Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Wikipedia:PW-Nav

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
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 62. 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 .

"In Wrestling" section

Am I the only one who thinks that listing the themes of the wrestler is kinda pointless? ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}$ ${\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}$ ${\mathfrak {.}}$ ${\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}$ 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the wrestler's theme is one of the things I look up here the most. By the way, there used to be a wonderful list of themes in the Music of Professional Wrestling article and it is now gone. I think it was a great addition to the article. I have just spent about an hour trying to find it or anything similar and have not been successful. Is it archived somewhere by chance? Thank you! Sianni (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I hate having it. Other people love it, though. Since it's not hurting anything, I figure it's best to leave it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see is people adding fake names for songs just because WWE or TNA haven't released the name of it. TJ Spyke 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music in professional wrestling? RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo, just noticed the list was deleted. You can still see it [1], though. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation advice

When providing a citation for SHIMMER results, do I put the publisher as SHIMMER as it is from their official website or do I put the URL name of the website Visuex, of which SHIMMER appears to be a subsidary? Tony2Times (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viseux is the publisher, but the work is from SHIMMER, see {{cite web}} for more info on how to place the work parameter into the template.--S R X 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

:s where? Tony2Times (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some general advice. If the author is unknown, don't put anything in. People tend to put in stuff like "WWE staff" or the website name itself. The cite template itself, and confirmed on the talk page of the template, says the author space is only used if the actual author is known. TJ Spyke 17:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA World Heavyweight Championship

I'm working on the article because I've been trying to find time to get it sourced and long enough to take to GAN. Now I've been going back and forth for a few weeks whether or not to take the title history and move it into a separate list. Seeing there has only been five champions, does anyone think I should move it there or just leave it? Thought to ask if anyone had a problem with a new list even though it is not long enough to be taken to FL.--WillC 06:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in a separate list, for one because of the length of the list, and two because as long as you explain in the lead why their were unrecognized TNA reigns, the history for it will be fine. In addition, FLC's must list at least 10 contents.--S R X 14:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support it, but the WWE Divas Championship had a separate history page when McCool was still champion (meaning just 1 champion in the titles history).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)

That was because it needed to be created for the Featured topic of current WWE Champions to be entered into the topic as an audit article.--S R X 17:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

SRX you misunderstand. The correct history of this title begins with Angle and ends with Sting. Those are NWA Champions you are thinking of. TNA themselves credits Angle as the first TNA World Champion and Ken Shamrock as the first World's Heavyweight Champion i.e. NWA Championship. I'm making a different history for that to comply with TNA's history which has been removed from their web site for some reason because of the this talk page's discussions agreement. I want to make a list of all five champions in a separate page so I don't have that in the way at GAN.--WillC 18:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm confused, can you please clarify what you want to do because your description above doesn't help.--S R X 15:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think (based on the talk pages) that he wants to make one article called "List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions" that would just count the actual TNA Champions (starting with Kurt Angle) and another called something like "List of World Champions in TNA" that would also include all NWA Champions in TNA history (starting with Ken Shamrock) since for awhile TNA would consider wrestlers like Shamrock and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions. TJ Spyke 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TJ has it mostly right. On Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship it was decided to make a list that held all World Champion in TNA, for an example see User:Wrestlinglover/List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA. That is decided. I'm not asking about making that list. I'm asking to make a list of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, to get the list out of the title article. I've begun working on it, see User:Wrestlinglover/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I hope this clears everything up. I'm wondering if no one has a problem with me moving the TNA Title history from the main article to a list, though it is too small to go to FLC.--WillC 22:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of "List of World Champions in TNA"? And if it does have one, then why not have "List of World Champions in WWE" which spans 5 different titles? (WWE, World, WCW, ECW and Undisputed) 99.205.244.125 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (this is [[User:Alex Roggio]|Alex]], ex-member of the project)[reply]

