Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

PW Discussion Board
Shortcut WT:PW 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 User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 42. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

No vote stacking here

Despite the claim that no Featured List candidates have failed because of a lack of votes, AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship has failed its Featured List candidacy due to a lack of votes. The nomination was open for 18 days. Aside from me (as nominator), it received one support and one oppose. The oppose (which came 12 days after the list was nominated) was based on two unsourced statements in the lead, which I was searching for references to support (although the article wouldn't have been hurt if the two statements had simply been removed).

I appreciate people from this project abstaining from voting. I think, however, that this shows that the system isn't as perfect as some people have claimed. If people from our project can't vote and people from other projects don't vote (and we now have this nomination to support our earlier concerns), then how can our work be promoted? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving my point Gary! New Year's Revolution (2007) failed because of the same thing. Lack of opinions. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was established numerous times, most recently during the 2007 WWE Draft FL candidacy, I "asked" members to voice their opinion on the article, then I was bashed by another user for doing so, and then it was basically embraced not to have project members vote on their project's articles. If this continues, we will never see future FL/FA'sTrU Co ⁹31¹ 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Gary! lol iMatthew 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis? The Chronic 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I admit it, I was wrong. While I can't speak for Scorpion and Lid, I'll go ahead and say I'm no longer opposed to project members voting in FXCs, so long as they don't just vote support without question. Basically, follow GCF's example, and everything should work out fine in the long run. I apologize for it taking a number of failed candidacies to prove what you were saying all along. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 06:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<spoiler removed>

User:Shazza keeps adding a second Elimination Chamber match scheduled for No Way Out featuring SmackDown! talent only. Anyone care to help?-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love Smackdown spoilers in the header titles. Mshake3 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's that sense of humor! :) -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request for protection, which would at least stop IP's and new users. I will check in on the article from time to time to help out. TJ Spyke 05:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been semi-protected for 1 week. So we won't have to worry about IP's and accounts less than 4 days old. TJ Spyke 06:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the original title, as I've basically now been spoiled about this Friday's SmackDown! episode. D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding being spoiled, so will anyone else if they decide to check the history page. ;) ArcAngel (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers aren't bad, because Wikipedia is not censored. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Former WWE programs

Ugh. Do we need articles for every single one of them shows. I'm pretty sure some, for instance WWF Friday Night's Main Event should be deleted, while others could be merged. Do others agree, that some of the articles located in the template should be deleted/merged? D.M.N. (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, some of them should be merged into other articles. For instance some of the "Main Event" named articles should be merged into like WWE Saturday Night's Main Event article, or the shows that recap programming should be merged into like WWE Experience. Or something like that...--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. All Main Event shows should be merged and Velocity should stay it's own article, in my opinion. I know little of the other former shows, so I can't assess their notability. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a Former WWE programming article where we could have sections on some of the more notable programs (which are stubs now), links to former programming notable enough for a separate article, and delete the ones that only lasted two weeks (WWF Friday Night's Main Event). Nikki311 01:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be a good way to get rid of a bunch of stubs that I originally didn't think we'd be able to do much with. Nikki311 01:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree with Nikki. iMatthew 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree!!! :) LessThanClippers (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects in the next couple of days....I'll get started on it. Nikki311 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also like the idea. Would it also be worth moving the information from WWE Byte This! into the new article? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Byte This! should be in the World Wrestling Entertainment article. It technically isn't "former programming" as it was on the internet and apparently is going to return at some point...or something. Nikki311 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, I've started the merging. I'm only going to merge the stub articles and add {{main}} tags for the articles with sufficient info to be a separate article. Nikki311 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Banderas as GA Candidate

Seriously? this article has so many problems that would keep it from being a Good Article I mean I can see 10-15 things right now I'd point out if I was reviewing it. I mean it's whomever put it up for GA's decission and all but personally I think it needs a lot of work. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess you don't like the language, again. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't agree with it becoming a GA, notify the user who put it up for GA, tell him the problems you see, and then "contribute" to the article so it can pass it's GA review. Cheers--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 13:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of time to fix whatever problems you see. It is pretty far down in the never-ending list of sports-related GACs. List the problems on the article's talk page, and I'm sure they will be taken care of. Nikki311 15:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just language but thanks Carribbian I appriciate that. I could just have sat back and let it fail spectacularly. Side note, it should have GA quality at the time of nomination not "at time of review". I'll do a detailed review and post it on the article's talk page over the weekend, then whatever you decide to do from there is up to whomever. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power 25

