Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:35, 12 October 2008

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

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 57. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

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

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

Injuries

Could we put a section stating all of the Wrestler's injuries, and with the Divas (and Knockouts) putting if they have like breast implants or something. I'm just throwing it out there. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 23:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implants wtf? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I think it would be hard to dig up a concrete "source" that they have implants in the first place, but I mean, you could just look at them and figure that one out. Really not necessary, I think. As for a list of injuries, I don't see a real reason for it; the career section would handle that pretty well and it doesn't seem like something that needs listing, as opposed to, say, theme music or finishing moves. DoomsDay349 01:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be quite interested in a list of injuries, it would be a lot more citable than breast implants (I love the inference that female cosmetic surgery somehow equates to male body injury) but I don't know where it would fit in the article as it would look place in the In Wrestling section, certainly isn't an accomplishment but is already in the career section so would have to be apart from that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That, by no means, was a misogynistic comment. I was just saying like in the info box it could say if they had implants. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 00:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA Problems huh

Okay gerweck.net has reported that TNA has cancelled Genesis (2008) which is a month away and replaced in with Turning Point (2008) which takes place in December. No word on what takes its place in December. Now TNA has not acknowledged this one bit. They have nothing on their website about Turning Point or Genesis. In Demand has the Turning Point poster up and it says November 9 on it. I do not know what to do here. Should I go with the unknown reliable source or the somewhat reliable source, or maybe just wait till TNA says something.--WillC 22:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say wait until an official announcement with something like that. EDIT: Actually, there's a poster, so I'd be tempted to go with the unknown RS. D.M.N. (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm just going to wait. TNA still has said nothing and to change stuff a month away would be considered stupid by TNA. Until further info comes along by Wrestling Observer, TNA, or WrestleView I'm going to leave it like it is.--WillC 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to debate here. The InDemand page is a reliable source in terms of dates, posters, and official synpois. Mshake3 (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the poster doesn't say there is no Genesis. That is the problem. You can change the date for Turning Point but it doesn't mean there is no Genesis. Genesis in December would work because of the name is from the Bible and Christmas is in December. It would work.--WillC 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put Genesis as TBA, simple as that. Mshake3 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done. Because we have no source that says it will not happen, just one from January that says it was supposed to happen in November. Though I have a source from WrestleView that says it will be at the Impact Zone, so that can be placed in there.--WillC 02:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And anothing thing, can we please stop with this "WrestleView is reliable" BS? They are a "copy and paste" website, nothing more. Mshake3 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been found as a reliable source. Some of its articles are actually fully wrote by Adam Martin.--WillC 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that. Every time I see a source from that site, it's attributed to another site. It's been given unfair preferal treatment due to having no popup ads and being a favorite of one paticular editor. Mshake3 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth passed it as an RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who the "one particular editor" is, but I was the one that built the case for reliability to Ealdgyth. It was accepted as reliable due to a combination of having a process to verify its writers' credibility and being promoted by a reliable source as a good place for accurate information. Popup ads (or the lack thereof) didn't come up in the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody can help out....

The following discussion shall be archived to avoid uncivility, attacks, and irrelevant topics. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.--S_RX 13:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Simple English Wikipedia there is a WP:PW, however there is hardly no one working on wrestling article's, me and User: ChristianMan16 are both over there and if anybody could help out a little bit it would be really appreciated. If anybody is interested please contact me on my talk page. We need your help!!!. SteelersFan94 15:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the point of a Simple English encyclopedia anyway... do you see "Simple Spanish", "Simple Italian", "Simple German", "Simple Russian", "Simple Portugese"?? No! Why? Because its unnecessary. English isnt that hard to understand... and if it isn't your language, you shouldn't be reading an english encyclopedia... Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's a hell of a-lot easier than this. and less stressful. SteelersFan94 23:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too right, if it isn't your language bugger off to your own encyclopedia. How dare you try and learn something and expand your mind in a step-by-step process. Tony2Times (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Im trying to say is that consistency is an important part of Wikipedia, and unless there is a Simple version for each language, there shouldn't be one for English. What makes English so special? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 13:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I really don't want to get into that but from what I've heard English is one of the hardest languages to learn =. And it's a lot less drama than this project! SteelersFan94 18:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if WP:PW is a lot of drama, no one is forcing you to be a member or participate in it.--S_RX 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL funny and true. Good ole SRX. JakeDHS07 21:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...but ultimately unhelpful, as chasing away project members doesn't accomplish anything positive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know it's bull shit like that comment (SRX) that creates drama because it get's a-lot of user's into it when I was just saying that if you could lend a hand it would appreciated. I know damn well no one is making me stay here but right now I think imatthew was kinda smart getting out of this. SteelersFan94 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, didn't know that little comment would be such a stir. I meant it like, "no one is forcing you mess with drama and if you can't tolerate the drama you should avoid it, and one way is possible leaving." Steelerfan, the simple English project is nothing less than this one I see no reason for it either, but no one is denying your asking of help. Also, saying IMatthew "was kinda smart getting out of this" is not helping you on your hand and is taking this discussion the wrong way. But if my comment offended you, I'm sorry, I didn't know people would read it like that.--S_RX 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry, it went to far. We've never had words and I'm sorry it started now. Now let's move on and be done with it it's PPV night so there's obviously going to be a-lot of IP action in No Mercy, everybody HAVE IT ON YOUR WATCHLIST :). SteelersFan94