Read the above discussions and the ones on the TNA talkpages. TNA has (or at least used to) consider wrestlers who won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship between June 2002 and May 2007 (when TNA controlled it) as former TNA World Heavyweight Champions, even though they also state that Kurt Angle was the first TNA World Champion. So while they acknowledged that the TNA World Title started in May 2007, they consider people like Ron Killings and A.J. Styles as former TNA World Champions even though they won the NWA World Title instead. WWE does not consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg to be former WWE Champions (they do use the generic term "world champion" though for all 3 titles). Also, the Undidputed Championship was just the term they called the WWE Championship between December 2001 (when Jericho merged the WWF Championship and World Championship) and August 2001 (when Brock Lesnar announced he would only defend the title on SmackDown, forcing Raw GM Eric Bischoff to create the World Heavyweight Championship and making the WWE Championship no longer undisputed). TJ Spyke 04:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe you're mistaken. You just dont understand the grammar TNA is utilizing. When they refer to someone like AJ Styles as a former TNA World Heavyweight Champion, it doesn't mean that AJ Styles held the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. The term they use is grammatically divided, and not a term reffering to said championship. It's the same case as in WWE [which you denied, but you're wrong], because eventhough Triple H never held the World Heavyweight Championship 12 times, he is still considered a 12 time World Heavyweight Champion. When WWE and TNA use the term World Heavyweight Champion, it means that they held a world title, and when TNA adds TNA in front of it, it means they held a world title in TNA. This does not necessarily have to mean the recent TNA Championship. You guys are obviously misunderstanding the English language. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, TNA has specifically called them "TNA World Heavyweight Champions". They haven't done in recently, but they have in the past. TJ Spyke 05:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with TJ, they never say World Heavyweight Champion. They always say TNA World Heavyweight Champion. If they said World Champion, this discussion would not be taking place.--WillC 05:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, that Champion in TNA in correct grammatical English is the same thing as TNA Champion. Just like President of United States is equal to United States president. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 05:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I have heard Tenay specifically call A.J. Styles a "former TNA World Heavyweight Champion". Lately they have stopped doing that though and just refere to people like Jeff Jarrett and A.J. Styles (who won the NWA Championship and not TNA Championship) as just former "world champions"). TJ Spyke 05:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is true, you have effectively explained and added to my explanation of why it is completely unnecessary to create the List of World Champions in TNA article, without creating a List of World Champions in WWE article. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 07:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WWE doesn't consider Rey Mysterio or Goldberg former "WWE Champion"s, they don't consider Hulk Hogan a former "World Heavyweight Champion", etc. TJ Spyke 16:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Alex means here, is that they call A.J. Styles, Jarret etc former TNA World Heavyweight Champions as in calling them people who have won a World Heavyweight Championship in TNA. As the NWA title is a World Heavyweight Championship and just happened to be in TNA at the time A.J. and Jeff Jarret both won it, that made them TNA's World Heavyweight Champion recognised as a World Heavyweight Champion by TNA and NWA. The terms, while TNA had the championship, were available to be interchangeable, it's just that they weren't. PXK ^T /_C 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to be consist with WWE in this case. This extra article is only being made to settle the problems with the TNA Championship. Seeing TNA likes to mix the title histories and still say Angle is the first TNA Champion and Shamrock is the first World Champion. Either this article gets made or the TNA Championship article continues to have edit wars after edit wars.--WillC 22:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there are no problems with the title. The only apparent problem is people misinterpreting what TNA is saying. I already explained and defined that former TNA World Champion means former world champion in TNA and not literally former TNA World Champion. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, because honestly, that wont change what TNA is trying to infer. The fact of the matter is, that opinions don't matter, only facts do. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the title. Users and ips agree that the NWA Championship history should be added and others disagree. This was an established consensus made on the talk page and has been discussed for over a year. Plus TNA last night just called LAX three time TNA World Tag Team Champions. They continue to say TNA in-front of mentioning their former champions. The fact is, TNA calls Angle the first TNA Champion, but continue to refer to people who won the NWA Title as TNA Champions. People are going to continue to add in the NWA Championship history. This was agreed upon on the title talk page to end the edit war that has been going on for more than a year.--WillC 23:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Im sorry. I forgot TNA valued your opinions so much. The reality of life is, that us users can't really change what the info we write in here is, we can only type it down. So making an irrelevant list-cruft article which is basically just putting 2 articles together for the sake of satisfying bored people who have too much time on their hands and waste it battling over Wikipedia articles is utterly ridiculous. The reality is that YOU and everyone else you anonymously mention are misinterpreting. Read the above threads I posted on what Tenay means when he calls LAX 3-time tag team champions. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, this list is not cruft. This list is being made to settle a year and a half dispute over the official histroy and to comply with TNA's official title history on their website. Plus this discussion isn't about if this list is needed or not, it was already decided to be made. This is a discussion about if anyone has a problem with moving the correct title history from the TNA Championship into another article.--WillC 04:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision you say? The decision of what? Merging the histories of two titles that don't belong to you, us or Wikipedia? Look, TNA doesn't merge the title histories. You're just misunderstanding their words. And you can't go around and ask bored wrestling-obsessed users if you're opinion is right, because frankly, its not and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must not be able to understand. I've not said shit about my opinion, I'm not saying shit about TNA speaking. I'm talking about a visual image seen on TNA Wrestling.com where it says TNA World Heavyweight Championship history. It begins with Shamrock and goes to Sting. The List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA is to comply with that revisionism history. I found a solution to the problem of people adding in the NWA History into the TNA page. We can't just keep reverting people who add that history. In the end there will be the official history list called List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, which will encompass people who actually won that belt, starting with Angle and ending with Sting. Also List of TNA World Heavyweight champions in TNA, which will begin with Shamrock and end with Sting. The same will be done for the World Tag Team Championship, since it suffers from the same problems. All I asked was if anyone had a problem of making a list of five champions: List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. I want to take the TNA World Heavyweight Championship article to GAN and wanted to get the history out of the way. That is what this discussion is about. Why are you questioning a list that has been discussed for more than two months on Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship?--WillC 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just go down the path of dispute resolution so we can get this sorted once and for all? PXK ^T /_C 05:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, lets re-open this discussion at the bottom of the page so more people will see it. This discussion has been going on for more than a year on the TNA Championship talk page to figure out how to slove TNA's revisionism. I'm fine re-dicussioning an already sloved solution.--WillC 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Anderson → Cheerleader Melissa

