Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 66. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Event titles in title histories

In the title histories, under the event title heading it reads "Raw" and "WrestleMania 13" &c yet for the annual events it reads SummerSlam (2003). Aren't the paranthesis merely a disambig for the title? Seldom is it referred to the event as Summerslam 2003 on screen. Shouldn't it just read SummerSlam? The link will remain the same to that year and the date the belt changes will also indicate the year. Tony2Times (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NCNUM#Articles on events.--₮RUCӨ 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean the article title, I mean the title of the event within the Championship History lists. Within CM Punk's article it reads "The duo were members of Team Batista at Survivor Series, where their team lost to Team Orton." The context dictates that it is Survivor Series 2008, the event was not called Survivor Series (2008) like it would do when it reads "At WrestleMania XXIV, Punk won the Money in the Bank ladder match"; we disambiguate that way for article titles but not within the prose of an article, so why do we for the lists? Tony2Times (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well thats probably because we haven't gotten around to it yet. That definitely needs to be changed to Survivor Series (2008), because in the recently promoted championship lists to FL, they are in that format (with the parenthesis).--₮RUCӨ 23:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why though. No-one calls it that. The policy you linked me to, as far as I can see, is only talking about the articles themselves and their titles. In all promotional material, the build up to, during and closely after no-one refers to the it as Survivor Series 2008 so why should it be that way in prose? It's not the official title, the official title is Survivor Series but it took place in 2008. Marlon Brando didn't star in The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996 film) he starred in the 1996 film, The Island of Dr Moreau; if you see my point. Tony2Times (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

When talking about it in prose, yes. It lists though I do see films listed like that too (take this list of top grossing 2008 movies for example [1]). TJ Spyke 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Except that is not Wikipedia. Here is Wikipedia's list for 2008 in film, which doesn't have the year in parenthesis. I think it unnecessary to have have the year in parenthesis since the date, complete with year, in which the title changed hands is already listed. If we can expect people to figure out that the Raw held on March 9, 2009 is not the same Raw held on March 16, 2009, they can probably figure out that the Royal Rumble held in January 2008 is not the same Royal Rumble that was held in January 2009. Nenog (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be redundant to list years it a article about the one year. TJ Spyke 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nenog very succinctly summed up my point. We don't put the year of Raw because it's not in the title, why should we put the PPV year, it's not in the title either it's just a disambiguation. This excludes, of course, when everything was named 2000 'cause it was cool to do so in WCW. Tony2Times (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone, any reason why the PPVs have their years but TV shows don't have their dates? Tony2Times (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because we don't have articles on TV Shows.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to link to the article on the 2003 SummerSlam with it only appearing as the word SummerSlam. If we did it this way, it would actually be the correct title seeing as nobody has ever said "Join us for SummerSlam open brackets two thousand and three close brackets for the party of the Summer". Tony2Times (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, the parenthesis (and content within) are not meant to be read along with the article title, its just used as a quantifier. You only should use SummerSlam (2003) when the previous sentence or section header did not mention the year.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then you agree with my point? On a table where date is given clearly, why should the quantifier by given as an event title when it's not the true title of the event and when the year is already made apparent. Tony2Times (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Championships

I didn't come on the page after No Way Out because I was trying to avoid spoilers but is there a reason I'm missing as to why the two World Championships have moved to SmackDown, but the World Tag Championship stays under the Raw banner on the List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment. Tony2Times (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the World Title has been defended as a part of the SmackDown brand, but the World Tag Team Championship has not been defended on ECW at all, which is why those titles remain on Raw (which is where they are mostly defended).--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tony2Times (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet the World Tag Titles are held by ECW guys and have been defended on Raw and next week on SmackDown during their reign. Even on the WWE web site they're on the ECW brand. I don't get why people still argue that they're not ECW property even though they clearly show that on the web site. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Because like you stated, they have not been defended on Raw only on Raw and SmackDown.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

There is also the fact that wwe.com has specifically said that the WHC is a SD title, while they have never said that the WTTC is a ECW title. TJ Spyke 22:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but you could also argue that due to ECW having it's talent shared with both Raw and Smackdown that it's just as much an ECW title as it is Raw and SmackDown. And you could also argue that Vickie Guerrero's GMship of both Raw and SmackDown makes the WHC interbranded. It's a slippery slope. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not implying it will happen, but it seems like WWE is leaning towards ending the split. You mentioned about Vickie being GM on Raw and SmackDown, they seem to be teasing unifying the tag belts (they have had 2 separate title matches recently and JR/Tazz kept talking about them trying to become undisputed tag champions), the Womens Champion Melina is feuding with the Divas Champion Maryse, rumors are that JBL will retire as IC Champion (they could use that to phase out the belt), superstars appear on any brand for no apparent reason (like Kofi Kingston being on SmackDown this week), etc. TJ Spyke 17:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the titles haven't been defended on the ECW brand, but the WWE website clearly shows that titles are on ECW. I don't understand why we're doing original research to figure out something tht is clearly presented on WWE.com. L2K (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm saying. ECW has deals with both Raw and SmackDown, and Vickie is GM of both of those shows. It isn't uncommon for something like this to happen as Miz and Morrison once held the WWE Tag Titles from SmackDown and defended them on ECW, yet on Wikipedia the official standing of the belts were that they were SmackDown's because at the time they hadn't changed the specifics. Remember the draft in '07 when Lashley was drafted to Raw and the ECW belt was immediately vacated because it was ECW's title? Now remember last year when Kane was drafted to Raw as well, except they didn't vacate his title, they decided to have champions despite what title they held(i.e. brand specific titles, the only one being the ECW title)bring their titles to the brand they are on. Mark Henry was drafted to ECW and won the triple threat at Night of Champions in order to get the title back to ECW. This also was furthered in angles involving Edge twice so far. Edge appeared on Raw to rub it in the brand's face that they didn't have a World Title on their show last year and what happened? CM Punk, a Raw superstar cashed in MITB and won the title, thus giving Raw a world title. What happened last month at No Way Out? Edge inserted himself into the Raw Elimination Chamber match and won the World Heavyweight Title and since he was a SmackDown superstar, the title became SmackDown property again. The same NEEDS to be applied here due to what has happened in the last year with the draft and Edge's antics. By rule of what has happened in these recent events I have presented, the World Tag Team Championship became ECW property when Miz and Morrison won them. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

