Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

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

To Do List

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 34. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archiving

I'm not sure who archived the talk page, so this is a comment for everybody: when archiving a talk page, please make sure that you leave comments that are not yet a week old. There were active discussions going on that just got archived, which makes it difficult to continue them. Thanks. Nikki311 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, it was Lex94 that archived it. That's one reason why I never archive things (apart from my own talkpage!). Nikki, why don't you just take the discussion out of the archive and carry it on underneath here? Davnel03 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad. I didn't realize they weren't a-week-old. I just saw that they hadn't been replied, and/or the matter seemed resolved. Sorry, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we use a bot to archive this page like I (and many others) use for our talk pages? User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto will automatically archive any discussions older than a certain number of days (I have mine at 7) to a specified archive page. We could set it so any discussions with no replies after 7 days will be archived by the bot. TJ Spyke 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I really like that idea. Nikki311 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was opposed to this idea before because while something may be a week old, it still may not be resolved. But that makes the talk page get very long at times and we can't "make" people post and resolve things so I guess I am no longer opposed to this. If it ever got to be a problem for some reason we could easily just go back to manually archiving. Go for it! --Naha|^(talk) 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Davnel03 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have set up the archive. It's set at 7 days. The way the bot works is that it does not archive any sections without a timestamp, but that could be handled just by making a short reply. Like Silverwind said, we could always just go back if there is a problem. TJ Spyke 20:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References

Is the above page inactive? Now that the COTW is back running, isn't the list jsut gonig to go down. Should I redirect it to the main WP:PW page? Davnel03 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is inactive or not, but if it is decided we don't need it, a speedy delete would be better than a redirect. Nikki311 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think we need it and would not object to a speedy delete. But that is because I've only looked at it once or twice just to see what it was and what was on it. I don't use it. If there are lots of people who use it ..keep it I guess, otherwise, trash it. --Naha|^(talk) 17:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put a CSD notice on the page. Davnel03 19:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyber Sunday (2007)....

...has been nominated for GA status by User talk:BlackDart D. I'm concerned, as I don't think it is up to GA level because of the following problems:

1. It has one citation neeeded tag at start of Results section.
2. The Aftermath section is one line long.
3. Most of the sourcing is from WWE.com, something that also occured with One Night Stand (2006) and that was speedy failed. (now a GA)

These problems (at least the first two) need to be fixed for it to achieve GA status. I would do it myself, but I have several things outside of Wiki to get on with. Thanks, Davnel03 12:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

CS 2007 just ended 2 weeks ago, the aftermath section won't be that long. TJ Spyke 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is no aftermath, why have an Aftermatch section? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question...I know that someone can withdraw their own nomination, but as a WikiProject can we decide that the article being nominated is against the consensus and remove it even though we didn't nominate it? We could renominate it as soon as all the concerns are addressed. Nikki311 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd quickfail it right now due to stability, which it fails, due to the fact that it's been only weeks since the event took place. I say wait a few months before nominating it again...maybe put a note like that on the talkpage? FamicomJL 17:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I decided to be bold and remove the nomination myself. I left a note on both the user's talk page and the article's talk page explaining what needs to be fixed before it can be renominated. Hope that's okay. Nikki311 20:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed the right way to go. It would've been quick failed for stability issues. Maybe in December or January, it can be re-nominated? FamicomJL 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WAIT A MOMENT... I wanted to nominate Wrestlemania III: an excellent article that many editors have contributed to, including myself; and I was answered with: "too many articles are already nominated". How did this not stop this article from being nominated? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Because anybody can nominate an article at any time, whether they should or not. As you can see, it quickly was removed. TJ Spyke 21:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The user that nominated it is also not a member of WP:PW so he doesn't know about our guidlines. Davnel03 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I nominate it now as there are only 2 nominations? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline within the project is to give a week's advance notice before nominating articles. I know that Nikki posted notice 5 days ago that Mickie James and Amy Dumas would be nominated soon. I had planned to give a week's notice for Royal Rumble 1994, but Nikki beat me to it. GaryColemanFan 23:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the consensus applies when the candidates are listed under different headings on the GA nominations page. The reason there is such a consensus is because at one time, the 'sport and games people' section had too many wrestling articles all at once. Pay-per-view nominations shouldn't be a problem as they are listed under a different heading and won't interfere with the other section's candidates. - Deep Shadow 00:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Touché. GaryColemanFan 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So, can i?? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 00:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nikki311 01:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, I said Don Kent would be up for GA in a week... about 3 weeks ago ;) well I'll probably get off my duff and nominate him today or tomorrow. So consider this the "one week warning" expiring after 3 LOL MPJ-DK 10:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

IWGP World Heavyweight Championship

Just a quick reminder that the Featured List nomination for this article closes on Tuesday. Currently, there are not enough support votes for it to pass (it has 3 and needs to have at least 4). If anyone has time to look over the article objectively and give feedback, it would be appreciated. If there are any issues that need to be resolved, please post them on the nomination page so that they can be addressed as soon as possible. 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The NWA World Women's Championship is in the same boat. Nikki311 17:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I would have mentioned it, but I thought it already had enough votes (4 support, including the nomination). I definitely didn't mean to leave it out because I don't think it's as important or anything. GaryColemanFan 18:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft Lottery, two seperate articles.

Ok, the articles have been split, there were at least 8 supporters for the split including myself. Thanks to all who were involved in the discussion. Any concerns or comments please respond here.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, in the draft article, you included only the lottery results, and forgot the ones involving the new brands. Those are still drafts you know. And then, the draft article contained a ton of the history of the brand extension. Obviously, that should be in the brand extension article. You need to plan it out better before splitting. Mshake3 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm going to have to agree with Mshake's reversion here. That was a pretty bad split.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I can see what you were going for, as the tables either had a Brand Extension or Draft Lottery heading. But the draft article should only be about the drafts, and that includes all of them. The championship and PPV impact should be in the brand extension article. Mshake3 05:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine then, lets just leave it like that. They seem the same thing when you put in that way.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How about now, go look at the two articles, and if they arent good dont revert them back to one, because it is under construction.TrUcO9311 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Now its a little better. Like you said, its a work in progress.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlemania III

I have nominated WrestleMania III for GA status. If there is any improvement or criticism worth mentioning, please do. Cheers, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW newsletter

The "home page" of the WP:PW newsletter has moved from my userpage to the project space. It can be found here. The Chronic 08:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Future GA Candidates: Royal Rumble (1994) and King of the Ring (1994)

This is a notice to inform the members of WP:PW that I intend to nominate these two article for GA status in the future. I would appreciate feedback on the articles, which can be left on their talk pages, on my talk page, or on their peer review pages (located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Royal Rumble (1994) and Wikipedia:Peer review/King of the Ring (1994)). Thanks. GaryColemanFan 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Jumping on the PPV bandwagon

I've recently begun putting together an article for New Japan Pro Wrestling's PPV held on November 11, Destruction '07 in my sandbox. It's a work in progress, so any comments would be appreciated. --MarcK 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Just a quick note that if anyone in the future creates a new PPV proper, either in the sandbox or in the mainspace, can you please add a new entry on the PPV page please. Thanks! Davnel03 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just curious: who was the numnut you said expanding and splitting the articles was a bad idea? Mshake3 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not gonna say who, but here (and here) are the two times where there were opposition to them being split up. I'd bet now that they'd all be split by 13th November 2008. Davnel03 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was refering to someone else, who doesn't really edit anymore. "There will be too many articles to watch for vandalism"? Mshake3 18:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That might be here. Davnel03 18:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Maybe it's someone that's been blocked indef since. Oh well. :) Davnel03 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Melina Perez GA on hold

Since the WP:GAC page suggest reviewing another article when you put one up for GA I took the task of reviewing the Melina Perez article since I never contributed to it or well frankly read it before (I don't spend a lot of time on Diva articles), so I figured I'd be unbiased enough to review it, at least ya'll know I don't have an anti-wrestling agenda ;). To the point, I put the GA Nom on hold and left a laundry list of things to improve, so if anyone feels like contributing there is plenty to dig into. It's on hold for no more than a week as per the rules. Happy editing MPJ-DK 13:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an important note left in the review that requires input from project members: "Show names should either always be in italics or never, pick one and go with it (WP:MOS suggest italics)." The point refers to pay-per-views not being in italics whereas the WWE television shows are in italics. My response was "The MoS refers to films and television series', it says nothing about pay-per-views. Television shows and film names can be in italics but something like the 2005 Great American Bash is neither. To refer to a pay-per-view as a whole it can be in italics but to refer to a certain year in a pay-per-view can be considered 'chapters of a longer work'." I think once and for all there should be a decision about this, as it would be unfair for this article to fail GA because of this whereas others that use the same style have passed. We need opinions: should pay-per-view editions be italicised or is that against WP:ITALICS per "chapters of a longer work"? - Deep Shadow 18:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Vote stacking

I'd like to ask that people from this project avoid voting in future FL/FACs unless they have constructive criticism. I just closed an FLC that had support from 6 project members and few left any comments. Am I saying it's vote stacking? No. But it would be best to avoid anything that could bring on accusations. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a "conflict of interest"? Perhaps we shouldn't mention nominations here, so there's no bias votes. Mshake3 18:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from project members aren't necessarily a bad thing - they can offer valuable reviews and can check facts better than someone with no knowledge of the subject. But here, only two members left useful comments. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they should be mentioned here, but we shouldn't all cast our support. If there are any project members that didn't contribute to the article, then that's a different story. Gavyn Sykes 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

When the nom meets all the criteria, I'm not exactly sure what type of long comments you would like to see next to the support vote, because there isn't much to say. Its one thing if an article somehow gets nominated that clearly has a lot of work left to be done ..and people are crawling out of the woodwork to support it regardless. However, if the the nom is well written/formatted and clearly meets all the criteria and is well-worthy of being a GA, then anyone should be able to vote with a clear conscience and any allegations of vote stacking have no founding. I urge everyone to read an article in its entirety, checking for problems before ever voting to support it - don't just scan it, and we shouldn't have any problems :) --Naha|^(talk) 18:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If it meets all of the criteria, then what stops you than Supporting it? You shouldn't be forced not to support it because you are a member of the project. In some FAC's like this one, there is some critism. I'm sure this happens with other projects. I can't see why we can't comment on our FAC's. If no critism is left, then there are no problems. I wouldn't call it vote stacking, although someone in a recent FAC did note that all of the other supports were from WP:PW members. I can't see why we can't comment. Its the same with other projects - if we didn't comment, most of our articles on the FAC would come to fail or no consensus, hence why some topics above are trying to persuade members to list their supports. On the list of.... articles, they are like the other list of... articles which are already FA, and they don't point any major problems out. Hope the aboves not too long, but I can't see the point of stopping to support our articles in FACs and FALs. Davnel03 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can comment, but you shouldn't just say "Support" and nothing else. Besides, if an article only passes because members of a project voted for it, then doesn't that take away from its achievement? After all, the goal of the featured process is to make an article or list as good as it possibly can be. It's not meant to be a series of revolving doors. All I'm asking is that in the future, please allow other non-project members to vote because non-project feedback is very valuable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts) I'm guessing your refering to this FAC. So, instead, should members from this project put something detailed, maybe like:

• Support - Suitable refs and external links. References seem to be relibable. Matches other wrestling championship lists, for instance List of WWE Champions. Nothing I can see that is unsourced.