I think we should begin to make articles on the WWE Power 25. Any objections? GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object-I created this article before and it was agreed that it does not deserve an article because they are just simple rankings done by the WWE and are not all that important or show any significance.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Object per Truco. There is really no notability attached to the rankings. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not usre on this one. While it is a kayfabe ranking on how someone is performing, so is a championship, isnt it?LessThanClippers (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but the rankings have no overall bearing on how a wrestler is assessed throughout and after their career. A world championship means something and has significance at the end of a career, while saying that someone achieved number one on the power 25 doesn't. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nici, if the Power 25 were all that important, then we would have to add it to the wrestler's accomplishments...also if this were an article it would be an AfD quick because there are very few sources available for it.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean very few sources? Dirtsheets report them all the time, and the site has i bet already more than a hundred archives. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but dirtsheet websites just repost the Power 25, and they just inform ppl of who is has made it, etc. Really the Power 25 is not notable enough to have an article, I realized that when It go deleted.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe "WWE.COM" as a whole can have it's own article, and explain all the different things on the site in different sections (WWE Games, HEAT, List This!, Splinters, Power 25, WTF, Around the Ring, What if...., Weekly Diva, WWE 24/7, ECW X-Tream, Superstar Blogs, Where are they now?, Live PPVs, Title Histories, Corporate WWE.COM, WWE Shop, Superstar Ink, WWE Mobile, Over the Ropes, Silverlight and the almost daily WWE Polls (which currently is about Brock Lesnar in MMA). Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions on this? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Theis

The protection is off, and the vandals are back. I have requested blocking of the main vandal, as well as requested full protection. I am out of reverts, can someone help me keep an eye on this? LessThanClippers (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Four

We can put to rest that the term "Fatal Four Way" does not use the hyphen. (See here) Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any paticular reason you needed to tell us this? Mshake3 (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a war about whether the hyphen was used in the Fatal Four Way name.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LAME#WWE No Mercy –– Lid^(Talk) 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think we should officially close all article talk pages. Mshake3 (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=D, why because no one posts article comments to their corresponding article?TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This page should only be for things that everyone needs to know about. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM! Mshake3 (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then ignore it. But the attitude doesn't help anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was put to rest three months ago. A poll was held and the clear consensus was to use the hyphen. WWE does not use the hyphen on the page linked to here, but they do use the hyphen on some of their other pages. I don't see this as any reason to override consensus. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, WWE is not consistant on this issue (although I remember providing proof that more pages at wwe.com used the hyphen). TJ Spyke 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only sections in wwe.com that may use the hyphen are the articles written by writers like Craig Tello, Greg Adkins, Bryan Robinson, Louie Dee, Lennie DiFino, etc. These men may make mistakes, but the article I linked too was the WWE dictionary definition of the match, and it did not include a hyphen. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WWE page is full of mistakes. The page refers to Bastion Booger as Bastian Booger. The one that bothers me the most, though, is The Smokin' Gunns. In the WWF, they never used that name. They were always The Smoking Gunns, but the WWE page has rewritten that part of history (and, unfortunately, the Gunns' Wikipedia article has followed). Nothing on the WWE page should be taken as gospel, so I don't see how this changes anything. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason it's never being sent out anymore? This is an problem every week, as it is never sent out on time. What's going on with it. iMatthew 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a constant problem. I think we should really think about just making monthly editions and not weekly.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. If it is monthly though, there will be almost no excuse for it not going out on time. iMatthew 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this won't work as the other busiest project is the GA project and their newsletter is weekly. Don't see a reason why our's can't be monthly either. Although the PW community has to agree.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to take a vote? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not?

Two questions:

What exactly is the problem?
Can I solve it by coming out of my Wikibreak every Saturday for about 15 minutes? Sexy Sea Bass 06:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

This poll is to determine whether we should keep the newsletter weekly, or we should have it be issued monthly or every two weeks, that way we can avoid future delivery/delayed problems. This poll will close on February 8 2008.