Ok, thats the last straw. I know I havent been as active as of late, but I am now officially leaving WP:PW. I can't stand that everyone acts like if this was their job, and they have to obey the creed. We aren't cops, journalists, and we have absoloutely no obligation to be here. This is for pure fun! You guys apparently are too into this, or are just really really bored. I have a life, sorry for being dramatic. See ya, Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just say that I absolutely agree with Alex. It's ridiculous. I just would like to say that in case you didn't see by now, Steelerfan-94 left the project today, and I left a week or two ago. You guys need to loosen up or more will start to leave. iMatthew (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stil have no idea what Alex is talking about. Are you sure that message was posted in the correct place? It seems to come out of nowhere. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, maybe I should just keep my mouth shut next time and not participate in project discussions..Maybe then people won't start leaving =(--S_RX 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between myself and Alex, our message is basically this: you guys are not police officers and should not act like such. Wikipedia should be fun, and this project should officially be declared "not fun." Many of you have a habit of biting users, and it's not helping anybody. Nobody is impressed when you remove a thread from this page that says "Hey, I'm User:A, and I'm just letting you know that as a member of this project, I may be inactive for a month or so." Removing that thread is called biting User:A. This project has members that can be way to strict and some that just have no sense or humor, whatsoever. It's not showing an improvement to the project in any way, and needs to stop. Myself, Alex, and Steelerfan are gone, and to speak for myself, not coming back (until I see certain users disappear). Just some advice. iMatthew (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed threads that say that is because User:Scorpion0422 removed them citing "they are irrelevant to the project" so I just followed his example. Some of you also take every little thing stated on this talk page as if it bit you somewhere, if you don't like it or don't agree don't bother with it and move on with your life, leaving the project because of these little things is ridiculous, the talk page should not affect your contribution to the project.S_RX 23:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is nothing in this thread that would logically cause anyone to leave the project. If other people want to leave, whether it's because project members opposed their RfA or because project members opposed allowing a sockpuppet/friend to rejoin Wikipedia, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you have an axe to grind, do so through e-mail, or just make the choice to let it go. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen Gary, Amen.--S_RX 23:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion has removed section that have nothing to do with the project, whatsoever. Such as the recent section on the ANI thread. But a current member stating they may be inactive for the time being is relevant to the project. Also SRX, not to attack you at all, but I feel that you are one of those who take things on the talk page too seriously.[1][2][3][4] Leaving is not ridiculous, but I can't tell you how to feel. I still will continue to edit professional wrestling articles, but not as a member of this project. iMatthew (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some messages have been removed that do, in fact, have relevance to the project. I don't see the need for that. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get on your bad side Steelerfan, but your comment above exemplifies drama so how can you escape it if you are one who creates it? Anyways Matt, for #1 - I felt people were leaving because of what I said and what I did because of the removal of threads #2 - How is that taking stuff to seriously? All I said was my reason why the topic wasn't relevant instead of removing it like Scorpion would do. #3 - I obviously explained what I meant after that comment. #4 - I misinterpreted Randy's comment and thought he meant the way he explained the moves in a humorous way. Yes, Gary you're right, some stuff shouldn't get removed, but I think we should let Scorpion know about that and I agree with your above comment about members leaving.S_RX 00:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't need to take it so far an say "oh, I should keep my mouth shut" it's too dramatic. For the second link, it just gives off the sense that you are taking it too seriously, the fourth - you said "Randy, you're not funny" and that's biting him. iMatthew (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then.S_RX 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel when I leave something on here that I'm talking to User:Jimbo Wales, not a buch of wrestling dudes who want to belittle and revert. because it doesn't cover something on the WP:PW guidelines. SteelersFan94 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Who took off Lance Cade and Chris Jericho as a tag team?

Man, they have competed in tag matches together —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothers of destruction (talk • contribs) 19:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article never existed, plus they haven't done anything together but a couple of matches, they are still non-notable. Plus Jericho acts more of a mentor to Cade than a tag team partner.--S_RX 19:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really think this has gone nowhere

I know I should be bold and do something about it, but I think that other project members should help out as well and improve the Professional wrestling portal if not, we should just eliminate it, it is really not representing the project well IMO.--S_RX 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can do something with it. When's the last time the DYK, Selected Article, and Picture were changed? What should we put under the topics section? Stuff like links to WWE, TNA, NWA, and the like? DoomsDay349 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the DYK a while ago (month or two), and I update the Current news section. I don't know how the rest of it works, or how selected articles/pictures are chosen, or I would update them as well. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the DYKs are supposed to be actual WP:DYKs, not just random facts. We have a lot of those now, so I think that'll help. Also, I think selected articles are supposed to be FAs (we have 8 now!) and pictures are supposed to be FP (but since we don't have any of those, we should just use our best ones). Nikki311 02:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think FPs and FAs would definitely be top candidates, but top tier GAs and A class articles would probably be fine for Selected Article and since there's no FPs on the project, I'd have to agree that just good pictures (I rather like the one that's up now, the ECW set) should be cycled through. Wrestling related DYKs are plentiful, but to keep it from getting stale we could probably throw in some of our own. Keep a good mix going. DoomsDay349 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CZW Cage of Death