Per common name, she is widely known across the world as Cheerleader Melissa.--WillC 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, I only knew her as CM until recently. Also this would allow Melissa Anderson (fiction) to have that silly paranthesis taken away. Tony2Times (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because she has had a career in the indy under other names, one year in TNA does not establish notability for a common name for a wrestler.--S R X 15:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

She hasn't competed in TNA as Cheerleader Melissa, only in ROH and other indy feds. She is competing in TNA as Raisha Saed (the "Muslim" woman that comes out with Awesome Kong). TJ Spyke 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct she has never wrestled in TNA as Cheerleader Melissa. She did have one match as Cheerleader Mechelle back in July or June. But she is widely known more around the world as Cheerleader Melissa since that is the main ring name she uses.--WillC 22:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is used in ROH, then I support that change because she gained more recognition under that name, like Matt Sydal did under that name, even though he is Evan Bourne in WWE right now.--S R X 01:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, per using the name Raisha Saed in TNA. A large segment of the wrestling fan population only watches TNA/WWE on TV. To them, she is Saed. To the indy fans, she is Cheerleader Melissa. She has no common ringname, so her real name is most logical. Nikki♥311 01:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a vague statistical update: I'm currently sandboxing Melissa's bio page and I can't find any time she was used the name Miss Spartan, only that she did according to Cage Match so presumably it was for barely any matches, maybe only one. She has used the name Melissa Anderson once for a WWE Heat exhibition match broadcast online. She has used the name Raesha Saeed as a manager for the past year making sporadic wrestling appearances. She has used Cheerleader Melissa as her name for the past 10 years (including her tenure as a manager) in all 22 SHIMMER volumes, 10 ChickFight appearances, 3 or so years in APW and outside her own country for her appearances in RQW, ARSION, UK ChickFight events, New Japan Dojo, Celtic Wrestling, ECCW &c Tony2Times (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried moving the page but because there's a Cheerleader Melissa redirect it won't allow me, a moderator will have to do it. Tony2Times (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title lists

