Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

PW Discussion Board
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

To Do List

This talk page is automatically archived by Shadowbot3. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 38. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

WWE Roster = New look?

I have created a tabled look for the WWE Roster page in my sandbox. Please visit my sandbox and tell me what you like and what you don't like. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest swapping "wrestlers" for "superstars." Technically, it's what WWE calls them, and no way in hell are Kelly Kelly or Layla El "wrestlers." Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Also, I'm not sure if the footnoted information should have both legit jobs like producers and on-screen roles as managers. One or the other (maybe even neither), I'd say. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this guy, swap the names. Also make make female wrestlers like female superstars or divas or something like that, are you moving the creative team to another article?--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't Kelly Kelly or Layla El wrestlers? They consistantly wrestle matches. What other requirements do they need? Nobody ever said you need to be a good wrestler to be a wrestler. Kris (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called an opinion, but being in matches doesn't make you a wrestler anyway. Are Jay Leno and David Arquette wrestlers? Or how about Eric Bischoff or Teddy Long? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be listed by brand, personally. It makes it much easier to read and find what you're looking for that way. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is about contracted talent, the show in which they appear isn't really relevant. It's not like if each show has different contracts, etc. I believe that the wrestlers should be grouped together, and the brand which they appear in can be specified next to the name, as I did. However, it's the wiki-community's right to decide... so decide away :D Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, keep that format but group the indiviual rosters together ... Skitzo (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like WWE is phasing away the brand split anyways. SmackDown and ECW are basically 1 roster now, and Hornswoggle appears as often (maybe even more) on RAW as he does on SmackDown. TJ Spyke 01:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are but while they still officially have it we should continue to separate the performers as such. Skitzo (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is the stupid roster template box thing at the bottom? Isn't that a little redundant. Nenog (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger

• List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length
• List of WWE Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of World Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length
• List of WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Tag Team Championship reigns by length
• List of World Tag Team Championship (WWE) reigns by length
• List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE European Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Hardcore Championship reigns by length
• List of ECW Television Championship reigns by length
• List of WWE Cruiserweight Championship reigns by length
• List of WWF Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length
• List of WCW Hardcore Championship reigns by length

I suggest the above articles be merged into the normal title history pages of each championship. It's basically the same list, except sorted by reign length (which can be done with a sort table). Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggested this before. The concern was over the date column, as once sorted, it can't be resorted unless you use some sort of template for each date. Mshake3 (talk) 06:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the technique suggested in this conversation? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add all that information, then go ahead. You might also want to try Template:DTS. Mshake3 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to start doing this between today and tomorrow. I have started in my sandbox, but I am not going to be here for the rest of the day. When it's finished, I will ask the community for approval, and then apply the new format to all our lists. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Wreckless Intent needs to be watched

People keep changing the track listing (even though there is clear warnings not to), every few days. Not quite enough for page protection, and most of it is from random IP editors with little or no other edits. So posting a warning on their talk page probably wouldn't do much good. RobJ1981 (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it out of the table format. It's not really suppost to be. That way, there aren't places to "fill in the blanks". Mshake3 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or just put "N/A" since the CD did include wrestlers for most of the tracks. TJ Spyke 02:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, then the title would be inaccurate. Mshake3 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would that make the title inaccurate? It would be correct since there was no superstar listed, thus it's not applicable for that track. Seems obvious to me. 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

PWWEW.net

I was wondering, can the website be a reliable source? The only reason I ask this is because Truco made an interesting point at the Vengeance peer review. Can it be a reliable source? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't see why not. It seems to provide detailed TV reports. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Will continue to use. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can write a fake detailed TV report. You know, this reliable source thing has gone for months, and I am kind of getting tired of it. What's wrong with the TV reports on WWE.Com? They're perfect and come from the company! You don't need other sites. Also, if any other site that looks professional is a reliable source, then wouldn't that make anything you find on Wikipedia.org reliable? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn calm down Lex, its for verifablity man one source for the whole thing makes the article more reliable.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lex, WWE.com tells me nothing about the complete match history of WCW. Well rather, a good portion of it. Mshake3 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that the website is reliable..... still? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, some "dirtsheets" have some historic match results. Or are we going to discount them since they've lied about currrent events? Mshake3 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What current event have they "lied" about? D.M.N. (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Just in general regarding behind the scenes stuff and future plans and whatnot. Why do you think we keep calling these sites unreliable? Mshake3 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The main reason is that they can't back up statements. For example, if ProWrestlingScoops says "Jeff Hardy was inactive due tu injury", we can't write so on the page. However, if we did, we could write "PWS states that Jeff Hardy was inactive due tu injury". But, if WrestleView says "Jeff Hardy was inactive due to his suspension", then how do we choose which to write down? Is one more reliable than the other? If so, why [because they seem equally unreliable]? The vast different answers that these questions can have, are the second reason that why we can't post the info from dirtsheets. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If one source disagrees, they're all wrong. Got it. Mshake3 (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