They have never said the titles belonged to ECW, so that would violate WP:OR. TJ Spyke 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It says so right on WWE.com...it's not original research. I'm simply stating FACTS. Triple H (WWE Champion) and Kane (ECW Champion) were drafted to SmackDown and Raw last year respectively. In the case of the ECW title, unlike the previous year's draft(where Lashley was stripped of the title immediately upon being drafted to Raw), became Raw property with the draft. It took Mark Henry winning it to get it back on ECW. Edge, who was World Heavyweight Champion on June 30th was challenged by Raw superstar CM Punk and Punk won the belt, making the title Raw property. And Edge just last month, entered himself into the Raw EC match and won the World Heavyweight Title. Unlike 2007 where his MITB cash-in against Undertaker on SmackDown(where Edge switched to SmackDown upon winning the title), he didn't become a Raw superstar by winning the WHC in this match. Due to his standing on SmackDown, the title became SmackDown property. I'm using straight facts based on what has happened in the last year. I don't get why you're ignoring my points. This is the new way they handle titles switching brands. By evidence in numerous circumstances over the last year, Miz and Morrison's standing as members of the ECW brand made the World Tag Team Championship an ECW property when they beat Punk and Kingston for them. Don't skip over this, you know I have a legitimate point. To add more to it, Matt Hardy took the US Title with him to ECW when he was drafted. He lost the title to Shelton Benjamin and what happened? The title became SmackDown property again. So Like I said TJ, ignore my points again, because I know all you want is to be right but you're totally wrong on this one. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the title listed in the ECW section? Yes. Does that mean it's a ECW title? No. That isWP:SYNTH. All I am asking for is somewhere that WWE specifically says the World Tag Team Championship belongs to ECW now. I wasn't around during those periods last year and don't know what WWE said. WWE has made it clear that the World Heavyweight Championship is a SmackDown title now and I could present proof that WWE has said that. Is it too much that I think the same proof should be presented for the tag titles? This might all become a moot point after WrestleMania though (I wonder what we will do, and what WWE will do). TJ Spyke 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes but as I have explained. The numerous other brand switches due to the draft and title switches that happened involving inter brand competition lead to those titles becoming apart of the brand of which the superstar is a member of their roster. The same IMO could be said here even though the titles haven't been defended on ECW, it says on the site, and if you go by the points I made previously, they would indeed be ECW titles. If you're going to say that the title is still Raw's because ECW had a talent sharing agreement with them, then you would also have to consider that the title is SmackDown's is well by that logic since ECW also has a talent sharing agreement with ECW. The only constant in the argument is that based on what happened with championships switching brands in the last year, Miz and Morrison winning the titles made them ECW property because they were members of the ECW brand. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Should we subscribe? I think it looks very helpful.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I think so. TJ Spyke 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

AGF, I subscribed the project to it. Alerts will appear at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Professional wrestling/Article alerts.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to give a link from the main page (or any other page) if you decide to use |diplay=none.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that you are using the display=none parameter, so the alerts will not display. And since it doesn't display, and that you are not giving a link, members cannot access the list from your mainpage, losing pretty much all benefits of the alerts. So you can choose other display options (such as display=columns, or to leave it blank (display=) to use the default settings), or if you decide to use the display=none setting, remember to give a link to the alert page.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks I linked to it because our main page has a condensed design which doesn't really fit well with the alerts on the main page. I also place it in the header template.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Azihade

has been removing moves from some move articles and inserting them into others as well as adding more variations. Is this helpful or not? I'm on the fence. If it is deemed a good idea, we've got a lot link updates to do in just about every article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, some of those moves look made-up. 'Crucifix stunner'? I don't think so. Although any move is possible in pro wrestling, that has not been established as a regular move.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe a message on his talk page would be best. But if his edit summaries are any indication, he probably won't listen. Not really sure what to say to him. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Report it to an admin if he doesn't stop. I'm not sure why this was posted here. Since when did project talk pages become tattle boards? Revert, warn, report. It's a simple process that doesn't involve this talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My reason in posting it here was that I wasn't sure if his actions were helpful or not. His attitude isn't, but it could be viewed that these move splits are positive. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is any type of driver automatically a piledriver even if "pile" is not in the name. All drivers listed in Professional wrestling throws have been moved to the Piledriver (professional wrestling) article. So is this accurate or should it be reverted. Wrestling semantics isn't really my strong point. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. As far as I've assumed a driver is a move which directs the head into the mat, while this is most commonly a piledriver variant a Death Valley Driver is not a piledriver as the two bodies aren't piled together as with a piledriver. Tony2Times (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. In addition, according to this user, a double knee backbreaker is not a backbreaker and is actually called a lungblower. I was always always under the impression that some indy wrestler called it a lungblower and the name was adopted by several others. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Source I have no idea how to find and one that is reliable even harder.

Considering this involves wrestling I'll just ask for help here. I'm working on Destination X 2005 in a subpage. TNA built the main event off of an incident at a Best Damn Sports Show special, in which DDP, Kevin Nash, Monty Brown, and Jarrett all appeared on in 2005. I have no idea how to find a source for this show. Does anyone have anyother ideas to source these actions?--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You could site the show itself using Template:cite episode. Nikki♥311 00:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is I don't know what day it happened on. I guess I could search pretty hard for it, plus cite episode was my back-up if I can't find a reliable written source.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be February 4, 2005. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I found the video of it on Youtube. It was something about the superbowl. I remember DDP saying that Nash was going to beat Jarrett this Sunday, meaning it was closer to Against All Odds 05 which happened on the 13. I believe it was probably on the 12, I'll check IMDB for the date.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the incident is described at http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2005/02/18/935466.html, so that would work as a good source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it would, thanks. This will help me finish Against All Odds and most of Destination X.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far you are along with this, but I thought I might point out the results are on OnlineWorldofWrestling for the 2 Events [2] [3]. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't use Online World of Wrestling considering it isn't reliable for everything. I just really needed an in-depth telling of the events and what day it happened.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When nothing else can be found, OWOW is better than nothing, in my opinion. I have no qualms about citing the use of wrestling moves with it though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I don't need it now anyway. I have it finished: Against All Odds (2005).--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag Team Titles