~~Monthly~~Every two weeks-I originally wanted monthly, but I agree for every 2 weeks per Gary.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Monthly~~Every two weeks - per Gary. iMatthew 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks - More communication than a monthly newsletter is necessary for a project with so much going on. If weekly isn't working, the next logical step is every second week (and resuming the notification for the Collaboration of the Week on the other weeks). GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks - per GCF. Cheers, L A X 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks - works for me. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks yup -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks. - seems like a good idea. Baseball16 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every two weeks works for me. As Gary says it's more logical than skipping straight to a month, and people need to know what's going on with the project a little more than once a month, IMO. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE TV channels

This has been bugging me for awhile, but there are no sources for what channels RAW/SmackDown/ECW air on in international markets. People will add a country and a TV station without any source provided. I will put citation tags for now, how long before we just remove those that don't have a source? TJ Spyke 06:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Reminder

There are still two polls going on at here about the format of the WWE Roster page. Format (Tables/Normal) and Citations (Yes/No). iMatthew 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

for a couple of months now i have seen spoilers on wikipedia. isnt there a rule against spoilers until theyre announced? Baseball16 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia has no rule against spoilers and also should not have spoler warnings. Try reading WP:SPOIL and WP:NDS. As long as the information is properly sourced, and notable, it should stay. LessThanClippers (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to know. wp:nds stands for Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. --76.66.191.62 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userbox

sorry if im posting this on the wrong page, but can someone put the wrestling userbox on my page. I have been trying to do it for a while now. Baseball16 (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cheers, L A X 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article stat updates

Any chance that we could get an update on the article ratings? I'd update it myself if I understood how, but I'd really like to see how things have changed this week. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - If you want me to do this on a weekly basis Gary, just leave a note on my talkpage when you want it doing. D.M.N. (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jos LeDuc

After several months of procrastinating, I finally (re-)created an article that seemed like a notable absence. LeDuc once again has a Wikipedia article. With that said, the other articles that I've been thinking about creating for a while are the Brawl to End it All and the War to Settle the Score. Would these be notable enough to have their own articles? GaryColemanFan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Rumble Sortable Tables Update

Well, this has definately been a chance for me to learn a bunch of wiki codes. Here is the update. I am done with Royal Rumble 1988 and 1989, and thought I was done with 08,07,and 06 but I have decided to make a few changes. I now have the winner listed as before, but sorting as 30 so he shows at the top or bottom of the list (already corrected in 88 and 89. here are some questions though. What type of sorting conventions should we be using for names. Sort by first so its easy to read, or by last, the more proper, and in cases of The, should we sort by the first word like sort The Undertaker by The or by Undertaker. And What about guys whose ringname includes a nickname, like Big John Stud. Obviously you would sort by John Stud by Stud, but as Big John Stud I would say by big. I personally think we should sort all names by first names, but skipping "the". Opinions? Has there already been consensus on this? LessThanClippers (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should go by the first name except in 'the' cases. - DrWarpMind (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's something wrong with the sorting of the 2008 royal rumble. When you sort by time in the match from less to most, John Cena (8:29) is before Mark Henry (7:49). Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I know I might have finaly gone overboard on this but I thought it might also be helpful to sort by the 4 brands. i created 3 different options.

4 brands? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 00:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK 3 Brands and "ALUMNI" —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 00:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Keeping it the way it is.

Option 2 Removing the color, and having a sortable Brand Option

Option 3 Color and Sorting.

Let me know what ya think, I will make the adjustment to all the tables (so far 4 done). LessThanClippers (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOW, 0 opinions? That might be a first here. LessThanClippers (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current format works fine. Maybe add a sortable table though (so option 1 or 3). TJ Spyke 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User vandalizing under two different usernames

User:CactusJack1234567 and User:CactusJack12345678 are two usernames being used by one person. This user is constantly vandalizing the WWE Roster page. Where does this need to be reported? iMatthew 02:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report it to Nikki or LAX (two admins for PW) or you can always report it at WP:AIN.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, the edits look fine to me. What's the problem? Mshake3 (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was removing the sources on the injuries list. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newsletter Format