There is currently a disagreement on how the roster should be setup: a prose, or the general list (which has always been on wrestling game articles, but there is no set rule that they must remain that way). The discussion is on the talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The only "disagreement" I see is that you (and only YOU) feel the roster should be in "paragraph" form, versus "list" form, as WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 is currently set up. Just because there is "no set rule" doesn't give you free license to set the page up any way you like.

I do not feel you are making warranted edit to how you think the roster list should look, and you only made a posting on this page to try and get people to agree with your side of things. Why aren't you making the same revision(s) to the 2007 page?
ArcAngel (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While there is no set rule for lists, it doesn't mean paragraphs need to be put in either. You know, A table wouldn't be bad. A list would still be awesome. But a paragraph? That's just crap right there. Wikipedia is supposed to be easy to read. Not jumbled up, and making you forget in 3 seconds. Oh, and I started this debate anyways, so, Rob, you are easily outnumbered even on this page! Tech43 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC) The decision has been made to make a table instead of a list. Tech43 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

When / Where / Who made this decision? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I insisted of making a table for him, but now I see that there is a concern, as it will be too big. Check it out in my Sandbox.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a list would do better after all. Tech43 (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania III DVD release

I don't think that the DVD release is notable. Every single WWE PPV has been released on DVD, and none of the PPV articles include anything about DVD releases. The fact is that sporting events are produced mainly for the live audience, and are taped additionally for people who couldn't be there. Obviously, because of this fact, the DVD releases of many live events of every other sports are not covered in their articles. Just take the Super Bowl for example. Anyway, I would like to know your thoughts on the issue. Cheers, Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about a seperate article for it? Then I agree. The only mention of the DVD release I know of is on WrestleMania, in the section about VHS and DVD releases of the the different events. Also, it is not true that every WWE PPV has been released on DVD (while, actually they have. But not every WWF PPV has been released on DVD). TJ Spyke 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In my GA review of the article, I said that it might be worth mentioning that it was released on its own on DVD. It's really not the kind of thing I'd fail the page over. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Project vote stacking

I nicely asked the members of this project not to vote in each other's FLCs because it looks like vote stacking, and there you go again. An FLC that passes thanks only to project support isn't much of an accomplishment, is it? And don't give me that "nobody else wants to vote in professional wrestling related things" garbage, because eventually, there will always be enough votes for a pass or fail. I've been closing FLCs for six months and I've never had to fail one heading for promotion due to a lack of votes. What really makes me think that nobody really looked at it is the fact that it's not really a well formatted table - there's needless colour in the header, there's too much whitespace and there are citations in the header. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what Im tired of your BS!!, if it makes you happy im gonna pull the article from becoming an FL!! Dammit, Happy?!--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said it should be withdrawn - the FLC should be allowed to run its couse - I just dislike it when project members support eachothers work. I can always tell when that happens, and it's not a good thing because then the FLC regulars will see that an article already has enough support and won't look at it, then an article doesn't have a chance to become as good as it can be. Like I've told this project many times, the FL (and FA) process is not meant to be a series of revolving doors where articles are herded through as fast as possible, it's meant to make an article perfect, and having project members support things takes away from that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then if youre so against that then message other ppl not from this project and tell them to join the discussion. Let them put "NOT SUPPORT", then mayby you will quiet down =)

--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 03:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)----

First of all, you didn't ask us not to vote on nominations. You asked us not to vote on nominations without giving a reason. I gave a reason. In fact, I withheld my vote at first because I thought there was a problem with the list. Second, I appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure why you would have the authority to decide who is allowed to vote on Featured Articles/Lists. If there are a couple of problems you see with the list, you are welcome to fix them. If you want the color removed, you can do that (or I can do that). If you want the citations moved, let's move them. Would moving citations 9 and 17 to right after "Televised Draft" be better? As for white space, I don't see that being a problem.

