Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
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!

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 74. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Second stub drive

The number of stub-class articles has been falling, but the bot that tagged wrestling articles has picked up a few more. We are within striking distance of meeting the New Year's Resolution of getting the percentage of stubs below 10% by the end of 2009. To help with this goal, I am announcing the second Professional Wrestling Stub Reduction Drive, which will last until the end of the year. Please see details at Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive 2. To see how the last one went, you can check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive. Thanks in advance (and barnstars in January) to anyone who can make a significant contribution toward achieving the resolution. (P.S. - If someone can add this to the newsletter, that would be greatly appreciated.) GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea Gary. We jumped back up to 12.63% this week with the new taggings - we were down at 11.68%. I only wish I had more time to help out. :( I've added it to this week's newsletter, but I wouldn't expect it to be delivered until tomorrow - I was a little late with the message today, and I don't think Misza is online after a certain point. Hope nobody minds too much. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, excellent idea to close out the year, it's not an impossible task at all. Has anyone figured out approximately how many stubs articles need to be expanded to reach the goal? And I'm definitly in.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk  22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in, too. In hindsight, I probably should have waited to do the bot thing until the year was over...but I'm always up for a challenge. Nikki♥311 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the stubs, it seems like a lot of the ones that have been added are songs that happened to be used as WrestleMania themes or arenas that were the site of wrestling matches. Some arenas are definitely important enough to the sport to be under the project's scope, but I'm not convinced about all of them. Perhaps a discussion is needed to determine whether or not these should be considered professional wrestling articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think arenas that have hosted wrestling events (with the rare exception like the Impact Zone) or songs should be included in the project. Should "Live and Let Die" be covered by WikiProject NFL just because it was peformed at the Super Bowl a few years ago? What about songs used in movies? Unless something has significant connection to wrestling, I don't see why it should be covered by us. TJ Spyke 01:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. So something like Madison Square Garden should be covered, but RiverCentre should not? Nikki♥311 04:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, MSG has a very strong connection to wrestling (hell, Vince McMahon is in the MSG Hall of Fame and WWF used to do a weekly show there). TJ Spyke 04:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems that the bot has tagged characters such as Mammothman which I don't think is appropriate at all. Maybe it'd be helpful to go through the unassessed articles to see if anything is mis-tagged.  MPJ-DK  (42,3% Done) Talk  14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm making a list of articles for various reasons. As I look through the project's accessment cats, I'll check and remove any that don't seem to have a reason to be tagged.--WillC 16:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Billy The P notability

Any thoughts on whether this IWA-MS manager is sufficiently notable for inclusion? He apparently thought he was worth including, so he wrote the article himself. I know very little about the promotion, but I'm always more open to deletion when the article is an unsourced vanity article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of possible PRODs, I can't find any information at all about the NWA UK Central Counties Championship. The only link on the page is to Opentopia, which definitely doesn't meet the requirements for a reliable source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on either. Nikki♥311 00:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The article should be deleted; per lack of notability and due to the fact that he was only active for two years--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible mergers

I know I'm loading the board with a bunch of topics today, but I'd really like to get some work done on the stub article reduction. There are a few articles I'd like some feedback on. First of all (and last for tonight), could Ring of Honor Wrestling and Survival of the Fittest (wrestling) be merged into the main Ring of Honor article? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ring of Honor Wrestling, yes, but I'm not so keen on Survival of the Fittest (wrestling)--The Celtic Cross (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Survival of the Fittest, but ROH TV no. That show is covered by numerous sites, we have enough info to expand the article to a decent length if someone is willing to.--WillC 16:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Burchill

Sorry to bring this up here, but I'm getting at this is the most active page of the pages that cover the matter. Anyway, I read a section here, and I was wondering has anyone got a source that says that the wrestler that ambushed The Hurricane last thursday, is Paul Burchill? Because he is currently listed in unassigned talent, which would be proven wrong if we had a reliable source saying it's Burchill.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The ongoing report on PWTorch points out that his moveset gave away it was Burchill. Slam! Sports' column also pointed it out. Do these count? Arguably these are just reporters make the same assumption we are but then again Wiki guidelines also state to use common sense and he's quite obviously Burchill so I think it should be safe. Tony2Times (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins Split

They now have notable singles careers so split them. Split Zack and Curt Talk to me