I found this on the requested articles page for the project and did some research, and it looks like something I could take a crack at and make a decent article out of. However, I checked AFD and deletion log and found that the article had previously been deleted (here's a link to the deletion discussion. It seems like the discussion was very brief and one of the main complaints was not enough sources. I'm fairly sure I could dig up the sources through OWOW or similiar sites, as well as CZW's website itself, although anyone with the actual DVDs would be highly appreciated. I'm just wondering whether anyone would have any complaints about recreating the article in a better referenced format. Thanks, DoomsDay349 19:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Cage of Death, is there anything unique about it that warrants a whole article, aside from the usual shit tonne of violence CZW offers? Tony2Times (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically like a Steel Cage or Hell in a Cell match loaded with weapons and occasionally an electrocuted cage. Shit ton of violence would describe it pretty well, but it is one of their biggest shows of the year. I don't think individual articles are warranted, but a list of all of them and their results might be a good idea, as well as an expansion on how the match works. DoomsDay349 02:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do make the article, I would recommend merging and redirecting Cage of Death V into it. Nikki311 02:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, definitely. I really don't think the events warrant their own individual articles, just a list of all 9 of them is what I'm aiming for. DoomsDay349 02:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User changing dozens of heights and weights

Is there an easy way to revert all of a user's edits? BigMike229 has gone through quite a few articles and inserted false heights and weights, overwriting several that had reliable references (see Special:Contributions/BigMike229). GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, that's ridiculous. I don't know if that can be done. Maybe someone at ANI knows...or any admins here. Hazardous Matt 21:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do at the moment, so I'll hit him with a warning and start rolling back the bad edits. Nikki311 21:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I got beaten to most of them. Did manage to get one though :) Looks like they're all taken care of now.DoomsDay 21:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I think I got them all. If he keeps doing it, let me know. Nikki311 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Year

Okay, I know the expansion of PPV articles started in September last year from what I've heard, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs the first time we started the list at the bottom to keep track was October 1, 07. Well it has been more than a year and we went from 0 FAs, 0 GAs, 3 finished articles, 0 future events, 1 article being worked on, 0 articles being worked on in a sandbox, 0 inactive articles; having a total of 4 articles being expanded; to having 3 FAs, 45 GAs, 109 finished articles, 11 future events, 18 articles actively being expanded, 7 articles being worked on in a sandbox, and 17 inactive articles in a year. Giving a total of 210. To me that is good. These results are as of October 1, 2008. I thought to share them with the project, to show what hard working editors over the last year have accomplished.--WillC 06:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get rid of the Suggestions page?

Let's be honest...how many people take the Suggestions page seriously? I think the majority of active project members would admit, in a candid moment, that the purpose of the page is to push all dissenting voices somewhere that the project doesn't have to pay attention to them. A little bit of discussion has taken place, but the project hasn't come to any sort of true consensus about the "new" pay per view style. I believe that it's important to take a wide variety of suggestions into consideration. Some of the opinions will be stupid. Some opinions will be valuable. But the discussion needs to take place on this page, not some page that few people from the project even read, since it is an important issue to the project as a whole. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Hardly anyone uses it! Adster95 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions page was designed for suggestions on how to improve the new OOU style. When someone raises an argument about the OOU style, they've been directed to WT:PWS to suggest alternatives or ideas to enhance it. Typically, that is not the end result and those rejecting the OOU style choose to complain about it rather than actually suggest something moving forward. I don't think it should be gotten rid of just because some people won't actually make suggestions. (I've made a few over there, I believe.) Hazardous Matt 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if people actually have suggestions, they should just come here and we'll work it out since not many people really go there to give suggestions. WT:PWS is, at the moment, just being used as a complaints page, I support getting rid of WT:PWS.S_RX 22:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand I agree that it will get legitimate suggestions more attention to be on this page here, but on the other hand this page will get all the complaints as well. Still, we can silence or revert the crap easily and deal with legit suggestions here, so I'll agree with SRX and support it's removal. DoomsDay 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a suggestions page? --Endless dan and his problem 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a point (just after OOU happened) when this page had six or seven threads running at once and all that was happening was IPs or new editors were complaining, I think that to some extent Suggestions was used to push all those thread to one side, to save the sanity of the regular editors, and I think that it worked. But since then it hasn't been used correctly and does seem to be nothing more than a complaints page, so I say archive it all and delete, the OOU complaints seem to have died down. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, are you serious? The complaining has not died down on OOU. The sameones are still complaining since we changed. They are starting to call me by name. We bring it here no one will involve themselves still. I only see a few regular editors on suggestions even discussing it. Hell, the complaining is mainly on the PPV pages today. Alot has been on SummerSlam, Unforgiven, and No Mercy. I've had a small amount on Hard Justice and No Surrender. I feel we shouldn't even listen at all. Per what I said on the suggestions page at the bottom. We can get rid of the suggestions page but not until WrestleMania will they shut up. This is why I did not expand Bound for Glory in the open, I knew I would hear alot of it there since that page is edited day by day now.--WillC 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however, if users complain, we direct them to the suggestions page, where the complain even more versus actually suggesting something for the OOU style. IF we direct them here, more active editors will pay attention and will help out to make the best out of the situation.--S_RX 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still doubt more will contribute to the discussions if they are here. Isn't that why we made the suggestions page? That we were tired of the complaining here and it wasn't really helping the project. I don't really see but a few even get into the discussions when they come here. Even then we will not get anywhere because we will all say the new format has got us three FAs; technically 2 but you get the picture. The only way to fix this problem is for everyone to screw around with the format. Eventually we will find something that the FA reviewers and the ips like.--WillC 13:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either a new reliable source, or something just to screw with us

