Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

→

Dirtsheet Awards

Do we really need to have awards on articles that were issued by a dirtsheet? Pro Wrestling Insider is a dirtsheet, and we don't use dirtsheets. Killswitch Engage (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The PWI awards are from Pro Wrestling Illustrated, not Pro Wrestling Insider. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't use dirtsheets? Hmm. I sense another debate coming from this.

and now for the definition of "dirtsheet": whatever site/magazine "Contributor X" doesn't like - I've been here on this road before and I just don't care to go down it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. A dirtsheet is whatever magazine that p[resents what they beleive to be factual information, when in reality, it is rumour. We are not permitted to use dirtsheets as a source, so therfore, I beleive that these awards should be deemed not notable. Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you making the claim that Pro Wrestling Illustrated is a dirtsheet, or Pro Wrestling Insider? GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say something is a "dirtsheet", doesn't make it so. PWI has long been respected in the industry, with wrestlers and other personnel taking cues from it and acknowledging awards from it.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask though. Who decided that we don't use "dirtsheets" anyway? Mshake3 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

and who decides which sites are or are not dirtsheets?? the definition seems a bit arbitrary and up to personal interpretation for me to take any "rule" serious.MPJ-DK (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven (2006) and Royal Rumble (2005)

Are going to be nominated for GA in one week by ThinkBlue and LAX respectively. iMatthew 20 08 12:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Judgment Day (2005) and The Great American Bash (2007)

Again, will be nominated for GA in one week by ThinkBlue and LAX respectively. iMatthew 20 08 17:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That won't go down very well at WP:GAN if this project nominates four articles within the space of 24 hours, will it? D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen a user nominate 6 articles at once, and there were no complaints. iMatthew 20 08 17:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The project already went through a nominating spree, and those articles haven't been dealt with yet. I agree that it would be a good idea to wait until the list is shortened before we add to it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What if we nominate two on Thursday and two on Saturday, to spread it out. iMatthew 20 08 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my thing, I wanted to wait until our PW articles get reviewed, before nominating. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To randomly jump into the conversation here, I would say wait. We currently have 4 articles in the top ten unreviewed articles backlog over there, if you look here and there's no point in adding to it yet, IMO. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, remember this is in one week. If those articles are not reviewed/removed in one week, then we have an issue. iMatthew 20 08 00:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Online Onslaught

The website OnlineOnslaught.com, which was used for sourcing on a number of articles, went down about a month ago. As of this weekend it's back with the new url oowrestling.com. The full archives are there with the new root url. I don't know how to make a bot to change links in existing articles, but if someone does feel free.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 20:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made a post at WP:VPT to see if a bot deals with these type of things. D.M.N. (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I dont think they will do it for us..--~S R S~ 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the broken links, as far as article namespace is concern. –L A X 04:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

What do you guys think about "Category:WWE Kings of The Ring"?. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have one for Royal Rumble winners? If yes then yes to KOTR, if no then we need RR and KOTR. (edit) Looking at it, it is missing the pre-1993 winners. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so, its kinda cruft, its like adding a category for list of MiTB winners.--~S R S~ 14:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So do we keep it or put it up for deletion? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I say AfD it, but see what others think of it first.--~S R S~ 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)--~S R S~ 20:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll wait. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit crufty to me. If we allow this, where do we draw the line? Royal Rumble is slightly more important, so it would need one too. Things could snowball from there. - DrWarpMind (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to no on King of the Ring winners, as well as Royal Rumble winner categories. Both appear to be forms of overcategorization. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rob, adding these categories will be pointless. So, should we have the category up for deletion? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete it - DrWarpMind (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed it for deletion, see here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

King of the Mountain

Articles to merge: King of the Mountain match to Ladder match
I have added the results for the KOTM matches to the TNA Ladder Match table and reordered the match numbers - can someone double check that this is what was required, and if not revert to how it should be? --Apsouthern (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

YOu did a pretty good job on merging the articles, but I am skeptical on the merge as the King of the Mountain match is like the Money in the Bank and should have its own article, but on the other hand it doesn't have that much information to make it into an expanded article like the MiTB article.--~S R S~ 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need lists of results?«»bd(^talk _stalk) 01:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that we don't. DrWarpMind (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If this goes, then so does Money in the Bank. Mshake3 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup I agree. Money in the Bank could easily be merged into ladder. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

IDK, MitB has more notability and content for its own article IMO.--~S R S~ 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)--~S R S~ 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's do a quick comparision. Both have had 4 total matches. Money in the Bank has all the times people cashed in (as well as defenses of the MITB title), but so what? That information could be listed on ladder or the match types page, or just removed (as it falls under listcruft in my view). If you look at ladder: it lists nearly every ladder match WWE and TNA has done. Am I missing something, since when did match type articles turn into a trivia fest? I'm not so sure it's even notable to list every match ever. Assuming all are notable is a bit wrong in my view. It's a well known speciality match for wrestling, but listing them all seems like a bit of clutter to me. Discussing the key matches is necessary, but a full list isn't. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rob and Mshake. MITB can easily be merged, it has the same amount of notability as KOTM does in TNA. iMatthew 20 08 16:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright if you do that, the Ladder match article will be a horrible mess, look at it now its horrible, Im starting to think that listing every ladder match is cruft..~S R S~ 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If it becomes a mess, we clean it up. If anyone wants to move the current versions of Money in the Bank and King of the Mountain to the wrestling wiki, feel free. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Independents

I love how little info there is on the Canadian Independent scene, yet every american indy wrestler and their dog gets an article. I call for more effort put into the Canadian scene, which I will be attempting to do. I have already started to do research into Monster Pro Wrestling and Prairie Wrestling Alliance, with articles on their competitors also being researched. I fully expect to be vetoed because it's Canadian content, but I don't care. Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any indication of anti-Canadian bias from this project. Information about Canadian wrestlers and promotions is usually harder to get, and I think the only reason more pages haven't been created is that nobody has felt knowledgeable enough to write the articles. If you can get third-party information proving their notability and put it together to form a well-referenced article, I can't imagine that anybody would object to creating the pages. In fact, two of the articles that this project has recently had promoted to Good Article status are about Canadian wrestlers. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know there are quite a few of our Good Articles that are about Canadians (Trish Stratus for one). I also know that I've expanded a bunch of stubs on Canadian wrestlers lately, like T.J. Wilson. Like Gary said, the best thing to do is to get some news sources and write them yourself. I use SLAM! Wrestling all the time for my sources, and since it is a Canadian news site, they cover all sorts of Canadian wrestlers, promotions, and events. They even have a Canadian Hall of Fame. Nikki311 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think this project just happens to have a lot of people from the USA who belong to it, and being from the USA, we are (typically) the most familiar with Wrestling in the USA. I know that is the case for me. I'd love to see more articles about Wrestling in other countries but it just isn't my area of expertise, and I don't really feel comfortable adding much information to articles on things I know nothing about. I don't mind editing them for grammar or spelling or puncuation ..but, I mean ..thats just how it is. Its not that any of us are "anti Canadian" or "anti country x", we just tend to edit articles on things we know about. And lets face it, the PW industry is bigger in the USA than any other country, so there will naturally be a larger fan base in the USA and thus more articles about PW in the USA. Any wrestling federation or wrestler or whatever that is notable enough to warrant their own article, should have one. It has nothing to do with what country they are from. It just so happens that if wrestling as a whole isn't as big of a deal in country-x, their minor promotions/wrestlers are less likely to meet notability guidelines due to lack of exposure etc. There are definitely more articles out there that are notable and that can be expanded ...I just wanted to clarify the likely reasons why there are not more articles about PW in other countries. Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, MPW has a local TV deal, with Canadian indy legend Massive Damage as their headliner. I'm trying to find the proper info, but it's proving difficult as their site isn't really useful right now. Sorry, fo the Canada thing, I'm just really patriotic and would like to see some more Canadian wrestling related articles. Killswitch Engage (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that would be very useful is some help with the current articles on Canadian wrestlers. The list of articles can be seen at Category:Canadian professional wrestlers. There are a few stub-class articles there, and many more could use expansion and sourcing. If you're able to help there, it would be appreciated. And like Nikki said, http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/hallofame.html is a great resource for articles about Canadian wrestlers and wrestlers with ties to Canada. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

