Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 18

message: I need some help in doing some quick fact checking for WWE Brand Extension: right now, I have cited "three events over four weeks" for Survivor Series to Armageddon, and, "when combined with TNA events, makes it six events over seven weeks" for Cyber Sunday to Armageddon as an argument to "overdilution of pro wrestling".  I was wondering if there was any other similar scheduling anomalies in the past, or if this one could be extended into a longer period of time (with, say, the presence of another PPV show - major or indy - that would make it, say, ten events over 12 weeks).  kelvSYC 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the only other time I can think off was when WWE, WCW & ECW all ran PPVs, there were like 3 a month for quite a while if I'm not mistaken, at least it felt like there was a PPV almost every weekend. MPJ-DK 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have 16+12=28 now, compared to 12+12+6=30 back in the day. Take that for what it's worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirm a fact? 

message: Nominated this page for deletion as it was removed from Ring of Honor roster to create this page for no real reason. I've already re-added it to ROH roster.PepsiPlunge 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ring Of Honor Alumni]]

message: I want to start removing unreferenced tags from pages that really don't need it, but I want to make sure I have this right. As long as articles only detail the goings on of wrestling shows we can consider the shows themselves as a primary source, even if they don't rerun, yes? Pages like K.C. James and Idol Stevens or Paul London and Brian Kendrick have no information on them that isn't taken directly from episodes of SmackDown! or OVW TV, so barring giving actual episode air dates I don't know how we could actually reference it, and giving air dates doesn't give is much because official recaps, to put it bluntly, suck.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obsessed with Wrestling gives details of RAW and SmackDown, but some troll who wrote some columns for OWW back in 2004 kept spamming pages (even after being blocked) and caused OWW to be added to the spam list (preventing the site from being linked to). TJ Spyke 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: www.thehistoryofwwe.com is a good source if you're looking just for WWE show results, I've used it for a lot of my research, and it's adding WCW & ECW results all the time as well. MPJ-DK 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that site will work great for title history articles, especially those on the "when it happened" side of the debates. Mshake3 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unreferenced tags

message: A user with the IP 130.76.32.15 has been adding links to something called "ClubWWI" to a series of articles, it looks like site promotion to me. Anyone else agree?? MPJ-DK 19:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected link pimping 

message: There is a vote going on at Talk:TNA (disambiguation). A user is trying to get it moved to "TNA" (basically getting rid of the redirect to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling"). I oppose the move since I think that TNA Wrestling is the main use, but all opinions are welcome there. TJ Spyke 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNA 

message: Nominated for FA status - discussion is here. Davnel03 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hulk Hogan]] 

message: Can we not have a blasted edit war over British vs. English spelling in an HTML comment? This is beyond ridiculous, guys. — Gwalla | Talk 05:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all seriousness, the main WP:PW page was created using American English spelling and I believe the Wikipedia style convention states that subsequently we should follow that. However, it doesn't really make a tremendous difference to the future of the civilized world if it is in Standard English. It's a shame that certain people seem to see it as a matter of pride to "prove" that American English is "better" (which, to be frank, pisses me off).  Suriel1981 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It goes the other way as well. I have met some editors here who think that British English is the only correct version. There is no "standard" English, unless you mean standard for that country. American English is standard English for American, British English is standard English for the UK, Canadaian English is standard English for Canada, etc. TJ Spyke 13:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silly edit war 

message: West Texas Wrestling Legends (WTWL), Paul Turner (wrestling) and List of ROH shows have all been nominated for deletion.PepsiPlunge 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AFDs

message: I was just editing a page a few minutes ago and noticed that PWInsider is now on the spam blacklist. Now I know the reason for OWW being there (from this) but I was just wondering where this came from? -- Oakster  Talk  10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I don't see it listed on the Blacklist page (where articles are supposed to be listed before being blocked). I personally don't check rumor sites (like PWInsider) or believe them (the TNA dropping the NWA titles at Destination X issue is one reason), but I can see how others feel. It shouldn't be blocked. TJ Spyke 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. So where on PWInsider did it say that the NWA titles would be dropped at the March PPV? Mshake3 00:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure it didn't. I can't offhand recall them ever really getting things wrong, at least not to that degree. Suriel1981 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So is there somewhere we can go to actually appeal this? We're losing actual sources here (Rob Feinstein for example).«»bd(talk stalk) 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another website on spam blacklist 

message: I agree with the policy that discourages entering content that assumes future events will happen, such as "Umaga will wrestle Bobby Lashley at Wrestlemania 23." While this is an event that is supposed to happen, we must abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and stick to the facts.
However, I believe that some editors are going too far in their enforcement of this guideline by not allowing the inclusion of announcements that have already been made about these future events.
The article in question is on Stone Cold Steve Austin. My belief is that there is a distinct difference between saying "Steve Austin will be the guest referee" and "Steve Austin has been announced as the guest referee." The former is clearly forward-looking and not factually true, while the latter is a fact and will always be a fact. I believe the former is not proper content for Wikipedia, but the latter is.
Many of the announcements surrounding Wrestlemania are quite notable, especially in the WWE realm. The announcement that Donald Trump has made his hair-versus-hair "wager" with Mr. McMahon is arguably the biggest one. In keeping with the spirit of this guideline, I changed the Matches header on the WrestleMania 23 page to Announced Matches. It is now factually correct; those matches have been officially announced and have not yet taken place. Even the "Steve Austin as guest referee" note is in there.
But if Wikipedia can be used to record other official announcements about future events - Jay Leno planning to leave "The Tonight Show", or Apple releasing a new operating system, or Steven Spielberg directing Indiana Jones 4, and on and on - then why is this official announcement that Steve Austin will be the guest referee at WM23 any different? Doc502 20:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point Suriel1981 20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on "Announcements" versus "Announced Matches" 