OK, I have finished merging List of WWE Champions, List of ECW Champions (with some generous help), List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE), List of WWE Women's Champions, List of WWE European Champions and List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). I am starting on others. I have run into a little snag though, SRX has unilaterally decided to remove Maria's guest referee role at List of WWE Divas Champions. He said it was per a discussion here, the only consensus though was 1 editor saying they didn't think who the ref was is important. The context of the statement makes it clear to me that they meant who the normal referee is, not on the rare occasion when there is a guest referee. In my opinion, this is as relevant as the match type or event that a title change happened at. Thoughts so we can settle this? TJ Spyke 01:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That editor was the FL director. In addition to the special ref, match types were to be removed because they are non-notable to the reigns or title itself because they did not affect the title or reign, it was just the place where the title was won. I wanted to add a match column, but it was WP:LISTCRUFT because of WP:NOT. The matches and special refs are non-notable because they are trivial information that does not affect the title history, see List of ECW Television Champions, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, and List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions for examples of FLs recently promoted after the enhancement of the FLC criteria, as to why these changes were made.--S R X 01:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I responded on SRX's title page. In short though, the guest ref is relevant and on many occasions has been an influence on the title change (like Shawn Michael's role as guest ref for Bret Hart vs. The Undertaker at SummerSlam 1997). Also, the commenter just said "referee", to me that means normal ref and not guest ref. TJ Spyke 01:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FL director replied on my talkpage for those interested. TJ Spyke 01:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can not apply site-wide changes to articles based on the opinions of one editor. Mshake3 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not site-wide changes. These are things that were already in the title pages before. I was just pointing out that the director of WP:FL supports them. Removing that info is would be applying site wide changes without consensus. TJ Spyke 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering to in general. It seems that everytime an article goes for GA or FA, and one reviewer has an opinion on how the article structure should be, someone here goes apeshit, and applies similar changes to every article they can find, with the excuse of "per this article." Mshake3 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart discussion

Lets restart this for a consensus made by the WP:PW project. I believe that adding the matches in which the title was won is unnecessary in the notes section, if matches want to be added for all reigns, then a column should be incorporated, but here's my 2 cents, what effect does the match have on the title reign or the title itself. Exceptions could be the 1997 Survivor Series when Shawn Michaels cost Undertaker the title, but things like minor interference are not notable. That's my opinion.--S R X 17:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, I think you mixed up several things (Michaels cost Undertaker at SummerSlam and that was a regular match). The match type is usually a factor in how the title changed hands, as is the special referee usually. I don't see how they are any less relevant than where the title change happened or the event it happened at. TJ Spyke 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my bad. Anyways, so lets say the WWE Hardcore Championship, every match took place in a Hardcore match or variations of it, so IMO i think it would be redundant to keep adding Hardcore match in the notes section over and over and over and over again, now if its decided that it should be noted, then a column should be incorporated in the table and the notes should be left for other relevant notes regarding the reign.--S R X 00:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For the Hardcore title, just note at the top of the page or something that every match was under hardcore rules. It's like how every match in ECW was under hardcore rules, but we don't note it in every title change. Obviously we would still note variations (like "Hardcore battle royal"). TJ Spyke 00:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would work, how about singles titles? Which most of which are defended in Singles matches..--S R X 00:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Same in my opinion. Something like "Unless otherwise noted, all title changes happened in singles matches" (or "tag team matches" for tag titles). TJ Spyke 00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm alright with that because I thought it would have been otherwise, which would have made it look redundant, but like your way it seems better.--S R X 00:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Any further comments?--Tr uc o 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone agree on this new format?

For the championship articles..(new format) World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) versus (old format) World Tag Team Championship (WWE)?--S R X 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but considering the problems we had with the Out of Universe format change. We really should discuss this. I changed to the old format in the tag team championship as a result. I'm for the change, just thought to explain my reasons first.--WillC 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at it there now and the reigns bit is all mixed in with the current champion! I think it might look better if you spaced the current champion bit from the reigns bit or at least take a new paragraph! Because that paragraph looks a bit messy but apart from that its really good. Adster95 16:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buyrates

I have found a source for estimated PPV buyrates for 2008 TNA PPV events. It is from WrestleView and TNA has released nothing to my knowledge. It is taken from the Wrestling Observer newsletter though. I want to get some opinions on it, if we can trust it to be used in the event articles. Here is the source: [2]--WillC 05:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its reliable because WON is reliable since its written by Dave Meltzer and WrestleView is an established news site, so for this instance its okay to write in articles "an estimated...buys"[ref].--S R X 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the main reason I'm afraid to use it is because TNA has said nothing. I don't know how WrestleView or the Observer got that information.--WillC 05:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same place WWE gets their info, an agency that counts them, similar to counting the TV ratings.--S R X 05:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Which agency is that? All the WWE ratings come from their corporate website. TNA has no such thing that I'm award of. I'm not sure if FA Reviewers will accept this source.--WillC 06:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, NBC counts the ratings for RAW and ECW. Spike probably counts the ratings for TNA. But, I really don't know much about ratings. That's just my guess.