World Wrestling Professionals

As some of you know, the previous AfD's for the superstars of this non-notable organization did not go so well. I have decided to just AfD the superstars one by one. Starting with:

--- iMatthew 20 08 17:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And, I've placed "Category:WWE Kings of The Ring" up for deletion, see here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sub Projects for this project?

Have you guys ever considered like a task force on the side for this project, like other projects have task forces for other major material. Mayby a task force for PPVs?--~S R S~ 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't think that the PPV Expansion is already a task force for PPVs? Nikki311 23:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its not like other task forces, where there are members to the task force, the task force is labeled The ____ Task Force, their are separate templates for talk pages of articles that fall within the Task Force, like so.--~S R S~ 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Crawford

This article, which appears to have been deleted five times in the past (see the article's talk page), has been re-created. The only sources used are Obsessed with Wrestling (blacklisted) and Crawford's "official fansite". She seems to have accomplished a little since the previous deletion, but I am unsure if she meets notability requirements. Crawford was listed on the "Requested articles" page, and I think the article would be fine if it had proper sources (she has wrestled for OVW and FCW and held the OVW Women's Championship). Could someone who is familiar with this sort of thing help out? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's some info. on her on WWE.com -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Google search I did. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

King of the Ring

Is there some way we can shorten the article, because the KoR has had so many tournaments and the article is super long, is there a solution we can propose to shorten it, or make it similar to the Royal Rumble page?--~S R S~ 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can move the PPV's into their own articles, to be expanded (in the PPV expansion). iMatthew 20 08 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And what would we do with just he tournament based ones?--~S R S~ 02:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave them on the page. iMatthew 20 08 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Make's sense. But I will wait for more opinions.--~S R S~ 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean like WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that would work, because the article is just super long.~S R S~ 21:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move all the individual PPV results into their own pages eventually and on the main page keep all of the tournaments that have been held, regardless of them being at a PPV or not. If the article reads too long then it might be wise to just show the brackets as they contain all the relevent information (times, methods of win). Tony2Times (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV - Fully-Protected

Due to the edit-warring over the past few weeks to do with the "Career Threatening match" sub-title in the article, I requested for the article to be fully-protected. The protection has been granted for a full week, by which time hopefully we should of come for consensus. My view is that it should be noted in both the "Results" section and within the lead, with the sub-title, however some editors disagree. Please discuss underneath, so we can come to a consensus that suits everybody. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: lead and results section. The match was promoted and advertised as career threatening more than enough times. Perhaps the other Flair PPV matches should be the same, so it's consistent? Flair won those matches, however that doesn't mean we should ignore it due to the wins. It was still promoted and announced as career threatening. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the Career Threatning Match name should not be included, the subtitle tells you that it was a retirement match, but if its necessary put something in another subtitle where it should read that it was promoted as a Career Threatning match. But including both would be just redundant.--~S R S~ 20:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All other match names are listed in both the lead and the results section. The article should be consistent. It was promoted as (and is) a career threatening match. WWE and most wrestling companies put new names on matches. Belfast Brawl (also on the article) is just a street fight, which is also a hardcore match. I don't see anyone fighting for a line such as "promoted as Belfast Brawl, but it was just a hardcore match". Why is this match name any different from that one? RobJ1981 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible argument could be that the match is conducted in the same way as a normal match and the retirement is just something that was on the line. There have been matches in the past where a retirement clause was added and no change was added to the listing in the Results. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In the lead, how about "in what was billed as a "Career Threatening Match" and in the results, just include in a bullet point: "The match was billed as a 'Career Threatening Match'. Per the pre-match stipulation, Flair was forced to retire." Then we can all move on with our lives and this might escape Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, if it's not there already (and we all know that WP:PW is already over-represented on that page). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gary for agreeing with part of my point, Amen! P.S. This is sort of a lame war. We dont need More!~S R S~ 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gary, we're already on WP:LAME, under this section and this section. D.M.N. (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And this section. –L A X 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And here (Vic Grimes). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention four times here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We can all agree that a Belfast Brawl is just a fancy name for a No DQ match, right? That's why Hardcore Wrestling is linked to in the article. It's an accurate description of the match in question. Now look here. According to what we have, a retirement match is where the loser must retire, HOWEVER, the stipulation can apply to only one of the wrestlers. That too sounds like an accurate description of the match in question. So, just like Belfast Brawl is linked to Hardcore Wrestling, a Career Threatening Match should be linked to Retirement Match. Mshake3 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mshake is right. I don't see why people are making such a big deal about linking it. I recall arguments in the past, where people claimed it wasn't a real retirement match because only one careeer was on the line. In response to the lame edit wars comments: it's not a big deal. I'm sure nearly every subject has had them at some point. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With Belfast Brawl, doesn't the name seem unnecesary? It doesn't mean anything and the use of all these different names makes it confusing and not easy to understand. (perhaps even in-universe?) While the link does clarify that, it's a nuisance to a casual reader and the inclusion of the name doesn't further their (or even wrestling fans') knowledge of the match. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you clarify the backdrop of the story earlier in the article. We're not suppost to attempt to describe the complete and entire story of the PPV in just the match section. Mshake3 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it that the continued arguing about such a trivial matter means that the involved parties are determined to take this to WP:LAME and possibly beyond. It's sad that we're about to get our ninth entry on that page. Wouldn't it be more productive to focus on improving one of our 3,532 other articles? This seriously needs to go to Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution so that everybody can get one with their lives. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NEVER! Mshake3 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There you go guys your main supporter is a second grader. In all honesty while this isnt a huge deal if its gonna be in the wrestlemania article that it was a career threatening match then we have to go back and put it in to every article with Flair since November. But technically it was not a career threatening match as had Shawn lost nothing would have happened.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All three of them, right? ;) Mshake3 (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if Shawn hadn't won: it was still a career threatening match, period. Seeing as how WWE announced and promoted it like that, it's incorrect to just ignore it. If I remember right: Flair has a grand total of 3 career threatening matches for PPVs. Adding it to the other events (Royal Rumble, No Way Out) isn't a problem. Also, calling someone a second grader isn't helpful to the discussion. In response to 13 of Diamonds comment: WWE promoted it as Belfast Brawl, how is it confusing? We link the match to hardcore match, and that explains it to people that don't watch WWE much. Why should we ignore how WWE promoted things? As I've stated before (and this is pretty common knowledge): companies rename matches all the time. But we shouldn't just dumb down the article, because Belfast Brawl is just a hardcore match (as one of many examples). RobJ1981 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if it's intuitive enough. (WP:EGG) --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A full description in the event section will prevent any of those issues. Mshake3 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV needs to be unlocked at some point folks. Mshake3 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is only protected for a week. Besides, I'd like a further comment for Lifestroke, otherwise my fear is he'll go on another revert spree concerning the match name. D.M.N. (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a comment from you myself, since you seem to keep going both ways on this. Mshake3 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I stated my view at the start. Anyway just to re-iterate: IMO, it should be noted in both the "Results" section and within the lead, with the sub-title. D.M.N. (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DMN. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Ring of Honor Events