message: Having had a glance at our French Wikipedia equivalent Projet Catch, I've decided that I'd like to give our own project page a bit of a makeover since it's looking to be a bit cluttered. My proposed design is at User:Oakster/WP:PW. Basically, I've put everything in a couple of columns and made the subpages more visible to the reader. Due to its size, I think the style guide should have its own subpage. Also I would remove the strategy subpage I believe is pretty useless as we have the to-do box on the talk page. Anyway, if I have the blessings from you guys I'll make the change. -- Oakster  Talk  16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revamp for WP:PW 

message: Proposal Howzabout generally adopting the format I've used for the Harry Smith (wrestler) and Darren Matthews pages? 
*Opening line states nationality anyway. 
*Nationality flagicon next to name. Two in the case of Harry who is dual-nationality.
*Regional flagicon next to birthplace reflecting state or province if applicable (e.g. Harry Smith from Alberta, William Regal from England, Steve Austin from Texas)
*omitting country name from infobox in cases of above being as opening sentence states it anyway and it would un-clutter the infobox. Suriel1981 17:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think on balance always including the country is more informative. This is also the standard used in the standard biographical infobox and in most sports infoboxes. States and provinces aren't always important in less federalised countries, and flags aren't instantly recognisable to everyone. Country of origin / residence is a fairly core fact, so I don't think it can be considered "clutter". McPhail 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About Harry Smith, can he really be considered British? He wasn't born in and doesn't live in the UK. He was born in Canada and lives in the United States (I think), just being the son of someone British doesn't make a person British. TJ Spyke 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's spent some amount of time here, is eligible to live here as a British citizen and wears the Union Jack on his attire. When you're talking dual-nationality it tends to go on how the person prefers it. Harry Smith seems comfortable being British-Canadian Suriel1981 21:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it doesn't matter what he is considered by anyone. He holds 3 passports, so he gets three nations. Most ppl outside of the UK don't know Finley is British...saying that, can someone put the tricolour up there for him? Since that's the way we're going.Halbared 00:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finlay is from Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom), so of coarse he is British. The only people who don't know that are people who suck at geography (it's like thinking someone from Puerto Rico isn't American even though PR is part of the United States). WWE doesn't help matters though by announcing him as from Belfast, Ireland rather than Belfast, Northern Ireland. TJ Spyke 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WEll he is pushed by the comnpany as Eire/Irish yeh, and with all the green and stuff, so I could understand why people outside of the UK get confused. You bringing up Puerto Rico made me look at it. I thought it was a protectorate of the US, but is is classed as a commonwealth under the federal government. Savio Vega is the only wrestler I can think of (just thought of Calos Colon) from there. So the US flag oes next to his name and a Puerto Ricon one next to his billed status...had somoneone made a Puerto Ricon one yet?Halbared 01:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For the record, Benoit is a Canadian (born in Quebec, raised in Alberta) who legally resides in the United States. Finlay is technically British, but is billed as being from "Belfast, Ireland" because many Northern Irish consider the British occupation of their six counties to be illegal. Manager Of Champions 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without wanting to comment on the NI situation, I'm fairly sure that Finlay has only been billed from "Belfast, Ireland" since he's been working in the USA. I'm guessing that this is more to do with his fighting Irishman persona he's used in WCW and WWE. Suriel1981 12:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal re: nationality/flagicon/country name etc. in biography infoboxes

message: This is a profile for "Konan big". A lot of bad grammar, I tried to fix some things, but I didn't feel it was worth it. Maybe delete the article? Kris Classic 23:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is pretty poor (although you made it better). I have prodded the article. TJ Spyke 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to be a headliner for a couple of Mexican indies with some midcard work in AAA (I think). English google hits are to do with his match results and my Spanish is too poor to translate other pages about him. I think he'd fail notability. The picture on his page looks like it's going to be deleted for no attempt to meet licensing criteria. Suriel1981 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Konan big

message: In a discussion over on Batista's talk page, it was deemed against the guidelines to mention that a wrestler has an upcoming match on a card that has not yet happened. But the example arose that if it hasn't happened yet, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia; meaning that the Wrestlemania 23 page, which has the matches that will occur, is violating the same guidelines. That doesn't seem to make sense that the event pages can have upcoming matches on them but the wrestler pages cannot. Here's my original question:
Wouldn't this mean that for the wrestling PPVs, they wouldn't be allowed to post the card until it's already happened?
 ---- GIGGAS2 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The guideline (which was established by us) is for articles on wrestlers, not the PPV articles. That is why the warning saying that doesn't appear on PPV articles (there is a different warning for that). TJ Spyke 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, how are we supposed to talk about the PPV without the matches? Another, articles on wrestlers and events are written differently. TJ Spyke 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upcoming Events (Matches etc.) 