{\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {a}}{\mathfrak {v}}{\mathfrak {i}}{\mathfrak {o}}{\mathfrak {r}}

{\mathfrak {s}}{\mathfrak {e}}{\mathfrak {l}}{\mathfrak {f}}

{\mathfrak {.}}

{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}{\mathfrak {7}}

07:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is for Impact!, this is about PPV Buyrates for TNA events. TNA is a privately owned company who rarely release buyrates, unlike WWE, who are publicly owned and must release that type of information. TV ratings are released by the network. So you are correct there. Though this has nothing to do with the Nelson ratings.--WillC 07:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mathfreak, NBC does not count ratings and neither do any other network. The "ratings" are just sampling from Nielson (I won't get into full detail of why I think they are BS, basically they take a few thousand samples and use those to estimate what millions and millions of others are watching). Nielson then gives the ratings to relevant organizations (i.e. the networks and studios) and releases some data to the public. They wouldn't give the data to wrestling news sites though. As Will said, PPV buyrates are different though. Either way, I would be wary of any site saying they have TNA PPV buyrates since that is not public info. TJ Spyke 22:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music in professional wrestling. Listcruft?

Nikki311 deleted the list as listcruft. I'm not biased to either side here, I'm just seeing what everyone's opinion is _{(Read: Inb4 flaming)} PXK ^T /_C 21:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well seeing that it is incomplete and WP:TRIVIAL, and not adhering to WP:NOT, its WP:LISTCRUFT.--S R X 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Cruft. Hazardous Matt 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this thread. If this discussion keeps going, can we move opinions to Talk:Music in professional wrestling? IPs keep reverting my removal of the list. We need to have a centralized discussion so that consensus can be formed either way. Nikki♥311 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Year in review

I would just like to thank the project for a great year, although it had its ups and downs, we have accomplished a lot. We earned our first PPV FA since 2007 this year, and three additional FA's, with one currently at FAC. Over 50 Good articles have been promoted from this project. Good topics have also been promoted from this project. Although some of us are divided, a new year awaits and possibly the project can reunited as one. Happy New Year, and await new accomplishments.--S R X 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought the table comparisons were helpful last year as a gauge for the project's progress. For 2006, 2007, and 2008, the end-of year statistics are as follows:

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
Professional wrestling articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Class
	FA
	A
	GA			2		1	3
	B	1	11	16	15	6	49
	Start		4	7	18	28	57
	Stub		1	3	11	37	52
	Unassessed	1	4	10	48	1429	1492
	Total	2	20	38	92	1501	1653

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
Professional wrestling articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FA			3	21	24
	GA		4	3	18	25
	B	1	9	30	160	200
	Start	1	43	180	2030	2254
	Stub		1	27	704	732
	Assessed	2	57	243	2933	3235
	Total	2	57	243	2933	3235

Professional wrestling articles		Importance
Professional wrestling articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FA			4	6	10
	FL			12	12	24
	GA		6	32	73	111
	B	1	17	68	199	285
	C		2	15	100	117
	Start	2	53	227	1791	2073
	Stub		2	25	579	606
	List		2	22	592	616
	Assessed	3	82	405	3352	3842
	Total	3	82	405	3352	3842

In 2008, the number of featured articles/lists increased by 10, and there were 86 new GAs promoted. As SRX mentioned, the project also got two Good Topics and increased its number of Did You Knows from 5 to 35. There was also a huge drop in the number of stub-class articles despite an overall increase of over 600 articles. Overall, I'd say those statistics show a ton of success for the project. Great job to everyone involved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the PPV differences tomorrow night after I update it on the expansion list.--WillC 06:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling promotion is one article that we definitely need to work on. High importance stub? PXK ^T /_C 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the differences of one year accoring to the PPV expansion tables in the list subpage.--WillC 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date	WWE	WWF	TNA	NWA	WCW	ECW	NJPW	Total
2008-01-01	31	9	1	0	2	1	1	45
2008-02-01	44	12	1	0	3	1	1	62
2008-03-01	54	17	1	0	3	1	1	77
2008-04-01	64	27	4	0	4	1	0	100
2008-05-01	64	31	4	0	4	1	0	104
2008-06-01	66	34	4	5	4	1	0	114
2008-07-01	68	34	7	6	9	1	0	125
2008-08-01	77	38	10	6	9	1	0	141
2008-09-01	78	38	11	6	9	1	0	143
2008-10-01	88	44	15	6	9	1	0	163
2008-11-01	88	44	26	6	9	1	0	174
2008-12-01	89	52	28	6	9	1	0	185
2009-01-01	90	51	33	6	9	1	0	190