10 Count Trivia: Events and Championship Book, a trivia book from WWE. Might be something to check out. Mshake3 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that the other day but I can't find any info for the life of me. I'll see what it's all about when it's available (comes out later this month). I think it will definitely have a lot of good tidbits to add into articles all around Wikipedia. DoomsDay 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Bank

Is there a place that lists all the wrestling related free-use photographs that have been uploaded to Wiki? While I was expanding the '98 and '99 PPVs I began to start using them mostly by looking on a wrestler's biography page but occasionally I would stumble across ones on PPV and move list pages that weren't on their own page. I think it might be helpful, if achievable, to have a page that lists all the WP:PW related photos that can be used, especially as we are now aiming to expand a lot of PPVs and photographs always help break up large chunks of text. Tony2Times (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is one, but that would be a good idea for the project. Plus written list of all fair-use images, to keep track of those.--WillC 16:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "Category:Professional wrestling free use media". -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything shown or listed at User:GaryColemanFan/Pictures is something I've uploaded. They're all free to use, if that helps at all. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was your uploads that made me think of it actually Gary seeing as not all the images are used on bio pages, but they may come in useful for PPV pages. The Category:Professional wrestling free use media page is the kind of thing I'm talking about, but I've never seen a link to it from our style guide or anywhere noticeable on this project's pages. Also it only has 49 images so it isn't really an exhaustive list of wrestling related images. Tony2Times (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If everybody adds the new free pictures they upload to Category:Professional wrestling free use media (as well as ones that aren't already in there), it would be more useful. Also, we can put a link on the main page. Nikki311 02:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a category to to a picture? Tony2Times (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same way you add it to an article. Edit the page and add [[Category:Professional wrestling free use media]] to the end of it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a Wikimedia Commons account, it would be great if they could add the pictures I uploaded to the Professional wrestling free use media category. I would also love it if someone could transfer the rest (the ones that still show up as images instead of links on my picture page) to the Commons and add them to the free use wrestling category. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban PCE

He knows nothing about the past, but vandalizes pages with false/incorrect information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.156.97 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comment unrelated to project to user's talk page. Hazardous Matt 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike DiBiase

I have a question about the naming of two articles, Michael DiBiase and Mike DiBiase II. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this, but the first one is for Ted DiBiase Sr.'s father and the second is for Ted Sr.'s son. If memory serves me correct, the first one was initially at Mike DiBiase and when the one for the younger Mike was created, it was at Mike DiBiase Jr., which is obviously incorrect. Since the elder's article is under "Michael", shouldn't the younger's be at "Mike" without the "II", or should the elder's article include his nickname? I figured it was best to start this discussion here as I'm sure not many members actually monitor the individual articles. That and there hasn't actually been a full discussion on this. I would like to get some opinions and consequently some consensus on what the proper naming of these articles should be so there is no conflict in the future, especially if and, or more accurately, when Mike the younger joins his brother Ted on the main roster. --James Duggan 05:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I monitor the young one's article. I wondered about this too, but I always assumed it was 'cause Michael DiBiase is also known as "Iron" Mike DiBiase, and Mike DiBiase is a redirect to Michael DiBiase. It is confusing though, and I think it should be sorted out. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User on a category addition spree

[5]

User in question is Dm23avg307 (talk · contribs). Suggest edits may need to be mass reverted. D.M.N. (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would help but I fear I'm being watched since I just got reported for removing unsourced and following guidelines. I'll try to get it protected though or deleted. I'll leave a comment on the user's talk page; all referring to the categories.--WillC 07:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if you mean this, I never reported you. I reinstate it with a source. D.M.N. (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was reported for capitalizing Special Referee and Special Enforcer and changing the links to the correct ones, as well as removing unsourced matches that have not been announced and linking TBA on Bound for Glory IV. The user that reported me did not want TBA linked and did not understand I was following WP:SOURCE for the matches. Not you. Check it out at the 3RR report page. Also I do not believe I removed that from Armageddon. I think I was removing unsourced matches.--WillC 18:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Sunday results

I was wondering if you guys are opposed to me placing tables like the following in the Cyber Sunday articles. I feel that for shows based around the votes, some of the poll results are glossed over in the articles and sometimes ignored.