message: It's odd that User:Proudformykids would create a profile, be welcomed by User:TJ Spyke and then within 10 minutes make their first ever Wikipedia contribution a revert on Halbared's spelling of "encyclopaedia" and "rumour" on our main page.</br>
Ahh well, I always assume good faith, so I'll have to guess the new user just picked an odd place to start a glorious career on editing. Make no mistake though, if I get the impression someone is creating sockpuppets for editwarring on the WP:PW page then I will harass every single admin I can find to get that person blocked for vandalism.</br>
Peace out! Suriel1981 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome everyone (registered and IPs) who make edits to pages on my watchlist. It is spelled encyclopedia though, hell, even the WP logo uses this spelling (aedia is the old fashioned way of spelling, almost every source both in the US and UK either use just edia or both edia and aedia). TJ Spyke 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I totally agree with Gwalla and MPJ-DK with this. First off, you're having an edit war over warnings for our articles. It doesn't matter how its spelt as long as inexperienced editors we're trying to focus on get the point. This is not a British English encylopaedia, an American English encylopedia, Australian, or whatever, it's simply English. And unless there's a split between the different variations (and trust me, I'm already laughing at the fact a Scots Wikipedia actually exists) there shouldn't be a real preference for this. -- Oakster  Talk  12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit Warring on the spelling of Encyclopaedia

message: We have a bit of a problem going on at the page. User:Jet2006 is adding nonsense to it again. Hope you can help out by keeping a close eye on the page. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW the problem is on Wrestlemania 25 not at WrestleMania 25. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just delete it. While we know it'll happen, that doesn't mean there needs to be a page for it right now. Mshake3 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the point of the redirect. The user is reverting it and adding his own nonsense.-- bulletproof 3:16 01:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ment to actually delete the article, so at least if he attempts to recreate it, it'll be with the correct spelling of WrestleMania 25. Mshake3 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern here is not whether the spelling of the page name is correct or not. My concern is the fact that this user is continuously adding nonsense to the page and no one has noticed this but me. That is why I'm bringing this to the project talk page. To inform you of this problem and to suggest that the page be added to your watchlists. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Throw a little policy at him and have it deleted and locked. Mshake3 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He just created the article a few days ago (with that nonsense). As soon as you said something, I put it on my watchlist. There won't be any info on it for a year, so there should be no edits to either page yet. TJ Spyke 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep an eye on [[Wrestlemania 25]]

message: What happened to it? Obviously it was deleted. Just wanted to know what was on the article. Govvy 12:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ask User:CesarB, he is the admin who deleted it according to the deletion log. TJ Spyke 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NWA Wisconsin]] article? 

message: Would someone put this through the proper deletion process?  I know lots of "results" articles like this have been deleted before, and since I'm taking a long break from editing, I would hope that one of you could work on it.  Thanks. 69.208.72.214 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WWE Results]]

message: I'm not sure if this may be of any help, however I've recently been working on the PWI 500 lists and have completed PWI 500 (1991), PWI 500 (1992), PWI 500 (1993), PWI 500 (1994), PWI 500 (1995), PWI 500 (1996) and PWI 500 (1997). The lists have proved useful in creating/fixing needed redirects as well as providing a wanted list of sorts. MadMax 05:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I support this, those are technically copyright violations and will most likely be deleted (just like similar lists like "Rolling Stone Top 100 songs" have been). TJ Spyke 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they'd probably be put up for deletion as fancruft, other listy pages have been removed for that reason. I have no problems with the lists. As a "to do list" it needs serious edits some blue links aren't actually right (ex. Judge Dredd) and some redlinks should be blue because the article has a different name etc. MPJ-DK 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are no problems copyright wise and everything then I'll be happy to help make the links as correct as possible MPJ-DK 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a copyright issue since you are just copying their list. An article on the PWI 500 is allowed (it already exists though), these however are copyright violations. I am tempted to nominate them myself. Right from WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." 
So while PWI can't copyright the idea of a top wrestlers lists, or the wrestlers names, they can copyright these lists themselves. AFAIK, every other similar list that has been nominated for deletion has always been deleted. TJ Spyke 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time for how it should be done. You can do like the Top 10, and talk about the list in general, but you can't post the entire list. TJ Spyke 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PWI 500 lists