Is it necessary to list every event they've ever had? RobJ1981 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well ROH works differently then WWE and TNA, they are more like UFC, they have different shows like once or twice a month, so it will be like List of UFC events.--~S R S~ 17:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A majority of ROH shows are house shows with no notability shown. The UFC list is PPV events and Ultimate Fighter finales. If UFC did house shows, I highly doubt they would be listed. A different touring schedule doesn't justify listcruft/clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm considering putting it in AFD, as the list doesn't show notability. Perhaps a rename to List of Ring of Honor pay per views is necessary. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimmick PPVs

I was wondering if it'd be interesting to note, or too much information, to note on the List of [Promotion] PPVs pages any articles that have gimmicks or themes and what those themes involve ie LockDown being all cage matches, One Night Stand being hardcore rules etc. Tony2Times (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't work well, as to others PPV's and stuff. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally!

Jeff Hardy has passed it's GA nomination. Thanks to everyone who helped! iMatthew 20 08 11:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Hardy just passed it's GA review! Yes!! iMatthew 20 08 10:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

We have TfD's

Just in case you guys haven't noticed, two of our templates are up for deletion..Template:Future PW and Template:Current PW, where people are stating that it is exact duplicates of Template:Future sport and Template:Current Sport. Their TfD's can be found here and here. --~S R S~ 19:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It the second template used during PPVs? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea it is.~S R S~ 14:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That explains why it is not currently on any pages. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2005)

Instead of nominating The Great American Bash (2007), I am going to nominate Survivor Series (2005) for GA status in one week, that is if there are no objections. –L A X 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody object of my doing for nominating Backlash (2006) at the Good article nomination? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wrestling Classic - Pay Per View name vs. Tournament Name

If you watch this youtube video of the countdown for this show... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbxfjpovhXo it seems very clear to me that the name of the Pay Per View was WrestleVision, and that The Wrestling Classic was the name of the Tournament held on the Pay Per View. Vince McMahon states it implicitly. I think this article should be renamed or redirected to reflect as such. Yagobo79 (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this point is further illustrated by the VHS cover for the event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WrestleVisionVHS.jpg. Yagobo79 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WWE Roster

As this discussion does not seem to be going anywhere, and it would be better if the community of Pro Wrestling would reach a consensus on this. On the World Wrestling Entertainment roster page, the page is called "WWE Roster", the wrestlers and other on air talent as stated by WWE's roster pages. But the Corporate Management and Other Personnel, IMO, should not belong on the page. If they are too belong, then we should rename the article to World Wrestling Entertainment employees. Comments?--~S R S~ 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem among the article is the unassigned talent, the developmental roster, the notes written beside a wrestler. These are unsourced, and if they are they are sourced with "dirt sheet" websites, what can we do about this?--~S R S~ 20:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My third problem with the article is that it has always blurred the line between kayfabe and real life. Like mentioning that Shawn Michaels also is allowed to appear on Smackdown because of his feud with Batista. Really, in real life, wwe can have anyone appear anywhere, whenever. Everytime i bring this up, I get shot down. Less Than Clippers 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its is how they operate, so in the lead we could mention the brand extension and exceptions.~S R S~ 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's poorly titled, to boot. Titles of lists should start with "List of". — Gwalla | Talk 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

~~List of~~ Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees iMatthew 20 08 22:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if it were all to remain then, I guess ~~List of~~ Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees is the way to go, but lets hear for other opinions.~S R S~ 23:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it poorly titled? Didn't we recently move all of the "list of ____ moves in professional wrestling" articles and the like to not include "list of?" I fail to see why we'd want to move the roster article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The move articles are about particular moves (such as the suplex). They contain lists, but they are not stand-alone lists. This is, and the guideline for stand-alone lists is that their titles always start with "List of" (unless they are a more specific type of list, like a glossary or timeline, in which case it'd be "Glossary of..." or "Timeline of..."). — Gwalla | Talk 15:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad I meant that, the thing is, "roster" literally means on air talent, but we have corporate management, unassigned talent, road agents, creative team members, producers. That is not part of the roster, so if we dont remove it, we should just rename it.~S R S~ 01:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but would "list of" really need to be added? Why not just "Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, its gonna be titled "Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees", thats why I strike throught "list of" above.~S R S~ 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I moved it, I also moved TNA Roster to Current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees per the same reason as the move for the WWE Roster (which is now Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees), I have also added to the leads of both articles an explanation of how the employees are organized.~S R S~ 00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

List of WWE pay-per-view events

I put the table format for the events, but I feel its Table Cruft, how do people feel about reverting it back to a list format?--~S R S~ 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of PPV's, Vengeance '05 has passed GA. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the tables have multiple rows and columns, so a table is appropriate. Nikki311 20:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Help

Can someone please explain why I Get 2-3 copies of the same newsletter each week? Something is wrong with the bot or something. Also, check my message (on an IP) on Mr Kennedy's talk page Sexy Sea Bassist 16:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't get two/three copies each week. It seems that the bot messed up while posting to your talkpage for this particular week. D.M.N. (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, It does that every week. Look at last week's and it has three. I Also have cleared up a few. Sexy Sea Bassist 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cause your name is on the Members list twice; once as User:Jordan Payne, and the other as User:Straight Edge PXK. Since one redirects to the other, you get 2 newsletters. Remove the redirect from the members list, and problem solved. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, I was on 3 times, one as PayneXKiller, one as Jordan Payne, and one as Straight Edge PXK. Thanks for the clear up though. Sexy Sea Bassist 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well. You're welcome in any case! ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