I thought that the original newsletter took up too much space on our talk pages (in length). So I took the liberty to have the newsletter have the show/hide feature. Do you like the new format? --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 04:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with having the show/hide feature, but it shrinks the size of the newsletter. Is there any way to fix this? iMatthew 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one thing I could not figure out to do, the editor of the WP:WPGA newsletter told me it may have to stay like that since that's how their size is. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 14:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe we should change the format. Instead of having two columns, it can be one long column (since it is show/hide). iMatthew 20 08 14:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not to good with columns, so I won't be able to do that. It was by miracle that I was able to add the hide/show feature.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 14:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it out. If anyone objects, you may revert it, but please explain why. iMatthew 20 08 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - iMatthew 20 08 14:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. I like it good job!TrU Co ⁹31¹ 15:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The newsletter is finished. Issue 10 is ready to be released, so I will be leaving Misza13 a message. Based on the poll above, the newsletter will now be released on an "Every other week" basis. The dates have been updated. The next issue will be released on February 17. iMatthew 20 08 17:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Relase the interviews independent from the newsletter. At the current rate, it will take a damn long time to release all the interviews via newsletter. Why not just have a seperate pages with links to each interview, which can be completed by the interviewee at any time? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can go back to one interview per week, and on the weeks that the newsletter is not released, we can send out a notice to all members that states the current COTW (still to be updated weekly), and the member interview of the week. One the weeks of the newsletter we can state the current member interview, the interview from the last week and next week. iMatthew 20 08 18:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hardy

Does anybody think that this article could soon be a GA? iMatthew 20 08 21:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a few more citations then yes, but right now its not GA worthy because some of the info is unsourced.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it. It might take a couple of days though. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also the issues of citation variation, lead fixes, and some other small things. I want to look it over before anyone nominates it. Nikki311 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added a whole bunch of references now, so the unreferenced part shouldn't be a problem. So, if people want to look over it and correct anything, personally, I think once that's done, it can be nominated for a GA. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up people. I intend to nominate Jeff Hardy for GA in a week. So if you could all look over it and perform any fixes, etc, or leave notes on the talk page and I'll do it ;), that would be great. Regards ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week

I do not know how to prune a nomination, so I need somebody to prune Hornswoggle's nomination. It did not have nine supports by last Friday. Also, Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need nine supports by Monday. Chris Jericho needs nine supports by Tuesday. Otherwise they will be prunned as well. iMatthew 20 08 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I don't know how to prune either, but both Vince McMahon and Jimmy Snuka need to be pruned as well. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it'd be entertaining...

...to read this. -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake...pathetic. Next he'll be saying the WP:PW should not exist since wrestling isn't notable. Is anyone from here going to speak up, or would it be best to ignore the issue? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Spokesperson. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 02:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's being disruptive in my opinion. Blanking clearly-notable sections from a large number of articles and edit warring. From the discussion, it doesn't seem he's willing to discuss the issue with an open-mind or willing to compromise. He has a clear agenda: rid all the stadium/venue articles of anything remotely related to wrestling. This clearly needs to be reported somewhere. I'm not sure how to handle the issue as an admin, and he might accuse me of COI since I'm a member of this project. Nikki311 02:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, why not ask Yamla? She's not a project member, but has been wrestling-friendly in the past. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor tried to go to mediation over the issue, but Paul refused and continued to delete the information. The information is sourced, so removing it without discussion is a serious problem. In the past, there was an issue in the article for someone who was very tangentially related to wrestling, and I agreed with him that adding information about wrestling to every possible article isn't appropriate (in case anyone is curious about the comments at the beginning of his talk page--they're not related to this article). At any rate, Paul has gone quite a bit farther than I agree with, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [1]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[2]-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell, Hackney is back now...not good. Though based on his post there, he may have actually realized he was wrong (he once tried to get about thirty wrestling articles deleted for being unsourced cruft). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you remind me of how Hackney is? I don't recall the user. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Prior to that, he had mass AfDed a bunch of articles and failed. Basically, he was biased against pro wrestling for no good reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I've posted this on 4/5 talkpages but I'll post it here to. Just a quick note that I'll be on a break till the end of the week, so any requests for help or any questions (e.g. "When are you going to finish.....") will be ignored. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Way Out (2008)

Please see here. Opinions are welcome. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania logos/posters