message: Right now, the information about WWE Experience is regarding several similar but separate shows (the one that used to be on Spike and the one currently on The Score in Canada are prime examples), and the article needs cleanup and possibly a split (I wouldn't go that far personally).  As an example, the infobox claims that The Score is credited as the creator, while Todd Grisham is credited as the host (the last time Grisham hosted anything on the Score was when Raw was still on TSN in Canada).  So if someone would know a bit more they can help clean it up.  Here's how I can chip in, knowing the Canadian version of Experience and having seen the original Experience once or twice:
* The show is produced by The Score and not WWE, and is hosted by Score anchors (Ryan Paton, Derek Snider, and Sid Seixiero have all been seen hosting the show) inside the Score studio, WWE provides all of the content (and my POV statement is that Ryan Paton's announcing is too over-the-top compared to Score Today, Snider's is too unemotional compared to Branded or Sportsworld, and Sid Seixiero is somewhat muted compred to Score Tonight).  It also differs from international versions of the Experience in that there are no ECW highlights unless it is of any significance to a Raw or SmackDown! storyline (eg. Battle of the Billionaires), and even then it is only in photos.  And, unlike other Canadian WWE broadcasts, no Jack Korpela with that annoying Canadian update segment (the Score hosts do it themselves).
* There are out-of-kayfabe interviews (Outside the Ring) with WWE personalities on the Canadian Experience, conducted whenever said personality makes some promotional appearance in Canada - even if that said personality does not normally appear on Raw or SmackDown! (eg. there was an interview with Lashley not long after he won the ECW World Championship, which focused on his work in ECW)
* There is viewer feedback through The Score, although they have yet to answer viewer questions on-air.  Viewer input has been used on occasion - the recent Score 64-like Wrestlemania highlight tournament was a regular feature.
Another issue is the 15-minute Raw pre-show on The Score (which has been in place since RaceNight was off Monday night) which may need to be mentioned.  Not having seen the pre-show (credited as WWE Countdown to Raw on the on-screen TV guide and part of the Raw proper on the network), I don't know if it's a special 15-minute edition of Experience, or something with a similar format (but I do know that it is Score-produced and is exclusive to the first Canadian airing, and that there is no pre-game for SmackDown!).  In either case it may need to be mentioned on the Raw or Experience article.
On a side note, surprisingly, there is no simsub of SmackDown! in Canada, unlike other shows (Canadian regulations have it that in cases where both a Canadian and American channel have the same episode of the same show on at the same time, the Canadian feed is shown on both channels, which is the case for SmackDown! for two of the three CW affiliates available in Canada - the one on WPIX is on at the same time as the early airing on The Score and the one on KTLA is on at the same time as the late airing - the third is WGN), due to the Score Ticker taking away portions of the screen.
kelvSYC 02:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WWE Experience]] - many different shows under the same name 

message: I worked for a bit and came up with a barnstar award for the project. I wasn't going to upload it unless I was informed that it was a good idea, though. It's not the best, but it's decent, I think. I don't want to be uploading something that negatively impacted the project. Thanks! ---- GIGGAS2 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Barnstar/Award? 

message: As we know, PWMT needs to be cleaned up, and I have User:kelvSYC/Professional wrestling match types a draft of what it can be cleaned up to.  I've previously tried to establish new criteria that seems to be acceptable to all.  But now, i also propose that we include a rationale as to why a match is a specialty and is worthy of inclusion - ie. a match type is not notable just because of its rules.  Why is a blindfold match notable?  After all, isn't it just a standard match, but with blindfolds?  Isn't a "taped fist match" just one where the competitors tape their fists?  By this new criteria, the latter would not be included (many wrestlers already tape their fists) and the former could only be included if some context is given (such is "levelling the playing field if one competitor was previously blinded").  My cleanup (still in progress) would cut the sections down to just a few:
*The leading paragraph is now more detailed - why are specialty matches specialty, and why wrestlers "obey the rules" at all, that kind of stuff (after all, a specialty match can have both competitors blatantly disregard the rules, making the point of having a specialty match moot).
*A treatise on standard matches, and common ways of making a specialty match out of a standard match.  This includes triple-threat, eliminations, etc.
*True specialty matches - this is the area where if we have too much information we split it off to their own article, in theory. A lot of the crap we can consolidate down to maybe 10 or 12 specialty matches inside the article (either because it's too non-notable or it's been split into their own articles).
I think that PWMT, with these changes (which I am unwilling to commit to the real article until I solicit feedback - and finish my draft), may be to the point where we can give it GA or even FAC status.  Your thoughts?
kelvSYC 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationales in [[List of professional wrestling match types]] 

message: List of professional wrestling finishing maneuvers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotoax (talk • contribs) 
:I've been tempted to go for an AFD on that page for a few weeks but they (somehow) managed to keep the page from deletion in January so maybe it's too soon Suriel1981 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like wrestling move pages, but I do agree maybe it should be deleted. TJ Spyke 01:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that the page was a part of that one gigantic AfD. If this page were nominated on its own, then I'm sure that it would succeed. That big AfD was just an overall terrible idea, but this page is pretty unnecessary, and it is unsourced like you said. If you want to AfD it, then go ahead. -- The Hybrid 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll prepare a case and see that it's done within the next hour Suriel1981 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: There's a lot of unreferenced stuff here.

message: This has been brought up before, and now has to be brought up again for some reason.
Does anyone, other than TJ Spyke, have a problem with adding the birth date and age, height, and weight templates to biography infoboxes to keep things standard (it works metric or imperial) or to linking cities and states as separate entities in infoboxes to save people from having to go through a city article to get to a state, should they care?«»bd(talk stalk) 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check :template:Infobox Wrestler for how they are supposed to be formatted (in regards to height and weight). Even at WP:BIO they said to just have one link for city, state (not two). I am not convinced it would help anyone anyways to have two links rather than one. TJ Spyke 02:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wrestler infobox was set up in April of 2006, before any of the templates were made. There's no reason it can't now be changed and improved.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: it's probably archived now but the BIO people certainly gave a response that a single city,state link was okay with them. I actually think that birth date/age thing could be quite useful for the simple reason that fanboys sure love to customise the ages of their favourite grapplers and anything that stops unhelpful edits is okay with me. Suriel1981 02:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When is the age ever really mentioned though? All the template does is make (age --) show up after the DOB. TJ Spyke 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking of occasions when editors have inserted the age of their own volition and got it completely wrong, it could stop that. That would be my only reason for having it though. Encyclopaedias don't tend to have current ages of subjects so there isn't really a stylistic necessity for us to have it ourselves. Suriel1981 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most encyclopedias don't have such an ability, this one does. It hurts nothing, and makes something available all the more easier. I really don't get the resistance. «»bd(talk stalk) 02:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people I can see it happening are those who dropped out of school when they were 6, everyone else can figure out how old someone is just by looking at their birthdate. So it doesn't really help anything. Even electronic enclycopedias don't inlcude this info. If I said my birtday was September 2, 1986, you could very quicky figure out I am 20. Same thing with others. TJ Spyke 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally get it, you don't like it, aside from that what's your objection?«»bd(talk stalk) 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It'd be impractical to put those in infoboxes for most people because they do take up so much space. Putting another nine lines for former finisher and entrance music would make infoboxes huge.«»bd(talk stalk) 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem would be that some people like to have huge lists of signature moves, adding generic holds and even stuff a worker doesn't do but is in his moveset on one of the video games. The infoboxes would end up being gigantic and completely negate the actual purpose of the infobox. Suriel1981 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Suriel1981 here...adding much more would defeat the purpose.  --JohnDoe0007 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More infobox nonsense 

