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)

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)

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)

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. [1] [2] 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)

Have a great 2008! iMatthew (talk) 15:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In Demand reliable?

Many guys in this project see InDemand as a reliable source. A lot of people disagree with that. I think, we need to find a consensus here, as by now, we take it as reliable for some events, and unreliable for other events (see No Way Out 08). What do you say? should we add InDemand to the reliable sources? Diivoo (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Umm yeahhh, InDemand is where WWE air's it PPV's and InDemand has previews and details on the events. Reliable as WWE.com--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

then someone who can should add the Elimination Chamber Match to the No Way Out 2008 page. Diivoo (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, InDemand is only reliable for the promotional poster. Details for a scheduled event is not reliable because they are "spoilers", and we dont list those. And currently the NWO page is fully protected.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 16:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. If a reliable source can be found for spoilers, the rules of WP state that THEY MUST be added, period. If InDemand is a reliable source, spoilers coming from them can and should be listed, as per a previous discussion involving non-project members. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

It is locked due to the edit warring. Nikki311 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection will end in a few days. Then we can add it and move on. Mshake3 (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank God. AdaManiac 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible merger

I was wondering what people would think about merging the Larry Sharpe and Monster Factory articles. Both are stubs that contain a sentence or two plus a list of people trained by Sharpe (at the Monster Factory). I'm planning to expand the article on Sharpe, but I don't know what more can be said about his school. Any opinions? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. The Monster Factory article can be a redirect to a section in the Larry Sharpe article. If more can be found about the school at a later date, it can always be moved back out to its own article. Nikki311 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's a great way to deal with two stubs at once. - Geoffg (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I merged the pages, but I just realized that there might be some process that I was supposed to go through. Do I need to revert the edit and put it up for vote/discussion? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MERGE, if a merge is uncontroversial and improves Wikipedia, you can be bold and do it yourself. I agree with the merger, if that makes any difference. TJ Spyke 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)