Date								Total
2008-01-01	1	5	20	0	12	3	4	45
2008-02-01	1	7	31	2	10	3	8	62
2008-03-01	1	8	35	1	20	5	7	77
2008-04-01	1	14	43	1	9	6	26	100
2008-05-01	1	16	50	1	11	3	22	104
2008-06-01	1	21	53	1	12	3	23	114
2008-07-01	1	27	56	1	16	3	21	125
2008-08-01	1	36	93	2	18	5	19	174
2008-09-01	2	38	104	2	17	6	17	186
2008-10-01	3	45	109	11	18	7	17	210
2008-11-01	4	46	115	9	6	7	34	225
2008-12-01	4	49	118	9	9	10	40	239
2009-01-01	5	56	118	12	3	12	45	251

Search archive function

I added the function to search the archives in the box above, which I got the code from WT:VG, I hope it will be easier to search the archives like this. Happy 2K9!--S R X 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

William Regal

Does anyone know the official names for the last two themes regal has used; The royalty theme and his current heel theme. I have had problems finding sources that give any definate answers. Thanks Eddie6705 (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably generic themes produce by WWE with unknown names that Jim Johnston doesn't release. Try searching it in the track listings for WWE's studio albums.--Tr u co 04:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The last WWE music release to include Regal's theme was WWE Anthology in 2002, which had his "Real Man's Man" music (remember that crappy gimmick? He was dressed up like a construction worker). TJ Spyke 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, then it must be an independent theme produced by Johnston and it hasn't been released yet on an album, for now, all I can say is probably write "generic theme."--Tr uc o 14:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks very much, i'll list it as generic theme. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I was looking at the Spanish wikipedia and noticed they have a few images we don't of Kurt Angle. Now I believe from looking at them they are all apart of commons. I don't get on commons or know really anything about it, but someone who does know how to maneuver around over there, could you try an upload these three images: [3] [4] and [5]?--WillC 11:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second one is already uploaded to Wikipedia, if I'm correct. To upload them to Wikipedia, go back to the Spanish Wikipedia and click on the images and click on the commons link, each picture has a link to commons. At commons, every Wikipedia has access to the free images, so copy the image name and integrate it into an article.--Tr uc o 14:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of pictures from a WWE live event.

User:Straight_Edge_PXK/Pictures. Use them if you want. PXK ^T /_C 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are these yours? or did you get them from that forum?--Tr uc o 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From that forum. Saliou took them himself. PXK ^T /_C 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permission was given for this picture. None of the others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just PM'ed him. I might have the permission soon. PXK ^T /_C 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next time gain permission from the author for all the pictures before uploading them, for future references.--Tr uc o 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK...

Listen, I am trying to get the Undertaker to GA status. User:Cheers dude wrote a section about his gimmick. It was all unsourced, trivial, non nuetral info. So I deleted. He complain to me asking why I did and how he worked so hard on it. So I took it to my sandbox and he and I worked on it. But, he keeps reverting my edits and he does not want to change anything. I need you to offer a 3rd opinion. I'm not even sure if this even belongs in the ariticle. Here. User:SimonKSK/Sandbox/Undertaker/CD! 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion simply is that I don't see what's wrong with the article as is and why SimonSKS is behaving like he is despite my trying to be reasonable and literally begging this user to compromise instead of engaging in a revert war; Despite coming to a consensus in regards to one of the edits, you now want it completely removed from the article; you're complaining about edits within the section that I haven't even made that have been there for over a year; despite the fact that you have been active on wikipedia as far the entire month in which I have been editing this article, you have only now come to me that you don't like any of it? Your immediate edit was what a mess it was before you went to a close friend of yours on wiki and complained about it. Many other editors have made tweaks to the article and have found nothing wrong with it. Cheers_Dude (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]