message: Just from the point I made above I was wondering if it is worth doing a blitz or establishing a firm guideline as to what signature moves should be retained on an article? I personally grit my teeth when I see some of the crap that's been added to some articles (generally by anon users of course). One issue is that if one removes NN/non-signature moves then generally some bright spark disagrees and reverts it or just replaces it with more crap, hence me pondering the possibility of a formal guideline/consensus. Suriel1981 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  article movelists 

message: I have suggested that 2 articles under the WPPW banner should be on the Main Page as Today's featured article. Please feel free to add your comments here and here. Davnel03 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Eddie article lacks sources. It won't make the cut unless people cite it between now and then.«»bd(talk stalk) 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Davnel, an article has to be a Featured Article before it can be a Today's Featured Article. Eddie Guerrero isn't a featured article (feel free to nominate it for FA if you think it will pass WP:FAC. TJ Spyke 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the only article we can nominate at the moment (and is currently nominated) is the Montreal screwjob article. -- Oakster  Talk  21:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And I've just noticed you've nominated that again. I'll clean this all up. -- Oakster  Talk  21:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFA 

message: As a lot of independent promotions, both defunct and active, seem to becoming deleted much more frequently. It might be worth thinking about establishing some guidelines in regards to what constitutes a "notable" independent wrestling promotion (as well as independent wrestlers). In my opinion, backyard feds and short lived local promotions certainly shouldn't considered notable. However, given the monopoly the WWE holds on North America, should independent organizations be excluded from major promotions such as the WWE, TNA, etc. ? Here are just a few suggestions and general questions to take in consideration: 
*How long a promotion has been running ? 
:Certainly any organization older then 5+, I would think should be considered. Likewise, defunct promotions which last between a few months to one or two years would not be considered notable.   
*How notable are its competitors ? 
:Recognized independent wrestlers such as Reckless Youth, Mike Quackenbush, Corporal Punishment, etc. who regularly compete in other notable organizations as opposed to wrestlers who are relatively new and whose careers are limited to a particularly minor and non-notable promotion such as many of the World Wrestling Coalition's roster. Also should former wrestlers from major promotions such as the WWF or WCW be taken into consideration as far as notability ? There are quite a few wrestlers which have won titles in independent promotions and mentioned in their respective articles. Should these promotions also be considered notable and, if not, should these titles be removed ? 
*In regards to references, I'm assuming newspaper coverage of wresting promotions to be rare apart from press releases, established magazines such as Pro Wrestling Illustrated, books by wrestling historians such as Gary Will and websites such as the Great Hisa's Puroesu Dojo. Personaly I am reluctant to use Obsessed With Wrestling, WIA and others as I've often run into errors and other inconsistancies over the years. 
Again I'm only making general observations as coverage of independent wrestling seems to be inconsistent on Wikipedia. There are numerous title histories, rosters and event articles to and from non-existent independent promotions and a growing number of red links to notable wrestlers. It would certainly help matters to have some sort of set and established guidelines regarding this issue. What's notable to certain wrestling fans may seem completely trivial to others.  MadMax 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The time a company has been in business has no direct effect on notability at all. Ring of Honor just recently became more than five years old, but it has been notable far longer than a month. Then again there must have been companies thaat have been around for ten years but still haven't accomplished notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 07:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely right. XPW for example was around for about 4 years, yet was at one time the number 2 company in the USA (on audience attendance). What it probably comes down to is proof of notability through references. An article on a smaller promotion could be created and if it had enough independent references it would probably survive an AFD even if not many people had heard of it. Suriel1981 14:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability guidelines for independent wrestler/promotions

message: *Aye Suriel1981 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the results of the cards should be revealed... that's kayfabe, isn't that? ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, although a win in a major show can have both kayfabe and non-kayfabe significance. - Geoffg 01:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't initally thinking of removing kayfabe, I just thought, maybe, we should insert some, not all non-kayfabe things. Davnel03 12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support - In favour of bringing non-kayfabe issues into articles

message: *Neutral but in favor of not putting in backstage "news" because most of the "news" is actually rumors. It's a crap-shoot whether or not they come true. Some non-kayfabe stuff should probably be included, but not those that cannot be verified. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THANK YOU...That's what I've been trying to say...but the point is no one has responded...this whole survey is asking whether non-kayfabe should be in articles...which (while it was the original question) I'd have to say is almost as absurd as the opposite.  --JohnDoe0007 09:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral - Several opinions and do not know which one to support