Tonight on ECW, they announced that Carlito and Primo will face John Morrison and The Miz at WrestleMania to unify the 2 tag belts (about damn time). I know it may be early, but any ideas on what we should do for the articles? Assuming the titles are kept unified (which WWE has been consistent with, the only titles I can think of that they unified and later brought back were the IC and US Titles), what happens if they name the belts WWE Tag Team Championship? I think we will probably have to wait and see if WWE considers it a continuation of the World Tag Team Championship (which is what would cause a problem since we would have to move that article and try to find a new name for articles related to the WWE Tag Team Championship). Of coarse, it could have a whole new name as the wwe.com re-cap of ECW calls it Unified WWE Tag Team Championship (which would still cause a problem if they consider it's title lineage to be that of the WTTC). TJ Spyke 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets just wait till after mania. I don't believe they will actually unify them, though that seems like a smart idea since they don't give a shit about the division or either belts, but I see a weird finish. A draw or no contest maybe. Plus if it is called the WWE Tag Team Championship, which is doubtful since they will not leave World out of the name. Then we'll have to use a quantifier. Not much of a problem here. It depends on which belt they keep using afterwards. They'll use both for a while, but like the Undisputed title, it will become just one.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The WTTC was called the WWE Tag Team Championship for 5 months (from May 2002-October 2002) and even before that they usually just said WWF Tag Team Championship (they had phased out calling it the WWF World Tag Team Championship). I guess I am just wondering what we would move WWE Tag Team Championship to if they do unify the belts, and call them the WWE Tag Team Championship but have the lineage of the WTTC. I agree that we will probably need to wait until after WrestleMania to find out for sure, just thought I would bring it up. TJ Spyke 02:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the lineage. It was once named WWE Tag Team Championship. We could use a quantifier giving the years of said championship. WWE Tag Team Championship (1971 - present) and WWE Tag Team Championship (2002 - 2009) if we have too. Maybe WWE Tag Team Championship and WWE Tag Team Championship (Smackdown). The new one will be called the WWE Unified Tag Team Championship or the WWE Undisputed Tag Team Championship. Maybe World will be involved in there somewhere. No reason to worry at the moment. The chaos will come WrestleMania night when all the ips make their edits and we have complete insanity with edit conflicts left and right. Lets enjoy the piece at the moment. Wait until Vince gets the dumb idea to have one world title and wants to unify both of those. Then no one will have the chance to be world champion since Stephine is booker and Trips will be champ, and they will get the great idea of making a brand new world title to have both histories. That is when we should worry. Right now, the only chaos is to figure out who is Suicide. Hey, I just remebered Who is Suicide.com. TNA wanted to make that site actually mean something lol.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as they don't treat the tag belts too importantly I think they're more likely to unify them through deactivation rather than creating a new belt so I reckon the Raw belts will stay and they say World on them so World Tag Team Championship will probably stay. Even if they do start shortening to WWE Tag Team Championship, they will probably refer to it as World every now and again so we could keep it there/move it to WWE World TTC and then just keep the current note about the SmackDown variant to redirect people. Though what would the problem be with Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, surely we just rename the World TTC page? (This argument takes it for red that should they unify, they'll keep the World belts rather than the new ones, regardless of who wins.) Tony2Times (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"and they say World on them". Actually, they don't. Both sets of tag belts say "WWE Tag Team Champions". TJ Spyke 02:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I remember before thinking how silly that was. But yeah, what Mshake said. Tony2Times (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's..... just...... wait! Wait for the unification. Wait for the naming convention to be announced. Wait for the title history to be kept, and for the title history to be dropped. Mshake3 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What Mshake said. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to have current versions of both title histories saved at WebCite. If one title is dropped and the history is removed from the WWE site, a lot of reference information from professional wrestling articles would be lost. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they would drop the history, the will more than likely place it in the defunct category. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

TOC

I would suggest adding <noinclude> around the __NOTOC__ at the beginning, like this: <noinclude>__NOTOC__</noinclude>. Currently the page is transcluded onto hundreds of user talk pages which for that reason have no table of contents now. Not transcluding the NOTOC by adding "noinclude" would mean that it would still work on the project page, but not mess up the talk pages. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? The project pages don't affect the article talk pages.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That should have said "user talk pages". If you go to the project page, and click "what links here", and pick any of the user talk pages,[4] you will likely see that there is mysteriously no table of contents. Adding noinclude will fix that. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are the past newsletters that had problems in the coding, we can't fix that now. All we can do is assure that future editions of the newsletter don't have that problem.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Look again. I fixed it. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, nope. I don't know what you are talking about but I never had any problems with the newsletter on my talkpage (take a look). Could you point on an example? TJ Spyke 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the main project page had any affect on the user talk pages? Especially the TOC of WP:PW.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a problem from I believe only two editions of the news, Oct 13, 2007 and Oct 20, 2007. If anyone still has them on their user talk page, and more than a couple hundred users do, it eliminates their table of contents, just as if they added __NOTOC__ themselves. You are not one of them, but would not be affected anyway because you have manually added a TOC to your user talk page. Click on any of the links above, like User talk:Darkguy, User talk:Ekedolphin, or User talk:Johnissoevil, then undo TJ Spyke's undo, and the TOC will magically appear (you may have to refresh their user talk page). Actually it may be affecting your archives. TJ Spyke's archive is at User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13, and has no TOC either, which will be restored as soon as the edit is restored. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't manually create a TOC on my talkpage. It automatically shows up. I have checked my archives (which is what somebody should do if they still have the October 2007 newsletter on their talkpage) suffers this problem: User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 13. I don't think this will be a problem for most people since I doubt there are many active editors who have a a post that old still on their talkpage instead of archiving it. BTW, I started typing my reply before you edited your comment. TJ Spyke 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Try about 250 editors.[5] It has to be driving them nuts figuring out why their TOC is reappearing and disappearing again. I would strongly suggest giving it back to them by putting the noinclude back in. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I specifically said active editors. I picked one at random (User:Rossyboy10) and saw he hasn't edited since October 2007, so I doubt he would care. I haven't heard anybody who gets the newsletter actually complaining, so it doesn't appear to matter to most people. 04:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is, however, that it helps, and does not hurt. I'm going to go ahead and fix it and be done with it. I was lead here because it did matter - an editor made a note that they had left a note for someone and had not heard back from them. Well I looked at their user talk page and it was impossible to see that a new message had been left, because of the errant newsletter. So I fixed it. I just wanted to give a heads up about the fix. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't "needed big time". It was a minor glitch that apparently wasn't bothering anyone but you (and not sure why it bothers you since you don't even get the newsletter). It only affected those 2 issues from well over a year ago, and active editors would have archived those long ago. It's a minor thing, but it's not a big deal like you are making it out to be and no one else seemed to care about it. TJ Spyke 04:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but easily fixed. My first inclination was to clean up their user talk page so that new messages would be visible, but I found out that the source was the transclusion of this project page, which was more easily fixed by fixing the project page, and not transcluding the part that shouldn't be transcluded - the NOTOC. And affecting me is never a consideration for me - I never know nor care who is going to read any of the edits that I make - they are done simply to improve the encyclopedia, and to benefit everyone who stumbles across whatever section I have edited. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you register? You seem to want to help and be involved, and it would be easier if you registered (plus you wouldn't have to worry about others seeing your IP address). TJ Spyke 04:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Force of habit. Been editing as an IP user for a long time now. Actually my first edit was as a registered user, but I forgot the username and the password and just got into the habit of editing this way. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Title Change Consensus