Would this be an OK description? BTW, its not our problem if others comment on our FAC's. Davnel03 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I completely agree that support votes from non-project members make the passing GA or FA that much more valuable, perhaps I don't fully understand the GA approval process.... if so, please excuse my ignorance. But, how are votes from project members stopping other Wikipedians from voting? --Naha|^(talk) 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Only one person reviews an article for it to pass GA status. They can either Pass it, Fail it, or put it On-hold for 7 days. Nothing is stopping other Wikipedians from voting. Right, quote from a comment made by Lex94 during this FAC:

• Your right. But it would be better if other users outside WP:PW could review the article, but we can't hope for it, because not much people outside of WP:PW have an interesnt in EVER reading these articles...Lex94 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He has a point. We can't force people to leave comments on our articles, can we? Davnel03 18:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So in reality, if it only takes one person to pass a GA, vote stacking would be impossible because its not votes that make it pass (but rather one GA reviewer making sure the article meets all the criteria)? My comment previous comment asking how our votes stopped others from voting was directed at the satement that Scorpion previously made: All I'm asking is that in the future, please allow other non-project members to vote because non-project feedback is very valuable. Again while I agree that non-project feedback is extremly valuable, so is all feedback regardless of who it comes from. And project members voting or commenting doesn't hinder non-affiliated people from doing so. --Naha|^(talk) 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that I've expressed this concern before. I do not support something unless I've absolutely made no major contributions to an article, and I have looked over it in its entirety. I also only support things that I believe are worthy of supporting. I would, however, echo the statement above that if we didn't support these things, other people would look right past them and they would fail due to lack of consensus or because a few users opposed due to their dislike of professional wrestling. This concern should also apply to Good Article nominations/reviews. Members of this project should not review wrestling-related articles unless they are willing to actually review it and not pass it on sight. I've had both happen to articles I've submitted. I would much rather fix a long list of problems left by a reviewer (see Talk:Melina Perez for a good example of how to properly review an article) than feel like someone passed my article with a COI. Nikki311 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I 100% agree that WP:PW members should not review wrestling-related articles for GA/FA unless they have shown they can be 100% neutral and take the time to do it right. I don't like seeing articles passed on a whim because someone wants more trophies to add to their case. It belittles everyone's work and makes our project look bad. We need constructive criticism to make the articles better. Passing them without doing it right doesn't help anyone get any better or learn. We have too many great people here improving the quality of articles every day and don't need this kind of heat. However, this is a completely different from voting for an article which I believe has a definite grey area :/ --Naha|^(talk) 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki and Naha. I think some WP:PW members do a great job of reviewing articles for GA status. I'm not convinced that this is the case all of the time, however. I'm a little suspicious of any GA review that is passed immediately. Surely there have to be concerns or comments on almost any article that should be brought up during the review. I was actually thinking that when I nominate Royal Rumble (1994) and King of the Ring (1994) that I might mention on the talk page that I would prefer someone outside of the project to complete the review. This shouldn't be taken as an insult to anyone within the project...I just want to see if a non-wrestling fan would look at the article and find it to be at a GA level.

With that said, I think FA and FL votes are completely different. I see no problem with a WP:PW member voting for candidates in these categories. I do, however, always try to explain why I think it meets the criteria. I feel that this shows that I'm looking at it objectively, that I have actually read the article/list, and that I have reviewed the criteria. I think giving an explanation for the vote makes everyone involved look better. As for not posting links to the votes on this page, I'm torn. I always make sure I specify that I want people to look over the article objectively and then give feedback, and I make sure that I never ask people just to support an article/list. I am concerned that not letting project members know about candidates will lead to a series of articles not passing due to lack of opinion, but I try to wait until there are one or two days left before I'll request more opinions. GaryColemanFan 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as posting GA noms here, I just think it helps keep everyone posted as to what is going on. I've never seen anyone ask people to vote one way or another ..just a notice that an article is up for GA. I like the notice because it reminds me to go check over the article again if I have time. Every little tweak helps. I don't see any reason not to post GA nom notification here. --Naha|^(talk) 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References

No longer needed by us, and per this discussion it is no longer needed. Clean delete. Davnel03 20:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Karen Angle

This has been mentioned already on Kurt Angle's talk page. Karen Angle has become pretty notable and appears on TNA TV more than most wrestlers and is featured in the TNA Knockouts section of TNA's site. Currently Karen Angle redirects to Kurt's personal life section. Should she have her own article now? TJ Spyke 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

She does play a major role along side Kurt. Though is she notable? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Um. I don't watch TNA, but do look at the results. I think she is notable, but my fear is that some of the info might overlap.Did she ever appear on WWE TV? I can only recall her being on the WrestleMania XX extras on the DVD (one leading up to the previous WrestleMania), thats about it. If we have sufficient detail on her, I say give it a go. I can't see why not. If the info does overlap, we can always merge it back. Another example would of been Vickie Guerrero back in middle of 2006 - her article was created in the middle of the feud. Davnel03 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think she did appear on WWE TV. I believe you are correct in that she only appeared on the "Mania of WrestleMania" bio that WWE made. TJ Spyke 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Vickie's article was "created" in April 2006, and was never more than a stub before it became a redirect to Eddie in August. The article in its current form began in September 2006, and very quickly became substantive. Tromboneguy0186 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the next step?

I think Briscoe Brothers probably satisfies WP:GA. I've gone in and phrased more and more claims to be "out of universe." Is the next step listing it for GA, or going to peer review? I know there's probably no "right" or "wrong" answer, but what's usually the next step? Tromboneguy0186 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The next step is to come here, give a week's notice that you are planning to nominate an article, and the project members will give you feedback on the article's talk page. Then, when the week is up, if all the concerns are addressed, it can be nominated. If the concerns are not addressed, fix them and then nominate. I'll look through right now and give some feedback. Nikki311 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I kinda thought I already did that :p Tromboneguy0186 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your previous thread about the work you have done on this article already got archived, and once something gets archived its easy to forget that we've already discussed it :) You didn't actually say at that point that you were nominating it for GA, but rather just wanted a peer review. So if you want to follow our semi-formal protocol, this can be your offical annoucement that you are going for GA status which gives everyone who wants to 7 good days to check over everything again before you offically post the GA nom. I tend to like to see at least 3 editors go through the article checking for stuff before an article gets nominated ..but that part is just my personal critera :P I'll try to look at it too :) --Naha|^(talk) 00:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I didn't have GA in the mind at that time, and I'm not positive I do now, either, but the more eyes on the article the better. Tromboneguy0186 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like to have GA in mind at all times because it helps me focus on what needs to be done to make the article better, regardless if it ever gets nominated or not :) That being said, both Nikki and I have made several suggestions as to how you can improve the article. Start with that and let us know if you need any help! --Naha|^(talk) 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! As I said there, I'll get to work on it in a few hours. Tromboneguy0186 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to comment on it as well, but I'll wait until the list from Nikki & Naha has been reduced a bit so that it's not too overwhelming and all. MPJ-DK 08:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone, in particular, help with a lead for the article? Tromboneguy0186 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I attempted a lead, and I don't much like it. But it's there, at least. Tromboneguy0186 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE Divas

This thread has already been archived, but I know there was some concern a few days ago because the Diva section of WWE.com had vanished along with most mentions of Divas around the website. I am pleased to report that it has been mostly restored back to how it was, save a few links here and there that are dead. Total speculation but I'm guessing the website was hacked. At any rate, its back and there is nothing that needs to be done Wikipedia/article wise about this occurance as it seems to have been a fluke. Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 01:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That was the case with the whole TNA website right after Genesis (which lasted for several hours). I don't know. Similar situations with each other. The Chronic 04:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't hacked. That's all I can say at the moment. Mshake3 05:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And how would you know? -suspicious- (Just checking in on my Wiki talk page. I'm still on a wikibreak) Vampire Warrior 11:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider Elite member. It's all in their audio. Out of respect to the site, I won't be giving the juicy details, until it's on the site in written form. Mshake3 19:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IP vandals at List of WWE Championship reigns by length

There are multiple IPs rounding up, excessively adding Funaki as a former and current WWE Champion... of all people... FUNAKI!?!? The man's a great worker but jeez!-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The page has been semi-protected for 2 weeks. TJ Spyke 06:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite hating vandalism, I find it slightly more tolerable when they have a sense of humor. There's was a similar problem with the World Heavyweight Championship article last week. Gavyn Sykes 16:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I've run into that guy before. He used to upload an obviously fake picture of Funaki holding the WWE CHampionship as "proof". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1994)

I have moved this article to the main space. I have a few more things to do (copyedit, expand the lead, get rid of the trivia section, work on internal links, etc.). If anyone has any feedback, I'd love to hear it. GaryColemanFan 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Great Khali redirected to Dalip Singh Rana

A user recently moved Khali's article to Dalip Singh Rana, without consensus as far as I can tell. Gavyn Sykes 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll alert an admin. Bmg916^Speak 17:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yamla handled it real quick. :) Gavyn Sykes 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, Yamla's good. I also let the user (as they are brand new) know about WP:PW. Never hurt to have to many quality editors around here :-). Bmg916^Speak 18:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, she is. She still hasn't responded to Davnel's query about the screwjob, but I'm sure she'll get around to it. And yeah, you're right, it never hurts to have more editors here (unless their in the vein of Hornetman16). Actually, I think we have at least one or two reformed vandals on the project currently. Gavyn Sykes 18:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well here's the thing; the article was moved to The Great Khali without consensus too. Considering he has an entire movie career as well under Dalip Singh the article being at The Great Khali really doesn't fall under WP:COMMONNAME, it's just his current ring name. Personally I feel it should be at Dalip Singh or Dalip Singh Rana. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd hardly call one movie a "movie career." He's more well known for his work as Khali in WWE than for his apperance in the Longest Yard. Gavyn Sykes 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also that he was a world champion bodybuilder in India and his pre-WWE days in New Japan in which it should be remembered that although this is the English encyclopedia, it is not the Western encyclopedia (a statement I have used before) and thus western interpretations should not trump in cases with other circumstances, especially when his "common name" does not seem to follow other wrestler ring name debates. The article was moved there in the first place without consensus, I think a debate should've been held on the issue and still do. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing about that, is that we have barely any information about any part of his pre-WWE life. Just short snippets, really. But I agree, perhaps we should vote on the matter. My take is that if Singh's article is named the Great Khali, then Glen Jacobs' and Adam Copeland's should be named Kane (wrestler) and Edge (wrestler) respectively. Gavyn Sykes 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

His article was created in May 2005 as "Dalip Singh" ([1], long before he joined WWE), move to "The Great Khali" in May 2006 ([2]) but was reverted 10 minutes later ([3]), moved again in April 2007 ([4]) where it's been since then. "Dalip Singh Rana" was created in January 2007 ([5]), but redirected the same day to Khalis article. It was today that user copy and pasted the content from "The Great Khali" to "Dalip Singh Rana", then turned it into a redirect. If someone wants an article moved, they should request it (not do a copy and paste move). TJ Spyke 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also the fact that WWE owns the trademark to "The Great Khali". So when he leaves WWE, he can't use that name. TJ Spyke 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Help at WWE Tag Team Championship and List of WWE Tag Team Champions

I have no clue if this is true or vandalism, but users have been adding that John Morrison and The Miz won the tag titles at the Smackdown taping. First off, is this true? Either way, I can't revert those pages again, due to the 3RR, so any help restoring this vandalism/spoilers would be appreciated. Thanks. Gavyn Sykes 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

/mumbles about spoilers. As far as I can tell it is true: http://www.24wrestling.com/index.php?id=news/11936 and several sites are reporting this. I tried to put the link from PW insider here but its blacklisted. --Naha|^(talk) 17:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why we have to obsessively revert when titles change hands on taped shows. It's not like we keep kayfabe in champions lists ("won on" "aired on"). So why is it important to do it now? Tromboneguy0186 18:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It did indeed take place at the SmackDown tapings. I have politely told the user that the consensus is to not add the results of the SmackDown tapings until after the show has aired in the States. Bmg916^Speak 18:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As an extension of WP:CRYSTAL, and in the interest of being encyclopedic and not a wrestling news site, unless the WWE acknowledges a title change before the airing of the program (i.e. Edge winning the World Heavyweight Championship) then we do not put spoilers in the articles. Bmg916^Speak 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL?? Are you joking? It happened, so to say that it might happen is crystalballism? I know they can edit things in/out of Smackdown, but it's never happened that they've done that with something as big as a title changing hands. Tromboneguy0186 18:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read this discussion from when MVP and Matt Hardy won the Tag titles. Davnel03 18:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The decision is NOT based on Crystal since it HAS happened, just not shown on TV, nor is it "Unencylopedic" to put a fact in if it can be sourced. Let's be honest here and call a spade a spade, the "no spoilers if possible please" is for the members of WP:PW more than anything - which I don't have a problem with but don't dress it up like a Christmas ham when it's actually a Thanksgiving Turkey. MPJ-DK 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, well said. And yes, for the umpteenth time, keeping spoilers out of articles was supposed to be for the sake of the editors, so (in the case of SmackDown!) it wouldn't deter us from editing between Tuesday Night and Friday night on the chance that we woulld come across spoilers while editing and ruin our programming ..some of us actually like to be surprised and get a kick out of watching things unfold on TV without previous knowledge of what is going to happen. For me, knowing beforehand all but ruins the show. If including spoilers means losing editors, which isn't good for Wikipedia, then we try not to include them till the shows have aired everywhere and revert them when we see them before the programming is ruined for someone else who comes across them. --Naha|^(talk) 19:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help once again, BMG. Gavyn Sykes 18:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Bmg916^Speak 18:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is MPJ, is that it's hard to find a reliable source for the spoilers. There's been several times when multiple spoiler sites have reported wrong info. There was one week a while back where there were two separate sets of fake spoilers posted. Gavyn Sykes 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MPJ and Gavyn here. However, if I see a spoiler, I merely politely let the user know on their talk page that the consensus of editors here at WP:PW is not to include spoilers until the broadcast airs in the country the company is based out of. I think this is much better than labeling the edit vandalism right off the bat, especially if the user is new or an IP because then they are obviously unaware of WP:PW and the consensus. A polite note has also generally worked for the most part in getting people to not re-add them. At least, that's been my experience. Bmg916^Speak 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, because it isn't vandalism, it is consensus. --Naha|^(talk) 19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I wasn't sure at first if the edit was vandalism (as I didn't read the spoilers this week) so I figured I'd ask before marking it as such. Gavyn Sykes 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And if the user persists, you politely explain to them again about the consensus and that continuing to insert spoilers could possibly lead to a block for disruption rather than vandalism, as I did here with this semi-persistent user. Bmg916^Speak 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This consensus makes no sense and flies in the face of many policies, such as WP:CENSORED and more notably this line from WP:SPOILER

Should this article contain spoilers?