Hey there. I'm slowly making a return to Wikipedia with a help out by expanding the WrestleMania X-Seven article and I just have a query about the infobox image. All of the other pay-per-view articles feature the show's poster except for the WrestleMania which show the logos. Is there any reason as to why this is different? -- Oakster Talk 21:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is because not all WrestleMania's had a poster. So a logo is the next best thing. But that's my guess, mayby someone else know's the right answer.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously man, did you even think about your answer? Why would WrestleManias, the longest running and biggest event of the year, not have promotional posters? As for a good answer, it has to do with the old formats of PPV articles. The Big 4 had their own, and for some reason used logos as opposed to posters. No one knows why it was like that, but when someone tried to change it, it was often reverted because "that's how we do it." Mshake3 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-X Importance

Reading the talk page I was suprised to see it listed as low importance. The NWO and D-X are jointly responsible for the change in pro wrestling. D-X was one of the biggest players in the attitude era, and I think should at least be considered a medium, especially if NWO is a high. Thoughts? LessThanClippers (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say mid importance, the n.W.o was more important than DX in my view as DX was kinda derived from the n.W.o.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say mid, as well. DX was partly responsible for the whole Attitude Era and the popularity of wrestling during that time. Go ahead and change it to mid. Nikki311 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Orton

Okay, in the article, we all know that he's referred to as "The Legend Killer", however Dlae keeps removing "The" from Legend Killer. Any suggestions on what should be done? Sexy Sea Shark 17:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to keep the current revision. Who cares? This isn't quite as bad as the dispute over the dash in Fatal-Four Way but c'mon. This project has much bigger things to worry about... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania (1985)

I think this that WrestleMania (1985) should be changed to WrestleMania I. yes I know that at the time it was just called WrestleMania, but there are other Wikipedia sports articles that use the name it is known by now. Shuch as Super Bowl I at the time it was called "AFL-NFL World Championship Game"--JB (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought about it, but you make an interesting point. I agree.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it’s different. The first Super Bowl wasn't called Super Bowl I until later on. However, the first WrestleMania has never been referred to as WrestleMania I. It has only been referred to as such chronologically speaking.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out one of Hornetman's first "proposals" for more info. [3] -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be WrestleMania I, but I do think it should be simply "WrestleMania", and the WrestleMania article should be "List of WrestleManias" or "List of WrestleMania events". Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree there. That would be like having Super Bowl be about only the first one. I am fine with the current setup, but my secondary choice would be "WrestleMania I" (although it wouldn't be the best idea IMO). TJ Spyke 01:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf of Mexico match

So will we have to add this match type (like a throw your opponent in ...) or is there a match type that already fit's this match description in the List of professional wrestling match types?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a Gulf of Mexico match? I don't have cable at the moment, so if this was announced on ECW I don't know. Anyways, maybe in the container-based variations section? 04:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It's basically an extreme rules match that starts in the ring. The only way to win is to throw the opponent into the Gulf of Mexico (No Joke).-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it took place on ECW tonight between Chavo and Punk. Who won? Let's just say Chavo needs swimming lessons.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say we don't include it on the grounds that it's a one-time, non notable match. Mshake3 (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add a small note in Hardcore wrestling? Just a suggestion. Either way I don't care. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be included either. What are the chances they'll have another one? Nikki311 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they could just buy themselves a kiddie pool and call it the Gulf of Mexico next time... -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the Arkansaw Hog Pen match between Hunter Hearst Helmsley and Duke Drose at In Your House: Season's Beatings. They had an actual hog pen in the arena (filled with mud), and you won by throwing your opponent in it. We have that linked to the container based variations, so we don't need a new entry. Maybe add a sentence or two about this type of thing (throwing your opponenent in something) though. TJ Spyke 04:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I was just kidding...-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So will it be added?TrU Co ⁹31¹ 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't. Mshake3 (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fine by me. TrU Co ⁹31¹ 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of PPV matches

What a lame rule to say that announced matches for a PPV must be in announced order, especially when the only reason I recall being given was that it was original research to pick your own order. Weak.

Now, I doubt anyone will be able to find the discussion where this so-called "rule" was established, so I say we use one that makes more sense: match order on WWE.com.