We need to come to a consensus on when a title change counts. I'm sure we all know by now that Smackdown Tapings happen on Tuesdays and then air on Friday night. However when a title changes hand on Smackdown, an edit war breaks out on said championship page over what counts. I've seen use count the title reign as ending on the date of the taping (case in point Maryse's Diva's championship win) and at other times we count the date Smackdown airs as the title change, (case in point, MVP's second United States Championship reign.).--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The title changed hands at the taping, and we acknowledge that date, since that is the official day he became the champion, just like with TNA and other companies. We wait till the title changes hands on TV to state it on here first. MVP is the official champion and won the title on March 17, 2009.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 21:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It should always be the date won not the date aired. If for no other reason, titles change hands at live events and otherwise the dates of reigns would be skewed. And it allows for the amusing anecdote that the Freebirds won the WCW Tag belts for -6 days. Tony2Times (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to mention that. WCW had the Freebirds lose the titles at a TV taping even though they hadn't won the titles yet (since they would tape weeks, and even months, worth of shows at a time back then. This is what pissed of the NWA because it gave away title changes long before they happened). TJ Spyke 21:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

See the FL of List of WCW World Tag Team Champions to see how its set up in terms of broadcast delays.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 21:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean that -6 days should be considered the shortest reign (for the statistics table)? Raaggio 01:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That whole page is a mess. Despite the fact that WCW themselves considered their tag belts to be a continuation of a title that started in 1980, the page also includes reigns back to 1975 (which WCW never recognized and that WWE doesn't recognize either). TJ Spyke 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I expanded it I felt confused since their are two different recognitions that date back to when WCW was merely a part of JCP and the NWA.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who held the belt officially should be added. Companies can be bias and want to not acknowledge a reign for various dumb reasons. If the reign was once acknowledged at all, even once, it happened. If the first champions were crowned in 75, then the history should start there. It is the correct history of the title.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 08:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So even though WCW considered the WCW Tag Team Championship title starting in 1980 and WWE (which currently owns the rights to that title) doesn't seem to reckognize those early reigns either. Only the NWA does. TJ Spyke 13:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's revisionist history. At the time those championships were awarded so we should recognise them just like we do the early Lou Thesz wins of the NWA World Championship that they don't. Tony2Times (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cathy Corino >> Allison Danger

I think the article should be moved because aside from a brief managerial stint in ECW she has always used the name Allison Danger, this includes her years in Ring of Honor, her tours of Japan and Europe and as commentator, competitor and founder of Shimmer. Tony2Times (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Nenog (talk) 06:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support --WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"OOU" format of names??

I've seen a trend of using "Wrestlers Name" (Linked "Real name") in a lot of place and I was just wondering where that came from? Is there any other type of Wikipedia article that uses that annoying annotation? I find it pointless and frankly listing the real name of say Tommy Dreamer in an article doesn't add anything to it, it just brings the readability down. What's the inspiration? I haven't found it used in any articles where actors who use stagenames and not their real names, I've not seen it used in movie articles or TV shows. How does it bring it "Out of universe" to know what Kane's real name is? What does it matter what Kane's real name is except on the article about Kane? Do you need to know it in order to read a PPV Article? I think that WP:PW have gone a bit far in order to claim "It's out of universe", but it's a misguided attempt at a quick fix - the "OOU" aspects are in the general writing of the article not the addition of their birth names. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This came about last summer when SummerSlam (2003) was taken to FAC. There it was recommended to use real names and treat PPV articles like a film article, so real names began to be used. This should only be used in Biographies and PPV articles, lists are exceptions [except for Hall of Fame lists].--Best, ₮RUCӨ 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that recomendation in the FAC review, in fact the pre-review mentions it being like that already without ANYONE saying it should be so. Looks like a way of doing it that was passed off as "required" or something, it's not even consistent in the article. I don't see the point here, it's clunky and no one seems to be able to pinpoint exactly who thought it was a good idea to begin with? Pardon me if I won't go out of my way to follow it. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:PW/PPVG. It was in the peer review I believe.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the "Style guide" doesn't explain why it's like that, it was mentioned in the review that the format Randy Orton (Randy Orton) was just plain wrong, indicating that it was already like that before the comments were made. So we have a "guideline" that no one can remember why we have other than some vague "it keeps it out of Universe" comment (which is not true). So why keep it? besides even if ONE person suggested something in a peer review doesn't mean it should be taken as law right?

That's pretty much how things go around here. One reviewer makes a comment, and BAM, all articles must change accordingly. Mshake3 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't be the only one seeing a problem with that right? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather like all of the out of universe format. I don't like explaining all the moves since those are hard, but as for the names, theyr are fine with me. They make the article seem more professional. Plus all the wrestlers play characters, not theirselves. So, treat them as characters.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The moves one is ridiculous. Instead of just saying they did a powerbomb (and linking to the page which describes a powerbomb), some people think it should say something like "he lifted his opponent up onto his shoulders and then slammed him down". TJ Spyke 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A powerbomb is not known by everyone. Plus it is a name of a move, which makes it jargon. Also there are guidelines against the relying on a pipelink to help explain it. I don't like explaining the moves since I don't know where to start, but I understand why we should. The same as if you were reading an article about religion, and you didn't understand a certain term. Are you going to stop reading and read the term's article? What is it doesn't have one? The explaining helps.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Besides the fact that not every single little thing has to be explained, and goes into far more detail than may FA's. Thankfully it's not as bad as when this bad trend started (at least now some editors realize you still need to say the name of the move, not just its description). TJ Spyke 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it doesn't have to go overboard. Just explain the stuff that anyone can get. The moves to a decent detail, just the main points, the name of the move, the matches and the rules. The wrestler's names. Just the stuff no one that has ever read about wrestling does not know. Do not go into detail to a point where you've written a brand new Professional Wrestling article.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 20:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my name to the list of editors who don't like the overuse of out-of-universe writing. As an example of what I think we should go for, let's take a look at today's featured article, Proserpine (play). The article wikilinks, but does not explain, feminist, verse drama, blank verse, lyric poems, soliloquy, closet drama, comedy of manners, masques, and pastoral. All of these terms qualify as jargon, but the author realized that not every piece of jargon needs to be explained. Will every reader understand each of these terms? Of course not. But the article is still accessible, just as wrestling articles were a year ago. I have a problem with changing every article based upon one comment in a featured article candidacy, as I believe that readability of articles is more important than statistics. Codifying these changes without discussion by adding them to a style guide (and then pointing to the style guide as proof that things need to be changed) doesn't make sense to me, either. With that said, I understand and appreciate that everyone is doing what they think is best to improve all articles under this project's scope, and there have been positive changes (eg. the Reception section for pay-per-views) that I think have been quite useful. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the out of universe has brung good, as well as a burden. The reception was a great addition. I feel we should leave it up to the editor to choose what to explain and what not too. I talked to a friend of mine the other day who couldn't tell the difference between King Booker and Booker T. There are some who don't know what a headlock or sleeper hold is. I agree the making of the out of universe decision was handled wrong, but we weren't getting anywhere before. When the subject was brung up all it did was make this project page a living hell. I think the OOU should explain moves that are not too common. The Chokeslam is too common, while a Pedigree isn't. Go by common name on the wrestler's names in parenthesis. If they have more than one gimmick they are known for (Mick Foley or Christopher Daniels in this case), then real name in parenthesis. If they only have one name (A.J. Styles), then just link it. Explain the difficult terms, like jobber or face, but book should be simple enough.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 21:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a sign of insecurity as a project / fan base / whatever but it seems like the wrestling articles are much more prone to overapplying suggestions of ONE reviewer, almost as if people are just grateful from ANY input from ANYONE and will do anything they say, acting like one review comment is the foundation for all WP:PW's work. Goes along with the comment "Oh other projects think we're a joke", which I think isn't true in general - wrestling have PLENTY of quality articles (and plenty of crap ones but most topics have their share of poop). MPJ-DK (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. We've had so many discussions on this. We've discussed how we are listening to one reviewer, how the format sucks, how the format is bullshit, how the format is not needed, how the format is hard to read, we've heard it all. Past discussions have resulted in the project generally accepting the guideline because professional wrestling is a screenplay, and involves the similar nature of film articles, some of their guidelines apply to in-universe content of pro wrestling related articles, like pay-per-views. People think that the guidelines apply to ever article, its only for biographies (where needed) [see Shawn Michaels as an example) and PPV articles, like Over the Edge (1999). If we do not do these things, our articles violate WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U, and WP:PLOT.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Sigh" yourself - you've yet to show me a place where this is used in this way outside Wrestling articles or even the comment that lead to it in the first place. and since there are "constant" discussions it doesn't look to me that it's generally accepted. And there is no way that just using the wrestling name they're known and promoted as instead of their real name which in most cases is just a trivivial comment is Jargon or in universe. Look at any number of articles on actors who use stagenames, they don't have this format. Explain to me how telling people what Christian Cage's real name is makes the article less "in universe" or "Jargony", it's the way events, matches, titles etc are explained that's the jargon or in-universe problem in wrestling. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for urgent attention on a biography