Yes! It is almost never acceptable to delete information from an article because it constitutes a spoiler. Consider moving it or marking it off with spoiler tags — that is why they exist, after all!

If I recall correctly the last time this "consensus" was brought under scrutiny from the outside it was found that it didn't have a leg to stand on and was the one disrupting wikipedia, not the users inserting the spoilers.

Every time a title change takes place this edit war between IPs, users and project users occurs and all that ends up happening are users here saying "I didn't want to be spoiled". It's going to keep happening forever and ever with every unseen title change so this can not keep happening every time it happens. The answer here is not to cause an edit war everytime it happens but be read to accept that in your trails wikipedia, the encyclopedia, may contain spoilers rather than think of the professional wrestling articles as a walled garden that are exempt because you do not want to know. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added the title change in question to the page under <!-- --> marks so someone can add it or remove it whenever this is settled. Personally I think it should be added, because while I'm annoyed that this match has been spoiled for me, reliable sites like TitleHistories have already reported it. --MarcK 00:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the major problem with wrestling spoilers in my opinion, almost none of the sites reporting them are reliable. I've seen plenty of false "spoiler reports", that's the only reason I'm not a fan of including them. However, if WWE decides to spoil them, well, that's a whole different story. Bmg916^Speak 00:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has questioned the validity of these spoilers, only their source, and of those even sites considered "reliable" are carrying them. Spoilers are, by definition, unreliable however they are not barred from wikipedia. Many spoiler websites in regards to television have posted many many many incorrect information yet they are still used because they are reliable on the balance of probabilities to their information. Backstage talk is one thing, the results of an event witnessed by ten thousand people is another. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As an example - no one ever questions the validity of ROH event reports when they are posted and if a title change occurred. These events are attended by only a few hundred and the only difference between these results and those ones are that the show is not televised. There is absolutely nothing differing between the two yet we have two sets of standards. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I could go either way, I'm just going with the current consensus. If it happens to change that we include spoilers and place a spoiler tag on the page with it until after the broadcast, then so be it in my mind, and I'll go with that. It works either way to me. Just a question, nothing to do with the debate, but doesn't ROH post results on their website though? Bmg916^Speak 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the ROH fan forum posts which are used as the play by play of the event. My issue with this situation is that the consensus does not reflect wikipedias consensus on the topic and is in fact at odd with a fair few of them with no rationale. The consensus shouldn't be WP:PW's consensus, it should be wikipedias. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not involved in the ROH result adding to the articles here, but if we're adding results based on fan forum posts I feel like a huge hypocrite right now. I also see and somewhat agree with you that it should be Wikipedia's consensus as a whole, not necessarily just WP:PW's. I see your point that we do have spoiler tags for a reason, and perhaps we could create a custom one for WP:PW.Bmg916^Speak 01:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel like a hypocrite, ROH does post results in their newswire however they do not cover every result and sometimes do not contain specific details but usually the articles here are updated before the newswire based off the play by play which was my point.

Tags may be necessary but on the whole I think it should be assumed wikipedia articles may contain more than you wish to know but that is because they are an encyclopedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you both missed the conversation about spoiler tags that took place at the same time as one of the most recent spoiler inclusion conversations so I'll recap, again: The spoiler tags are far more noticeable than spoiler information that is intertwined into the articles which defeats the whole purpose of them in wrestling articles. Because 99% of the time a pro-wrestling spoiler is going to be about a title change. So if we accidently see a spoiler tag, the mere presence of the tag basically says "Hey look this guy/team/ won or lost a title!" This is different from spoilers in tv shows or movies because there is an extremly wide variety of things that could have happened in the plot to spoil it - so the presence of the tag in those articles does not necessarily give anything away. So in this case, the lesser of two evils is the inclusion of the spoiler information itself without a tag. --Naha|^(talk) 01:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion, but felt that it needed restating partly. My comment above states I do not think they would be appropriate anyway. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, I don't get that from reading it somehow. My appologies though. --Naha|^(talk) 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have two points to make:

Sources First of all, it is completely unlogical that Wikipedia tells us we need "sources" when we know things that are facts, or we see things with our own two eyes. "Example: if I gave my dog some food. Two hours later, no one has enterd the house, yet I see food on his plate. The only possible reason is that he didn't eat it. Wikipedia would just obligate me to find a source to see if someone else came into the house, poured him some food, and left as it is a possibility; or have a Gastro exam on my dog, to post the fact. It's outrageous."

I also find that Wikipedia limits itself to internet sources too much. Even though, book sources and dvd sources are applicable, anyone can make something up and say: "i saw it in the new book". And the editors that dont own the book, which would be most, can't prove him wrong. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers If someone went to the smackdown tapings and sees with his own to eyes that MVP and Hardy lost their titles, it should be posted. Regardless if this is a spoiler! This is an encyclopedia: WE POST FACTS! When we post the date of when someone loses their titles on Smackdown; do we make it tuesday or friday? We post it tuesday, regardless if it was aired on friday. Why? Because we post FACTS! and the fact is that they lost it on tuesday, even though the common knowledge of the event was made on friday. I understand if someone posts weekly match results, which is outrageous because it isn't important. But title reigns are significant, and should be posted, and if someone is mad because they were spoiled, they shouldn't have been checking our articles. If they want bios that are aligned with TV, then we should tell them to check [wwe.com wwe.com] Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex, while there are valid arguments for including spoilers in articles (regardless of my stance on the situation), you failed to make any of them here and basically validated reasons to not include them: some people will add whatever they read from wherever the read it. You are not doing your side of the argument any favors here. And you obviously haven't spent any time reading the reasoning behind why many of us do not approve of spoiler inclusion - or you at least haven't grasped it. I don't know which. You took a stab at it but missed it completely. --Naha|^(talk) 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that spoilers should be included. I am saying that they shouldn't, but that I'd like for them to. People should recognize that we post facts, regardless if they are spoilers or not. Yet, Wikipedia restricts us to do so, which I find as "bogus". Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read your comment three times now and still have no idea what you are saying. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that according to wikipedia,we shouldn't post spoilers. However, I think that wikipedia's rule is wrong. However, the only reason I am against spoiler-posting is because of the guideline. If the guideline did not exist, I would be all for it, because this is an encyclopedia, and we should post facts regardless of them being spoilers. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm... according to wikipedia we should post spoilers.I do not know where you are getting your information from. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You lost me a long time ago too Lex, sorry. Wikipedia says spoilers are allowed. I understand this, I do not deny this. I do, however, disagree with the black and white policy and believe that there are some circumstances that should allow articles to not include them. I've gone over my reaosning several times over the months and there are at least some people who agree with me. That being said, because some of us want it one way, doesn't make it so ..it still goes against Wikipedia policy. I don't completely know how to go about getting it changed, and due to certain biases, I don't know that change would ever be possible. I still think there is a grey area to the "consenus" argument but I'm getting so so tired of talking about this all the time that I just end up getting frustrated over the whole thing and never actually get to the point of trying to actually help make change. That being said, I think I need some Aspirin :P --Naha|^(talk) 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion as of today is that if the results come from a reliable source (WWE or a local paper's report of the event for example), then it should be posted. Otherwise, it should be reverted for that reason alone. Being a spoiler always has been and always will be a weak excuse. Mshake3 06:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Mshake. That's my stance as of now. Bmg916^Speak 15:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a reliable source, Dave Meltzer, has the smackdown spoilers on his site. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The section below has been moved nearer to the bottom of the page to gather a consensus. ===Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Spoilers ?=== Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be the best course of action. I honestly have been thinking we need to create a guidelines page in general with all of WP:PW's guidelines and reasons for the consensus of each guideline so that we can point users to it when reverting because of the consensus instead of saying well, per WP:PW consensus this, that and there and then not being able to point out the convo without digging through the archives. Bmg916^Speak 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it should also have a place for consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Lid has opened a massive can of worms here, and as a result of the tag team title change on Smackdown we need to address this PDQ so we have a link to present instead of just telling editors about "consensus". It has also been put to me that once the show is aired anywhere (meaning Australia for example) there is no longer a spoiler issue. My view is that as long as WWE don't acknowledge it (which they don't until after the show airs in the US except in exceptional circumstances - ie Edge's title win), it's a spoiler. Not withstanding Lid's argument under WP:SPOILER which bluntly I think needs to be reviewed - precisely because of the can of worms it opens up. !! Justa Punk !! 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed guidlines should the above occur

Before we go ahead and create a page, here are some guidlines out of the top of my head. Feel free to comment immediately after each guidline.

• Spoilers from SmackDown! are not inserted into any article until after the show has aired in America.
  • This seems inconsistent to me with putting dates in championship tables for the actual date won. If, for the purposes of updating the articles of The Miz and John Morrison we don't consider them as having won the belts until November 16, shouldn't that then be the date that's used in List of WWE Tag Team Champions? It's going to be the date used here and always is except in cases like when they gave away Kurt Angle and Edge winning the world title on WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the show doesn't air "in America" at the same time. The East coast gets it three hours before we get it in the West. Tromboneguy0186 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The first guideline still fails to address how this is opposite WP:SPOILER and that this policy is unenforcible, to me anyway, in good faith as it has no rationl basis other than not wanting to be spoiled. The argument for "reliability" of these results only comes up with WWE, it is never questioned the reliability of say IWA-MS posted ont the internet and that has an even smaller contingent of people attending. Not to mention that EVERY TIME a title change occurs on a taped show the entire internet comes here to post it and they are always correct in policy to do so. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Spoilers from SmackDown! can be inserted into articles only if recognised by WWE.com before the first airing in America.
  • See above. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not put pure speculation into articles that may constitute a future storyline, and possibly a spoiler.
  • The spoiler part is unneeded, being speculation is removable by wikipedia policy anyway. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not create pages based on a current event in wrestling, for instance the cryptic computer messages.