What has Hawkins done? His whole singles career has been in FCW, he hasn't even appeared in WWE on his own yet. TJ Spyke 23:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What has Ryder done? He's had matches here and there, almost never with the same person twice to make any kind of storyline and now he has a girlfriend. Tony2Times (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, Ryder has been getting a push in ECW. He had a feud with Christian where he looked pretty strong, he's feuding with Shelton Benjamin right now. He has a stronger case for getting his own article than Hawkins (I am not saying I support or oppose, just pointing out that he has a better shot at getting one than his former partner). TJ Spyke 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they should be split. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Ryder the number one contender to the ECW Championship for a minute? Hasn't he wrestled in the main event match on ECW at least a couple of times? I think the case for Ryder having his own article has vastly improved, so I'd give my weak support to creating a separate article for him. Hawkins, however, really hasn't done much, so he should probably stay a redirect for the time being. Nikki♥311 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still be considered content forking then? We would have to delete Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder to give even one their own page. Defacto, they would both have to get pages. Outside of a few months of singles matches in ECW, I don't see how Ryder is notable on his own. Getting a title shot on tv on the C show isn't that big of a deal. Hell, Funaki got a title shot on SD in 2007/8. Never knew a few matches on tv and a title shot made someone notable enough for their own page.--WillC 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryder getting a article doesn't mean Hawkins would. The Hawkin and Ryder article will never be deleted as they were a notable tag team, so the article on them will continue to exist and Hawkins could continue to be written about there. TJ Spyke 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah I see I change my idea on Hawkins bot not Ryder. Give Zack his own page Talk to me

@ Will: Being the number one contender to the top title on a brand of WWE and appearing in main event matches on its weekly TV show is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, IMO. I'm confused as to why you don't believe that warrants an article for him, when in the past you've insinuated that merely appearing once or twice in WWE is enough to have an article ([1]). In any event, the team article wouldn't be deleted...it would be as TJ said. Nikki♥311 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus yet? Reach a consensus Talk to me

Are you all forgetting we have an article for him? It is just in the format as the same as the Briscoe Brothers. I feel this is more along the lines of content forking. You are going to be giving the same info on two seperate articles.--WillC 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just as Nikki said he meets notability guidelines. Ryder meets notability guidelines Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

There's nothing of his singles career that isn't already on the current tag team page and it amounts to a very brief paragraph. He was number 1 contender one week and lost the match the following week, it's not much of a notable storyline if you can even call it a storyline. His current story of having fantasies of Rosa Mendez is still ongoing and may amount to nothing. Tony2Times (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Check my last entry. Check it Talk to me

Curtis, of course he meets the notability guidelines. He has a page, which is shared with the history of Hawkins. Nothing has been shown as to why there should be a split. He got a title shot. Well countless others have had title shots that have their history joined with their tag team partner. That doesn't change the fact most of their history was apart of a tag team. Crap, The Briscoes should be split if this is split. I believe it is Jay who has had title shot after title shot.--WillC 02:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis is now disrupting this page? Give it a rest already. I'm not sure why you think coming here will help your effort out. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Make Ryder his own page, but blast Hawkins; he's not notable enough--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep them together, neither deserves a separate article at this point. And Curtis, throttle it back, you're becoming an irritant. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What no i'm not I just won't stop until there is a real consensus. Not an irritant Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

No you just want your way in all honesty. There has been discussion after discussion on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder, with them all ending up on not seperating. You continue to bring it up because you want your way. We have had a consensus on the matter, just one you do not agree with.--WillC 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A consensus is a general agreement and I don't agree and I see a few people who don't agree so you don't have a consensus. Get a real consensus Talk to me —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Since September you've been making the same lack of a point, much to the degree of "goooooo ooooon, make a page" with no support aside from when you started faking signatures of frequent editors to fabricate support. That's three months you've been going on when everyone else has said the same thing about his page not being worthy of a profile. You do just want your way regardless and it's just by luck that some people here are considering it, I'm fairly certain if no-one agreed you'd continue to bug this page on a daily basis anyway. Tony2Times (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading that I've got to say I'm against making the new page--The Celtic Cross (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He meets notability guidelines and he doesn't have a page his team has a page bu he doesn't have a page give his one.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the same format as Briscoe Brothers. If that can reach GA, then there is nothing wrong with the format imo. Please Curtis, show why having them merged is a bad thing? The information regarding Ryder is all there. No rule around here that I am aware of that says a wrestler must have a single page.--WillC 01:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Give Ryder an article!!!!!!!!!!--The United States Champion Bask in my glory 01:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis, acting like that, is not helping your cause.--WillC 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why should we give him his own page why you wont state any reasons why we should instead all you do is tell us we should give us something to back up you clame.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly Curtis, stop being so juvenile--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to do these things prod Zack Ryder (WWE) for speedy deletion and notify that the pictures provided aren't copyright free. Even if we do give him a page, we surely won't even need this as a redirect. Tony2Times (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already redirected it since it IS a plausible search target. Doesn't matter if it's deleted now, but there was no point. TJ Spyke 15:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is a consensus, I just wanted to state that no sepearation: WP:Fork. --Truco ₅₀₃ 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't a consensus I don't agree Ryder meets notability guidelines has been #1 contender to a world championship has had a very noteable storyline and is now in another storyline with Rosa Mendes that's why he deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I once agreed with the argument for creating invdiviual articles, the behavior of Curtis23 has made me reconsider my position. I no longer feel like I can support any position that is backed up by frequent name changes (which, depending on the way you look at it, is either annoying, deceptive, or both) and a simple repetition of "they are notable" without supporting evidence. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