As for notability, you arguments seem flawed. This is definitely notable, as it changed the entire face of the world's largest wrstling promotion. Lack of coverage by the media seems like a bizarre requirement. To the best of my knowledge, the New York Times hasn't covered any of the changes found in the CZW World Heavyweight Championship article, either. I've never heard of that being a requirement, though. Finally, this draft was much larger than previous drafts and there is enough information to warrant a separate article. Do you honestly believe that this draft is comparable to the 2006 draft? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have said several times that people shouldn't vote in project FLCs, because then people can just say "it only passed because of project support" and I've actually seen that statement used in FARs. It's not notable enough for its own page. It's basically cruft and goes into detail on a one night event that has to do with a scripted TV show. The WWE Draft Lottery page isn't that long, and the 2007 WWE Draft doesn't really justify why it needs its own page. I may be crazy, but I don't page about a barely notable one-night event an example of Wikipedia's "very best work". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion, I tend to avoid voting in any project featured candidates (I didn't even vote in the nomination of CM Punk having been the person who spent the most time working on the article as I felt it would be biased). Featured content requires readers who are neutral and from a broad spectrum, if the article is of quality and supported by the requirements of featured material then it will pass without interference. –– Lid^(Talk) 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Every other projects vote in FACs and FLCs, so why can't we? D.M.N. (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the other projects shouldn't be voting in their FXCs either. I agree with Lid, members of the project are hardly neutral judges. The only people who should be judging the quality of it are those with no ties to it. Commenting is fine, but actual voting isn't, IMHO. Also, as Scorpion pointed out, it is far too easy to strip an article of its status when it (appears to have) passed as a result of project support. For the record, I also abstain from project FXCs even though the default mode for me is to vote on anything involving the project. Peace, SexySeaBass 12:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is old BullS***, FELLOW WIKIPROJECT MEMBERS DONT VOTE IN THIS FLC, I will get people not from this project to vote. Is that better Lid, Hybrid, Scorpion? :p TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about not voteshopping at all? Let the omination take its course. Your sarcasm is misplaced as we are looking out for the project as a whole rather than a temporary featured gain. 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lid (talk • contribs)

Iight fine then, lets let this article sit out it's nomination for the next week and let it stay with its 2 supports (since we need 4 by 10 days). I doubt any random person would vote. Case closed!TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has three supports, and you asked all three to go there and vote: [1] [2] [3]. Please do not do that again in the future, because finding people who would vote support pretty easily defeats the purpose of having Featured Content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I resent that. Asking me to look at an article in no way guarantees a support vote. I was planning not to vote at all because I have no interest in wrestling from the past decade. I was interested in seeing what sort of article had been nominated, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that it fit all of the Featured List criteria. I saw that it needed some copyediting, so I did that and requested rewording of a confusing statement. Had I just gone and voted support without looking at the article closely, I would have been out of line. But I have not, do not, and will not support anything simply because it is a wrestling article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes FLC Police I will not do that again, are you gonna arrest me?? :p Even though it has 3, it wont get that 4th one. All your dreams will come true...TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you check your previous statement, you simply said that people should not vote without giving their reasons for supporting or opposing. I voted and gave my reasons. You seem to think this is a completely different situation simply because you do not like the article. You came here with one complaint, jumped to another when your first was address, jumped to yet another when that was addressed, and now you're back to the beginning. So, what is it? Is it not notable? Is it poorly formatted? Is it that it needs to be mergerd? Is it that people from the project are voting on it? If so,

1. It made major changes to the rosters of all three brands. Lack of mainstream media coverage is a ridiculous argument, as few of our 3240 articles regularly receive mainstream media coverage.
2. I have no problem with the formatting, but it can be changed quite easily.
3. I think, due to the complicated rules and the large nature of this draft, that it stands out from the rest. Adding it after the 2006 draft (2 picks) would look stupid.
4. If the real problem is that people from WP:PW, like people form every other project, vote on their Featured Articles/Lists, take the matter up with Wikipedia as a whole and try to get the rule changed. We have done nothing wrong, and your accusations are out of line.