CM Punk

Just so peeps know, CM Punk faces Edge on SD (I'm watching UK Airing) so those bits on his article about losing MITB to Edge may be true (Please god no, not again.) I personally don't like it because a) Punk would get bumped down to midcard again (If you count ECW as having a top card) and b) Edge doesnt need another title shot or MITB reign. But hey, our job is to provide the info so my shoot talking isnt relevant. Sexy Sea Bassist 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

oops forgot to say, my intention was to say lookout for spoiler posters Sexy Sea Bassist 21:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you just post the spoiler here, and this discussion is non relevant to the project. Plus your previous edit summary was unnecessary, remain civil.--~S R S~ 21:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this not relevant to the project. He's informing us of articles to watch that may be edited to include unsourced additions. Anyway, I heard conflicting reports of the SD! tapings. Edge DOES face Punk, but one report said it was for the MITB. The others didn't. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well its not too big a deal, SD! airs in 3 hours. It can hold off.~S R S~ 21:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Straight Edge PXK, if Edge had won MITB, the MITB page would of gone edit spree Tuesday night/Wednesday morning. There was no need for your post above IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the history, it was edited a few times, I recall reverting edits on all three pages (MitB's, Edge's and Punk's) quite a few times since Tuesday. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At least DMN agrees, but as we saw last night, it was not for the MiTB brifcase, so "edit spree" is over.~S R S~ 14:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV

This article can be a GA/FA with some work. To start off, what are some of your opinions about the report? The background... do you think there are some non-notable feud, should the qualifying matches even be listed? The event... do you think it is too long? Does having more information than probably needed hurt the article? The aftermath... does need to be expanded, probably after Backlash, but for now what are your thoughts? iMatthew 20 08 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think its great. But the BG is too long, I say cut out the SD/RAW feud, and/or mayby the ECW Championship feud.--~S R S~ 13:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. I removed both. iMatthew 20 08 14:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, now I think the event goes into too much detail, for example the Finlay/JBL match way into detail, cutting down some of the details in the matches would help, IMO. But a question, when do you plan on nominating this article for GA/FA?~S R S~ 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I will work on the event soon. I'm not sure if I will be the one nominating it. If I do, it will be after I give it a pre-GA review, and I give a one week notice. iMatthew 20 08 14:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ONS 2005 - Styles a late entry?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/heyman/article1060395.ece in here it says he was late to be added. cn it be included somewhere? Sexy Sea Bassist 20:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SS 88 peer review

I've put up my first attempt at writing a PPV article, SummerSlam (1988) up for peer review. If I've ever helped you with an article or done a peer review for you, please return the favor by commenting here. Thanks. Nikki311 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2007 GA nominations

Unless anyone objects, I am going to nominate Backlash (2007), Judgment Day (2007), and One Night Stand (2007) for GA status next week. –L A X 21:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless that's a problem. –L A X 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't want the list over at WP:GAN to get bigger than it already is. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

PPV Templates

I created a new PPV template that merges all of the individual PPV templates. You can see it here. There are two templates. The top shows the years aligned, and the bottom just does not. Which one should we use, or should we just keep the individual ones we have now? iMatthew 20 08 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the individual ones. You have BTW missed out December to Dismember (2006), along with all of the In Your House PPV's, and also the England pay-per-views (Rebellion, Insurrextion) etc. D.M.N. (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to just be the current PPVS. I think it would be neater and more organized to add this to the current PPV's instead of having all of these individual ones. iMatthew 20 08 16:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

~~I'm with DMN, no offense Matt, but the individual ones makes it look neater. Your version is long and kinda looks messy.~~--~S R S~ 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me better phrase what I meant, now with this new templates, what are we going to do with the "Former" PPVS?--~S R S~ 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the top one. It makes it easier to find the event in question. Mshake3 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, Mshake. Truco, we can keep the former PPV's in the template they are currently in, right under the current PPV template. We can make the former PPV template show/hide as well. iMatthew 20 08 19:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My only concern is that over time, the template might get too long (horizontally) and might look scrunched up in most browsers. Nikki311 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I was also thinking.~S R S~ 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a year or two before that would happen, and if it did, we could clean up the template then. iMatthew 20 08 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then use the YY format. And if it becomes too long years from now, then we'll worry about it years from now. Mshake3 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This format should be fine, and exactly if it becomes to long then, we can change it then, but for now I feel this is the better way to go. iMatthew 20 08 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In what situations would this template be helpful? --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This template is more neat and organized than the current ones. As Mshake said above, it makes it easier to find the event in question. If you are reading Cyber Sunday 2007, and it meantions New Years Revolution 2007, it's a quicker way to find NYR 2007. You get what I'm saying? iMatthew 20 08 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Say I was reading the 2004 Royal Rumble article and I wanted to read the 2004 Bad Blood article? If you're only listing events that occur in 2008, your listing of years before that would be incomplete. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is true, maybe I can create a similar template for the former PPV's. I'll try something out. iMatthew 20 08 22:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what you are intending to do is an extension of the "Pay-per-view chronology" in the infobox? Something like a template for every year or a template with links to the 10 events before and after? If you're intending to provide a link to every ppv ever in a template, that's unnecessary. (you'll end up with this) --13 of Diamonds (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that the template reminds me of this page, which is very well done IMO. Mshake3 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

COTW

We have a tie for tomorrow's COTW between National Wrestling Alliance and Hulk Hogan. The second spot goes to the FACOTW. When voting, keep in mind that you should vote based on which article would benefit the most from being COTW (which can be easily contributed to, requires the most development), and not based on which article you want to see improved. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It is now a three-way tie along with Chris Benoit double murder and suicide. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If no one breaks the tie, I think a good thing to do is make the oldest of the three articles the COTW. That means it has survived on the nom list the longest. Then we don't have to waste time going through a tie-breaker where no one will probably vote anyway. Nikki311 00:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Which means the double murder and suicide should have been chosen, not NWA. I'm curious as to why NWA was chosen. iMatthew 20 08 09:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, I just saw the 10th vote. iMatthew 20 08 09:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that they both have nine votes, would anybody be for/against using Chris Benoit's double murder and suicide and Hulk Hogan as next week's COTWs. Otherwise they are going to get pruned, and I feel like they were not chosen this week because we only had one last minute vote. iMatthew 20 08 09:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge Personas of The Undertaker ---> The Undertaker??

Does anybody think that Personas of The Undertaker can be merged into The Undertaker? I saw the previous discussion on the talk page, but nothing happened from it. iMatthew 20 08 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I Say yes and no, some of the info about his gimmicks is already in his career section, but some of it is not, and the Personas article has a lot of information, but the article itself reads like a fan-type thing.--~S R S~ 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to read through both articles carefully to check for the degree of overlap but I'm leaning towards a merge here. Basically, I don't like the concept of having a separate page for gimmick/persona stuff. It could set a bad precedent for other pages. Where would we draw the line? Also, to get the full story of the Undertaker's career in order, you may have to flip back and forth between two pages, which is a bit awkward. - DrWarpMind (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned that above. iMatthew 20 08 15:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The merge has been rejected before, and I reject it now. I'm usually a mergist, but in the case, the Undertaker's article is way past the desired length as it is. Nikki311 16:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not move the content to the wrestling wiki, and link to it in the external links? From what I can see: Undertaker's article is the only one that lists all the changes he has gone through. But people could argue that Hogan needs a persona article, he's changed a lot since he first started in wrestling. Other wrestlers could qualify for the same type of article as well. However, why exactly does the content need to be all merged into the Undertaker article in the first place? I think this is a good example of excessive detail on Wikipedia. I think the personas article, should be a redirect (with only merging of very useful information) so Undertaker's article doesn't get too much larger. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rob. The article has few sources, so merge only the really important stuff, and send the rest to the PW wikia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great point. I agree. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! iMatthew 20 08 19:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, it's now here: [1], anyone know if there is any other active wrestling wikis, so it can be added to those as well? RobJ1981 (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A-Class articles