• If a title change occures at a event, revert any edits that you may see, and leave a hidden note, stating to users not to insert the change. If this persists, ask for the page to be protected.
  • This makes no sense, in fact going to RFPP here seems to be the opposite of what should occur. See above for reasons, but I felt this needed additions as the idea of requesting page protection in this case is counter to wikipedia's own policy. It's a content dispute, not "vandalism". –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not use "dirtsheets" as a source for spoilers, as they are not WP:RS.
  • Once again; not everything a dirtsheet says is true, but they are only questioned over the validity of backstage fights orother shenanigans. No one doubts the reliability of their results coverage. This same test can be applied to TV show spoiler websites, no they are not always reliable, but they are used as sources none the less because on the whole they are right and they are not passed off simply because some of it turned out to be incorrect. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's been my issue with the general opinion here. It seems that dirtsheets are considered unreliable because of a chance that they're wrong. Some of these sites contain the top reporters of the field we're covering: professional wrestling. That alone is one of the top requirements for a reliable source. Mshake3 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• If a user repeatedly breaks the above guidlines, on more than five occassions, alert a wrestling-friendly administrator.
  • Admin-shopping is a terrible thing to do, paragraph three of WP:ADMIN "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." This is to say I would recuse myself from wrestling situations as I am knowledgable on the topic but the way I am interpreting this, considering the above, isn't for a wrestling-friendly administrator but a wrestling PROJECT friendly administrator. There is a significant and important difference between the two. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two of the above are probably not needed and useless, but I've just typed these up out of the top of my head. Leave comments in between each point, and discuss if anything seems wrong with the point I've made. Cheers! Davnel03 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the view that unless WWE announce it on their website, it's the breaching of "privacy" (for want of a better word) - sort of like a report from the set of a soapie saying that a major character is being killed off before any news breaks about the actor or actress leaving the show. We don't want to know! If we want to spoiler hunt, there are ways and means of doing that. I think we should consider Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as current WWE news not on the site could be considered as a violation of that guideline. Besides - this isn't a wrestling site either. It's an encyclopedia. !! Justa Punk !! 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That section of WP:NOt does not apply, at all, to this discussion. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Professional wrestling

It's been discussed before, but never has really been decided upon - is it time to finally create this? –– Lid^(Talk) 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I still say we aren't ready yet. Feel free to look up my reasoning the last 2 times it has been discussed, both of which were rather recent. --Naha|^(talk) 01:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell the current newsletter is essentially a portal. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not even close to the same scale a portal would be, nor does it take the same amount of effort to produce and keep updated. There are too many portals around Wikipedia that sit for weeks or months without any attention, and they are jokes. I don't know if there are enough people who would commit to keeping the portal at high level of functioning, but if not, we don't need a new large target for criticism when there are so many wrestling articles that still need help. I guess I'm afraid that a significant amount of effort could be lost to side projects like the newsletter or the portal. We've been making so much progress around here lately that I would really hate for it to decline again because people are worried about keeping the portal up or whatever. I can't say this would happen, and I can't say that it wouldn't, but it is a valid concern. A portal has the potential to be a great thing for the presence of pro-wrestling on Wikipedia, and when it is time for it to be created, I would like to be confident that I know it will succeed. --Naha|^(talk) 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait a month or two and see if the new newsletter works out first before we discuss this. There is a possibility (and I hope this won't happen) that the newsletter could fizzle out. If it does work out, then I think we could discuss upscaling to a portal, because, as Lid pointed out, it is very similar. (Look I got a new signature →) Nikki311 02:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think the portal is a great idea and I think it can work out great. If there are editors like The Chronic, Hybrid, Naha, and others that like to do a lot of background work, I think they can make an excellent portal. And, personally, with all due respect, I think that the concern that the project would decline, because people are too obsessed with the portal, is unreasonable. If anything similar would happen, it would be the portal that would decline, not the proyect. I think we should start the portal, and not keep waiting; because the portal has been on a waiting list for a long time, and we should stop avoiding it. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lex, take this as a complement, because believe it or not it actually is ...or at least there is a complement included in here ...I don't understand how you can make such intelligent and coherent posts like this one about the portal sometimes, and posts at other times that I can't make heads or tails of or even follow. I think you must be like me except the nth degree: when you are really riled up about something (or have a strong opinion on the matter) you just start typing and want to get the thoughts at as quickly as possible but in doing so forsake all coherence. A while back I started reading over my posts at least twice before hitting enter ..at least for clarity sake. I still don't catch everything before I hit submit and sometimes I rewrite stuff where my ideas didn't flow well or prose that might be hard for someone else to follow. With really long posts I even use spellcheck.net I don't know, I just think that, like me, you might benefit from slowing down sometimes :P

That being said, I did address in my last post about your concern of portal decline (and how it has happened to so many other ones around the 'pedia). Decline in either could happen, or neither, but to me it would be more detrimental if it happened to the project. Having a portal that sits around with news that is 7 months old (again as I have seen around the 'pedia) doesn't make the project or its subject matter look good though. It could be a non issue but I would like to see a list of decent length of volunteers that will commit to keeping it updated before I change my mind. Again, it has the potential to be a great asset to the project, I just want to know it will do good. I know when it is created that I will definitely want to participate but I can't promise a particular degree of participation - it would fluctuate greatly. --Naha|^(talk) 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, but the spoilers thing has me completely frustrated. Yet, I don't know where you are going with with telling me that I have these moments, in which I am coherent and intelligent, and others that doesn't make sense. As for the portal, maybe we can, as you said, first make a list of people who would be willing to contribute to it, and if it is lengthy and full of experience editors, we can begin creation of the portal. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, its just that I've noticed that I'm not the only person who has been confused by several of your posts over the last few weeks... trying to make heads or tails out of what you were trying to say and I thought that I might understand why. I'm probably wrong and apologize for addressing the issue here. --Naha|^(talk) 08:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki, let's wait and see how the newsletter turns out. If it is successful, then we can consider starting a portal. Since they are somewhat similar ideas, we can use the newsletter to get an idea on whether we have the motivation/time to maintain a portal. - DrWarpMind 03:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 roster lists

New users are re-adding the roster list after it was agreed to no longer make use of these kinds of lists. Just thought I'd pass that along. Would really appreciate someone keeping an eye on the page.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should be rv'ed per WP:EMBED. Bmg916^Speak 23:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem lies with the old pages having the rosters listed and this one omitting it. To the casual observer it would appear the vandalism would be the removal of the rosters, not vice versa. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently a consensus was formed in the article's talk page a few weeks ago based on the same policy Bmg916 brought up. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna second what bulletproof said, I really couldn't have said it any better :-). Bmg916^Speak 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Bmg916 couldn't have said it better. XD -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring article

I merged the information for 1994 and 1995 into the main article for King of the Ring because for some strange reason they were the only 2 years out of 17 that had their own articles. I think in the interest in uniformity that there should either be 1 article inclusive of all years, or separate articles for each year. Giving 1994 and 1995 special treatment does not make sense to me. Thoughts? Yagobo79 12:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I got a thought - you were wrong to do so. Why? because it's slowly being split up one article at a time and work put into one event at a time, it's not a "strange reason" it's one of the focuses of this project. They should be returned to their previous state and then slowly work on splitting ALL the KOTR articles. MPJ-DK 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have returned them to the way they were MPJ. Yagobo - We are currently working on separating all the PPV articles into their own years to make it all uniform. However, there are only so many editors working on this with only so much time to do so. Eventually (hopefully) all 17 years will have their own articles. For now, the one's for 1994 and 1995 look well written and well sourced and should not be re-directed, as they could be used to help write articles for other years. Thank you. Bmg916^Speak 12:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As one of the people that is currently (well not really currently as I had a bit of time out for exams) expanding KOTR 1995, I feel very insulted by that move, Yagobo. Davnel03 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulted? Sheesh. I think people take this stuff too seriously. I think the seperate articles are fine, but perhaps the results synopsis and brackets should remain in the main article, just for the sake of uniformity within that article. Right now it just seems too random. Yagobo79 02:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

What do we feel about an IP adding {{Primarysources}} tag to some PPV related articles, see the IP's contributions. Should I revert? I'm not saying he's wrong, infact he's correct, but some of them (WrestleMania 23 and SummerSlam (2007)) are still underconstruction, so should they be removed? Davnel03 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If they're under construction, and the IP isn't being disruptive and placing them in bad faith then I'd just simply leave them until you add the third party sources and then remove them. Bmg916^Speak 17:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, he's not wrong - that should be the end of it, leave it there until the tag is no longer valid. MPJ-DK 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Just wonderin' Davnel03 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

COTW leaderboard and SEVEN PRUNED NOTICES!

Leaderboard ready for COTW beginning 18th November:

• History of professional wrestling - Nine Supports - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
• Survivor Series (1997) - Nine Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
• Stone Cold Steve Austin - Eight Supports
• The Fingerpoke of Doom - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have nine votes
• WrestleMania (1985) - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED TOMORROW! if it doesn't have nine votes
• The Fabulous Moolah - Six Supports
• Magnum T.A. - Six Supports - but set to be PRUNED TOMORROW! if it doesn't have nine votes
• Cyber Sunday (2006) - Five Supports - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have six votes
• Mr. Fuji - Four Supports
• Santo - One Support - but set to be PRUNED SUNDAY! if it doesn't have three votes

This COTW could go possibly seven or eight different ways - your votes are needed to make sure your favourite becomes the COTW! This is the closest ever! You need to vote, otherwise your favourite will not be COTW, and some could be pruned... possibly seven! Davnel03 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Really sucks, too. Oh well, I'll re-nominate Wrestlemania I again when it can be re-nominated again, which is in a few months. FamicomJL 20:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If it can get two more supports by tomorrow, it can stay on there. Unfortunately no one is going over to the page, and putting their supports on. Davnel03 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Notice board

Is the above page really needed? The sections that compose the page, is just guidelines on how to post discussions. And all notices and discussions take action here, not there. So, I think the page isn't really needed. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. Davnel03 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we nominate the page for deletion? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait for more opinions before nominating it. Davnel03 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, above BMG stated the need for an area where we can compile guideline discussions for easy access later. I thought that was the point of the Notice Board...to add links to past discussions so when a disagreement arises, we have easy access to the relevant past discussion that may solve the problem. I think we should keep it, but actually utilize it. Nikki311 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nikki here. Gavyn Sykes 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs more activity, that's for sure, but Naha and I fought so hard to keep it, and it would be of such use if we actually put it to use that I would hate to delete it. The Hybrid T/C 04:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes we need it and can utilize it. It is practically brand new. I've had so much else going on that I haven't had time to properly institute it's use yet. Please do not delete the Notice Board. --Naha|^(talk) 08:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To do list

Can the to do list have its own subpage? (Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Wrestling/To do list) Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 18:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It already is. Davnel03 19:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean to add it as a subpage, instead of having it posted on the talk page. It takes up too much space up there, and the font is too small. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the size of your computer screen. Anyway, the To do list is hidden, so how can you say it takes up too much space? Davnel03 19:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When it is showed, it looks like if it was forced and cramped inside the page. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Archived

At the beginning it says the page is archived by Werdnabot, and at the end by Shadowbot. WHo is it really? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Shadowbot does what Werdnabot used to do. One does what the other used to do. FamicomJL 20:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't you erase the above statement with Werdnabot being the archiver? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't. That's what the current template still says. It was never updated by the author of the template. It's confusing, yeah, but nothing we can do, unless we want to manually archive the discussions again. FamicomJL 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam (1994) article complete

I am now finished writing this article. I would like to nominate if for GA status in the future (but obviously not for a while, since I want to nominate Royal Rumble (1994) and King of the Ring (1994) first). I would really appreciate it if a few people could look through it (and perhaps do some copyediting) and give me some feedback. Thank you to anyone who can help (and to TJ Spyke, who has alreayd been a big help). Oh yeah, and I don't feel right about assessing articles that I've contributed to, so I would also appreciate it if someone could look it over and decide if it's up to B-level. GaryColemanFan 23:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a B article, so I made the upgrade for you. I don't have time to copyedit right now, but I promise I will later tonight or tomorrow. Nikki311 00:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And no rush on the copyedit. Real life comes first. And thanks for the peer review comments on the other two articles. I'll get on that when I get a chance. GaryColemanFan 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've done the copyedit. One thing I did notice is that you alternate between both "The Undertaker" and "the Undertaker", as well as "The Headshrinkers" and "the Headshrinkers"...alternating whether the "the" is capitalized or not. If the "the" is part of the name, then it should be capitalized, and if it isn't a part of the official name, then it should remain lowercase. Either way, it is best to be consistent. Also, how do you feel about adding the "other on-screen talent" table that is located in some of the other pay-per-view articles (ex. WrestleMania III)? I rather like it because it removes the random list at the bottom of the page and breaks up the huge blocks of text....that's your call, though. Nikki311 04:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Round Three

There's been two attempts at resolving a debate as to whether PWI rankings and awards and Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards should be included and nothing has really been resolved. Some see them as important wrestling honors and some see them as trivial bits of information. So, let's just get this out of the way once and for all. Should we:
1. Delete all PWI and WON material from the championships and accomplishments section.
2. Delete PWI rankings and WON awards from the championships and accomplishments section but leave the various PWI awards.
3. Keep all PWI and WON material as part of the championships and accomplishments section.Odin's Beard 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I say 2 because yes the rankings sounds trivial to me, but the awards are an honor and considering that it comes from a magazine that recognizes the world and tag championships, seems important.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