message: * This poll is so loaded - of course the kayfabe and the non-kayfabe have to mix and mix well.  That's the point of a good article.  But in an industry where the non-kayfabe is non-verifiable (for the most part), the truth is writing an article that has a balance of both will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible.  And no, Pro Wrestling Torch and Wrestling Observer Newsletter is not considered to be verifiable sources when it comes to WWE.  Or perhaps even TNA or ROH.  kelvSYC 06:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FINALLY.  Someone has actually acknowledged my point.  --JohnDoe0007 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what do you consider a proper source. Do you really think WWE would acknoledge things like this? Obviously not. They wouldn't reveal thing like this on their official website, but how in the living hell would we ever have a wrestler FA-Class status without some kind of non-kayfabe stuff. Some things on the websites mentioned, yes, can be seen as bullshit, but if you can get 4 or 5 sources, it must be, in one sense true. Something,  like this could be considered wrong (unless any of you people heard HBK say it...). By the way, books are always a good source, for non-kayfabe stuff. Eric Bischoff's book does go out of kayfabe (I have it; I should know), and I know Mick Foley reveals behind the scenes stuff in his book. That's good enough to be true, surely? If that can't get inserted into an article, what the living hell can? Davnel03 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And who published Bischoff's and Foley's books?  That's right, World Wrestling Entertainment.  So, yes, WWE would certainly acknowledge things like this - but only long after said event has happened (even though it is from a subjective point of view).  And saying that an article on a wrestler can never be FA-class without non-kayfabe is absurd - there are no current FA-class wrestling articles that has the non-kayfabe, that doesn't mean anything.  Last time I checked, the non-kayfabe is not a necessary condition for an article to be an FA-class article.  In fact, I'd argue that the non-kayfabe weakens the article's quality standing as WP:V is a much harder concern.  kelvSYC 15:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments

message: Nikita Allanov has recently been proposed for deletion. Althugh the article is barely a stub, I think the article can be saved with some effort. MadMax 10:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since establed his nobility, specifically his PWI 500 rankings as well as his matches with Dan Severn, however the article has been nominated for deletion. MadMax 01:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those don't make him notable enough, sorry. ↪Lakes (Talk) 19:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nikita Allanov

message: I can seem to find any reference for J.R.(professional wrestler) online or otherwise. Someone might want to see if this should be nominated for deletion. MadMax 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awww man, this article is by the same dude that created Konan Big and keeps uploading copyrighted pictures to Wikimedia Commons... Suriel1981 21:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have prodded the article (so it should be deleted in 5 days if no one removes the PROD). TJ Spyke 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already had to warn the creator for removing the AFD template from Konan Big twice, I reckon this article's gonna go the distance too... Suriel1981 22:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: J.R.

message: Is anything going on with WP:MoW? I know RobJ1981 was thinking about putting it up for deletion a while back. It's pretty dead and pretty much all of articles in its scope can/have be/en adopted by ourselves. Suriel1981 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it needs to be up for deletion, as a matter of fact. It serves little to no purpose. As I've stated before: there is no other "Media of ..." projects (that I know of at least). Wrestling has video games, music and so on (but so does just about every other sports and entertainment company). RobJ1981 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What media there is tends to be WWE-released to pass notability so it isn't really as if WP:MoW is gathering together a wide variety of articles from different producers. As it is at the moment one might as well create a category for WWE media and have it overseen by ourselves (not that I'm suggesting that) as it would be far more effective. I'd support a deletion certainly. Suriel1981 07:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was wondering why that even existed. It's so niche that it apparently can't even sustain itself. — Gwalla | Talk 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiproject Media of Wrestling

message: OK, so Cena has beaten both members of DX in the main event of WM. Is this notable? Cena is 4-0 at WM (not really that impressive), is this notable? Edge was 5-0 and that was mentioned a lot. Undertaker has defeated all four memebers of Evolution at WM (although they were not in Evolution when he did this), is this notable? Interesting maybe, but not notable. So that people don't keep adding these facts back in can we agree they are not notable and leave them out. I guess what I'm saying is as a project can we make is clear where we stand on trivial matter such as these. Darrenhusted 12:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cena being undefeated at Mania is notable, the rest are trivia at best MPJ-DK 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a trivia bit on WrestleMania 23 stating "This was the second year in a row that Cena main evented WrestleMania, and both times he won with the STFU. It is also the second year in a row that the World Heavyweight Championship has changed hands, but not the WWE Championship." which to me looks like rather uninteresting fancruft. Suriel1981 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: See this stuff keeps turning up, on Undertaker's page, Cena's page and WM23 page. And I don't think any of it is notable. If you add Cena's not notable 4-0 then it would be neccessary for a listing of any wrestler with a small WM un-defeated streak. Darrenhusted 14:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're faced with an unfortunate situation of having many anonymous (and quite a few registered) editors going batshit crazy with WrestleMania frenzy and a burning desire to add anything they can think of (even if it's total bollocks). I don't know if it's best to leave them fight for scraps of recognition amongst themselves and then just delete all the crap, or to just keep reverting. Suriel1981 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streaks and Factions 