By my count the consensus is 8:2 to not split the pages for either wrestler. And Curtis's last statement makes no sense because there is no punctuation. Can we top and tail this, as the ever-changing signatures are not making any policy points anymore. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Dude "consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, just that the vast majority of the people agree on it - so yes there can be consensus even if you don't agree with it, I think you might benefit from taking a deep breath, step back and calm down.  MPJ-DK  (48,07% Done) Talk  18:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously man, you're making a fool of yourself--The Celtic Cross (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You people just don't understand i'm doing this because i'm the only one who's right you people are just rebelious and don't stand for what's right once you change your mind you know where to find me.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying my hardest to not feed any trolling here, but seriously, you're calling us rebelious? Please Curtis, take a modesty pill. Your recent comments have already turned people against your cause, pretty much the opposite of what you wanted. --  Θakster   00:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody agrees with what's right that's just sad.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

People agree with arguments that are well-presented and give sufficient supporting information. Repeating a non-argument + Annoying signatures + Canvassing = Lack of support. I think it's time to archive this discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given sufficient supporting info and i'm not changing my signatures to be annoying and I didn't even know about that rule so Zack deserves a page.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think that vandalizing my talk page will help your cause, I urge you to read up on Wikipedia policy before you make any further edits. As things stand now, you have 11 warnings on your talk page for vandalism and adding unsourced content. Any more will get you blocked. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not supporting Curtis, but he didn't vandalize your talkpage. Looking at the history of your page, his only comment was asking you to support him. TJ Spyke 01:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the talk page, no. But he did vandalize the "to do" list on my talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything about quotes (or whatever you call them) being changed constantly? Curtis has done it how many times now and it's getting to be annoying/disruptive. Plus some people could argue he is pretending to be other people, which is just sneaky and not needed. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that a pretty strong consensus has been met and along with the fact that Curtis seems to be disruptive with the constant signature change which i believe is against policy i'm not sure ill have to check on that. Plus with the fact that this same subject has be talk about many times on Talk:Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder and in all that talking the out come is still against the split.--Dcheagle (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Frequently changing signatures is NOT forbidden. However, having messages like "Zack Ryder Give Me A Page" can be considered disruptive per WP:SIGNATURES. Pretending to be another user is also banned and can lead to a user being blocked. Curtis, I do think Ryder is almost notable enough to get a page; your actions are not helping thoughTJ Spyke 02:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok how much more noteable does he have to get (calm)--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude, STOP. Do NOT alter other peoples comments like you just did. This is why people are getting pissed at you. TJ Spyke 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

What? I didn't alter anybody's comment.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 05:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I think my computer is messed up because when I try to put in my signature it goes somewhere else sometimes so I didn't do that on purpose.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have anything to do with signing comments. As for the problem you speak of, that is a simple mistake that happens to all of us from time to time.--WillC 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice one Curtis, admitting you can't win so you start to manipulate other people's words?  MPJ-DK  (48,07% Done) Talk  08:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That's done it, he should be blocked.--The Celtic Cross (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously I didn't do that on purpose please believe me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 23:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (add-on to last comment) Please don't block me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 23:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The action that was done seems too exact to be an accident. Most times I would prefer no block, but at the moment, I'm not sure.--WillC 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not kidding please don't block me.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Do to the fact that this isn't the first time that he's been busted for changing comments i think its time that a temporary block be issued.--Steam Iron 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok people stop discussing a block, this isn't the correct place for it. Bring this matter up at an admin's talk page or an admin notice board if you strongly feel Curtis deserves it. I personally think he needs to just stop obsessing over Zack Ryder and edit elsewhere. This has gotten out of hand, and just needs to stop. Ryder will get his page whenever he does. Complaining at numerous talk pages will NOT change things. Changing your signature or whatever else numerous times will also not change things, so just knock it off. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to redirect

I've started a discussion at Talk:Pop (professional wrestling) about merging and redirecting Pop (professional wrestling) to the List of professional wrestling terms. Please feel free to voice your opinion, whatever it may be. Nikki♥311 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure; on one hand I don't see it relevant enough to have it's own page, and on the other hand, I do see it relevant. I'm 50-50--The Celtic Cross (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Try merging pop and heat into one article about general crowd reactions, seeing as they are really the same thing. 92.1.179.166 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Celtic: That's why I'm proposing a merge and redirect as opposed to a deleton. It is important in the wrestling world, but it doesn't meet notability requirements on Wikipedia. Nikki♥311 00:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah then, I agree--The Celtic Cross (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer opinions be posted there instead of here, so there can be one centralized discussion. Nikki♥311 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub reduction drive update

After one week, the number of stub-class articles has dropped by 0.65%. We are now back down below 12% and are within striking distance of our New Year's Resolution goal of 10%. Any help is appreciate. Please stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Stub drive 2 even if you just have a few minutes to help out. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the hard work. The number of stubs dropped by a quarter of a percent today, which is amazing for a single day of editing. Seven days like today, and we'd meet the goal. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to help out some. Been wanting to but been too busy with other stuff.--WillC 06:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling ring

I was reading the article and noticed it's a start class, in my opinion it is something higher than that (I'm not very familiar with rating articles) but I found out everything I was looking for--The Celtic Cross (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I needs a few more sources before it can be upgraded. Nikki♥311 19:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)