#2 The rankings are just trivial. The awards mean something. The Chronic 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all trivial, including PWI's pathetically arbitrary definitions of what is and isn't a "world title." What's even more trivial is the notion that that matters in an encyclopedic sense. Tromboneguy0186 03:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - but that being said, I don't see the harm in keeping the rankings and awards Tromboneguy0186 03:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose listing every ranking a wrestler ever received. I do, however, think that there is a place for the wrestler's ranking on the PWI 500 of the PWI Years (as it demonstrates longevity and fairly consistent achievement) and the Top 100 Tag Teams of the PWI Years (especially for someone like Bobby Eaton, whose notability is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that he made the list three times). In addition, I see no harm in listing a wrestler's best single-year performance on the PWI 500. I think it helps establish notability for many wrestlers (eg. Tony Anthony, who was ranked #24 one year but whose article was once deleted as non-notable). GaryColemanFan 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We could add all awards and rankings to a trivia section. This would be neutral to all three of your options, as the awards will be kept (option 3), and will keep them out of the championships and accomplishments sections (options 1,2). Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time trying to keep trivia sections out of the wrestling articles, and I know a lot of other people have, too. I really hate trivia sections because they invite all sorts of useless information like shoe size, favorite song, and championship related original research. Moreover, they go against WP:Trivia, which says to integrate the information into the article or if it's non-notable, delete it altogether. Nikki311 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How about integrate the information in a section entitled: "Awards". Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Me personally, I say just delete them altogether. I keep hearing PWI awards themselves are important to the wrestling industry in and of itself, though I've yet to see anyone provide anything solid to back up their point of view other than personal opinions. What makes the awards so important? What is it that makes PWI declare a title a "world" title? If the wrestling industry considered them a big deal, why are PWI rankings and awards never used in the promotion of a wrestler or in promotion of storylines by the various promotions? Take John Cena for instance; regardless of personal opinion of him, it's hard to refute that he's been the biggest star in pro wrestling for the past 2.5 years or so. Certainly the most hyped and exposed as well. Yet, in all of the various interviews and television appearances he's made, both for wrestling and non-wrestling programs, none of his PWI rankings and awards are mentioned in the slightest. Outside media doesn't recognize or acknowledge their importance and I've seen nothing that proves the wrestling industry in and of itself does. I've heard that a sign of their importance comes from some wrestlers being photographed while holding their PWI awards. I think it's fairly obvious that PWI is going to publish photos of wrestlers holding THEIR awards in THEIR publication. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Odin's Beard. The best example that I can think of which parallels this situation is eonline.com's Tater Top Awards. I'm sure not many people here have heard of them, except for me because I'm nerdy like that. Anyway...allow me to explain: they are awards annually given to television stars that win certain categories voted for by fans on the internet (such as best kiss, hottest lead actor, that sort of thing). The winners are given trophies either by mail or by an eonline employee doing taped interviews on the red carpet. They also sometimes mention them in interviews with eonline ("thanks for such and such award"). Does that mean we should include this award in the articles of all the television actors who won them? No....it's trivial, even if they are video-taped with the award. PWI is the same thing, in my opinion, but dressed up a little nicer. I think the only time they should be included is if they help establish notability in articles for less well-known wrestlers, although there are better ways to accomplish the same task, IMO. Nikki311 04:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a very different situation. Obviously, Eonline awards are nothing compared to major awards like the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, etc. But, in wrestling, there are no major awards. The most major is the PWI and TWO awards and rankings, which would tempt us to add them to the articles; as they are the only prestigious awards that can be won. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 04:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was that the various championships themselves are the prestigious awards. Championship belts and major tournament wins could be analogous to the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes. Nikki311 04:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What about wrestlers that haven't won a lot of titles but have been ranked several times or won these awards? Steve Lombardi (better known as The Brooklyn Brawler) has never won any titles other than very minor indy belts. TJ Spyke 04:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, there are other ways to prove notability. Lombardi has worked for WWE either on-screen or behind the scenes for 20 something years. He also had an action figure released through WWE. Nikki311 04:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing all the information on final time, I still find them all trivial and lacking notability. I say delete them all. --Naha|^(talk) 08:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason why I'm against using them is that I think there's a contradiction when it comes to pointing out their importance. Picking and choosing which PWI or WON honors goes in and which doesn't make sense to me. If the rankings aren't considered a big deal, I don't see how the awards themselves are. Being ranked one of the 500 best wrestlers in the world is trivial but winning PWI Comeback of the Year award isn't?Odin's Beard (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What about keeping yearly rankings if they can be written into the article itself? This is how I included Tony Anthony's 1994 ranking in his article. I strongly believe that this helps establish his notability, so I thought it should be included. Aside from that, I still think that PWI 500 of the PWI Years and PWI Top 100 Tag Teams rankings make sense to include, and I don't buy the argument that they clutter up championship lists. Nor do I agree that wrestlers don't care about them. Someone like Bret Hart might not care, but many independent wrestlers certainly do. One of my friends definitely looks forward to finding out where he is placed year after year. And the wrestlers who care are usually the ones whose PWI 500 rankings are a major asset in establishing their notability. Getting rid of them will just hurt our project in the long run. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that they do matter to some. There are few absolutes in life afterall. But, I'm talking about the industry as a whole, not just a handful of unknown promotions and workers. I'd accept their importance if there was something in the wrestling industry to signify that the industry does consider them a big deal. If the WWE, TNA, All Japan, New Japan, AAA, ZERO1-MAX, ROH, the NWA, Stampede, etc. acknowledged them as being important, it'd help establish importance. Any or all of them would help that. However, why would they not use the awards to further their own notoriety? Why not use them to promote wrestlers and storylines? It's certainly not like the WWE not to use something that they think is going to make them more money.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the same argument above a few times. I'm trying to work toward a compromise by proposing several ways to address the issue. You repeat the same argument over and over again. That won't resolve anything. Obviously, WWE has no need to use PWI 500 rankings to promote wrestlers. I already said that. They're an established company and have no need to advertise like that. On a related note, Wal-Mart doesn't use door-to-door advertising or telephone operators to let people know they exist. Go figure. For the most part, I'm talking about independent wrestlers. It can be hard to establish notability for some of them, as reliable sources for the independent circuit can be hard to come by. This doesn't mean that they're not notable wrestlers, but members of this project have limited resources at hand. If PWI compiles information about independent wrestlers, I feel that we'd be foolish not to use it to our advantage. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

King of the Ring as a Championship

Should it be noted that the crown was treated as a Championship that changed hands during more than one of the reigns?
Haku carried the crown after Race, and then it was contested in matches. Haku lost it to Duggan who lost it to Savage.
Then in 1993 Lawler defeated Bret at SummerSlam to become the "Undisputed King of the WWF". Should these people be noted as King of the Ring champions, or Kings of the WWF?
I feel that if there is an article noting the title history of the Million Dollar Championship, then surely these changes in the King of the Ring title, particularly those of Duggan and Savage, should also be recognized.
Yagobo79 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, you do bring up an excellent point. I think it should be noted under those reigns that it was contested in matches. Bmg916^Speak 04:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One week...

...and I'm going to list Briscoe Brothers for GA. Please give feedback on the article's talk page as to what needs to be done (and as always, feel free to actually do it!) so as to better ensure its passage. Tromboneguy0186 05:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers again!

There was a tag team title change at the Smackdown taping - and users are again insisting on posting spoilers on the WWE page. Watch out for Australian editors as it has aired here. The last edit removed the note about not placing spoilers on the page. There are some very ignorant people around the place! !! Justa Punk !! 07:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually the "insisting of posting spoilers" may be in the right and this very topic is being discussed above. It has already been concluded that being a spoiler is not a reason for removal, and the fact it has now been confirmed means it probably should be added. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The matter appears to have been resolved now, as I have reminded everyone that this is an encyclopedia and not a wrestling website. !! Justa Punk !! 10:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. Lid has reverted it again, and now I'm trapped by the 3RR rules. This has not got an alternative consensus - and until i does, the current consensus holds. That is - would someone please revert Lid's edit? This is bordering on disruptive editing to be honest. !! Justa Punk !! 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just called in someone on the Arbitration committee. Thanks to Get Dumb for reverting Lid's last edit. He has to leave it alone until a different consensus to the established one is agreed to here. The sooner that page mentioned above gets off the ground the better. !! Justa Punk !! 11:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GetDumb reverting asking for a source is unbelievably ridiculous, professional wrestling falls under WP:FICT and the sources for the events are the events being aired themselves, a previously established fact here. This can't go both ways; with the event airing in Australia it isn't a source but airing in America it is considered a source. This appears to be wikilawyering to game the system. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Or he is based somewhere that has NOT seen Smackdown aired yet. That being the case then it's a perfectly reasonable question. Wikilawyering? With all due respect, I think this is starting to sound like the pushing of an opinion - which I'm sure is a WP rule violation somewhere. !! Justa Punk !! 11:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have an opinion on the matter, which is why there is a debate on the topic, because if there wasn't an opposite opinion there would be no debate. I'm not following your point? –– Lid^(Talk) 11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you are pushing an opinion through edits on the WWE page - which is precisely where you shouldn't be doing it. Here in a debate is fine. Discuss/debate first - edit the page later when a consensus is reached. !! Justa Punk !! 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited the page twice, and have been partaking in the debate here for the last two days. I have not been edit warring on the pages and editing the pages in such a way is not pushing an agenda on this topic. Consensus has been reached, above, that claiming removal because it is a spoiler is a really weak argument and I do not think you can find consensus above that supports removal on the grounds of being a spoiler. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I really wish someone had told me about the above discussion when I didn't notice it. That fact of the matter is, I was involved in a discussion that can be found in the archives and across articles under WP:PW's scope with the outside community involved, including the chairman of the mediation committee, an it wasn't even questioned that spoilers must be verified. That is non-negotiable. If there isn't a source, then there is nothing to say that this event ever actually took place. If you can't provide a source, then you lose per WP:V, period. My consensus is larger, and more in line with the policies. The Hybrid T/C 13:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I really want to know how the events being watched in America can be reconciled as being reliable but the events being watched in Australia can not be considered reliable? The purpose of this discusson isn't verification, and it never has been, it's been that the spoilers have always been written off and the inserters have been considered on the wrong side of policy when they are in the right. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain better; the above discussion relates to the non-inclusion of spoilers as a whole, THIS discussion relates to the inclusion of the information after it has aired and apparently, if after it airs in Australia it's inclusion is still not allowed. They are in the same area however they are not overlapping discussion. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has been about verification ever since the previous discussion reached an end, as it was definitively solved. If a reliable source can be found, then it cannot be removed, and if not, then it must be removed. The catch is, the only sites that post spoilers are dirt sheets who openly admit to getting their information from regular folks. Therefore, no reliable sources exist. End of discussion. Policy dictates that those who insert spoilers are blatantly wrong, period. The Hybrid T/C 22:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There you go! And from WP:SPOILER just to back that up;

You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details.

Lid didn't do that, which affects his credibility in my opinion. We have an existing consensus - and Hybrid has explained exactly why. The existing consensus therefore should stay. This is an additional reason behind my vote below (I encourage others to vote as well). !! Justa Punk !! 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That full section reads As an exception, some recently released work of fiction may carry a {{current fiction}} tag, which is usually removed a certain period of time after the work has been published — typically between a week and a month or two, though this is a matter for editorial judgement. You should consult the relevant WikiProject for a given subject for more details. See similar templates in Category:Temporal templates.

That line relates to, say, movies or novels and when the current fiction tag can be removed. Do not try and misinterpret that last section to be about consensus from the wikiproects about their opinion of spoilers. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the end of discussion The Hybrid - SLAM! wrestling does not attend every event, wrestlingtitles does not attend every event, every wrestling "reliable source" never attends every event. It is acomplete misnomer to interpret certain cites as reliable and others as "dirtsheets", which appears to be the major issue here. People against "spoilers" refer to them as dirtsheets, putting a negative connotation onto their purpose, while I refer to them usually as "wrestling news sites" as that makes the point of that they report wrestling news. If you haven't go up and read my post below with the poker analogy. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They are all unreliable where spoilers are concerned, as they all get their reports from third parties. Therefore, they aren't the actual source, the third party is. The reliability of the third party would have to be assessed, and since that is impossible, all of them are unreliable. Therefore, one cannot cite the actual episode, as there is not any reliable verification that what the inserting user claims took place in that episode actually took place in that episode. The Hybrid T/C 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts, first the spoilers are unreliable, then the wrestling news sites are unreliable now the reporters are unreliable. Just a quick analysis but you are claiming they get their news from third parties... nearly every news source on the planet gets their news from third parties. Take a newspaper article from a local newspaper posting a story from a local person, the reporter can be a complete unknown and this could be his first article however it is considered reliable because of the newspaper.