Hello, if I could get editors with a greater knowledge of the subject matter than myself (ie. you guys, hence why I came here) to have a look at Rob Feinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and edit it to make sure it complies with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:UNDUE, it would be greatly appreciated. Any edits to improve the article would be greatly appreciated.

Disclaimer: This request is in relation to OTRS #2009031710055272, the resolution of which requires a cleanup of the article.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 25th Anniversary Blowout

I was just wondering if anyone here has a copy of the magazine. According to the WWE.com summary, it features an article about pyrotechnics, staging, etc. Considering I was quite interested in writing about that kind of stuff last year in the production section for WrestleMania XXIV, I wouldn't mind some help having a similar section for this year. -- Oakster  Talk  16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would help the article this year, plus I had a plan, not sure it will happpen though, to work on this year's Mania and take it to GA and maybe then FA later this year. That could save me or someone else some headaches.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I've just added a paragraph on the marketing campaign they're planning to do. Would it be a good idea to mention a bit on WrestleMania week (Hall of Fame, WrestleManiart, Axxess)? -- Oakster  Talk  18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I'm doing the same for TNA events when they have their fan interactons and other stuff along that nature. We should mention what WWE does around Mania in the proudtion or marketing section. I don't have a copy of WWE's mag, so I can't help you there. I forgot to mention that.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I already figured that out. But thanks for the advice. -- Oakster  Talk  18:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Dorling Kindersley

I saw on dot com a few days ago that DK are publishing a WWE encyclopedia. I have no idea what's in it or what it will be like but if anyone sees it, it might be an idea to flick through and see what's on offer. It may be a good source for pre-internet facts and even if we're lucky it might be a useful source for general professional wrestling articles. Tony2Times (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazon.com has some good reviews. It's about 750 pages and filled with wrestler bios, pictures, and title histories (even having a bio on Benoit, since WWE themselves are not publishing it). They apparently made some odd choices though, like having bios on Battle Kat and Phantasio but not Sean O'Haire or Rico. Still should be good though, Amazon has it for $27 [6]. TJ Spyke 19:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem is it is written in kayfabe, so it will not help us on backstage stuff. But about wrestler's time there and titles that will be useful.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's kayfabe (I haven't read it yet), it should also help with lesser known wrestlers. Hell, I had never even heard of Battle Kat before I read a review of the book. TJ Spyke 20:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I did wonder if being published by DK rather than WWE might cover over some controversial parts like Benoit. Also, even if it's in kayfabe I'm hoping it will have things like a glossery of wrestling slang to source. Tony2Times (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:WwwSavageRandycom

This guy is adding random garbage to Randy Savage. I've reverted twice, could someone watch just in case? RandySavageFTW (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

United States template

The Untied States template that's appeared only counts the WWE time. Now although the template says WWE United States Championship the lineage goes back for the WCW and NWA versions. Shouldn't teh template reflect this too? If this is deemed messy there could be seperations (like the current championships&accomplishments template) for the three eras which may help to stop it looking cluttered. Tony2Times (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It could be laid out like the employees Raw/SD/ECW. With NWA, then WCW, then WWE. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's how i was envisioning it. I'm just wondering if the person who designed the template omitted it by mistake or had a reason. Tony2Times (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think they were just making it fit with the others. It probably didn't occur. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just added NWA & WCW Champions, don't think I've messed up with the coding. Also I listed people who won it under two different promotions in both categories and also put the WWF wrestlers who won it during the Invasion under the WCW banner as that was still the name of the belt at the time. Tony2Times (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rhodes and DiBiase

They are notable, because they are major supporting characters in this Orton/Triple H feud, 2 time tag champs, and been around for the better part of a year. And they retired a guy.KingMorpheus (talk) 03:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

They've had no major feuds and are nothing but glorified jobbers at the moment and haven't teamed regularly in weeks. They won two tag belts, but that doesn't mean they are notable. Their article wouldn't even be that long. It would be one section worth of notable info.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, they didn't retire Holly. He has a drug problem and WWE released him.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when was a rivalry with Orton and Cryme Tyme not serious? KingMorpheus (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And has Holly had a match since then? No. Indie bookings. No. That fucker's retired. KingMorpheus (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Their rivalry with Orton lead really to nothing. They still are not an official stable. The Cryme feud? If that was a feud, then it was a lazy one. They had about two or three matches that lead to nothing. Wasn't even on PPV. They've done as much as Santino and Beth. Right now, having their own articles is fine. It states everything they've done. They have yet to even have a match go passed 10 minutes. Plus, did you read drug problem? Last I heard he was in rehab.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's not get into rumors (I hadn't even heard of the rumor that Holly was in rehab). When Legacy gets a article, which should be soon, there can be a section about Priceless (which is the tag team name of Rhodes and DiBiase). TJ Spyke 04:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

KingMorpheus: there is NO reason to swear here. Keep personal comments like that to yourself next time. As for the subject at hand: Legacy deserves an article now along with a section on Priceless. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How do they deserve an article? Legacy has won no titles. Priceless won two, but the stable has won none. The only thing they have won was the Royal Rumble. Have yet to team together. They've done nothing but stand around and talk. How do they pass notability?--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 04:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy fix instead of arguing - read the Notability criteria. If they fullfill that then they're notable enough for an article.MPJ-DK (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of teams and stables: Vicious and Delicious (midcarders at best that did nothing, just being NWO members doesn't justify the article in my view) should probably go. If you want to go by winning titles to be notable: a majority of Category:Professional wrestling teams and stables should go. I see many more teams just like Vicious and Delicious that did next to nothing/held no titles, and aren't suitable for Wikipedia. Anyone have some free time to look through the category? RobJ1981 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I go by notability on what they've done and time. Legacy has only been around around three to five months, and have yet to even become official. I don't think they are notable just yet, not until they get more focus and actually have a real meaningful match.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 05:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

...

Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. We write articles people would normally search. If someone watches Raw, and is practically orgasmic when he sees Orton, DiBiase and Rhodes, because he loves the stable, he will go to Wikipedia and search The Legacy. He will find nothing, so he goes to Orton's article. It will say NOTHING about the history of Rhodes and DiBiase in WWE. So, he'll have to go to Ted DiBiase. Again, it will say next-to-NOTHING about Randy Orton. How is it that people will want to search for The Highlanders (professional wrestling), The Bella Twins, The Mexicools, Vince's Devils, The New Breed, Cryme Tyme and not Los Colons (who've been teaming since they debuted in WWC). Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes, Cody Rhodes and Hardcore Holly, The Legacy (professional wrestling), and Finlay and Hornswoggle (teaming together since 2006, contended for tag team titles, feuded with JBL, Mr. McMahon, Jack Swagger, Miz and Morrison, Glamarella, Mark Henry, Mr. Kennedy [must I continue?), and also Glamarella who obviously is a lot more notable than The Bella Twins because they actually won titles TOGETHER at SummerSlam (2008). Raaggio 12:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well for a start, The Highlanders and The Bella Twins don't have individual articles; Cryme Tyme have been together for years and been involved in numerous storylines, at pay-per-views, have their online show, also wrestled briefly on the indie circuit and The New Breed was historically important from the perspective that it was an angle to transition the old ECW to ECW on Sci-Fi. The others I wasn't watching during so I can't comment. I think Los Colóns deserve an article and it'd be even better if their WWC work could be sourced. Glamarella had one match together of consequence, the rest has been Santino being Beth's manager and it's sort of similar for Finlay&Hornswoggle aside from Postl fighting a bit more but not frequently. I'm sure The Legacy will soon get a page but at present it's essentially Orton's job squad and they haven't done much since joining The Legacy aside from face Cryme Tyme in two consecutive weeks and get beaten up by Triple H a lot. Heck, we don't even know what The Legacy is seeing as Michael Cole never says the article, just Legacy, and on .com's P25 they always refer to Rhodes&DiBiase as Orton's "Legacy" as if to suggest that actually Orton isn't part of it. Tony2Times (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Just being on WWE television doesn't justify an article on Wikipedia. Back in the early days of Raw: there was numerous matches involving stars against jobbers. All of those jobbers have yet to be articles, as they did nothing outside of jobbing on a few Raw shows. In the case of many teams: the same thing can apply. If they've teamed a little, only been around a brief time: they don't have to have an article here. Finlay and Hornswoogle might be a needed article, but that's speculative. Hornswoogle is a sidekick/manager to Finlay at best. They've teamed in numerous matches, but I wouldn't call much of that notable. Going for tag gold is notable: but if you look at all the random teams (over the years, not so much recently), you probably wont find articles for all of them here. A suggestion, use the wrestling wiki:[7] for more of the short term teams and/or wrestlers. There isn't that many guidelines as Wikipedia, so I see no problem with them going there. Perhaps there's been stuff deleted in AFD as well (that people see notable): if you can find the AFDs, ask to have it transwikied to Wrestling Wiki if you want. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough, search the net - see if you can find enough information on the team/faction/whatever to see if it fullfills the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, then there isn't even a debate. Write it in your sandbox and source it and you can make any and all articles that you have sources to support and not have to worry about them being deleted. Easy fix. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Percy Pringle --> Paul Bearer

This one is just obvious. Read the article, the article is completely about the Paul Bearer character, the small mention of the Percy Pringle character is overshadowed by He is best known for his career with World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment as the manager of The Undertaker, Kane (Undertaker's storyline brother), and Mankind. So, anyone who can read, will notice the article should be under Paul Bearer. Raaggio 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support as petitioner of the move. Raaggio 02:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONSENSE, so what if he wrote 1 book no one's heard of, he's way better known as Bearer. RandySavageFTW (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He left WWE 5 years ago, from then on he's been referred to as Pringle. If I'm correct, WWE also referred to him as such in a "update interview" (I think). So I oppose as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose, just like last time this was discussed and not approved. He refers to himself as Percy Pringle (see his website at http://www.percypringle.com. He has been using the name Percy Pringle from 1977-1990, 2002-2003, and 2005-present. He also published a book under the name Percy Pringle (Inside Secrets on How You Can Enter the Exciting World of Pro Wrestling!). I see no need for a move. If it's not broken, don't fix it. I also see no need for insulting anyone who might choose to oppose by labeling them as illiterate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, then you should change that article, because the WHOLE article is about him as his time as Paul Bearer. So what his book is authored by Percy? The article is completely about Paul. Have you not read the lead of the article? He is best known for his career with World Wrestling Federation effectively stating he is best known as Paul Bearer. <font face="jokerman" Raaggio 15:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, he used the name Percy Pringle for one match and one book which sold 3 copies. RandySavageFTW (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please revisit WP:POINT, RandySavageFTW. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

By telling him to visit WP:POINT, you're effectively telling him his point was proved. ;) Raaggio 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts (2)

After tweaking the links, I've gotten a link for easy access to the Article alerts page up. The article alerts give notices on Good and Featured news, DYK?'s, and XfD's, and other various notice on our articles which have the project talk banner on them. This is a very helpful tool, so lets take advantage of it ;) The link is on the main page and in the nav bar above.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ECW One Night Stand (2005) crowd chants