message: I've been working on an article for Phil Apollo, however I've found two sources with contradict each other. His article at Imdb.com states his real name as Ray Liachelli Apollo born in Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey while onlineworldofwrestling.com claims his real name is Phil Panos "originally" for Massachusetts. Are there two people who have wrestled under Phil Apollo or is this simply an error (as OWW doesn't mention his wrestling as Doink the Clown) ? MadMax 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tough, since both have been known to make mistakes (like how IMDb has several things wrong in Undertaker's entry). TJ Spyke 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMDB is wrong. Their article is about Ray Apolo, one of the Doinks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 23:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phil Apollo and Ray Apollo (Ray Liachelli Apollo) are not the same - Ray played Doink and is the guy on IMDB, Phil is a former ICW champion. MPJ-DK 05:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phil Apollo

message: This might be a minor detail, however when compiling PWI 500 rankings for Robbie Ellis I noticed his website claimed he had been nominated during the years 1991, 1992, 1997 and 2005. However, according to the PWI 1999 Wrestling Almanac he isn't listed in 1997 and online sources state he was listed in 2004 instead of 2005. MadMax 05:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think PWI is more reliable for their own rankings than him. TJ Spyke 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's less controversial to just use the PWI Almanac. There's a bit of potential for conflict if it's mentioned in the article that exaggerates his own importance (also, many many people lie about themselves on their personal websites) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, nice one for getting some newspaper references in there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Quite possibly, but this happens all the time when fanboys read some rumour on a forum and decide it overrides sourced material. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 14:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Robbie Ellis

message: I just noticed their belts are messed up, well it looks like it. First of all there are two different tag team belts in WWE, World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team. Why are these mixed together on both their pages? Also, the WCW one in the WWE? I don't see any information in either profile for that belt...
Maybe some of you can clear this up? Govvy 11:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hardys have never won the WWE Tag Team Championship.  Furthermore, the records for the WWETTC and WTTC have been mixed together in certain contexts (similar to the world titles).  The Hardys have also won the WCW tag titles during the Invasion era, justifying their inclusion in the WWE section (the Hardys themselves have never competed in WCW). kelvSYC 16:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hardy's 

message: I've added a free use image of the structure I took at NYR 06, if anyone cares . Peace, Bmg916SpeakSign 18:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's needed, especially since the EC article has 2 pics of it (since people interested in the match type would likely click on the link). TJ Spyke 20:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are a lot of free use images, use a  link. McPhail 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Elimination Chamber]]

message: It's probably best to address this now rather than later. Should the birthdate in infoboxes be formatted as (A) "January 2, 2000" or as (B) , which produces ? McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Don't forget the Hebrew calendar as well. Bmg916SpeakSign 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *DING*DING*DING* you hit it on the nose Scorpion MPJ-DK 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah your'e damn right. Seems like some people don't care on the quality of articles, a discussion is hanging on the balance, but, oh no, no-ones leaving the opinions. I wonder if anyone will. By the way, non-kayfabe is much more important than a template. OMG what has this project come down to? 1 FA class article out of 2,000... Now you get MY point. Davnel03 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on age template

message: *Strong Oppose There is little benefit to using the age template, and just clutters up the infobox more (especially when it causes another line to show up (when they are born on something like December 24 or some other long date). It's also simpler and easier to just enter their birthdate normally. TJ Spyke 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for A (no template)

message: *B. From my perspective, the latter format is preferable. It displays the current age automatically, which saves time and benefits readers who use an alternative to the Gregorian calendar such as the Islamic calendar. McPhail 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Don't forget the Hebrew calendar as well. Bmg916SpeakSign 12:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for B (template)

message: *C couldn't care less either way. Bmg916SpeakSign 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *DING*DING*DING* you hit it on the nose Scorpion MPJ-DK 08:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah your'e damn right. Seems like some people don't care on the quality of articles, a discussion is hanging on the balance, but, oh no, no-ones leaving the opinions. I wonder if anyone will. By the way, non-kayfabe is much more important than a template. OMG what has this project come down to? 1 FA class article out of 2,000... Now you get MY point. Davnel03 19:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for C (neutral)

message: I was thinking that since this project seems to have a pretty good number of members who are active on the talk page, we should consider having a weekly GA collaboration. WP:PW covers a lot of articles, but only has 4 GAs, so it would be nice to get a few more. I have been looking through several PPV articles and it would probably be easy to get some of them to GA status, especially the Wrestlemanias because there are several good WWE sources, so perhaps we could consider doing a PPV (Wrestlemana I?) first if we decide to do it. -- Scorpion 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Collaboration

message: Unless I'm mistaken, aren't all these lists by date (and not ring name), or am I just reading that part of the articles wrong? Mshake3 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones? Do you mean articles like List of WWE Champions or List of ECW World Champions? Those are listed in chronological order, which is just common sense. Or is there some other list you are thinking of? TJ Spyke 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of WWE Tag Team Champions: "This is a list, by ring name, of people that have been WWE Tag Team Champion." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has someone changed the WWE Tag Champ article? It reads chronologically to me ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixes the wording at the top, since that was the only problem (it said they were listed by name, when they are actually listed chronologically). TJ Spyke 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of champions (by ring name?) 