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%) Batista (20.11%) Jonathan Coachman (7.01%) Christian (6.69%) Rhyno (5.77%)	Maven (4.23%) William Regal (3.81%) The Hurricane (3.77%) Tyson Tomko (2.49%) Tajiri (2.36%)	Steven Richards (2.24%) Val Venis (1.69%) Rosey (1.10%) Chuck Palumbo (0.68%) Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%) French maid (30.03%) Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%) Steel chair (29.93%) Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%) Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%) Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%) Evening Gown match (33.22%) Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%) Edge (33.42%) Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%) Falls Count Anywhere (20%) Submission match (12%)

I'd appreciate it if you guys give me some tips for improving this. Thanks in advance. -- Oakster Talk 15:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the results need to be included for encyclopedic interest, and it seems best to have a seperate table to keep it from making the match results look untidy. I wonder if the table is a little bit on the large side, could it be scaled down any way? Tony2Times (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could look like this:

Poll	Results
Chris Jericho's opponent	Shelton Benjamin (37.48%), Batista (20.11%), Jonathan Coachman (7.01%), Christian (6.69%), Rhyno (5.77%), Maven (4.23%), William Regal (3.81%), The Hurricane (3.77%), Tyson Tomko (2.49%), Tajiri (2.36%), Steven Richards (2.24%), Val Venis (1.69%), Rosey (1.10%), Chuck Palumbo (0.68%), Rodney Mack (0.58%)
Outfit for the Fulfill Your Fantasy Diva Battle Royal	School girl (53.10%), French maid (30.03%), Nurse outfit (16.87%)
Weapon for the Weapon of Choice match	Chain (40.84%), Steel chair (29.93%), Lead pipe (29.24 %)
Stipulations for Eugene versus Eric Bischoff	Loser has to have their head shaved (58.73%), Loser has to wear a dress (20.77%), Loser has to be the winner's servant (20.50%)
Stipulations for Christy Hemme versus Carmella	Lingerie Pillow Fight (56.48%), Evening Gown match (33.22%), Aerobics Challenge (10.30%)
Triple H's opponent	Shawn Michaels (38.72%), Edge (33.42%), Chris Benoit (27.86%)
Stipulations for Randy Orton versus Ric Flair	Steel cage match (68%), Falls Count Anywhere (20%), Submission match (12%)

Looks a little less organised though. That being said, it's not as if the first table is any bigger than let's say a Royal Rumble table. -- Oakster Talk 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you're right, it's a lot less organised and harder to skim read. What would it look like with smaller text on the right hand column in the first style? Tony2Times (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we make it collapsible? PXK ^T /_C 16:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's going underneath the match results table so would there be much point in it being collapsable? Tony2Times (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Sunday OOU note

Given that it's an interactive pay-per-view, and as far as I know it is genuinely interactive, does this not effect the usual OOU disclaimer about everything being pre-planned and whatnot. Obviously it's still scripted but the lines between reality and fiction are blurred just a little bit more with this so I think a bit of extra blurb may be needed to point everything out. I mean, if you thought all wrestling was staged, you'd naturally assume the voting was too. Also the term pre-determined, while being accurate, is a little misleading for incidents where title changes &c are supposedly decided almost on the spot as the results come through. Tony2Times (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship

The featured list AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Your contributions are always appreciated. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bound for Glory