In the descriptions of this event, there are several places where crowd chants are referenced. Some of the chants include things like "you suck dick" and "fuck you" and things like that. I don't see how any of these are relevant to the article in any way. Especially in the section describing the Benoit/Guerrero match where the chants referenced have nothing to do with the participants of the match at all. It seems like they are only included to give someone an excuse to say "dick" and "fuck" a few times. I feel like it would be a great improvement to the article to remove most of them. It would certainly make it seem more like an encyclopedia article. Anyway, I agreed that it would be fair to put this up for discussion before making a move so what does everyone else think? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like a lot of banal, romanticised ECW spiel. If a Reception section was written it could all be reduced and summarised there to reduce the profanity while emphasising the raucous nature of the crowd. Tony2Times (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, they are unnecessary, and add nothing to the article. A Reception section might be a good idea. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 23:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would consult with the original expander of the article to get his/her thoughts on it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at ECW One Night Stand (2006), that article is fine and it doesn't mention any of the profane chants at all in the article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the editor who expanded it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the chants at 2006 weren't as bad as they were in 2005 and didn't get nearly as much press (the only really chants were the ones directed at Cena). TJ Spyke 00:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I went back as far as the history would let me and I couldn't find who originally wrote the chants into the article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be me. I don't see anything wrong with it really. D.M.N. (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hello there, everyone! I figured you guys would be the place to go for this question. An article I'm working towards FA quality, No Jacket Required has a bit of info I wrote-up about how "Take Me Home" was the shows closing theme for three years, and I need to find a reliable source that states this. However, I am not an expert on which wrestling websites are more reliable than the others. Would anyone know where I could find a reliable source that says that "Take Me Home" was the closing theme to the show from 1985-1988? Thanks to whoever can answer, and a barnstar is in order for whoever can help me out! Have a great day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a source that would hold up to a Featured Article Candidacy. I've only found records of the song being used from 1986 to 1988. I haven't pulled out my copies of the old SNME shows, but I know that "Monster Mash" was used during a 1985 episode. My suggestion would be to cite the episodes (#7 - taped 9/13/86 and aired 10/4/86 - is the earliest documented use I can find, and #16 - taped 4/22/88 and aired 4/30/88 is the latest, so perhaps changing the phrasing to "Take Me Home" was also the closing theme song for the World Wrestling Entertainment's television show, Saturday Night's Main Event, in the late 1980s" and citing these two episodes would be your best bet). If you want me to create the citations, I can do that (I've cited SNME episodes for some articles I've expanded). GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Message sent. Thanks again! CarpetCrawler (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard Young (wrestler) Atlas DaBone --> Ricky Ortiz

Moved the conversation down here, because the conversation is now between Atlas DaBone and Ricky Ortiz, instead of Richard Young and Ricky Ortiz

I propose said article be moved, because he is better known because

1. He is better known by the media as Ricky Ortiz,
2. We can remove the quantifier {(wrestler)}
3. He is not notable under his real name or any other alias. The only other alias is Atlas Dabone, but he only used the name when he was in Developmental.

Raaggio 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Support as petitioner for the move. Raaggio 10:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nenog (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 04:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• SupportAre you saying his time in the XFL didn't make him world famous(?) (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support RebirthThom 20:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support Ugh, the current name is crap. He only used Atlas DaBone in OVW. Either the article should be at his real name or the name that millions of people worldwide have seen (OVW is only seen on local Louisville TV). I prefer his Ortiz name. TJ Spyke 02:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, I live in KY, and I don't live near Louisville at all. I see OVW. Just thought I would help out. Though I'm still local, it is seen farther than that. It is shown in Ohio, Indiana, and Tennessee to name a few.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

According to OVW's site they are seen in Louisville, Lexington, London Kentucky and the "Louisville Metro Area". Anyways, I think you got my point though, the name he used in a small indy fed (even one that is more notable due to having been affiliated with WWE) would not be used over the name he has used since entering WWE and has been seen by millions of people worldwide. TJ Spyke 02:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the name, just showing you I've seen it other than Louisville.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support WP:COMMONNAME. Ricky Ortiz is widely more known than Atlas DaBone in terms of what name is more common. — Moe ε 14:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support WWE is a global phenominom unlike ovw which is a regional company so this is really his only ringname that I've heard of! Adster95 18:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose In keeping with the out-of-universe style that I thought is currently the WP:MOS for this project? ArcAngel (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That is only when it doesn't conflict with WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H). TJ Spyke 03:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MOS. Govvy (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- best known by his real name.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

How is he best known by his real name? Raaggio 23:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess it isn't a distinction between his real name anymore, so do u still oppose? Raaggio 01:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't had any "notability" under "Ricky Ortiz", only exposure on TV. He hasn't done anything under that name. Thus, he is not best know by that. His real name is what we should abide to in this case, see Nick Nemeth and Dustin Runnels.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Dustin Runnels is not under his real name, and in Nic's case it's really different. Nic Nemeth has 3 established names, where 1 was on HEAT and 2 were on Raw (Nicky, Nic Metro and Dolph Ziggler). Ricky only has 1 national name, which is Ricky Ortiz. It's obvious he should be under that name.

Okay, but a common name is not established in 1 year. Just because he has gained WWE exposure does not make him commonly known as such. His OVW career is nothing more than his current WWE ECW career. Take Braden Walker as an example. Also, take note that we should not be voting on issues.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are using different cases. Come on, you know Chris Harris is obviously more notable because of his time in TNA (which is nationally televised unlike OVW). And I must add we're not voting, I divided the sections to easily note the different points for and against the naming of an article. You, of all people, no its a traditional format for some consensus-reaching discussions. Raaggio 02:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the Harris thing as well. A 7 time tag champ compared to telling dumb knock knock jokes.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask you this. How does less than a year of work under that name establish any notability? What if he's released tomorrow? What if he (forbid it) passes away tomorrow? What if his name is changed? Would he still be notable as Ortiz or his full name? Which he has wrestled under as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm just stating I think Harris is more notable as Harris. As for Ortiz I'm not sure. When I saw him on ECW, I remembered Atlas Dabone because the OVW commentators annoy the hell out of me when they said his name on OVW TV. And believe me, they are more annoying than Don West when he says "You've got to be kidding me!!".--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone can establish notability under a name in under a year, if that is what your asking. He is only notable for a few things: being a football player for the XFL/CFL/AFL/NFL at different periods, being a wrestler in OVW and being a wrestler in WWE. Since the current article name is Richard Young (wrestler), he is presumably most notable as a wrestler. So ask yourself, what is more notable and more of a common name: Atlas DaBone/Richard Young, a name he used in OVW, a local independent promotion, or Ricky Ortiz, the name he uses on television every week in WWE, the largest conglomerate in the entire professional wrestling industry. If he did die tomorrow or was released and didn't do anything notable the rest of his life, he would probably be best known during his year of being a wrestler in WWE as Ricky Ortiz. — Moe ε 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