As a question can you point me to when the spoilers have been wrong in the past few weeks or months? You keep stating they are unreliable because they are by third parties except that all reporters on the planet are third parties. The fact of the matter is that thousands of people attend these events, type up results, and send them out to the wrestling news sites. If the results are wrong they are immediately jumped on as, previously mentioned, thousands attended the event and know what happened. –– Lid^(Talk) 04:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not moving the goal posts; I'm just getting more specific. The spoilers are unreliable because the third-parties are unreliable, separate from the actual site. A new reporter is considered reliable because he/she has been hired by a notable company, and therefore is not a third party. He/she is an employee, so he/she acts on the behalf of the company. These dirt sheets post reports they get in emails from non-employees, so they are using third-party reports, and, therefore, are not the actual source of the information. The third party is the source of the information, and since the reliablility of the third party cannot be assessed, they are considered unreliable within Wikipedia policies. Remember, on Wikipedia verifiability is more imprtant than the truth. It doesn't matter if the reports are accurate; what matters is where they are coming from, and they are not coming from these sites; they are coming from any random 12-year-old with an email account. The Hybrid T/C 21:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Published by a reliable source, not being a reliable source is the threshold. Sources, such as what we are discussing here, relate to a specific for lack of a better word "subculture" that have its own sources for information. The sources are accurate and do not push an agenda nor a point of view. Conversely we use The Sun as a reliable source when it is known in the greater world for making up gossip and being an alround "dirtsheet" but because it is not a wrestling dirtsheet that is fine. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

More Opinion Wanted

I've copied the following from above, as I want more opinions on the proposal I made yesterday.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Spoilers?

Maybe we should create a new page under the above name to outline WP:PW spoilers, and possibly copy-paste past discussions to that page, instead of having to look through all the archives. Opinions? Davnel03 15:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be the best course of action. I honestly have been thinking we need to create a guidelines page in general with all of WP:PW's guidelines and reasons for the consensus of each guideline so that we can point users to it when reverting because of the consensus instead of saying well, per WP:PW consensus this, that and there and then not being able to point out the convo without digging through the archives. Bmg916^Speak 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and it should also have a place for consensus discussion on the Talk Page. Lid has opened a massive can of worms here, and as a result of the tag team title change on Smackdown we need to address this PDQ so we have a link to present instead of just telling editors about "consensus". It has also been put to me that once the show is aired anywhere (meaning Australia for example) there is no longer a spoiler issue. My view is that as long as WWE don't acknowledge it (which they don't until after the show airs in the US except in exceptional circumstances - ie Edge's title win), it's a spoiler. Not withstanding Lid's argument under WP:SPOILER which bluntly I think needs to be reviewed - precisely because of the can of worms it opens up. !! Justa Punk !! 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Before we go ahead and create a page, here are some guidlines out of the top of my head. Feel free to comment immediately after each guidline.

• Spoilers from SmackDown! are not inserted into any article until after the show has aired in America.
  • This seems inconsistent to me with putting dates in championship tables for the actual date won. If, for the purposes of updating the articles of The Miz and John Morrison we don't consider them as having won the belts until November 16, shouldn't that then be the date that's used in List of WWE Tag Team Champions? It's going to be the date used here and always is except in cases like when they gave away Kurt Angle and Edge winning the world title on WWE.com Tromboneguy0186 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the show doesn't air "in America" at the same time. The East coast gets it three hours before we get it in the West. Tromboneguy0186 01:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, that's my error. Still, if the Eastern has seen it and its entered into articles, its considered a spoiler for the West. Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The first guideline still fails to address how this is opposite WP:SPOILER and that this policy is unenforcible, to me anyway, in good faith as it has no rationl basis other than not wanting to be spoiled. The argument for "reliability" of these results only comes up with WWE, it is never questioned the reliability of say IWA-MS posted ont the internet and that has an even smaller contingent of people attending. Not to mention that EVERY TIME a title change occurs on a taped show the entire internet comes here to post it and they are always correct in policy to do so. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Spoilers from SmackDown! can be inserted into articles only if recognised by WWE.com before the first airing in America.
  • See above. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not put pure speculation into articles that may constitute a future storyline, and possibly a spoiler.
  • The spoiler part is unneeded, being speculation is removable by wikipedia policy anyway. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • So is the above guidline not needed? Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not create pages based on a current event in wrestling, for instance the cryptic computer messages.

• If a title change occures at a event, revert any edits that you may see, and leave a hidden note, stating to users not to insert the change. If this persists, ask for the page to be protected.
  • This makes no sense, in fact going to RFPP here seems to be the opposite of what should occur. See above for reasons, but I felt this needed additions as the idea of requesting page protection in this case is counter to wikipedia's own policy. It's a content dispute, not "vandalism". –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope it isn't. We wouldn't get it fully protected, as most of the time its just IP's doing it. We'd get it semi-protected. It's edit-warring I'd guess. Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Do not use "dirtsheets" as a source for spoilers, as they are not WP:RS.
  • Once again; not everything a dirtsheet says is true, but they are only questioned over the validity of backstage fights orother shenanigans. No one doubts the reliability of their results coverage. This same test can be applied to TV show spoiler websites, no they are not always reliable, but they are used as sources none the less because on the whole they are right and they are not passed off simply because some of it turned out to be incorrect. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That's been my issue with the general opinion here. It seems that dirtsheets are considered unreliable because of a chance that they're wrong. Some of these sites contain the top reporters of the field we're covering: professional wrestling. That alone is one of the top requirements for a reliable source. Mshake3 00:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The only "dirtsheet" I trust is Wrestling Observer. Nothing else. PWInsider has a load of popups, and therefore annoying. The vast majority of them, Wrestling-Edge, PWMania aren't reliable (even though they are posting fact, not fiction). Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• If a user repeatedly breaks the above guidlines, on more than five occassions, alert a wrestling-friendly administrator.
  • Admin-shopping is a terrible thing to do, paragraph three of WP:ADMIN "Because administrators are expected to be experienced members of the community, users seeking help will often turn to an administrator for advice and information. In general, administrators acting in this role are neutral; they do not have any direct involvement in the issues they are helping people with." This is to say I would recuse myself from wrestling situations as I am knowledgable on the topic but the way I am interpreting this, considering the above, isn't for a wrestling-friendly administrator but a wrestling PROJECT friendly administrator. There is a significant and important difference between the two. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • How? Not many admins know our rulesguidlines. If someone ignores our guidlines, what do we do? Nothing!!! We need to do something. Wouldn't you want to see these spoiler vandals gone? Davnel03 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Our rules? Admins follow wikipedia rules, not a projects rules. Spoiler vandals? There is no vandalism here, it's a content dispute. I'm not sure if you understand that the nexus of this dispute is that wikiprojects can not overrule wikipedia policy, especially based off personal feelings of "I don't want to be spoiled". –– Lid^(Talk) 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
        • OK, not rules, guidlines. It's not a content dispute. We have never included spoilers into articles, never. Why change it now? Davnel03 16:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Posting spoilers is in no way, shape or form vandalism. Does it go against the conesensus of WP:PW? Yes. Does it go against the consensus of the wikipedia community as a whole? No, and therein lies the problem. If I'm removing spoilers, it's because dirt sheets are not reliable sources. The only issue I see now is solving whether or not we post SmackDown results after it airs in Australia. I could go either way on this one to be honest, and therefore will let the discussion play out. Whatever the consensus becomes regarding this, I will abide by. Bmg916^Speak 16:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • OK, it's not vandalism. And I for one live in the UK, another country where SD! is broadcast before America (infact, I'm watching SD! on YouTube). Even so, it is not in any way, shape or form credited on WWE.com until after the American broadcast. Reliable sources. I'll try and find a set of spoilers that are reliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
              • It having aired to an audience is evidence enough it has occurred and can be cited with template:cite episode, and is entirely reliable. Not all sources are web based. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I would like to note as a point of interest, that SmackDown! Airs at 3:30pmAEDT on Friday afternoons in Australia, which is 11:30pm EST on Thursday night here in the States. Bmg916^Speak 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Ok before this continues I would like to state that the Australia vs America spoiler debate is an OFFSHOOT of the major topic - which is results posted on the internet before the event is televised and their inclusion, especially in regards to title changes. WWE is both a sport and an entertainment - the proponents of the entertainment side see the shows as television shows in general and they do not want the events to be spoiled for them, the sport side see the events as akin to boxing or well... indy wrestling events in which the results exist as soon as the event has occurred. I will state for the record in this regard, if it isn't already extremely evident, I fall on the sport side of interpretation in regards to this.
            • Now the major point of contention between the two, ignoring the "but it's a spoiler" argument which is pretty much considered to have no merit is that wrestling news sites are unreliable i nature and thus anything they post is unreliable. I am going to use an analogy from poker, more precisely the world series of poker, as to why this is a no-win situation for wrestling news sites/dirtsheets. The WSOP occurs in the middle of the year but is not aired until months after. While the website does post the results of the events that most up-to-date news on the event and what is largely used in sourcing what happened during an event is, in fact, poker news sites that have their own "reporters" e-mailing the editors with their information. Take this same situation and apply it to WWE tapings and we have the same situation only that the wrestling results posted on news sites are now unreliable because they are on wrestling news sites. Where else on the internet are these results going to be except wrestling news sites? Nowhere. They are there because they are wrestling news and then they are written off because wrestling news sites report wrestling news, it's a catch 22. The results themselves are, to my mind excluding one incident back in June 2006, been accurate in regards to what happened during the show, and their exclusion on the grounds of unreliability is simply wrong. –– Lid^(Talk) 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One or two of the above are probably not needed and useless, but I've just typed these up out of the top of my head. Leave comments in between each point, and discuss if anything seems wrong with the point I've made. Cheers! Davnel03 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the view that unless WWE announce it on their website, it's the breaching of "privacy" (for want of a better word) - sort of like a report from the set of a soapie saying that a major character is being killed off before any news breaks about the actor or actress leaving the show. We don't want to know! If we want to spoiler hunt, there are ways and means of doing that. I think we should consider Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as current WWE news not on the site could be considered as a violation of that guideline. Besides - this isn't a wrestling site either. It's an encyclopedia. !! Justa Punk !! 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That section of WP:NOt does not apply, at all, to this discussion. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lid here. If it's aired (regardless of where in the world), I believe it should be added, should a reliable source be reached. Finding one is the problem. WON is probably the most reliable one you could find, I think it should be able to be used, but only for match results. Rumors, speculation and all the other dirtsheet aspects should not. -- Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree, too. As I have stated before, to me, it is an issue of reliable sources and the fact that I don't like to use dirtsheets/news sites for any purpose. However...if it has aired somewhere in the world...it becomes a non-issue. It should be included as the episode itself is the reliable source. Nikki311 18:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be heading off track a little. Heading back to the original discussion, should we have a spoiler subpage, with the following revised proposals:

• Spoilers from SmackDown! are not inserted into any article unless there is a reliable source.If a reliable source cannot be found, it can only be inserted after it has aired in Australia (the first contry to air that weeks edition of SmackDown!)

• Do not create pages based on a current event in wrestling, for instance the cryptic computer messages.

• If a title change occures at a event, revert any edits that you may see if it is not credited with a reliable source.

• Do not use "dirtsheets" as a source for spoilers, as they are not WP:RS. Certain "dirtsheet" website however are reliable, please see below for information on which websites we believe are reliable.

Now that we have some sort of guidlines, what websites are reliable? Below are a list of sites that are unreliable and reliable. Discuss which are reliable and unreliable. If there is a clear consensus that a website listed below is unreliable, it can be removed. It's not the best thing to do, but I couldn't think of any other way to solve this issue. Thanks!

Reliability of

WrestleView

• I personally think this website is reliable, but there has been disagreement about this website before. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This site just copies all their news from PWInsider. Every news article I've seen you use as a source starts out with "PWInsider reports...."Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling-Edge

• In my view, this is almost certainly unreliable. Several of their headlines read unreliable to me. Their headlines are a clear copy-vio of PWMania. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PWMania

• Same opinion as Wrestling-Edge. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerweck

• I'm torn over this one. Some aspects of it say reliable some say unreliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PWInsider - blacklisted.