If there was any consensus (a word you're tossing around without pointing to where the consensus was reached [for a Simpsons reference to parallel your own, this is like saying something is from the Bible and simply stating, "Near the back" when someone asks you where you found it]) reached, it was that project members should not review WP:PW GA candidates. Strangely enough, the only person I see going against that consensus is you. In fact, you are about to pass an article despite the fact that only one of your four concerns has been addressed. Aren't you concerned about how the perceptions of conflict of interest will make the project look? GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that any of my concerns have really been addressed. Even if it did make "major" changes to all three brands, it still goes into detail about a one-night thing about a TV show and it's no more notable than, say a "List of characters who have been killed off in the fifth season of 24" as in that case, it also involves major changes to a prominent TV show. The first draft is the only one that might be notable enough for its own page. As for WrestleMania III, I am reviewing the article because of the large backlog in the sports section, and it had been there for well over a month and I feel that my concerns about have been somewhat addressed/corrected. There is a difference betwen the GA and FA/L process because featured content is supposed to be the absolute best Wikipedia has to offer, so if an article is passed, it should be because of support from impartial reviewers, not members of a WikiProject that the article belongs to. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your concerns in the GA review. Despite your position as an objective and impartial GA reviewer, you are about to pass an article even though your concerns have not been addressed. And if your intention is simply to cut down on the GA review backlog, there were plenty of non-wrestling articles to review. Why didn't you choose one of them?

As for the topic at hand, you can't even remember which point you're arguing at this point, so I see no point in continuing this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please See This Started By Me. D.M.N. (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

Anybody want to help with this page? Somebody kept adding unsourced info, and now keep trying to add different MySpace pages (first one that they claimed was Jeff's despite the fact that Matt has said on his official page that Jeff doesn't have one). Now they keep adding the MySpace page of something called "Itchweed" that Matt says Jeff is involved with. I don't think any should be listed since Jeff doesn't have a MySpace page, and the MySpace page of the Hardy Show can go on the Hardy Boyz page (if it isn't already there). TJ Spyke 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm confused, Jeff Hardy is involved in both the "Itchweed" and "Hardy Show" MySpaces but you don't think they should be linked from his solo article?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL says links to sites like MySpace should be avoided unless they are the subject of the MySpace page. The Hardy Show is really about the Hardys together, so is fine for their tag team article but shouldn't be mentioned in their individual articles. "Itchweed" (the only things online I can find about this are things like MySpace) is the same. The only MySpace page that would be acceptable in Jeff's article would be his MySpace page if he had one. TJ Spyke 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Carlito and Santino Marella

Recently created article. I don't feel they are notable enough yet. Should we take it to AfD? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should take it to AfD, they are only a week old and WWE has only one article about them. Mayby if they continue to tag team all the way up to 'Mania then they can have an article, but for now not notable enough.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ket's not AFD it just yet. If the article gets deleted next week and they win the tag team championsips the day after, we'd just have to recreate the article. Let's just keep it under supervision. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 16:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If its not deleted at the very least it should be moved to "Cantino" wich is the name that WWE has been pushing. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I sincerely doubt that Lilian will actually begin annoucning them to the ring as "Cantino." It's just a shorthand to make the articles easier to write, just like how most of the IWC calls London and Kendrick, "Londrick." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Big Show and Kane were the champions for a few months, yet we deleted the article. Even if Carlito and Marella won the titles next week, they haven't been together for a long enough amount of time. iMatthew (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

iMatthew is correct. Just winning the tag titles doesn't make them notable enough to have a tag team article (see Kane and The Big Show, Batista and Rey Mysterio, Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio, Edge and Rey Mysterio, etc.). They've wrestled together only 1 time, not even close to being notable yet. This looks like just another random tag team that WWE creates when they have nothing else for 2 mid-carders to do (like when they put Carlito and Masters together). TJ Spyke 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have PRODded the article (and adding an unreferenced tag since it has no sources either). TJ Spyke 20:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I've been waiting since Raw aired for someone to create this article. It is major crystal balling to create the article now, and like it has been pointed out, even if they win the championship, they doesn't mean they are notable as a tag team. Actually, I think an AfD would be a better way to go (as opposed to a PROD) because then the article can be speedily deleted when someone (and you know someone will) recreates it. Nikki311 06:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so I put it up for AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlito and Santino Marella. Nikki311 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2007