• --WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

Letting you all know of a change I made/am going to make to these group of articles. Since the exact day/week/month of a person joining or leaving WWE is not widely known (unless an official statement from WWE can be found), I have made it so that only the year is what is listed as the tenure (see List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni: A–C). Some websites are inaccurate, leading to conflicting changes and the information on exact days isn't the easiest thing to confirm with a couple of references and there are a few people who only worked for WWE for only months or weeks. Some people who get released (like Freddie Prinze, Jr.) are also not reported on due to WWE not making an official statement for them, leading to conflicting information when they actually left. A year instead of exact days should benefit this article, as the year is usually something that can be confirmed pretty easily. Personally, I also think the exact day of release matters very little (keeping with the reason I started making changes to this article in the first place), and should probably only be included within the biography of the person themselves. — Moe ε 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I've changed the TNA alumni page accordingly. Nikki♥311 23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Who here thinks it would be a better idea to make one template just for Grand Slam champions and Triple Crown champions. There are templates for this on the WWE side. I would make one for the TNA side but thought it would be a better idea not to waste the space instead just making a template just for these champions alone. Something like these two. The championships share an article, why not just a template.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 18:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am fine with that, the fewer templates the better IMO. TJ Spyke 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how Grand Slam champions are necessarily Triple Crown champions, is there not a way we could incorporate the two into one template? I don't know what the title of the template would be though. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no purpose as to having the templates hidden for only 2 templates. Maybe if it were 3 or 4 then yeah, but 2 it is not necessary.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between hiding two and hiding three? If it removes the clutter from the bottom of the article by having a single template to hide/show all related links, the number of templates doesn't really matter. — Moe ε 00:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I just hid them for no reason. Just did it.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of hiding 2 templates? There is no written guideline that requires hiding this to avoid clutter. 3 or more is probable clutter.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a new template adding both the Grand Slam and Triple Crown championships in one right here.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think that looks very well presented. I wonder if their might be a better title like Championship distinction or something better but that's just a minor quibble. Also shouldn't Grand Slam go above Triple Crown seeing as it's a higher honour? I suppose one has to be Triple Crown champion first but Grand Slam is undoubtedly a higher distinction. Tony2Times (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

NWA Template

I just notice the NWA World Heavyweight Championship template which has a seperate part for TNA like I implemented for the NWA/WCW/WWE US Championship. However, while I can see the argument that TNA had control of the NWA Championship at the time, the flow doesn't look right as TNA is underneath as if it comes after yet Blue Demon is above them, therefore coming before Ken Shamrock. Also, didn't JCP/WCW exclusively operate the NWA World Title for a time in the late '80s/early '90s so that would have to be added in as well, and again you have the problem of the chronology looking weird. The title never changed names also, it was always the NWA World('s) Heavyweight Championship. Unless I'm not thinking things through properly and I've missed something? Tony2Times (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WCW was part of the NWA at the time. They were really the only ones on TV and the most famous, but still part of the NWA (and the belt was still regulated by the NWA board of directors). TNA was not part of the NWA, but did have control over the belt and didn't have to consult with the NWA over title changes. I can understand why the TNA era champs are separate. TJ Spyke 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I created the template. I was going to have a field for NWA, WCW, and TNA. But I couldn't remember when WCW had control of the belt. I knew that Dusty vs Flair, Race vs Flair, and Flair vs Steamboat was WCW, but they were still NWA GCW at the time. I read WCW changed its name to WCW in 89, but all champions from there till they lose the belt were already champions. So I removed the WCW section, and just kept the TNA section since I knew when they got the belt and that they had complete control of it. I also had a problem with the order, maybe we could have an NWA section, then a TNA section, then a new NWA section for the order.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 00:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Mmmkay, although are you sure WCW didn't have control of the belt? They seemed to exclusively operate it through much of the '80s up until Flair departs for WWF and both WCW&NWA strip him before awarding their new belt to different people. Also if that's the case of it being operated by TNA and not NWA during the time then I suggest repeating the names in that section, as I did for the US Belt, seeing as they're under different governing bodies. Speaking of template structure, I was wondering if we shouldn't do the same for ECW? To seperate between the promotion and the brand, not to mention highlight the 5 year hiatus? Tony2Times (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Sting the only person to win the NWA Title both when TNA controlled it and when they didn't? I'm not sure if WCW at one point did control the belt, but I know that they didn't have control the whole time of their existence. I know they didn't have control after 1991 (when they left the NWA), the NWA had a couple of title changes that WCW pretended never happened (like WCW ignored Flair losing the title to Fujinami). TJ Spyke 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They took control of the title in the mid to late 1980s, around the time where JCP became WCW and most of the other territories began to fade away. I'm not sure of which reigns were generally NWA and which were WCW. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reigns 32-42 change hands exclusively at JCP/WCW events but this could be supposition that they weren't being defended at other territories at the time. Tony2Times (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC

What to do....

What do we do about Criticism of World Championship Wrestling? Should it be merged into History of World Championship Wrestling (there is a lot of overlap) or left alone? My opinion is that a merge is in order. Nikki♥311 02:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I didn't even know there was an article for it. Its a definite merge, because most of the information overlaps. Some of that info can be in respective articles, like the NWO's.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should stay and be its own article. WCW's legecy is no longer having the NWO, great steel cage matches or great matches in general, having War Games, or anything else you can say that they had that was great or at least good. They are known now for bad booking. So a criticism article works well. A reception section for the company, in a way, is a nice addition.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 02:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just found this WP:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history), so it definitely needs to be merged. I'll get to it later tonight. Nikki♥311 15:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Titles on ECW

The tag titles currently held by Miz and Morrison, should be considered a part of ECW. If Edge's WHC is a part of Smackdown, there really is no way to say this belt isn't on ECW. The WWE has put the WHC on the smackdown page. But the tag titles are on the ecw page, and not the raw page, meaning they belong to ECW.Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Present some evidence where WWE has says the belt belongs to ECW (what you have their is WP:SYNTH). WWE has flat out said that the WHC belongs to SD, I have not seen them ever say that about the WTTC and ECW. TJ Spyke 02:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we look at it the other way and say how can we assume a championship held by two members of ECW, with the championship on the ecw page, is a part of Raw? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we assume until we have proof otherwise that a giant autocratic alien sapien called Rankor controls the moon by remote control from two galaxies away until we have proof otherwise? WWE have said the World TTC belong to Raw previously, they are yet to say they belong to Raw. We have proof of one, the other is ambiguous thus we go with the certain choice. Besides which they're being unified in a fortnight, does it really matter? Tony2Times (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How long have you been waiting to use that one? As for the Tag belts, maybe they belong to no brand. They are on all brands each week, been defended only on Raw and SD, mainly SD. It seems to me, that they are no longer held by a brand.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 03:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Rankor uses telepathy, not a primitive remote control. Raaggio 03:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're going far away from the discussion here, but I don't think what I'm doing is against WP:SYNTH, because the belt is actually on the ECW page. Nowhere does it have any indication that the belt is still on Raw. Just like every other belt, it becomes a part of the champion's brand. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have are a group of dedicated Rankor followers making the consensus clear to you. The belts stay where they are until you have positive evidence to support your position. You don't, so the consensus (the belts are assigned to RAW) remains, at least until unification. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So how many times has the title been contested on Raw? And on SmackDown!? WWE has got it on the ECW page, it's held by two ECW superstars. That's my given opinion--Falegas (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

Legacy It's in my sandbox, no week-by-week. So any opinions?--Falegas (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)