What do you guys say about having an A-Class article here at PW? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I never knew why we don't use A-Class, can somebody please explain that to me. iMatthew 20 08 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cause I've been cruising through other articles and I noticed this and I was wondering if PW had articles with that class. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted an A-Class here, but A-Class articles are literally like GA/FA level, and require alot of work, but alot of our articles have already reached that level, if we do get this level, should our PPV's be moved up from B->A?~S R S~ 22:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An A-class article is just an article that is nearly at FA level, but still needs a little work. I'd say Triple H is on that level, maybe John Cena as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

SummerSlam (2007)? –L A X 22:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But is A class more than GA class?~S R S~ 22:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. –L A X 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to suggest getting John Cena's article to an A-Class, of the way is written. Should we do that? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well there must be a reason that we never used this before. Lets give other users time to read this and give their input. Also, since GA/FA require more than just changing it, maybe to determine if an article is A, we should have a poll on this talk page? iMatthew 20 08 22:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say do that. Hoor-A *tumbleweed* Sexy Sea Bassist 23:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that A articles are better than GA, but not quite at FA yet. I agree that Triple H might be there. There would have to be a consensus though on what it takes to be an A article, and we'd have to implement some sort of way to review and re-assessment them properly. We can't have everyone just reassessing their articles, or the system wouldn't be consistent. Nikki311 23:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should set up a WP:PW sub-page for A-Class article nominations. iMatthew 20 08 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What would it say? Any idea on a system to determine A class articles? Nikki311 23:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

We can have it like COTW, where we nominate an article, and it stays up for one week to be reviewed by project members and others. iMatthew 20 08 23:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a little complicated. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we all know that "others" won't be helping, and that the only people who will review the articles is us. Nikki311 00:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A class assessment should be as informal as for the classes below GA. A seems more of a transition phase between GA and FA. Whether A class or not, the article will always be best identified as a GA pass due to the nature of a GA promotion. Articles that you believe to be worthy of FA but not yet there should be A class. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

List-Class articles?

Now that we are at it, how about a List class rating for our lists? I've seen other projects with it, and some of our lists, like Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees and Professional wrestling match types, can be rated better.--~S R S~ 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, at first my method of thinking was B-class lists are sourced and with a little work could be sent to FL, start-class are articles without sources, and stub-class list articles were improperly formatted or incomplete. That's how all of them are presently rated, at least. However, most of the lists are complete now, so I wouldn't mind making all of them list-class. Although, I kind of like having the fully sourced ones as separate (B-class), so that we know what needs more work/sources and what doesn't. Nikki311 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So mayby like the Elimination Chamber could be list class? (since its at B).--~S R S~ 23:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Other way around. It stays at B, and other lists without sources are List-class. Although, is Elimination Chamber really a list? I thought we've had a discussion that listing matches in those sorts of articles was list-cruft and should be removed. Without the list, it's just an article. Nikki311 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, so like Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees would be a list? Well i cant remember past discussions, but the EC match is unique, and the Hell in a Cell is written like that.~S R S~ 23:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Future-Class Articles

And since we are still at it. Why dont we use a future class in our articles?~S R S~ 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, right now the {{pro-wrestling}} template isn't set up to recognize current class. I don't see the point of it anyway. It can be a stub if little is known, and start if more is known, and work up from there. Only one or two articles is ever going to be that at one time. Nikki311 01:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, because I thought of it unfair to current/future articles since they have little info, and its not because of lack of content but info released.--~S R S~ 01:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that's factored into the assessment. Coverage on the topic relative to the information available. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Listcruft?

Inspired by seeing the List of Ring of Honor events page, User:Ericystephi has created List of ECW events‎, List of JAPW events, List of CZW events, and List of PWG events. Are these all useful articles? I'm finding some of this user's contributions questionable (eg. adding a list of opponents to the "Undefeated streak" section of Bill Goldberg). GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Goldberg list was definitely list cruft, and I removed it. I haven't formed an opinion yet on the other lists, but I do think there should be a line drawn. He can't make a list of events for every promotion under the sun. Nikki311 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I say no to the other events, as those events weren't that important. I am also starting to feel that list of ROH events is kinda cruft too.--~S R S~ 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if the lists had a small description of the events or main events with some reliable sources they would be okay, but I guess I don't really see the point of having just a bunch of names and dates. They don't even link to articles (for the most part) and probably never will. Nikki311 02:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly my point.--~S R S~ 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All the event lists mentioned by Gary should probably be put in AFD. Pro wrestling is a fictional sport, however look at real sports: I'm pretty sure none have touring schedules articles here. Why exactly should this be an exception? If people can find sources and figure out which events are notable (besides the pay per views for Ring of Honor and ECW), then perhaps the lists could remain. But they need to be drastically condensed. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gogoplata

Well since this is now a pro wrestling move, I added a pro wrestling template in the talk page. But then I noticed the article and "Use in Pro Wrestling", is it notable to have every instance that The Undertaker used the move? (I know IMO its not, but what do other users think)--~S R S~ 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why. He may continue to use the move from now on, slapping it on at least once every match. So, that would basically mean listing evrey instance he uses it from now on. It'd take up a lot of unnecessary space, particularly since he'll probably wrestle...what...another 100 matches or so at least this year?Odin's Beard (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Are these matches real?

In the professional wrestling match types article, there is a Taipai Deathmatch, 200 Lighttubes Deathmatch, and a No Rope Barbwire Deathmatch, is there any Verifiability to these matches?--~S R S~ 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Taipei Death Match (which is misspelled in the article as Taipai Deathmatch) is definitely real. See here for verification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Ok.--~S R S~ 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What, you're saying someone made up those match types out of nowhere? Mshake3 (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am saying that there is no source to them, so its not verifiable.--~S R S~ 23:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With that said, the write-up for the Taipai Death Match is terrible. Aside from the obvious misspellings, "this match has not had many imitations" is a strange claim to make in an encyclopedia. And what to do with "A Taipai Deathmatch is based upon 2 ideas. A fight in the Country of Taipai as well as the Classic Van Damme movie Kickboxer."? The country of Taipei? And where is the reference for the match being an imitation of the Van Damme movie? And isn't Van Damme's first name "Rob", not "Classic" (or am I thinking of a different Van Damme)?

There is such a thing as a No Rope Barbwire match, but I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as a No Rope Barbwire DEATHmatch. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh lord, who added that bit about Van Damme? — Gwalla | Talk 06:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took the liberty of cleaning them up a bit and adding the source GCF provided to the Taipei match. Nikki311 23:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Problems for PPV articles

Well we previously had Online Onslaught terminated, but revived at OOWrestling. Now we have PWWEW.net a major source for many PPV's, is now Dead. I guess we shall wait for another domain to pop up, or we may have serious problems.--~S R S~ 00:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well since no one is paying attention to this, the many articles that have been expanded that use this source are in trouble because the domain is dead, which I mean that the site's domain has expired and the original content is gone. (Just clarifying if the above comment was confused).~S R S~ 23:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did notice that the website is dead. But, let's just wait and see if the site comes back. Just like we did with Online Onslaught. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The website is finally back up! We're safe. *Sigh of relief* iMatthew 20 08 22:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WOOO!. Thank gosh. Thanks for the update Matt.~S R S~ 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Other On-Screen Talent

I've recently seen multiple problem's with this section/table.