Personally, I think it should be whatever order anyone wants it to be, but this is still better than the current set up. Mshake3 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time ever, I agree with Mshake. Because usually the order of the match on WWE.com, is usually the order they schedule their matches during the PPV events.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus came in late 2006 after a dispute over how matches should be listed caused an article to be fully protected. Some wanted it in the order wwe.com listed them, some wanted it in order of importance (which is a matter of opinion). It was eventually agreed that the most neutral action was to just list them in the order they are announced. I still think that is the best coarse of action. TJ Spyke 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a neutral point of view, yes that is the best choice, but I think that we should follow WWE's scheduled matches order.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 01:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the NEUTRAL point of view, as in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline called "Neutral Point of View" why change it to something that's not a neutral point of view? what's the point? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions needed

I would really like the opinions of those who frequent here for their opinions. I thought about this a long time ago but never went through with it. See User:Save Us 229/sandbox. For those who don't know what it is, it is the beginning portion of an article titled "List of WWE Raw episodes". For the sake of this discussion and simplicity, I stopped at the first two episodes to give you an idea of what I was thinking about for an episode guide. As a longest running U.S. television series', now entering it's 16th season, I feel a brief episode guide would be very encyclopedic here. Included on this is the number of the episode, the air date, the venue, and match results. I haven't added all of the notes, references, categories, templates and normal things that would go on an articles yet as it is in my sandbox. Things I didn't mention was interviews, storylines and the such, as I'm trying to keep it simple. Let me know if it is worth the time to create the article in full. — Save_Us † 19:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the very definition of WP:LC. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Does that mean List of Gunsmoke episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes and featured list List of South Park episodes are list cruft as well? — Save_Us † 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are so many episodes, instead of bullet lists, I think the matches should be listed in one line. I'll have to think about how the other things could be listed. Mshake3 (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make your test edits to User:Save Us 229/sandbox for new suggestions. I would like to see what others feel would be the best formatting. — Save_Us † 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way the South Park list is done. Headers of Episode #, Date, and for this list, the arena and city. Below all those is the matches. Mshake3 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but there seems to be a problem. That require Template:Episode list to be added everytime a new episode is made. Currently there is about 750+ episodes. Wikipedia templates cannot be added that many times to a single article. Once it gets passed a certain number of times, the template tends to stop transcluding. To add Template:Episode list this many times, that would require the article to be divided. Would you like seeing the article split for example: "List of WWE Raw episodes (season 1)" or "List of WWE Raw episodes (seasons 1-3)", or something like that, or would you prefer that it stays on one article? — Save_Us † 20:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no doubt it should be split up. Since it started in January, it would be convient to do it by year, especially since they don't really specify seasons, at least until recently. Mshake3 (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's more along television seasons, not what WWE considers seasons, but I get the idea ;) — Save_Us † 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be an extra column, for the date the actual episode was taped, maybe? Kris (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that briefly, almost all the Monday Night RAW's were produced and shot in the same day (earlier prior to that WCW incident of the audience getting the results, but even then it was just tape delay from earlier in on the same Monday). Unless we actually get specific times that could be difficult. :) — Save_Us † 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current TNA Impact taping schedule is similar to what the WWF did with Raw in 1999, and perhaps a few years earlier. One taping (in this case, live) on Monday, and one taping on Tuesday, then tape TV again in two weeks. As for episode dates, it's a TV show, so I think it should be the airdates. If someone brings up title history, I use taping dates there because WWE acknowledges title changes every now and then right after then happen regardless of air date, plus you have evidence of new champions defending their title at live events prior to the episode airing. Mshake3 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Mshake on this. The list will definetly need to be split up, otherwise it'll be way too long, and therefore, a pain to both edit and read. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears everything is running smoothly :) After a headache, I have had a successful attempt at scripting a new template specifically for these episodes (normal television episode templates had titles and other things WWE doesn't use). I've redone what the episodes will look like to make it resemble the normal templates. Regards, — Save_Us † 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the point of having a list of Raw episodes? Nenog (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd question. I can say that to half the articles covered in this project. Mshake3 (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I hit the 'random page button' three times and I don't see the point of these articles as well. :) — Save_Us † 22:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are comparing list of Raw results to a specific type of tree and author and saying it has the same encyclopedic merit (the high school one can go, since most of them are deleted anyways)? Nenog (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, 1, how are most high schools deleted again? and 2, I was joking, and no, I'm not comparing an article named List of WWE Raw episodes to that, I'll compare it to Featured content, featured content represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer, List of The Simpsons episodes and List of South Park episodes. Care to tell me what the 'point' of those articles are Nenog? — Save_Us † 23:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare this to those shows. A more accurate comparisons would be having a "List of 60 Minutes" episodes or another show that is non-stop year-round. I doubt any such article would survive since every similar page has been deleted (I know there was a list of ECW episodes and a list of iMACT episodes, and I think even a list of RAW episodes). TJ Spyke 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't even compare it to 60 Minutes. That is a news and investigative journalism show, and making a episode guide of the news is rather silly. If what you're saying is that we don't make episode guides of long-running series, then I believe you are wrong. Gunsmoke had 630+ episodes or so and there is a episode guide for it. Also I would like to see the content of the other Raw episodes articles that was created because I highly doubt that when I'm finished it will resemble it. — Save_Us † 01:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The better comparison is soap operas. Is there a "List of Days of Our Lives episodes?" Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly a fair comparison either. Raw has somewhere around 730 episodes. Days of Our Lives has 10,700+. Raw is only had 16 seasons, compared to Days of Our Lives which has had 42. — Save_Us † 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, a more recent soap opera. Is there "List of Passions episodes" (roughly three times as many as Raw)? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While still incredibly different as these soaps are mostly made daily, not weekly like Raw, no there isn't an episode guide on Wikipedia. Could one be made? Probably, yes. Would it be encyclopedic? Depends on how it is written. Your series of questions are starting to reek of bad faith now. — Save_Us † 21:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I compared it to another weekly series and a list of 60 minutes episodes would have the same type of info as your test article (a list of of the news stories and the date it aired). Based on the version in your sandbox, I can not see how an article would possibly even survive an AFD, yet alone ever become a Good Article or Featured List. Similar articles that were more detailed have gotten deleted. I will reserve final judgment until you finish the sandbox version, but right now I see it either being nothing more than a list of match results or a hugely bloated mess (since they do about 52 episodes a year). As for the other episodess article that were deleted, only admins can see pages that were deleted. TJ Spyke 01:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not finished with it. Did you think it was going to be the list and nothing more? Like I said above, I haven't added categories, templates, references, notes and the like and I won't do so until I'm sure it is about ready to be moved to the main namespace (oh, and not to mention any content I might actually add to the article, I know that might shock you :o) I brought it here so people could see that I was working on it, see the formatting I was using so they could see what it would look like, and so they could make suggestions on how to improve it, not because I was nearing a completion of it. I'm far from done. — Save_Us † 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my brief opinion - I like the list, looks neat so far, but I'd suggest splitting it up (don't know how you'd do it) but it works for me. Looks encycolpaedic enough. Ada Maniac 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this user personally dislikes me, but I actually like the idea. It matches the many list of episodes of TV shows out there. I'm just worried whether it will make the WWE TV show pages longer? and whether it falls under WP:LC.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which WWE TV show page are you worried about getting longer specifically? WWE Raw? — Save_Us † 02:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, because right now the special episodes section is long but this might make it longer, which is kinda like WP:LC. But I like the idea because it is neat and organized and should be a way most listings of episodes should be listed as.TrU Co ⁹31¹ 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on making the WWE Raw article any longer than it already is (although I plan to link the new article from from), in fact, by the time it is done, you could probably merge that special episodes section into the new article and it will be slightly shorter. As I said before, these articles are not going to merely be lists of episodes, but full articles (per season) and the results of the show on the tail end showing the results in a table formatting. To give you an idea of that, you could probably see December to Dismember (2006) to get a general idea (i.e. beginning intro, body text segmented into multiple headings, the results, etc.). — Save_Us † 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if there's some other place I should post this

New proposed deletion. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Achberger aka Sign Guy