Okay, there is an IP placing in false results in Bound for Glory IV. I've reverted him twice on that page and gave him two warning. Can someone please revert his edit and watch the page. I'm going to see if I can get it protected because there is alot of activity.--WillC 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep on eye on the page and if it looks like it needs it I can semi protect it. DoomsDay 21:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take it to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to get it protected. The little template does nothing.--WillC 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can usually make a judgment call on semi protection without really having to discuss it, so I could have done it. But it got protected anyway, so it doesn't really matter anymore. DoomsDay 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I forgot you were an administrator; for some reason I thought you were a newbie.--WillC 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that, I'm pretty new to this project but I was involved in other areas for about 2 years. :) DoomsDay 05:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably why. I've just started seeing you around, thinking you were a newbie just as a result.--WillC 05:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 </center>
 }}
-== Naming Convention for Pay-Per-Views ==
-I never really understood or thought about this until it came up at [[WP:PW/ANC#TNA Hard Justice → Hard Justice|ANC]]. Why is it that only main Pay-Per-Views don't have the promotion's acronym in front of it? Like [[SummerSlam]]. Is it because there is no such other topic? If so, then we can do the same for [[WWE Cyber Sunday]], there is no such other thing name like that. What's the consensus on this?--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 14:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-:Uh-gree. ;) <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''[[User:iMatthew|<span style="color:#900">iMa<span style="color:#090">tth<span style="color:#4682b4">ew</span>]] ([[User talk:IMatthew|talk]])'''</span> 14:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-So some example would be..
-*[[WWE Cyber Sunday]] → [[Cyber Sunday]]
-*[[WWE New Year's Revolution]] → [[New Year's Revolution]]
-*[[WWF Invasion]] → [[Invasion]]
-*[[TNA Hard Justice]] → [[Hard Justice]]
-*[[ECW Anarchy Rulz]] → [[Anarchy Rulz]]'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 14:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-:All of those seem fine except [[Invasion]], which is a common word and already has an article (similar to the discussion the project had about WCW Sin). [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 15:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-It's pretty stupid and yeah it should be changed. Almost every [[List of ecw ppvs|ECW PPV]] should be changed, I think the only ones that can't be are Barely Legal and Heat Wave. Also, I've always wondered but have never asked - why do we name PPV articles with the year in brackets? Like why isn't No Mercy (2008) named No Mercy 2008? [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-::To answer your last question it's because of [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)]]'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 15:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-OK. Another question... why do we have an article for SNME results? Why aren't the results just put onto the SNME article? [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 16:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-::Well because people "like it." I don't think we should have it, but other people disagree.--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 19:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-We gonna do this or are we just gonna forgot about it and let this go into the archive? [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-== [[Saturday Night's Main Event results]] → [[Saturday Night's Main Event]] ==
-No need for both articles. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 22:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-:It would really help if you told us what you want to do with both articles.--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 00:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-::The list is already 73K, which is probably why it is separate in the first place. Adding it to the article would be too long. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-:::I proposed deleting the results before, but people wanted to keep it because it is more '''special''' than Raw/ECW/SmackDown.--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 01:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-::::In fairness, there have been far more than 36 episodes of Raw. SNME is much more of a special occasion than a weekly show. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Yeah, but still, the show is a TV program and I feel people just want to keep it because the results extend to it's debut and they don't want to lose that information already there, that's the main reason I see. But if people want to keep it, I propose an new format because that list of tables is insane.--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 01:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-Everyone knows I wanna merge. I'd say 90% of people search "Saturday Night's Main Event" when looking for results. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 09:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-:Whatever the result, the consistency should be applied to [[Clash of the Champions]], another syndicated supercard show. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
-::Hmm.  Somehow it just feels, I don't know, messy to merge them.  A bit like keeping a page for the WWE Championship, and a seperate one for the list of champions.  That's how it feels to me anyhow.  It's already a rather long article anyhow, no need to make it any bigger with merging.  I would say keep them both seperate, and retain the SNME show; it is a big show shown only occassionally; it's in between regular TV and a PPV.  Obviously week by week Raw results or something would be out of the question, but I think that generally an archive of SNME results is adherent to the general encyclopedic goal.  I think a bigger question is the format of the page; tables vs lists?  If you look at lists of PPVs, those without articles are organized in lists, but tables are so much neater.  Then again, since there are mixed lists and tables in some sections, one wonders whether consistent lists would be a better alternative.  I think a general cleanup of the results page, much sourcing, transferring results into lists, would be the best idea.  '''''<font color="darkblue">[[User:DoomsDay349|Dooms]]</font><font color="lightblue">[[User talk:DoomsDay349|Day349]]</font>''''' 22:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
-Nobody's going to search for SNME unless they're looking for results. And yeah, if we're gonna leave it like it is, like Tony said, COTC needs an article for its results. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling results website. It makes sense to have an article about the history of SNME. And if people are looking for results, the "See also" section has a very convenient link. As I mentioned before, adding the poorly-sourced results list to the unsourced event article means that the article would become well over 100K when someone gets around to sourcing it. According to [[Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb]], that would mean that it "almost certainly should be divided". I do support removing "WWE" from both the article title and the list title, however, as most of the events took place when the promotion was the WWF. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
-Well, if no one agrees then Clash should definitely be moved. Leaving both in different ways is just stupid. And yeah, WWE should definitely be took off. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