1. The fact that some article list it as a table and some as it's own section. It should all be a table, right?

2. Next, the capitalization. It is capitalized many different ways in different articles. I've seen:

On-Screen
On-screen
on-screen
on-Screen
talent
Talent

Which one is it?

3. Next, the name. Is it Other On-Screen Talent or Other On-Air Talent, because I've seen both in different articles.

4. Next, does it begin in the middle of the background section or the top of the event section?

5. Should the table be show/hide? The benefit to that is that if the table is too large, it's automatically hiding. The bad part of it is that when you open it, the event section becomes very awkward. I think it would be better in the Results section or Aftermath, where it wouldn't do much damage because we don't put pictures in there.

--- iMatthew 20 08 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, it should be all table.

2)It should be Other on-screen talent.

3)It is Other On-Screen Talent, because it is more self explanatory.

4)It should be at the top of the event section, seems to fit better there than the BG.

5)I think it will benefit from the show/hide feature, which is why I am starting to use it, mainly on Backlash (2003). But than again the Aftermath would be a reasonable place to put it, but to me the event section is it's home.

~S R S~ 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your wrong.

1) Yes.

2) It should be Other on-screen talent - only the first letter of the first word should be capitalized.

3) The name should be Other on-screen talent

4) Top of the "Event" section; it is related to the Event it self, not the build-up and anticipation to the event. D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

5) It shouldn't have show/hide IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Yes, they should all be in a table.

2) It should be Other on-screen talent. Only the the first letter should be capitalized.

3) Other on-screen talent

4) It should be anywhere in the event, preferably the top.

5) I think the show/hide in the aftermath or result sections will benefit from clutter, but, to me, it doesn't make sense having it placed anywhere but the event. –L A X 20:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Questions about dates

Tell me I'm not crazy. I know I've read somewhere that stand alone years shouldn't be wikilinked. For example saying, Triple H won the belt in 2008 would be wrong, but if the month and day were there, such as Triple H won the belt on April 27 2008, it would be correct. I'm trying to find the guideline, does anybody know where it is? Nikki311 13:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I remember that too, Im pretty sure it might be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates.--~S R S~ 14:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything of the sort in the MoS. I saw everything else covered, but not standalone years. Someone edited an artcile I created where I had wiki'd standalone years, and they reverted them quoting the MoS, so I dunno. ArcAngel (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't at the MoS. It probably was there at one point, though, because I couldn't have made that up out of thin air. Or maybe I did...? Nikki311 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Overlinking#Dates. If it contributes to overlinking in articles (and wrestling articles have lots of links to moves, matches, wrestlers already), then don't do it. Nikki311 15:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of bracketing a date is so a logged in user's display preferences are used. Typical european display is "04 May 2008", distinct from the typical U.S. preference of "May 04, 2008". So if you have a full date, they can display with that user's preferences. Linking a year alone is pointless in this regime. Full details at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:CONTEXT, it is okay but not necessary to link stand-alone years. Basically, it's the same as any other link: if it contributes to the article, link it, but if it just clutters things up or doesn't provide useful information in the context of the article, don't. — Gwalla | Talk 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Our Lists

Cross discussion here

Well as you have noticed many of our lists do not include the name "List of...", but User:Gwalla has moved Current World Wrestling Entertainment employees to List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees, citing that stand alone lists should be titled as such, per this should we revert back to how it was or rename all our lists {again}?--~S R S~ 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If our consensus is to not include "List of...", then that's how it should be across the board. ArcAngel (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, but now there is an edit war over this causing List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees to be protected from movement. This is also being discussed at here.--~S R S~ 20:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If we don't use "List of" then explain these....

List of AJPW Triple Crown Championship reigns by length

List of AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of AJPW World Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of AWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of CZW events

List of CZW title reigns by length

List of Dragon Gate title reigns by length

List of ECW Champions

List of ECW Championship reigns by length

List of ECW Tag Team Champions

List of ECW Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of ECW Television Champions

List of ECW Television Championship reigns by length

List of ECW World Championship reigns by combined length

List of ECW events

List of ECW pay-per-view events

List of East Coast Wrestling Association alumni

List of Extreme Championship Wrestling alumni

List of FIP title reigns by length

List of IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of IWGP Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of IWGP Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of International Championship Wrestling alumni

List of International World Class Championship Wrestling alumni

List of JAPW events

List of JAPW title reigns by length

List of Jim Crockett Promotions alumni

List of NOAH title reigns by length

List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions

List of NWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of NWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of NWA World Tag Team Champions

List of NWA World Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of NWA territories

List of National Wrestling Alliance championships

List of OVW Heavyweight Champions

List of PWG events

List of PWG title reigns by length

List of ROH title reigns by length

List of Ring of Honor events

List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions

List of TNA X Division Champions

List of TNA X Division Championship reigns by length

List of TNA pay-per-view events

List of TNA tournaments

List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni

List of UWA Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of WCW Hardcore Champions

List of WCW Hardcore Championship reigns by length

List of WCW International World Heavyweight Champions

List of WCW International World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions

List of WCW World Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of WCW World Tag Team Champions

List of WCW World Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of WCW World Television Champions

List of WCW pay-per-view events

List of WWA pay-per-view events

List of WWE Champions

List of WWE Championship reigns by length

List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions

List of WWE Cruiserweight Championship reigns by length

List of WWE European Champions

List of WWE European Championship reigns by length

List of WWE Hardcore Champions

List of WWE Home Videos

List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

List of WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns by length

List of WWE Tag Team Champions

List of WWE Tag Team Championship reigns by length

List of WWE United States Champions

List of WWE United States Championship reigns by length

List of WWE Women's Champions

List of WWE Women's Championship reigns by length

List of WWE pay-per-view events

List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions

List of WWF Light Heavyweight Championship reigns by length

List of WXW Cruiserweight Champions

List of WXW Hardcore Champions

List of WXW Heavyweight Champions

List of WXW Tag Team Champions

List of WXW Television Champions

List of WXW Women's Champions

List of World Championship Wrestling alumni

List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE)

List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length

List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)

List of World Tag Team Championship (WWE) reigns by length

List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni

List of World Xtreme Wrestling alumni

List of ZERO1-MAX title reigns by length

List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees

List of current champions in WWE

List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

List of professional wrestlers

List of professional wrestling promotions

List of professional wrestling slang

List of wrestling based comic books

--- iMatthew 20 08 20:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not those, the ones that have Pro Wrestling in front of them, like Professional wrestling holds, throws, aerial techniques. Championship lists are exceptions, some roster lists are also exceptions, but any others that start with pro wrestling need to be moved IMO, but then again we could always change consensus.~S R S~ 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the championship ones, but we still have these, which should be changed, right?