message: Admin  has removed nearly all of this article citing lack of source concerns. These removals include his entire moveset, his career and his past championships. I'll need help to get this back up to scratch. –– Lid(Talk) 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why he did. BLP only call for removal of info that could controversial or libel. I added his profile at OWW, which should at least cover his moveset and titles, as well as most of the match results. TJ Spyke 03:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think  is going by the theory that if it hasn't got a reference it should be there (he did the same to Gary Albright). He's a good admin but this kinda sucks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He is not doing what is right either. BLP says only controversial material should be removed. Blanking an entire article just because it needs more sources is not acceptable or in the rules if I am interpreting them correctly. TJ Spyke 20:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's NOT in neither WP:BLP nor WP:A that all material without a source should be removed, only "contentious" material, so controversial claims and the likes. He's ignoring the actual rules and is vandalising the pages then wikilawyering that it's in the interest of WP:A and WP:BLP. MPJ-DK 06:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bryan Danielson]] 

message: Hi, I've just nominated this article for potential GA-status. If you feel it could be improved in any way, can you edit it or leave you comments here. I feel we need another GA article. Having only 4 out of 2000 + articles is very slim. I will edit the article as appropriate. Davnel03 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't pass in it current state as it is nearly entirely unsourced. A GA guideline is that footnotes are required to pass, not simply good prose. –– Lid(Talk) 14:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prose is surprisingly good. If it is possible to properly source everything (no small task) then I'd say it had an excellent shot. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹SpeakSign 14:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World Championship Wrestling]] 

message: *I'm trying to compile information for an article for "Hurricane" Mike Kahlua however does anyone know if he is the same wrestler as King Kahlua who wrestled for the American Wrestling Association in the mid 1980s or the "Prince" Kahlua who wrestled in the independent circuit during the early 1990s ? MadMax 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that "King" and "Price" Kahlua are the same guy, the guy that worked for IWCCW and trained Tom Brandi, I've never heard him nicknamed "Hurricane" but with a last name like that odds are good it's the same guy MPJ-DK 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Kahlua

message: I have noticed a lot of Request move of real names to ring names to title wrestler biographies. I really am not understanding why people are doing this it really annoys me. I can understand two wrestlers only atm. Hulk Hogan and André the Giant. But why are others doing this? The redirects should be of the ring names to the real named profile in my view. Can we at least have an order here? I feel and I would like all profiles to be titled by the real name. For instance, CM Punk is called Phil Brooks, Phil Brooks should be the name of the biographical article. Not CM Punk which is the wrestler name! What do the rest of you think? Can we stick to a rule that if the real name is known we can name the article by it. Govvy 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a rule, it's called WP:NC. One of the first lines: "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.". Most wrestlers are known by their ring name, some of the exceptions are wrestlers who are well known by more than 1 name (like Brandon Silvestry, who is well known as both Low Ki and Senshi). TJ Spyke 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much variation between subjects to have a hard and fast rule. In some cases the real name of the wrestler is little known, or even unknown (and in the case of Nigel McGuinness we are prohibited from adding the name of the subject due to external objections, so having the article there is a non-starter). In other cases, the wrestler has a lot of ring names, changes ring name frequently or is legally prohibited from appearing under their best known ring name due to trademark issues. It's impossible to abide by one rule all the time. McPhail 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My rule of thumb is to use the ring name when talking about wrestling, and the real name when discussing his real life. Mshake3 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think being a "smart" fan can colour our judgement about this issue.  People like us make a point of learning wrestlers' real names, but the "majority of English speakers" are not smart fans, and only know wrestlers by their public name, which is generally their ring name. - Geoffg 03:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming wrestling biography conventions. 

message: Should we merge Ron Harris (wrestler) and Don Harris? They have wrestler just about their entire career as a team, and their articles are basically mirrors of each other. It wouldn't be unheard of, The Highlanders only have 1 article for the same reason. TJ Spyke 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harris Brothers 

message: user:Burntsauce has repeatedly blanked the Gary Albright article and also had a go at Shelton Benjamin and a few other articles, removing most of their text with the excuse "no original research". This CANNOT be how Wikipedia intends for matters like this to be solved, it can't be the intention of "No Original Research" to give people a free hand in blanking out material left and right if it doesn't provide 700 sources. Is there anything we can do about this guy? MPJ-DK 07:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion at WP:AN. I don't think blanking entire articles (except for the infobox) is allowed, and am tempted to give the test2 warning. TJ Spyke 07:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: , Kenny Benkowski, Shelton Benjamin, Stephanie Bellars, Carlene Begnaud, Christopher Bauman, Bart Batten, Nicole Bass, Jeanne Basone, Doug Basham, Josh Barnett, J.C. Bailey, Buff Bagwell, Bob Backlund, Eric Angle, Gene Anderson, Gary Albright, Mike Awesome, Tony Atlas, Melissa Anderson, Skandor Akbar, David L. Abbott. Those are all the articles in his history he blanked I found yesterday. His policy is misguided, he didn't even bring up anything on our project page. Didn't request for immediate citation and certainly wasn't very helpful. In fact he has created more damage for us to clean up which is very unfair. I would of liked him to be punished but it doesn't look like that will happen. Not only that he had a go at me for his own vandalism on my talk page. That upset me!! 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Found the discussion and joined in, this guy is misuging WP:BLP to blank out pages, that's not what it states. MPJ-DK 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking articles 

message: Just to let you guys who haven't noticed, WP:PW has its second piece of featured content with List of WWE Champions. Great stuff guys. -- Oakster  Talk  11:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New featured list