• I used to go on the website, but never do anymore. Not because of whether its reliable or not, but because of annoying popups. Even though it does have some good reporters, some of its website is unreliable. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought we're discussing the reliability of a website, not it's annoyance. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, you consider Dave Meltzer one of the most respected reporters in the business. I have the same respect, and more, for PWI's Dave Scherer and Buck Woodward. Mshake3 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer

• Reliable. Dave Meltzer is one of the most respected reporters in the business, and I doubt he would put false information on his website. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Meltzer posts the Smackdown tapings results on his site. So, we can add spoilers if they're from Meltzer? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, although it is reliable, Meltzer doesn't go to the events himself - someone e-mails him the taping results, which he puts on his website - so the results might still not be reliable. Davnel03 21:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Every newspaper, and newssite in the world's articles are made by a third-party reporter. The reliability of the reporter is never questioned, the reliability of the publisher is. So, the person who writes the results is completely irrelevant; if Meltzer thinks the report is appropiate for his site, then it is considered reliable by Meltzer. Now, the real question is, do we trust Meltzer with: What is reliable. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 04:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
        • IF the report sounds believable he will post it. I have seen reports that were wrong. While Melzter may be reliable (and maybe the rest of the people who work for his site), e-mail from random people aren't. If Meltzer himself goes to the event and writes the spoiler report, that is different. TJ Spyke 19:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Just what I was going to say. Davnel03 19:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

SLAM! Sports

• This isn't a "dirtsheet" as such, but the reliability I remember was questioned by someone a few weeks ago. I'm pretty sure its fully reliable, though. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• It was questioned by a blocked editor using a sockpuppet account to disrupt Wikipedia. His opinion on this reliable website does not count. - Deep Shadow 22:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I could list loads more, but some are definite copy-vios of others, most notably Wrestling-Edge and PWMania. -- Davnel03 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

I think it's about time we put this to a vote. This debate - until Get Dumb's edit - was disrupting the article no matter who was at fault. It's why I called for an opinion from a member of ArbCom (I haven't checked for a reply this morning yet). So - let's get a consensus on this. The options are;

1. Wait until the WWE event airs in the US
2. Wait until the WWE event airs elsewhere if applicable
3. Wait until a reliable spoiler appears on the Internet

Also - we need guidelines, and Davnel certainly has my OK to create that page. We can get a consensus that way as well. I strongly recommend that we make a decision on this by the next Smackdown taping - just in case. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Option 1 !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment option 1 can not, rationally, be a choice. After it has aired, at least somewhere in the world it can not be considered a spoiler still and after which point it is definitely against wikipedia policy of inclusion. We do not write the rules, and this looking for consensus is still ignoring the problem as a whole. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm with Lid on this discussion being pointless. Consensus is useless here, as this is a discussion about who has interpreted the policies correctly. We know that one party has it wrong; once it has been determined who it is this will end. The Hybrid T/C 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Agree with Lid about option one. It was my misunderstanding over that part yesterday. Depending on what you consider a reliable sorce (see above), I believe only SLAM! Sports, PWInsider and Wrestling Observer are reliable sources. Davnel03 09:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PWINsider is blacklisted. It is an unreliable dirtsheet, and it will always be such. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 20:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you even know why it's blacklisted? Please provide proof of it. Mshake3 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. We're talking like a previous consensus doesn't exist - and it does. That consensus was that all spoilers be removed until it airs in the US. Bluntly, I'm of the view that Lid is violating WP:NPOV by pushing the WP:SPOILER policy in such a way that it has been disrupting Wikipedia. Whether or not he's right or wrong is beside the point. We'll never get a fresh consensus if this keeps up - no matter what policy may be right or wrong. We'll just keep going around in circles on the left of the chart at WP:CCC. The point is that the only reliable source in this instance on the Internet is WWE.com. I take up Hybrid's point about third party info to wrestling news sites in saying that. Now - let's bring in the issue of places that see Smackdown before the US (such as Australia). We are now in the same position as the news sites. Who's to say the edit is correct and accurate? I could make the edit and say it happened - but where's my back up? I don't have it - therefore the edit fails WP:OR.

So in a nutshell, we can't apply WP:SPOILER, unless we pass WP:OR, WP:V or any other applicable policy. The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US and is acknowledged by WWE.com. And not before. I invite Lid to prove otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 23:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I shall add that not all policies are equal. The legal policies, such as WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:FAIR, are non-negotiable. They exist to prevent Wikipedia from having any legal troubles, and as such they trump any other policies and guidelines, such as WP:SPOILER. The Hybrid T/C 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To Justa Punk; You have not rationalised why the event airing in Australia means it can not be posted and instead keep assuming I'm doing what I a doing in bad faith. I am not, and despite your claims to the contrary I am trying to improve these entries so that they are in line with the rest of wikipedia and not an arbitrary consensus you keep makining reference to. This line "The only time we can pass all of those policies is when the event airs in the US" has absolutely no basis in both fact or policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that you are doing what you are doing in good faith. Anyway, the basis in policy is that the only reliable report out there for the results is the WWE.com report, as no wrestling sites actually have an employee do the research, so they aren't even the source. The Hybrid T/C 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The episodes themselves have always been reliable sources, and no one on wikipedia will claim otherwise if you brought this topic to them. The general public can not be omitted as a source and for fictional television, which is what this is, wikipedia allows the citing of the episode it occurred in as a reliable source because it is the same thing as WWE.com (so long as it lacks OR or an editorial agenda). –– Lid^(Talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is no reliable way to know what has happened on that episode until WWE.com reports it. There is no way to omit the middle man, ie. the original research required to know the results before the actual site acknowledges that it has taken place. The Hybrid T/C 23:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the completely wrong way to look at it, that means assuming the website goes down after an event, or during a pay per view, then what is happening on the event and pay per view in front of tens of thousands of people is unreliable. WP:OR does not apply in this as the events themselves are the sources. This has been agreed upon not just here, but on wikipedia as a whole, far longer than any debate about "spoilers" have existed. If you wish to counter this you would need to argue that every television show ever can not be usd as a source on its own content unless they have a website that published daily synopsis which is impossible. Not all sources are web based, and more importantly they do not need to be. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can get into more detail if asked, but my real quick opion; I agree with waiting until it airs in the US (this only really applies to SmackDown since people tend to rarely add in iMPACT spoilers due to it airing in the US first). The worst case scnerio would be to write the spoiler but have it hidden (using the <!--- ---> tags), it would only be listed for 1 day max. Is it at least agreed to revert spoilers before they air ANYWHERE? Sometime people add them Tuesday night and Wednesdays. TJ Spyke 00:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Being spoilers does not mean they are to be reverted. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never said the edits were bad faith. I don't recall spoilers being described as bad faith edits. They are simply haven't been accepted by consensus. My issue with Lid is that he is pushing WP:SPOILER without taking into account the other policies (thank you Hybrid for adding other relevant policies). Now then, suppose someone says that there has been a title change on Smackdown after it has aired in Australia? Do we just accept it? As long as WWE.com has not reported on it - the posting of such is a violation of WP:OR. Reason - there is no back up. No way to comply with WP:V. Is Lid saying that we should ignore those policies? I hope not.

So let's make this clear - perhaps we should say that the reason "spoilers" should not be presented is not because of WP:SPOILER. It's because of WP:OR and WP:V. Who's the say an Australian editor is telling the truth? I could say after next week's Smackdown is shown here that Edge won the World Title in an impromptu triple threat match with Batista and the Undertaker if I wanted to - and by your suggested process, Lid, it would be accepted. Where's my back up? Not WWE.com - so WP:V is in instant violation. I hope that settles that. !! Justa Punk !! 01:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Punk, this would be a matter of WP:AGF. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 02:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:V supercede WP:AGF, Lex. Because even though the edit may be in good faith, if it fails the other two (at least) it can't stay. WP:AGF prevents punishment for such a edit - as it should. It isn't a automatic green light for violations of other WP policies. !! Justa Punk !! 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "Original Research". How can it be original research if it is cited by the episode, as they saw it wih their own eyes. And I am not too familiar with WP:V, but the source is verifiable, by any single australian who watched the show. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It has everything to do with original research, Lex. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable (direct from WP:OR). Presenting something from a TV screen without back up is promoting one's own point of view. I could turn around and say I saw a story about someone famous on my local TV news - by your logic. And because it's someone famous it passes the notability rules for a start - just like WWE would. WP:V is there for a reason, and no - any Australian who saw it would NOT be a reliable source. The show itself is not the source - which again is what Hybrid was saying. We - as editors - are NOT reliable sources by WP definition (ie WP:OR). And also; Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. (direct from WP:V). Heavy emphasis on published. TV is not a published source, so it fails as a source by that definition. Even the American WWE showings fail - they pass because of WWE.com and other third party reports from people who saw it combined. That is - an original source with third party back up. Not purely because of TV presentation. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Punk you are the minority in this view, and are the one misusing policy. If you are so sure of your position I would recommend requesting template:cite episode for deletion because from your interpretation this template endorses an unverifiable view as it is put in by wikipedia users. Episodes of television series are not OR, verifiable and accepted on wikipedia, claiming otherwise ignores the facts of wikipedia and the spirit of the rules. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Where's the proof that I'm in the minority, Lid? We haven't even got a new consensus yet to over ride the previous one. I shall certainly look to have that template deleted - because this is asking for open slather for anyone to cite anything on television (such as on the news) and no one would be any the wiser outside of the local area. I could go ahead and claim that I saw Edge arrested on drug charges (outside the Wellness Program so it wouldn't appear on WWE.com) on that TV newscast. And according to you - it's fine. See the problem now? And that's just a single possibility of literally hundreds. It's OR without another source. !! Justa Punk !! 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep believing the consensus here is the consensus of wikipedia, which it isn't, and even here from comments from most users (excluding yourself and The Hybrid) have been that the episodes are reliable. Your claims are hyperbolic and excessive, say I invent a book out of thin air and cite it on the same quote. Would you have the book cite deleted because it can be abused? No, you wouldn't because it's abuse is not its purpose; its use is its purpose. The potential for harm is one that is taken into account but that potential does not mean that these, that exist, are not to be used. Your position is, truly, on no solid ground and has so many holes in it whether through policy, logic, application and common sense that I have no idea how you came to the conclusion you have. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - this is getting us nowhere. I can not continue this debate without violating WP:CIVIL because it is clear I am not being believed or understood. In fact I believe Lid is running clcse to violating it himself (hyperpolic and excessive - I take extreme offence to that as I consider it to be a rude misrepresentation). Unless anyone other than Lid has an objection - I'm taking this matter up with the appropriate people. This needs to be sorted out once and for all to the satisfaction of all parties, and we need new people in to view the situation. I just have to choose which course to take.

Quick note - Lid should review WP:CCC and recognise that until he came in we had a WP consensus by the chart noted, because no one lodged an objection until he did. !! Justa Punk !! 12:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"we had a WP consensus" "Lid should review WP:CCC" Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind. A small group making a decision does so on behalf of the community as a whole, at a point in time. If the community disagrees, the decision was badly founded, or views change, then the updated consensus replaces the old one.