List of current World Wrestling Entertainment employees

List of current champions in WWE

List of independent circuit, non-affiliated or retired professional wrestlers

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

List of professional wrestlers

List of professional wrestling promotions

List of professional wrestling slang

List of wrestling based comic books

--- iMatthew 20 08 20:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To previous consensus, yes, but if consensus changes in this discussion then no, but for now they should be moved.~S R S~ 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Our consensus matters not. What is Wikipedia policy on this issue? What does the MoS say about lists of this nature? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says that lists that are mostly just links should begin with List of.... Nikki311 22:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding to my statement: The moves lists are more than just links, they actually describe the moves, so they should not contain List of, but some of the championship lists should be changed to include List of in the title. Nikki311 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont know about too many championship lists that doesn't have that. But I am going to have to agree then with the move, since the WWE roster is a stand alone list.~S R S~ 23:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

PR for Backlash (2003)

Peer Review for Backlash (2003), here.--~S R S~ 23:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Money Inc.

Just a quick note to let project members know that the article on Money Inc. was promoted to Good Article status today, bringing our total to 47. Thanks to everyone for their help with this article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

La Familia (professional wrestling)

Should this article be AfD'd? If this article should exist, shouldn't John Cena and Shawn Michaels, Carlito and Santino Marella, Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang, and Hardcore Holly and Cody Rhodes exist as well? –L A X 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe it should be AfD'd. Also, I believe that Holly and Rhodes deserve an article by now. Anyone else think so? I mean they are bigger than Jesse and Festus, and Jesse and Festus have an article. iMatthew 20 08 18:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. The stable has been around since December '07 and has evolved and expanded since then. I don't believe any of the above examples are anywhere near as notable as this stable, besides Holly and Rhodes. Bad examples, IMO. The only problem is that the stable has no real official name. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither do Paul London and Brian Kendrick. But Holly and Rhodes deserve an article, right? iMatthew 20 08 19:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're a tag team, so calling them by their names is fine. I don't think "Edge, Curt Hawkins, Zack Ryder, Chavo Guerrero, Bam Neely and Vickie Guerrero" would work for an article name, so comparing that to Londrick is sort of nil. But I do think Rhodes/Holly need an article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edge, Vicky, Ryder and Hawkins are a stable. I think that Chavo and Bam Neelee are more like allies. Oh, and the stable should be called "The Rated-R Entourage" or "The Rated R Alliance". Feedback ^☎ 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edge's stable is called the Edgeheads, not the Rated-R Enourage or Alliance. Get it right —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyChaos23 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on Holly/Rhodes' article in a sandbox, I'll run it by the project before I put it up. iMatthew 20 08 22:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And while we're at it, does anyone else think Vince's Devils should be deleted? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{In response to Scorpion)-I do, that was a non notable stable.~S R S~ 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Vince's Devils has sources, including book sources. Nikki311 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This ought to be fun

According to early reports, one of the champions has been stripped of one of the titles (don't check the links or edit this section if you don't want to be spoiled), so we'd all best keep an eye on both pages and hope that either 1) the report is wrong or 2) WWE.com says something. I'm assuming that the same policy of not reporting changes before they air is still in effect? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source, even a non-WWE one (assuming it's reputable)? If there is a source, then we update now. Otherwise, we don't. Cheers, Sexy Sea Bass 05:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm assuming that the same policy of not reporting changes before they air is still in effect?" - No, this policy has not been in effect for some time now and was never a correct policy to begin with. If the spoiler true, and can be sourced (even to a spoiler website), then it is to be added. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I normally stay out of these conversations because I have no interest in wrestling after 1996, but I'm curious as to when that change was made. I don't remember ever seeing a consensus to allow "spoiler websites" (which I can only assume means "dirtsheets") to be used as sources for events that have not yet aired. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same RfC where it was agreed that spoilers are meant to be posted in wikipedia articles there was a rather lengthy discussion about if spoilers are allowed, and 99% of the time the spoilers are accurate, then the sources for them can not be considered unreliable based off other news they may have. The resulting meaning is that while backstage wheeling and dealing can be unreliable, and on the whole is not usually added to articles (i.e. x said to x this and that caused whatever) their spoiler reports which take place in front of audiences in the range of 40-100 thousand people are accurate. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking back on it that RfC was caused due to exactly this circumstance: a title change at an event yet to air (the World Tag Team Titles at the time). Omitting the change was found to be against most wikipedia rules and guidelines governing content related to spoilers and recent events. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was unsure if it was unchanged or not, because it seems like these things change every few months. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

www.wrestlingrevealed.com or www.gerweck.net will both verify that Vicky Guerrero has stripped the Undertaker of the World Championship. Can someone now update the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyChaos23 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are not reliable websites. iMatthew 20 08 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Like Gavyn said at Talk:WWE Roster, those two sites are not reliable because they report spoilers, speculation, and false reports, thus making them unreliable.~S R S~ 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Get ready for another revert war

According to PWInsider, article here, Santino Marella has been arrested. My understanding is that PWInsider is not a reliable source, so do we put it into his article? If it is put into the article, but without a source it violates WP:BLP. Ah, and put it on your watchlist. D.M.N. (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well PWinsider is really unreliable, they post so many false reports. Unless other "dirtsheet" websites report it, then it could be true, especially if WWE ends up reporting it in its industry news section. On my "List".~S R S~ 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd like to see one example of that site being unreliable. Mshake3 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for those examples of PWInsider being unreliable.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 12:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this reliable? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good find! Nikki311 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it in then. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Today is the last day to vote for our Editor of the Week. Tonight and tomorrow morning, I will be working an creating a subpage for the winner, which will include the winner's award, and questions for them to answer. iMatthew 20 08 10:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloodstained Memoirs

User:Commoncase/Bloodstained_Memoirs

I am trying to put this article up on the main Wiki as an article, however I am being told it is not notible enough, and lacks references. From a wrestling background, I sincerely believe this project is very notible. And it also does have references - from written publications and respected wrestling news sites (PW Torch, NoDQ etc).

I posted my case on the deletion review board with mixed results.

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User:Commoncase.2FBloodstained_Memoirs

Does anybody have any advise?