I was thinking of creating a page for him with reliable third-party sources. That was until I saw that his page was protected. So, would anyone be against me creating a version in my sandbox, and then possibly taking the protection to WP:DR? D.M.N. (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a fan who goes to a bunch of WWE shows and holds up signs, big freaking deal. He's no more notable than Hat Guy, Faith No More Guy, Green Lantern Fan, etc, and none of them have articles. Nenog (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see you use that reason about articles during the first year of wikipedia. As for this guy, while he's more notable than the average fan, due to being interviewed by WW on numerous occasions and even being part of a WWE edition of Deal or No Deal, it's not really enough. Mshake3 (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Don't think he's notable enough for an article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article, it was deleted as non notable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steph

It might be a good idea to watch the Stephanie McMahon article for a bit. There's a rumor going around now that Triple H has knocked her up again. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new ruling has been established

Talk:WWE Judgment Day. Web > DVD. It does not matter what actually occured at a PPV event, even if it has been captured for DVD release. If a web source says something else, then that's what actually happened. Mshake3 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? Are you upset because of that fact that the only source you were willing to provide is not allowed because it is illegally hosting copyrighted material? It took another user todo what you weren't willing to do: find a reliable source to support your claim. TJ Spyke 02:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite the maroon aren't you? There's more to citations than the web. The point of the video was to show you what actually happened, since you've clearly never seen the event. The actual source is the event in question. And as we've seen in debates about spoilers, a broadcast is indeed a reliable source. So when I list a video clip, I'm not sourced the video clip. I'm telling you that you're wrong and to stop editing things that you have no clue about whatsoever. Mshake3 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were sourcing the site itself, why do you think we don't accept YouTube as a source? It doesn't matter if the video is accurate or not since a source that uses illegal material is not allowed, you could compare it to a criminal case and how a video taped guilty confession wouldn't be allowed if the suspect didn't have their rights read to them first. The whole point is moot because someone else actually provided a reliable source. So let's end this idiotic discussion. TJ Spyke 02:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it [4]. Can we stop now? :( — Save_Us † 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A broadcast is a reliable source. There are even citations for that. But you see, if I just put a source for the DVD in the article, it would have been reverted, no doubt because that one wrong source said otherwise. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? Mshake3 (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did't even try to use a citation. The first thing you did was just revert, then when someone else (correctly) reverted your edit and I questioned you, you just provided a link to a illegally hosted video. Please do not ASSume to know what I would have done had you actually bothered to source it and with a reliable source. TJ Spyke 03:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. From now on, if I see a similar error, I will simply change it, and cite the DVD. And you will not revert it. Deal? Mshake3 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided you vouch that you actually have the DVD (and are not just watching it on a site illegally hosting the video), fine. I can't confirm if you own a DVD or not, but I hope you will be honest enough to only cite a DVD when you actually have it. TJ Spyke 03:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the honor system. I'm shocked you'd agree to do that. Now maybe in the future, instead of throwing out policy left and right, you'll use some common sense, look at the damn video, and say "oh, that's what actually happened." Mshake3 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks to TheHeartbreakKid15 for noticing the error in the first place. Mshake3 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow this is AMAZING. It's a good source if he owns the DVD, but it's not a good source if he somehow obtained the broadcast in another way? Whu? Are you saying that they somehow magically alter the outcome of a match or who pinned who for the DVD? no matter HOW it was seen the broadcast (and any commercial DVD of that broadcast) is a source. I mean does citing a DVD not count if you bought the PPV and saw it? This is a new low in weird arguments, bravo. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't thank someone for changing it when he offered no source. You can point out these online videos if you want, but they can't be used as a source (except of the ones on wwe.com since all other online WWE videos are illegally hosted and thus not allowed on Wikipedia). TJ Spyke 04:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thank him because he used common sense. He watched the event, noticed the error, and changed it. He's a good contributor. Mshake3 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week

I think that we should change the rule to, "Nominations will be removed if they do not have 4 votes every seven days." Does anyone agree? Or disagree? iMatthew 20 08 21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Styles and Tomko

Can we AfD it, I mean yes they are notable and are current tag champs but to have an article for only being together for less than a year? We should just make one for Miz and Morrison. --TrU Co ⁹31¹ 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've been a team for almost a year (very rarely competing in singles matches since forming a team) and tag team champions since October. Morrison and Miz may eventually become notable as a team, not yet though (Styles and Tomko didn't get a seperate article until they split from Christian's Coalition). TJ Spyke 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]