Would anybody second nominating this article for GA status? iMatthew (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I'll just nominate it for GA status. Can somebody help me with this, (never done it before) =] iMatthew (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. Several parts of the article are unsourced and it has one citation needed tag. D.M.N. (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I guess I should have read it over a few more times. Sorry about that! iMatthew (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder

The newsletter is sent out tomorrow afternoon, make sure that you add all last minute things if you need to. I also put a suggestion in the "suggestions" section of the interview set-up page. Please go there and read my idea/thought. iMatthew (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request: Steve Keirn

I have been working on improving this article, and it's definitely much better than it was a few days ago. One of the big problems I have with wrestler biographies, though, is naming the sections. Could someone please look over the article quickly and recommend better names for the sections? Thanks. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"Early career", "WWF/WCW" and "Later career" sound okay. Don't know what you think, though. FamicomJL (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you wanted ideas, well I already renamed them, Idk if you like them (you can change them if you want)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Concern with a couple of FLs (not vote-stacking)

Two recently-promoted featured lists, IWGP World Tag Team Championship and AJPW Triple Crown Championship, have gone against typical WP:PW policy by using large print in the notes section and (less importantly) making the table sortable. I don't think either of these is necessary, and frankly I think they make it look ugly. They were changed because of a concern from the voters during the nomination, and I certainly can't blame the nominator for implementing their wishes, but I'd just like to see what general consensus is in the project itself. --MarcK 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do all of my editing from my laptop these days, and it shows the small font just fine. When I check a page from my home computer, though, I have a very hard time reading notes written in small font. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The small/large font thing really isn't that big of an issue with me, but maybe that's because I, too, am on a lap-top...so it looks fine either way to me. The sort-table thing, though, seems pretty un-necessary in most of the columns. I mean, the lists are already sorted by date, and who really cares about sorting by location? The only column I can see that might benefit from being sortable is the "times" section (which would also sort the winners, if I'm not mistaken), so you can see each one of a multiple-winner's reigns. Nikki311 06:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification about References/ Update our Guidelines

When adding references to articles, is the name of the website supposed to be listed as the Work or Publisher? For example, with a match result from the Wrestling Information Archive, would Wrestling Information Archive be listed as the Work or Publisher? I've always listed it as the Work, but many people list it as publisher. Does it matter either way, or should be just be consistent in each article, regardless of which is used. Listing it as the Work puts it in italics, but listing it as the Publisher doesn't, so I've noticed that a few articles have a mix of the two. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Website is the publisher. If it's something like a column, that is the work. For example, one of the sources we use for WWE PPVs is called Oold Tyme 'Rasslin Revue. It's a column on the website onlineonslaught.com. So OTRR would be the work and OO would be the publisher. Template:Cite web has the details. TJ Spyke 07:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked over the explanation on the template page, and it seems to say that the website would be called the Work. If the site is published by an institution such as a government or university, that would be listed as the Publisher. I don't really have a problem with it either way, as long as it's consistent throughout each article (ie. no one article mixes the two). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the "Wrestling Information Archive" site, a non-project member suggested here that WIA and Angel Fire (Which is the "history of the WWE site" in the PPV Guidelines) are unreliable. They have suggested we remove/update our Guidelins policy, comments??--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The information found on those sites is reliable. If we had to rely solely on information that is the result of someone's "day job", we would have a very hard time sourcing anything. In fact, most sites that are the results of "day jobs" tend to be unreliable dirtsheets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do 2, but Colin said it is owned by some guy who just puts stuff down in the site, although to me it's reliable. And I have removed those citations from the 2007 WWE Draft, so I guess it's up to project members to decide whether we should follow that statement or ignore/decline it.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 19:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan/AWA World Title

Does anyone else have an opinion on listing the AWA World Title in Hulk Hogan's list of titles? I know we sometimes list "unofficial" title reigns (usually WWE going back and striking out title changes they want to ignore, like when the WCW Championship was held up after Flair and Steamboat double pinned each other at Spring Stampede 1994). However, the original AWA never recognized Hogan's title wins and neither does the WWE (which legally owns the rights to the AWA). The only ones who recognized the title wins are "AWA Superstars of Wrestling", a indy wrestling organization that does not legally have any say over the AWA or its history (WWE purchased all rights to the AWA from its legal owner Verne Gagne). So this is not a case of an organization deciding to alter history since Hogan was never recognized as AWA Champion. TJ Spyke 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well with the facts you presented I say dont' list it, if only a rip-off promotion can list it and a major promotion that has ties w/ the original AWA. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 22:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a Collaboration of the Week?