Thank You! Commoncase (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks very notable for me. My suggestion is do various searches (google as one), and try to find more references. When I have more time, I can help with referencing it. Otherwise, wait until it actually comes out. In the meantime, I'm willing to add it to wrestling wiki. I'll have time tomorrow to add it there. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As a follow up, I've made an article here for it: [2]. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks. Perhaps you could also post in the deletion review (link above) stating you think it is notible. SO an admin will hopefully put it back in the main Wiki. After all, it does have references as it stands. I just get the feeling there is a bias towards wrestling there : ( Commoncase (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

In the Raw, SD!, and ECW page, under the champions section, one of the table columns reads "championship" but the championship reads "WWE 'Champion'", but why doesn't it list "WWE championship", as the title of the column states?--~S R S~ 03:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because if you read it across, it would say that Triple H is the WWE Championship, I think. iMatthew 20 08 14:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but still seems fuzzy to me.--~S R S~ 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

With the Roster name changes

I think that to go along with the page name changes recently in the roster pages, we should list employees by their real name with their alias in parenthesize. It's a list of employees, it should read:

Booker Huffman (Booker T)

instead of:

Booker T (Booker Huffman)

Any thoughts? It makes much more sense to me. iMatthew 20 08 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It does make more sense, I agree to it. Plus with the name changes, we need to watch out for one specific user who keeps reverting the moves.--~S R S~ 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'd like another opinion before a change is made. iMatthew 20 08 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This would also help in confusing with alphabetizing by surnames and stuff. With the full name, we can alphabetize by the person's last name. iMatthew 20 08 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S-If this gets approved, brace yourself with reverts from other users.~S R S~ 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The beauty or rollback/twinkle! iMatthew 20 08 20:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I believe a table would do good here, more organized.~S R S~ 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the table would work better as well, but others think it's list cruft. iMatthew 20 08 20:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it might look "ugly" :-)~S R S~ 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugly or Pretty, it's still more organized. iMatthew 20 08 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. It would be harder to understand. Vote 4 Pedro 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No it would not,there will be an explanation in the lead.~S R S~ 20:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the reason for this, to be honest. In my opinion, it will just cause IPs and new users to "fix" the page per WWE.com. However, this is now an employee page, not a roster page, so I guess it does make sense now that I think about it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Update

Deleted

Current:

Updated! iMatthew 20 08 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

List of World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) reigns by length‎

Uh, little help? The consensus is to list title changes the days they happen right? i.e. the day of the taping, not the day it aired? Cause if so, a few more people need to add the above ^^ to their watchlists. people insist on changing it to the air date, and I'm up to 3RR, even after adding in a hidden notice beside it. *Sigh* Anyway, reverting/watchlisting would be appreciated. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, taping. On my list =)~S R S~ 23:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated! ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto (to Truco's comment) iMatthew 20 08 23:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we have the actual reason written anywhere? It would be much easier to just direct these people to a page. Convincing them is perhaps a better way at dealing with this problem. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been discussions in the past. The main reason I've heard is that wrestling is a TV show, and thus the dates should be based around the airings. However, I'd say that 90% of a wrestling title changes occured away from TV, so that's how they should all be reflected. Mshake3 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I was looking for something like having this listed in the style guide. --13 of Diamonds (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro

I'd also like a few people to watchlist Ashley Massaro. She was linked to a high-priced escort service in an article from Rolling Stone so expect vandalism. Everything is sourced in the article at present, but watch for people adding unsourced statements. The article never explicitly stated she had sex for money, so make sure nobody adds that. Thanks. Nikki311 00:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Done ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Gerweck.net:

There appears to be a second Ashley Massaro (the second, a bikini model out of Las Vegas), which might very well mean that WWE's Ashley Massaro may be a victim of mistaken identity, in regards to the Rolling Stone article regarding an escort service.

So it might not be WWE's Ashley after all. I suggest reverting on sight as a result. She issued a statement at http://blog.my space.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=61214741&blogID=389555575 (remove space; it triggered spam notice) about it. D.M.N. (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One-Week Rule

I'm starting to find the "give your notice and wait a week" before nominating an article for GA rule pointless. I think that if an article goes through Peer review, has a to-do list completed, or a pre-GA review completed, it should be able to be nominated right away, or a day after maybe. Whne giving one week notices, the threads generally tend to get no responses anyway. Thoughts? iMatthew 20 08 14:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, thats what the Peer Review and Pre-GA reviews/To-Do-Lists are for, so once the tasks on those have been completed it should be ready for GA.--~S R S~ 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So any other comments? iMatthew 20 08 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been so many articles nominated lately that I just couldn't keep up. If I were to do a pre-GA review for every article nominated, I would have to stop expanding other articles and I still probably wouldn't have enough time. To maintain some sanity, I had to stop altogether. I don't know why people are in such a hurry to nominate articles. There is no way we should have ten nominated at once, and there is no way that we should be planning to nominate another four within the next week. Last year, we limited ourselves to about two at a time, and it worked just fine. We have more active editors now, so I can see that two is proabably to small a number, but I would strongly support a cap on nominations. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I have picked up where you left off GCF, see my to-do list. There are articles that I give pre-GA reviews for, that should be ready after the review is over, but then the week still has to come. iMatthew 20 08 16:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking over. I still think the big issue, though, that this project desperately needs to address is how many GA nominations we should have at a time. I personally think we should put a hold on nominations until we're down to 5. From there, we can nominate one every time one of our articles is reviewed, so that we always keep the number at a maximum of 5. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But then our backlog would grow and grow and grow, because our articles are never reviewed. We could have a waiting list of 10 articles before even one article gets reviewed at GAN. We could have an article on our waiting list for a month, only to wait another month for it to get reviewed at GAN. iMatthew 20 08 16:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the rush? GAN isn't a race, after all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you nominate an article, you generally don't want to wait months until it gets reviewed. A page gets plenty of vandalism over a day, rather than months. iMatthew 20 08 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually try to do GAN pre-reviews, as well, but lately I've had a lot to do in real-life (finals and such) and also had to stop altogether to keep my sanity. I think instead of a cap for the project as a whole, we should do individual editor caps. I like to only have one of my articles nominated at a time, but some people (not naming any names) have three or four at a time sometimes. Maybe we should do a cap where one person can only nom two articles max at a time, so when they are reviewed, they can add another one from their own personal waitlist to GAN. Also, that would make it fair in case one or two people always fill up the noms, and other people with quality articles can get their's on GAN, as well. Nikki311 18:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea! iMatthew 20 08 18:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that its no rush to submit an article to the nomination page. As long as the project agrees that the article, is in good criteria, then hopefully that would come if it indeed passes the standards. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Abyss article needs a bit of work

I havent had the time to check all the revisions, but either some major vandalism/tests happened... or it's just been at a bad state for a while. Are all of those ring names even confirmed? Some information on his past (before TNA) is needed as well. Go to Chris Parks to see what I'm talking about. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to do some work on it later. King iMatthew 20 08 10:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wowza, sorry guys, but this article needs way too much work, references, link fixes, shortening, combining, references, removing false info, there are too many names in the infobox, lead needs to be expanded, references, copyediting, more copyediting, and more references. I don't have time right now, sorry!! King iMatthew 20 08 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominate it for the COTW. Nikki311 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a while ago, and it received a low number of votes. King iMatthew 20 08 21:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll look at it right now. Nikki311 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned it up the best I could, but the article still needs to be trimmed down. It goes into way too much detail in several sections. I don't watch TNA, though, so I'm hesitant to trim it down myself. I don't want to accidentally removed a really important storyline or something. I'd recommend watchlisting it for a few days to make sure the IPs don't mess it up again. Nikki311 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I havn't been active lately, sorry, workj has been crazy. I wanted to point out that in the current events section of the newsletter, it is almost always all WWE info only. There was no mention of Samoa Joe defeating Kurt Angle to become TNA Champion, or Super Eric and Kaz winning the tag belts (even if for a brief moment) yet every little piece of WWE news gets mentioned. I have never helped with the newsletter before, but would be willing, if only to help with some of the non wwe stuff. Less Than Clippers 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. Thank You.--~S R S~ 03:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)