-:When someone gets around to expanding the prose section of [[Clash of the Champions]], they will probably move the results. Until then, it's just moving for the sake of moving. Expanding and sourcing articles is more important. Otherwise, it's just a parallel to [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?]]. If you're willing to put in the work to significantly expand the history section in the Clash of the Champions article, feel free to split off the results section and form a new page. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
-The opener and history section for Clash is enough, I think. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 13:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 == Injuries ==
@@ Line 64: / Line 29: @@
 :::I'd actually be quite interested in a list of injuries, it would be a lot more citable than breast implants (I love the inference that female cosmetic surgery somehow equates to male body injury) but I don't know where it would fit in the article as it would look place in the In Wrestling section, certainly isn't an accomplishment but is already in the career section so would have to be apart from that. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 21:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 ::::That, by no means, was a misogynistic comment. I was just saying like in the info box it could say if they had implants. --[[User:L0W3R1D3R|L0W3R1D3R]] | [[User talk:L0W3R1D3R|TH3 L0W3D0WN]] 00:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
-== Should not certain matches have their own article? ==
-Hogan vs. Andre, Undertaker vs. Mankind Hell in a Cell, Austin vs. Bret, HBK vs. Ramon—these matches and others should have their own article. They pass for [[Wikipedia: Notability|notability]]. I'm surprised that there is no article for Hogan vs. Andre—it is "worthy of notice."[[User:Tj terrorible1|Tj terrorible1]] ([[User talk:Tj terrorible1|talk]]) 15:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-:The information is already in the articles for the participants and the events. It would be redundant (and unnecessary) to provide them with their own article. '''<span style="border: 2px Yellow solid;background:#000000;font-family:futana;">&nbsp;[[User:Hazardous Matt|<font color="Yellow">Hazardous </font>]] [[User talk:Hazardous Matt|<font color="Yellow">Matt</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-::I disagree with you. I looked at the [[WrestleMania III]] article and it does not cover nearly enough Hogan vs. Andre. That match is perhaps the most historic and influential match in pro wrestling. To relegate it to a measly paragraph is unacceptable. There is much more to be said about Hogan vs. Andre: It made the WWE, solidified WrestleMania as pro wrestling's Super Bowl, changed pro wrestling, influenced today's wrestlers, it is the reason why Hulk Hogan is one of the few pro wrestlers to be a household name today, if I'm not mistaken, 3/10 of the then-available universe watched that match. How can you say that that match does not deserve its own article? If there is one pro wrestling match that should have its own article, it's that one. It would be a great disservice to Wikipedia to not give this match (and some others as well) their own article.[[User:Tj terrorible1|Tj terrorible1]] ([[User talk:Tj terrorible1|talk]]) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::Creating articles for these matches would be pointless to do and would be considered not notable. That's why you have the PPV articles instead. --<span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:White"> &nbsp;ThinkBlue&nbsp;</span>''']] </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User_talk:ThinkBlue|(Hit]]</span> <span style="font-family:Times New Roman">[[User:ThinkBlue/Autograph book|'''BLUE''')]]</span> 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-::::With all due respect to Hulk and Andre, it took much more than that one single match to make the WWE. One could just as easily argue that the WWE was already a huge success by the time WrestleMania III came around. One could also just as easily argue the first WrestleMania is what kickstarted the WWE to national prominence. To create seperate articles for these matches would require a lot of POV and probably even some Original Research. What makes a match more prominent than others is something that can be easily and hotly debated. Your opinion that Hulk vs. Andre at WM III is the most historic match in wrestling his tory is just that, your opinion. I could make the same claim with a dozen other matches, but it'd just be opinion. There is no one single, ultra-source that states "A vs. B is the greatest match in wrestling history" or "So-and-so is the greatest World Champion in wrestling history".[[User:Odin&#39;s Beard|Odin&#39;s Beard]] ([[User talk:Odin&#39;s Beard|talk]]) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Also what exactly do you want to be in this article? The background (done), a blow by blow account of the match (done) and the aftermatch and reception (done). Okay it's not in a huge amount of detail now but that's because we've only been expanding PPVs in such a way for the past few months and there's a shit tonne of PPVs out there. It's quite zealous of you to think WWE deserves even more of Wikipedia's time and space when smaller, harder to find information could be being chronicled. If you think matches deserve more attention, expand their information on the PPV page, beyond the categories on there I don't know what would be on the page. It was 12 minutes of (mostly bad) wrestling and a scoop slam. What's more to say? [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 == TNA Problems huh ==
@@ Line 92: / Line 48: @@
 ::I'm not sure who the "one particular editor" is, but I was the one that built the case for reliability to Ealdgyth. It was accepted as reliable due to a combination of having a process to verify its writers' credibility and being promoted by a reliable source as a good place for accurate information. Popup ads (or the lack thereof) didn't come up in the discussion. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
+== If anybody can help out.... ==
-== Article deletion/merge ==
-[[Monster's Ball match]] - is there really any need? It's just a hardcore/street fight match, especially now they've taken out the locked away element. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 12:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-:Who said they took away the locked away part? Actually I was thinking about working on that article. It is one of TNA's main matches. It is only seen once a year. I feel it reaches notability.--[[User:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Red">'''Will'''</font>]][[User talk:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Blue">'''C'''</font>]] 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-::Well I was going by the article alone, so maybe you're right in that it just needs work. I don't really pay attention to TNA other than the main event and the Knockouts so I'm no authority which is why I asked before nominating. It says in the intro they've de-emphasised the locked away part. Needs a lot of sourcing too. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 16:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-:::It would be a simple fix. It might, with work, fall under [[WP:FL|FL]]. It needs a copyedit and sources for matches. It wouldn't be that hard to work on. The background to the match can be taken care of by sources by WrestleView when they talked about it.--[[User:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Red">'''Will'''</font>]][[User talk:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Blue">'''C'''</font>]] 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-== If anybody can help out.... ==
 <!--FAtop--><div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #E6F2FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 :''The following discussion shall be archived to avoid uncivility, attacks, and irrelevant topics. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page.''--'''''[[User:SRX|<font color="black">S</font></font>]]<sub>[[User talk:SRX|<font color="blue">R</font>]]</sub>[[User:SRX/Guestbook|<font color="black">X</font></font>]]''''' 13:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 138: / Line 85: @@