The newsletter is supposed to go out today, but it doesn't list a Collaboration of the Week. I've been focusing on stub articles lately, so I'm out of the loop. Is Dusty Rhodes this week's collaboration? If so, can he be added to the newsletter? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I would assume Dusty Rhodes is the Collaboration of the Week, considering he had the most votes as of today. iMatthew (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Help request (yes, again): Money Inc.

I went through this article and added references. I'm not sold on the section headings that have been used, though. I don't know of any other aticles that have headings for each of the feuds. Should this all be combined into one section? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that you merge them and rename the sections as ==Career==, ===Year - year===, ===year - year===, ===etc==.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 2010?

Umm.. ive read on "dirt sheet" sites that WM2010 will be in Phoenix, Arizona because some owner of an NHL team wore a WrestleMania shirt that has 2010 on it and "destruction in the desert", the image is here and the article is here Just thought I'd mention it so you can watch out if it get's created.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably just the guy wanting it to be there. For the last several years WWE has announced WrestleMania 1 year early (i.e. they announced WrestleMania XXIV at WrestleMania 23, they announced 23 at 22, etc.). I don't see them announcing WrestleMania XXVI 2 years before it happens. Hopefully not one will try and create such an article. TJ Spyke 19:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It makes little sense to announce it now especially since they have not even announced Wrestlemanina XXV yet. --67.68.153.94 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE Roster - Changes before airing

Once again, I find myself in an edit dispute with User:NickSparrow. This time, he's contending that SD's new announcer and Drew McIntyre's (sp) move to Raw don't count, so should be included. I disagree, on the grounds that neither has been announced or aired. I've reverted it twice already today, so some help would be nice. Hezekiah957 (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He is wrong, simple as that. They are not exempt from the rules. Spoiler reports are almost never reliable, so the new SD annnouncer shouldn't be added until SD airs (since it's unlikely that wwe.com will announce it) and McIntyre shouldn't be added until the Heat taping is uploaded to wwe.com. I have had to deal with the SD announcer thing on multiple pages. TJ Spyke 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, thanks. Hezekiah957 (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2007)

Ok SS '07 is finally done. May someone go rate it. Thanx--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 21:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning...

Might want to add WrestleMania XXVI, WrestleMania 26, and WrestleMania 2010 on your watchlists. [4] [5] Thanks to Wayne Gretzky and his apparent desire to have a 'Mania in Phoenix, expect to see trolls bombarding Wiki soon. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I posted it 2 sections above. Sign my guestbook.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Eeeh, its what happens when you don't read the talk page. My bad. Still, the pages should be added to your watchlists as a precaution.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

All 3 are on my watchlist now. TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope we have a Mania in Phoenix. Anyway, I'll watch them as well. Peace, SexySeaBass 08:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Years

A little off-topic, but Happy New Years to everyone in the project (I realize that those in the central time zone and to the west are still in 2007, I am in the eastern time zone where it is now 12:05 AM), this is my first edit of the new year (I go by my time zone) TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well not me (yet). :) The Chronic 21:48, 31 December 2007 (PST)

Thanks. Happy New Years to you, as well. On a similar subject, any edits I've made since approximately 12:30 and any edits I make after this point are while I am under the influence. If they are incoherent, please accept my apologies. :) Nikki311 07:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

21 minutes into 2008 here! Happy New Year everyone! Now the real countdown is on! 29 days till my B-day! -- bulletproof ^3:16 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone, and an early happy birthday to you, Bulletproof! Peace, SexySeaBass 08:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year! D.M.N. (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year's everyone! Let's have an awesome 2008! AdaManiac 14:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)