing pages NOT TO refer to any wrestler as suspended for breach of the wellness programme, at least until it is offically confirmed on 01/11/2007, after all, they might not be! Sparkyboi 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Speculating is illegal anyway, The Hybrid 20:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not say Illegal per se, as freedom of speach is paramont, but I take your point The Hybrid , any speculation on this matter in text without sources could be considered libelous. However and *winks* more importantly speculation is just plain unprofessional, silly and unencyclopediac as it it considered "Own/Original Research" and is just unproveable! Sparkyboi 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspended WWE Superstars

message: Last Night, at ROH's PPV taping in Chicago, the 4 first members of Age of the Fall(161) were (finally) revealed;Tyler Black, Jimmy Jacobs, Lacey, and Necro Butcher. Do you think it would be appropriate to make an article for it now? If so, I'll probably need your guy's help(To make sure it doesn't get deleted right off the bat; to make any searches for "Project 161" redirect to the AotF article.).--Andy duke 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I STILL don't know what this is about. Mshake3 16:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As a lot of us are still confused about this, I suggest you first do a mock up of the entire article you wish to create in a /sandbox or something in a subpage of your user space and then link us to it so that we might get a clue and have a bit more info under our belt so that we can make informed comments :)  Please use references and citing too! Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 16:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Additional information needed. Yeah, pretty much everyone is confused. The Hybrid 19:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: $50 says if an article was created on Age of the Fall it would be Prod and/or nominated for deletion in less that a week seeing how it is new and "hasn't achieved anything notable" (like what happened with the No Remorse Corps), so I don't think there is any real reason to create an article on it just yet, and to put all relevant information about AotF in Jimmy Jacobs, Necro Butcher and Lacey. However, since several of you are confused about AotF, I am working on a timeline explaining the background of Jacobs and the setup of Project 161. Nenog 20:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project 161/Age of the Fall

message: With all the complaints about people not looking into the search, I was wondering what is the best to search the archives, without having to manually look into each one? And if there's an easy way, could it be used to create a search bar at the top of the talk page?Mshake3 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Search 

message: I'm not sure who has visited Wikipedia:Requested articles/sports#Wrestling, but there are some questionable requests: backyard wrestling federations, non-notable podcasters, developmental wrestlers who violate WP:Crystal, articles that have already been deleted several times before. Is there a way to delete/weed out the bad requests, while leaving the good ones? Nikki311 16:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through and cleaned out some of those that fail out of the list, but I only deleted those that I could delete with the information at hand so I wouldn't risk deleting the good ones. Any that I missed can just be removed from the list so long as the deleter is confident the request fails. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. I wasn't sure if I was allowed to delete other's requests. Thanks. Nikki311 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles with creation requests