"I am no being believed or understood" - no you are being understood just fine the only problem is that your arguments have no footing. I used the phrase "hyperbolic and excessive" because you chose a position tha can be applied to any medium but are instead applying it only to television. I saw that you are "taking it up with appropriate people" whose response was "Please do not bring your kerfuffle over here." I truly stress that you look over your statements and replies and try to understand why there is such resistance to your stance. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't "taken it to the appropriate people" yet. What you mentioned is seperate - and the aforementioned template has now been sent to TfD. You don't understand my offence at your attitude towards this issue (Hybrid reflected on this quite well at the bottom of this section), and are in effect ignoring it. Hence my reference to having to bite my tongue before I violate WP:CIVIL. !! Justa Punk !! 22:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that other editors don't want to include information unless they "see it for themselves." I know this has come up with local cable company PPV commercials, leading to the warning tag of "do not add information unless it has been confirmed by WWE on WWE weekly television or WWE.com." Mshake3 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well isn't "see it for ourselves" the same sort of thinking that gave rise to rules like WP:OR and WP:V, MShake? The rules are there to ensure accuracy. I'm sure we're all for that. A great example was the argument as to whether or not New Year's Revolution had been cancelled. It wasn't until WWE.com posted their upcoming pay per view table that the argument was resolved. Before that, some people were insisting that it had been, but they couldn't get past either OR or V or both. Even the one user who claimed that he'd got an email from WWE and posted a screenshot. The sceptics were all over him, because it was in effect WP:OR. That's the issue here. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The news of NYR's cancellation came from PWInsider, which of course is blacklisted. >:( Mshake3 (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with WWE.com is they can rewrite history of the show whenever they want. For example, while I don't believe their edits went that far, they could remove all mentions of Chris Benoit from their show results. Does that mean it never happened? As for the concern of fans sending in inaccurate information, who cares? Once again, we're considering something to be unreliable due to the small chance that it's inaccurate. Mshake3 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once it's been on WWE.com originally, they can remove it if they want. It doesn't change the fact that they recognised it or whatever. And the third party sources that backed up their first line would still be there as well. Anyway - we're talking about post showing with your statement there, not (dare I use the word) spoilers. WWE are more likely to just ignore rather than delete. A great example is that they aren't mentioning Taker's win-loss record in Hell in a Cell at all. If they did, they'd have to mention who he lost to - and I can't see WWE acknowledging that on current TV even though it did happen and it is still all over the third party sources - reliable and otherwise. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the episodes are unreliable; I'm saying that until WWE.com confirms what happened in the episode you can't prove that the events you're inserting actually took place. WP:AGF applies to inter-Wikipedian relations, not to content inserted into articles. We don't assume that a person is telling the truth when they insert content; we ask for a good source, and then remove it if they can't provide one. We assume they had good intentions, but we still remove it. Like I said, you can't prove that the event actually took place in the episode, as the content contained within the episode is undefined. A while back you mentioned "not excluding the general public". The general public would be those who watched the episode on TV, not the few-thousand people who were at the event. The general public can't be used until the general public actually knows what happened. Do keep in mind that the IWC is only a very small percentage of wrestling fans, as is the fanbase in Australia, so the general public is happily oblivious until the event airs on US TV. The Hybrid T/C 18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, I've said before that consensus is entirely irrelevant to this matter, so I would like to see that word not be used anymore, but I would also like to not be told I'm in the minority, as the larger group who hate spoilers are sick of arguing about this ad nauseam, and are content to let those of us who are willing to debate this do so on their behalf. The Hybrid T/C 18:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Hybrid! And you'll find that the silent majority who hate spoilers have another good reason as well. Wikipedia is not a news site. In this case WP:NOT supercedes WP:SPOILER. I'm getting pretty sick of this debate, and Lid's obvious lack of understanding of pro wrestling and how spoilers differ in it to any other spoiler. I'm going to look for options now regarding this issue, and I'm leaning towards RfC at the moment, but it might change. Other options are 3O (which I doubt because there are more than two editors involved) and ANI. I haven't seen Morven so it looks like ArbCom is out, unless things get worse. !! Justa Punk !! 22:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, we are not social workers!

• Encyclopedia- Comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge.

• • Spoilers are information; therfore they should be in the articles. This point cannot and will not be opposed, because it is a fact. (See WP:Spoiler)

• Social Worker- concerned with social problems, their causes, their solutions and their human impacts.

• • Social workers care for the feelings of people who were spoiled, and would tend to their whining. But because we aren't social workers... WE SHOULDN'T DON'T CARE. Please don't oppose this point with saying that "We are social workers" because this would be a very poor argument, as it is completely false. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

what this got to do with it, Lex? Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What it's not is a news site - social workers have nothing to do with it. Allow spoilers and it becomes a news site. Do you care about that? I think the silent majority do. !! Justa Punk !! 08:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - because an RfC would take too long, I've opted for ANI. !! Justa Punk !! 22:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

House Shows issue

I've reverted Clonetrooper's edits on the Professional wrestling in Australia page as he insists on adding a little house show note called the Brisbane Cup. As it is only a house show it fails WP:N and yet he insists on posting it. I have told him that house show specific info is not notable - and I expect him to argue the point. Some help may be needed over this. !! Justa Punk !! 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Pruning Notice

Leaderboard ready for COTW beginning 18th November:

• History of professional wrestling - Twelve Supports
• Survivor Series (1997) - Ten Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have twelve votes
• Stone Cold Steve Austin - Eight Supports
• The Fingerpoke of Doom - Seven Supports - but set to be PRUNED MONDAY! if it doesn't have nine votes
• The Fabulous Moolah - Six Supports
• Cyber Sunday (2006) - Six Supports
• Mr. Fuji - Four Supports
• Santo - Three Supports
• Dusty Rhodes - Three Supports

I'm disappointed by the lack of interest over at the COTW, and the lack of response from thr ocment above I made yesterday. If no one has supported the articles that are set to be pruned later today by 4pm ET, they WILL be pruned. Davnel03 15:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The striked ones have been pruned. However, we need more votes, otherwise it will be pruned. -- Davnel03 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

New article - Backlash (2007)

Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that User:Kevin Hotfury has gone and created this page without alerting us. -- Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Judgment Day (2007) –– Lid^(Talk) 10:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Metal to the Max!

User talk:Metal to the Max! Left a message on my userpage saying I was kicked from Pro Wrestling Project because I knew nothing about wrestling, and left me a link to Ron Simmon's talk page. I went there, and I saw a message from a few months back I left, saying damn wasn't his catch phrase, I only used it once (this was when he said it only once). He then responded on the talk page saying I wasn't a real fan, etc. Very ridiculous, so just watch out for him vandalizing...-- Kris (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

PPV task force

I noticed that the last WWF ppv and the upcoming Survivor Series have their own articles. What about starting new articles for each of the upcoming WWF ppv? It would be pretty easy considering the details of these events that occur leading up to the ppv would be fresh on everyone's mind and references would be ridiculously easy to locate. The reason I bring this up is cause I noticed users going back and creating pages for inconsequential PPVs (Backlash 07 & December to Dismember come to mind). They do excellent jobs, but I would imagine this process each month with a new PPV would be even easier as a group, given it's timing and would be beneficial down the road. Thoughts? --Endless Dan 21:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you've zoomed back to 2001, its the WWE, not the WWF! :) Onto topic, I tend to agree with you there. Davnel03 21:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Phooey. I'm not giving into some Panda and a couple of tree-huggers. --Endless Dan 21:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was already the plan. Go for it, in case it's not. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See my notice below. Davnel03 10:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Heavy on Wrestling

So, anybody else think we should put a speedy delete on Heavy on Wrestling, and all of its unnotable workers? Kris (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it non-notable? They had Baron Von Raschke, Nora Greenwald, Christy Hemme and "Wild" Bill Irwin at their last event. Jake Roberts, Rikishi and Hemme will be at their next event. That seems somewhat notable to me, or at least notable enought that a speedy delete is probably not in order. I'm open to opinions, though. There could very well be precedents in WP:PW that I'm not aware of. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Having notable wrestlers and being a notable promotion are two different things, the indy circuit has lots of "notable" people that wrestle on them at some time or another but they do not grant promotions notability by proxy. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The bigger point is that they've only had one show. NOBODY's notable after one show. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters, but they are having their second show tonight (November 17) which features Christy Hemme, Jake "The Snake" Roberts and Rikishi among several other lesser known wrestlers. I know it may be for the wrong reasons, but the reason I dumpster dived to save this article awhile back was that I was very impressed that a 22 year old kid could pull this type of promotion together with these big names and donate part of the proceedings to a good cause, and that he plans to continue to do it as long as possible. The first show was verified by newspapers and other media outlets. --Naha|^(talk) 08:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References at MfD

Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/References is at MfD. -- Jreferee t/c 01:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 WWE PPV's notice

Judgment Day (2007) is now being created as a seperate article. This means that we now have the following as being expanded or have been expanded:

• WrestleMania 23
• Backlash (2007)
• Judgment Day (2007)
• One Night Stand (2007)
• Vengeance: Night of Champions
• The Great American Bash (2007)
• SummerSlam (2007)
• Cyber Sunday (2007)
• Survivor Series (2007)

• No Mercy (2007) is being worked on here.

If anyone wishes to fill in the gaps and expand TGAB 2007 and Unforgiven 2007, please do. Also note that Armageddon 2007 will be split next weekend.

This is obviously a good thing, but is beginning to leave a huge amount of broken links in articles. Just as a note, make sure, either using AWB or something else to repair the links and send them to the right location! Davnel03 10:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloodymania

This page about a JCW event is in need of some serious work. Among others, the matches are described, poorly, in blow-by-blow style. I'll leave it to your capable hands as I'm not sure when and how to begin. --_The Hiddey_ 10:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the event even notable? Davnel03 12:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

No. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Prodded. Davnel03 13:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod has been removed. Shall I take to AFD? Davnel03 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The prod was removed, so you might want to take it to AfD. Nikki311 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD'd. Davnel03 15:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WPPW Newsletter

I did it! The Show/Hide bar is on the newsletter. Please go to User:Lex94/Sandbox and tell me if you like it this way. I prefer it this way because it doesn't take up much space on the talk page. Thoughts? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 14:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I think that's a great idea. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I will integrate it into the drawing board. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Billy Reil

This article has been nominated for deletion, see here. I never normally notify the project about deletion debates, but this one seems different. Unlike others, looking at the article, it seems to have numerous reliable references and seems to satisfy notability. Am I wrong when I say that? I was a bit surprised when I seen the AFD notice. Davnel03 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It was actually went through a rewrite since it wad AFD'd. It originally looked like this [6]. --65.95.16.135 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ricochet (wrestler)

Anybody else think Ricochet (wrestler) should be prodded? Kris (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did it. Nikki311 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem with move names

This is goofy. On an article like Nelson Frazier, Jr. the move list is broken up into characters, which gives the impression (to me) that moves not under a character name weren't done unless they were being done as that character, but that's not true. So in order to rectify that someone decided to just repeat everything three times. There has got to be a better way to do this.«»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You could have the common moves at the top of the list, before it splits for each character - DrWarpMind (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I know for several some of the articles that Deep Shadow and I have worked on together, we decided it was better to list all the moved together, even if they had different names and were used under different gimmicks...it reduces redundancy and makes the section look less listy. I went ahead and fixed it like that, but I can't guarantee it won't be reverted. Nikki311 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

New article - The Great American Bash (2007)

Just thought I'd give everyone a notice that I've created the article The Great American Bash (2007). -- LAX 02:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

History of professional wrestling now the COTW

What the title says. Also, despite the fact WWE had 15 votes or so to become the COTW, not much progress was made in terms of referencing on the article, see the diff. Davnel03 10:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally, both Survivor Series (1997) and The Fingerpoke of Doom need two more votes each to survive being pruned tomorrow! Please vote for them here. Also, next weeks COTW will be the FACOTW! Davnel03 10:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Issue at List of WWE Tag Team Champions

In the List of WWE Tag Team Champions article, I've put (John Morrison formerly Johnny Nitro) under Miz & Morrison's reign, but it was reverted by BBoy, citing that it isn't done in other articles (namely List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE). Personally I think it should be, because your typical non-wrestling fan layman is going to read this article and wonder who John Morrison is and how he got 4 title reigns. I just don't see why we would list former ringnames in individual title lists but not tag title lists. I did essentially the same thing on IWGP World Tag Team Championship quite a while back. So I was just wondering what the community's opinion was on this before it goes any further. --MarcK 12:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in listing the "formerly", if it's a new name, just link it and those that don't know can check the link if they're curious enough. That way the title format isn't cluttered up with too much information MPJ-DK (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with MPJ. Davnel03 12:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it IS done in other title lists (crusierweight), so I think it should be done here. Mshake3 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Mshake is right. Helms had three reigns, under three different ring names and that was noted. It shouldn't be any different here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So the "someone did it somewhere" is now consensus? How about discussing the pros and cons of each and then make a decision based on that - not being all sheepish about it you know? My 2 cents is, link the new name, keep the count (or if you must put it in the "Note" section, for the love of puddin' it's there for just such a reason) MPJ-DK (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I think the "Note" section is a great compromise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In Your House 1: Premiere

Just letting you know that I have nominated In Your House 1: Premiere for FA status. As a result of this discussion, please do not support it without leaving a comment. If you do have legitimate problems with the article, or if there is something you do not understand, please do say at the FAC, I don't mind. The other thing, about major contributers being allowed to vote doesn't really apply to this article, as I have made most of the contributions to the article. Thanks! Davnel03 13:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do the 411mania sources add to the article? It's not considered a reliable source, and it's only used in places where there is already another reference. Perhaps it would be better to get rid of it altogether. And are there any other reviews/recaps of the show available? Although I understand that The History of WWE is a quality site, I'm not sure how it would look to people outside the project to have 55 facts referenced by an Angelfire page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out (2007)

I am going to work on the No Way Out (2007) article, as part of the PPV expansion, hopefully we will get all the 2007 ppv's expanded.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE New Year's Revolution

Later tonight, I'll begin work on New Year's Revolution (2007). Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble (1994) - GA Nominee

This article has undegone a peer review process and I informed members of the project one week ago that I would be nominating it for GA-status. My preference is that the review is done by someone outside of the project, as I want to avoid accusations of conflict of interest. And, as always, if you can see any problems with the article, please let me know. Thank you to everyone who has helped so much to get it to this level. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cage of Death

This is notable? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)