 :I just feel when I leave something on here that I'm talking to [[User:Jimbo Wales]], not a buch of wrestling dudes who want to belittle and revert. because it doesn't cover something on the WP:PW guidelines. <font face=tahoma>[[User:Steelerfan-94|'''<span style="background:Black;color:Yellow">SteelersFan''']][[User talk:Steelerfan-94|'''<span style="background:Black;color:Yellow">94''']]</font> 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
-== [[List of WCW pay-per-view events]] ==
-Can someone please help? Table is fucked and I don't know how to fix it. [[User:RandySavageFTW|RandySavageFTW]] ([[User talk:RandySavageFTW|talk]]) 18:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
-:{{done}} ♥[[User:NiciVampireHeart|<font color="black">'''Nici'''</font>]]♥[[User_talk:NiciVampireHeart|<font color="purple">'''Vampire'''</font>]]♥[[Special:Contributions/NiciVampireHeart|<font color="red">'''Heart'''</font>]]♥ 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 == Who took off Lance Cade and Chris Jericho as a tag team? ==
@@ Line 177: / Line 119: @@
 Okay, I know the expansion of PPV articles started in September last year from what I've heard, but according to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/PPVs]] the first time we started the list at the bottom to keep track was October 1, 07. Well it has been more than a year and we went from 0 FAs, 0 GAs, 3 finished articles, 0 future events, 1 article being worked on, 0 articles being worked on in a sandbox, 0 inactive articles; having a total of 4 articles being expanded; to having 3 FAs, 45 GAs, 109 finished articles, 11 future events, 18 articles actively being expanded, 7 articles being worked on in a sandbox, and 17 inactive articles in a year. Giving a total of 210. To me that is good. These results are as of October 1, 2008. I thought to share them with the project, to show what hard working editors over the last year have accomplished.--[[User:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Red">'''Will'''</font>]][[User talk:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Blue">'''C'''</font>]] 06:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Time to get rid of the Suggestions page?==
+== Time to get rid of the Suggestions page? ==
 Let's be honest...how many people take the Suggestions page seriously? I think the majority of active project members would admit, in a candid moment, that the purpose of the page is to push all dissenting voices somewhere that the project doesn't have to pay attention to them. A little bit of discussion has taken place, but the project hasn't come to any sort of true consensus about the "new" pay per view style. I believe that it's important to take a wide variety of suggestions into consideration. Some of the opinions will be stupid. Some opinions will be valuable. But the discussion needs to take place on this page, not some page that few people from the project even read, since it is an important issue to the project as a whole. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 15:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 196: / Line 138: @@
 :I just saw that the other day but I can't find any info for the life of me.  I'll see what it's all about when it's available (comes out later this month).  I think it will definitely have a lot of good tidbits to add into articles all around Wikipedia.  '''''<font color="darkblue">[[User:DoomsDay349|Dooms]]</font><font color="lightblue">[[User talk:DoomsDay349|Day]]</font>''''' 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Image Bank==
+== Image Bank ==
 Is there a place that lists all the wrestling related free-use photographs that have been uploaded to Wiki? While I was expanding the '98 and '99 PPVs I began to start using them mostly by looking on a wrestler's biography page but occasionally I would stumble across ones on PPV and move list pages that weren't on their own page. I think it might be helpful, if achievable, to have a page that lists all the WP:PW related photos that can be used, especially as we are now aiming to expand a lot of PPVs and photographs always help break up large chunks of text. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 15:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 208: / Line 151: @@
 ::::::::If anyone has a Wikimedia Commons account, it would be great if they could add the pictures I uploaded to the Professional wrestling free use media category. I would also love it if someone could transfer the rest (the ones that still show up as images instead of links on my picture page) to the Commons and add them to the free use wrestling category. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 17:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Ban PCE==
+== Ban PCE ==
 He knows nothing about the past, but vandalizes pages with false/incorrect information  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.23.156.97|69.23.156.97]] ([[User talk:69.23.156.97|talk]]) 01:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 : Moving comment unrelated to project to user's talk page. '''<span style="border: 2px Yellow solid;background:#000000;font-family:futana;">&nbsp;[[User:Hazardous Matt|<font color="Yellow">Hazardous </font>]] [[User talk:Hazardous Matt|<font color="Yellow">Matt</font>]]&nbsp;</span>''' 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 217: / Line 161: @@
 :I monitor the young one's article. I wondered about this too, but I always assumed it was 'cause [[Michael DiBiase]] is also known as "Iron" [[Mike DiBiase]], and [[Mike DiBiase]] is a redirect to Michael DiBiase. It is confusing though, and I think it should be sorted out. ♥[[User:NiciVampireHeart|<font color="black">'''Nici'''</font>]]♥[[User_talk:NiciVampireHeart|<font color="purple">'''Vampire'''</font>]]♥[[Special:Contributions/NiciVampireHeart|<font color="red">'''Heart'''</font>]]♥ 17:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==User on a category addition spree==
+== User on a category addition spree ==
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&curid=403293&diff=244513402&oldid=244487523]
@@ Line 331: / Line 276: @@
 :Presumably it's going underneath the match results table so would there be much point in it being collapsable? [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 16:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Cyber Sunday OOU note==
+== Cyber Sunday OOU note ==
 Given that it's an interactive pay-per-view, and as far as I know it is genuinely interactive, does this not effect the usual OOU disclaimer about everything being pre-planned and whatnot. Obviously it's still scripted but the lines between reality and fiction are blurred just a little bit more with this so I think a bit of extra blurb may be needed to point everything out. I mean, if you thought all wrestling was staged, you'd naturally assume the voting was too. Also the term pre-determined, while being accurate, is a little misleading for incidents where title changes &c are supposedly decided almost on the spot as the results come through. [[User:Tony2Times|Tony2Times]] ([[User talk:Tony2Times|talk]]) 15:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==[[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship]]==
+== [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship]] ==
 The [[WP:FL|featured list]] [[AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship]] has been nominated for [[WP:FLRC|removal]]. You can comment [[Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship|here]]. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 20:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 :Thank you. Your contributions are always appreciated. [[User:GaryColemanFan|GaryColemanFan]] ([[User talk:GaryColemanFan|talk]]) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
-==Bound for Glory==
+== Bound for Glory ==
 Okay, there is an IP placing in false results in [[Bound for Glory IV]]. I've reverted him twice on that page and gave him two warning. Can someone please revert his edit and watch the page. I'm going to see if I can get it protected because there is alot of activity.--[[User:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Red">'''Will'''</font>]][[User talk:Wrestlinglover|<font color="Blue">'''C'''</font>]] 21:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)